FSAE Australasia 2018

[Billzilla]

It's being held at Winton this year, and in years to come I believe.
I don't have any information as yet, I just wanted to start a place holder thread for the event.

[mech5496]

This thread is what I was hoping to find when logging in today. I got some random pieces of info coming through Facespace, but I would love first-hand updates from people attending. Was really hoping to be there this year, but life had other plans, so please keep us updated!

[Z]

Harry,

Ok, one more time, just for you.
~~~o0o~~~

New Venue.
=========
Winton Racetrack, which is near the Victorian country town of Benalla (about 200 km NE of Melbourne).

Most teams are camping right next to the racetrack, some others in motels in Benalla. Locals are very friendly (typical country folk) and a large part of the volunteer workforce for this FSAE-A-2018 comes from local area.
~~~o0o~~~

Weather Report.
============
Thursday - stinking hot, ~36 degree C.
Friday (today) - even hotter, 38+C.
Saturday, Sunday, Monday (= driver-swap day) - predicted to be merely very hot, maybe ~33C ... with possibility of thunderstorms.

The Winton track is in the middle of a topographic bowl (think frying-pan), with much black bitumen, so I would guess the air temps just above the track, and hence going into radiators, will be pushing 50C.
~~~o0o~~~

First Impression of this FSAE-A-2018's Organisation.
=================================
Much talk of great possibilities with this new venue, but so far it is the same old, same-old. Another missed opportunity!

Honestly, if I was judging this comp's organisation in the same way as judging an FSAE team for "Concept, Integration & Management", then I would have to award them a big, fat, duck-egg!
NO clear statement of high-level goals.
NO trickle-down from high-level goals to lower-level goals.
NO possible OBJECTIVE measure of success or failure of meeting any of these (non-existent) goals.
Just people metaphorically wandering around, bumping into things.

Three Suggestions to FSAE-Australasia Organising Committee:

1. Highest-level goal - "To help produce the most well-rounded and skillful Mechanical and Electrical Engineers in the world.". Or something like that.

2. Objective measure of above - Number of Australian teams in the top 10 (or 20 or 50) of the FS/FSAE world rankings. Check FSG website for current list, and see that Oz-teams are going the same way as the Oz Cricket and Rugby Union teams. Namely, south! (Thank God I follow Rugby League, where the Kangaroos rule supreme!)

3. Process required to achieve above - Hold "Concept" seminars at beginning of year, to help teams set best direction for success. Hold many "Craftmanship" seminars throughout year, to make sure each team's concept will actually work. Hold the Competition "seminar" at end of year (ie. the actual comp), and reward successful teams with pat-on-back (well, maybe a small trophy), and UN-successful teams with a huge bollocking! So, carrot AND stick. This shown to work well everywhere else, forever.
~~~o0o~~~

Further to above, the highest-level goal is easiest achieved if more teams come to Oz-comps. This will only happen if many of the students already here are enjoying themselves, thus encouraging even more students to put in the effort to build a car and come along. So, in short, the organisers should aim to PUT ON A GOOD PARTY.

The very first step here is ADVERTISING! The event must be talked-up. The "vibe" must be kick-started. Quite obviously no one comes if no one knows it is on. And an event like this SHOULD be pulling in thousands of mums, dads, and their high-school aged kids who are wondering what to study at Uni. The potential is here for a hugely enjoyable weekend of Educational-Engineering stuff, with lots of other cool stuff to also look at...

In previous year's posts I spelled out the three essential ingredients needed for such a good party, assuming the advertising had done its job of pulling in the punters. To repeat, there MUST BE:

1. An "attractive" Focal-Point, to draw everyone together. At normal parties this is often a big bonfire. But at these events this Focal-Point is obviously pit-lane, with all the smoking-hot cars on show there. All other activities should radiate out from the F-P. So track-events are held to one side of the F-P (but reasonably close), engineering recruitment-tents/displays++ are in another direction, jumping-castle is over there, and so on.

2. Somewhere comfortable to sit and enjoy reasonable fare and beverages, and chat with people you have never met before. This MUST BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to the Focal-Point.

3. MUSIC! This interspersed with an MC talking up the show, namely what is happening next, who's done what to whom, and spreading general gossip. (And for the record, I am very liberal in my musical tastes. I would accept BOTH types of music. Yep, both Country AND Western.)

Just to be clear, point 3 really does make a huge difference. I am not joking. Combine background music with some food and interesting cars to look at, and "the vibe" goes through the roof.
~~~o0o~~~

But so far, NONE OF THE ABOVE!

I have been attending these Oz-comps for many years now, but in the weeks prior to the event I had next to no idea who was coming, or what "special events" were planned, or what music, or what jumping-castle? There was a brochure available on the SAE-A website sometime mid-year with some hints at what was planned, but also many empty pages with the bold-letters "TBA". And nothing since. I was seriously thinking "Why bother?".

As for layout of this event, the 600+ km drive from Sydney to Winton was a breeze compared with the hike from pit-lane to the only cafeteria open on Thursday and Friday. Maybe tomorrow the small kiosk nearer to the pits will open? Or maybe not? But still no music, no jumping-castle, nor anything resembling a "vibe".
~~~o0o~~~

Enough helpful suggestions. They will probably fall on deaf-ears anyway.

Z

More coming...

[Z]

FSAE-Oz-2018 - Teams and Cars
=======================
Sorry, not enough time to do a full report, so just some highlights.

