+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Track map

  1. #21
    Michael,
    the rules say for example in A1.1.1:
    The competitions themselves give teams the chance to demonstrate and prove both their creativity and their engineering skills in comparison to teams from other universities around the world.

    Rule A1.2.5 says:
    Each design will be judged and evaluated against other competing designs to determine the best
    overall car.

    Rule A1.4.1 says:
    The dynamic events are scored to determine how well the car performs.

    None of these rules talk about driver performance. Furthermore the rule restrict the "use" of drivers for more than 3 dynamic events.

    In my opinion this is a design and not a driver competition.

    If we publish a track map before the competition the teams are able to train their drivers, do setup tests, lap time simulations etc etc. Whatever they do with the data provided, it will lower the driver's influence and raise the influence of the team's ability to build/setup a fast car.
    Therefore it is completely with the intention of the rules to publish a track map.
    Please feel free to disagree.

    Regards,

    Tobias
    Regards,

    Tobias

    Formula Student Germany
    FSE Rules & Organisation
    http://twitter.com/TobiasMic
    http://TobiasMic.Blogspot.com

    Not many people know the difference between resolution and accuracy.

  2. #22
    Tobias,
    Yes, I agree that the competition is designed as an engineering/design competition, with the track events being there to show off the design capabilities of the cars. And as rules writers, we try to reduce the effect on the results that "good" drivers will have.

    However, you and I could debate for several hours whether publishing a dimensioned track map before the event would tend to "level the playing field" by benefiting the less experienced drivers more than the more experienced drivers, or the less experienced and financially challenged teams more than those with experience and/or funds.

    I would suggest that the teams with experience and solid funding are much more likely to have their car finished early and have the time and resources to use a track map, whether it be by simulation or setting up the actual course on which to practice.

    Yes, publishing a map will give some teams one more tool with which to play, namely simulation, but surely, it will only benefit those teams that are already at the front.

  3. #23
    Well said Mr Royce.
    Everthing you want is just outside your comfort zone!

  4. #24
    I would suggest that the teams with experience and solid funding are much more likely to have their car finished early and have the time and resources to use a track map, whether it be by simulation or setting up the actual course on which to practice.
    I agree. But gaining experience and solid funding are both team achievements. Therefore I do not see an unfair advantage.

    And even if you are less experienced or not solid funded, you just have to adjust your project plan according to these restrictions and still may finish the car early and have an advantage. You always have to live with and know your restrictions to find a good design compromise, right?

    Argumenting the other way around it would mean:
    Not publishing a track map would mean to not reduce the impact of good drivers. But why should that help less experienced or not solid funded teams?
    It only means that they get an underdog chance by throwing a good driver into a mediocre designed car and still finish well in the dynamics. But this again is not the intention of the rules in my opinion, since this would mean to take away point from teams that finished the car early, which is a key achievement in project planning, and which have a well designed car, but no good driver at their university, which can not really be influenced by the team.

    Regards,

    Tobias
    Regards,

    Tobias

    Formula Student Germany
    FSE Rules & Organisation
    http://twitter.com/TobiasMic
    http://TobiasMic.Blogspot.com

    Not many people know the difference between resolution and accuracy.

  5. #25
    In my opinion this is a design and not a driver competition.
    I think this is the only relevant argument here. This is not F1, where the field has to be closed up for show; but an engineering competition, where teams should be given a try at as many tools as possible.

    Also, I hate to remember the track in Michigan, which is a drama if you're not used to that style. There is a whole team working day and night to bring a good car at the event, and then one small mistake in autocross puts you 50 points behind. Which brings me back to my opinion that autocross should replaced by some other event, but that's a different debate.

  6. #26
    Schmidt,
    reading your post throws up another argument: If the track layout is kept stable, it would favour teams and drivers that have been participated there before over first time competitors, if the track layout is not published before the competition.

    Regards,

    Tobias
    Regards,

    Tobias

    Formula Student Germany
    FSE Rules & Organisation
    http://twitter.com/TobiasMic
    http://TobiasMic.Blogspot.com

    Not many people know the difference between resolution and accuracy.

  7. #27
    I agree with Mr. Royce.

    I am not convinced that allowing drivers to practice on the competition tack layout will narrow the gap between good and mediocre drivers by any meaningful amount.

    Another point that has not been mentioned is that not all teams have access to testing areas large enough to recreate the competition track. For example the area my team normally tested on was very long, but not wide enough to lay out an exact copy of any competition track I’ve seen.

    I also disagree with the suggestion that driver performance can’t be influenced by the team; driver training does make a difference. A good team can benefit by finishing the car early and keeping an old car running to give drivers a lot of seat time, and by making a serious effort to ‘train’ them rather than just setting them loose on an autocross style track and hoping for the best.

    I do support releasing track data after the event which would allow teams to run simulations during the design phase.
    Nathan

    UNSW FSAE 07-09

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    111
    Originally posted by Schmidt:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In my opinion this is a design and not a driver competition.
    I think this is the only relevant argument here. This is not F1, where the field has to be closed up for show; but an engineering competition, where teams should be given a try at as many tools as possible.

    Also, I hate to remember the track in Michigan, which is a drama if you're not used to that style. There is a whole team working day and night to bring a good car at the event, and then one small mistake in autocross puts you 50 points behind. Which brings me back to my opinion that autocross should replaced by some other event, but that's a different debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What was wrong with the track in Michigan?

    While it sucks that one mistake can set you back so far, that's racing, it sucks so suck it up. Sure this competition is primarily about engineering, but it's also about the business side and the racing side whether we like it or not. Otherwise what's the point of building a car for autocross if we aren't going to autocross. So until the cars are either all virtual or driven by programs the driver is always going to be a huge factor regardless of what the rules try to do. In fact I would say that current course rules are the main cause of inexperienced drivers struggling. Widen the course and I think you'd see a lot of guys much more comfortable out there.
    Trent Strunk
    University of Kansas
    Jayhawk Motorsports
    2010-2014

    Now in NASCAR land. Boogity.
    Opinions Are My Own

  9. #29
    It seems like the SAE does care too much about the comments made regarding not releasing track maps:
    http://t.co/ZnkD3k6a

    Fantomas
    Scores under pressure

  10. #30
    Wow! Never seen such a detailed competition layout! Plus it seems perfect for FSAE; everything is really close to the paddock area, separate practice course/autocross/endurance tracks, and track layouts seem rather exciting. Just wow!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 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