2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK)

[Bemo]

The last thing I'd do is to defend the rules book. There is quite a lot of it which makes scrutineering an unnecessary complicated task. Giving the dimensions of aerodynamic devices relative to tires and to the ground is bullshit as it is leading to the situation we are discussing at the moment. If you'd just give a max. width for a front wing everything would be much easier. Or just not giving any limitation to the width of a front wing would make it even easier and the teams would have to really think about how wide to make it. If you give a max. width all you have to do is to build a wing of that width without wasting any thought about it.

In the current situation the only possible way for the teams to deal with it is to leave some safety margin to avoid a situation like this year's FS UK.

The rule T3.5.5 is still in the rules book as the years before. The only way to interpret it in a way that will somehow work is to only apply it if a frame member which is defined in the rules is made of multiple tubes. For example the triangulating member of the front bulkhead suppert. Usually you can't find a straight single piece tube which is fulfilling that rule, instead you have to combine two tubes which are together that member. Therefore it is considered as a member in the primary structure made from multiple members and needs to be triangulated. It's not exactly according the wording of the rule as the rule would more or less apply to any node in the chassis, but it's the only way how to handle it in reality.

[Ahmad Rezq]

Z,
we still have another competition ( Formula student Germany ) hope we can gain more experience.
----------------------
It's time to build some beam axles for the next car

[Claude Rouelle]

There have been many, many reasons why I have not wanted to attend the UK competitions as a design judge for several years. Unfortunately the recent mess just did confirmed that choice. For God sake this is Formula Student, not Formula One.

[Adam Farabaugh]

If you'd just give a max. width for a front wing everything would be much easier.

This has been mentioned by a few people.
Under the current rules there is a tradeoff between track width (narrow = less weight, faster through slaloms) vs. aero plan area (more A = more downforce).
Getting rid of this direct tradeoff may not be a bad thing, but like you said, every aero package will be the max width and cars will either start competing to be the narrowest = lightest, or - wait for it - make the edge of their wheels line up with the edge of their wings (any wider and gaining width for no aero gain, any narrower and giving up possible gains in racing line).


I think a lot of the teams that got disqualified have some extremely smart people on them, and I don't want anyone to take this personally... but why not just make your wings half an inch narrower? They would have been just as fast. I don't think the decision to DQ was right, but damn... could've avoided the whole thing with some clearance margin designed into their vehicles.

[Kevin Hayward]

There have been many, many reasons why I have not wanted to attend the UK competitions as a design judge for several years. Unfortunately the recent mess just did confirmed that choice. For God sake this is Formula Student, not Formula One.

Claude,

I'm sorry to hear this. The design judging team at the UK was a good one. Our team was challenged and did not finish where it had hoped. However they left feeling that they were judged appropriately. Throughout the process the judges were very positive and it was an enjoyable process for the team. They provided good feedback, and the whole event lacked the aggression I have seen at other comps. We will be glad to return the UK again in a couple of years.

As you are aware the design judges are not the scrutineers, and vice versa.

Kev

[Claude Rouelle]

Glad you enjoyed it.

A few years ago we (design judges) were told that one specific UK uni had to be in the design final. That was before we even had seen that car. Not what I wanted to see / hear in any FS competitions.
The team/car went in the final because it "had to" finished last because it did not belong there.

My experience of FS UK (I am only speaking for myself) is that many design judges are not interested or curious about or even against new technologies and want students to build a car that reassemble the car
they built in the 70's or 80's

Disqualifying a car for 1 or 2 mm is of wing width after that car went several times to tech (that is what I understand) is shame for the organization. It goes totally outside the spirit of FS.

Rigor and spirit can go together. See you soon at FSG?

[Luniz]

So, just speculating here, maybe some cars "had to be disqualified" in order to push some other cars up the rankings? I feel a conspiracy theory developing ;-)

[Pat Clarke]

Lutz,

I know you are 'speculating' and finished with a 'winkie' but that speculation is not helpful.

What I would like to know is who were the scrutineers who led the checks that led to disqualification?

Cheers

Pat

[Claude Rouelle]

Conspiracy theory or reality, or not, that is not the first time it has that taste. So sad. Not what a Formula Student spirit should be.

[JulianH]

Yeah Claude, back in the day when Hertfordshire was in the Design Finals. 2012 is already such a long time ago

Pat,
of course there should not be a speculation on this.
Btw. in 2013 when we nearly lost our Overall Victory, the honorable Mr. Royce measured the undertray as too wide. He probably was right that it was too wide, but the other scrutineers then probably measured wrong... it would have been devastating.


Still, while looking at the 2016 Rules, we should have known this