Guys, I apologize, I think my image hosting server just got wiped. It might be a few days before I get the photos back up.

Its also entirely possible all the extra traffic just burned up my bandwidth. I'll find out, but if it did, I'm in trouble! I doubt it because I forced an upgrade after FSAE-Pontiac '05.

Nevermind, it was just down for a few hours during the update. Everything is where it was.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dan G,

quote:

Originally posted by Z:
All this would be much easier with a simple sketching facility!

You've said this before, and it hasn't happened on the forum, so here's a quick tutorial:

1) Run "mspaint" or your favorite cad / illustration program. Save as a .jpg or .gif (from a CAD program, hit the "printscreen" key and paste into mspaint, then save).

2) Find a free image hosting account online, set up an account, and upload your sketches.

3) Post your sketches here with the [img] [/img] tag.

Denny,

"1) Run ... your favorite cad / illustration program."

That's pen and paper - really fast! I even have a scanner, though that slows things down..

"2) Find a free image hosting account online, set up an account, and upload your sketches."

This is the part that frustrates me. I'm sure I could do this but I know it will involve a whole lot of time that is really not necessary. This fsae site can accept pictures (although the "picture type posts" are pretty clunky) so why can't it allow pics to be attached to posts? I'm sure there is some lame reason...

Anyway, the more you try to do with this electronic crap the more time is wasted... (Did I mention that I used to design computer hardware, write operating systems,...)

Z

From a few former MTU baja members

CAD = Cardboard Aided Design

Everything is designed with cardboard mockups.
Very effective if you know what you're doing.

quote:

2005 FSAE-AUS

if anyone is still interested i've put a gallery with some pics from the event

Hi Everyone,

I've posted some of my photos online. Sorry for the Wollongong bias, just couldn't help it.

I've got more but mainly on the track. Let me know if anyone wants some hi-res pics of anything in particular.

My Pics

Cheers,

Fergus Wilson

quote:

Originally posted by Thai:

quote:

2005 FSAE-AUS

if anyone is still interested i've put a gallery with some pics from the event

hey thai, what is the address of that gallery?

quote:

Originally posted by Moke:
The New Zealand Car didn't run because we tried to learn and advance our knowledge, because we didn't built the same car as last year, because we were sick of the same sh*t designs, the same look, the 1950's technology and design philosophies.

We wanted to build a race car and we did.

We tried something different and for that we get rung out by so called judges. I for one will not be sad to see some of them leave. If this sport is to move forward it will take new ideas and more failures. When you have your young team mates called over and told that the design is pointless and “stupid” and that you should build a car like … (US team), you wonder in the 2007 rules will you’ll get a parts list, cut list and plans of the car you should build?

I will look forward to seeing our 2006 team shutting the judges up.

Well, for the benefit of others reading this, let me add a few thoughts:

1. I haven't seen anything more than the photos posted, but I would agree that it is inappropriate for someone to say that a design is "pointless" or "stupid". The same goes for telling someone what kind of car to build. That assumes that what you described actually happened. If on the other hand, someone simply pointed out that had you opted to build a simple design ("conventional" in the context of FSAE), you might have finished the car in time, tested, developed it and the drivers, and run at the competition, I wouldn't have a problem.

2. Re: building a "race car": The term applies to lots of different vehicles, regardless of the technology employed. In fact, anything you strap a race driver into can be considered a race car.

You get to set your own goals. If those goals are to learn about a certain technology, that's allowed. However, winning the competition is a different goal. That requires one to look closely at ALL of the things necessary to meet that goal. Technology is only one of those things.

3. Re: (Related to the above) 1950's technology: The best engineers aren't the ones who throw technology or money at a problem. The best are those who use their available resources most efficiently to meet a specific goal. Sure, throwing technology or money at a problem is nice when you can do it (Haven't some F1 teams used titanium bolts to hold their ballast on?), but that is an unusual situation.

As an example, when selecting suspension geometry, a number of schools have used compromises that are more suited to cars featuring radial tires and ground effects aerodynamics. When quizzed as to why they chose what they did, the students often cite F1 or some other formula as their rationale. They haven't shown true understanding of the problem

Likewise, I've had a student team show up in my design judging line with a composite monocoque. The entire car weighed close to 600#, which is 100# or more than the competitive cars. The first question I asked the group, after they went through a long discussion of the advantages of their design, was if they really thought the moderate increase in stiffness was enough to offset the additional weight compared to a tube frame car. The student was visably shaken, paused for moment, and replied, "Obviously, yes!" The chassis people then blamed the powertrain folks for the additional weight, and vice versa.

The point here is that the team had chosen the technology because they wanted to build a composite monocoque, and had not thought enough about the overall design. One of the other questions asked was, "How much torsional stiffness is enough?" It's a question I get a lot, as students occasionally spend lots of time hunting for an additional 50 ft-lb/deg, without thinking fundamentally as to why that stiffness is important, and about diminishing returns. There is nothing wrong with using semi-monocoque construction using advanced composites. However, we look for you to justify your decisions. Saying that it's "a race car" or "We didn't want to use 1950's technology" wouldn't cut it. (I'm not saying that's what you did when you were judged, but am using it as an example.)

