Greetings!

Does anyone have news from the F-SAE USB team?


Thankyou

Another hundred and some pics up from today. Starts around the bottom of page 3...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE05?page=3

I took 2-3 shots of most of the field lined up for the autox. So not EVERY school, but a good number of them.

DAN DAN he's tha MAN!

Thanks for all the pictures guys! It feels like I'm back in Detroit again, except for all the sunlight in the pictures.

However, it definately brings out the flames in our car

The intent of the competition is to win the competition. There are 1000pts up for grabs, how did your design maximize the number of points gained in every event other then design? Did you make decisions that maximized your total pt total?
For instance...turbocharger increases total weight 15lbs but adds 15ftlbs of torque. That decision effects your skidpad score by -x pts, and effects your accel score y pts, and effects your cost score z pts, endurance, autocross, even design score.

They don't say it but design is about a detailed POINTS analysis of design decisions. Choosing a turbocharger and then going in the design tent and saying it is faster in accel and in autocross (if you even have those numbers to back it up) doesn't cut it unless you've proven it gives you pts after all pts against that decision in cost, weight, ect. Not to pick on carbon fiber lovers but have any of the teams that run a carbon fiber intake manifold/seat/body prove that it gives them pts in the competition? Most engineers can tell you it's lighter and lighter=faster, but at what cost. Fiberglass would cost you .1 lbs but save you $200.
Many decisions include compromise, so how did you weigh them ( the obvious choice is by pts gained).

you're right in that unobtanium materials and turbos wouldn't cut it in the FAKE senario of an amateur autocross car, but they don't give pts for interpreting what an amateur autocross car 'should' be, and don't be mad the judges don't give out brownie pts for a car that fits your definition of one.

I'm very sorry to rant but i'm surprised teams don't understand that every single part of their car is part of design process and if it doesn't get you the maxiumum number of pts it doesn't belong on the car. Something as simple as the wrong size rod ends could cost you design. I know that it sucks, but some of the teams you compete against might have calculated what size rods ends they needed, what size rotors, what size radiator, what material uprights, ect...

Some pictures of the unofficial results here.

Design
Cost
Acceleration
Skid Pad

I know that University of Washington was having some problems during the acceleration event. Mike Waggoner drove the first autocross runs for them. He got towed off from the first run and it looked like the car stalled out on the second run – (he did finish). Denny drove second for them and it looked like he put in a safe run first. They took some time before his second run and were one of the last teams to run autocross. Denny really poured it on and threw down a pretty sweet lap. I don't know the official times.

From what I heard through the day the top autocross teams were (in no order)
Texas A&M
UTA
Cornell
Ryerson
UMR
Drexel looked fast too.

About the Texas A&M Design:
I overheard some of the discussion during the Design Event about their bars on the front of the car (I refuse to call them an "impact attenuator" or "crush structure"). From what I gathered the student was having some problems with the questions. Apparently they actually tested the structure on some sort of impact sled. Maybe someone could clarify this all for me. It is a damn fast car but the Design Event is one of the Static Events. If this competition was all about the fastest car it would be called Formula 1 or Formula Ford or Formula Atlantic...

This is also unofficial, Just talked to Rotor from RMIT, they won business presentation.
Scored 5th fastest time in Autocross but is prob 4th due to another car hitting a cone. Mark said he was caught out by the grip levels of the Hoosiers/track upsetting the balance. and missed a gear out of a critical corner. Will be faster on saturday.It's getting interesting...
Bryan H

Keep on keepin on, Western boys. The info, pics and results are great.

Matthew

Thanks again, guys, the updates are invaluable.

From those unofficial accel, cost, design, and skidpad numbers, it looks real close. Taking a real quick look, I get 10 teams within 50 points at the top, and another 6 teams within 70 points of the lead.

No point listing the leaders at this point, since Presentation usually shakes things up a little, and AutoX numbers are still out.

As usual, it all comes down to Saturday.

Official, RMIT 3rd in Autocross

I actually did the crush zone testing for the Texas A&M team last year. Yes, it is a crush zone as far as SAE is concerned. No other teams have anything better. We simply calculated the energy absorbed at different speeds, etc.
Unlike other teams, Texas A&M completely redesigns thier car with a whole new set of team members. I am a graduate student now, and was one of only 2 team members that advised this years team. Hard to say that a team that wins autocross and acceleration has a "poor design". We simply dont have any "exotic materials" to impress the judges. Plastic body, 4130 frame, nothing fancy. We design, test, test, test and test. This is a DESIGN compition, and if the design is simple, it should still be considered.

