2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK)

[Pat Clarke]

Thijs,

I wasn't there, so it is improper for me to have an opinion and I haven't really heard 'both sides of the story' (you know the old saying about three sides to every story?).
I don't know all the details but I do know it is the responsibility for the team to keep their car compliant for the entire event, so Mr Royce does have a valid point.

Whether the penalty fits the crime? I just don't know but it highlights yet another anomaly in the Rule book.

You know I have been a 'friend of the team' for many years, so I feel bad for you guys. But it is history now and nothing will change that.
Remember, FS/FSAE is primarily an educational exercise, and anyone who knows the story will have learned a lot, some of those lessons not what was intended!

Me? I would have castrated the entire team, cut their right hands off and sold their womenfolk into slavery. But then I am a bastard ;-)

Seriously, it was just Formula Student not the end of the world, so my suggestion would be to get over it and learn the many lessons that are there to be learned.
Come talk to me in Pat's Corner about it later this week, I might have more to say ;-)

Pat

[Thijs]

Pat,

Fair enough. And don't worry, I won't write another essay about how castration isn't in the rule book.

I'm not looking to change history btw. I'm just looking for a sign that the FSUK organization has learned lessons from this as well.

I'm sure we'll run into each other at some point over the next week, and enjoy FSG.

Thijs

[mech5496]

Speaking of rules (and now that the season for my team is over), I wonder how many of the e-teams have a legal rear wing. In the events we participated this year I counted almost zero.

Just to be clear, I refer to rule EV4.12.6, stating that "the TSAL must be clearly visible from every horizontal direction, except small angles which are covered by the main roll hoop, even in very bright sunlight". To me, this means that the rear wing and the endplates should be either lower than the TSAL, or transparent. If a team elects to go through tech with the DRS activated so it can pass, then they should run with the DRS activated at all times; and even like this, the endplates would be illegal. We chose not to officially protest since we do not think it fits the FS ethos, but I believe it is something that should be brought to table for 2017.

WE NEED CLEAR RULES.

[JulianH]

Harry,
in this point, you are not correct.

There was a clear stated Rules clarification on this back in 2012 (with my awesome CAD pictures ), that the visibility is defined by a person standing something like 2m around the car.
At FSG 2013 they acutally checked that with a stick, so the rear wings should be all legal.

But fully agree, that we need clear rules.

[mech5496]

1.6m height, 3m away, the famous "visibility cone" This is still not "every horizontal direction", as "horizontal" would be "at the height of the TSAL" to my understanding. Still, the point was not to protest over anything rather than emphasizing that the rulebook needs a refresh. Kev had started a good effort a couple of years back, and I was also trying to assist on i, but went down the drain. Have to look if I can find this draft somewhere...

[Kevin Hayward]

1.6m height, 3m away, the famous "visibility cone" This is still not "every horizontal direction", as "horizontal" would be "at the height of the TSAL" to my understanding. Still, the point was not to protest over anything rather than emphasizing that the rulebook needs a refresh. Kev had started a good effort a couple of years back, and I was also trying to assist on i, but went down the drain. Have to look if I can find this draft somewhere...

Unfortunately Harry apart from yourself there was little interest from this community in making a decent effort to discuss and present clarifications to the rules. It is telling that I had to quote from a number of different sections to provide an outline as simple as the judges have the right to technical inspection at any point, and as mentioned there is almost no mention of penalties for finding faults.

Like a poorly maintained house once it was reasonably coherent and fit for purpose, but as the years have progressed there have been few structural repairs and too many layers of paint added without proper surface preparation. I am still keen to be involved with putting together an alternative set, but am mindful that it is a job that requires a number of people to do it justice.

Kev

[Dunk Mckay]

I found that thread after the fact. Was sad to see it had become defunct. Would be happy to help revive it. Or start a new attempt.

Going a little off topic now, but on the subject of rules, are there many/any teams that make use of the AF section?
It has always seemed like a bit of a waste of space, and a big section of the rules that you have to read, that doesn't seem to add anything to the competition.
Yes, I realise it's about having the choice, the right to make good or bad decisions, and to justify them. But with the time and resource constraints of event organisers (as a tenuous link to what has been discussed here) it's just one extra complication that isn't needed. So much so that FSG does not accept them unless they have already passed scrutineering at a previous FSAE event.

I have always maintained that if you're making a space frame car, it's because you've gone down the road of simplifying your design process. That being the case, why would you then over-complicate things by using the AF rules?
I'm sure people will say there could be some elaborate design that has some clever benefit, but doesn't work under the normal rules. But realistically I don't see that happening often enough (or at all) for it to be worth it.

The rules should be half the length they are, and that's where I would start. I'd also like to see separate EC and C car rule books. The common sections would stay the same as they are now. But having whole sections, plus various paragraphs dotted around, that aren't relevant to your class can be really frustrating.

With every new rules set, I find myself creating my own custom version of the rules, with the non-applicable sections cut-out. By doing this I am able to turn a 183 page document into a 53 page document.
Admittedly those 53 pages are just the technical rules; I don't bother with 22 pages of admin regs, or the 51 pages of event regulations. Add those back in and it's 126 pages, but that still means there's 57 pages (31% !!) worth of rules, that are simply not applicable to many teams. And that's without re-writing them to simplify and make more efficient.

Technical requirements for all cars is 55 pages, a target amount should be less than 30, 25 for a stretch target.

Anyway, rant over. Sorry for going a little off topic.

[mech5496]

Just FYI, here's the thread I was referring to. Would love to see more people involved in this.

http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthrea...ecommendations

[BlackholeZ]

Speaking as someone back in school after being involved in the automotive motorsports industry, aviation industry, and unmanned engineering, this whole situation is pretty disappointing. The point of FSAE, FSUK, etc is to help students learn and encourage them in their future careers as engineers. The point is NOT to browbeat them with the rulebook and teach them that engineering is full of pedants that think they know better than everyone else.

Keep in mind that these students have spent the better part of a year devoting their lives to building these cars for 2 days of competition. They have sacrificed everything to get to competition. Showing up and performing well but having it all thrown away over 2mm measured to a flexible surface is disgusting. Yes there is a rulebook for a reason, but asking an engineer to build in a margin of safety for "rules interpretation" is completely counter to what it means to be an engineer. I feel for the volunteers, as their jobs are made very difficult by the rulebook.

[Jay Lawrence]

^

It's a weird mix. In my situation, it was very much a case of 'elders' having no clue about what you'd done or how to do it themselves, but also succumbing to the innate desire that some little people have of trying to appear superior in all situations. After I finished up, it was great to see ex-FSAE people coming on board and bringing in some more credibility.

It's easy for senior people to say 'oh it's just a life lesson' etc., because it's easy to forget that at that point in time you've just forgone sleep/partners/grades/etc. in order to put forth your best effort, only to have it taken away by someone being petty. Sad