2015 FSAE Rules

[DMuusers]

Fit Delft's tyres, and a little tweak here and there, and GFR's existing massive front wing is all good. Or just mount it in the general area, and do what you want.

I'm actually not completely sure our tires are the best choice (if you had the choice ) aerodynamics wise, since they're quite wide. Our front wing's width is definitely impacted by these rules, maybe even more so than teams running other tires with smaller widths. Yes, they're lower, but that's not all to the story.

[Alumni]

If I remember correctly there are 6 Inch tyres available for not too much (slicks). Or try even smaller cart tyres, even lower.

I'll be honest I haven't read the 2015 rules, but is there not still an 8" wheel minimum requirement?

[BeunMan]

I'll be honest I haven't read the 2015 rules, but is there not still an 8" wheel minimum requirement?

Forgot about that one... 8" are probably available somewhere as well. (Rule T6.3.1)

[Dunk Mckay]

I disagree, those words appear in section T9.3.1, quite clearly a sub section of 9.3

I don't see how anyone could interpret such a sub heading as being generally applicable to all aerodynamic devises.

And the heading

"T9.3 Location - rear mounted devises: " (assuming there is supposed to be a dash in there)

Not grammatically correct, but however includes the word "mounted", where as you are interpreting it as if it did not. Clearly the word is there for a reason, whatever it is, and the location of the device's mounting on the vehicle is the pertinent factor that categorises the devise, rather than the position of the devise it's self. I can't see how any other interpretation would be possible?

Pete

But they are mounted at the rear. Just not to the rear necessarily.

Even if the way you interpret it is correct. Then you have to get into the semantics of "do the mountings from part of the aerodynamic device?" Most would say no. In which case they are part of the car and the wing/undertray is mounted to them. At which point any aero device will always be considered as mounting to the car where that aerodynamic device is located.

In all cases, when it comes down to an argument about semantics no-one is going to get away with going against the intent of the rules. This does not preclude designs that might go against what the RC envisioned, but you have to be 100% sure that it works for any interpretation of the rules, not just your own version.

Yes, yes, yes, I know I know. We've been over this, the rules aren't clear, "aerodynamic device" isn't even defined, the RC doesn't listen to anyone. So why keep complaining? The rules are what they are, if there's any need for clarification then teams can send in a rules query. There's plenty more senior members could be doing than worrying about semantics (like actually managing their team properly).

The rest of us should probably get on and sign up to try to help out and effect change from within the organisations, or stop being such a grumpy load of old farts.

[SomeOldGuy]

Reliance on rules inquiries to build our cars is a dangerous thing. My team had a back and forth with some of the people answering the inquiries this last season. The conclusion was if the inspector at comp had a different interpretation of the rule we would have to be compliant with that interpretation and not the one given through the inquiry. We have asked the same question 2 years in a row regarding frame design and received 2 completely different interpretations.
The rules should be clear and concise not up to interpretation.

[Z]

As expected, I have just received the following PM from Pat Clarke.

==============================================
"Dear Z,

You have received an infraction at FSAE.com Forums.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
-------
The Rules Committee are not incompetent buffoons, irresponsible or negligent. Changes to the rules are given great consideration and under advice.
To refer to them as such reflects poorly on yourself!

Read the rules in total!
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire."
================================================

(My emboldening.)
~~~o0o~~~

Pat,

Since you seem to have plenty of time to send me all those "infractions" (into double figures by now?) perhaps you can take a moment to come out of the shadows and answer the following questions publicly.
~o0o~

1a. Given that the last few pages of this thread indicate considerable confusion amongst the students as to where "wings" are allowed, and not allowed, can you please explain how these new Rules can be considered a COMPETENT example of Engineering documentation?

1b. As I have noted earlier, a literal interpretation of these new Rules suggests that "front wings" are allowed at any height above the nose of the car, as long as they are ABOVE the front tyres. Can you please clarify if this is, in fact, the "intention" of these new Rules?

1c. If the "intention" is that "high-mounted front-wings" are NOT allowed, then please tell us what other Rule makes this UNAMBIGOUSLY clear (note that "unlikely ... to block the driver's egress" is about as vague as it gets)?

1d. Putting this the other way around, how UNCLEAR would an Engineering specification have to be for you to consider it incompetent?
~o0o~

2a. I recently visited a team doing some aero-development work. Their prototype wings had Trailing-Edges that were as sharp as it is possible to get with CF-vacuum-bagging methods (ie. razor-sharp!). On questioning this, the Aero-Lead said that he had checked the Rules and the "minimum radii" only applied to some leading-edges, so these wings were fine. So, can you please explain why razor-sharp TEs are allowed, and how this is the "responsible" work of a "competent" Rules Committee?

2b. In the event that the "intent" of the Rules is that razor-sharp TEs are NOT allowed, can you please explain why this was NOT clarified in these latest Rules changes, especially given the ample opportunity to do so within all those added words? And how could this NEGLIGENCE come from a competent RC?
~o0o~

3a. Finally, can you please explain how your attempted SUPPRESSION OF OPEN CRITICISM of these issues will somehow benefit the education of the students? Or do you think that the only type of open discussion that is acceptable is sycophantic praise of an, ahem..., "highly competent and hardworking RC who can never do wrong"?

IS NOT THE FIRST STEP TO TYRANNY THE SUPPRESSION OF ALL CRITICISM?

Z

(PS. While we are here...

4. Will you ever explain to the students, in a meaningful, technical, way, why "migrating Roll-Centres" are such a bad thing? Or, at the very least, how they send "confusing signals" to the driver? If you cannot do this, then why do you keep advising the students that way?

To put it most simply, ARE YOU REALLY INTERESTED IN THE EDUCATION OF THE STUDENTS???)

[mech5496]

I really think we are drifting out of topic here... To RC or anyone listening, why not define "green" areas/boxes that the teams are allowed to place wings etc. instead of "red" keep-out zones? IMO that would be much more clear to everyone and would keep "creative interpretations" of the rules away. BTW did I mention that I absolutely love creative interpretations?

[Tim.Wright]

4. Will you ever explain to the students, in a meaningful, technical, way, why "migrating Roll-Centres" are such a bad thing? Or, at the very least, how they send "confusing signals" to the driver? If you cannot do this, then why to you keep advising the students that way?

I've been out of touch with the FSAE/academic scene for a few years, but is this migrating roll/pitch centres thing still a thing in the academic world? I'd be pretty disappointed if that was the case.

The industry is slowly moving away from believing this crap but there are still so many books and papers published using these old methods that students don't have much opportunity to learn it the correct way.

[Swiftus]

why not define "green" areas/boxes that the teams are allowed to place wings...

Better yet, ask some of the big aero teams to help define the rules to meet a target downforce limit. If we have been doing hundreds of simulations and real-world testing to validate our sims every year, we should be the perfect resource to help with defining a set of rules which will limit the downforce of these cars to the necessary 'safe' limit.

BTW did I mention that I absolutely love creative interpretations?

Shhhhhhhh. Don't let anyone know any more creative interpretations. I am pretty sure the umpteen solutions we have running in sims right now are uglier than was ever intended by our governing body. But hey, it should be most beautiful if it is the best engineering solution, no?

[DMuusers]

Tobias Michaels has tweeted that FSG will not have a different maximum power between 2WD and 4WD. Though he hasn't specified if it still will be 85kW.

https://twitter.com/TobiasMic

FS Austria has also replied that they will probably do the same as FSG.

https://twitter.com/fsaustria/status/499905140632346624

I think a lot of teams won't attend FSUK 2015 if they do limit the 4WD power more than the 2WD, unless it's the same power limit as FSG sets for both.