+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102

Thread: Rule Changes to Mix Things Up

  1. #1
    So, the rules have been very static for the last several years, with the only changes being safety-related, for the most part.

    We're seeing a lot of convergence in car designs, with the recent success of RMIT and Delft's singles being the most ground-breaking development in my opinion. Aero has been used on-and-off but hasn't shown itself to be a "must-have".

    Why don't we discuss changes to the rules that would make things more interesting, and perhaps require a major shift in the design of the cars.

    Are the aero restrictions (edge radii, not rearward of the rear wheels, etc) really needed?

    Paul VanValkenburg suggested in his column a few years back that there be an oval event, just to challenge students to come up with a setup for that unique situation. That would have people scrambling!

    Two-strokes? Rotaries? Diesels? Hybrids? Why not!

    Another suggestion I heard from Pat Clarke was to throw 100 points from the endurance event onto the design event score. This would place more emphasis on engineering and less on development (and luck).

    I'm sure you all have great ideas out there. Let's hear them!
    Alumni, University of Washington
    Structural / Mechanical Engineer, Blue Origin

  2. #2
    So, the rules have been very static for the last several years, with the only changes being safety-related, for the most part.

    We're seeing a lot of convergence in car designs, with the recent success of RMIT and Delft's singles being the most ground-breaking development in my opinion. Aero has been used on-and-off but hasn't shown itself to be a "must-have".

    Why don't we discuss changes to the rules that would make things more interesting, and perhaps require a major shift in the design of the cars.

    Are the aero restrictions (edge radii, not rearward of the rear wheels, etc) really needed?

    Paul VanValkenburg suggested in his column a few years back that there be an oval event, just to challenge students to come up with a setup for that unique situation. That would have people scrambling!

    Two-strokes? Rotaries? Diesels? Hybrids? Why not!

    Another suggestion I heard from Pat Clarke was to throw 100 points from the endurance event onto the design event score. This would place more emphasis on engineering and less on development (and luck).

    I'm sure you all have great ideas out there. Let's hear them!
    Alumni, University of Washington
    Structural / Mechanical Engineer, Blue Origin

  3. #3
    I like the idea of taking points from endurance to design.

    I think a good way to go about it could be to give points according to a formula (such as for cost, autocross, etc) for a few key design parameters.

    For instance, we could have weight and horsepower (or maybe area under the torque curve for a certain rpm range or something) as two design criteria. This would make teams seriously think over whether a heavy 4 cylinder or a light mono will be optimal. Basically, you'd have the Delft's and such setting the curve for weight, and the likes of Cornell for power. Design judging is not completely objective, and this would benefit teams that worked hard to optimize a certain aspect of their car, but have a hard time selling this point to the judges (whether this is good or not I dont know).

    If it were up to me, we'd be judged, with a similar formula as that of cost, on the following:
    weight
    CG height
    Horsepower (or torque, or area under the torque curve, or...)
    Chassis torsional stiffness (this might be tough to measure for everyone at competition though, but some kind of adjustable rig could be made with many hub mounting options, and it would be nice to standardize test methods and compare where we stand to other teams)

    Matt Gignac
    McGill Racing Team

  4. #4
    I think it would be wild to have an oval event run like a qualifying session. Something like a warm up lap or 2 followed by a timed lap or 2. Let 2 drivers get a crack at it, and take the best time.

    I bet we'd start seeing things like interchangable fuel tank mounts (hang it off the left side) and a little more aero (depending on track size). Maybe even some more side mount motors.

    We'd have to have way more adjustability, and you'd have to know how to set up your car properly. When will I get to see an FSAE car with some positive camber!?

    But I think we have a good balance between design and enduro points. I think that's what makes the competition what it is, as opposed to a science fair. It still has to work!

  5. #5
    I agree that taking emphasis off of the endurance and increasing the points for design would make this more of an engineering competition. But there is something to be said for cars that are robust enough to make it through the endurance race.

    This year was the first that we finished endurance and in fact our car is still performing time after time throughout the summer with almost no maintenance. While this is a great accomplishment for our team, as discussed on the Colin Chapman thread and our 527lb weight, it shows that we may have over built a lot of parts on our car. This was good for us because we needed to establish our program and prove that we can compete with the current setup of the competition, but we obviously haven't optimized our designs (I could go on about lack of resources, personnel and the troubles with having an all undergrad team but there are other threads for that). In this respect I think a lot of teams would be hurt if more emphasis was placed on design as some teams can't spend all their time just researching in order to stay in the runnings for design points because they would never get a car physically built.

