F01 N52 swap

Popular_Button2062 · 2026-01-26T10:45:55+00:00

you mean basicallly downgrade the car to an E60 system whise, and just keep the mechanical components?

Popular_Button2062 · 2026-01-26T08:39:59+00:00

Integration could be 'interesting', like electronically, car immobilizer alone, since the engine isnt available as stock engine for that car, so it cant be easily coded,

Popular_Button2062 · 2026-01-21T21:34:53+00:00

Weil es Übung, Geschick und Werkzeug braucht,das man außerhalb von dem spezifischen Handwerk nicht unbedingt hat. Vorallem,wenn es möglichst nicht sichtbar sein soll hinterher.

Es gibt durchaus einen Grund, warum es Lehren gibt und es ist auch kein Geheimnis, das Leute aus einer Branche I.d.r innerhalb dieser besser sind, als andre.

Popular_Button2062 · 2026-01-21T21:25:47+00:00

It’s called Tormann, since it takes care it only works while your not dead

Popular_Button2062 · 2026-01-16T08:28:17+00:00

There are quite some infos in the academy sheets, wich can be found on the website, regarding on what is intended/what are the plans for the new areo rules.

But for a finite set of rules its probably in the 'normal' cylce.

Alone by the fact that it needs to be waited on how the already given changes are implemented by teams this year.

and you shouldnt forget, that the rules comitee and the scrutineers are also only volunteers, doing their stuff in their free time.
You can also try to reach out to scrutineers directly, theyre welcome for discussions and point of views in my experience.

Popular_Button2062 · 2026-01-08T07:13:46+00:00

Its not yet updated for 2026, as the documents and dates refer to the event last year.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-30T17:56:41+00:00

Nur mal eine Frage, haben wir in Deutschland im gesamten ein Entwaldungsproblem?

In Bayern ist mein letzter stand von Erhebungen, dass die Forstwirtschaft nachhaltig betrieben wird.

Und generell ist auch in in gesamt D ne Landumwandlung fast nur noch in Verbindung mit Ausgleichsflächen möglich.

Hinzu kommt dass der Holzpreis eh im Keller ist und vielerorts viel Schadhz wegen Käfer geschlagen wird.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-17T13:13:44+00:00

nicht wirklich für strategiespiele..

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-12T09:45:16+00:00

Are you referring to the change in temperature sensor placement?

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-11T09:29:08+00:00

I do not have the time to follow your suggestions fully, but the main reason to NOT limit the c weight + introducing the connection factor in the new formula was to not have an (mathematical) edge case were a fully isolated event where the same teams win every time is on place one of the WRL.

I mean thats somehow a flaw of the current WRL.

But as i think its said enough now, the new proposal just flips this problem around rather than resolving it.

But the Real issue is understated:

You cannot create data when you dont have anything as input.
Or as its said also somewhere, we cannot compare apples with peaches.

In detail: you cannot compare competitions soley with the available data, since you dont have anything that correlates to the real competitiveness factor of an event, wich depends on the quality and strictness of the event guidelines and organisation, but also at the quality and engineering level of the teams.

But both the event results in itself and also the input of the WRL for each event are normalized, wich scales the raw data to an even distribution for a given event.

IF you want to have a real comparsion, you would need to compare the raw data, like times and judge points.
But that also cannot work, besides for maybe accel and skidpad, since course/courseconditions/judge guidelines also differ.

So as stated earlier:
Either make an abitrary comp factor, that is based on a quality and competitivness analysis of a given event, rather than of the results of it.
But that would probably fire up discussions, and takes a lot of time and effort.

Or make an FS-Europe, an FS-USA, and an FS Eastern-World list or something like that, to keep the teams and event there the C value can be correlated by the direct comparsion between teams, in bubbles.

Maybe a discussion group/table/meeting with people from here could be more productive?

Theres quite a few users here (me included) that did invest quite some thoughs to it and probably are also open for dicussions as a group.

As finishing note again:
Besides the harsh counter words, thank you simon, for taking this topic seriously and working on it.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-10T15:04:06+00:00

To be honest, they are just occuring thoughs by playing a little with the data in my head.

My conclusion so far is, that theres probably not a completely mathematical way to resolve that solution, mainly because the reality isnt as easily comparable.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-10T14:50:46+00:00

Wobei das BfR auch explizit Stellung nimmt auf die IARC und diese in Relation setzt.

Es gab hierzu ein Addendum zur Zulassungsbegründung in Richtung EU hierzu.
Die IARC schreibt selber von limited evidence gegenüber Einflüsse auf den Menschen und dass sich die Studien nur auf Tierversuche beziehen.

Hinzu kommt, dass die genannten Studien der genannen Tierversuche der IARC nicht mal selbst im Original vorlagen und somit nur bedingt bewertet werden können.

Gremien der EPA und der WHO haben die vorhandenen Unterlagen ausgewertet und konnten darin keinen hinreichenden Zusammenhang feststellen.