(And did I mention that NO PROGRAM has been printed?!!! That is, no magazine-sized program with a half-page on each car, showing a photo or two, all important specs, etc. I found a one-page flyer with a timetable of events and a list of the teams attending, and their pit-number. Nothing more.)
~~~o0o~~~

Anyway, without doubt, the most outstanding, highest-highlight, is ...

#E31 - TU-Fast Munchen.
===================
WOW!!!

This is currently THE FASTEST FS/FSAE CAR IN THE WORLD, err, ... that has never won a competition. Well, not yet.

The briefest spec-list tells why it is "fastest". Namely, 4WD E-car, with a mass of ... ~157kg!!! And also best-in-world aero, with ClA = ~6.7 m^2 and CdA = 1.7 m^2.

Longer explanation needed for why "no wins", yet. This year they went to FSUK, they were very fast, but a gear-box in one of the in-wheel-motors seized and they had to limp home with 3-wheel-drive. At FSG they were faster than all others (I recall mention of ~4 seconds per ~60 s lap faster than next car), but after seemingly winning Enduro they were DQ'd for some software error in one of their many different software "maps". See their FB page for full details. And at FS-Spain they were again fastest, but some tiny oil-seepage (with NO spillage) from a wheel-gearbox again saw them DQ'd.

So, LOOK OUT all Oz-Teams!

Actually, this is the type of team we need more of down here, in the hope that some of their talent and work-ethic rubs off.

I should also mention that after a long, and at times animated, chat with them, I found them all to be very friendly and open with their information. I had suggested that after their misfortunes in Europe they must have been very "annoyed", so they looked at the FS/FSAE-World-Map to find the last remaining competition of the year where they could finally avenge Cruel Fortune, even if that meant going to the ends of the Earth. But, no, apparently they had planned this Oz trip over a year ago. A few of the team members have just graduated, or will soon, so this is as much a holiday for them as it is a serious competition.

Nevertheless, Munchen are clearly hot favourites for outright win. I wish them good luck on track, and an enjoyable stay down-under. :)
~~~o0o~~~

#07 - Edith Cowan University.
=====================
Didn't make it to Oz-comp last year, and went to Europe this year instead (see their FB). A "minimalist" and very interesting car, but glitches have got in their way so far.

One of the very few teams in FS/FSAE history that make really significant modifications to their engines, to the point that their engines are effectively "bespoke". This year they have the desmo-heads, barrels, and crank-assembly from a Dukati 695 cc V-twin, sitting on a bespoke crankcase-final-drive unit with a SINGLE GEAR-RATIO. A modified (or aftermarket?) clutch is used, with clutch held in (= disengaged) for "neutral". They also have student designed "Rzeppa"-(= "six-ball")-CVs on the driveshafts. The inner-races of the CVs are actually machined on the ends of the drive-shafts.

For reference, VW-Beetle sized CVs are typical on a host of the smaller/older Formula cars, such as F-Ford. (And note that the first nine generations of Hewland racing gearboxes, used on countless F1 cars through 1960s-70s, were essentially beefed-up Beetle-boxes.) The standard Beetle-CVs are 90 mm OD, and use balls of 5/8" (~16 mm) diameter. The ECU CVs are scaled-down versions of these, about 50+ mm OD, with 12 mm diameter balls.

Car mass is ~187 kg. Engine is ~51 kW @ ~9 krpm, at differential. Current overall gear-ratio, which can be changed with internal swap-gears, is ~8:1, giving 95 kph at 9.5 krpm.

Oh, and they also have a "soft warp" suspension, done with "hydraulic-longitudinal-Z-bars", for those who understand this stuff.
~~~o0o~~~

#15 - ADFA (AusDefenceForceAcademy).
=============================
Our boys in khaki always have something of interest to show, and this year they probably have the most powerful engine at comp. Same engine as last year, a turboed-and-intercooled KTM 510 cc single, but this year DETUNED from ~78 hp to ~72 hp, but with a wider (better) torque-curve. This figure is "at the wheels" (ie. on a "chassis-dyno"), so probably 72 kW "at the crank", given the usual losses through the tyres. Suprising how many students still DO NOT understand this, namely the difference between "crank-hp" and "wheel-hp".

The rest of car is a very similar to last year's, being rather large, 221 kg, and only ~50%R-weight (which explains why its rear tyres would light-up most everywhere on track last year!). But this year's car is claimed to be much better tested, so some improved lap times expected. Not likely to win, but moving in the right direction.
~~~o0o~~~

#41 - University of Queensland.
=======================
Another team always bringing interesting cars, in recent years. Last year they only had an E-car, which comes back this year somewhat improved. But this year they also have a C-car, named "Simples" (from the "meerkat" adverts?). I didn't have time to write down the major specs, but think of Auckland's last C-car in 2015, which could have won OUTRIGHT if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by using a solenoid-operated-gear-shifter! (See my rants back in 2015.)

Anyway, major specs are (?) smallish-single engine, sub-160 kg mass, rear-beam-axle, DASDs, and everything else very "simples".

BUT (!), for some reason their school has prevented them from testing both cars, and may possibly even stop them from competing at this competition, all because of some perceived "insurance" codswallop!

Aaaarghhh!!! How can Australian teams ever "climb the ladder" when there is this sort of nonsense going on?
~~~o0o~~~

More tomorrow, if I have time. Can also try to answer specific questions about specific teams, if anyone is still reading this.

Z

[mech5496]

Great updates as always Z; needless to say I am eager for more. Hope to be there next year ;)

[DougMilliken]

Hi Z, good to see you back here.

For anyone that didn't get the "both Country AND Western" gag, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM a truly classic comedy, but perhaps one not seen by the current generation? Instead of music at night, The Blues Brothers could be projected on the side of a white building?

[Z]

Doug,

Hey, I was serious!

In fact, I am so liberal I would love listening to some Country, some Western, AND The Blues Brothers, live. Especially the Rawhide theme song, complete with flying beer-bottles! :)
~~~o0o~~~

SATURDAY UPDATE.
=================
Some results below, but first some ranting.
~o0o~

"The FESTIVAL of FSAE-Oz".
======================
Yesterday I said that this show has the potential to attract thousands of mums, dads, and their teenage kids, all of whom might be interested in seeing some "cool engineery stuff". I took it as read that those thousands of interested onlookers would each spend a few tens of dollars while at the show. But to spell it out fully, this show has the potential to generate many tens of thousands of dollars of income, possibly even into the hundreds of thousand$.

