+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: 2017/18 Preliminary Rules

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Turtle,

    It is nice to see some of the right questions being asked when approaching this as an optimisation problem.

    I would posit that the changing environment (i.e. rules and condition changes between comps) rules out a static location of minima.

    An argument could also be made that the selection process is not deterministic, the fittest x team/cars are not always the top x team/cars at comp.

    I also think that our human idea of randomness (usually a uniform distribution) is not what we should expect. It doesn't matter if large proportion of a population are incredibly similar, and we should expect this. At any given time the FS field should have a lot of common traits, and we would expect when new successful information enters the population that other teams will absorb it quite rapidly. What would help in the long run is some ability to encourage the creation of new information. There are plenty of ways to achieve this algorithmically, and good ways to do it in practice in FS, especially given that points can be directly given for innovation.

    ...

    Claude,

    I wouldn't expect to see an amazing design report any time soon. I have been involved in FS since 2001, both as a student and as a Faculty advisor (Including 4 design event wins, and a number of placings). In that time there has been almost no feedback given to the teams I have been involved with as to the structure and quality of the design report. There have been exceptions including from you in Oz 2012, and Pat's advice to improve drawings (given to all teams).

    Without a decent feedback mechanism there is little possibility for teams to significantly improve their reports.

    I know of a few teams trying to share some information here, including the team I advise. On ECU's facebook page the team has released 3 past design reports, the most recent being 2012 (A report you provided some feedback on). These posts have been the amongst the best viewed posts the team has put up.

    Our students would love to have a better insight into the processes other teams use in the design of their vehicles. However apart from a few teams that release good reports, or are quite willing to share (i.e. GFR, Monash, UQ, and others). This seems like such a small amount of available information for decades of work conducted largely at the expense of publicly funded institutions.

    If teams are so against releasing the top of a given year how about releasing all reports 2-3 years after a given competition has ended? (Although I like your idea as well)

    Heck we could treat it like most information developed at universities, and put it behind a paywall, that in no way benefits the authors. At least the information would be available.

    Kev

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    232
    Out of curiosity did anyone here submit comments?
    I learned that the preliminary rules were posted from this thread and the survey was already closed.

    -William

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post

    In that time there has been almost no feedback given to the teams I have been involved with as to the structure and quality of the design report.

    Kev
    In my 4 years of doing FSAE we only got feedback on one of our design reports. One judge said it was the best of the whole competition, another judge didn't like it. Go figure...

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    8
    So it looks like they decided not to shrink the footwell template in the official rules release? The only change in that section of rules is the exclusion of a line of text.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken.
    -Eric

    Global Formula Racing

    Combustion Powertrain Lead--'14-present

    Vanderbilt University

    Captain/Technical Director--'12-'14
    Chassis/Suspension--'11-'12

  5. #25

    Bolts for Impact Attenuator Assembly

    Does somebody have information why the minimum amount of bolts for the IAA attachment will be changed from 4 to 8? Where there any incidents in the past?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by eric922 View Post
    So it looks like they decided not to shrink the footwell template in the official rules release? The only change in that section of rules is the exclusion of a line of text.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken.
    It does look like they might have made a mistake there. It mentions Section T4.2 as a "Notable Change" but it seems unchanged.

    Besides the removal of the completely redundant 2016 point:
    "T4.2.4 Teams whose cars do not comply with T4.1.1 or T4.2.1 will not be given a Technical Inspection Sticker and will NOT be allowed to compete in the dynamic events."

    Quote Originally Posted by FrederikWe View Post
    Does somebody have information why the minimum amount of bolts for the IAA attachment will be changed from 4 to 8? Where there any incidents in the past?
    This is unlucky for the teams who don't weld the IA plate on. Don't stress though, welding was already the lighter solution when it was 4 bolts.
    UQ Racing

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell View Post
    This is unlucky for the teams who don't weld the IA plate on. Don't stress though, welding was already the lighter solution when it was 4 bolts.
    You forget about the monocoque Teams

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bolton, CT
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by FrederikWe View Post
    Does somebody have information why the minimum amount of bolts for the IAA attachment will be changed from 4 to 8? Where there any incidents in the past?
    No official information but...there was a car that crashed at FSAEM in 2014 or 2015 with a bolted on IA plate where the assembly basically pushed into the leg area and crushed the pedals. Seeing that was a little scary.
    Jim
    "Old guy #1" at UCONN Racing

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by jd74914 View Post
    No official information but...there was a car that crashed at FSAEM in 2014 or 2015 with a bolted on IA plate where the assembly basically pushed into the leg area and crushed the pedals. Seeing that was a little scary.
    How was this not picked up by the IA testing? Do they not have to mount it representative of what is on the car, and demonstrate less than 1" deflection? Were they using the standard design, and therefore hadn't had to test their bulkhead/chassis arrangement? Is this a shortcoming in the rules? And is adding more bolts to the attachment method really a robust way of solving the problem?
    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

  10. #30
    Maybe it was poor welding of the brackets.
    Maybe whole assembly got only tested in a quasi-static test and the dynamic forces of the impact were reasonably higher
    Maybe the Front Bulkhead was not a square shape but rather a shape were a little movement up and down or sideways allows the AIP to fall into the frame.

    Those are only a few assumptions and are not based on knowledge what actually happened.

    But regarding the question if this really fixes the problem I think not.
    There is another part about the shape of the AIP in this rules section updated which in my opinion addresses the problem in a more effective way.

    T3.20.5 “For welded joints the profile must extend at least to the centerline of the Front Bulkhead tubes on all
    sides. For bolted joints the profile must match the outside dimensions of the Front Bulkhead around the
    entire periphery.“

    Just adding more attachment bolts sound to me like: “Last year, we have been slow in endurance, so this year we installed a bigger engine.”

    For example for a common Monocoque Front Bulkhead the cutout is often only slightly wider than the minimum width for the impact attenuator.
    I hardly disbelief that you will be able to push the AIP into the monocoque before crushing the whole car.
    Also each attachment point on a monocoque car must be able to carry 30 KN. Why on earth does the full attachment of an AIP need to be able to carry 240 KN when the maximum allowed deceleration force is 120KN?
    And even this 120 KN will never stress the bolts alone, because the force is manly supported through the Front Bulkhead.

    Having to attach the AIP with 8 fasteners with positive locking is unnecessary, heavy, disadvantages monocoque cars because they have no option to weld and means more work every time you setup the car after transport (if you have to demount the AIP for it)

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

Posting Permissions

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