2005 FSAE-AUS

[Frank]

I've started this thread for people to give updates on the 2005 AUS competition.

Best of luck to all!!!

[Ben Inkster]

I'm going to kick off this thread with a quick write up on the RMIT car I saw last wednesday at their official launch (by the way I am a unbiased opinion with no history from RMIT).

The new car looks great! The car retains the traditional colours but with a cool sprayed on graphic on the side (similar to a coke can). It is a full monocoque design (with minimal steel roll hoop bracing) housing the WR450 single they are so famous for. The huge plenum volume should see a bit more power and torque and the completely revised drivetrain has shed a lot of weight and it now uses a clutch pack diff that looks quite impressive! It looks as though a lot of work has gone into the aero kit that incorporates radiator side pods and undertray and diffuser.

I think that the 2005 RMIT car is best described as a superior evolution of the 2004 car with a big advance in weight reduction! I look forward to seeing the official number because from what I have heard, it is going to be quite low! I'm fairly sure they will be a strong contender at this years Australasian Comp.

RMIT, post some pictures for everyone to see!

Cheers
-Ben
(former) UWA Motorsport

[Scott Wordley]

So give us an update Frank!

How is UQ looking?
When do you get down here?

Monash will bring our fastest car yet by far.
Have been out testing a fair bit and dealing with all the usual problems... still looking good though.

Saw Swinny at Calder and they looked quick. Specially on the tight stuff. When you going to let the cat out of the bag Colin? Talked to UOA and they were out there Monday, havent seen the car though.

Havent heard much from the 'Gong or UWA, how are the new cars? Had much driving?

[Greg H]

Scott,
Care to comment on the Monash drivetrain? It's confusing from the pictures but very intriguing. Are the wings in storage for now?

[Scott Wordley]

Its a double reduction.

The final drive ratios and large sprocket size used by most teams limits the amount of wheel base you can cut out of the rear of the car.

The double reduction allows us to pull the rear axle centre line 100mm closer to the engine for a short wheelbase car without having to push the driver and weight distribution too far forward.

While we were at it we got rid of all the rear chassis altogether by sweeping the wishbones and toe link forward. Rear shocks are mounted to our structural (and low profile) sump.

Radiator now hangs off the back of the car as sidepods dont get any flow due to the front wing.

The new wings are certainly not in storage... its a shame you guys didnt get to see them in action last year. They work alright judging by the pile of broken wheel centres that im staring at.

[Rob.C]

scott, i have been speaking to jarrod about your teams intentions for FS2006, any idea if you lot are going to come over again? was a pleasure to host you last time!

good luck to all the teams competing this weekend!

[Scott Wordley]

Will see how this weekend goes first.

Would love to go back but it seems a little unlikely at this stage.

[Big Bird]

Good luck to all concerned!

Cheers,

[terra_dactile]

howdy,
anybody have pictures from FSAE-A ?
i'm anctious to see the new cars and some different concepts


Jude Berthault
ETS FSAE
Steering System Leader
Brake System R&D

[Mike Claffey]

Scruteneering seemed to go quite slowly this year... I dont think many teams managed to finish it today, we were waiting at the practice track when it closed,

For cost event I belive it went the international indian team (sorry guys forgot name) RMIT then us. The rainy weather and rainy forcasts look like it could result in a wet weekend.

-Mike

[magicweed]

So.....

How's the competition going?
Haven't seen much in the way of updates.

[Big Bird]

OK, some quick notes.

Design finals - UWA, UoW, Swinburne, RMIT, Tokyo Denki, Deakin - of those teams, three singles, three 600/4's.

Autocross - First UoW, second UWA, third Queensland, fourth RMIT, fifth Tokyo Denki. Tonkyo Denki and Newcastle both hit the wall in Autocross, don't know about Newcastle but Tokyo Denki were up all night fixing their car at RMIT. Seems fine now. Track was very fast at some points.

Presentation - RMIT / UWA equal first, Auckland third.

Cost - first place to the Indian team, 96/100. Great score. Can't remember who else, sorry.

Will post more later.

Cheers!

[Kevin Hayward]

Geoff,

Thanks for the update.

What about Skidpan and Acceleration?

Kev

[magicweed]

Pictures??

[Dan G]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
What about Skidpan and Acceleration?
I know us 'mericans have screwed up the english language more than anyone, but this one has never made sense to me. What's the reasoning/origin behind the 'n' instead of a 'd'?

Skidpad just sounds correct. Everytime I read/hear the word skidpan, its like someone is running their nails down a chalkboard.

Launch pad, heli pad, lilly pad, ...skidpad.

And yes, lets see some pictures!

That is all.

EDIT: hehe, check this out...

http://www.100megsfree4.com/dictionary/car-dics.htm#Skidpad

skidpan: British term for skidpad

[Kevin Hayward]

Sorry Dan,

Bad habit of mine. I agree with the Skidpad but nearly always type it or say it skidpan. Just about as often as I mis-spell accellleration.

Cheers,

Kev

[Z]

Originally posted by Dan G:
Launch pad, heli pad, lilly pad, ...skidpad.

Hmmm, from various dictionaries;

claypan, saltpan; n. a shallow basin, usually in a desert region...

Great for doing donuts (err, doughnuts???) in! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I egree - inglish iz a buga tu lurn.

And, yes, more pictures!!!

Z

[Kevin Hayward]

I heard that UWA has won the Australian comp.

I'm not 100% clear on all the details and hope someone will post soon. From what I did hear Queensland came second and Deakin 3rd.

My congrats go to the current group of UWA students. Great job!

Seems as though I had to leave before they could win http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hope that there is a chance they will come up to the US again.

You guys rock!!!

Kev

[Dan G]

Kev no need to apologize, its a 'culture' thing.

And congrats to your alma if those unofficial results hold true. It doesn't sound unlikely from the individual results you guys have on your website:

http://www.motorsport.uwa.edu.au/

Design Finals
1st in Presentation
3rd in Cost
1st in Autocross
2nd in Skidpan
2nd in Acceleration

Assuming you guys finished Endurance today (probably very high) then yea, 1st Overall sounds about right.

BTW, your website is outstanding. Very professional.

[Dave Riley]

Hi Kev!

Well done to the UWA boys.

I heard from Angus (fac advisor) that the team won Endurance and Design.

Apparently during the first enduro run Wollongong and RMIT both went out, RMIT to a crash and Wollongong to a failure. They were the closest cars to UWA overall.

And during the second run, UWA was stuck in third gear but still managed to be about 4s faster a lap than anyone else. Angus might have been exagerrating mind you.

Sorry that I don't know the details of any other teams, I'm sure there'll be a more comprehensive update shortly.

Well done to the UWAM boys and to everyone else in the competition. I know how much hard work went in over the last month or so getting that car finished - probably the most difficult preparation UWAM has had since I got involved.

Dave
ex UWA Motorsport
FSAE-A 2002-2003
FSAE 2004

[Big Bird]

Congrats to the UWA lads on finally taking out the overall. Well deserved, and quite a thrashing in the end. Great work!

Kev, I can't remember if it was Nick McNaughton or Vass who confided in me that you were obviously the dead weight that was holding them back from success. Actually, come to think of it most of the crew in Yellow shirts were saying similar.

Maybe that applies to you too Dave ? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Speaking of dead weights - RMIT went out of the first enduro due to a dodgy clutch, after changing it on Saturday night. It might be detrimental to my reputation to tell all that I spent Saturday night up at RMIT helping them change their clutch....

Uni of Queensland came second overall, a great result for them and a triumph for simple design. I believe it was Frank's last stand with the team - so given the dead weight principle they should be up for a win next year. UoW came third, they looked pretty good all weekend so I am surprised they ended up as far back as they did on points.

Huge congrats and a big sumo bearhug to the Tokyo Denki crew, who came through for fourth place overall - after winning fuel economy and skidpa*. They backed their car into a wall on Saturday, bending up a rear corner pretty bad and doing a bit of chassis damage. Afther that they spent all Saturday night up at RMIT fixing their car, and I have to say it was a damn pleasure to watch such an efficient operation in action. They stripped the car down to a bare chassis, and did a complete engine rebuild and chassis/suspension repair job in the time it took RMIT to do an engine change. (Bloody monocoques....). Job done and workshop returned to pristine condition by 6am - after which they returned to the track to a faultless day and first finish in the Oz event since they started competing. Yoku dekimashita lads. Oh, and extra kudos to them for having one of their lads sprint across the stage during the awards ceremony dressed as a Pokemon.....

Can't remember who came fifth, I think it was UNSW. They always put in a damn good effort.

Big celebrations at Monash for the first ever finish and sixth place overall. Congrats to all, there were a lot of new students in the team this year and they all worked their borlottis off. Mostly second years - so bodes well for the team in future years.

Big ups to the team from India - well done to get over here and put in such a big effort. Apparently in India they don't such things as 600's, so they had to import everything as needed. They won Cost and the Endeavour award, and got the biggest roar of applause of all. Nearly brought the house down.

Speaking of which - a nasty squall blew over the pit garages of Deakin / Swinny / etc as we were packing up on Sunday. Carnage all round. All-team photo was cancelled as the SAE had to evacuate the site for safety. Apparently after the teams left, the scrutineering marquee and a few others went over too. Scary.

Probably lots more to waffle about but I'm hungover and grumpy and short of words....

Cheers all

[ben]

Congrats to UWA, nice to see an overall win to go with the engineering acolades.

Geoff: Great to hear about the Monash result, give my best to the guys.

Ben

[Nick McNaughton]

We're pretty chuffed with the car, she's done us proud. We finally had a bit of luck on our side, which is a bit of a contrast to the 18 months preceding the weekend. To finally get a win is an excellent feeling, we're pretty sure that to win a competition you need a heap of preparation and hard work, and an equal amount of luck. Eddie Martin tells me that you make your own luck in racing, but there's some things you just can't have any control over.

I don't know about this dead weight policy, Geoff. Perhaps you should leave the RMIT boys alone next year to let them have a win. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good luck to the lads for the upcoming east-west campaign.

For now, we've all got to deal with mean hangovers...