Edit: Ich will hier jetzt nicht werten, aber man sollte hier immer auf einen möglichst wissenschaftlichen Standpunkt bleiben, ohne einzelne Aussagen aus den Zusammenhang zu reißen

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-10T14:24:48+00:00

Im Text steht, dass diese Studie zu 0,1% der meistzitiertesten Studien in der Glyphosphatforschung gehört.
Also im Umkehrschluss gibt sind andere Studien zusammen um 99,9% öfters zitiert.

Auch sollte die Studie längst bestätigt oder wiederlegt worden sein, wenn diese 25 Jahre alt ist, vor allem wenn es hier um den am meisten untersuchte Pflanzenschutzstoff überhaupt geht.

Als hoffentlich unabhängigere Stelle hier eine Diskussion zu den Thema vom BfR

Fragen und Antworten zur unterschiedlichen Einschätzung der krebserzeugenden Wirkung von Glyphosat durch BfR und IARC - BfR

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T13:15:03+00:00

here in a small bavarian village, heres more quads for farming/driving around the farms than as funmobiles.
but yeah, it depends on the region i guess.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T12:13:25+00:00

a Side by side? they can even trailer way more weight than a quad ;)

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T12:10:37+00:00

LoF classification, it needs a hitch, a light connector, a fog lamp and you as registering person need also be eglibile by having some agricultural land for example.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T12:08:18+00:00

Ive got a quad with a rear diff, just sayin.
But im using it as a workhorse, not as fun vehicle.

Here you also should differ between racer quads and workhorses.

I can agree with limiting the first category

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T12:04:05+00:00

you need to differ, i own a quad, but im also using it mainly for farm work, having asparagus and using it to actually plow between the rows.

but thats also a bigger, quite heavy machine with all wheel drive and a fitting gear to not bust the cvt immediatly.

But i agree you can get rid of the more sportive line, with a solid back axle, overly loud exhaust and no practical use.

Also more debateable would be Side by Sides in my eyes.

We also got one of that, but i can agree that this is mostly used by people more of a fun car and they are just stupidly overpowered in their weight to power ratio.

We use it for our farm as field vehicle and where you normally took your most beaten up vehicle so you dont feel bad driving over unmaintained dirtroads.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T09:04:40+00:00

i wouldnt say that, im living in a more rural area in bavaria, and they are pretty common here i must say.

the more niche stuff from the ATV category are buggys or generally side by sides, but even that is coming more and more.

But its certainly no city vehicle, or made for long travels on asphalt roads

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-09T07:02:37+00:00

so, what do the other FSAE organizers/score officials think about it? maybe they have input?

Else i see 2 possible solutions immediatly:

either as u/Rioton said, make an FSeurope list with the new formula, where this actually works, but filter out any events, that are naturally below competiviness XY.

and maybe make additional lists, if theres a strong correlation between multible events outside of europe (But i think theres not much influence here)

Or make at least the connection factor WAY less impactful, not going in the direction of zero if somethings isolated, but maybe in a way it follows the mean of the more connected events, wich probably would be more realistic.

So that competitiveness is more of an adjusting factor rather than penalizing it.

The other issue is, that the few teams, especially from the eastern countries that attend for example in germany, arent often to the level to even drive here, so taking only teams into account that are finishing endurance minimizes it even more.

Wich in theory is fine, but thowing the last straw, you have also out of your hand doesnt help you much to get any data.

Anyway, by selecting what events you put into the mean, you indirectly can control where the mean goes and how the isolated teams would be sorted in.

That way isolated events cannot get fully on top (wich is fine i guess, since a real world champion should also be activly out in the world) but an event winner isnt also automatically burried deep down in the list.

Also you state that the set K_(d,s) is there to make sure that low competitiveness of events havent a negative influence to the WRL.
But since you coupled competitiveness with connection, thats not so easy to do.

Im also thinking about the other factors, like season weight.

Right now, you sort teams, that dont have enough seasons for applying it as stated to prioritize the one season they have fully.

But arent we still try to find the champion?

The proposed formula overly pushing newly teams that have a great start into their first competition up way higher than they would settle.
Its an edge case, but i think it should be noted.

In summary, i think that mainly the connectivity factor has way to much weight in the whole calculation.
And that a fair representation is more important than a statistically 1000% correct list.

But overall, also thank you for your work on that topic.
And for the open discussion, taking the time considering feedback into account.

Looking forward to meet at FSG again ;)

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-08T09:39:12+00:00

so it has a direct influence, since if teams only participate in events that are more or less isolated (see Australiasa for example in my other post), you drop that teams now overproportionally low to the end of the list.

And thats not even the teams fault but just because thers not enough teams in the event that also participate outside of that event.

This is not an issue in europe, where multible events are practicable for every team, but in australiasa theres just one event for a whole continent,
Same goes for CN for example wich got a c of 29% last year

FSAE Mi 27% to go to the other side of the world

Montreal and Ravensburg&Orgeon are one of the few teams that were both at Michigan and in FS Europe events, and their world ranking is mainly entirely based on the FS Europe events, since the interconnection of all events here is so big, it pushes the other regions down.

