Transcript Rules Questions

Rules Question Summary For
Website.
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
14/2015
Question
•
•
Rule T.3.25.3.c says that 'The diagonal
side impact structural member must
connect the upper and lower Side
impact structural members forward
of the main hoop and rearward of
the front hoop‘
Rule T3.25.4 says that 'With proper
triangulation, it is permissible to
fabricate the side impact structural
members from more than one piece
of tubing'
Answer
•
The use of a triangulated diagonal
side impact tube made up of
additional tubes meeting at a
supported node (as indicated in your
diagram with the 4 additional tubes
meeting at the mid-point node)
complies with Rule T3.5.5, and the
nominated two-piece supported
diagonal complies with the diameter
and thickness requirements of T3.4.1,
the diagonal tube in the plane of the
upper and lower tubes may be
removed.
15/2015
Question
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Our team are after a rules clarification on the front roll
hoop, in particular T3.12.2.
Answer
•
"T3.12.2 The Front Hoop must extend from the lowest
Frame Member on one side of the Frame, up, over and
down to the lowest Frame Member on the other side of
the Frame."
For a carbon fibre monocoque chassis does this mean
the front roll hoop must the lowest panel (the floor
panel) of the chassis and sit flush with the bottom of the
monocoque, or does this mean that the roll hoop must
butt up against the lowest panel of the monocoque?
I interpret it as that it must butt up against the lowest
panel, however I am not sure and would like
clarification.
We are also after a clarification on the rules for
Monocoque front bulkheads:
•
The key aspect is that the hoop must
extend down to the lowest
structurally equivalent part of the
monocoque. Whether this
terminates by effectively “butting up”
to the floor panel or is partially
integrated into or through to the
exterior lower surface of the floor
panel, is up to the team in their final
design but, provided all of the related
monocoque requirements for
retention of the hoop are met, either
approach is acceptable.
FSAE-A Rules Committee.”
16/2015
Question
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
T3.32 Monocoque Front Bulkhead See Rule T3.28 for general
requirements that apply to all aspects of the monocoque. In
addition when modeled as an “L” shaped section the EI of the
front bulkhead about both vertical and lateral axis must be
equivalent to that of the tubes specified for the front bulkhead
under T3.19. The length of the section perpendicular to the
bulkhead may be a maximum of 25.4mm (1”) measured from
the rearmost face of the bulkhead. 46 © 2014 SAE
International. All Rights Reserved 2015 Formula SAE® Rules –
09/17/2014 Revision. Furthermore any front bulkhead which
supports the IA plate must have a perimeter shear strength
equivalent to a 1.5 mm thick steel plate.
We are unsure as to what constitutes a "front bulkhead
supporting the IA plate".
-Does the "IA Plate" refer to the anti intrusion plate?
-Does "Supporting the IA Plate" mean bolting the anti
intrusion plate to the bulkhead
-Because the Anti Intrusion Plate extends to the outer edges
of the bulkhead, is it not being supported by the front
bulkhead and front roll hoop supports as well?
We are a bit confused about this rule as it requires around 56mm thick facesheets of carbon fibre to pass the perimeter
shear requirement, and I know that in the past other teams
have had nowhere near that, so it would be good to get some
clarification.
Answer
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The basic rules help clarify in addition to the specific monocoque
requirements. As per
T3.21.2 On all cars, a 1.5 mm (0.060 in) solid steel or 4.0 mm (0.157
in) solid aluminium “anti-intrusion plate” must be integrated into
the Impact Attenuator. If the Impact Attenuator and Anti-Intrusion
Plate (Impact Attenuator Assembly) are bolted to the Front
Bulkhead, it must be the same size as the outside dimensions of the
Front Bulkhead. If it is welded to the Front Bulkhead, it must extend
at least to the centreline of the Front Bulkhead tubing in all
directions.
it clarifies that the IA plate and Anti-Intrusion plate are the same
item.
Reference in T3.32 to a bulkhead supporting the IA plate applies for
all cases where the bulkhead is of monocoque construction rather
than tubular metal.
If the IA plate does not extend to the outer periphery of the
bulkhead then a support meeting this requirement must be
provided across the front bulkhead plane. If your IA extends, and is
bolted, to the outer periphery of the bulkhead, then in addition to
verifying that the EI of your composite bulkhead (whether of L
section or other shape) it must also meet the perimeter shear
strength equivalency to a 1.5 mm steel section.
This added requirement versus a tubular metal bulkead is to
protect for the potential brittle failure of a monocoque
structure and is based on overseas experience.
FSAE-A Rules Committee”
17/2015
Question
•
•
•
•
T3.32 Monocoque Front Bulkhead
See Rule T3.28 for general requirements that apply to all aspects of
the monocoque. In addition when modeled as an "L" shaped
section the EI of the front bulkhead about both vertical and lateral
axis must be equivalent to that of the tubes specified for the front
bulkhead under T3.19. The length of the section perpendicular to
the bulkhead may be a maximum of 25.4mm (1") measured from
the rearmost face of the bulkhead.
Furthermore any front bulkhead which supports the IA plate must
have a perimeter shear strength equivalent to a 1.5 mm thick steel
plate.
Is the perimeter shear strength for this rule calculated from the first
peak as for shear strength, or the second peak in the
load/displacement graph as for perimeter shear strength in
T3.33.3/T3.34.3?
Answer
• In response to your query,
for equivalence to a 1.5 mm
thick steel plate, the
perimeter shear strength
for this rule should be
calculated from the second
peak in the
load/displacement graph as
for perimeter shear
strength in T3.33.3/T3.34.3.
• Yours Sincerely
• FSAE-A Rules Committee”
21/2015
Question
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“IC1.9 (Page 86) Fuel Injection System Requirements Add;
Fuel Rails: In line with Formula Student, the fuel rail must not
be made from any form of flammable material, plastic,
carbon fibre or rapid prototyping material, except that
unmodified OE Fuel Rails manufactured from these materials
and supplied with the engine are acceptable.”
We currently use the Honda CBR600RR (07-09) engine and I
have attached an image of its OE fuel rail to this email for
reference. As you can see it is made from three parts, two of
which are plastic (previously disallowed material) and the
centre part being made of a metal (previously allowed
material regardless of modification). I would like to clarify if
modifying the metal part of the fuel rail would conflict with
this rule, even if the plastic parts were to remain unchanged?
We would like to modify the centre piece/machine our own
which would allow us to only have one port to the rail, as we
run a return-less system which differs to the stock fuel system
which requires a supply and return port on the rail. This
modification would also allow us to use a different, more
suitable fitting.
If you could advise as to whether or not this action would
conflict with the above mentioned rule that would be greatly
appreciated.
Answer
•
Modification of the metal part as you
propose is acceptable as it should not
create added weight or load input to
the fuel rail. You must ensure that
the OE design and parts making the
connection to the plastic parts are
maintained as originally supplied.
22/2015
Question
•
I have a question about rule IC1.1.1 from
article 1 titled "Engine limitation“
•
It reads "Hybrid powertrains, such as those
using electric motors running off stored
energy, are prohibited." We would like to run
an electric supercharger with our internal
combustion engine. Is the intent of this rule
just to prohibit you from running an electric
motor that directly powers the wheels?
•
Can we still use the stored energy off a
battery to spin an electric supercharger to
achieve a flatter torque curve given that this
electric motor will have NO direct connection
to the drive line?
Answer
•
An electrically driven supercharger is
acceptable but it must receive its
primary input energy from the
alternator/generator driven by the IC
engine and use the same battery that
is used to start the vehicle and is
recharged by the
alternator/generator. A separate
battery to power the supercharger
would not be acceptable, as it would
contravene the rules by providing
another source of unmeasured
stored energy.
•
FSAE-A Rules Committee”
23/2015
The rule in question is T3.34.2 and reads as follows:
•
T3.34.2 The vertical side impact zone between the upper surface of the floor and 350 mm (13.8
inches) above the ground must have a Buckling Modulus (E*I) equivalent to two baseline steel tubes
and the horizontal floor must have a Buckling Modulus (E*I) equivalent to one baseline steel tube per
Rule T3.30 Monocoque Buckling Modulus.
1.
This rule clearly states that the floor is to be equivalent to "one baseline steel tube."
As we began design of our monocoque towards the end of last year, we read and understood this rule in its
meaning and have applied it to our 2015 vehicle. Our chassis has been designed for two months and we are a
month into the manufacture of our chassis.
This week, we were al erted to a clause within the SES Guidance Notes for Side Impact that reads as follows:
"The horizontal floor (up to the centre of the chassis), when calculated as a flat panel must have equivalent EI
to one baseline side-impact tube"
We feel that the fact that this clause states that the horizontal floor should be measured "(up to the centre of
the chassis)" is a complete contradiction to rule T3.34.2. This is since, in effect, this clause means that the floor
must be equivalent to two baseline side-impact tubes across its total width and hence is in conflict with the
above rule T3.34.2.
We are also surprised that such an important rule has been included in a "Guidance Notes" tab in the SES
rather than the rules document itself. The main purpose of these Guidance notes is to assist teams in their
interpretation of the SES structure rather than to impose restrictions of such magnitude so to change the way
that a rule itself is read in such a huge fashion. If this clause were contained within the rules do cument itself,
we would have no problems with it, however since this is not the case we feel that it is a very unfair thing to
impose upon teams.
The fact remains that we are here, having followed the rules contained within the FSAE Rules Document to th e
meaning of each word contained within it and now are having to consider making drastic design changes to
our monocoque in order to pass a clause that is not referenced to at all within the rules that we are meant to
follow.
So, I am writing to you to clarify as to where do we stand with this rule and if we can continue with our current
design on account of a vague clause within a part of the SES that is not referred to anywhere else in any
document and since we are so far into our build process already.
At the very least we would like to make this known to the Rules Committee so that it can be amended for 2016
such that more teams do not get tricked by this in the future.
•
•
•
•
For monocoque vehicles, the
approach is to consider ½ vehicle
width in any of the relevant
requirements. Although the wording
in the rules changed, the SES
requirement is unchanged from 2014
which had to be met by prior
monocoque teams. Accordingly, you
need to design to comply with the
detail method of the SES.
We agree that the wording in the
rules could be clearer and have raised
this matter with the International
Rules Committee.
FSAE-A Rules Committee.”
26/2015
•
I am seeking clarification on the following
rule;
•
T3.9 - "All equivalency calculations must
prove equivalency relative to steel grade
SAE/AISI 1010."
•
•
•
•
By specifically stating SAE1010 are we
required to source that specific grade or is
the intent of the rule in line with T3.4.1 "Either: Round, mild or alloy, steel tubing
(minimum 0.1% carbon) of the minimum
dimensions specified in the following table" ?
Directly, can the baseline tube tested be a
steel grade with equal to or greater carbon
content to SAE1010 or does it have to be
specifically SAE1010?
27/2015
•
1) Rule IC1.1.1 states that Hybrid powertrains ...
are prohibited. Could we please have an
expansion on this statement. Is a hybrid
powertrain one that has an electric motor that
directly drives the crankcase (I.E. The MGU-K
systems that are used in Formula 1), or is there a
further definition that governs what is and isn't
a hybrid powertrain? One idea that has been
discussed is the use of an electric fan in series
with the intake to enable a disturbed flow to
enter the engine, would this be legal? So the air
would flow like this:
•
Air Filter -----> Throttle Body ------> Restrictor --------> Fan --------> Engine
•
Or for a turbo setup:
•
Air Filter ------> Restrictor --------> Fan --------> Compressor -------> Throttle Body ---------> Engine
• The 2016 Rules will be as
for 2015 with the only
changes being minor
corrections or clarifications.
• A hybrid powertrain derives
propulsive energy from
different sources (Petrol;
diesel; electricity from
storage or regeneration;
etc). Provided there is only
one source driving the
vehicle and all related
devices, the car is not a
hybrid.
28/2015
•
2) Rule IC1.7.3 states that
Recirculation valves are prohibited
for all boosting systems. We have had
great discussions around this rule and
wanted to clarify the ruling. We have
assumed a recirculation valve directs
excess pressure from the intake tract
back into the crankcase when the
throttle is lifted. Does this mean we
can relieve this extra pressure to
atmosphere and just not back into
the crankcase? If we can not do this,
we believe that not being able to
relieve this excess pressure is
dangerous for our engine, in
particular, the plenum.
A device is acceptable provided that it is driven from the vehicle
electrical system powered by the IC engine. No device can be used
which could provide any supplementary throttling effect.
A turbo/supercharger Recirculating Valve does exactly that – it
recirculates high pressure air from the outlet side to the inlet side of
the compressor to reduce pressure surges on closed throttle events. It
does not feed it to the crankcase.
These are not permitted as they have potential to inadvertently (or
otherwise) allow additional unrestricted air into the induction system.
Simple dump valves to atmosphere are allowed as have been used by
many teams in past years. There is an additional explanation in the
FAQ web site of FSAE, which is summarised below.
IC1.7.3 Clarification
Pop-off (aka blow-off) valves located between the compressor
discharge and throttle body that vent directly to atmosphere are
permitted for turbochargers and superchargers.
Note that these valves will be carefully inspected in Tech for
compliance to the intent of rule IC1.7.3 which is only to relieve surge
when the throttle is closed and not to allow flow to bypass the
restrictor under non-boosted conditions. All flow for the engines must
pass through a single intake restrictor per rule IC1.1.3.
