+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 81

Thread: 2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK)

  1. #11
    As I can see ECU did high 65s a lap at endurance. Not even close. Or am looking at the wrong team (14xx s endurance)?

    Most chat is on watsapp these days. Ir the fsuk live video stream chat

  2. #12
    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

  3. #13
    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!

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    493
    Exactly as long as the measurements given in the rules are relative to the tires and the ground, this will stay very difficult. You can mark the wing as much as you want, it won't change anything about this issue as with the current rules set, you don't have to change anything about the wing itself to make it illegal. Simple suspension adjustments can make it illegal.

    Regarding the argument that if you rescrutineer every car like this, you could dq everyone I can just say, not true. I'm working as a scrutineer for a couple of years now and can tell there are teams which are very competitive and never have any issues in re-inspection. Make that wing 3mm narrower and you won't ever run into issues like that. And if anyone tells me now anything about performance losses, I can just laugh.

    If you build everything to the absolute edge with no room for tolerance you play a risky game and sometimes it will turn out for the bad.

    And once more. I don't want to say that things were handled correctly at this years FS UK. I haven't been there. But it bothers me that quite a lot of participants seem to have the opinion that more or less any dq after endurance is the fault of the organisers/scrutineers. For a dq it does not matter if something is a safety issue or not. It matters if something is rules compliant or not. I wouldn't have a problem to give penalties instead of a dq, but this needs to be implemented in the rules. At the moment there is no real posibility to do so. The rules give only the option to dq or not to dq. As in quite a lot of cases you can argue about if rules changes are necessary, but that doesn't change anything for this moment. At the moment these are the rules which count.
    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. #15
    I thought it would good to share the statement of the Delft team regarding the situation. This has been shared on various social media as well.

    Regards,
    Miki Hegedus
    Faculty Advisor Formula Student Team Delft


    ------------
    First of all, congratulations to Rennteam Uni Stuttgart e.V. for winning FSUK. They've built an amazing car and worked hard for the trophy. We have the utmost respect for their team.
    We'd like to give an update on what happened after our run on the endurance track Sunday afternoon.

    After good runs on acceleration and skidpad and the fastest lap of the day on the autocross track on Saturday, we were very happy to finish the endurance in a competitive time. On the track it was very close with Stuttgart’s combustion car, as well as with Running Snail Racing Team’s impressive car. Our projections suggested we were on course to winning the competition overall.
    Some time after the endurance race, we received word that we had not passed the post-endurance rescrutineering. Our front wing was deemed too wide by 1mm and 2mm on either side of the car. As a result we were disqualified from the endurance and the efficiency event, meaning we would end up at 17th place overall.
    Shortly before the award ceremony it was confirmed that our official protest concerning the disqualification had been denied.

    The front wing had been measured during technical scrutineering on Thursday and was marked as rules compliant. On Friday we even went back to technical scrutineering to re-check all aero exclusion zones, aero radii and endplate widths because we were warned we would be checked at Parc Fermé and we did not want to take any risks. We were assured by the scrutineer that everything was fine. No changes were made to the front wing or the mechanical setup after initial scrutineering.
    We were not present at the award ceremony, except at the start to applaud the volunteers. We were devastated by the very recent decision and disappointment got the better of us. Everyone reading this knows how much effort and passion goes into building one of these cars. Being this close, feeling you did everything right and then suddenly having your results taken away was a lot to deal with after an exhausting week and year.
    It certainly was not our intention to disrespect the volunteers, organizers and participating teams at FSUK.

    We would like to thank everyone involved for making this a great event. We enjoyed competing against the best FS teams at FSUK and are looking forward to seeing you in Germany!
    -------------

  6. #16
    Z,
    We were on the track for the first time since the team started in 2010.
    Unfortunately we were very slow because we don't have good drivers to get the max from the car.
    I'am happy with that, maybe next years we can perform better.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.fs/pho...type=3&theater

    ------------------
    We were pushing the car very hard into that.

    - at the first day we had some problems with harness due to shipping we've managed to fix them 20 mins before the scrutineering.
    - we needed to replace the wheels' nuts to pass the safety.
    - After passing the tilt, we started to run the engine at the engine testing area. suddenly the torque limiter in the starting mechanism of the engine failed.
    - we needed to push the car back to the pit trying to contact with any KTM dealer to provide the part.
    - the Faculty advisor of Sunderland team helped us with that, he also provided the tools and worked on our engine.
    - we've traveled almost to Scotland trying to buy the new torque limiter.
    - day after the car was running with new part and we were able to pass the noise.
    - in the braking test we discovered a problem with the clutch due to a problem in the engine assembly while replacing the new torque limiter. we need the clutch to free the rear wheels from the engine torque to easily lock them.
    - we've took the decision to drive the car in the test put the gears in neutral just before braking and fortunately we were able to lock the four wheels and pass.
    - during the sprint the car understeered and hit the wall, we had to replace two rod ends and steering link to get back to the track.
    - before the endurance we decided to run the engine to check the cooling system, unfortunately the radiator fans cut the radiator fins and we had to fix the radiator.
    - finally we were on the track running the car for the endurance event.
    - we didn't manage to finish the endurance, the braking pedal became spongy, the pedal travel increased until it hit the brake over-travel switch and stop the engine.
    Last edited by Ahmad Rezq; 07-20-2016 at 06:54 AM.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunk Mckay View Post
    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.
    One is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, no? If you're going to disqualify a team from the endurance, you must have a very high confidence. Being 95% sure is not even enough. If for whatever reason the organisation cannot say with such high confidence that a dimension limit is exceeded, than they have no base for disqualifying a team. If the front wing is too wide by 25mm, then a measuring tape will probably suffice. When talking about margins of 2mm, I'm not so sure. Either you find a way to improve your confidence or you accept that you can't, but then you must let the team pass. It's not as if any team would win the competition thanks to an alleged excess of 2mm on a wing.

    Again, I was not even at the competition, so this is a general remark. For all I know, the measurement was fine in this particular case.
    DUT Racing Team (Delft) 2008-2010

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Z,

    Unfortunately the team lost an exhaust valve during the braking test on Friday evening. The team proceeded to rebuild the engine (6pm till 11pm). Unfortunately the guys made a small error in the process (discovered in the brake test area) and it needed to come out again at 9am the next morning. We were stoked to get it done before Autocross and be able to post a time, and then go on to complete endurance.

    Our first driver was quite inexperienced and hit quite a few cones, with pretty average lap times. Our second was looking good to go under 60s lap times at the very end, before Oxford Brookes unfortunately caught fire in front of him causing a red flag and another restart. This was well short of the pace of the best teams, who were frankly incredible. Our team will keep pushing, but we have a definite deficit in both vehicle and driver performance.

    We would have been pretty close to 3rd place had we competed in Accel and Skidpan, with the electric cars doing times we had expected with their 60kW limit. However that would have only been possible with the DQ's. In the end we were overjoyed to finish where we did, and salvage the competition.

    As a result of our issues on Friday/Saturday I wasn't in a great place to observe much of the competition, instead I hung in the wings waiting to see if the team needed to exercise the Uni credit card.

    ...

    With regard to the DQs the teams not involved were kept in the dark about what was happening, and why the DQs were given out. There has been no statement from the scrutineers / judges that I am aware of. I hope a statement will be forthcoming.

    I will note that I have seen some revisionist history regarding reactions to the DQs being spread on the net (forums / reddit). I can assure you that teams cheered their own victories, and were not silent in solidarity with DQ'd teams. Delft did appear at the awards ceremony after it had started, and were noted in their entrance and exit. I think if their intention was to applaud the volunteers, then it was misread by many in the hall. I believe many interpreted their entering and leaving on mass as a negative statement on their behalf. As a result may people booed when they were not present to accept the awards that they did win. I feel that they should be cut some slack as they had just been delivered some devastating news.

    The DQ's will definitely be the talking point of the competition. Other teams would have almost certainly failed tech inspection after the competition, including a few notably noisy petrol cars if they had to try and re-pass noise.

    I respect the scrutineers right to perform post-endurance scrutineering checks, and feel it is the only decent method of pushing rules compliance. It is no secret to anyone involved in this competition that the cars often change between tech/noise/brake and the running of the event. Parts are exchanged and modified, and often teams attempt to browbeat/sweet talk initial scrutineers into passing checks that have not been met. I have done it myself as a student. If we allow this without punishment we are encouraging a generation of engineers to accept that it is okay to do things like cheat to pass emissions tests. As a student or competitor it is often hard to keep in mind that the organisers are trying to prepare us for an industry where the rules need to be followed or there can be severe circumstances. If 1-2mm wider either side is not enough for a competitive advantage then why not be 1-2mm narrower either side. Is it better engineering practice to respect a hard boundary, or treat it as flexible and rely on the better judgement of the scrutineers. I do not mean to be callous in my remarks to those that were affected. I am aware that we may not have passed the exact same tests.

    What is missed by some is that there were a number of teams exposed to post-endurance scrutineering checks that managed to pass them. For example the University of Hertfordshire was required to disassemble a decent proportion of their car to check the fuel system and capacity following what was quite reasonable fuel usage. Other teams were checked for Aero compliance at the same level and managed to pass.

    In general I find that the scrutineering is becoming more stringent, and I think that the teams pushing the boundaries are partly responsible for that trend. As their professionalism and vehicle quality improve it is becoming much more reasonable to expect teams to meet the rules requirements.

    ...

    On another less controversial point it is amazing how large the gap is between a small group of teams and the rest. During the weekend I managed to catch up with an old colleague of mine from the early successful UWA years. We both noted how far some teams had come, and how the competition had changed. It was particularly apparent to him, having not been involved in the FSAE/Student community since he left. There are a handful of teams that are operating at the level of professional motorsport teams. Budgets are at or above what would be expected from professional teams, with some universities having teams working full time on the project for the season (i.e. not completing other units at the same time). Build quality is getting very high with professional suppliers providing manufacture of molds and components we used to expect the teams to do themselves. The students are dedicated and very bright, and the top drivers are incredibly well trained. There are enough of these teams now that it is almost certain that at least one will finish and win. Unless there is a big change, no UK, US (excepting GFR), Oz, Japanese (and others) can be expected to win a major European event. These teams have worked hard, gathered significant industry support, and produce innovative and well detailed designs.

    I agree with Z that the current top level concepts do not represent what is possible in Formula Student. However the professionalism, resources, and driving ability are more than enough to overcome any advantage an upcoming team might produce through a better concept. If a better concept came about the top teams would be more than capable of replicating and improving the ideas within one build cycle.

    To those teams that want to be at the top (that currently aren't) I suggest that you start looking at how your team is run, change your relationship between the University and course structure, look to increase your resources significantly, and buckle in for the required years of continuous improvement. Otherwise it will be empty dreams and wishes.

    Kev
    Last edited by Kevin Hayward; 07-20-2016 at 08:50 AM. Reason: Spelling

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperC View Post
    One is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, no? If you're going to disqualify a team from the endurance, you must have a very high confidence. Being 95% sure is not even enough. If for whatever reason the organisation cannot say with such high confidence that a dimension limit is exceeded, than they have no base for disqualifying a team. If the front wing is too wide by 25mm, then a measuring tape will probably suffice. When talking about margins of 2mm, I'm not so sure. Either you find a way to improve your confidence or you accept that you can't, but then you must let the team pass. It's not as if any team would win the competition thanks to an alleged excess of 2mm on a wing.
    Innocent until proven guilty? With anything relating to safety that means assuming a car is safe until proven unsafe. Sounds faulty to me.
    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. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Jasper,

    For the record tape measures are more than accurate enough to measure 1-2mm differences over the lengths in question. Go/No Go templates might be a better option, depending on how accurately they can be made.

    I would have assumed the following:
    - Multiple measurements were made
    - The person taking measurements was capable of using the measuring equipment, and multiple measurements ended up with the same reading
    - The readings on the tape measure were greater than difference between marks (i.e. tape measures are more than accurate enough to measure to the closest millimetre)
    - The team saw the readings being taken

    ...

    On the basis of this opposition of the ruling would be based on one of three possible reasons:

    1. Tape measures are not of sufficient accuracy to measure within 1mm
    2. The measurement method was flawed
    3. The penalty applied was too harsh for the infraction

    Of these the first is incorrect. The second is possible, but cannot be commented on by those of us who were not present. I would suggest that this is the only valid argument for an inaccurate measurement in this case.

    The third is based on subjective reasoning. I agree completely that the penalty far exceeds what should be applied for a small infraction, but my agreement on this point does not make the tape measure any less accurate.

    ...

    It is also not an issue of guilt/innocence, but rather one of compliance/non-compliance. I would have thought it obvious that non-compliance is assumed, and compliance must be proved. This is a necessary safety measure, and one that is adopted as standard engineering practice. This is why teams are not let onto the track until compliance is observed.

    I (just like so many others) do not believe you or the other teams intended to subvert the rules and gain a competitive advantage by the subversion. As a result we would assume that you are innocent with respect to deliberate cheating, but that does not have an influence on compliance/non-compliance.

    I apologise if I have offended by writing this. It is devastating to have a competition win stripped from you for a minor non-compliance. Myself, and many others would have been more than happy for you to get away with either a warning, or smaller points penalty if the size of the infraction was only 1-2mm.

    Kev

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... 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