+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18
Results 171 to 180 of 180

Thread: Effects of rule changes

  1. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kannapolis, NC
    Posts
    382
    Z, you talk about coming out with an innovative concept that is so crazy that it works. Would you say that the Deltawing is a good example of this? I mean, it was made with complete disregard to any rules set, and had enough luck (read: money) to convince the ACO that it should be allowed at LeMans.

    If you don't have rules on a class you do, eventually, find someone with enough "resources and skills" to find what works the best, then they dominate and keep getting faster until they start going too fast for the squishy bit behind the wheel. This is what happened to Can-am and Group B if I remember correctly. This is what would likely happen to every race series that is out there if they're allowed a truly "open" rule set.
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Stewart-Haas Racing, Kettering University, or their employees, students, administrators or sponsors.

  2. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kannapolis, NC
    Posts
    382
    And on that I also just reminded myself of probably the series with the most open rules set in the world.

    http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Stewart-Haas Racing, Kettering University, or their employees, students, administrators or sponsors.

  3. #173
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you don't have rules on a class you do, eventually, find someone with enough "resources and skills" to find what works the best, then they dominate and keep getting faster until they start going too fast for the squishy bit behind the wheel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I have to disagree slightly with your interpretation here. The way I see it performance and safety go hand in hand. If you start building cars that are going too fast for the "squishy part behind the wheel" then you have two options:
    1) reduce performance to "safe" levels
    or
    2) increase safety to meet performance gains

    But let's look at the specs:

    1985 Audi Sport Quattro S1
    540 bhp
    435 ft lbs
    1090 kg

    Generic Modern Rally Car
    300 bhp
    440 lbft
    1200 kg

    So, were the groub B rally cars really too fast, or was it just that car and event safety hadn't caught up yet? The point I'm trying to make is that if you keep limiting rules in the name of safety then you are only going to slow down the progress of safety technology.

    With all that said I do agree with TMicheals in that a more open rule set could make it harder to judge the safety of competitors, but that would depend on how the rules were written to what extent they were "open".

    Edit: original specs for group B car were wrong
    Western Formula Racing
    The University of Western Ontario
    Alumnus

    "If I had one hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only five minutes finding the solution." –Einstein, Albert

  4. #174
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kannapolis, NC
    Posts
    382
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    So, were the groub B rally cars really too fast, or was it just that car and event safety hadn't caught up yet? The point I'm trying to make is that if you keep limiting rules in the name of safety then you are only going to slow down the progress of safety technology.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, this is true. However, it seems nearly every time that rules get more open, the cars quickly go to a point where they are faster than is safe.

    I suppose it does probably wind up being a fight between the officials trying to keep things safe as people keep getting faster. I'm sure most racing series could be faster, but the technology to keep the drivers (and even spectators) safe just isn't there or economically feasible.

    EDIT: Oh, and just stumbled across this coincidentally: http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...n-am-could-have-been
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Stewart-Haas Racing, Kettering University, or their employees, students, administrators or sponsors.

  5. #175
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    1,061
    kcapitano,

    You are comparing a homologated street model of a group B Lancia to a modern rally car. The actual race cars were pushing around 600hp in the better equipped cars and if it continued into 1987 there were rumors that Audi was going to throw down the gauntlet with much higher power levels around the 800hp region.

  6. #176
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    I'm not sure I should have to point it out but we have one of the best methods for limiting performance already in the rules. All we need to do to counteract growing engine performance is shrink the restrictor. It has been done in FSAE before, and see no reason why it should not be considered. One of the great strengths in the FSAE rules is the restrictor, add to that a points advantage for using less fuel and we have a cap on the amount of air and the desired amount of fuel. This makes for a fantastic leveling of engine concepts. Add simple emissions testing to the mix and you end up with a great amount of varied engine development amongst the hundreds of univesities involved.

    I'm not overly interested in getting to into the different engine debate, purely on the basis that is not a great area to spend large resources to improve performance of an FSAE vehicle. But given the fact that it has come up we can see one glaring inconsistency. We have rules that limit 2-strokes and diesels, but we allow E85. This is a definite US approach to the problem of fuel use, rather than a real world effort. I can see the basis for limiting fuel use for competition simplicity and even running, but doing so leads to a logical solution of one fuel for all. Yet we allow E85 as an alternative to promote development in a better fuel for the environment? If we are trying to go for better real world solutions why don't we allow diesel or direct injected 2-strokes.

    There is also talk about not wanting to go down the road of equivalency to not favour different concepts, but we already play that game with 2 restrictor sizes. We must know that E85 and 98 Octane by the current rules are not equivalent, but there doesn't appear to be too much of an issue. Were the rules to change tomorrow we would have more teams considering other options, but as we don't have all teams on one engine now, we wont see all teams adopt the new "universally" accepted optimum even in the long term.

    ...

    What I think we are seeing in FSAE is the inevitability of universities becoming more heavily involved with the competition. The competition was started with the intent of improving practical skills of students in an extra-curricular activity. Now the best programs see the value in integrating the FSAE project into the curriculum. This helps justify the internal cost and adds to the teaching outcomes. Unfortunately for the initial intent Universities have two main goals - Teaching and Research. Developing little racing vehicles with no restrictions on manufacturing techniques and quite open rules allows a lot of scope for research. IT also allows for the best kind of research that is directly involved with teaching. The trend for university teaching is to blend the teaching and research together.

    University research at its best is designed to help develop the cumulitive knowledge of mankind. This starts to make some of the restrictions of FSAE seem pointless. Why restrict engine choices in a competition in which fuel economy is increasingly important? Are we to expect that the best internal combustion engine technology is a four stroke petrol engine?

