Young Hoosiers showing chords - Looking for input

[Goody]

We bought a new set of Hoosiers back in January, started driving our car late April and it currently has around 15 hours of run/drive time on the car.

The wear holes have plenty of life in them and appear to be fairly even. Three out of the four tires look like the one in the image after today's testing. I struggle to accept that it is something within our setup or driving habits to plague 3 new slicks so quickly...but we are also a very new team that hasn't had much experience with these tires either.

Did we get a bad batch of tires? We obviously have to order another set before Lincoln, but we would like to mitigate the problem if it is our end. I will email Hoosier on Monday, but I'd imagine they won't have much to say other than "a new set will be $XXX dollars".


http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c298/goodysgota72/10407397_10203346558681293_2653955504594733932_n.j pg
https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10370994_10203296710075109_1973326039120684232_n.j pg?oh=20dc0ddb7b9175b4121a63c185c4683c&oe=53FD2575

Thank you-

[Pete Marsh]

18 to 20 hours is a good long run for those tyres!

They are worn out. The dimples just show you how your going, not what you have got left in some cases.

Throw on a new set and you will pleasantly surprised all the handling gremlins you most likely have from running on the cording compound will go away.

Pete

[Claude Rouelle]

How many miles / km did you cover in these 15 hours?

What are the wear numbers? In other words what was the depth of the holes when you got new tires and what is it now (with tires cleaned / no pick up) ?

[Chris Head]

Hoosier offers a slightly slightly harder compound we run for a majority of testing that we get a little more life out of than the 25B's.

[Luniz]

How much track time did you expect from a racing slick that only weighs just over 2kg?

[Claude Rouelle]

Luniz, that was going to be my next question to Goody.....

Goody, it would be nice if you would answer

[Goody]

Sorry for the delay in response.

We honestly didn't know what to expect out of the tires, we are glad to have the testing time to be able to run through a set before our second competition. We have very limited experience with these types of tires and FSAE testing and were just looking for some opinions.

Thank you -

[Claude Rouelle]

Goody,

Please answer these 2 simple questions questions.

1. Did you or did you not measure the depth of the tire holes new and old? Did you do it every day?

2. What mileage did you do? I ask this question because I see teams who tell me that they spend 20 hours (or 20 days) of testing but only 10 % of the time was effectively spent on the track.

There is nothing wrong (other that being ashamed :) ) by telling us that you did not made such measurements if you learn from this lack of discipline of logging testing information and put these measurements more systematically on your next test to do list.

For me your tires are simply worn out and if you EFFECTIVELY ran the time that you declared, but it will help me to confirm my opinion if I know the real mileage.

Race tire wear are different from one tire / car / asphalt roughness / driver / track temperature to another but changing race tire every 100 miles (160 Km) is in the norm. I would find perfectly normal to see a FSAE team using 6 or 7 sets of tire in testing before the competition. I also have learnt the painful way that trying to setup a car with tires which barely had more grip than my bathroom soap was a real waste of time. And lost of driver confidence too. But that was with professional drivers.

Thanks

Claude

[Goody]

Claude,


We do not have depth measurements from when the tires were new, nor do we have a means to log vehicle mileage easily. However, we will be taking measurements and logging more appropriate information for the new set of tires that we are now waiting on.

I couldn't imagine going through 6 or 7 sets of tires for testing, our team would have been broke a long time ago at that rate!

Thank you for the input.

[Claude Rouelle]

Goody,

"I couldn't imagine going through 6 or 7 sets of tires for testing, our team would have been broke a long time ago at that rate!" I know this is provocative but this is the truth: find the money! It is there! As far as I remember the US is still part of the G7 , no?

..."nor do we have a means to log vehicle mileage easily"Oh come on: track length multiplied by number of laps? Is that difficult?

See you in Lincoln? With you mileage record notebook?

Claude

[Goody]

Goody,

"I couldn't imagine going through 6 or 7 sets of tires for testing, our team would have been broke a long time ago at that rate!" I know this is provocative but this is the truth: find the money! It is there! As far as I remember the US is still part of the G7 , no?

..."nor do we have a means to log vehicle mileage easily"Oh come on: track length multiplied by number of laps? Is that difficult?

See you in Lincoln? With you mileage record notebook?

Claude

Claude,

Financially, our team has scratched together everything we have, including personal dollars into this year's car [into the thousands combined]. It is what it is and we have given it our all with what we have, and can say that without a guilty conscience. Unfortunately we cannot fund our team like others can, however we are very proud of what we have earned and put together, even though it seems to be viewed as sub-par.


Yes, we will be at Lincoln. I could provide a mileage book from this point on. It never crossed our mind to record mileage on the car, I am still unsure how that would improve the team/car with a car that has such a short life-span.

[Rex]

18 to 20 hours is a good long run for those tyres!
They are worn out. The dimples just show you how your going, not what you have got left in some cases.
Pete

This seems like a nice response - provides useful information that directly addresses your concern. Also the suggestion about the harder compound isn't bad either but the lower forces on the hard compound mean any borderline parts won't break until you slap on the sticky tires. Trust me, I've experienced this firsthand.

Claude, can you please explain the value of the mileage logbook you mention? In particular, why miles is a better measure than hours (assuming hours is done right), and also how the mileage logbook helps the car go faster? It sounds like interesting information to have and study, but either I'm missing something major (certainly possible), or logging mileage should be pretty low on the priority list for a team that can only afford one set of test tires, in a series where the entire event can be run on a single set of tires.

On a related note, I have a set of used R25 tires in my barn that you (i.e. UNT) are welcome to have for free if you come and get them. I think they're the 7" width (but I'm not 100% sure), and I estimate they have 50% life left (give or take - I didn't keep a mileage logbook either) and they're one year old. We just took them off the wheels to replace with new tires. Located about halfway between Dallas and Houston, roughly 3hrs from you guys. Might let you get in a bit more testing before you mount up your competition tires. PM me ASAP if interested so we can coordinate logistics.

Also, for what it's worth, the guys at Hoosier who handle their FSAE program have been there a very long time, are very knowledgeable, and are very helpful. Calling them with questions has always been a pleasant experience for me. I realize this is an exception in the modern world so your assumption makes perfect sense, but the Hoosier guys in particular deserve credit for being cool.

[Claude Rouelle]

Rex,

Any good engineer keep records of his actions and his team actions. Remember what the first goal of FSAE is; learn by doing and if possible learn well and right and quick. The #1 goal is not your vehicle speed; a crappy car could be compensate by a talented driver but that is waht design judges will evaluate you and your car on

It is useful to log
- the time the car leaves the pits
- each lap number and each lap time
- the time at which the car comes back to the pits
- the ambient conditions (air and track temperature, the atmospheric pressure, the humidity the wind direction and speed) . There ar cheap device (300 $) doing that job for you automatically
- the tire pressure and temperature
- the driver subjective comments
- any result of visual inspection (tire graining for example) or observed issue (something broken, a leak etc...)
- etc...


