2015 FSAE-Australasia [Archive]

Mitchell

09-02-2015, 07:01 PM

Mitchell, loving the testing photos and excited for aero (3D rear wing!!!). Done any practice enduro's? And how is the electric team going?

Aus & NZ FB team list: https://www.facebook.com/lists/10201073788064567

We will be putting some more photos up tomorrow. This years aero package isn't too far off. The manufacturing is taking longer than we hoped, mainly due to just team member availability. What do you class as a practice enduro? Driving at 100% for 22km? Last track day one of our drivers did 26km.

Electric team is very close. The accumulator design has been a large undertaking as well as getting all the OH&S up to standard wrt the HV. The electric drivetrain is being installed into our 2013 car so the rolling car is done. The motor/driveline is mounted. The entire drivetrain is using off the shelf components with a single motor. The pedal box is done and the motor controller is doing its job. Our EV is about as simple as they get but has still taken ~12 months. We went quite heavy with the battery pack so endurance should be no troubles from an energy perspective.

The Monash car looks fairly different from the last 2 years. What are your largest changes? What was the motivation?

That facebook list is great, been following for a while.

UQ's approach of "good load paths" (= make things shorter and more direct) and "reduction of components" (= make it all SIMPLER) resulted in an instant 40 kg mass reduction!!! (Or -30 kg when they add their full aero package.)

And the build was much quicker and easier...

(Cannot help myself... just imagine an air-cooled single in the back. The overall chassis length, which is already a foot+ shorter than standard, could be another foot shorter. And <150 kg with "no major emphasis on weight reduction". Ahhh..., brown-go-kart... :))

As well as instantly dropping 40kg, this has been the quickest and easiest car to design/build I have ever been involved with. We changed chassis construction, engine, wheel size and suspension configuration. The cars longitudinal capability in both braking/accel had significantly increased. Lateral is equal to last year (mechanical limit, aero will hopefully sort this out).

We came so close to an XT600E or TE610 but it's really hard to move away from a 4cyl. They make high power easy, start easy, are bulletproof and very forgiving. Also with the weight distribution we are power limited for alot more of the track. The car coming out of a corner at >1G longitudinal is great to watch/hear.

ausracing

09-15-2015, 05:18 PM

09-15-2015, 08:28 PM

Is there a team with a beam axle and single cylinder?
Ryan,

Auckland's Design Overview (http://www.fsae.co.nz/index.php/news-mainmenu-44/1101-2015designoverview)

Z

Jay Lawrence

09-15-2015, 10:35 PM

I've always been an Auckland fan, and that ^ is looking better than ever :)

Mitchell

09-16-2015, 08:12 AM

Great, really excited to see your first aero design! Unsprung?
Yeah 100% over 22km without touching it. 26km is a lot of driver training!

Sounds like it is coming together! How long till UQ e is driving?
So is there ~7 electric teams this year? You guys, qut, uwa? , rmit, swinny, Kit, Tufast. Missing anyone?

This is our big ground up design year so plenty of changes, still waiting on flying so can't reveal everything yet. I will get back to that question later :)

Is there a team with a beam axle and single cylinder? Maybe ADFA back in 2010-2011?

Side note: How does UQ approach driver training? Same goes for ECU.

We will have a big announcement about UQ E42 in the next week or so (the good kind). I really hope QUT make it but with the complexity of their system (4 wheel hub motors, all custom controls) I will be surprised to see them driving at comp. We have a comparatively large team with excellent workshop access and even a simple EV has been a massive task. The EV rules alone are a headache when you jump into them with zero experience.

This is the first car in many (~10) years at UQ where there will be any serious driver training so we are still learning. Would love to hear how you guys approach it all. We have some talented guys in the car but working out how and where to focus our efforts is a challenge. Only one of our drivers has any previous fsae (autox/enduro) experience. This is the key reason the car was finished early - so we could learn to drive it properly.

Jay Lawrence

09-16-2015, 10:52 PM

Mitchell,

My advice on driver training:
Accel - plenty of drivers somehow manage to get this wrong. Just pick some team members who are dedicated but maybe not quick enough for the bigger events, and get them to do a bunch of accel runs back to back. This event should be just like a video game
Skidpad - this is trickier, but given how predictable it will be, you should be able to 'program' a couple of drivers for this. I would put my attention into this programming over trying to find the 'optimum' setup (as it will possibly be different to setups for other events). Obviously you need a rules legal skidpad area, and the driving itself should be about picking a steering angle and throttle input and keeping these constant. Basically you want to see a flat RPM trace and a static steer angle (i.e. minimal inputs).
Autocross and endurance - these are together because usually the autocross drivers do endurance as well. The main focus here should be seat time to grow comfortable with the car, and relevant driver data to look at includes braking force traces and steer angle/g-force traces (compare to theoretical ideal slip to see how close they are to maximum potential). The main thing I found when driving was how ridiculously good the braking was, and that can take a bit of time to get your head around.

Of course, the stopwatch is the primary resource.

So basically, for me, it comes down to seat time and good event specific focus (though the better drivers will be comfortable in all events).

09-17-2015, 09:10 PM

Mitchell,

Further to Jay's event-specific advice on driver training.

ACCELERATION - Main metric is the "launch time". So have a timing beacon about 3 - 5 metres after the start-line, and try to minimise this time. Many approaches the driver can take, but probably easiest is finding the best engine-rpm to dump the clutch. So, get right rpm on dash, release clutch, and simultaneously slam right foot down.

For the car set-up you should have large anti-squat, or some pro-lift, so MRH link-BJs up high (rear shocks should extend a bit during launch). The other big setting to experiment with is tyre-pressures, with possibly lowest being best.

Be prepared for faster times = more driveline failures!!!
~o0o~

SKID-PAD - More AERO! And tyre-pressures can again make a big difference. Three approaches the driver can take. They can "steer" the car with either the steering-wheel, right-pedal (acc.), or left-pedal (brake). Steering-wheel is the obvious one and normally has quick response, but here the front-tyres should be close to "saturated", so NO response, or an unusual response.

To steer with the accelerator pedal requires a throttle-linkage/engine-map that gives good engine-torque modulation at very lower power settings (around 5 hp?). Using the brake involves locking the steering-wheel and throttle at a fixed setting, then increasing front-wheel-Fx and reducing rear-wheel-Fx with the brake-pedal. Brake-pedal might be easiest to modulate in this event, although throttle modulation is very important elsewhere.

Anyway, this event is easiest to practice at length, and quite gentle on the car.
~o0o~

AUTOCROSS and ENDURO - Some "professional" help can be good here. If you can find some experienced race drivers to give you tips, or, better yet, drive the car and set their best times at a go-kart track, then that can be very useful. Otherwise, have a "standard lap" set up somewhere, and keep trying to lower the record. I would also spend a lot of time on a long "standard slalom", and keep trying to increase speed.

The huge gain here will come when you fit your AERO!!! (Mooore pleeeeease!!! :)). Fit wool tufts to underside of wings and make sure they stay "attached" (ie. blowing downwind, NOT flapping). Slot gaps are important here. Occasionally reduce, or remove, the aero, just to remind yourselves how good it is.
~o0o~

Any more tips from the those who have been there, done it???

Z

NathVanVugt

09-18-2015, 12:12 AM

Side note: How does UQ approach driver training? Same goes for ECU.

Would love to hear how you guys approach it all.

Feel free to tell us Ryan how Monash does it, we can tell you where we differ ;)

Adman

09-18-2015, 06:56 AM

All our potential drivers are all undergoing 15 week private training session... so even if our car breaks at comp again, at least we will all look like Chuck Norris! Except... pasty white. Because Tasmania.

We actually have a good selection of drivers, several with years of karting or racing experience. We just have to build a car to match it :)

Jonny Rochester

09-18-2015, 09:01 AM

To clarify, the UTAS "15 week private training session" has nothing directly related to driving. It is related to fitness and weight training in the gym only, and the instructor is not a driver and he is not training us in anything outside general fitness and strength. For every hour you spend in the gym, you spend another hour showering and standing around talking about it and thinking what to eat. When the same people could be building the car it is a time resource to be considered, especially if your car is not yet rolling.

Currently UTAS has a chassis and uprights, but no finished suspension parts so we are not rolling yet.

09-18-2015, 08:09 PM

Adam, Jonny,

You might want to check the Rules first, but there have been Grands Prix won in the past by a driver getting out of the car and pushing it over the finish line.

But driving is easier... :)

Z

ausracing

09-19-2015, 03:30 AM

I agree with Z and Jay. Below is me re-hashing what they said in my own way...

General:
- GoPro/on board camera is one of the easiest ways to improve. Having Alumni/other drivers look at your driving style and give pointers is really beneficial. Parts like braking points, positioning of car into slaloms, where to power on etc. Also watching other teams (GFR onboards with Phil Arscott are the best) can give you an idea how hard you can corner in these types of cars.
- Fitness is important. Whilst you don't need to be Michael Schumacher 2002 fit, if you want to be pulling high g's for 11km constantly without hitting cones or losing concentration then cardio, arm, shoulder, ab strength plus overall weight are the best to focus on. Especially when your suspension designer spends a month saving 200grams and then the driver decides to have a few pies before driving.
- Simulator time, whilst not close to the real thing, can teach your mind to remember tracks and lines better than waiting till testing or comp to drive. We use LFS (if you want old FSAE-A tracks shoot me a message) but Sofia from Japan use rFactor and can get track height and camber change in there. A wheel, monitor and laptop is what we use and our new drivers have shown heaps of improvement from it.
- Track design is dependent on what you have access to but we generally have two netball courts or a carpark of roughly the same size that we can use, along with Oakleigh go karts every now and then. For the netball courts it is a figure of 8 that goes 8m slalom into small hairpin, straight then lane change (4x4m) then into large hairpin sweeper. Each lap is about 12s which is really short but enables you to find the limits of the car on the track quickly and makes for easy setup changes. Oakleigh (which most of you have been at) is fantastic for driver training (gradient changes, higher speeds) as it is close to what comp will be.

Accel:
Launch, turn around, repeat. We had an auto clutch dump and auto shift for accel at last aus comp and while it may not be the quickest method it removes the inconsistency of what the driver can do. If you look at our times from last year they were all within a tenth of each other (disregard the earlier ones where it hadn't been rubbered in yet) compared to previous year where it was 0.2-0.3s difference.

Skidpad:
Test and test. It is hard to get consistent as the track at comp is always different to your testing site (Calder Park had quite a few bumps on it) but ensuring the drivers are in the butterzone of the cones is probably the fool proof way of doing it. We try to give feedback to the drivers after each session in terms of how close they are to the cones, how long it takes to get steady-state etc.

Autocross/Endurance:
From what we have found, time spent in the car is the best way. We have had professional racing drivers in our car in the past and whilst they were slightly quicker around hairpins and sweepers than our drivers they lost a lot of time through lane changes and slaloms.
This changes from team to team but as our members usually join in their second year and stay till they complete their degree, we have usually waited until they have been on the team for a full year before getting a shot to drive/prove themselves.
This year we had a shootout after the new team members had been on the team for 4 months. From their we share the responsibility around between all drivers. Have to find that balance between trusting new members with the car, ensuring they continue with the team and giving them time in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Onto another (slightly) different topic, Calder Park said they were resurfacing the track but from their facebook photos it looked like it was only the drag strip. Anyone with more information on it?

09-22-2015, 08:43 PM

MUR are rolling.

https://www.facebook.com/MURMotorsports/videos/vb.190213917683774/935657693139389/?type=2&theater

A reasonable ~77 days out. :)

Z

Mitchell

09-22-2015, 11:03 PM

UQ EV is also driving :)

NathVanVugt

09-26-2015, 11:10 PM

ECU-R 2015 is officially running.

Has been for a week or two now though ;)

09-27-2015, 08:40 PM

ADFA also up and running.

https://www.facebook.com/academyracing/videos/vb.160388080661392/1047439971956194/?type=2&theater

Z

GTS

10-01-2015, 04:49 AM

Any more tips from the those who have been there, done it???

A few -

More AERO!

Supported.

Fit wool tufts to underside of wings and make sure they stay "attached" (ie. blowing downwind, NOT flapping).

It's OK, and in many occasions preferable to run a wing in partial stall for maximum downforce. Think of an L/D vs AoA curve, the peak is in partial (but not full) stall.

Remember that qualitative methods are great - tufts and a camera are easy, oil and soot viz is even better IMHO (do you know how - can explain if not).

But quantitative data is better if you can manage it - if you've the means, run a pressure tap at least to the max suction point of the wing, a second to the max pressure point is gravy. Best to run both differential and to a common static reference - manifolded to a reference Pitot-static is ideal, you can make your own if you like, 'acquire' one from your aero lab or order through Dwyer (good quality and not expensive). Sensors... water, dye and a camera is remarkably accurate if done right, otherwise the high-response low-accuracy stuff works fine, is cheap, and can be had off Digikey with ease.

Same goes your underfloor. Front wings again. Normalise for speed and wind, record steer. There are novel ways you can record wind angle for not a lot of cash - normalise for speed, yaw and wind and you'll find your data to be considerably more consistent.

Develop an understanding of where your CoP is, where you set it to be, how it migrates. Crap CoP migration will compromise you faster than not having as much aero load as the next car. Try to log it! There's potential for ingenious approaches here. Once you can, try to tame it.

Aero development is a continuum. Remember that flaps etc are trim devices, not 'more downforce' devices. Hit testing with little bits of whatever and options to tame CoP migration and increase load in that order. 'Tame' does not necessarily mean 'reduce' (think about this).

Slot gaps are important here.

WE had a team last year rock up with slot gaps enough to have a three-element wing work as three wings - please know the difference, and experiment accordingly.

Occasionally reduce, or remove, the aero, just to remind yourselves how good it is.

Back to back is important. Come to comp with comparative G-G plots if you can, or some qualitative measure beyond a stopwatch.

Remember to do this across drivers. If your aero is good, new drivers should be able to sh*t themselves at how fast you need to go to generate aero load. Remember F proportionate to V^2 and all that.

See you all at end of year maybe. Good luck all.

10-22-2015, 09:27 PM

Auckland is nearly ready...

https://www.facebook.com/UoAfsae/photos/pcb.990953337591372/990953220924717/?type=3&theater

But less than 7 weeks to go now. Better start burning rubber soon, bros. :)

Tick ... tock ...

Z

11-10-2015, 08:03 PM

Only four weeks to go.

If not rolling yet, then PANIC NOW!!!

Tick-tick-tick...

Z

Jonny Rochester

11-12-2015, 01:56 AM

UTAS ...

Not rolling. Firewall and ARBs haven't been thought of yet, but everything else is sort of there.

However we do have a awesome new trailer, and all travel and shipping to the comp is booked.

Rory Hourihan

11-12-2015, 12:19 PM

Our car is in customs in Sydney, with tires and a battery on the way... focusing on presentation, cost, and design now.
... and building our new car haha.

Adman

11-19-2015, 06:03 AM

Menisk

11-19-2015, 10:17 PM

I would suggest that if you don't have ARBs yet, don't bother with them. Do you think they're going to make you any faster? Just run 4 corner springs and be done with it.

Adman

11-20-2015, 01:23 AM

Should be done by Monday if all goes smoothly, but you know... student designs and whatnot. Might be a few more days to make it work correctly.

Menisk

11-20-2015, 08:19 AM

You miss the point. If you're 20ish days away from competition, are you sure you want to be troubleshooting a system that's unlikely to make you any faster rather than troubleshoot all your essential systems and train your drivers?

Jay Lawrence

11-22-2015, 08:55 PM

+1

Forget ARBs and any non-essentials that will reduce the amount of track time you have

Kevin Hayward

11-23-2015, 08:16 AM

Adam,

If you end up making a few spare anti-roll bars bring them to comp. There will probably be a few quick teams who forgot to put one on their car.

Kev

11-23-2015, 05:58 PM

Methinks Adam's goal is to build a car that is to be looked at, and talked about, but not necessarily driven fast.

NOT what the hypothetical customer wants... :(

Z

11-23-2015, 06:20 PM

UNSW Redback Racing are rolling and have been out testing (see their facespace...).

But it looks like a few more all-nighters needed before their car is truly "ready to race".

Only a ~fortnight to go, less travel time...

Tick-tick-tick...

Z

Ahmad Rezq

11-24-2015, 10:59 AM

I'am waiting that December which there will be no school, no exams to visit FSAE Australia :(

Adman

11-25-2015, 12:44 AM

Methinks Adam's goal is to build a car that is to be looked at, and talked about, but not necessarily driven fast.

NOT what the hypothetical customer wants... :(

Z

mmmm a tad unfair. I said in a leader meeting not long ago I'm prepared to turn up to comp with no wings or ARB on the exact basis you have all stated. Our suspension lead (who's final year project was the design of the suspension system as a whole) was not keen to run the spring stiffness we have on the shocks without ARB. If he can get them made and tested for reliability in time then I'm all ears, otherwise happy to pretend they never made it past design.

Menisk

11-25-2015, 03:59 AM

mmmm a tad unfair. I said in a leader meeting not long ago I'm prepared to turn up to comp with no wings or ARB on the exact basis you have all stated. Our suspension lead (who's final year project was the design of the suspension system as a whole) was not keen to run the spring stiffness we have on the shocks without ARB. If he can get them made and tested for reliability in time then I'm all ears, otherwise happy to pretend they never made it past design.

