FSAE Innovation

[RiNaZ]

i was just curious with some new designs that i saw during the competition.

To western washington univ., how did that custom made dampers helped in your enduro? did you guys get more advantage with a custom one that a stock FSAE dampers?

To those teams with wings, did you guys gain anything with having wings?

To University of Quebec, did the lighter carbon fiber car helped you guys in enduro? And did the telemetry helped too?

And to Western Australia U, how did you guys made the tub without autoclave?

thanks guys!

[RiNaZ]

i was just curious with some new designs that i saw during the competition.

To western washington univ., how did that custom made dampers helped in your enduro? did you guys get more advantage with a custom one that a stock FSAE dampers?

To those teams with wings, did you guys gain anything with having wings?

To University of Quebec, did the lighter carbon fiber car helped you guys in enduro? And did the telemetry helped too?

And to Western Australia U, how did you guys made the tub without autoclave?

thanks guys!

[mtg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiNaZ:
To those teams with wings, did you guys gain anything with having wings?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, more speed to win the race.

[RiNaZ]

Just curious mtg, during the R&T awards, your car seems to be spinning everywhere, is the wing a disadvantage during the wet?

Well i know the wings generate downforce and all and should give you more grip, but my question is more directed at the possibility that the wing adds more weight to the car and that's why the car wasnt having a lot of grip?

[James Waltman]

Oh the innovation question.
To specifically answer your question: I don't think that our shocks really gave us an advantage in the endurance event. They certainly didn't hurt us though. I'm not sure what a stock FSAE damper is.
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/Detroit%202004/Front%20corner.JPG
We thought that they would help us in Design. They didn't and we were disappointed. Not just the custom shocks but we also made a huge percentage of the parts on our car. I dare say we made more than any other school does by a long shot. I think that all of the stuff we make ranges from at least mildly innovative to full on crazy.
We didn't have any team members with us this year that had been to competition before so we didn't really know what to expect. We figured we would do well in the Design Judging if we actually designed and manufactured as much as we could. That was not the case. I know that the point is to explain the design to the judges and show why you did things. We had so much to show that we didn't really have enough time. (I know that is a common complaint.) We figured that we would have more time in the Design-Semis to show off the rest of our stuff and give more explanation. We didn't make it that far in the judging – in fact our score was pretty poor. So designing your own parts and manufacturing them is not the way to do well in the Design competition on its own – regardless of how innovative they are. It is still not very clear to me exactly what it takes to do well in the Design event. Some of the other teams clearly have it figured out and we didn't. Maybe they could give some more pointers here. I'm not complaining about how we did – it was all about learning. We had a great time.

We were talking to the Cornell guys as we packed up on Sunday. Apparently they got knocked in the design finals for not having any innovation. They were trying to figure out what they could do. Their thought process appears to be – make it better each year until you don't have to make it better anymore. So then they don't have enough innovation. We showed them our car – innovation and cool stuff galore. Then the question from the Cornell guy (sorry I forgot his name) was ˜which do the judges really want'? It seems to me that the Cornell approach is what they are really after – they made it into the Design finals on the strength of a well sorted car and knowing all of the answers. The teams that were innovative didn't make it as far. I know that the Cornell car has a lot of cool things on it and they were great when we were pestering them with questions.

The strength of our program has always been the ability to try crazy stuff. Our advisors give us plenty of rope to hang ourselves with. So now we need to try to decide what we will do for the next car. One option is to tone it down a bit and get it sorted out. The other option is basically what Denny said in another post (http://fsae.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=763607348&f=825607348&m=95510389311) : "let's make every part on the car cooler than anything else that's been done..."�

Congratulations to the other innovative teams. I got a chance to see a few of them but I'm sure I missed a bunch. Everyone should post some pictures of the cool stuff they did.

Colorado State nice car and a sweet gearbox
RWTH Aachen with the trick cone type CVT and the Mahle engine
Lehigh lots of cool stuff

[Michael Jones]

I seem to recall a thread on this sometime last year re: innovation vs. winning, but I'm too lazy to find in right now. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cornell's approach can be problematic with respect to innovation. We do engage in research and development, there's no question. But you won't see it on the car until it's bulletproof or close enough. Even the e-wastegate this year was a bit of a stretch - that cut very close to our latitude of rejection, by the end, since it wasn't tested until much later than we'd have liked.

Cornell's approach is very much based in systems engineering, which is very much based in defense and aerospace. It's inherently conservative and iterative as a result.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing - we design to competition requirements, do little else beyond it, and unveil new things when they can meet our standards. We're never going to slam any old thing on the car and hope it flies. Things like e-wastegate have been in the works for a few years, as were our custom shocks last year.

Innovation takes a lot of time here, but when it's done, it's usually done well out of the gate.

That said, we're very unlikely to jump to, say, a Lehigh 300lb. object anytime soon. Frankly, that takes cajones that we don't have - it's not a trivial task to completely reinvent the basic fundamentals of a FSAE car like that, and given the history we have to leverage, it's even less likely.

Radical innovations inevitably come from those with nothing else to lose - and those that are successful can redefine an entire industry and sometimes catch former giants asleep at the switch.

That said, true giants don't stay dormant for long. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We've certainly followed and thought about both aero packages, carbon monocoques, and recently Jay O'Connell's fantasy midget car, but we're not in the running to better any effort on any of them. Yet.

