Rule Changes to Mix Things Up

[CAV]

what about

1) Having a real endurance event, maybe 1 or 2 hours worth, if the judges see a drop of oil or something goes wrong then you have a chance to fix it. To save time, we can axe the presentation event.

2) If you don't like the skidpad being on cold tires, how about tire warmers! Heh, every team would have a generator running...

3) Oval event where you don't know which way you are going until the day of

4) How about a new event, Moto SAE? Student design, build, and race their own motorcycles...for the weekend roadracer or super-motard racer, I'm not sure which would be better.

[Greg H]

If you are interested in saving cost and mixing things up, put in a minimum weight of 500 lbs. Hopefully you can put a 500 lb car together for $8500, the original cost report maximum. That would add an interesting spin on car design too. But then, are we just going to make the same cars with lead plates on the bottom? Are we going to spend more on engine development to get that extra edge over the competition?

[Buckingham]

Denny,

The safety issue with an oval is that out of at least 100 cars attempting the oval, you have to assume that at least one of them will have zero brakes, no steering, or just loose control due to either mechanical failure or driver error and want to go dead straight ahead at any point in time. Assuming we are discussing a flat oval, there will be a tremendous amount of runoff needed to ensure the safety of the driver and any corner workers.

In addition, very few schools have the spacial resources to lay out and test on a flat 60 mph turn-in oval, especially to do it safely.

[Denny Trimble]

I agree with what you say Donavan, but not many teams have the space to set up a full sized autocross or endurance course, either. That doesn't stop those events from being held. And I don't think an oval event would be any more risky than the autocross or endurance events - it could have corners and straights within the same dimensions as the rules for those events.

A 60mph top speed oval wouldn't need to be very large. We set one up for new driver training last weekend, it was 250 feet long and 60 feet wide. We were reaching the top of 2nd (60mph) and then back down to 35ish in the corners. I think it would take up less room than the acceleration event.

There's obviously not time to add an oval event to the current schedule, which is another issue.

[B Hise]

I would like to see the rules explicitly define the common problems that the scruitineers always point out. For example, 2 threads showing on all "critical" suspension connections. Define critical... I dont want anything falling off and we make sure that doesnt happen. Some teams have to retech the next day which screws up their whole competition mindset because of something that wasnt defined.

Granted you should know about the 2 thread policy, but theres alot of new and inexperienced people out there. I feel that they shouldnt be punished for that in tech.

It also startles me that you must retech for smaller issues when teams with improperly loaded and sized rod ends (leading to parts flying off) are allowed to compete. Its too subjective.

Anyhow, staying in line with the post... I think the rules are fine the way they are points wise. A spec tire would be interesting but it puts a damper on the spirit of the competition. The only thing I would change is the fact that you cant work on your car in the enduro. Give a 3 minute driver change window, then add on the rest to your final time with some maximum, say 15 minutes of repair.

Back to work

Bryan

[Z]

Regarding a "Braking Event":

The Skid Pad tests lateral acceleration both ways - left and right. I suggest that Acceleration be renamed "Longitudinal Acceleration" and tested both ways, forwards and backwards (with Skid Pad = "Lateral Acceleration").

The course would be two cones about 120 metres apart. Cars would start next to one cone, accelerate hard towards the second cone, brake hard, do a hairpin turn around the second cone, then accelerate back to the first cone, brake, and corner. This would be one lap. The cornering should be done in opposite directions (left and right for a figure 8) to discourage weight biasing. Cones down each side would prevent the cars from "opening out" the hairpins, so hairpin speed would be very slow.

If the organisers only want to test for a single "panic stop", then only do one lap. If testing for brake fade, then do 10 laps. Lowest ET scores highest points. I doubt many current cars' brakes would be unaffected after 10 laps. In fact, long run-off zones would be handy...

Z

[Kamil S]

Oval tracks, and perhaps more dynamic events, may lead to teams wanting to design cars with a lot of modular assembly. I'm not an expert on this but I believe you need to "shift" away the car's mass center (or CG for that matter) when racing on an oval track. Again, no clue as to how or whether this is correct (excuse me for not looking into this beforehand).
I would like to see how we as engineers can design cars that are able to adapt to different dynamic events. It could be as simple as minor engine/suspension tuning to as complicated as throwing in a different engine for the sake of different events. Ouch...
For all that matters, it could be a horrible thing to do as well =)

[kozak]

but i think what the judges need to consider when coming up with these great ideas is making sure that all teams can compete equally, like modular designing with different motors would be killer for a smaller school, basically whoever had the most money would win.

[Daves]

These are probably more like complaints than innovative thinking, but:

1. Get rid of the 4 minute endurance penalty for poor fuel economy.

2. Guarantee at least some endurance points for finishing endurance.

2. Make the cost report more realistic. Titanium cars with turbochargers don't really cost $14,000 to prototype.

[Eddie Martin]

Well i think we will only see rule changes when the rules committee can see a real need to shake things up. If you suddenly see 20 or 20 teams getting over 800 points or the vast majority of teams have very sophisticated/advanced powertrains will they change rules in these areas.

Kev,
You do bring up a good point about the Autox, I have noticed you guys have suffered a bit in the points because of this scoring system. When a team like Texas A&M is so quick it hurts other teams scores a lot, not to downgrade their efforts it must have been an awesome lap.
Some solutions to this may be going from 150 points to 125 points and then making skid pan and acceleration both 75 points.
Or you could change the scoring of the Autox slightly and make it the same as the Enduro in that the score is using Tmin and 133% of Tmin (Tmax) rather than 125% of Tmin to get Tmax as is used in Autox. In other words the fast cars will still win but the slower cars won't lose as many points. An example of this is the University of Cincinnati who finished 10th in the 2005 Autox with a 59.579 seconds compared to A&M's 55.843 seconds. They received 105.332 points out of 150. Using the Tmax formula from Enduro they would have received 113.9 points. Not a huge difference but it would help the teams that don't have as talented a driving squad.

My comments about the design event were based on some off the record discussions I'd had with some of the design judges I know and how they felt things had gone. The fact that the judges only got 30 minutes with each car and then the final order and points was decided with out any cars having turned a wheel were my main points. A design final of some description would make the a huge step forward and also getting a chief judge like Jay O'Connell (spelling) to supervise and guide the process would also be a big advance.
Just because a car is fast or "looks good"� doesn't mean it is well designed or understood. I'm sure you could get a poorly designed and understood car to go very very fast.