Texas A&M Results:

Accel 1st
Autocross 1st
Skidpad 4th
Business 4th

aggie04, was Frank driving the car? I got to meet a bunch of you guys at Topeka this last year (specifically Club Orleans).

I'm trying to figure out where the University of Florida ended up in the autocross. Between seeing some DNS's for the accel runs and pictures of the car apart I hope it was only minor things.

Jordan and Vince did autocross, a rookie named bradley did accel, Dont know who got the skidpad time, jeff or bradley.

These are such great news from the F-SAE USB team. I'm incredibly glad everything's going great over there. Congratulations, and keep the good news coming!

The thing you must remember about the design competition is that it is not an evaluation of how good your design output is. It is an evaluation of your design thought process, calculations, testing and execution. In other words, if the judges ask you what is the lateral load transfer distribution of you car?

A. If you answer, I don't know. That is a big mark against you.

B. If you answer, 60% to the front, but I don't know why or how we arrived at that. That is a decent answer.

C. If you answer, 60%, and here is why I arrived at this value. I did it

1. Though calculations using the tire's properties and tire's data.
2. I performed this useful simulation which suggested that this might be a direction to go in.
3. I evaluated 5 different combinations of settings at a track test and this was the best.

This is a great answer.

The point is, you need to understand as to why the "design" decision you made was made and then offer physical proof to back it up.

Just putting a car together and testing the hell out of it might yield you a very fast car, but it might not necessarily land you in final design.

This is at the heart of what engineering is all about and was instilled into me by Prof. George at Cornell. In professional racing, a good engineering design practice must always be tempered by good judgment and good practical common sense. But FSAE isn't professional racing, it an engineering competition, so therefore the judges want to see your car's design as an "engineered" project.

Jeff

Yes, I agree with you.
We spend months verifying our design, including hundreds of hours of component testing (other than the car).
For example we discontinued using "fox mountain bike" shocks this year for larger diameter shocks that offer better low speed damping. To quantify what was "better" we purchased a shock dyno and tested the shocks.
Our chassis is fea'ed and then torsionally tested for verification to hit a "target" chassis stiffness to reach a 90% chassis efficiency.
Our suspension is analyzed both statistically and dynamically, with a team of 5 to specifically answer every question such as What effect changing rear toe has on understeer/oversteer...etc etc.
We don't spend alot of time and money to construct "sexy" nonstructural carbon-fiber bodies, and have good reasons for it.

Basically, I don't mean to imply that we don't properly "engineer" our design. I did mean to imply, however, that we are not considered on the same "design" level as other teams because we don't use turbo chargers, carbon fiber, titanium, magnesium, and other high-dollar items.

We analyze the dollar per pound an item will cost, along with other advantages such as stiffness, manufacturability, reliability, etc.

The current team spends months in weekly team meeting and several design presentations presenting and defending their design. My team last year finished in the top tier of the semi-finals, and based on my experience with the team this year, I suggest that they are better than we were. Last year, it was implied in a post comp discussion that we almost didn't make semis last year, because of the simplicity of our design.

A quote to end on-
"There are alot of things in a racecar that can make it go slower, but only a few things to make it go faster"

From the posted Autocross Results:

1 55.843 Texas A&M (second driver's first run!)
2 56.782 Cornell
3 58.262 RMIT (rotor's second run)
4 58.322 UTA (John's second run)
5 58.535 U of Washington (my first run)
6 58.696 Wisconsin-Madison
7 58.736 Misourri-Rolla
8 59.099 Michigan - Ann Arbor
9 59.528 Penn State
10 59.579 Cincinnati
11 59.723 Alabama - Tuscaloosa
12 59.734 UWA

We had a pretty crazy day, chasing electrical bugs through accel and first autocross driver, then blowing a coolant hose across the lights on my first run, but fixing it and getting a second run on warmish tires. But, the course doesn't like to be driven hard, myself and Texas A&M's driver pushed harder on second runs but slowed down.

Where's that e-brake?

quote:

Originally posted by aggie04:

We don't spend alot of time and money to construct "sexy" nonstructural carbon-fiber bodies, and have good reasons for it.

Check this out...





One of the simplest bodies I've seen in a while.

Anybody got an excel file going with current standings, and who has to get what to win?

I like the see through stuff, what it is exactly?
Our body is lexan-plastic, takes 1 guy to make, and costs about 40 bucks. I built a 10 foot oven to melt the plastic for forming.