Transcript Rules Questions

Rules Question Summary
2015
1/2015
Question
•
We've noticed that CAMS now
requires many forms of motorsport
to use frontal head restraint
(HANS) devices, and we'd like to
clarify whether or not that will be a
requirement for Formula SAE as
well, as it would represent a fairly
large expenditure to procure the
restraints, new seat belts etc
Answer
•
•
•
•
CAMS show same as prior years
that Frontal Head restraint is “B”
for Speed Events which is
recommended but not
required. FSAE 2015 Rules are
as in previous years and do not
require it, nor recommend it.
It has not been proposed at all for
Formula even in future years. I
think our event speeds and
circumstances minimise any need.
We also require arm restraints of
course which are not mentioned at
all in the CAMS requirements.
I think our position should/would
thus be that our required
equipment standards stay as in
prior years and we do not require
(or recommend) such devices.
3/2015
Question
T3.40.3
• Each attachment point requires a
minimum of two (2) 8 mm Metric
Grade 8.8 (5/16 inch SAE Grade
5) bolts
•
Does this rule only refer to
attaching primary structures to the
monocoque (e.g. the rear sub
frame) or does it include wishbone
pickups and suspension mounting
points?
Answer
•
The rules T3.40.3 specifically
relates to the attachment of other
parts of the Primary Structure to a
monocoque shell. Other
attachment points are not required
to conform to this mounting design
but should be designed to meet
the anticipated loads and strength
of the monocoque and installed
using sound engineering practice.
4/2015
Question
T7.1.9
• Brake Pedal must be fabricated
from steel or aluminium or
machined from steel, aluminium or
titanium
•
Specifically, we are asking as to
whether the brake pedal can be
3D printed by titanium (Arcam
titanium 6-4) and then postmachined. In the Electron Beam
Melting (EBM) process, dense
metal components are built up,
layer-by-layer of metal powder
and melted by a powerful electron
beam. Each layer is melted to the
exact geometry defined by a CAD
model.
Answer
•
The rules specifically only allow
pedals fabricated from Aluminium
or Steel, with Titanium accepted
only if machined from solid
stock. Your deposited design is
thus not acceptable.
5/2015
Question
T9.2.2
• When viewed from the front of the
vehicle, the part of the front
wheels/tires that are more than
250 mm (9.8 inches) above
ground level must be unobstructed
by any part of the aerodynamic
device, with the exception of any
vertical surfaces (end plates) less
than 25 mm in thickness.
•
What is acceptable as an endplate
in the region of the tyre from the
top to a plane running 250mm
from the top surface? Please see
pictures below
Answer
•
The intent of the rule is to not
allow a greater than 25 mm lateral
width of vision obscuration in front
of the tyre. Your first design would
appear to significantly exceed this
whereas the second design is in
line with the intent of the rule for a
simple flat endplate running
parallel to the vehicle centreline,
provided the maximum thickness
at any point does not block more
than 25 mm width of the tyre.
7/2015
Question
T10.2
• "The driver and anyone standing
outside the car must be shielded
from any hydraulic pumps and
lines"
•
If the body of the chassis (carbon
skins with nomex core) separates
the line and driver, would this still
require an additional 1mm metal
shield?
Answer
•
Provided that the lines are fully
shielded (i.e no openings that may
allow impact) from both the driver
and any external bystander by the
structural material you describe, a
separate shield per T10.2 Is not
required.
Question
9/2015
EV 3.3.3
•
Maintenance plugs, additional contactors or similar measures
have to be taken to allow electrical separation of the internal
cell segments such that the separated cell segments contain a
maximum static voltage of less than 120VDC and a maximum
energy of 6MJ. The separation must affect both poles of the
segment.
EV 3.4.11
•
The accumulator segments contained within the accumulator
must be separated by an electrically insulating and be fire
resistant barrier (according to UL94-V0, FAR25 or equivalent)
and must subdivide the accumulator into 6MJ segments if this
is not already met by the separation due to the 120VDC
voltage limit.