In order to
- compare your drivers speed and consistency
- compare the mileage and the failure and establish the need of maintenance
- observe the influence of the track conditions on the lap times
- car performance and consistency vs tire wear and race simulation covered distance
- basically make notes how what happened when and understand why
-.....

Also 1 hour at 30 mph average speed in cold conditions is not the same distance nor the same tire wear as 1 hour at 40 mph on a hot summer track.

I am surprised you ask. When you did some lab exercises at your school you didn't make any notes?

I hope this helps

[RiNaZ]

LOL ... this is too good !!!

yes i seldom make notes, and when i had to write reports, it sort of felt like my mom telling me to clean up my room.

now im paying for it after 10 years in the aerospace industry :)

[Rex]

Claude, thanks for the response, but I don't think that really answers my question. I've asked you to please explain why logging mileage is of such paramount importance that logging hours is, in your opinion, insufficient. You've responded with a list of other non-mileage items that merit logging - a list that anyone would agree is valid. In fact, it's these items I had in mind as being higher on the priority list than logging mileage. Did something in my response imply that I don't think ANYTHING is worth logging? I'm certainly not going to argue that your list doesn't make sense, because it's a great list - but I wonder how "Any good engineer keeps records...it is useful to log lap times and tire pressures" explains why a mileage log is more valuable than an hours log.

On a more relevant note, true enough that 1 hour at 30mph is different than 1 hour at 40mph because more distance is covered. I agree! Conversely, I could point out that 2 hours at 50mph is different than 4 hours at 25mph despite similar distances, assuming both runs are on demanding courses (an assumption which is inherent in your point also I think?). So I still wonder, why is mileage better than hours, assuming both figures are measured correctly?

To answer your question, when I did some lab exercises in college courses I made plenty of notes, most of which were along the lines of "I wish I didn't have to do this lab work so I could spend more time on the race car." When we tested our cars, we prepared blank data-taking pages for tire pressures and temps, lap times, ambient conditions, etc. (more or less all of the things from your list above). By the end of each test day those blank data-taking pages generally ended up with hastily-written notes along the lines of "I am sick and tired of this car breaking down every time we run it before we can gather any meaningful test data - we need more build time to improve the car's reliability - perhaps I should start skipping labwork..." For the record, this skipping lab work plan is NOT the path to academic success OR good FSAE results. Older and wiser now, our old FSAE car runs reliably most of the time - and with the benefit of additional financial resources (due to the aforementioned older and wiser situation) we have a nice ECU and/or DAQ systems which log all kinds of good data, including about half the items from your list, plus both hours run and distance traveled.

I'm not trying to have some grand debate over the internet, nor to imply that your expertise isn't valuable. But you've told a kid who is relatively new to FSAE that he should be "ashamed" of himself for not logging the mileage on his tires when he provided an hours-run figure, and I'm just struggling to understand why.

[JulianH]

Rex,
Claude says "log mileage and log when the car leaves and returns".
So you have both the mileage and the hours, and that's what you need.
Just a side note: When you look at the dashboard of your road car, can you read the miles or the hours?

When I think back, on a incredible hot day in the summer of 2012, we "killed" a set of tires (Hoosier 10" LC0) on one test-day with and winged electric car. So about 50km or something and the tires were worn out.
In my experience, it is more difficult to clock the hours correctly compared to the mileage. With our cars we often had to abort runs after a short period (maybe 1 minute or so) but still in that minute you cover 1km, it adds up.

Coming back to the topic:
Yes, the tires are gone, you need a new set.
I think in 2012 we bought over 10 sets of tires from Hoosier. Used some for non-performance tests in 2013 but still.
We log everything important in the car (all of our "cycles" to change parts is done with mileage) and it helps. Without documentation you don't rememeber what happened and even worse, why it happened.
Even with a car that runs only 1000miles, you have to change some parts in between and without data, you don't know when. That's why you need it.

[Rex]

I'm not generally arguing that folks SHOULDN'T measure miles. I think folks should measure just about everything their time/personnel/resources/experience allow them to, although miles seems like a relatively low priority item if hours is already being recorded. I'm also pointing out that it seems like a jerk move to tell someone they should be "ashamed" of themselves for not logging tire mileage as a new and relatively inexperienced team, when you can't/won't articulate in one simple sentence how/why logging miles is mission-critical for tires, especially given the fact that tire wear in general is a nonissue in this series. That's really what compelled me to post, and spurred my curiosity of why tire mileage is of such paramount importance. When someone speaks in absolute terms, I can't help but take interest.

Julian, thanks for responding, and to your specific points:
"...both the mileage and the hours, and that's what you need." OK, but why? Please explain why these two items are both NEEDED to make the car go faster. What does mileage do that hours doesn't, and/or vice versa? Has your measurement of miles run on a set of tires changed either a design aspect of your car, or your FSAE event procedures, to produce an advantage? If so, I'm certainly willing to listen and learn if you're willing to share the details. My knowledge of the details of tire behavior is limited, and I'm always up for learning something new. If there is a way I can use this mileage data with respect to tires to make my car go faster over the course of a single event not limited by tire wear, I'm all ears.

"When you look at the dashboard of your road car, can you read the miles or the hours?" Miles of course, or sometimes when I travel abroad, kilometers (which of course mean absolutely nothing to me). Although I would caution that this isn't 100% true as I know I've driven a couple of road vehicles that did in fact log hours as well as miles. But in any case, what does this Q&A prove or demonstrate? My point is that measuring hours run (without accompanying mileage figures) is probably good enough to warrant not being "ashamed" for a second year FSAE car. If that's not the case, please articulate clearly why. If we're making comparisons to road car tires in particular, I typically judge road tire wear by the tread depth rather than the odometer; sometimes even by the wear bars, which I believe is probably what led to the question/confusion about the wear dots on slicks that started this thread.

"In my experience, it is more difficult to clock the hours correctly compared to the mileage. With our cars we often had to abort runs after a short period (maybe 1 minute or so) but still in that minute you cover 1km, it adds up." Fair enough - and this does indeed address my question which is appreciated. If you find it easier to log miles, then it seems like it would definitely make sense to use miles as your guide for part cycles and whatnot. Makes perfect sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say you should be "ashamed" because you logged miles instead of hours, but maybe that's among the many reasons I am not a design judge. However, even with mileage records well under control, finding it difficult to accurately clock hours would be a concern right? After all, per above and for reasons I'll admit I don't fully understand yet, you NEED both miles and hours?

[JulianH]

Rex,
I don't know if I can answer better but I will try:

"Why do you need both?": As Claude said, the car is in different "stress levels" when running slow or fast.
I try an example: Some test days, we just ran SkidPad, over and over again. So in one day we use less than one accumulator charge (<22km) but still spent like 8 hours on the track (adjustments on the suspension and wings take time, some problems, and so on). On other days when you run AutoX, you cover about three times the mileage in the same time. Just because you have much higher speeds.
The stresses on all parts is much higher for the same "hours".

