+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 81

Thread: 2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK)

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK)

    Since there was no post yet: it's happening already (15-17 July)

    Livestream updated to GKN channel
    Results (still pending)

    "Scoring"
    Last edited by BeunMan; 07-16-2016 at 06:29 AM.
    Tristan
    Delft '09 Team member, '10 - Chief Electronics
    'now' (Hardware) Security Engineer

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Maybe someone who has been there can give a bit more insight regarding the DQ's after Endurance. All I heard is that it was about aero stuff (too wide wings etc.) What I'm wondering about is if the teams changed something after scrutineering or if their configurations were checked in tech without any complaints.
    Rennteam Uni Stuttgart
    2008: Seat and Bodywork
    2009: Team captain

    GreenTeam Uni Stuttgart
    2010: Seat and Bodywork / Lamination whore

    Formula Student Austria
    2012: Operative Team

  3. #3
    Bemo,

    I heard the same thing. Wings were outside of the rules by a single-digit Millimeter value. If this was checked before, I don't know.

    We had the same experience with our 2013 car in Silverstone: In Re-Scruti they wanted to disqualify us because the undertray was too wide. Which was checked before in Scrutineering but they didn't care. It took a lot of discussion that we did not manufacture a new, wider undertray that they did not disqualify us and we kept our Overall Victory...

    I think this is a disgrace for the competition and I would like to get a statement from the organization how this happened. In the end, the potential overall winner and P2/3 (Amberg) lost their place due to this and this should not happen.
    Maybe their cars were illegal, but that should be checked in scrutineering, they should have the chance to fix it, and then let's seal all these parts. If you then come to Re-Scruti without the seal on your wing, you get a DQ. Fine.
    But not like this.

    Hope this is not the final nail in the coffin for FS UK.
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Actually it is not that easy if you consider how the rules are written at the moment. Almost all measeruments regarding the width of aerodynamic parts are given relativ to the tires. So by adjusting toe and camber or by using a different set of tires and/or rims the car could be illegal after Endurance although everything was fine in tech. This is an issue which is in the responsibility of the teams. Although I'm not happy about what happened in UK, I believe that teams should start to understand that first of all it is their task to make sure the car is rules compliant at any stage of the competition. Having passed tech does not mean that you're out of this responsibility. It just means that in this moment, nothing was found by the organisers which is not ok so they let you start. It is not a guarantee that everything is fine and it does not mean that you cannot be disqualified. We had similar discussions about not working brake over travel switches in the last years after endurance. It is the team's responsibility to make sure that it is working. Just because a scrutineer doesn't realise in tech inspection that it's not working doesn't make it rules compliant.
    Rennteam Uni Stuttgart
    2008: Seat and Bodywork
    2009: Team captain

    GreenTeam Uni Stuttgart
    2010: Seat and Bodywork / Lamination whore

    Formula Student Austria
    2012: Operative Team

  5. #5
    Oh what a clusterf***...

    My conclusion to this situation is the following:

    1.) The way this rule is written makes it very hard to accurately take measurements that confirm or deny the rule compliance of the front wing

    2.) Due to this, it is very possible that in the initial tech inspection it was declared OK and in rescruitineering, when someone else took another measurement, it was not. This might be due to the inaccuracy of the measurement method or due to changes in setup of the front axle of the cars

    3.) The penalty given for the issue (whether it was technically correct or not) is, from my point of view, lacking proportionality. There are other ways of penalizing which would have been more appropriate.

    Altogether, very unfortunate.
    Lutz Dobrowohl
    2008-2011
    Raceyard Kiel

    Now: Scruitineer, Design Judge, application engineer @Altair engineering

    Whatever you do, do it hard!

  6. #6
    Disclaimer: all based on hearsay, wasn't at the competition, don't know what the Greenteam/Munich problems were.

    According to what I heard the 1mm/2mm measurements are made with a tape-measure, which sounds to me over estimation of the accuracy by at least an order of magnitude (considering tape flexing, angle e.g. point to point difference, wheel angle, thermal expansion, measurement point since the tires can deform massively over time especially when they are located in the Parc ferme in the sun/shade and have run an endurance).
    I might be biased, but they really need to send a good "final verdict" (official statement of DQ which usually follows afterwards, not the things simply told on the competition) to be considered a truly valid point. There are many ways to properly DQ teams which are measurable in a reliable way, but this is not likely one of them. But this is only my opinion, which you are free to disagree with.

    @Bemo Where do you draw the line? (quite literally maybe) The method of measuring it is dubious at best, so the limit cannot be the real limit but instead depends on the person measuring it and the tools used. I do not think that is the intention of the rules.
    Tristan
    Delft '09 Team member, '10 - Chief Electronics
    'now' (Hardware) Security Engineer

  7. #7
    I don't buy into the argument stating that because it wasn't highlighted in pre-scrutineering that they can't fault you in post. The responsibility for ensuring that the car is legal under all possible conditions lies with the team and the team alone. Just as engine bores are not checked in pre-scrutineering because it is not feasible, it is also not feasible to take detailed measurements of the cars in order to provide guarantees to teams that they are completely legal. The focus should be on safety.

    Thermal expansion and other forms of variation are always a possibility. And teams must realise that scrutineers are not going to be using measurement arms, or giant verniers to check dimensions, and cannot demand they do so. A tape measure was always going to be the most likely candidate, and the parts should have been dimensioned and toleranced accordingly, to insure no one would have grounds to argue their car was not legal.

    I don't want to be critical of the teams involved, I do not believe they deserved to be disqualified, although some sort of minor penalty would have been in order. At the end of the day, there is no good engineering reason to push the limits of the rules so tightly, in FSAE. Any good simulation will tell you the points difference gained by an additional 3-4mm on the width of the wing is insignificant compared to the points gaps seen at competition, as such, taking the risk of failing scrutineering (pre or post) is a poor decision.
    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

  8. #8
    If the focus should be on safety - and I agree it should - then the point where it starts to go wrong is in the rulebook. Limiting the dimensions of aero devices can have safety reasons, but limiting them to another design parameter (width of front tires) does not. So it is my opinion that the rule committee should reconsider whether this is really the way they want FSAE to go. If their intent is to give teams a nice trade-off in terms of their track width, then at least use hard suspension parts for reference, not rubber.

    Having said that, I completely agree with the point made above that it is the team's responsibility to have a rule-compliant car at all times during the event. But I do not agree that a lighter penalty should have been given. A team is found to have participated in a dynamic event with a non-compliant car, so the penalty is that you lose your tech sticker and are disqualified from that event, simple as that. Handing out alternative penalties invented on the spot would be a very tricky decision and would set a precedent which might be hard to uphold in the future. I mean, who should judge how large the gained advantage is and what penalty is appropriate? This would pave the way towards more arbitrary decisions and therefore more controversy.

    It speaks for itself that a big decision (disqualifying a number of teams) needs to be backed by sound evidence and therefore an accurate measuring method is essential. This is the organiser's responsibility and I'm sure they will be listening to the teams' feedback. Whether or not they did a proper measurement in this instance is a pointless discussion for people like me who were not present. But I trust that this was already discussed at length at the competition.
    DUT Racing Team (Delft) 2008-2010

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperC View Post
    If the focus should be on safety - and I agree it should - then the point where it starts to go wrong is in the rulebook. Limiting the dimensions of aero devices can have safety reasons, but limiting them to another design parameter (width of front tires) does not. So it is my opinion that the rule committee should reconsider whether this is really the way they want FSAE to go.
    Totally agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperC View Post
    Having said that, I completely agree with the point made above that it is the team's responsibility to have a rule-compliant car at all times during the event. But I do not agree that a lighter penalty should have been given. A team is found to have participated in a dynamic event with a non-compliant car, so the penalty is that you lose your tech sticker and are disqualified from that event, simple as that. Handing out alternative penalties invented on the spot would be a very tricky decision and would set a precedent which might be hard to uphold in the future. I mean, who should judge how large the gained advantage is and what penalty is appropriate? This would pave the way towards more arbitrary decisions and therefore more controversy.
    I just meant that if a lighter penalty were available in the specific event rules, it should have been used, as disqualification, from a 'moral' standpoint, was not deserved.

    I try to avoid criticism without offering an alternative, so how about this:

    If an item is found to be outside the rules that:
    - has a DIRECT effect on safety, the car should be disqualified. (direct being the keyword, as anything that makes the car go faster could be considered to make it less safe).
    - does not have a direct effect on safety, and is within a 3% margin of error, then a 10% time penalty should be applied.
    - does not have a direct effect on safety, and is outside a 3% margin of error, or is a binary rule and cannot be assigned an error value, then a 50% time penalty should be applied.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperC View Post
    It speaks for itself that a big decision (disqualifying a number of teams) needs to be backed by sound evidence and therefore an accurate measuring method is essential. This is the organiser's responsibility and I'm sure they will be listening to the teams' feedback.
    I disagree with it being the organisers responsibility to measure to a higher degree of accuracy, beyond providing second and third measuring tapes/rulers on request.
    These events are run by volunteers and can be a little disorganised. Adding the challenge of acquiring high accuracy measurement measurement equipment, along with people qualified to use them properly, is too much to ask. I work for one of the event's main sponsors and have access to a measurement arm, and I don't think I could recommend using it in such an uncontrolled environment.

    Thinking about that, my suggestion for a 3% margin of error is not ideal. The same issue would apply as to where that 3% margin actually lies without accurate measurement. It would be simpler to have a rule stating that high accuracy measurement cannot be guaranteed, and so teams should ensure a margin of error is allowed for in their designs. Maybe have some suggestions of measurement tolerances at different scales/measurement types. I would have thought most experienced teams already understood this, I guess I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by JulianH
    I think you are comparing apples with oranges here.
    "Cheating" on your engine bores is something different then building a wing which is close to the limit of the rules, that gets a pass in Scrutineering and then is deemed illegal afterwards.
    The difference is "intention". We always discuss intention of the rules. If you use a 650cc engine, your intention is to cheat. If you build a wing close to the edge, get it "passed", then your intention is not to cheat.
    If you then get a DQ for this, I think this is total unfair and should not exist.
    I wasn't talking about intentionally cheating. I was more thinking of a team that might have bored out their 599cc engine to what they measured to be 610cc. But in post-scrutineering it is measured (accurately) at 611, oops. This would have been picked up in pre-scrute if they did the check, but it's not feasible.
    Another example is a team that have checked their restrictor to 19.999mm, in pre-scrutineering the weather is average and it's checked and approved by a single scrutineer. After the event the car is hot and the restrictor no longer passes with all the gauges available. When measured accurately later by the team comes out at 20.1 and the team feel like idiots for not thinking about thermal expansion, and that the rules state that any car can be re-scrutineered at any time.
    It's the teams fault for not thinking about thermal expansion, not the scrutineer's fault for giving them a pass when it was cold.
    Back that up with the obvious constraints on what equipment they can feasibly use to get 100+ cars scrutineered in the time available, and you cannot use pre-scrutineering as a check for having a legal car.

    Quote Originally Posted by JulianH
    Let's just seal all parts that could give you a performance gain or would be used to cheat the rules and then keep the re-scruti to the minimum (like checking highest cell temperatures or noise). And then focus on the rest.
    Even if they could measure more accurately in pre-scrute without any time penalty. You're suggesting they somehow "seal" everything they have checked. So now they have to sign and sticker up every single tube on the car, every single part that has a dimension rule. That doesn't work either. Just turn up to scrutineering with your wheels shimmed out to the max, then remove the extra shims in the event. You don't have to worry about you wing being checked again, as it's got a sticker on it saying it's fine, but really it's 20mm too wide!
    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. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunk Mckay View Post
    ...

    Even if they could measure more accurately in pre-scrute without any time penalty. You're suggesting they somehow "seal" everything they have checked. So now they have to sign and sticker up every single tube on the car, every single part that has a dimension rule. That doesn't work either. Just turn up to scrutineering with your wheels shimmed out to the max, then remove the extra shims in the event. You don't have to worry about you wing being checked again, as it's got a sticker on it saying it's fine, but really it's 20mm too wide!
    Simple solution: Don't have dimensions relative to moveable/changeable components in the rules. Have a template that is essentially a plywood cutout. If you can fit your wing through it, ok, if not, get the trimming tools out.
    Lutz Dobrowohl
    2008-2011
    Raceyard Kiel

    Now: Scruitineer, Design Judge, application engineer @Altair engineering

    Whatever you do, do it hard!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 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