Single cylinder engine. Could it win? Could it do well?

[Mechanicaldan]

I've thought about this for a while, as I'm sure, plenty of you have.

A Cannondale 440 or a KTM 620 (608cc) engines would seem to have been the top choice as both offered electric start. The Cannondale came with a tuneable FI system.

Let's make some assumptions:
150 pound driver.
Stock inline 4 makes 100 hp.
Stock single makes 60 hp.
Restrictor takes away 25% power.
Traditional FSAE car weighs 500 pounds.
Traditional FSAE has weight to power ratio of 8.6/1.
Single cylinder car has to weigh 237 pounds for same weight to power ratio.

This seems like a very difficult task, although every component gets to be lighter because of the reduced power and weight of the rest of the components. Packaging would be easier. Could it win? Could it do well? Imagine packaging similar to a single cylinder shifter kart.

How does choked flow through the restrictor affect a single? Max RPM is down to 7500, but mass flow rate now comes in big pulses of 600cc (or 440cc), instead of spreading 125cc in four pulses.

What about engine torque? Most stock inline 4s make ~45 ft-lb at 10,000 RPM. Those two singles make about 35-40 ft-lb of torque at 6000-7000 RPM? Torque is what's important for this competition? acceleration=Force/mass Force=Torque/distance Isn't it?

Cyclone Racing
www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm (http://www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm)
Iowa State University
Engine Team Leader

[Nigel Lavers]

I guess you'll find out when we show up at competition this year with our single cylinder 500cc engine.

Our target weight is now down to ~400 lbs, so our power to weight ratio might not be as good as the well designed 4 cyl-600cc cars. Also, vibration is difficult to manage without the right dampening on the engine mounts among other things.

But the interesting design aspect is the high torque (like you mentioned) and that we're using a CVT. Simplicity/weight distribution/lower forces=smaller drivetrain/easy to tune/lower CG are some other advantages that we're hoping to pass by the judges... we'll see what they say.

Hopefully we just get enough time to tune the damn thing so that we CAN be competitive.

Nigel Lavers
FSAE U of Alberta

[adam a lemay]

i have one thing to offer you
DON'T DO IT
granted i know most people have to learn for
themselves, the judges will not even pay
attention to you if you take one,not trying to bust your ????? your theory has some merit, without a restriction just saying from experience
next year you will go back to four OR maybe 8 http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PS]

Hi guys,

A couple of words about the single cylinder. The choking effect is horrible, we ran a single in 2002 and during the testing stage we found out that there is not much you can do to tune the engine in a short period of time. For example our engine, in stock form, produced peak power at around 6500 RPM, the restrictor brought it down to 4000 RPM. We had excellent low end torque but power was way down. I'm sure if you spend a lot of development time on it you could boost power, but forget about trying to reach the level of the fours, power delivery is what counts.

Stay away from carbs, jetting the single with a restrictor was a real pain, stick to EFI.

On a good note, because the engine did not have to rev as high to produce power, you had all the power you need down low.(Although it's not much power). We ran our single with a CVT and it worked pretty good, we were able to finish in the top 35 of the auto cross and in the top 30 of the skid pad. We even lapped some four cylinders during the endurance.

I think the best setup for this competition for a single cylinder, is to couple it with a CVT and if it's tuned correctly, you'll take some of the four cylinders on the twisty parts of the track( forget about the straights, they will eat you alive).

Who ever plans to use a single with a CVT should spend most of their time tuning the CVT because that's were you'll pick up the speed on the tight track we run on.

Peter

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adam a lemay:
i have one thing to offer you
DON'T DO IT
granted i know most people have to learn for
themselves, the judges will not even pay
attention to you if you take one,not trying to bust your ????? your theory has some merit, without a restriction just saying from experience
next year you will go back to four OR maybe 8 http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have one thing to offer you
Nobody is going to listen to an opinion without anything to back it up. If you've got a reason why it won't work, let it be known, otherwise nobody cares.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

[Scott Wordley]

I was actually trackside for the 2nd heat of the Australian Endurance event and remember speaking to Carroll Smith and Tech Advisor Pat Clarke while watching the the Tokyo Denki single cylinder car.

They seemed quite impressed by the 1st year Tokyo car, I think they said sometime along the lines of "best single we've seen". Even still I think there were a few pretty obvious things wrong with the car though, which is why they got caned in design. Such as the 'washer' restrictor, the driving position(the cabin was TINY) etc...

Rumour is they had about 40hp in Oz with dodgey restrict and carb, I think they hoped to hit the states with EFI and closer to 60hp. Weight should be down from 180 to 160kg(they also have some super tiny drivers). The car had reasonable pace, a couple of seconds off the pace I think on a very tight and twisty 34 second track.

I like the fact that even after all these years it is possible to do something outside the square and still be competitive in this formula. Whose to say we've found the optimal engine type/layout/etc... not me http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

Regards,

Scott Wordley & Roan Lyddy Meaney
Monash FSAE Wingmen
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

Has anybody ran one of their FSAE cars and a shifter kart back-to-back on the same autocross or kart track? If you did, which was fastest? Sure the kart might not have had the power, but would it's lower weight and Cg have enabled it to have a faster time around the course?

-Chris

[Frank]

honda xr singles come with a dry sump standard

does anyone know if any other bike engines do?

pitty they only make 400's and 650's...

the 650 wieghs 88lbs
i saw a site that reckons they can get 55hp out of one, obviously you'll be hard pushed to get near that with a restrictor (pulsing etc)

they made a 600 in 1999 but it didnt have the dry sump

[Angry Joe]

I haven't seen it first hand, but I'm pretty sure a shifter kart will blow the sidepods off any FSAE car Its weight advantage is tremendous.

Lehigh Formula SAE

www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula (http://www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula)

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

One way to get around the restrictor pulsing is by super or turbo charging it. Admittedly the turbo would hate it at lower RPM's, but a single at 7000 RPM is no worse than a 4 banger at 1750 (pulsewise), and with a CVT you could tune it to keep in the high end...

The honda single weighs 65.4 lbs (according to their website) and pumps out a little over 50 horse. Adding boost, particularly with Ethanol, could make these engines very competitive.

Western Washington University FSAE
dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae

[Richard Lewis]

A super charger might do well on a single cylinder, certainly the pulsing effect that a turbo would suffer from wouldn't be a problem. Interesting ideas floating around here. I wish I had about 4 more years to play with FSAE cars.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/Formula%20UVic%20Sig.jpg
http://uvic.fsae.ca

[This message was edited by Richard Lewis on March 06, 2003 at 06:30 PM.]

[Denny Trimble]

"I wish I had about 4 more years to play with FSAE cars."

It's called Grad School http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03)

[Mechanicaldan]

I had thought the best power adder for a single would be a twin screw super charger. They make max boost very low, good to go with the single's stock powerband. Maybe gear or toothed/ribbed belt drive?

I thought tuning would be a welcome with only having to get one cylinder's air/fuel ratio right.

Cyclone Racing
www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm (http://www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm)
Iowa State University
Engine Team Leader

[Scott Wordley]

haha...welcome to my world, 4th year here and counting. At least a 5th year to come. If only we got paid it would be the perfect job.

Regards,

Scott Wordley & Roan Lyddy Meaney
Monash FSAE Wingmen
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[J. Tway]

At SCCA Nationals this year, the F125 class ran with A-mod. You can check out the results first hand. But I recall, that the fastest F125s ran about the same times as FSAE cars within a second. The top A-mod cars ran 2 full seconds faster than the FSAE cars.

Jim Tway
Cal Poly Pomona

[Bing]

Hi to all,

Neat forum. I'm not involved in any Uni but love this topic so thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth in.

Not sure that a twin screw blower would be all that good as they are rather ineficient and produce quite a bit of heat which usually means extra weight in order to cool inlet charge temp. A fan type supercharger would be better though I don't know of a cheap one. If your set on the idea look at the blower off a toyota 4AGZE (MR2) unit as they are very small. Just don't spin them past 9000 rpm as the teflon coating may part from the rollers. (about $300 AUD).

The irregular torque pulses of a single make for problems in driving a supercharger. They accentuate the peak loads which often means the instalation of a shock absorber of some sort in the drive system.

There where quite a number of single and twin cylinder machines built and raced in the 60's (Cooper Vincent and Cooper Manx). The singles were pretty hard to get out of corners as their power range was quite narrow and high in the rev range.

If I were considering a single for this sort of project would look at the Husqarvana (spelling?) single engines as they are very light (magnesium alloy two stroke engine cases) with a splash type oiling system. The induction system is where i would then concentrate my efforts. Makeing a variable length inlet tract system would allow you to "tune" the power band. A long inlet tract for getting out of corners with torque which then gets progressivly shorter as the revs and speed increase.

Cheers,

Chris.

[King Missile]

Everything is pretty much dictated by the AMA classifications. The highest tech 4 strokes are the 450cc machines from Honda and Yamaha. Looking for a good 600cc engine that fits (displacement wise) into the rules? The only ones I know of are from Europe.

Husky 610 (actually 570cc)
Vertimati 530
VOR 503
KTM 520 (wet sump)

Most "off-road" singles these days are dry sump.

Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?!

[gug]

has anyone actually run a supercharger before? after a quick search through the forum and the internet, i came up with a reference to Cal Poly Pomona running an electric one, but no one else.
im designing a car for the 2004 event, and had considered running a supercharger. however, a bit of talking to profesionals suggests that running a supercharger with the restrictor is next to impossible.
when the supercharger starts spinning up, it has to pull the air through the restrictor. it takes time for the pressure to build up, but the supercharger is already taking power from the engine, making it bog down and probably stall.
i drive a supercharged v6, and have actually stalled it before by accelerating from low revs, and this is with no restrictor at all!
i imagine that the uneven power delivery of the single cylinder would only exagerate these effects, and make it more prone to stalling.
if anyone has a good solution or any thoughts on this topic, i would appriciate it, cause i would love to run a supercharger.

[tommy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gug:
has anyone actually run a supercharger before? QUOTE]

U of I ran a 4 cyl with a Roots blower somewhere between 95-97.

[gug]

sorry tommy, being from the land down under has its problems. which uni is U of I? and do they have either a website or some helpful forum members?

[Scott Wordley]

Swinburne and RMIT both ran superchargers in 2001.

Regards,

Scott Wordley & Roan Lyddy Meaney
Monash FSAE Wingmen
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[Scott Wordley]

Anyone from RMIT out there?

I heard you guys were switching to a Yamaha single cylinder this year. If so, I was wondering what your reasons were for the switch?

Regards,

Scott Wordley & Roan Lyddy Meaney
Monash FSAE Wingmen
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[adam a lemay]

it's pretty readily available to take a xr 650 bottom and the top from a xr 600 (honda) it produces something just shy of 610 cc's very reliable (nearly bulletproof, even i couldn't screw it up) we ran one the first year i was in formula(2000) you can see pics at the university of louisville website, as i said a month ago the advantages of an aircooled single are numerous in weight and packaging but i don't see any way to ever score points in acceleration or with hp hungry design judges with it. just my 2 cents

[Steve Price]

Dear Scott and anyone else interested,
Firstly, I apologise for the no reply from our team. It was only today when I spoke to Fergus from Woologong that I actuially found out about this website and the forum.
Yes we are going to use a Yamaha WR450F motor this year. There are many reason for this. They include it's light weight and the minimal effect the resitrictor will have on it. The other reason is that we managed to get sponsorship from Yamaha and have just received the motor last Friday. We apologise for keeping so hush, hush, but we deidn't want to count our chickens before we actually received the motor.
Cheers
Steve Price
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott & Roan:
Anyone from RMIT out there?

I heard you guys were switching to a Yamaha single cylinder this year. If so, I was wondering what your reasons were for the switch?

Regards,

Scott Wordley & Roan Lyddy Meaney
Monash FSAE Wingmen
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[gug]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Price:
Yes we are going to use a Yamaha WR450F motor this year. There are many reason for this. They include it's light weight and the minimal effect the resitrictor will have on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
out of curiousity, have you looked at the improvement in moment of intertia/CoG? had a look at the wr450f motor in the bike, it looks to have a very upright cylinder compared to every other engine ive seen. should go some way to filling that gap behind the driver's arse in the typical f-sae car, caused by having the cylinders on an incline, and not enough fuel pumps, oil pumps and exhuast piping to fill the gap.
then again, it might have just been my imagination. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
btw, no need to reply if you dont want to give away trade secrets, dont want to steal your advantage. although i guess ive highlighted it then anyway, hehehe.

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

[woollymoof]

Steve, have you measured the weight of the engine yet?

[cappa]

It weighs 30kg. Hi steve if your reading this http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Lyn Labahn UW-Madison]

Guys,

Even though I pesonally doubt that any engines other than a 4 cyl superbike style could ever be competitive in Formula SAE at the present time, I always entertain the thought of other powerplants.

One that has interested me is the Yamaha Raptor 660 engine. It is too large for formula, but if you could destroke it, it might be money in the bank. It has a 4 valve head and I would imagine a robust transmission becaue it comes out of a quad.

2002/2003 Team Leader
Best overall average finish of the new millenium http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Lacy Lodmell]

We've also looked a little bit at four-wheeler motors. The Yamaha actually has a 5-valve head, but the power output just doesn't come close (naturally aspirated, anyway). However, one of our guys has a thing for CR450's, so don't be too surprised if...

Lacy Lodmell
Vandals Racing
University of Idaho FSAE

[Test Driver]

Hello all,

In 98 and 2000 we took singles to competition. Our 98 car got 4th place on the skid pad with a driver who had only previously been in the car about 3 times. One of those was the 5 second emergency exit test at tech. As you can imagine, he was our tallest driver (we were actually short of people/drivers) and he been shorter/more experienced, who knows? That car was the second lightest that year at 417 lbs. in fully wet trim (remember having to carry an extinguisher?) and had we finished endurance, we might have placed top 10 or 15. The absolute times for autocross were off the top by about 10% but that changed by endurance. We had a very steep curve and were well on our way up.

Our biggest mistake was in the choice and execution of our engine options. We were using a Honda XR/XL 6oo. The bare motor weight as about 90 lbs. with no self starting (I think we're to blame for that rule) capability. While the motor has a reputation for robustness, ours literally came together from a basket. After competition, we found 3 of the 6 cylinder studs stripped. Even in top running and unrestricted form, those motors only put out about 32 hp.

In 2000 we went back with a much better engine in a lesser car that ended up weighing close to 500 lbs. One or our sponsors, Husaberg, donated the motor. The factory dyno sheets (dynojet inertia dyno) provided showed numbers in the high forties to mid fifties depending on the configuration. For completely unpractical reasons, we ended up running the 500 cc setup. I recall the motor and carb weighed in at 66 lbs. and it included electric start.

There are a lot of very real benefits, performance wise to running a single not just the obvious size/weight/simplicity issues. Drivability, especially out of corners is great. There is a diminished need/emphasis on gear changes. Fuel economy should be good. CG is dramatically lower than wet sump fours. Even dry sump fours only lower their CG by an inch or two.

However, there are also drawbacks. Most of the judges really do look down at you so justification is key. You will need to accept diminished throttle response by properly designing an appropriately large (at least 2*displ. maybe up to 3.5) intake volume in order to overcome choking. If you compare drivetrain component sizes like gears, clutches etc. you'll notice that singles actually have the same or larger components than multis. There are very good reasons for this so keep that in mind when designing the rest of the drive. You might have to use larger stuff down the power line. The starting system on large compression singles is stressed more than on multis. And certainly, you won't have the engineering sex appeal that multis do. Unless of course you do it right and immediately start kicking butt at competition. What was it that someone once said about dog turds on top of racecar hoods?

There are a whole lot more options in singles than what has been mentioned on this thread. You just have to look across the pond more. Here in the states where 2-stroke off-road stuff is just beginning to loose popularity, your choices are a little limited.

In our teams' cases, our placings were more a result of failure to do the basic team-thing right. Things like unity, work ethic, dedication and even team size were a problem. And yes, a lot of it had to do with engine choices (remember the sex appeal part?) and people's conceptions of what constitutes a real race car. I suggest that a cohesive team behind the single concept is the most importan thing. Part of this opinion comes from talking with several other people who have taken this route.


I have much more to add but this is getting long so if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line or call. I'm always willing to talk FSAE.

Ramon Mendoza
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE North American Tire, LLC
Ride and Handling Group
Texas Proving Ground
915-336-4834

[Daves]

Steve or anyone else, how would one go about getting sponsorship from Yamaha?

[This message was edited by dave_s on June 11, 2003 at 02:36 AM.]

[Disco]

We had to convince them that it was going to be worth it from their point of view. We submitted a proposal outlining how we were going to get to their targetted customers eg Motorcycle events, displays etc.

[Engelbert]

Perhaps people are focusing on the power/weight differences too much.

Also consider the lower engine c of g height - reducing weight transfer, lower car mass - increasing lateral acceleration, less tyre wear (not that its a big problem...), easier packaging, and everything else associated with weight reduction.

If the Japanese car had a self starter (they did not qualify in the rules for most events) for the last Aust. comp I believe they would have finished in an excellent position. And thats without a super or turbocharger...Granted their 95th percentile is a little smaller than normal...but still, not bad.

Plus the smaller you can make the vehicles track/wheelbase, the less steering you need to get around those cones...which has to be a good thing.

Any comments ?

Sam.

[Big Bird]

Engelbert Sam,

Nice to see someone willing to think a little laterally. It gets a little tiresome listening to the same old power/weight arguments.
As Steve Price has mentioned above, we are using a Yamaha WR450 single at RMIT this year. A lot of the reasons are exactly what you have described above, and packaging the thing is a dream. The engine is tiny, and the near-vertical cylinder means we get our driver a lot closer to the engine, (or the engine a lot closer to the driver..). We've been planning this for nearly two years now, but seeing the Tokyo Denki car take the chicanes pretty well flat out at Carrum last year (while most of the fours wallowed) confirmed to us that it was a direction worth looking at.

A few other reasons:
Less parts to manufacture - we can use the standard exhaust header (titanium!) and there's only one intake to worry about.
Less materials - everything on the car is smaller, so lower raw material cost.
Easier to tune - no need to balance air flows to cylinders, only one cylinder to monitor
Cheaper to maintain - only one spark plug to change, only five valves to shim, etc
More appropriate original power curve - motocross bikes are designed for tracks with short straights and tight corners, so power requirements are much like an FSAE track. (If fours are the answer to everything, why aren't there any four cylinder motocross bikes?)
Marketability - yes, it sounds wanky, but we've attracted quite a bit of attention (and thus sponsorship) from trying something different.

Sure, there's issues to overcome, (pulsing through the restrictor, etc,) but there's trade-offs no matter which way you go.

The whole goal at RMIT this year is to build a simple cheap car, so we can get it finished early and not spend a fortune doing it. For us, the single option trades some outright power for lesser weight and lesser resource usage, and buys a little time into the bargain. The challenge of FSAE is maximizing your own time, money and human resources, and I refuse to believe that any of us have the one perfect universal answer.

I could rabbit on, but it's time to go to bed.

Cheers all,

Geoff Pearson
RMIT UNI
Melbourne Austalia

[gug]

i suppose that you guys going with the smaller engines have at least looked into a turbo? the 600s running at about 9000 rpm (i think) have almost a vacume in the intake, making a turbo pretty much just an expensive muffler at these rpms. but with a small single you would have lower revs and less displacement; i suspect a turbo would actually work quite well, despite the restrictor.
do you guys just not want the headache of a turbo? or is there something im missing here?
btw, you know garret will give you 2 free turbos if you ask?

i am the grand master of procrastination. if i was this good at kung fu, i could kill you with a look.

[Big Bird]

At this stage we ain't going turbo. There is promise there, especially with "muffling" the pulses through the restrictor. But there is also added design time, added weight and added risk. We aim to get this thing going as best we can naturally aspirated this year, then reconsider the philosophy for next year.

Another thing we have considered - CBR's and the like put out over 100hp standard, so the engine internals are capable of handling that. Thus you guys can afford to bump up your internal pressures and have less risk of failure. There is a bit of a weight war going on between manufacturers in the 4-stroke motocross class at the moment, so they are paring down the engine internals to a pretty fine edge. Since we reckon we can get most of the original power of the engine naturally aspirated, bumping up the boost may just push the engine beyond it's design limits.

Just a thought, but we certainly don't have the budget to find out the hard way!

Cheers,

Geoff Pearson
RMIT
Melbourne Australia

[fsae_alum]

Smaller might be better. We looked at going (still looking I assume)to a Cannondale 440 for the next years car. There are a couple of places that can punch them out to get some fairly big numbers out of them. You can even get a PROGRAMMABLE FI system with them as a dealer upgrade which is similar to the Power Commander. We went and measured and studied the engine and it would be GREAT for FSAE. VERY VERY VERY small engine/tranny combination, one intake runner (vs 4) which means straight in, the intake on the FRONT of the head (no 120 degree bends for air to make), one exhaust runner (vs 4) that goes straight back from the back of the head, dry sump system, fuel injected. We even managed to scrounge up some dyno curves for one of the engines and you want to talk about TORQUE down low...holy cow! When you couple that engine with a set of Kelgate 6 piston enduro kart brakes the think would be awesome......but alas...it all takes money

In spite of...

[Daves]

How much power and torque do the 440's and 450's deliver? If it is below 60, I might consider using a Polaris 600 4-stroke twin. I think the ATV engines are good for 50 horsepower; however, the manufacturers don't usually post their power ratings. They just say something like, "15% more power than our 500, or 10% more power than Arctic Cat's ATV."

[fsae_alum]

Not all that high from what I remember, BUT torque was VERY low on the RPM curve and was VERY linear throughout. I'll have to see if I can come up with the one dyno chart I found!!

In spite of...

[ben]

To dredge and old thread up, the answers to the original questions appear to be yes, and yes.

Ok, how many people from FS are looking at singles this week?

Ben

[Kirk Feldkamp]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(If fours are the answer to everything, why aren't there any four cylinder motocross bikes?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever try jumping a 4cylinder bike?

[VFR750R]

I looked at the skidpad times just now and single cylinder cars don't seem to have any advantage in steady state cornering. That leaves their advantage to perhaps chicane style turns and slaloms. I don't know, even if they do have an advantage there, that it offsets the acceleration and top speed of the 4 cylinder cars.

I realize that usually the more experienced teams run 4 cylinders so that could contribute to better suspension and geometry setups. I agree lighter is better but not at the expense of large amounts of power. Probably the best setup would be a 3 cylinder 600cc engine, of the same layout of a sportbike 4. It would be maybe 15% lighter then a 4 with intake pulses drawing very evenly on the restrictor. Plus turbines like 3 cylinder configurations http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. It shouldn't lose any power to a 4 and may even lead to higher output with the decreased internal friction of one less piston, crank main, ect. I realize such an engine does not currently exist so right now the best is the 4.

[James Waltman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFR750R/Judd Glenn:
I realize such an engine does not currently exist so right now the best is the 4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but one does currently exist. The guys from RWTH Aachen (German team) had just such an engine in Detroit this year. Tim Heinemann sent me this picture some time last year. The transmission was equally trick.
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/Aachen%20Motor/Dscf0009_klein.jpg

Tim answered some questions about this on an old discussion (http://fsae.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=763607348&f=125607348&m=6736033494&p=2).

Check out their website (http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/en/home/home.html)

[Daves]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
has anyone actually run a supercharger before? ~ gug

Swinburne and RMIT both ran superchargers in 2001. ~ Scott Wordley <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the only photo I have of the supercharged car belonging to Swinburne (or Swinborne):

http://fif4183.tripod.com/images/swinborne_restrictor.txt

[VFR750R]

Wow, that Mahle engine looks exactly what I thinking. I'd love an update on how testing is going with this thing.

[BryanH]

VFR750;
1: hit home button

2: read sentence writ large blue letters

3: weep

[MH]

Have to agree with Halfast there, we (Delft University) were 2nd in acceleration at FS this year with only about 40 bhp.
By the way the Mahle engine is not that good, it's their first engine and needs a lot of developing, it simply cannot match the common engines (4 and 1 cylinder).

[Big Bird]

VFR, your detailed analysis of skid pad times has sent us all into a mad tailspin. As soon as our car gets back from England, its going straight into the skip http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I find it a little curious that you could base an argument solely on two laps of skidpad (worth 5% of the comp remember). It has only been in the last year or so that a few of us have competed with these new 450 motocross engines, versus 20 odd years and hundreds of unis refining the four cylinder thing. Most of us are still sorting out what sort of geometry we need to get the things working right. Sure, it would have been nice if we had gained a few extra points in that particular event, but nothing happened that has made us reconsider our design concept.

One thing I will say that our overall strategy has always been focussed on autocross and endurance, worth 55% of the overall comp. The results in those events should show that we didn't get things too wrong.

As for the lines about top speed advantage, losing out on huge amounts of power etc - when we get to race these things at the Indy 500, I'll shout you the bottle of milk before we even start. But do you really think that an extra 20hp is going to be that much of an advantage on an FSAE track? How? All of our data (as well as that supplied by other Oz teams) has indicated that we use full throttle maybe 15-20% of the time. As for the other 80 odd percent of the time you are lumping around an extra 30 odd kilos of mass for no good reason, (without even getting into what the size and complexity of a CBR does to packaging and manufacturing time).

My humblest apologies if I'm sounding conceited, none of us here at RMIT know all the answers. What we love about this comp is that there is more than one answer. But it quite amuses us to hear our car (and Delft's, and Tokyo Denki's) still dismissed as anomalies. And especially on such a thin argument as the skid pad times in one event on a cold English morning.

Cheers all,

[Kevin Hayward]

Gotta agree with Geoff.

Taking a sample space of those anomoly cars is a great way of keeping with the same designs as everyone else. It seems a bit of a ridiculous analysis as every advancement starts by being implemented on a few vehicles. That for their innovation are not usually developed to perform at their best.

Just because RMIT cannot tune their suspension their concept is being spoken against ... shame shame shame http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the question is does 30kg less on a skidpan help you then the answer is yes regardless of the times in the UK. Maybe the answer is in the 12" tyres, different camber curves, different rubber compound, different damper settings etc. In fact it seems plausible to me that a highly suspension related event will mainly affected by suspenion parameters rather than engine choice.

The question has to be wether the weight justifies the loss of power / torque. An issue I would gladly ignore if it wasn't for the 75m accelleration event. How many points can be sacrificed there compared to others?

I don't want to sound like an know-it-all but I just don't see how any of us can really beat team like Cornell if we just build the same car. With a big team and years of development they have to be able to do it better. However they certainly do not have the resources to chase down every avenue of increased performance. We can only hope that some of these such as singles, aero, different suspension types, braking systems etc. can be enough to keep everyone searching for the edge.

Kev

[Charlie]

It doesn't really matter which is better, in fact I think we'd agree its pretty impossible and too complicated to have a simple answer.

The good thing is that RMIT's win and FSAE-A performance has gotten people thinking. Until the FS champ comes to the states and wins (like UOW did) there will always be people questioning how good the FS champion really is. However, the fact that RMIT was easily the best car at FS and had a single and 10" tires means that those teams can't simply turn thier noses up at either concept like they have in the past.

There are many teams chasing the best spaceframe/N.A 600cc 4 cyl/13" wheel/wingless combination, and the odds are that that setup will continue to succeed based on that fact alone. But it certainly is exciting to see more singles and more wings, diversity in FSAE, especially among the competitive cars, is greatly improved since just 4 years ago and thats a good thing.

[Kevin Hayward]

12" tyres ... what was I thinking?

I did mean 10" ... but maybe 12" would be better ... maybe it would be better than any other tyre / wheel combination currently in FSAE ... maybe it is the demon tweak everyone has been looking for ...

unfortunately Charlie may be right and there is no simple answer ... not even super sticky 12" tyres

...

Sorry for the rambling I just saw an error in my last post and now that it is 1:30 am I thought it would be the best time to correct it.

Kev

[Denny Trimble]

As great as all this discussion is, I have to argue that 90% of how fast your car goes, is determined by how well you prepare it and how organized your team is. You can have a 500lb car with 50HP, and if you test it for 100 hours and have good drivers, place top 5.

Yes, losing weight and gaining HP and improving handling will make the car faster, but there's a huge difference between the level of preparation of all the teams, it really drops off quickly. And Cornell was way off the front this year. They had a similar car the previous year, as most of us did, but testing problems and a crash, and that killed their performance. This year, they had a full 100 hours in, and it showed.

I'm not saying we shouldn't chase down crazy ideas that might make our cars faster, but if you want to win, get the car done early and test the hell out of it, that's the most important factor in my (not so humble) opinion.

Winning isn't what it's all about, but it's hard to compare concepts unless they're fully developed. RMIT did a great job developing their car, I can't wait to see a good single at the US event. But I don't think anything is clear yet on "what's the best package". It's up to each team to show up with a car that performs, and that's not easy to do, whatever your configuration.

[Test Driver]

VFR750R,

Did you look further than just the last couple of years? UNM got 4th on skidpad in 98 with a single and 10 inch wheels.

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

hey,
I was curious to see what ppl had to say about that cone cvt mated with the 3 cylinder. Seems like a very cool concept I couldn't have thought up. eliminates the belt/chain and heavy clutches of a typical cvt. I know that they said there car weighed way too much (dont quote me but i think it was like 700lbs). Im curious to where they found this tranny and what its origional application was. Also, is it controled manually or all electonically? One other thing, have to compliment there other car on there site, the EAC 01, absloutely beautiful!!

[James Waltman]

In February I was corresponding with Tim Heinemann about their chassis and he told me a little about their engine and transmission. Their webpage for the transmission (http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/en/vehicles/eac02/krg.html)was only in German at the time so he gave me some translations:
"eingangskegel" is input cone
"ausgangskegel" means output cone
"uebertragungsring" is transmission ring.
http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/graphics/krg/krg1.jpg
It is a pretty simple concept that has actually been around for a long time. We cover it in our introductory transmissions class.

You can probably get Tim to answer some questions here about the car. I have pieced together some of the explanation he gave me:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally by Tim:
It works by adhesion of a special traction fluid. It's also a 100% student design apart from the know-how obviously which comes from our sponsor. They're an RWTH spin-off and want to promote this gearbox. Our problem is that there is exactly one running car with this concept and it's a hell of a job to get this thing running.

Jip, the cone-ring principle is as simple as it's old. I have in mind that in patent form it dates back to the end of the 18th century.

The concept is brilliantly simple: The cones and rings feature quite lame tolerances as the whole system is self-adjusting (I can't tell you exactly how it works because this is GIF stuff we have to keep secret). However actually getting it to work has taken about 25 years of some very clever people's manpower. I'd doubt that the know-how around the variator could be generated by a student team in a two- year span. The rest is pretty straighforward. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the engine and transmission package is awesome. They got ripped of when they didn't win the Ricardo Powertrain Award.

[B Dana]

Interesting thread. After RMIT's win at Formula Student I did some rough calculations on the performance of various engine configurations based on energy methods.

Assumptions:
-'Perfect' Transmission (max power available regardless of vehicle speed)
-Max accelerations of +8.829m/sec^2 and -13.734m/sec^2 (traction limits)for all configurations
-Driver of same mass/weight in all configurations

Configurations:

A 600cc four cylinder, 295kg (650lb), 56kW (75hp)
B 500cc two cylinder, 290kg (640lb), 40kW (54hp)
C 450cc single cylinder, 283kg (625lb), 35kW (47hp)

Scenario 1:
Acceleration Event. Standing Start to 75m. End velocity not fixed - no braking (and hopefully no breaking)

**Calculation Results**
Config A: 4.55 Seconds
Config B: 4.85 Seconds
Config C: 5.00 Seconds

**Analysis of Results**
In competition, cars similar to Config A have elapsed times around 4.00 seconds, so the assumptions are not great. However, based on results from FS2004, the time differences seem fairly accurate. Single cylinder cars give up about 0.45-0.55 seconds to the fastest four cylinders.

While this performance adversely affects the singles' competitiveness in this event, low fuel consumption in the economy event probably balances this out. The story for the two cylinder is similar.

Scenario 2:
Long straight of 77m. Acceleration followed by braking. Initial and final velocity of 6.7m/sec.

**Calculation Results**
Config A: 4.90 Seconds
Config B: 5.05 Seconds (+0.15 sec)
Config C: 5.20 Seconds (+0.30 sec)

**Analysis of Results**
Obviously, the performance of Config A (4cyl) is best. The calculation only points to potential performance, however. It is an open question if a student driver can extract maximum acceleration without wheel spin consistently. The single cylinder, with less power and a smaller window for wheel spin might be easier to drive. As one would expect, the two cylinder falls somewhere in the middle.

Competitiveness of singles and twins in autocross and endurance will depend mostly on course layout and driver skill. I think Endurance courses like FSAE2004 which are more open will favor well sorted four cylinder configurations. If the course is very tight, singles and twins would, at worse, be on par with the four cylinders and might have an advantage.

Scenario 3:
Short straight of 61m. Acceleration followed by braking. Initial and final velocity of 11.2m/sec.

**Calculation Results**
Config A: 3.45 Seconds
Config B: 3.65 Seconds (+0.20 sec)
Config C: 3.75 Seconds (+0.30 sec)

**Analysis of Results**
Once again, the four cylinder has an edge in potential performance. As with the long straight, the question of the driver being able to extract this potential is key. It is also important to note that while a four cylinder car may be faster in the straigths, it might be slower in the corners: each configuration has its tradeoffs...

***Conclusions***
The time differentials calculated are at least ballpark accurate and should give an idea of what you give up in straigt line performance when you give up cylinders. The corners are another story best suited for a different topic.

In any event, it is the combination of car and driver(s) that compete. While a particular engine configuration might have a potential advantage on a given course (with given weather conditions!), I believe that it will be the teams with the most tuning and in-car experience (along with a sound fundamental design)that will be the most competitive regardless of configuration.

B. Dana

[James Waltman]

B. Dana,
You sound like you are trying to convince yourself that 4 cylinders are the way to go. Some of your assumptions are questionable. So let's just look at the real data.

The acceleration event is the one that is similar on all continents. I know that weather, temperature and surface are all critical.

Formula Student single cylinder:
Delft = 4.125 seconds

FSAE Detroit four cylinders:
Cornell = 4.136 seconds with one of the best 4 cylinder engines at competition.

I know that it's a stretch to compare numbers like this but even if you handicap the FStudent times by half a second the Delft car is fast and certainly competitive.

Delft was 4th in the autocross.
RMIT won the autocross and endurance becuase they had the fastest time in both. Fuel economy didn't play a role in those wins.

It seems like a single can be more competitive than you are giving it credit for. Halfast already pointed out the best argument for a single cylinder engine. It's in big blue letters at the top of this page.

[Charlie]

I don't want to sound too cynical but I don't think acceleration results can tell you anything either. It might seem like that is the simplest event but still there are many many variables that contribute to a good acceleration run. For example our 2004 car put just 62 HP to the rear wheels and weighed more than Cornells (which was likely over 80 to the wheels). Yet our accel time was a 4.18.

I am sure that if you plotted horsepower to weight ratio it would not be what you expect for the acceleration event. The teams that pay attention to what makes a good acceleration run can trounce those who don't. By the same token, teams with high horsepower might very well have a car that is difficult to drive and suffers in other events.

Delfts car wasn't so incredibly light just because it was a single either.

I'm not trying to take sides on either engine but as engineers we all should understand that taking results especially not knowing all the variables is very inconclusive.

Also James, to say that they got 'ripped off' by not winning the Ricardo award, well you are intitled to your opinions but I think that's a bit disrespectful to the Ricardo judges. Do you know for a fact that they even entered the award?

[Travis Garrison]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
...Configurations:

A 600cc four cylinder, 295kg (650lb), 56kW (75hp)
B 500cc two cylinder, 290kg (640lb), 40kW (54hp)
C 450cc single cylinder, 283kg (625lb), 35kW (47hp)

...B. Dana <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


While I agree with your overall point that the team with the most tuning will be far better off than the lighter team with minimal tuning, I think your assumptions on weight are a little off...

F4i ~ 120-115 lbs?

CR450F is I believe ~60-65lbs....

..so to say that a single only saves 25lbs doesn't seem right, it should save at least 50lbs if you just swapped a four out for it. But if you really take advatage of the packaging opportunites, and decreased loads you're probably looking at an easy 80-100lbs...

...of course you could take it one further and make the assumption that you are really trying to build a go-kart despite the suspension rule, maybe loose the double a-arms....you could probably go even lighter than delft if you kept it simple.

Travis Garrison

[B Dana]

First, in response to James, not only are my assumptions questionable but so are my configurations and scenarios: it's just a rough calculation. The whole point was to put some numbers in a FSAE context to illustrate that as velocity increases, more power is required to maintain acceleration. Take it, leave it, question it, laught at it -- that's for you to decide. I got what I wanted out of it so I'm happy. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, Charlie is absolutely right in saying that taking results without knowing the specifics is inconclusive. The design process has to start somewhere, however. Without hard data or reliable analysis you have to struggle to understand the design space and the important trade-offs any way you can. In my opinion, that is what quick and dirty calculations (like the one I posted above) are for. They are useful to inform, even if imperfectly, the next step in the design process.

B. Dana

[James Waltman]

Charlie,
I didn't mean to slight you or the other recipients of the award. I'm sure you had a stellar package and I'll admit I know nothing about what the winners had. I certainly didn't mean any disrespect to the judges. The award is for "innovation and excellence in powertrain engineering"� and I think that the Aachen guys had it. I do know that they applied for the award. I suppose that "ripped off"� is more harsh than I intended. I apologize.

I know that the acceleration numbers don't necessarily mean anything. I also know that the association is probably flawed (and I admit to that twice in the original post). I only brought them up for comparison with some of the assumed numbers.

I'll see if I can get Tim post here and shed some light on their drivetrain.

[Charlie]

It's cool James, I was very suprised we placed in the award. I do not know how many schools were involved in the competition, or how the judges made thier decision. I suppose that the most difficult thing for the Aachen fellows was proving that although they worked very closely with a company, it was in fact largely thier own design. But certainly the scope of thier project was much larger than ours for sure. Impressive.

I'm sure you know the limitations of the comparison you made too, I just cringe whenever people bring simplistic examples to the table, because at least in my experience they just don't work... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But B Dana also makes a good point that you have to start somewhere. Just know the limitations of your comparisons.

[B Dana]

Travis, you are right about weight being high on the single cylinder configuration. Interestingly, taking 45 pounds out won't change the times greatly in the calculation.

And just a disclamer here. What I posted is a "simplistic example" (to quote Charlie). At best it is a pointer to look at some of the trade-offs in selecting an engine config. Buyer beware. Don't try this at home. Actual mileage may vary...

B. Dana

[Storbeck]

I did some similiar calculations, to me the real eye opener was when I figured out how much faster the less powerful car would have to be going while coming out of the corner to arive at the end of the strait at the same time. Not very much. Especially if you allow it to enter the next corner faster.

So the question to me isn't how much slower the single is in the straight, but whether it's faster through the corner. F=MA, F is limited by tires most of the time, how does changing M affect F? Easy question with same tires, tire temps and cg height. Not so easy in reality.

[Kevin Hayward]

You would hope it doesn't have to exit the corner much faster as the increased grip due to weight loss isn't incredible. It is all about small amounts. A 40kg lighter car is not going to take a 1.2g corner at 1.5g. If you look at a typical values for tyre load dependance you will be able to do some rough calcs to show you what happens between a 240kg and 280kg car (these weights include a driver ... not a jockey like Woolongong use).

Kev

[Eddie Martin]

Kev,
You leave Dangerous Dave alone, he may only weigh 55kg but he is bloody fast. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to a single and to a four on track, if you look at the results and do some quick calculations for points over the different events it is very close. In the end it comes down to getting the most from your vehicles package.
There are more things to consider than on track to performance. Initial cost of engine, maintenance, complexity, spare parts availability, availability of additional engines etc.

As for car weights a four should be about 200kg (440lb) and single will be about 160kg (353lb). (excluding cars with wings, 4wd or a turbo which will add weight obviously, also add a driver of various weights http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). You should be able to get a reliable, stiff, and maintainable car for these figures.

Spelt - Wollongong
Pronounced - Wool-on-gong http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Kevin Hayward]

Eddie,

Sorry for the mispelling ... every now and then I get it right.

So what you are saying is a car/driver (w/gear) weight of:

215kg (single) & 255kg (four) if your driver is Dangerously underweight Dave or 240kg & 280 kg if the driver looks like they'll make it through the next winter http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ... pretty much what I had mentioned previously.

...

I only say this out of pure jealousy that we are carrying another 20-25kg of driver ballast.

So if I am right then a single cylinder car with Dave would weigh less than most cars without a driver!!

Dave ... if you get a chance to read this you are more than welcome to come and eat with us in Australia ... pasta, proteins ... lard ... pretty much anything to get you up to the same weight as the rest of us http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kev

[Eddie Martin]

Kev,

It's all good. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yeah i know teams have different weight drivers so i thought i'd mention the weights without driver.

Dave does eat the same as a normal person he is just very skinny. Our other driver is 85 kg so it evens out a bit. At the end of the day Dave is a good driver because of the weight of his right foot. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If dave drove the delft car, total weight would be 182 kg (401 lb) http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Eddie

[Storbeck]

Anybody seen this yet? Not a single, but seems like it would have most of the advantages and then some.

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=765&fArticleId=296732

http://www.maxmoto.co.uk/aprilia_45_v2.shtml

Aprilla 450cc v-twin. Stock efi, 14,000 rpm rev limit, supposedly as light and compact as a 450 single. Probably not too easy to get one even if they do start producing them though.

The bike it's attatched to is pretty sweet too.

[jack]

i think that a common engine can be a huge advantage at comp. our team learned this the hard way this year. if you have a problem the night before the dynamic events, which could happen to anyone, it could spell life or death. what good is some unique, superior engine, when a silly little part fails and your SOL. twenty more points in design, or only scoring in static events? i know people are thinking, hey just bring spares, or make sure you have your sh*t together with the engine. but really, you never know what is going to happen.

on a slightly unrelated note, a couple old school drag guys about an hour south of here are building a wheel-powered land speed car. its an amazing project. anyway, they chose to power the car with twin V8's although turbines are legal in the formula. why? because if allmost anything fails, they can fix it quickly, and cheaply, and parts are allways easy to get.

i guess what im saying is, just be aware of the logistical trade off running something other than a suzuki or honda four-banger.

[Jon]

Who cares about winning. Have fun, and go with whatever route you think will be challenging, fits within your resources, and follows your design ideals.

Jon

[Denny Trimble]

Jon, sounds like you're more of a "hobbyist" than a "competitor". Objective measure of performance - lap time - is what we chase. The competition makes it fun. Winning means you've designed, built, and developed the best package within a tight timeline and budget, and done a better job of it than 139 other schools. That's something to be proud of, and something to strive for. It's not easy http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In the end, lap time gives you an objective decision criteria. "Design ideals" are often unsupported by performance numbers, so they're pretty wishy-washy. A lot of our improvements in design over the last few years have been to take another look at those "ideals" that were the basis of our design decisions in the past. Now, we do more testing and analysis to make data driven decisions. I think that's a good thing.

[jack]

jon, at first i kind of had the same idea as you. then i went to detriot this last may for the first time. i think after spending so much time in the shop, you lose sight of the goal. but as denny pointed out, race cars are built for one reason only...

Dick Golembiewski gave us our design feedback this year. one of the things he said was "if you dont come to win, dont come" at first i was like, hey come on... but after chewing on it for the last couple of months, i understand his point.

[Charlie]

If there is a competition that includes a winner, then the point is to be that car! If you decide to use the opportunity to learn knowing it will reduce your chances to win, that is your perogative and I don't condemn it. However, how do you measure yourself against others unless you strive for the same goal??

In the real world... there are winners and losers, and good learning experiences without results are usually called failures.

[gug]

so take two engineers, one works on a typical sae car. uses the same engine as his/her team have used for the past ten years, gets the car finished with 6 months of testing, winds up winning the competition. his/her skills at the end of the project are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>how to organise a team <LI>how to build a winning car [/list]

then take the other engineer, in a team who decide to produce an aero car. the car has composite wings that this engineer was in charge of. but the car winds up falling apart at competition and finishes last. they have learned about: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>composites <LI>aerodynamics <LI>composites manufacture methods [/list]

okay, so the first engineer will have better chances of getting hired by a racing team, and all the other obvious benefits. but the second one will know how to manufacture composites, which you have to admit is a very useful skill.

dont get me wrong, im not trying to say that focussing on winning or focussing or learning is better. im trying to say that different methods bring different results, and the best method (winning or learning) depends on what you value most.

and my own values? i would rather have been on the WWU v8 team than Cornell. but thats just me. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Charlie]

Absolutely. However, if all you wanted to do was learn about composites, you could have done that on your own, and the time it took to do all that other stuff, could have been put into more composite research. My point is, if you do a car just to learn about composites and its a joke at the competition, there's really no point in showing up is there? Of course there are degrees to that, but if you don't build a car to be competitive, then what are you doing?

To me, its really like entering an endurance race and trying for the fastest lap of the race. If you get it but in the process beat up the car and fall out, you'll get some accolades. After all you were the fastest. But you didn't win. And nobody else (perhaps) was trying to get the fastest lap. And so if you are satisified with your accomplishments great. But in my view, its only a competition if you are striving for the same goal as the other teams. Not some abitrary one.

[Charlie]

I must add though, that I did have the opportunity to get started on a team that basically knew nothing, that started with a blank sheet of paper, and not a team with an established winning record. If I was on a team that had been sucessful with basically the same package for awhile, I would be more inclined to try and innovate.

[jack]

gug brings up an excellent point with the v8 car. and i shouldnt forget to mention that when outlining the concept of the new wwu car (for next year), this same argument was argued and argued here at wwu. ultimatley, we decided to go with the car that follows one of my favorite quotes:

A brilliant design that is not finished on time is useless. A simple design that has been properly developed is a better exercise in engineering.
--carroll smith

i will, say though, at my particular university, we had allready followed the "off the beaten path" route. with not only the v8 car, but also our car this year, v35. so it seemed like time to try the other thing.

still, i disagree with my team mates, however, who think its cooler to do something unique and inovative. which is fine for them, but they're not designing the new car...http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

i guess to be honest, and add fuel to the fire, i should mention that the guys on the v8 car project all have great jobs working for race teams and stuff.

nevertheless, no matter what your goal is for learning, you should still go to comp to win. if you think that you can do that with a rare engine, great. as for our team, i dont think we can, so we wont...

[Igor]

I think the remark "if you dont come to win, dont come" is nonsense. I think half the schools know in advance they will not beat the top schools. Certainly all first year teams know they won't win. Should they stay at home?
I still think all teams should make their car as fast/good as they possibly can, but they better be realistic about it.

Igor

[Kevin Hayward]

I think the attitude of "don't come unless you want to win" is the right one. While it may not be possible in the short term the ulitmate goal should be to move closer to a winning position. Personally I only see design decisions towards this goal as being valid engineering practice. Innovation is a big part of this. For instance if a win is out of the question in the next couple of years then it makes sense to try and find an advantage to develop for a long term attack on the trophy.

I do not think that teams develop technologies that they think will make their cars worse just for the sake of learning the technology. It is quite a flawed viewpoint to assess developments like composites, singles, aero etc as just being done for innovation and not for a competitive advantage.

What still puzzles me is the constant line of argument that goes along the lines of:

If you want to win it means no innovation and limited learning.

It is a backhanded insult fired at the top finishing teams. It implies that they are not as intelligent as us non-winners (and my team has not won a comp.) who have learnt so much more.

...

Before any of you decide to rip into me I've got to say that it is the desire to find an edge on other teams that has me awake at 3:00am working for the team. Had I been studying for exams I would have been asleep a long time ago ... not learning a thing.

Kev

[Denny Trimble]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
...I've got to say that it is the desire to find an edge on other teams that has me awake at 3:00am working for the team. Had I been studying for exams I would have been asleep a long time ago ... not learning a thing.

Kev <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that!

[B.K.]

Igor is completely right that the vast majority of schools go to the competition knowing that they are not going to win. Hell, they start the year knowing that. But Kevin's point that the goal for those teams should be to "move closer to a winning position" is the key philosophy in my opinion.

For any school that does not currently have an elite team to become a winner is a multi-year proposition. They will only be successful if they put their schools on, say, a four-year plan toward winning the competition. It requires that the seniors swallow their pride and not adopt Jon's "who cares" philosophy.

Every year, including the crappy first two and the half crappy third year, the team will have to conduct itself as if it is playing to win. F-ing around for a year doing something just because it's cool will leave your team no closer to winning the next year. Moving forward slowly to produce and tune a simple but solid design and then carefully recording all the ways to improve it next time around will put the team a step closer victory come the next fall. Four years of this kind of discipline will put a team in the running.

Of course, not all teams will have this vision, and even fewer will carry it through year after year. But the teams that decide to do cool stuff (and a homemade V8 is about as cool as it gets!) won't find themselves any closer to winning at the end of the day. Both mentalities are fine, I guess, but I like what Charlie said about the competition having a winner... why not work your team in the direction of being that winner?

I don't disrespect teams that decide to just do some cool stuff and not worry about putting their school on course for future victory. That's their call, and it'll certainly be more fun. Really, there's only one stance that annoys me. It's often stated, but was most recently posted by gug. The point that he was trying to make was that relaxing your focus on winning gives you room to think outside the box and do some learning that you might not have time to do otherwise. That's perfectly valid. But unfortunately he had to wrap it up in the "Cornell brings the same car every year" argument, which tends to rub certain people the wrong way, like Cornell grads http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm not going to get into the evolutionary design argument; everyone knows that one and the continuously improving cars speak for themselves. So do the trophies. Go to the judging summary after design finals if you need proof that the best cars get better each year.

I am, however, going to get into the "skills gained" argument that gug opened the door to. He said that the engineers at the top schools learn little more than organization and the same old manufacturing processes. Students on the teams that try more new stuff (areo was his example) learn new manufacturing techniques and are forced to do the analysis to figure out their new designs.

I would only assure gug and those who think like him that the elite teams would not stay elite if they were not developing new manufacturing techniques and doing complex analyses of alternative designs as well as reanalyzing the previous year's design.

If you think that you're learning more engineering than the kids whose cars are lapping you, you're fooling yourself. You're not necessarily learning less, don't get me wrong, but making some carbon wings for a track that averages 30 MPH and then arguing that you learned aero and the Cornell engineers didn't is an unimpressive argument, to say the least. I assure you that the elite teams did every calculation you did, and probably some you didn't.

If that wasn't true, the best teams would not be as dominant year after year.

[gug]

sorry Ben, Cornell do seem to cop a fair bit of flak like "Cornell brings the same car every year". i didnt actually mean to imply that in my post above (since i have never seen even one of you cars up close, much less a several of them), what i meant was that i would rather have designed that v8 than be on the most successful team in fsae.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "If you think that you're learning more engineering than the kids whose cars are lapping you, you're fooling yourself." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i can see how you got that out of my post, i shouldnt have written out that list of example skills, but i didnt mean that. i would have to be a complete idiot if i thought that someone who could engineer a faster car than me was a worse engineer. that list was just trying to highlight that different approaches generate different skills.

maybe i should explain a bit of my situation in our team. we had the choice of either outsourcing our composite work or building it ourself. if we outsourced it we would wind up with probably a better product than if we built it ourself. so if our focus was entirely on winning then we would be forced to outsource. i would spend my extra time doing marketing and earn us enough money to cover the outsourcing.

but we chose to build it ourself to enhance our own learning. we are now less likely to win, but i still stand by my descision.

but you guys have convinced me a fair bit on the aim for the competition. if i just wanted to learn, then i guess i could just as easily build an experimental car that doesnt compete in any competition. actually, it would be bloody easier to raise money for a hybrid or a solar car. bloody greenies just hang up on me when i ask them for money for a race car team, but the solar car team has money thrown at it. *mutter mutter mutter*

anyway, my teams view is a fair bit different from mine. their view is that we are making a car that has alot of tuning potential. its very much the multi-year approach that Ben talks about.

sorry for the rambling post here, havent had my coffee yet so im all over the place.

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

FSAE isnt as much about winning as it is improving, in the long run money does play a big role in things, that is why each school has to start somewheres and move up in the rankings. Look at our '04 car, we didnt participate in any dynamic events cuz of our lack of a working brake system, but we were able to remove just under 100lbs from the '03 car and tried a lot of cool things like a fiberglass intake/restrictor/throttlebody combo, a carbon fiber/kevlar nose cone, custom aluminum diff housing, making a lot of our own parts like a brake balancer, stepped headers, using a jig to build the frame on ect ect....we were a new team with oney 2 returning members from the 03 team. we didnt consider doin shitty rankin wise a failure, we have a very good base from which to build on for this year.once we get a car that will participate in all dynamic events, you guys better look out http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Eddie Martin]

Formula SAE is different to normal motorsport in that every year, in the vast majority of teams, a new bunch of people brings different ideas and ways of doing things. They can either progress on the previous year or go off the rails a bit. It is very very easy to go in the wrong direction design wise or get behind in design or manufacture, for any team. That is one of the big challenges of fsae.

Say what you like about the Cornell cars themselves, every year they turn up with a professional outfit that does well in all events with a car that is well prepared and fast. They only go fast in all events by tuning, development and driver training. They go well in the static because they are prepared and ready. These are the hallmarks of a good group of people that have become a good team. Get the results spreadsheet and look at their consistency in the skid pan and acceleration events, it's really amazing. For a different group of people to do that every year is pretty damn good.

If you don't aim to win the competition when you start out with a car/team you won't even finish in the top 10. I don't want to go on about Wollongong, but we started in late 2000 with no facilities, support, money or designs and a uni that didn't want to know us. We were just kids wasting their time building a go-kart or something instead of studying to them. We were professional in every step we took and gained a lot of support from sponsors and the university with this attitude. We focused on engineering principles rather than coolness. Within three years we had won two competitions on different sides of the world. We aren't a rich team and our uni is very small compared to most that enter this competition. Any team can do it if they work hard enough and are focused and organised. Never aim for second best.

[Charlie]

I love this discussion. I can only echo comments already made. Kevin from UWA says that aiming to win is the only way to go. He is right. Eddie from UOW says with the right attitude and mindset you can win with only a couple years under your belt. He is right.

When I started FSAE the only thing our team had going for it was that the university let us exist. And I thank our predecessors for that. But we made something happen with no university support whatsoever. And once that happened everything fell into place. 'Learning experiences' happen every day. 'Competition' happens once a year. If you are in FSAE you should strive to finish the best possible position. If you know you can't win, fine. I don't think Mr. Dick G. meant that if you can't win don't try. He meant try your best to finish as high as possible. That's what a competition is for. That's why we have positions. It's a gauge vs. the best in the world. Strive to raise your position. It's the only real way to say you've accomplished a goal. IMO of course. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[DontAsk]

I wish it could be gotten through to the team at my school that you need to be thinking 4+ years out to build the infrastructure and the team to build a winning entry. Unfortunately here at my school (which I am intentionally keeping nameless due to personal embarrassment of being associated with them) the current team leadership can't see past tomorrow.

Cornell and other top ranking teams have a plan and an organization, something that is really missing here at "DontAsk College". Ferrari's dominance of Formula One, is not one of technology or drivers, it is one of teamwork, organization and individual achievement in concert with the individual achievements of others.

I want my team to get it together, but I am not exactly hopeful. We'll be telling each other how we should feel good about just building the car... what a bunch of B.S., they should save that crap for the liberal arts majors.

[BryanH]

Posts have gone slightly off topic! Very good but!
Seems that compared to a "normal" race team you guys get it very tough, you only get to race once a year. In a normal situ cool ideas, pet theories get trialed on a race weekend and either get refined in future weeks or die a natural death on sunday afternoon.
A F-sae team has potential to be consumed by politics, individuals pursuing agendas etc. simply because there is months of theory and no racing.
An essential chore on monday mornings is marching all those cool ideas, demon tweaks to the nearest wall and executing the bastards.

this includes Pat'd Rats open wheel diff.

[Denny Trimble]

I agree, the single race per year is tough, but it forces us to be extra diligent about reliability. And, to find other races! It's pretty satisfying to take FTD at autocrosses, especially national tours. But then look at PAX results... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for new ideas, we drive the car 12 months out of the year now, and any time someone wants to try something "crazy", we encourage them to build it and get it working on one of the old cars. Usually, that's enough of a reality check that they realize the rest of the team doesn't owe it to them to make their idea happen. But if they do put something on the testing car, it's usually high quality. We're working on some test components for next year that we don't trust enough to find out in March if they work or not.

[Michael Jones]

Excellent posts all around...

With respect to innovation and complete out-of-the-box thinking, it is important even in the well-organized systems approach like Cornell's. Systems engineering is essentially conservative. It's possible to optimize a system (be it technical or social) to meet a given environment only to have someone trump that effort by redefining the environment entirely.

This is why we've been quite active in learning about possible huge paradigm shifts that could do just that - e.g., aero packages, CF monocoques, lightweight single-cylinder cars, etc. We're also quite active in research and development for things that aren't likely to make prime time in a given year but will eventually - e.g., the custom shocks in 2003 and the e-wastegate control in 2004.

What we do well in my opinion is balance the long-term requirements of research and development with the short-term requirements of the competition. So, things that aren't ready for prime time are deliberately shunted for later years. Those innovations that show promise are eventually realized. Many of our innovations are multiple year projects as a result.

The balance between systems maintenance and systems innovation is a delicate one - it's very easy to err excessively on the wrong side of that equation. We tend to err on the side of maintenance, at least in the final product.

I'll be the first to say that Cornell is not likely to introduce the next big paradigm shift...but two years later, we'll have whatever that shift is optimized, well-justified and bulletproof.

[Eddie Martin]

I think the way that Michael Jones talks about introducing innovation is a good way to do it. It's pretty similar to what we have been doing here at the gong. We aimed to first have a simple car that was done well with nothing wrong about it and everything right about it, eg. don't run before you can walk. After our third car we have pretty much achieved that.
Taking UTA and Cornell as examples they have solid and well sorted packages that they add sensible, refined and developed systems too, eg. wings and a turbo respectively. These systems must add value to there overall package, otherwise they wouldn't run them. I see so many teams putting extra systems on the car, just for the sack of it. I think getting the base package right, eg. low weight, low cg., follows engineering principles, driveable, maintainable, good ergonomically, powerful, fuel efficient etc. etc. is far more important.
That isn't to say that we haven't been looking at other things, we have been running a turbo, on the dyno, on and off since mid 2002 and will probably run it this year. We also have development programs running for things like a pneumatic shifter (in its second evolution) and research programs into wings, 4ws, single cylinder, custom shocks, team management and organisation etc.
Everything that a team does this year will effect the next team and the team after that, always aim to leave it in better condition than you found it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
Everything that a team does this year will effect the next team and the team after that, always aim to leave it in better condition than you found it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put. I've been involved with the team studying organizational learning issues. Underlying all forms of organizational learning is an ethos that, as individuals, we belong to something much larger than ourselves and that we should work for the continued success of that collective.

It's this attitude that allows you to work on a project for one or two years that never makes it on the car. It's this attitude that compels you to train new members and pass on your knowledge. It's this attitude that keeps you in the loop well after you've gone and encourages you to contribute intellectually and/or financially to the team's future endeavors.

I've heard from many teams over the years that their alumni support is weak, and that's a real shame. They're a valuable resource.

Building that resource starts with priming experienced team members to contribute to the team's future while they are still there. The longer you're around, the more you should care about the overall system vs. any particular bit of it. Alas, too many team captains/leaders get mired in specifics and don't have the time or energy to do this. Our best team leaders in the past were those who did spend this time - the least effective were those who couldn't or wouldn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>These systems must add value to there overall package, otherwise they wouldn't run them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually, yes, but it's also very easy to get trapped into a design rationale that can easily be reduced to "that's how we've always done it." We tend towards this at times, but we're also quite good at realizing when we are. I've seen some pretty good tests run that were set up because someone got sick of hearing "that's how we've always done it." Sometimes you get interesting results - most of the time, of course, you just get more definitive proof of what you already knew, but that's not necessarily a waste of time...

[rotor]

interesting to hear the views on why we spend so much time on this project.
I think that the goal must be to win the event, otherwise you have already lost as in the back of your mind you will always say, its ok we were'nt aiming to win, when it could have just taken a little bit more work.
I spose you also get people doing this project for different reasons, those of us who would do anything to win and people along for the ride. The problem is making these people see how much they have to do.
On the topic of innovation, there arnet many ideas on fsae cars which we havnt seen before its more how you apply them with such a short time line with limited budget and resources

o well, back to the safety equivalency report...
Mark hester
RMIT
"its good to be single"

[Big Bird]

Excellent thread, should be compulsory reading for all FSAE newcomers. I agree wholeheartedly on the concept of careful development vs. radical change for the sake of it. Getting team members involved from all year levels helps foster this attitude - there's nothing like a bit of experience to temper ideas of revolutionizing the competition in a year. I really feel sorry for those who go to unis that only allow participation in final year, it would be an impossible scenario in which to progress as a team.

As for the viewpoints on competitive spirit, I couldn't imagine how you could commit yourself to this project without wanting to win at least something. There were a couple of teams at FStudent who said straight out that they weren't interested in being competitive, they were just there for the sake of it, (it almost seemed like they were forced into it as part of their degrees). The standard of their car preparation reflected this, and mostly these people looked like they resented being there all weekend.

At the opposite end of the scale there were teams there like our mates at Loughborough. I don't think they went to the competition thinking they would win this year, but they have as much energy and enthusiasm as any of us. There's a spirit there that they are building something for future years, and you get the feeling that their current team will take pride in whatever future success LU may achieve, whether they are still around or not.

Yes, I know it is an educational event and we all "win" as such - but humans are by nature competitive, and it is the channelling of this drive that makes us strive to design a better pedal tray, diff housing, whatever. The most rewarding "wins" of all are when a stranger comes up to you in the pits and says, "Hey, I really like the way you have designed that ****" - and that is satisfying no matter where your team finishes as a whole.

Thanks to Michael and the Cornell crew above for your insights, it's been a good read. Eddie too, (although I know I've already spoken to you in person about a lot of this stuff!).

If i could, I'd love to find out how a team like Cornell assesses the validity of such a major change as a single. Before we embarked on the project I found it a real challenge to truly quantify the validity of the concept. Obviously simulations can give some indication of potential lap time gains/losses and fuel economy etc, (if you are good enough!), but then there are issues like differences in manufacturing and testing time, suitability to the skill levels of team members and uni resources, sponsor contacts, driver skills and preferences, marketing advantages and disadvantages, etc.

Honestly, our choice of a single was as much to do with the latter stuff as it was to do with any vehicle performance criteria. I had personally attempted a systems engineering approach whereby graded points were allocated in accordance with team goals - but in the end it became an inconclusive jumble of rough estimates that could easily be manipulated to suit your own wants. So we pretty well just jumped in and built the damn thing.

I would love to know how the pros do it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Any further comments most welcomed....

Cheers all

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

I have seen both members shine and others crack under a little pressure. There were a few guys on our team that were in it from day one and stuck it out thru all the hard crap of workin late nights and suffereing from lack of resources. I know the week before and durin competition myself and another guy went six days straight with probably under 5 hours of sleep. overall it has been a positive experience with so much hands on activity.

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Big Bird:

If i could, I'd love to find out how a team like Cornell assesses the validity of such a major change as a single. Before we embarked on the project I found it a real challenge to truly quantify the validity of the concept. Obviously simulations can give some indication of potential lap time gains/losses and fuel economy etc, (if you are good enough!), but then there are issues like differences in manufacturing and testing time, suitability to the skill levels of team members and uni resources, sponsor contacts, driver skills and preferences, marketing advantages and disadvantages, etc.

Honestly, our choice of a single was as much to do with the latter stuff as it was to do with any vehicle performance criteria. I had personally attempted a systems engineering approach whereby graded points were allocated in accordance with team goals - but in the end it became an inconclusive jumble of rough estimates that could easily be manipulated to suit your own wants. So we pretty well just jumped in and built the damn thing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An excellent approach and pretty much what we do. It's as much an art as a science as you suggest, and you're right in noting extraneous factors. In an ideal world, we'd have a strong team of the highest quality people, state of the art production facilities, and limitless supplies of cash to make critical design decisions. Nice and fine, but last I looked, the only things we share with Ferrari's F1 team are a color scheme and a reverence for Gilles Villeneuve. Basic practical concerns interfere all the time and shape many more decisions than we'd like.

For example, converting to any system that involves a high degree of expertise in composites manufacturing (e.g., CF monocoque, wings) would be more difficult for Cornell since we don't have the expertise or facilities in house or locally in industry. While it's hardly the only reason we don't have a monocoque or an aero package, it certainly comes into play in R&D efforts.

Given the less than ideal circumstances FSAE teams face, "jumping into the damn thing" isn't necessarily all that bad. You can do a full systems engineering analysis and some certainly do - but they tend to be huge industrial efforts where attention to all potential contingencies is a paramount concern (e.g., aerospace, satellites, etc.)

Systems engineering in its full implementation is itself complex and requires a great deal of effort and expertise. We tailor the full approach down to a much more manageable and doable level, while maintaining the core principles of integration, prediction and designing to stated goals as best as humanly possible.

Indeed, the worst episodes of our SE efforts have been when we get wrapped up in administrivia and not "jumped right into it." Excessive overhead not only does not yield results in a timely fashion, it tends to be demoralizing and frustrating in a high-intensity workgroup.

At one instance in 2002, a friend noted that we were in danger of becoming the best run 35th place team in history. Hearing that should set off big alarms - FSAE should be creative, fun, and yes, even a bit anarchical at times. You eliminate this wholesale at your own peril.

That noted, there are very simple things you can do to keep things quasi-professional and productive. My personal take has always been to suggest techniques that are low maintenance and high return. Something simple that eliminates chaos and confusion with minimal effort is always appreciated.

[farmgirl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Michael Jones: <br>That noted, there are very simple things you can do to keep things quasi-professional and productive. My personal take has always been to suggest techniques that are low maintenance and high return. Something simple that eliminates chaos and confusion with minimal effort is always appreciated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[farmgirl]

oops.. pressed post without writing. Michael, I was just wondering if you have any ideas to do this? I am doing my thesis on knowledge management and communication within the team. UQ Racing needs some systems in place to keep it from going backwards when team members leave. So far I'm developing a hand-over procedure and also some info packs for first years to give them a jump start into the team. Also the management type positions are going to be assigned now whereas before things like sponsorship and publicity were just dealt with by whoever was free.
How does Cornell work with this stuff??

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by farmgirl:
I am doing my thesis on knowledge management and communication within the team. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto, kind of. More on organizational socialization and social networks now.

The orientation information packages are a good idea, and something we've been doing for a couple of years.

Definitely assign roles and responsibilities to specific individuals in all cases. This encourages ownership of at least part of the overall effort and creates a network of point people responsible for various tasks.

It certainly helps to have a leadership position dedicated to team administration, funding, publicity, etc. It's a good role for non-engineers (such as myself) to play. Since these tasks are generally perceived as more peripheral and uninteresting by engineers, they will be left undone if no one's eager to adopt the task in a voluntary system.

Otherwise, there are a variety of potential solutions to organizational socialization and mitigating the effects of turnover, which in these teams is very high.

Recruiting the right people at the right time helps. We recruit early in the year and a month before competition. The spring recruits enter the new year considerably more prepared even with only a month's more seniority, because they've seen the conclusion of the process.

Much of what is learned is done through hands-on interaction and trial and error experimentation. As such, it helps to have tasks that new members can sink their teeth into, with the support they need to get it done and an expectation that if it's not done right, it's not a big deal. Easy to do early in the year, less easy nearing competition, but there's usually a billion necessary bits of grunt work to keep people occupied then anyway.

We've tried various mentoring and training efforts to mixed success - the more formal the effort, the worse it seems to be received. A loosely structured effort seems to work better.

We write technical and personal reports every semester, which can be a good source of information if a) they're written well and b) they're read at all. Both a) and b) can be sketchy at times - a) is hard to enforce and b) can become a pretty interesting KM challenge, especially with nearly 2000 reports over 17 years.

Perhaps one of the most important things I can think of is maintaining a decent social environment conducive to learning, experimentation, or even just simple social interaction. Team members should treat each other with mutual respect, have a vested interest in their own development and that of the team, encourage productive critique, and above all have fun in the process. FSAE isn't a social club, true, but people are more likely to do productive work if they don't perceive every task as a chore or an order, and once there, are more likely to build both professional and collegial relations with their teammates.

Specific things one can do to realize these goals are limitless and have to be tailored to the situation at hand. I outlined nearly 70 ideas in one report I wrote - some of them directly contradictory to those I wrote in the previous year, and others I'd probably recant on now given the chance. Some ideas work well one year and suck the next - there's no cookie-cutter solution to any of this.

Given this, the leadership team should monitor the social/learning system as well as the technical. They should be eager to try new ways to get people involved to further their own personal development and the overall knowledge base of the team. They should be on the lookout for people and tasks that are falling through the cracks. They should also be quick to realize when their efforts are falling flat and work to fix it before it becomes a much bigger problem.

All of this, of course, is much easier said than done, and it's never perfect. You do what you can in the time you have with the resources you have available, and let the deity of your choice sort the rest of it out.

[Chris Boyden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Perhaps one of the most important things I can think of is maintaining a decent social environment conducive to learning, experimentation, or even just simple social interaction. Team members should treat each other with mutual respect, have a vested interest in their own development and that of the team, encourage productive critique, and above all have fun in the process <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jones

I think that is the best piece of advice in the entire forum.

[Mpowered325is]

Jones-

Is it true that Cornell interviews new recruits?
If so, why, when did you start doing this, what have you learned from doing this?

jacob

[Michael Jones]

We interview new recruits and have ever since I can remember.

There are positives and negatives to this approach. Plus side is that you can weed out a good half of those expressing interest immediately and the team can focus its attention on developing those selected. It also helps to fill organizational holes in a more systematic fashion.

Negative side is that we inevitably pick a few rotten apples and overlook excellent choices. Luckily, most new members that can't fit with the overall organization see that themselves and withdraw relatively quickly.

Good folk that are initially rejected are a different story. We encourage all those who don't make the cut to come in and prove us wrong. The process was dubbed "to Yuki" after our 2003 engine leader who, after missing the cut as a freshman in fall 2000, ignored the decision, outworked everyone else for a month, and was admitted on shortly after. So, now the team Yukis everyone.

This only works in some cases though. We rejected one kid five times before finally admitting him - he went on to kick ass in auto-x and endurance in 2001 and 2002 and spearheaded our research in WAVE engine simulation and aerodynamics while doing his master's. A great guy and real asset to the team, but also one of the most sociopathic people I've ever met, which was evident in both interviews and superficial small talk. Basically, he scared the bejeezus out of most people, which made it both difficult for the team to select him and difficult for him to suck up to those who just rejected him.

Overall though I'd suggest the interview process is worthwhile, if only to avoid the total chaos that would happen if we had 90-100+ people interested, most of whom weren't really there physically or mentally.

[Mpowered325is]

I see... we have that problem... 100+ people claiming to the team at the beginning of every fall semester. I guess we take more of the Darwin approach and see that only the strong survive. It is still hard though... I mean how the crap do you decide who goes to competition and who does even when you have 40 legit team members that worked hard during the year? I guess this past year you guys didn't; you just brought them all like we did in 2003. I guess you guys had the budget for travel and lodging... or am I wrong? Well we didn't this year and we had to limit it to about 30 members this past year... it worked but it really sucked telling those other people that worked hard that we couldn't come...

This year we plan on making some major organizational changes and I am hoping interviewing will be one of them.

One more question,when you interview new recruits how many people do they talk to, who do they talk to and do they fill out some kind of application?

jacob

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

SAE is the biggest student orginization on campus here, with formula takin up the biggest number of members in that group. We have found out that basically the guys that say they are on the team but dont do shit usually stop showing up after they get no respect. also, once we get into binds with time and start puttin pressure on ppl, if there not in it they will quit on us, that hurt us a lot this last year since we were down to basically 8-10 guys us regulars would call members, and that was not saying they were puttin in the time needed to finish the car. I know I have been in this since that first time i stumbled across it in high school. Unfortunately we lost some of our best guys last year due to external things like having to dropping out of college and gf's.

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I guess this past year you guys didn't; you just brought them all like we did in 2003. I guess you guys had the budget for travel and lodging... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you see is what you get actually (and we have lots of alumni dropping by too...)

The team is around 30 each year, but we recruit around April as well for the following year, so we end up bringing about 40. We lose about 15-25 each year depending on the number of one-year M.Eng folk on the team and the number of seniors graduating - this year, we only lost 16, but after 2002 we lost 27, I think - it was over 66%, whatever the number.

About five hotel rooms stacking eight in each works fine, so it's not hugely expensive in the end.

So, we recruit early in September and in April. We usually get more interest in September but better applicants in April, IMO. We have an application, but it's pretty basic - gives something to talk about. We have group interviews (3-4 per half hour) until we process through everyone and then make decisions based on that. It can make for a hell of a long Saturday - I've helped streamline the decision process some since it's traditionally taken as long as the interviews. Generally the whole team is present for the fall interviews, and the seniors can bail on the spring ones if they choose.

While the Darwinian approach can work in some cases, it's easy to end up with lackadasical quasi-members and you'll have less leverage to get them to pull their weight. Formalizing gives everyone a bit more role clarity and I think it strengthens commitment overall. Yes, there's always 8-10 people that everyone realizes are central - but we also get a lot out the other 20 or so. Anything they do is one less thing for the team leaders and core members to worry about.

Formalization is also necessary since we're also a class for credit. Also helps keep people in line - it's rare for people to get very low grades in the FSAE course, but it happens.

[Mark Peugeot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Jones:

A great guy and real asset to the team, but also one of the most sociopathic people I've ever met, which was evident in both interviews and superficial small talk. Basically, he scared the bejeezus out of most people, which made it both difficult for the team to select him and difficult for him to suck up to those who just rejected him.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is how my team feels about me, I certainly won't give them the opportunity to think that I am not a hard worker.

First thing I did was suggest that the 2004 car for lack of a better term... sub-optimal, which did not engender happy joy joy feelings from the existing members. I know that they read this forum. I also know that they are capable of building a much better car than what they showed up with last year.

Well I'm not gonna start to be politically correct now. I do think that we are off to a better start this year than they had last year.

I wish I could get them to consider forced induction, but I don't see that happening. I will be happy if we bring a car that places in the top 50. I think that's a reasonable goal for the team at this point.

Mark

[RagingGrandpa]

I am absolutely astounded at how the thoroughly and repeatedly the content of this thread has been disproven since it's beginning. Rereading the earlier section about 'Singles are too risky,' 'Make conservative decisions,' etc. etc. totally contrasts the RMIT's, UWA's, and Penn State's I was busy being amazed by at 2005 FSAE.

I just can't not dig up this amazing old thread- things have changed a lot over the past 3 years.

[BryanH]

Howdy old pal, perfect timing, just got confirmation from EDS that RMIT was actually the fastest car in enduro at 63.09
(btw denny did a 64.11, SVSU was 64.74)
Nuff said about single cyl. & 10" wheels!
Did you notice that I made sure RO4 had a nice bright led brake light....So does Rotor trail brake or not? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RMIT "Worlds fastest fsae car" http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif