consideration of regulation review for 2020

All things related to racing at FRC
Post Reply
RameshB
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:30 pm

consideration of regulation review for 2020

Post by RameshB »

1 .To allow generic chassis and motor pods to be used in Historic Saloon and Pony classes, but leaving magnet location as 2019 regulation.2. re introducing the 1mm ground clearance rule in Historic Saloon , Pony , Vintage Sport and Prototype. . 3. thus removing the need for the USD rule in these 4 classes and still keeping all other regs as 2019. 4 . Lets please give this some consideration as this can be helpful in encouraging some more competitors for our 2020 season.Note these 4 classes are run on the same night together with the kit bash.
User avatar
gordon
Site Admin
Posts: 2935
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:34 pm
Location: Trinidad & Tobago
Contact:

Re: consideration of regulation review for 2020

Post by gordon »

Ram, thanks for the input and suggestions. My initial thoughts are as follows:

1. For those unable to get a generic/3D chassis, either because of the means to do so or because there isn't one for a specific car they currently race, will they be at a disadvantage against cars with generic/3D chassis?

2. I have no problem considering the 1mm ground clearance requirement, however I would like that for all classes using this rule (including the current classes), the clearance be checked as the cars will race - not upside down on a plastic block, but right side up on a piece of track where the clearance takes into consideration the downforce generated. This way we will really have a 1mm minimum ground clearance under magnets or under the motor in classes that do not allow magnets.

3. Since everyone will be on an equal footing, we can eliminate the USD rule for these classes and builders will then have to find the best compromise between downforce and motor power.

4. Hopefully this will in fact encourage more new drivers in 2020.
User avatar
gordon
Site Admin
Posts: 2935
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:34 pm
Location: Trinidad & Tobago
Contact:

Re: consideration of regulation review for 2020

Post by gordon »

Following up on my comments above regarding point 1:

First of all, chances are that if the car with the standard chassis is properly set up, it will be competitive against generic/3D chassis-equipped cars. Perhaps others can air their thoughts on this.

One thing though - we currently have a very specific magnet location rule for these classes (no further back than the midway point between rear axle and guide flag pivot point). For cars running motor pods (e.g. VS classes), magnet position takes no consideration of the guide flag pivot point (and therefore the length of the car), instead stating a fixed location of the front magnet position of a Slot.It motor pod (and therefore a fixed distance forward of the rear axle). This can be an issue for cars not using a motor pod, since magnet location may have to be further forward than those using pods because of the chassis design (e.g. the motor may be in the way and the magnet may have to be further forward than cars using pods), to their disadvantage.

Another thought which even applies to the current VS rules, is that for two cars using the fixed magnet position of a pod, what are the performance pros and cons for a shorter car vs a longer car? The current HS and APC rules automatically address this so it isn't an issue.

Perhaps we should keep the current magnet location rule, leaving it to the car builders to figure out how to locate the magnets with pod setups.

I guess we have more to think of than initially seemed to be the case.
RameshB
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: consideration of regulation review for 2020

Post by RameshB »

I do agree we have to see how we can simplify and encourage others.lets talk some more on Thursday.
steveaca
Posts: 1513
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: consideration of regulation review for 2020

Post by steveaca »

A few of my thoughts:
I can't really see this being helpful in encouraging more competitors into these classes. In my opinion, the cost of building a car with a 3-D printed chassis would be a big deterrent and I can't see any real benefits to the measure. This year we made changes to the rules, allowing the fitment of complete after-market rear ends (axles, bushings, gear, rims). This was done in the interest of reliability, ostensibly to make changing of failed components easier. What it achieved was to make the converted cars faster but an owner had to spend the extra US $ 20 or so to hope to keep up with the cars so converted. If the goal of this year's changes was to make parts replacement easier, I'd say 'Mission Accomplished'. The allowing of chassis with motor pods would not improve on this situation.
With respect to the scrapping of the USD and introducing the 1 mm. magnet clearance would bring us back to cars with extremely high downforce, something we have been trying to get away from in the recent past. I checked some of my HS cars which are just barely falling off the USD block and noted that the ground clearance was about 1 mm. With this proposal, I would be able to add magnetic downforce to these cars and still be legal. Is this the desired outcome ?
At present at FRC, we don't currently have a single class for absolutely stock cars, cars such as we did for the original HS class. I feel that if we want to encourage new drivers, we should maybe go in the opposite direction for this class and keep it really simple .We could possibly re-introduce the original HS rules but with the with the application of the USD or, to make things even simpler, make it mag-less, the only other change allowed being the fitment of after-market tyres on the standard rims.
Post Reply