Front Template Rule

[rajit]

Hello
I am having a problem with the positioning of the rack because of the new template rule .. According to the new rules the only things that can come in the way of the front template are:

1. The steering column
2. The steering wheel

Can anyone please suggest me a feasible location for the rack ...

[rajit]

Hello
I am having a problem with the positioning of the rack because of the new template rule .. According to the new rules the only things that can come in the way of the front template are:

1. The steering column
2. The steering wheel

Can anyone please suggest me a feasible location for the rack ...

[PatClarke]

Rajit,
the intent of the template rule was to move the rack out of the drivers footwell.
You have three options.
1. You can put the rack on the floor and make the chassis so the template can pass over the top of it.
2. You can mount the rack at the top of the chassis and make the chassis so the template can pass underneath it.
3. You can mount the rack in front of the drivers feet, outside the footwell.

Solution 1 seems to be the most used. Solution 2 makes it very hard to get good steering geometry and solution 3 will probably make the wheelbase too long unless you move the engine beside the driver.

Good luck. This is the new FSAE challenge.

Cheers
Pat

[rajit]

Thank You very much sir for the options suggested. But sir also putting the rack at the bottom will i guess again defeat the purpose of introduction of the new rule, as it in any case will be in the same position more or less and only the vertical distance will be changing. Also putting the rack at the bottom of the chassis would mean a long pinion shaft. We are able to acheive a decent enough geometry with the rack at the top but the only problem is that the rack is pretty close to the pedal assembly. We might be able to clear thetemplate rule with the present mounting but driver comfort will become a big issue.

[rajit]

Also i have observed this thing on wingeo that with the rack at the bottom,ackermann, when varies between a given range,intially increases then decreases and again increases to reach a peak value for a certain geometry.The only time it increases constantly is when the steering rod mount on the upright is almost at a distance which is equal to the half track. could you please explain as to why this is happening.

[The Stigg]

Well maybe you should do the math!
It's a quite simple geometric relationship between lengths and angles but extremly sensitive to changes!

[PatClarke]

Rajit,
you can rationalise as much as you want, but the 2009 rules will not let you put the rack in the footwell. You can put it above, below or in front but not inside!

Most teams seem to have opted for a low mounted rack, and there is a slight provision in the rules to assist this. That is the template can be moved vertically a small amount as it is moved forward. This 'small amount' seems to be about 50mm.

If your car fails the template test it will not be permitted to compete in any dynamic event.

As for Ackermann...well, surprise, surprise! Ackermann percentage is always a variable as the steering is swept through the range. That usually happens when you try to convert rotary motion into linear motion.

As Stigg has suggested, do the math and then determine what ackermann geometry you want.

As the year is almost a month old, I suggest you get on with it as there are more points to be scored with reliability and driveability than there is in debating rules that will not be changed.

Cheers

Pat

[Drew Price]

Pat,

I will check with the rules comittee to be doubly sure, but from the Gospel of Royce,

Rule A.4.2.3:

For 2009, teams whose cars do not comply with A.4.1 (cockpit opening) or A.4.2 (internal cross section) will have 35 points deducted from their Design Event score.

I will look again, but is their another section that states that non-compliant cars won't be allowed to compete in dynamics?

EDIT: So Rule C.2.2:

Technical Inspection & Testing Requirements Each vehicle must pass all parts of technical inspection and testing, and bear the inspection stickers, before it is permitted to participate in any dynamic event or to run on the practice track.

Part 1 of inspection is Scrutineering, where this would be inspected.

Obviously a catch all, my problem is that the wording of A.4.2.3 above already specifically states a penalty for not meeting the template rules, and so rule A.4.2.3 is satisfied by taking the 35 point penalty, and so passes rule B.2.2.

I want to say I am completely in agreement with the intent of the new template rules, and that the possibility of lower extremity injuries is probably greatly reduced, I was just reading in a little leniency for the first year of implementation for cars that would 'nearly' pass, or otherwise obviously made the attempt to meet the intent, but that is at the discretion of the Chief Inspector, as always.

Will post up when I get the clarification of how this will be handled, I imagine the wording of the rule needs a little tweaking.

Best,
Drew

[PatClarke]

Drew,

The 35 point penalty is for cars that were built for the 2008 competition, but which are still within their 1 year life.
There was no requirement for cars to pass the template rule in in 2008, so as a way to allow them to run in 2009 the 35 point penalty was introduced.
Any car that will begin it's life in 2009 must meet the template rules, otherwise no start in the dynamics events.
It is important for teams to understand this!

There were 5 cars tested at FSAE-A for template compliance. All these cars were built to the 2009 rules. None passed the templates!

In most cases the problem was small components preveted passing of the footwell template, and so could have been fixed, but one team failed the cockpit template and I don't know how you fix that at the competition.

So teams need to realise that there is no soft 35 point option for new cars that fail the templates at FSAE or Formula Student!

Cheers

Pat

[Luniz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:

(...)

Most teams seem to have opted for a low mounted rack, and there is a slight provision in the rules to assist this. That is the template can be moved vertically a small amount as it is moved forward. This 'small amount' seems to be about 50mm.

