So I've been giving advice to my old team, and on occasion members of other teams if I strike up a rapport with them at comp.
I've also spent many a Sunday afternoon watching car after car breakdown, either at Silverstone or watching Hockenheim live on Youtube.
Everyone is unhappy about the amount of teams that breakdown in the grand event. It is, to some extent embarrassing, and to listen to the commentary at these events, it is expected.
But no-one is actually doing anything about it.
I mean seriously, no-one. Sure the IMechE will say they run the "Learn-to Win" event, and FSG have a technical debriefing for team members coming back next year, and there's Pat's corner, and the 'Learn and Compete' book (best attempt so far, but no longer available and needs updating). But these have been going for years no, things aren't getting better.
Some will argue it's up to the teams. It's always been up to the teams to build a car that works! But the current rule book makes them build cars that don't!
So I've had enough. I have two simple rules, that I believe will make a significant difference to the situation.
(Not that I think these will ever be implemented under the current regime, but hey ho).
New Rule Number 1:
-When weighed, your car must have a minimum mass of 200kg.
10 points will be deducted for every kg under this threshold.
New Rules Number 2:
-All teams have the option to submit an advanced video of their running car up to 30 days ahead of the start of the competition.
20 bonus points will be awarded for submitting on the deadline date, for each additional day before this deadline an additional point will be awarded, up to a maximum total of 50 points.
The video must show the car completed with all bodywork and include clips demonstrating the presence of all safety features (driver harness, head rest, impact attenuator, brake over travel switch).
A member of your academic staff must sign off to say that all systems demonstrated/shown in the video are indeed functional and the final versions intended for competition.
The problem with 90% of teams that DNF, or worse, DNS at comp, is that they worry too much about the wrong things. Chasing fractions in performance instead of reliability and timeliness.
Offering a minimum weight will take some of the pressure off weight saving, so corners won't be cut where they shouldn't be.
Offering Bonus points for being able to demonstrate a running car in advance of the competition (but about as late as any good team should be looking to have a completed car), will add even more emphasis on the time pressures this sort of project entails.
A few preemptive arguments.
-Why 200kg?
200kg is about right for a basic space-frame non-aero car, that doesn't break the bank and is relatively easy to manufacture.
-Most of the teams that break down don't build cars less than 200kg as it is.
This is true. But they'd like to. Most of these teams are in the 200-250kg region. Currently each year they talk about making their car as light as possible, so the next year can go even lighter, and ultimately make that 175kg car. If they know they can't go below 200kg, they won't be pushing so hard to cut mass out of every single system.
A lot of teams in the 175-200kg region, with mostly well built cars breakdown more than they should (you know who you are). They go from top 10 at one comp, to bottom half the next. They are inconsistent because each year they try to shave that little bit extra weight to make their car that little bit faster. Ultimately they probably end up weighing the same because they fixed reliability issues with weight in one area, while doing the opposite in another, continuing the cycle.
-But if there's no longer a drive to save as much weight, won't it make choosing an engine easier? Everyone will just run 4 cylinders! This competition is supposed to be about having total freedom of design choices.
Firstly, I don't think they will, I've seen plenty of singles and twins over 200kg, especially full aero cars.
Secondly, as for the total freedom of design choice argument, I think that's a bit ridiculous. It's an engineering competition; real world engineering is flooded with restriction and limitations. Yes, it's good to give lots of freedom so all the cars aren't the same, but we already have a pointless maximum displacement rule, which limits choice for no good reason. As I've said I don't think this will limit choice, perhaps some teams will sway a different way, but in the end haven't 4cylinders' proven to be more reliable anyway? Isn't that what we want?
-Bonus points mean a team could theoretically score more than 1000
Yes, so? Team with most point wins. How does that change anything?
-Demonstrate break over-travel in a video? You could just film someone hitting a non-wired in switch, with someone off camera hitting the master switch to cut the power. What about all the safety features, they could just mock them up so save time.
Yes, but that would be cheating, and for so little gain (how long does it take to wire in a single switch? Not 24 hours). Plus they've had a member of the academic staff sign it off; in most cases, if they were found to have lied this would have severe consequences for their job, they wouldn't take the risk.
-But what about dry vs. wet weight? What if some teams have empty tanks and no oil?
I'm not interested in discussing the semantics of this, that's not the point. Ultimately you have to be over 200kg at all times during the comp, be that in scrutineering, before design judging, or in parc ferme after endurance. Heck, it wouldn't be hard to have some roll on roll off corner weights set up at the entrance/exit of each event (although that might be excessive).