SHOULD THE LENGTH OF THE RAYCING DAY BE CHANGED?
In ASC2003, teams were allowed to rayce between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. (with a window around the end of the day time).
Should the time be adjusted? How to submit your response.
RESPONSES (Generally listed with newest response first.)
RESPONSE#8
I believe this is probably a better idea to reduce speed vs. the idea of
lengthening the racing day. However, for cars with less-than-100%-reliable
electrical systems, without batteries how does one repair and test their
systems in the morning and evening with the batteries locked away? I can
speak from personal experience on this one. And I would hate to have to
cart along another 100V battery pack just for testing.
FROM: Colin O'Connor,
Former Project Lead,
University of Arizona Solar Car
RESPONSE#7
Perhaps, we should make the racing day and the charging day the same, with an allowance made for putting in and taking out the batteries for impound. For instance, if racing hours are from 8am-6pm, then teams can get batteries out at 7:30am and batteries have to be put up by 6:30pm. If you stop during the grace period, let's say 6:15pm, you would have until 6:45pm to get your batteries in impound and you can first get your batteries out at 7:45am the next day. At most, teams could get an hour of charge time, if they could connect their batteries immediately. Of course, charging at the stage stops would need to limited as well.
This would solve at least a few of the problems that have been mentioned. There would be less time for charging, and teams would have to choose between charging and driving, which brings back some strategy. We could make the day from 8am-7pm, or any times we wish. Because the observors would have the batteries sooner, they would not have to stay up as long, which may make the trip more enjoyable from their perspective.
As far as the fatigue issue, my past racing experience was that not much work gets done on the car while charging the batteries. Team members eat dinner, hold the array, and in general, wait until the batteries are impounded and the car can be moved into the trailer/behind a building/taken to a welder/etc. By not having 3 hours of charging time at the end of the day, teams might be able to get the work done on their cars sooner. In order to not completely lose the PR side of the event, cars may be required to stay on site until a given time; however, the PR contact on the team may have an easier time talking with media and the public while not worrying about shading the array.
Just my thoughts,
FROM: Gail Lueck,
Rayce Staff '03,
University of Missouri-Rolla '98-'02
RESPONSE#6
Actually the race days in SR95 [refers to Response#4] would have been much shorter than they
are currenly since you only raced a fixed distance and may have finished
the day in 6 hours instead of the guaranteed 10 hours of racing now.
[text related to other questions removed]
FROM: Jason Kramb,
University of Michigan Solar Car Team Alumni,
Driver / Chief Aerodynamics and Body Engineer '99,'0
RESPONSE#5
Just a note to everyone that the current regulations for ASC already
extend the racing day an full hour longer than they do in WSC. Now this
is mainly due to the time between sunrise and sunset in the different
locations, but do teams that have participated in both races feel any
difference between fatigue at either race? The difference here is just
swaping stationary driving time with charging time.
[text related to other questions removed]
FROM: Jason Kramb,
University of Michigan Solar Car Team Alumni,
Driver / Chief Aerodynamics and Body Engineer '99,'0
RESPONSE#4
I concur on the fatigue concern [refers to Response#3]. The time-length of the race days
seemed more than long enough when I raced in Sunrayce 95.
[text related to other questions removed]
Regards,
FROM: Carl,
Sunrayce 95 Participant
RESPONSE#3
IMHO, extending the racing hours would be a big
mistake. There are not only driver fatigue issues to
be accounted for, but race crew fatigue, race
logistics, etc, etc, etc. I don't think the benefit
of slowing the cars down a little would outweigh the
potential downsides.
Keep in mind that in '01 Michigan's car blasted out of
Albuquerque at 55mph under cloudy skies, and didn't
see sunshine until we got to the Arizona border. From
there we had nice partly cloudy skies all the way to
Flagstaff where we finished with at 50% SOC. All on a
1200W array that had very poor efficiency under cloud
cover. Also keep in mind that was our post-accident
M-Pulse, not the improved M-Pulse that raced in WSC.
Lengthening the race days for ASC 01 would not have
slowed that car down. In WSC 01, it would have slowed
us down a little, but not much. Largely because WSC
is wide open with no staging.
I think integration of track racing into the
cross-country race where the objective changes from
lowest time to longest distance driven would be a good
way to change the race in a way that would slow things
down a bit and improve the safety of those involved.
It may even draw spectators, if properly promoted.
Take, for example, the old Sunrayce 97 course. 1st
day of the race could be held at IMS, teams are then
given three days to drive to Heartland Park in Topeka,
KS. There's then another day of track racing there.
Teams then are given x number of days to drive to the
IRL(?) track near Colorado Springs for a last day of
track racing. Most miles driven wins. If you have to
trailer to make it to the track you don't get credit
for the miles that the solar car is not on the road.
This eliminates a lot of the desire to drive at the
speed limit on public roads. Additionally, the
distances involved in driving from track to track are
such that you would have no chance at winning if you
skipped those sections and just trailered. By racing
at tracks you give teams some rest time, and provide a
venue where cars can operate with confidence that it
won't take an ambulence half an hour to provide
medical assistance to an injured driver.
Such a race format would also return some of the
camaraderie that made the old Sunrayces just a little
more enjoyable.
This type of race would change one of the things that
makes solar car racing very unique: strategy. When
it's always sunny, the strategy is simple: drive as
fast as you possibly can. This 'most miles driven'
type race would have the potential to renew interest
in energy efficient strategies. Interesting twists
could be added where the time a team has to charge
after reaching the staged stop(race track) is more
limited. This would provide some emphasis on good
efficient race strategy during the cross-country
stages.
That was way too long, but again, just my $0.02.
FROM: Russ Moerland,
University of Michigan Solar Car Team Alumni,
Strategist '97 - '01
RESPONSE#2
Nathan,
If the racing day were two hours longer that would be two hours less
sleep for each team member [refers to Response#1]. Some of the guys I know (other teams included)
barely get enough sleep as it is during ASC. I'm not sure if that would be
the safest thing in the world.
FROM: Al Majkrzak,
University of Minnesota Solar Vehicle Project,
Mechanical Team Leader
RESPONSE#1
[Note: This was originally written for the vehicle dimension question.]
With the current regulations, the solar cars are about the same size as a
Chevy Impala (just a little wider). This is a good size for a vehicle,
including solar cars. Race officials should not use the size of the array
or vehicle to try and adjust the performance of solar cars. If the size
approach is taken, how small do we go? If cars still go too fast in the
next race, do you make them even smaller for the following race? This is a
path we shouldn't head down.
Bringing down speeds of fast solar cars should be achieved by extending the
racing time each day.
Average Driving Power = Solar Energy/Driving Time.
By extending the racing time, the driving time denominator is not only
increased but the total solar energy is decreased because more time is spent
driving in low angle light, instead of pointing directly at the sun to
charge. If the racing started at 7:30am instead of 8:00am and ended at
6:30pm instead of 6:00, cars would have 11%-12% less power to use going down
the road. ASC should tweak the driving time so that teams are rarely
limited by the speed limit. This method allows for continuous adjustment as
cars get even faster in the future while maintaining continuity of vehicle
regulations. This method also has the added effect of cars going further
each day, so races could be 7 days instead of 10 for the same distance (an
idea some ASC planners might like).
FROM: Nathan Rues,
42
|
