+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: 2016 Formula Student Germany

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Bemo View Post
    This has always been the case. In the past teams weren't pushing it that hard to the limits. But there were always since I'm involved reinspections and there have always been DQ's. I don't get your point. Are you suggesting the organisers should scrutineer the cars and then there should be no more checks? I guess after one year not a single team would enter endurance with a working BOTS and if your wings would be rules compliant you would be the idiot of the day. I don't blame any team which was recently DQ'ed this year of cheating on purpose, but if you officially don't check anything there will be cheating...
    Bemo,

    I agree with the rationale and practice of post scrutineering inspection. My post was with respect to the fact that when it was done in the UK there was a large outcry over the resultant DQs. Teams were DQ'd in Germany for similar issues and there is almost complete silence. It appears that FSG had more post scrutineering inspection. Any question involved was merely wondering whether teams had noticed this and had accepted it as the norm. Including the level of scrutiny placed on aero dimensions.

    We had people arguing the following points (amongst others):

    a) Post scrutineering inspection was against the spirit of the competition as it assumes cheating
    b) Post endurance event scrutineering of the event only mentions engine which disallows inspecting the aerodynamic dimensions
    c) A penalty of DQ is not justified in the rules
    d) If a penalty is to be applied a DQ is too harsh a penalty for a minor infraction
    e) Aero dimensions a few mm out of spec do not provide a performance advantage and should not be DQ'd (points penalty at most)

    There was a lot of heated discussion, including the accusation of bias of the UK scrutineers against European and/or electric teams. Some posters implied that their teams would consider not returning to the UK in protest of this.

    In Germany there was at least one foreign team that had a post endurance inspection, during which an Aero dimension was out by a small margin, and as a result they were DQ'd from endurance.

    There was little to no outcry over this.

    I was wondering whether by the lack of protest that teams had now accepted the following as standard practice:

    a) Post scrutineering is completely allowed within the rules at any time
    b) Small deviations of aero dimensions constitute a failure to meet technical regulations
    c) An acceptable penalty for failing to meet technical regulations is a DQ

    Kind Regards,

    Kev
    Last edited by Kevin Hayward; 08-24-2016 at 03:23 AM.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    a) Post scrutineering inspection was against the spirit of the competition as it assumes cheating
    b) Post endurance event scrutineering of the event only mentions engine which disallows inspecting the aerodynamic dimensions
    c) A penalty of DQ is not justified in the rules
    d) If a penalty is to be applied a DQ is too harsh a penalty for a minor infraction
    e) Aero dimensions a few mm out of spec do not provide a performance advantage and should not be DQ'd (points penalty at most)
    a) If there would be no post scrutineering at all there would be a huge discussion wether some teams are cheating or not.
    b) A3.7
    Right to Impound
    SAE and other competition organizing bodies reserve the right to impound any onsite registered
    vehicles at any time during a competition for inspection and examination by the organizers,
    officials and technical inspectors.
    The rules couldn't be clearer on that.
    c) Actually the rules don't state what has to happen if any non-compliances are discovered. Therefore I'd interpret the rules (and that's how we handled it at FS Austria) it is up to the organisers do decide what penalty is appropriate for the specific case. Wether a DQ for a 4mm to wide wing is appropriate or not is a different topic.
    d) That's an issue you can actually argue about.
    e) same point as d)

    The big difference in my opinion is that FSG made a clear announcement how they will handle the topic of reinspections and made clear they will DQ teams in case non-compliances are found. So teams knew what they have to deal with and if they fuck it up they have to live with the consequences.
    As long as the process is transparent and all teams are treated equally, it is not that important how you do reinspections and which penalties you apply as everyone can take measures to avoid any penalty.

    Although it is ok to discuss this topic, I have to say that in my personal opinion a lot of it during the last weeks was somewhere between childish and stupid. Formula Student is not supposed to be some fun event to give children the possibility to play with racecars. It is an educational event for adults, whom you can expect to prepare themselves properly and who have to live with the consequences if they fuck it up.
    Long story short. As long as there is a process which is transparent and the same for everyone there is no need for complaining. And as you could see at FSG, in this case no one bothers that much, if someone is indeed DQ'ed.
    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. #63
    Hey I just a couple of points in regards to MMS's results this year.

