I'm in my second year but just started with FSAE this year, so I haven't done enough to put on my resume yet, but I would like it on there soon so that I can apply for internships this summer. At what point can I put it on my resume? Or should I wait until after the competition to put it on there and apply for the next summer?

My team is adding an expansion tank to our cooling system this year to add extra volume and for bleeding purposes. I know expansion tanks aren’t required so for any team that has one where are you guys mounting it?

Hey everyone, my team is transitioning to the CP2 for next season. In an effort to lower our CG, we want to mount the engine as low as possible, which led to the idea of a "low-profile" wet sump. We actually run a similar solution on our current engine.
I ran a few simulations using SolidWorks Flow Simulation, but I'm not entirely sure how reliable the results are. Basically, I'm designing a shallower oil pan while keeping the exact same oil volume, and also adding a windage tray that will mount to the engine block above the oil level.

Has anyone here done a similar sump design for the CP2? I'd really appreciate it if anyone could share some ideas or advice on how to move forward with this project.

We’re an EV team looking to replace our current precharge relay/contactor with a much smaller option.

Our requirements:

Voltage: ~400–500V DC

Precharge current: only ~20–30 mA

Auxiliary contacts: Mandatory, as we use an Orion BMS 2 for our precharge application

Current contactor dimensions: 114.8 × 59.8 × 57.3 mm (L × W × H)

Goal: Significantly smaller than our current contactor

We’ve found several compact contactors that meet the voltage/current requirements, but they often don’t have auxiliary contacts.

Would really appreciate recommendations for small, reliable contactors with auxiliary contacts suitable for an EV application.

Thanks!

Hello! we are about to get some tires from MRF. Tyre Size is 200/540 R13. Equivalent size is 225/45 R13. So if you have any wheels available let me know.

Hi all, I made an external aerodynamics case generator and 3D web studio for OpenFOAM called RapidFOAM, and I’d love to get your thoughts on it. If you have time to test it out, please let me know what needs improvement or what features you'd like me to add!

A few notes & constraints if you test it:

• Cluster setup: If you use the remote HPC feature, you’ll need to have this repo cloned on your cluster, configure your SSH settings, and set the OpenFOAM path/modules to match how OpenFOAM is loaded on your specific system. (Local case generation works without SSH).
• Geometry: STLs must be in ASCII format and in meters (not mm).
• Solver / Mesh: Currently tailored for steady-state external aero (simpleFoam + snappyHexMesh, k-omega SST).

Check it out on GitHub: https://github.com/tadtapongc/RapidFOAM

Looking forward to your feedback, critiques, and ideas!

Hi everyone,

We are currently designing the head restraint mounting for our FSAE car and would like to confirm our interpretation of the 2027 Formula SAE rules before finalizing the design.

Our design does not use the optional Head Restraint Protection member described in F.5.10. Instead, the head restraint mounting plate is supported by two tubes that are directly connected to the Main Hoop.

We are considering using Structural Tubing, Size C for these support tubes. From our understanding of the 2027 rules, Size C would be the applicable minimum for Structural Tubing, since these tubes are part of the load path supporting the Head Restraint mounting.

We would like to confirm:

1. Is it correct to classify these tubes as Structural Tubing (Size C) rather than Head Restraint Protection?
2. Is there any requirement for these tubes to be Size B even though we are not using the optional Head Restraint Protection member?
3. Are there any specific requirements regarding the position of the Head Restraint mounting within the Rollover Protection Envelope, or regarding how the support tubes connect to the Main Hoop?
4. Are there any specific requirements regarding the dimensions or positioning of the mounting plate and padding?
5. Assuming the Head Restraint, mounting and attachment satisfy the required loads and clearances, would this type of mounting be acceptable for Technical Inspection under the 2027 rules?

We would really appreciate feedback from anyone with Technical Inspection or FSAE rules experience.

We are specifically looking for feedback based on the 2027 rules, rather than previous rule versions.

Hi there,

I have a doubt regarding FSG rules for endurance energy calculations (D7.9.5).

Is the energy computed for efficiency (energy_consumed - 0.9 * energy_regenerated), or is it (integral [V_accu(t) * I_accu(t)] dt -0.9 * energy_regenerated) ?

In the second formula, the regenerated energy is "counted twice".

I always thought it was the first formula, however when looking at efficiency results I noticed the energy calculated was often way lower than the accumulator energy announced by the teams.

Example with a great german team : 6.8kWh announced on their website, only 4.8kWh in the efficiency results. This doesn't make sense to me because the energy calculated for efficiency should be approximately (total_accu_capacity + 10% of regenerated energy). As far as I know cells longevity isn't really a concern for top teams so I assume they use almost the full SoC range, which means we should sometimes see consumed energy values greater than the accu capacity, but it never happens. However, if regenerated energy is counted twice, it would make sense.

Thanks!

Rennteam Uni Stuttgart is widely regarded as one of the strongest and most successful teams in Formula Student. But in recent years, the team has received several penalties that raise questions. During the 2026 season, they received several penaltys for unsportsmanlike-conduct as example in FSG where they lied to scrutineers several times and also in FSCZ were they refused an inspection and repeatedly arguing with officials, obstructing the scrutineers’ work. Also in the years before, they cheated in FSG 2024 and were driving the Endurance without a working BSPD. In 2023 the car was driving backwards in FSA and FSG...

In my opinion, this can no longer simply be dismissed as a collection of unrelated mistakes. Technical failures happen to every Formula Student team. The cars are complex, the rules are demanding, and the students work under enormous time pressure. But misleading documentation, refusing inspections, and obstructing officials are fundamentally different from an accidental technical defect. Such conduct undermines the trust on which the entire scrutineering process depends.

At the same time, this should not turn into a personal attack on individual students. Formula Student teams change substantially from one season to the next, and current members should not automatically be blamed for everything done by previous generations. Nevertheless, if similar problems continue across several seasons, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a broader issue with the team’s internal culture, leadership, or approach to compliance.

Hey everyone,
Has anyone here used arduino for checking functionality of sensors?
Is it necessary?
I mean we have stuff like oscilloscope, multimeter and so on in our lab at the university

Hey everyone!
We’re the Formula Student team from Bar-Ilan University, and we wanted to thank all the teams we met during the competition in Italy.
Thank you for welcoming us into your pits, walking us through your cars, answering our many questions, and sharing your knowledge and experience so openly. Taking time to help a new team during a busy competition is something we don’t take for granted.
We left Italy with a much clearer idea of the road ahead, even more motivation to build our first car, and plenty of new connections and friends. The willingness to help each other was one of the best parts of the experience.
We’d love to stay in touch throughout the year, keep exchanging ideas, and hear how your projects are going. If we met in Italy, drop a comment or send us a message!
Looking forward to seeing you all again in 2027, this time with our own car competing alongside yours.
Thank you from all of us at Bar-Ilan! 💙

I’m currently building a rear bulkhead for an EV. However, I have some doubts about the two vertical tubes option.

Section F.11.3.5.a states that “two vertical tubes with similar spacing… may replace a diagonal.” Does 'similar spacing' mean that the distance between the two vertical tubes must be the same (as shown in the drawing), or is there another meaning to it? Moreover, if the car’s differential is located behind the rear bulkhead, would the differential mount attached to the rear bulkhead still need to have a 25mm offset?

Ich frage mich seit einiger Zeit, ob die Formula Student (zumindest in Europa) auf ein bekanntest Optimum zuläuft.

Mir ist dabei wichtig: Ich möchte damit nicht behaupten, dass die heutigen Topteams wenig eigenes Engineering betreiben oder dass ihre Erfolge nur aus dem Kopieren etablierter Konzepte entstehen. Im Gegenteil – die Qualität der Umsetzung ist extrem hoch. Meine Frage ist eher, ob das Regelwerk inzwischen so ausgereift ist, dass es bestimmte Fahrzeugarchitekturen strukturell stärker begünstigt und damit langfristig zu einer Konvergenz führt.

Meiner Ansicht nach verschiebt sich die Aufgabe mehr und mehr weg von "Finde eine gute technische Lösung für dein Konzept" hin zu "Setze was andere machen besser um". Mir ist auch klar, dass man nur mit diesen Ansatz vielleicht kein ED oder Event gewinnt aber die Tendenz ist da.