•
NOTE: The contained energy of a stack is calculated by
multiplying the maximum stack voltage with the nominal
capacity of the used cell(s). Documentation of segment
separation must be provided in the ESF.
•
•
We are uncertain as to how the energy stack is calculated; can
you please provide the formula used for this calculation?
This segmentation into 6MJ will require repackaging of our
2014 battery package, as we believe we exceed this maximum
allowable energy limit. Our batteries were purchased and
packaged last year before these rules were released, and we
intended to utilise these batteries for two years given the
significant cost of batteries. In order to comply to this rule
change, we would have to disassemble the current battery
packs and repackage them but we are concerned about the
strength of the cell tabs due to heat cycling. Repackaging the
battery cells to meet this rule amendment could be more
dangerous than to leave the battery packaging in its current
state, which we believe to be around 7MJ.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Answer
The calculation of Energy Stack per EV3.4.11 is derived from
maximum static voltage per module = # of cells x Max
Voltage per cell.
maximum energy per module = # of cells x Rated Capacity
x Max Voltage per cell x 3600 J/Wh.
From your 2014 data the limit of 6.8MJ would be exceeded.
We are, however, for 2015 only, willing to allow the use of the
nominal voltage for the energy calculation only.
(Maximum Voltage must still be used in the Maximum Voltage
per module calculation).
The separation of the subsequent segments to meet the 6MJ
limit must be created by use of maintenance plugs
or similar contacts which can be disconnected without the
use of tools.
10/2015
Question
IC4.6
•
It was not the intention of the rules committee to
introduce more restrictive voltage limits within the IC
category which prevents the use of OEM 12V
charging systems. If the charging system is OEM
and designed for a DC battery voltage less than
60V then the 25VAC limit of rule IC4.6 does not
apply, however the system must either use the
stock wiring between the generator and the rectifier,
or this wiring must be rated to at least the maximum
output voltage of the rectifier. If student teams are
electing to build a charging system then rules must
be followed.
•
•
•
We would like to replace the stock regulator/rectifier
with an aftermarket unit. To be clear, the
replacement unit will not be constructed by
students. For the benefit of the committee, this is
the link to the product we are considering:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Compu-Fire-55402Regulator-for-40A-3-Phase-Charging-Systems-603337-/331114765797
In our case the wiring would remain stock with the
connector being replaced with an appropriately
rated plug. In this way we believe the replacement
would comply with the intention of the rules (safe
charging system) especially as it is not uncommon
for teams to substitute OEM regulators with units
from similar bikes.
Answer
•
The approach you propose is acceptable provided
that appropriately rated connector/plug is used and
the OE, or appropriately rated, wiring is used.
11/2015
Question
IC3.2.1
•
The sound level will be measured during a
static test. Measurements will be made with
a free-field microphone placed free from
obstructions at the exhaust outlet level, 0.5
m (19.68 inches) from the end of the
exhaust outlet, at an angle of forty-five
degrees (45°) with the outlet in the
horizontal plane. The test will be run with the
gearbox in neutral at the engine speed
defined below. Where more than one
exhaust outlet is present, the test will be
repeated for each exhaust and the highest
reading will be used.
•
In the case of dual exhaust outlets, does
the committee intend for four test locations
in total?
•
We would argue that considering each outlet
in isolation and testing accordingly may
result in the microphone becoming too
proximate to the other outlet. In an exhaust
arrangement as described, would only the
two outboard test locations be considered?
Answer
•
To focus on only the outboard location would
not meet the wording of the rules and in fact
the inner location may be louder (by chance,
or by design) than the outer. Accordingly
you should assume that the Scrutineers will
measure at 4 locations for dual exhaust
systems. The maximum measurement of
these will be the one recorded, irrespective
of potential interference from other outlets.
12/2015
Question
•
Can we attach the seatbelt
attaching eye bolts by welding?
Answer
•
No. Refer T5.2.2 for minimum
mounting bracket requirements