FSAE Michigan 2013

[RobbyObby]

Alright guys, we're less than a week out.

Who's done building? Who's still scrambling? And who's already left for comp?

Our body panels came back from paint yesterday morning and the car and crew hit the road mid afternoon to start the 2300 mile trek to MIS. #westcoastproblems

[Cardriverx]

Been running for a couple weeks but still having problems with one of the parts we bought from a company. Just got bodywork done... testing monday then we'll see how it goes!

[jd74914]

We've been running on the engine dyno for a few weeks. Yesterday we did our annual chassis dyno tuning. Suspension stuff took a while to come together due to some unfortunate manufacturing problems with our hub/spindle assembly.

First drive today with hopefully some more testing before most of the team leaves with the car Monday night.

We're definitely a bit too close for comfort in regards to final assembly timing. We pretty much redid most of our major systems so there are still a lot of unknowns.

Have a safe trip everyone! See you in Brooklyn.

[Simactive]

Close to the wire but measure 5 times do once. Side note who is staying at the super8 in jackson?

[ausracing]

Is Michigan going to be streamed?
I am sure everyone around the world will be interested in how the new cars from the US will go...

Cheers,
Ryan
Monash Motorsport

[tromoly]

Leaving tomorrow, have a few things left to finish before the end of the night.

[RStory]

Aside from a few of us that are flying, most of our team left around 10pm last night. Looking forward to seeing all of the cars in person after spending months checking them out on facebook!

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by ausracing:
Is Michigan going to be streamed?
I am sure everyone around the world will be interested in how the new cars from the US will go...

Cheers,
Ryan
Monash Motorsport

I'd also love to know whether it'll be streamed or not as this will be the first time since 2008 that I won't be attending competition.

Also, has somebody out there compiled a master list of social media accounts of the known teams currently competing? As my way of coping with not going, I'll be compiling a competition wide running score sheet, updated as the scores for each event come in (and sortable by state, country, individual event, and more). I'd like to know which accounts to follow to get the most up to date info without having to rely on my team to send it to me. And of course I'll be sharing the spreadsheet publicly so I'll try to post a link to it on here later tonight once it's cleaned up a bit.

[RobbyObby]

Here's the public link to the scoring spreadsheet I'll be updating throughout the competition. I'd love to get some feedback and/or suggestions if you'd like something changed or added.

https://skydrive.live.com/redi...key=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw (https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=A8126D5B62B111E9!111&authkey=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw)

Note: This is my first attempt at sharing files through SkyDrive so let me know if there are issues with the link and I'll try to fix them.

[Crispy]

Originally posted by RobbyObby:
Here's the public link to the scoring spreadsheet I'll be updating throughout the competition. I'd love to get some feedback and/or suggestions if you'd like something changed or added.


Nice. I was thinking about doing something similar with google docs, but it looks like your sheet on skydrive is good to go! How about adding a column for weights?

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by Crispy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RobbyObby:
Here's the public link to the scoring spreadsheet I'll be updating throughout the competition. I'd love to get some feedback and/or suggestions if you'd like something changed or added.


Nice. I was thinking about doing something similar with google docs, but it looks like your sheet on skydrive is good to go! How about adding a column for weights? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not a bad idea. Problem there is with getting the info. Will they make the values available for the teams or is there gonna be a few dedicated team members sitting by the scales documenting the values and posting them as has happened before?

[MCoach]

The weights are listed on each car after tech in. It might be some legwork to ask each team what their weight was, make a trip through the pits, or otherwise. It would be very helpful for all teams that are sharing this file to list their own weights to spread the load.

[RobbyObby]

I actually thought about allowing editing of the sheet so that others could input any values or scores that aren't currently input, but I'm afraid the formatting would get screwed up.

[RobbyObby]

Well, day one is over! Of the very limited sample size I've seen, UW-Madison looks to be the lightest so far at 344 lbs. Can anyone beat that? As more teams finish through tech tomorrow, I hope more numbers get posted 'cause until scores start to get posted, we don't have much to compare. I've always been interested in comparing things like lightest 4-cyl, lightest space-frame, lightest full aero, etc. Those are always intriguing to me. If more weights start to come in maybe I'll throw those comparos in the spreadsheet.

And again, as stated in the first post, I'd still like to find some Twitter lists, or people to follow that will be updating at MIS.

[Carrington]

GFR was 158.6 kG which is a fraction under 350 lbs.

[RobbyObby]

ETS weighed in at 327 via their Twitter. That's impressive. I'm still impressed with GFR and Wisconsin though, with full Aero and still under 350 lbs.

[Cardriverx]

We got through tech today so were happy. 456lbs with all fluids and our undertray (spaceframe 4cyl car).

Now to prepare for design...

[RobbyObby]

Congrats. It seems to me like a lot of teams wer able to make it through tech today. Anyone hear how many actually did make it through? We were able to get through today too. First time in a while that we got through scrutineering on the first day.

Also weighed in at 424, with an undertray for the first time ever.

[floRACEca]

Here are some pics from day 1..
http://s906.photobucket.com/us...mula%20SAE%20Day%201 (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/randyfloresca_family/library/May%208%202013%20Formula%20SAE%20Day%201)

[jpusb]

Thank you for the pictures! Keep em coming.

I have some more other updates
Akron 350, single cyl, steel frame, full aero (impressive, this team has been climbing up consistently for the last 5 years and maybe even more).

Jayhawks beautiful (as usual) full aero car
Stuttgart seems not to be on the aero package?

[TMichaels]

Stuttgart's 2012 car did not have an aero package despite an undertray, as far as I remember.

[Markus]

Very impressive from ETS and Akron.

GFR seems a bit heavy taking into account they run a monocoque.

Does anybody know if Wisconsin sports a tube frame or 'coq?

[Leibi]

Wisconsin has a steel frame and a turbocharged 1-cyl.

[RobbyObby]

And Wisconsin's single is a KTM550 bored and stroked to 605cc which they were able to pull nearly 80hp out of last year. So when you consider they're running full aero, with 80hp at their disposal, all wrapped in a 350lb car, they could be pretty damn competitive this year.

There are so many storylines to follow this year. GFR going for 4 straight. Wisconsin, as mentioned before. Missouri S&T's active rear wing. TU Graz switching to a single with wings. Maryland finally able to see how their beast of an autocrosser will handle the tight corners at MIS. Akron looking like a legitimate top 5 darkhorse.

I really wish I was there to take it all in. *sigh*

P.S. Any update now that the teams are on site on whether they'll be streaming the endurance again this year?

[TMichaels]

Are you talking about audio or video streaming? Because I only remember audio streaming from last year.

[Flight909]

Originally posted by floRACEca:
Here are some pics from day 1..
http://s906.photobucket.com/us...mula%20SAE%20Day%201 (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/randyfloresca_family/library/May%208%202013%20Formula%20SAE%20Day%201)

Too bad you put the mark in the middle of all photos http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Anyways thanks you for sharing!

[tromoly]

Our car weighs 482 pounds, much better than 520+ the last few years. We're in Paddock 65 between UW-Madison and Manitoba, and two stalls down from GFR.

Bunch of different combinations looking really good. Colorado State has full ground effect sidepods, Missouri S&T with their linear actuator DRS, Kansas has a huge one-piece rear wing and undertray, Mizzou has servos embedded in wing elements for DRS, and someone said Akron has around 300 pounds of downforce with their undertray and wings. Lots of single cylinder engines, probably half a dozen running Aprilia 2-cylinders, and the usual assortment of 4-cylinders. Jayhawks are running a stressed member CBR600RR with really nice rear suspension packaging and aero.

Good times talking with different teams, should be a good rest of the week.

[coastertrav]

University of Central Florida through tech, just noise and brakes to go.

Weighed in at 468, an all time low.

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by TMichaels:
Are you talking about audio or video streaming? Because I only remember audio streaming from last year.

Yes Tobias audio streaming. I know FSG does video streaming, or has done it in the past, but its alot to ask for the organizers to do it here. I believe it was SCCA that provided the audio stream before, if I'm not mistaken.

[GarrettMST]

Any body know when or where design finals get posted?

[The Neck]

Right here...

[Sormaz]

Originally posted by GarrettMST:
Any body know when or where design finals get posted?

in the handbook it says:
~9:00 p.m.
Design Finalist announced online www.sae.org (http://www.sae.org) and www.fsae.com (http://www.fsae.com)

about to break my f5 key

[EC]

Originally posted by tromoly:
Our car weighs 482 pounds, much better than 520+ the last few years. We're in Paddock 65 between UW-Madison and Manitoba, and two stalls down from GFR.

Bunch of different combinations looking really good. Colorado State has full ground effect sidepods, Missouri S&T with their linear actuator DRS, Kansas has a huge one-piece rear wing and undertray, Mizzou has servos embedded in wing elements for DRS, and someone said Akron has around 300 pounds of downforce with their undertray and wings. Lots of single cylinder engines, probably half a dozen running Aprilia 2-cylinders, and the usual assortment of 4-cylinders. Jayhawks are running a stressed member CBR600RR with really nice rear suspension packaging and aero.

Good times talking with different teams, should be a good rest of the week.

Kansas State has the Rear Wing and Diffuser Assembly. Oh and Merica!

https://www.facebook.com/photo...23322&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151477765113323&set=a.10151428472728323.1073741828.125511923322&type=1&theater)

[t_bar]

Originally posted by Sormaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GarrettMST:
Any body know when or where design finals get posted?

in the handbook it says:
~9:00 p.m.
Design Finalist announced online www.sae.org (http://www.sae.org) and www.fsae.com (http://www.fsae.com)

about to break my f5 key </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the feeling. I'm on fsae.org checking under competition results and Formula SAE Michigan as well as here and google. I'll post if I see it!

[tromoly]

Originally posted by EC:
Kansas State has the Rear Wing and Diffuser Assembly. Oh and Merica!

https://www.facebook.com/photo...23322&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151477765113323&set=a.10151428472728323.1073741828.125511923322&type=1&theater)

I keep referring to them and the Jayhawks as Kansas, completely my fault for getting them mixed up. Though I do have a sweet picture of the 'Merica mural.

We finally got through tech, 4 drivers through egress and hoping the 5th gets through in the morning, otherwise I'm driving with zero seat time. Tilt/Brake/Noise tomorrow morning along with trying to get to Skidpad and Acceleration for the first time in 3 years.

[RobbyObby]

Anyone remember about when the static event scores start coming in? I know they usually post em on Friday, but I forget how late in the day they usually finish em. I'm just dying to start updating and playing with my spreadsheet!

[t_bar]

http://www.sae.org/servlets/pr...MULA&RELEASE_ID=2083 (http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showCDSNews&EVENT=FORMULA&RELEASE_ID=2083)

Design Finalists Announced!

[SAE_intl_girl]

Here is the list of Design Finalists by Car Number:

1 - Oregon State University
3 - Universitat Stuttgart
5 - University of Michigan Ann Arbor
6 - Graz University of Technology
10 - University of Wisconsin-Madison
50 - University of Akron
73 - Universite Laval
79 - Auburn University
118 - Tallinn University of Technology

Congratulations to all the finalists!

[SAE_intl_girl]

Originally posted by RobbyObby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
Are you talking about audio or video streaming? Because I only remember audio streaming from last year.

Yes Tobias audio streaming. I know FSG does video streaming, or has done it in the past, but its alot to ask for the organizers to do it here. I believe it was SCCA that provided the audio stream before, if I'm not mistaken. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i am pretty sure we will be doing the same audio stream as last year; i will double check with SCCA tomorrow and post online for all.

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by SAE_intl_girl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RobbyObby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
Are you talking about audio or video streaming? Because I only remember audio streaming from last year.

Yes Tobias audio streaming. I know FSG does video streaming, or has done it in the past, but its alot to ask for the organizers to do it here. I believe it was SCCA that provided the audio stream before, if I'm not mistaken. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i am pretty sure we will be doing the same audio stream as last year; i will double check with SCCA tomorrow and post online for all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome thanks for the update!

And congrats to all the design finalists! I'm surprised to see RIT missed out, but it looks like all those that made it certainly deserve it!

[floRACEca]

Here are pics from day 2 of the 2013 FSAE MIS Competition:
http://s906.photobucket.com/us...mula%20SAE%20Day%202 (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/randyfloresca_family/library/Michigan/May%209%202013%20Formula%20SAE%20Day%202)

Please email me if you would like any original files... randy.floresca@gm.com

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by floRACEca:
Here are pics from day 2 of the 2013 FSAE MIS Competition:
http://s906.photobucket.com/us...mula%20SAE%20Day%202 (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/randyfloresca_family/library/Michigan/May%209%202013%20Formula%20SAE%20Day%202)

Please email me if you would like any original files... randy.floresca@gm.com

Keep the pictures coming Randy! I always count on you.

P.S. Do you get to cruise around in the new Stingray at all this year?

[RobbyObby]

Did a little data collection on the Design Finalists.

Of the 9 finalists:

- 6 have full aero packages.

- 7 have at least some aero.

- 3.5 have monocoques. *

- 5.5 have steel space frames. *

- 4 have single cylinders (2 450cc, 1 550cc, 1 605cc).

- 5 have 4 cylinders (All 600cc).

- 4 run on E-85. **

- 4 run on gasoline. **

* Auburn is running a hybrid monocoque/space frame.

** Michigan isn't in the Event Guide so I don't know what fuel they're running.

Seems pretty spread out across the board. But one thing that stands out is that aero seems to have a strong presence.

[jpusb]

This competition is going to be insane hahaha

Love to see all this aero cars.

[SAE_intl_girl]

Ok teams...for live scores and audio visit these websites:

Scores: SoloLive.SCCA.com

Audio: ustream.tv/channel/sccasolo

[t_bar]

Originally posted by SAE_intl_girl:
Ok teams...for live scores and audio visit these websites:

Scores: SoloLive.SCCA.com

Audio: ustream.tv/channel/sccasolo

Awesome! Appreciate the link. Score link doesn't seem to be good, but streaming is great!

[TMichaels]

Did I hear right that teams are doing 4.0s times at the SkidPad? Or is the commentator mixing up Acceleration and Skidpad times?

@t_bar: Looking at the layout of the scoring link, I would bet that it will come alive when Autocross starts.

[t_bar]

Originally posted by TMichaels:
Did I hear right that teams are doing 4.0s times at the SkidPad? Or is the commentator mixing up Acceleration and Skidpad times?

@t_bar: Looking at the layout of the scoring link, I would bet that it will come alive when Autocross starts.

Haven't heard anything about the skidpad times. I'm pretty sure all the times have been acceleration.

[coastertrav]

If only we had a webcam out there. The ustream is awesome, but as my first MIS event to miss since '08 I NEED MORE!

[TMichaels]

LiveTiming is now live here:
http://sololive.scca.com/S.html

Make sure to refresh the page regularly.

[RobbyObby]

So far I've updated most Static events (except 82 on in cost), pending the order of the top teams in each event. I've also added the first page of the Accel scores.

Here's the link to the score sheet again, since it got lost in the first page of this thread:

https://skydrive.live.com/redi...key=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw (https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=A8126D5B62B111E9!111&authkey=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw)

If you see that other scores are posted by other teams and available let me know so I can keep updating!

[Charles Kaneb]

Anyone have any details on the Universidad Simon Bolivar car? That's the first "100" cost score I've seen in a while; what'd they do to have the cheapest, best-documented car there?

