www.recumbents.com
www.recumbents.com
www.recumbents.com
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 www.recumbents.com
 ASME HPV Racing
 Rules discussion 2012

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Victor Ragusila Posted - 10/14/2011 : 14:21:11
Rules are out!

So far changes from 2011 that I could find ( It would be awesome if ASME would highlight them in red or something....)

1) Functional display of features. Baddass, we can show of the bike in motion to the judges. seems like a sweet combination of presentation + dynamic display.

2) safety involves travelling at 3-5mph in a straight line for 100 feet.

3) design report has a Technology Innovation section. That is also really cool, since there are lots of new ideas being developed every year, and a place where we can highlight and defend them is very good. The fact that this new section is 30/100 points is interesting....will need to really focus on it.

4) Start assistance for all vehicles at the SPRINT! interesting...Also, the score is directly your score in mph.

5) and of course the big one: SPEED and UTILITY Endurance races are combined!!! Read all the details, but it seems that the cargo has been greatly reduced, it only needs to be carried by the first rider, and we can start with whatever rider we want first!
Also, the course contains all the obstacles from utility...

Questions and discussions

Overall, as expected, the Speed class is gone. The sprints/drags can be hand-launched. The speed utility is gone, and i wonder why..there is no reason not to have 2 endurance races! The Utility was fun and slow and interesting, with all the stops and stuff, and the speed endurance was very nice and fast. The combination keeps all the obstacles and removes the cargo issues.

Unfortunately, i dont think this is a good change. Riding a vehicle fast, without "stop" sights and obstacles, was a lot of fun and attracted many people to the competition. I am curious how this new hybrid will be, but i would like a bit more speed involved.

Also, this restricts a lot the advantages of aerodynamics. We realized that only about 30% of power goes into pushing air during the SPEED endurance last year. Most goes into accelerating the vehicle and the rest into tires. In the UTILITY endurance most of power goes into acceleration anyway (that is of course for our rather-aero-but-heavy vehicle). I wonder if this year someone can just get on a upright, put the jug of water on a backpack and win the endurance races with a big margin. That makes me sad...Last year the pretty-much-off-the-shelf tandem won utility quite clearly.

Now some questions...
A) The technology feature presentation keeps referring to a "feature" not "features"..the way it is worded seems to indicate that judges want only one feature to be presented in detail. Need more clarifications from ASME...

Victor Ragusila
Captain UofT HPVDT 2011-2012

25   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
BBorzini Posted - 02/12/2012 : 23:01:42
It is, it'd been a while since I'd read the rules.It says "standard 1 gallon recyclable milk jug". Pretty clear.
Royle Juusola Posted - 02/11/2012 : 17:16:59
I would imagine it's a standard 1 gallon jug, like a milk jug

Royle Juusola
SDSMT HPV Team Lead
BBorzini Posted - 02/09/2012 : 16:30:14
A little off topic but as far as the gallon of water thing goes is that in a predescribed container or can we carry it in anything we wish?
drjones96 Posted - 02/08/2012 : 07:11:38
Victor has it. It's about providing a fun and educational experience for engineering students.

Most engineering competitions have this same basic idea in mind.

If you dislike the mission statement on the web page you should voice your opinion to the appropriate individuals.
Victor Ragusila Posted - 02/07/2012 : 10:44:07
well, i would look at it like this:

1) the goal of ASME is to help mechanical engineers develop their skills.

2) to help that, they set up all these student competitions, so students can challenge themselves and against one another, and learn how to do cool mechanical engineering stuff.

3) they thus developed some rules to keep the competitions fair and interesting. If the rules somehow relate to the real world, awesome. but most student competitions out there have the goal of challenging students, not creating the next big thing in transportation (the FSEA, solar car challenge, Baja, etc).

There are bike design competitions that address real life needs. I dont think ASME is necessarily one of them (although they do try), but i think the ASME rules are very well set up to give an interesting competition and to allow different designs to be competitive.

The goal of the Battle Mountain competition is to set up world records. The goal of the ASME HPVC is to develop better mechanical engineers. Our goal is to win both :D

Victor
W Hilgenberg Posted - 02/07/2012 : 06:57:59
quote:
Originally posted by drjones96

"Human-powered transport is often the only type available in underdeveloped or inaccessible parts of the world...."

This text has been up on the website for quite a few years and was aimed at the utility/practical class (which no longer exists...so take it with a grain of salt).



Alright. I can understand that. For the sake of clarification, what is the goal or mission of the competition?
drjones96 Posted - 02/07/2012 : 06:12:23
"Human-powered transport is often the only type available in underdeveloped or inaccessible parts of the world...."

This text has been up on the website for quite a few years and was aimed at the utility/practical class (which no longer exists...so take it with a grain of salt).

Design your vehicle based on the current rules.
Dreamer Posted - 02/06/2012 : 21:38:37
A recumbent style machine isn't neccessarily at a disadvantage to an upright design just because of it's geometry.

The fastest machine will be the one that achieves the most successful balance between course requirements and design alternatives.

Dreamer
W Hilgenberg Posted - 02/06/2012 : 21:07:06
Taken directly from the ASME Website:

"Human-powered transport is often the only type available in underdeveloped or inaccessible parts of the world, and if well designed, can be an increasingly viable form of sustainable transportation.

ASME's international Human Powered Vehicle Challenge (HPVC) provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate the application of sound engineering design principles in the development of sustainable and practical transportation alternatives.In the HPVC, students work in teams to design and build efficient, highly engineered vehicles for everyday useófrom commuting to work, to carrying goods to market.
"

It seems to me as though there is a general lack of focus and direction in the competition itself. By citing the development of "sustainable and practical transportation alternatives," they are implying that the vehicle needs to be truly practical and affordable. Conversely, the rules and history of the competition stress the need for expensive fairings and unconventional design, both of which are not all that terribly practical. Yes you can make a pedal powered car but it will not win this competition which is completely backwards of what the end goal of the competition has been stated to be.

As of right now, I can say that the bike to win the competition with would be an upright. Much more easily handled in an urban situation than a recumbent and typically more visible as well. Underline the adaptability of the standard upright (uses ranging from mass cargo transportation, think the Viet Cong, to pannier touring) and the recumbent style bicycle is largely defunct. Now if that is what the judges wish the competition to be, then so be it. But we are consistently sent a mixed signal as ASME often tends to cite the achievements of Sam and his Varna as well as plaster photos of ex-speedbike class bikes on everything that they send out. It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong as I truly hope that I am, that ASME wants to have a competitive race bike in which a potential customer could then pick up their kid from school with said bike. Somewhat akin to going grocery shopping in an F1 car. It won't do the job well. Unless of course the groceries consist of a gallon of water in which case you can carry that with anything. If you need to carry groceries, carry a typical amount of groceries lest your vehicle be impractical.
purplepeopledesign Posted - 02/06/2012 : 14:03:45
Sounds like what they want is the HPV equivalent of a Subaru WRX. Zoom, Zoom!

:)ensen.

Those who claim to be making history are often the same ones repeating it.

Video of my trike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSLRD_2vzc
Photos of my trike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/purplepeople/
drjones96 Posted - 02/06/2012 : 13:33:16
"The change in the endurance race is not an elimination of the speed class or a refocus on utility. Instead, it is introducing some limited, practical obstacles and challenges to a (hopefully) high speed race. You need to start unassisted, carry a water jug (cargo) for a few laps, stop unassisted once per lap at a stop sign and encounter a few bumps, gravel and tight turns like you would on a city street. This poses some interesting challenges to a speed bike, but thatís the essence of engineering. The customer chooses the specifications (in this case the judges) and the engineer has to meet them.

Also, note that most of the competition officials are past competitors or organizers of this event. We considered a wide range of ideas and input in the rule changes this year and we always welcome your feedback on how to make the competition better. Thank you for yours."


All should pay attention to the above. No one class was really eliminated...more like they consolidated the two. There is no longer a utility endurance race. They took the ideas of a utility endurance and speed endurance and merged them.

It was rumored for the last three years or so that the committee was looking to eliminate the Speed/single-rider class and go ahead with the practical/utility class ONLY. I'm sure most would agree that this is an excellent alternative. The reason was that having the three races and multiple classes was putting a strain on the event from multiple standpoints. This is one reason the multi-rider class went away. So this consolidation is the next step.

This does a few things beneficial for the competition.
1. Lightens the load of the competitors who formerly competed in the Utility/Practical class by doing away with the Utility Endurance race.

2. Lightens the load of the judges who used to have to keep track of two classes of competitors.

3. Adds a new design variable for the teams who used to compete only in the speed/single-rider class. We are engineers and we need new challenges.

4. Lightens the load of the host by eliminating a race/venue they would have had to plan around. The utility endurance race can present some logistical challenges. Some hosts in the past have done an amazing job but it was a ton of work as well.

5. Adds a little bit more prestige to the overall winner of the event....because if you won then you really did win out over all the other teams that were there....not just the ones in your class.
G1E2G3 Posted - 11/11/2011 : 07:27:57
HPVcomp101 -- Buying parts does not necessarily mean they cannot be used in a "new design". "New design" relates on how you use the parts in your vehicle -- for example, you may have an innovative drivetrain, but you would not be expected to manufacture the belt or chain yourself!

BBorzini -- I agree that the gravel could be quite surprising, although for a non-upright bike careful deployment of the landing gear at that area could negate any disadvantage compared to an upright bike. I can see though how an upright bike could benefit at the obstacle part of the course though.

Gustave Granroth.
U of Wisconsin, Madison, HPVC Fairing subteam leader (2011-2012).
BBorzini Posted - 11/07/2011 : 08:34:14
HPVcomp, my understanding is that the 'new design' is aimed towards how much of the vehicle is new to this years ASME HPV race. So if you are using the fairing or frame from previous years races any analysis on that piece would not be scored.

You don't have the go and create your own gears or wheels for example. Those pieces have been perfected by industry and frankly are beneath many shops fabricating capabilities.
HPVcomp101 Posted - 11/06/2011 : 13:52:09
I see points are awarded based on how much of the vehicle is of "new design". So then, what kinds of components can be purchased without points being taken off? Mainly, does everything have to be newly designed and machined in house?
BBorzini Posted - 11/04/2011 : 16:20:29
Thank you for the clarification Victor, I wonder what exactly they mean by gravel though, that could be a real surprise if they wanted it to be.

Also, as you guys have mentioned this picking one innovation thing is killing us. We have so many ideas that together would be great but individually just supplement each other, and while we are going to implement what we can obviously 30% on one item is pretty heavy.
Victor Ragusila Posted - 11/03/2011 : 12:14:04
I talked with Paul Johnson, chief judge of the 2012 east competiton, about the utility endurance and rule changes. Below is his response to my email.

"The change in the endurance race is not an elimination of the speed class or a refocus on utility. Instead, it is introducing some limited, practical obstacles and challenges to a (hopefully) high speed race. You need to start unassisted, carry a water jug (cargo) for a few laps, stop unassisted once per lap at a stop sign and encounter a few bumps, gravel and tight turns like you would on a city street. This poses some interesting challenges to a speed bike, but thatís the essence of engineering. The customer chooses the specifications (in this case the judges) and the engineer has to meet them.

Also, note that most of the competition officials are past competitors or organizers of this event. We considered a wide range of ideas and input in the rule changes this year and we always welcome your feedback on how to make the competition better. Thank you for yours."

It looks like the obstacles will all be bunched together somewhere on the course, and the rest will be faster course. Looks very interesting! Looking forward for the upcoming face.

Victor
BBorzini Posted - 11/03/2011 : 11:14:27
Regarding the scoring, should we just assume the rules hold precedent?
BBorzini Posted - 11/03/2011 : 10:45:18
We're going to try and go more of a sustainable route using materials that are naturally occurring for the frame and possibly fairing. Also, we see the race this year moving more towards a practical vehicle for everyday use and we feel an upright give us that the best with little to no hit to functionality as defined by this years race.

Also I'll admit time is an issue with redoing our design or modeling a new recumbent; because of other restraints on our end we have five-six weeks to completely design the vehicle.
W Hilgenberg Posted - 11/03/2011 : 00:08:21
Car?

And yes, just as long as the vehicle is human powered, anything else goes. In fact you would probably do better because of it.
RideFree Posted - 11/02/2011 : 20:03:09
Hi I'm from the University of Southern California and we are looking to build a first year car this year. Are we allowed to have data logging and other electrical components (ie bike computer) with batteries if they don't provide power to the wheels?

thanks,
Jon
Victor Ragusila Posted - 11/02/2011 : 18:31:38
This should be interesting, always wondered how an upright will compare with the streamliners.

Victor
W Hilgenberg Posted - 11/02/2011 : 15:55:33
An upright? Really???? And I'm not saying that you can't build an incredible upright, I'm actually really interested to see what you guys end up doing. I personally started a design for an upright. But my question is why did you decide to go with an upright? In order to win?

Also, the math on the scoring does not add up so they made some sort of a mistake in the rules. I really wish ASME was a little more consistent on how they did things. . .
BBorzini Posted - 11/02/2011 : 13:26:33
The decision was made to develop an upright vehicle, I know you guys don't agree with the decision but hopefully we can turn something out that changes your mind.

Also Victor, I do see where it says in the new rules that the innovation portion is going to be 30/100 points of the design score, however the Judging Criteria for HPV 2011 contradicts that saying the the entire design and innovation portion is 20/135 on their score sheet. Is the 30/100 just the weight that's going to be applied to the Innovation section? If so it seems strange that they give it only the option of 2 points on the score sheet. And what happened to the practicality portion on their score sheet.

Sorry if the answer is obvious, I've never actually been to a competition while the scoring was occurring.
BBorzini Posted - 10/29/2011 : 16:29:44
I'm honestly going to leave it up to my team. I can say that our organization is different though, we are not really interested in, or haven't considered anyways, any race other than ASME. We have been focused on ASME and designing to the race there is our top priority as a group. Also, we have a smaller group (5-6 solid members) with limited resources so traveling to other events isn't really on our slate.

Regarding the design of our vehicle I'm a firm believer in the KISS system and like things simple. Again, I'll let you know what our group decides come Monday. I honestly wish we had the time and resources to make both designs come to life and compare the results.
W Hilgenberg Posted - 10/29/2011 : 07:42:07
My personal opinion on the matter would be to not build an upright. Like Victor said. They're rather boring. They don't have to be incredibly boring but they are still rather boring. Just go ahead and build the recumbent you were planning on building and then go take it to Battle Mountain if you actually want to really race. Ever since the ASME started changing the rules and trying to make it a utility race. They've really lost a lot of credibility of being a good race to go to. If they don't change it back we will just be going in order to secure funding for the bike from the school.

www.recumbents.com © 2009 www.recumbents.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000