    Everyone is going to have different viewpoints on the matter, but I think we would not enjoy the competition as much if points were taken away from physical performance and placed on engineering design. After all, how many times do we think we have the greatest ideas in the world, but can't get them to work. In the real world (not research, but industry) we ultimately have to produce products that perform. The way the competition is set up now we can bust our asses designing if we want and be rewarded with winning design or we can boast about finishing endurance and possibly taking a higher place in the competition. To each his (or her) own.

    I know there will be issues (logistics, business interests, as well as personal issues) with my following suggestion, but it's obvious that it would provide a more standardized way of evaluating teams on engineering ability: Require a certain engine and/or tire for all competitors.

    I will diverge again and say that doing this would help categorize which schools exhibit the best engineering ability as everyone would have to squeeze the most performance they could out of the same product. However, I think that the point of this competition is to leave as much responsibility and decision making in the hands of the students as possible and thus expose us to as much learning as possible in the few years that we are involved in formula SAE.

    I guess I really don't care what rules are decided upon, I'm just glad that I've had a chance to be involved in what I regard as the best way to prepare me for the rest of my life. This competition will bring out the best that each team has to offer. Sorry my thoughts may have wandered some, but I felt compelled to post instead of working for my paycheck. Flame away.


    Scott Israel
    Carnegie Mellon University

  6. #6
    I think that the endurance scoring is pretty good the way it is but i would not be opposed to adding a bit of weight to design. Why not just add 50 or 75 pts to design?

    Also, i think it would be great to see the scope of the event broadened. why not trow in slalom and breaking tests? or why not combine accel and braking into an accel for 75m then brake as hard as possible?
    - Patrick Crane
    Suspension/Testing
    Universtiy of Victoria

  7. #7
    I think an oval would pose certain safety issues of it's own as the cars would certainly be able to acceive higher speeds on one. The edge radii makes sense in terms of safety, but I'm sort of clueless on the fact that the rear wings have to be in front of the back of the rear tires. Front wings extending in front of the front wheels increase the sweep area of a cars turn much more than a rear wing a reasonable amount behind the rear wheels.

    I think the cost score is alright. We first and foremost want to design something that actually works. While working on setting up a class for our team, one of the guys who used to captain the U of T Austin team, commented that a class they had over there just didn't work because some of the students would just design the hell out of parts that didn't work. They would get good grades in the class because they did a lot of design work, but they couldn't use it for their car. What good is that in the real world if you design something that doesn't work?

    It has been commented by many design judges that there just isn't the amount of time to really look at the cars in depth either. That might change with the smaller east/west events next year, but that is to be seen.

    I think it would be great to get diesels and hybrids in the mix, but I'm not sure how they would incorperate it.

  8. #8
    I really like the idea of being able to use different types of engines. It would be a lot of fun to play with a 600 cc wankel. Even a diesel would be fun. Our ability to do engine design is the major thing that sets FSAE apart from Baja, so why must we only be limited to 4 strokes.

    Another thing I would like to see, is a bit more of a series competition. With East and West coming into play, I think it would be neat to have the top finishers from each of the 7 competitions to have a championship or something.
    -Nathan Sandmeyer
    UAH FSAE
    Chief Engineer
    http://www.chargermotorsports.com

    Improvise...Adapt...Overcome...

  9. #9
    I would personally like to see less restrictions on intake air cooling. If I am not mistaken, you cannot use anything but ambient air to cool down your intake, and that makes it only useful with a forced induction system.

    It would be nice to see the various designs that teams can impose for intake cooling systems!
    ASU Motorsports -- Starting 2006

  10. #10
    This competition is full of great engineering students with infinite ideas and outstanding design abilities. If we wanted, we could all spend much more time in the design process and then build the cars all the way up until competition, just for the sake of having a great looking car with lots of nice gadgets. I'm sure if there was more points emphasis on design there would be a lot of schools that did just that, but that would be boring. As I see it there are two reasons why there is so much emphasis on the dynamic events:

    1) A great design means nothing if it is not fast and reliable.

    2) It's really fun!!!

    I don't think this competition would be very exciting if it emphasised design more than performance.

    That being said, I think it is a great idea to open up the design restrictions (allow different engine types, etc...). I'm all for new concepts and design ideas, as long as the first place team proves that they can hang with the top track competitors.
    Clif Oberle
    Texas A&M FSAE '01 '02

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... 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