Small helmets

[JVC]

I agree, it is a competition so it is not more than logical you try to get the most out of your car by interpreting the rules as much to your advantage as you can. However, there is one thing that cannot be compromised on a FSAE car, and that is safety (both Braunschweig and Muenchen had a crash this year, and our car flipped over last year).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you stay safely within the bounds of the rules and never try to push limits you're not going to beat anyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is simply not true. To add another example to the list of fully rule compliant cars that beat the rest, it would be the Delft car. We came second at FS UK this year and we won FSG. And that with a car with a main-hoop line that easily accommodates drivers up to 6'4", and an impact structure that, despite the low sides, is way beyond the impact structure required by the rules, not to mention the protection against A-arm penetration by a carbon monocoque.

So instead of trying to dodge the rules running the risk of being, in the worst case, disqualified, be inventive incorporating the rules in your design instead. All you need to do is to think outside the box.

[J.R.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wesley:
If you save an average of 50 grams on 50 components, thats 6 pounds. If you can average higher than that, so much the better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that is how the team's from Finland feel. In an "extreme case" I think that they would rather have had the extra weight on their car, since that is an extremely disappointing way to Finnish a season.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree that it may make tech less stressful to provide margins of safety on highly scrutinized items, but if you don't try to push those boundaries, you might never gain those .001 seconds. That's all it takes to win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be an @ss, but you beat us by 30 seconds in the endurance, we finished 18th, you finished 21st. We had one of the most overbuilt cars at MIS. We have room to lose 1.5 - 2 slugs off of the car this year.

This may sound contradictory to what I just said but, there is an ENGINEERING competition, not just a racing competition. There are ways to lose weight safely from other parts of the car, it's not necessary to risk your whole season for a few ounces.

Perhaps try looking at fuel economy and design a little more seriously this year, since they are worth a whole lot more than your .001 seconds.

[Mike Cook]

Wes, I think our car is rule compliant and we certainly intentionally tried to not be on the ragged edge. I think a lot of people are really stressing the wrong things if they want to win a competition. Ultimate weight is of low importance if you screw up all the major things. We shouldn't be talking about gaining .001second or .01 or even .1's. Not when the top 10 cars lap times are vary by more than 3 seconds.


Also, in my opinion, getting through tech in a timely manner is really really important to being successful at a competition. So that should be a huge priority. I would even be willing to bet that the points I gain from being collected and relaxed after breezing through tech outweighs the points you would gain by pushing every rule to the extreme and being scrutinized in tech for 2 days.

When you look at other racing leagues (i.e. Nascar) there lap times are already very very close and making small improvements or pushing the rules envelope can really be the difference between 1st and 30th. But like I said before, lap times already vary so much at FSAE events; I think teams need to focus on other more important things.


Just my opinion...
Mike



[/QUOTE]

Show me one, and I'll retract the statement.[/QUOTE]

[michaelwaltrip]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JVC:
I agree, it is a competition so it is not more than logical you try to get the most out of your car by interpreting the rules as much to your advantage as you can. However, there is one thing that cannot be compromised on a FSAE car, and that is safety (both Braunschweig and Muenchen had a crash this year, and our car flipped over last year).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you stay safely within the bounds of the rules and never try to push limits you're not going to beat anyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is simply not true. To add another example to the list of fully rule compliant cars that beat the rest, it would be the Delft car. We came second at FS UK this year and we won FSG. And that with a car with a main-hoop line that easily accommodates drivers up to 6'4", and an impact structure that, despite the low sides, is way beyond the impact structure required by the rules, not to mention the protection against A-arm penetration by a carbon monocoque.

So instead of trying to dodge the rules running the risk of being, in the worst case, disqualified, be inventive incorporating the rules in your design instead. All you need to do is to think outside the box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so how is pushing the limits of the rules or "bending" them any different than creatively interpereting them to your benefit? he isn't talking about intentionally breaking rules.... that's an entirely different matter.

yes there are 100% rules compliant cars that can win competitions, but none that haven't bent, or interepreted to thier advantage, a few rules here and there to gain an edge over the competition.

[JVC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by michaelwaltrip:
so how is pushing the limits of the rules or "bending" them any different than creatively interpereting them to your benefit? he isn't talking about intentionally breaking rules.... that's an entirely different matter.

yes there are 100% rules compliant cars that can win competitions, but none that haven't bent, or interepreted to thier advantage, a few rules here and there to gain an edge over the competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I believe I should clarify what I wrote earlier. It is an engineering competition, and as for any engineering feat there is not one unique solution to the problem at hand, in fact there are an infinitely many, as can be seen at any FSAE event. Having that said you can only conclude there must also be an infinite set of designs that do not bend or push the limits of the rules. And in all likelihood there must be designs in this set that have a competitive edge over other designs in the feasible and near feasible region. It is all a matter of optimisation in the end. But as J.R. pointed out correctly,you should start from a feasible point, the first priority of any team should be to get the overall design right, especially concerning safety.

Or simply put: the rules offer more than enough space to build cars with a competitive edge. You must have a very good reason to start pushing or bending them.

[Wesley]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J.R.:
Perhaps try looking at fuel economy and design a little more seriously this year, since they are worth a whole lot more than your .001 seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good advice, if a little late. We did a bit better in California in that department.

Mike, I agree, of course we built our car to be intentionally compliant. We welded on 9 pounds of tubing before going to competition because of a rule change that was made after we finished our rolling chassis.

We made it through tech in 2 hours, which seems to be the average for top teams, even after being given the "human percy special test" in California, with a debatably 95th percentile male.

But I do disagree that we shouldn't be looking for .001 seconds. You shouldn't stop looking for the big gains, but if you can see an economical small gain, why not?

Anyone who is in the sport of racing, and ENGINEERING falls under the sport of racing especially in this context, knows that it's the team that bends the rules a bit to suit them that generally does a bit better. After all, the rules are there to specifically limit design choices.

I'm also trying to point out that just because you designed to the rule doesn't mean you passed the rule. The techs are there as much to catch your foul-ups as they are to find the sneaky teams. There are certain rules you should and shouldn't push, and after this year we will most definitely make sure the roll hoop has a larger margin in case they change the rules again.

But I'm trying to impress a point upon you. Your ability to manipulate the properties of the things around you is what makes you a good engineer. You can see the yield stress of a material, the anisotropy of another and think, in this combination, we can push it up to the limits of its durability and save weight and increase performance.

How are rules any different than structural limits? As always, get close to them, apply an appropriate safety factor, and let it roll. Sometimes parts break. Sometimes rules break. It's all part of engineering something that is supposed to be at its peak performance. They aren't broken by intention, but by an attempt to gain that minute advantage. After all, it's a collection of minute advantages that makes the fast cars fast. They all have tires. They all have A-arms and engines and oil. But the win is in the combination of small design decisions.

[fade]

Sorry bobby, that helmet was modeled after one I had at the time and not one in the shop.