Updated build photos showing the rolling car with wings and body work.

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae/03build.htm

More photos coming in the next day or so as the rest of the completed parts go on.

Regards,

Scott Wordley

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

are you guys ever going to have a big enough rear wing? god that one is huge! i know you guys predicted about 12kgs for the wing and mounts i think, is that how they have worked out?

- if it isnt coming, you need a bigger tool.

Big rear wing yes (limitted by the size you can get on the front, its bigger too and not complete in those shots) but smaller, narrower, lighter car otherwise. Our thinking is: If the car was faster with wings, might it not be faster still with more wing? I'd love to hear from all the teams who have who have found the point where increased drag and weight outweights the benefits of increased downforce. We're not there yet so the only way is up, or down as the case may be.

The rear wing elements weigh less than 6 kg but the current endplates are overweight at 1.5kg a piece. Dejan from UNSW is going to cut us some nice light Ally honeycomb ones as soon as I get round to emailling him the CAD.

Total weight for wings, endplates and mounts should come in between 12 and 14kg, a little heavier than I was hoping for but an improvement over last year's which were about 17kg and smaller.

On the weight topic after weeks of preparing plugs, making moulds and finally parts I threw our body work in the bin and we ended up remaking it in simplified form, in the space of 2 days. Saved about 4 kg. Minimal = good.

Regards,

Scott Wordley

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[This message was edited by Scott Wordley on September 08, 2003 at 04:31 AM.]

What are the rear wing end plates currently made from?

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae

Scotty. please expand on "simplified" i want to throw my sidepod plugs in the bin, but have worked on them for too long!

Sam Graham
Engine Group Leader 2003
UQ Racing

Simplified means I thought of a way to make moulds in a hour rather than a week. Its pretty obvious if you look closely at the body panels.

Next year we're recruiting blacksmiths instead of industrial designers. Long live the mighty Raw Hide! (Thats our hammer)

PS: stay tuned for the video taped dimise of the old 'Moby Dick' sidepods. They will be returned to the sea where they belong.

PPS: apologies, delirium setting in... 28 hours straight and counting

PPPS: any Aussies coming to the SAE Aero conference tomorrow? Apparently I'm presenting a paper....

Regards,

Scott Wordley

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

Scott,
From the test video it looks like your skins are very strong. It seems like you could get away with much less for skins as long as your webs and spars are strong enough. Is there a reason they are so strong that I am missing.

James Waltman
waltmaj@cc.wwu.edu
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Formula SAE
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

im sure it will be because of those damn dropbears...

- if it isnt coming, you need a bigger tool.

James,

Those skins surprised me too. The thing is we can't save weight and make them any thinner without taking them back to paper like stiffness. We made a few test ones in the beginning and this was the minimum we could get away with.

Car was 95% together today for the Aero conference, so more photos coming tomorrow, right now its time to get some sleep.

Regards,

Scott Wordley

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

"Our thinking is: If the car was faster with wings, might it not be faster still with more wing?"

Have you ever thought that the reason it was faster was because of the 35 pounds of weight you added over the front and rear tires? Just wondering if that could be the reason.

if the 35lbs of weight over the wheels helps them go faster, imagine what 35lbs of weight and 200lbs of downforce holding that tire onto the road would do.

do you really think that the wings actually dont generate any downforce? that they are just on there for good looks or something? maybe im missing the sarcasm in your post.

- if it isnt coming, you need a bigger tool.

has anyone talked to UTA about when drag outweighs downforce? from nothing else than looking at their design, i would say they are using the smaller wings to reduce drag. funny that they dont try and direct the flow over the wheel though, maybe they think that will break the open-wheel rule.

- if it isnt coming, you need a bigger tool.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Daddy:
Have you ever thought that the reason it was faster was because of the 35 pounds of weight you added over the front and rear tires? Just wondering if that could be the reason.

---

Can you explain your logic?

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003.

its my understanding that 85% of the time you will not see speeds over 35 MPH. To get 200lbs of downforce at that speed you would have a very excessive amount of drag at 60MPH making the run from 35 to 60 take forever. I could be wrong because I am more mechanical that aero. And if that downforce can be achieved then why don't teams that win use the technology? Please inform me of why this is so that I may see the perverbial light. And GUG there was a small sense of sarcasm in my orignal post.

Charlie,

he is referring to Australasian gravitational effects again

remember.. http://fsae.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=763607348&f=125607348&m=5996039723&r=6306014853#6306014853

if you don't like wings, then you can apply unsprung mass liberally by using large brass billets (or lead if you like) to make uprights, axles, and wheels

hope this helps

regards

Frank

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Daddy:
its my understanding that 85% of the time you will not see speeds over 35 MPH.

---

My question wasn't regarding the benefits of aero, that has been well debated . I was asking why you think an additional 35lb on the car would be beneficial. You are saying that the gains they see might be simply from the added mass, so why would you think that would happen? It's a purely mechanical question.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank:
he is referring to Australasian gravitational effects again

remember.. http://fsae.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=763607348&f=125607348&m=5996039723&r=6306014853#6306014853

if you don't like wings, then you can apply unsprung mass liberally by using large brass billets (or lead if you like) to make uprights, axles, and wheels

---

Sorry Frank, I should have remembered that. My memory is very poor And so is my memory.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003.

I think he was just saying that the only downforce the wings produce is from their weight. And I'm pretty sure that he was just joking, even though he seems cleary against wings on FSAE cars.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae

For an overall apeal adding 35 lbs is not benificial but added weight could very well help in cornering all though it would be a bitch on straight ling performance. I am not against aero on fsae cars I am actually more interested in them but I guess I am just sceptical. How much down force can you really get at 35MPH? How much do you want? I know this has been discussed before but this whole Formula thing is relativly new to me IE 1 or 2 years and my previous experience was some what sheltered with people trying mostly tried and true designs rather than jumping out of the box from the get go. Lastly this was not meant to ruffel anyones tail feathers just as a means of learning

tis all good big daddy..

i'm just having a joke about it all (not ruffled nor trying to pick on you or charlie)

(the wings debate has been fast and furious up to now)

i think charlie was basically trying to point out that ... adding mass ANYWHERE on the car is bad .. especially where it adds dramatically to MMOI.. extra especially above the CG.. and extra extra especially when unsprung mass..

so yeah i guess the tradeoff is

downforce (plus perhaps aesthetics) ((downforce being vastly different to unsprung mass.. inertial effects))

VS

the above mentioned (plus cost and complexity)

regards

Frank

ps... or i could be drunk on gumleaves again

[This message was edited by Frank on September 10, 2003 at 04:30 PM.]