35/2015
The rules we require clarification on states:
•
(09/17/2014 Revision linked on SAE-A site)
IC4.4.4 Battery packs based on Lithium Chemistry:
a. must be commercially manufactured items
b. must have over voltage, under voltage, short circuit and over temperature cell protection
c. must be separated from the driver by a firewall
There was then an Addendum released on FSAE Online found here (Published 11/19/14) that states:
IC4.4.4 Battery packs based on Lithium Chemistry
LiFePO4 batteries will be accepted without over voltage, under voltage and over
temperature protection, however all other aspects of IC4.4.4 must be met. Short circuit protection
must be provided internal or external to the battery.
•
•
We would firstly like to confirm that this addendum - which has been released after the revision of
rules linked on the SAE-A site - will be overriding the previously stated rule?
Our next main concern lies with the sentence “must be commercially manufactured items”. What
our team would like to do is to buy commercially available LiFePO4 cells, cell frames, bus bars,
balance connectors, fuses/circuit breakers and connectors. With these commercially available items,
we would then like to assemble these aforementioned parts inside a team designed/manufactured
3D printed (or another lightweight, non-conductive material) casing.
•
Battery packs based on Lithium Chemistry:
•
Must have overcurrent protection that
trips at or below the maximum
specified discharge current of the cells.
Must have a rigid, sturdy and fire
retardant casing.
Must be separated from the driver by a
firewall as specified in T4.5
Although the parts we use have been purchased from a commercial manufacturer, does
assembling these parts in-house make our design conflict with rule IC4.4.4 Part a?
We have researched the available alternatives and it is evident that there is no commercially
manufactured, complete pack that would fulfil our packaging, electrical and budgetary
requirements. Also, what we are proposing to do in terms of electrical connections and mechanical
housings is not uncommon and almost identical to the commercially available packs. The only reason
these packs will not be used is due to the fact that they are designed for electric vehicles and have a
capacity of approximately 5 times what we would need and with this, comes a much greater weight
and space burden.
The Addendum is applicable and
overrides the prior 2015 words.
Assembling commercially manufactured
components into a sub-assembly or
container does not negate the intent.
The revised rule wording for 2016 will
be as follows. If your design and
fabrication complies with this, it will be
accepted at the Australasian 2015
event.
•
•
38/2015
•
I have a question about a ruling on
the frame tests completed, the
horizontal space testing through the
front cockpit I am questioning, it
states in the rules that the test piece
will be moved horizontally through
the frame until it is 100mm from the
pedals at the unused position, with
this ruling not specifying anything
about vertical movement, is there
allowance for vertical movement, as
our frame has a step down half way
through the front sub frame, I just
need to clarify this as we will need to
change our frame, essentially all I
need to know is if the test piece is
restricted to only horizontal
movement through the frame.
In regards to your question on the Cockpit
internal cross section and template (T.4.2),
provided the template is maintained in a
vertical plane, it may be moved in a vertical
direction (up and down) as it is moved
horizontally through the cockpit/leg
area. Excessive changes in section requiring
large movement of the template may,
however, be disallowed if Technical Inspection
raises concerns about ease of egress or
trapping of the driver’s legs.
46/2015
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I can't seem to find in the rules anything that suggests
that once an accumulator is charged, it must be
returned to the vehicle. The rules suggest:
* multiple accumulators are allowed (EV3.2.1)
* these accumulators may be of different shapes and
sizes, but accumulators in specific parts of the vehicle
may not be interchanged with different accumulators
(EV3.2.2). This only talks about spare accumulators and
does not suggest accumulators cannot be removed from
the vehicle and never replaced
* the accumulator should remain rules compliant when
removed (EV3.2.4)
* that accumulators can be removed to charge.
* accumulators can be removed from the vehicle post
inspection for recharging (T1.2.2)
* energy capacity is not a required parameter and need
not remain constant throughout the competition as
other factors (ride height, etc) must (T1.2.3)
* removing/recharging accumulators is not damage and
does not warrant another inspection as per T1.2.4
I would like clarification as to whether an electric team
can run their vehicle in dynamic events after removing,
recharging but not replacing one of their multiple
accumulators while remaining rules compliant. This
seems to make sense, as the rules require that a vehicle
remain compliant when any of its battery packs are
removed, therefore if the vehicle is compliant, is it then
allowed to compete dynamically?
•
•
•
The simple answer to the basis of
your question is “No”.
The only modifications allowed
are those explicitly stated in
T1.2.2 - removed components
must replaced with items of
identical fit, form and function
before running any subsequent
dynamic events and per T1.2.3,
the vehicle must maintain all
required specifications
throughout the competition.
Therefore, following Tech
inspection or the first static
event (whichever comes first), an
accumulator removed must be
replaced with an identical one
that has been scrutineered, or
the original reinstalled, to
continue in the competition.