The problem is that the day you spend testing ARBs to determine that they're not reliable is a day you could've spent tuning your car and training your drivers without them. Those days you come back from track with a broken car and covered in dirt and grease are not only disheartening but they also don't tend to make you faster. Every car will have a few of these days as you find the reliability issues, but if you're this close to comp and still aren't running, don't give yourself anymore of those than you need to.

Your best bet at this point is to go for a very basic setup without ARBs and maximise your useful drivetime. If like most SAE cars you're about 50/50 weight bias with the same tyres all round you can pretty much just eyeball an initial setup by choosing spring rates that give you an appropriate amount of roll/squat/dive and a slightly rearward LLTD (maybe about 55% or so). Your suspension guy should have a spreadsheet with these things in it, and if not it'll take you 15 minutes to make one. From there you may decide to go up or down a rate at one end of the car if you don't like the balance, but chances are it'll probably drive reasonably well. Start with the toe neutral and run enough camber to negate your camber compliance at max lateral. Then drive the wheels off it.

Adman

11-25-2015, 06:06 AM

The problem is that the day you spend testing ARBs to determine that they're not reliable is a day you could've spent tuning your car and training your drivers without them. Those days you come back from track with a broken car and covered in dirt and grease are not only disheartening but they also don't tend to make you faster. Every car will have a few of these days as you find the reliability issues, but if you're this close to comp and still aren't running, don't give yourself anymore of those than you need to.

Your best bet at this point is to go for a very basic setup without ARBs and maximise your useful drivetime. If like most SAE cars you're about 50/50 weight bias with the same tyres all round you can pretty much just eyeball an initial setup by choosing spring rates that give you an appropriate amount of roll/squat/dive and a slightly rearward LLTD (maybe about 55% or so). Your suspension guy should have a spreadsheet with these things in it, and if not it'll take you 15 minutes to make one. From there you may decide to go up or down a rate at one end of the car if you don't like the balance, but chances are it'll probably drive reasonably well. Start with the toe neutral and run enough camber to negate your camber compliance at max lateral. Then drive the wheels off it.

Fair call; I'll discuss this with him and see what his thoughts are. We are running finally but still lots of things to tick off so we pass all rules. It will still be a busy two weeks of testing, breaking, fixing. etc.

Off topic; both your cars (esp. IC) look fantastic this year. Very keen to come and have a look.

Menisk

11-25-2015, 06:33 AM

We are running finally but still lots of things to tick off so we pass all rules. It will still be a busy two weeks of testing, breaking, fixing. etc.

Fantastic to hear you're running now, and that definitely does sound like SAE. Hopefully you manage to have a year with less braking and more tuning. Our 2014 car did it's best to destroy our spirits. Our best track day involved the steering wheel being torn off twice, the steering shaft being put back together with bolts. (We tracked down a random drill press in a shed at track), and a replacement firewall made from a piece of our trailer. At comp we cut through the ignition power lines with our firewall over the course of AutoX and Enduro 1 and finished Enduro 2 on a broken steering rack. Fixed our rack for driver swap only to have me debead a tyre shaking it down followed by 2 laps with Drew from Monash that finished when the roll bar end clevis broke leaving our car fully tilted in one direction.

We learned heaps about mode separated suspension, but f*** that car.

Kevin Hayward

11-25-2015, 05:20 PM

Menisk,

Shame to hear about the problems with your 2014 car. I really liked what you guys did there, but it is a very important lesson that implementation is more important than concept for nearly all teams. It is only at the very pointy end that it becomes a mix of concept and implementation that matters. Anyone with even a rough points sim will be able to see that the points difference between teams at comps cannot be explained by conceptual differences.

One look at a cars wiring/welding/detail work and you can pretty quickly tell whether you are going to worry about it being competitive or not (or even finish all events).

The default design in FSAE should be one that is easy to build. Probably one that would be very similar to Z's brown go-kart concept.

Kev

Adman

11-25-2015, 06:27 PM

Fantastic to hear you're running now, and that definitely does sound like SAE. Hopefully you manage to have a year with less braking and more tuning. Our 2014 car did it's best to destroy our spirits. Our best track day involved the steering wheel being torn off twice, the steering shaft being put back together with bolts. (We tracked down a random drill press in a shed at track), and a replacement firewall made from a piece of our trailer. At comp we cut through the ignition power lines with our firewall over the course of AutoX and Enduro 1 and finished Enduro 2 on a broken steering rack. Fixed our rack for driver swap only to have me debead a tyre shaking it down followed by 2 laps with Drew from Monash that finished when the roll bar end clevis broke leaving our car fully tilted in one direction.

We learned heaps about mode separated suspension, but f*** that car.

That's pretty rough. I would like to believe that we have over engineered our car on the premise of reliability and ensuring we finish events (we will probably weigh close to 270kg without driver) but I'm sure we will break things along the way. 2016 will definitely be a year of refinement and tuning however. The last 2 years have been very scrappy (i.e. car running only weeks before comp).

Menisk

11-26-2015, 04:29 AM

The default design in FSAE should be one that is easy to build. Probably one that would be very similar to Z's brown go-kart concept.
Kev

That was the basic premise behind this years car. Build something with minimum complexity that will be on track as early as possible and with the least headaches. We've had significantly easier time this year as a result and our drivers have had far more seat time. We were hoping to put about 1500km on a car before we got to comp this year but the reality of uni assessment and availability of testing space is probably going to limit that to about 700-800. Still incredible for our team compared to previous years.

mech5496

11-26-2015, 06:31 AM

Just looked at Monash unveiling. Car looks so interesting, with many many intriguing details all around. Eager to see how it goes. ECU and UQ look great too! I am so eager about this comp, it is awesome how "out of the box" thinking is now a thing on Australia, hope to see similar ethos on European competitions sooner or later.

iranashakti

11-30-2015, 02:04 AM

Hi Everyone
This is Shakti Rana from India, member of Team IIT Roorkee Motorsports.
We have also registered for the event with our first electric vehicle. Fabrication and testing is already done.
But we are facing a grave problem in shipping of our car from New Delhi to Melbourne. Because of the current airlines norms, no airlines is willing to ship our car with Li-ion batteries.
So the main problem is we are unable to ship our Li-ion batteries.
So currently we are looking for Winston Li-ion cells of 90 Amp Hour and Dimension comparable to 143x61x218 mm in Australia

Please suggest us any team which has used the Winston cell in past competitions.
It is a request to all the members on the forums please reply as soon as possible, As we are working on this project since last one and half year.

We are currently using these cells
http://en.winston-battery.com/index.php/products/power-battery/item/wb-lyp90aha?category_id=176

Thanks in Advance

Mitchell

11-30-2015, 04:50 PM

You have been working on this project for 18 months and start looking for international shipping 2 weeks out?

Mitchell

12-01-2015, 05:23 AM

Dear Mitchell,

You have received an infraction at FSAE.com Forums.

Reason: Inappropriate Language
-------
Mitchell,

You cannot call forum members liars!

What Claude Rouelle has posted regarding weights is correct! When we see what teams achieve in other competitions, you might be amazed, Australia having become a backwater in FSAE/FS !

Multiple cars with unconventional suspension such as beam axles and mode separation, a custom engine, some of the best aero packages in the world and nearly a third of the field ranked in the top 50 internationally.... backwater indeed. Thanks for giving me your opinion of the Australian competition. Please come visit us sometime and see if we can change your mind.

ausracing

12-01-2015, 05:33 AM

I would say given the experience we have had with customs, that if you send your car today it will still take 3-4 weeks to clear customs. I don't know about packages from India but I will assume that might be the case. I have passed the details onto our team (though we can only google since IC).
Check what you can on customs but be nothing worse than having to sit through comp with a car stuck at the docks.

In other news, we were out testing with Melb Uni at Oakleigh today and Canterbury have arrived and unpacked at our workshop, their car is a thing of beauty.
From what I have seen so far on Facebook /twitter, a number of teams are yet to launch their car (Auckland, Cant, ECU, UQ, Monash, RMIT, Swinny, Mizzou, Waikato, have all launched, RMITe on wed, Melb on Thurs). Add in your date if you're team is soon!

P^squared

12-01-2015, 05:48 AM

Anything from UWA ??

Mitchell

12-01-2015, 06:19 AM

I saw the Griffith car for the first time tonight. It is an exceptional effort for a first year car with minimal university support and a very small team. Going to impress some people!

Kevin Hayward

12-01-2015, 06:33 AM

I would like to know what car Claude was talking about as well. Like you Mitchell, I am fairly on top of what is getting made and I haven't heard of any first year team pulling off the specs mentioned in his post. It shouldn't be hard to name the team, and I am sure if it is a true story then we would all benefit from learning more about what they did.

There was a few years when the Australian comp languished with some of the world's best teams (UWA, RMIT, Woolongong) on a downturn. However in recent years the level has lifted. Hopefully one day we will once again see multiple Australian teams competing to be the best in the world.

At the big comps there are generally only about 10% of cars that are very competitive (if that). Transferred to a competition the size of Australia that would only be about 3 teams at that high quality. I think that is now the case with a few more teams also improving markedly in the last few years. Picking out one of the minnow teams in the competition and holding them up as the standard in this country is about as misleading as using GFR as an example as the norm in the larger competitions.

...

All that being said I welcome any team to come down to Australia. Try and beat Monash in their backyard. I think that is one of the hardest challenges in Formula today.

Kev

mech5496

12-01-2015, 07:20 AM

To back up what is going on "down under", when we discuss about cool unconventional solutions, we call them "Australian". Seriously, if I could pick any competition worldwide, that would be this one. Not only in terms of people doing things differently, but because of close competition and the whole atmosphere (including the drivers' swap) that IMO embraces the FSAE spirit perfectly. Back to topic...

Swiftus

12-01-2015, 11:17 AM

The only thing I truly dislike about the Australian competition is that it happens to take place 9000 miles from North America AND Europe. I would be SO down to go and compete if the transportation weren't so prohibitively expensive. But! The livestream is always very entertaining and the scope of cars seen at the comp is really interesting.

Rory Hourihan

12-01-2015, 01:03 PM

Our car has been launched.. just not in Australia. We leave Thursday/Friday and will be opening the crate Sunday night with re-assemble/shake down on Monday/Tuesday. Our car is safely waiting for us at Swinburne and our tires just arrived today as well! I am excited to see all of the 'unconventional' designs in person. The car took a little under 1 month to get the Australia from crating/airfreight/customs clearance.. along with a couple months of planning... and was quite expensive as well. So I agree with you there Jay. We are just looking to get our feet wet with international travel and have some history traveling in Australia. We're looking to expand those opportunities in the future though. One opportunity other teams may try.. we've managed to organize the travel as a 'study abroad' trip and we plan to produce some documentation of the process and how the results of the class work. For anyone interested, I'll be posting about it sometime in the coming months.

As far as batteries go.. we also learned that airlines don't like them very much and had to have one separately shipped, luckily our car is IC so if we need to find one in a hurry there it wont be an issue.

Pat Clarke

12-02-2015, 12:17 AM

Multiple cars with unconventional suspension such as beam axles and mode separation, a custom engine, some of the best aero packages in the world and nearly a third of the field ranked in the top 50 internationally.... backwater indeed. Thanks for giving me your opinion of the Australian competition. Please come visit us sometime and see if we can change your mind.

Mitchell, I was not talking about the cars! The Australian cars are as good as in the rest of the world! That has been the case since 2002.

Check your sources regarding my knowledge of the FSAE/FS events.

You might not know it, But I have been a close friend to the UQ team, even organising for the team to ship their car to Germany at no cost to the team (where they performed admirably, wining the trophy for best dynamic performance).

No, I repeat, the Australian event has become a backwater of FSAE/FS world wide. In years gone by, Australia had visiting high profile Judges, Tech people and world leading teams. Australia was part of the world FSAE family. The event was actively promoted overseas and known as 'The best little competition in the world'. That is no longer the case.

Pat Clarke

Jonny Rochester

12-02-2015, 05:06 AM

UTAS are rolling and driving.

mech5496

12-03-2015, 03:02 AM

That's good news! Saw a pick earlier on FB, car looks sharp.

Ahmad Rezq

12-03-2015, 04:17 AM

Jonny,
Very Great.

Ahmad Rezq

12-03-2015, 04:43 AM

mech5496

12-03-2015, 05:53 AM

Ahmad, I do not think that the Monash suspension is more complex; it is a different concept, hard to grasp but in terms of parts it might as well be cheaper than most FSAE suspension systems. I just saw MUR rolled out, looks nice!

Mitchell

12-03-2015, 05:58 AM

I'am really interested to read opinions about Monash 2015 car Especially from you Erik
They are totally different than the previous years
- Different suspension than they used to build IMO more complex.
- Aluminum removable Rear Bulkhead.
- R&P with bevel gears steering box.
- Pneumatic paddle shifter.
- Carbon fiber wheels.
- 3D printed Titanium uprights and Hubs.
And More

I think Monash used to perform very well and didn't leave its position as one of the most important competitors in the previous years with simpler and cheaper solutions :(

Everything except the suspension and wheels is similar to previous years. I would actually argue that this car is simpler in many ways. I cannot wait to have a good look at it, they build exceptional cars.

I personally don't believe the mode separated suspension is any more complex than multiple ARBS and corner springs. It is significantly more intuitive to use/tune/understand once you have it sitting in front of you. Additionally once you have interacted with a system such as theirs it becomes quite astounding that they are not common in production cars.

12-03-2015, 07:24 PM

Ahmad,

It seems to me that Monash have an unfortunate problem that often comes with too much success.

Thanks to their last six straight wins in Oz, and considerable success overseas, they have a very large intake of FSAE students each year. I think about 60 students each year lately. So with lots of keen and bright young students wanting to make their mark, there is a lot of stuff that must get designed and built each year. Fortunately their supervisor Scott Wordley makes sure that only the very thoroughly tested stuff eventually makes it onto the car.
~o0o~

"They are totally different than the previous years"

Not that different. Still a spaceframe with single-cylinder turboed engine and 10" tyres.
~o0o~

"- Different suspension than they used to build IMO more complex."

This suspension has been brewing at Monash for several years now. It is a "fully-interconnected/modally-separated" system, which I will describe more fully later.

I restress my opinion that suspension performance is not a huge factor to winning FSAE (...cars with NO suspension motion have won comps before!). But it can make a difference, especially when the other cars have aero that is as good as, or better (?!), than yours. And with 60 students all keen to develop something new, it is a good place to explore.

I note that it is normal in all such developmental programs to start with a system that is much more complicated than necessary. This is to allow as many as possible of the different options/variations to be explored. Who knows, maybe in a few more years Monash might be running a much simpler system, maybe like UWA's "diamond-sprung/twin-chassis" from several years ago? (And who knows what is happening on that side of the island???)
~o0o~

"- Pneumatic paddle shifter."

This has been in use for a few years now, but with a back-up mechanical linkage. I guess if by now they have thoroughly ground out any glitches in the pneumatic system, then they can toss the mechanical back-up.

Note the big difference between a big Team like Monash gradually introducing such a system over several years, and a small newbie Team trying to develop a pnematic-shifter in their first year. As was chiselled into the wall of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, three thousand years ago,

"KNOW THYSELF"!

(Or, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, "A Team's gotta know its limitations!")
~o0o~

"- 3D printed Titanium uprights and Hubs."

I think these were almost forced onto the team from the CSIRO, the Australian government Research Organisation, as a way of advertising their 3-D printing capability. This is one of the hassles of being a really successful team! Nevertheless, I am sure the team have thoroughly tested these to make sure they are no worse than the more conventional solutions. (And, BTW, I think they also have a similarly 3-D printed titanium turbine housing to replace their old steel turbo...).
~o0o~

I repeat that I reckon the three key ingredients of a winning FS/FSAE car are;
1. KEEP IT SIMPLE - to ensure reliability.
2. MAKE IT SMALL - because simple+small = less to build, less cost, lighter weight, and finished earlier, so more testing time.
3. FIT MASSIVE AERO-UNDERTRAY - to glue the (simple+small = lightweight!) car to the road through all those corners.

(Auckland, so close! But ... why so small an undertray!? Please, THREE square metres plan-view-area next time! :))

But if Monash followed the above recipe, then 40+ students would be sitting on their hands ... doing nothing!

Z

(PS1. Corrections from Monash welcome, in case any slanderous nonsense above.

PS2. A bigger write-up on all the Teams coming in one week. At the moment I have Monash as favourite for outright win, but it is looking oh-so-close this year!)

Kevin Hayward

12-03-2015, 09:47 PM

I would agree that Monash are likely heading for yet another victory seeing the car they produced.

However it looks like the most confusing concept I have seen them produce.

Monash have had a history of focusing on return on investment in both money and time, making their cars probably the best bang-for-buck in the competition and embarrassing some teams with cars that cost 3-5 times as much. They have been known to forego extreme build quality where it wasn't necessary and focus on the areas of the car that deliver the most performance. On paper they should have been beaten a few times, but their execution and vehicle development has always been as good as anyone.

This car seems to be a departure from that philosophy on a few fronts.

The two main advantages of the interconnected system are reduced load variation and Aerodynamic platform control. With UWA they went all the way for reduced load variation and doubled down with massive reductions in COG and reduced weight. This ended up with UWA out-cornering all aero cars at the time. However the Monash car doesn't look to have a particularly low weight or low COG, which lends more toward the system being more useful for platform control. That is fine, but the car already has unsprung aero, so it looks like for all the development of the system it probably wont add too much that they weren't already getting. It will almost certainly be better, but probably not the ideal return on investment.

Also this is one of the rare cars that have composite wheels, but a spaceframe chassis. If you begin to fool around with Carbon the chassis tends to be a better place to save weight while improving packaging at a very low risk. It is pretty normal for teams to go carbon chassis first then maybe carbon wheels/suspension.

The 3d printed parts and the wheels also look a little out of place on a car that has what looks like more obvious places to save weight, for much less cost and time.

...

Don't get me wrong, all of these advancements will almost certainly make the car lighter, faster and with higher grip (something everyone in Australia probably doesn't want to see). But it looks like they have not gone after the low hanging fruit. From where they were last year and knowing what they were working on I would have thought they would have done something like:

Weight reduction and COG reduction:
- Carbon tub, with a focus on lowering components (maybe folded to keep construction effort down)
- 3d printed uprights (only because I was aware they were going this way)

Powertrain
- Bigger single
- More tuning
- Lower Engine (They have done this really well)
- Drop mechanical shifter (they do a lot of shifts per lap - Obviously have done this)

Suspension/Aero
- Adapt to new rules
- Interconnected system replacing unsprung aero

...

I would love to see the car, and I am probably off on my analysis, hence my initial statement of being confused by this concept. The Monash approach has always been very top-level design decision driven, and hence very easy to see what they were going for. However, there is also a decent chance that a lot of these systems are being trialed for the future, and the full concept direction hasn't been realised with this car.

It is a bit of a change of normalcy for the Australian comp. When Monash began its rise both UWA and RMIT had fallen, almost certainly to over-stretching their abilities with too many unique systems and fine/expensive design. Monash was a breath of fresh air with a car that was quite rough in comparison, but was fast, with a team incredibly well managed. Now we are seeing a number of Australasian teams simplifying their cars (UQ, Auckland) and Monash developing new systems. From what I have seen I don't think Monash is at risk of a similar fall from top-level performance.

On the other hand I see UQ probably developing into a new powerhouse of the competition. A team who seems to be embracing simplicity, good team management, innovative design and thorough development.

Kev

p.s. I hope someone from Monash posts to rip apart my initial analysis as I am intrigued by what looks like a new path from them.

Scott Monash

12-04-2015, 01:51 AM

Hi guys,

Thanks for the kind words guys, we appreciate your comments and analysis.

Its very interesting seeing how people have interpreted this year's car from outside the team.

The one observation that really rang true in there for me was from Z...

"KNOW THYSELF"!

I couldn't agree with him more.

You do need to be very realistic about your limitations, and part of that is accepting that your limitations will change every year.
If we had the same limitations now as we did back in 2005 when we started this push, then we wouldn't have done a very good job would we?
We are a much different team than we were then, yes with more people and more access to resources.
We have worked VERY hard to obtain both of these and then hold onto them long term.
We would encourage other teams to do the same, for those playing the long game that's part of the competition.
I realise Z has his tongue firmly in cheek, but I can reassure everyone that we have a large intake because we work to promote our program and attract the best students and then utilise them to the fullest and then some. Why wouldn't you?

To not take full advantage of those resources to develop the best car we can would be criminal.
Maintaining execution and reliability while still allowing innovation and evolution is the challenge.
We have seen many teams over extend and pay the price in the past.
We know our history and we don't want to be that team, ever.
We are quite conservative, and the work that goes into a car is not always evident from the current car itself.
We are working hard to evolve our concept and respond to changing rules while maintaining a high level of execution and concept utilisation.

Wings have been dramatically reduced this year, removing or reducing a key performance advantage we have had for many years.
We have worked hard to develop the best aero package we could, but understood that we would no longer have significantly more downforce than any of our competitors.

We looked for a new angle, and thought back through the history of FSAE....

Cornering performance is always going to be critical.
If the aero playing field is levelled then this competition becomes one that will be decided (conceptually) by mechanical grip, resources and execution being equal which we know it never is.

The teams that can maximise mechanical grip, particularly on bumpy tracks like Aus and Germany will have a significant advantage going forward.
That's why we have invested 2 years of research and some of our best students to develop our hydro system.
What decided this for us was myself and a few other team members driving the UWA 2011 car a couple of years back.
Like Kev says that suspension system was more beneficial than the significant aero of the time.
It was a revelation.

Kev you have our priorities a little backwards, as you will notice when you see the car and the plumbing diagram for the hydro.
Our priority is low load variation in cornering and over uneven tracks, via high independent roll stiffness but low warp stiffness and single wheel bump.
Platform control is less important with our unsprung front wing, hence pitch and heave is controlled by conventional monospring shocks at the front and rear. I think the UWA system did this hydraulically also, but we simplified it.

Also note that we designed this car to allow both hydro and conventional suspension to be run, and we have tested extensively with both.

We also tested the 10" Avons and found we didn't like their performance (like most teams).
I also visited GFR in the states mid year and checked out their cars, and tried to understand how such a simple concept could be so fast.
They don't even use a diff these days, and from memory didn't get around to making their roll bars for Europe?
Oh well, they still wiped the floor with almost everyone :)
They may know how to get a simple car like that to perform at that level but we don't as yet, and we have built many such cars.
You play to your strengths so if we need to get a little more complex to compete, so be it.

Light weight is also important.
You take every bit you can get, as soon as you are confident you can get it without compromising reliability or testing time.
Hence the new carbon wheel shells and the new carbon tub that is in development.
We cannot afford high temp tooling carbon for moulds and so have been forced to develop cheaper methods and also make use of a small autoclave. The current chassis is interchangeable with the coming tub to give us the testing and redundancy we insist on.
And with both suspension systems. I don't envy the guys that figured out how to do this.
The wings are all new and much lighter, and much smaller.
With the titanium printed stuff we went and chased that sponsorship and have developed a good partnership with CSIRO.
Its faster, cheaper, stronger and lighter than anything else we could make. Why wouldn't we use it?
I don't have a number at hand but I am pretty sure this is our lightest car ever by some margin (for those who care about such things).
Also our lowest CoG height car ever, due to less wings, low mount turbo, lower nose etc.
What's MUCH more important is that it is our fastest car yet.

Power is also important.
We have gone to the bigger engine this year and completely repackaged the turbo down low, for low CG.
The new engine allowed us to get rid of our external alternator saving a lot of weight (5kg?).
We developed a fuel accumulator to save more power by running the fuel pump less.
We insist on positive charging on our cars for reliability and restart.
Its our most powerful single ever with 51 kW now (improved since video was shot).
Mechanical shift is now gone as we have some confidence with the pneumatics now.

So that's a little bit about the philosophy behind this years car.
I can see why it might be a little confusing at first look, but it is still consistent with our ethos.

As always we are not trying to produce a car that is singularly light, or powerful, or high DF or low CG.

We have produced the fastest car we possibly can within the constraints of time, resources and expertise, just like we have for the last 10 years.

I'm really proud of the job the team have done.

Its going to be a really close and hard fought comp this year, and we cant wait to see everyone at Calder!
And the camp ground!

Scott

Kevin Hayward

12-04-2015, 03:00 AM

Scott,

Thanks for the increased insight. From what I can understand your increased focus on mechanical grip should see a few more changes over the next few years that will continually move the car away from what we have traditionally seen from you. It definitely looks like it will be your fastest car so far, I was just curious more about the order of doing things and how the systems have been made to work together. I am very interested to see the detail. As I mentioned I don't think that you guys are heading down the rabbit hole of over-complexity.

The UWA system used mechanical 3rd springs as your system does, no hydraulics for that part. Stiffening these up does allow for reducing pitch/heave and achieving some of what your unsprung aero does for attitude and height control. Not as good as unsprung aero, but I would think most of the way there. I think your implementation is going for the same goals as the UWA hydraulic cars with what looks like similar plumbing. Sizing is different, which is what I am mainly interested in going over. I think back in 2004/5 if we had put a Monash aero package on a UWA car then nothing would have come close for years.

GFR is definitely the benchmark at the moment. It looks like you guys have made a big step over your past car in terms of potential performance, and I am sure you have an end goal of this path and how it will end up being superior to GFR. One thing I have learnt about competing against you guys is that you wont settle for anything less than being the best in the world.

I agree with you that the speed GFR shows implies that they are dealing with the vehicle dynamics much better than everyone else at the moment. I also think we are heading into an era of the most simple car winning, but I guess we will see whether that starts to play out or not.

...

I understand that in the post big-wing era that you guys needed to adapt to stay at the top. In the video your team produced the team member claimed that you have the same downforce this year as last year though. Given the big changes to the rules this year that is a scary thought. The ECU guys managed to get the same as last year, but had to add surfaces, and move a few things around to do it (and we didn't match your numbers last year). Increased mechanical grip and the same downforce from Monash is not something that I want to hear about right now :)

Look forward to catching up in a few days.

Kev

ausracing

12-04-2015, 05:21 AM

I will try and make this structured as possible given the posts and points made. Just expanding from what Wordley has said/student perspective.

Team Development
Upper management know where the team will be in 3 years time and hopefully this foresight will continue as the years roll on. A lot of it comes down to our vision: to be the most respected FSAE team in the world.
Most of our final year projects/designs don't end up being on the current car but are developmental projects that future teams can use/implement - much like ECU's custom engine.
For example, my FYP was based around aero design tools and processes rather than the design of the actual 2015 aero package. Therefore future aero designers can use better CFD models, new wind tunnel rig, pressure tapped wings etc.
We try and enforce a culture that cares about the future team as much as the current team, whilst respecting what has been achieved and what has failed in the past. We are lucky compared to some universities that the university allows students to join FSAE early on and stay for 3-4 years.
Hydro - the interconnected suspension system - is one of these developments. Drew, our M13 chief, drove UWA 2011 car at FSAE-west hosted by ECU in 2012. Given the feedback and experience from that, he completed the research on the system and made a system that was interchangeable with our direct acting on M14 so the 2015 team could test with it. We then had another member, Alan, who followed on with this to develop the system you will see on M15.
We use Google Sites to document all stages of design and how the part performs (along with finances/sponsorship/management etc) to ensures that future members can research previous designs and failures.
A lot of systems on the car need more work (especially the 'low hanging fruit') but from what I have seen from our new members they will ensure that this happens and to a high level.

Team History/Function
In the past, we have put most of finances into travelling to Europe and composite parts such as wings (better dollar per point than monocoque). Our cars are heavy. But 10 years ago when the team tried a monocoque the car didn't even drive at comp (classic delamination). The team had never finished an endurance before that and was another point for which the uni to threaten to pull funding if we couldn't complete the competition/prove it was worth the uni's money. From there, the team focused on building a reliable car and allowing plenty of time for testing - which reduces your design and manufacture period. This produced completed endurances, enabled the team to iterate on a reliable design whilst improving team culture/management. This snowballed after 2010 where the team travelled to the UK and were third quickest in autox (despite being 'heavy' and with wings that make too much drag :P http://www.racecar-engineering.com/blogs/wings-and-things/) and then produced M11, the single-cylinder big-wing car that was driving by August and tested through till comp in December (also travelled to Europe, that car did nearly 2000km of driving...).
Since then, the team has worked on the ability to compete at Aus Comp during the first year of the FSAE rules (M15), travel with a updated car to Europe the next year (M15-R) and then drive with a further developed car at Aus-Comp (M16). Given our resources/time/money, this is the best method for our team.

Carbon Wheels/Monocoque
This has been down to the carbon we were fortunate enough to be sponsored. The pre-preg carbon we have has to be cured at 180 degrees, hence we are having a lot of issues with moulds. Also the development time for carbon wheels was quicker than the 'coque and our auto claves can fit wheel sized moulds but not coque moulds. We have designed this year's car with the intent to transfer parts onto a 'coque before Europe next year (not enough testing was going to be completed before design period ended). Sophia showed that whilst the first coque is heavy, further understanding leads to lighter designs (they have a picture on FB of their weight progression).
Ensuring the data and testing is proven is essential to a reliable car, hence we are still looking at different coque methods (folded, 3/4 etc)

Unsprung Aero
Probably worth another thread, but the biggest benefit is consistent aero balance. Our undertray is connected to the chassis so not all aero loads are unsprung.
Aero is one of the key things that we focus on with knowledge transfer and team development - there is so much that hasn't been explored that even if the current rule set stayed the same for the next 5 years we would still find things to improve on...

Hydro
As above, developed and tested on a previous car and then new system designed for M15. Again, another thread is worth for mode-separated suspension given UQ/UWA/our designs.
Werribee, the old comp site, had a crested road and would have been excellent for mode-separated suspension, FSG/Calder Park are quite bumpy which

Shifter
Whilst pneumatic systems are known to be annoyingly unreliable, we know the system back-to-front and know how to maintain it to ensure that it doesn't fail. Our mechanical 'safety' system, back when we also used the air for DRS and shifting, weighed 500g. For something that hadn't been done by the team before and therefore unknown reliability, it was a easy decision to put on the car. Removing the system once we figured it out enabled other parts (engine/exhaust) to be repositioned (lower mass/cg). This is a good example of knowledge transfer/continual improvement/reliability.

3D Printed Ti
Ensuring good industry engagement is a great way for the team to improve its reputation and knowledge base. CSIRO and Monash Uni have a lot of shared research (also based across the road from us) and discussions about electron beam 3D Ti printing came through connections. Whilst there is ways to get lighter/stiffer/simpler designs, this method has been an amazing experience for team members who go into industry having experience that some people in industry haven't heard of. FSAE shouldn't be limited to automotive engineers/motorsport and additive manufacturing is an industry the Victorian/Aus government is supporting (given the decline of the aussie automotive industry), so having engineers graduating having experienced the technology is a win-win for both parties. We also saved some weight in the process ;)

Summary
Kev and Z were pretty much correct in their observations. A number of things to work on but we are always developing, always planning for the future. No car will be perfect, depends too highly on balance between current team and future teams.
FSAE applies differently to each team (size/cost/time/resources). I believe the FSAE experience we have for us is the best - for our team. It wouldn't work for every team. Having an academic advisor around to remind everyone on the past and the future enables our method to operate successfully.
Ensuring team members can complete uni at a high level, work part-time jobs, go on exchange, etc means that the work is shared around and parts won't always be the lightest/stiffest parts in FSAE. But the drive so that one day in the future the team achieve this is there.

PS
We are excited (and worried) about the speed of other teams. ECU came close last year - with a cheaper/lighter/more powerful car - and had it not been for our very-experienced drivers (Drew and Chris) it could have been a different story...
UQ is going to be a powerhouse. Having two cars under one roof (and actually getting them both running at the same time), experience with aero-beam, great management (from what we see on the outside), testing early, ECU-esc concept (folded-coque beam-axle 600cc).
The level at which Canterbury is evolving is nothing short of outstanding. After joining in 2013, they have turned up this year with a monocoque/wings/turbo single/pneumatic shifter that has been driving for the past 4 months.

UTS, Newcastle (NU), Melbourne (MUR), RMIT-e, Sydney, UNSW Redback have all launched their cars.
UWA are still quiet, they posted this last year http://www.motorsport.uwa.edu.au:8090/display/UWAM/2014/10/19/UWAM+Express+October+2014

M15 has completed a comp-spec endurance (though at colder temperatures then expected at comp) and is pretty awesome (compared to M14) through slaloms and high speed lane changes. But there is quite a few reliability issues that we are still working day and night to fix before comp.

For those who want to follow aus comp:
SAE-A are a part of 'Team App', download it/sign up/search for Formula SAE/request to join. Should have live updates and timing as well as a number of other features.
This link has all the team's FB pages https://www.facebook.com/lists/10201073788064567 - I will do the same at some point with Twitter but that isn't as big/used down here.
InPitLane will be live streaming it again.
If Z does his summary of teams like previous years they are always a great read.

Kevin Hayward

12-04-2015, 05:31 AM

Ryan,

Great Post! Thanks for sharing.

Kev

mech5496

12-04-2015, 10:41 AM

Ryan, thanks for the insight. Speaking of, the last update I had from UWA (through their FB page) is that they were cutting foam wing profiles at beginning of September. It is a pity that they are not in their former glory, I believe that their "diamond" car concept had some great potential.

Pete Marsh

12-04-2015, 07:12 PM

UWA is going to the comp, but is in struggle town.

It would be great if anyone at the comp that is finding success within a Uni that is not really interested could stop by and have a chat.

Pete

Mitchell

12-05-2015, 03:17 AM

UWA is going to the comp, but is in struggle town.

It would be great if anyone at the comp that is finding success within a Uni that is not really interested could stop by and have a chat.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Just curious as to what the UWA definition of "not really interested" is?

5 or 6 guys from Griffith built a car this year with essentially nothing from their uni but a shipping container. I think the uni may have paid comp entry fee. Their engine was $200 off gumtree and their bodywork is core flute attached to the spaceframe with clips that are used to clip brooms to walls. Every machined component was done by a team member in his spare time at work. Most of the guys on the team work full time. They have received components and material from us (UQ), QUT and Monash (maybe other unis too).

Anything can be done, you just have to align build expectations with available support.

Mitchell

Pete Marsh

12-05-2015, 08:51 AM

Hi Mitchell,
There are sufficient material resources to produce a reasonably good car, and 5 or 6 good guys that could do that if that is what they spent their time on. IMO it is not a build expectation issue.

This thread is not the place for this discussion, but I'd like to say your team's performance is very impressive. I'm sure a couple of our senior guys would be keen for a chat if you have the time.

Pete

GTS

12-09-2015, 05:50 AM

...as I sit with a fellow judge reviewing your Design videos, it would help if those of you recording these on your phones took care to rotate the video prior to uploading, or at least giving it a run-through to check that it appears as you'd like it to.

AKA Mitchell, you're an imposing man on a 60" plasma through 90 degrees, and you're giving a few of us a sore neck! :)

Good luck this weekend all.

Swiftus

12-10-2015, 03:09 AM

Tech inspection has started! Woo!

Link to FSAE-A Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SAEAustralasia/?fref=nf) and In Pit Lane Livestreams (http://inpitlane.com/archives/16231).

Pennyman

12-10-2015, 06:33 PM

I just read on the Monash FB page that they went into design judging before weigh-in? Isn't this frowned upon? Vehicle weight is critical for the judges. Was this just a typo?

12-11-2015, 02:14 AM

FRIDAY NIGHT UPDATE - DAY 1 - SCRUTINEERING & STATICS.
================================================== ==
Well, once again the first blow-flies, brown-snakes, and bush-fires of the antipodean summer have convincing your faithful correspondent to head South. Ten hours in the saddle, no air-con, and 35+ degrees outside the car, just shy of the ton in the old money. But probably ten degrees hotter in the glasshouse, and higher humidity than a Turkish sauna. Ah..., summertime!

But at last your scribe stands in the Melbournian Mecca of International Motorsport - [... drum roll ...] - the "Calder Park THUNDERDOME"! And just like last year the parking area is again in full bloom with every species of weed known to mankind. The now quite cold winds (~20 C and drizzly today) are again blowing the empty crisp packets and old newspapers around the dusty forecourts. There is some new graffiti here and there, conveniently covering the decaying concrete of the grandstands. And, as always, there is that delicious aroma of re-fried cholesterol wafting over from that building with the fading sign that may have once, long ago, read "Food". Oh yes, this is a real racetrack! :)

And once again there will be maybe two million dollars worth of machinery assembled here (not including labour costs!). And maybe five hundred eager students, all aching with anticipation. Ah, the vibe!

Many questions to be answered over the next three days:

* Who will sail through Scrutineering, and who will still be here on Sunday trying to fit a quart into a pint-jar (ie. get that damned footbox-template to sqeeze into their very slightly undersize tub (you know who you are...))?
(Stop press: All the usual problems so far, including many Teams looking for muffler-pack.)

* How many wheels will come adrift during brake-test?
(Stop press: Have not seen any yet, but it was on the other side of a hill.)

* How will the "Coal-Fired, Steam-Engined, Poison-in-a-Bottle" Teams react to this old caveman's suggestions that they are stuck 150 years in the past, rather than "advancing into the future" as per their delusions?
(Stop press: The Swinians were swarming like a well-poked wasp-nest last year, so, along with that re-fried cholestrol, there is also the distinct smell of a lynching in the air!)

* How many Teams will "Fail to Proceed", despite only having to build a car that can drive ~30 kms at an average speed of ~50 kph?

* The BIG QUESTION: Will the Monash juggernaut continue to crush all before it? Will six victories in a row become seven?

* Who will come out on top of the very competitive dog-fight that is forming just below Monash?

* Who will be crying into their beers on Sunday night, muttering "We could've..., should've..., would've..."?

* Who will be driving home Monday with the perfect plan for how to "Do It Right!" next year ... perhaps only to have this plan evaporate in the coming Christmas/New-Year festivities, with the Team, once again, going back to "Doing What We Have Always Done"?

Ah, but that conundrum is too far off in the future to worry about now...

So, for now, here is your form-guide to the Teams, as judged by your faithful scribbler's shortest of chats with the least busy students.

(Note - The split-up of Teams in the following posts is mostly about keeping each category/post about the same length (5k char limit per post). So some Teams on the border-line of different categories could have gone either way. Complaints, objections, etc., happily answered by Planet-Zed Publications.)

Z

12-11-2015, 02:16 AM

(Note - Following posts may be edited over next few days as more accurate information becomes available.)

The CONTENDERS.
==================

A tough call this year, but three of these Teams will be on the Overall podium on Sunday night.

#66 - MONASH UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
==============================
MASS - 48%R (with driver), ~200 kg (dry).
WHEELS & TYRES - F&R -10" x 7.5" tyres on 8" Al-Rims, Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - E85.
ENGINE - 1-cylinder, KTM EXC, 500cc, Titanium(!)-Turbo (no I/Cooler), CR=11.8:1, 42 kW @ 7.5 krpm.
DRIVETRAIN - Pneumatic-only-shifter, 6-spd-g'box, Drexler-diff.
CHASSIS - Mild-Steel-spaceframe with bonded CF-panels.
SUSPENSION - F&R = CroMo-DW+ pushrod/rockers driving soft-warp/mode-separated springing (more details later...).
UPRIGHTS - F = 3D-printed-Titanium, R = Machined-Aluminium.
AERO - F&R-U/S-Wings + sprung-UnderTray (~45% total downforce from UT) + some sidepod aero.
TESTING - Running for 5 months, 4 months with aero, 600+ kms!

IN A NUTSHELL - The juggernaut rolls on. Outright 1st place in Oz-2009, '10, '11, '12, '13, '14. This year some stuff added, some weight lost, and testing for ages. So deserved favourites for outright victory again. But will one of the many "hi-tech extras" break...? (Stop press: Mch-Al rear Uprights because the 3-d printed Titanium ones ... broke!)
~o0o~

#7 - EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY (WA, Oz).
=================================
MASS - 56%R, 180 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 6" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - Custom 4-cylinder (CBR head on bespoke block), 600 cc, N-A, CR=12:1, 65 kW @ 10.4krpm.
DRV - Mech-shift to custom 2-speed-box + spool-diff (all integrated in custom engine cases).
CHAS - Carbon skinned aluminium honeycomb (~30 mm thk), cut-and-fold construction, full monocoque.
SUSP - F = CroMo-DW+DASD , R = CroMo-folded-sheet-Beam+4-link+DASD .
UPRT - F = folded-steel (0.9 mm), R = Al-brng-housing bolted to beam.
AERO - F&R&Side-sprung-wings, NO undertray.
TEST - Running 3 months, 500++ kms

IN A NUTSHELL - Close 2nd place last year, more fully developed this year. Smaller Team than Monash, but well focussed. Quote - "... fast in testing..."
~o0o~

#47 - UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND (NZ).
================================
MASS - 60%R, 162 kg.
W&Ts - 10" x F=6"/R=7.5" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 1-cyl, Yamaha WR450F, 450cc, N-A, CR=13.1:1, 41 kW @ 9.5 krpm.
DRV - Elec-solenoid-shift, 5-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - Full pre-preg "3/4 CF-tub" + very small steel-tube rear engine-mount frame.
SUSP - F = CroMo-DW+DASD, R = folded-steel-Beam+4-link+DASD.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - Small undertray only.
TEST - Running 6 weeks, 8 hrs testing, but newish drivers.

IN A NUTSHELL - In some ways this car is better than last year's small and simple car, which had NO aero and came a close 3rd. If only they fitted a MUCH BIGGER UNDERTRAY this year ... WOW!!! (Hint to Auckland - "borrow" Monash's UT!) (Stop Press: A much bigger UT was designed, but some glitches...)
~o0o~

#13 - UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY (NZ).
===========================================
MASS - 52%R, ~195 kg.
W&Ts - F&R = 10" x 7.5" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - E85.
ENG - 1-cyl, Husqvarna TC449, 450 cc, turbo + intercooler, CR=13:1, 42 kW @ 9.5 krpm.
DRV - Pneumatic-shifter, 5-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - Full CF-tub.
SUSP - F&R = CF-DW + pullrods + ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - F&R-sprung-wings, NO undertray.
TEST - Running 5 months and mega-kms!

IN A NUTSHELL - Only a 3rd year Team, but very well-built cars last two years. The grapevine has it that this car is VERY quick!
~o0o~

#41, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND (Q, Oz).
===================================
MASS - 60%R, 205 kg.
W&Ts - 10" x F = 6", R = 7.5" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Yamaha R6, 600cc, N-A, CR=12.8:1, 61 kW @14 krpm.
DRV - Cable-shift, 6-spd, short triplex-chain to spool-diff.
CHAS - Folded-aluminium-sandwich front-tub (20 mm thk + ~1 mm skins)+ simple rear-spaceframe.
SUSP - F = DW+DASD, R = tubular-steel-beam (60 mm dia x 1.6mm wall) + 4-link + DASD.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - F&R-sprung-wings + UT.
TEST - Running 3+ months, "only" 450 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Started this year aiming for a simple and quick build. By mid-year were driving a very capable car that was ~30+ kg lighter than previous car. Lots of testing since then, so ... should go well!
~o0o~

#69 - UNIVERSITY of MISSOURI (USA).
=================================
MASS - 54%R, 210 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=?, ??kW @ 9 krpm.
DRV - Cable-shift, 6-spd, Taylor Race "Quaife" style LSD.
CHAS - CroMo spaceframe.
SUSP - F&R = DW + pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - F&R-Wings, no UT.
TEST - Running 9 months, ~200 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Top-5 in most recent 2015-USA-Lincoln comp (considerable improvement over earlier Michigan comp from "... better set-up"). Plus another six months to get even better. But do they realise that, when racing Down-under, all their settings must be upside-down?
~o0o~

#101 - UNIVERSITY of MELBOURNE (Vic, Oz).
====================================
MASS - 52%R, 235 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - E85.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600 cc, N-A, ????.
DRV - Pneumatic-shft (+cable), 6-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - ??-SF.
SUSP - F = DW+pullrod, R = DW+pushrod, + 2 x ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = Mchn-Al.
AERO - F&R-wings (R=U/S) + UnderTray.
TEST - Running 2.5 months, ~400 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - This Team usually does well. This car is good on paper, and WELL TESTED.
~o0o~

(More coming...)

Z

12-11-2015, 02:17 AM

The PRETENDERS.
=================

These 10 Teams have a chance of podiums in one or two individual events, but unlikely to podium Overall?

Listed by order of Team numbers only.

#03 - UNIVERSITY of NEWCASTLE (NSW, Oz).
====================================
MASS - 55%R, 215 kg.
W&Ts - F&R- 13" x 7.5" R25B.
FUEL - E85.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12:1, 60 kW @ 10 krpm.
DRV - Elec-solenoid-shift, 6-spd, spool.
CHAS - Mild-steel-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = folded-sheet-steel (~1 mm).
AERO - F&R-sprung-wings, no UT.
TEST - Running 2 weeks, ~30 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Conventional spaceframe-four + wings.
~o0o~

#8 - UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (SA, Oz).
================================
MASS - 52%R, 235 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Yamaha YZF-R6, 600cc, N-A, CR=12.4:1, 58 kW @ 12.1 krpm.
DRV - Mch-shift, 6-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - Mild-steel spaceframe.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, + one ARB.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al, same on all corners.
AERO - F&R-sprung-wings, + UT.
TEST - Running 2 months, but only 50 kms testing.

IN A NUTSHELL - Have fitted strain-gauges to all suspension links (24x). So should have lots of VD data for next year!
~o0o~

#10 - UNIVERSITY of WOLLONGONG (NSW, Oz).
======================================
MASS - <50%R, 210 kg.
W&Ts - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600cc, N-A, CR=14:1, 55 kW @ 10.5 krpm.
DRV - Mch-shft, 6-spd, spool.
CHAS - CroMo-SF + CF-panels.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pullrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = folded-steel <1 mm.
AERO - F&R-sprung-wings, no UT.
TEST - Running 2 weeks, 100 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Top of the world once, but need to get hungrier, and finish earlier, if want to repeat past successes.
~o0o~

#12 - RMIT UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
===========================
MASS - 54%R, 185 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 7" (x 16"OD) Avons with "FSAE compound, ~one harder than the hillclimb spec...".
FUEL - E85.
ENG - Parallel-Twin (180 degree), Yamaha Genesis 80FI, 500cc, turboed, CR=12.4:1, 65 kW @ 10 krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shft, then ... N-S engine, to bespoke 4-spd-box (from big Duke), to drop-gears, to bevel-drive-diff with KAZ-viscous-LSD, all in a stressed CF-transaxle-case.
CHAS - Full CF-tub.
SUSP - F = CF-DW+pullrods, R = CF-DW+pushrods, + 2 x ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - Sidepods only.
TEST - Running 1 month, 230 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Wow! Has huge potential, but maybe too much design and not enough testing? Could be a cracker next year.
~o0o~

#14 - CURTIN UNIVERSITY (WA, Oz).
=============================
MASS - 50%R, 245 kg.
W&Ts - 13" x 6" (on 7" rims) Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR600RR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12.9:1, 61 kW @ 11 krpm.
DRV - Mech-shft, 6-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - CroMo-SF, no stiffening panels this year.
SUSP - F = DW+pull, R = DW+push, + 2 x ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = Mch-Al.
AERO - F&R-unsprung-wings + UT.
TEST - Only running 3 weeks, "... not enough..." kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Usually build a good solid car, but doesn't seem well enough tested this year.
~o0o~

#15 - UNSW ADFA (NSW, Oz).
=======================
MASS - 50%R, 197 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 6" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 1-cyl, KTM, 510 cc, N-A, CR=11.8:1, 20 kW @ 9.5 krpm.
DRV - Mech-shft, 6-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - CroMo-SF with FLAT FLOOR*!
SUSP - F = DW+DASD, R = Beam+4-link+DASD.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 3 months but then several redesigns/rebuilds. 6 hrs driving.

IN A NUTSHELL - * Impressive "Split-Idler" steering-linkage (R&P just in front of hand-wheel, then vertical-axis idlers either side of FRH) that allows simple frame with flat-floor and open foot-box. Well done Michelle!
~o0o~

#22 - UNIVERSITY of SYDNEY (NSW, Oz).
================================
MASS - <50%R, 186 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - Vee-twin, Aprilia RXV, 550 cc, N-A, CR=12:1, 40 kW @ 10.5 krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shft. 5-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - Mild-Steel-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrod+ARB.
UPRT - F&R = mch-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - ~150 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Team with abundant resources, but only build one car every second year! Tsk, tsk... And still powered by the hand-grenade!
~o0o~

(More coming tomorrow morning...)

Z

12-11-2015, 04:45 PM

MORE PRETENDERS...
====================

(Too many to fit them all in last night...)

#25 - UNIVERSITY of WAIKATO (NZ).
==============================
MASS - 50%R, 230 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Suzuki GSR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12.5:1, 62 kW @ 10 krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shft, 6-spd, Mazda MX5 LSD.
CHAS - Mild-steel SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, 2 x ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = Folded-steel 1.6 mm.
AERO - UnderTray only.
TEST - Running 2 weeks, 50 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Nicely finished car, but now at back of the NZ pack.
~o0o~

#44 - UNIVERSITY of TASMANIA (Tas, Oz).
=================================
MASS - ?%R, 223 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12.2:1, ? kW, @ ? krpm.
DRV - Mech-shift, 6-spd, spool.
CHAS - CroMo-SF + CF-panels.
SUSP - F = DW+pullrods, R = DW+pushrods, (no ARBs) .
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - UT only.
TEST - Only 2 days testing so far.

IN A NUTSHELL - Failed noise test. Let's hope Jonny doesn't have to pull another heroic all-nighter to get it through Enduro tomorrow!
~o0o~

#63 - UNIVERSITY of NEW SOUTH WALES (NSW, Oz).
=========================================
MASS - 55%R, 167 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 6" Hoosier LCO.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - V-twin, Aprilia SXV, 550 cc, N-A, CR=12.5:1, 48 kW @ ? krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shft, 5-spd, spool.
CHAS - Al-HC, 30 mm thk x 0.5 mm skins.
SUSP - ALUMINIUM F = DW+pushrods, R = DW+pullrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - No aero.
TEST - Running 1 month, 100 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - ALL ALUMINIUM CAR. Struggled last year and powered by a hand-grenade, but has potential if well tested.
~o0o~

#111 - GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY (Qld, Oz).
=================================
MASS - 50%R, 240 kg.
W&Ts - 10" x 6"(F) + 7.5"(R) Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12:1, 50 kW @ ? krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shift, 6-spd, spool.
CHAS - Mild-steel-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 2 weeks, 20 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - This first year Team with small number of students (~6) will surprise some of the much bigger and better established Teams.
~o0o~

(More coming...)

Z

12-11-2015, 04:48 PM

The TAIL-ENDERS.
=================

#02 - UNIVERSITY of WESTERN AUSTRALIA (WA, Oz).
==========================================
Not sighted yet...
~o0o~

#16 - UNIVERSITY of SOUTH AUSTRALIA (SA, Oz).
=======================================
They are here, and I will post details later (missed them on Friday).
~o0o~

#21 - TOKYO DENKI UNIVERSITY (JPN).
================================
MASS - 52%R, 165 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 6" Hoosier LCO.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 1-cyl, Honda PE06E, 450 cc, N-A, CR=12.5:1, 35 kW @ 8 krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shft, 5-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - CroMo-SF.
SUSP - F = DW+pullrod, R = DW+pushrod, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = CroMo-folded-steel, 0.8 mm.
AERO - None.
TEST - Not running yet!

IN A NUTSHELL - Very sad to see this truly inspirational Team struggling this year. When I look at globally all-conquering GFR, I see TDU + wings.
~o0o~

#28 - TAYLORS UNIVERSITY (K.L., Malaysia).
===================================
MASS - 55%R, 280 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 180 mm, Hankook C90 (soft compound for F3).
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Yamaha R6, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12.8:1, ? kW @ ? krpm.
DRV - Mech-shft, 6-spd, OPEN-diff (taken from small car).
CHAS - Mild-steel-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = Mchn-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 2 weeks, 50 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Somewhat overweight conventional car, but a reasonable effort from a young Team.
~o0o~

#29 - UNIVERSITY of WESTERN SYDNEY (NSW, Oz).
=========================================
Not sighted yet.
~o0o~

#34 - JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY (N.Qld, Oz).
===================================
MASS - ?%R, 280 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - 98 RON.
ENG - 4-cyl, Honda CBR, 600 cc, N-A, CR=12.2:1, ? kW @ ? krpm.
DRV - Cbl-shft, 6-spd, Drexler.
CHAS - CroMo-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = fabricated plate-steel (heavy-duty!).
AERO - None.
TEST - Still assembling car when I talked to them...

IN A NUTSHELL - Hmmm..., well, NQ + JT won the NRL this year, so HAPPY DAYS! :)
~o0o~

More coming...

Z

12-11-2015, 04:50 PM

The DEAD-ENDERS.
===================

#E09 - IIT ROORKEE (India).
======================
MASS - 54%R, 280 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" MRF - 2CO (an F3 tyre).
FUEL - COAL.
BAT - ~17 MEGA-JOULES * (NOT 4.8 kWh!).
MOTOR - Motenergy, 30 kW peak (12 kW cont.) @ 91 V, Kelly-controller, air-cooled.
CHAS - Mild-steel-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 2 wks, 70 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - Have eventually found some batteries here in Oz (trouble with shipping), so hopefully we see them run.
~o0o~

#E17 - SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
==================================
The Swinians have imposed a media-ban on this old hack (maybe I am not supportive enough of the Coal Industry?). Ain't motorsports fun! :)
~o0o~

#E42 - UNIVERSITY of QUEENSLAND (Qld, Oz).
=====================================
MASS - 53%R, 255 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - Yep, more COAL.
BAT - ~28 MEGA-JOULES * (NOT 7.7 kWh!).
MOTOR - Emrax 207, 50 kW peak @ 353 V, Tritium-cntrl, ~3:1 chain-drive (to spool?), water-cooled.
CHAS - Mild-steel-SF+CF-panels (was UQ's old 2013 IC car).
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 1 week, 50 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - First year E-car, so they took the shortest route by re-using old C-car parts.
~o0o~

#E46 - QUEENSLAND UNIV of TECH. (Qld, Oz).
====================================
Not sighted yet.
~o0o~

#E59 - UNIVERSITY of TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY (NSW, Oz).
==============================================
MASS -50%R, 255 kg .
W&Ts - F&R - 13" x 7" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - Petrified trees from the Carboniferous era.
BAT - ~26 MEGA-JOULES * (NOT 7.2 kWh!).
MOTOR - Emrax 228, 71 kW peak (but only run to ~40 kW) @ 389 V, Unitek-cntrl, ~3:1 chain-drive (to spool?), water-cooled.
CHAS - Al-HC 25 mm thk, + small rear CroMo-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW-DASD, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 2 wks, 50 kms.

IN A NUTSHELL - First year E-car, so conservative design on the E-front.
~o0o~

#E88 - RMIT UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
===========================
MASS - 50%R, 255 kg.
W&Ts - F&R - 10" x 6" Hoosier R25B.
FUEL - More COAL.
BAT - ~24 MEGA-JOULES * (NOT 6.6 kWh!).
MOTOR - Emrax 228, only run to ~40 kW @ 470 V, Unitek-cntrl, 3.17:1 chain-drive to Drexler, water-cooled.
CHAS - Cro-Mo-SF.
SUSP - F&R = DW+pushrods, no ARBs.
UPRT - F&R = mchn-Al.
AERO - None.
TEST - Running 3 weeks, 150 kms

IN A NUTSHELL - Winner last year, and similar car this year.
~o0o~

* Note to these Coal Industry teams:
========================
"Kilowatts" are standard units of power, and "hours" are non-standard units taken from the bus-timetable. Compounding these does not maketh a STANDARD unit of energy! The standard unit of energy (Metric system) is the "JOULE" (as in something very precious). Lots of these maketh "MEGA-JOULES", or MJs (as in "really good precious things").

For reference:
One MegaJoule = One ton mass lifted to the top of a ~one hundred metre high hill (in Earth's gravitational field).
Or, 1 MJ = 1 ton mass travelling at ~100 miles per hour, because it just rolled down that 100 metre high hill.
Or, ask some "Rubenesque" women and they will tell you exactly how many MJs (ie. how much "energy") there is in any chocolate-bar or savoury-snack you care to show them. I think a smallish chocolate-bar has about 1 MJ.

More updates on today (Saturday - Accel, SP, AutoX) later tonight...

Weather is coolish (~20+C) and fine today...

Z

Westly

12-11-2015, 06:14 PM

Edit: appears that the v8 supercar tyre bundles have been removed from the track - good outcome

Great coverage again Z, looking forward to the updates.

Live Stream has been fantastic - been watching it all morning.

Boffin

12-11-2015, 11:33 PM

So as miss the event for the first time in 8 years, sitting in an airport in china checking Natsoft, do my eyes deceive me or do we have a new skidpad champion?
2 different ways to calculate and I see Canterbury besting Monash

12-12-2015, 06:40 AM

SATURDAY NIGHT UPDATE - AC, SP, & AX.
===================================

Some quick notes from the Z-files.

Day started off quite cool, cloudy, and calm. Then very strong winds, and scorching sun.

As expected, many Teams "fail to proceed". At midday, end of AutoX Session 1, the first three Teams from last year, namely Monash, ECU, and Auckland, were all busted! (But they got better later...)

Unexpected is that Wollongong are back! They must have been "flying under the radar" when I spoke to them, but the car is looking very good on track, some very good times, so they are now promoted to "Contenders"!

All following times on "natsoft dot com dot au", then click on "circuit racing". But times may change due to cones, whatever...

ACCELERATION - Held early while it was still quite cool. Times are slower than last year, so it seems this track has lowish grip.
1st - ECU - again fastest time with 3.82 sec.
2nd - UQ with 3.95 - this with their worst anti-squat setting, because Team was dealing with other glitches?
3rd - Melbourne 4.26 - well tested car.
4th - Auckland 4.35 - not bad for a single.
5th - Missouri 4.39 - was expecting better.
...
10th Monash 4.68 - as above (Monash has turbo, Auckland not).
11th Canterbury 4.78 - ditto.
...
15th RMIT(C) 4.97 - kept stalling due to glitches with elect-launch-control, so no indication of how good/bad are the Avons. :(
~o0o~

SKID-PAD - Also held while temps were cool. SP-track is on the bumpiest part of Calder track with some biggish dips in two sections. Many aero cars scraping their front-wings or undertrays. The cars that were settled and smooth here also perfomed well in AutoX.
1st - Monash 4.89 - no surprise.
2nd - Canterbury 4.91 - same.
3rd - ECU 4.95 - same.
4th - Wollongong 5.06 - first indication that this car will surprise
5th - Auckland 5.07.
... other times all above 5.20.
~o0o~

AUTOCROSS - Wow, they're dropping like flies! Jonny's UTAS is third car out and only manages half a lap. Fortunately, it was only a brake-line hooked on bias-bar, which locked the brakes on, so easily fixed. RMIT(C) only managed 1/4 of a lap. Bespoke transaxle chewed up miscellaneous internal bits. Upside is that I got to see inside the box, and many pretty things in there. Too many pretty things...

This event held in two sessions, morning and afternoon. Morning was cooler and a lot slower. All fast times set in the second session.
1st - Monash 1:38.3 - no surprise.
2nd - Wollongong 1:38.8 - did not expect that.
3rd - Melbourne 1:39.8 - looking very smooth.
4th - Canterbury 1:40.3 - but then finished the day coughing and spluttering?
5th - Auckland 1:41.3 - might also have had problems?
6th - RMIT(E) 1:41.3 - this a real surprise (check its fairly plain specs)!
7th - ECU 1:42.3 - also ended session with problems (Team busy fixing them now).
~o0o~

Organizers announced that AutoX course was 1.2 kms long. Some Teams claimed they measured closer to 1.5 km. Times are significantly slower than last year, which was 1.2 km, so who knows?

Anyway, Enduro tomorrow is same course but run clockwise (AX was anti-CW). Sunday weather forecast is warmer than today, maybe around 30 C. Oz-comp has two Enduros, morning and afternoon.

Static-Event results are now on Facebook;
https://www.facebook.com/lists/10201073788064567

No idea on points for today's Dynamic results. But, as always, it looks like reliability and fuel-consumption will be big factors in the final placings.

Now time for zzzzz...

Z

Rex Chan

12-12-2015, 03:02 PM

Just some updates on MUR as an alumni: the fastest lap in AutoX was posted on the first lap out after a driver change, so was hoping to be quicker on his 2nd lap (Dave McGahey). But we ran out of fuel.... :O Seems like an MUR habit/tradition to run out of fuel in AutoX, as my fb feed reminds me :D. Hopefully a leaner enduro fuel map and 22km will mean MUR actually gets to the end :)

Accel: more clutch control needed to drop times. I think a 4.1 should be acheivable with harder launch but always seems like the last thing a team practices, if at all.

Adam Farabaugh

12-12-2015, 03:47 PM

* Note to these Coal Industry teams:
========================
"Kilowatts" are standard units of power, and "hours" are non-standard units taken from the bus-timetable. Compounding these does not maketh a STANDARD unit of energy! The standard unit of energy (Metric system) is the "JOULE" (as in something very precious).

Sure it's not standard. But earlier you said you drove 10 hours to the comp, and if you know how many kW your car puts out on a highway cruise, then it sure is useful!

bob.paasch

12-12-2015, 07:08 PM

[B]
When I look at globally all-conquering GFR, I see TDU + wings.
~o0o~
Z

Other than a single cylinder Honda, I don't see a lot of similarities. No, when I look at the GFR car, I see '06 RMIT with UWA-classic vehicle dynamics and Monash aero. If Geoff, Kev and Scott has been on the same team, they might have come up with something like this. ;^)

Regarding FSAE-A, I really enjoyed the live feed and the brilliant endurance commentary. Thanks. And congratulation to Monash Motorsport for another solid performance.

GTS

12-13-2015, 06:03 AM

Most judges agreed that the standard of design this year far eclipsed the last few years... FSAE-A is back!

I'm personally very glad - two days before two good V8SC engineers rang asking if they could judge enough to recruit a little and FSAE-A 2015 delivered talent in spades. So many good ideas on show, so many good students, just amazing.

I can only directly speak to the aero side of things, being one of two judges. Kalliope - known to many of you - was unable to join us this year (I'm sure she'll be back), so standing in was Sammy Diasinos from Macquarie University, who did a fantastic job at very short notice. We're all quite privileged to have had Sammy down - you're welcome to research his very extensive background yourselves (if you've to front wings, go find his thesis) - he's hoping to stay around (I hope he does), teach a bit (particularly CFD done smart/right) and maybe recruit some good postgrads from it. If it was suggested you keep in touch... I'd strongly suggest you do.

The change of rules delivered some great solutions; we went from 'follow the leader' aero to some genuinely original, ingenious and flat-out smart solutions across the board. Two of the teams opting not to run an aerodynamic package and were able explain why in a logical, resolute way. Thinking was a lot more structured this time around - good Plan-Do-Check-Act structured thought displayed throughout. Some teams managed this across many key design areas... there's a cat among the pigeons in the top five, and it wasn't the winning car this year (despite the winning car being a good step up over the same university's previous year's efforts).

As for my section:

So many sealed radiators!
>80% of teams able to name their heat loads!
So much understanding of CoP!
Some smart use of CFD here and there!
Scale wind tunnel testing!
Pressure acquisition!
(more more more)

You've all been listening, amazing.

We had it all, from the original to the cheekily ingenious (anyone taking photos of every diffuser running will know what I'm talking about...)

The Chief Judge did a good thing this year, and changed the marking rubric in design to reflect proper PDCA. I understand all teams are intended to get some feedback. For the first time judges were able to clearly separate process, analysis, validation and understanding out, and mark accordingly. You should find the results considerably more consistent and transparent (we certainly found it easier to judge). It's a very commendable thing.

And my, did some of you have some great and deep understanding. This may be followed up with a post reviewing the aero bits, but for the moment I just hope others talk about (what just was) a great event.

A few commiserations as per usual - RMIT and I think ECU didn't get to run as intended, I know I'm missing a few here however a quick note to mention you'd both some deeply impressive designs. Don't let the scores discourage you in the slightest.

Very happy to see Melbourne University up there, and Canterbury - just wow - when you consider some teams have been at this ~16 years...

Just when this thread was lamenting 'what'd happened' to Best Little Competition going, it's back. (IMHO).

This'll probably be my last one judging for a bit, you might see me in the stands next Sunday.

Best of luck in 2016; I hope to hear at least of a few teams pushing on in overseas competitions... with success. Never forget that Australians and Kiwis tend to be over-represented in top level motorsport... there are good reasons for this, and they start with you. Crack on.

GTS

12-13-2015, 04:07 PM

On Sammy Diasinos...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-QqA45mX2Y

He actually talks about his thesis a bit into it, which is (hint hint hint OMG super hint) very relevant to FSAE.
http://152.66.21.25/oktatas/tantargy/NEPTUN/BMEGEATMWD1/2012-2013-II/hallgatok-students/SzaboBalazs/literature-CFDmoving-ground/front.pdf (get a copy of the full thing if you're game).

There's also a lot on career, for those of you that want to be F1 aerodynamicists. And some of you should want to be F1 aerodynamicists. No question there's talent.

Jay Lawrence

12-13-2015, 09:18 PM

I was unable to attend, but I watched the updates and live stream (when it was working...) and was immensely proud to see UoW back up to speed with awesome results, particularly in skidpad and autocross. Without the unfortunate beaching in enduro 2 (the intended quick driver enduro) I think they would have placed quite a bit higher (the car was certainly fast enough, posting under 1:40's in autocross). It's a credit to the team to have such a quick car and be as sorted as it was given a pretty short testing period. This gives me high hopes for next year and the base is clearly an excellent car.

Disclaimer: Alumni speculation incoming, my views do not..... blah blah etc -
Apparently every team bar UoW knew the details of the real case scenario in the cost event, resulting in an uncharacteristically low score for us. An appeal was lodged and SAE admitted to the team that they had neglected to correspond with the designated communication point within the team, thereby accepting blame, but that nothing was going to be done about it. Come the next day and the marshals called the car in a lap early during enduro. The lack of corrective action in static events did not translate, and the team were given an averaged extra lap and subsequent fuel. Pretty untidy so definitely room for improvement there.

NickFavazzo

12-13-2015, 10:33 PM

http://imgur.com/a/5vPA6

Album of photos from the event, A few of UWA just general pics as this will be shared amongst team.

It was really great to see a number of cool things around the pits this year, of note was RMIT petrols carbon transaxle, it had a few teething issues but it was looking good!

I'm in love with Canterbury's wing mounts, though these have likely been done this way before but I have never really paid much attention to wings myself... for a fairly fresh team, this car was incredibly tidy. They have certainly set the bar high.

Monash with their low warp stiffness/single wheel bump hydraulics looked great over the bumps around track, I'm not sure how well the video shows it but the car looked very settled on the change in direction from left to right across the timing beacon, way more than any other car. Very interested to see the progression of it all.

Gong, I wasn't expecting them to be up there this year, along with melbourne but damn nice work guys! it was great to see such strong competition!

ECU, such a shame that a few little issues managed to mess up you sunday, the car and engine have so much potential, I'll be watching this for a while to come.

It was great to see Auckland take home some silverware, for many years you guys have had such a great car to be caught out by trivial things and seemed cursed with bad luck. Congrats.

I'm sure I'll be remembering things for a while.

Congrats to all the teams for a great weekend!

Kevin Hayward

12-14-2015, 03:02 AM

First up I would like to make an apology to anyone I may have inadvertently insulted while doing commentary. Apparently I called Newcastle's car an agricultural concept instead of a conventional concept as I had intended. It was a well implemented car and a great finish from them. I am sure there were others I probably annoyed so sorry if my banter caused offence.

...

Definitely feeling a bit down about ECU's finish. Most prepared the team has been with a ton of testing and a fast car. Plenum leak for autocross that was hastily patched, and a couple of problems for endurance. Both with ancillary systems (the engine is fine), but enough to both slow the car significantly and eventually lead to a black flag. Leading into both Autocross (and still in front by the start of endurance) was a great feeling for the team, and they have taken a lot from the comp.

Although we were really hoping to put in a solid result given that it is likely our last Oz comp for quite a while.

Still the competition was a good one with a number of teams looking a lot stronger. It is such a shame that there is almost no industry presence at the event. The quality of students was amazing!

Kev

mech5496

12-14-2015, 04:52 AM

Thanks everyone, especially Z, Kev and GTS for giving the usual insight at the competition. Eager to have more details, also from the driver swap day. Nick the UWA car seemed highly unconventional again, but sadly a bit less "focused" than usual... are there any plans to further develop it and see it running next year?

... that it is likely our last Oz comp for quite a while....

I get that this means large conceptual changes again Kev?

GTS

12-14-2015, 06:23 AM

that it is likely our last Oz comp for quite a while.

"Please explain."

Rex Chan

12-14-2015, 07:19 AM

Hi all, just a quick thank you from me to Kev and all the commentators for all their hard work over the weekend, keeping us informed �� Loved all of it! Best of luck to ECU at their next comp!

Kevin Hayward

12-14-2015, 07:40 AM

"Please explain."

GTS,

As you are aware ECU is a small team, and we feel unable to compete in two competitions in a given year. All going well we look like we have secured support to travel to the UK. I have posted elsewhere how the cost for a team to travel from Western Australia to Victoria is not a lot less than going to the UK, and with financial backing it is cheaper for us to go to the UK. We have been unable to secure similar support to travel to Victoria.

To add to that we had a faculty advisers meeting at the competition in 2014. A number of important concerns were raised, namely the lack of industry at the competition, the lack of exposure to non-automotive sectors, and the lack of exposure amongst other states. There was a unanimous agreement amongst the advisers that the competition look to host in other states (maybe alternating with Victoria each year). There was also considerable interest to involve engineers Australia with the competition. Minimal progress have been made on these issues, which are important to the majority of Universities attending. There was no faculty advisers meeting with SAE-A this year. Natalie was probably most open to improving the current situation, and with her leaving it looks very unlikely that anything will change in this regard in the near future.

Please note that I do not hold anything against the fantastic efforts of the volunteers and the SAE-A. They are a great bunch of people, and work very hard.

All of these good points used to exist in FSAE-A, including having run the competition in South Australia one year. However as the Australian automotive industry has all but collapsed entirely the industry interest has evaporated. This is not the fault of the SAE-A, but definitely requires that the competition adapt. I personally feel without the involvement of the larger engineering field (including in judging positions for cost, business, and design) that the competition does not accurately reflect the employment opportunities in Australia.

We are committed to running a Formula Student / SAE program, but already have indicated to the SAE-A that we do not feel bound to attend the Australasian competition. The project is a great opportunity to develop students skills and employability. Apart from design validation the main benefit we see in the competition itself is in exposure of the students and university to employers. At this stage it appears that these goals would best be served elsewhere for less money.

We do have minor gripes about certain conflicts of interest occurring at the competition, and the direction that a small minority have been pushing that we do not feel makes for a positive learning environment. However those concerns are secondary to what I have mentioned and I do not wish to expand on those in a public forum.

For me the greatest loss is that we like competing with the other universities there. Also in the last couple of years the students have been challenged by the design judging team to drastically improve our approach. For instance we still contend that you marked us too low in 2014 for your section and been quite irate through the last year. But the students responded to the points you made, listened to (and read) the follow-up material and in the process vastly improved the way at which they approached the design problem. I thank you particularly for challenging the team to do better.

We left absolutely nothing behind in our attempts to take out a win in Australia and we commend all of those teams that we have competed against. The Australasian competition has seen the very best we could produce, and while I am disappointed we weren't able to take down the Juggernaut at some stage we needed to realign what we were doing with the outcomes we wished to achieve. All of this may change and we do not write off returning to Australia at any time, but it needs to be for the right reasons.

(Sorry for the long post, but you did ask for an explanation.)

Kev

12-14-2015, 10:56 PM

SEVEN IN A ROW FOR MONASH!
===========================
The results are in (finally!).

This is a quick cut/paste/tidy taken from SAE-A facespace (apologies if any errors).

Place Team#Name......... Des ... Pres ... Cost ... Accl ... SkPd ... AtX ... Endu ... Fuel = Total
================================================== ===============
1 ..... 66 . Monash ......... 150 ... 68.4 ... 76.9 ... 35.2 ... 71.6 ... 100 ... 308.5 ... 84 .. = 894.6
2 ..... 101 Melbourne .... 116 ... 58.6 ... 81.4 ... 52.6 ... 54.2 ... 91.6 ... 325 ..... 68 .. = 847.3
3 ..... 13 . Canterbury .... 132 ... 71.4 ... 58 ...... 31.8 ... 75 ...... 93.9 ... 294.1 .. 65.9 = 822.1
4 ..... 47 . Auckland ....... 125 ... 75 ...... 54.8 ... 48.8 ... 64.8 ... 91.4 ... 186.6 .. 86.5 = 733
5 ..... 41 . UQ (C) .......... 137 ... 67.1 ... 81.6 ... 67.8 ... 55.6 ... 81.3 ... 154.6 .. 64.5 = 709.5
6 ..... 69 . Missouri ....... 113 .... 65.7 ... 83 ...... 47.1 ... 49.2 ... 66.1 ... 222.8 .. 50.3 = 697.2
7 ..... 88 . RMIT (E) ...... 92 ...... 61.5 ... 51.4 .. 25.2 ... 43.3 ... 85.2 ... 226.2 .. 95.8 = 680.7
8 ..... 10 . Wollongong .. 125 .... 64.6 ... 72.4 .. 41.3 ... 58.7 ... 92.7 ... 138.5 .. 71.6 = 665
9 ..... 14 . Curtin ............ 119 .... 65.6 ... 64.4 ........................... 86.8 ... 276.8 .. 48.9 = 661.4
10 ... 22 . Sydney ........... 112 .... 57.2 ... 75.2 .. 28.2 ... 3.5 ..... 76.8 ... 209.6 .. 69.5 = 628.5
11 ... 25 . Waikato ......... 102 .... 49.5 ... 67.6 .. 41.3 ... 43.1 ... 84.5 ... 147.2 .. 47.9 = 583.1
12 ... 3 ... Newcastle ..... 86 ...... 49.2 ... 64 ...... 42.8 ... 6.7 ..... 66 ...... 196.7 .. 48.2 = 559.7
13 ... 7 ... Edith Cowan . 131 ... 61 ...... 83.5 ... 75 ...... 71.8 ... 85.2 ... 7 .................. = 514.5
14 ... 111 Griffith .......... 77 ..... 40 ................... 3.5 ..... 3.5 ..... 62.3 ... 224.2 .. 51.7 = 458.8
15 ... 44 . UTasmania .... 119 ... 67.3 ... 62.5 ... 28.5 ... 24.4 ... 14.8 ... 99 ............... = 415.5
16 ... 63 . UNSW .......... 112 .... 64.4 ... 86.1 ... 42.5 ... 3.5 ..... 45.3 ... 14 .............. = 364.3
17 ... 8 ... Adelaide ........ 108 .... 64.3 ... 63.4 ... 31.3 ... 34.2 ... 52.6 ... 5 ............... = 358.8
18 ... 12 . RMIT (C) ...... 140 .... 66 ...... 79.6 ... 22.2 ... 28.2 ........ 0 ... 4 ............... = 340
19 ... 15 . ADFA ............ 104 .... 42.1 ... 71.4 ... 6 ........ 30 ....... 50.1 ... 13 ............ = 316.5
20 ... 16 . Sth Australia . 92 ...... 52.1 ... 78.1 ............................ 36.6 ... 6 .............. = 264.9
21 ... 21 . Tokyo Denki . 87 ...... 59 ...... 85 ...... 3.5 ..................... 22 ... 1 .............. = 257.5
22 ... 17 . Swinburne ..... 126 ... 57.7 ... 59.5 .................................................. ......... = 243.2
23 ... 28 . Taylor’s U ..... 93 ..... 69.3 ... 45.4 ........................................ 14 ............. = 221.7
24 ... 59 . UTS ............... 92 ..... 56.4 ... 40.5 ........................................ 11 ............. = 199.9
25 ... 9 ... IIT Roorkee ... 81 ..... 52.8 ... 58.9 ........................................ 2 ............... = 194.7
26 ... 42 . UQ (E) .......... 70 ..... 50.2 ... 16.5 .... 12.6 ... 3.5 ........ 43 .. 2 ............... = 194.3
27 ... 34 . James Cook .. 69 ..... 44.1 ... 10 ....... 5 ............................... 14 .............. = 142.1
28 ... 2 ... UWA ............. 62 ..... 0 ... 30.1 .................................................. ............... = 92.1
29 ... 46 . QUT ............. 0 ........ 0 ... 18.5 .................................................. .............. = 18.5
30 ... 29 . UWS ............ 0 .................................................. ...................................... = 0
~~~o0o~~~

From the Z-files - Sunday Enduros.
======================
Some quick comments while these messy little scribbles on bits of paper still make sense to me. Long drive home yesterday, even hotter this time, so some of the following may be overcooked.

* 1st - 66 Monash - Had MANY problems on both Saturday and Sunday. They had an engine problem both days that gave a flat spot in the power between off-throttle and full-power, but no one could diagnose the cause. This glitch maybe never properly fixed (?). In the second Enduro (the faster one for most Teams) they had a rocker-cover oil leak and were black-flagged.

Nevertheless, the juggernaut rolled on and crushed all before it! By almost 50 points! Clearly both a fast car, and a good Team that can smoothly overcome the many glitches that are inevitable in these types of events.

* 2nd - 101 Melbourne - Also had some problems, including OOC and slower lap times apparently caused by (front?) brakes jammed on. Nevertheless, mostly ran very smoothly, no doubt due to lots of testing and some actual suspension movement this year (rock hard last year! ;)).

* 3rd - 13 Canterbury - Very smooth and driveable, again no doubt due to much testing. But also an exceptionally well-built car, which had no apparent failures. My only note of "...engine coughing at end AX2" was later explained as due to running out of fuel at the end of the day. This Team should be a strong force for a long time to come. Even their cooking at the campsite was done with clockwork precision!

* 4th - 47 Auckland - On the bumpy SP track I had written "Auk - very smooth on dips (better than Monash)". But then in Enduro1 a cone hit their side-mounted intake and snapped it off at the restrictor, so DNF. In E2 a weld on their shifter-linkage broke, causing their first driver to be stuck in first-gear for some (?) laps. Second driver did his stint entirely in second-gear, still setting 1:39.4 sec times, only a few seconds slower than the fastest. A bigger undertray and better reliability (luck?) will see this Team right at the top.

* 5th - 41 UQ(C) - In Enduro1 they failed to restart at driver change because heat-soak warmed the water, so the EMS refused to play because it thought the engine was too hot! In E2 my poorly scribbled notes suggest that either the throttle was stuck open, or the driver was constantly pushing on the brake pedal, but either way the rear-brake-disc ended up looking like a potato-crisp. Good concept car that can challenge for top place if the Team focusses on all the little details.

* 6th - 68 Missouri - Ran reliably and smoothly all weekend, but not especially quickly. I don't have many notes on it, other than a few of its times. However, it does make me wonder how much of a "backwater" the Oz-comp really is?

* 7th - 88 RMIT(E) - It is worth noting the AutoX times and Overall result for this Electric car. Then remind yourself that it is a heavyweight 255 kg, has the small 10" x 6" tyres, only has average power, and has NO aero. These good results are most likely from a simple-spec car that was well set-up (with some carry-over from last year) with no obvious weaknesses.

* Tough-luck award goes to ECU who were a genuine chance for first place. Unfortunately, a loose intake manifold stopped them from setting a good AX time on Saturday. Then in both Enduro sessions on Sunday they had a small oil-leak that got them black-flagged. I understand these leaks came from a difficult to find crack in their oil-tank. Best wishes to ECU in their upcoming overseas comps!

* Over-achievement award has to go to Griffith. This first year, very small, low budget Team seemed to only show-up for Presentation (they scored lowest), and completely abandoned Cost, but nevertheless did really well. My notes say that in the generally slower E1 they set a time of 1:46.6, which made them third fastest Team up to then. But in E2 they lost a front-wheel due to a "... sheared "low-budget RE" on a wishbone...". Will be interesting to see how they progress next year.

* Gripes: Running order in both Enduros was fastest-in-AX-first (ie. so Monash out first, etc.). Also NO Dynamics points updates were given on the Saturday or Sunday. BORING!!! Much of the interest in these comps comes from seeing who is "...in with a chance" on Sunday morning, then having to wait til the very last Enduro run to see what the final results will be.
~~~o0o~~~

Bob (Paasch),

Geoff has always been quite clear that their RMIT '06 car was strongly inspired by TDU's 2002 car. When I first saw that small and neat '02 TDU car, amongst the hordes of typically oversized (in LWH) "four-cylinder + 13"s" cars, I immediately thought "At last! At least one Team understands this problem.".

The only other car at that 2002 Oz-comp that was nearly as small as TDU was Wollongong, albeit with four+13"s. Gong won that year (even though they had NO suspension movement ;)). TDU were not allowed to compete for points because of some lame tech issues, but were allowed to run in Enduro, and were fast.

I see all of today's single+10"s cars as being in some way derived from that TDU car, via Geoff and RMIT's efforts.
~~~o0o~~~

So, with this year over, what sort of car should Teams do next year?

Hmmm.....???

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SPkR9U8a6-o/ULF0hbYtjnI/AAAAAAAAAL0/ppEqpxUw7rY/s800/tree_swing_70s.jpg

Which of above would be easiest to build?

Which would be cheapest?

Which would best satisfy the customer, by being most fun?

Z

(PS: In E1 some gremlins visited USyd's hand-grenade and ... pulled the pin (= rod exits block)! Ahh, built with Italian passion, eh... :))

Rex Chan

12-15-2015, 12:20 AM

An update for Melbourne: Enduro2 - first driver brakes were fine (Max Pearse), but on first lap of 2nd driver (Dave McGahey), brake pressure went up and stayed up, so brakes overheating. Haven't looked at data yet, but will confirm. MUR also runs a PDM, and during AutoX, the water temp limits had to be raised, so engine cutting out at around 120C :O Had issues in skidpad with front brakes as well (high pressure).

So it looks like bigger/better brakes for MUR 2016. And bigger cooling system, though the team plans to go single cylinder in 2016...

GTS

12-15-2015, 08:59 PM

GTS,

As you are aware ECU is a small team...

Kev;

Having been part of the "Adelaide year" I appreciate the intent behind moving the event around a little (or moving some funding around a little, or just making it more equitable for non-Victorian teams to get to Victoria. Given the quality of the event I'd think it's fair to suggest that no one in Australia wants to not turn up. It is massively important that students get a chance to shine in front of prospective employers. This said... the V8SC crowd (not least) was out in force seeking to fill places (two judges joining two days prior arrived for just that reason), and I'm working to setup a few calls too. This said, not the same as holding the event in a fertile jobs environment, particularly when your students really are good enough to hold their own overseas. We had two aero students last year that were that good - one is now at a LM team, the other quite sadly is no longer with us - but this year in aero alone we had 6-7 (ECU among these)... with more coming out of the woodwork after Design Event.

Kev, if you were to get involved, I would happily support you in making the Australian competition more equitable to this end. Whilst the years of 50+ graduate jobs in local production are gone, there are still good jobs out there, and we certainly don't lack for world-class students. For the few broken cars out there this year, nothing quite beat the disappointment of meeting a student with the best projects/GPA's/potential/etc going... that wants to work in top-level motorsport, but doesn't think it'll happen for them despite their potential suggesting otherwise.

I can understand and respect ECU's choice. In a perfect world I'd hope you'd find it equitable to compete everywhere. Hopefully ECU moves closer to this ideal sooner not later.

We can muse about gripes offline. I'll call out your 2014 efforts for two reasons - I didn't actually mark ECU's effort, ECU were among the first teams assessed last year and as the outgoing captian she asked to set the grade to couch expectations for the remaining teams. I didn't disagree with her score, and frankly were she here this year she'd not have disagreed with ECU's very much deserved score after a significant improvement. As for irate... that's for interpretation; your presenting student was interpreted as not taking the event seriously (again, not just me) - this year the same student was among the most engaged, and the work very much improved - I'm glad he was engaged, he needed to talk about what appeared to be an effort among the best in the competition. He acquitted himself very capably - he should be proud. We didn't get to chat about his future ideals, though if he wants a career doing aero I hope he chases it down.

Despite ECU's change of course, I'll happily offer my support throughout the year (get my Skype details offline).

As for future judging - irate or otherwise :) - I'll probably not be among the judges for now; there are (in keeping with threads mentioned in this email) people now able to judge just as well who are also able - critically - to employ students. I can make connections (and have) but I have no jobs or postgraduate opportunities to offer aero project grads, and others do.

Still, if someone wants a hand on an honest effort from time to time, I'm happy to help. Keep in touch.

12-15-2015, 09:35 PM

Adam,

Sure [using "kW-hour" to measure energy] is not standard. But earlier you said you drove 10 hours to the comp, and if you know how many kW your car puts out on a highway cruise, then it sure is useful!

But I do NOT know that number. Who does? How do you find it out? (<- Think carefully about this, or read below...)

I DO know the amount of fuel used during cruising, because I easily measure that number every time I fill up. The Energy-consumed for a given journey is then very easy to calculate (with or without factoring in thermal efficiencies).

Alternatively, I might somehow know the Force required to push the car along at cruising speeds (ie. to overcome aero-drag + tyre-rolling-drag +...). Then the "...kW your car puts out" is simply Force x Velocity, with Velocity in m/s. To get Energy-consumed for given journey I must then multiply the F x V by Time-driving. But easier is to just work out Energy-consumed = Force x Distance-of-journey!

I note that when buying gas appliances (heaters, cookers, etc.) the appliance makers often advertise the Power output of their product in units of MegaJoules/hour! Apparently, they say, this makes it easier for you to calculate the cost of running said appliance, because the gas is sold in units of $/MJ.

But I am not really fussed how much it costs to run the gas appliance. I will find that out when I get the bills. What I do want to know is how fast it will heat the room, or cook my food. I want to compare the gas appliance's power output against the alternative electric heaters/cookers, and their power output is given in (standard units of) KiloWatts!

Bottom line: ENGINEERS LOVE TO OVER-COMPLICATE THINGS!!!

(It makes them feel oh-so-clever... :))
~~~o0o~~~

To Team-Leaders in 2016,

Further to above shouting, and back to Oz-15, I noticed from many short chats, and some eavesdropping, that there are still a great many students who think that to do well in this competition their car must have HIGH HORSEPOWER!!! Melbourne's good performance (2nd Overall with ~80hp NA-four) might further encourage this sort of thinking. So, too, Monash's and Canterbury's turboed-singles.

Meanwhile, I also saw umpteen cases of broken or sticking throttle-cables, and many other rather trivial problems, that resulted in cars getting a zero score in a particular Dynamic event.

So, with "Concept-Direction-2016" discussions starting soon, I wonder if instead of letting your testicles make those big decisions (hey, I was young once too... :)), you remind yourselves that,
"TO FINISH 1st, FIRST YOU MUST FINISH!!!"
(ie. do the little things right, before chasing more power).

You might also look at GFR's website and see what they claim for maximum horsepower. (I take it that GFR do not want to give away too many secrets, but their horsepower figure is in the public domain.)

Z

GTS

12-15-2015, 09:49 PM

I wonder if instead of letting your testicles make those big decisions (hey, I was young once too :))

(Ha ha ha ha)

Ah, but they are young :D

Mbirt

12-16-2015, 06:14 PM

Further to above shouting, and back to Oz-15, I noticed from many short chats, and some eavesdropping, that there are still a great many students who think that to do well in this competition their car must have HIGH HORSEPOWER!!! Melbourne's good performance (2nd Overall with ~80hp NA-four) might further encourage this sort of thinking. So, too, Monash's and Canterbury's turboed-singles.

Meanwhile, I also saw umpteen cases of broken or sticking throttle-cables, and many other rather trivial problems, that resulted in cars getting a zero score in a particular Dynamic event.
And Auckland's performance without turbos, wings, and redundant cylinders can give some testimony to the value of getting the basics right first. It's a real shame about their endurance luck...

As for RMIT, their engine came from the factory with a lovely bit of banned F1 technology attached to it. Why custom gearboxes year after year?

tromoly

12-16-2015, 08:03 PM

As for RMIT, their engine came from the factory with a lovely bit of banned F1 technology attached to it. Why custom gearboxes year after year?

Packaging would be my guess. It's a nice engine (especially when unrestricted), but the secondary pulley and shaft eat up a bunch of room. There's a photo floating around the forum of our first year with the engine, it's nowhere near optimized but gives a visual of the layout.

Shuff

12-16-2015, 08:09 PM

It was done so the team could learn how to do it. Worked out pretty well for some of them.

Kevin Hayward

12-18-2015, 12:03 AM

Following my previous update post on ECU I thought I would give a little bit of a wrap-up of my impressions of the comp, entitled the good the bad and the ugly.

The Good:
- The amazing step-up of a lot of teams. This has been the best introduction of new ideas into the Australian competition for a long time. Even those teams with conventional overall designs tended to implement them better than previous years. This view has been shared by a number of judges and competitors.
- Watching Woolongong in Autocross/Endurance. Their quicker drivers really put on a show. A slightly less refined car than some of the other quick cars, but lacked nothing in raw foot to the pedal speed.
- Watching the Melbourne car. Probably needs a bit of skidpan setup, but what an amazingly balanced car for the track, looked glued to the ground with drivers just a shade less aggressive than Woolongong
- Watching Canterbury. I would say the class act of the competition. Only 3rd attempt, but an amazing finish in nearly all events. A couple of crucial driver errors in Endurance away from winning that event easily.
- Griffiths. Unbelievable speed from a very basic car from a 1st attempt. Great attitude with smiles all around.
- RMIT-E with probably the first electric car in Australia to run good endurance times. Still not world-competitive, but definitely ruffling feathers.
- Solid finish from Tasmania, who endured having their build torn apart on the forums.
- Comp ran smoothly and organised with a lot of teams getting scrutineered on the Thursday.
- Live feed video footage and timing
- Missouri's amazing consistency in Endurance. Probably the lowest variation of first to last lap pace. Showed the value of experience in driving and competition, although I think they suffered in overall time due to the Australian tracks being quite different to what we see overseas.
- Running endurance fastest to slowest allowed plenty of time for the struggling teams to make sure their cars were ready.

The Bad:
- Once again small number of industry representatives, especially sad due to the quality of the teams this year.
- The cost
- Problems from both Auckland and ECU prevented a close competition finish, letting Monash take their 7th with a fractured performance. A similar performance from them next year and the comp win will likely go to one of the New Zealand teams.
- No posting of dynamic results until the final day.
- No USA chant from the Missouri team.
- Running endurance fastest to slowest was boring to watch.

And now the points that will alienate some people I admire greatly:

The Ugly:
** I have removed comments from this section following a discussion outside this forum - I am unsure as to the best place to air these concerns, but this forum probably isn't it. I believe that the comments I made were factual and relevant, but have removed them as I realise the hurt they have caused.

...

My final verdict:

Despite the issues my own team faced, and apart from the Ugly ultra-competitive side this was one of the best Australian competitions for a long time. The buzz that was felt when it looked like the Autocross was going to be won by one of 3 teams not in the top 3 the previous year was electric. The innovative solutions and vehicle variation was interesting, I wish I had the time to go over a lot of the cars in detail. Finally a number of teams have nearly caught up with the leader. Another year of improved designs and development and we could see a level of competitiveness that has not been seen in Australia ever.

Which just begs the question where is the interest from the larger engineering community?

Kev

Jonny Rochester

12-18-2015, 12:33 AM

Thanks for the commentating at the contest Kevin. I wasn't in a position to hear it all (will have to find some videos) but what I heard was entertaining and informed. Almost genuine excitement when a car did a skid, in a Bill Lawry kind of way!

12-18-2015, 04:09 AM

And Auckland's performance without turbos, wings, and redundant cylinders can give some testimony to the value of getting the basics right first. It's a real shame about their endurance luck...

As for RMIT, ...
Matt,

I have been looking at the natsoft Enduro lap times, and wow (!), what might have been!

It looks like Auckland were stuck in first gear for the whole of the first stint, with many laps around 2:00(+). Then in their second stint, apparently run entirely in second gear, they were down to 1:39.4 on their best lap. By comparison Monash's fastest lap was 1:36.9, next fastest was Canterbury with 1:39.1, then Wollongong with 1:39.2. That Auckland car really is a beautifully neat and simple little car.

As for RMIT(C), I am disappointed they couldn't run any hard laps, mainly because I wanted to see how their Avons compared with (almost) everyone else's Hoosier R25Bs. While they did set themselves high goals with the transaxle and carbon-everything-else, I think they missed the big-picture design target by a country mile. If you are going to build a bespoke drivetrain from ground up, then build something that suits the needs of FSAE, NOT just a straight copy of F1. (Ie., why the N-S engine, the inboard-4(!)-spd-gearbox, and such low R%, when the turboed engine puts out a claimed, tyre-shredding, 65 kW (85+ hp)?)

Ah, what might have been. Always next year...

Z

Shuff

12-18-2015, 05:16 AM

Z,
Few points to answer what should have been questions rather than assumptions.
The Genesis in this application is pretty much a square. The north south layout gives you an opportunity to have much better intake and exhaust geometry. Let alone mating a transaxle to it while supporting the chassis loads as well. The trans axle gears are modified off the shelf items, hardly bespoke. The layout has its own reasons for being the way it is and none of them have anything to do with copying. I thought the tire choice would have helped you work out they don't do things because others are doing them. Did you ask what the teams design targets were? obciously not.

mech5496

12-18-2015, 11:55 AM

Shuff, it would be nice if you shared with us as well, as I find RMIT really interesting. Would guess that a bespoke drivetrain around would allow for a super-tight rear end (as I recall from my conversations with Rob Woods and Jon Burford back in 2011/12), which IMO is really desirable. Not flaming/criticising or anything, just curious ;)

Rory Hourihan

12-18-2015, 12:04 PM

- Missouri's amazing consistency in Endurance. Probably the lowest variation of first to last lap pace. Showed the value of experience in driving and competition, although I think they suffered in overall time due to the Australian tracks being quite different to what we see overseas.

Kev

We also had some teething issues with international travel and the competition format, weren't quite ready as we should have been for the format of design and cost. The track is a bit tighter than the US comps and our drivers had limited seat time leading up to comp. No excuses though. We learned a lot and some things that aren't too late to be implemented into the 2016 car. Our goal was to finish a little higher but we're content with the finish overall. Our big focuses for the past two years have been consistently finishing endurance and getting a more structured team... it is nice they get a 're-do' of sorts at endurance. I assume that's due to the size of the competition.

International travel definitely isn't easy, so thank you to all the teams that helped us out! Hopefully we'll be able to make the trip more frequently!

12-18-2015, 07:35 PM

Shuff,

Did you ask what the team's design targets were?

Much as I would have loved to ask such questions, I decided not to, because ... they were all too busy fixing the broken stuff.

But lots of time now available for such chit-chat, so:

What were the Team's design targets?
Was one of them "to win the comp outright"?
If not, then why not?

I don't mean any of above in a niggly way. (Honestly! :))

I genuinely would like to know why such an obviously well resourced Team put so much effort in building so many complicated and expensive parts, most of which, frankly, would not make a skerrick of difference if they were not there.

Specifically (IMHO):
* ~85 hp + low-R% makes the car traction-limited around most of the track. If you start with a high-ish power engine, then should you not make sure the car can use that power, as much as possible (ie. MORE R%!)?

* With ~85 hp the Enduro can be run comfortably in one gear. Likewise, with that power and a lightweight car you would be at the pointy end of Accel and AutoX events with only two gears. So why four?

* Nothing I saw in the N-S engine's I-E system could not be used in an E-W layout.

* An E-W engine/drivetrain can use spur-gears (or belts/chains) everywhere. Much simpler and cheaper than the N-S layout's necessary bevel-gear-final-drive (as Albins told you). I understand the Team had problems with those bevel-gears well before comp? (Misunderstood pinion loads?)

* A reverse rotating E-W engine has significant gyroscopic advantages.

* A well packaged E-W layout has the driver much further back for a more compact car, with lower Yaw MoI, lower CG (driver more reclined), and less total mass.

* Spending less time/work/$s on UNNECESSARILY complicated transaxles (eg. why TWO sets of "drop-gears" in there?), gives more resources for aero, which is where the big gains are found, especially on lighter cars.

Maybe next year...

Z

(PS. I reckon the Yamaha Genesis engine is a reasonably good choice for FSAE (but not as good as air-cooled single... :)), primarily because it comes with NO gearbox, so you can build a "good for FSAE" drivetrain.)

Shuff

12-19-2015, 02:54 AM

What were the Team's design targets?
The team started the year very small, eg there were about 6 people. With some fair obligations to meet from the uni. So goals had to be realistic.

Was one of them "to win the comp outright"?
Of course, but the main focus was on design, a fresh start concept wise leading to better understanding of the engineering put into it, I think this was reflected by the design event result.

I genuinely would like to know why such an obviously well resourced Team put so much effort in building so many complicated and expensive parts, most of which, frankly, would not make a skerrick of difference if they were not there.
First off your main resource is your people. This team had a small bunch of extremely dedicated members, who put everything into this. The university provides some excellent resource in terms of an on site autoclave, a chassis dyno that works most of the time, and a wind tunnel that can be booked by the team about a month or so in advance. So yes rmit is well resourced, but the main focus of the project is using those resources to learn, how many students can say they have designed and built a carbon fibre tub? An entire engine package? Wind tunnel tested prototype parts for a race car, this team can because they bit off more than they could chew then chewed like hell. Carbon tub is a must for this team. a transaxle is a huge challenge, go for it. Two of our members final year projects, one the case and two the trans itself, were undertaken and proved to be a good punt as both have landed employment off this project. So actually a small amount of resource was and had to be placed in this project.

Specifically (IMHO):
* ~85 hp + low-R% makes the car traction-limited around most of the track. If you start with a high-ish power engine, then should you not make sure the car can use that power, as much as possible (ie. MORE R%!)?

Peak power, not used in every event nor all the time in any event. And yes still a work in progress,

* With ~85 hp the Enduro can be run comfortably in one gear. Likewise, with that power and a lightweight car you would be at the pointy end of Accel and AutoX events with only two gears. So why four?

Four gears were used to allow reversion to another engine setup if required throughout the development, which is still ongoing. May or May not be in there much longer.

* Nothing I saw in the N-S engine's I-E system could not be used in an E-W layout.

Possibly, but the intake runner geometry would be extremely difficult. As would service. Been there done that.

* An E-W engine/drivetrain can use spur-gears (or belts/chains) everywhere. Much simpler and cheaper than the N-S layout's necessary bevel-gear-final-drive (as Albins told you). I understand the Team had problems with those bevel-gears well before comp? (Misunderstood pinion loads?)
Again as above, however the drive off the crank has some factors which need addressing which have been with the n-s. Pinion loads were well understood, but, a lot of learning is still happening.

* A reverse rotating E-W engine has significant gyroscopic advantages.
How significant?

* A well packaged E-W layout has the driver much further back for a more compact car, with lower Yaw MoI, lower CG (driver more reclined), and less total mass.

Again possibly,but integration of the chassis engine and trans becomes exponentially more difficult ie more parts and hence mass required. If you are around next year seriously have a look at how everything is attached, it's pretty much one aluminium plate. Honestly if the driver was any more reclined they would hardly see over the wheel. It's a bit deceiving when the car is on the stands, it's really very very low. Also much of the time the tallest driver 6 foot2 is in the car. There is still a template rule that needs to be met. What would you expect the cog to be?

* Spending less time/work/$s on UNNECESSARILY complicated transaxles (eg. why TWO sets of "drop-gears" in there?), gives more resources for aero, which is where the big gains are found, especially on lighter cars.

Again one guy, who had to do it for his uni course so it's a must. But I can see that for an outsider it would be easy to think it was a whole team of people working on it. Aero is in the works don't worry about that, this is and has always been a multi year deal.

Maybe next year...

Definitely!!!

Z

(PS. I reckon the Yamaha Genesis engine is a reasonably good choice for FSAE (but not as good as air-cooled single... :)), primarily because it comes with NO gearbox, so you can build a "good for FSAE" drivetrain.)

12-19-2015, 08:40 PM

Shuff,

"... the main focus was on design, a fresh start concept wise leading to better understanding of the engineering put into it, I think this was reflected by the design event result."

I have had another look at your 2015 car's specs, and also those of the 2014 car. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the Design Judges' assessment. Some '14->'15 changes went in an ok-ish direction, some in the completely wrong direction, and some very easy and very useful potential changes were ignored.

Here I refer to the "big-picture" concept changes, although I note these did NOT hurt you. It was the messed up "details" that stopped you competing in the AX and E/F Dynamic events. But even if you got those details right, your '15 car would not have been much faster than the '14 car. (Edit: Given that the '14 car was ~20 kg lighter than '15, you may have been slower this year.)
~o0o~

"Peak power, not used in every event nor all the time in any event. And yes still a work in progress..."

This is a good example of where you missed the "big-picture target" by the proverbial country mile. Your spec, taken from the 2015 Program, lists the turboed engine having "Max Torque = 90 Nm @ 6000 rpm", together with a 10+ krpm redline. If that is even close to true, then you could have been spinning your wheels almost everywhere on track in top gear!

The point is, with this hi-torque-hi-rev-engine concept plus your low-R% concept, you had no need for the complicated-four-speed-transaxle concept. Instead of a dozen spur-gears plus two bevel-gears plus many shafts+bearings+++, you only needed a single chain or belt going to a two-spur-gear final drive (with a clutch thrown in there somewhere, of course). Much quicker, easier, and cheaper to build, and the finished car would be significantly lighter and faster. (And yes, even faster in Acceleration event, if done properly!)
~o0o~

"Four gears were used to allow reversion to another engine setup if required throughout the development..."

A N-A Genesis engine in a simple lightweight car would do just fine with a single-speed drivetrain. See Auckland's E2 times while stuck in 2nd-gear. The N-A Genesis has more torque and a higher rev-range than Auckland's engine...
~o0o~

"How significant [are gyro effects]?"

Easy to work out. I did ... and posted the numbers on this Forum several years ago.
~o0o~

"...[with E-W layout] integration of the chassis engine and trans becomes exponentially more difficult ie more parts and hence mass required..."

Nonsense. (And only Americans so misuse/abuse the word "exponentially"! Ughhh! :()

Again, see Auckland's car for a very neatly packaged E-W rear end. Given that you had the opportunity to "build from ground up", your's could have been even neater still (eg. use much smaller "aluminium plate", turned sideways).
~o0o~

"... this is and has always been a multi year deal."

I hope you take the above comments in the right spirit. I realize that right now, having worked hard all year, and then falling at the final hurdle, you will be somewhat upset.

But I am wondering if RMIT-2016 will ever get back to where RMIT was in 2006 (= top of world)? You were reasonably close in 2014. But, to repeat the obvious, this year you went backwards.

Putting it another way, if Team-RMIT-2015 was a small business, then instead of organising a Christmas party right now you would more likely be chatting with the Receivers. Very expensive investments that produce miniscule returns do not maketh a good business plan. Your RoI this year was negative.

Z

Shuff

12-19-2015, 09:48 PM

I'll make this quick.
1. Just because the program says something doesn't make it true. Ie mass and rpm.
2. A list of specs tells you nothing about the way the car will work as a system.
3. Honestly R15 is much faster than r14. Really
4. I'm not at all upset, as I stated this is a multi year deal and top of the world is were the team is aiming.
5. Adjustable boost is a wonderful thing.
I'm probably just reading you wrong, as far as I am aware there isn't a correct answer to this problem of Fsae.

Shuff

12-19-2015, 09:50 PM

Z,
Holy shit you are deluded.

Seriously the aim of all this is to learn and get a job.

Job done

Ps yes I'm on uni holidays and bored as shit right now.

12-19-2015, 10:11 PM

... the aim of all this is to learn and get a job.
I found that "getting a customer" was much more profitable and enjoyable.

But that only works well, long term, when you set the right "big-picture" targets.

Z

Shuff

12-19-2015, 10:27 PM

well there wasn't exactly a lot of people shopping at Calder park was there.
Plus the jobs being offered sound pretty bloody enjoyable to me. Not everyone wants to do their own business straight away.
That can come in the sequel.

12-19-2015, 10:45 PM

Yes, after you learn about business plans, RoI, and the (obvious?) fact that most "answers" are very, very wrong.

In business terms this modern notion that "...there isn't a correct answer..." (or "all answers are equally correct...") can get very painful, very fast. But your new boss will tell you about that.

Z

Shuff

12-19-2015, 10:58 PM

There are most definitely wrong answers, I totally agree, but this years answer isn't wrong, it isn't to exactly right either. I look forward to working with my new bosses and continuing to learn and maybe in the future help student engineers get to where they want to be rather than dishing a load of bullshit about how they are wrong and there is only one right way to do anything. Seriously mate your input isn't helpful to any of us trying to learn and share our experiences with each other but if it makes you happy to tell us that we are wrong and making bad investments than be my guest. I've got better things to do with my time, like learning and experimenting with a race car and making myself a better engineer.

Scott Monash

12-21-2015, 12:17 AM

Kev, I have sent you an email. Cheers

Scott

driver08

12-23-2015, 05:31 AM

Mitchell

12-23-2015, 06:34 PM

The slow speeds experienced last weekend were ridiculous. The university who got their faculty advisor to change it due to safety should be ashamed. The preliminary course that the marshals laid out was completely fine apart from the tire barriers. I agree the tire barriers are stupid, however the final course was not representative of what and FSAE course should be. The final course barely met rules (pretty sure that some were violated however we didn't get a chance to measure because it was changing every 5 seconds which is inherently more dangerous since the drivers didn’t know the course). All overseas courses are much higher speeds and last years course at Calder was faster as well. To the university that complained – it might be time for you rethink your place in the competition, we are building racecars after all.....

There were many teams unhappy with the safety of the track. We never asked for it to be slower. You can thank Rob Chadwick for the speed. We asked for the tyres to be removed. It's fun to pretend you're building a racecar but the reality is there were many cars with very little drive time, amateur drivers and no run off on high speed sweepers.

This is not motor sport. It's an engineering demonstration. One serious incident and every uni would seriously consider spending their money on "formula washing machine"

Just to be clear, never had an issue with track concept, speed, layout or Robs work (which would be impossible to please everyone). The only issue was the safety concerns with the tyre barriers which in my opinion were completely unnecessary.

12-23-2015, 07:16 PM

"D7.2 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds
D7.2.1 ... Average speeds should be 40 km/hr to 48 km/hr."

"D8.6 Endurance Course Specifications & Speeds
D8.6.1 ... Average speed should be 48 km/hr to 57 km/hr with top speeds of approximately 105 km/hr."
~o0o~

Fastest time in Enduro (from Natsoft) = 1:36.9 = ~97 seconds.

Track distance (from several Teams' DAQs) = ~1,500 metres.

So, fastest Enduro-lap average speed = ~1500/97 = ~15.5 m/s = 55+ kph. (So Chadwick has hit the bull's-eye, average speed Rules-wise. Not sure about top speeds???)

So, ... advice to drivers who want to go faster ......

BUILD FASTER CAR!!! :D

Z

Kevin Hayward

12-24-2015, 07:49 AM

Z,

Again the rules have a little bit of a wording issues. Should the average speed be derived from:

1) from the fastest lap
2) the fastest run from the fastest team
3) the median from the comp
4) the average of all times
5) Some other average

Taking the average speed from the fastest lap is probably not the best measure of "average" in this case, although including struggling teams is likely not the best either. I would think the average speed from the winning endurance run is probably the best measure of the maximum allowable.

That being said the winning Endurance run was performed by Melbourne. The average tap time of their run looks closer to a 1:43 or 1:44 (by observation, feel free to do the calc). This puts an average speed of 52km/h, which is on the low end of the allowable range. Without checking data I would be fairly sure that top speeds would have been down on 105km/h.

A 48km/h average speed would have meant an average lap time of 1:52.3 Quite a few teams didn't achieve that. Should the speed range indicate some sort of range of speeds from the worst to the best cars there? If so the lap times should have varied from 1:52.3 to 1:34.7 from worst to best.

Interestingly we had a good data point in Missouri with a car that finished top 5 in Lincoln. Their lap times were very consistent with an average time of around 1:53. This is an average speed of under 48km/h for the endurance run. So a top 5 Lincoln team was unable to complete the endurance run with an average speed of 48km/h.

By these measures this track is slower than previous years, slower than the prominent international tracks, and probably more technically difficult (i.e. more speed variation). I don't think this is a bad thing in itself. As the cars get quicker the tracks inevitably need to tighten up to meet the intent of the rules.

What is frustrating to some teams is that the track was changed throughout the weekend from one that would have still been in the allowable range, to one that was a lot slower. The process of change was also difficult to follow. While most saw the obvious value in removing the tyre barriers, there were many that didn't have a problem with the rest of the track that was laid out at the beginning. The process got very messy with a few vocal teams causing the volunteers setting out the track a lot of un-needed grief.

If the track is to be altered during the event based on feedback from the teams it should be done with more transparency.

...

On a side note I was asked by Rob Chadwick what I thought of the course (in its original state). My comments were that I thought the tyre barriers were a bad idea, and apart from one straight that I had paced out as being too long it was representative of many tracks I had seen and a good mix of technically difficult sections with decent straights, sweeping curves and hairpins (pretty generous ones). At his request he drove me around the track later to check the straight, where I realised that I had made an error in my pacing, due to not seeing a direction change cone. Tyre barriers out of that original track and it would have been an acceptable track as it was.

I think Rob and his team were harassed for no good reason.

Incidentally we mentioned that one of the members travelling with us is a motorsport liason in our university who is one of 3 CAMS approved track inspectors in WA, with many years of experience running events and approving tracks. We offered to involve him in the discussions with the disputing teams, but the help was refused.

Kev

driver08

12-26-2015, 12:04 AM

It was pretty rich to see that members of the team who were abusing the course manager over such pressing safety concerns belonged to the very same team who had to pull a photo off their Facebook showing how proud they were to be wearing thongs in their workshop under a loose engine block.

....

It's perfectly fine for a team to make their concerns known to the organisers, but to complain to the extent that the track was changing as teams were walking it minutes before enduro, meaning that drivers were getting into the car literally not knowing what was ahead of them is surely more concerning than some loose tyres.

12-26-2015, 08:10 PM

Kev,

Again the rules have a little bit of a wording issues...

Yes, as always. More effort fixing the wording would stop a lot of other problems before they start.
~o0o~

... we had a good data point in Missouri ... lap times ... around 1:53 ... So a top 5 Lincoln team was unable to complete the endurance run with an average speed of 48km/h.

By these measures this track is slower than previous years, slower than the prominent international tracks, and probably more technically difficult (i.e. more speed variation). I don't think this is a bad thing in itself. As the cars get quicker the tracks inevitably need to tighten up...

I agree (with the emboldened bit). These results are actually high praise for the average Oz-comp cars (well, the ones that actually made it out there and lapped in under low 1:50s).
~o0o~

What is frustrating to some teams is that the track was changed throughout the weekend ... The process of change was also difficult to follow. ... got very messy ...

This I was not aware of. Getting rid of the tyre barriers earlier was fine, but I must have been talking to Teams in the pit area in the next suburb (and also getting nuked by the sun!) when the other changes were happening.

Again, and as always, the simplest solution to all this is...

If the track is to be altered during the event based on feedback from the teams it should be done with more transparency.

I suggest one big step in that direction, assuming Calder is used again, would be to move the pit area to the apparently unused pit buildings right next to the Dynamics area. Then whenever a dispute arises it only takes one call on the PA-system and all Team Leaders can take one step out of their pits, or a few steps away from the Dynamics area, and an "Open and Transparent" discussion can follow. Their was a perfect "focal point" area for these sort of discussions right inbetween the Dynamics area and the unused pits. (Well, perfect after removal of the thistle and other weeds...)

And, incidentally, the nearby paved area where some sort of bike riding school was being conducted (why?), should instead have been covered with "Do Engineering in Oz!" tents, and other such promotional venues that would boost the general vibe of FSAE-Oz as a place for students to springboard from school to the wider world.

There are courses nowadays in Unis for "Event Planning" and such, and IMO this FSAE-Oz could have been done much, much better.

Could've, should've, ... and with the right planning..., would've been bigger than Ben Hur!

Z

(PS. I could nominate my daughter to do such event planning (she was doing that course in uni). But, unfortunately, for last few years she has been away doing her "work experience", partying hard in Banff!)

ausracing

12-27-2015, 04:19 PM

I would like to thank all the volunteers throughout the weekend and organising the event. A lot of small things behind the scenes are done that go without notice (providing water to volunteers etc) so always grateful for their time. I definitely plan to help out marshalling/setting up/extra grunt work next year now that I have completed my studies.

The Track.
A few rules to keep things in perspective…
“D10.1 Competition Objective – A Reminder The Formula SAE® event is a design engineering competition that requires performance demonstration of vehicles and is NOT a race. Engineering ethics will apply. It is recognized that hundreds of hours of labor have gone into fielding an entry into Formula SAE. It is also recognized that this event is an “engineering educational experience” but that it often times becomes confused with a high stakes race. In the heat of competition, emotions peak and disputes arise. Our officials are trained volunteers and maximum human effort will be made to settle problems in an equitable, professional manner
D7.1 Autocross Objective The objective of the autocross event is to evaluate the car's maneuverability and handling qualities on a tight course without the hindrance of competing cars. The autocross course will combine the performance features of acceleration, braking, and cornering into one event.
D7.2 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds
D7.2.1 The following standard specifications will suggest the maximum speeds that will be encountered on the course. Average speeds should be 40 km/hr (25 mph) to 48 km/hr (30 mph). NOTE: the actual average speed for any track will depend on the prevailing conditions and the area available to the organizers in which the track is setup, therefore the quoted speeds are intended as a rough guide only.
D7.2.4 The organizers reserve the right to deviate from the parameters specified in this rule, D7.2, when they determine it is appropriate given the characteristics of a particular competition site.
D8.27 Endurance Event – Driver’s Course Walk The endurance course will be available for walk by drivers prior to the event. All endurance drivers are required to walk the course before the event starts”

I apologise to the volunteers and other teams for being upset/angry early Thursday. Having seen a serious injury in a workplace has always made me doubly sure of safety in a work environment – FSAE included. Hence my emotion towards this issue. I realise in hindsight that this was the wrong way to present my issues with the track and followed the procedures outlined in the event handbook. I hope that my views didn’t come across as ‘abuse’, which is a pretty strong statement to make and ensure everyone that at no point did I raise my voice/swear/call anyone names/use offensive terms. I also apologise on behalf for all the students – from majority of the teams - who complained to the volunteers but maintain that their intentions were for safety and safety alone.

I made a post earlier in the year (under FSAE Safety I think) and mentioned that I was concerned with the placement of tyre barriers on the outside of corners in the line of braking at FSUK. Similar thoughts were had given the track I saw on Thursday of comp.

It is of my opinion that FSAE cars are not built to be crashed. Whilst there is an IA for the front and rules on the mid-section for side impacts plus technical inspection and many rules that help with safety, none of these measures are good for impacts on a diagonal – or any angle that isn’t 0 or 90. Think back to Senna’s death where a wishbone impacted the helmet – something an impact with barriers in a FSAE car could result in (given the open wheel nature). Not saying this will happen but consider that these are not high performance racecars with 5 star safety ratings – they are ‘weekend racers’ built by students. Read the rules above. Also there aren’t professional drivers so to expect them to know how to correct a mistake isn’t a possibility.

"Tyre barriers out of that original track and it would have been an acceptable track as it was." Kev

Yes. Tyre barriers – along with the section between the wall and kerb – were placed in areas where in worst case scenario (wheel centre braking, suspension failure, throttle stuck, brake failure, flat tyre, driver error , all I have seen in competitions in just the past two years) could happen and a heavy impact with them would be a result. This was my only issue with the track. The tyres were not ‘some loose tyres’ but were drilled together and therefore required a forklift to move them about.

On Thursday afternoon I went around with a few other teams in the aim to keep the track layout the same but improve the safety of both drivers and marshals and whilst I was in the process of trying to make our suggestions clearer and so all teams knew (instead of scribbled down on a notepad) Rob came over and we had a discussion. He said he would take those views and keep working on the track which he did.

On Friday, after it was announced the track was finished there was still a few tyre barriers left but was hugely safer (in my opinion). I wanted the tyre barriers gone from certain sections and was not entirely confident of the kerb/wall section still even with the lane changers in there. Please note I made no comments after this day towards any section of the track

On Sat, I decided to walk the track at the end of the skipad/accel for the first time (spent the morning learning the track from the video and pace notes quietly in the grandstands), I noticed the tyre barriers were gone and a few cones were changed. The track layout itself wasn’t changed – if you had walked the track Friday you would know where to go Saturday bar maybe an extra offset slalom I think at top of the hill and slight change in the section before wall/kerb. Removing the barriers was going to change the track (changing marshal placement and how far they had to go to pick up cones) – I think Rob did a good job to do it so quickly and without changing the track considerably.

On Sunday, I was on third lap of track walk (driving for 2nd endure so could spend more time learning the track) when some volunteers came around changing the track. Not sure why they were doing so, but was only slight changes to make it more flowing? I made sure to not get involved and waited till they had finished doing the changes. Anyway, it wasn’t a huge change (really slow slalom stuff) and the major sections stayed the same (a tip: remember ‘sections’ of the track rather than individual corners ie a set of offset slaloms rather than left right left right). I don't get the view that the track was being changed so quickly that no one knew where they were going. Everyone still got to do a track walk. If anything, last year I saw more lost drivers due to the direction changes across the track.

At no point did I hear anyone complain to Rob or his team to make it more flowing/faster/slower/point and shooters/sweepers because they didn’t ‘like’ the track or think it wasn’t ‘cool’ enough for our ‘racecars’.

Drivers may not know the track (but are required to walk the track prior as per rules), but pointer cones are placed such that it helps with direction changes. These huge changes weren’t placed in high speed sections (if I remember correctly). I can double check later as the team (two members) updated the track but kept previous iterations.
So I will be able to do a ‘change progression sheet’ in January if anyone really wants to know…

For future events, maybe some input from Alumni from different teams could help out with the track safety given they know the ability and experience variance of both cars and drivers.

"The slow speeds experienced last weekend were ridiculous." - Anonymous

In summary, I think the resulting track was good safety wise.
In the end, that is all that matters. Thanks to the volunteers.