2013 FSAE-Australasia [Archive]

12-12-2013, 06:23 AM

After trawling all of the world's gutters in pursuit of the most ethically bereft correspondent they could find, Planet-Zed-Publications are most delighted to announce their newest cub-reporter. Yes indeed, yours truly, Z!, will be delivering to you, the wider FSAE world, all the rumour, gossip, and innuendo coming from the hottest comp in town, this year's FSAE-Oz 2013! (And no, an "innuendo" is NOT an Italian suppository...)

Rest assured, dear reader, that we will not let any facts get in the way of our mission, and certainly no truth will be left untrampled, as we bring you the glamour, the gloss, the drama, and indeed (and as always) the sleaze, the squalour, and the back-stabbing, that must always be at the heart of events such as this. (After all, sigh..., how else can we media moguls sell, sell, sell!!!)

Or, put another way, much of what follows may be BS. :)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

So, without further ado, we introduce...

THE CONTENDERS.
=================

After an extensive survey of all parameters, and an intensive analysis of such, taken over all of the competitors (ie. I asked each team to guess...), the following teams seem most likely to be on Sunday's podium.

#66 - Monash University (Oz).
======================
Wheels and Tyres - 10" Hoosiers.
Engine - KTM 450 single, turboed, 60 hp (at wheels), on fuel = e85.
Drivetrain - Pneumatic shift g'box in engine, chain to Drexler diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe + CF panels.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, direct-acting spring-dampers (ie. NO PUSH/PULLRODS), machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - MEGA!!! F&R wings + undertray with sliding skirts, all acting direct to uprights (= "unsprung").
Mass - 200 kg wet.
Testing - ~500 km from 13 August.

Team aiming for - "Top 3", with estimated SP = 4.7+, Acc = 4.5.
Mission Statement (overall) - "To be the most respected team in the world."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Maximum aero!"
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... we designed the Melbourne chassis that recently won an award...")

#47 - University of Auckland (NZ).
=========================
Wheels and Tyres - 10" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha WR 450 single, 50 hp (at sprocket), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to spool, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CF honeycomb.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pullrod to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - Yes! F&R wings direct to uprights (err, I think?), predicted "drive-on-ceiling" speed = ~120kph.
Mass - 175 kg wet.
Testing - First drive in July, then 400+ km from September.

Team aiming for - "Top 3", with estimated SP = <4.8, Acc = ~4.3+.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Simple, light, fast."
Design Philosophy (for car) - As above.
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... U of Canterbury [another NZ car] is looking good...")

*** The above two are almost equal favourites amongst their peers. The following got regular mentions... ***

#14 - Curtin University (Oz).
======================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, ~80 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Drexler diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, pull-front, push-rear to spring-dampers, EDM'd aluminium uprights.
Aero - Big! F&R wings direct to uprights.
Mass - 280 kg wet. (Yep, I'm sure they said "two-eighty"...)
Testing - ~10 x Enduros (including one 50 minute non-stop by one driver!), from 30 October.

Team aiming for - "5th, err... +/- 2", with estimated SP = 5.1, Acc = 4.05.
Mission Statement (overall) - "FSG-2015!"
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Maximum Return (= points) on Investment (= effort)"
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Monash have been stealing our aero designs for years ...")

#10 - University of Wollongong (Oz).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, 78 hp (at sprocket), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to spool, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe + CF panels.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pullrods to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - F&R wings chassis mounted (= "sprung").
Mass - 195 kg wet.
Testing - "starting soon...".

Team aiming for - "Top 10", with estimated SP = 4.9?, Acc = 4.1?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Design it. Build it. Test it. Break it."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Simple and reliable."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... U of Queensland stole our pushbar design ...")

#101 - University of Melbourne (Oz).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, 80 hp (at sprocket), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Kaaz clutch-pack LSD (off Mazda MX-5), conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe + CF panels.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, push-front, pull-rear to spring-dampers, folded 4130 sheet uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 230 kg wet.
Testing - ~150 km from 17 November.

Team aiming for - "Top 3", with estimated SP = <5.0, Acc = <4.4.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Finish Endurance event! (ie. be more reliable than before...)."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Car that is easy to drive fast."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... RMIT are up themselves ...")
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

*** These following teams also got occasional mentions, so are the "smokies", or "dark horses". Who knows???. ***

THE PRETENDERS.
=================

#12 - RMIT (Oz).
====================
Wheels and Tyres - 10" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha Phazer 500 twin?, 80 hp (at crank), on e85.
Drivetrain - G'box behind engine, chain to Kaaz LSD, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CF honeycomb.
Suspension - CF double-wishbone, all pushrods to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 184 kg wet.
Testing - 250+ km (and 250 km on dyno) from 21 October.

Team aiming for - "Top 3", with estimated SP = 5.1, Acc = 4.2.
Mission Statement (overall) - "To have well tested car ... and then do more testing..."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Minimum weight, with components on-the-limit."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... RMIT-Electric stole our whole design!...")

#22 - University of Sydney (Oz).
========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Aprilia 550 V-twin, 61 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Drexler diff., conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pushrods to spring-dampers, machined and welded aluminium uprights (= hollow).
Aero - None.
Mass - <185 kg wet.
Testing - 15+ hrs from July (second year chassis).

Team aiming for - "Top 3", with estimated SP = <4.9, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - As below.
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Maximum performance while still reliable."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Monash have stolen our shifter design...")

#2 - University of Western Australia (Oz).
==============================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Goodyear (left over from last year).
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, turboed (Edit: <-NOT turboed!! ...sleepy-head...), 80 hp (at sprocket), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Kaaz LSD, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe + CF panels.
Suspension - "Aerobeam" with "diamond-springing", aluminium Citroen-2CV-style front upright, steel rear upright.
Aero - Large undertray integrated with suspension beams.
Mass - 230 kg wet.
Testing - <1 hour.

Team aiming for - "Top 10", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "To allow CLEAN SHEET DESIGN each year."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Manufacturability suitable for team's limited in-shop resources."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Scott wears dresses ...")

#21 - Tokyo Denki (Japan).
====================
Wheels and Tyres - 10" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CRF 450 single, 45 hp (at sprocket), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to cam&pawl diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, pull-front, push-rear to spring-dampers, folded 4130 sheet uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 170 kg wet.
Testing - ~700 km from September.

Team aiming for - "First!", with estimated SP = 5.0, Acc = 4.4.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Aim for top!"
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Light and agile."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Japanese are too polite to slander anyone! ...")

#13 - University of Canterbury (NZ).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha R6 600 four, 78hp (at sprocket), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Audi torsen diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel? spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, pull-front, push-rear to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - Undertray only, chassis mounted.
Mass - 260 kg wet.
Testing - ~20 hours from August.

Team aiming for - "8th?", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "We are a first year team, so aim to finish and get maximum experience."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Conservative design, with attention to detail."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Auckland are Jaffas! ...")
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

*** STOP PRESS!!! *** Fresh off the rumour-mill:

Edith Cowan University, last year's 2nd place here, have withdrawn from Oz-2013. Some say they are keeping their powder dry for an assault on Europe in 2014. Others say they were trying to develop a bespoke, integrated 2-speed-gearbox-and-diff, and stuffed up, so are not ready. (I mean, who in their right mind would suggest building a 2-speed-box? Geez!!!)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Eyes are now getting very blurry. The "Mid-to-tail-ender" teams tomorrow. Stay tuned. Do not adjust your browser-bar thingy......

Z

Big Bird

12-12-2013, 12:27 PM

From behind the shelter shed, a whispering of a rumour of a translation of the gossip of the team who are too polite to slander anyone...
"RMIT stole our design. We lent it to very tall yellow bird eleven years ago, not given back. Please return. Respectfully yours, gambatte, TDU"

12-12-2013, 06:29 PM

Dawn breaks for another cool but sunny day at Werribee. (Well, dawn was several hours ago, but your faithful correspondent is a slow starter...) "Scattered showers" predicted for Saturday and Sunday, which in Oz can mean anything.

As promised, here are more of the vital stats for ...

THE MID-TO-TAIL-ENDERS
============================

These are roughly in order of their "vibe" (ie. potential placing), or else their team number...

#41 - University of Queensland (Oz).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, 60 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to spool, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pushrods to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 228 kg wet.
Testing - ~17 hours from mid-September.

Team aiming for - "Top 5", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ~4.1.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Rip, Skids, and Fun!!!"
Design Philosophy (for car) - As above.
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... 'Gong copied our pushbar! ...")

#25 - University of Waikato (NZ).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Suzuki GSR 600 four, 83 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to U-special torsen diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pushrods to spring-dampers, folded mild-steel (1.6 mm) uprights.
Aero - Undertray and streamlined upper body.
Mass - 240 kg wet.
Testing - ~30 hours from September.

Team aiming for - "5th", with estimated SP = 5.2, Acc = faster than last year.
Mission Statement (overall) - "To improve placing."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Reliable, simple, finish."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Auckland will beat Monash ...")

#8 - University of Adelaide (Oz).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha R6 600 four, <80 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to old-style Drexler, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe + CF panels.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, push-front, pull-rear to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - F&R wings, chassis mounted.
Mass - 240 kg wet.
Testing - ~13 hours on second year chassis.

Team aiming for - "5th?", with estimated SP = ? (no space to test), Acc = 4.1.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Transfer knowledge, gain practical experience, develop problem solving methodology."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Fast, reliable, adjustable, cheap, safe, fuel-efficient."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... we have nothing bad to say about anyone ...") (Adelaide is known as the "City of Churches".)

#15 - University of NSW Canberra - ADFA (Oz).
===================================
Wheels and Tyres - 10" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha WR 450 single, 40 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Drexler diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe.
Suspension - Beam-Axles front and rear with direct-acting spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 195 kg wet.
Testing - ~300m from this morning.

Team aiming for - "Top 15", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "We are a mostly a new team, so aim to get experience."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Simple, reliable, and not worried about weight."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... wings are a gimmick ...")

#16 - University of South Australia (Oz).
==============================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, 90 hp (at crank), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to spool diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, pull-front, push-rear to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 234 kg wet.
Testing - ~10 hours from mid-November.

Team aiming for - "Top 10", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = <4.2.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Gain experience for next year."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Simple car that finishes."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... we would like to say bad things about Monash, but they are TOO NICE! ...")

#30 - University of Warwick (UK).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Avons.
Engine - KTM 525 single with longitudinal crank, 40 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, longitudinal shaft to behind axle, then chain to Suzuki-quadbike bevel-gear cam&pawl diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe, with bamboo composite floor and body panels.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, pull-front, push-rear to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 210 kg dry.
Testing - Only 10 kms from June, because caught fire at FSUK...

Team aiming for - "Top UK team" (wanted to be top Northern hemisphere team, but Tokyo here!), with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Who Dares, Runs!"
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Reliable, serviceable, and SUSTAINABLE racecar."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... we polite Brits think that all the other teams are really wonderful ...")

#59 - University of Technology Sydney (Oz).
================================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha R6 600 four, 70+ hp (at wheels), on fuel = e85.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to spool diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pushrod to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - Undertray only.
Mass - 220 kg wet.
Testing - 20+ hours from early-October.

Team aiming for - "Top 10", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ~4.4.
Mission Statement (overall) - "I Luv U Guys!"
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Simple, reliable, manufacturable, lightweight."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... see Mission Statement ...")

#63 - University of NSW (Oz).
===========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Avons.
Engine - Aprilia 550 V-twin, 58 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to spool diff, tubular aluminium driveshafts with GFRP-flexplate CVs.
Chassis - Aluminium honeycomb tub (sides 30 mm thick, 0.5 mm skins).
Suspension - Aluminium double-wishbone, push-front, pull-rear to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 166 kg wet.
Testing - ~5 hours from late November.

Team aiming for - "Top 5", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ~4.1.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Integrate our existing knowledge into a fast racecar package."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Lightweight, agile car."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... nothing bad to say about anyone ...")
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

More coming ... can't fit it all in ...

Z

12-12-2013, 06:32 PM

Letter from Werribee - Friday (2)
=====================

And finally the E-cars,

THE DEAD-ENDERS.
========================

(Yes, yes, there definitely is editorial bias here at Planet-Zed.)

#E17 - Swinburne University of Technology (Oz).
===================================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Motor(s) - 2 x Brushless DC (BLDC), 85 kW total (Max!!!), 450 V, 2 x 80 A, ~7 kWh battery pack.
Drivetrain - 2 x chains to conventional driveshafts, "E-diff" with experimental-only Torque-Vectoring.
Chassis - CF honeycomb tub + spaceframe rear.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pushrods to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - F&R wings mounted to uprights.
Mass - 330 kg.
Testing - ~20 hours from 2 weeks ago.

Team aiming for - "1st Electric, Top 10 overall", with estimated SP = 5.0, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Build a team, to build a car."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Car with the lot!"
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... we hate Delft! (set too high standard) ...")

#E20 - University of Western Australia (Oz).
=================================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Motor(s) - 2 x BLDC, 15 kW each (constant), 52 V, 400 A, 8 kWh battery.
Drivetrain - 2 x chains to conventional driveshafts, "E-diff" with no TV.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pullrods to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 280 kg.
Testing - ~4 months, but many problems.

Team aiming for - "Top 3 EV", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "To learn and make progress towards 4WD."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Aimed for 4WD, but not to be..."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... all the other teams have too much money! ...")

#E88 - RMIT Electric (Oz).
=====================
Wheels and Tyres - 10" Hoosiers.
Motors - 2 x BLDC, 60 kW total, 110 V, 350 A, 4.4 kWh battery (= 30 x Li-ion).
Drivetrain - 2 x chains to conventional driveshafts, "E-diff" with equal torque, no TV.
Chassis - CF honeycomb tub + spaceframe rear.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, all pushrods to spring-dampers, machined aluminium uprights.
Aero - Streamlined (low-drag) body.
Mass - 258 kg.
Testing - ~85 km from early November.

Team aiming for - "Top 10 overall", with estimated SP = 5.2, Acc = <5.0.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Mostly new team, so aim to finish and learn."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Reliability."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Swinburne copied our E-diff ...")
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Still a few latecomers to report on, and then all the (very bloody :)) critical analysis will start.

But as a bottom line for this letter, there is one standout feature that separates the "Contenders" from the rest of the pack. It has nothing to do with engine type, or chassis, or suspension type, or other such technical details. Rather, it is the immediacy with which the top teams can state their overall team "Mission Statement" and "Design Philosophy" for their car. These are short, clear, statements of the direction that the team has chosen to head. (Note to many Big Corporations; a "Mission Statement" that fills most of a page, and includes every currently fashionable buzz-phrase, does NOT work!).

It is interesting to note that one of the Tail-Ender teams honestly thought that their Mission Statement was "Put Tools Away Before Leaving the Workshop" ("Hey, that's the big message on the wall!")