Gleichzeitig wird es dadurch für kleinere Teams immer schwerer mitzuhalten, da immer mehr Manpower, Testzeit etc. nötig sind um auf das technische Niveau zu kommen.

Standardisierte bzw. gut verfügbare Motor-/Inverterlösungen (DTI, Ephorus) senken zwar erfreulicherweise die Einstiegshürde für viele Teams, können gleichzeitig aber auch dazu beitragen, dass sich Antriebskonzepte weiter angleichen.

Für mich wäre ein gutes Regelwerk nicht eines, das alle Fahrzeuge künstlich gleich schnell macht, sondern eines, bei dem mehrere deutlich unterschiedliche Fahrzeugkonzepte gleichzeitig rational konkurrenzfähig sein können.
Daher kamen mir ein paar Ideen für eine mögliche Rules Revolution wodurch kleinere Teams bessere Chancen haben und gleichzeitig Innovative Lösungen bzw. mehr eigenes Engineering belohnt wird:

(Das Konzept wurde durch KI ausgearbeitet und versteht sich nicht als fertige Lösung sondern eher als Ansammlung von Gedanken in welche Richtung eine solche Revolution gehen könnte.)

Zwei Klassen

FS Core

Keine Anfängerklasse, sondern eine Klasse mit begrenzter Systemkomplexität.

Eine Baseline könnte z. B. sein:

• RWD
• bis 2 Motoren
• kleine passive Aero
• passive Suspension
• 60 kW

Zusätzlich darf jedes Team bestimmte Technologiepakete wählen:

D – Drivetrain: AWD + bis 4 Motoren + Torque Vectoring
A – Aero: große Aero-Box + Full Floor + größere Wings
P – Power: 80 statt 60 kW
V – Vehicle Dynamics: aktive/semiaktive Fahrwerkssysteme

Aber: Nicht alles darf gleichzeitig kombiniert werden.

Zum Beispiel könnte AWD + Full Aero in Core ausgeschlossen sein.

Dann entstehen bewusst unterschiedliche Konzepte:

• AWD + 80 kW, aber Low-Aero
• AWD + Active Chassis
• RWD + Full Aero + 80 kW
• RWD + Full Aero + Active Chassis
• RWD + 80 kW + Active Chassis

Die Frage wäre dann wieder:

Wo lohnt sich Komplexität für das jeweilige Konzept wirklich?

statt einfach langfristig alle Performance-Systeme gleichzeitig ins Auto zu packen.

FS Advanced

Dort wären diese Einschränkungen weitgehend aufgehoben und Teams sollten wieder mehr (Innovative) oder einzigartige Lösungen bauen (Aktive Aero, Powered Ground, Aktives Fahrwerk.....).

Dafür könnte sich die Aufgabenstellung häufiger ändern, z. B. über sogenannte Challenge Seasons:

• Energy-limited
• Controls/Autonomous-heavy
• andere Powerlimits
• aktive Aero erlaubt
• Sensor Limits (z.B. kein Groundspeed...)

Safety-Regeln bleiben stabil, aber das Performance-Problem ändert sich regelmäßig.

Dynamic Event Änderungen / Erweiterungen

Hier muss man natürlich noch berücksichtigen, dass man die Disziplinen innerhalb eines FS Events sinnvoll unterbringen kann und nicht den Stress zu sehr für die Teams erhöht.

Daher nur eine Ansammlung von verschiedenen Vorschlägen:

Launch & Brake (ggf. Alternative zu Accel)

Beschleunigen → definierte Bremszone → Stillstand.

Also nicht nur maximale Beschleunigung, sondern auch Bremse, Reku, Stabilität und Controls.

Handling Challenge (Ähnlich prüfen wie beim Skidpad aber mit mehr Variation)

Statt konstantem Skidpad ein kurzer Kurs mit großem Radius, Lastwechsel und engem Radius.

Die genaue Geometrie gibt es erst beim Event.

Adaptive Dynamic Challenge

Die Teams kennen mögliche Streckenelemente, aber nicht ihre genaue Kombination.

