Formula Student 2013, UK

Problems Faced at Event- Day to Day observations.

Day 1- July 3, Wednesday

1. Opening of the crate: Our crate was designed to be locked, so we had packed all our tools inside it.
However, the shipping company had added many metal strip fasteners to the crate which had to be cut
using a cutter tool. As all our tools were inside we had to borrow some tools from other teams to open
the crate. Solution: Next year we will bring some basic tools with the team to UK.
2. Late Start: Even as the pit garage were closed, many teams had set up and started their work on the
car right beside the crate early morning. This gave them a 6 hour head start to the other teams. As our
car arrived at noon, we started late, hence the majority of the team missed the opening ceremony as
they were still working on the car.
3. Transporting and Managing tools was very difficult: The crate was 180m far away from our pit
garage. As our tools were packed in many boxes, it became very difficult to transport the tools and
equipment from one place to another. Also managing and finding the tools was also very problematic as
we there was no place we could assimilate them. This problem continued throughout the event and
caused us a lot of delay. Solution: All the teams at the competition are using a tool organizer kit. It makes
it very convenient to store all the tools in separate compartments in a portable kit. We are going to
purchase it this year.
4. Team member roles were defined only for work on the car. The work was not distributed for the
work in the competition: There are many other responsibilities at the competition besides work on the
car. (E.g. registering the team, going to the briefings, Opening ceremonies, preparing our pit garage,
meeting the sponsors, procuring parts, etc.) Due to improper work distribution and overlooking of these
extra roles to be assigned prior to the competition, work was chaotic. This was mainly because the
current team did not have a documentation of FS 2011 competition. Many problems could have been
prevented. Also, the team was understaffed. Many times people had to be in two places at the same
time. This caused a very hectic schedule and the team had to work very hard to get the work completed.
Solution: Proper planning before the competition is very necessary. All roles will be predefined with
backup options. If, possible we will try to increase the contingent for the competition to 15.
5. Marketing: The pit garage is a presentation of how your team works. While we had prepared some
posters, our pit garage was far from satisfactory. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the best pit garage we saw),
our presentation can be rated a 3. Now, our presentation was a big factor on the points scored in the
static events, considering that the judges were coming to the pits. Also, there were many sponsors who
were observing all the teams. In order to attract them, we had to be presentable.
6. Apparel: Also the absence of team apparel made our team look unimpressive. Apparels are very
much required to show unity of a team.

Day 2- July 4, Thursday

1. Event Registration: Event registration was delayed because half the team was not present (working
on the car, preparing for the presentation) and the queue was very long. Event registration took 2 hours,
after which checks on the car continued. Solution: Go at the earliest possible time and just wait for the
registration to open. Bring at least 3 members for the registration as teams come with all the members
and can easily overpower you and move ahead.
2. Delay for scrutiny due to static events: Though the car was ready by afternoon, the static events
were scheduled from 12:15 to 4:45 pm. Rules mandate that the car has to be present in the pits for the
static events. Scrutiny closes at 6:00 pm, so we started rolling out the car. However at 5:00 pm, officials
declared that scrutiny entry had closed because of an already long queue. Thus we had to postpone the
scrutiny to the next day. This setback happened to skew our entire timeline.
3. Static Events: There were a few reasons for our poor performance at all the 3 static events :
a. More focus on Dynamic Events (lack of preparation): Last Year, it was decided by the team
leader that we will only be focusing on the dynamic events. Preparation for static events was being
delayed. Team members appealed on this decision, however no work on static events was allowed.
b. No previous documentation or support: We had participated in the first competition in 2011,
however as the previous contingent did not leave any documentation on how to improve, we had
to start all over again.
Regarding Design Report:
One of the main reasons why we scored less marks in this event was because we had chosen a
minimalistic and basic design of a car. We had not brought any innovative features that would wow
 the judges. For gaining more marks in this 150 point event we have to show innovation in our cars
and year by year we have to improve them.