Z

Pennyman

12-12-2013, 09:19 PM

On Z's Christmas list this year: a camera.

JulianH

12-13-2013, 04:19 AM

Thanks Z, your letter is a very good read! Would be amazing to have something like that from every competition, but European competitions are probably to big to capture everyone...

For a guy that witnessed the development of E-cars from the very early beginning in 2010 to the performance-monsters of 2013, it's a bit sad that the Electric cars from Australia are stuck somewhere in "2010 Europe"... 260kg to 330kg and low power drivetrains, that does not sound like a lot of performance...

I think Monash and Auckland have amazing cars on paper, hopefully it stays dry so that we can witness some nice drives!

12-13-2013, 05:35 AM

Pennyman,

In fact, I do have a camera in my fancy little mobile phone box. I used it once a couple of years ago. But I have no idea how to get the pictures out of the fancy little mobile phone box and into this other fancy little interwebby box. I guess I could RTFM, but I already know that that would be a PITA. Which explains why I don't even use the mobile phone box anymore...

Anyway, that is why I call these posts "Letters from Werribee". If anyone knows how to send "Postcards from Werribee", then please do. :)

(Maybe I need a Cub-Reporter's-Sub-Assistant-Photographer-Guy? Or a pay rise???)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

The last two latecomers...

#38 - Victoria University (Oz).
==========================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Honda CBR 600 four, 70 hp (at wheels), on fuel = 98.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to Audi torsen diff, conventional driveshafts.
Chassis - Mild-steel spaceframe.
Suspension - Double-wishbone, direct-acting spring-dampers, machined STEEL uprights.
Aero - None.
Mass - 271 kg wet.
Testing - Soon!.

Team aiming for - "Finish", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Move forward, don't dwell, get $#!t done."
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Cost effective, and easy to make."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... Monash are very helpful ...")

#46 - Queensland University of Technology (Oz).
===================================
Wheels and Tyres - 13" Hoosiers.
Engine - Yamaha WR 450 single, 45 hp (at crank), on fuel = e85.
Drivetrain - G'box in engine, chain to live-spool-axle (~75 mm OD, 6061 Al).
Chassis - CrMo spaceframe.
Suspension - Front = double-wishbone+pushrod. Rear = 4 x longitudinal links + "2 x A-arm" (aka "scissor linkage") for lateral location of the spool, and direct-acting spring-dampers.
Aero - None.
Mass - 190 kg wet.
Testing - Soon, hopefully...

Team aiming for - "Expect bottom 10 (engine problems!)", with estimated SP = ?, Acc = ?.
Mission Statement (overall) - "Never give up!"
Design Philosophy (for car) - "Small, lightweight, agile."
(Don't tell anyone, but... - "... we are too young to have bad thoughts ...")
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

So, will the currently falling light drizzle dry up, or become ... monsoonal?
Will those teams that got no sleep last night manage to get their cars running by tomorrow?
Will those teams that had no problems with their cars today manage to get any sleep tonight?
Will Monash's excellent record of finishing comps continue, even with their new turbo, and new pneumatic shifter, and pneumatic DRS, and...?
Will a grumpy-old-fart stand next to the teams that DNF'd and mutter "Stupid boys, you made it TOO COMPLICATED!!!"?
How much "air" will the non-aero cars get as they crest the top of that hill?
Please, someone, get a video-camera-thingy near that hill.

More tomorrow...

Z

Markus

12-13-2013, 06:38 AM

Being upside down and all I would have expected the cars being lighter...

Francis Gagné

12-13-2013, 12:55 PM

Being upside down and all I would have expected the cars being lighter...

They are pretty light considering they have to support the weight of the whole world.

And Z, you need an intern! And maybe some sandwhiches to feed it. Anyway thanks for the letters, it's an interesting read.

Kevin Hayward

12-13-2013, 06:12 PM

Z,

Thanks for the summary on cars. The reasons you stated for ECU not attending are almost correct.

The team made some very big changes this year and weren't going to be as ready to compete in Australia as they would have liked. Pulling out saved the team a lot of money which is currently being put towards competing in the UK. The Oz comp costs us almost as much as going to an international competition, and the team was not prepared to waste the money by turning up to a competition and not finishing. We will be reviewing whether we return to the Australian competition in the future.

Every team who put a new car together for Australia this year has out engineered us for 2013. And we wish everyone the good luck they will need following good preparation.

One we are confident that the car is performing well we will be happy to share the technical details. Talking up unproven designs seems like a lot of intellectual masturbation.

Kev

12-14-2013, 06:11 AM

Just a quick update from your faithful, but somewhat knackered, correspondent.

Weather today was an almost perfect, mild (~20 C) and overcast day with little wind. Similar forecast for tomorrow.

Results are running quite close to the students' predictions of Contenders to Tail-enders.

If anyone can post links to FaceSpace sites, or whatever, that show the results in more detail, then please do. And pictures... Otherwise, here are some of the results for the Contenders as listed on page 1. I didn't bother noting down the boring Cost and Presentation, and Autocross wasn't up, though is roughly the same (ie. Monash 1st...).

#66 Monash ------- Design = 1st = 200, SPad = 1st = 4.78s, Acc = 6th = 4.20s.
#47 Auckland ----- Design = 3rd = 183, SPad = 2nd = 4.93s, Acc = 9th = 4.29s.
#14 Curtin -------- Design = 2nd = 183, SPad = 3rd = 4.94s, Acc = 5th = 4.18s.
#10 Wollongong - Design = 5th = 175, SPad = DNS?, Acc = DNS?.
#101 Melbourne - Design = 12th = 157, SPad = 8th = 5.20s, Acc = 2nd = 3.96s.

More tomorrow (ie. +425 points!).

Z

(PS. Melbourne were particularly fast in AutoX (especially for a non-aero car), and if UWA can evict their many gremlins, then could climb a few places tomorrow.)

Rex Chan

12-14-2013, 06:44 AM

Hi Z! I've seen you around at comp, but afraid of coming to talk to you :)

Here is the official FSAE-A page that update with photos (at night), and Nat does updates during the day.

https://www.facebook.com/FSAEAustralasia

Rex Chan

12-14-2013, 06:50 AM

As a MUR/Melbourne alumni, I was pretty happy we got into the 40.XXs, but we were hitting quite a few cones, so won't do that well place wise sadly. My main concern with MUR doing well is reliability: from 2010-2012, we had 1-1.5 months (20+ track days where we did lots of track time). I don't think has been the case for 2013 (on track late, lots of issues at the track = not much actual driving time/no proper setups), though the car is a step up handling wise as-is, apparently.

Rex Chan

12-14-2013, 06:54 AM

Last thing Z: the guys at FStotal have a running points tally (as do many teams, such as Monash, Auckland, Curtin, etc) here:

https://www.facebook.com/FStotal

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151897838298445&set=a.10150479213213445.377943.158738688444&type=1&relevant_count=1

12-14-2013, 03:59 PM

Rex, Thanks for the links. And I don't bite ... much ... anymore :)

(Kevin, I have tried to reply to your PM but it doesn't seem to want to go through? Or you have Nnn copies of my reply by now...)

Z

Mbirt

12-14-2013, 10:03 PM

Sounds like the top two contenders have each experienced some degree of engine trouble during the enduros. Must be exciting for all those in attendance!

12-15-2013, 06:45 AM

As the last rays of the setting Sun gently kiss the western Porta-loos (conveniently located in the middle of the densest thistle infestation surrounding the track), we bid a fond farewell to FSAE-Oz-2013.

Yes, there are still half-a-dozen cars out there on the track, well, in the in-field, but they are merely the uncollected of the DNFs. It has been a long journey, the teams are tired, and, I guess, some of the recalcitrant cars won't be getting a warm and comfy bed tonight.

So as some teams go off to celebrate, some to deliberate, and others to commiserate, your faithful scribbler will provide his final wrap-up of the event. No doubt the results have already circulated around the world, so these are just some of the standouts.

* Crushing victory to Monash, but oh-so-close! - First place with ~937 points, and ~183 points back to second place, is a significant win. But Monash DNF'd in the first heat of Enduro, and anywhere else in the world that would have dropped them to mid-field. What caused the DNF? The grapevine has it that an electrical connector had NOT been properly PUSHED IN (!), and worked its way loose during the run. Tsk, tsk, tsk! Nevertheless, a flawless performance everywhere else, and a deserved victory.

* It would have been much closer if Auckland's engine wasn't also visited by Gremlins. This year's choice of a normally ultra-reliable Yamaha WRF450 was supposed to cure the problems they had with last year's bespoke "V-single". Annoyingly, the Gremlins, which were causing frequent and sudden engine stoppages during the first heat, weren't even considerate enough to fully show themselves. Some surly old-curmudgeon suggested to the boys that they remove the cylinder-head to evict said Gremlins before the second heat, even though there was barely enough time. After a rapid strip, inspection, and rebuild, the team concluded that the problem was more likely in the gearbox! Nevertheless, up until then it was a fantastic effort from the Aucklanders, pushing Monash hard, and definitely a team with a strong future.

* UWA also had their share of Gremlins. A little stone INSIDE the brake master cylinder? How did that get in there??? And wiring problems, and others, all, no doubt, a result of a car that didn't turn a wheel in anger until a few days before comp. If they had been able to complete a single Skid-Pad run they may have got third place overall. As it was, Curtin and Melbourne took second and third, and deservedly so.

* Outstanding effort for "big picture thinking" at the project management level must go to the only first year team at the comp. Their car completed all heats of all events, and was even running reliably enough after the comp to be driven by a local pro-driver for some half-dozen (+?) demonstration laps. Well done Canterbury! Bit don't lit yo hids git tu big now, bros, cus yous r now goin tu hef tu lif ep tu et! (Or em I spekin Nuth Islendish?)

Well, your scribbler is dribbling out of both sides of his mouth now, so best sign off. A big thank you to all involved for the decidedly good "vibe" at this comp.

Z

Kevin Hayward

12-15-2013, 07:49 AM

Congratulations to Monash, who are making the wins at Oz look procedural.

Big congrats to the two West Australian teams. 2 West Aussies out of the top 5 is pretty awesome.

Curtin did fantastically and now take the crown as the best from the West. The way these guys have been improving in the last few years would indicate that this wont be a one off from them. Beating a team like Monash takes years to bring the car and team up to scratch and the Curtin guys have been very focused on ongoing improvement. I think everyone will be waiting to see their next challenger.

UWA have had a lot of team rebuilding for them over the last couple of years, and it looks like they are on their way back with a good new direction. I am always impressed when teams try designs a little out of the box. Would have loved to have seen it run in real life.

...

Lets just hope as this new round of graduates enter the workforce that we can keep more of them in Australia employed in design based fields.

Kev

Mbirt

12-15-2013, 10:34 AM

Z,

I think the worldwide FSAE community can agree with me that we're grateful for you stepping up and providing wonderfully current, positive, and witty running commentary for this year's event. We hope you stay involved in future events to help us get our competition fix in the northern hemisphere while we're being dumped on by snow.

Markus

12-15-2013, 12:49 PM

+1. That was some pretty good press duty right there.

Big Bird

12-15-2013, 04:50 PM

Thanks Z for the quite insightful appraisals - both on here and on-site. Hope you enjoyed yourself, a shame I couldn't get you on-mike but we will see what we can do in future...

Thanks also to the teams and organizers and volunteers etc etc etc for a brilliant event. The competition was fought out competitively but respectfully, and good spirits seemed to mostly prevail.

I'm slowly getting around to collecting my own words on the event, will post them up here as soon as I have got them in the right order. Z, you have set a precedent here sir, it is going to be a tough act to follow.

Cheers all,

Geoff

Big Bird

12-18-2013, 10:19 AM

Hi all,

Finally getting around to this. A disclaimer to begin with – the following words are my own, and may or may not represent the positions and opinions of the SAE or any of its sub-committees….

The 2013 FSAE-A event has been a great success I believe. Once again Monash won, once again we could have all complained that the result is getting too predictable, once again we didn’t because the Monash team were so damn pleasant and generous with their time and their assistance. The team has a credo that they wish to be the most respected team in the world. They are achieving it.

I’ll post a few things at a time as I get to write them.

DESIGN EVENT

New format this year, 23 teams allocated into 4 groups, each group given a two hour timeslot in which cost and design events were judged. The first 90 minutes of the timeslot were divided into six 15 minute slots, and in these slots teams were allocated either a cost judging team (2 consecutive slots for 30 mins cost judging), or one of four Design judging teams. Design teams were dedicated to design management, powertrain and electronics, vehicle structures, and vehicle dynamics. Each design judging team saw every vehicle – therefore no need for any calibration / equalization, nor design finals. So for the first 90 minutes, solid judging and for the remaining 30 minutes, judges could collate results and approach teams if wanted to look over something again if necessary.

Format needs a little refining but seemed to work well. Some students complained that 15 minutes per design judging group was not enough. My counter argument is that 15 minutes is enough to put 10-15 good points across if you present them concisely enough. Most were repeating themselves over and over about the same basic points – thus wasting time.

We had three judges in the design management group. Lee and Will were speaking to the team management, and I was randomly picking out team members to ask general questions on how the team worked. I was presenting two consistent questions to the teams:
- I presented a scenario where a new team member was bringing with him a sponsored “black box” device, which bolted onto the engine and gave 5kW of power at a 10kg weight penalty. I asked what sort of design conflicts this would create, and how the team might work through the decision making process to decide whether to implement the part or not.
- I asked a random component designer to describe to me the performance targets and constraints they worked to in the design of their part.

Both questions were answered with mostly fluffy generalities. For the first scenario, the top teams were able to describe and quantify either points or lap-time effects of mass and of engine output, and spoke well about conflicts such as packaging, the obvious mass / power conflict, and strategies for dealing with potential personnel issues. However many gave vague answers along the lines of “we would do an analysis and figure out if it was better”. Further questioning would not uncover any idea of how one might measure “better”, or how the analysis might look.

The second question was generally disappointing, with many designers not being able to quote performance targets and some not even to propose what targets might be relevant.

Typical performance targets for an engineered component might be in terms of mass, stiffness, cost, size, etc. A well defined performance target will give the designer a measureable value that signifies when the work is complete. For example, in terms of component mass – a good component mass goal might be to drop the weight of the component by 1kg, or by a certain percentage. Most though just settled for “as light as possible” as their mass target.
Two things come to mind in regard to undefined mass targets:
- In a project where time is critical, we cannot afford to not know how close we are to achieving target on any system. “As light as possible” leaves no indication as to whether you are close, or not close, to achieving that target
- The vehicle dynamicist needs to have a good idea of what component and subsystem masses will be, early in the project, so he or she can design their simulations and run them with confidence.

Team management needs to define the performance targets of components, or at least systems, so that the team members knows where they are going and when they have finished the design phase.

That is all for now – I’ll get back to this in the next few days.

bob.paasch

12-19-2013, 07:04 PM

DESIGN EVENT

New format this year, 23 teams allocated into 4 groups, each group given a two hour timeslot in which cost and design events were judged. The first 90 minutes of the timeslot were divided into six 15 minute slots, and in these slots teams were allocated either a cost judging team (2 consecutive slots for 30 mins cost judging), or one of four Design judging teams. Design teams were dedicated to design management, powertrain and electronics, vehicle structures, and vehicle dynamics. Each design judging team saw every vehicle – therefore no need for any calibration / equalization, nor design finals. So for the first 90 minutes, solid judging and for the remaining 30 minutes, judges could collate results and approach teams if wanted to look over something again if necessary.

Format needs a little refining but seemed to work well. Some students complained that 15 minutes per design judging group was not enough. My counter argument is that 15 minutes is enough to put 10-15 good points across if you present them concisely enough. Most were repeating themselves over and over about the same basic points – thus wasting time.

Geoff, I really appreciate your post, but find I must strongly disagree. I very much hope that other FSAE/FS competitions do not adopt the FSAE-A design judging format.

This "divide and conquer" format is identical to the format used at all 3 North American BajaSAE competitions up until last year. I have to say, I don't like this format, and I worked hard to get the BajaSAE rules committee to move away from this format and to a more holistic design judging process similar to that used in FormulaSAE/Formula Student.

The problem is the four Design judging teams miss the big picture goals for the car and team. At the US and European competitions that I have attended, the team's lead design person is allowed the opportunity to give a 5 minute overview, generally covering overall team goals and top level vehicle design. This provides context for the design and integration of all the vehicle subsystems.

Whilst a good powertrain, structures or dynamics judge should start by asking about overall goals, often they do not and instead immediately dive down into technical questions about their specialty subsystem. If the design lead forces the issue by starting with an overview, they 1) use 5 of their allotted 15 minutes on setting the stage and 2) they have to do the overview 4 times.

The other problem is the division. In this type of judging, generally equal weight is given to each of the judging sub-teams, so in the FSAE-A example, design management, powertrain and electronics, vehicle structure and vehicle dynamics are each given 25%. Consequently this assumes each of these areas is of equal importance. Important to whom, and with what goal? All the parts have to work together to make the car fast and reliable. Aerodynamics is probably an order of magnitude more important than powertrain in determining how fast the car will be, yet it's not even included as a sub-area.

I can understand "divide and conquer" can be more efficient, and it can be easier and more straightforward for inexperienced design judges. But I in my 15 years of experience with both systems, I find it often fails to find the teams with the best systems engineering. The vehicle is almost always more (or less) than the sum of its parts.

Big Bird

12-19-2013, 07:40 PM

Gday Bob,

Fair call, and I welcome the feedback. What I neglected to mention was that we gave each team the opportunity to prepare and present a 5 minute video outlining the top level goals of the project, as it was not feasible for team leadership to address each and every design group. A few conditions - no more than two people in the video, no props other than a whiteboard and 3 coloured whiteboard markers, one continuous shoot for five minutes. This was to be submitted two weeks prior to the event, and distributed to all judges.

We also had one dedicated design judging team focussing on Design Management (all the higher level stuff I wrote about in my "Reasoning..." thread.

Only 15 of the 23 teams submitted a video, and it was clear that the intent of the video was not made clear to them. I'll wear that one myself, I was centrally involved in a lot of the changes but went AWOL at a critical time when my health issues got in the way.

By eliminating design finals, we used Saturday night as a general Design Event Review for all teams. This was well attended, and feedback was positive. We had some venue issues as the shed we were in was very echo-ey (is that a word??) so we were unable to do the casual "roam around the shed" looking at individual cars as we had wished.

There are improvements to be made. Due to my time-out I did not get to share my full vision of where we were taking the event with all the judges and teams, so not everything was understood or fully implemented as hoped. But feedback has generally been positive.

Would love to hear feedback from the teams, judges and anyone else, if you are willing to share?

Cheers all,

Geoff

12-20-2013, 07:19 PM

The problem is the four Design judging teams miss the big picture goals for the car and team. At the US and European competitions that I have attended, the team's lead design person is allowed the opportunity to give a 5 minute overview, generally covering overall team goals and top level vehicle design.

Bob,

FIVE MINUTES for an overview???

As I mentioned earlier the most successful teams at this comp were identifiable by their ability to give their high level "Team Mission Statement" and "Car Design Philosophy" in about FIVE SECONDS. The really successful teams had all their members singing these phrases in chorus.

Given the level of success of GFR in recent years, I reckon you must also have something similar. Perhaps ... "WORLD DOMINATION!" ? :)

The only reason I can think of as to why you want five minutes, is that your team leader might right now be practising his hypnotic suggestion techniques.
"Just give me five minutes with the Judges, and then ... [insert maniacal laughter...]". :)

Also, aerodynamics was judged as part of the "Vehicle Dynamics" sub-section. IIRC, there was at least one dedicated Aero Judge, who insisted that even the non-aero cars should consider aero to some degree (ie. to reduce drag and unnecessary lift, for cooling flows, etc.).
~~~o0o~~~

A quick update on Tokyo Denki (TMS = "Aim for Top!". CDP = "Light and Agile.").

Very unfortunately, they DNF'd in both Enduros due to reasons that were largely beyond the control of a student team. That is, a mega-buck team might have avoided the problems by fitting all brand new components, but they basically had bad luck.

After 700+ km of testing with no problems, in the first Enduro the car's 6-ball-inner-CV broke its cage. In the second Enduro a broken circlip allowed the outer-tripod-CV to dislocate itself. (Apologies if some facts were just mangled, but that was my interpretation of much hand-waving and Jinglish.)

I very much hope Tokyo Denki return next year, and always "Aim for Top!".

Z

JulianH

12-21-2013, 04:25 AM

I agree with Bob here. I did the "overview speech" for our team in the 2012 season and once in 2013 and I think it is important to give the judges an insight of what the team is planning. It's not a 5 seconds "Yeah we want to win" comment. We talk about a bit of history, of course our main concept and the goals of the car and afterwards how we want to achieve them.
In those five Design events, I always was approached by one of the judges who used my words as starting point of his questioning or wanted just to hear more about it from me.
I think without it (and with sadly some judges not reading the Design report...), the teams probably need a lot of time to tip the judges in the right direction, especially if their concept is different then the "normal" cars.

In Italy we had special Design Finals this year (all the teams had just 10 or 15 minutes to talk about their car, no questions), I think it's nice to mix things up a bit in Design, challenge the students but in the end, the "regular" Design event from the European events has proven itself to be "fair" at least to some degree.

In the UK 2013, we would have missed the Design Finals (I think they placed us around P13) before the moderators "regulated" the score, so two or three guys (cheers to Pat for saving us there ;)) decide who is making it to the Finals based on "looking at the car" and not really talking about it with the students, this is of course a bit tricky and I agree with Geoff that this "leveling" is a bit of probelamtic but in the end it works I guess.

NickFavazzo

12-21-2013, 06:09 AM

Personally I loved the new format, I could call upon specific people to answer sub sytem specific parts instead of trying to remember specifics of a design that someone else on the team did. Z is correct in saying that if a team cannot say what "ideology" they designed to and why in a concise sentence then 5 minutes wont make that a hell of a lot clearer.

15 minutes was a good length, though I may suggest making it a little longer as it took most of that time to get into the meatier questions, that may have been caused by helping the judges understand what exactly we did with the suspension since it is not a standard wishbone setup. Overall 15 minutes felt good, It would be interesting to hear what the judges thought, did they have enough time to assess us?

Having judges who collectively know a lot about little (i.e. one topic) is better than having the one judge who focuses on VD, one on PT etc. I feel I could converse better with the small team of VD judges and it felt like more of a discussion than an interrogation.

Bob, the design report should clearly state design philosophy and every student involved should know this and the teams general philosophy, i.e. some teams are there for fun, some are there to learn, some are there to strive towards number one, some are there this year simply to build the team up, UWAMs motto is excellence through engineering innovation. General team goals stem from this, be it a reduced part count, more appropriate manufacture methods (i.e. composites due to more student labor=cheaper). Performance goals are, again, stated in the design brief and can be covered again in the design event. More specific load case stuff may take longer but that is to be expected.

In my opinion aerodynamics is not a main area due to tradition and the fact that not all teams even think about aero, 10 years ago would we have needed an Aero judge as much as we would have needed PT or VD? Aero is not required for a car to drive, a powertrain/VD system is. IMO Aero should have its own section.

One thing that would be nice is to have all judges at once for an hour, imagine that, talking now about drive ratios from a PT perspective through to diff selection (largely a VD concern) which will influence final drive etc.

Now I have recovered from what I would say to be the best competition I have been at since 2009, I need to thank all the teams that helped, I believe MUR and another uni lent us a ignition module before enduro 1, to Curtin for lending us reservoirs after ours proved to be a bit leaky, Monash and Laser3D for helping us with some new front rotors which they made on very short notice. To all the students, organisers and volunteers, thank you. I cannot wait to next year to see the new track layouts. UWAM will keep working hard to better this years result as I expect many other teams will do! I cannot wait!

Also thanks Z for providing some great discussions over the weekend. And Geoff, for lifting the Australian FSAE community to great new heights!

HotRod Todd

12-21-2013, 08:16 AM

My $0.02, for what it's worth..
This year I feel that the new judging format was great, albeit s little brief, as many have alluded to.
My experience was having three judges fire off questions, as I was lead designer for engine and drivetrain, so while I was confident in replying to any/all questions raised, I was a little pressed for time and didn't end up getting much into the mechanical design of the drivetrain. The depth of questions were appropriate and the judges were awesome.
Compared to the previous two years where I had one judge ask banal and generic questions in a seemingly unenthused fashion, these three seened really on the ball and wanted to challenge what I thought I knew about what I'd been slaving away at for the last 18 months.
Geoff, the question on the 10kg 5kW magical part was a corker and I think, as gets to the crux of how a team would deal with such a proposition, reveals a lot about how a team would operate, which is a marker on how wholly thought out the design process attributed to the vehicle's design as much as yhe cohesiveness of the team's design philosophy amongst the lead designers.
In short, I appreciated and welcome the new direction in judging format, and would only wish that either it was 20-25 minutes long, or tgst I had another member of my team with me to be able to split the 'load' up a little.
I'm digging it.

Big Bird

12-21-2013, 01:18 PM

Bob, you raise a good point about relative points allocations for the different judging groups. I was not happy with the prescribed percentages allocated to the different groups, as I agree with you fully that the design priorities vary between different overall vehicle concepts. I hope my other writings on these boards reassure you that my mind is firmly on big picture first, and that as designers we manipulate the relative priorities of our component subsystems to suit our own understanding of the problem.

I proposed a scoring system this year which didn’t make it through our organizing committee. As with many of my proposals this year, it polarized the committee into two factions: one of vocal and enthusiastic support (namely, me), and the other of a general, multi-faceted disbelief (those united by being “not me”)…

My proposal was that the teams actually nominate themselves the relative percentages by which their design scorecard will be assessed. It would work something like this:
- Firstly, 20% of the team’s Design score is allocated to Design Management
- For the remaining 80% of the score, the teams are given the judging categories (e.g. chassis, aero, braking, powertrain, etc.) and have to nominate prior to the event the relative proportions by which each of the categories will be scored on their scorecard.
- Judges mark their own area of expertise with a percentage score, based on the kind of rubrics we are marked on at uni – 50% is barely adequate understanding, 70% good understanding, 90% excellent understanding with evidence of creativity, innovation and synthesis of new ideas, etc. The final scoring for each section is the awarded percentage multiplied by the relative priority, and can be easily implemented with a decent spreadsheet.
- Part of the Design Management score is thus based on justifying the relative proportioning on priorities, the viability of the proportioning chosen, and how the presented product meets the intent of the nominated proportioning.

Now we do not want a system where teams just zero out their weak points – so each category is allocated a minimum allowed percentage value. And some aspects of vehicle design are important fundamentals to all vehicle projects, so I’d been thinking that the allocation to chassis / structural design, and maybe tyres / vehicle handling might be set at 20% each too. But I think that given the scope of viable concepts that this competition allows, there should be scope within the scoring allocations to reflect this. If the team places a high priority on mechanical grip, then lets see the proportioning of priority, the justification and the implementation. If the team places a high priority on aero grip, then lets see the proportioning of priority, the justification and implementation. Same for powertrain, ergonomics, etc etc etc.

The added bonus is that the judging teams get an additional document specifically outlining where the team’s priorities are, in cold hard numbers. So there is still something to work from if the submitted design review is the flavorless marketing-speak porridge it can often be.

I think there are some good lessons to be had in design process by getting the teams to quantify where their priorities lie and having to report on it. And, ultimately, being accountable for those decisions. For those who subscribe to the “everything is a high priority” school of design, they are going to get a nice reality check when their sum total adds up to more than 100%. The system puts the responsibility back on the teams to drive their own design process, rather than try to second guess “what the judges want”.

I'm going to try for this again in 2014. Feedback?? Thoughts??

Mbirt

12-21-2013, 02:12 PM

Big Bird

12-21-2013, 05:52 PM

Purpose of Design Judging:

Now bear with me on this one - if you don't read through this completely you might take offence at my initial statement. Just to preface this, I will state outright that my “angle” in this competition is primarily from an educational perspective.

The primary purpose of the Design Event judging is to rank and score the teams for the Design Event aspect of the competition. If we try to achieve any more than that over the time allocated then we risk not achieving this core objective. This year was my first as a Design judge, and from what I saw, by the end of 15 minutes there was not much the team could say that would have convinced me to change the score I had in my head. Sure, we could have continued the conversation - anyone who knows me would know that I could keep chatting for hours on the topic of FSAE / vehicle design. But by 15 minutes I had everything I needed to assess whether the team's knowledge was poor, good, exceptional or wherever else it lay on the spectrum.

The "design conflict" we face as designers of the design event, is that of how much time we need to rank and score the team's design effort, (both in terms of the students' knowledge, and its embodiment in the vehicle presented), versus how much time the students want to spend talking about their car. The first objective is a pragmatic one, and needs to be achieved in the minimum time possible, given the judges needed to repeat the process in this case 23 times across the day - and given that the teams also need to get away to get their cars finished / scrutineered that day too. The latter want, to converse with experts - which I'd characterize as "learning about engineering", "conversations about design", or even just plain old "education" - is one of the fundamental principles behind this whole competition. The question is, therefore, how much of this educational value needs to be embedded in the Design Event itself, and how much can we deliver elsewhere.

There is a distinct danger in trying to deliver a Design Event that is all things to all people. I would agree that it is our most prestigious event, and it is a disappointment to me that I was never part of a team that won Design. But just like in vehicle design, if we pile too many hopes / objectives / expectations in the one receptacle, we are going to end up with one Frankenstein’s Monster of a final product. (Note to self – print previous sentence, stick to wall above desk, re-read whenever you are about start writing another forums post …  )

So what we tried to do was deliver some more design conversations outside of the actual Design Event. Some ways we addressed this:
- The Saturday night Design Review: - We noted that the previous “design finals” system, amongst other things, gave 4-5 teams access to more time with the design judges. We thought it preferable that all teams have exposure to the Design judges, and thus the Sat Night Review concept was born. Initial plans to do a roving mike arrangement around the shed had to be shelved due to acoustics, so it became a bit of a panel sessions in the centre of the hall. Given the turnout, the generally positive feedback, and given we had to cut short the review due to security curfew, we will look at running a longer, more detailed session next year
- Roving Z :- Admittedly something that was implemented at the last minute, but Mr. Z was wandering the building all weekend chatting to teams and offering his thoughts to them. From what I observed, the conversations and the critiques seemed to be well received. I like the idea of some such conversations happening OUTSIDE of the design event, without the pressures of pointscores being dependant on them. We’ll see what other design experts / professionals we can find next year to do this too.
- I endeavoured to give some judging feedback over the commentary across the weekend - you are welcome to give feedback as to whether that helped or not
- Sunday afternoon guest drivers and interview session:- Thanks to CAMS, we had two top level drivers (Karl Reindler and Anton De Pasquale) drive a couple of cars after Sunday’s Endurance Event, and provide interview feedback on-mike. This was a great opportunity to get a drivers perspective on racecar design, and particularly on the value of good ergonomics.

We hope these initiatives were welcomed, and we are certainly looking for more ways in which we can deliver real design discussions with experts, and improve the educational outcomes of the competition itself. Certainly my favourite of the above is the roving critic, and I’ll do what I can to get more of these critics willing to engage in general design discussions with the teams for next year.

Thanks also for the compliments above, but please understand there were many more people than I who put in a lot more effort and achieved a lot more than I. I’d particularly like to acknowledge Andrew Green, who did a brilliant job to keep things rolling when I had to take time out, and also Rob Chadwick, Adrian Feeney, Scott Wordley and the members of the FSAE-A Consortium

Cheers all

Geoff

12-21-2013, 06:45 PM

Are fuel efficiency results for this competition available anywhere?

How did the post-competition car swap go? Reviews of other teams' cars from previous years have been some of the best reading on this forum.
Mbirt,

I guess the Fuel Efficiency results will (eventually) appear on the SAE-A site. From a cub-reporter's perspective I heard (from a very 3rd hand source) that U of Canberra-ADFA, the beam-axle car with a Yamaha WR450, had terrible engine tuning troubles all weekend. They eventually could only get it running by using some crazy, ultra-lean, map they found somewhere, and won FE with somewhere around 1.5 litres!

ADFA, please get in touch with Mbirt, who knows a thing or two about your engine...

I am also looking forward to the driver-swap write-ups. Pete Marsh was there and mentioned that he will post his feedback. IMO, this event is the ultimate "Design Review". Teams who claimed to have spent the year optimising their ergonomics, but had drivers exiting their cars with bruised knees and bleeding elbows, should take note.

Just wondering how "Driver-Swap" could be incorporated into the official "Design" event??? Probably not, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating...

Z

(PS. Geoff, just saw your last post. I am putting together a much longer-winded piece on "Critical Thinking and Criticism" right now. Hope it doesn't turn into a Frankenstein's Monster! :))

bob.paasch

12-21-2013, 07:09 PM

Bob,

FIVE MINUTES for an overview???

As I mentioned earlier the most successful teams at this comp were identifiable by their ability to give their high level "Team Mission Statement" and "Car Design Philosophy" in about FIVE SECONDS. The really successful teams had all their members singing these phrases in chorus.

"Win the competition" is easy enough for any team to say in 5 seconds. Describing the design process (for both organization and vehicle) that gives that result takes a little longer and requires a bit more insight. ;)

To win, you have to score more points than the next best team. As knowledgable as most design judges are about how to make a car go fast on the track, very few have taken the time to build and validate an FSAE point simulation.

The only reason I can think of as to why you want five minutes, is that your team leader might right now be practicing his hypnotic suggestion techniques.
"Just give me five minutes with the Judges, and then ... [insert maniacal laughter...]".

Thanks for the suggestion Z, we'll get our design leads practicing this technique right away. :) :) :)

Also, aerodynamics was judged as part of the "Vehicle Dynamics" sub-section. IIRC, there was at least one dedicated Aero Judge, who insisted that even the non-aero cars should consider aero to some degree (ie. to reduce drag and unnecessary lift, for cooling flows, etc.)

Under the current rules, a well designed aero package is worth 50-100 points over the same exact car without aero. In my opinion, the only remaining valid reason for going non-aero is resource based. Under the current rules, a non-aero car design is incompatible with the goal of "win the competition."

12-22-2013, 06:38 PM

"Win the competition" is easy enough for any team to say in 5 seconds...
Bob (and others interested),

When talking to the teams in my cub-reporter's role, I started the discussion of "overall team goals" by asking if the team was primarily here "To Win the competition, or to Learn, or to have Fun". Note that I was asking a "Team Spokesperson" (ie. the first available member who was prepared to answer such questions) and not necessarily the Team Leader. The responses from the 23 teams were;

1. To Win = 4 teams.
2. To Learn = 10 teams (often with "we are mostly new members so want to gain experience for future years...").
3. To have Fun = 0 teams.
4. To Learn and have (some) Fun = 5 teams.
5. All of above (W+L+F) = 4 teams.

There seems to be a distinct bias towards the teams wanting to learn, which is entirely understandable. When talking to the students individually their desire to learn stuff (any stuff, high level concepts, low level details, +++) was also coming through quite strongly.

Bottom line, I don't think that the students gain much by spending long periods talking-up their design, while the DJs stand there like Easter Island statues, perhaps taking down the occasional note. Yes, I know the students will have to do just that when they move into their new jobs, but even then they will have a lot of learning to do...

Z

(PS. The Monash spokesperson said they were there to Learn.)

GTS

12-22-2013, 07:07 PM

Being that 'at least one dedicated aero judge', I'll chime in...

...There seems to be a lack of clarity as to the point of FSAE. It's not about going racing, as technically the cars don't race. My take? It's about delivering a complex, large-scale project in a group environment. Which is a very difficult thing for students, which makes for a good - and valid, and salient - competition. It's also about preparing students meaningfully for the life in the automotive and wider engineering industries.

Whilst there's no prerequisite for engineering a Batmobile (aerodynamically speaking), those that attempted to were allocated a greater points share than those cars not having done so. There was some flexibility to this end. This said (and to echo the presentation given at the end of things), there's really no excuse for designing a prototype vehicle with complete oblivion regards to air flows. Yes, an engine is required to get a car moving, though in being assessed on a number of factors involving air flows and handling parameters, not having any idea of drag, of lift, of how to design cooling and engine air inlet ducts - is not good enough. Nor is it stuff that's particularly difficult to evaluate. A good number of cooling ducts exhibited evidenced unconsciousness in Fluids 1 - right about when Bernoulli came up. One student even suggested it might be a pasta sauce. I'm not kidding.

No team received perfect scores in aerodynamics, as no team deserved it. It's a difficult field requiring as much in systems engineering as it does in fluids and kinematics. I'll reiterate that despite some very 2013 tools being thrown at the aerodynamic development of some cars, they're not being applied in manners with sufficient fidelity or relevance to justify them. The aerodynamic packages seen could have easily been designed with considerably lesser resources, which was a key concern.

"As knowledgable as most design judges are about how to make a car go fast on the track, very few have taken the time to build and validate an FSAE point simulation."

I'm not sure of the point of the comment - whilst quite a few teams had these, very few could actually explain their workings, or explain or justify their limitations.

Big Bird

12-22-2013, 08:03 PM

Thanks all, and thanks Anonymous Aero Judge for chiming in. The input is most appreciated.

AAJ, you have touched upon a point that was raised many times with me across the weekend. I won't mention team names, but approximately 22 of them mentioned at one stage or another across the weekend that they don't have access to the kind of aerodynamic development tools that Monash have. For the sake of these 22 anonymous teams, could I kindly ask you for a few words about:
1. Whether having a big wind tunnel helps your design score
2. What kind of aero development tools and tests would you use if you were building an FSAE car at a non-Monash university

I have a feeling that a team could score really well in Design if they could present a well-developed aero package without the use of a big wind tunnel. I also have a feeling that this is much more achievable than many teams think. And I also have a feeling that teams that call themselves "non-aero" teams might do themselves a lot of good in the design event if they were to present evidence of solid testing program justifying why they DON"T have aero, rather than using the "we don't do aero" argument as a scapegoat.

Apologies Mr AAJ if I am way off the mark with the above, but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. ;)

Cheers all,

GTS

12-22-2013, 08:53 PM

BB,

Both aero judges received similar feedback about resource levels. Our parting remarks were almost always to demonstrate that it took better ideas and not better tools to develop a better package. There's stuff that's difficult to conceptualize, stuff that students might just see the links between other systems and aerodynamic influence, there's low-hanging fruit and then there are ideas so obvious, so over-ripe and yet so neglected that they're on the verge of turning into compost. The vast majority of what can be done for aerodynamics at the present stage is nearly compost. They're ideas that are so obvious that they're a trip hazard for good students.

Whilst some teams had a good amount of resources, they were almost universally poorly used relative to any industry standard. Having the ability to one 100M+ element CFD runs means very little, particularly if the methods employed bear little fidelity in critical elements to the real thing, or bear little relevance to real use, or are visualized in manners not extracting truly salient data, or aren't tracked in manners highlighting true gains above noise variables. Or, worst of all, if these '2013' tools are combined with poor research or fundamental skill sets, leading to designs which are born of essentially very finely discretized assessments of flawed ideas.

End result? The vast majority of what's on the 'aero' cars could have been designed in the 70's and 80's. Without wind tunnels. When a pack of 8086's wasn't running much for CFD. There's so much that can be done with far simpler methods, most of which are accessible to all teams. The history of aerodynamics is littered with teams delivering projects on tight resources with smart, simple, accessible and robust testing. Be like this.

If future Monash teams want to use the 'big wind tunnel', I fully support them. Because that wind tunnel, like any other test environment, is just an approximation of the intended practical environment within certain limitations. It isn't absolute. I didn't see a uniformly-understood cognizance of what the limitations of that tunnel actually are relevant to what's being attempted. To reconcile CFD, trackside and experimental (tunnel) project results is an extremely difficult undertaking, one that I think Monash is still developing. Certainly what was presented was very far from complete (which impacted design scores adversely). I support Monash using that tunnel (as I would any other team using it, or a drag strip, or a car park, or whatever) because if they do, they'll have to explain it (and it's relevance, and limitations, and fidelity, and and and) at design judging. Succinctly and unequivocally. Be careful what you're wishing for this Christmas... come next December, you'll have to know it backwards enough to explain it. What resources a team cannot truly stand behind are wasted effort. Don't worry about rocking up next December pitting next to a team that had access to different toys to play with, worry about rocking up next to a team that invested in better thought for what they had. The noise floor between intent and execution in FSAE is so high that a wind tunnel or a cluster of CFD clusters difference between teams isn't going to beat out fundamentally better ideas for some time yet.

The point is to award prizes for smart work, not for a volume of any quality of work. Work accordingly.

Not a single team demonstrated sufficient basics on simple wing theory. I picked on the Gurney flap example as not one team had it employed correctly, because not a single team could explain from base theory how it worked completely, which explained why no single team could design one properly. It's been only a few years that students had ready access to CFD resources capable of 20M+ element runs on reasonable turbulence models. The Gurney flap's been around since 1971. Try mastering 1971 before toying with 2010+ tools. Walk before running. It'll give way to a better design all said whether you've a wind tunnel or a car park at your disposal.

This all said, the bar to pass is understanding, not perfection. Integration in a cohesive design inherently means compromise in some aspects. Demonstrate understanding.

Full credit to the Monash team for chasing me down and embracing critique. Some really robust discussions have followed.

Australians are overrepresented in high-level motorsports aerodynamics, and I'd look forwards to hearing of a few of you (at Monash and other teams) continuing this much.

AxelRipper

12-23-2013, 01:57 PM

GTS

12-23-2013, 02:38 PM

These discussions here about aero are why I believe that aero is a part of competition that gets weighted far too heavily in the competition. Yes, it is currently all but impossible for a non-aero car (I'm talking no wings or undertrays - Car with suspension and tires) to win any dynamic event other than acceleration and fuel efficiency, but as many have said, this competition ISN'T about racing. Yes you can say that it is rather easy to get CFD and apply your basic fluids classes to make a relatively competent aero package, but coming from a small team, when it comes down to it you need all hands on deck getting your car to competition, and you really can't spare a few members to design and make an aero package that works, and those who you can spare may not necessarily be the most capable making the aero also?

Let me reiterate what was said at the end of the competition, as it’s not about mega downforce, wind tunnels and uber resources.

I believe a team can be competitive without a so-called ‘aero package’. I’ll say ‘so-called’ simply because there are a few teams optimising for downforce, but none out there optimising for simply low drag. Which is super low-hanging fruit. Would a super-optimised aerodynamics package obliterate a car not so equipped? Sure, but I’m yet to see such a car. It’s probably beyond student experience to design it, and that’s OK. It’s the nice thing about FSAE, so many ways to skin the proverbial cat. Serious downforce can’t be applied successfully ‘by a few team members’. It’s not a project that can be truly successful without an integrated approach. This is yet to happen in FSAE-A (at least what I saw at competition).

And whilst it’s easy to use CFD, its not easy to use it well – there were very, very few applications at FSAE-A where the bulk of the CFD work was applied in a relevant manner. Yet there were a few cars that had some super basic assessment done, just simple head checks to see it all worked as intended. Very far from CFD. They were favourably assessed (deservedly so).

However whether your car was designed by a large team, a small team, spared people or otherwise, cars do not drive in a vacuum. Effective engine intake paths and cooling paths, nose designs to alleviate front lift are super basic. They’re aerodynamics problems. They’re not an afterthought on any vehicle I’ve worked on – they’re not the sexiest part of development by far – but its basic work to apply the basics, and teams should be assessed on them.

It would seem to me if the design competition is truly about the team members understanding and applying the basics, and knowing why they did everything they did, it shouldn't be a punishment if you decided that investigating an aero package was an inneficient use of resources. Its pretty easy to see from a sim that aero will make your car faster, but if your goal is a cheap, simple, efficient car (in the original spirit of the competition) then I'd have to say lack of aero wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. If you're using the "weekend warrior" design goal by having all your car cheap and easy to fix in the case of damage (monocoque vs space frame) then you should be able to use the same excuse for not having aero (getting balance correct can be difficult, amateur drivers really won't be able to use it to its full effect, it would add levels of complexity to your package).

There’s no reason to have to have a mega-downforce package, but what you’ve offered is a poor set of excuses for not applying any forethought to aerodynamic considerations. Cheap, simple and efficient doesn’t afford a license to be selective about which design elements are embraced at the expense of ignoring others. Teams are free to de-prioritise them but be smart about it. Not knowing how a radiator duct works enough to design one properly – not smart. Runing a high-lift nose design because it ‘looks cool’ – not smart. (Whilst designing pretty things is often an industry requirement, it’s still got to meet performance targets.)

Hey, we had one team that actually had a good excuses for not having any optimisations in lift, drag or cooling – was an electric car, cooling requirements were very low, yet their powertrain afforded them a set of considerations where neither increased lift nor reduced drag would have made significant differences for their points target. ‘Twas a capable explanation from first principles.