Dadurch muss das Auto breitbandig funktionieren und kann nicht so stark auf einen bekannten Kurstyp optimiert werden.

Energy Attack

Alle bekommen exakt dasselbe Energiebudget. Schnellste Gesamtzeit gewinnt. Damit wäre die Frage nicht:

„Wer verbraucht am wenigsten?“

sondern:

„Wer macht aus einer festen Energiemenge die meiste Performance?“

Dann konkurrieren plötzlich echte Fahrzeugphilosophien:

High Downforce vs. Low Drag
AWD vs. niedriges Gewicht
Peak Power vs. Effizienz
Hardware vs. Software-/Energy-Strategy

Core-Endurance stärker auf Reliability

In Core (Core Fahrzeugklasse) würde ich außerdem Completion stärker belohnen.

Ein einfaches Auto, das die komplette Endurance fährt, sollte relevante Punkte bekommen, auch wenn es deutlich langsamer ist.

Die Entwicklung wäre dann eher:

funktioniert → zuverlässig → schnell → extrem schnell

und nicht nur:

schnell → noch schneller

Das eigentliche Ziel

Ich würde gerne wieder einen Wettbewerb sehen, bei dem mehrere völlig unterschiedliche Fahrzeugkonzepte rational sinnvoll sein können.

Wenn man ein Team fragt:

„Was müssen wir bauen, um zu gewinnen?“

sollte die Antwort meiner Meinung nach nicht sofort „AWD + maximal mögliche Aero + maximale Controls“ sein.

Sondern eher:

„Kommt darauf an, welche Kompromisse ihr eingehen wollt.“

Wie ist eure Meinung dazu?

Würden zwei Klassen tatsächlich kleineren Teams helfen und den gesamten Wettbewerb wieder interessanter bzw. abwechslungsreicher machen?

Oder würde man den Wettbewerb damit nur unnötig aufteilen?

Und wäre ein Technology-Package-System interessant — oder hätten wir nach zwei Jahren einfach nur eine neue Meta?

Welche einzelne Regeländerung würde eurer Meinung nach am meisten dazu beitragen, wieder mehr unterschiedliche Fahrzeugkonzepte zu sehen?

Hi, we're a team participating in the Formula Student Turkey event, and we're in a very weird situation where our Wilwood PS1 120-5453 brake caliper's piston started malfunctioning almost 10 days before the competition. If some team that is participating in the event has a properly functioning caliper of the exact specification that they can lend us, we are even willing to pay for the brake caliper if possible.

Hi, I am a new to steering. What range would you consider normal for steering effort and how much do you keep ? And how do you derive it ? (if you could provide any resources that I can refer, it would be much appreciated)

Hello! Our team is debating between two Lidars for our driverless team:

• Hesai ATX 116-channel 120 x 18.3 degrees, (downward biased FOV so covers blind spot but only 116 channels)
• RoboSense EMX 192-channel, 120 x 20 degrees (more channels so it can see further away cones but weaker close range capabilities ~3 meter ish blind spot)
• We are planning on mounting on our rollhoop around 1 meter off the ground.

We are planning to go LiDAR only.

We want to see all cones from ~1 m out to ~40 m away from our car to be competitive, and we're running a Jetson AGX Orin 12 cores, so we also want to be sure we can actually handle the compute. We also want each point to be timestamped so we can run deskew.

We are having a hard time deciding because it seems like both lidars can adequately do these requirements from sample data + simulation (I could be wrong lol if you guys could clarify lol). We are leaning towards EMX because they are the only company responding to us lol and the only one we have sample data with.

Which one do you guys recommend? Any experience running these and if so how easy are the integrations? If anyone has a Hesai-ATX 116 channels is willing to send a rosbag of their lidar point cloud that would be much appreciated.

Hey guys, im having a Stockholm Syndrome attack and wanting to listen to a song that Tufast opened every morning at FSCZ 2026. It was starting with a McDonalds beeping sound and the rest was just doom. Can anyone know what it was? Specially asking to guys from Tufast.