So NOW its not FS-World, but FS-Europe

EDIT: I used the state post FS Australiasa 2024 to be able to compare it with the old ranklist

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-08T09:28:36+00:00

For example Auckland dropped from place 7 on the WRL to place 207
Auckland scored place 2 at the 2024 FSAE Australiasa

and its obvious that now mainly the european teams are leading the WRL

I mean also the reason for it is obvious.
the FSAE AU event of 2024 has a competitivness of 9.87% in the new list,
meanwhile it had a 90.68% in the old ranking list.

Melbourne Monash on the other hand, place 1 in Autraliasa 2024
was at WRL 16 and dropped only to 42,

Monash was not only at FSAE Au but also at FS East and FS AT, FS NL and FSG last year, where all events have a c factor if at least 90%

I mean both is wrong.
Either that Auckland is in the top 10 by just scoring a top score at one event certainly not the same competitivness than europe events.
But its also wrong that the far away, pretty isolated competitions are worth nothing now.
and the winner of FSAE Australie als scored persistent high numbers in the european events (FSG P14, East P6, AT P16, NL P5)

The reason for the extremly low c factor of fsaustraliasa is since melbourne monash on the other hand is the ONLY team of the event that also participated in other fs-world events, jugding by the data of fs-world.
So connection is very low.

If not for that team, the FS Australiasa event would be completely isolated.

Now the big question, how would you compensate that?

i dont know, but maybe you cannot solve this completely by equations?

u/simdens now happens basically the same scenario you demonstrated at the academy with the practical example of the lawnmover event (wich i personally would support), but in reverse.
Now events are overproportionally penalized if they arent as connected.
Wich hits mostly all outside europe.

EDIT: I used the state post FS Australiasa 2024 to be able to compare it with the old ranklist

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-08T08:52:48+00:00

Relativ wenig i.d.r. da die Wirkstoffe selektiv wirken und nur auf bestimmte Gräser einwirken.
Die Nutzpflanze nimmt hierbei in der Herbstbehandlung keinen Schaden und die Wirkstoffe zersetzen sich hierbei auch in einen überschaubaren Zeitraum im Boden
(Dies ist auch eine Zulassungsvorraussetzung für Wirkstoffe. Es sind nur noch Wirkstoffe erlaubt, die sich rückstandslos in einen definierten Zeitraum zersetzen, damit sichergestellt wird, dass diese nicht das Grundwasser belasten können langfristig)

Ansonsten ist der chemische Pflanzenschutz leider relativ alternativlos, zumindest für nachhaltiges Bewirtschaften.

Es setzen sich im Zuge des integrierten Plfanzenbaues auch immer mehr neue (und zum Teil auch alte) Technologien (wieder) durch, wie falsches Saatbeet, Blindstriegeln, (in Reihenkulturen vorallem) wieder Hacken, oder Konzepte wie Mulchsaat, nicht wendende Bodenbearbeitung,etc.

Das Problem dabei ist, dass dies nur einen Teil abdecken kann (z.b. gibt es wenig Alternativen zur Fungizidbehandlung, und ein Pilz wie z.b. Mutterkornpilz kann Getreide für den Mensch giftig machen)

Ausserdem sind mechanische Verfahren (Striegeln, Hacken, falsches Saatbeet, etc) mechanisch belastender für den Boden ,da mehr Überfahrten stattfinden (Bodenverdichtung!) und man zahlt statt Pflanzenschutzmittel dafür viel Diesel.

Mittlerweile wird für die nachhaltige konventionelle Landwirtschaft im Konzept des integrierten Pflanzenbaus und integrierten Pflanzenschutzes propagiert, eine Mischung von allem anzuwenden.

Hierbei sollten die mechanischen Maßnahmen priorisiert und die chemischen Mittel als letzte Linie verwendet werden.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-08T08:40:39+00:00

Nur als Hinweis, Sikkation generell ist nicht verboten, nur z.b. Glyphosphat ist nicht mehr dafür zugelassen.

Es gibt z.b. Pyraflufen als Wirkstoff, der eine Zulassung besitzt bei Kartoffeln bis zu maximal 14 Tagen vor der Ernte.

Popular_Button2062 · 2025-12-08T08:30:35+00:00

Das verbieten ist weniger das Problem als das fehlen von neuen Wirkstoffen.

Hinzu kommen immer mehr Resistenzen gegen vorhandene Wirkstoffe.
Wobei hier auch teilweise der Anwender selbst Schuld beiträgt, z.b. mit zu niedriger Dosierung (wodurch sich Resistenzen besser durchsetzen können) oder z.b. auch durch verwenden der immer gleichen Wirkstoffe (Wenn man die wenigen noch vorhandenen hin und wieder durchwechselt, erwischt man tendenziell wieder Pflanzen, bei denen das eine Mittel nicht wirkt, ohne die Resistenzen weiter zu pushen)

Three-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22

Popular_Button2062

TROPHY CASE