Just be capable of explaining how your car makes efficient use of the other main environment it drives in (air – as it drives on road and in air) and teams should be fine. Those that did funky things with it were eligible for a greater points share regardless.

bob.paasch

12-23-2013, 04:47 PM

Purpose of Design Judging:

The primary purpose of the Design Event judging is to rank and score the teams for the Design Event aspect of the competition....

The "design conflict" we face as designers of the design event, is that of how much time we need to rank and score the team's design effort, (both in terms of the students' knowledge, and its embodiment in the vehicle presented), versus how much time the students want to spend talking about their car...

There is a distinct danger in trying to deliver a Design Event that is all things to all people. I would agree that it is our most prestigious event, and it is a disappointment to me that I was never part of a team that won Design. But just like in vehicle design, if we pile too many hopes / objectives / expectations in the one receptacle, we are going to end up with one Frankenstein’s Monster of a final product. (Note to self – print previous sentence, stick to wall above desk, re-read whenever you are about start writing another forums post …  )

Who are your customers? What do they want? That should be on the wall above the desk of every design engineer.

Geoff, I think you're on the right track here, and I agree with your intentions if not your direction. But before I expand on that, a bit of background. I spent the first third of my career as a design engineer designing products for customers: earthmoving equipment for the construction industry, nuclear weapons for the US government and inkjet printheads for consumers. In the 24 years I have been at OSU, my focus has been on designing processes for turning bright young people into work-ready design engineers. I approach that process design the same way I approached product design, starting with: Who are your customers? What do they want?

I just finished my fall term “Introduction to Design” course, with 104 junior level mechanical, manufacturing and industrial engineers. One of the hardest jobs in design engineering is figuring out prioritized customer-driven engineering specifications through which one can measure the “goodness” of a product or process design.

This process is expected of FSAE teams by the design judges, and I would expect it of the FSAE/FS design event organizers as they design the design judging process. Who are the customers, and what do they want? Prioritize those qualitative customer requirements, and develop a measurable set of quantitative engineering requirements by which any proposed design judging processes can be benchmarked against the existing process.

Posting your thoughts and receiving feedback from this community of “customers” is a good start.

"As knowledgable as most design judges are about how to make a car go fast on the track, very few have taken the time to build and validate an FSAE point simulation."

I'm not sure of the point of the comment - whilst quite a few teams had these, very few could actually explain their workings, or explain or justify their limitations.

I was responding to Z’s question as to why and how GFR spends the first 5 minutes of design judging on an overview. One of the main things we do in that 5 minutes is describe our vehicle dynamics models and our point simulation, their 6 year evolution, explain and justify their limitations, explain their validation by physical testing, and how we use the them to drive the design of our vehicles. As most design judges have little experience with point sims, we believe this is important information that every design judge evaluating our car needs to know.

GTS

12-23-2013, 05:48 PM

I was responding to Z’s question as to why and how GFR spends the first 5 minutes of design judging on an overview. One of the main things we do in that 5 minutes is describe our vehicle dynamics models and our point simulation, their 6 year evolution, explain and justify their limitations, explain their validation by physical testing, and how we use the them to drive the design of our vehicles. As most design judges have little experience with point sims, we believe this is important information that every design judge evaluating our car needs to know.

Bob, I understand what you're saying, however:

Most judges are aware of simulation tools for competitive constraints - your statement that most judges have little experience with them is a little arrogant, and,

Whilst most teams at FSAE-A had employed point sims to guide their design choices, only two of them could explain what methods they employed, what assumptions they made, the limitations of the methods. Only one - ONE - could cohesively construct any arguments on the limitations of the directions given by their point sims and how these limitations were handled in design processes (let alone in any validation exercises). Which is poor. As a cool tool unknown has a high propensity of generating garbage results for a variety of reasons most are familiar with.

Teams were still asked to submit design briefs, specs and a video, and those willing to put effort into them were (at least in our area) judged within the context of their project direction, which itself was duly interrogated for rigor and robustness. Done correctly these teams had more than a five minutes of fame to go over how and why their project came to be. I'm not sure why all teams didn't put rigor into it. Possibly it should be made mandatory, as should the judge's reviewing them be made so.

12-24-2013, 04:29 AM

(Apologies for the long-windedness of this post, but I'm going bush for the next week, so wanted to get this out before I forgot it.)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

CRITICAL THINKING and CRITICISM.
=================================
Clearly my motel bed in Werribee was far too soft, as evidenced by the fairy-floss commentary I wrote earlier. So, time to restore things to their natural balance.

From many discussions I had with students and officials at Werribee, I was astonished to learn that the education system has truly descended further down the S-bend than I ever thought possible. It seems that the current attitude towards "criticism" is that ... most people don't like it! Apparently "critical thinking" is sort of OK, but "criticism" itself is not acceptable. Huh!!!???

It seems that this currently popular codswallop has been brain-washed into at least the last generation of students (X?, Y?, certainly NOT Z!), along with other such nonsense, such as;
"There are no wrong answers..."
"All solutions are equally valid..."
"It is all about choices, and you are free to make whatever choices you wish..."

Aaaaaarrrghhh!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

I feel that I should give you, dear readers, a bit of my background, so that you can better appreciate my views.

Shortly after WWII, Old Mr & Mrs Z (my parents) escaped from behind the Iron Curtain. This was a time when most choices were VERY BAD CHOICES, with "terminal" consequences. Nevertheless, by the application of the right sort of critical thinking, they made it to a central European refugee camp. After a rather cold winter there, wearing newspapers under their one set of clothes, Old Mr Z decided to head for the peacefulness, warmth, and tranquility of Kenya Colony, East Africa, then part of the very civilised British Empire.

After a blissful half-decade or so, Little Z entered the scene. Unfortunately, he (I) did so right in the middle of the Mau Mau Uprising. So Mother Z had to give birth to Baby Z, with, quite literally, a Colt-45 strapped to her thigh. This was another period when critical thinking was of utmost importance, and most choices were bad ones.

Of course, I didn't experience the above events directly, but along with my parent's stories of those times, I did spend enough of my formative years going "on safari" in the Serengeti Plains to learn some important facts of life. One such fact is that if Young Grasseater thinks that he has "the right" to drink at the waterhole while Mr Meateater is there, even though Old Grasseater criticises such thinking, then Young Grasseater's contribution to the gene pool is very quickly eliminated.

Furthermore, on the Serengeti Plains a Grasseater aiming for "a Podium", or "Top 5", or similar in the running races, is making A BAD CHOICE. Any lower than First Place has you inside someone else's stomach. In fact, looking at the great herds of Grasseaters you see roughly one-in-ten who have a large flap of meat hanging off their rump (it looks a bit like an open fuel-filler-flap on a car), often with four long claw marks leading to it. These Grasseaters have actually WON their last running race, but only just! Their close finish means they have received some mild criticism from Mr Meateater, and they will certainly try harder next time.

And Mr Meateater is also a little bit hungrier now, so will be applying a generous dose of self-criticism to his flawed technique. "Should I have used more power? Or perhaps reacted more quickly...?" Fortunately for Mr Meateater, the hungrier he gets, the better his self-criticism and critical thinking skills become. That is how it works in the real world. Very educational. You should all try to see it some time...

I would like to waffle on a lot more about these things. But briefly for now, the oft-repeated notion that "... in Engineering there are many different, but EQUALLY VALID, ways of solving the same problem..." is a load of nonsense. It is a well known principle of ecology that if two different species enter a newly opened ecological niche, then, in the long run, only one species will come to dominate that niche. There is some sublety here, but for a given niche, one species is always FITTER than the other.

By analogy, for a given set of FSAE Rules, one car concept is always fitter than the others. All solutions are NOT equally valid, and most answers are quite definitely WRONG.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

The above approach to "criticism" (ie. eating the criticised one) works well in the real, natural, world. But how do we helpfully criticise each other in our civilised, artificial, world?

The best example I can think of is the period from roughly 600 BC to 200 BC in Ancient Greece. Not surprisingly, the words "critic", "critical", "criticism", "critique", "criterion", and even "crisis", all stem from Greek kritikos = able to discern, from krinein = to decide/judge. IMO, at least half (the more fundamental half) of our present knowledge of maths, science, technology, medicine, political systems like democracy, +++, was all developed in this very short period of about four centuries.

How were so many new concepts developed in such a short time?

Most likely because the national pastime back then was debating stuff, any stuff, in the Agoras (ie. the Forums). One person would get up and present their views, such as Aristarchus in 3rd century BC arguing that the world is a sphere spinning on its axis, and, together with the other Planets, it circles the Sun at the centre of the Solar system, with the fixed stars much further away. Then other critics would get up and, in a very civilised way, criticise the begeezus out of such nonsense. After much toing-and-froing, the spectators, probably eating the ancient equivalent of pop-corn, would draw their own conclusions as to whose was the most reasonable argument.

Worth noting that shortly after Aristarchus, Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth (quite accurately), and also the distance from Earth to Sun. Then, slowly, slowy, the debate was stifled. Eventually people had to believe whatever the high priests told them was the truth, because the high priests were, well, Very Important People! So for the next ~two thousand years the Earth was flat, and at the centre of the Universe, and you had to do whatever the important people told you to do...

Also worth noting, in Antiquity (and also in Medieval times), the education system consisted of studying the Seven Liberal Arts. These were split into two divisions, with the Trivium (the easy, or "trivial" subjects) of Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic being studied first. These trivial subjects had to be learnt first, because the student had to be capable of correctly composing arguments (= G), delivering those arguments in a convincing manner (= R), and forming arguments with no obvious fallacies (= L), in order to competently argue their particular hypotheses, or to criticise others. Sadly, these trivial skills seem to be increasingly ignored in today's education system.

To summarise the above for FSAE, and also for society in general, CRITICISM IS GOOD FOR YOU!

Criticism is simply someone else's critical thinking coming towards you. It is educational. You are free to, and SHOULD, apply your own critical thinking skills to other people's criticism. You also can, and should, spend as much time as is feasible applying self-criticism to your own work. To repeat, criticism, critical thinking, and self-criticism are all educational. In the long run they get you to a better place.

Now it is true that in the current world-of-plenty anyone can do just fine, even if they are totally incompetent. There is an over-abundance of food, and very few real threats. But when times become more competitive, as they inevitably will (maybe, if you are lucky, still a few generations away), then the inability to think critically will have you inside someone else's stomach, or whatever is the more "civilised" equivalent.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

(More next post - can't fit it all in...)

Z

12-24-2013, 04:31 AM

CRITICAL THINKING and CRITICISM (continued...).
=================================
Getting back to Werribee, while I was wondering around the hall many individual students asked me for comments on their car, or their particular sub-system (or else I just offered the comments without being asked :)). I hope that these students apply their critical thinking skills to my ramblings, so they can decide whether to reject them, or consider them further.

However, only one team asked me, on an official Team-Management basis, to give an overall critique of their car. Perhaps the adrenalin left in my system from watching an exciting weekend of competition affected me, but I spent maybe 20+ minutes pointing out everything I considered wrong with their car. It is worth noting that this team were not the Dead-enders, or the Tail-enders, or even the Pretenders. They were one of the Contenders.

Now if this team got nothing more out of their half-hour of ducking my spray than a chance to exercise THEIR critical thinking skills on MY criticism, then they will be a little better for it. If only one of the many criticisms I made leads to one slightly improved part on their car, then they are another little bit ahead. And if my criticisms in some way help them SELF-CRITICISE other parts of the car that I didn't mention, then yet another little bit ahead...

To sum-up this rant (and as a last reminder to the above team ;)), the most important point I wanted to make is that you can learn far more about good Engineering by STUDYING NATURE, than you will ever learn from a textbook, or in a lecture theatre. (Well, unless you have a particularly good teacher, which the above team definitely does!)

In Nature almost everything is curved and tapered, rather than being properly straight, as is demanded in one of the FSAE Rules. In Nature things are almost always mounted in single-shear, and cantilevered, so that they have those horrible bending loads detested by all the Experts. Aaack!!! But DO NOT BE AFRAID to design such Natural structures, even though the Very Important People tell you that you mustn't.

Because I am quite sure that if the current crop of FSAE cars were running around in the Natural world, then most of them would very quickly end up in a more Natural creature's stomach. And that, to repeat, is the most effective form of criticism! :)

Z

Big Bird

12-24-2013, 07:24 AM

Z, you got your voice back. The real Z voice, the raspy one with the barbs and the jagged edges. I was beginning to think we were being duped by a benevolent impersonator.

May I offer some criticism of your critique of critical thinking, as critically I’ve uncovered a critical flaw in the critical argument of your critique. I hope you are OK with criticism.

The nature of the complex ecosystem that we live in is that there ARE multiple winners. If the rules of the game are complex enough, that is. then good ol’ mother nature just dumps as many mutations on the ground as she can see fit and lets them play dice with each other, to see which mutations comes out on top. The winners are the ones who still retain a place on the planet after the game has gone on for some time.
In the game of life we have mammals and marsupials and insects and bacteria and the Kardashians and fungus. And much much more. Each life form has its own “survival trick”, but also its own weakness. Some have camouflage, some are fierce hunters, some survive by mass reproduction. Humans have the ability to co-operate and communicate better than other animals, so we can outwit our furry rivals. Our weakness – well we aren’t really all that threatening without our tools and weapons.

The Lion is big and powerful and fast. Therein lies the lions strength, but also its weakness. Power = energy / time, so we can give the lion power by enabling it to burn off lots of energy in a short time frame. The cost? It has to stop and rest for long periods of time. Why didn’t mother nature give it never-ending power? The super-lions fuel needs would exhaust the food available to eat – and thus it would eat its way to its own extinction. Nature is all about balance…
Nature needs its direct conflicts to deliver us the variety of life forms we have here on earth. The mighty lion can take down the buffalo or the deer or any of the other herbivorous meat packages, and eat mightily. But the lion can be taken down by the tiniest bacteria or virus. Spoiler strategies make life interesting, and stop “runaway successes”.

(As an aside, I personally think we did ourselves a disservice when we changed fuel scoring from outright fuel used, to “fuel efficiency”, being a combined measure of track speed and fuel used. We already had plenty of events awarding points for on-track speed, and the Fuel event offered a neat little spoiler opportunity for a team to build a car out of a lawnmower motor, tootle it around on Sunday drive pace, and win the event very nicely. As a pointscoring event, I really liked that we had the fuel opportunity and the cost opportunity for alternative strategies to come in from left field to steal points from the teams who focussed on being fast. But, alas, the teams and the supporters of the strategy of “go as fast as you can at all times” kicked up enough of a fuss that the organizers changed the Fuel Economy rules to a rather contrived “fuel per lap speed” formula…)

FSAE has inherent conflicts – mass vs stiffness, power versus fuel usage, downforce vs drag, etc etc. From these conflicts (if and only if the rules are balanced) come the different strategies leading to different concepts. The powerful car that suffers a little for fuel usage. The very light car that suffers a little for cost and maybe also stiffness. The low powered car that loses some lap time but gains a fuel economy trophy. The narrow car that kicks goals in slaloms, but may risk rolling in long steady state corners. Some are meat-eaters, some are herbivores, but all added in together we end up with lots of variety and a healthy competition.

In summary – umm I can’t remember. Something about multiple winners. Yeah, take a look on the roads outside. Have we converged on one design of vehicle for all our wants? No, because there are many different customers and customer needs. Same in FSAE – there are enough competing requirements that there very well be multiple equal strategies, but some focussing on cost and manufacturability, and others on carbon fibre and track speed.

Hope all that made sense. Time for bed. And Merry Christmas to all!!

GTS

12-29-2013, 10:24 PM

...could I kindly ask you for a few words about:
1. Whether having a big wind tunnel helps your design score

(Cue Voice of Doom and Reason)... NO. It does not.

Any test environment is simply an approximation of the real world with (hopefully) measured noise and (ideally) known limitations. The real world (the track) has bugger-all limitations (as it's what you're trying to simulate) and a lot of noise.

More speed from useful downforce = f(results in test environment +/- noise)

Simply put your results need to be relevant and need to exceed the noise floor of the method used. I didn't see any teams at FSAE-A talking about their gains for 2013 in terms of being beyond a tested (noise) threshold for gains on track - which is super important as FSAE-A drivers are not professionals (for the most part) and the point simulators used are exceptionally crude in linking high-level aerodynamic performance data (CD.A, CL.A were thrown about a lot) to actual track gains.

Monash's tunnel will simulate a few bits of the car well, it will simulate a few poorly. If the team - any team - can explain this in competition and talk well of how their test plan was mindful of the limitations of their resources, then good work. For the level of development shown and the limitations of the tunnel being used, a team using a drag strip (or any straight bit of road), good speed sensors, some calibrated Idiot Lighting in the cockpit, some load-measuring sensors (get creative here) and a yaw probe would be no less disadvantaged. There would be a considerably higher noise floor to account for, much of which could be deconstructed and acquired. But there'd be a lot more in transferable results too, things Monash's tunnel cannot readily test with any accuracy owing to its inherent limitations would be particularly easy to develop this way.

2. What kind of aero development tools and tests would you use if you were building an FSAE car at a non-Monash university

A bit like this:

If min(KnowsBernoulliItsNotAPastaSauce(ProspectiveStu dents), UnderstandsWingTheory(ProspectiveStudents), CanWorkAManometerFrom1stPrinciples(ProspectiveStud ents), GetsDeLavalNozzle(ProspectiveStudents), CognisantOfGroundEffect(ProspectiveStudents), UnderstandsWingTheory(ProspectiveStudents), IOwnWhatASlotGapDoes(ProspectiveStudents), ReadUpOnKinematicVehicleLoadTransferBasics(Prospec tiveStudents), UpWithBluffBodyBasics(ProspectiveStudents), StraightlineCLMeansLittle(ProspectiveStudents), MyCoolingPathsAreTight(ProspectiveStudents), MinPressureDropsOnMyWatch(ProspectiveStudents), AeroNoAfterthough(ProspectiveStudents), DefenderOfTheLoadPath(ProspectiveStudents), abs(FearOfMATLAB(ProspectiveStudents)-1), FreeThinking(ProspectiveStudents), TinkeringSpirit(ProspectiveStudents))=1

THEN

You'd need to acquire velocity, load and wind conditions.

For speed use GPS. It's more accurate at lower cost than most will ever manage any other way. And it's cheap, really cheap, Sparkfun cheap. Don't turn up with MoTeC (or whatever DAQ package a team uses) plots if you have no idea what smoothing, averaging, etc MoTeC puts in their software on what's probably the single most critical variable in any aerodynamic breakdown. I really mean that. Small errors mean big differences here, so own that data path. Back it up with pressure-based speed if you're good. More later.

Load can be done a number of ways. Yes, uber linear shock pots are fantastic to have. Rotary pots or encoders repurposed from another life are the same thing with different noise/accuracy profiles. If it's below what you can live with, good. Pressure sensors are similarly useful if you know what flow structures you're looking for and what trends to analyze. They're useless without speed, so get that right first. Usable sensors are under $10, seriously. You'll need an aerodynamic speed measurement to backup your GPS if you want to get serious and use static pressure too. Research why, or risk having an aero judge next year (me, if I'm invited back) ask you why you didn't, and what it means.

Yaw sensors don't need to be expensive. Make your own, there's no need to get fancy, under $100 in parts and most universities have small wind tunnels enough to calibrate these things in. I'd mark anyone down turning up with a rapid prototyped version of this. Or take a weather station with and log wind performance sync'd with the car. Or triangulate from online data. Pros and cons of each.

Make sure it's all super-tight and super-tough. Acceptable safety factors in aerodynamic loads for your level are not 1 or 'umm'. If your rear wing delivers 60kg downforce, a 60kg person should be able to do a light tapdance on it and break neither themselves nor the car, and anything reading suspension displacement should be able to play back whatever Riverdance went on at full fidelity. If you can't transfer loads, don't bother, you're just adding useless mass and other complications. Pick your battles in build - not all aero components are easy to manufacture, but there are many ways to buy in wing sections and other components at low or otherwise reasonable cost - if you can't do it strong in-house, buy it strong. Don't short-change the design intent at the last hurdle, that's just silly.

Have a big think about the other stuff you need to acquire. There are a few more parameters needed to cut assumptions and limit noise. Or make assumptions and live with noise, choice is yours.

Then debug your DAQ - which you should do for anything acquiring a signal on a car that you hope to do anything with anyway. You'll need 1 part Understanding of Sampling Intent, 1 part Nyquist criteria, 1 part Calibrated Multimeter, 1 part Cathode Ray Oscilloscope or digital substitute, 1 part Understand of Signal Theory (or did we all sleep through Control Systems) and 2 parts Engineering Head. When your electrical system is under proper load and your DAQ is spitting out reliable, noise-minimised and credible data, you're good to go. Take records of this process, design judges will like you for it. A lot. To the point of thinking that you're exceptional. Seriously exceptional.

Then you need stuff to test. Don't waste time moving winglets in 2mm steps, this is not F1. Run significant changes. Take notes. Take setup logs. Talk to drivers and don't tell them what you're doing, just ask them what they feel. Your drivers are not Rudi Uhlenhaut. Work with your team to build a dialogue of 'this feeling means that factor which we can effect with these systems'. Pack multiple configurations. Don't argue over which idea is best, more good ideas are great and are stuff to test. Just find people to build them. Then work out what flow structures were at play.

And on that last point, flow viz EVERYTHING. There are good reference papers on understanding what you'll see deposited on an aerodynamic surface. Find them, print them, etch them into your heads. Use this to understand flow structures. Take many, many photos. Then think and plot and plan for a month and hit the track again. A handful of good flow viz photos >>>> wind tunnel and/or CFD development. For what happens in the product's natural habitat overrules all else.

There is plenty of information a Google search away on methods of testing on track for reliable aerodynamic data, on statistical methods to reduce variance, on relevant flow structures and systems, the lot.

There is also plenty around on what you'd pack to go testing with. Again, nothing expensive.

Done properly this approach would yield a product that would absolutely shred a car developed with a wind tunnel that can't simulate rolling road or rotating wheel effects... which is not to say the Monash team does so. The sticker on the underside of the rear wing might have mentioned something about a wind tunnel, but the talking heads talked considerably broader. As should we all strive to.

Who knows, BB, might be happy to partake in some sort of pizza night for those interested to talk methods and shop on the topic.

ELSEIF CantTestUntilCarBuiltThenItsTooLate=1

2D methods. Best practice in design. Build in some adjustment. Build test stands on sleds and drive them around. Get creative. Review the best in the field and conduct a decent lit review. Using your head is free, and thankfully not an option of you want to do well in design.

Be very wary of CFD. Saw a few simulations in the 60M+ element range but didn't see a thing about mesh quality (it's not just y+), any level of accuracy quoted beyond % (which isn't much beyond a headline number). The going rate for an industry-grade mesh for a car as complex a form as an FSAE car should be enough to suggest that it's beyond the skill range of any student in the competition. No slight on any of you (I hope at least a few of you go on to study more CFD in postgrad - its a fascinating field). Meshing is CRITICAL. Then wall functions are critical, then turbulence model is critical, and so on and so forth. And the majority of these runs weren't in relevant scenarios, and none were with CFD models of sufficient accuracy to justify the intended resolution of the method employed. A 60M-element run of a CAD model that's not quite the real deal in a vehicle position that's not quite a relevant deal, is, put sharply, simply breaking crap up into 60 million parts and then attempting to draw inferences from it. That's not to say these efforts are wasted or that there weren't some very sharp operators at FSAE-A (there were), just to say this: put more thought into how you use it, and why, as there's a good gap here that can either be closed to make for simpler runs, or more accurate runs, or both, and that it's a development from what's being done presently that will increase the fidelity and usefulness of this method.

ELSE

Don't bug me.

END (!)

GTS

12-29-2013, 10:25 PM

(And apologies all for the response - wasn't meant to be that long! Nor is this an aero thread - mods feel free to move it elsewhere if deemed appropriate.)

01-03-2014, 05:02 AM

May I offer some criticism of your critique of critical thinking, as critically I’ve uncovered a critical flaw in the critical argument of your critique. I hope you are OK with criticism.
Geoff,

Yes, of course you may offer your criticisms! I love them. How else can we ever make progress?

And, to hopefully keep this progress going, here is some more critical thinking...

The nature of the complex ecosystem that we live in is that there ARE multiple winners...
...
In the game of life we have mammals and marsupials and insects and bacteria and the Kardashians and fungus...
...
In summary ... multiple winners.

Yes, it is certainly true that there is great diversity in Nature, and even Kardashians can be "fit" enough to fit in. But this is due to the great number of "ecological niches" that are available in Nature.

In FSAE terms this translates to there being many "First Places" available for individual events, with each of these being thought of as individual little niches. So one type of car design can win Cost, while a fairly similar, though slightly different, car wins Fuel Efficiency, while a very different car would probably be needed to win Acceleration.

So, yes, sure, lots of different designs can all be winners. (And BTW, I agree with you the FE should be about Fuel Economy outright, with no adjustment for speed.)

BUT!!!

Same in FSAE – there are enough competing requirements that there very well be multiple EQUAL strategies, but some focussing on cost and manufacturability, and others on carbon fibre and track speed.

My earlier comments were simply noting that a study of Nature (ie. "ecology", or whatever else it might be called) suggests that regardless of how many differently designed cars show up at an FSAE comp, there is always ONLY ONE design that, IN THE LONG RUN, will prove to be slightly better OVERALL than the other designs. Overall victory in FSAE is like a single "ecological niche". There is only one "Overall Winner", and that is the Team that gets the most points out of 1,000. Simple as that.

There are many subtleties here (such as "bad luck"), but the important point I was trying to make is that the current wishy-washy, let's-all-give-each-other-a-hug, feel-good notion that "all solutions are equally valid" is very misleading! :)

Note, however, that changing the Rules (or even just the track layout) changes the "Overall ecological niche". This then changes the car design that is "Overall the fittest". And, also, just because a particular car proves to be "Overall fittest" at this comp, does NOT mean that it is absolutely the BEST possible design. Some small mutation of one of this comp's losing cars, may well devour all else at the next comp.
~~~o0o~~~

As a hopefully helpful aside, I might ask: What animal on the Serengeti Plains would be the best role model for an FSAE car, or Team?

I would suggest looking at the African Wild Dogs, aka Lycaon Pictus = the Painted Wolf. These carnivores are certainly NOT the largest or most powerful ones out there, nor are they particularly fast. But these rather scrawny looking creatures, similar to the average stray mutt wandering around your town, do have two traits that FSAEers could usefully copy.

Firstly, they, like early H. Sapiens, have excellent TEAMWORK. Physically, they need this to bring down prey that is much larger than themselves. But their "there is no I in team" ethic also extends to feeding their youngest and oldest members first (the fittest members eat last). In FSAE terms this might equate to intensive training of your first-year members to get them up-to-speed as quickly as possible, and perhaps inviting alumni back to the workshop for free-beer-and-pizza nights so you can benefit from their valuable experience.

Secondly, and again like H. Sapiens, they are PERSISTENCE hunters. They might lack outright power, and speed, and things like sharp retractable claws, but they more than make up for that with stamina and persistence. In FSAE terms this might equate to lacking money, or CNC-tools, or wind-tunnels, etc., but nevertheless having a keep-at-it, get-stuff-built, keep-it-simple, start-testing, rebuild-that-broken-whatsit, do-more-testing, never-say-die attitude, ... that in the long run gets you to that big feast at the end of the year!

My guess is that the above two traits are the main reasons why the Wild Dogs are by far the most effective hunters in their ecosystem. Whereas lions and the other major predators only have dinner after about 30% of their hunts, the Wild Dogs score a win about 90% of the time. In FSAE terms they "score in (almost) all events" (where have I seen that quote before?), and they very rarely DNF.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

SEXUAL SELECTION.
==================
Along with "survival of the fittest", it is well known in ecological circles that an individual can pass their genes on to future generations by simply being SEXY! This requires an easy-to-survive environment, but just the ability to "do it" with the opposite sex early and often enough, is enough for those "sexy genes" to propagate.

Some insect species have very different looking males and females. Sometimes some of the males look remarkably like the females. So, while big, hunky, alpha-male is busy doing his thing (eg. fighting off the other alpha-males), the girly-boy males can sneak in, and then, ahem..., pass on their genetic heritage. A more obvious example is the male peacock who is burdened with excessively large tail feathers, which probably REDUCES his survival-fitness. But, boy, when he spreads them, don't the girls come-a-running! Pure SEX-on-drumsticks!!!

I mention the above because I reckon that most modern motorsport is a lot more about "sexual selection" than it is about selecting the "fittest" possible cars.

A good example is Push/Pull-Rods&Rockers. These originally "evolved" to improve the aero-fitness of some cars (ie. the ones where clean aero-flows were important). But like the peacock's feathers, PPR&Rs are nowadays on countless cars simply because the purchasers, or spectators, or in the case of FSAE, the other students and (some) Design Judges, think that they are SO DAMN SEXY!!!

Take, for example, the widespread use of PPR&Rs on FSAE cars that make no attempt at aero downforce, or even at reduced drag (eg. spring-dampers high up ABOVE nose, so messing up the flow). Or PPR&Rs on the latest mega-buck $upercar, which has "pushrod suspension, just like on real racecars", even though these are completely hidden from any aero-flows.

Worth noting that at this comp, Monash, who did quite well, had a bucket full of last year's PPR&Rs that they showed the DJs as evidence of how they "lightened, simplified, and improved reliability" of their car, with no adverse affects on performance. Yep, direct-acting spring-dampers. NOT SEXY, but the car was fast...

And then there are those five minute, Team-Leader presentations at the beginning of the Design Event, that look remarkably like the elaborate courtship rituals of Bird's of Paradise, and the like... :)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Two more brief comments (lest this post again gets too long...)

1. I agree with what GTS (Annonymous Aero Judge) has said above. My summarised interpretation of GTS's posts is (please correct if wrong):
"You can get at least as much of an aero-performance gain as Monash gets from their wind-tunnel, or other teams might get from their Super-Computerised-CFD, by simply using A LARGE DOSE OF AERO-UNDERSTANDING to tell you where the air should go, plus a few square metres of plywood/whatever to push the air where you want it to go, plus some wool-tufts/smoke-bombs/Go-Pros/whatever to let you see if the air is actually going where you want it to go."

The most important ingredient above is the "aero-understanding".
~o0o~

2. Any feedback from the Driver-Swap day? (Or are you all still getting over hangovers???)

Z

GTS

01-03-2014, 07:23 AM

I agree with what GTS (Annonymous Aero Judge) has said above. My summarised interpretation of GTS's posts is (please correct if wrong):
"You can get at least as much of an aero-performance gain as Monash gets from their wind-tunnel, or other teams might get from their Super-Computerised-CFD, by simply using A LARGE DOSE OF AERO-UNDERSTANDING to tell you where the air should go, plus a few square metres of plywood/whatever to push the air where you want it to go, plus some wool-tufts/smoke-bombs/Go-Pros/whatever to let you see if the air is actually going where you want it to go."

The most important ingredient above is the "aero-understanding".

Yes! Nothing in principle to correct.

(You'll probably get more than what most get from the CFD becuase good CFD is bloody hard, and because no one showed evidence of any solid workflow structure - think about that latter point.)

Moreboost

01-04-2014, 06:22 AM

I am surprised to see nobody addressed one of the big talking points of 2011 and 2012 that is; the average track speed.

After a half shit storm in 2012 that was mitigated by the teams really not being arsed to continue arguing with Rob Chadwick & Co (mainly because he shrugged us off didn't listen and said well its good for entertainment, If you want entertainment take out the cones and put all cars on track, Or go watch race series.)
The avg track speed was said to be 40-48 km/h and it was 65km/h in endurance.

Again this year the rules were released with 40-48km/h average speed and this time much to my amazement the avg track speed was touted at 94 km/h (i have not seen it myself but thats the paddock talk)

This is ridiculous,you have a team who has designed their car for 45km/h done all testing in that region only to come and see it double this is un-fair and not to mention un-safe. Seeing the rmit car in auto-x up the back straight scared the living daylight out of me (pre-oil spill with a shit engine).

How is this allowed to keep happening? - Also just checking the rules again there is two speecs stated, 40-48 or 48-57 with 105km/h speed cap.

Furthermore, again the inconsistent scrutineering was apparent when two identical chassis' with steering wheel height infringements were present, one passed the other failed.

Also, a new rule brought in by scrutineers after 7 years of doing so we are not allowed to use button heads on suspension clevi. This is nowhere in the rules and is now said to be a "critical" bolt. How are 2 M6 bolts "critical" when they have a higher UTS than the glue holding the a-arm? yet even after showing the glue tests and a bolt calc we are still forced to replace all bolts.

There was also talk in 2011 about moving these sort of disputes into design event territory (i.e is you steering wheel is too high but passes roll over) this is bad design as you have not met rules but is still safe. I am not worried about my hands in a roll over if the rear roll hoop has collapsed, I'm already fucked.

Also, the rules state we cannot touch cars when stopped in endurance except to help the driver yet in either 2011 or 2012 (which ever melbourne sent a conrod out to play) all four teams on track were allowed to pull into pits and have jumper batteries to start. Why is this allowed? - The justification was well its an un-scheduled stop....well so is an off track or a stall on the start line why can't we use them then? This again returned to fashion in 2013.

I think there is a great amount of thought and effort being put into the comp and i appreciate everything that is being done but perhaps we could address some of these issues aswell.

For Design event i always thought it would be cool to set up a Q&A between teams whilst judges observe. Where teams judge other teams about their cars, this would allow the judges to see the thought path of the students when assessing new designs. Would love to see some nice arguments too.

luxsosis

01-04-2014, 09:32 AM

Furthermore, again the inconsistent scrutineering was apparent when two identical chassis' with steering wheel height infringements were present, one passed the other failed.

There was also talk in 2011 about moving these sort of disputes into design event territory (i.e is you steering wheel is too high but passes roll over) this is bad design as you have not met rules but is still safe. I am not worried about my hands in a roll over if the rear roll hoop has collapsed, I'm already fucked.

Not entirely sure, but it sounds like your complaining that they wouldn't pass your illegal chassis? I would say the problem is more that they passed the illegal chassis the first time, not that they rightly failed it the next.

I assume you're referring to this rule? There not much room for interpretation flexibility there.

T3.12.4 The top-most surface of the Front Hoop must be no lower than the top of the steering wheel in any
angular position

It's not just bad design if you make something that doesn't meet the rules IMO. It's failing to meet the first and most important design criteria you have as an engineer.

Also, a new rule brought in by scrutineers after 7 years of doing so we are not allowed to use button heads on suspension clevi. This is nowhere in the rules and is now said to be a "critical" bolt. How are 2 M6 bolts "critical" when they have a higher UTS than the glue holding the a-arm? yet even after showing the glue tests and a bolt calc we are still forced to replace all bolts.

Would the scrutineers just be following this rule?

T11.1 Fastener Grade Requirements
T11.1.1 All threaded fasteners utilized in the driver’s cell structure, and the steering, braking, driver’s harness
and suspension systems must meet or exceed, SAE Grade 5, Metric Grade 8.8 and/or AN/MS
specifications.

T11.1.2 The use of button head cap, pan head, flat head or round head screws or bolts in critical locations is
prohibited. These locations include the driver’s cell structure, and driver’s harness attachment.

Note: Hexagonal recessed drive screws or bolts (sometimes called Socket head cap screws or Allen
screws/bolts) are permitted.

Big Bird

01-04-2014, 06:28 PM

Wow. Moreboost, that has come across really angry. I have no problem with criticism, but an angry rant littered with swearwords doesn't really help your cause a great deal. I'll address a few of these points, and I believe that the above poster has done likewise.

Firstly, for the sake of your own credibility I would strongly suggest checking your facts and figures before posting. Basing your first argument on unchecked hearsay is a pretty risky way to introduce yourself. Doing a quick check - Endurance is 22km long, we achieve this in 32 laps, therefore each lap is roughly 700 metres long. 94kmh is roughly 26 m/s, therefore to complete 700 metres at 26m/s, the average lap time would have been 26 seconds. Was it? I'm afraid it was nowhere near that.

As for naming and shaming Rob Chadwick, when you won't even put your own name to your writings, well I put that down as poor form. Rob has a tough job, one which exposes him to a lot of criticism, and he has to make firm decisions and stick to them. He does so with good humour, and he does so voluntarily. When he lays out a track each year, he can be guaranteed that someone will complain about it, whether it be fast, slow or otherwise. And at Werribee he has very little creative licence to do so, given the base track he has to work with. We have had recent criticism that the tracks were too slow, so he opened it up a little. Now it was too fast...

In terms of his approach, would you rather he changed his mind every time a team came up and complained to him? Should we set up the Endurance track by negotiation - and change it upon whim during the weekend? I think you would have a lot more to complain about if we stopped Endurance half way through to change the track just because another team didn't like it.

As for your arguments about batteries, you gave detail of the Melbourne incident in a previous year, but you have given no detail about what you are complaining about this year. So what exactly happened this year to raise your ire? As for the previous incident, well if a car has to stop at an officials directive, through no fault of their own, then they simply should not be penalized the energy required to restart the car. If the car stops from its own error, whether that be an offtrack or otherwise, then it should start under its own power. Simple.

I thank you for the constructive feedback at the end of your post, and in fact your final point is somewhere we want to take the Saturday night design feedback session. I will wear the fact that we did not get around to fully implementing it in 2013, but it is on the cards for coming years.

Kind regards,

Geoff

mech5496

01-04-2014, 06:34 PM

I am surprised to see nobody addressed one of the big talking points of 2011 and 2012 that is; the average track speed.

The avg track speed was said to be 40-48 km/h and it was 65km/h in endurance.

Again this year the rules were released with 40-48km/h average speed and this time much to my amazement the avg track speed was touted at 94 km/h (i have not seen it myself but thats the paddock talk)

That is an interesting point (although 94km/h seem highly unlikely to me). Anyone has average speed data from other competitions? I guess I can figure them out by myself by looking at total times and total distance though...

For Design event i always thought it would be cool to set up a Q&A between teams whilst judges observe. Where teams judge other teams about their cars, this would allow the judges to see the thought path of the students when assessing new designs. Would love to see some nice arguments too.

That actually sounds like a nice idea to me!
EDIT: Geoff, you posted some seconds before I did, great to hear that!

Moreboost

01-05-2014, 04:10 AM

Not entirely sure, but it sounds like your complaining that they wouldn't pass your illegal chassis? I would say the problem is more that they passed the illegal chassis the first time, not that they rightly failed it the next.

I assume you're referring to this rule? There not much room for interpretation flexibility there.

T3.12.4 The top-most surface of the Front Hoop must be no lower than the top of the steering wheel in any
angular position

It's not just bad design if you make something that doesn't meet the rules IMO. It's failing to meet the first and most important design criteria you have as an engineer.

Would the scrutineers just be following this rule?

T11.1 Fastener Grade Requirements
T11.1.1 All threaded fasteners utilized in the driver’s cell structure, and the steering, braking, driver’s harness
and suspension systems must meet or exceed, SAE Grade 5, Metric Grade 8.8 and/or AN/MS
specifications.

T11.1.2 The use of button head cap, pan head, flat head or round head screws or bolts in critical locations is
prohibited. These locations include the driver’s cell structure, and driver’s harness attachment.

Note: Hexagonal recessed drive screws or bolts (sometimes called Socket head cap screws or Allen
screws/bolts) are permitted.

Hi Geoff,

There is one swear word and it is not aimed at anyone. Shit doesn't even count these days.

94km/h is probably (most likely...ok it is?) an exaggeration, point being it was much faster than expected again.

I am not trying to come across as an angry brat or to shame Rob i am just saying what i experienced throughout my time in the competition. The attitude given to us throughout that event and it was to more then just two teams that queried the track speed and neither of us were taken seriously, lightly or at all. We asked for one thing for future years and that was to update it in the rules.

I am not complaining about the speed, i am complaining that after 2011s tantrum nobody bothered to let the teams know the avg speed would go up again.

In terms of the approach (to track making) i suggest sticking to the guidelines posted in the rules. Then even if someone does try to argue you can look at the rules and close the dispute.

The thing that caught my ire, more then 2 people in the endurance pit area (touching the car, i pay enough attention to see what they were doing). This can be put down to marshals not catching on but they were around for awhile around the cars and marshals did not seem to worry.

So this may be an interpretation of the rules problem i have? (i seem to get it a lot)

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

Also, Aukland 2011 stalled because it had to emergency brake behind a stalled vehicle on track they are not allowed to use a jumper the car could not start and DNF'd endurance. The only fault, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time like the cars in Melb's endurance.

I don't mean this in a smart-arse manner.

Luxs yes, terrible design, it shouldn't have been allowed in either cars. FYI neither are/were my car. This was just an observation, a-long with a short list of in-consistencies over the years.

You can get grade 10 or 12.9 button heads. The critical locations is what i was referring too (hence the glue tests). More disappointing was that the students, who had put in the thought/effort to justify their choice of bolt were not heard when pleading their case.

It was all meant to be constructive, these are just my experiences, I am sorry if i grazed anyone's ego.

Edit: I didn't/don't mean to try and shame anyone i have the utmost respect for the organisers and officials, I'm still here like everyone else because i think this competition is one of, if not the best thing (except all the females hurling themselves at me) about doing an engineering degree and i want to see it thrive and continue to develop better students.

NickFavazzo

01-05-2014, 05:31 AM

I'm of the understanding that most teams loved the track layout, Monash and UWA I know expressed concerns with a particular section of track on the Thursday and it was sorted out nice and early. The difficult part in designing a track layout is predicting the performance of the cars to get the ideal average speed. This years track was legal (except maybe for width, but that is more of a venue restriction than something done on purpose.)

As for students trying to justfy their choice in bolt, ie to use a pan/button head. Did they read the rules? Every design must be bound by the rules, just because it may force your design to be less than perfect it is still the rule.

Aus comp seems less strict than international competitions (never been international, maybe one day) but I don't mind, Aus comp is fun! Isn't that what makes this whole learning thing more enjoyable?

tl;dr
Design the car within the rules.

Menisk

01-06-2014, 06:26 AM

Just checked the data for our car (UQ). Average speed was 57km/h, max speed was 113km/h. It's faster than the 48km/h, but hardly close to 94km/h. Personally I loved the track and didn't think it was too fast at all. It also presented a new challenge for us because we'd never really needed to use the brakes that much and all of a sudden we were standing on them into a chicane at 110km/h and cooked them, causing us to hit the over travel switch (shout out to Big Bird for his Roxanne cover during enduro 2). The previous slow tracks never tested the cars in this aspect nearly as much and I'm glad the car was tested for more attributes than just direction change ability.

Tim.Wright

01-07-2014, 03:25 AM

Moreboost,

I have to say, having a whinge about the track speed by presenting entirely made up numbers and lambasting the organisers for not following the rulebook when your own car also was clearly illegal is pretty bad form.

As for the marshalling, I'm sure you would be ok with another increase in competition fees so that the SAE could use only trained personel for that job right? No? thought not...

JulianH

01-07-2014, 05:32 AM

Well Tim, we all know that "trained personel" as track marshals is not always a good case (see Silverstone every year...).
In Germany, the track marshals are all volunteers and they do an amazing job. If anyone watched our Endurance this year with the slow cars, it was really impressive what they anticipated!

When it comes to trackspeed, I think a couple of tracks are a bit "over the speed limit" for the fastest cars, especially in the AutoX, where you should be slower than 48kph. GFR is burning like 60kph average speeds in Germany, I think we also had close to 60kph (I think something about 58kph) when we won the FSG AutoX in 2012.

But if the tracks are safe, I think it is not worth complaining about being a bit too fast.

When I watched the Monash onboard, I thought some objects where pretty close to the danger zone of the track and could have hurt a car going of. It seems that the problem is more the location of the event than the track layout, you simply can't do anything different.

hughm

01-07-2014, 07:59 AM

If we are going to go off calculations for track speed, wouldn't looking at Monash's quickest time be the most appropriate?

I believe they ran a 38.6s (from their onboard they posted?). 700m track length as quoted by Big Bird.

700m / 38.6sec = 18.14 m/sec
18.14 m/s x 3.6 = 65.3 kph

Just wanted to put the figures there for discussion.

Big Bird

01-07-2014, 08:45 AM

I guess there is room for argument in interpretation here - average speed of the fastest car, or average speed of all cars? (Disclaimer - I haven't looked at the rules to see if this is defined or not)

hughm

01-07-2014, 09:16 AM

Big Bird

01-07-2014, 10:54 AM

Which would you think is a preferable rule on fasteners?

" T11.1.2 The use of button head cap, pan head, flat head or round head screws or bolts in critical locations is
prohibited. These locations include the driver’s cell structure, and driver’s harness attachment.

Note: Hexagonal recessed drive screws or bolts (sometimes called Socket head cap screws or Allen
screws/bolts) are permitted."

OR

"T11.1.2 The use of button head cap, pan head, flat head or round head screws or bolts in critical locations is
prohibited. These locations include the driver’s cell structure, and driver’s harness attachment. Unless your suspension arms are weaker than your clevis bolts, then you can use button head cap screws, but not flat head or round head screws, if and only if your clevii are stronger than both. If the clevis is weaker than your suspension arms, then you must abide by the first sentence. If you have composite suspension arms, and the glue joints are stronger than the welds in your clevii, then you might be allowed to use button head cap or pan head screws, but only if the tensile strength of the screws exceeds the tensile strength of the glue joints and the welds. If the tensile strength of the screws exceeds that of the weld but not the glue joint, then you can use button head caps but not pan head. If the tensile strength of the screws exceeds that of the glue joint but not the weld, then you cannot use button head caps or pan heads. If your suspension system is not a double wishbone system, then you must use hex head screws throughout, unless you are using beam axles in which case we'll let you use button head cap screws to attach steering components, depending on whether they are critical components, non-critical or semi-critical. For rulings on cap screws on semi critical steering components on beam axle cars, go to T11.1.2.1a. For rulings on cap screws on non-critical steering components on beam axle cars, go to T11.1.2.1b. For rulings on cap screws on critical steering components on beam axle cars, go to T11.1.2.1c. Note that for cars with beam axles on one axle only, cap screws will only be allowed on steering components if the beam axle is the non-steering axle.....blah blah blah

Note: Hexagonal recessed drive screws or bolts (sometimes called Socket head cap screws or Allen
screws/bolts) are permitted only in the afternoons, but not on bank holidays, unless it is a religious holiday...."

Now obviously I'm exaggerating the point to absurdity here - but given the rules are already well over 100 pages long, do we want to make them any more complex? What would be the beneficial outcome of imposing conditional usage requirements on critical component cap screw fasteners? How would this improve the competition? Are we somehow missing learning outcomes here?

If I was a scrutineer and a team wanted to argue with me about why a clear rule didn't apply to them - I'd dismiss it too. No matter how many reports on pull out tests and the like they presented.

Key points:

1. The rule is clearly defined. It outlaws certain types of fasteners for critical components. Simple, unconditional. About the only misinterpretation I can see would be what defines a critical component. If in doubt, I would simply not use such fasteners. No big deal.
2. It is not worth arguing about. Button head screws will not win you FSAE.
3. A rule made by someone else is a decision you don't have to make. One less thing to use up your brain space
4. You have a big enough job to do yourself, without trying to do someone elses job too. Time spent redesigning the rules is time you could / should be spending designing your car.
5. If you think it is important, imagine another team having the same argument with the officials. And it is holding you up from getting out on track. Would you be so passionate about the injustice then?

When I was competing, I used to love meeting teams that wanted to tell everyone how wrong the rules were, or how bad the officials were. I knew they would be of little bother to us in the overall standings.

Know your priorities. Know which battles are worth fighting. This one wasn't.

Big Bird

01-07-2014, 11:20 AM

Fair enough. As someone who has the ability to change or influence the track layout, would you be looking for a slower or similar track average this year at Calder?

I know there are lots of variables but I just wanted to see if you have any inital thoughts on the subject of track speed in 2014 competition.

As someone who designed one of the first 450 singles, and as someone who was told it would get blown away on open tracks, and as someone who saw such car take 3rd place outright in an open SCCA event on a track much more open than our tracks, I know that the issue takes up much more competitor mindspace than it deserves to.

In terms of competitor safety, we will always keep that the number one priority
In terms of whether the average speed will be higher or lower so you might design your car accordingly - honestly, I think the energy spent worrying about it has greater effect than the actual design of your vehicle.

Sorry to be obtuse. I just think these arguments are laboured over more than they are worth

Tim.Wright

01-07-2014, 12:56 PM

Just out of interest Geoff, what were the average speeds of the max, min and (roughly) the median laptimes?

If there is a significant spread there, I think we can forget the average speed argument all together.

Or disqualify all the teams who weren't running to the average speed. Hey, its in the rules man!!!

Michael Royce

01-07-2014, 01:46 PM

If the speed are too high, then maybe we need to slow the cars down!!! Maybe we should take away the massive aero packages cars are now allowed to run!!

Seriously, having set up a number of courses, getting the average speed at a given site to comply with the letter of the rules is very, very difficult. Especially as some of the top cars can now pull close to 2 g's at speed. Gauging this is as one is setting up a track is a swag at best!

When we set up a course, the procedure I use is to utilize what the site will give you as much as possible, e.g. at VIR we were on a road course and had elevation changes, and at Formula Hybrid we now have both elevation changes and a "carousel". I then follow the Rules as far as the maximum length of straightaway, i.e. maximum speed attainable, while incorporating different corners, slaloms, etc. depending on the site we are on. And then we worry about whether the course "flows" or not. We usually use a small, nimble saloon car on a test run, primarily to see if it flows and to check that all the corners can be taken, i.e. they are not too tight (we did have some problems at Bruntingthorpe in the past with that). The average speed then ends up with what it is. The easiest way to get the average speed down is to have one (or two) tight hairpin turns on the course. (And teams have complained about these in the past!!)

Setting up a course at Werribee is a real challenge for Robert and his team because it is so narrow.

As far as the button head cap screws rule is concerned, if you don't like the wording, blame me, because I wrote it! The manufacturers of those screws say they should not be used in structural locations. This is because the thickness of material between the bottom of the hexagonal socket and the shoulder under the head can be almost zero. They can snap off very easily. So, in the opinion of the Rules Committee, they have no place on an FSAE car - design around them.

01-07-2014, 07:36 PM

As noted earlier, the 22 km Enduro was 32 laps, so 22,000/32 = ~690 metres per lap.

Lap time = 38 seconds gives Average Speed = ~18.1 m/s = ~65 kph. Fastest time in AutoX (Monash) was a bit slower than this (IIRC).
Lap time = 45 seconds gives Average Speed = ~15.3 m/s = ~55 kph. This was a reasonable AutoX time for any team hoping for a good Enduro finish.
Lap time = 52 seconds gives Average Speed = ~13.3 m/s = 48 kph. I can't remember for sure, but I think a few Tail-enders were slower than this.

More importantly, the "average speed" is NOT what makes the track dangerous. Danger has more to do with the maximum speed, and where it occurs (ie. close to hard things...). While this year's Vmaxs were probably above the recommended in the Rules, there was a lot of run-off area, so not too bad (IMO).

I personally found the track rather boring, but I acknowledge that given the particular site (narrow road ++) there was not much scope for a more interesting layout. Well, maybe I would have considered a couple of truck loads of concrete, and lots of beer for the concreters (beer supplied very early in the day, and trucks timed to arrive very late...). That could have given some interesting (ie. bumpy!) off-the-main-track loops, and, anyway, it is all getting ripped up this year (sold to developers...).

What I would really like to see is at least one HAIRPIN, as specified in the Rules. Namely, a single cone inner radius, and outer boundary of many cones at radius of 4.5 m (ie. so car must "turn between curbs" 9m apart.). I doubt any car at this comp could have negotiated such a corner without use of a "powerslide", or while collecting many cone penalties. Note that this would have lowered average speed, but NOT made the event any safer.

The main reason I would like to see these Hairpins is that I have driven a London taxi, and have had the pleasure of owning a Peugeot 404. Both of these cars (and also most tractors) have very tight turning circles, and while this "feature" might only be used once a week (or even once a month), it really does put a smile on your face. In fact, even funnier is to watch the look of horror on your passenger's face as you begin a rather fast U-turn in a narrow alley.

I don't know of any mainstream cars built these days with "good" turning circles. Put proper hairpins in FSAE, and maybe one day better cars will be built???

FWIW, the Pug 404 was a very conservative design, with Strut front suspension and R&P steering. But the DETAILS were very well worked out.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Regarding "panheads", why bother??? When I was young, your car wasn't properly hotted-up unless you had nickel-plated "acorn-nuts" on every fastener. Boy, that looked fast!!! :)

Z

Big Bird

01-07-2014, 10:13 PM

Agreed Z, It is not the average speed that makes a track safe or unsafe - it is detail design of specific points on the track.

I was having this discussion with a fellow bike rider about motocross. We were lamenting the lack of fast, flowing, natural terrain circuits . Apparently the governing body has imposed (has been directed to impose??) average speed limits on tracks. So rather than fast, flowing, reasonably smooth circuits where bikes can travel quickly but reasonably predictably, tracks get littered with obstacles like jumps and whoops and lots of stop/start short straights and tight corners (which chop up really quickly). Average speeds are down, but the chances of hurting yourself pretty severely are up.

Brilliant, eh??

Big Bird

01-07-2014, 10:16 PM

Tim, I don't have the figures on me. Are Z's figures good enough, or should I chase the timesheets for you?

TMichaels

01-08-2014, 02:26 AM

A rather easy take on the track layout problem is to have one or two cars of the year before at hand. You would then use them to assess your track layout. We do this every year at FSG and it seems to work. We usually do not get complains about the track, except for the bumps. But we route the track through the bumps on purpose.

I have to and will check the time sheets, but as far as I know we are always pretty close to the numbers given in the rules regarding average speed.

MileyCyrus

01-08-2014, 04:15 AM

For those interested, find below a link to an excel file of the raw laptimes for the weekend:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57039409/2013%20Formula%20SAE-A%20Times.xlsx

Cheers,

ausracing

01-08-2014, 04:31 PM

The times are also here http://racing.natsoft.com.au/results/#2

Tim.Wright

01-13-2014, 05:55 AM

Tim, I don't have the figures on me. Are Z's figures good enough, or should I chase the timesheets for you?

What Z gave is ok if its correct. So there is a spread of about 25% of the average speeds which is a fair bit. In my opinion it renders any complaints about the average speed as almost a waste of time.

As long as the track is safe, leave it be. There are a million better things to be focussing on.

01-14-2014, 07:13 PM

Tim,

The link in Ausracing's post a few up has the times, and they confirm roughly the average speeds I gave earlier.
~o0o~

More importantly, for future readers of this thread, here is a link to Oz-2013 Driver Swap thread (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11584-2013-FSAE-A-Drive-Swap). IMO this event is by far the best Design Review of the cars, and is really useful from the "educating young engineers" perspective.

Z

Big Bird

01-20-2014, 12:49 AM

Hi all,

We have the FSAE organizing committee event review this coming Thursday (23rd Jan). If you have any feedback from the December 2013 event at Werribee, please advise me as soon as possible. I have already picked out key points from the writings in this thread, but if there is anything else you would wish to convey to the organizers, then now is the time. Either post on this thread, or send me a private email on geoffpearson_at__y7mail.com

All feedback gratefully received, am happy to keep the info confidential and do it privately, but anonymous submissions will be ignored.

Cheers,

Geoff

01-20-2014, 08:23 PM

We have the FSAE organizing committee event review this coming Thursday (23rd Jan).
...
All feedback gratefully received,...

Geoff,

I would like to suggest (once again :)) that at least one genuine FSAE Rules spec Hairpin be put into the competition, somewhere.

To be fair to the Teams for Oz-2014, they should be warned of this early on in the year (say, within the next 3 months), because I doubt many of the 2013 cars could manage such a corner (ie. outside radius of 4.5 m, so they must be able to "turn between walls" 9 metres apart). Also, in the first year such a Hairpin might only be included in the AutoX, so that the poorly designed cars don't lose too many points from knocked over cones... (Once the Teams get the idea, then put one real Hairpin per lap in the Enduro).

My reasons are as per my post on bottom page 7. Namely, it might eventually lead to some production cars getting smile-inducing turning circles.
~o0o~

By way of anecdote, I once bought a very second-hand Front-End-Loader to do some, err..., gardening. Said FEL weighed about 30 tons (it had a 4 cu.m bucket that could pick up 10+ ton of dirt), had a wheelbase of ~3 metres, width of ~3 metres, and the driver's seat was about 3 metres above ground (accessed via a ladder).

The steering was done by the whole machine bending in the middle (ie. front-half with bucket, rear-half with engine). Full-lock came when the two inner-wheels (each about 1.5 m diameter) were just about to touch. Sketch the plan-view of the machine, and you see that it can "turn between walls" about 9 metres apart!

This is an extremely useful feature for this sort of machine, and a lot of fun. After the steering-box broke, I converted it to go-kart steering (powered, of course) with about 120 degrees lock-to-lock, for even more fun.

So, if a rather large, 30 ton Earthmover can negotiate an FSAE spec Hairpin, then shouldn't the teeny-weeny little FSAE cars, "optimised for Autocross conditions", also be able to do so? :)

Z