I think it is therefore better to log mileage. The hours help if you want to know at which speed levels you were at that time.
In my opinion, it is sufficient to log mileage (and a nice-to-have to log hours) but not sufficient to only log hours. You just don't know what happened to your car.
At best you know how many miles your car spent on each discipline.

When it comes to make it "faster": Well, some parts make problems (like rod-ends or bearings) after some time. If you know when to replace them before it is too late, you have a big advantage. Also a DNF at the event is never a good feeling...

Nobody needs to be ashamed though. It is a learning process and the team will probably learn to start logging everything they can (maybe don't start with wind speeds and humidity...). As we all know: "The difference between screwing around and science, is writting it down".

The comparison with the road car:
Well it is not all about tire wear. (We also changed tires after they were worn or after the performance dropped massively and not after a certain travelled distance).
Usually the repair cycles are in miles/kilometers, so that you change your oil and other fluids when it's necessary. Of course we could do that in hours too but 250kph on the German Autobahn is different than 80kph in Switzerland :)

[Rex]

"Why do you need both?": As Claude said, the car is in different "stress levels" when running slow or fast. I try an example: Some test days, we just ran SkidPad, over and over again. So in one day we use less than one accumulator charge (<22km) but still spent like 8 hours on the track (adjustments on the suspension and wings take time, some problems, and so on). On other days when you run AutoX, you cover about three times the mileage in the same time. Just because you have much higher speeds.
The stresses on all parts is much higher for the same "hours".
Are you saying that you experienced higher tire wear per hour running an auto-x course than you experienced running sustained skidpad? That seems somewhat counterintuitive to me, but I'll admit I've never run skidpad for that length of time, as all I do now is auto-x.


When it comes to make it "faster": Well, some parts make problems (like rod-ends or bearings) after some time. If you know when to replace them before it is too late, you have a big advantage. Also a DNF at the event is never a good feeling... This is true that some parts have a limited lifespan (although I'll admit I have yet to find the limits of my rod-ends after many years of use, even the ones in bending). But we're primarily talking about tires here. A team which can only afford one set of test tires is unlikely to find the lifespan limits of any other parts. On a different note, it would be fascinating if anyone had data showing part failures vs. mileage and vs. hours, but that assumes they ran enough miles to establish a failure pattern, and were happy enough with that pattern to not make any component changes.


Nobody needs to be ashamed though. I certainly agree with you here!! If I saw forum posts from competition officials consistently reflecting this sentiment, I would stop posting and go back to quietly lurking.



The comparison with the road car:
Well it is not all about tire wear. (We also changed tires after they were worn or after the performance dropped massively and not after a certain travelled distance).
Usually the repair cycles are in miles/kilometers, so that you change your oil and other fluids when it's necessary. But tire wear is what we're discussing here per the original question, thus is my primary focus. I wonder a racing-use motorcycle engine's oil change interval might be better measured in hours, like many dirt bikes and offroad vehicles are. But again, I'm really just talking about tires here (or trying to keep it just to tires anyway).


Of course we could do that in hours too but 250kph on the German Autobahn is different than 80kph in Switzerland :) I'll have to take your word for it, as I don't speak kilometers. :) Sounds fun either way though!

[Claude Rouelle]

Rex,

The tire grip is a function of many things and two of them is its wear and its number of heath cycles. All other things being equal (and that is a lot of things), the lap time will not be the same with tires of 10 laps "old" or 100 laps "old".

Similarly, if you have two set of tires with both 100 driven kilometers on the same track and ambient conditions by the same driver you will get more grip loss from the one which have 10 heat cycles (10 x 10 km) than the one which made 100 km in just one stint. That is one of the reasons racing team mechanics which use tire blankets (when allowed by rules) cover the tires when the car comes back to the pits; by decreasing the heat variation they decrease the rubber "fatigue".

Look Rex, the whole thing here is barely about tire grip Vs distance; it is to encourage students to be disciplined and rigorous about keeping data of what is done when by who, how and in which conditions.

That you do not know that tire performance is distance dependant that can be acceptable. You now know; that is fine, you need to start somewhere and I am glad you asked.

But making notes of test runs and conditions is a basic principle that you should have been taught or deducted on your own.

As far of the initial "ashamed" you will have noticed that there was a :) near it. Just have a life and/or ask your shrink to slightly increase your amount of Prozac :) (again)

It will be nice to meet in person if you come to Lincoln, NE. I will sure be happy to have a chat with you and have a look at your ....test logging book.

[Alumni]

Goody,

Do not let Claude intimidate you. He speaks the truth about many things but does not understand how underfunded and undermaned most FSAE teams are. For a second year team it sounds like you are doing very well, but take this as a lesson to ignore him and don't tell him what team you are from or post pictures of your car. Now he (and others) will be gunning for you in design and have ill-conceived notions about your car!

While I have seen an occasional cord show up prematurely on a 13" hoosier, yours are clearly lifed out. At this point the only reasonable thing to do is some "driveshaft testing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B04yzmGnvx0

[Claude Rouelle]

Ridiculous. That is not what FSAE spirit is about. Make it a you tube video is even more stupid. Nothing to be proud of. I wonder how / if the faculty advisor support this. I wonder how the parents who invest money in their son/daughter education react to such video. Sad.

[Steve Fox]

Alumni, You clearly ‘don’t get it’. FSAE/FS is a learning/educational experience. (THE most successful Collegiate Engineering Competition / Learning Experience on the planet.) Every Design Judge and volunteer are giving freely our time to help educate engineering students, both at the competitions we attend (at our own expense) and as time permits, on forums like this. Urging a student to ‘ignore advice’ from Claude or anyone else with as much professional motorsports experience, or ‘don’t tell him what team you are on’, or ‘don’t post pictures of your car’ is, at best, poor advice!

Claude has attended my seminars at a few different schools. Claude hosts his own Optimum G Seminars. He and I (along with Pat Clarke) probably interface with more FSAE/FS students than anyone else alive today. Because we openly talk with so many students, from so many diverse teams, I can assure you, my friend, that we have a crystal clear understanding of the problems student engineers face. Project management, unreliable part design, time over-runs in the shop, funding, and oh, by the way, finding the extra hours in a day to get everything else in life accomplished (like socializing (read girlfriends), and scholastic requirements) just scratches the surface of what we see.

If I ever hear of, or see a Design Judge ‘gunning for’ a team for ‘special criticism’, or demonstrating ‘ill conceived’ or preconceived notions about a car / team / individual, I can guarantee you that DJ will NOT be invited back. We (the Design Event Captains) have worked VERY hard to take all the subjectivity out of Design Judging, and supply the students with a professional group of EXTREMELY talented engineers from the automotive, motorsports, and aerospace industries. Suggesting that we are anything but honest, and forthright and unbiased, while interacting with students insults our efforts.

While the old Ohio State video you post has some sophomoric entertainment value, I too wonder what sponsors, parents, or faculty members would think of irresponsible actions like that. Will a sponsor be willing to come back next year as that team’s tire sponsor?

