www.recumbents.com - Rules discussion 2012
www.recumbents.com
www.recumbents.com
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
 All Forums
 www.recumbents.com
 ASME HPV Racing
 Rules discussion 2012
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 10/14/2011 :  14:21:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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

Billy
Starting Member

USA
2 Posts

Posted - 10/14/2011 :  20:35:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Victor Ragusila

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...



In the Overview of the Design Event (Section V.A): "In particular, this event includes a functional demonstration of one key innovative feature of the design that advances the technology of human powered vehicles."

And Section V.E.3: "The Technology Innovation section will focus on one key innovative feature of the design or manufacturing of the vehicle that advances the technology and usefulness of human powered vehicles."

Sounds to me like they're just looking for one...

Edited by - Billy on 10/14/2011 20:43:58
Go to Top of Page

Travis Schuh
Starting Member

USA
4 Posts

Posted - 10/14/2011 :  21:29:02  Show Profile  Visit Travis Schuh's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I am greatly saddened to see the Speed Endurance gone. We were talking over here, and the idea came up that we should just organize our own unofficial speed endurance on Saturday afternoon so that we don't have to miss out on the fun and so we can see how fast the bikes go once you get past the acceleration part. Would other teams be interested in this if we could get it organized?

Also, I agree with Victor in that a standard upright would likely do well because of the acceleration limiting nature of the course. I think that they should run a benchmark in the race of someone riding a bike with panniers. That way you could know if your bike was faster than the current state of the art. I would totally be up for riding part (or all) of the endurance as such if it was allowed.

Regardless, I am still looking forward to an awesome year and a fun competition.

-Travis
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 10/15/2011 :  17:27:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
organizing our own race is difficult, because of safety issues. We need the course closed, we need the Emergency Response people there, etc.

I am curious to see the course for this year. Anyone know the contact of the Groove college organizers? Since ASME is an organization that we are all members of, what i think we should organize is a forum to talk about rule changes with the ASME judges.

Overall, i believe the rules are very well written to allow design freedom and fun racing. I am curious if the Speed Endurance drop was due to limited resources for running races, or whether the organizers thought it was not needed anymore since both classes have been merged (which was unavoidable and very good in my opinion).

So i wonder whether we can talk with ASME and the organizers to allow us a practice/exhibition/speed event on Saturday afternoon. This would allow everyone to debug their bikes, try riders, see how fast they can go. Of course, we would need all the safety measures used during normal racing and we would only do it with the cooperation of ASME...

Victor
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 10/15/2011 :  18:20:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Innovation: Is the feature or system completely original, or is it an
improvement on an old idea?"

If you give me a "completely original" innovation for this competition, I will almost certainly show you somewhere where it has already been done. I am willing to bet 5 dollars on that.

Edited by - W Hilgenberg on 10/15/2011 18:56:25
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 10/15/2011 :  18:29:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh, and does anyone happen to know what their average speed was for the speed endurance course last year?
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 10/16/2011 :  19:37:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
well, they do word it as something that advances the art of HPVs....I guess a good improvement is something that advances the art quite a lot...

what worries me is the "only one" technological improvement...a good bike usually has a number of improvements , not only one giant one. Thats my view anyway...

Victor
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 10/18/2011 :  13:50:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm curious as to what they will call an innovation when it come time to judge the bikes...
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2011 :  10:22:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I can honestly say that I'm very disappointed. This was going to be our (CSULB) first year running the competition and worked on our design this far given previous years designs. We were planning on the speed competition and got a jump start making our fairing (carbon fiber) so we would have time to properly build our first bike. Now we learn that we're basically crippled in this years competition as our bike is highly recumbent with a two wheel base. Honestly don't know if it's even worth finishing the project anymore.
Go to Top of Page

Moorhead17
Starting Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2011 :  15:31:11  Show Profile  Visit Moorhead17's Homepage  Reply with Quote
BBorzini,

I'm sorry to hear about your disappointment, but I definitely think it is worth finishing what you have started. Had you participated during recent years, you would have seen that there has been a strong push from speed-only bikes to speed bikes that have utilitarian features. Toronton, Cal Poly, Missouri S&T, and Rose-Hulman (only to name a few) have developed "utility bikes" that are faster than an overwhelming majority of the "speed bike" entries.

I wish you and your team the best of luck, and look forward to seeing what you bring to the races.

MSM
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2011 :  20:16:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey there,

BBorzini, don't give up!!!! At the very least there is always Battle Mountain to go to which sounds like your bike is nearly ideal for it. Besides, if enough people raise their voice, then ASME will have to change the rules in order to make them more reasonable. While disappointing is an excellent word for what the competition has become, there is always a chance that it will improve. As a last resort there are enough teams in California that we could realistically form a West Coast HPV Invitational using the original (1980's) collegiate HPV competition rules. I think we actually might have a copy of them somewhere in our workplace. . . Either way. I'm really looking forward to seeing what you've got cooking in your secret Long Beach HPV workshop.