    Likewise we have a problem with project supervision. One of the reasons that research informed teaching is so valuable in Universities is that the lecturer and students learn more working besides each other rather than "I speak, you listen". As a faculty advisor I find it very hard to strike an appropriate balance between mentoring while teaching and following the intent of the rulebook. If I detail the design of an automotive component in a design class (that happens to be a part on an FSAE car so that I can run students through a familiar example) am I breaking the rules of the competition? What if I correct their bearing calculations in an assignment that has a question on upright bearing selection? What if I show them one way of curing a composite part? What if I am in the room while a design is being discussed? Where does an idea originate when a room is discussing the pros and cons of a particular design? I would like to think I sit to the right side of the rules, but there are a lot of grey areas.

    It sometimes seems to me that the goal of the competition is for the students to gain an education despite their universities, rather than encouraging well developed teaching approaches such as teaching-involved research and active mentoring.

    One of my favourite changes to the comp rules, back when I was competing was when DAQ systems no longer had to be included in the cost report if they were not required to run the vehicle. This was a great move that encouraged the sort of testing that students would do in the work place. I see no great disadvantage in rules that increase the options teams must consider, rules that increase the amount of work that can be done on the cars, rules that increase potential research, or rules that more closely align the goals of a university and its race team.

    Kev

  7. #177
    Kevin: I don't see any problems with faculty advisers getting involved. I wish ours were more hands on, or had the experience to be hands on (though ours is very good at helping us out with admin stuff, so I'm not complaining).

    I see that rule as a way for students to stop advisor's from having too much influence when they are not wanted. if everyone is happy with their advisor getting more hands-on I don;t have a problem with it. Some people think FSAE'ers should learn from the very basics (and thus repeat mistakes past). I do not hold this view: I'd rather learn from someone who had already done it and learnt the lessons. And I'd rather someone do a better job than me because they learnt from my mistakes, than someone fail cos I didn't help them out.

    About teaching vs research: I'm pretty sure our uni sees FSAE as teaching, with no research value. Thus, we don't get a lot of support. But I tend to agree with that view: there's nothing we do that's even close to research level.

    And I def agree with this: "It sometimes seems to me that the goal of the competition is for the students to gain an education despite their universities". At Melbourne, we KNOW we don't get enough hands on stuff, so we're doing a TAFE course at Holmesglen, outside the uni system.
    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

  8. #178
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    AxelRipper,

    "... an innovative concept that is so crazy that it works. Would you say that the Deltawing is a good example of this?"

    Yes, I look forward to seeing it at Le Mans. The crazy thing is that Ben Bowlby (spelling?) came up with the idea because the Indycar committee asked for something really "innovative and exciting". But then they went for the same-old-same-old...!!!

    Bowlby's intention was a car with half the horsepower and fuel consumption of a normal Indycar, but equal performance (laptimes). I think he was holding back a bit, because I reckon same performance can be had with about one third hp and fuel (hint: aero!). Anyway, no surprise that ACO are the only organisers to let him enter, though I think only as a demonstration(?). ACO have always had awards for efficiency, and gave big encouragements to get diesel into mainstream racing.

    BTW, FSAE teams looking for good "aero inspiration" could look at the Deltawing, but with normal outboard front wheels.

    (Also, that "24hoursoflemons" looks like a great educational experience, with lots of fun and no big deal about who wins. And Van Valkenburgh's is my pick.)
    ~~~o0o~~~

    Kevin,

    "we have one of the best methods for limiting performance already in the rules
    ... shrink the restrictor
    ... add to that a points advantage for using less fuel..."


    Agreed. And there is another even bigger one...

    I reckon by far the biggest influence on speeds, and hence safety, is track layout. Essentially, without any change at all to the Rulebook, FSAE can be made either extremely safe, or horribly deadly, just by changing the track layout. (And please note this is NOT any sort of attack, or even criticism, of any officials.)

    So if the teams start turning up with highly efficient diesel two-strokes (or whatever) that manage 200+hp through the ~20mm restrictor, then just put an extra slalom in the middle of the main straight. Nothing new here. That is why the Mulsanne straight is no longer straight.
    ~~~o0o~~~

    Tobias,

    "There is just no way to teach or train "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion. You are able to or you are not."

    I must disagree (but in a nice, constructive way ).

    I think the above is a bit like saying "there is no way to teach how to hit a ball with a bat. You are able, or not...". I am sure that any tennis, golf, cricket, whatever coach would agree that some students pick it up faster than others. But they would also say that all students improve with training.

    IMO, whether it is "hitting a ball" or "outside the box thinking", improvement comes mostly with lots of practise of the basics, together with the occasional voice in the background giving small corrections. One thing I am certain of is that if the student is never allowed to practise, then they will never become exceptionally good.

    Z

  9. #179
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mdavis:
    Markus,

    How can you say the rules are too restrictive with respect to engine choice? You can run anything you want, provided it's 4 stroke, spark fired, and under 610cc's. I don't know of any other series (save A-Modified SCCA autocross) that's less restrictive than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I can say that easily, as Formula SAE is an educational experience and not real racing. 4-stroke engines can't be the only and the best engine choice in the world. And this competition is to educate future automotive engineers, why should we make them think that's the only way to go?

    A couple of years ago they published a new 2-stroke engine for a snowmobile that produced less pollutions and was more fuel efficient than a comparably sized 4-stroke (I think 600cc vs 1000cc or something) for the same amount of power. There's nothing holding back on new thinking except the old way of doing stuff...
    "...when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr. Brown

  10. #180
    When I found this picture and looked at the front wing, I couldn't help but think of this "open wheels" discussion.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo...fbid=389555557774343

    Missouri S&T, did you contact FSAE prior to the event or did you have any discussions at the event? I'm not trying to point any fingers, it would just be nice to know what is legal and if it depends on any "soft factors".

+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18

Posting Permissions

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