Putting this thread back on topic: Yup, those tires are simply worn out. (Another profound statement by Captain Obvious.) The statements I have read in this thread are accurate reasons for the wear. Keeping a time AND mileage log is important. Here is why:

1) The mileage log WILL demonstrate a difference in drivers. Some drivers are more abusive on their equipment (Ohio State in the practice area, anyone?). Some drivers can extract superb performance out of their cars while at the same time being very easy on their equipment. (Rick Mears (’79, ’84, ’88, & ’91 Indy 500 Winner) was one such individual.) In my career, I have seen extremes at both ends of the spectrum.

2) After you graduate and move on to real race cars (or production car testing), the car’s performance is measured in laps (miles/kilometers). The reason a lot of FSAE/FS teams do not see the importance of mileage logs, is because their practice area does not have a fixed mileage to it, like a track does.

3) Mileage and time logs are even more important to under-funded teams. Those teams need to make use of every last resource they have to maximize their learning experience / car’s performance. Pencil and paper are (practically) free and can prove to be an invaluable tool (IF you take the time to review and analyze your notes after every practice session). Hopefully you will not have worthless info like: "I am sick and tired of this car breaking down every time we run it before we can gather any meaningful test data - we need more build time to improve the car's reliability - perhaps I should start skipping labwork..." on your note sheets at the end of the day.

Any team can request that I come out to their school and deliver my FSAE presentation. I have a few different PPTs to choose from. All of them are fun and interactive, with lots of ‘don’t do this…’ pictures. There is a link in my autosig…

[Steve Fox]

Speaking of the Ohio State video… Pat & I were there. Here is what we remember. As the saying goes ‘And now for the rest of the story…’

I think it was the year Carroll died and Wollongong won, 2003. It might have been 2004.

The Ohio State act was petulant and juvenile! They had been black-flagged from Endurance a couple of laps from the finish because one rear wheel had been flapping for several laps, the cause was a broken link or control arm. They yelled and argued…

They obviously fixed it and took the car to the practice area in a "We'll show you!!!" act, spinning donuts for probably 6 or 7 minutes before an apoplectic SAE Official arrived on the scene.

We think they were suspended from the event for a year after that!

In any case, they can spin donuts to their hearts content in private, but a deliberate 'in your face' act like that was not The Ohio State’s finest hour.

Anyone from Ohio State care to set the record straight if we aren't recollecting accurately?

Pat & Steve

[Claude Rouelle]

Alumni,

Next time you want to make public statements about my abilities to understand how underfunded and undermanned teams work, or you think I have pre-opinions (other than the design report and the design specification sheet) about any team or person in the design competition, speak to me first.

Here are some facts...

At 23 years old I made a master thesis on the design and the manufacturing of a wind tunnel and race car; please read this: design AND manufacturing.

I had no money (believe me or not during the 6 years at my engineering school there were many days I was simply hungry, school was cheaper in Belgium than in the US but I still paid for every tuition and my living expenses thanks to nights and weekends jobs and I never borrowed any money), I had no moral support (no need to expand on this but I left my dysfunctional family at 19 years old and never came back) and I never consider my self as a super smart student (maybe a B student at best), and finally there was no automotive engineering schools in the country I come from (Belgium).

But I did build a race car and a wind tunnel because I believed (and still do) in my dreams so much that it forced me to overcome my weakness, my shyness and my lack of experience. I designed that car totally on my own and I manufactured most of the car with my own hands. I FOUND the money, I convinced people to be part of my dream. Understaffed ? You bet; I was ALONE!

I then worked in Europe, Japan and USA for about 20 years as race car engineer and then in 1997 I created OptimumG from scratch. It was a one man company for the first three years and the first year I made 12K$, living on savings from previous years. Then the snow ball started rolling as we shared knowledge and experience with our customers. Now we are a small but energetic, growing company with a small dozen of employees and few interns offering descent salaries, bonuses and great benefits and most of all we all have fun working hard at expressing our passion for vehicle dynamics and race car engineering and helping our customers to win races and championships. Finally I am proud to tell you that we have no debt and I never borrowed any money.

I went through the same shit (excuse my French :) ) most FSAE / FS are going through, in fact probably in worse conditions than most students endure now. That is why I have the guts to sometimes tell students that their best is not good enough, whether there are part of a first year, second year or 20 year experience team with a 10 K$ or 250 K$ budget

Yes I do sometimes have a provocative language with students, with different dialogue than I use with my customers. I do so because soon to be graduate engineers will find difficult boss to deal with especially in the very competitive racing job market. They have less to lose with a stressed Q&A in FSAE design with me than during a job interview. I believe I help them more to be prepared to such job than they realize.

I am in FSAE as a volunteer because a) I love to share my passion and enthusiasm b) Many people helpme me at the beginning of my career and it is now time to give back to a community (even if not made of the same persons) which gave me a lot. So I find comments like yours unnecessary and unproductive. So please refrain to make appreciation about my ability to judge (or intimidate as you said) persons by looking at their car or their engineering questions. In fact I do like a good "fight" with students who disagree with me even more when they come with good, substantiated arguments and facts. It doesn't happen a lot but even if it it hard to admit to be wrong at the moment it is always good memories when students showed me different but working solutions in their car concept, design or simulation.

If I speak with my heart all FSAE/ FS competitors are winners. If I have speak with my brain things are different but that is the language that employers will use with young job seekers, especially at the beginning of their career when they still have everything to prove.

It is worth to know people, a bit more before you make public statements on their habits.

As far as not telling who you are and not showing pictures of your car... come on. With the internet and social medias today everybody can find out who and where you are and what you do and you want to "hide"? From what? The truth?

[Alumni]

Steve, I was also there in 2003 and from a then student's point of view (I was not part of OSU's team) they were gunning for a top 5 spot at competition, potential overall win, and had it taken from them for some reason. A number of cars every year - prior, then, and now - finish endurance every year will obvious rule violations such as loud exhausts, scrapping bodywork, wobbly wheels and failing brakes. In the OSU case they had, as you even stated, run a number of laps and as I recall were essentially given the black flag and checkered at the same time and disqualified, while other teams were allowed to finish. I don't know why, and it's too long ago to really care.

If you want to debate inconsistencies and problems with judging, please direct yourself to the increasing number of other threads currently covering the topic.

Now, as far as I know, both Pirelli and Goodyear are both active sponsors of a number of competitions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EWTp0Xfksg&t=2m20s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fscytceHy3E&t=3m24s

I find it difficult to believe that such stunts lost them many fans and supporters, and that such an act, done safely, should warrant more than a slow drive by from the local campus security guard.

[Pat Clarke]

Alumni,

Stop dreaming in retrospect. OSU were never in the running for overall victory in 2003. That year was Wollongong's year and no-one got near them over the entire competition. Then Auburn and Cornell were at the next level. UTA were fast but unreliable (overheating) and maybe OSU were next.

If you mean that OSU were gunning for a win if 'Gong, Auburn or Cornell broke, then I guess you have a point....But it was OSU that broke!

FSAE is not a motorsport event, it is an engineering design competition with a motorsport theme. The enduro event is a 'proof of concept' event that poses as a 'race'. OSU broke. End. Concept not proven.

I'm with Claude and Steve on this. Drifting may be popular with the masses, but there is no drifting event at FSAE, and for good reason.

Pat Clarke

PS, Goody, your tyres are worn out, simple! I also support Claude's statement that trying to test on old, worn or excessive heat cycled tyres is not only a waste of time, but counter productive. Changes made to the chassis to try get speed on old tyres will come back and bite you when you fit a new set.

PC

[Claude Rouelle]

Alumni,

Putting in the same bag Nascar and FSAE "drifting" videos says a lot about you.

Claude

[Loz]

With regards to the question of why miles not hours , it should be clear that both measures are hugely important. Of course, when combined they give the measure that dictates which vehicle wins a race, greatest average speed, m/s, km/h, mph..., for a set distance (or time for enduro race). The objective is either to cover a fixed distance the fastest or to cover the greatest distance in a fixed time period. Each measure requires that distance travelled is known.

In the case of a non-endurance event (i.e. a traditional fixed distance/finite lap type race), which ironically is what the FSAE endurance event actually is, the primary objective is to travel a fixed fixed distance (set by the number of laps). There is effectively ZERO requirement for completing it in a fixed time period. A team may win based on a fastest average time, but the time component is a secondary measure and is only relative to the other competitors. It could be thought of in logical terms as

IF EventDistanceComplete=TRUE
use Time to calculate average speed and determine winner
ELSE
DNF and do not consider time at all

i.e. first and foremost you must satisfy the IF statement (measured in distance travelled) to move to the next step and have any requirement for a measure of time.

In FSAE, a fundamental requirement for successful completion of the engineering endeavour is to travel the distance of the endurance event independent of time period (time is simply a measure to provide rank relative to other competitors). This is the same requirement for skid-pad, acceleration and autocross events.

So in terms of selecting a fundamental measure for an FSAE vehicle performance, distance travelled should sensibly be placed at the top of the hierarchy of any testing/evaluation measurement requirements, especially if there is a limit to the number of quantities/parameters that a team can actually measure. Time of course, is also near the top of the measurement hierarchy but should not be at the top.

Looking at the basic requirements of a general vehicle, THE (singular) fundamental function (race car or otherwise), is to transport something (people/cargo) from A to B (i.e. move something some distance). A secondary requirement may be to do it in some defined time period etc, but time is only ever going to be a secondary requirement at best. The distance travelled IS the base measure of whether a vehicle can actually perform its fundamental function.

There are of course vehicles which may use time as a measure of function/operational duration (aircraft, boats, tractors, heavy machinery etc). However, in such cases it is usually difficult to measure actual distance travelled (i.e. actual measurement of distance travelled from point A to B hard or it is fraught with sources of error - a boat, plane etc). Either that or the distance travelled is actually a secondary measure of "time-in-service" (e.g. a tractor that spends lots of operational time lifting, pulling, pushing and performing work functions for which distance travelled is only a small component of measuring work output - this is especially true of vehicles which have primary functions conducive to being mobile plant rather than a transport vehicle).

Back on tyres and FSAE cars, logging miles or hours both provide valuable information about the system operation, although logging neither will make a vehicle faster. However, in terms of vehicle engineering, there is a greater quantity useful/valuable information that can be determined by measuring vehicle performance in a unit that is directly related to that of the fundamental operation. There are many benefits to working with input units that are identical (or similar) to those of the functional output, one major one relates to accuracy and error.

In terms of measuring the life cycle of a mechanical or physical system (say a tyre), we are talking about a measure of initial potential to do work. i.e. embedded tyre potential energy, measured in joules) relative to the Work done (also in joules). In SI base units that is kg.m^2/s^2. i.e. the measure is proportional to the square of distance and inversely proportional to the square of time. Irrespective of quantity used to define tyre life, it inadvertently must be composed of quantities composed of base units kg, m and s. That is, there is always a requirement to know both quantities (m and s) in one form or another to assess tyre life and neither can be ignored. Both are easy to measure and both should be recorded. However, only one will be of significant assistance for engineering a car to meet its primary function.

[Jonny Rochester]

If someone can drift a car and demonstrate control in doing it, then they are the better driver for it. If it's in a controlled area, a prepared racecar, driver all suited up etc, then why not. Go for it. It's your tyres, and everyone should be happier for it.

I have not really seen any drifting videos in this thread, more like burnouts. Burnouts are OK, drifting is far superior.

[Bemo]

Goody,
For a second year team it sounds like you are doing very well

I can't hear that "for a second year team" stuff anymore. Why insist people that it has to take years to get competitive? The second car from our team won Formula Student Germany and placed 2nd overall at MIS (that was before I joined the team, so it is nothing I want to take personal credit for). Just an example that it is possible to get competitive quite quickly.

[Claude Rouelle]

Bemo,

I do believe that the students a team well organized, which well understand the challenges they face and who believe in themselves could make very good results the very first year.

However, and without discouraging anybody, I just want to tell you that the quality of the car design and manufacturing as well as testing and the level of understanding of, for example, vehicle dynamics (I am speaking for the part I judge) has been up in an exponential way. Many judges do agree with me on that one. Winning now is a bigger challenge than 4 years ago.

But these competitions are not only about winning; it is about learning. If learning comes with high performance, it is even better but the educational aspect remains the number one goal. And on this point of view any FSAE / FS competition reaches its goal very well with ANY team, experienced or not low or high budget, from any country.

[exFSAE]

Looks like a heavy tread splice, no big deal.

[Alumni]

Pat - it seems are are unable to handle a typical internet troll. As you've continued to beat what I thought was a dead horse, may I ask why OSU was dealt with so severely? I don't argue that they shouldn't have been DQ'ed and that they behaved in a juvenile manner, but what exactly did they do wrong again? Prohibiting burnouts or "drifting" as you have incorrectly referenced (unless the Europeans have different standards of drifting than the rest of the world) was added to the rules following the incident IIRC. Perhaps you and others were upset that somebody would dare to make a public statement - correct or not - in defiance of you.

Claude - The absence of mentioning Formula 1 says plenty about you. As far as your response to Bemo, very good. I certainly learned more the years we had an awful car via hard lessons rather than getting by on dumb luck and not understanding concepts. Not the point of the competition, but hopefully you see my point.

Bemo - Just because your one team did well does not mean that the rest of the hundreds of teams will experience the same result. What you have claimed is analogous with hitting a hold in one on a golf course, and claiming everyone else who hasn't done so isn't trying as hard or as good a golfer as you.

[Z]

Firstly, I apologise to FSAE students that I don't have time to fully address the above issues here (other things to do). But I do feel obliged to point out some of the NONSENSE being peddled by Claude, Steve, and Pat.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Regarding Claude's reaction to the video link of an FSAE car doing doughnuts...


Ridiculous. That is not what FSAE spirit is about. Make it a you tube video is even more stupid. Nothing to be proud of. I wonder how / if the faculty advisor support this. I wonder how the parents who invest money in their son/daughter education react to such video. Sad.

Claude Rouelle

What hypocritical nonsense! Earlier in the thread I was going to suggest to the OP (Goody) that he should spend as much time as possible doing just what is in that video!

As has been stressed countless times here (including by Claude, et al), success in FSAE is to a very large degree dependent on how much "testing" you do before comp. Here "testing" = wearing out tyres. Importantly, (IMO) the majority of this testing can be done on any-old, cheapy, tyres.

So engine tuning and durability testing can be done by endless high-ish speed laps of a large oval, with very little requirement for high-grip tyres. Likewise, aero testing can be done with long, straight, tyre-independent runs, which measure Cl, Cd, wool-tuft direction, etc. Or you can put some crappy Mu = 0.8 tyres on and see what aero mods are required to get your Skid-Pad lateral Gs up to ~1.0, or more. After a thousand laps, and as many aero mods, and Ay = 1.2 Gs, you can then put your good Mu = 2.0 tyres on and see what a couple of laps of Ay = 3 Gs feels like! This, of course, then gives that final structural test of wheel-bearings, rod-ends, etc.

Similarly, ergonomics and newbie driver training is best done, initially, with low-grip tyres and the type of sliding in the linked video. You don't expect a baby to go from crawling to doing triple-back-flips in one day. First learn to walk, then walk a bit faster, then run, then a bit more... Likewise, you have Buckley's chance of getting a newbie to drive "on the limit" with Mu = 2.0 tyres. Everything happens much too fast! And it can get very expensive when they step over the limit.

The above video was about exploring that "edge of the envelope". Doing so, as a learner, is much easier on low grip tyres. In fact, doing it on Mu = 0.1 damp-clay or ice is thoroughly enjoyable. A bit like a slow-motion, and very relaxing, Waltz. Much later, when your newbies are more comfortable with the car's ergo and general behaviour, they can try that high-speed, acrobatic, "break-dancing" stuff... :)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~


Originally posted by Steve Fox:
If I ever hear of, or see a Design Judge ‘gunning for’ a team for ‘special criticism’, or demonstrating ‘ill conceived’ or preconceived notions about a car / team / individual, I can guarantee you that DJ will NOT be invited back. We (the Design Event Captains) have worked VERY hard to take all the subjectivity out of Design Judging, and supply the students with a professional group of EXTREMELY talented engineers from the automotive, motorsports, and aerospace industries. Suggesting that we are anything but honest, and forthright and unbiased, while interacting with students insults our efforts.

Yet more hypocritical, double-standards, NONSENSE. Grooaann...

Just briefly for now.

Anyone who has worked in any organisation, anywhere, anytime, knows that ALL people are subject to the biases, prejudices, and general foibles of human nature. This is especially so in organisations manned by volunteers, because there are few incentives to attract the quality people, and it is difficult to sack the dud ones.

An HONEST official simply admits to the above, and says that they do their best to minimise such problems.

It is interesting to note that both Claude and Pat were at the centre of the FSAE-Oz 2011/12 "UWA-wheelpod/aero-undertray dramas", which in anyone's right mind were cases of extreme bias and prejudice. There is nothing in Steve's quote above that remotely applies to those events. Namely, the "...will NOT be invited back" took a few years to happen, and it was certainly not Steve's initiative.

"Suggesting that we are anything but honest, and forthright and unbiased, while interacting with students insults our efforts."

Yes, students, you best get down on bended knee, and kiss the ground whenever said officials walk by, lest you get the public flogging you deserve!
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Finally, and hopefully on a more useful note :), is it better to log mileage or hours?

From the above it should be obvious that less than an hour, or a few miles, of Acceleration launch testing can turn your brand new rear-tyres into blue-smoke. On the other hand you might be able to do hundreds of hours, or thousands of miles, of engine durability, or fuel consumption, or aero testing, with negligible tyre wear. "Mileage vs hours" is about as useful as the Lilliputian's arguments over whether they should open their eggs at the Big-End or the Little-End. (J. Swift was satirising just how STUPID and small-minded some people are!)

The clue to knowing when your tyres are worn-out is in the photo at top of page one. Or check the dimples...

And as for spending $300 on a weather station? Geez, I would rather buy a set of slightly worn slicks, and then spend the day drifting the car around a large parking lot... Much more educational, IMO! :)

Z

[Bemo]

I fully agree that the level of the competition increased significantly during the last 7-8 years (that is pretty much the time, I'm following it, so I can't how the development was in the years before). All I wanted to say with my (on purpose) provocing statement is, that I'm tired to hear the "we are so unexperienced" argument for just any mistake. Of course you make a lot of mistakes. But people tend to build senseless complex cars from the beginning which they can't handle (because of their lack of experience). Build a simple car. Get it running three months prior to comp and to a lot of testing.

And once again as I feel that Alumni didn't get that: I joined the team after this, so I don't want to have any personal credit for this achievement. All I want to say is that a second year car can perform quite well, if it is finished early enough to have proper testing time and if you don't try to have a lot of useless gimmicks. I'm quite sure that with this car you wouldn't be able go for a podium anymore but at FSG you would still be at least in the top 20 (and at MIS as well).

And of course it is not only about winning competitions, it is about learning. To learn how a car works, you need as much testing time as possible ;-)

[Goody]

This thread has bounced around quite a bit!

Thank you for your input, "good" and "bad" [depending on who you ask] we appreciate seeing different views. Knit-picking through the thread, for us and determining what sort of testing is "valuable" to a team, every minute the car runs is time well spent to us. If it's putting around in a circle, idling in the heat with the body on the car, or ripping on it as hard as we know how. Time on the car is time on the car, we have had "20minutes before dark" testing sessions with a dozen cones that have been worth-while and a different bug showed up that we were able to catch. Overall we have found dozens of little things throughout our non-motorsports textbook-style testing that has helped make our car more reliable overall and more comfortable to drive. Unfortunately we likely have not gotten the most out of every testing outing, and we are learning how to refine that process, we are trying to ensure it is problem-free as much as possible.


...But people tend to build senseless complex cars from the beginning which they can't handle (because of their lack of experience). Build a simple car. Get it running three months prior to comp and to a lot of testing.


...and we have done just that. There is nothing not-vital on our car, it's been driving [in full body/dacron] since April 22nd and we have just tried to get as much time in and on the car as possible. Not quite 3 months, but even after several severe sponsor hiccups, we'll have more time on the car than the majority of the pack. Being parked or towed off from an event is our biggest fear and we're doing our best to mitigate those odds.

[Rex]

Sigh. I hate to respond, but feel compelled to for some reason, no matter how misguided it may be...

Look Rex, the whole thing here is barely about tire grip Vs distance; it is to encourage students to be disciplined and rigorous about keeping data of what is done when by who, how and in which conditions. Really? I thought the whole thing was about grip vs. distance vs. tire wear. Especially since the original question was about tire wear, which was answered before you chimed in and started demanding answers (repeatedly in fact, when only a 1-day gap had occurred without a response to your initial questions - maybe the guy was asleep or in class or building racecars or something). I think it's important to be disciplined and rigorous with a PURPOSE, which is what this discussion was about (or at least what I was trying to make this discussion about, although it's moved beyond that now). That specific purpose was my primary question, otherwise we could end up logging lunar phases just because logging all knowable data is required.


That you do not know that tire performance is distance dependant that can be acceptable. You now know; that is fine, you need to start somewhere and I am glad you asked. But making notes of test runs and conditions is a basic principle that you should have been taught or deducted on your own. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I don't know tire performance depends on tire wear (something I think we all know intuitively; whether measured in distance or time, clearly we were talking about tire wear?), but that's neither here nor there - in any case, what I know or don't know is of course perfectly acceptable, since I'm a grown man not subject to judgment within an FSAE competition (nor subject to anyone's approval without). However, I would point out that here again you've taken my questions of "Why must mileage be logged specifically for tire wear, rather than hours?" and turned it into a response of "Surely you know that logging data is important?" which to me seems like a dodge of the question and the issue. Grandstanding about what I "now know" doesn't help anyone.


As far of the initial "ashamed" you will have noticed that there was a :) near it. Just have a life and/or ask your shrink to slightly increase your amount of Prozac :) (again) As with most of your posts on this forum, this is out-of-line, especially in your position as a judge and competition official. Your smiley face didn't change the fact that your original comment was rude, no more than your smiley faces do in this comment. It's like starting a sentence with "Please don't be offended, but..." which is almost always a sure sign that something inappropriate is about to be said - the underlying comment is still offensive. It is especially entertaining that you suggest Prozac for me (which I'll admit I had to google to find out what it is, but have now done so and get your drift), when half of your forum posts are (roughly) along the lines of "How dare you come onto my forum and ask a simple question without first obeying my unwritten rule that you must formally introduce yourself!!!111oneoneone." Are you familiar with the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black?" If not, I would suggest using google as it is apparently quite useful in decoding all kinds of semi-insults. :) You will note that I've added a smiley face here so you can see how little these smiley faces change the character of the words that precede them.
In any case, my point is that these types of comments are not an appropriate way to motivate/teach (at least not in a public forum), and good educational outcomes are your stated priority (and rightly so). Seems like quite a contradiction to me. I sent you a private message to this effect ~4 months ago, outlining how I believe your words on this forum may well be discouraging some students from pursuing FSAE, after a particularly jerk-like series of posts you made (can't remember exactly what, but I remember you asked someone if they "needed their diaper changed" or similar). I mentioned in that message how I believe you are in an incredibly rare and unique position to help young engineers around the world in their formative years - what a great opportunity! I just wish you approached it in a way that encouraged rather than discouraged questions and open discussion. Since you chose to ignore that message, we land here. Thus in my mind, your later comment in this thread regarding Alumni saying "Next time you want to make public statements about...speak to me first" seems disingenuous, since I've done that already with you in particular, to no avail. Perhaps having these discussions publicly is the most appropriate way - after all, questioning someone's background/intentions/abilities/credentials/whatever on a public forum in a "provocative" (your word) manner when you know very little about them or their specific situation and have made broad assumptions instead, is a great way to encourage/spur that person's personal learning and growth, right? Your response to this point, above all others, will be of particular interest to me - I'm well past caring about the tires at this point.

Steve Fox's first post seems very reasonable and thoughtful, and point #2 in particular makes good sense regarding why logging miles in general is a good educational goal. I'm still not sure how logging tire life miles makes your one-set-of-tires-per-competition FSAE car any faster/better, or why miles are so much better than hours in that particular context, but if it's being encouraged (not demanded) for future career reasons where miles are more critical that certainly seems reasonable to me. But with respect to Alumni's comments and judging impartiality, when Claude makes statements to the original poster like "See you in Lincoln? With you mileage record notebook?" (direct quote from earlier in this thread, and the comment that made me feel the need to post in the first place) it sure sounds like he has taken a personal and specific interest in verifying that the team in question follows his direct (albeit unsolicited) guidance, thus leading to Alumni's comments in that regard (except perhaps the "and others" portion, although not an unreasonable assumption when Claude's comments are the dominant voice of design judges in this forum). Steve, I'm very glad to hear you (and Claude, for that matter) say that won't be the case, but I think any reasonable person would interpret the original comment the same way Alumni did. In any case, I'm glad to see that various competition officials are getting involved in this discussion - maybe we will have made some positive progress here after all.

Hopefully the forum can get back to normal technical discussions soon (as long as people posting questions formally introduce themselves first, of course). If I haven't conveyed my points clearly by now then I never will, so this will be my last response; I've reached (and perhaps at times exceeded) the limits of my ability to turn my thoughts into words. But rest assured I'll continue reading with interest, should Claude (or others) wish to have the final say in this particular matter.

[onemaniac]

I can't hear that "for a second year team" stuff anymore. Why insist people that it has to take years to get competitive? The second car from our team won Formula Student Germany and placed 2nd overall at MIS (that was before I joined the team, so it is nothing I want to take personal credit for). Just an example that it is possible to get competitive quite quickly.

Bemo, for sure any team can build an award-winning first car for any FS/FSAE competition for one reason: FS/FSAE competition is about engineering design, not motorsports or racing. As long as the car is engineered correctly, (with some good drivers) it can win.

However, everything is a team effort in any engineering project. Designing a good system (the car) requires a team that understands the concept, purpose and limits of the project very well. In most cases, an FSAE car might work better than average if the whole system was designed and manufactured by a single person.

The problem is that in an underdeveloped team, there are very big gaps between members in term of the understanding of vehicle concept and goal, sense of ownership of the project, level of knowledge, interpersonal skills and so on. When all those things are meshed up the wrong way in a car as result, the car has very poor integration, too much after-thought add-ons (=complicated, heavy, unreliable car).

As an example, the car we built had many fundamental engineering flaws such as bending moment in tubes, improper sizing of brakes (and much more).
At least one person in the team already knew about most of those flaws during the design stage. It's amazing how difficult it is to apply what you already know, when it comes to team decisions and due to the fact the car isn't designed by one person.

Truthfully, most students aren’t very good at team/project management. When we started our team, the leading group including myself, was all in first year and didn’t even have much clue about what engineering really is about. It really takes time to build a team I think, and it takes very good leadership. For the past two years I’ve been the team captain, I admittedly wasn’t a very good leader. I think it’s much, much harder to design a good team than to design a good car. A good car simply won’t happen without a good team anyway.

[Steve Slowboy]

Hi All,
Hi All,

I've lurked on here for quite a while but rarely post. I'm not involved with FSAE in any way but came across this forum a few years ago whilst researching dry sumps for my hillclimb car (The PCD Saxon - 224kg of Suzuki GSXR1100 engined carbon tub single seater designed by Martin Ogilvie of Lotus F1 fame). I'm a uni drop-out; only lasted one year in Engineering and then a few years later one year in Chemistry - so despite having a wad of very good high-school grades I'm not a qualified engineer. In fact, not a qualified anything! But I'd like to think I've got a brain between my ears and have over 30 years experience of taking things apart, figuring out how they work, fixing them, making them better (sometimes), making them worse (more often), putting them back together again.

So, I've introduced myself to keep Claude's wrath at bay!

I spend my working life as a project manager for a high technology manufacturing company in the oil and gas industry and have to deal with many young fairly inexperienced, though highly qualified engineers on a daily basis. We design and build fairly low volume high tech bits of kit with plenty of software, firmware, hardware. We are also severely constrained by the commercial and operational pressures of delivery schedules and tight budgets.

The skills that you will pick up by being involved with FSAE/FS are so incredibly transferable to the big bad world - and will make you so much more employable than the average engineer. Being able to schedule your work, be efficient, to communicate, write reports, keep on budget (or better - stay below it!) not only means your boss is happy, but you'll be happier!

I know this thread has seriously veered off course, but that wasn't my doing! Please can you get back to discussing design/project/engineering issues? Yes, his tyres are knackered. Yes, knowing how much work they've done would have been useful. And the OP now knows this.

I don't know any of the characters involved here, but I do appreciate the commitment of those senior ones who advise and educate the newbies. But that's no excuse to be rude or scare off the very folk you're wanting to help!

Hope it all gets back to normal,
Steve

[Claude Rouelle]

Rex,

From tire wear to language and character analysis, I did not know we would come to this

Well what can I say... probably a few things...

1. The way the education system and / or management works in the US is very different than in the rest of the world. Americans think they are the "norm" but they are at the very end of the spectrum. European, South American and Asian schools teachers, business managers, and simply parents are much more demanding and less rewarding than in America. Americans will tell that Europeans and Asian are more "dogmatics" or disciplinary and therefore a bit more rude in their language. For having spent about 2/3 of my life in Europe and 1/3 in the US (and 3 years in Japan), I would agree with this statement. In this perspective I am more European than American in my language and that probably shows in my FSAE forum posts. Maybe also life has been tough to me and I have got to be tough in my communication too. You might not know this but when European listen to the encouraging and positive words of American managers to their employees but fired them anyway for lack of results, they found Americans quite hypocritical. Europeans are less welcoming, less easily hugging each other but they put less the chance of keeping your job in balance with your productivity. I do not say that either side is right or wrong but it is for sure different. My wife is American, I am European, believe me she and I have had this conversation numerous times.... As this forum is not essentially American and FSAE / FS is rapidly expanding to other countries I thought it would be useful to share this perspective.

2. I know for a fact as father, a community (not FSAE) leader, a company owner and a teacher that you better be strict and demanding from the beginning with newcomers and give then more freedom later. The other way around, being friendly and then disciplinary, is close to mission impossible. You probably have not spent time in Asia particularly in India. Being "nice" there at the beginning of your business does not help I can tell you.

3. The forum talk will never be as friendly as any face to face conversation. It is the same issue than with emails

4. I feel that for years I have given much more time and advice to many FSAE / FS participants than I have received criticism in this forum.

5. Kids (yes some students are still kids) can't take any heat or provocative language (provocative in the sense of hoping for a reaction more than feeling hurt) anymore, only a few of them are up to a serious conversation with good counter arguments. These guys are the future leaders. Come on, if my words or my sometimes cold humour could discourage students to pursue FSAE, there will be many other challenges they won't be able to face in their professional career.

6. As far as the need to introduce your self in a forum, you will not make me change my mind.

7. I barely check my private message in this forum. I didn't even know until today that you sent me a private message. If people want to reach me they know how to do this: the address is on our website.

8. Back to the original post. In 2012 the team leader of the only Indian team that ever finished FSG endurance showed me (with very justified pride) his logging book which started on March 20th. Every thing was noted; time out, time in, lap time, number of laps, incident, failures, drivers feedback ... etc. Although their logging book was not the essential reason of their reliability I believe it had a significant and positive impact. For me it does make sense to write down all facts and observations and it is obvious to keep a detailed accounting of your mileage, whether it is for drivers performance and consistency comparison, parts wear,... you name it. Sorry if it is obvious to me and not to you and if I cannot explain it better but I do not feel to debate this much more.

9. If I did offend anybody in this forum I do openly and publicly apologize.

:)

[Z]

Trying to get a teeny-weeny bit closer to the original topic...


There is nothing non-vital on our car...

Goody,

"...nothing non-vital..."??? Hmmmmm... :)

Based on your photos on page 1.

1. I don't think it is possible to do FSAE-IC with zero cylinders, so I guess one cylinder is "vital". You seem to have three too many.

2. I'm guessing you have a 5 or 6 speed sequential box? Many teams have completed Enduro using only one gear.

3. 13" truck-wheels and tyres? The Rules mandate 8"s as "vital", although 10"s may be more readily available.

4. Double-wishbone-and-toe-link-and-pullrod-and-rocker-and-ARB suspension? At a rough guess, a total of at least 50 rod-ends/ball-joints? It can be so much simpler.

5. There is quite a lot of frame structure a long way behind the rear-axle. Not really vital...

Just some suggestions to think about for next year....

Z

[Goody]

Trying to get a teeny-weeny bit closer to the original topic...



Goody,

"...nothing non-vital..."??? Hmmmmm... :)

Based on your photos on page 1.

1. I don't think it is possible to do FSAE-IC with zero cylinders, so I guess one cylinder is "vital". You seem to have three too many.

2. I'm guessing you have a 5 or 6 speed sequential box? Many teams have completed Enduro using only one gear.

3. 13" truck-wheels and tyres? The Rules mandate 8"s as "vital", although 10"s may be more readily available.

4. Double-wishbone-and-toe-link-and-pullrod-and-rocker-and-ARB suspension? At a rough guess, a total of at least 50 rod-ends/ball-joints? It can be so much simpler.

5. There is quite a lot of frame structure a long way behind the rear-axle. Not really vital...

Just some suggestions to think about for next year....

Z


Z,

Keeping with the scope of the project we set about a year ago, which was essentially to not completely reinvent the entire car over the previous year and focus on optimizing components...more or less. We considered the majority of what you mentioned as off the table for redesign unless there was an inherent reason when we went through the process. While you read into my statement a little further than I had intended it to, we kept with our intended goal, "non-vital" was the wrong terminology to use so loosely.

We attempted to not fall into a common syndrome of trying to bite off more than we could chew [drastic design changes] ending up with a late build, under-designed, and a car that wasn't refined by competition.

[Westly]

Goody, I think your on the right track.

Rather than getting caught up in lengthy re-design a focus on reliability and other areas will likely net better results. As in the reasoning your way through the design process thread from Geoff Pearson: "The greatest lesson I learnt by working through the above process is how little effect the potential performance of a design really plays out on final results"

The corded tyres are still fine to driver on. We recent drove a set of 13" R25Bs until they didn't hold air recently and were heavily corded (They looked much worse that yours). Id argue that the event preparation, driver training and reliability testing of just running those tyres for as long as possible is highly worthwhile and is arguably worth more points at competition than most vehicle design aspects.