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by Charles Kaneb:
Anyone have any details on the Universidad Simon Bolivar car? That's the first "100" cost score I've seen in a while; what'd they do to have the cheapest, best-documented car there?

Charles,
If you are basing that off of my spreadsheet, then it's not their final score. For each of the 3 static events, the scores of the top teams (3 in Cost and Presentation, and 9 in Design) have yet to be determined, so until then I just gave each team the maximum available points in that event. That's why they are highlighted yellow and there is the notes on the right of the spreadsheet.

[jpusb]

Charles I didn't quite understand your question but if you see the results you can see we (USB) have always done good at cost.

Gotta be one of your strong points when you are in a contry with thousands of drawbacks so you have to find your way around costs.

Also our team always prepares a very strong actual report.

[RobbyObby]

I think what Charles meant to say was that it is very hard to get the full 100 points in the cost event. Unlike every other event, the first place team does not get the maximum points. In order to get the full 100 points you need to have the cheapest car, get full points in the real case and report score (not that bad) AND get the full 40/40 on the feasibility score, which is nearly impossible! Over the past few years, the top scoring team in Cost has scored between 90-95 points, but I don't think anyone has gotten the full 100 points before.

[jpusb]

I thought the same as you, but also thought that maybe he was asking if there was something special about USB doing good.

Anyone has the results of skidpad and accel? A pic or something

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by jpusb:
I thought the same as you, but also thought that maybe he was asking if there was something special about USB doing good.

Anyone has the results of skidpad and accel? A pic or something

FSTotal posted the top sheet of the Accel scores on their Facebook. I know the scores have been posted, since some are already posting about it, but none that I've seen have posted pics yet.

[rollcentre]

Considering this is 2013 and the scores are not somehow available on the net as soon as they are posted is.. disappointing.

As an FSAE alum 2000 miles away, it's teeth-grinding awaiting results from competition every year. I'd call someone on my team but I know how stressful comp is and don't want to bug them.

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by rollcentre:
Considering this is 2013 and the scores are not somehow available on the net as soon as they are posted is.. disappointing.

As an FSAE alum 2000 miles away, it's teeth-grinding awaiting results from competition every year. I'd call someone on my team but I know how stressful comp is and don't want to bug them.

Now imagine having worked on the car throughout the year, but not able to go to comp. That's me. I'm dying here!

I mean, each school has to have a team contact at FSAEOnline for rules questions, so how hard would it be to email out the score sheets to those contacts once they're printed and posted. The team can then post to social media, forward to the rest of the team, etc. and BOOM within 10 minutes 90% of the competitors and fans have the scores. How hard it that?

[Umur Selek]

I do know it takes a lot to organize this but compared to last year's Formula Student Series... the organization & media involvement at all FSAE competitions in North America seem like a joke...

[Tinomik]

Really? Still no skidpad or accel posted?

Im so impatient. I read ETS won skidpad with 4.8? is that true?

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by Tinomik:
Really? Still no skidpad or accel posted?

Im so impatient. I read ETS won skidpad with 4.8? is that true?

They've been posted just not to the webs. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm currently getting them all from our team manager so i'll be updating the spreadsheet as I get them. I'll throw em up on Imgur and post em here once I get em.

I can confirm ETS won skidpad though, with a 4.901. Cornell won accel with a 3.830. The only team under 4 seconds.

[Tinomik]

posted just not to the webs. I'm currently getting them all from our team manager so i'll be updating the spreadsheet as I get them. I'll throw em up on Imgur and post em here once I get em.

You are the best-est.

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by Tinomik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">posted just not to the webs. I'm currently getting them all from our team manager so i'll be updating the spreadsheet as I get them. I'll throw em up on Imgur and post em here once I get em.

You are the best-est. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://imgur.com/a/TZpIX

I know! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If anyone has a better pic of the last accel sheet let me know! The only I got was super blurry. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Also I don't have the last sheet for the Cost scores.

[SAE_intl_girl]

Formula SAE Michigan 2013
Endurance Run Order

Morning Session

Sequence Car Number School Name
1 26 Queen's Univ - Ontario Canada
2 40 Kansas State Univ
3 67 Carnegie Mellon Univ
4 82 Universidad Central de Venezuela
5 123 Univ of Minnesota-Duluth
6 70 Wichita State Univ
7 75 Ferris State University
8 55 Western Michigan Univ
9 23 Univ of Central Florida
10 63 Cooper Union
11 32 Brown Univ
12 43 Northwestern Univ
13 109 Old Dominion Univ
14 115 Univ of Ontario Institute of Tech
15 57 Univ of Illinois - Chicago
16 33 Univ of Missouri
17 30 Universite Du Quebec-Chicoutimi
18 72 Cegep du Vieux - Montreal
19 37 Lafayette College
20 19 Columbia Univ
21 18 US Air Force Academy
22 76 Univ of Michigan - Dearborn
23 59 Univ of Hartford
24 89 Florida Atlantic Univ
25 49 Univ of New Hampshire
26 106 Univ of Waterloo
27 69 Lakehead Univ
28 111 Bradley Univ
29 88 Villanova Univ
30 86 Univ of Manitoba
31 27 York College of Pa
32 90 Arizona State Univ - Tempe
33 107 Univ of Connecticut
34 21 Dalhousie Univ
35 52 Florida Inst of Tech
36 53 Washington Univ - St Louis
37 128 Oklahoma State Univ
38 78 Univ of Windsor
39 122 Seoul National Univ of Science & Tech
40 80 Texas Tech Univ
41 110 Kumoh National Institute of Technology
42 48 Georgia Institute of Technology
43 47 Univ of North Florida
44 54 Univ of Maine
45 41 Southern Polytechnic State Univ
46 108 Mississippi State Univ
47 101 Kettering Univ
48 105 Univ of North Carolina - Charlotte
49 94 Portland State Univ
50 64 Louisiana State Univ

Afternoon Session

Sequence Car Number School Name
51 113 Duke Univ
52 39 Ohio State Univ
53 68 Universite Du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres
54 31 Univ of Toledo
55 85 National Univ of Singapore
56 119 Lawrence Technological Univ
57 81 Georgia Southern Univ
58 25 Univ of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh
59 29 Purdue Univ - W Lafayette
60 51 Western Washington Univ
61 121 RWTH Aachen Tech Univ
62 36 Univ of Minnesota - Twin Cities
63 71 Saginaw Valley State Univ
64 91 McGill Univ
65 22 North Carolina State Univ - Raleigh
66 95 Penn State Univ - University Park
67 17 Universidad Simon Bolivar
68 58 Univ of Cincinnati
69 83 Colorado State University
70 66 South Dakota Sch of Mines & Tech
71 38 Oakland University
72 35 San Jose State University
73 84 Cornell Univ
74 97 Rochester Institute of Technology
75 15 Michigan State Univ
76 42 Univ of Maryland - College Park
77 103 Univ of Florida
78 99 Univ of Western Ontario
79 13 Centro Universitario Da FEI
80 93 Kookmin Univ
81 73 Universite Laval
82 100 Clemson Univ
83 92 Virginia Tech
84 10 Univ of Wisconsin - Madison
85 74 Univ of Illinois - Urbana Champaign
86 50 Univ of Akron
87 118 Tallinn University of Technology
88 6 Graz Univ of Technology
89 5 Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor
90 8 Ecole De Technologie Superieure
91 79 Auburn Univ
92 11 Univ of Kansas - Lawrence
93 14 Missouri University of Science and Tech
94 3 Universitat Stuttgart
95 1 Oregon State Univ

[Fantomas]

Originally posted by coleasterling:
I'd counter that by asking if the typical flair of the European competitions and teams is really necessary. That's a lot of money and time that could go elsewhere. I bet there are a few rollout presentations in Europe that beat poorer teams' yearly budgets.

I'm not harping on them...I really enjoy seeing pictures and videos of those events. There aren't many US teams that have the resources(people included) to do that.

-Cole

Cole,
how much does it cost to print an excel sheet with scores as PDF and post it online? 5 minutes of time, if you are slow.

Have you ever been to FS UK, FSA or FSG for example?
If not, try it and judge afterwards, if money and time is spent for the wrong things.

Fantomas

[floRACEca]

Here are pics from day 3:
http://s906.photobucket.com/us...mula%20SAE%20Day%203 (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/randyfloresca_family/library/Michigan/May%2010%202013%20Formula%20SAE%20Day%203)

Please email me at randyfloresca@gmail.com for higher resolution/original files.

Good luck at endurance.

[heffeme]

Originally posted by floRACEca:
Here are pics from day 3:
http://s906.photobucket.com/us...mula%20SAE%20Day%203 (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/randyfloresca_family/library/Michigan/May%2010%202013%20Formula%20SAE%20Day%203)

Please email me at randyfloresca@gmail.com for higher resolution/original files.

Good luck at endurance.

Randy,
Just a word of thanks for keeping the rest of us updated with pictures! The field looks excellent this year.

[Wes Snaza]

Just curious if everyone is able to get the audio streaming to work today for the endurance event?

[tromoly]

We finished endurance! Scored in every event, first time in atleast 5 years we've done it. Packed up and down the road getting food, spirits are high.

Heartbreak for Columbia, if I remember correctly they had half a lap left and had a mechanical, had great times and running strong until then.

Had a great time talking to different teams, was a ton of fun.

[Tinomik]

https://www.facebook.com/photo...50765&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151374789010766&set=a.310738565765.156126.288479150765&type=1&theater)

posted are autocross results.

FS rennteam (stuttgart)'s facebook.

[Carrington]

Auto-X track vid for anyone interested:
https://www.facebook.com/photo...52111&type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=551568178228845&set=vb.130002227052111&type=2&theater)

[Tinomik]

Bad luck with the conditions for Stuttgart. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[t_bar]

any news on the endurance results?

[Patrick Curtis]

I think we are all asking the same question! I hear results are posted on-site but they have not been posted online yet.

One thing is for sure, the weather definitely leveled the playing field for the afternoon session. Who knows what happened to GFR?

[jpusb]

Overall:
1. Stuttgart
2. Tallinn
3. Akron

Endurance
1. Akron
2. Tallinn
3. Laval

Congrats to the usual suspects.
And special congratulations to Akron, I have followed (sometimes literally, racing on track!) that car since 2008 and they were consistently climbing to this.

Special congrats to VTech too, after all the trouble to get through the stickers, very strong endurance and autox.

[spam2128]

Anyone have a picture of the full overall results?
Teams are posting their overall result on facebook, but nothing has been uploaded.

[RacingManiac]

https://plus.google.com/photos.../5876905614077673329 (https://plus.google.com/photos/104102302644408236956/albums/5876905614077673329)

Pics from me walking around over 2 days....nice to be a spectator...

[ausracing]

Top 10 design results?

Someone at the track able to quickly upload the results?

[David Caples]

The previous post of endurance scores is incorrect. Michigan State came in 3rd place in endurance, 9th overall. Zips took first, Tallinn second in enduro.

[Mbirt]

Despite running in the morning group, we were able to pull off a first place fuel efficiency (and first place powertrain award) under the new rules that factor in lap time. The new calculation is nothing to be afraid of if the cal is good and the drivers are smooth.

[ausracing]

Originally posted by RobbyObby:
So far I've updated most Static events (except 82 on in cost), pending the order of the top teams in each event. I've also added the first page of the Accel scores.

Here's the link to the score sheet again, since it got lost in the first page of this thread:

https://skydrive.live.com/redi...key=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw (https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=A8126D5B62B111E9!111&authkey=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw)

If you see that other scores are posted by other teams and available let me know so I can keep updating!

Bump.

[ausracing]

Do you think FStotal could post this and get the teams to fill it out? Or has everyone left ?

[tromoly]

Site is open only to pick up transporters, I'd imagine most everyone is gone by now.

[jpusb]

The previous post of endurance scores is incorrect. Michigan State came in 3rd place in endurance, 9th overall. Zips took first, Tallinn second in enduro.

Sorry you are totally right, it was 4 am here and I was reading the results from a blurry cellphone photo I got sent, that's also why I posted just 3 of each.

[spam2128]

Could you kindly upload that blurry cellphone photo? The suspense is killing me.

[Dash]

I'd take it too! Or just tell me where Mississippi State ended up. I knows it's low because we had an electrical failure in the first half of endurance.

[jpusb]

haha sorry guys I can't upload it right now.

But anyway, Cornell just put a link to another photo very much alike

https://twitter.com/CornellFSA...260004769795/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/CornellFSAE/status/333572260004769795/photo/1)

Hope it works.

[spam2128]

Thanks alot for the link.
anyone have the second sheet?

[Dr Tron]

Had an amazing weekend and overcame many of problems not only over the past year but but at comp as well with hard work and a dedicated team. A special thank to the guys from Saginaw Valley State as well as Cornell for the support at the competition.

While we were not quite able to run in accel or skidpad due to sound issues however we did make it to Autocross and put down an impressive 56 second time for a car with no first gear and a bad tune along with other issues getting us into the evening group for endurance where we broke a chain on our first lap which then broke our shift linkage. A sad end but we were just happy to be there and had a great time which would be clear to anyone who checked out our paddock and we did it all with a 6 member team and a small budget for the love of the game.

LTU wants everyone to KCCO and hopes to build off this success for next year!

Thanks all,

Kyle

[thescreensavers]

Was a hectic but great time.

We got 8th in acceleration and it was the first time driving the car. We have no driving aids such as traction and launch control.

We were excited! But then we had a series of unfortunate events with the drive train.

Skid pad the Diff mount broke, then in autocross master-link broke and then a course worker broke our suspension by improperly towing us. We raced and worked hard to fix it for endurance. We lined up for Endurance and only got about 100ft as a cir-clip on our axles holding a tripod broke causing it to pop out.

Game over, we will be coming back strong next year.

Team #89
Florida Atlantic University

[Kevin Hayward]

Congratulations to all the teams involved. It looks like it was a close competition.

Definitely interesting how the balance of different concepts played out, as well as their relative performance.

For those that were there I am wondering if there was any indication of why ETS didn't make design finals. A very light car that finished all the other events with a very high score, and a usual contender for high design placings. Was it a case of the car under the wings was essentially the same as the previous year? A bad design presentation maybe?

Kev

[RacingManiac]

I think they are as baffled as anyone....It seems like they have made sizable gain outside of aero as well. So it's anyone's guess why they didn't make it...

Being at the track this year with really no one to cheer for(and cheering for everyone) it was interesting to see how the cars perform. A few aero singles in enduro was essentially at V-max or sounds like like going down the fast side of the track. You can hear non-aero car having to play with throttle with the kink where as the aero car(Maryland and Akron in particular) seems basically pinned the throttle. The Tallinn was impressively fast also, being aero with "big" engine....At the same token though Stuttgart was the fast car in the wet, and it was running "only" with undertray...

[Kevin Hayward]

Quite a special design result. In the last 20 years only three teams have managed to win design in Michigan and not finish endurance:

1999: Leeds with what was a landmark car with what was at the time unique composite construction
2000: RIT with the first really well built minimalist car
2013: GFR with a development of their current concept

GFR has taken out the last 4 years in the design tent, clearly showing they have a mastery of the event. The 2013 comp was well and truly decided in the design tent with the top 5 placings within the score margin awarded between design finalists.

Kev

[JulianH]

That was a quiet interessting event to watch (hear).
As an Aero-Guy, I loved to see so many incredible packages on the cars. Normally the saying is "put wings on, will work somehow, car will be faster" but the event with a lot of good cars showed that there is quiet a difference between a "bolt on" Aero package and a well included set of wings.

