New Engine that is NOT motorcycle engine?

[RiNaZ]

I have a friend working at Mahle Motorsports in Germany and he said that the Mahle Motorsports has design a new 3 cylinder engine specifically for Formula SAE.

They had showed it off at Frankfurt Motorshow this year. My friend didnt a chance to look for the picture, but as soon as he does, i'll post it on the forum. Here's a little introductory that they have on their website ...

http://www.mahle.com/home.nsf/out/1.5.0.0?OpenDocument&,4566631

or maybe you guys watch this video. It's the engine with 3 cylinders in it. It should be in the middle and the last part of the video.

http://www.presse-tv.net/MahleIAA/

anybody heard about this already?

RiNaZ

[This message was edited by RiNaZ on November 20, 2003 at 02:24 PM.]

[RiNaZ]

I have a friend working at Mahle Motorsports in Germany and he said that the Mahle Motorsports has design a new 3 cylinder engine specifically for Formula SAE.

They had showed it off at Frankfurt Motorshow this year. My friend didnt a chance to look for the picture, but as soon as he does, i'll post it on the forum. Here's a little introductory that they have on their website ...

http://www.mahle.com/home.nsf/out/1.5.0.0?OpenDocument&,4566631

or maybe you guys watch this video. It's the engine with 3 cylinders in it. It should be in the middle and the last part of the video.

http://www.presse-tv.net/MahleIAA/

anybody heard about this already?

RiNaZ

[This message was edited by RiNaZ on November 20, 2003 at 02:24 PM.]

[Dan Deussen @ Weber Motor]

Thats news to me! I'll call Mahle on Monday and try to get some info on it. I'll post it if there is interest!

Daniel Deussen
www.walbro-italy.com (http://www.walbro-italy.com)

[Bavarian Motorsport]

I definitely saw a unique 3cyl engine in that video... also some nice 5cyl http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[RiNaZ]

hey dan deussen, my friend told me it was the HQ of Mahle that designed the new engine, so if you are calling the Mahle Motorsports, make sure you call the HQ (dont ask me where it is, i have no idea, forgot to ask my friend the other day).

RiNaZ

[-]

I saw two shots of a 3 cylinder motor, but nothing as far as a transmission. Assuming that the motor in the video is just the motor and not the combination of the motor and trans like a bike motor, it looks huge and heavy.

I would not be surprised to see that motor having to do something with a fuel effcient econobox for Europe, but then again I could be wrong.

[Michael Jones]

Sounds like an econobox. Perhaps they're thinking of re-releasing the Geo Metro. 3 cylinders, 1.0L, 55hp. Yeeeeeha! One of the only cars I can think of where hp and mpg are 1:1. I miss that little bugger.

---
Michael Jones
Coordinator, Student Project Teams, College of Engineering

Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[RiNaZ]

hey dan deusen, any update on what the mahle engine?

RiNaZ

[Dunford]

Mahle press release:

"...To demonstrate its systems capability and know-how regarding a complete engine, MAHLE has, for the first time ever, developed its own complete engine. This engine will also make its debut in Asia at the Tokyo Motor Show. It was developed for Formula SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) - as part of a competition for prospective engineers of vehicle and engine design - and is a straight high-speed three-cylinder four-stroke aluminum engine. According to the Formula SAE rules, an output of approximately 60 kW is expected from a displacement of 609 cm3. To achieve a high specific output despite the mandatory intake restrictor, a tuned intake system with four-valve technology, two overhead camshafts and intake manifold fuel injection was developed. Light-design concepts of the crankshaft, connecting rod, and piston allow low oscillating masses and thus a quick engine reaction capacity. The engine is rigidly seated in the vehicle due to its supporting function and equipped with a balance shaft to compensate first-order tilting moments. ..."

http://www.mahle.com/home.nsf/out/6.0.0.0.AB58991AD397C414C1256DE80052CFEA?OpenDocum ent

Just develop your own transaxle and you'll be set!

Josh Dunford
Brown Formula SAE

[Mi_Ko]

Is this the end of Honda domination in FSAE?

2002/03 University of MARIBOR - Team Member

[Sisyphus]

I'd say its more likely the end of FSAE.

IMHO, making a spec engine for FSAE is NOT what the idea of the competition is about. If a high tech engine is available off the shelf, albeit for lots of bucks (unless they chose to sell them at a loss), then it will be difficult to compete without having one. You guys should continue to engineer the performance into your engine of choice.

It's your guys' series, not mine. But I don't like it! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Mi_Ko]

Maybe you're right.

But consider there is still a cost report and some teams are near the limit + the rich teams have an advantage even without Mahle. (Think about the prices for state of the art set of dampers, tyres, ecu's, wheels, carbonfibre, brakes,...)

I hope Mahle is going to sell this engine for a sponsorship price. Only to show how good engines they can make. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2002/03 University of MARIBOR - Team Member

[Ben Beacock]

I would imagine those engines would be quite pricey, since they probably don't have the tooling up for a production run.

Ben Beacock
Co-Manager
2004 Gryphon Racing - University of Guelph (http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/uogracing)

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But consider there is still a cost report and some teams are near the limit + the rich teams have an advantage even without Mahle. (Think about the prices for state of the art set of dampers, tyres, ecu's, wheels, carbonfibre, brakes,...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the "what would you change thread" Cost report isn't very useful. As well the engine is simply charged per CC, not on actual cost.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Mi_Ko]

Oh, I forgot this rule. Now I agree with you Gerry.

This engine can only make a bigger gap between low budget and hitec teams. Hopefully a rule change will be made before they launch that engine.

2002/03 University of MARIBOR - Team Member

[A.Bejcek]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerry LaRue:
I'd say its more likely the end of FSAE.

IMHO, making a spec engine for FSAE is NOT what the idea of the competition is about. If a high tech engine is available off the shelf, albeit for lots of bucks (unless they chose to sell them at a loss), then it will be difficult to compete without having one. You guys should continue to engineer the performance into your engine of choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%

While there are benifits to spec racing outside of FSAE, it would absolutely destroy the purpose of the competition. Who really cares how well your team does if you paid for an engine package that somebody else engineered for your application. You might as well just pay a full-time racecar engineering firm to make your car for you.

I understand that a group of college students can't do everything themselves but you have to draw the line somewhere.

[gug]

60kW = 82hp, which is possible from the honda. but peak power doesnt help all that much, i wonder how the torque compares? i wonder how much this engine weighs?

and how on earth are they going to find enough buyers to finance a production run of this engine? even if they could get it down to current secondhand f4 prices, my team still wouldnt buy the engine cause of our store of f4 parts. maybe im missing something here, but what does it have that the average motorbike engine doesnt?

i fully agree that having an engine already designed for you removes part of the learning in fsae. if this engine does offer a serious advantage and can not be developed any further by us, then i hope it is banned.

- the problem with the world is stupidity. i'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety lables off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

[This message was edited by gug on November 25, 2003 at 08:45 PM.]

[Courtney Waters]

I think a few of you guys may be overreacting a bit. The press release said, "According to the Formula SAE rules, an output of approximately 60kW is expected from a displacement of 609 cm3," which does not indicate that Mahle has actually dynoed the engine at that rating. Nowhere did I see any hp/torque curves, indication of engine rpm capability, WEIGHT, etc. It would be cool if there were another engine choice available to teams, but I don't see this as the end of FSAE, the ultimate engine design for the competition, or anything like that.

You can't really argue the fact that it takes learning out of the competition because most teams don't design their own engine anyway. Intake and exhaust, yes, but not the whole engine. Will the Mahle intake and exhaust even fit in most FSAE cars or will the cars have to be designed around those engine components? I'm sure the judges would be interested in why you thought those components were worth designing around if that's the case.

Another consideration is if there's no gearbox built into the engine, what are you going to use? Using the Mahle in that case would open up a whole new can of worms (and potential design challenges) for teams. It's not like there are a ton of tiny transaxles kicking around in the aftermarket. One could argue that using the motorcycle gearbox takes learning out of the competition and that using the Mahle engine would open up other learning options. Never mind the fact that there has already been a ton of testing done on the 600cc sportbike engines and anyone running the Mahle would have to start at the bottom of the learning curve again.

Courtney Waters
UC Davis Formula SAE Alumni

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My opinion is the stock power doesn't matter, because the power depends on the carburator (or direct injection) and electronics which you gonna change. The bore sizes and the rpm all nearly the same on all bikes.

There are only small differences in weights - a few kg, which you can loose elsewhere.

You should look how good can you package the engine and where can you get cheap spare parts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mi Ko wrote this before and I think it really applies here. Also, if a company is basing it's growth on the FSAE market they probably are not going to be in business very long (poor students is not a ver attractive market) I think this seems like just a side project for them.

Brent Howard

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Mechanicaldan]

Look at our competition. At least in FSAE, speeds are limited. Last year, the second place team made 60HP. Go to Columbia's website. They did it with an old Kawasaki and running on E-85 ethanol.

I still believe it's not a Horsepower competition. It's not that easy. You need to have a balanced car, with experienced drivers.

Cyclone Racing
www.cyclone-racing.com (http://www.cyclone-racing.com)
Iowa State University
Project Director

[Mi_Ko]

We should wait for the first tests. Everything depends on how good the engine realy is. It depends on the layout, ability to tune, weight and the livespan.

Mahle sure know what it is doing!

2002/03 University of MARIBOR - Team Member

[RiNaZ]

hey guys,
i just talked to my friend who works there in Mahle. He said, Mahle motorsports is building that engine for Aachen Tech. Univ. (i think that's what they're called). Mahle is the sponsor for Aachen Univ.

Even if Mahle actually sell it, the engineer told me not to buy it since they're still in the developing stage ... and there are still some problems to the design.

RiNaZ

[Mi_Ko]

Link in German (http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/de/vehicles/eac02/motor.html)

2002/03 University of MARIBOR - Team Member

[Alfonso Ochoa]

aahhhhhh...come on guys...they sell cv joints for fsae (taylor racing I think they are called), torsen diffs for fsae....why an engine designed for fsae would be the end ... jejejejeje.... I would start worrying about when I see a Chassis and suspension kit designed for Fsae teams being offered, jeje....hope it never happens....
Cheers,

Alfonso Ochoa Vega
cabezota311@hotmail.com
F-SAE USB Team, Venezuela

[awhittle]

english version (http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eecurie%2Daix%2Erwth%2Daachen% 2Ede%2Fde%2Fvehicles%2Feac02%2Fmotor%2Ehtml)

[gug]

the properly translated english version (you missed the small "in english" button on the left there awhittle. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
mahle engine (http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/en/vehicles/eac02/engine.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This engine, a three cylinder in-line, was especially built for the Formula Student by Mahle and weighs under 40 kg, including fluids.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know there are a team or two out there who cut the gearbox of a 600 inline 4, did you guys happen to measure the weight of the engine without gearbox?

- the problem with the world is stupidity. i'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety lables off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

[Frank]

good point gug

Frank

[Travis Garrison]

Gug, we have an old honda F1 in our shop that had its gearbox removed for a long dead attempt at clean snowmobile, without gearbox, with headers and with a large aluminum cap plate covering the hole the engine weighs ~60 lbs.

I believe sgnificant weight has been shaved between the F1 and F4 so an F4 w/out gearbox would likely be a few pounds lighter still...

Travis Garrison

[Tim Heinemann]

Moin!

As a member of the RWTH Aachen uni team who will actually use this particular engine I'd like to make some points on this thread:

For those of you who consider this the end of FSAE due to cost explosion or whatever you might spend a minute or two on thinking about your efforts on getting the BigFour's engine running at it's best. This is on proven designs which are not very far from the ideal FSAE engines except maybe for the trannies. Our Mahle engine is a brand new design with all the usual consequences. I don't expect it to win the hp shoot out and this is not the reason Mahle does this engine. What they want is to demonstrate their ability to handle an overall engine concept, nothing less and nothing more.
Hoyasuka have some 100 years (together...;-) of experience with high end 600cc engines, Mahle builds the first one (allthough with tons of knowledge from other forms of motorsport avaiable, granted) and to my knowledge they have no plans to do neither a real series production nor a successor. It is not even sure how long we will actually be able to field these engines at all.

If you guys have an engine breakdown the worst consequence usually will be getting a new one. We can do this exactly two times, then all engines in existence will be used up and we will be forced to find a whole new concept or try to fund the castings, pistons, con-rods, cam- or crankshafts...you name it for these bespoke prototypes. You might not guess, but apart from the huge sums (compared to other teams not MC manufacturers!)spent on this drivetrain we have as much a hard time as most of you funding everything else on this car, leave allone transportation etc. Wee do not even have a proper set of tools at the moment and have to borrow them from several institutes which might be familiar to some other teams.

We're forced (but really enjoy this!...;-) to build a complete gear box as the closest thing you could get on the market is some FormulaFord or the like transaxles which eat up all potential weight benefits and give a hell of a packaging problem. Actually we have a Hewland LD as a backup if our self-designed gearbox will fail for any reason and this means we have to develop 1 1/2 cars as the Hewland needs a much longer wheelbase etc.

Furthermore driving the cars is one of the pleasures of building them. Our car is an absolute prototype with two brand new and unproven (compared to volume production MC engines) designs so many of us will never drive this particular car because you really need to know what you're doing when getting this whole unit running, warming up etc. The engines are rated at 200h so you might agree that simply turning the key and having fun like with a Hoyasuka-powered car is very much out of the question.

Don't get me wrong: We consider us very lucky to have this astonishing opportunity, especially as this also enables us to build a rather nice gearbox, too. However I doubt that this concept will really give us any kind of advantage over teams running more conservative designs. Here in Germany we have the perfect example, too: It's Stralsund who did a superb 4th in FStudent this year. Their car has nothing of the vulnerable high-end approach of our current car and it perfectly paid off for them. Delft build an all-carbon car weighing 136kg and got 5 points more than Stralsund in design and didn't do the dynamic events in which Stralsund did rather well. They have a totally different approach and if you're really into winning this IMHO does not make any kind of lesser sense at all. FSAE doesn't necessarily reward high-tech so I'm quite anxious which of the two concept will "encash" in May: A conventional design out-tested for some 10 months minimum or the one with an all-new engine and gearbox.
Personally, I'll consider it as a dream come true if our car will make it over the finish line of the endurance and you'll notice as by then just by jumping for joy. And I'm really curious what the judges will say in design and cost event, whether they will like our car at all.

And a last comment to those of you who call for a bann or even imply that we pay for getting an engine developed to our needs: Just compare the potential effort going into the Mahle engine which will be build in homeopathic doses to a Nippon-4 which will have to prove itself on a highly competitive mass market. I guess I could easily derive a claim for banning series production engines in FSAE reading quite close to what you said (allthough I might consider myself insane doing so....;-)

I hope we will make it for Detroit and in this case we'll be happy to discuss everything around this engine with anybody visiting our pit!

Regards from Aachen,



Tim

--
ecurie aix RWTH Aachen FSAE team
http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de

[This message was edited by Tim Heinemann on December 01, 2003 at 01:37 PM.]

[Big Daddy]

Why don't you run a CVT on this engine? It seems to be a match cause from what I hear the biggest argument for not using one on a bike engine is having to cut off the tranny well in your case its already done for you. Just a suggestion/question.

"A woman is a lot like a beer, they look good, smell good, and you would run over your own mother to get one." Homer Simpson

Nobody is born with a steering wheel or a gear shift in his hand. It's something you choose to do or you don't.
Mario Andretti (1977)

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why don't you run a CVT on this engine? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said the Hewland is a backup.....;-)



Tim

[Tim Heinemann]

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

You can't really argue the fact that it takes learning out of the competition because most teams don't design their own engine anyway. Intake and exhaust, yes, but not the whole engine. Will the Mahle intake and exhaust even fit in most FSAE cars or will the cars have to be designed around those engine components? ....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to avoid some misunderstandings here: We do _not_ get a completely ready-to-win tested engine from Mahle! Intake, exhaust and cooling system have been designed and to some extent build by team members, tuning the like (still in progress and we're not ready to give any kind of performance figures yet!). Part of Mahle's motivation in this project is to get in contact with students and presumably you don't do this by searching for proxies and handing them out an engine to be run in their name, do you?
If getting an bespoke engine from a supplier would take learning out of the contest (how do you know what you need without learning about it?) what about the fact that probably 99% of FSAE cars use the gearbox their engines came with? Our's didn't so we had to do it ourselves which actually did involve a bit of learning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.... anyone running the Mahle would have to start at the bottom of the learning curve again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You might take a guess where we are right now....;-)



Tim

[gug]

for those who are completly ignorant of imperial measurements, such as me, 60lbs = 27.2kg. ie., probably no weight advantage. but have a look at this:

http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/en/vehicles/eac02/05_img_0648_Gr.jpg

mega kudos to you guys, this looks crazy!

- the problem with the world is stupidity. i'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety lables off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

[Big Daddy]

I only have four words
DAMN THAT LOOKS GOOD!!!

Nice job.

"A woman is a lot like a beer, they look good, smell good, and you would run over your own mother to get one." Homer Simpson

Nobody is born with a steering wheel or a gear shift in his hand. It's something you choose to do or you don't.
Mario Andretti (1977)

[RiNaZ]

Danggggggg ... here's what the spec is from what ive been told ...

609cc
60kw 82ps at 9500rpm
bore 70,8mm
stroke 51,5mm
valve 4 per cylinder
compression ratio 12:1
con rod length 87,9mm
restrictor 20mm
bukan ecoform
piston alluminium fordge lightweight piston
weight 35kg

RiNaZ

[This message was edited by RiNaZ on December 03, 2003 at 11:57 AM.]

[A Reinke]

that's not a FSAE car there is it?

very sharp looking setup.

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiNaZ:
Danggggggg ... here's what the spec is from what ive been told ...

609cc
60kw 82ps at 9500rpm
bore 70,8mm
stroke 51,5mm
valve 4 per cylinder
compression ratio 12:1
con rod length 87,9mm
restrictor 20mm
bukan ecoform
piston alluminium fordge lightweight piston
weight 35kg

[This message was edited by RiNaZ on December 03, 2003 at 11:57 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's correct but as I said the 60kW have not been dynoed yet. The engine is currently on a dyno but still in the very basic stages of sorting everything out and no HP figures have been recorded yet. As it's an inline-3 with conventional 120? crankshaft the sound is awesome and we're going to put a MP3 on our homepage as soon as possible (but probably this will be next year....)



Tim

[Daves]

It looks similar to one of the Asian team's cars in Detroit, but their engine is a turbocharged Subaru 3-cylinder with a transaxle.

http://www.letu.edu/formula

Formula Photos & Links (http://what3542.5u.com/dave/fsae/formula_photos.html)

[Mad Ruska]

Hi Tim and all others,

I´m depply impressed what you doing this year and hope everything will work fine for you. And i think these concept fits in the the idea from FSAE. IT´s about learning and you will learn a lot of things. To build these car fits more in the idea from formula SAE then rebuild a car every year again and just change some small things. Anyone saw big differences between the Leeds Car in 02 and 03? Or is there a big difference between the GT cars the last years? Ok they won FASE-A an maybe these evolution is the rigth way to win!

But one very importand point in FSAE: Use your potentialities. Thats one of the reasons Delft made nearly everything from CFK,many people study aerospacedesign over there and the have the potentialities to do these. For us it was hard enough to build a conventional car in stralsund, by using the potentialities there. We were really sad when our car failed in Uk 03 because a 5 cent piece, but seeing it running very fast and nearlly cachting up toronto was a fantastic feeling. So every Uni has other potentialities and each running car is fantastic.

I hope you bring your car to UK, i want to see it running!
Frank

Student Racing Team 99-03
Stralsund

[Tim Heinemann]

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

I hope you bring your car to UK, i want to see it running!
Frank

Student Racing Team 99-03
Stralsund<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We're still trying to raise the funds for FStudent at the moment but you're still cordially invited to visit us here in AC. I still owe you
the Flensburger from that bet on that lousy GSX-R turbo that never really happend...;-)

Regarding what you said about potentialties: That's exactly the point. Comparing Delft, Stralsund and Aachen gives three radically different concepts and all three are a result of the background which is given by the university and the corresponding infrastructure. This is a simple fact and I have to admit that I really like all these three concept - the radical lightweight of Delft, our insan^h^h^h^h^revolutionary drivetrain and the conventional Stralsund car. IMHO all three make perfect sense and part of the fun in FSAE is that the rules allow for these ideas instead of the usual racing monocultures.

Tim

P.S.: Deine Email-Adresse scheint ja ein Staatsgeheimnis zu sein, meld Dich mal....;-)

[Mad Ruska]

Mindestens ein Staatsgeheimnis

ro###eske@gmx.de

###musste rausnehmen http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[rjwoods77]

Oh my god. I can't believe what I am reading. Ever hear of designing for the competition and not what you feel like. How much does that thing weigh? Revolutionary drivetrain? Are you kidding me? Its just another variation of a CVT. The cvt we are using has a 3.3:1 low gear and a .8:1 overdrive. The primary weighs 4 lbs and the secondary, which is a roller secondary, weighs 6 lbs. It uses a lowly, highly untech rubber belt. The entire cost of the cvt was about 50 bucks from a snowmobile junkyard. Development time is almost nil because its just a balance of weights and springs. Its super narrow so packaging is real easy. The secondary is underneath the driver and the seat is leaned back at a 45 degree angle. We have a wheelbase of 65 inches and there is no rear overhang and it is 15 inches from front wheel center line to the very front of the crash attenuator. We have a 18" diameter tire. I respect your ablilities to do this kind of work. But at the same time it makes me sick that teams waste so much moneyt and time on super high tech this and that and dont run better than low tech cars. Carbon fiber is masterbation. Huge corporate help is against the rules and against the heart of this competition. Your site shows that you have everyone and their mother helping you out with this thing. Take a step back and look at what you have done. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. This isnt personal and I sorry for the mean spiritedness but it just has to be said. Snowmobile clutch. So cheap. So efficient. So obvious.
Sorry,
Rob Woods

[Matt Gignac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But at the same time it makes me sick that teams waste so much moneyt and time on super high tech this and that and dont run better than low tech cars. Carbon fiber is masterbation. Huge corporate help is against the rules and against the heart of this competition. Your site shows that you have everyone and their mother helping you out with this thing. Take a step back and look at what you have done. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. This isnt personal and I sorry for the mean spiritedness but it just has to be said. Snowmobile clutch. So cheap. So efficient. So obvious.
Sorry,
Rob Woods <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch dude,

It's been said many a time, but this is an engineering competition, and there is no one right answer. Cars made entirely out of carbon have done well, as cars that are extremely simple but well done, there's just no one right answer to the problem. All depends on your overall design, and how you can make it work. I don't think it's really fair to roast the teams that have good funding and fancy materials. Odds are they worked very hard to acquire their sponsors, and carbon fiber probably tought them a great deal. There is always the possibility of stuff going wrong, but I'm all about "going hard or going home". I'd have to say I was way more impressed with ETS or Aachen than say Cornell, despite their placing. Just really cool.

My 0.02$

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

I got a glance at the 3 cylinder car at competition, how did things work out for you guys??? very cool concept!

[Igor]

"Carbon fiber is masterbation"

Haha, if that is so the Delft team should be drowning. Making things out of carbon can also be the better choice from a budget point of view.
When carbon fiber doesn't cost you anything, carbon components only costs time instead of money. No Keizer wheels, no GKN halfshafts, no Momo steering wheel. The way you build your car is all about how you spend your resources.

Besides, if you have such a nice autoclave, it's almost a waste not to use it :-)
http://wwwtest.iri.tudelft.nl/graphics/irig3.jpg

Igor

[jack]

rob, that was the sillyest thing i have ever read... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[BryanH]

Rob, For someone who spends so much time doing it you would think you could at least spell it correctly.
I find this forum a breath of fresh air in a sea of crap om the net. This is because Q & A's are thoughtful,informative, backed up by testing or exp. (or funny) Engineers wanting to help other engineers.
There is no "me too" or mindless rubbish posted, no moderator needed, but lately we have seen a serial forum poster join this group(4,800+ posts on Miata.net) plus a guy who needs to calm down a little. The good thing about the net is all I have to do is switch off.

In the old days these discussions took place around the kitchen table and the bastards wouldn't go home till the fridge was empty.

[Kevin Hayward]

Guys,

I have finally seen the light.

We have been wasting our time on trying to push the boundaries of our vehicle design. Afterall if things like carbon fibre were useful other forms of motorsport would have already been using it. I also didn't realise we were not supposed to find corporate support and actually build our own Honda and Yamaha engines with our own custom made gearboxes.

I really missed the boat on having to learn fundamental vehicle dynamics and basic vehicle manufacturing techniques. Why didn't we just keep building our first car.

In fact why didn't we just go shopping in junkyards. I say some really cool alloy wheels locally and if I just used shocks of that wrecked Lada we wouldn't have to do any testing. Unfortunately there aren't many snowmobiles in Perth so we'll have to order a clutch in from Canada.

...

I only have two questions:

1) Rob, are you for real?

2) Charlie, why have you not responded to this one? (It is rare to see you pass these chances up)

Kev

[Tire Guy]

Rob,
I would like to see you say the same thing about the guys at Wester Wash. a few years back that designed and machined their own 600cc V-8. Of course they could have used a stock bike motor and a $50 junkyard tranny...and they probably would have saved themselves a lot of money, frustration, and late nights in the shop. But instead they chose to do something that would help advance their opportunites as an angineer once they GRADUATED. Isn't that what this competition is all about....to help make all of us into better engineers once we leave our God-forsaken univesities? Who do you think a company would prefer to hire? Some one from a team trying innovative designs and manufaturing processes, or the team that uses only junkyard parts? I guess you'd be satisfied with being nothing more than a grad students and then professor. See you in the real world....

[Denny Trimble]

Hey Rob,
What school are you from? Just curious.

I think I'll nominate you for the Newcastle award.

[Charlie]

Rob-

Maybe I can say what I imagine everyone else is thinking:

You don't know what you are talking about, you've never been to a competition, but if you know everything it takes to make a successfull FSAE team, BRING IT! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But at the same time it makes me sick that teams waste so much moneyt and time on super high tech this and that and dont run better than low tech cars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will see about that... This isn't Baja, where you can go to a junkyard and an ATV will bring you 90% of the parts that you need, and they closely match your application.

Oh and don't take this personally, just had to be said. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[rjwoods77]

Charlie,
At least someone else has a sense of humor. I'll be there. The car will be completly different but using the basics. I to have to apologize a bit for being harsh but I had been up for a while but that doesnt change my opinion.

[Denny Trimble]

So, what school are you from?

[Matt Ahl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Denny Trimble:
So, what school are you from? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
University of Buffalo is what Rob said in the monoshock thread.

[James Waltman]

Rob,
Did you go to Monroe Community College in Rochester, NY before you transferred to University of Buffalo?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Woods:
Ever hear of designing for the competition and not what you feel like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We design for the competition that has this as the first two sentences in the rules:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Formula SAE® competition is for SAE student members to conceive, design,
fabricate, and compete with small formula-style racing cars. The restrictions on the
car frame and engine are limited so that the knowledge, creativity, and imagination
of the students are challenged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Woods:
Huge corporate help is against the rules and against the heart of this competition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is? Where does it say that? Will you clarify what you think huge corporate help is?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Woods:
Carbon fiber is masterbation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What is that all about?

Maybe if we modified jack's signature from above:

From:
"...its not really an engineering material, its more like cheese"
--Gary Savage, BAR TD on magnesium

To:
"...its not really an engineering material, its more like sexual pleasure"�
Rob Woods, University of Buffalo Team captain on carbon fiber

There are some pictures of the Aachen/Mahle engine and some links in one of the other topics. (http://fsae.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=763607348&f=125607348&m=4006096252&p=3)

You are seriously underestimating what a group of dedicated students can accomplish.
But I do appreciate you stirring up the pot a little.

[rjwoods77]

James,
I went to MCC before. Good school. Cheap and the professors were real good and were decent people who helped as much as they could.

You are dead wrong about what you "we design for the competition that...". Read section 1.2 right below it. The "competiton objectives" are things they want you to learn while designing doing the "vehicle design objectives". That is the point of my argument. These cars need to be designed as if we were a company selling to the average autocross guy who just likes to take his car and run it after he builds or buys it. I've been to many autocrosses to watch for fun and to learn. I don't know if you have but what i see are people who show up with race tires in their backseat and a couple twists of the spanner wrench on the coli over and they are ready to go. We are marketing the formula cars to them. These people almost never screw with anything on their cars cept' for a couple easy adjustments. There are a few do more stuff but most people autocross because they can't afford to go track racing like rich people. Track people care about all the hi-tech wizz bangs that let them adjust every little thing because they have the money to afford it. You average autocross guy runs what he owns and just likes to drive it. He improves it overtime with better equipment but thats about it.
It just seems like so many teams don't design for the purpose of the competition. Some teams do things just cause they can. Back home RIT is hugely guilty of this. I am not bashing RIT cause they have a nice setup, the teams advisor is the father of 2 of my best friends. I have seen their cars run for years, and I have seen the blatant consumption of time,manpower and materials. You ask any of them why and they will tell you cause they can. But that isn't the purpose of the competition.
You get out into the real world, where I have been (I'm 27), and companies while nickle and dime their engineers to death. This is suppose to be practice for the real world. In the real world you will get funny looks if you

[rjwoods77]

oops... continued

In the real world you will get funny looks if you want to spend any money.

When I mention huge corporate help. Sponsorships are good. We all survive on them. Mahle built a motor that is specifically designed to work with the restricotr. We can assume that the internal make up of the motor, alon with port flows and such were designed to work around the restrictor. I would call that direct corporate help/sponsorship. Aachen said they designed the intake, exhaust and cooling system but who doesnt do that. Honda doesnt build their motors for the competition. But people take them off bikes and use them for that purpose. I just think that it sucks for a company to build specific parts for formula and not make it fair by letting everyone have access to it. On the same note we all have insiders in various companies that will notify us of something "that might be good to use", but a whole engine? Seems a little over the top to me but that is just my opinion. That seems to violate rule 2.4.1 because mahle is working with them to validate the engines potential in the competition. You think mahle needs a college to determine that. They are involved with formula one for peat sake. Its one thing to ask opinions. Its another thing for a company to go as far as they did.

As far as carbon that goes back to your average consumer. My bitch is about carbon tubs. The average consumer cannot be relied upon to check carbon for structural problems, effect repairs for damage and even get into the game at that cost. The only people who can even make a carbon tub effectively are teams who have big bucks, nice machinery, and cheap materials. The competition says that the prototypes are to be made under $25,000 and know from my machine operator/production worker background that to do something like that on the cheap is impossible unless evrything is given to you(earned as well).
I think that monocoques are a huge benefit but I cant see anything beyond a aluminum/aluminum tub being remotely within the prototype costing. Fuzzy accounting there. If this were a different competition with bigger cost ceilings and the market was derived on consumers of super high tech stuff then I can see its place. I really think the teams doing this lofty work are a bunch of smart, talented individuals. Nothing I or anyone says can take that away. But if the trend that this series is going continues, it will lead to things like the "formula engine" setup to keep costs down. Every year the bar gets raised which is good. But is it good that the bar is eventually going to make the cost of doing buisness in Formula SAE going to put some out of buisness and other away from it.
Its the question that every motorsport class in the world has. But this is a fun and learning environment. Not a cutthroat racing buisness. 5 years ago there were nothing really but spaceframes. Seems like about 10 teams are running carbon tubs now. What about in 5 years from now.
So yeah. Carbon is masterbation. Look what I can do with carbon everyone!?! The average autocross guy will pass that up because the spaceframe version is 2-5 grand cheaper and does the same thing(Cornell). But a bunch of people aren't thinking of the grassroots racer.

I am not underestimating a determined mind. I am speaking out against a trend I see of spend, spend, spend the competition away. Our car will reflect that. We will be waiving the rebel flag for the common man.

These are my views. Don't hate University of Buffalo. If I pissed you off then we can crack a beer at competition and talk turkey. I'm all about stirring up the pot. I like to be different but different than the way that everyone else is trying to be different.

Gas bag who will put up or shut up,
Rob Woods

[Didier Beaudoin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Woods:
Carbon fiber is masterbation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever you do, don't masturbate with carbon fibre.

[B Dana]

Rob,

You're sounding more reasonable.

Still, I have a question; do you think that a grassroots racer would shell out money for even the most basic FSAE car?

Cheers,

B Dana

[rjwoods77]

Yeah if you can get it to do lap times faster than a hopped up 92 civic hatch. People are paying almost 8000 for big 4wd quads these days. If you can make the car for like 6000 total cost to the person i think you could. Competetive semi stock guys have on average about 5000-10000 into their cars that they bought. I think if you could sell someone a real race car driving experience that is fun to tinker with and not a hassle then they would pay for it. So get rid of carbon fiber, expensive fuel injection computers ,anything electric other than electic start you could sell it. If it used a cbr motor then use the carburater f3 versions. Those motors are setup for autocrossing more than the newer ones. The powerband is more down in the midrange and it has more torque.

[Kevin Hayward]

Rob,

You mentioned this:

&gt; I think that monocoques are a huge benefit but I cant see anything beyond a aluminum/aluminum tub being remotely within the prototype costing.

Just because you can't see it doesn't make it false.

Whether you believe it or not the manufacture of our monocoque chassis for 2004 US cost less to make than our previous spaceframe. That sort of thing can happen if you let a bunch of enterprising students loose on an open set of rules.

I would hate to see carbon fibre abolished as our car would cost us more and be harder to manufacture.

Rob, we should be in the US again in 2005. Come over to our tent at some stage as we'll plan to come to yours. I'd be happy to show you how we save money and time with these 'exotic' materials.

I think you are trying a bit hard to sell us your marketing event. You'll have to wait to see if the judges will buy it. The design judges in this competition are not idiots and there is a real depth of experience. These are guys that actively participate in events autocrossing and hill-climbing. Just have look at how successful Gould hillclimbers are in the UK for an example.

Kev

[Jon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Rob,

You mentioned this:

&gt; I think that monocoques are a huge benefit but I cant see anything beyond a aluminum/aluminum tub being remotely within the prototype costing.

Just because you can't see it doesn't make it false.

Whether you believe it or not the manufacture of our monocoque chassis for 2004 US cost less to make than our previous spaceframe. That sort of thing can happen if you let a bunch of enterprising students loose on an open set of rules.

I would hate to see carbon fibre abolished as our car would cost us more and be harder to manufacture.

Rob, we should be in the US again in 2005. Come over to our tent at some stage as we'll plan to come to yours. I'd be happy to show you how we save money and time with these 'exotic' materials.

I think you are trying a bit hard to sell us your marketing event. You'll have to wait to see if the judges will buy it. The design judges in this competition are not idiots and there is a real depth of experience. These are guys that actively participate in events autocrossing and hill-climbing. Just have look at how successful Gould hillclimbers are in the UK for an example.

Kev <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. One thing people don't realize is, CF monocoques can be justified within FSAE cost reports because space frames are highly labor intensive to weld. You're paying per inch of weld.

[rjwoods77]

You can cut alot of setup time on a spaceframe if you use a bunch of bent tubes to reduce joint welding and decent amount of planning. Alot of the spaceframes i have seen on the net are just piece anfter piece after piece. Do you guys include in your cost the materials and machining involved in making the molds. Realistic CNC programming, setup and machine times. I see that you spend time bonding the foams together to rip in the machine. The finish work on the molds to get ready for laying up the cloth. I know what is involved and I am sure there are a buch of cost cutting things that I dont see but I know one thing and thats you can make a spaceframe dirt easy. Its all in how complicated you make it. Same applies for monocoques I do realise. I just think there is less involved cost wise in a frame.

[Ashley Denmead]

I think you need to sit back and have a bit more of a think about it Rob.

question, do you cost the tig welder or the machine that makes the steel tubes to make your spaceframe in the cost report? if not then why would you have to include how much it costs to build a mould for a monocoque chassis?

Oh and also you mentioned about bending tubes rather than welding them.....what about the cost of the bends??

ash

[rjwoods77]

Ashley,
Read a little harder. I said nothing of the cost of the equipment. I said the cost of operation and setup of that equipment.

[Kevin Hayward]

Rob,

As for mould manufacture ... have a look at the shape of our last car. Try and find a complex curve on structural composites on the car. In fact try to find any but on the nosecone.

CNC'd foam block plugs with lots of prep afterwards is not the only way to make moulds.

So once again I state that even with jigs and equipment we still manufacture our chassis faster and cheaper than our previous spaceframes. Anything else would be false economy for the team ... and I don't think we are that stupid.

But then again ...

Kev

[Ashley Denmead]

Totally agree kev, the cost of operation to build a monocoque would be a whole lot less than a spaceframe seeing as you could lay multiple chassis in one day where as i struggle to see how you could build a space frame in less than a day!

[Charlie]

Tube frames can be built in less than a day, our sponsor Maule Aircraft has space frame facilities and construction techniques that would suprise you.

But anyway, Mr. Woods I fail to see a connection between your posts. Forst you say it's ridiculous for teams to go to these lengths when they can get cheaper and simpler parts that do the job (used). Then you say we should build a car for the end user. Which is it? Are you going to manufacture a vehicle and head to the junkyard for each CVT? Or engine?

What is the difference between designing an engine & transmission from scratch vs. a junkyard unit, if you are talking about this theoretical production market? Not much!

You've turned a very interesting thread into a bunch of rubbish...

[Matt Ahl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Woods:
You can cut alot of setup time on a spaceframe if you use a bunch of bent tubes to reduce joint welding and decent amount of planning. Alot of the spaceframes i have seen on the net are just piece anfter piece after piece. Do you guys include in your cost the materials and machining involved in making the molds. Realistic CNC programming, setup and machine times. I see that you spend time bonding the foams together to rip in the machine. The finish work on the molds to get ready for laying up the cloth. I know what is involved and I am sure there are a buch of cost cutting things that I dont see but I know one thing and thats you can make a spaceframe dirt easy. Its all in how complicated you make it. Same applies for monocoques I do realise. I just think there is less involved cost wise in a frame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rules state that you are operating off an exisiting (ie already set up) production line. No tooling or development costs should be included in the cost report. This makes a monocoque just as feasible, in terms of cost, as a spaceframe. As for even costing CNC programming, it is also not included in the cost. And the CNC time you do cost can be very cheap, since you cost it considering full size automated production machines with insane feed rates. But don't take my word for it, cost is not one of our strong points in the past.

[rjwoods77]

Charlie,
My initial pissy post was that this team went through incredible lengths to make a transmission system that is very similar in end effect to another that is 1/3 of the size, way more developed and can be had if you wanted for dirt cheap. The discussion developed in a cost versus use after someone made claims that the intent of the competition was to be creative and to develop technology as far as we can. He also started laying down quotes about how the rules supported this which it could be interpreted that way if you didnt read the rest of them.

The cars should be built with the end user in mind which part of that is to do it with commonly available parts that can be obtained without much fuss. Says this right in the rules. Thats where the conversation has gone.

The junkyard was a compartaive comment about how you could do it. It isnt to imply that thats the way it should be done. If these things were sold as kits then people, if they wanted to, would go to jukyards and get their parts on the cheap as we did.

If you notice most kit car companies will sell you a turn key or a parts kit. This is a viable selling point for a company to consumers because they can use their own means to get parts. It gives the consumer an interesting option, which in change builds consumer support for the company. This is all apparent if you knew people in the community or racing and cars. This again comes back to the overall concept of the competition. Engineering and marketing.

Honda civics and 240sx are prime candidates for this in the import autocross community. S13 through s15 parts swap. There are companies that say buy my kit or if you wanna do it your self then this is how you do it.

So I havn't turned anything into rubbish. I feel that I am bringing up points that I never hear people talk about for whatever reason.

There is a huge difference when you base a vehicle on custom made parts versus "junkyard" or commonly available parts. If you can put your car together and maintain your vehicle with parts available on junked vehichles then you are ten steps ahead of your competitors in the custom service and satisfaction dept.

Read rule 1.2 a couple times and think about it.

10 million hopped up honda kids used scrapped vehicles for parts all the time. Guess they all are wrong for doing it.

I harbor no ill will towards you or anyone but I really wish you would have opened you mind for a second and really listened to what I said. This is like the 4th time I have had to "clarify" or defend which doesnt need to be defended. It's just my take on things.

I also agree about space frames in a day. If you have the proper prints to work from and a good notching machine (like the abrasive drum notcher), and a guy that welds good there is no reason why you can't do it in a day. Its all planning.

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Its just another variation of a CVT.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jip. One that many engineers for generations have considered as being impossible to handle....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The cvt we are using has a 3.3:1 low gear and a .8:1 overdrive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which gives you a spread of about 2.4. If you're happy with that okay but we aren't, that much can I say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The primary weighs 4 lbs and the secondary, which is a roller secondary, weighs 6 lbs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted, our CVT is much heavier.....at the moment. Our guys have enough to do with getting this thing running, weight saing was beyond our scope this time. Maybe not next time if there is a next time....;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It uses a lowly, highly untech rubber belt.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And probably delivers a lowly untech efficency, compared to ours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The entire cost of the cvt was about 50 bucks from a snowmobile junkyard.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get what you pay for....;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Development time is almost nil because its just a balance of weights and springs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Our development time was much longer than nil and we get much more than just a single operating point like with weights and springs. You'd prefer proper gears? No big deal, just some changes to the software and tell us how many you want, we can go from one to infinite....;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Its super narrow so packaging is real easy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Packaging for our drivetrain was determined by some influences that were beyond our scope. If we were the super-rich team that you suppose our drivetrain would look completely different by now but we had to follow a timeline and our resources are limited whatever you might think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The secondary is underneath the driver and the seat is leaned back at a 45 degree angle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a belt running underneath your driver seat? Hope your belt shields are up to the job....;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I respect your ablilities to do this kind of work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but your way of expressing your respect is slightly new to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But at the same time it makes me sick that teams waste so much moneyt and time on super high tech this and that
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd suppose you come to Aachen, take a look at the uni, talk to the people involved in our FSAE project and to our sponsors and maybe then you understand what we did for what kind of reasons. Just dissing our drivetrain and based on your assumptions on the kind of money this thing costs is more or less slightly to simple for my PoV.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and dont run better than low tech cars.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a bespoke engine delivering power to a bespoke one-of gearbox of a principle that has been realized in exactly one car before. a) Why do you think we consider this to be the philosopher's stone to FSAE, b) how on earth do you think that two years time will allow a student team (this is what we are regardless of what you imply) to beat other teams with much more experience running conventional cars which are in no way less suited to this competition in their concept but make vital things such as testing much more easy?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Carbon fiber is masterbation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) For some reasons CRP was much easier to do for us than steel.
b) A proper steel space frame takes some time to be done. On a monocoque this time later depends on the kind of process you're running and this can eat up a big part of the financial offset to spaceframes.

Once again, if you don't know how and why people to things in a way you don't comprehend and chose not to follow don't open your mouth unless you have at least an idea of what they are doing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Huge corporate help is against the rules and against the heart of this competition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please stop using mass manufacturers engines. They spend endless amounts of money on these thing, countless hours of testing and supply tons of spares. As we're using a prototype engine we have substantial disadvantages here....;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Your site shows that you have everyone and their mother helping you out with this thing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gearbox has been designed, assembled and tested by people from our team using support from one of our main sponsors. It has -contrary to what you might think- not been designed by employees of this sponsor (nor is it avaiable from any junkyard).Who designed your engine, gearbox and the famed rubber-belt CVT?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Take a step back and look at what you have done.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Used our possibilities to build a car that is different to most other FSAE cars.....and we strongly believe that our concept will pay off after some testing and devellopment. I can't see this in the other CVTs I have seen so far in FSAE...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One big advantage of our gearbox' principle is the simplicity once you know some vital tricks. It's very cheap to manufacture, highly efficient and has a huge potential. Higher than a rubber belt CVT of snowmobile fame.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This isnt personal and I sorry for the mean spiritedness but it just has to be said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding your knowledge of our situation and the circumstances of this project to me it's just inadequate. If you feel it had to be said then you should be better now so that's probably a good thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Snowmobile clutch. So cheap. So efficient. So obvious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So boring. So low-tech. And above all: So unefficent! Your CVT has an efficency of 80% on a good day and if you simply put it in place of the motorcycle's chain than you will see not much more than 70% of your engine's power at the rear axle. Your power to weight will not be terribly better than ours once we focus on weight saving and get the gremlins out of that drivetrain. If you won't allow for this okay but don't expect me to consider this kind of criticism as valuable. This was our second car and we didn't expect it to beat a lot of teams. However we consider this concept to be our base for improvement and time will tell who was right (if anyone is interested in this kind of question and doesn't simply prefer to see a variety of different cars, not only HoYaSuKa-powered space framed ones).



Tim

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Woods:
Charlie,
My initial pissy post was that this team went through incredible lengths to make a transmission system that is very similar in end effect to another that is 1/3 of the size, way more developed and can be had if you wanted for dirt cheap.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe there are other reasons for "going through incredible lengths" than you might imagine and believe me, the guys who designed this CVT wouldn't even touch your rubber belt for a number of reasons.....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
He also started laying down quotes about how the rules supported this which it could be interpreted that way if you didnt read the rest of them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our drivetrain has been subject to discussion with the judges and rules commitee on endless occasions. Some like it, some don't but nobody had any issues on this thing with regards to the rules.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The cars should be built with the end user in mind which part of that is to do it with commonly available parts that can be obtained without much fuss. Says this right in the rules. Thats where the conversation has gone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rules also stipulate that you should consider a higher volume series production. Both our engine and gearbx are quite simple to manufacture and maintain. If you really want to field this argument then CRP wheels, self-designed shock absorbers, upright, whatever are also "illegal".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I harbor no ill will towards you or anyone but I really wish you would have opened you mind for a second and really listened to what I said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to admit that I assume a lack of open-mindedness in your case. You are discrediting our drivetrain and the CRP monocoque because of the obviously very limited facts you know about our car and us and I don't consider this as being open minded at all.



Tim

[Eddie Martin]

I think it all comes down to how well you do things. There are good carbon tubs and bad carbon tubs, there are good steel spaceframes and bad steel spaceframes etc etc. This is a design competition at the end of the day.

Rob, remember posting on the forum will not get your car finished earlier or running faster. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Eddie Martin
UOW Racing Alumni

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Mahle built a motor that is specifically designed to work with the restricotr.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How on earth can you state this with that kind of absolutness? Have you been lurking under their desks? You don't know nothing about our engine, how it was designed and who made the specs for what kind of reason....and believe me, the rules were one of many things Mahle and us had to consider.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
We can assume that the internal make up of the motor, alon with port flows and such were designed to work around the restrictor.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off course you can assume this. I can reassure you that you are at least partially wrong with this assumption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
....rule 2.4.1 because mahle is working with them to validate the engines potential in the competition. You think mahle needs a college to determine that. They are involved with formula one for peat sake.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jip. And F1 is one of the best kept secrets of their motorsport branch who actually wasn't involved very much in the project because F1 technology is far from what you need for this kind of engine and because Mahle had other things in mind then building the perfect FSAE engine for us with this project.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Its one thing to ask opinions. Its another thing for a company to go as far as they did.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So where is your problem with this engine? Is it lighter, more powerfull, whatever than any of the usual HoYaSuKa-engines? Not really, it is just different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am not underestimating a determined mind. I am speaking out against a trend I see of spend, spend, spend the competition away.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take a look at which German car is the most successfull and tell them that they spend,spend,spend the competition away...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
We will be waiving the rebel flag for the common man.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*rotfl*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Don't hate University of Buffalo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should our overweight and overpriced CVT outperform your low-tech attitude we'll put a small sticker of your teams' logo on our cockpit wall....;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If I pissed you off then we can crack a beer at competition and talk turkey.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not unless it is a proper beer and not the kind of diluted hardly-alcoholic lemonade often served chez vous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I like to be different but different than the way that everyone else is trying to be different.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reads slightly like "I wish I could but I don't want to".....



Tim

[Kevin Hayward]

Charlie,

I would be interested to see the sorts of facilities to build spaceframes in a day. That sort of thing really excites me ...

...

I just realised how the engineer in me has made me a very sad person http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

...

I'm sure it could be done on a manufacturing basis given a need. I don't know enough about the mass manufacture of spaceframes so I won't comment. Even though it is becoming unfashionable not to comment on things you know little about.

...

Tim, what does Jip mean? You used it a couple of times in your reply ... is it German cursing or what.

I just want to say that the work you guys are doing is great and I think it matches the spirit of the competition if not the interpretation of the rules by individuals.

...

Rob, the Honda civic tuners are only one part of the autocross market. If we look at it honestly they will never be the part of the market that buys these cars. An open wheel race car will never be something you can drive to the track make a few suspension mods and win comps. It will however be the sort of thing someone buys as a dedicated racecar. The people who constitute this part of the market have higher demands of their machinary as they are rarely happy with just the speed buzz. Most of those guys want to have an "unfair advantage".

Maybe you should have a read of Mark Donahue's book to get an idea of the true market for these cars.

Kev

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Tim, what does Jip mean? You used it a couple of times in your reply ... is it German cursing or what.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Yes".....and it's not really German, it's more a left-over from some mailing list -of English tongue- actually.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I just want to say that the work you guys are doing is great and I think it matches the spirit of the competition if not the interpretation of the rules by individuals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks a lot, that's what most people tell us and we're obviously really glad about this. And furthermore I have to admit that I have an equal respect for teams which are building cars in a different way than we do. As I started the project here in Aachen and was involved in both cars I must say that from what I've learned sometimes the story and effort behind a "crappy" car might be more impressive than that of a shiny winner. Therefore I like to admire good cars but try to contain myself in deducing that a bad car necessarily means bad engineers behind it.



Tim

[Igor]

Kevin,
Very fast spaceframe construction can be achieved by using laser-cut tubing. I once visited the Donkervoort factory (Lotus 7 clones) and they could fold a pre-cut tube into a complex shape you would normally need 4 separate tubes for. Imagine cutting a V shape into a tube 99% of the diameter, you can then fold the tube while it hangs on to the last 1%.
On top of this they copper-brazed the tubes with something that that looked like a mig welder. I didn't understand properly at the time but they were really excited about it. Apparently this was some kind op proprietary process from Audi.

I'd imagine that they would have no trouble at all to make an FSAE frame in a day.

Tim,
Practically everybody loves to see teams like yours go the extra ten miles to create something new and daring. This is the stuff that gives real engineers a hardon.

Igor

[RiNaZ]

Pretty well said comment there Tim.

I love to see the rear end of your car look like Cornell's. Then i could go as far as saying that your car looks a lot better than ETS http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p/s: My friend worked on your Mahle engine and he said he had one hell of a time doing it (im not sure if he was in a design team or manufacturing).

[Jon]

There's definetly ways to speed up production time for a steel spaceframe. But, relative to the situation (university students) its probably easier to reduce mfg time for a monocoque tub than it is for a steel spaceframe.

More to the point, working within the requirements of the cost report it is certainly possible for a monocoque to be cheaper than a steel spaceframe. Of course the cost report isn't necessarily indicitive of reality, but it certainly proportional to reality.

That said, space frame vs. monocoque is a moot point. Schools need to work withing their own resources and make a decision from there.

[Rob Davies]

I certainly dont want to argue or anything here but we did a little case study on the cost of materials for a cf monocoque and a space frame and with the cost of carbon fibre in the costing report (not actual cost) was it $100/lb i think and a carbon fibre monocoque cost alot more.

This was just a rough guestimate and we multiplied the full weight of the chassis multiplied by the cost of carbon fibre which is obviously wrong since some of the roll hoop will be steel etc.. and then theres the core material so there is probably alot less cf in there than we guess but when cf is costed so much more it would surely add up wont it

so im just wondering if people have gone from a space frame to a cf monocoque what difference in cost has been from their experience

Also in my opinion the cost event is such a small number of points versus performance points so im certainly not against cf. And for people who have free cf then its sure a good idea to go for cf. We dont have cf knowledge at our uni so we stick with space frame which is sad we dont get to play with cf but we can still gain alot from the event with our space frames

[Kevin Hayward]

Rob,

You have pointed out one of the rules that disadvantages the monocoque teams. The Carbon Fibre is unrealistically costed in the given costs. And while the weight of the C/F is still less than what you are estimating there is still a difference with the mono being more expensive. I would have to check the actual numbers. This does not necessarily match the real situation. It would be nice to see the carbon costs ammended at some stage.

There is definitely a bias in the rules towards spaceframes, which may or may not be warranted. Personally I would like to see the expectations made of spaceframes increase. Something like a mini equivalancy report for spaceframes. I don't think this is unreasonable given that the overall level of competition has risen and that teams are missing out on registration.

This might knock out some of the worst spaceframes and make a higher safety standard for the competition.

...

However the rules are the rules and we live by them. We take the cost hit and extra equivalency work for the increased performance and real life economy benefits.

As for the cf experience we have none in our Uni as well. In UWA they focus on mining and oil and gas industries. We have no automotive units and no composites units. However we thought there was potential in the composites stuff. From there it took us three years to develop the required skills and everything within the team.

I'm a strong believer that to really make progress in these cars that a longer project framework needs to exist. As in more like what do we want to build in a few years rather than what do we want to build this year. That way you can plan to acquire the team knowledge for such projects ... even if it is not readily available to you.

Kev