(...)

Pat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does it say that in the Rules? As far as I learned from the FSG Workshop in Munich, the template can be moved vertically as much as the space inside the legroom allows it to, according to Frank Roeske.

Cheers,

Lutz

[Drew Price]

That was posted from the rules comittee on the SAE.org rules clarification forum in response to actually implementing the templates as a test on the 2008 Aussie cars.

How it's actually done at each competition this first year will probably vary a little bit, and as you have all experienced, a fair bit of how this will be interpreted and implemented will depend on who is administering the tests.

The 50mm request is to keep things from getting cramped up when the idea with the footbox template is to open things up, not make you have to snake your feet up and over and under things. If you're close I wouldn't worry about it, but check with the rules comittee at the comp you will be attending to be sure.

Best,
Drew

[Matthew Bell]

Not trying to fan the flames any, but this is from the official SAE.org forum:

"Question # 3: Will cars that do not comply with rules 4.1 and 4.2 still be allowed to compete in dynamic events? I understand that they will have a 35 point deduction in the design event, but will there be any further consequences?
Answer # 3: Rule B.4.2.3 does say that “For 2009, teams whose cars do not comply with 4.1 or 4.2 will have 35 points deducted from their Design Event score.” They will be allowed to compete in the Dynamic events. However, the Chief Design Judges have agreed that they may choose to inflict further penalties in the Design Event if they feel that a team has not even tried to meet these requirements."

As posted by Michael Royce.

So, based on this information, it follows that ONLY for 2009, if your car fails the templates, you will only suffer a minimum of 35 points deduction from your design event score and will still be allowed to run the dynamic events. And if your design judge determines that it should mean a penalty of all the design points, then that's their discretion. For 2010 and beyond, if you fail the templates, no dynamic events.

Thoughts?

[PatClarke]

Hopefully, the line has been softened somewhat.
I understood the situation was what I had posted earlier, they the 35 point penalty was only for 2008 built cars. A change would be good as many colleges are on a two year cycle.

Otherwise I think there would have been a lot of non starters at FSAE events in 2009!

Cheers

Pat

[Luniz]

No offence, but could there be the slight possibility that the rules comitee themselves are not really sure about how to interpret this particular rule? This at least is the impression I get from this whole discussion.

From my point of view, there is no such thing as "up to 50mm vertically" in the rules, it just says that it is supposed to be "moved horizontally", which is a bit of a soft statement...

[PatClarke]

Luniz,
You might have a point! If I were entering a car that might have template problems, I would be asking for clarification through official channels.

Cheers
Pat

[AJS]

I asked the rules committee about the allowable vertical movement of template Y and they informed me that I may be trying to get around the intent of the rule. Although I can not find my original email right now, I believe I was specifically asking about the steering rack and how far the tech inspectors would be allowed to move the template to clear a floor mounted rack.

If they will be allowed to move the template 50mm then our original plan would have worked but we changed it after our response from the rules committee.

[Yellow Ranger]

Royce chimed into a similar disscussion earlier, but didn't quite answer the vertical movement question...

http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/t...?r=17610744#17610744 (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/61010695541?r=17610744#17610744)

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luniz:
From my point of view, there is no such thing as "up to 50mm vertically" in the rules, it just says that it is supposed to be "moved horizontally", which is a bit of a soft statement... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the rule intent is that the template must move along a line. You aren't supposed to 'zig-zag' the template down the chassis to clear alternating side intrusions into the cockpit space. You aren't supposed to 'speed-bump' the template over a steering rack, with a clearance 'legality hump' in the bodywork.

Ambiguous inspection rules like this annoy me... Try this:

The plane of the cockpit template must remain perpendicular to the centreline of the vehicle at all times. As it is moved along the car centreline it may not be translated sideways. As it is moved along the car centreline it must follow a straight line which may not slope more than 10deg from horizontal.

Regards, Ian

[PatClarke]

Hi Ian,
Under a flood of questions about the templates, the Rules Committee have posted some 'FAQ's including this one from http://www.formulasae.org/foru...0Cross%20Section.doc (http://www.formulasae.org/forums/formula/dispatch.cgi/rules/docProfile/100201/d20081023203144/No/FAQ%20B.4.2%20Internal%20Cross%20Section.doc)

Question # 2: With the internal cross section template, when passing this template, must the template be slid along the floor of the vehicle, or will the template be allowed to move vertically as the template is moved into the interior of the car?
Answer # 2: The template does not have to be slid along the floor of the car. We will allow the template in Figure 9 to be moved up and down a little as it is moved from the driver’s area forward towards the pedals. We have not given a specific dimension for how much up and down, but up to approximately 5 cms (2 ins) should be acceptable.

The template rules have really deteriorated into a morass that could simply have been avoided by a simple rule that said 'The steering mechanism, other than the column, must be located outside the drivers footwell', or, even better in my opinion 'The steering rack must be mounted ahead of the footwell front bulkhead'.