Of course, I'm also glad to see that my hometown of Stuttgart could secure the victory without wings. It's good message to all the teams that you don't need wings to win, it's just a feature to play with.

Design was really interessting. GFR seems to know what the American judges like to know / hear. Of course the car is refined from last year and has an impressive set of wings but they struggeled a lot last year with an comparable car in Germany and Austria where they missed the Finals by quiet a margin. ETS won Design in Germany (against basically everyone) and now missed the Finals with and updated car.

I think, all in all, 2013 will be an awesome season. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Julian

[TMichaels]

I think, all in all, 2013 will be an awesome season.

You are missing an important part:
In FS/FSAE every season is an awesome season http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[RobbyObby]

I was surprised to see so many front runners drop out during (and even before) endurance. The list includes no less than GFR, Kansas, Missouri S&T, Michigan-Ann Arbor, Wisconsin, RIT, Maryland, and SD School of Mines. Can anyone remember the last time that happened? 3 of the 4 fastest cars on track, all failed to complete endurance.

In my opinion though, this opened the field up, and allowed many deserving teams to jump into the spotlight and get the recognition they've long deserved (Akron, Cornell, Michigan State, to name a few).

Are the final autocross scores posted somewhere? I can't seem to find them posted anywhere. I'd like to try and get my spreadsheet completely filled out ASAP, so you guys can play around with the sorting if you want.

[jpusb]

Talking about design finals, remember that design is partially about having a fast car but it is also how you know and understand your car that counts.In fact, how you as a team attacked the problem in terms of budget, time, and resources to get the faster car you could.
Let us take 2008 for an example, Wisconsin Madison had a blindly fast car (beautiful too, and sounded insane on track), and they were not in finals. They placed 2nd in autox and endurance.
The same year ETS placed 2nd in design finals, but in autox and endurance was not close to the top ten.
Maybe between FSG 2012 and FSAE MIS 2013 some teams have worked harder than others on the data gathering, testing, and so on and maybe that is what the MIS design finals show.
In 2010, we had a fast car (I think we were 9th in the first half of the endurance, in autox I messed up so we were 16th) and did not go to design finals. In 2011, the car was not close to that and went to finals (and finishing endurance ended 20 overall).

I think you get my point.

[Tinomik]

EDIT: After re-reading some existing information, I render my following post somewhat irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the design event should be more clear.

A car's design should also be judged if it meets the basic requirements of the competition. In the rules however it refers to the "market". I guess with the business logic case that would be better defined. What if i show up with a car designed for non-FSAE but real world tracks, because i decide that that is my market?

So if the "market" is a FSAE-Track autocross, i assume doing well in dynamics somewhat proves one's design. Or at least portrays how it meets some requirements. Cause if I bring just data to prove my design, it might as well be wrong data, that were hand picked.

I assume a high priority requirement is the car to be reliable, and really, start. In any market, if customers start complaining of the reliability of a fun race car, it probably wont work. A design that fails there is a failed design. Also being fast should be a requirement.

So it does beat me, how designs that fail in meeting the basic requirements of the competition, still make it, and even win design. Maybe blame manufacturing. But a good design should include not only manufacturability, but the fact that a student machines/makes it. No? Am i wrong?

It also beats me how, sometimes one can play "spot the differences" between the teams old car and new one, and still do great in design. Obviously if one has been tuning the same component for 2-3 years, evolving the same concept for more, they will have data etc. Some teams seem to be judged more on that than others (very similar car with minor changes). Sometimes innovations make in through.

There has been various posts on this forum about the design event. And i think (hopefully) with the business logic case, the teams will know more on how to approach it, and give a chance to an "outsider" to know why and how to score well.

In any case, I really liked TU-Graz's car, very good new concept, and i am sure it will be greatly evolved.

[floRACEca]

Here are pics from day 4:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9...s/72157633470333703/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/95685677@N07/sets/72157633470333703/)

Congrats to all teams!

Please email me if you would like high res/original files at randyfloresca@gmail.com

[Mbirt]

Thanks for capturing all of Kettering's highs on Saturday, Randy! I'll be emailing you shortly.

[Flight909]

Originally posted by Tinomik:
A car's design should also be judged if it meets the basic requirements of the competition.

...

What if i show up with a car designed for non-FSAE but real world tracks, because i decide that that is my market?

So if the "market" is a FSAE-Track autocross, i assume doing well in dynamics somewhat proves one's design. Or at least portrays how it meets some requirements. Cause if I bring just data to prove my design, it might as well be wrong data, that were hand picked.

...

But a good design should include not only manufacturability, but the fact that a student machines/makes it. No? Am i wrong?

...



I think that (at least in FSG) the judges are looking at the procedure you have used to make your engineering decision more compared to the final design (of course you don't want to make basic design mistakes). What I mean is the method you have used is important, and how you have used your tools and datas to make the decisions. In my experience the winning team is operating as a group of engineers and not as a group of hobby people in a garage.

Maybe it is a good practice to machine yourself in the workshop, but for me I go to engineering university to learn engineering and not to become a mechanic in a workshop... I don't think the Airbus engineers are building the CFK wings themself just to prove to that it is easy to make?

[JulianH]

Originally posted by jpusb:

Maybe between FSG 2012 and FSAE MIS 2013 some teams have worked harder than others on the data gathering, testing, and so on and maybe that is what the MIS design finals show.


I think you get my point.

I do, but (!), in my opinion, GFR always had one of the most sophisticated analysis I've ever seen. I watched their presentation at the FSG Workshop in the fall of 2011 and visited there shop in Germany in the spring of 2012 and what I saw was really nice. A lot of data, a lot of analysis. But still the "failed" in Design in FSA and FSG. According to their team they got scored down because the car was simply "the same" as in 2011 and the judges in Europe didn't like this. Maybe the US-judges look above this point but if you come to an European competition with a "nearly" 2nd year car, you won't score high in design.

But maybe GFR will prove my theory wrong and score high again in design.



Yes, Tobias, I know that FSAE is always awesome but after four years of watching the competition, I think at least I will see the best one so far http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[bob.paasch]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Quite a special design result. In the last 20 years only three teams have managed to win design in Michigan and not finish endurance:

1999: Leeds with what was a landmark car with what was at the time unique composite construction
2000: RIT with the first really well built minimalist car
2013: GFR with a development of their current concept

GFR has taken out the last 4 years in the design tent, clearly showing they have a mastery of the event. The 2013 comp was well and truly decided in the design tent with the top 5 placings within the score margin awarded between design finalists.

Kev

One thing to note, the process for Design changed this year. They essentially adopted the FSG model, with a preliminary round on static day and a final round at the end of first day dynamic. The previous model had three rounds, with finals after endurance. So this year the judges made their decisions after autocross but before endurance.

Stuttgart's position in Design impacted their overall position only because they ran the entire endurance in the wet. Had they run in the dry like Akron, Tallin, Laval and Cornell, their margin would have been much larger. My congratulations to them for an excellent performance.

ETS also had an outstanding performance in endurance given they ran mostly in the wet. My condolences to Auburn, who easily would have been top 6 or so if not for the UMich-oil-on-track delay and the weather.

[Simactive]

Hey is it possible if I made a thread where everyone could link their pictures. Would be nice to have a collaberation of pictures from the whole event since there wasn't a big photo taken during the event.

To see all the cars.

[Kevin Hayward]

Bob,

Thanks for some clarification for those that weren't there, especially for the change in the order of the design event. There have been teams that have done well in design that have done poorly in endurance before, on the basis of a distinct knowledge gap between them and other teams. Every design judge I have spoken to about GFR has spoken highly of the team's process and knowledge, many stating they are leagues ahead of most teams.

Sorry to hear that your team wasn't able to finish. GFR has owned the comp for the past three years, with some truly impressive engineering and speed.

It would be great if we could hear a bit more about the event from the people that were there. The coverage over the normal channels (streaming, this forum, twitter, fstotal etc) has been pretty lacking and we have FSAE fans around the world eager to know the inside stories of the successes and failures of the comp.

Kev

[RacingManiac]

I am pretty curious as to what happened to GFR, they didn't start the endurance at all. For that matter, RIT also suffered some kind of issue and didn't start enduro also. A group of us were talking to the RIT guys in their pit probably 1.5-2 hr before their starting slot and they don't seem to be panicking about any fault, though they did seem to be trying to start their car.

GFR posted their AutoX winning lap on their FB page, and that was something else....

[Dash]

I'm dying here! Anyone have more info on the final scores?

[Cardriverx]

Seriously, comon guys someone must have a picture of the second and third page!


Originally posted by Dash:
I'm dying here! Anyone have more info on the final scores?

[Markus]

How much oil was really spilled on that track!? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif There's more oil sorbent than tarmac visible in Missouri S&T's video...

Bob, the design actually changed last year, but it's a good point.

[8Bit]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Bob,

Thanks for some clarification for those that weren't there, especially for the change in the order of the design event. There have been teams that have done well in design that have done poorly in endurance before, on the basis of a distinct knowledge gap between them and other teams. Every design judge I have spoken to about GFR has spoken highly of the team's process and knowledge, many stating they are leagues ahead of most teams.

Sorry to hear that your team wasn't able to finish. GFR has owned the comp for the past three years, with some truly impressive engineering and speed.

It would be great if we could hear a bit more about the event from the people that were there. The coverage over the normal channels (streaming, this forum, twitter, fstotal etc) has been pretty lacking and we have FSAE fans around the world eager to know the inside stories of the successes and failures of the comp.

Kev

Rumor around the track was that their starter failed right before they were supposed to go out.

[tromoly]

Just got an email from the collegiate site, results should be posted on students.sae.org today.

[Mbirt]

GFR didn't fail their starter, it was one of the other weak links in the CRF450X starting geartrain. I can personally attest to their upgraded starter being difficult to fail.

It seems as though brake lights had a low survival rate this year. At least UW-Madison and Illinois were DNF'ed at the driver change for them. Ours was starting to die Friday morning and a courseworker was kind enough to point it out to us. We changed it Friday evening and had no problems.

Congrats to Akron on an excellent performance and a strong-running first year thumper. A few other teams seemed to have hurt otherwise great single-cylinder cars by diverting resources toward turbocharging. We have this excellent quote from Geoff Pearson printed and hanging in our office:

When considering turbos and singles in FSAE, the critical dimension is the distance between the exhaust port and the turbo itself. The further the better. For example, when we won Formula Student in the UK, the turbo was in a bin back in Melbourne.

[IronMike]

Matt, excellent work on fuel economy! I was in RIT's pit when they were prepping before endurance. I wont speak for them but there was too much shushing and not enough chuggin when they tried to start. They have a very nice car though. Seems like the Honda 450 is dying out as I think only GFR and Maryland were using it.

I am looking forward to Formula North next week, should be nice and hot!

[bob.paasch]

The short answer is nothing on our car failed, it just failed to start for endurance. The long answer is somewhat more complicated. I will try to stick with the facts as I know them.

This year at the drivers meeting before endurance we were informed by the endurance captain that external batteries would not be allowed in the endurance queue.

From the 2013 SAE rules:

D8.11 Endurance Vehicle Starting/ Restarting
D8.11.1 The vehicle must be capable of starting / restarting without external assistance at all times once the
vehicle has begun the heat.

This rule expressly prohibits the use of external batteries or other forms of external assistance during driver change or in the event of a stall on course. However, like many teams, we have always interpreted this rule to allow an external battery for starting before the endurance heat begins. We have used an external battery to start our car for endurance at every competition since at least 2005, a total of 22 competitions. Our internal battery was sized to start the car on the track and in the driver change.

We've had some cold start issues with the CRF450X this year, so given this restriction, we warmed up the car to operating temperature before leaving our pit for fuel. We had insulating panels on the radiator openings and a space blanket around the engine to conserve heat. We did fuel fill when called at 1430 and rolled the car to the endurance staging area.

As most people know by now, U Michigan had an oil leak on their first lap. They were black flagged, and endurance was stopped while the oil was cleaned up. This took about an hour. In the mean time, a cold front was moving in, bringing rain, 25 kph wind and a 10C drop in temperature about the time of the restart of the race.

We were the last car to go, at around 1700. With a now cold engine we failed to start on the internal battery. We tried for a good amount of time, eventually exhausting the internal battery. We were then told by the endurance officials we could use the external battery if we rolled back to the staging area behind the queue. We did this, started the car on the external battery, and rolled to the endurance start line with the engine running. At this point a discussion took place amongst 3-4 endurance officials, including the event captain. There were apparently mixed opinions about letting us run. They decided we could run only if we restarted in the queue on the internal battery, and we were instructed to shut down the motor and attempt a restart in line. Unfortunately, the internal battery was still discharged from the previous attempts. We could not restart and received a DNF.

I had a subsequent discussion with SAE. Their position was that the procedural change for endurance starting was reasonable, and that while D8.11 doesn't disallow the use of external assistance before the heat begins, there is also no rule that explicitly allows the use of external assistance before the heat begins.

We've had driver change restart issues before with our internal battery (FSUK 11, FSG 12, and almost at FSAE-M 12). We increased the capacity of our battery 30% this year in an attempt to overcome this problem. And Mbirt is correct, we are running the larger TRX450 starter on the CRF this year as well. But we're not there yet. Obviously this is an area our engine guys will be working on before FSG and FSA.

As for me, I gave myself 24 hours to get over this. I have a BajaSAE competition starting on Wednesday. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Sormaz]

Originally posted by bob.paasch:
The short answer is nothing on our car failed, it just failed to start for endurance. The long answer is somewhat more complicated. I will try to stick with the facts as I know them.

This year at the drivers meeting before endurance we were informed by the endurance captain that external batteries would not be allowed in the endurance queue.

From the 2013 SAE rules:

D8.11 Endurance Vehicle Starting/ Restarting
D8.11.1 The vehicle must be capable of starting / restarting without external assistance at all times once the
vehicle has begun the heat.

This rule expressly prohibits the use of external batteries or other forms of external assistance during driver change or in the event of a stall on course. However, like many teams, we have always interpreted this rule to allow an external battery for starting before the endurance heat begins. We have used an external battery to start our car for endurance at every competition since at least 2005, a total of 22 competitions. Our internal battery was sized to start the car on the track and in the driver change.

We've had some cold start issues with the CRF450X this year, so given this restriction, we warmed up the car to operating temperature before leaving our pit for fuel. We had insulating panels on the radiator openings and a space blanket around the engine to conserve heat. We did fuel fill when called at 2:30 and rolled the car to the endurance staging area.

As most people know by now, U Michigan had an oil leak on their first lap. They were black flagged, and endurance was stopped while the oil was cleaned up. This took about an hour. In the mean time, a cold front was moving in, bringing rain, 15mph wind and a 50deg drop in temperature about the time of the restart of the race.

We were the last car to go, at around 5:00PM. With a now cold engine we failed to start on the internal battery. We tried for a good amount of time, eventually exhausting the internal battery. We were then told by the endurance officials we could use the external battery if we rolled back to the staging area behind the queue. We did this, started the car on the external battery, and rolled to the endurance start line with the engine running. At this point a discussion took place amongst 3-4 endurance officials, including the event captain. There were apparently mixed opinions about letting us run. They decided we could run only if we restarted in the queue on the internal battery, and we were instructed to shut down the motor and attempt a restart in line. Unfortunately, the internal battery was still discharged from the previous attempts. We could not restart and received a DNF.

I had a subsequent discussion with SAE. Their position was that the procedural change for endurance starting was reasonable, and that while D8.11 doesn't disallow the use of external assistance before the heat begins, there is also no rule that explicitly allows the use of external assistance before the heat begins.

We've had driver change restart issues before with our internal battery (FSUK 11, FSG 12, and almost at FSAE-M 12). We increased the capacity of our battery 30% this year in an attempt to overcome this problem. And Mbirt is correct, we are running the larger TRX450 starter on the CRF this year as well. But we're not there yet. Obviously this is an area our engine guys will be working on before FSG and FSA.

As for me, I gave myself 24 hours to get over this. I have a BajaSAE competition starting on Wednesday. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob,
I fixed some weird formatting issues in your post here

Thanks

[Thijs]

Originally posted by Sormaz:

...In the mean time, a cold front was moving in, bringing rain, 15mph wind and a 50deg drop in temperature about the time of the restart of the race.



Wow, you guys have some pretty potent cold fronts over there.
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, although I was kind of disappointed that you didn't fix Bob's awkward use of '24 hours' into the way more practical 71.4 millifortnights.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Sormaz: So 10 degC change in temperature is equal to a 50 degF change? I suggest working on your own stuff. "Fixing" other posts isn't going so well.

[SAE_intl_girl]

Competition Results are now posted online! (http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/results/)

You can also see post event article online at http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/

[Sormaz]

Haha that is what I get for shutting my brain off why I try to stir the pot. Relative!=absolute. Oh well

Not even worth editing at this point...the damage is done

[squirrelboy]

Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?

[Tinomik]

Originally posted by squirrelboy:
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?

I do not see how it has any different effect than before. It still uses a ~1.4 factor.

Time plays a significant role in efficiency. ~2.8 liters gasoline equivalent makes you come 4th or 13th, a ~35 point range.

[Mbirt]

Originally posted by squirrelboy:
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Squirrelboy,

Check out rule D8.22. Politicians of the world want us to think in CO2, so the rules use it to come up with the 1.4x scaling factor. Using the engineering unit of lower heating value, you'll arrive at about the same difference in energy between the two fuels.

Check out how tight ETS (93) and Akron (E85) were in fuel efficiency. Both have wings, 10's, WR450's, Web Cams, and were driven extremely well. I don't see anything wrong with the conversion factor.

As for our success with E85, we spent more time working on engine controls and calibration this year and it paid off. It's a 399 lb car with aluminum bodywork and a $250 ECU on 13's, but we spent a lot of time on the dyno. We set CO2min particularly low and it played fun games with the fancy new efficiency formula.

[Tinomik]

Mbirt,

I wish I could see your design poster. What lambda value were you at? (at your design point, whichever you set it at)

but the issue with efficiency is that is also greatly affected by driving style and handling. If one is able to carry more kinetic energy through the corners, he would increase efficiency by a lot, without even changing the tune.

Efficiency is a holistic metric, of engine chassis and driver, rather than just engine. Therefore it seems very "political" that powertrain awards were almost identical to efficiency.

Now thermal efficiency (or BSFC) is truly an engine and engineering metric. But that is very hard to measure in a competition. Efficiency is better than economy.

[Mbirt]

Originally posted by Tinomik:
Mbirt,

I wish I could see your design poster. What lambda value were you at? (at your design point, whichever you set it at)

but the issue with efficiency is that is also greatly affected by driving style and handling. If one is able to carry more kinetic energy through the corners, he would increase efficiency by a lot, without even changing the tune.

Efficiency is a holistic metric, of engine chassis and driver, rather than just engine. Therefore it seems very "political" that powertrain awards were almost identical to efficiency.

Now thermal efficiency (or BSFC) is truly an engine and engineering metric. But that is very hard to measure in a competition. Efficiency is better than economy. We got sick and tired of having yet another single cylinder engine that was sick and tired. I have always openly admired how clean and crisp ETS's car runs. We use a Woodward MotoTron 48-pin ECU and used to run a controller program from a third party sponsor. It was an improvement from the megasquirt we used to run, but still had some issues with consistency. Woodward sponsored us with their MotoHawk utility for Simulink to create our own ECU program, but we couldn't squeeze their base engine model out of them. We took on the challenge of creating our own engine model in MotoHawk and it took far less time to get the motor running than I expected thanks to the help of a highly competent EE that joined the team. It is a simple model that only contains what we need, but remains incredibly flexible for adding functionality as needed. We no longer have phantom starting, idle, and misfire issues--it just works all the time 100% of the time. It feels so good to hit the start button and know that it will crank 2 revolutions, fire, not flare excessively, and settle to a smooth 2700 rpm idle without driver throttle input. That's what we calibrated for and our student-created program finally makes it consistent.

As for lambda, ~.9 at certain speeds at WOT and leaner everywhere else http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The equation for the FEV Powertrain Development award factors cost, accel, endurance, and fuel efficiency scores. I'm not sure what the multipliers are because the numbers I found were from before fuel economy was increased to 100 points.

[Z]

Firstly, many thanks to Robby, Flo..., and others for posting all the pics and "hot gossip" here, as it happened!

I find it strange that the interweb enables Nigerian princes to (constantly!) keep me up-to-date with how much money they want to send me, and it lets all those pretty and scantily clad young girls tell me how much they want to be my friends, but it somehow doesn't allow the SAE to post the FSAE results here as they are collected??? Ah, well, ... progress I guess... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Bob,

The age old solution to your problem is "ether in a can".

An Australian company sells this product (http://www.nulon.com.au/products/Aerosols/Start_Ya_Bastard_Instant_Engine_Starter/#.UZLnaUp_TIg) with what I reckon is the best-ever product name, ... EVER! Here is some of their marketing... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://mediaserver.dwpub.com/press-release/7875/SYBgirls.jpg
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Finally, regarding the cars, I really like Robby's signature quote;

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

It seems (IMO) that all the cars at this comp still have a long way to go before "achieving perfection". There is still a great deal that can be "taken away" from the cars, and they will be much better for it. Less time taken for design and build. More time for driving and fun. And faster and more reliable cars at comp. So higher placing, and more happiness! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[TMichaels]

Bob,

The age old solution to your problem is "ether in a can".

An Australian company sells this product with what I reckon is the best-ever product name, ... EVER! Here is some of their marketing...

Breaching rule IC2.2.1...

[jpusb]

I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)

[theTTshark]

Originally posted by jpusb:
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)

The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another.

[MegaDeath]

Originally posted by theTTshark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jpusb:
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)

The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why he said PRE 2011... The PRE 2011 format was to run slowest to fastest in the morning group, then lunch break, then design finalist, then FASTEST to SLOWEST starting with the Auto-X winner.

I don't really like that system either for the simple fact that it separates the design finalists from everyone else. As in 2009 at Michigan where the finalists ran on a wet track but then the sun came out and everyone after them ran on a dry track.

The most fair format for the purpose of determining an endurance winner, and only to determine an endurance winner, is to run either fastest to slowest or slowest to fastest based on auto-x times.

The 2011 format was a complete bastardization attempt at running an endurance. There's no other way to put that.

[tromoly]

Originally posted by theTTshark:
The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another.

That would explain this video well then.
http://youtu.be/bYhJd8x0BIc

[Steve Fox]

Congratulations to all teams at FSAE-MI. I was unable to attend Wednesday & Thursday due to a day job commitment, but was able to be on-site all day Friday & Saturday. Tony & Bill had the Design Event well under control. Dr. Dave Redszus (Design Event Captain for Lincoln this year) also assisted. My informal survey of teams on Friday & Saturday showed that practically all teams received Design debriefings from at least one (and frequently several) Design Judges.

I don’t know how you all feel about it, but the ‘Call for a Design Judge Review’ program seems to be working well. Chris Patton (ex-GFR) was the designated phone guy this year. He did an excellent job.

Congratulations to the winners of the Best Three View Drawing Award. The quality of three view drawings in the DRs was up quite a bit (again) this year. This award is working out far better than even I could have imagined when we rolled it out a few years ago.

Now for a few comments and a few questions…

Congratulations to U. of Akron, Zips Racing. Did anyone else notice that they reinvented themselves this year? Mono-cylinder engine, 10” tires, wings. Wow! THAT is a lot to bite off in one year, and a third place overall to show for it!

Congratulations to Cornell as well. Absolutely AWESOME Accel run. Perhaps the fastest run in FSAE history? (Anyone know, for sure?) For those of you who did not see it, you missed something special! Cornell has always had a strong engine program, but this year they tried something different in their chassis set-up. I know a few of you asked about and discussed it with Cornell. The rest of you… well, ask Cornell!

I review the results carefully, and do several ‘what if’ analyses. That usually leads to several questions about what happened to teams I did not actually see during dynamics.

Virginia Tech, would you care to tell us what happened to Accell & Skid Pad?

GFR, (Dr. Paasch) thanks, as always for the clear, in-depth explanation of your team’s efforts, both the highlights as well as the warts… I, for one, enjoy reading the candid, honest reports on your team’s efforts. Good luck at Baja this week.

Maryland, Missouri S&T, Michigan-Ann Arbor, Wisconsin & Penn State (31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th & 35th place). WOW! Top teams relegated to 30th plus positions due to Endurance DNFs. What happened?

RIT, I personally witnessed your heroic struggle to remove, disassemble, rebuild, and re-install your starter in the staging area of Endurance. You kept swingin until there was no swing left in ya!

Air Force Academy was on their way to a strong finish, until the tip of their attenuator fell off, ending their Endurance run prematurely. Seems I can recall that happening to a top team in Germany a few years ago…

I am not trying to single any team’s failures out for ridicule. I always find it interesting to hear ‘the rest of the story’… As I have always said, my interest in this competition stems from the diversity of all the cars. At competition, there are so many other little micro-stories to be told as well.

There is always something to be learned at Formula SAE! Again, Congratulations to all teams who competed this year!

[vtec_24]

Steve,

I believe the record for fastest accel is Michigan-Ann Arbor with a 3.766 in 2010 (Cornell's run this year was a 3.830) so not quite, but close!

[bob.paasch]

Originally posted by vtec_24:
Steve,

I believe the record for fastest accel is Michigan-Ann Arbor with a 3.766 in 2010 (Cornell's run this year was a 3.830) so not quite, but close!

Do we get to include e-cars? Delft's 3.454 run (with 4wd burnout) last year at FSE was absolutely astonishing.

[Steve Fox]

Yes, nice try Bob, BUT... E-cars (especially with AWD) are e-cars. But, you are right, Delft's run was awesome as well. I was talking about IC cars only. So, Michigan Ann-Arbor @ 3.766 is the all-time best? (IC)

[Markus]

I guess they were talking about FSAE Michigan.

The best combustion time I know of is Budapest at FS Hungary 2012 with 3.653, before that it was Helsinki with a 3.678 at FS Hungary 2011.

[VFR750R]

Looks like Hungary has some good pavement, not that I would be biased or anything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Dr Tron]

soooo... I had a design judge come up and review our teams score with us and explain why we got an 81, I saw it written in blue pen and then in the official results I see we have a 60. Is there some kind of scaling thing? am I missing something because all scores seems to be nice round even numbers???

someone help me or let me know who I can contact pease

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Yes, you're missing something. The first thing the design judge should have explained was that the score on that sheet and your official score *will* be different. Think of the score on the sheet as being for our (design judges) internal use. At Michigan our goal is to place each team into an appropriate bin, corresponding to 100+ points (design finalist), 100 pts, 80 pts, 60 pts and 40 pts (this applies to most of the field). We're confident we can score you into the correct bin, but we know there is no way we can tell you that you're 2 points better than team X and 1 point behind team Y. We just can't operate at that resolution. Thus, the official score reflects the bin or group you are placed in. The score on the sheet helps the DJs and the lead DJs determine the correct bin.

I hope that explains it.

[Dr Tron]

That helps alot however if the score on the sheet was to place us in a "bin" and we got an 81, wouldn't the appropriate bin be the 80 bin.

[TMichaels]

Originally posted by VFR750R:
Looks like Hungary has some good pavement, not that I would be biased or anything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nope, they just don't properly stage the cars. A mistake made at many comps IMHO.

[Kevin Hayward]

Dr Kasprzak,

Such large bins 20 points for a small range of 60 points appears to be too coarse a resolution to give good feedback through the scores. I also wonder at the wisdom of reserving 50 points (out of 110 point range) for only 8% of the teams.

What are the the reasons for such a coarse bin size, and what keeps the design team unable to provide more resolution? Also why are almost half the points in the effective scoring range reserved for the top 10% of teams?

Please don't take these questions as antagonistic, as they are not meant in that fashion. I am really interested in the reasons for not using the full point range, reserving a large amount of points for a few teams, and providing little resolution for the remaining 90% of teams.

Kev

[RobbyObby]

Originally posted by Edward M. Kasprzak:
Yes, you're missing something. The first thing the design judge should have explained was that the score on that sheet and your official score *will* be different. Think of the score on the sheet as being for our (design judges) internal use. At Michigan our goal is to place each team into an appropriate bin, corresponding to 100+ points (design finalist), 100 pts, 80 pts, 60 pts and 40 pts (this applies to most of the field). We're confident we can score you into the correct bin, but we know there is no way we can tell you that you're 2 points better than team X and 1 point behind team Y. We just can't operate at that resolution. Thus, the official score reflects the bin or group you are placed in. The score on the sheet helps the DJs and the lead DJs determine the correct bin.

I hope that explains it.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an additional scaling factor added according to each design bay? I remember hearing from a design judge a few years back that that they scale the scores in each design judge group, because its impossible to control how easy or hard a group of judges is going to score a team. If every team in a design que receives higher scores than most, don't they scale that appropriately to account for the inherent subjectiveness of each group of design judges?

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Originally posted by Dr Tron:
That helps alot however if the score on the sheet was to place us in a "bin" and we got an 81, wouldn't the appropriate bin be the 80 bin.

No. See my next reply.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Originally posted by RobbyObby:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an additional scaling factor added according to each design bay? I remember hearing from a design judge a few years back that that they scale the scores in each design judge group, because its impossible to control how easy or hard a group of judges is going to score a team. If every team in a design que receives higher scores than most, don't they scale that appropriately to account for the inherent subjectiveness of each group of design judges?

There isn't a scaling factor, per se. I was the lead design judge in my queue at Michigan. At the end of the first round I debriefed with one of the two Chief Design Judges. He quizzed me on why we felt each bin was appropriate for each of our cars. The chief judges do this across all the judging queues, and it's their call on whether a queue is too generous or stringent--they make the final call on the bins and sometimes they make adjustments. This is how differences in queues are handled.

We can't assume that the average of all the cars in each queue is equal, so there's no numerical way to do this directly. Thus, the scoresheet we hand back to the students has numbers which are truly "for internal use only".

I'll finish by saying that I'm always impressed by how hard all the DJs work to be as fair and accurate as possible. We really try to get the final scores "right". I didn't have an appreciation for this in my student days, or even in my faculty advisor days.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Dr Kasprzak,

Such large bins 20 points for a small range of 60 points appears to be too coarse a resolution to give good feedback through the scores. I also wonder at the wisdom of reserving 50 points (out of 110 point range) for only 8% of the teams.

What are the the reasons for such a coarse bin size, and what keeps the design team unable to provide more resolution? Also why are almost half the points in the effective scoring range reserved for the top 10% of teams?

Please don't take these questions as antagonistic, as they are not meant in that fashion. I am really interested in the reasons for not using the full point range, reserving a large amount of points for a few teams, and providing little resolution for the remaining 90% of teams.

Kev

Kev,

These questions go beyond my ability to talk about them. You need one of the Chief Design Judges or event captains for a proper reply. Just as you're not trying to be antagonistic, I'm not trying to be evasive.

While I've put a lot of thought and effort into the design event, I haven't worried much about the points breakdown. My impression is that it seems to work well, and likely reflects the achievement of the teams in the event. The top teams (finalists) really do separate themselves from the rest and it's much harder to bin the mid-field teams with lots of resolution, so I'm okay with the breakdown as it is.

[Markus]

Originally posted by VFR750R:
Looks like Hungary has some good pavement, not that I would be biased or anything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

True, FSH has unique surface and the difference is most noticeable in lateral accelerations.


Originally posted by TMichaels:
Nope, they just don't properly stage the cars. A mistake made at many comps IMHO.

Regards,

Tobias

While I agree staging in FSG is the best I've seen in FS comps, I've also seen much worse in other competitions than FSH. However data acquisition doesn't lie and I've never seen a wheelie in any other competitions. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Kevin Hayward]

Dr Kasprzak,

Thank you for your response. I would love to here Steve Fox's comments (and others) on the design score distribution. I put the following up for general feedback, rather than to put you on the spot.

I have no problem accepting either that the top teams really do distinguish themselves, nor that a bin system has its merits. Merely that the bins seem very coarse and the top teams are overly rewarded for their achievements.

The design scores of 2013 had an average of 78, and a standard deviation of 25. That means that 92% of the teams were contained within 1 standard deviation from the average. The top team is close to a full 3 standard deviations from the average (not unexpected). However the performance gap of a team scoring 3 std Devs in design compared to 1 is not seen in any of the other events. This is a simple case of human perception not accurately matching the reality, and is incredibly common when people are asked to assess real situations. I accept that it is not necessary to force the scores to fit a statistical distribution, but it does occur in the other events in the competition already, indicating that the actual performance of teams does fit a reasonable distribution.

I would suggest that if the design team is rewarding between 40 and 150 points at comp then the average should be closer to 95 with a standard deviation of just under 20. This would put the top 5% of teams at above 130 and maybe a design finals cutoff between 110 and 120. This is still a large reward for the high placing teams and a lot more realistic representation of the effectiveness of the design as seen in other areas.

Alternately keep an average of 75 and run to a std Dev of 25 utilising the full score of 0 to 150 for worst to best. This would mean the top 5% would score above 125 with a design finals cut-off at about 110.

Either which way a design finals cut-off at 100 seems too low, which is made obvious by the large number of teams at this figure.

Also it shouldn't be overly difficult to keep the bin system, but decrease them to a size of 10 points instead of 20. i.e sorting teams into 10-15 bins, instead of 4.

Kev

[Tinomik]

Originally posted by Markus:
However data acquisition doesn't lie

Well....

A. there is limited accuracy in any data aq.
B. Data aq measures what it is told, and when you measure the wrong thing, the wrong way... the data becomes "a lie"

Especially in Accel, staging by a few cm different can give "wildy" different results, within the 50ms range. (its actually easy to calculate).

I'd like to see a video of said wheelie. That would look awesome.

[Tinomik]

My 2 cents on design scoring.

All points are valid. Having large bins, somewhat overcomes the subjective nature of design judging.

But I agree with Mr. Heyward that the top 9 teams are given a very big "boost", especially if the 10th teams are really close to entering the chosen ones.

Having a 25 range for all of them? Having 20 teams instead of 9 in the finals? Second is more time consuming, but also more educational for more teams. I wonder if time is the reason the 3 stage design event was changed.

I favor transparency in all events. Cost and design, one never knows why or how other teams perform. How they get 10k cars with carbon and titanium for example, or which aspects of design did they do well/bad (engine/chassis/susp/aesthetics?). FSAE is not about "trade secrets", and care should be taken to not give away designs or such stuff. But it is about learning, and i think everyone would benefit from making things like cost reports, or interim design scores available to all teams.

That was a long 2 cents.

[Thijs]

I did a FSH vs FSG acceleration results comparison.
I looked at all teams in the FSH acc. top20 that also ran in Germany two weeks earlier.
I don't now how to display a table here, but all teams drive significantly faster in Hungary, 0.46s faster on average. For example, nr 1 and 2 are 0.56 and 0.41s faster than they were in Germany.

This results in an acceleration event where 48% of all teams manage sub-4 second runs. Compare that to 6% in Germany and 1.5% in Michigan. Something special is going on there.

[jpusb]

Sorry I don't follow the design discussion but I gotta say this,

@ theTTshark

As someone else said, that is why I said pre 2011, top 5 design teams and then top autox (almost the same track conditions), and it was ALWAYS a GREAT show for everyone, except us drivers coming next :'(.

I feel you pain from 2011, that year I just went to the comp to shoot photos, no stress, I was at the grandstands cheering for you (I have always liked your car and MS&T) at the endurance, and it was a joke how your driver had to spend sometimes half a lap (or more, I think 1 lap even) in 1st gear coasting behind some backmarker. Please let me clarify that I don't have anything against slow or problematic cars (we've all been there), but it is pretty obvious they should not run at the same time with the fastest cars, I don't know what people that plan endurance were thinking that year.

Endurances in 2008 and 2010 were insane.

[Markus]

Tinomik:
www facebook com /photo.php?fbid=4396597040347&

is the best I can provide you. And you're right, all tools are as accurate as the people using them. I was referring more to the difference in lat.acc we noticed between FSG and FSH but sorry I wasn't that clear in the previous post. I can confirm this later but it was quite huge.

And on a sidenote, we did some experimenting years ago with transponder location: nosecone vs. main hoop was about 0,5s in acceleration. So staging really does make difference. FSG does it right by staging in trap height, other comps usually do it on ground level.

Thijs: Our skidpad time in FSH 2011 was 4,826s, no aero (+ rear inner wheel in the air so couldn't go faster http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). That might give some indication, unless TMichaels finds some faults in the skidpad staging too...

[Thijs]

Markus,

Pretty awesome! We should have brought DUT12 there for an acceleration run http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Markus]

+1 on that. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Tinomik]

Originally posted by Markus:

www facebook com /photo.php?fbid=4396597040347&



Nice!

[TMichaels]

Originally posted by Markus:
Tinomik:
www facebook com /photo.php?fbid=4396597040347&

is the best I can provide you. And you're right, all tools are as accurate as the people using them. I was referring more to the difference in lat.acc we noticed between FSG and FSH but sorry I wasn't that clear in the previous post. I can confirm this later but it was quite huge.

And on a sidenote, we did some experimenting years ago with transponder location: nosecone vs. main hoop was about 0,5s in acceleration. So staging really does make difference. FSG does it right by staging in trap height, other comps usually do it on ground level.

Thijs: Our skidpad time in FSH 2011 was 4,826s, no aero (+ rear inner wheel in the air so couldn't go faster http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). That might give some indication, unless TMichaels finds some faults in the skidpad staging too...

I have to admit though that the FSG way of staging is not rules compliant...

Maybe the radius at skidpad was not right... Jokes aside. I only wanted to point out that the achieved times can not necessarily be directly compared due to several factors (track going downhill, staging with more distance to the starting line, track being too short) influencing them.
Which is why I am always careful with stating something about world's quickest whatever run, etc.
If Guinness wasn't there, it didn't happen ;-)

[mmw2753]

Originally posted by Steve Fox:
Virginia Tech, would you care to tell us what happened to Accell & Skid Pad?


The short story is that we didn't make it through noise/brake on Thursday. We didn't pass noise the first time through so we spent a few hours repacking mufflers. This put us into brakes late into the day, and with 6 runs we couldn't get them to lock. We fixed our braking issues and when we went to brakes on Friday morning, we got called back to noise and did not pass. We didn't have a fully stickered car until sometime after 2 pm on Friday. It was very frustrating, our decibel meter was reading 4-5 dB under the official meter, so we went into noise with false confidence.

[Mbirt]

Originally posted by mmw2753:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve Fox:
Virginia Tech, would you care to tell us what happened to Accell & Skid Pad?


The short story is that we didn't make it through noise/brake on Thursday. We didn't pass noise the first time through so we spent a few hours repacking mufflers. This put us into brakes late into the day, and with 6 runs we couldn't get them to lock. We fixed our braking issues and when we went to brakes on Friday morning, we got called back to noise and did not pass. We didn't have a fully stickered car until sometime after 2 pm on Friday. It was very frustrating, our decibel meter was reading 4-5 dB under the official meter, so we went into noise with false confidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ouch. I didn't think the VT car was loud compared to McGill and Akron. Could it be possible that you've got an aerodynamic device resonating?

[mmw2753]

It's definitely a possibility, and we are very aware that we were not the loudest car out there.

[Tinomik]

Well, nothing stops you, or other teams for having a separate "noise" tune/engine map.

Also the RPM defined by piston speed means that whatever happens at speeds higher than the tested ones, is "fair game".

Well, with a turbo, you might even set your competition rev limiter lower than the noise test RPM.... But still fail noise.

And remember all the dbA, dbC noise filtering stuff. Did you have the correct setting at your db Meter?

[Bill_Murray]

Since there is this talk of acceleration staging advantage and teams not sharing information....

https://lh5.googleusercontent....taging+Advantage.jpg (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-D9iQG97dPr4/UZWe6AjAQrI/AAAAAAAACTA/a1mh0nnO44o/w779-h551-no/Acceleration+Staging+Advantage.jpg)

Effect of staging distance on acceleration run time for constant 1 G acceleration

Pretty easy to whip up an excel sheet for yourself to play with if you are curious.

[Markus]

Originally posted by TMichaels:
I have to admit though that the FSG way of staging is not rules compliant...

Maybe the radius at skidpad was not right... Jokes aside. I only wanted to point out that the achieved times can not necessarily be directly compared due to several factors (track going downhill, staging with more distance to the starting line, track being too short) influencing them.
Which is why I am always careful with stating something about world's quickest whatever run, etc.

While the same is true for the previous record times (conditions unknown), that and the clearly higher grip of the surface are reasons why our team never bashed around about having "world record times". Even though we were aware that our times were the fastest at the time in both acceleration and skidpad (and both have later been beaten by Budapest and Monash respectively).

From marketing point of view we should have done some bashing around to get publicity... But that's another story, it's not our style and we don't want to be one of the teams making egotistical claims.

However now someone called for the fastest time ever and I felt I should share it along with a bit of history what's happened after the previous fastest time.


If Guinness wasn't there, it didn't happen ;-)

Raises and interesting dilemma:
You know that Greenteam Stuttgart is the Guinness world record holder and you've seen Delft in FSG. Which one would you think is the fastest in the world? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

PS. Getting a bit off track here but does Guinness records have restrictions on the surface they're driven? Just wondering because all 0-100km/h etc WR's are highly sensitive to the environment.

[VFR750R]

I gotta say, I was not expecting that much difference in time for a few feet of staging difference, good catch.

All this talk of surfaces, it would be interesting to see what a FSAE car would do on a prepared surface like an actual drag strip. Anyone who's gone drag racing before, will attest to the surface at the starting line being very tacky; to the point of removing sandals and other loose fitting shoes.

Anyone willing to fess up to trying it?

[Canuck Racing]

Originally posted by rjwoods77:
Bracket racing for money at the local 1/8th mile drag strip would make for a fun way to raise funds and gain sponsorship through generation of local interest if it can be done safely. Jr Drag wrinkle wall tires for 10" wheels are available and you could even do bigs and skinnys for the full effect. Talk to the event promoter and get bye runs only so there isn't a safety issue running side by side with a full size vehicle.

You don't see any safety issue with running over 2.5 the maximum straight line distance FSAE cars should run? In close proximity to catch fences and guard rails?

Have at him boys.

[rjwoods77]

Removed prior post and response. Detracted from thread.

[VFR750R]

In Rob's defense, just because the strip is 1/8 mile long doesn't mean the driver needs to do full 1/8mile runs. I believe there is a timing loop at 60ft and 330ft if the team intends to do multiple runs with changes, plus using on board data acquisition.

I certainly would agree going to the drag strip would generate a lot of interest and a lot of smart (and not so smart) people that could give you opinions and ideas, as well as possible leads for sponsorship on machine work, and cheap parts. Seems like a reasonable proposition for a test/tune night at the local strip.

That said, who knows if the drag strip would let you run, I think when I took a mini-sprint to the drag strip a few times the wheelbase was questioned, but the safety equipment was decent so they let me run. And if the school is providing insurance for the team/car, you'll have to clear it, better off asking permission rather than ask forgiveness on that one.

When I took the mini-sprint, lots of people stopped by to check it out because it was 'different', and I got a lead on FJ1200 parts (that was the engine in it).

[TMichaels]

I gotta say, I was not expecting that much difference in time for a few feet of staging difference, good catch.

In reality it is even more sensitive to staging due to the fact that acceleration is, ideally, at its maximum at the beginning and not constant over the entire run.

You can gain about 0.1s in acceleration with the "correct" nose shape, if you tailor it to the lightbarrier setup. Of course only, if the staging is done rules compliant.

[Markus]

Makes it a bit difficult as trap height is not defined in the rules and might change from comp to comp.

But for FSG staging you might be able to gain that 0.1s by using an "underhanging" nose design to nicely match the low trap height and then use a suspension setup that results in enough pitch angle to get over the trap. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[TMichaels]

I guess we need to build a stand for the lightbarriers which randomly adjusts it height after each run http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Michael Royce]

For Formula events, the main thing is that at any one competition, the starter at the Acceleration event MUST make sure that all the cars line up the same way. Comparing the times from one event to another is just an exercise - as others have said, there are too many variables to make it worth expending the effort.

However, if you guys keep on flogging this one, and start trying to duck under (or over) the light beam at the start, the Rules Committee will probably be forced to require a "flag" on the front of the car like the MSA mandate for hill climbs.

[MegaDeath]

As far as consistency in accel staging is concerned. A few years ago (2010 maybe?) the acceleration stagger actually had a tool(a few 2x4's nailed together) and a painted line on the ground to line each car up so that the nose of each car would be lined up very close to each other from car to car. But for whatever reason they only did it at the one competition and I have never seen it any where else in the world.

[TMichaels]

I guess you are talking about this scene:
http://media.formulastudent.de/FSG10/Hockenheim-2010/20100807Saturday/i-hMzRB2H/0/X3/20100807_11-53-16_5967_almonat-X3.jpg

We used this from 2006 to 2011.
In 2012 we switched to a triple light barrier setup, which is more accurate and controls a kind of traffic light to show the stager whether the car has to be moved further forwards, backwards or if it is perfectly staged already.
The light features three bright LED lamps: red, green, red.
See this picture (the lights are above the big grey box):
http://media.formulastudent.de/FSG12/Hockenheim-2012/20120804Saturday/i-zDp5FdW/0/X2/20120804_10-07-49_7587_grams-X2.jpg
If the left red light is on, it means the car has to be pushed forward towards the starting line. If the middle green light is on, it means, the car is perfectly staged. If the right red light is on, it means that the car is too close to the starting line and has to be pushed backwards.
A quite convenient and accurate way of staging, transparent for the driver and taking into account the different shapes of the noses due to using light barriers at the same height as the timing system.

[Xavier ABRAM]

I know I am late on the topic but a few people wondered why ETS didn't make the finals in design at MIS. Here what we've got as a review :

- Looking unprofessionnal with a design board that was falling to pieces... they got a point here
- Being 3 minutes late... they got a point here too
- Communication : the team didn't deliver the information smoothly (hummmmm, we felt the same)
- Improvement : the juges were expecting that "we take more risks" and they felt like they were expecting a 110% improvement where we only delivered 102%. They called it the "price of fame" lol.

Our opinions have been given to the right persons already. I don't feel like I need to say more. I don't know for the rest but top 3 was definitly very deserving teams. Congrats to GFR, from a dynamicist point of wiew you guys are the best.

It just felt a bit frustrating finishing 3 points away from 2nd place and less than 20 points from 1st ! Again it is racing and OMG please keep it so competitive ! Stuttgart, Talinn and Akron are all very good teams. It is a shame that we didn't get to see Ann Arbour, Maryland, S&T, McGill (well not long enough for these guys), RIT and GFR finish endurance.

Phil Arscott was so good to see out there ! My dad saw the video on GFR's FB page and told me I had more work to do lol

[Kevin Hayward]

Xavier,

Thanks for your post. The first three points explain a lot. The judges are particularly harsh on teams turning up late to their allocated design times. The same things kept UWA out of design finals in 2007 (or 2006) Michigan. It is much easier to accept if you think of it as the same as turning up late for your endurance run and earning a 2 minute penalty. It might be a good idea to ammend the rules to have definite late penalty applied to late appearance to static events. At least it keeps it transparent, and maybe that penalty should be applied post final score as it would be for endurance. I don't think there would be an objection by the teams who understand that these events need to run to a tight schedule.

The improvement issue is a tough one. We are generally told not to think in terms of "delta" to last year's vehicle. This is tough as most good teams work on long term improvement and the big conceptual years cannot occur every year. To do so would be bad design and resource allocation. Having been in design finals a few times I am also aware that you tend to talk about where you are going with the project in the future. The judges do not forget this and if you fail to meet your objectives they remember. In Oz we were told of a team that was planning to meet this target and do certain things with their car. In listening it was obvious the judge was talking about you guys, so there is a certain amount of "fame" and expectation built around some teams.

Having been involved with the rise of two teams I think the expectations of the team by the judges end up too harsh during this period. You can have meteoric improvement over a short period, but as you do so the learning curve for new team members gets much harder. The fact that in one year the team improved 50% and in the next improved only 10% is not an indication of a lesser team or poorer design process. This is very hard to grasp when you are used to thinking of a company or team largely made up of the same people year in year out. This problem is compounded when the judges generally only see the few long term team members in the judging tent and miss the fact that half of the team has changed.

Otherwise your example adds evidence to a few points I observed in design events:

- Appearance of both the car and the team is worth much more than you can imagine. As much as judges are trying to be objective it is very hard to undo a first impression (either a positive or a negative one). Carroll Smith told us that one.

- Confidence and delivery can be more important than the content you are delivering.

- Every team member should be able to give a concise 1-2 min summary of the goals and main features of the car (covering the same points). This avoids mixed messages to the judging team. We used to practice this on other teams and spectators whenever they came to look at the car.

- The judges may say they are not interested in "delta" or a comparison to your old car, but you need to be very ready to show what has been changed and best of all have some nice brand new stuff (i.e. not just improved) to show them. This can be process or simulation related if it is a really unique approach. Sometimes what people say they want is not what they want at all, rather it is what they want people to think they want. Confusing, but true, and assuming the judges are human it applies to them as well.



I am not sure whether these points should be necessary to do well in an event based on the design process and achievements, and the first three reek of marketing vs. engineering, but they helped make sure that our team never finished outside the top 2 in design for the last 3 years I was a student (3 wins, 2 second places).

Kev

[Olivier_R]

It was 3 minutes before (not late) actually. They probably wouldn't have noticed it if our design board didn't let us down, but it definitely did give a pretty bad first impression.
Apart from that, we had the same design team that won this event at FSG last August, with more to say and more to show.

[Kevin Hayward]

So you weren't early enough?

I would hope you weren't judged too harshly on the basis of a design board. The car and your team should be more important than a few posters.

I would love for their to be some public (and anonymous) feedback mechanism for the static events. This could help highlight why some of these scores are occurring so all teams can learn. At the moment team members are reluctant to talk about gripes or issues with the worry it may adversely affect their results in future events.

As it stands we are no closer to understanding why ETS got equal 10th/42nd in design with one of the best dynamic cars at comp, with a team that usually does very well in design, with a car that was definitely different and better to previous vehicles.

Kev

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Kevin,

Regarding your push for "transparency" and "feedback" at the Michigan event:

+ I was the lead judge for my 1st round queue, and my judging team did a 20-30 minute feedback session with every team we judged. Giving this feedback is the responsibility of every design judging team in Michigan and, honestly, a part of the judging duties that I really enjoy.

+ Our feedback sessions talk specifically about the team's car and give suggestions on how to improve. I will usually mention the kinds of things (generalizations) the top scoring teams know, can validate, considered, etc. We're always trying to teach students/teams. The feedback sessions are also a time for an interactive discussion between the students and the design judges. We often answer a lot of questions.

+ Note that there is a public design review of the top three cars every year.

+ All of a team's information is considered confidential, so don't expect any design judge to speak specifically to this discussion about ETS in public. While I did not judge ETS, all the design judges get together after the 1st round of judging to discuss/debate who makes finals. I heard the arguments, and I heard the reasons why the decision was made. ETS has received feedback (evidenced by Xavier's post).

+ I can't believe that "team members are reluctant to talk about gripes or issues with the worry it may adversely affect their results in future events". While I can't say that I've worked with every design judge at the Michigan event, I can tell you I have never seen any evidence of this happening.

[Kevin Hayward]

Edward,

The feedback at the events to each team is already good at a lot of events and not what I am really getting at. I miss having a design finalist review such as done in Michigan. There hasn't been one in Australia for a very long time. In fact I think the feedback from the judges in most competitions to individual teams is pretty good, and I was probably not clear on this in my post.

Nor am I pushing for more transparency or feedback at the event. I wasn't there and I can't comment on how it occurred.

To clarify I think the following could help:

- FSAE / Student is truly an international event. It is one that hundreds of universities follow, and those away from an event are hanging on the release of results and why they occurred the way they did. The community is hungry for commentary on both the dynamic and static results. The times speak volumes for the dynamics, but without good transparent information about the static events (the design by far the most important) we have very little understanding of the reasons behind the scores.

- Film and post the design review to the comps. It really helps the international FSAE community to understand and support the events.

- Encourage students to provide constructive feedback to the community at large as to how they believe the event went. It would be great to hear the sorts of things that students discussed in the design event.


While I understand the reluctance to discuss individual team results, I think that some short public (i.e. forums, fstotal, blogs) stated reasons as to why there were some surprising results would inform the greater FSAE community. Informing one team and you educate 20 people, inform the community and you get your point across to thousands.

I personally want to know the story behind ETS' design score, because from the final scores it is one of the most interesting stories of the Michigan competition. GFR's endurance run was another and thanks to this topic we know the story behind that one.

There are a lot of fans and followers of FSAE around the world, and for an event that had 140 international Universities, thousands of students, millions of dollars, many different concepts, ideas and stories. All we have to sate our appetite until the next big comp is 9 pages of forum posts, a few youtube vids from teams, a scoresheet and some poorly updated twitter accounts.

Kev

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Kevin,

Thanks for the clarification--makes sense. It's reassuring that you weren't trying to be a "conspiracy theorist" http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I try to follow the other events, too, from my side of the computer screen. One of the most interesting parts about being at a competition is hearing all the individual stories and sagas. I agree that these stories don't travel well to the larger Formula SAE/Student world.

I think you have some good ideas, especially filming and posting the design review of the top cars.

One point I'd like to comment on:


The times speak volumes for the dynamics, but without good transparent information about the static events (the design by far the most important) we have very little understanding of the reasons behind the scores.

At the risk of sounding argumentative (which I'm not trying to be) I don't think the times explain the dynamic events any better than the scores explain the static events. For example, if there is a "surprising" result on skidpad I don't know why the car was slow unless I was there watching it, and even then I might not! Was the car difficult to drive (maybe because of kinematics, compliance or setup issues?), was the engine down on power (electrical glitch, wrong engine map?), was the driver inexperienced/tenative, error setting tire pressures, maybe a brief rain shower, etc.? I can raise the same kinds of questions about a surprising dynamic result as a surprising static result. The difference, of course, is that the static results are judging calls.

The details matter (a lot!) for everyone's individual story. It would be difficult to bring all these out. There's also the problem of taking things out of context, which already happens way too much as students discuss their judging feedback.

So, while I agree that getting more info out would be interesting, there are certainly some practical difficulties. Perhaps there's a way to get more out there without setting-off a larger set of problems. I agree that this is worth thinking about.

And while I know you're talking about results, I'll note that the design judges (and a few people from the other static events) are as active as ever in reaching out to educate the students. In North America we have the Collegiate Road Show, last year we wrote "Learn & Compete", there are design event review videos online (I recall some by Pat Clarke at FSG a few years back) and some of the design judges even travel to individual schools during the year as a guest lecturer (myself included). Several judges contribute to these forums. If only these resources were available to me 20 years ago when I was a student!

[Z]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
... in design events: ...
- Confidence and delivery can be more important than the content you are delivering.

Originally posted by Edward M. Kasprzak:
... Our feedback sessions talk specifically about the team's car and give suggestions on how to improve.
As he usually does, I reckon Kevin has got it right.

If the Design Judges are really giving the students useful feedback, as Edward suggests, then why is it NOT working?

Almost every other form of "motorsport", amateur or professional, always shows a steady improvement in performance, at least until the Rules are changed to slow the cars down. In FSAE the rate of improvement has been glacial, even though the aero rules have recently been freed up!

I am quite convinced that if there was an amateur drag-racing class with similar rules to FSAE (20mm restrictor, 75m distance, etc.), then over the last 20+ years the Acceleration times would have dropped to the low 3 seconds, possibly even high 2s. Likewise, Skid-Pad times should be in the 3 seconds by now. But instead the times have hardly changed (average times have probably increased, if you include Indian teams).

The problem, IMO, is the all too common attitude these days that "There are no wrong answers, just different choices...", or similar drivel. The oft-repeated DJ version of this is "We don't mind what design decisions the teams make, just as long as they can defend those decisions convincingly..." (see Kev's quote). Of course this is nonsense, and is probably why so many teams keep making the same wrong decisions.

Yes, some decisions are plain STUPID. A good example at this recent comp was the large number of cars with front pushrods leading to rockers and spring-dampers mounted ON TOP of the noses. Yep, rockers and spring-dampers mounted to give the highest possible CG, the maximum yaw inertia, and all that extra, though unnecessary, chassis tubing and bracketry up there.

Now I am sure that the teams adopt such bad designs because they see so many other teams doing same (ie. quite natural for H. Sapiens to follow the flock). Yet there is absolutely no valid justification for this sort of design. But do the DJs point out such bad decisions to the teams? Apparently not, because the teams keep repeating them.
~~~o0o~~~

Anyway, I reckon a better example of design feedback, and perhaps the way the Design event could go, is the "driver swap days" after the Australian events. Experienced team members drive the other teams' cars, and then publicly give very interesting and useful critiques of the cars, good or bad.

But until something like that starts happening, any team aiming to win outright had better look for a 100+ point jump on the opposition in the Dynamic events, just in case they are dudded in the Design tent.

Z

(PS. In the interests of openness and transparency, are we ever going to hear why UWA only got 3/200 Design points in FSAE-A 2012???)

[AxelRipper]

I think the biggest problem with what you're saying is the glacial progress of the competition (other than the tires available and the skill of the drivers, but thats not my point) is the fact that unlike an amateur drag racing class, if you're lucky you can keep a core group of members going for 4 years in FSAE. Almost every year you've got someone (or a group of people) who are leaving the team who have hopefully lent their knowledge to the members still on the team to continue on. It doesn't matter how much you try to teach, it takes quite some time researching and learning to get to a certain level. A lot of times, when you realize that you're at the level where you have at least an understanding of a system on the car and how to solve the problems behind it, it is time for you to graduate. You can't teach most freshmen how to solve an 8 DOF tire model (random example). Or if you can, the chances of them truly understanding it and being able to build on it are slim to none.

In most other motorsports, you get AGES to continue developing things. Your chief engineer and technical specialist don't change every year, and with each leader a new goal for the car. And then, unless you see something break, you may repeat that mistake in the future, simply because you didn't know. Its the school of real world engineering, and you've only got 4 good years in this sport before you have to move on to something bigger (or grad school).

[Z]

Originally posted by AxelRipper:
I think the biggest problem [is]...
... you're lucky you can keep a core group of members going for 4 years in FSAE...
Axel,

I agree. It seems that every few years the teams "reboot", and are back at square one.

An interesting thing is that many of the post-FSAEers on this Forum look at the problem from a much bigger-picture point of view (eg. Geoff and his "Reasoning..." thread), and, IMO at least, see the problem as being a lot easier to solve than when they first started. Namely, focus on the really important stuff, and keep everything else as simple as possible. By contrast, most newbs want everything as complicated as possible, because "Hey, we're building a mini-F1 car here!".

The disappointing thing is that FSAE is supposed to be an "educational competition". All these useful lessons should be passed on to each new intake of students. On the face of it, we should expect FSAE to have the fastest rate of improvement of all types of motorsport. Relatively liberal rules, hundreds of universities around the world, thousands of research theses each year, all with the singular goal of building "the fastest possible autocross car, ever!". But it ain't happening...

Honestly, I have to blame the Design event as being a major reason for this almost complete lack of progress. Too many newbs have (or are given?) the impression that their job is to impress the DJs with their "mini-F1" car...

Z

[RacingManiac]

Well to be fair, doing things based on lesson learned is one thing, but new teams sometimes want to do things differently. Its their freedom and its their lessons to learn. Another thing different from the real world is that results don't necessarily translate directly to funds or lack of funds. Because the focus of this being a student competition, its again coming back to the question of winning or learning should come first....

[Xavier ABRAM]

Zee, did you ever wonder...

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i55/5/6/22/frabz-what-would-happen-if-everybody-is-retarded-except-me-would-they--9085f4.jpg

[Bemo]

Originally posted by Z:
Yes, some decisions are plain STUPID. A good example at this recent comp was the large number of cars with front pushrods leading to rockers and spring-dampers mounted ON TOP of the noses. Yep, rockers and spring-dampers mounted to give the highest possible CG, the maximum yaw inertia, and all that extra, though unnecessary, chassis tubing and bracketry up there.

Thank you for bringing such a brilliant example. You may be personally convinced that this is the case, but there are some very good reasons for having the dampers on top of the nose. The forces you introduce into the chassis can be massively reduced and you can get to extremely better spring rates, especially when using 10'' tires.
For me your sentence is definitely a zero-pointer. All the disadvantages of a push rod system you bring here are correct, but you miss some important advantages. The first five cars from our team had the push rods on top of the nose, then in 2011 the team decided to switch to a pull rod configuration. In 2012 this was kept as the moulds for the monocoque were reused. This year they switched back. Most people I know who tried both prefer the push rod configuration.

This has gone a bit off topic, but it is so great to show that sometimes it really isn't clear what's the right decision...

[Thijs]

Originally posted by Z:
Yet there is absolutely no valid justification for this sort of design.


In addition to Bemo's points: I'm betting Z has never tried to package an electric motor in a 10" front wheel http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Z]

Originally posted by Bemo:
... The first five cars from our team had the push rods on top of the nose, then in 2011 the team decided to switch to a pull rod configuration. In 2012 this was kept as the moulds for the monocoque were reused. This year they switched back. Most people I know who tried both prefer the push rod configuration.
... sometimes it really isn't clear what's the right decision...
Bemo,

The disappointing thing here is that you seem to suggest that there are only TWO possible decisions. Namely, "Do we use push-rods, or pull-rods?"

This is especially disappointing given that this thread's originator, RobbyObby, has the signature quote,

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

YOU DO NOT NEED PUSH-RODS OR PULL-RODS, AT ALL!

In fact, I would say that the reason that there is so little progress in FSAE is that you are all wasting far too much time on such useless decisions.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

To explain above, I earlier suggested FSAE Acceleration times should be in the low 3 seconds by now, and Skid-Pad times in the high 3 seconds (possibly lower for both). I mention these Dynamic events because they are the most objective, so times can be compared (AutoX and Enduro have changing layouts each year).

Anyway, some simple big-picture "decision making" suggests that you can get into the 3 seconds in Skid-Pad by building a simple, lightweight car, with as much aero downforce as you can find. Push or pull-rods are irrelevant (in fact, a disadvantage). Power-wise you only need about 10 kW. And it should be quite obvious that this sort of car (with a bit more power) will also do well in AutoX and Enduro.

In Acceleration, my numbers suggest a maximum power car (~90 kW at crank) with the usual FSAE weight distribution of ~50:50 can at best get into the ~3.8 second times. This confirmed by the results over the last 20 years. On the other hand, a simple lightweight car, with only about 50 kW at the crank, but with rear weight between 60% and 70%, and the right launch technique (the first 5-10 metres are the most important), will get into the ~3.5 second times.

Now good Acceleration times are not very important for overall FSAE results. But squashing the major masses (ie. driver and engine) backward to give ~60+% rear weight can also significantly lower yaw inertia, and that does give a big performance advantage overall.

So why do most current FSAE cars have 50:50 weight distribution, and also an unnecessarily large yaw inertia? Because, "Well, err..., that's what everybody else is doing...". It is nothing but mindless copying of the motor-bike-engine-with-forward-leaning-cylinders-that-pushes-driver-forward-and-over-the-front-wheels. Just like the mindless copying of push and pull-rods...

When are you students going to learn some engineering?

Z

[Charles Kaneb]

Z,

A couple questions.

1) How much do two FSAE spring/damper units weigh?
2) How much do two human legs weigh?
3) How much more important is it to lower item (2) by one inch than it is to lower item (1) by one inch?

I agree that we could get into the low-fours on the skidpad if we were allowed a decent (wooden!) skirt on our tunnels. However, the FSAE rules state VERY clearly that nothing other than the tires may touch the ground.

Good luck designing the 65% rear weight distribution car, or finding two tires, one with twice the cornering stiffness of the other, that otherwise have identical cornering characteristics (not just the lateral vs vertical force functions but identical paths to operating temperature from cold). If you are anywhere near the minimum wheelbase, and are opposed to building a big heavy car with a big heavy four-banger engine, you will have to start with a "sidewinder" engine and its compromises and be very careful with your driveline part selection to get anything like 65% of the weight on the rear tires.

[Kevin Hayward]

Charles,

Z has indicated a preference for direct mounted shocks instead of pullrods / pushrods. This allows for low legs and low shocks, as well as being a very simple light option. Motion ratios for a double a-arm would be in the region of 0.6 to 0.7 which isn't far off what a lot of teams run with the mountain bike shocks anyway.

Kev

[MCoach]

The disappointing thing is that FSAE is supposed to be an "educational competition". All these useful lessons should be passed on to each new intake of students. On the face of it, we should expect FSAE to have the fastest rate of improvement of all types of motorsport. Relatively liberal rules, hundreds of universities around the world, thousands of research theses each year, all with the singular goal of building "the fastest possible autocross car, ever!". But it ain't happening...

Honestly, I have to blame the Design event as being a major reason for this almost complete lack of progress. Too many newbs have (or are given?) the impression that their job is to impress the DJs with their "mini-F1" car...




When are you students going to learn some engineering?


I just want to address the negative view on the progress of this student design series:
http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/943356_10151578417704168_1850078367_n.jpg

Not everyone is a genius, blessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster with the Chapman touch to turn any car into a rolling puff of air. Not everyone is writing their PhD thesis on the "super advanced ultimate controls, make car go super fast system" that they are finishing up this term after dedicating 8 years of their life to FSAE.

This, as anything else in the world, has evolved, and has made its progress, both good and bad. Students are exploring different avenues, deriving their own formulas of how to tackle this problem. Is their a correct answer for how to tackle this? Probably not. Is it the one that wins? Sounds reasonable, but only if it still addresses the key point that this is a design competition meant to encourage teams to learn along the way. I feel that THAT is the most important aspect of this. It's like a big science fair for college kids, just bigger toys, and they actually get to play with them. If you insist that there is only one solution to solving this problem, then in your mind, there is only solution, but there have been many different winners and concepts that have come through this program, all with their trade offs. Want to criticize someone on putting a 1lb part half a meter in the air? go ahead, but I'd rather put the rest of the car closer to the ground under that 1lb part.

Not everyone is building an all out autocross car either. Sound ridiculous? Sure, it does. Why wouldn't you want to be the fastest? Because this is such a cumulative point event, it's more important to very well in all areas than be the team that only dominates 1 event.

This isn't life and death, have a little fun with it.

[rjwoods77]

Fun fact that I should throw in based on the last couple posts. The 2007/2008 UB FSAE car used a Satchell Link solid axle with a pullrod and rocker arm connected to each birdcage...

http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Stu...a_web/images/car.jpg (http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Students/Organizations/sae/formula_web/images/car.jpg)

...and in two separate conversations with top tier design judges one of the very first things they both asked is why I didn't just tie in direct acting dampers off the birdcages and into the chassis. Looking back at it I could have done so and saved myself a bunch of grief in the design of the car.

[VFR750R]

Z, I appreciate your observation that FSAE cars are slow to develop but do you expect them to have a linear progression in performance? I would say performance is more likely to go asymptotic with unchanging rules.

Tires are the most important, and the limiting case here. I don't think you could come up with a purely theoretical FSAE car to run in the 3's in skidpad with the currently available tires. Even if you simulated a car with zero CG height and impossibly low overall weight. Aero is measurable, and would be even better on such a car, but it's a lot easier to calculate something than to implement it.

And likewise, tires and surface play a significant role in accel. I think much like your skidpad times, your 'analysis' is making a lot of assumptions here. First being power; 90KW is a ridiculous crank power level for a 20mm restrictor engine. How are you simulating "right launch technique"? What traction limit are you assuming for the cold tires. I don't doubt your assumptions gave you the results you calculate, but a 65% rear weight bias (with driver) 350lb car with 67HP is probably un-achievable.

I would agree though, that some teams and team members focus on unimportant details and ignore some fundamentals that would result in a faster car. But, I would say, that's part of the learning process. A lot of times, you can't dismiss an idea until you've allocated at least some resources to it, and even at the professional racing level, most ideas don't make it to the racetrack. It can sometimes seem like there are no good ideas, and other times there are so many reasonable ideas that limited resources have to be allocated based on other criteria.

I disagree with the idea that only out-of-the-box innovation will lead to learning how to be an engineer. You also shouldn't so easily dismiss the development of the current FSAE car, of close to 30 years now, to mindless 'monkey see monkey do'.

In summary, many quality engineers have gone through FSAE; you don't think one of them has thought about having higher rear weight bias, you think you are the only one in the world that thinks that might be an advantage, and none of them have thought it through and tried to implement it?? Be careful making the assumption that you are the smartest one in the room...

[Z]

Well, it is bucketing down rain outside, so I may as well have another go at this... Also, with Michigan just over, some teams might now be thinking "How can we win next year?".

But firstly, the expression "mindless 'monkey see monkey do'..." is an insult to monkeys. Monkeys are very independent and perceptive thinkers. I have seen baboons regulary outsmart university educated H. Sapiens. It is we who should really call ourselves Homo Mimicus. But now I am getting off-topic...

I can understand that many of you students don't understand "The Theory". That is your teacher's fault. But all that I say below, and in most other posts, is based on "The Practice". All this can be found in the history of motorsport. I am sure that the average baboon would pick this stuff up after one day at a racetrack. Unfortunately, I guess you guys have to rely on Google, for which you have my sympathies... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

ACCELERATION EVENT - As "engine and turbo guy" VFR750R should know, the maximum power that any restricted racing IC engine has ever made is about 40 hp or 30 kW per square centimetre restrictor area. So the maximum power you can hope to get in FSAE is about 90 kW (at the crank).

With 50:50 weight distribution, typical CG height, rear wheel drive, no aero, and a lightweight car, this 90 kW engine will spin the wheels almost all the way down the track (ie. traction limited all the way). With the typical tyres available these days, and a typical track surface, which give a typical Mu = ~1.5, this car will get ~3.8 second times. Most importantly, MORE POWER = NO BETTER!

The "right launch technique" I mentioned above (and as any baboon would tell you) is to get almost all the weight onto the driven wheels. So with RWD you want to be "popping a wheelie". Front-engined drag-cars do this by raising the CG, but this is not good if you also want to go fast around corners. So the obvious solution, as seen on by far the majority of racecars (ever !), is to have more rear weight, and bigger rear tyres.

For FSAE I suggest 60%R as a starting point. The general packaging layout to achieve this has been posted many times on these pages. Side-winder engines are NOT needed (where did that come from, Charles???). With this weight distribution and an average power FSAE engine, 3.5 seconds is reasonable. Geez, it is not that hard! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For the Acceleration event itself, it may be beneficial to give your lightweight driver a "booster seat" (ie. like kiddies have, but intended to raise overall CG). Rear anti-squat also helps. To understand why the first ~10 metres are most important, draw a graph of car velocity (y-axis) vs time (x-axis). Acceleration is the slope of the curve, distance traveled is the area under it. (Hint: At any given time you get more area under the curve if the curve starts off steeply...)

VERY IMPORTANT! Longitudinal acceleration is not very important for overall points in FSAE. Much more important are lateral acceleration (see below), and yaw acceleration. You get greater yaw acceleration if the car has lesser yaw inertia. Squashing the driver and engine backwards (eg. for more rear weight) can lessen the whole package's yaw inertia.

Lateral and yaw acceleration are not dependent on engine power (to first approximation), but they have the greatest affect on overall points. Do the simulations and tests!!!!!
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

SKID-PAD - No, VFR750R, "Tires are [NOT !] the most important...". In the hundred+ years since rubber tyres were first used in racing their maximum "coefficient of friction", or Mu, has increased from about 1, to about 2. These numbers correspond to attainable horizontal "Gs" of the car. A few years after racers discovered aero downforce the horizontal Gs doubled. Then a few years later they tripled, then quadrupled...

The practical limit for Gs due to aero is the driver passing out. This is never reached because the organising bodies keep changing the rules to restrict aero, and thus to restrict cornering Gs and speeds. (BTW, this is why aero on all current racecars is so inefficient (ie. high drag and low downforce), because it allows the cars to keep their noisy, high revving, high power, "sexy" engines, but still be slow and safe).

In 2002 Carroll Smith was encouraging more teams to go aero (Scott Wordley has a video linked somewhere). A few years ago the FSAE aero rules were freed up. But still very few cars are getting under 5 seconds in SP. Come on guys, take the hint. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

PUSH & PULL-RODS - On the "Suspension Design" thread I recently listed the dozen or so excuses that are given for using these, and why those excuses are nonsense. The only excuse (I won't call it a reason) that was supported by other FSAEers had a defense that went something like this;

"If we are silly enough to buy really expensive dampers, and if we are silly enough to build really fragile wishbones, and if we are silly enough to crash this super-fragile car in testing, then we might save the cost of a new damper.....".

So, summarising this argument, if you are really stupid (I figure 3 x silly = 1 x stupid), then you only have to stupidly pay for your new wishbones... Err, or something lame like that...

Anyway, the really important point here is that no one gave a compelling argument as to how push/pull-rods make your car go faster. That is, push/pull-rods give (next to) NO PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE AT ALL. (Well, in an indirect way they might help a bit with aero, but they are by no means necessary...)

Bottom line here (and in keeping with MCoach's post above), is that using "pushrods-to-springs-on-top-of-the-nose" is a lot like wearing your baseball cap backwards, and upside down, or whatever... I reckon you will have a lot more fun, and win a lot more, if you just learn to play baseball. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[VFR750R]

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match of performance can's and cant's, but it's pretty obvious that not one team has ever achieved 90KW, and I know several teams that have had cylinder pressure tuned engines and all the bolt on electronic goodies one could ask for. Some of these engines have seen similar development as seen on professional racing efforts. No professional engine shop says "well an ALMS engine makes xHP/cm^2, so a cup restrictor engine should make XX-HP".

Your 30KW/cm^2 is by your own admission a guess, an assumption of what is achievable, based on another configuration of engine in another series. Can you verify the output of the engine that creates that claim; can you verify the engine was not leaking air to achieve it? It's fun to think about what-ifs, but when the highest verifiable output is in the range of 70KW, you think these engines are ~30% off their potential?? And I know of several professional applications that are highly developed and competitive that do not reach 30KW/cm^2.

This kind of activity is nothing more than a kid saying "why doesn't GM make a 2500HP car that makes 5000lbs of downforce, for $8000. GM is dumb for not doing it, I'd buy one.

And I'm actually getting a bit upset that you are insulting pretty much everyone in the series. Sure there are teams that get many of their designs by bench-marking others, and not every team is equal in abilities (and budgets), but you are claiming expertise over every area of the car, and critiquing a lot of work and accomplishments and trivializing the knowledge required to succeed.

I wonder, since you are such an expert, why didn't your teams' FSAE car get into the 3's in accel and skidpad, make 90KW, and make the driver pass out from all your downforce... I await your excuses about how you are only one man and if you had 30 of you on your team, it would have been easy to accomplish said goals.

[MCoach]

I wonder, since you are such an expert, why didn't your teams' FSAE car get into the 3's in accel and skidpad, make 90KW, and make the driver pass out from all your downforce


VFR750R,

Z has not been a participant in this competition nor a mentor for any team that I am aware of.

In fact, here is picture from the younger days:

http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/t...010404621#5201040462 (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8356059423/m/52010404621?r=52010404621#5201040462)

And a few articles he has written:

http://www.smithees-racetech.com.au/ackerman.html

http://www.slashdocs.com/yxurz...n-erik-zapletal.html (http://www.slashdocs.com/yxurz/ackerman-erik-zapletal.html)

http://www.theoryinpracticeeng...ced%20suspension.pdf (http://www.theoryinpracticeengineering.com/resources/dynamics/balanced%20suspension.pdf)


Erik,

until we can talk in terms of compromise and structured thoughts, it makes it very difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Start treating people like colleagues and less like monkeys. While it may be on the limits of possible to reach these theoretical maximums that you've called reasonable, as I've mentioned, some of us have other goals in mind. We've made 60 hp (44.7 kW) to the wheel on our FSAE car from our 450cc motor. Assuming a 5% driveline loss, that's 104kW/L. Should we shoot for that magical 90kW/cm^2? No, to us the amount of fuel we need to carry nor an available motor to reach that is worth the weight they bring. I prefer the straw hat to a baseball cap anyway. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[RenM]

90 kW is totally beyond the limit of what is achievable in FSAE. Comparing FSAE Engines to other restricted engines is more like comparing apples and oranges.

If you use a naturally aspirated engine you will need at least 4 cylinders for a rather constant air mass flow through the restrictor. However this results in very small cylinders which them self create increased thermodynamic and mechanical losses. A very high compression ratio without compromising the combustion chamber is also not possible due to the very small stroke.

Going for a turbocharged 2 cylinder engine will also not be able to yield 90 kWs because of the bad efficiency and high back pressure of the small turbochargers needed.

[Z]

VFR750R,

You should really read what was written before getting your knickers in a knot.

So, for the third and last time;

1. "... the maximum power that any restricted racing IC engine has ever made is about 40 hp or 30 kW per square centimetre restrictor area."

In the next few months Ian Bamsey's "Race Engine Technology" magazine should have a wrap-up of this years Le Mans' engines. There he normally gives his well reasoned (IMO) estimates of their power. Typically, all these 5,000+km engines produce about 35hp/sq.cm. Engines requiring less durability have produced more. But the point is, 30 kW/sq.cm is about the UPPER LIMIT. Good engineers should know their limits... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2. "...Most importantly, MORE POWER = NO BETTER!"

The whole point of my above two posts was to make clear that FSAEers should NOT be chasing more power. A medium power car with ~60+% rear weight will out-drag the top horsepower car with 50:50 weight distribution.

3. If you have well reasoned arguments as to why 50:50 weight is best for FSAE, then please share them. And while you are at it, you might let us know why the vast majority of rear-drive racing cars have got it wrong for all these years, by putting more weight, and fatter tyres, on their rear wheels.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

MCoach,

I like monkeys. They are a lot of fun. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As above, I reckon the 60hp you are getting is more than enough to do well in FSAE. In a simple, lightweight car, with about 60% rear weight, and the right launch technique (front wheels almost lifting), you should be able to set a few Acceleration records. And that's always fun! More importantly, the rest of the package would be a good starting point to do well in the other Dynamic events. (Hint: just add that aero-undertray.)

BTW-1. That first car I built in your top link was simple, strong, had 50:50 weight distribution that gave great handling (on equal size tyres), and was all-round pretty good. Its weakest point was that it lit-up the rear tyres too easily! Every other RWD car I've built has had a lot more rear weight, which, all things considered, I reckon is better.

BTW-2. One of your other links managed to spell my name wrongly in three different ways! Now you know why I keep it simple here. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

RenM,

I reckon a 20mm restricted, <610cc engine could get close to 90kW (at the crank, no accessories, etc.). But as before, I reckon that would be a pointless exercise in FSAE.

(Note that said engine, probably a single with big plenum and bespoke turbo, would have to have all bearing sizes minimised, oil/water pump flows minimised, 2-ring piston(s) with tiny skirts, gear drive to cams (?), CR on the edge of detonation, DLC everywhere, and quite a few other things. But the biggest influence on max power would be the fuel. Ie., use the one with highest energy release for a given amount of air breathed.)

Z

[RacingManiac]

For simple curiousity, I wonder what the weight distribution of the current Le Mans Prototypes are...running basically now squared tire setup...

[Z]

RM,

I am quite sure that there are LM cars nowadays that run close to 50:50 weight distribution. This is mainly due to the ACO mandating that only certain size tyres are allowed. Some teams choose to use the wider "rears" all around, so they have to set their weight distribution accordingly (the name Nick Wirth comes to mind?).

In F1, way back during the 1,000+hp turbo era, the tyre rules were much more liberal, and 70%-rear-weight with monster rear tyres (20" wide) was the norm. Tyrell even went the six-wheel route, with 4 x tiny 10" fronts (still available from Avon?). In the 1990s Max Moseley decided he didn't like this look, so for purely aesthetic reasons he imposed rules mandating a very close range of tyre sizes front and rear. The weight distribution had to follow and ended up around 55R:45F.

Whenever the rules are free, RWD racecars end up with more rear weight. A good current example is Bowlby's DeltaWing (built as a completely rules-free concept car), which I believe has at least 70% rear weight, maybe closer to 80%.

Z

[Moreboost]

Originally posted by Z:

I reckon a 20mm restricted, <610cc engine could get close to 90kW (at the crank, no accessories, etc.). But as before, I reckon that would be a pointless exercise in FSAE.

(Note that said engine, probably a single with big plenum and bespoke turbo, would have to have all bearing sizes minimised, oil/water pump flows minimised, 2-ring piston(s) with tiny skirts, gear drive to cams (?), CR on the edge of detonation, DLC everywhere, and quite a few other things. But the biggest influence on max power would be the fuel. Ie., use the one with highest energy release for a given amount of air breathed.)

Z

Keep back pedaling. "reckon"? C'mon Z you preach more then anyone that we should know our shit before coming out and making a statement.

As for 90kw, Nobody in FSAE will ever see 90kW unless there engines are pushing over 40% efficiency and .9 Discharge co-efficient throughout the intake and a god of an engine map etc.

Anyone claiming more then 85-ishhp is obviously using smaller ponies most likely shetlans.

I'm expecting someone from Swinny or Stuttgart to chime in about now.

[Canuck Racing]

Now that this thread is completely de-railed and turning into quite the train wreck, does anybody know what Maryland's weight distribution was when they were running different size front and rear tires (not sure if they still are or not,) and, you know, winning nationals and what not?

P.S. While Z sure has the occasional crazy idea, at least you're now thinking about it. And as young engineers, the first thing you should be learning to do is listen to your peers/colleagues/professors and their ideas. Attacking them because they differ from yours will get you nowhere, and you're probably going to end up being wrong anyway since they've been doing this way longer...

[Markus]

The most powerful naturally aspirated 600cc-I4 with a 20mm restrictor that I know of has 74kW @ front sprocket and a broad usable rpm range, measured on a calibrated Superflow engine dyno.

Due to the amount of engine work required to achieve those numbers I'm quite sure it's getting close to the limit of what N/A engines can produce.

I've also heard rumours about a ~85kW turbocharged 600cc-I4 but don't know if the numbers were achieved on a calibrated dyno... Anyway Z's educated guess about 90kW isn't far off.

[Z]

Ok, off multiple sources on the Interweb (all doubtful, but such is progress):

FORMULA-3 - Many national variations, but typically 2-litre, prod-block, L4, N/A, with 26 mm restrictor.
So,
Area = 5.31 sq.cm,
Quoted Power = >150kW/200hp,
(with VW engine quoted at 220hp, with "push-to-pass" 240hp available from "special map"?!),
so,
Power/Restrictor-Area = 28+ kW/sq.cm, or 38+ hp/sq.cm
(with 45 hp/sq.cm briefly available, if you believe the VW "ptp" claims).
~o0o~

WRC - Up to 2010, 2-litre, prod-block, L4, turboed, with 34 mm restrictor.
So,
Area = 9.08 sq.cm,
Quoted Power = 300-340hp,
so,
Power/Restrictor-Area = 25-28 kW/sq.cm, or 33-37 hp/sq.cm,
(which is less than F3, probably because of demands of rallying).
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Anyway, my "derailing" of this Michigan competition thread was intended to get you thinking about how you can do better next comp. Having a defeatist attitude like Moreboost's above will not help (I think that was a late Saturday night post http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). More importantly, chasing more power won't help either, IMO. But the other stuff mentioned above could help you get into the record books, which is always fun.

Z

[MCoach]

As a team without an aero package, a single cylinder motor, a total vehicle weight that Illini has dubbed "Beefcake Jr.", a 50:50 weight distribution, and no clutch:

Some may say we're doing it wrong. Other's may be amazed that our nosecone is actually aluminum and looks better than a lot of carbon ones. Go ahead and ask about it, we'll pull it off to show you.


So why do most current FSAE cars have 50:50 weight distribution, and also an unnecessarily large yaw inertia? Because, "Well, err..., that's what everybody else is doing...". It is nothing but mindless copying of the motor-bike-engine-with-forward-leaning-cylinders-that-pushes-driver-forward-and-over-the-front-wheels. Just like the mindless copying of push and pull-rods...

To finish first, first you must finish. A car that cannot handle is not meant to be on a track. If I need to push the driver over the front wheels so he can 4 wheel drift it through some of the slaloms, so be it. Because the wheelbase is so tiny on these things, having a car that hangs quite a bit off the rear end makes it quite a bit less predictable than when it's put on a road course. The transient requirement is larger, the sweepers are non existent, and those slaloms are killer. Where else will you see cars kick around slaloms as short and quick as these cars?

Which is another point I'd like to make. These vehicles have a quite a different requirement than what road course vehicles require. Even outdoor karts have some things easier. During those types of racing, you have time to think, "How am I going to take this corner? Turn in, little more, little less, and straight away!" With FSAE courses, they are so narrow and tight, that if anything goes wrong, there needs to be a safety margin that gives stability over control. Has anyone driven 9+ hp indoor karts? It's kinda like that, huh? Even the lower 5hp ones. First thing you see any experienced person do? Push the seat all the way forward. The rear tires are quite a bit bigger than the rear, so what? It's more about pivoting the car and getting it to it's "happy place".

So far, I've been looking for inspiration from different places than what would be considered normal for most people. What's a good series to consider, F1, Le Mans, F3? The higher echelons where things tend to be dialed in. To. The. Dot. Period. But, lately I've been looking to several SCCA classes, Formula Ford, indoor rental beater karts, and a few production cars. They are cheap, reliable, and sometimes exactly what I'm looking for in these cars.

To tie back into the Michigan thread. We were very proud that we built our car pretty much to the 'spirit of the rules'. It's cheap, reliable, efficient, and any amateur could fix it with a hammer, tools that resemble hammers, and a welder, barring a few parts that would be made to order, such as uprights. The design review complimented us on many of the qualities of the car, except that we built it to the spirit of the rules. They said that put us at a disadvantage to the other teams that show up running a fully mil-spec wiring harness, <30lb composite monocoque, a weight that is through the floor, MMC brake rotors, Massive drag inducing wings, and running all kinds of crazy gizmos and gadgets that people put on their cars these days. What disadvantage were they speaking of? That we didn't disregard A.1.2?

"A1.2 Vehicle Design Objectives
For the purpose of the Formula SAE competition, teams are to assume that they work for a design
firm that is designing, fabricating, testing and demonstrating a prototype vehicle for the nonprofessional, weekend, competition market"

I'm pretty sure a non-professional, weekend, competitor doesn't have room in their budget to replace the chassis on their car just because it has started to delaminate from just sitting out in the sun too long. Maybe a few do, but, not the general market.

In conclusion, there is more than one way to consider how points can be rewarded. We've been working on our static events for a long time, but only recently starting to improve on our dynamic events. We plan to continue on campaigning a car that meets the spirit of the rules, but that is our take on it. To all of the teams competing at the Lincoln competition this week, we wish each and every one of you the best of luck. We will see you there!

[Moreboost]

Originally posted by Canuck Racing:
Now that this thread is completely de-railed and turning into quite the train wreck, does anybody know what Maryland's weight distribution was when they were running different size front and rear tires (not sure if they still are or not,) and, you know, winning nationals and what not?

P.S. While Z sure has the occasional crazy idea, at least you're now thinking about it. And as young engineers, the first thing you should be learning to do is listen to your peers/colleagues/professors and their ideas. Attacking them because they differ from yours will get you nowhere, and you're probably going to end up being wrong anyway since they've been doing this way longer...

At risk of not only de-railing but building new rails on this thread. I'll keep it short.

Your assuming us young engineers are not thinking about it, and it fits with the common practice on this forum that nobody besides x,y,Z person is thinking and everyone else is just asking silly questions. If theres one thing FSAE has taught me over the years is don't believe anything your told. Go and find out, some of my professors would have me believe that air is in compressible. Wasn't meant as an attack, still disagree. Just because someone has been doing something longer doesnt mean they have been doing it right. - This is not a personal attack on anyone.

-

Z - all those power - restrictor comparisons on the same fuel for all engines correspond to 45% efficiency. I still find that hard to see in an sae engine. Would love to be proven wrong maybe the AMG-sae engine or the Zengine will blow my doors off.

Also, getting pretty sick of the" you should be at x lat g, y this and that by now" your all stupid students who dont think. It doesnt even matter so long as we can explain why/why not. I reckon (to put it on Claudes terms) a C class car with an A class team (a class being blokes who know what is happening) will mince an A class car with a B class team every time. Its happened to me! More important to me (as a previous leader) was the education of my team then the performance of the car. It takes 3-4 months for the students to understand what the previous car did and by then your already behind the 8-ball to go into redesign and knowledge carry-over is one of the hardest things to implement.

Im not at all a suspension guy, have never really payed too much attention to it, but on the subject of getting people thinking or somebody please enlighten me. Why does maximum achievable Lat g even matter? My lap sim will tell me .1 g is worth Xx more points then anything else. But am i ever reaching this g on an sae track? am i ever reaching steady state Wxfer? which brings me to the age old argument over RC heights and diffs but i think this has been had way too many times here.

I think i put down some rails.

[Adambomb]

Originally posted by Charles Kaneb:
Good luck designing the 65% rear weight distribution car, or finding two tires, one with twice the cornering stiffness of the other, that otherwise have identical cornering characteristics (not just the lateral vs vertical force functions but identical paths to operating temperature from cold). If you are anywhere near the minimum wheelbase, and are opposed to building a big heavy car with a big heavy four-banger engine, you will have to start with a "sidewinder" engine and its compromises and be very careful with your driveline part selection to get anything like 65% of the weight on the rear tires.

We built 3 cars with 40/60 weight distribution. They launched unbelievably hard. The rear tires on our 375 lb single cylinder 40/60 car had the same corner weight as on our 450 lb 4 cylinder 50/50 car. We had little trouble finding 13" tires with the proper cornering stiffness distribution, and I didn't do the math on the 10s (data wasn't available for multiple widths of 10s back in 2007 when I last did the analysis), but our last 40/60 car was on 10s and I believe they matched cornering stiffness as well. I did a few other rough size correlations and guessed that the two size/rim combos of 13s we picked would have very similar heating rates, and they did handle consistently during tire warmup. And this was all done without any excessively fancy gew-gaws or impossible to find engines; it was the same YFZ-450 that many other teams use, and a 63" wheelbase. It was a tight squeeze, but doable.

For that matter I believe Maryland pulled off something like a 30/70 weight distribution with 10" front and 13" rear tires, which by my rough estimate from numbers I've seen would give a good cornering stiffness balance. And they cleaned house at SCCA Nationals. Funny thing is back when I was doing the cornering stiffness analysis I joked about running 10" front and 13" rear, everyone else thought it was pretty funny. Kudos to Maryland for pulling it off.

[VFR750R]

Well, good to see some people have brought us back to earth a bit. We should all remember that absolute performance is irrelevant. It's a competition/race, it doesn't matter how fast you are (or how many points you get), as long as it's more points than your competitors. Every year there is only one team that gets to walk away and say they did it better than everyone else. As long as your rate of progress is equal to or better than your competitors, the rate of development also doesn't matter.