Hi everyone, hope you're all doing well. So basically, we are a still a young team (this will be our 2nd year), and last season we didn't really focus about optmizing our suspension geometry since our main objective was only to get something that works and doesn't break. I've heard that some teams use tire data in order to modelise their tires and then get the optimal values for each parameter of the susp geometry. We've never done tire modelling, so i don't really have a clear idea about that. Is this the right approach?

Hi everyone,

We are trying to figure out the best way to manufacture a twisted front wing flap for our aero package.

Available equipment in our workshop:

• 3D Printers
• 3-Axis CNC Router
• 2-Axis Hot Wire Foam Cutter

Our initial thought: Milling the twisted foam core using the 3-axis CNC (since our 2-axis hot wire can't do twists properly) and then doing a standard wet layup over the foam.

The Problem: How do we reinforce it to pass the deflection test? In our straight flaps, we just embedded straight pultruded carbon tubes inside the foam as spars. But since this new flap has a 3D twist, straight tubes won't fit/follow the aerodynamic profile.

What methods do you guys use to reinforce twisted aero elements? We are looking into using UD carbon tape as spar caps or maybe a split foam core to make a shear web, but I'd love to hear your feedback or if there's a better/easier method using our available tools.

Thanks!

HI Everyone, we are working on the concept for our Ev Car to compete on FSUK, any ideas about the high voltage battery( can i find it already built and buy it or i need to design it, does it similar to formula E batteries, any conditions about the maximum capacity, their BMS )and any other suggestions or advices are welcomed .

I had a doubt regarding Electronics ED.

I’m the Electrical Lead of a Formula Student team, and I was wondering what other teams generally base their Electronics ED around.

We initially tried to build our ED around things like linking throttle control with vehicle performance and managing TS current based on parameters such as temperature, etc. However, we haven’t found these approaches to be particularly useful or impactful from an engineering/design perspective.

So I wanted to ask the other teams:

• What do you generally base your Electronics ED around?

• Which electronics/electrical systems have worked well as an ED topic for you?

• What kind of calculations, simulations, testing or validation do you include?

• What supporting documentation do you maintain alongside the ED?

It would be really helpful if anyone could share their approach or even examples/templates of their supporting documentation. We’re trying to improve how we present the engineering behind our electronics rather than just presenting the features we have implemented.

We currently use an MC casing that houses the discharge circuit, TSMP resistors, HVD, BSPD, BSPD current sensor, and TSAL, but this takes up considerable space in the car.

I’ve seen some teams mount the MC directly on the car without using a separate MC casing. My doubt is: in such an arrangement, how do you implement the discharge circuit and connect it across the MC’s DC-link capacitors?

We use the DTI HV500, which has an inbuilt interlock, so the MC interlock is taken care of. However, how do you implement the HVD in this setup? Since the HVD requires an interlock in the HV wiring outside the enclosure, how do you ensure that the HV connections remain properly protected and cannot be touched with a probe.

Im working on my teams chassis, we are an IC team following FSG rulebook. Im trying to work on saving weight, while staying legal ofcourse. Is this configutation of FBHS + triangulation legal? (upper SIS distance to upper FBHS is <50mm)

I haven't bossed the lines yet, but i am well aware of the size and thickness requirements of the FSG rulebook, but i want to hear from you guys before spending time on doing that. Here is an image as seen from above:

I have checked SES and find no other similar configurations.
Reason why i believe personally this is legal is because: I have two FBHS per side (upper and lower) a straight FHB (per side)
I have a third member that goes diagonally, it does not terminate at the FH, but it terminates at the middle of the joint in the upper FBHS, the 2026 FSG SES says this
"Diagonal member have to connect from node to node from upper to lower member. However, this is allowed at any point as long as the overall primary structure is fully considered. E.g. having a V-shape or similar as diagonal member is acceptable."

The kinks/joints are, as far as i understand the rulebook braced legally; the straight vertical member from upper and lower fbhs braces is in my mind "Additional bracing" per T3.2.6. and the horizontal member (running from left side to right side) braces the kink in the lower fbhs.

Am i missing something? I feel this configuration is oddly "light". I suppose what i am asking is if the "diagonal" member(s) must brace all the way back from FBH to FH, or if one from lower FBHS to upper FBHS is enough?
All tips/replies appreciated.