Cheers!
Will Hilgenberg
Cal Poly SLO
HPV Team Vice President
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2011 :  20:58:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The only reason not to run such a bike with the current rules would be the landing gear...you can always have a flap on the side of the bike that opens and you can stick your hand/foot out to balance the bike....

Just to put it into perspective, our ASME Utility bike last year was very much at home at Battle Mountain. Our new bike is smaller than a Varna.

The only thing you need is a decent landing gear (which is good to have anyway) and a wheel fairing that allows good wheel clearance for the speed bump. And also a STRONG fork, so you dont bust it like Rose-Hulman and Missouri...:P

the competition will still be lots of fun

cheers.

Victor Ragusila
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2011 :  21:49:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks for the encouragement guys. My main worry was the speed bump, I'm not sure if we would have enough clearance as it is. Does anyone know what the rough height is normally? Right now we're looking at 3-4 inches of clearance before we high center and that is pretty close to our limit. The other problem is that our vehicle just isn't made for acceleration and handling, it's made for top speed and while I guess we could race in this it just isn't optimal. Regarding the landing gear though, that definitely is doable and would be our fix for that particular problem.

It really seems to me that the best design would be the standard one like CSUN adopted in 2009. Would there be any reason (other than lack of aerodynamics, which may not play that large of a roll anyways)not to go with that design (eg. rule changes, design simplicity for report ect.).
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2011 :  00:17:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There is absolutely no reason to not go with an upright. Which I think is kinda of dumb. I know that with my sprint speed on an upright I would have been good for a fourth place in the sprint event at Indy this past year and would have done much better than the recumbent bikes at the utility section. With the speed endurance event gone there is quite literally no reason that you couldn't win with a well designed touring bike. Which is dumb.
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2011 :  09:17:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree that it's dumb, it takes a lot of the innovative designs out of the running by eliminating top speed abilities. However, is it an issue to be excused from the roll bar and seat belt issues? It's obvious that these would only hinder safety on an upright design but I feel like those requirements would remove the possibility of an upright if they were indeed required. Although that obviously wasn't the case for Northridge.

Also, not to be digging but what is the 'normal' height of the speed bumps in the past or is that left until the competition? I'm putting an email in to the official address but am really looking for an answer as this most likely will determine whether we scrap our design or not.
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2011 :  12:26:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Cant give you the exact dimensions because i dont know them. You can check the pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdelc/5678625562/in/set-72157626611394374 and http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.203184716421693.50849.102225399850959&type=3 for the platform and the water obstacle, which was close to the size of the speed bump.

The way our team is organized is that we consider the ASME race and the Battle Mountain race equally when designing the bike. This also ensures that we are legal for all the HPVA races in summer. Thus we have a bike we can race for 4-5 races, not just ASME.

While one could win ASME endurance with an upright (depending on the track), an upright is booring and would not do so well in HPVA races or the Battle Mountain event, thus it is not optimal for us.

One design dogma we've been using (which seems similar to the one BBorzini has) is to design a bike fast enough for Battle Mountain and then keep adding features for the HPVA and ASME races. We removed some features (such as the wheel fairings) for the ASME race, because it gave us minimum advantage and complicated tire changes.

Of course, to make this worth, you actually have to go to Battle Mountain or other HPVA races. Which is lots of fun.

Victor
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 10/28/2011 :  13:39:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Victor thank you for the pictures. I'd seen some videos of past years but couldn't find them again last night. The bump is actually much shorter than I remembered.

I also completely see where your coming from regarding the design, in other races the design would honestly be laughed at. For us the ASME race is the one race we've been paying attention to and that was our top goal. While I agree that an upright would be boring in some ways with our small team it might be more reasonable and there are some interesting fairing configurations we'd like to play with, also it's different in the field from the competition and may just point out some flaws in the new rules which would help the competition in the future.

We met today to analyze our options (modifying our current vehicle, a new recumbent design or an upright design) and assigned values to characteristics of each. We're going to vote on Monday to see which we'll move forward with this year. I'll let you know what the decision is.

Thank you again for your support and quick responses.
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 10/29/2011 :  07:42:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 10/29/2011 :  16:29:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 11/02/2011 :  13:26:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 11/02/2011 :  15:55:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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. . .
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 11/02/2011 :  18:31:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This should be interesting, always wondered how an upright will compare with the streamliners.

Victor
Go to Top of Page

RideFree
Starting Member

USA
1 Posts

Posted - 11/02/2011 :  20:03:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
284 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2011 :  00:08:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2011 :  10:45:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

BBorzini
Starting Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2011 :  11:14:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Regarding the scoring, should we just assume the rules hold precedent?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
www.recumbents.com © 2009 www.recumbents.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000