Awesome. Does it do anything in one-wheel motion?

Alex,

It does affect one wheel motions. Essentially at half the spring rate of the 3rd spring.

Kev

Well done to the UWA guys/gals with the 05 car or the SSK (suck shit kev) as they like to call it... was a goergeous car to look at both static and on track.
UQ was very impressive in the 2nd enduro, looked like such an easy car to drive and the times reflected that.
Bad luck to the RMIT boys but im sure that they will pull there fingers out for the US trips next year. the car was a great thing to look at and at 151 odd kg's was damn fast, cant wait for a drive grant

Rotor aka muppet
RMIT 03 04 05US

ps kev hows drummy doing without AUS beer for 1 week?

Here is a list of the FSAE-A top ten, with their Endurance and Design placings:

O/A Team End Des
1 UWA...... 1..... 1
2 UQld..... 2..... 14
3 UWol..... 6..... 4
4 Tokyo.... 5..... 3
5 UNSW..... 4..... 11
6 Monsh.... 7..... 10
7 USyd..... 3..... 13
8 RMIT..... dnf... 2
9 ANU...... 9..... 15
10 ADFA.... 8..... 17

(Edit: Placings are out of a total of 24 cars at the comp.)

The overall results correlate quite closely with the Endurance results. Other than 1 through 4 in Design (considering RMIT crashed out of Enduro (driver error?), and might have made 2nd O/A), there is very little correlation between Design and O/A positions.

What I am curious about is this; How can cars that received low Design points do so well overall?

Apparently Design is supposed to be a measure of the students' knowledge and understanding of how racecars work. So why is it that the Design judges rated UQld as racecar designing dimwits, yet UQld still managed 2nd in Enduro (and 1st in Acc., 4th in SkidPan, and 3rd in AutoX)? Did they just get lucky? Likewise, the other teams with poor Design scores?

Any comments?

Z

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Z,

Z,
I'm not saying you guys didn't know your shit - quite the opposite, everyone that i spoke to was well up on it, and i didn't get a chance to see your design event - too busy working on our car. I think that since the design comp has stepped up over the past year or two, the judges are taking presentation into the account, and I know that after our design event, there were some areas of the car that could've done better with the judges if we had've had a couple of extra people who could talk on our side
I had a stack of info to refer to, and didn't aim to dump it all onto the judges, rather ask what they were after, then go into that in more detail..... No point in talking forever if they're not interested.

Just my 2c, and probably useless like everything i say

Not running any coolant to the turbo?

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180586

nope, no coolant to our turbo...

just high pressure oil in, and vacuum sucking oil out, all integrated with our dry sump system. our engine guy has shown that this system cools the turbo enough.

it would be better though if we did run coolant cos then the electric water pump could be left running with the engine off to cool the turbo right down.

Scott

Turbo timer!

turbo timer, yep thats basically what could be done with the motec and electric water pump, but we havent done it yet... we just let it run to cool.

about the UWA third spring, i understand that it adjusts the anti squat and anti dive characteristics independant of roll, but for single wheel bumps you say that it will add half off the third spring spring rate to the effective spring rate absobing the bump. my question is, wouldnt that force in the third spring be loading the other wheel?

also, is the third spring damped in any way?

again, the best little car i have seen, i pitlane scrutineered at the A1GP and i reckon your car would be a better buy!!!

Cheers,

Scott

Scott,

The lever that ends up activating the 3rd spring in one wheel bumps basically pivots around the arm that leads to the other wheel, hence it is not affected.

I'm not sure if the explanation is clear.

By the way I'm not with the team anymore as Rotor kindly points out. The SSK? Well at least its catchy.

Kev

kev,

i think i understand what you are saying... that the third spring does not effect the other wheel when in single wheel bumps, as the bumped rocker causes the third spring to pivot around the unbumped mount for the third spring.

but this would add the entire spring rate to the wheel in bump, discounting your comments before of adding half the spring rate.

i dont want to seem like i am arguing, just trying to understand how it affects the wheels in bump.

cheers mate,
Scott

Scott,

No probs. Think of it as a lever. As it pivots around one side it is half the distance to the third spring as it is from one side to the other. From there it is a ratio of lengths.

Cheers,

Kev

Scott,

Just noticed a bit of an error. As explained in the last post one wheel activates the third spring with a motion ratio of one half. I had meant to mention a motion ratio of one half in my above post not a rate of one half (my mistake).

The actual rate is a function of the motion ratio squared. So in terms of rate the third spring activates at one wheel bump at one quarter of its rate.

Sorry for the confusion.

Kev

UWA-

Is that a Professional Lambda Meter mounted to your differential carrier?

-Chavez

quote:

Originally posted by ScottyB:
kev,

i think i understand what you are saying... that the third spring does not effect the other wheel when in single wheel bumps,...

Wrong!!! The third spring DOES effect the other wheel in single wheel bumps!

The increase in wheelprint Fz load on the bumped wheel, due to the third spring, is felt equally by the wheelprint at the other end of the third spring. Ie. both wheelprints feel an increased Fz load when either wheel hits a bump. This is a "load-sharing" characteristic of this type of interconnecting spring, and is a good thing.

With a conventional ARB, when one wheel hits a bump the other wheel's Fz load is decreased, which means an even greater increase in Fz load of the bumped wheel, which is a bad thing.

Z

Z,

design, we had no design boards.. (supplier shipped them by regular mail, the dill)

basically PPP for all static events, and a good (essentially simple) car that had done miles, and was "tuned" well

acceleration, 76 HP, (tuned by MoTeC QLD dealer) no diff = less inertia, and no losses
the drivetrain runs smooth
and we know how to use traction and launch control

we only have F:R weight of 49:51, which dosn't help much. our drivers are puny though

Good job Frank, it's always nice to go out on a high note!

kev, Z,

ok so the single wheel bump will load the unbumped rocker with the k x displacement of the spring. this is a good thing as compared to an antiroll bar that has the opposite effect.

it is all clear in my head now, jus gotta write it down before i forget!

cheers,
Scott

Wouldn't it load both wheels with .25*K*X ?

hey pat, thanks for all the pictures, but do you have any more closeups? I dont think any team would mind having their pictures up in public.

The only complaint i ever heard of was when somebody post a clip of a car flipping during one of the autox, but none so far on pictures.

Greatly appreciated