Likewise, we see some teams use exotic materials for no other reason than they can get them free. That's a good reason from the team's financial point of view, but those materials may not be the most efficient use of resources if one is manufacturing the car for the intended market.

I don't know exactly what you were told by the judges which caused you to think that you were "rung out", and so can't respond specifically. Emotions run high at these competitions, and are often compounded by a lack of sleep and alcohol. Most of us understand that you've spent many hours working on these projects in addition to your studies, but when it comes to judging, we have to be objective. I might add that we look at how well the design was executed, and listen to the justification for your compromises. Without hearing your presentation it is difficult to assess what happened.

Again, I'm not picking on you, but want to use this as a way to provide some insight to all who are following this thread.

- Dick

here you go

http://www.pixspot.com/thumbnails.php?album=862

quote:

Originally posted by RiNaZ:

quote:

Originally posted by Thai:

quote:

2005 FSAE-AUS

if anyone is still interested i've put a gallery with some pics from the event

hey thai, what is the address of that gallery?

quote:

Originally posted by flo:
I would like to get some information about this caliper.
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180590

the team name should help for the moment.

thanks

flo

Flo,

These are calipers that were made in house by one of our thesis students. The team is UTS Motorsports from the University of Technology, Sydney. They are a sigle piston floating caliper.

Cheers,
Scott

quote:

Originally posted by ScottyB:

quote:

Originally posted by flo:
I would like to get some information about this caliper.
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180590

the team name should help for the moment.

thanks

flo

Flo,

These are calipers that were made in house by one of our thesis students. The team is UTS Motorsports from the University of Technology, Sydney. They are a sigle piston floating caliper.

Cheers,
Scott

Tahnk you scott

Hey Scottie,

Hate to break it to you babe, but i might not make it to next year's comp... I've got a few other things lined up for '06 Those competition hugs would have to wait.

Congrats to UWA, Gong and everyone else who put in the long hours! This year's FSAE-A comp was by far my favourite! Geoff, Wordley, QUT and Auchland - and ofcourse my own wonderful team - thanks for a great time.

Tania

Formula Student '04
Formula SAE-A '04
Formula SAE-A '05

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

"As an example, when selecting suspension geometry, a number of schools have used compromises that are more suited to cars featuring radial tires and ground effects aerodynamics."

Could you please elaborate on this.

im seriously thinking radial tyres are better for novice drivers (now which ones have an appropriate size and compound? hard question)

only the best drivers seem to deal with the sensitive feedback from stiff crossplies (hoosier) , but its a joy to see a great driver take a tight car by the reins and fly

Frank, how did UQ arrive at the wheel alignment/setup you mentioned a few pages back?

in order of priority:

stopwatch (motec beacons are great)
test on as many surfaces as you can (grip)
test on different smoothness also (bumpy, flat)
driver feedback (concentrate on making the car "comfortable and predictable")
interpreting the tyre (pyro as well as visual)
sequence photography
some sock travel data (custom built datalogger)
feedback from a few different engineers viewing the car.
comparing different chassis (our development has been incremental since 2003)

many different types of computer analysis:

consider compliance in all analysis
suspension analyzer
simulink
sketches in 3D Cad

And, as you could expect:

Try a few different tyres ($$$)

Not used:

ADL
M800

That's interesting, because we've followed a similar path and ended up somewhere completely different. We run less than half your toe, tyre pressure, caster and camber, using the same/similar tyres. I guess there are many ways to skin a cat...

run less than half our toe...
yeah, i'm not so sure that a driver could pick if i ran half this much toe

(i'd see it on high speed traction control onset)

half our tyre pressure
are you sure? or have i made a mistake? 20PSI HOT (140 KPa)

half our camber
I really think you should be throwing as much camber at the tyre before it "gets destroyed quickly"

half our castor
we have a spool, and we need castor in the slow parts of the course

can i ask you nick: how long is your virtual swing axle? ours is app. 800mm front and rear

i believe your older cars had VSA's about 800-900mm but im guessing they're a bit longer on the mono's, is this a chassis design contraint?

We haven't experimented with toe as much as we'd like. What we've got works, but I'm sure there's something there for event-specific stuff.

20psi hot is way high, we're around than half that, depending on alignment, spring rates and grip levels.

Same again on the camber, I'm amazed it doesn't show up on the tyre temp profile. How hot have you measured?

The castor makes sense, our non-kinetic cars have certainly tested with numbers like that. Low warp stiffness sure gets rid of castor jacking in a hurry.

This year's VSAL's are much longer than yours - 3000mm at the front, half that or so at the rear. The monocoque doesn't restrict that. Older cars are a little different, but not much... but nothing UWAM runs as low as 900mm.

I suspect that a hoosier at 1.5deg camber, a heap of camber gain and castor to match will need 20psi in it to give an good temp read. If you run it with less camber, less gain and less castor then perhaps the right hot pressure is much lower...?

Frank,

The lowest VSALs on UWAM cars have been 2000mmm on the front, 1200mmm on the rear. 20psi is certainly the highest running pressure I have ever heard of in FSAE. I am sure you didn't get there without testing ... but it is as much a surprise to me as it is to Nick.

Cheers,

Kev