Day 3- July 5, Friday

1. Driver Briefing: All the drivers have to be present for all the driver’s briefing events. They have to
be on time, else will not be allowed inside. If a driver misses a drivers briefing, he/she will not be allowed
to drive at the event. Ganesh had missed one driver’s briefing ( working on the car, lost track of time ) for
which we had to later go and plead to the officials. This will not be repeated in the future.
2. Technical Scrutiny: We went for tech inspection, minor changes were pointed out. We made the
respective change without any problem at night after the scrutiny closed. The problems are as stated:

Egress test is also included in the tech inspection. For tech inspection, they require the tallest driver to
take the egress test. However, each driver has to take the egress test to be allowed to drive. We only did
it for one driver during scrutiny.
3. Safety Scrutiny: Any faults that might have been pointed out had been already covered in the
technical scrutiny and the scrutinizer told us to make those changes before he gives the sticker. The only
problem was with one of our helmets as the FIA sticker had been removed from it (reason not known)
but he allowed it after we explained it to him.
4. Chassis Scrutiny: We had 2 major problems in the chassis and one important observation.
Observation: Since we had never weighed the car before due to lack of weighing machines, we had
analyzed the weight using CAD and found it to be 230 kg. However, at the competition, when the car was
placed on the weighing instrument, the weight was found to be 288 kg, which is a lot for an FSAE car.
The following problems faced at the chassis scrutiny cost us one day:

a. 95th Percentile Template: We were unable to clear the 95th percentile rule at the scrutiny. In
the 2011 rule book there were two different rules that affected us. 95% Percy template had to fit in
the car so that the line joining the top of both the hoops should be 2 inches above the driver
helmet and the other rule was the distance between hip joint and the most forward pedal should
be minimum of 915 mm. These two rules were later integrated into a single template in 2012 rule
book. The distance was decided to be kept around 1 m in the design of the chassis to keep the
overall length of the car short. It was also ensured that the other rules are followed by templates
created in CAD. Due to changes in the master cylinder being used due to restraints in budget and
decision to not procure brake components we had to use a new master cylinder which was longer
than that which was initially intended thus pushing the brake pedal forward even after attempts to
shorten the master cylinder pistons (which later affected the biasing of the brakes) The chassis
cockpit was designed based on the initial designs of exhaust system which when changed to stock
exhaust occupied more space behind the chassis (exhaust was mounted near may end) this in turn
pushed the fuel tank and the firewall forward into the cockpit. These two effects and negligence in
considering the rod diameters in the distance estimations added up and resulted in reducing the
pedal to hip center distance. With a seat angle of 20 degree a reduction in about 5 cm in the pedal
to hip center distance would push the Percy template 14 cm upwards thus highly affecting the 2
 inch (5.08 cm) rule.
Implemented solution to this problem: The complete main roll hoop has to be manufactured using
one rod. However to get the chassis cleared for scrutiny, we were allowed to weld a second roll
hoop over the first and increase the height of the main roll hoop. Thus clearing the 95th percentile
rule.
As we didn't have spare chassis rods, the team members had to go around to find them which hurt
our image. Failure to clear this rule had cost us a day of competition time and we had to weld
extra rods to increase the height of the main roll hoop to clear the rule.0 a reduction in about 5 cm
in the pedal to hip.
Prevention in future years: Better coordination between the team. The design should be finalized
before the manufacture of that particular system. Creating the 95% template with plywood /
cardboard, to cross check during & after manufacture.

b. Attenuator: The impact attenuator was tested in the ARAI testing facility. A drop test was done
on the attenuator. To pass scrutiny the attenuator has to be tested along with the front bulkhead of
the chassis to ensure that the bulkhead does not fail during the impact and loads are absorbed by
the attenuator. However the attenuator assembly was tested without the front bulkhead. This
caused problems in clearing the chassis scrutiny and during the scrutiny event we had to show a
virtual analysis of why the bulkhead would not fail. The main reason was negligence on behalf of
the team member responsible for the testing of the attenuator.
Solution Implemented at the Competition: Force analysis of the chassis bulkhead was done in
Ansys to show the scrutinizers. The scrutinizers were not satisfied because we had not provided
real simulation of the impact but cleared us in scrutiny.
Prevention: Test the whole attenuator and bulkhead assembly for impact. However, we plan to use
the design of the impact attenuator already designed be the FSAE committee. This will reduce our
design time as save the money spent on annual testing.

Day 4- July 6, Saturday [Note: This is the last date for the acceleration (till 12:30
pm), skidpad (till 12:30pm) and Sprint Event (Till 6 pm)]

After making the car completely ready for scrutiny early in the morning, our team went again for scrutiny.
We cleared the Chassis, Technical and Safety scrutiny within one hour.
1. Technical Scrutiny: No problems
2. Chassis Scrutiny: No Problems
3. Safety Scrutiny: No Problems
4. Fuelling of car: Only the car and the drivers are allowed in refueling area. So at least 2 drivers have
to be present, fully suited up at the time of refueling.
5. Tilt Test: No problems were faced in the tilt test. We cleared it successfully. However for future car
designs we have to check that the car will not roll at a 60 degree angle with the driver seated.
6. Noise Test: There was a minor issue in starting the car. This was because of change in the spark plug
orientation. After this was rectified, the noise test was done. It was cleared at 108 dB at 11,000 RPM.

7. Brake Test: This is the last and the toughest test in Scrutiny. Many teams were struggling to clear
this test and had been working relentlessly. We went to the brake test area at 12:00 PM, Saturday (Brake
test was cleared at 12:00 PM, Sunday).
12:00 pm:
Since the other 5 scrutiny events were cleared fast we were optimistic and tried to get this cleared
soon, so that we may at least participate in one of first two Dynamic events that ended at 12:30
pm. However, this could not be accomplished. Bleeding of the brakes had not been done properly.
Hence a lot of time went into adjusting the brakes and going for the test repeatedly. We worked
restlessly till 6:00 pm in the evening, trying desperately to get all the brakes to lock at the same
time. We tried 4 times unsuccessfully before the area closed at 6:00 pm.
5:30 pm:
The rear right brake calipers stopped bleeding for unknown reasons at the time. Team worked hard
to analyze the situation.
5:45 pm:
Warwick Racing was also going through the same problem. They had been at the brake test since
morning as well. Finally at 5:45 pm they passed the brakes test.
6:00 pm:
Deadline for the day had reached. This was the last day for clearing scrutiny, however the marshals
were extremely supportive and gave us an appointment for Sunday morning till 12 noon. Unable to
find a solution to solve the brake caliper problem, we went back to our pits. After opening the car
at the pits, we found a crack in the rear brake line splitter. (This was the cause of the bleeding
problem in the rear right wheel) We did not have a spare and had to borrow it from another team.
Finally, we worked till 11:00 pm to get the brake systems fixed. However more work was still left
for the morning.
At the end of the day we had missed all 3 dynamic events scheduled for Saturday, namely – Acceleration,
Skidpad, Sprint. Only Endurance event was left.

Day 5- July 7, Sunday (Last Day of the competition)

1. Brake Test Appointment: Team Members went to the pits at 8 am (opening time of the garages).
One final bleeding of the brakes was remaining. Appointment with the marshals was at 9 pm. However,
the process of bleeding was yet not complete. We sent a member to the brake test area to stall the
marshals. Other teams were also at the test area, so they gave us more time.
2. Driver’s Briefing meeting missed: Ganesh missed the Driver Briefing on Sunday. This was because he
was in the pits working on the brakes with the other team members. The other driver couldn’t contact
him, hence went to the driver’s briefing, expecting him to be there. Because of this confusion, the drivers
had to go back to the officials and request them to let Ganesh drive. They repeated all the instructions
told in the briefing and consented to drive.

3. Brake Test: The car was ready at 10 am and we went for the brakes test.
We brought the car to the brake test area. However it did not crank as the bank angle sensor fuse
was blown, detection and replacement of which took 20 minutes.
10:20 am: 1st Try: After getting the car ready we went for the test. The test was unsuccessful,
hence we tried again.
10:30 am: 2nd Try: All the 4 wheels locked, but the car spun around. This signified that the brakes
were now in perfect working condition.
10:45 am: 3rd Try: Braking was not proper. Hence the run was unsuccessful. However, because of
such high forces due to braking, the muffler clamp failed. And the muffler detached from the
secondary exhaust runners. The car was brought out of the track and a makeshift arrangement was
done to attach the muffler to the car.
11:45 am: K2 was ready for another try. We were queued behind Uni. ………….. . During their
brake test, their suspensions failed and their car was grounded.
There was a delay in clearing the track. At 11:55 am we got our last try.
12:00 pm: Ganesh drove the car successfully at the brake test thus clearing all the scrutiny events
in the brink of the moment.

4. Endurance : After clearing scrutiny we went for the endurance. We were only able to complete 2
laps before the muffler clamp failed again.
5. Closing ceremony: Again not every team member was able to visit it as we were busy packing the
car. These events should be viewed by all. There was also a lack of planning for departure from
silverstone.