[RacingManiac]

how did that forecast of wet weekend turned out? All event end up being dry?

Congrats to UWA on their fine victory!

[Juan Andres]

Pictures, anyone?

[PatClarke]

Hi All,
I'm back in my office from Werribee.
The best Australian event ever in my opinion.
The best cars are the best in the world, and we saw a distinct improvement in the middle.
I was asked why I wasnt doing commentary, but the radio mikes were not working so all present were not subjected to my rambling.
At t6he banquet, I stood down as official Tech Advisor to the Aussie comp. There are several reasons for this, not the least being that I can help the teams more when not constrainjet by the SAE (Like, I can freely post on here =])
I took over 500 pix at the event, and have here on my thumb drive a good pic of most of the Enduro competitors.
Problem is, I have no idea how to post them.
Any advice or offers?
Pat Clarke

[RiNaZ]

500 pictures seems a lot to host by any individual i think. You ever thought about putting it up on http://www.fotopages.com?

[Andycostin]

Gotta say well done to all over the weekend, great show in car quality, and sportsmanship all round.
Well done to the whole Swinny team, shame we had the probs during endurance guys, esp after all the probs in the Mon-Wed leading up to the comp (3 engine rebuilds).
First run saw the body not attached properly before I went out, and we got black flagged after 2 laps. Then during the second run, had a spherical bearing in our front right pullrod pull through it's housing - first failure of that type in over 40hrs of testing http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
And that happened whilst we were running some pretty quick times (still waiting for proper data, but unofficially we were running within 1sec a lap of UWA)
Again, well done to all esp Monash (for finishing Enduro) and Deakin - and we hope to see ya all next year, hopefully with a few more OS teams http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Andrew Costin
Engine Team Leader 05
General Annoyance 06
Full Boar Racing
Swinburne University

[PatClarke]

Hi Rinaz
I didn't exactly mean I was going to post 500 pix, but my problem is I'm not sure how to post any number of pix in any place.
I'm one of those engineers born in the years BC (Before Computers) =]
Pat

[Frank]

Congratulations to UWA, they totally outclassed everyone!!

There were 5 FAST cars:

UOW
UWA
QLD
Tokyo
RMIT

Our slowest driver was passed by UWA in the first enduro, and our other drivers spent the day passing (lapping even) other cars.

There was a fair amount of grip out there, and the track was quite fast meaning that the spool was not a "bug-bear".

I believe UQ posted the 5 fastest lap times of the day in the 2nd enduro, but we'll check that again.

Gong was great as usual.

The singles battled hard, but the track was too fast, the aero cars were OK, but the track was too slow for real benefit, and the front wings were catching cones in the twisty section.

It's a hard track to marshal because there's a hill. The hill causes confusion because there's a "blind spot" from nearly every angle on the track. SAE-A needs to erect a tower and have a single "race-controller" giving commands to marshals. Marshals need headsets so that they can hear.

Congrats to everyone, a great comp, with exciting racing. The slower cars were by no means slow. The standard of drivers was very "professional".

UQ 2005 FSAE-A results:

1st Acceleration (what a surprise)
3rd Autocross
2nd Enduro
2nd Overall

Retiring disgracefully,

Frank

[Dan G]

Pat, I sent you a private message, this link should work to take you there...

http://fsae.com/eve?a=tpc&m=19710853921

If it works for everyone, I guess its not that private!

[Moke]

A big congrates to all the teams, there were some real nice cars.

We are still gutted that we couldn't get our girl to run, but there is always next year.

But what hurts more was not being able to defend our title as boat race champs.

Again big ups to the winners esp. Erin and Deano.

And thanks to RMIT, the best bunch of ozzies around.

[PatClarke]

Hi Dan, I have responded and a few pix are cyberflying across the Pacific as I type =]
Check your email
Pat

[Dan G]

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for, pictures!

Big thanks to Pat Clarke for sharing these. Pat, if you'd like a more detailed photo credit or anything, let me know. And feel free to send me more, I'll add them to the gallery.

Here's the gallery link:

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05

[RiNaZ]

what happened to the NZ car? looks awesome with the multi element wings though.

[Dan G]

Large res versions are available if you click on the "sized" picture. Rather, there's a thumbnail, a 640x480 sized, and then a 1024 full. And I think Pat has even larger res/quality versions if you ask him nicely.

Again, the gallery link first, then some samples...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/FSAE_AUS1.sized.jpg

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/FSAE_AUS2.sized.jpg

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05

[Storbeck]

Thanks Pat!

Thanks Dan!

Looks like a whole bunch of really good cars. Can't wait to see more tetailed pics, or possibly see the cars in person if some of them come to detroit.

More please!

Andy

[Dan G]

Pat, these are really some excellent shots!

Deakin sidwinder getting a little sideways...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/Sideways_in_the_Deakin_Sidewinder.sized.jpg

[The guru of guru's]

Hey thats my baby!!

I still get a chubby everytime i see her drift...Oh god..oh my...oh look at the time...i gotta go...

[Eddie Martin]

Well another competition is over and Western Australia decimated the field. It was hard to hear the exact number, at the awards night, but I think UWA got 952 points, the highest ever points score in a fsae event. It the best fsae car I've ever seen and it was an all round class performance by the team, well done to all the members of the UWA team, including those who started with their concept in 2003.

Nick, I think you over come small issues easier when you are well prepared and organized but there is no such thing as luck in racing, only good preparation. All failures are human in origin. Some may say that the car could be could be unlucky and be hit by a lightening bolt but then you really shouldn't be driving in a thunderstorm. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RMIT had a fantastically well integrated and packaged car, very light and fast. Achieving a 4.2 second acceleration is great for a single, a very classy car with great build quality. Should be in with a great shot of winning in the states in 2006, after they fix some damage sustained in the second enduro.

Wollongong did well in cost, 2nd, and design, 4th. They had some issues in acceleration and skidpan leading to times that were a little off the pace. Dangerous Dave put in an awesome performance to get second in AutoX only 0.7 seconds behind the all conquering UWA. Their first enduro was solid but a touch slow with minimal cones. In the second enduro they were keeping pace with UWA but a side panel became dislodged after hitting a cone. The loose bodywork then pulled the kill switch toggle out and stopped the car dead. The most bizarre DNF in an enduro i've ever heard of. It was also unfortunate that the fire guys pulled the car through a half a metre ditch. I'm sure people in the CBD of Melbourne heard the comments that the UOW guys directed to the offending tow car. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

UQ had a very strong run in acceleration and were very quick in Enduro although some "interesting"� flag marshaling probably held them up a bit. A good all-round performance to finish second overall.

Although I was standing right near it I didn't see Monash when it had it's inside wheels about half a metre in the air. Does anybody have any photos of this incident? Great work by the team to finish both endurance heats. Scott and Jarrod certainly stood out on awards night in a strange version of "team uniform."�

The Auckland guys were the friendliest guys in the paddock with a great attitude and sense of humour throughout the event. A real shame they couldn't get on track but I'm sure they will be back on track next year with a well tested and developed car.

USYD put in a great performance finishing with a 3rd place in enduro. They were extremely happy with their trophy at the awards night and ADFA had a very strong run to 3rd in Acceleration. The design event seemed to go really well this year and the final was a great step forward.

The top 4 cars were very quick in AutoX but a 3 second gap between 4th and 5th seemed to show a noticeable speed difference between some of the cars. The enduro had some incidents with Curtin and RMIT hitting a marshal's barrier and USQ catching fire to name a few. The event was called off and the site was abandoned as Adelaide was still driving their second enduro, sans wings after an incident in the Autox. Winds had become too strong and had picked up and thrown some of the pit tents making the site too dangerous to continue using.


Eddie Martin
UOW Racing 01 - 04
FSAE-A Scrutineer / Track Marshall.

[Mike Claffey]

We'll try and get some footage up ASAP.

[Rob.C]

sounds like you all had a great comp! well done to the UWA guys, and all the others who took part!

if its not too sore a point, why did the NZ car not run??

hopefully we will see some of you guys at student this year! always a pleasure to have some of your cars over! they seem to do really well over here!

[Pat D'Rat]

Thanks Dan,
There is no need for any special acknowledgements, the pix are there for whoever wants them. As you mentioned I have many more here on my laptop.
For those interested, the camera is an Olympus E300 8mp digital SLR and all the shots except the Kiwi car were shot with a 140mm zoom lens.
Rob, the reason the Kiwi car didnt run is they forgot the 'Kiss' principle. They got lost in technology and missed the boat. The actual cause of their failure was they couldnt pass the noise test. They had vented the exhaust into the under floor difusers (megaphones. That an FSAE car spends about 15% of its time in full noise didnt seem to occur to them, and so they never got to the track. Lessons learned by all I am sure.
Pat

[Pat D'Rat]

Just realised something.
For those confused, Pat D'Rat and Suddenlee are one and the same, depending on which computer I am using.
I'll fix thaty one of these days =]
Pat

[Mad Ruska]

... In the second enduro they were keeping pace with UWA but a side panel became dislodged after hitting a cone. The loose bodywork then pulled the kill switch toggle out and stopped the car dead. The most bizarre DNF in an enduro i've ever heard of.

Eddie Martin
UOW Racing 01 - 04
FSAE-A Scrutineer / Track Marshall.

Eddie, i can remember they had the same problem in 2001. They nearly lost their side panel, was only hold by one fasterner.

Frank "Ruska" Roeske

[RacingManiac]

Nice camera...http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Can someone refresh my memory which ones of these cars will be in US(east) and/or UK?

[Wizard]

RMIT is registered for both East/West
Wollongong for West

No UWA, to bad really enjoyed them at Detroit last year. We had the privilege of meeting a couple of their guys at Mongolian Barbecue, funny bunch.

[Kevin Hayward]

Mongolian Barbecue was great!

I think we went a couple of times last time we were over.

They used to hold a slot open in the US for the winner of the Australian competition. But the way they say it now is that the spot is open for the following year (which means the next car/team). I think that is a bit odd as it doesn't allow the team that actually won to travel.

I know that after the last US comp the team didn't see itself being able to travel again due to the effort and resources required for the US campaigns.

I think this is another indication that some sort of "World Championship" should be held. Maybe the top three teams from each comp. Or maybe the top 10% of teams from each comp are invited to compete.

Kev

[jack]

monash had a stressed oil-pan? pictures?

i wanted to do that for our car and the rest of the team thought it was the stupidest idea they had ever heard. maybe i'm on the wrong team http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Andycostin]

Jack, I'm pretty sure I've got pics somewhere, but haven't had a chance to get any of them off my camera yet. I think that UWA were running one aswell, looking forward to seeing some of the many photo's taken, just give me a while to get back to a normal routine, sorry.

[Moke]

The New Zealand Car didn't run because we tried to learn and advance our knowledge, because we didn't built the same car as last year, because we were sick of the same sh*t designs, the same look, the 1950's technology and design philosophies.

We wanted to build a race car and we did.

We tried something different and for that we get rung out by so called judges. I for one will not be sad to see some of them leave. If this sport is to move forward it will take new ideas and more failures. When you have your young team mates called over and told that the design is pointless and "stupid"� and that you should build a car like ... (US team), you wonder in the 2007 rules will you'll get a parts list, cut list and plans of the car you should build?

I will look forward to seeing our 2006 team shutting the judges up.

Pat thanks for your incite but we fixed the noise and failed on a slipping clutch cable.

I will not ague this anymore. This is a post for the comp and I will not hijack it.

On a lighter note you can at least look forward to Moke TV 2005

[PatClarke]

Hi Brent, Sorry if I got on your goat or misunderstood your DNS reason. I certainly didnt mean to pout sh*t on you guys but you really did drop the ball this year, and despite feeling like crap at the moment (Im sure) you have to acknowledge that.
More than anyone, I am sure you know I applaud innovative ideas, and you guys are not short of them.
I really thought you guys were going to kick butt this year and I was genuinely disappointed for you. But FSAE is a learning experience, and I suspect you guys learned more than most this year. I fear what you will rebound with in 2006!
Please, no hard feelings?
Cheers
Pat

PS, exactly how did you address your noise issue?
P.

[Jarrod]

Jack, we did run a stressed oil pan, third year running, shocks and bellcranks mounted off the side. you can almost see it all from underneath the car when it is up on two wheels during the enduro, shots should be up later this week.

apologies again to UQ, i was really struggling in the tight sections, and after the hold ups with trading back and forth with newcastle for about four laps running some of the flags were coming out really late, and i was committing to corners very early to try and get through.

As far as after party attire, scott and i made a pact early in the year that if we finished an enduro (this year was the first ever for monash) we would wear dresses to the after party. Sure made an impression at crown casino later in the night!!

[Andycostin]

Well done again jarrod, you guys deserved to get the enduro finish, great looking car, and it was obvious that you all worked really hard to get there in the end, let's just hope that we can all work together as much if not more this year, I'll try to organise some of the social stuff.
And let's say that it won't be just the Monash boys wearing the dresses if enduro is passed..... I'll update after team talks on friday http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Ashley Denmead]

Congratulations to all the teams this year, amazing result from UWA....WHATS YA FAVOURITE COLOUR???? yes that right its ORANGE http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif haha

Would be great to keep the melbourne teams social events schedule in tact, i believe it was our turn to organise something!!

Special thanks to auckland for the comic relief throughout the weekend, not sure what we would do without you now!

Expect to see the sidewinder concept take another step in 2006!

Once again, thanks everyone for a fun weekend and all the nice comments we recieved about the car.

Ash Denmead
DRT Team Orange.

[Dan G]

Moke, your car looks amazing! Really fantastic level of finish on it. Sorry to hear about it dropping out, that had to be tough to swallow.

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/The_New_Zealand_car_that_never_turned_a_wheel.size d.jpg (http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/The_New_Zealand_car_that_never_turned_a_wheel)

I have to say the level of design and fabrication in FSAE-A appears to be a few steps above what we see currently see in the US. Sure, the established teams have their act together here, and have the experienced needed to build fast and reliable cars. But if you look at what they built 4 years after the US event started and compare those to the 4 year old (or younger) teams at FSAE-A, they're worlds apart. Sure technology has advanced since then, but I have a feeling that the AUS-Asian teams will institute a changing of the guard within the next few years internationally. UOW and UWA have already succeeded in that respect, and there are probably 5x as many teams ready to follow their lead.

Good job guys!

[magicweed]

I have to agree with you Dan. I'm pretty intimidated by the level of fabrication in these cars I'm seeing from this years event. I'm sure that if all of these teams got the finances together to come compete in America, there would be some eyes opened.
However, I also think your point about development is a little off the mark. 4 years to have a team evolve from a 700lb beast (our first car) without a lot of influence from other teams to one of the upper class FSAE cars isn't inachievable. Hopefully, UNH's third year car will resemble and compete with some of the more well established programs, proving my point. With the growth of FSAE on an international level, there are so many more interesting designs to ponder and implement on a new car, creating a better car faster.

But thats just my opinion.

[Dan G]

Stan, I was pointing at the comparison of the age of the competition, not the teams participating. For example, comparing the cars at FSAE in 1984 to the 2005 FSAE-AUS cars.

Obviously the 15-20 years of existance and success for the US competition helped speed the development curve of the AUS cars, so the comparison isn't without its flaws.

[chavez]

Um, is some gonna post some more pics? I mean seriously....

[PatClarke]

Chavez, I'll see what I can manage today. Anyone want to see anything specific?
Note, I am very reluctant to post pictures of a teams 'secrets' so although I have lots of tech pix, Im not sure I want to post them without permission from the team.
Cheers
Pat

[Denny Trimble]

Pat, once they bring it to a competition, it's fair game! Unless they care so much about it that they hide it with a blanket or something like that (as pro race teams sometimes do).

In other words, I want to see!

[ScottyB]

Hey Pat,

Just wondering if you have any pics of UWA's front suspension, specifically control arms and uprights, and bellcrank stuff...

they were one of the only teams i missed out on...

also, Congratulations to UWA, very well engineered car!!!

Cheers,

Scott
UTS Motorsports

[kwancho]

I have a good one from last year if you want me to send it to you. PM me your email address.

[Scott Wordley]

What a great event.

In the 7 competitions that I have attended nothing came close to the racing that was on display at the start of the second enduro heat, with UWA, UQ, RMIT and the 'Gong going at it. Someone please get some video on the net soon.

Congrats to UWA, the best FSAE car I have ever seen. They really dominated the entire weekend. The fact that they drove most of the first enduro and all of the second enduro stuck in 3rd gear and still caned everyone is a testament to how quick that car was. Please post one of those Autocross in car camera laps so the rest of the world can know what drivin g one of these cars should look like. Mike, if you do win that bet you know where to find me. Enjoy Japan and I might catch you in Detroit next year.

Condolences to RMIT, another great car which will be a serious contender in the States. Apparently Rotor was a hack driver after all hahaha.

I havent heard it mentioned here yet but Deakin's amazing sidewinder posted a time of 4.5 seconds on one of their skid pad laps. Unfortunately the driver lapped 3 times on one side resulting in a DNF, but don't think we didn't notice. At that speed i would have been confused too. Seeing them make design finals was nice also, congrats to Ash and crew for finially showing us all what they are capable of.

That UQ car was FAST and it cornered. Its going to be a strange comp next year without Frank hanging around, getting himself kicked out of scruitineering. Is that 2 or 3 in a row now? Dont give me that look young man, retiring disgracefully indeed. At least we'll still have Tanya around for competition hugs...

ADFA also impressed us with an incredibly quick acceleration run, from their simple but very well developed car. ANU and Newcastle also ran very hard in Autocross and Enduro.

Thanks to Auckland for reminding us all not to take ourselves too seriously. I loved that car and cant wait to see it in action. Email me if your interested in getting in the Monash Tunnel sometime next year.

Swinburne's car was beautifully finished and lethal through the low speed corners. We will definitely be taking a leaf out of their book in 2006 by looking into a 4 wheel steer system. If they're not prepared to talk it up i will. It was a pleasure hanging out with you guys this year, am looking forward to some more drunken shenanigans at the Hawthorne (im talking to you Timmy). To Col and Laura, its sad to see you both move on, we wish you all the best for future. Its been a pleasure to compete alongside such a hardworking, generous and professional bunch of people.

It was nice to see Charlie and Eddie at comp too. A pleasure as always gentlemen. Hoping more FSAE Alum can filter into the event ranks in the next few years.

Good luck in your new posting Pat and thanks for all the advice over the years. Will miss your highly informative event reviews (it was an oil fire).

Congratulations to Diffboy (nick trevorrow), a Monash FSAE team memeber who just got a job with Honda BAR. Just remember where you put my resume.

Lastly, thanks to all the Monash guys for tolerating my paranoia throughout the year, and specially to Jarrod for dragging us kicking and screaming to our first ever enduro finishes (2 from 13 to date). What the hell are we supposed to do with out you?

[Scott Wordley]

Results are up!


http://www.sae-a.com.au/fsae/downloads/FSAE_2005_Score_Sheet.xls

[PatClarke]

Dan, More pix fluttering over the Pacific, check your mail. I'll send some more tomorrow.

Danny, maybe they are fair game at the comp, but do you want me to get into more sh*t than I already am? After all, someone out there thinks the only reason the Aussies do well is because I leaked all the data I had access to as a Design Judge! That person owes a comprehensive and humble apology to all the Australian teams, not only the successful ones.

Scott, Who said I wont still be reporting? And maybe now I can say a bit more as I will be less 'constrained' hehe. I'll write a Racetech review over the weekend. And to those who will miss my FSAEA newsletter...well, try the German site ;-)

And finally, congrats to Nick Trevorrow if he reads this.

[Dan G]

Originally posted by Suddenlee:
Dan, More pix fluttering over the Pacific, check your mail. I'll send some more tomorrow.

Caught. Posted...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05

From the zip filenames, these might be able to be separated into only three teams cars. ADFA, Adelaide, and ANU in that order numerically by the captions.

This is just drop dead gorgeous:
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/P2180408.sized.jpg (http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180408?full=1)

Another round of thanks to Pat for the pics.

I agree with Denny. Unless the team was carefully shrouding their car from prying eyes, then detailed tech pictures are fair game. At the US competition I usually go right into other teams pits, strike up a conversation with someone, ask them about some of the cool doodads on their car, and then snap a few shots (with their permission of course).


QUESTION: Where is everyone finding these sweet looking alloy wheels? Are the majority of them 13"s? Any nice looking, light, and stiff alloys in 10" sizes? I think I've seen a very limited number of choices out of the usual suppliers like Keizer and Kodiak, but each one of these Aus cars seem to be pimpin' a different set. They look great.

[Dan G]

Wow, Pat came through bigtime with the photos today. There are now a metric buttonnne (technical term) of them up. Actual count is 173, but Pat says there's more on the way tomorrow.

Here's one to drool over...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/P2180506.sized.jpg

Pat separated the shots by school, I'm going to try and edit the captions accordingly in the next few days. Enjoy.

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05

[PatClarke]

QUESTION: Where is everyone finding these sweet looking alloy wheels? Are the majority of them 13"s? Any nice looking, light, and stiff alloys in 10" sizes? I think I've seen a very limited number of choices out of the usual suppliers like Keizer and Kodiak, but each one of these Aus cars seem to be pimpin' a different set. They look great.

Dan, the wheels you see are mostly 13s but some teams (most notably RMIT) use 10s. Where do they get them? Simple, they make them! Importing wheels from the US to Aus is neither cheap nor satisfactory (read a previous post from cranky Franky from Qld).
The teams score extra qudos at design as they have the trick wheels, have the FEA results and have the physical tests. In some cases they even bring along the broken wheels ;-)
Cheers
Pat

[Ben C]

Dan,

Glad you like the carbon! It's pretty simple though - filament wound carbon tube bonded into endpieces. We did it last year and it's been done before by Delft. Endpieces are all done using Okuma CNC machines. Spherical bearings are purely press-fit into the housings - no circlips or loctite.

In case you're wondering, those are just the transport tyres. We don't run with them.

[Frank]

i love our 13" carbon wheels, i wish i had a photo to post

we gave the car to a sponsor (the main reason was so that it would be preserved)

[Boofa]

Thanks Scott for the praise of Swinny, credit to Monash guys for starting all over again after last years catastrophe, then to finish the enduro is no mean feat.

On the four wheel steer, it was not the reason behind the axle tramp, we blew a diff sat arvo and couldn't fix it. I'd reckon that the top few teams will put 4WS on their car next year.

Once again Swinburne the face of innovation in FSAE, just watch out for a new weapon next year!

[Dan G]

Pat sent another 100 or so pictures. They start at the bottom of page 4...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05?page=4

Its at this time that I'd like to officially declare my love of the cars built by RMIT. I've been hiding my feelings since I first saw one, but after looking at these latest photos, I can't hold it in any longer!

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/P2180485.sized.jpg

It looks like a 3/4 or even 2/3rd scale model of a typical FSAE car. It also looks like the exhaust pipe is exiting directly out of the drivers back. Very nice tight package.

[Z]

Frank,

Two questions:

1. To what do you attribute UQ's good acceleration results? The UQ website isn't very helpful on power/weight/F:R%/...anything!

2. How did you manage to get 14th in Design (or 21st in Cost)? Was it a fake dog-turd in the judge's cup of tea, to lighten up the atmosphere??? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Z

[Chris Boyden]

Very Nice ride RMIT

[kwancho]

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2170085
For you UWA guys (or anyone who knows):
What's the horizontal bar interconnecting the two bellcranks? Some type of ARB?

[magicweed]

Not a UWA guy, but i think thats their secondary spring to increase springrate during squat, effectively increasing rear suspension stiffenss in that situation, but i could be wrong.

[kwancho]

So it's kinda a reverse ARB. Doesn't add any stiffness in roll, but more in bump or droop, right? Interesting...

[magicweed]

I'm pretty sure their crossover damper setup can provide any amount of roll stiffnest they want, even though last year they ran a convetional roll bar up front in conjunction with it. But yeah, it adds stiffness when both wheels are traveling up, live dive in the front, and squat in the rear. Pretty cool really. I want to do that with our car, but being as I'm not sure it will make it this year. The way they setup their pushrods and rockers seem to be optomized to integrate this kind of setup. Packaging on the front looked a lot easier to implement though.

[Kevin Hayward]

The extra spring is a third spring to help control heave and pitch motions.

Stan, no UWA car has ever run a rollbar in competition. We have tested with them though. What looks like a conventional t-bar up the front of the car at the 2005 US comp was actually just actuating the third spring. There was a bearing to prevent any torque being applied to the veritical link. Except for bearing friction http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kev

[kwancho]

Awesome. Does it do anything in one-wheel motion?

[Kevin Hayward]

Alex,

It does affect one wheel motions. Essentially at half the spring rate of the 3rd spring.

Kev

[rotor]

Well done to the UWA guys/gals with the 05 car or the SSK (suck shit kev) as they like to call it... was a goergeous car to look at both static and on track.
UQ was very impressive in the 2nd enduro, looked like such an easy car to drive and the times reflected that.
Bad luck to the RMIT boys but im sure that they will pull there fingers out for the US trips next year. the car was a great thing to look at and at 151 odd kg's was damn fast, cant wait for a drive grant http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rotor aka muppet
RMIT 03 04 05US

ps kev hows drummy doing without AUS beer for 1 week?

[Z]

Here is a list of the FSAE-A top ten, with their Endurance and Design placings:

O/A Team End Des
1 UWA...... 1..... 1
2 UQld..... 2..... 14
3 UWol..... 6..... 4
4 Tokyo.... 5..... 3
5 UNSW..... 4..... 11
6 Monsh.... 7..... 10
7 USyd..... 3..... 13
8 RMIT..... dnf... 2
9 ANU...... 9..... 15
10 ADFA.... 8..... 17

(Edit: Placings are out of a total of 24 cars at the comp.)

The overall results correlate quite closely with the Endurance results. Other than 1 through 4 in Design (considering RMIT crashed out of Enduro (driver error?), and might have made 2nd O/A), there is very little correlation between Design and O/A positions.

What I am curious about is this; How can cars that received low Design points do so well overall?

Apparently Design is supposed to be a measure of the students' knowledge and understanding of how racecars work. So why is it that the Design judges rated UQld as racecar designing dimwits, yet UQld still managed 2nd in Enduro (and 1st in Acc., 4th in SkidPan, and 3rd in AutoX)? Did they just get lucky? Likewise, the other teams with poor Design scores?

Any comments?

Z

[Andycostin]

Z,
I'm not saying you guys didn't know your shit - quite the opposite, everyone that i spoke to was well up on it, and i didn't get a chance to see your design event - too busy working on our car. I think that since the design comp has stepped up over the past year or two, the judges are taking presentation into the account, and I know that after our design event, there were some areas of the car that could've done better with the judges if we had've had a couple of extra people who could talk on our side http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I had a stack of info to refer to, and didn't aim to dump it all onto the judges, rather ask what they were after, then go into that in more detail..... No point in talking forever if they're not interested.

Just my 2c, and probably useless like everything i say http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[raska]

Not running any coolant to the turbo?

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180586

[ScottyB]

nope, no coolant to our turbo...

just high pressure oil in, and vacuum sucking oil out, all integrated with our dry sump system. our engine guy has shown that this system cools the turbo enough.

it would be better though if we did run coolant cos then the electric water pump could be left running with the engine off to cool the turbo right down.

Scott

[kwancho]

Turbo timer!

[ScottyB]

turbo timer, yep thats basically what could be done with the motec and electric water pump, but we havent done it yet... we just let it run to cool.

about the UWA third spring, i understand that it adjusts the anti squat and anti dive characteristics independant of roll, but for single wheel bumps you say that it will add half off the third spring spring rate to the effective spring rate absobing the bump. my question is, wouldnt that force in the third spring be loading the other wheel?

also, is the third spring damped in any way?

again, the best little car i have seen, i pitlane scrutineered at the A1GP and i reckon your car would be a better buy!!!

Cheers,

Scott

[Kevin Hayward]

Scott,

The lever that ends up activating the 3rd spring in one wheel bumps basically pivots around the arm that leads to the other wheel, hence it is not affected.

I'm not sure if the explanation is clear.

By the way I'm not with the team anymore as Rotor kindly points out. The SSK? Well at least its catchy.

Kev

[ScottyB]

kev,

i think i understand what you are saying... that the third spring does not effect the other wheel when in single wheel bumps, as the bumped rocker causes the third spring to pivot around the unbumped mount for the third spring.

but this would add the entire spring rate to the wheel in bump, discounting your comments before of adding half the spring rate.

i dont want to seem like i am arguing, just trying to understand how it affects the wheels in bump.

cheers mate,
Scott

[Kevin Hayward]

Scott,

No probs. Think of it as a lever. As it pivots around one side it is half the distance to the third spring as it is from one side to the other. From there it is a ratio of lengths.

Cheers,

Kev

[Kevin Hayward]

Scott,

Just noticed a bit of an error. As explained in the last post one wheel activates the third spring with a motion ratio of one half. I had meant to mention a motion ratio of one half in my above post not a rate of one half (my mistake).

The actual rate is a function of the motion ratio squared. So in terms of rate the third spring activates at one wheel bump at one quarter of its rate.

Sorry for the confusion.

Kev

[chavez]

UWA-

Is that a Professional Lambda Meter mounted to your differential carrier?

-Chavez

[Z]

Originally posted by ScottyB:
kev,

i think i understand what you are saying... that the third spring does not effect the other wheel when in single wheel bumps,...
Wrong!!! The third spring DOES effect the other wheel in single wheel bumps!

The increase in wheelprint Fz load on the bumped wheel, due to the third spring, is felt equally by the wheelprint at the other end of the third spring. Ie. both wheelprints feel an increased Fz load when either wheel hits a bump. This is a "load-sharing" characteristic of this type of interconnecting spring, and is a good thing.

With a conventional ARB, when one wheel hits a bump the other wheel's Fz load is decreased, which means an even greater increase in Fz load of the bumped wheel, which is a bad thing.

Z

[Frank]

Z,

design, we had no design boards.. (supplier shipped them by regular mail, the dill)

basically PPP for all static events, and a good (essentially simple) car that had done miles, and was "tuned" well

acceleration, 76 HP, (tuned by MoTeC QLD dealer) no diff = less inertia, and no losses
the drivetrain runs smooth
and we know how to use traction and launch control

we only have F:R weight of 49:51, which dosn't help much. our drivers are puny though

[Denny Trimble]

Good job Frank, it's always nice to go out on a high note!

[ScottyB]

kev, Z,

ok so the single wheel bump will load the unbumped rocker with the k x displacement of the spring. this is a good thing as compared to an antiroll bar that has the opposite effect.

it is all clear in my head now, jus gotta write it down before i forget!

cheers,
Scott

[Storbeck]

Wouldn't it load both wheels with .25*K*X ?

[RiNaZ]

hey pat, thanks for all the pictures, but do you have any more closeups? I dont think any team would mind having their pictures up in public.

The only complaint i ever heard of was when somebody post a clip of a car flipping during one of the autox, but none so far on pictures.

Greatly appreciated http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PatClarke]

Hi Rinaz,
I can't really post many close up technical pix. You must realise I an the Technical Advisor to the Australian and German events, and have been a Design Judge at FSAE and Formula Student.
As such I am well known and trusted by many teams and am always welcome in their tent or at their University. This means I have access to all sorts of stuff and the teams trust me. To simply post stuff over the internet would not be fair.
I agree that in most cases it would make no difference, and I accept Denny's POV that anything at the event is public knowledge, but I also know that often I see stuff or I am told stuff that is not really for public consumption.
Cheers
Pat

[RiNaZ]

On that note, anybody else who was at the competition and willing to share pictures with the rest of the community?

p/s: pat, im very much aware of your position, but i guess it doesnt hurt to ask http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Kevin Hayward]

Frank,

It is a loss to FSAE-A that you are leaving. You have done some great work with Queensland. The build quality of the last few UQ cars has been outstanding.

Good Luck on wherever life takes you.

Cheers,

Kev

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

all those cars are pure sex, awsome pictures!

mini baja? http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2190608

I saw an antena sticking off UWA's roll hoop, either their car was remote control or they have some cool videos to share.

[ScottyB]

Storbeck,

i thought it would be k*x at each wheel because the bumped wheel would compress the spring x, and that would create a force k*x on the bumped wheel.

the equal and opposite load would be applied to the unbumped rocker.

i might be missing something simple though... my eyes just can't see it!!!

cheers,
Scott

[Z]

Scotty, Storbeck,

"Spring rate", usually "K", refers to a relationship between force and displacement. What force? What displacement?

The type of spring being considered here is one that interconnects two wheels. A name for this type of spring might be an "end-pair-anti-similar-motion" spring, or more briefly, an "end-pair Z-bar". This is in contrast to a conventional ARB, which is an "end-pair-anti-different-motion" spring, or an "end-pair U-bar".

With either of these two types of spring, the force they exert on one wheelprint depends on the positions of BOTH wheelprints (the "position" is the vertical height of the wheelprint relative to the body). So, Force-on-Left-Wheelprint = Function(PositionLW, PositionRW), and similarly for the right wheelprint. This functional relationship is usually NOT linear. Non-linearity can be a problem, or it can be an advantage.

Because of leverages in the connecting linkage between wheelprint and the actual spring, the forces and displacements as measured at different points in the linkage can vary a lot from the F's and X's at the wheelprints. So it is important to be consistent where these F&X's are measured. Probably the most sensible place is at the wheelprint. Refering to the "force/displacement" at the actual coilspring can be confusing (cf. "wheel rate" and "spring rate").

A common type of third-spring ("end-pair Z-bar"), works a bit like a beam-axle with a single coilspring at its centre which supports that end of the car against bounce, but not against roll (eg. similar to the linkage on the front of UWA'04?). If the coilspring itself has stiffness K, and the linkage is "linear", then;

ForceLW = (K/4 x PositionLW) + (K/4 x PositionRW),

and similarly for the right wheelprint.

It is also possible, and very beneficial http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, to have springs that interconnect all wheels of the vehicle (and there might be more than four wheels). In this case the force on any one wheelprint depends on the positions of all the other wheelprints.

Z

[Storbeck]

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE-AUS05/P2170102.jpg

Are those rain tires?

[John Valerio]

kev (and all UWA guys),
sweet suspension system there man. caused a few turned heads and debates not only on the forums but amongst my team and probably many others out there. i like their website quote, "so good they banned it".
i do however still have a question or two. from a little visual inspection and reading this and other threads i have a good idea how your system works in one wheel motion. my question is what controls your roll? does your kinetic system read the travel sensors and engage a ton of damping under roll? i read on another thread (although it sounded pretty hearsay) that you can do the judge's push/pull on the roll hoop and have the car not budge, but be able to lift one wheel of the ground fine. is this true? the reason i ask is because the way your "arb" is setup its more like an anti dive bar and in roll it would actually promote more roll due to the inside wheel springs restoring force pushing the "arb" to pivot about the point on the 3rd spring and cause the car to roll over farther. of course the more your roll the more force your outside spring is exerting and the opposite for the inside spring, so it essentially becomes negligible.
so are you just kept flat hydraulically or am i missing something here?
also do you have all four wheels connected within the system or is the front isolated from the rear? i can't tell from any of the pics.
but yeah, nice work gentlemen, its good to see an "innovative" (that word is getting more and more loaded as these forum discussions continue) car take numero uno. also good job on the carbon tub, us composite guys need to show the steelies what's what (do i dare bring up the carbon/steel chassis debate/fistfight...?)
again, nice work and congrats on the win.

[Nick McNaughton]

Storbeck, yes they are - Goodyear 20x7 R065, and they look like they're working hard in that photo. The clerk of course made it clear in the day's briefing that on account of the patchy weather we were allowed to use either tyre up until the track was declared wet, when we would be forced to use wets. I can't be sure, but I think we were the only team that took the option to run wets for skidpan/accel.

John, the third spring (connecting rockers horizontally at front and rear, visible at rear only) does not act in roll. It behaves as Z explained earlier, as a single central spring on a beam axle. There are no pro-roll effects from the 3rd spring, and there's a good shot of the rear spring in the link in Storbeck's post.

The roll resistance is provided by corner springs and by the springing effect of the accumulators, as the interconnected dampers attempt to pump them full of fluid when the car rolls - and the gas pressure resists this fluid flow and thus resists roll. During warp motions, the fluid gets largely pumped between the four dampers, so that the accumulator pressure doesn't resist the motion. This is how it can be all nimbly-pimbly in warp, and stiff in roll.

The entire system is passive, the sensors are there as part of the DAQ system and they don't affect how the suspension works. And yes, all four corners are interconnected.

Cheers,
Nick

[Frank]

Thanks for the kind words Kev,

I got to say again that the UWA car TOTALLY OUTCLASSED EVERYONE ELSE.

I think that car is a testament to the legacy left by Kev,
and a testament to the UWA team and faculty's commitment to become world-class competitors.

It was truly fascinating to watch the UWA car from the dynamic staging area.
I'm guessing the car makes drivers look better than they are.
I'd be so stoked to be a part of UWA's team.

As for UQ's car, here's about as much info about it I can give in one post:

The electrics are all Deutsch (we're sponsored by Deutsch).
There's a PCB that replaces relays.
The Wheels are carbon outer, 7075 centre, and 7075 fasteners (glued and bolted together).
I'm not allowed to tell you how we made the outers.

Dynamically, no secrets there, a fairy stiff 4130 chassis,
we concentrated on removing compliances from bearing compliments.
Glued the 0.7mm ally floorpan.

The spool ONLY works when you've got high levels of grip, and on a fast(ish) course.
When it works it really works, otherwise you're doomed.
Spools are garbage in the wet.

No suspension data logging, just trial and error.
Most importantly good driver feedback.
Shocks are rebuilt Risse's and set on a dyno.
About 50-75% critical in bump, and critical in rebound.
There's a driver's adjustable blade ARB on the front,
but we didn't use it at the competition, because there's no-way-near
as much grip as we get on our regular testing tracks.

It's a very simple car, with good attention to detail.
It's done a LOT of miles (the engine and manifolds are 3 years old).
There is NO secret engine mods,
in fact we've never even taken the cylinder head off
(no-one on the 05 team would know how).
There's a nifty dry sump, and MoTeC traction and launch control.
There's a 5000PSI carbon fibre bottle holding air to drive the shifter
(open loop control only, we recon it needs to be controlled).
The bottle is only run at 3500PSI.
The low pressure lines use Festo equipment, and is run at 8 Bar.
The gearbox is standard.

These are the actual parameters used in the enduro.

There was 1.75 degrees of camber front and rear, 7" hoosiers. at 20PSI (hot pressure)

0.5deg of toe out (per wheel) at the front
and 0.25 deg of toe in (per wheel) at the rear

These spreadsheets are accurate for what was run during the enduro.

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/frank/UQ_Suspension.xls
http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/frank/UQ_Traction.xls

Finally, I must thank Mark Fenning,
for running the team while working a full time job.

Mark also managed to organise the whole project to be done
"just in time", and ON BUDGET (a first for our team)

Shout outs to Mathew Bryson from FERRA engineering in Brisbane,
thanks for the CNC turning work.
(world class work, bound to make your uni tradesman jealous)

Shout outs to UQ tradesman Neil Duncan,
thanks for letting me CNC mill all that stuff.
Neil taught me heaps about CNC.

Shout outs again to Pat Clarke, he's a great guy.
If you're new to FSAE, listen to Pat.

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/frank/spool_exploded.jpg

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/frank/UQ_2005_Pits.jpg

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/frank/UQ_2005_Team.jpg

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/frank/UQ_Dyno_Run.jpg

[Dike]

Hi Frank,

Your right, the car does make the drivers look a lot better than what they are. This is something we have focused on for a few years now because at the end of the day, we are amateurs.
Having said that though, a lot of time and effort is put into driver training and it is not often recognised as a strong team contribution, despite the hours involved.
We were simply thrilled that having driven the car for a few minutes (literally!) before comp, it had a setup that was a pleasure to drive, rather than a struggle. I guess Nick and the dynamics team can be thanked for that.

Cheers,

Mike.

P.S. Scott, I did win the bet, its sitting in my hot little hand as we speak, I mean slur.. I mean... I forgot.

[PatClarke]

Awe Shucks Frank, does that mean I have to buy you a beer next time I'm in Brisbane ?

And for those who haven't had the pleasure to meet Frank, he's the guy in the shades wearing proof positive of his multiple personalities http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180173
Good luck in your endeavours Frank
Cheers
Pat

[Frank]

i dont mean to say UWA drivers were not good, they were excelent! (be very scared USA)

the car made them look even better, it looked to be a pleasure to drive

yes Pat, you do have to buy me a beer http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[John Valerio]

nick,
thanks for the reply. i perhaps was a bit ambiguous in my post. i realise and understand that the third spring doesn't act in roll, what i meant was the following: when a car with your particular type of "arb" setup is sitting static, both (i'll talk about the front only for now) wheel springs will be compressed x amount due to the weight of the vehicle. under (steady state) roll the outside wheel spring will be compressed more than x, while the insde wheel spring will be compressed less than x. on a car with just two wheel springs and no ARBs the inside wheel will just hang out on the ground or sometimes even lift off the ground depending on the magnitude of the roll and your wheel travel limits. on your car the two wheel springs are connected about the pivot on the third spring. when i said your setup would promote more roll i was referring to the inside wheel spring, not the third spring. as the outside wheel spring compresses in roll, the inside wheel spring will be expanding back to its neutral position while exerting that force on your "arb", which will in turn pivot about the point on the third spring and push the outside wheel spring to compress more. so it seems like if you took the arb off your car it would roll less (by a very small amount) due to the inside wheel spring not pushing it down more.
assuming the third spring is the same K as the two wheel springs, it seems that under one wheel bump you get 1.5K for a spring rate, in two wheel bump you get 3K for a spring rate (1.5K each side) and in roll you get either just K or K(xoutsidecompressed - xinsideuncompressed). something must be wrong with this logic because you would think you want a higher K for roll than bump (hence the conventional ARBs). if it's just your dampers that takes care of the roll, cool, but removing dampers from the system, i can't find where my logic is flawed. let me know what you think.

[flo]

I would like to get some information about this caliper.
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180590

the team name should help for the moment.

thanks

flo

[Z]

John,

You might be confusing the issue by calling the "extra" spring an "ARB". Better to call it a "third-spring", "anti-bounce-spring", or "anti-axle-bounce-mode-spring". It does nothing during body roll (its length doesn't change).

Also, in principle, the UWA suspension will work without the four corner springs (ie. the coilsprings at each wheel). The front and rear "third-springs" will control body bounce and pitch, while the interconnected dampers will control body roll. In practice, these springs might have to be made stiffer.

Here (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/10310835721/r/66210238721#66210238721) are some pics that might help explain these types of suspension. Look at the simplified system at top-left of the third (bottom) sketch. This has axle-bounce-mode springs at front and rear that act like UWA's "third-springs". The side-pair springs act like UWA's interconnected dampers.

IMO Kinetic's system is more complicated than necessary, but that's another story. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Z

[John Valerio]

wow.
i think i've managed to mislead people yet again. after i just finished saying that "i realise and understand that the third spring doesn't act in roll" it seems i need to be told that the third spring "does nothing during body roll". and when i said "arb" in my posts i wasn't referring to the third spring, but the the bar connecting the two wheel pushrods. ok i'll try to be very clear this time.

wheel spring=the springs attached to each wheel via the rocker
third spring=the third spring (or anti bounce spring)
anti dive bar push rods = the linkages from each rocker to the anti dive bar
anti dive bar= bar connecting each of the two pushrods and the third spring in the middle.
Kw=wheel spring rate
Kt=third spring rate
Xo=outside (in a roll) spring travel
Xi=inside (in a roll) spring travel

ok, i'll try and repeat what i said before in a more formulaic way. maybe i should first say for clarity that i know that the third spring does nothing in roll. i get it. sweet. and i'm leaving out the negatives in the hooke's law formulae due to laziness. and i assume that all anti roll or anti dive devices are one a 1:1 motion ratio to the springs (i know that's seldom the case but just for simplicity).
So,
1) during one wheel bump, the total spring rate you will attain will be Kw + Kt/2.
2) during two wheel bump, the total spring rate you will atain will be 2Kw + Kt, which is still Kw + Kt/2 for each of the two wheels.
3) during roll, the total FORCE resisting roll will be Kw*Xo - Kw*Xi.

this is because with the anti dive bar one wheel moving up will move the other one down. this is simply because the pivot on the third spring (which i know doesn't move, remember that i understand that the third spring does not move in roll, i get it, sweet) changes the direction of motion. is this not true? so under roll, the outside wheel spring will be compressed and will represent a resistive force of Kw*Xo. this is true for any no arb (or no anti dive bar) setup. where your system deviates from that is due to the anti dive bar changing the direction of motion, the inside wheel spring will represent a force opposed to that of the outside wheel spring. is this not true? so, with the inside wheel spring trying to restore itself to its static length, it will exert a force of Kw*Xi against the outside wheel spring (and make it want to roll over more than if the anti dive bar wasn't there).
so my final question is this, if the sole action of the anti dive bar is to give extra force in one or two wheel bump, then why not just replace the wheel springs with ones with a rate that is Kw + Kt/2 and get rid of the anti dive bar? that way you can have the same amount of force in bump, actually more resistive force in roll, and get rid of your third spring and anti dive bar. you can still have your dampers take care of the roll, of course.
so really what does the anti dive bar and third spring give you that can't be accomplished with different wheel springs?

Z, i like the drawings, they do help understand the concept of a z bar you keep bringing up. the difference i see here is that there are no mechanical linkages between the front and rear outside wheels to resist roll like all your drawings have.

everyone is welcome to point out particulars of the design i have missed or misunderstood. i'm eager to get a foothold on this system.
thanks guys.

[Z]

John,

All this would be much easier with a simple sketching facility!http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think my misunderstanding of your previous post was to do with the end of the UWA car being considered. I was looking at the rear end (in many recent pics). I guess you are talking about the front end...

Here are some comments regarding your above post:

Originally posted by John Valerio:
...
1) during one wheel bump, the total spring rate you will attain will be Kw + Kt/2.
2) during two wheel bump, the total spring rate you will atain will be 2Kw + Kt, which is still Kw + Kt/2 for each of the two wheels.
3) during roll, the total FORCE resisting roll will be Kw*Xo - Kw*Xi.
1) What do you mean by "the total spring rate"? During one wheel bump, THAT WHEEL ONLY feels a spring rate = (force increase on that wheel)/(displacement of that wheel) = Kw + Kt/4. The adjacent wheel feels an increased force, but it doesn't move. If your "total spring rate" = (force increase on both wheels)/(combined displacement of both wheels - one of which, by definition, is zero), then, yes, it is Kw + Kt/2. As I posted before, you have to be clear about which forces/displacements you are talking about.

2) This part is correct but assumes "total spring rate" = (combined force increase of both wheels)/(average displacement of both wheels) with avg. disp. = (Xl+Xr)/2.

3) During roll a COUPLE resists the roll, not a "FORCE". A couple is two equal but oppositely directed forces separated by a distance (=~track) - which is a big difference.


...this is because with the anti dive bar one wheel moving up will move the other one down. this is simply because the pivot on the third spring (which i know doesn't move, remember that i understand that the third spring does not move in roll, i get it, sweet) changes the direction of motion. is this not true?
No. Not only does the "third spring" do nothing in roll, but the "anti dive bar" also does nothing. Take it away and the corner springs compress and extend just the same amount as with the bar there.


...due to the anti dive bar changing the direction of motion Again, same comment as previous.


...so my final question is this, if the sole action of the anti dive bar is to give extra force in one or two wheel bump, then why not just replace the wheel springs with ones with a rate that is Kw + Kt/2 and get rid of the anti dive bar? that way you can have the same amount of force in bump, actually more resistive force in roll, and get rid of your third spring and anti dive bar.
The purpose of the anti dive bar and third spring (at both ends of the car) is to support the car in bounce and pitch, while offering NO RESISTANCE to roll or TWIST MOTIONS. If you get rid of the ADBs/3rd springs, and stiffen up the corner springs, then, yes, you get "more resistive force in roll". BUT (!!!), since "corner springs" give equal stiffness in all four 4-wheel modes (bounce, pitch, roll, and twist), by stiffening them you also get an equal INCREASE IN TWIST MODE STIFFNESS!!!

The whole point of suspensions like this is to have A SOFT TWIST MODE. This is A VERY IMPORTANT POINT!!!!!!!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


...the difference i see here [UWA vs Z-bar sketches] is that there are no mechanical linkages [in UWA's car] between the front and rear outside wheels to resist roll like all your drawings have.
The UWA car has hydraulic connections between all its wheels. These are actuated via the dampers, and are roughly similar to the side-pair Z-bars. This hydraulic interconnection resists 4-wheel-roll-mode ONLY, and offers no resistance to the 4 wheels' bounce, pitch, or twist modes.

As a result, the only springs giving any twist mode stiffness to the UWA car are the relatively soft "corner" springs. Hence UWA's party trick of being able to easily lift one wheel off the ground while the other three wheels remain firmly planted.

BTW, I have no connection to the UWA team, and have never seen their Kinetic system up close. UWA team members are welcome to correct my explanations. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[John Valerio]

Z, thanks for clarification of some of these points, there are a couple things you mentioned i would like more explanation if you don't mind. and yeah i can see how looking at the opposite end of the car would lead to some confusion.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John Valerio:
...
1) during one wheel bump, the total spring rate you will attain will be Kw + Kt/2.
2) during two wheel bump, the total spring rate you will atain will be 2Kw + Kt, which is still Kw + Kt/2 for each of the two wheels.
3) during roll, the total FORCE resisting roll will be Kw*Xo - Kw*Xi.
1) What do you mean by "the total spring rate"? During one wheel bump, THAT WHEEL ONLY feels a spring rate = Kw + Kt/4 (not Kw+Kt/2). The adjacent wheel feels an increased force, but it doesn't move. As I posted before, you have to be clear about which forces/displacements you are talking about. Just talking about "total spring rates" is probably counter-productive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

by total spring rate i meant the combination of the wheel spring and the third spring acting to resist movements of the wheel.
why is the spring rate Kw+Kt/4 and not Kw+Kt/2, if it's just a lever arm pivoting about a point twice as far away as the third spring is from the push rod mount?

other than that its all good. i didn't consider the twist mode when thinking about the dynamics of the situation. i can see how the third spring would prove useful in giving the soft twist and stiffer pitch and bounce modes.
thanks

[Z]

Originally posted by John Valerio:
...by total spring rate i meant the combination of the wheel spring and the third spring acting to resist movements of the wheel.
why is the spring rate Kw+Kt/4 and not Kw+Kt/2, if it's just a lever arm pivoting about a point twice as far away as the third spring is from the push rod mount?

John,

(You got me half way through editing my last post. Some of it has changed.)

Briefly, the answer is because the third spring is acting with a motion ratio = 0.5, and wheel rate = spring rate x MR^2.

In more detail, say Kw = Kt = 100lbs/in, and one of the wheels bumps up 1 inch.

The corner spring of the bumped wheel compresses 1", so it increases in force by 100lbs, and this force is passed directly to the bumped wheel .

The third spring only compresses 1/2", so IT increases in force by 50lbs. But this 50lbs increase is then distributed between both wheels at 25lbs each.

The other, unbumped, corner spring stays the same length, so same force, no change.

So bumped wheel has +125lbs force for 1" of displacement, so its "single wheel bump spring rate" is Kw + Kt/4.

The unbumped wheel has +25lbs force for 0" displacement, so what is its "spring rate"?!

This is what I mean about being careful with defining which forces/displacements you are considering. With interconnecting springs the force on any one wheel is dependent on the displacements of all the interconnected wheels.

So in this example;

THIS-wheel's-force = ((Kw + Kt/4) x this-wheel's-displacement) + (Kt/4 x the-other-wheel's-displacement).

It is not possible to extract a simple "spring rate" from this equation. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[Dan G]

<span class="ev_code_GREY">Guys, I apologize, I think my image hosting server just got wiped. It might be a few days before I get the photos back up.

Its also entirely possible all the extra traffic just burned up my bandwidth. I'll find out, but if it did, I'm in trouble! I doubt it because I forced an upgrade after FSAE-Pontiac '05.</span>

Nevermind, it was just down for a few hours during the update. Everything is where it was.

[Denny Trimble]

Originally posted by Z:
All this would be much easier with a simple sketching facility!http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


You've said this before, and it hasn't happened on the forum, so here's a quick tutorial:

1) Run "mspaint" or your favorite cad / illustration program. Save as a .jpg or .gif (from a CAD program, hit the "printscreen" key and paste into mspaint, then save).

2) Find a free image hosting account online, set up an account, and upload your sketches.

3) Post your sketches here with the tag.

[Z]

Denny,

"1) Run ... your favorite cad / illustration program."

That's pen and paper - really fast! I even have a scanner, though that slows things down..

"2) Find a free image hosting account online, set up an account, and upload your sketches."

This is the part that frustrates me. I'm sure I could do this but I know it will involve a whole lot of time that is really not necessary. This fsae site can accept pictures (although the "picture type posts" are pretty clunky) so why can't it allow pics to be attached to posts? I'm sure there is some lame reason...

Anyway, the more you try to do with this electronic crap the more time is wasted... (Did I mention that I used to design computer hardware, write operating systems,...) http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[Storbeck]

From a few former MTU baja members

CAD = Cardboard Aided Design

Everything is designed with cardboard mockups.
Very effective if you know what you're doing.

[Thai]

2005 FSAE-AUS
if anyone is still interested i've put a gallery with some pics from the event

[Fergus Wilson]

Hi Everyone,

I've posted some of my photos online. Sorry for the Wollongong bias, just couldn't help it.

I've got more but mainly on the track. Let me know if anyone wants some hi-res pics of anything in particular.

My Pics (http://218.214.24.36)

Cheers,

Fergus Wilson

[RiNaZ]

Originally posted by Thai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2005 FSAE-AUS
if anyone is still interested i've put a gallery with some pics from the event </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey thai, what is the address of that gallery?

[Dick Golembiewski]

Originally posted by Moke:
The New Zealand Car didn't run because we tried to learn and advance our knowledge, because we didn't built the same car as last year, because we were sick of the same sh*t designs, the same look, the 1950's technology and design philosophies.

We wanted to build a race car and we did.

We tried something different and for that we get rung out by so called judges. I for one will not be sad to see some of them leave. If this sport is to move forward it will take new ideas and more failures. When you have your young team mates called over and told that the design is pointless and "stupid"� and that you should build a car like ... (US team), you wonder in the 2007 rules will you'll get a parts list, cut list and plans of the car you should build?

I will look forward to seeing our 2006 team shutting the judges up.

Well, for the benefit of others reading this, let me add a few thoughts:

1. I haven't seen anything more than the photos posted, but I would agree that it is inappropriate for someone to say that a design is "pointless" or "stupid". The same goes for telling someone what kind of car to build. That assumes that what you described actually happened. If on the other hand, someone simply pointed out that had you opted to build a simple design ("conventional" in the context of FSAE), you might have finished the car in time, tested, developed it and the drivers, and run at the competition, I wouldn't have a problem.

2. Re: building a "race car": The term applies to lots of different vehicles, regardless of the technology employed. In fact, anything you strap a race driver into can be considered a race car.

You get to set your own goals. If those goals are to learn about a certain technology, that's allowed. However, winning the competition is a different goal. That requires one to look closely at ALL of the things necessary to meet that goal. Technology is only one of those things.

3. Re: (Related to the above) 1950's technology: The best engineers aren't the ones who throw technology or money at a problem. The best are those who use their available resources most efficiently to meet a specific goal. Sure, throwing technology or money at a problem is nice when you can do it (Haven't some F1 teams used titanium bolts to hold their ballast on?), but that is an unusual situation.

As an example, when selecting suspension geometry, a number of schools have used compromises that are more suited to cars featuring radial tires and ground effects aerodynamics. When quizzed as to why they chose what they did, the students often cite F1 or some other formula as their rationale. They haven't shown true understanding of the problem

Likewise, I've had a student team show up in my design judging line with a composite monocoque. The entire car weighed close to 600#, which is 100# or more than the competitive cars. The first question I asked the group, after they went through a long discussion of the advantages of their design, was if they really thought the moderate increase in stiffness was enough to offset the additional weight compared to a tube frame car. The student was visably shaken, paused for moment, and replied, "Obviously, yes!" The chassis people then blamed the powertrain folks for the additional weight, and vice versa.

The point here is that the team had chosen the technology because they wanted to build a composite monocoque, and had not thought enough about the overall design. One of the other questions asked was, "How much torsional stiffness is enough?" It's a question I get a lot, as students occasionally spend lots of time hunting for an additional 50 ft-lb/deg, without thinking fundamentally as to why that stiffness is important, and about diminishing returns. There is nothing wrong with using semi-monocoque construction using advanced composites. However, we look for you to justify your decisions. Saying that it's "a race car" or "We didn't want to use 1950's technology" wouldn't cut it. (I'm not saying that's what you did when you were judged, but am using it as an example.)

Likewise, we see some teams use exotic materials for no other reason than they can get them free. That's a good reason from the team's financial point of view, but those materials may not be the most efficient use of resources if one is manufacturing the car for the intended market.

I don't know exactly what you were told by the judges which caused you to think that you were "rung out", and so can't respond specifically. Emotions run high at these competitions, and are often compounded by a lack of sleep and alcohol. Most of us understand that you've spent many hours working on these projects in addition to your studies, but when it comes to judging, we have to be objective. I might add that we look at how well the design was executed, and listen to the justification for your compromises. Without hearing your presentation it is difficult to assess what happened.

Again, I'm not picking on you, but want to use this as a way to provide some insight to all who are following this thread.

- Dick

[Thai]

here you go

http://www.pixspot.com/thumbnails.php?album=862


Originally posted by RiNaZ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2005 FSAE-AUS
if anyone is still interested i've put a gallery with some pics from the event </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey thai, what is the address of that gallery? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by flo:
I would like to get some information about this caliper.
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180590

the team name should help for the moment.

thanks

flo

Flo,

These are calipers that were made in house by one of our thesis students. The team is UTS Motorsports from the University of Technology, Sydney. They are a sigle piston floating caliper.

Cheers,
Scott

[flo]

Originally posted by ScottyB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flo:
I would like to get some information about this caliper.
http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/FSAE-AUS05/P2180590

the team name should help for the moment.

thanks

flo

Flo,

These are calipers that were made in house by one of our thesis students. The team is UTS Motorsports from the University of Technology, Sydney. They are a sigle piston floating caliper.

Cheers,
Scott </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tahnk you scott

[Safrica]

Hey Scottie,

Hate to break it to you babe, but i might not make it to next year's comp... I've got a few other things lined up for '06 http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Those competition hugs would have to wait.

Congrats to UWA, Gong and everyone else who put in the long hours! This year's FSAE-A comp was by far my favourite! Geoff, Wordley, QUT and Auchland - and ofcourse my own wonderful team - thanks for a great time.

Tania

Formula Student '04
Formula SAE-A '04
Formula SAE-A '05

[Storbeck]

"As an example, when selecting suspension geometry, a number of schools have used compromises that are more suited to cars featuring radial tires and ground effects aerodynamics."

Could you please elaborate on this.

[Frank]

im seriously thinking radial tyres are better for novice drivers (now which ones have an appropriate size and compound? hard question)

only the best drivers seem to deal with the sensitive feedback from stiff crossplies (hoosier) , but its a joy to see a great driver take a tight car by the reins and fly

[Nick McNaughton]

Frank, how did UQ arrive at the wheel alignment/setup you mentioned a few pages back?

[Frank]

in order of priority:

stopwatch (motec beacons are great)
test on as many surfaces as you can (grip)
test on different smoothness also (bumpy, flat)
driver feedback (concentrate on making the car "comfortable and predictable")
interpreting the tyre (pyro as well as visual)
sequence photography
some sock travel data (custom built datalogger)
feedback from a few different engineers viewing the car.
comparing different chassis (our development has been incremental since 2003)

many different types of computer analysis:

consider compliance in all analysis
suspension analyzer
simulink
sketches in 3D Cad

And, as you could expect:

Try a few different tyres ($$$)

Not used:

ADL
M800

[Nick McNaughton]

That's interesting, because we've followed a similar path and ended up somewhere completely different. We run less than half your toe, tyre pressure, caster and camber, using the same/similar tyres. I guess there are many ways to skin a cat...

[Frank]

run less than half our toe...
yeah, i'm not so sure that a driver could pick if i ran half this much toe

(i'd see it on high speed traction control onset)

half our tyre pressure
are you sure? or have i made a mistake? 20PSI HOT (140 KPa)

half our camber
I really think you should be throwing as much camber at the tyre before it "gets destroyed quickly"

half our castor
we have a spool, and we need castor in the slow parts of the course

can i ask you nick: how long is your virtual swing axle? ours is app. 800mm front and rear

i believe your older cars had VSA's about 800-900mm but im guessing they're a bit longer on the mono's, is this a chassis design contraint?

[Nick McNaughton]

We haven't experimented with toe as much as we'd like. What we've got works, but I'm sure there's something there for event-specific stuff.

20psi hot is way high, we're around than half that, depending on alignment, spring rates and grip levels.

Same again on the camber, I'm amazed it doesn't show up on the tyre temp profile. How hot have you measured?

The castor makes sense, our non-kinetic cars have certainly tested with numbers like that. Low warp stiffness sure gets rid of castor jacking in a hurry.

This year's VSAL's are much longer than yours - 3000mm at the front, half that or so at the rear. The monocoque doesn't restrict that. Older cars are a little different, but not much... but nothing UWAM runs as low as 900mm.

I suspect that a hoosier at 1.5deg camber, a heap of camber gain and castor to match will need 20psi in it to give an good temp read. If you run it with less camber, less gain and less castor then perhaps the right hot pressure is much lower...?

[Kevin Hayward]

Frank,

The lowest VSALs on UWAM cars have been 2000mmm on the front, 1200mmm on the rear. 20psi is certainly the highest running pressure I have ever heard of in FSAE. I am sure you didn't get there without testing ... but it is as much a surprise to me as it is to Nick.

Cheers,

Kev

[Kevin Hayward]

I should make another note that the direction you take in design with a Kinetics suspension system lead you towards longer VSALs (less camber gain in Roll). Stiffer in roll means less roll angle. However the tyres move more in bump etc. This means you want less camber gain again.

It is funny. Before we applied Kinetics the VSALs were getting a little shorter each year. After Kinetics the tendancy is to make them longer.

I wonder how many teams have had adjustable pickups on their cars to change VSALs on the track and have had enough time and an organised program to use them. It would be a nice excercise of intellectual masturbation ... would love to do the tests myself.

Kev

[Frank]

VSAL's is a fascinating topic

i made a bit of a mistake on the numbers, our VSAL's were about 900mm front and rear for 2005, they've got longer 2003=700, 2004=800, 2005=900, but i'd not make them longer again (for Werribee anyway)

the problem is that it's really hard to test different VSAL's (hard to vary the geom.), adjustable pickups can only get you so much adjustment

i see what you mean about kinetics requiring longer VSAL's, thanks for the explanation on that!!, and the castor thing also

with low warp stiffness does that mean you essentially don't have to set corner weights?, all you do is level the chassis? that would be coooool, i hate chassis alignment with a passion http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i've always believed that (for conventional suspension) that it's very unlikely that an "optimum" VSAL is found due to spring rates/bar rates. When I started analysing VSAL's, it occurred to me that non-aero cars (especially those doing heaps of cornering), with high spring rates and low amounts of ARB, require short VSAL's. The final trade-off (determining the minimum VSAL's) is the loss of grip due to camber change over small bumps (warp mode?, my chassis vocab is slight), and the second trade-off is how sensitive the chassis becomes to ride height (a setup nightmare with different weight drivers)

in summary, i believe that minimum VSAL's is a function of how rough the course is, and how patient the engineer is (the guy setting up the chassis)

back to tyre pressures again, I'm curious as to weather you are setting camber and pressures with pyro's? I found that pyro's lead you into running low pressure and low camber.

I'm a firm believer that the centre of the tyre should be significantly hotter than the outer edge.

20PSI is high? WOW,

I've heard of people running the c2000's at very low pressures (even 10 PSI), but I have not been game to do this. The tyre does have an exceptionally stiff sidewall, but I don't think it should be run at that low a pressure.

I had a few conversations with the Hoosier guys about how low a pressure these tyres can be run. I seem to remember someone from Hoosier saying that he was "aghast at how low a pressure the FSAE'ers run with (their) tyres, and they advise against this"�.

Funny thing is, that until we had carbon wheels, it was almost impossible to run the tyres at that low a pressure without leaks (undersize bead diameter on Keizers).

[Denny Trimble]

You can't optimize your VSAL without knowing how sensitive your tires are to camber change. I know where you can get some data (http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettc.html).

I agree that 20psi is the highest I've heard of in FSAE. 10-15 is more typical.

[Nick McNaughton]

the problem is that it's really hard to test different VSAL's (hard to vary the geom.), adjustable pickups can only get you so much adjustment
...and your RC location & movement go up the creek if you're not really smart about it.


with low warp stiffness does that mean you essentially don't have to set corner weights?, all you do is level the chassis? that would be coooool, i hate chassis alignment with a passion http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's still painful, just a little less so. It's not as sensitive to adjustments.



i've always believed that (for conventional suspension) that it's very unlikely that an "optimum" VSAL is found due to spring rates/bar rates. When I started analysing VSAL's, it occurred to me that non-aero cars (especially those doing heaps of cornering), with high spring rates and low amounts of ARB, require short VSAL's. The final trade-off (determining the minimum VSAL's) is the loss of grip due to camber change over small bumps (warp mode?, my chassis vocab is slight), and the second trade-off is how sensitive the chassis becomes to ride height (a setup nightmare with different weight drivers)

RMIT know about that one more than most...


back to tyre pressures again, I'm curious as to weather you are setting camber and pressures with pyro's? I found that pyro's lead you into running low pressure and low camber.
Static temps from pyro's, and dynamic temps from a couple of racks of IR sensors. Just as important as those is the condition of the tyre, How it's wearing, where it's wearing, what the wear looks like, etc.

Do your drivers think the grip improved with higher camber/pressure, or did the car's characteristics change?


I'm a firm believer that the centre of the tyre should be significantly hotter than the outer edge.
Inner and centre hotter than outside isn't unusual, depending on your definition of 'significantly'. What's your reasoning on this one?


I've heard of people running the c2000's at very low pressures (even 10 PSI), but I have not been game to do this. The tyre does have an exceptionally stiff sidewall, but I don't think it should be run at that low a pressure.
The Hoosier sidewall's got nothing on Goodyear. We've run below 10, but yes we're nervous about it. The force keeping the bead seated from air pressure exceeds the max lateral force you might get out of it by a significant margin, and we've not had problems with leaks. The tyre still moves around a lot - check out photos of our car going through slaloms, or around skidpan - but everything we've done seems to suggest that's how it wants to work.

[Frank]

Nick,

how is the 7" Hoosier tyre "working better" at 10 PSI?

A the wear pattern is better?
B the pyros are giving values you prefer?
C the lap times (g's or whatever) are better?
D the spring rate of the tyre is what you want?

or a combination of some or all of these?

note: when i'm saying "pyros" i mean "a rack of 3 infrared pyrometers"

isn't that tyre data available on someone's FTP server yet? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Denny Trimble]

Originally posted by Frank:

isn't that tyre data available on someone's FTP server yet? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know you're joking, but remember that data was paid for by your fellow FSAE / FStudent / FSAE-A teams. Perhaps the only thing lower than cheating would be stealing from your fellow teams.

[Frank]

sorry denny, that wasn't funny

[Nick McNaughton]

Originally posted by Frank:
how is the 7" Hoosier tyre "working better" at 10 PSI?

A the wear pattern is better?
B the pyros are giving values you prefer?
C the lap times (g's or whatever) are better?
D the spring rate of the tyre is what you want?


I'm not convinced it's working better at 10psi than any other pressure, but we haven't found much evidence to suggest we're going the wrong way with it. I'm keen to find some, though...

All of the above, as well as the all-important driver feedback. A & B are the quickest, C is still used but takes a bit more thought. The spring rate least of all, we use that as a starting point, and as a last minute balance tweak.

In all the rush before a comp we don't get too far past tuning for temps, wear patterns and happy drivers. The data gear helps a lot, if only to confirm or deny our suspicious as to what might be happening. Detailed analysis takes time, and that's what summer's for...

[Frank]

i agree very much with what you say

perhaps uq will try less pressure now they better rims....

we found the spring rate of those tyres didn't change much with pressure (stiff sidewall dominating at low pressures)

[El Joe]

Why RMIT didnt finish the endurance?

[Keside]

Wow....

Look at the picture of UWA's suspension I found on there website.

http://www.motorsport.uwa.edu.au/photos/pastcomps/2005-...ll_size/RIMG0035.jpg (http://www.motorsport.uwa.edu.au/photos/pastcomps/2005-12-00-FSAE-A/full_size/RIMG0035.jpg)

Can anyone from UWA tell me, Will you be going overseas with this car?

Kes

[Mike Claffey]

Yep we are going somewhere!

[Tim.Wright]

Hey guys,

Werribee was my first F-SAE comp, just wondering if the low finish rate in the enduro is normal? how has it been in previous years?

Timbo
Curtin Motorsport Team

[DY]

My understanding after 3 comps in Detroit is that less than half the cars finish endurance, usually closer to only a quarter of them. Might it be the same at FSAE-A?