Of course, this income should not be taken as pure profit, but should instead be reinvested into a bigger and better show next year. To repeat, the main goal should be to attract as many of the teenagers out there who are thinking about going into the "STEM" subjects at Uni, but are not yet sure if STEM is for them.

So at lunchtime I was sitting out front of the cafeteria (remember, the one that is several days' camel-ride from the pits) and I overheard two middle-aged men, with two teenage boys in tow, talking about "where is it...", and "when is it starting...". Sure enough, they were locals (well, from Wangarratta, ~50 kms away) who read something in the local paper about "Uni-students building small race cars", and they wanted to have a look.

Long story short, there are NO signs showing where the FSAE pits/events are located, NO music or jumping-castles to act as attractors or landmarks, and NO possible way that these quite keen spectators could easily learn about this whole "FSAE-thing".

So I gave them directions to the pits, they thought a bit about the distance to walk, then got into their cars and drove off in that general direction. I hope they enjoyed looking at the cars and talking to the students. If they ever found them.
~o0o~

The Escher Staircase of Design Feedback.
=============================
For as long as I have been coming to these events there has been some sort of public Design Feedback session.

Today's feedback session was remarkably similar to all others. The most common feedback, EACH YEAR, is along the lines of,
"Well, I'm happy to say that this year's cars are so much better [or "10/20/50% better"] than previous year's cars. And, most importantly, you students seem to be getting a much better UNDERSTANDING of [blah, blah...]"

I must be going blind. I see the same cars now, as I saw back in 2002. And what is between the students' ears is likewise same-same as before (see below under Skid-Pad). For a graphical representation of this claimed "upwards progress", google "Escher's staircase". The 'Gong car that won in 2002 would be near top-of-ladder this year. Note that there are more cars in the competition in recent years, so the bell-curve is getting wider, but its centre surely ain't budging.

(Edit: Above paragraph refers to Oz-teams. Munchen, of course, are a lonely outlier on the Oz-bell-curve here.)

Anyway, if genuine "upwards progress" is wanted, then there must be some HONEST feedback. Which means some UGLY TRUTHS.

(And for those in attendance today, pay attention to Mitchell's comments on the "...two sub-160 kg cars".)
~~~o0o~~~

Saturday's DYNAMIC EVENTS.
=========================
Find all raw times at,
http://racing.natsoft.com.au/results/
Click on "Circuit racing" icon, then scroll down.
~o0o~

ACCELERATION EVENT.
===================
I used to kid myself that the old Calder track surface must be very low-grip, hence the poor Oz-team Accel-times. But today most Oz-teams clocked very similar Accel-times to their previous year's times back at Calder (Edit: namely ~4.2 s -> 5++ s). So, clearly I was delusional thinking that Calder is the problem, unless this Winton track is just as bad as Calder.

Hmmm..., so how to resolve this conundrum (ie: is the problem with the Oz-tracks, or the Oz-teams)? Maybe check what time the Muncheners managed here?

And it is, ... best time of 3.499 seconds!!! (Check natsoft, it not lie!)

CONGRATULATIONS MUNCHENERS! :)

And shame on all you Oz-teams! :(

Now, despite Munchen's record setting Oz-time, I am quite sure some "toothless hillbillies" (wonderful people, very friendly) could knock another half-second off it. Yes, absolutely for sure! I have no doubts they would quickly learn how to "...wrangle them dang'd eee-let-rons" just as well as they can wrangle-the-rubber, and do all the necessary blacksmithery to keep the car together when "the launch" goes really well.

Similarly, I am sure I could knock a few tenths-of-second, or more, off any of the Oz-team's times, given a weekend with angle-grinder, stick-welder, and access to their car. Really very easy.

So, come on boys and girls, GO THREES or GO HOME!
~o0o~

SKID-PAD.
=========
Similar story, really.

Munchen best time = 4.614 seconds. More congratulations! :)

I was listening to some Monash team-members and this may be very close to a world record, and I guess certainly a record for Oz. Check the FB feeds for more accurate info.

What to say about the Oz-teams' performances?

Hmmm... Well... Maybe just for the educational value... How about you try and find a video, or just static pics, of #12 RMIT C-car doing its laps.

I could give a very long lecture here, but suffice to say I talked to RMIT-Suspension-Guy, he had some reasonable high-level goals, possibly needed a bit more mid-level analysis, and is planning to correct the hardware-level set-up before tomorrow's events. But I fear some parts of the set-up can never be corrected, short of very liberal application of angle-grinders and stick-welders.

(Methinks a small part of Escher's staircase, the bit near RMIT's workshop, must have fallen into some sort of space-time-discontinuum, and ended up in a very weird alternate universe. No other explanation, really.)
~~~o0o~~~

Autocross tomorrow morning, and a single Enduro after lunch.

Z

[Z]

Sunday morning - some light rain overnight.

Z

[Pat Clarke]

Hi Erik,
Interesting to see you back :-)

I thought about driving down, but only got back from the FS Symposium in Hungary on Wednesday evening, so decided to stay at home.
Your comments about raising money and ploughing it back into FSAEA raises my hackles. Not because of what you said, I totally agree with that, but because of what really happens.
Sponsorship funds I have been involved with specifically for FSAE have instead gone into SAEA consolidated revenue. There, they decide how much goes to the competition, despite the sponsors directions that the funding was specifically for FSAEA!
I understand the same thing happens with the SAE in the US.

FSAE should never be a source of general revenue, but a source of membership. They should play the long game! SAE like most professional associations is struggling to survive in this age of communication. Instead of killing the dairy cow, they should milk it! FSAE is the best SAE recruitment tool ever invented.
You must be a member to compete at FSAE, but what do the SAE do to retain those student members after graduation? I will leave the answer to your imagination.

End of rant. I hope you managed to stay dry today.

Pat

[Billzilla]

Thanks for the reports, Z.
Good to see such a fast car in that 4WD electric beast. More photos please everyone!

[Z]

CORRECTION - The Munchen Skid-Pad time I gave in earlier post was only for one of their laps. I guess their other lap was the ~4.90 s, thus giving them an official averaged time of 4.758 seconds. Still quite (TU-) FAST!
~~~o0o~~~

SUNDAY.
=======
Day starts cloudy but not raining. However, track is wet from overnight rains.

Spectator friendliness of track is abyssmal. Spectators at ground level, behind fence, so must stand to see. Only a small section of track is visible from any vantage point.

For reference, AutoX and Enduro tracks (both same) apparently ~1,150 metres long. Good lap-times (see below) are ~1m 20s, or ~80 seconds, so the "average speed" for the fastest cars is ~52 kph.
~o0o~

AUTOCROSS.
===========
Track still wet in areas, so cars running "wets" or "inters". (To be honest, with nowhere to sit I didn't take any notes and have now forgotten if it was officially declared "wet", or otherwise?)

Many cars struggling to either start or finish their laps. This entirely due to the teams, and nothing to do with the weather.

MOST INTERESTING (below are raw times, so not including any cone penalties):
#E31 Munchen, at mass = 157 kg, fastest at 1:19.17.
#66 Monash-C, at mass = ?, second fastest at 1:19.30, so barely a tenth-second behind.
#E65 Monash-E, at mass = 274 kg, third fastest at 1:19.78, so only six-tenths behind, DESPITE BEING +117 kg HEAVIER THAN MUNCHEN!!!
#13 Canterbury, fourth at 1:23.41.
#14 Curtin, fifth at 1:23.74.
Then increasingly large gaps to the rest.
~o0o~

ENDURANCE.
===========
Thunderous rumbling of black clouds on horizon, starting ~12 noon.

Intermittent rain kicks-in ~1.00 pm, just as first teams go out. Starting order is "fastest in AutoX go first", so this will get interesting! Keep this in mind if puzzled by Natsoft lap-times.

Several of these top teams do a mid-Enduro tyre change, from slicks to inters or wets.

Munchen come in for such a tyre change, but some of the aluminium-hubs/motors are TOO HOT, so expand, and the carbon-wheel-shells are stuck! So the slicks go back on, and car goes back out onto wet track.

Rain stops, sun shines, track dries, just as the mid-field cars start going out. Hence many mid-field-cars lapping faster than top-cars.

Parked cars start populating the infield. I counted about six by the time it was all over. For example,
#E88 RMIT-E - VERY fast for many laps, then inverter problem.
#E42 UQ-E - reasonable times, then driver pushing on both pedals at same time, so software stop, then driver forgot proper restart procedure!
#12 RMIT-C - steering-geometry is set-up better than yesterday, but still too much adverse castor-camber coupling, but this irrelevant because on fourth lap a front upright/axle failure.
And others...
~o0o~

Having spent all day standing up, which was necessary to see at least some of the racing, I didn't bother standing around waiting for the presentations. These always far too drawn-out and boring. But I'm guessing that overall results for top places, as well as further down the ladder, were likely influenced by Zeus&Co. Will find out when final results appear on the various FB pages.

So right now is pizza time. Or maybe chinese?

Driver-swap day tomorrow.

Z

[noah]

Thanks for sharing so much information. The car overviews were especially nice as like you said there was no brochure released so there is really no way to know what kind of cars different teams were running. Was the Monash E car 4wd or was it just a rwd monster with an emrax? Any other teams car stand out as interesting layout or well performing? Also do you think had it been drier the TUFast car would've pulled a larger gap on the 2 Monash cars or was outright pace compareable?

[Westly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msk_9luD8h8&t=320s

I attended the event as a spectator for the first time and put togethor a bit of a highlights package from each day - day 4 with auto-x and enduro attached above.

First time really filming and editting video - so they are pretty basic, but I hope they give a good brief overview of each day.

[Z]

Noah,

I would have liked to do a much better coverage of all the teams and cars, similar to the "Planet-Z" reporting I did back in 2013/14/15. Sorry, but SAE-A made that all but impossible this year.

It was much easier when I could use the A4-sized magazine-style programs with a half-page entry on each car as a starting point. That stopped in 2016 when the program shrunk to under A5-size (in '16 and '17 I was DJ'ing so had access to all the Design Reports). And it was much, much easier when I could sit somewhere (on a chair I brought myself), watch the events, listen to some clear commentary giving times, etc, and then write down notes on the interesting highlights. But none of that possible this year.
~o0o~

FAKE NEWS!
========
I should point out that much of what I write here, as in previous years, should be read with a degree of scepticism. I try to confirm the various "bits-of-information" from several different sources, but not always possible. And even when info is confirmed multiple times, the supposed "fact" AIN'T NECESSARILY TRUE. Nothing new here. It has always been thus.

For example, ADFA had a quite beautifully welded exhaust pipe which looked to me to be Stainless Steel. I recall the welder saying "...it is 1 mm thick SS". Their FB says Titanium?

Regarding the comments below, I may change my mind on some of them when I eventually get to see the official results. I know the results have been released, but other than some snippets I found on some team's FBs, I haven't yet been able to find the full "Final Results". Certainly not on SAE-A's website, nor on their FB, at least not anywhere I looked. Groaaannn!
~o0o~

"Was the Monash E-car 4wd or was it just a rwd monster with an emrax?"

The Monash E-car #65 is in many ways the real standout of this competition.

I say this because its on-paper spec is reminiscent of a bottom-of-the-ladder team's rough-n-ready attempt to enter the E-division, by taking their last year's (overweight) C-car, tossing the C-engine, replacing it with a biggish battery-pack, and then bolting a single Emrax (228?) BEHIND the rear-axle-line, with a chain-drive going forward to a spool. And, indeed, this is pretty much what Monash have done, quite openly, and with the aim of getting their two C and E-cars built as quickly and cheaply as possible.

The "standout" part is how fast this Monash E-car is on track. It really does show that a car can have outstandingly good performance on track even when it is nowhere near as "optimized" as most students think it must be. Much kudos to Monash for being brave enough to take this seemingly "low-tech" approach. Especially so, when you consider that Monash have a high reputation to uphold, and going "low-tech" could have ended up being very embarrassing for them.
~o0o~

"Any other team's car stand out as interesting layout or well performing?"

I recall quite a few years ago the Japanese Sophia cars being exceptionally well finished, almost like mini-F1 cars. However, back then they never seemed to perform too well on track, often not even making it out there. Of course, I thought, the DNSs might be the result of having to ship a car across the world, and other such difficulties.

This year #11 Sophia had their "mission statement" printed boldly across their rear-wing: "MAKE SOPHIA GREAT AGAIN!". :D

BUT! (1) The quality of finish of their bodywork was, to put it bluntly, quite "papier-mache"-ish. Err, perhaps done by the local kindergarten class. And there were many rusty steel brackets, obviously last minute additions to hold things together. And a rusty steel front-wishbone that had obviously broken and then been "mended" by welding some steel splices either side of the break.

BUT! (2) The car was FAST! Not quite TU-fast, but it posted one of the fastest single Skid-Pad times (see Natsoft), and it had fastest single lap in Enduro. This Enduro time largely due to it running later in the day when the conditions were better, but still impressive.

So I guess the car's outwards appearance was due to the team focussing on TESTING, TESTING, TESTING (and more testing...), rather than wasting time polishing a show-pony.

For reference, it was the lightest car at comp, at 155 kg (<- subject to confirmation, but I doubt the organisers will release the official weight data), has the standard-ish single Yamaha 450, full-ish aero package, and the new 6" x 16" Hoosiers (LCOs, IIRC).

WELL DONE SOPHIA! :)
~o0o~

"Also do you think had it been drier the TUFast car would've pulled a larger gap on the 2 Monash cars or was outright pace compareable?"

At Monday's driver swap day (yesterday) I heard that one of Monash's gun drivers posted a ~1:15 lap-time in the TU-Fast car. This was a stop-watched time, so not available on Natsoft. So compared with the Munchener's fastest AutoX time of ~1:19, that amounts to a 5% improvement. Apparently Munchen's best drivers couldn't make it down-under.

So, it seems that TU-Fast could well be TU-Faster!
~o0o~

TU-INTERESTING (1) - From a brief discussion with some Muncheners on Monday, their battery/accumulator is ~45 kg, the inverter/controller (for all 4 motors) is ~3 kg, and each of the four hub-mounted motor/gearboxes is ~5 kg. So all up ~68 kg. I forgot to ask about the mass of the wiring and cooling circuits, and the small cooling radiator and fans. But say about 70+ kg for their total "propulsion system".

Now think about tossing all that E-junk :) and replacing it with a Jawa 500 cc aircooled single, which weighs ~28 kg and is good for 70+ hp, and a simple, single-speed, drivetrain similar to ECU's. Or any of many other possible drivetrain layouts (think poly-V-belts...), but with similar minimalism to ECU.

Methinks a sub-130kg, 70+ hp, C-car, with world's-best-aero, is quite feasible!
~o0o~

TU-INTERESTING (2) - Given that, due to differential thermal expansion, their CF-wheels got stuck on their hot aluminium-hub-gearboxes during Enduro, I asked the Muncheners if they had considered a "Hirth" joint, or were even aware of such. Nope, none of them had heard of it. This despite Herr Helmuth Hirth being one of their very own!

SHAME, YOUNG MUNCHENERS, SHAME. :(

Just in case some Muncheners are reading this, here is an old thread covering such old (German?) joints.

My first post on the thread (also covers other stuff).
http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?9943-center-lock-hubs-and-wheels&p=41147&viewfull=1#post41147

Post covering important design features of such joints.
http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?9943-center-lock-hubs-and-wheels&p=33518&viewfull=1#post33518

Post with sketches of different joints.
http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?9943-center-lock-hubs-and-wheels&p=26286&viewfull=1#post26286

The "three-tooth face-spline" would be the most suitable type for a joint between Munchen's wheel-hub and CF-wheel. I nowadays refer to such a joint as a "Three-Dog-Drive", or a "Cerberus-Coupling".

Z

[Z]

FAKE NEWS - From various sources it seems that a certain Herr Hellmuth (two ells, not one) Hirth was active in German engineering around the early 1900s, built aircraft engines, and founded Mahle. But Wikipedia has the "Hirth Joint" being invented by one Albert Hirth. Now the above Hellmuth had a father named Albert, and he happened to be a machinist/toolmaker. But elsewhere I found that the "Hirth Joint" was patented in 1928 by a Carl Albert Hirth.

Nevermind, "face-splines" are a cracking good way of bolting things together. They were used on many aero and racing engines from the 1930s onwards, are nowadays used to hold together the rotating assembly of jet engines, and are also used in many more mundane areas. And as mentioned in above links, the "3-dog-drive" variation is easily made with a hacksaw or angle-grinder (or, gee-whiz, even a 3-D printer!), and it works exceptionally well.
~o0o~

TU-EVEN-FASTER - When the rain started coming down during Enduro, Monash quickly changed to their wets. Interestingly, they ran 10" slicks, but 13" wets, which I think are Goodyears (not sure what code?). As noted before, the poor Munchkins were stuck with their slicks for the whole very wet Enduro, because their wheels were stuck on the hubs. Keep this "wets vs slicks" in mind when comparing Natsoft lap times.
~o0o~

IN THE LAP OF THE GODS - Possibly worst affected by the rain during Enduro were the teams just below the level of Munchen and Monash, but above all the rest. If Curtin, ECU, or Canterbury had slower AutoX times, then they may well have finished higher up the ladder in Overall results. Ahh, yes, Zeus&Co can do that to you. :)
~o0o~

BTW (1). Curtin did an excellent job of switching from their usual 4-cylinder engine to a Yamaha Genesis + belt-and-cones CVT. This is the most successful implementation of rubber-band-CVT I have seen in the whole FS/FSAE world. I know other teams have done it before, but this Curtin implementation was very neat, to the point that it looked just like any other well-built FS car. So NO HANDICAP from running the fairly bulky belt-and-cones.
~o0o~

BTW (2). Yet again Canterbury came with an entirely new C-car with entirely new engine. In the past they have run fours and singles, so this time it was a Triumph Daytona 675 cc triple. The gist of this policy is to make each batch of students engage in a full engineering cycle, rather than just polishing earlier generation's work. The car ran well all weekend (that I saw), and if not for Zeus&Co they would have finished higher Overall. Although a DQ in Fuel???
~o0o~

OFFICIAL RESULTS - Are finally on SAE-A website. Many, many DNAs and DNFs.

Sadly, and as always, Oz-teams' "progress" is very Escher-ian.

Z

[Z]

BTW (3) - Had a closer look at TU's aero on Monday, with the car up on stands so I could see underneath. They have world-leading aero-downforce (of CzA = ~6.7 m^2), but...
... MUCH MORE IS POSSIBLE (IMHO).

And with even LESS drag.

Z

[Jonny Rochester]

#E43 UTAS, 265kg without aero (but wings went on in pits then came off again). Only driven in the week before comp, (yeah, I drove it a bit. Had enough power.) Stuggled to get through EV inspections. Failed rain test the forst time. Then failed brake test and wasted time. Got to endurance but only made 2 laps as we couldn't charge the battery due to software issues with charger.

Due to having 2 motors mechanically independent, we have effectively made an open diff. The inside wheel spins at any speed with throttle input. Chassis setup and warm tyres could improve this, but it causes team discussion about how to stabalise this, most saying "torque vectoring" wanting to use the steering sensor input. But more experienced drivers (and myself) would prefer a mechanical solution unless they can keep both wheels the same speed under high load.

[Billzilla]

Thanks for the updates gents.
Z - thanks for the specifics - And yes you know we're on the same page with what we'd like to build. :)

[mech5496]

Nice to see some activity on the forums again! Huge thanks to Z for all the very informative posts for yet another year. Johnny (or others), any driver swap day impressions you wanna share maybe?

[DougMilliken]

..."torque vectoring" wanting to use the steering sensor input.
First question -- what will their algorithm will do when the car gets loose (limit oversteer) and the driver is on opposite steering lock to catch it...

[noah]

Noah,

"Was the Monash E-car 4wd or was it just a rwd monster with an emrax?"

The Monash E-car #65 is in many ways the real standout of this competition.

I say this because its on-paper spec is reminiscent of a bottom-of-the-ladder team's rough-n-ready attempt to enter the E-division, by taking their last year's (overweight) C-car, tossing the C-engine, replacing it with a biggish battery-pack, and then bolting a single Emrax (228?) BEHIND the rear-axle-line, with a chain-drive going forward to a spool. And, indeed, this is pretty much what Monash have done, quite openly, and with the aim of getting their two C and E-cars built as quickly and cheaply as possible.

The "standout" part is how fast this Monash E-car is on track. It really does show that a car can have outstandingly good performance on track even when it is nowhere near as "optimized" as most students think it must be. Much kudos to Monash for being brave enough to take this seemingly "low-tech" approach. Especially so, when you consider that Monash have a high reputation to uphold, and going "low-tech" could have ended up being very embarrassing for them.
~o0o~


Z

Really hurts to read because that is what Cal Poly attempted to achieve the past few years but never quite got all the pieces together for race day. At least it's validating in a way that someone else was able to succeed with that strategy.

[NickFavazzo]

I'm surprised it isn't done more often. Start simple, make that good, then make it complicated. Crazy to do it the other way...

[mech5496]

Well, we did something similar with our first e-car in 2014. We took what we already had from the combustion era, placed the battery box where the engine was, and a donut-style motor (Yasa) right on the axle, housing the diff in it. The car was 240kg and "geared" (due to direct drive) to a top speed of 172kph, but it was dead reliable and thus faster than all previous combustion vehicles of the team.

[Beagz]

Unfortunately this year I was unable to make it for the first time since 2014, however it was an interesting comp to follow! (Albeit through people in my team, rather than SAE themselves). As you say Z it is dissapointing how the comp was organised and despite the SERIOUSLY cool cars this year, it was hard to follow any know what was happening without talking to my team. The most recent post from SAE is still from Friday.. anywho!


#E43 UTAS, 265kg without aero (but wings went on in pits then came off again). Only driven in the week before comp, (yeah, I drove it a bit. Had enough power.) Stuggled to get through EV inspections. Failed rain test the forst time. Then failed brake test and wasted time. Got to endurance but only made 2 laps as we couldn't charge the battery due to software issues with charger.

Do you mind me asking how it failed rain test? The thought of an EV failing rain test has always made me uneasy and I am just a little curious. Great to hear you guys have a running EV though, im looking forward to seeing how it goes in years to come.

[Z]

...[the very simple Monash E-car] is what Cal Poly attempted to achieve the past few years but never quite got all the pieces together for race day.(^ My emphasis.)

Noah,

A "mission statement", or "team motto", that I suggest would benefit all teams is,

"Do LESS, but do it BETTER, and do it SOONER!"

Rule 1.1 challenges the teams to do five things, namely "...Conceive, Design, Fabricate, Develop, and Compete with small, formula style, vehicles.". So,

1. Conceive ... the simplest possible vehicle that gets the job done. This requires making very good high-level assumptions, preferably backed up by wide-ranging studies of the prior-art, and realistic lap-sims.

2, 3. Design and Fabricate ... the small number of essential parts of that vehicle. This requires high levels of "craftsmanship" skills to ensure every part works well, and never fails. Importantly, get this done ASAP, so you can spend as much time as possible on next phase.

4, 5. Development and Competition practice ... because students' "craftsmanship" skills are rarely at the level needed, (because they are still learning!), so some parts inevitably need "fixing". Even Munchen's car had "fixed" brackets on it.

MOST IMPORTANTLY - Learning to use CAD/FEA/CFD programs does NOT maketh thou a good craftsman. Only real-world practice, practice, practice..., gets you there.

Anyway, above is pretty much Monash's recipe, and has been for as long as they have been winning. About a decade now.

Z

[Z]

Here is a link to some photos I found on UNSW's FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/UNSWRedbackRacing/photos/ms.c.eJxFkdmNRTEIQzsaATZb~;42NSMJ9vxY2~_KABa5IKJrz 1T48AhSgFFStUREl09hMIXkvthMkIqXaFSEiUMOBXcCgmQ3wny ksUWdTPwmtZodTBVNPcicyxtJ0MiFcZGKYu7w6jzOn03oyKyVB uF4acLvIOa6sQhVOxEzIWhD2L01UUbXxtu2ruYG3bpg8gbVlAh o6S1M2glZ7D9GUEfKhr1I96X~_pfl8jJkIUcNX9B1v4l6myhf1 t4M2wzvNvANKF8kPMwbd8tfbfE75V5XrmAEjXE0OWXuvg8O9K3 Ppl3rck~;y~_h4Ow~-~-.bps.a.1632941826807183/1632944413473591/?type=3&theater
~o0o~

TOLD YOU SO MOMENT :) - Looking at these photos reminded me that the top-three cars in BOTH C and E-divisions ALL RAN DASDs! Well, almost. The only exception was #E31 Munchen's rear-Spring-Dampers, which were pushrod-rocker actuated to get them "out of the wind". However, Munchen's fronts, and all corners on all other podium cars, were all "Direct-Acting".

(Edit: Oops, fake news! This year #7 ECU has the hydraulically interconnected "soft-warp" suspension, with their bespoke hyd-actuators driven by pullrods(f)/pushrods(r)&rockers. In previous years they have used DASDs.)

Clearly, Push/PullRods&Rockers are NOT necessary for success. In fact, the "correlation" would now suggest that if you fit P/PR&Rs, ... then you go to the bottom of the ladder.
~o0o~

Other noteworthy points.
#14 Curtin - The Belt-n-Cones CVT's front-pulley, and a small part of the rear-pulley, are visible in front of the left-rear-wheel.

#13 Canterbury - Had overheating problems pre-comp, so hastily bolted a "truck radiator" to side of car. This radiator was attached via some mild-steel angle-iron brackets with mill-scale finish. Such last minute modifications are typical of any project that "pushes-the-envelope".

#E31 TU Munchen - Even the best have to make such last minute "fixes". Look for the bracket between top-of-main-roll-hoop and rear-wing. Apparently, the original, more "optimised", bracket (CF? Al?) wasn't up to scratch, hence the fabricated-sheet-steel version, complete with speed-holes!

Ahh, yes, "fab'd-sheet-steel" will fix anything!

Z

Edit: Also #63 UNSW - This once "all-aluminium" car now has steel wishbones, steel driveshafts, and some other steel-stuff, and is rapidly climbing the ladder. Came second here, in C-division.

[Z]

Further to the "fake news" edit in above post, it is worth considering why ECU used rockers to drive their hydraulically-interconneted-roll-springs, which, incidentally, act as "longitudinal-Z-bars".

With the normal DASD suspension much of the under/oversteer handling balance can be adjusted via changes to Elastic-Lateral-Load-Transfer-Distribution. For big changes this is done by changing springs, such as using stiffer-fronts for more understeer, and so on. For finer adjustment rubber blocks can be inserted between the springs' coils to increase rate (<- see posts from several years ago on the Cincinnati car).

With ECU's car the majority of the ELLTD comes from the hydraulic "roll-springs". Here the obvious ways to adjust ELLTD are:

1. Change the diameters of the front or rear hydraulic rams. This means manufacturing many different diameter rams, with all their different sizes of pistons, seals, etc, which is considerably more expensive in time and dollars than buying a range of off-the-shelf steel coil springs. Also messier changing the rams (oil spillage! and then bleeding!) and harder to do fine adjustments.

2. Adjust the motion-ratio between wheel and ram. This can be done over a smallish range with Direct-Acting rams, simply by changing the inclination of the ram.

But my guess is that ECU wanted to give themselves a bit more flexibility in all these adjustments, so went with the Push/PullRods&Rockers.

Z

[Ambrose]

I believe one of the reasons they are using a push/pull rocker set up is that they're running a pitch spring front and rear, the hydraulics are connected such that the pneumatic rolls springs don't carry the weight of the car (unlike longitudinal z-bars). You might have noticed they have what look like quite light coil springs on each corner. Speaking with them before comp, if my memory serves me right, they said that they use these to make fine lltd adjustments.

[Z]

Ambrose,

Yes, indeed, my fake news correction above may be even faker.

To repeat my excuse, given the lack of any "program" listing the basic cars specs, I didn't bother taking any notes, so most of my above comments are just from memory of many conversations with many people. Also it is hard to decipher hydraulic systems from images of a car, because the operation depends on how exactly the tangle of plumbing is connected.

So, how does the ECU system work? I guess someone from ECU will have to explain.
~o0o~

But while I am here, a "Roll-mode-ONLY" hydraulic springing system can be done by connecting each side-pair of wheels with a hydraulic analog of a longitudinal-Z-bar, namely top-front-ram connected to top-rear-ram, and bottom to bottom. Then the four longitudinal hoses (2 x L, 2 x R) are connected laterally by a single "hydraulic-U-bar" that acts as the "Roll-spring", namely top-left-hose connected to bottom-right-hose, etc, with sprung-pistons somewhere in these lines. Many traps here...

However, note that such Roll-mode-ONLY springing is more complicated than allowing Roll to be coupled with Heave. This is because controlling any SINGLE four-wheel-mode requires interconnecting ALL four wheels to its controlling spring. However, aiming to only separate any two modes from the other two modes, only requires connecting the wheels in pairs. So a pair of longitudinal-Z-bars will control Roll+Heave while having no effect on Pitch+Twist(=Warp). Err..., but all this depends on the strict definition of the modes.

In FS/FSAE it can be useful to have both Roll and Heave quite stiff, for less scraping of sidepods or chassis on ground, so the same "spring" (= longitudinal-Z-bars) can be used. Pitch should also be stiff-ish, for no scraping of chassis-mounted-front-wing or engine-sump. Meanwhile, Twist can be very soft, although it should still have bump-stops at each end of its soft travel, as discovered rather alarmingly by one of the UQ cars several years ago.

All up, this can be done perhaps most simply with 2 x longitudinal-Z-bars + 1 x lateral-Z-bar, all of the steel-torsion-bar variety, or similar.
~o0o~

MAIN POINT I should stress here is that with the billiard-table-smooth tracks in FS/FSAE there really is NO NEED for good suspension. Despite many students wanting to push this particular envelope, there is very little reward on offer for building any kind of "interconnected suspension".

Cars with go-kart-stiff suspension have won in the past, and are capable of winning again in the future. Imagine a lightweight, mega-aero car, with minimal attempt at suspension, other than squishy tyres (eg. go-karts or F1). This situation will continue until the tracks get some REAL BUMPS, AS ARE FOUND ON REAL ROADS!

A good start at such "real bumps" would be to pick a naturally "undulating" track, namely a surface with long-wavelength bumps (10+ metre crest-to-crest) that "twist" the suspension. Then add some short-wavelength bumps, or "corrugations", that test single-wheel "shock-absorbancy", with these corrugations preferably placed near the corner apexes. Such corrugations could be done with removable rubber dome-shaped speed-humps, about 1+ metre diameter, 3+ cm high in middle, tapering to 5 mm at edges.

Then get rid of the "mandatory +/- 1 inch suspension travel" rule, which is redundant. In an objective, engineering, world, the track determines which solution is fittest. Incidentally, well set-up DASDs will work better than P/PR&Rs on such bumpy tracks, for the many reasons I have given before. A fully-mode-separated suspension will work even better.

But I have been publicly pushing for such "real bumps on track" since 2005, and so far nothing. Apparently bumps are "sooo NOT F1"! An "engineering" contest this ain't!

Real bumps on track => REAL NEED for good suspension => MUCH LEARNING by students => better road cars.

Z

[Z]

Some more pictures, via Monash's FB.

https://www.facebook.com/monashmotorsport/photos/ms.c.eJxNk9ltAEEIQzuKuI~;~_G4vwLCS~;T7M22KwIkYVpdq cVyY8ApJQqZZl~;QI3xomtBpCqVUCxwiTB2tw9U9WhELciEi8W 5OAFUfyBCB3iuaCWPKOnOUVIAuXM4xcxBkR~_wNIDuc8n5hO2f ywAxXVGvsdXiBdYATQtots2MHaxJsVzuCwtMapdYs0BDdrBiuJ isS7ZjMF4QhTzcd9JO1OD9V0O8GnZ0I55tOTdTFxtRrQVa7xPX e~_EDkreX9smD~_l4Y2i~_~_Xfwtpwei4SK8Ll0GDbk5FEVpbF GtuCClDyQRAhLdgDoaGn~;AcDDSsp~_8COUi9ES3KtctwyXkXA SilXkvkGn77pLx7kP7RHEfqptH2DvL3vbjRRgXYfT7X~;ISq4Y G31ky7pQdgD2iQrmzKn8Bny~_1og~-~-.bps.a.2200463066641600/2200464379974802/?type=3&theater

Miscellaneous comments:

MONASH - * Normally running on 10" Hoosiers, but on 13" Goodyears in the wet.
* Still using mild-steel tubeframe (with CrMo roll-hoops, because more accurate wall thickness). Rumour is that carbon-tubs are coming soon...
* Front DASDs at ~45 degrees (or less) to horizontal, giving Motion-Ratio <0.7:1. This gets squared in the relevant equations, giving 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49. So is Monash's suspension only half as good as all those cars with the "optimum" MR = 1.0? :D
* Rear DASDs are much steeper. This, no doubt, is to clear the aero-tunnels, which this year seem bigger than previous years.

TILT-TEST - Photo shows how unrealistic this is, with this particular tilt-table. I'm not sure about the rules here (haven't checked for a few years), but the ~10 cm high "wall" supporting the lower tyres here makes the "60 degree", or "1.7 G", rollover test much easier to pass. Hypothetically, a car with a ~9 cm high CG could be tilted past 90 degrees without falling over. That's "infinite G"!

TU-FAST MUNCHEN - World leading aero, so look closely!
* The front-wing is very cambered, or "U-shaped", with an up-turned nose, and the whole thing is quite high off the ground. My guess is that this is to be "gentler" to the wind, and not mess it up too much before it reaches the other aero-stuff.
* They don't have a normal undertray, namely something like a "full-length floor", but instead have three quite distinct wings, Front, Mid, and Rear. These three wings are physically quite widely separated, although there is undoubtedly a lot of aero interaction between them.
* The car's track-width is 1200 mm, c/c of tyres (from dodgy memory), making it one of the widest cars running these days. Much talk from other aero-students about also going up in width, simply because it gives MORE WING AREA!

Z

[MCoach]

I have been publicly pushing for such "real bumps on track" since 2005, and so far nothing. Apparently bumps are "sooo NOT F1"! An "engineering" contest this ain't!

Real bumps on track => REAL NEED for good suspension => MUCH LEARNING by students => better road cars.

Z


Bumps are for Baja and NASCAR.

[Billzilla]

How's it going for 2020? I see from Facebook that most of the teams are all down there.