Cheers

Pat

[mech5107]

I have read the previous post and the rules, but i have to ask something that i didn't understood very well.

If at the frontmost position the template fits in the upper part of the chassis and leaves 2" from the floor, could someone say that this is the height that the template fits and moving towards the driver, in a straight line, the gap at the top increases to 2" or more and with the standard gap at the bottom of another 2", to get the ability of vertical clearance of 2+2=4" from the bottom, to clear the rack?
In plane words, the template has to follow the floor and move 2" only to clear some parts, or it could follow a parallel path to the floor and move up and down as much as 2"?


Also, if the floor is not straight, but starts at a level and gets higher (as the sketch below), what is the path of the template?

http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo295/mech5107/1-6.jpg

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:
We will allow the template in Figure 9 to be moved up and down a little as it is moved from the driver’s area forward towards the pedals. We have not given a specific dimension for how much up and down, but up to approximately 5 cms (2 ins) should be acceptable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So the 'speed bump' loophole remains...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...or, even better in my opinion 'The steering rack must be mounted ahead of the footwell front bulkhead'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To do that they'd have to remove the 'no uncrushable objects' rule that currently prevents mounting the rack on the front of the bulkhead.

Regards, Ian

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:
Luniz,
You might have a point! If I were entering a car that might have template problems, I would be asking for clarification through official channels.

Cheers
Pat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat,

Only an inexperienced team would do such a thing. Veterans know that it's far easier to ask for forgiveness than permission...

Furthermore, I don't know how any spaceframe team on 10s with conventional lower control arms can achieve any sort of reasonable steering geometry without having a rack that sits on the bottom of the cockpit floor.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...or, even better in my opinion 'The steering rack must be mounted ahead of the footwell front bulkhead'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To do that they'd have to remove the 'no uncrushable objects' rule that currently prevents mounting the rack on the front of the bulkhead.

Regards, Ian </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To do that, you'd have to make the tracks much faster so that we could extend the wheelbase to make such a design viable.

[PatClarke]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of the points made.

What I do dislike is when the rules start to design the car!

Pat

[Luniz]

If one would put the engine besides the driver, the driver's feet could be somewhere near the front wheel axis without increasing the wheelbase and you could put the steering rack ahead of the footwell. Sounds a bit unconventional to me, but possible. That for sure would make the car look like a whale then ;-)

[Drew Price]

Like the Deakin car from this year's Australasia comp?


http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa249/deakinracetechnologies/SAECOMP031.jpg



Best,
Drew

[mech5496]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mech5107:
I have read the previous post and the rules, but i have to ask something that i didn't understood very well.

If at the frontmost position the template fits in the upper part of the chassis and leaves 2" from the floor, could someone say that this is the height that the template fits and moving towards the driver, in a straight line, the gap at the top increases to 2" or more and with the standard gap at the bottom of another 2", to get the ability of vertical clearance of 2+2=4" from the bottom, to clear the rack?
In plane words, the template has to follow the floor and move 2" only to clear some parts, or it could follow a parallel path to the floor and move up and down as much as 2"?


Also, if the floor is not straight, but starts at a level and gets higher (as the sketch below), what is the path of the template?

http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo295/mech5107/1-6.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any suggestion about this?

[PatClarke]

Quote "Any suggestions about this"?

Yep, write to the Rules Committee. You will get an answer there, you will only get an opinion here.

Cheers

Pat

[mech5496]

I've already did, but I would like to hear your opinion too..... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[D Collins Jr]

As I understand the rules and the drawing that you've provided, the Front Template (I believe its template "Y") starts at the front roll hoop and goes to the pedals. From the drawing you've posted, that section of the floor is flat, so there shouldn't be any issue with it. As for your original post, the template is allegedly going to be made of plywood or carbon or some sort of rigid material. As long as the template fits in the frame (and is vertical) there shouldn't be any issue. In other words, the 2" plus 2" clearance you mentioned shouldn't be an issue as long as the template can move thru the footbox. And as you know, absolutely none of what I just said is official.

[MalcolmG]

From what was done in FSAE-A, Template Y starts from some undetermined point where the driver sits (behind the steering wheel) and passes by the steering column and steering column support before going past the front roll hoop. Think about the intent of the rule and you should be able to understand what is and isn't ok. The idea is that there is sufficient room for the driver to be able to get their legs out of the car, which means there has to be room all the way to cockpit opening.

[D Collins Jr]

If you can't pass the template into the cockpit area (rearward of the steering wheel/front roll hoop) I would presume that you would run into problems with template "X". But you Austrailian comp. folks should be the experts on this I would think, having already seen the process. Thanks for the insight. Also, something I was wondering about, with a tubular frame, there are openings in the footbox that someone can reach thru to support the template while it moves, but those wouldn't exist on a monocoque. Did template "Y" have a rod of some type attached to it, or was it just pushed by hand?

[MalcolmG]

I can think of ways one could pass template X but not be able to get template Y past the steering column support (ie support too low/wide to fit through slot in template)

I don't recall any sort of rod, Mr Royce does have some reasonable arms on him.