Effects of rule changes

[sbrenaman]

RJW - I am hoping for something more like this, but open cockpit

[Gruntguru]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
I'm still waiting to see a descent clarification on the wheel covering thing. I think we need one, and after Aus '11, I'm surprised nothing has been done.
Yes I know there is already a clarification, but it makes all the traditional aero cars illegal, and clearly they are being allowed to run, so it would seem there is plenty of "interpretation" even in the "clarification". (it says you must be able to see the tyres in plan view).

This can be easily circumvented anyway, it would just cause another hassle at comp, but still, we might just show up with fully covered wheels that meet ALL the rules!!! AND then complain that we can't see Monash's, ECU's etc rear tyres in plan view!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am wondering too. Any further clarification available yet Pat?

[Fantomas]

There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear.

If a part is built with the sole intent to cover the wheels, it is prohibited. If you are somehow able to use your front wing or side pods to cover parts of the wheels, smart move.

Who prevents a team from just asking the rules committee, if they have a particular solution in mind?

Fantomas

[luxsosis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear.


Fantomas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What number rule are you talking about here?

[PatClarke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am wondering too. Any further clarification available yet Pat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GG, I don't speak for the rules committee.

Fantomas, I agree with you.

The rule has been interpreted forever as 'The wheel must be fully visible in plan view'. The red herring 'Awe, but the wings get in the way of 'plan view' fails to take into account the plane of view. It all depends where you are 'viewing' from.

Taking Z's stance of 'Cover the wheels and argue that the rule is wrong' is the easiest way I know to relegate your team to the role of spectators!

And, yes, if any team think they see a loophole, then get it clarified by the Rules committee. That's what they are there for.

Literally hundreds of rule clarifications come in each year. The Rules Committee keeps the teams request confidential, that's why you don't hear about them.

Cheers

Pat

edit, spelling =]

[Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear.

If a part is built with the sole intent to cover the wheels, it is prohibited. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

INTENT!!! (And what rule???)

Student Aero Guy, "But our intent is to have a more efficient car. You know, better fuel economy. Err..., and also better safety... And, err,.... there's no rule against it...."

Fantomas The Scrutineer, "Rubbish! Your INTENT is to CHEAT!!! You are banned. Go away..."

Students' Rottweiler, eyeing Fantomas, thinks, "I'm eating well tonight! "
~~~o0o~~~

FSAE Rule A3.10?

Rottweilers can't read (they don't need to), but if they did..., " "

Think about it.

Legal team from average size University that turns over N billion$ per year and values a full trophy cabinet (academic, sporting, whatever prizes),

versus

amateur scrutineer.

Z

(Edit: Just saw Pat's post.
Pat, if this issue (it is NOT a "rule") "has been interpreted forever...", then why doesn't it appear explicitly in the Rules?
And why isn't the mysterious "plain (plane?) of view" also made explicit in the Rules?
You are defending the indefensible.
The Rules need fixing.)

[Pete Marsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The rule has been interpreted forever as 'The wheel must be fully visible in plan view'. The red herring 'Awe, but the wings get in the way of 'plan view' fails to take into account the plain of view. It all depends where you are 'viewing' from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you have made my point quite well thanks Pat. It would be kind of nice if this place that inspectors will "view" from, was public knowledge. This would assist in achieving designs matching inspectors expectations. My mistake was interpreting "plan view" as being the view perpendicular to the horizontal plain. The intent of the clarification would suggest the word "plan" fully specifies the view point, but if my definition is incorrect, what is the correct one?


A quick, and not very thorough, check of some "open wheel" rule sets reveals NONE that allow rear wings to cover the rear tyres! Most, do in fact require some portion of the top of the all 4 tyres to be visible in "plan view",from above, or in top view.

Rules clarifications are published (although a little hard to find) for the benefit of all involved.

A10.4 Frequently Asked Questions
Before submitting a question, check the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Formula SAE Forum website.

Still, it would seem another clarification needs to be sent in.

Pete

PS - Sorry for being part of hijacking your good thread Kev, but this is sort if the effect of changing some of the rules, without considering how they will be reacted to. With 125 points for fuel, low drag and coast was always going to be worth a go.

[Fantomas]

Z,
I don't know in which banana-republic-like events you have gained this experience, but I can assure you that at all competitions in which I have attended the scrutineers gave a sh** about university's opinion regarding the rules and that is how it should be!
Although I found it a bit scary that the indian team was allowed to run at FSAE-A2011 as it didn't seem to be completely rules compliant...

Your interpretation of the intent is absurd as it could be broken down to the intent always wanting to build a car which is able to win the competition...

As said before, if a team is unsure, it may just ask the rules committee by handing in a request showing the planned solution.

The clarification which Pat mentioned is clear and does not render any aero cars illegal which were allowed to compete.

Pete,
in my opinion it does not matter what all the other rules sets for open-wheeled cars say as they do not matter, when you are building a car for an FSAE event.

I wonder, if you handed in a question to the rules committee showing your exact solution before the FSAE-A 2011 competition. If not, you should stop complaining about it, I think.

Maybe the respective rule could be written more specific, but it seems like most of the other teams got the intention of the rule right in the past couple of years as it is very improbable that none of them has ever thought about covering the front wheels with a solution like yours. At least that should have made you thinking about it.

Fantomas

[TMichaels]

From an organizer's point of view I can only agree with what Fantomas said about scrutineering.
At FSG we have never and will never let a university's lawyer have any influence on scrutineering.

The universities have no power over the organising bodies and should have no power, otherwise the competition would be a farce.

To put it in a nutshell:
I am very curious to hear at which competition you think that a call from a lawyer will change the outcome of scrutineering.

[Z]

While the pot is on the boil...

1. Lawyers only come sniffing around when they smell money. FSAE is becoming more professional...

2. FSAE is a small game played under the umbrella of our larger societies. Our societies have their own "rules", and their own methods of enforcing these rules (eg. fines, gaol, the "chair" ).

3. Like it or not, some of the rules of most of our societies are about "discrimination". Unjustified (and even, too often these days, justified!) discrimination against person, team, whatever..., can be very expensive.

4. The banning of UWA's front wheel pods, covering a small fraction of each front wheel in "plan view", while allowing the other teams' completely covered rear wheels, was plain UNFAIR (and narrow minded, stupid, etc.). It could also clearly be seen as discriminatory, and thus subject to the penalties of our larger societies' legal systems.

5. To the scrutineers, I am helping you here! (Not sure why?) If you keep thinking that you can arbitrarily and unjustifiably push certain teams around, just because you see yourselves as the "big kids" in the playground, then, as the profile of FSAE increases, you had better watch out! (I suggest you sign over all your assets to relatives. )

Z