    Our poor performance in Europe has been a direct result of ineffective testing and car development. This has meant that we have not been able to get the most out of the concept, and has limited our driver training.

    Poor time estimation for manufacturing, as well as car preparation have been the leading causes of this. We underestimated the time and manpower required to manufacture many systems which resulted in rushed execution. The same can be said of many repair solutions for parts that failed during testing. In hindsight these rushed solutions caused further issues ultimately resulting in limited effective driving time.

    The current team as a whole is younger and less experienced than it has been in the past, and we have made avoidable mistakes. This has highlighted a significant issue with our methods for knowledge transfer to new members and record keeping.
    We are currently investigating and addressing the management errors that have led to the issues above so that we can avoid the same mistakes in the future.

    The Australasia competition is now more competitive than it has ever been, with ECU producing an incredibly light car with a very sophisticated engine that would have likely placed first at Auscomp in 2015 if not for a minor issue in endurance. Both Uni of Canterbury and Uni of Aukland produced cars of world class standard last year. Uni of Queensland and Uni of Melbourne have gained performance in leaps and bounds year on year, with Melbourne winning endurance at FSAE-A last year.
    Our performance this year is not a reflection of the best of the Australasia comp, and I admit that we have not been great ambassadors for the AU/NZ teams.

    Sam Hughes

    MMS Chief Engineer

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,650
    Sam,

    Thanks for the honest appraisal of Monash's recent efforts.
    ~o0o~

    Two things other teams can take from Sam's post.

    1. If a well resourced and successful team like Monash (with many hands + sufficient cash) can struggle to get their car finished on time, then think about how difficult it will be for your team.

    2. With the young and inexperienced Monash members having now received their kick up the pants, methinks their next car will be ready well before time. All the other teams that Sam mentioned (ECU/Cant/Auk/UQ/Mel/+++) best get down to the workshop NOW!

    Z

  5. #65
    Thanks for the feedback, Sam!
    I'm sure you guys will bounce back and will be much stronger the next time you are in Europe. Maybe even with the E-Car

    Quick question:
    How many weeks/months did you have between the 2015 FSAE-A competition and shipping the car to Europe?
    It looked like the car was performing "fine" in Australia. Surely not full potential but at a higher level compared to Europe. Couldn't you use this testing time for "updates"?

    The car should be now nearly one year old, so I don't know how much more testing you usually do. Or was the tight schedule to the Australian competition the reason for some "shortcuts" that hurt you in the long run?

    How is the car for the 2016 competition coming along? Are you doing a "M15 Evo" or what are the plans for this? ECU seems to step out of the Australian competitions after participating in Europe, so I hope you guys can manage that!

    Good luck!
    Julian
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  6. #66
    Julian, We shipped at the start of April, which gave us 4 months following the Australasia comp. This time was used for developing improvements for Europe and designing the 2016 Aus comp car, training new drivers and testing the car. Although we made strong improvement, we did not iron out all the bugs in that time.
    We battled with many significant issues throughout the 2015 competition and we were fortunate to pull together for each event.

    We will be competing at FSAE-A this year with a car that is an evolution of M15. It is a shame that we won't be able to compete against ECU again this year, but I can appreciate their reasoning, and I hope to see them back next year.

    Cheers

    Sam

  7. #67
    In contrast ECU is lucky enough to be able to fly to car over, this is enforced by the university so we do not miss out on several months of testing which we are more than happy with.
    The car left one week before the team and was able to be picked up as we landed in London.

    We are considering changing our plans around a bit, we are currently working through our project plan and seeing if its possible to return to the FSUK and possibly FSG next year.
    The original plan was to have an 18 months design and build cycle but we believe me might be able to do it in 12 months and return to Europe next year!

    The hard part for us is the huge conceptual change we are making for this next car, similar to our 2012 - 2014 change we made, so we need enough time to allow our small team enough time to design and manufacture.

    It would have been great if a few of us could have attended FSG this year to see the in's and out's of the competition but it didn't end up happening, so I am sure a few teams will be getting emails from us in the near future.
    Nathan Van Vugt

    Edith Cowan University

    Team Leader 2015 - 2016

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts