+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: 2017/18 Preliminary Rules

  1. #1

    2017/18 Preliminary Rules

    http://www.fsaeonline.com/page.aspx?...f-625a6ec5c89f

    The 2017/18 rules were released a little while ago for comment. Comments were closed on April 24th. Some interesting proposals with the main points:

    - Engine capacity increased to 710cc

    - Points restructured:
    Static Events:
    Presentation 75
    Engineering Design 200 (+50)
    Cost Analysis 100
    Dynamic Events
    Acceleration 100 (+25)
    Skid-Pad 75 (+25)
    Autocross 125 (-25)
    Efficiency 100
    Endurance 225 (-75)
    Total Points 1,000

    -Footwell Template tweaked slightly (325x300 instead of 350x350)

    Maybe some other minor changes, SAE didn't bother giving a summary at the start of the document.
    UQ Racing

  2. #2
    My thoughts are, none of these are game changers. A few more engines become appealing but power stays the same (why not remove the redundant capacity limit completely?).

    More points for skid/accel as dynamic events are great, taking the focus off incredible drivers. More points for design, not so great as it's fairly subjective.

    How/if these changes will be adopted globally will be interesting to see.
    UQ Racing

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell View Post
    - Points restructured:
    ...
    Engineering Design 200 (+50)
    ...
    Endurance 225 (-75)

    ...

    -Footwell Template tweaked slightly (325x300 instead of 350x350)...
    I foresee an explosion in the numbers of "Mini-F1" cars turning up, that are incapable of "...driving 30 kms at average speed of 55 kph...".

    And many frustrated students, who build a cracker of a fast and reliable car, but are heavily penalised because of the subjective (and often bizarre!) biases of the DJs.

    These points-changes are clearly for the benefit of the DJs, NOT for the better education of the students.
    ~o0o~

    Footwell template should be TWO x ~350 mm x 150 mm templates, one for each foot. That would enable a very effective Front-Engine-Front-Drive car!!!

    Picture a 4WD ATV/Quad-bike, with the rear-drive removed, driver sitting much lower, with engine between their legs and feet on front-axle-line. Big, fat, slicks on front, skinnies on rear, and extremely simple rear-end. With MASSIVELY EFFECTIVE AERO-DF possible, given current Rules.

    And much useful learning to be had, given vast majority of production cars nowadays are FEFD.

    Z

  4. #4
    Relatively small changes. Engine capacity increase is a good thing, opens up options. Marginally smaller template could free up some more space for front wings. +25 points for accel will most likely push more e-teams to 4WD...maybe.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    232
    I agree, no major impact.
    Though the smaller template will reduce some headaches.
    And having the option to run the engine out of something like a Honda TRX700XX is nice (686cc, factory EFI and drysump).


    @Z

    Funny you would mention a front engine design.
    Several years ago we mocked up a Front-Engine-Rear-Drive car.
    Our goal was to experiment to find designs with more rear weight distribution.
    (the idea may have been one big rear wing, but this is 5+ years ago)
    Anyway, we found that a FERD set up could have much more rear bias than our 'traditional' mid engine set up.
    This was because our drivers fully suited up are often heavier than our engine (most of our drivers were over 6 feet tall)
    And the engine needed to be fully in front of the rear axle while the driver conceptually could sit right on it or even slightly behind it!

    The thought experiment did not get an farther, but it would be interesting to see a broader range of designs.

    -William

  6. #6
    Smaller foot-well template is probably most significant change, as far as car design is concerned.

    Agree with Mitchell that engine size limit is redundant, but it's a step in the right direction, especially for those teams in locations that struggle to get smaller engines.

    More points focus on skid pad and acceleration is good, although some competitions have already elected to make changes like these themselves. I'd like to see this accompanied by the allowance of a third driver, or additional runs to further minimise the effect of driver skill and chance, to focus purely on the car. With a fast track queue for team's doing their first, and after half time second runs, this could work well.

    Moving points to design event is only worth doing if they also overhaul the scoring system used, to make it less subjective.
    Back in 2011 we went from 114 at one competition (FSUK) to 50 at another 3 weeks later (FSG). Scaled up to the new proposal that's over 85 points purely down to DJ subjectivity! You could consistently score 10% better in all dynamic events than another team, and still lose to them because a judge decided they liked their car more than yours, even though yours consistently proved itself to be better.
    I know this has been discussed to death, and nothing said on here is going to change anything. But I think a bit of transparency as to how teams are scored in design judging would go a long way. If the rulebook included a fixed template for the points breakdown, and the completed forms had to be made available (digitally at least) when the event scores are published. At least to give an explanation. Mark downs should be due to: "they made the wrong engineering decision based on their objectives because XYZ"; and not "I didn't like their design, it wasn't as pretty as other teams, so there."
    Dunk
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Brunel Racing
    2010-11 - Drivetrain Development Engineer
    2011-12 - Consultant and Long Distance Dogsbody
    2012-13 - Chassis, Bodywork & Aerodynamics manager

    2014-present - Engineer at Jaguar Land Rover

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    With the increase of engine capacity, increase in Accel points, combined with the previous change in charging setup we have seen a pretty dramatic shift in the rules towards engine development. I wouldn't say this is on the same level as what happened when the big wings / sharp trailing edges were allowed, but still notable.

    I think this is a great thing for the comp. The earlier increase in economy (then efficiency) broke the fine balance between the small singles and more powerful cars, making it pretty clear what was the best way to go. This change opens up a lot of new engine possibilities that were just outside the 600cc limit, including big singles and twins. This will make it fascinating.

    Not a fan of the change to the design points, given the subjectivity involved. I think we really need to see more sharing of what constitutes a good design presentation. Something like how we can all see the best marketing presentations from FS Germany. Release the top 3 design reports from each comp? If we are focused on this as an educational activity then lets share the knowledge a little more.

    I think the drop in the Endurance points is going too far. In fact I think the multiplier for TMax should be increased. There should always be a huge bonus to teams that finish that event. Failing to finish 22km is pretty damning of your team's design and there should be no possibility of your car being up amongst the top 10-20% if you are unable to complete the design brief.

    Template rule change is a good one. Hopefully if these rules are tweaked a little more we may see some return to teams having to make real decisions involving chassis packaging and ergonomics.

    Allowing some of the aero in the exclusion zone needlessly complicates already overly complex rules (with terrible diagrams), for minimal performance change. This shouldn't have been done.

    All up I think the increase of design options offered by the engine changes make it interesting enough that I am excited about what we may see over the next few years in increased variety.

    I award these rule changes a grade of 67% (a little better than average)

    Kev

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    352
    Yeah nuking endurance (100% objective) in favour of design (pretty much 100% subjective) seems like a terrible idea
    Jay

    UoW FSAE '07-'09

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    Not a fan of the change to the design points, given the subjectivity involved. I think we really need to see more sharing of what constitutes a good design presentation. Something like how we can all see the best marketing presentations from FS Germany. Release the top 3 design reports from each comp? If we are focused on this as an educational activity then lets share the knowledge a little more.

    Why don't we release all of the design reports? The SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge releases all of the team's design reports and PDFs of their powerpoint 'design' presentation online after the competition.
    Andrew Palardy
    Kettering University - Computer Engineering, FSAE, Clean Snowmobile Challenge
    Williams International - Commercial Turbofan Controls and Accessories

    "Sometimes, the elegant implementation is a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." ~ John Carmack

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" ~Arthur C. Clarke

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by apalrd View Post
    Why don't we release all of the design reports? The SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge releases all of the team's design reports and PDFs of their powerpoint 'design' presentation online after the competition.
    I think this is a great idea.

    The Design Reports I got to read at FS Austria (I still think FSA 2014 was one of the best "fields" ever) were really really bad for a lot of teams (even the ones with great cars).
    I think teams can learn a lot from the GFRs, Delfts and Zurichs of writting design reports...
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

    2010-2011: Suspension
    2012: Aerodynamics
    2013: Technical Lead

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts