+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 180

Thread: Effects of rule changes

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    119
    Blast! Apparently even I failed at simplicity!

    Lunits, I intended my clarification to be even less restricting than yours, only restricting the space "below the HIGHEST point of that tire". So take your solution and make X=zero and we are saying the same thing. It also would leave most undertrays untouched as it only restricts the space "directly above the top surface of a tire ". I think your solution is reasonable but I would prefer an even less restricting rule.

    I also think removing the open wheel requirement altogether would be reasonable (and awesome, for the same reasons mentioned by Kevin).

    Doug, I thought about a clarification with similar wording, but went away from it because I feel it would require definitions of bodywork and aero devices (easier to ban everything), and it would effect the space inboard of the tire. I could imagine people (me) making suspension links with intended aero effects.
    Chris Patton
    Vehicle Dynamics
    Global Formula Racing '10-'12
    OSU Beaver Racing '05-'09

  2. #112
    Much as I like the idea of seeing some LMP looing FS cars, I think abandoning the open wheel race car rule would provide a massive advantage to teams with lots of resources. They could design and manufacture intricate carbon fibre bodywork designs and test them in a full scale wind tunnel.

    Meanwhile the poorer teams are either struggling to get enough carbon fibre to make even the simplest of lightweight bodywork, while others are piling on 50kg of fibreglass that looks good in CAD but does very little for the car aerodynamically.

    A bit of an exageration perhaps, but still an issue. And yes, I realise that there are already aspects of the competition that tend to favor the "wealthier" teams, but that cost reporting and other elements of the events tend to compensate for this, for the most part. But why add to it? Any team with limited resources will feel outdone when they turn up and see cars with amazing carbon bodywork, custom made carbon wheels, LRP'd titanium uprights, oh and custom designed engines.
    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. #113
    Cost report won't do a dang to compensate wealthier teams to poorer teams.

    How many of the teams running DAS had "forgotten" to list it in their Cost Report last year and got away with that? For example Uni Stuttgart had the cheapest car in Italy according to Cost Report. And Superfast Matt states in the book that Cost Reports is worth the cheating (that was by the old rules but still that seems to be the trend).

    Every year we try to make the most complete and accurate Cost Report that's ever possible - and take a hit in points because of that.
    "...when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr. Brown

  4. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI
    Posts
    157
    Reminds me of those micro machine cars...
    Portland State - 2009-11
    Desire is the key to motivation, but it's determination and commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of your goal - a commitment to excellence - that will enable you to attain the success you seek. - Mario Andret

  5. #115
    They could split it into to different classes, open and closed wheel. But having just merged C and E classes into one I can't see that happeneing, even if they did consider the idea.

    So long as F1 remains the dominent motorsport in the eyes of the world and it remains open wheeled, I highly doubt we'll see any move towards closed wheel racers in FSAE.
    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

  6. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dunk Mckay:
    Much as I like the idea of seeing some LMP looing FS cars, I think abandoning the open wheel race car rule would provide a massive advantage to teams with lots of resources. They could design and manufacture intricate carbon fibre bodywork designs and test them in a full scale wind tunnel.

    Meanwhile the poorer teams are either struggling to get enough carbon fibre to make even the simplest of lightweight bodywork, while others are piling on 50kg of fibreglass that looks good in CAD but does very little for the car aerodynamically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I could not disagree more.

    The enemy of the poorer teams are rules where there is only one valid concept. Where there are many approaches to the one problem there is always the opportunity for less resourced teams to out fox the more resourced ones. Large well resourced teams love closed rule sets. It ensures that the money and time they have is not wasted on the wrong concept. We have seen this played out a number of times in professional motorsport with so-called "cost cutting measures". When there is an obvious optimum the rich teams dominate. When the rules are more open the smaller teams are comparatively more successful, but the rich ones complain endlessly about the cost of competing.

    Allowing full bodywork offers some advantages, but not much more than is already available, given that the only part of full bodywork you currently can not have is the area above the wheels. However there is the known increase in weight and design/manufacturing time. If the cars had an easily met minimum weight it would be a simpler decision.

    The materials cost is quite low for this sort of work given it can be fibreglass as easily as carbon, it is the labour cost that is high. While there can be a decent argument for not encouraging teams to have large monetary budgets the opposite is true for the size of teams. Every effort should be made to encourage FSAE teams to be as big as possible while maintaining improved learning outcomes for our future engineers. As a student you may see teams such as Monash (Australian example) as having an unfair advantage because of a very large team. Instead see it as 60 odd people getting an improved education.

    Also, the general public sees FSAE cars as jumped up go karts rather than mini-F1 cars. I can also think of no reason to encourage an F1 connection for FSAE. I would rather we had a better connection to something like LMP racing where there is true innovation and focus on embracing technology that can be applied back to road cars. One of the many reasons we have seen the manufacturers abandon F1 and turn to sportscars.

    Kev

  7. #117
    I like your argument Kev (sorry, that sounded corny, I really do appreciate the feedback tho). I can see how more restrictive rules can favour the wealthier teams. Although I would question whether or not allowing full bodywork over the 'almost full bodywork' we have now, might in fact reduce the potential number of valid concepts rather than widen it, even without a minimum wieght limit, especially with more and more wieght being put on fuel consumption.

    Also it remains that the poorer teams still have to have that stroke of genius, that good idea, to be able to perform the outfoxing. As well as the resources to implement it; a great idea is no use if you can't afford to make it happen, advantage richer teams.

    I haven't gone round counting, but from what I've seen the teams with greater numbers are often (not always) the more resourced teams (bigger Universities often means bigger budgets and better facilities). More heads working on a problem could give rise to more clever ideas. On the other hand "too many cooks...", so I'm undecided on that one. My team last year can't have been too far short of 45-50 members, but not much more than half of them showed all that much enthusiasm other than to complete their own projects which form part of their degree (a good and bad thing). So we ended up with things done well bolted onto things done poorly, or sometimes realising quite late on that things hadn't been done porperly at all. Althoguh i think I'm straying from the issue, venting steam perhaps.

    I'm interested what you (all) think, especially as to the potential consequences of full bodywork allowance.
    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

  8. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
    The enemy of the poorer teams are rules where there is only one valid concept.
    ...
    Large well resourced teams love closed rule sets.
    ...
    We have seen this played out a number of times in professional motorsport with so-called "cost cutting measures".
    ...
    When the rules are more open the smaller teams are comparatively more successful, but the rich ones complain endlessly about the cost of competing.

    ...

    Also, the general public sees FSAE cars as jumped up go karts rather than mini-F1 cars.
    ...
    I would rather we had a better connection to something like LMP racing where there is true innovation and focus on embracing technology that can be applied back to road cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Kevin,

    I agree wholeheartedly!

    And with the rest of your post. Just thought I'd re-stress some of the key points.

    Z

  9. #119
    Greetings all!

    The INfamous UWAM 2011 wheel pod/fairings were tested in the Monash Wind Tunnel today. I'll let the UWA guys let you know how much drag it reduces. I took video of the flow vis/smoke: Monash Wind Tunnel Party: UWA2011 *WITH* wheel fairings/undertray

    Photos from the day are here: Monash Wind Tunnel Party: ECU and UWA

    FYI: the fairings DO NOT stick out past the tyres: UWAM2011 Wheel pod (top view, close)
    Rex Chan
    MUR Motorsports (The University of Melbourne)
    2009 - 2012: Engine team and MoTeC Data acquisition+wiring+sensors
    2013 - 2014: Engine team alumni and FSAE-A/FStotal fb page admin/contributer

    r.chan|||murmotorsports.com
    rexnathanchan|||gmail.com
    0407684620

  10. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Livorno - Italy
    Posts
    170
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DougMilliken:
    Lots of rule possibilities here. How about one that should be easy for scrutineers, "With the driver (or equal ballast) in the car and steering pointed straight ahead, no bodywork or aero devices within 6" / 150mm of the tire, measured in any direction." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In a way like this brake cooling ducts will be banned.
    Lorenzo Pessa

    D-Team UniPisa (alumni of E-Team - Università di Pisa)
    FSG & FSAE-I 2009-2010

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... 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