+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 81

Thread: 2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK)

  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
    492
    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
    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!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    492
    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

  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 Dunk Mckay View Post
    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,

    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 agree that teams should be responsible for making cars legal at any time. But with that statement, we can just like leave scruti at all, and just re-scrutineer all cars after endurance and DQ all of them.
    I would challenge, that a picky Scrutineer with unlimited time can deem ALL cars illegal after finishing endurance.
    That is not the spirit, sorry.

    I even think that they should not get a penalty.
    If I bring 2 sets of wings to the event, one for scruti, one for the track and the second one is illegal. Then I get a penalty.

    We cannot give penalties for parts that are not changed. And CFRP wings do not grow in size measurable even if it is warm.

    I'm not sure if my memory is correct, but judging back from the days in 2009-10 the rescrutineering turned from "ok let's check 1-2 things" into "alright let's find something they could have forgotten to ruin their work".
    Even checking a safety concern like BOT AFTER the race is kind of stupid but I can get around that.


    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.
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,633
    Kevin or ECU Team,

    Bummer! I was hoping you could show all those wannabe E-Teams just how fast C-cars can accelerate... Your past Accel times, plus a decent Skid-Pad time, would have put you in top three for sure. What happened?
    ~~~o0o~~~

    Does anyone have link to an "executive overview" of this comp?
    Photos of the cars?
    Gossip of why Teams DNF'd or DQ'd (other than above cryptic posts)?

    Is this Forum now obsolete technology for obtaining news?

    Z

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 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