[James Waltman]

Some pictures of the shocks. We made the bodies, valves, rods, spacers and even the adjuster wrench. Renton Coil Spring made custom Titanium springs for us (we had students doing internships there).

http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/SharedPictures/Shocks/Assembled%20with%20dummy%20spring.JPG
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/SharedPictures/Shocks/Exploded%20shock.JPG
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/SharedPictures/Shocks/valves%20with%20quarter.JPG

[B.K.]

Yeah, its tough to know when the benefits of an innovative or manufactured-in-house design outweigh the minuses.

Is the slight weight reduction and debatable performance improvement of a custom widget worth the decrease in reliability and the increased manufacturing time (which results in less testing time and less reliability of the car as a whole)? Better be a damn light brake caliper or one hell of a trick damper.

That said, there's no reason that the design event can't lean more towards innovation, like James was saying. That would put more pressure on top teams to continue to push the envelope and would reward teams that had the balls to put their new design on the line.

Still, if they did that and I was a Cornell team leader and I found out that no car that didn't have five trick parts would make Design Finals I'd say screw it. I'd rather have a rock solid car with three months of testing on it than be proud of the fact that I made 99% rather than 90% of the racecar myself.

When it comes down to it, the only real goal is to win the FSAE competition.

[Sam Zimmerman]

Excuse me while I get on my soapbox again.

I have to disagree with the last line in Ben's post. I think there are many real goals.
- Learning as much as possible in your discipline
- Gaining real experience towards a dream job
- Getting a dream job
- Personal growth
- Sharing your ideas, analysis, and designs with as many other students as possible so that everybody may learn.

The last is probably the most admirable goal, in my opinion.

There was one team in particular which had an attitude of privacy, even to the point of asking a teammate of mine to bring his camera by their paddock to ensure there was nothing "private" on it. I feel sorry for this particular team as they have competed in this competition so long that they have forgotten what it is all about. Unfortunately I also lost a lot of respect for their faculty advisor because the attitude of secrecy over the sharing of ideas comes from the top and I assume that he has lost his way in terms of results over education. In talking to others at the competition, I was not alone in these beliefs.

I would love to win the competition and I congratulate Cornell for doing so this year. It takes discipline, desire, and more hard work than many can imagine. Winning is a worthy goal, but isn't and shouldn't be the only goal.

You can have the soapbox back now. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[B.K.]

I can't aruge with the value of all of those things, Sam. I agree those are valid and real goals. What I should have said is that winning the FSAE competition is the driving goal. The vision of wining the competition is behind every decision that you make as a team, and as you follow that vision all those other important benefits are realized as well.

My point was only that you don't make your engineering decisions based on what will result in you learning more, or what will get you a good job later, or what will impress the girls at the bar the most. You make your team decisions based on what you believe will put you in the best position to win.

[Jon Prevost]

The design judging is only human. Every year something changes in the minds of a judge. One judge might be focused on engine calibration, another on the internals. You just need to have all the answers, it's that simple. If they ask you why you went with such and such, then have data to show that you tested such and such but found this to be the best compromise.
Don't focus on one part of the car but don't focus on the whole car. The judges know you're human and can only do so much, this is why they like to hear answers that might sound like "we just ran out of time but it was on our list of things to do." This answer is genuine but it still won't get you into finals!
As for the design finals, I can't believe all 6 gears were being used at competition. If a team has proof then please e-mail me it later or give me a REAL answer.
All in all competition was fun. The only thing I couldn't believe is that our muffler failed by 5 db while last year we passed by 4db. Anybody else have trouble passing sound tech in? We ended up with a 1" restrictor as our tailpipe http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif it killed our acceleration times down to wheel spinning and then no pulling 4.6s

[Michael Jones]

Sam, I'm inclined to agree with you on most of what you say - the learning experience is key. FSAE, after all, is supposed to be educational first and foremost, and the cooperative nature of this competition is something that should be privileged and defended, IMO. It's what really turned me on to all this nonsense in the first place.

In my time here I've tried to mollify Cornell's reputation some, since we were at least at one time not much off the team in question you describe.

It's not a winning formula - if you engage others with suspicion and distrust, they will return the favor in kind. We've learned a great deal from competing teams with different talents than ours from talking to them and trying to get along as best as possible - and we couldn't do this without being open and frank about our own activities. While you can get information from your external environment without giving some back, such a situation won't last for long.

All this noted, innovation for innovation's sake isn't necessarily a good idea. Ben's right in noting that overall success is an important goal, especially for teams like Cornell who have a reputation to upkeep.

Besides, framing innovation in the context of winning the overall competition is a learning experience in its own right. The lessons have a lot to do with compromise, balance and integration, vs. whiz-bang widgets of any sort.

Not as exciting for some, to be sure - the true creative minds out there get frustrated by such a model quickly. That said, they're usually the ones to bring old models crashing down by coming up with the next best thing, occasionally leaving the old standard bearers completely screwed in the process.

As I noted elsewhere, a team like Lehigh is considerably more likely to come up with a radical and potentially successful design than us, if for no other reason that we're inclined to keep our trophy case full for a little while longer whereas they can go balls out and see what happens a bit easier.

We're probably one of the best out there in incremental innovation, but we'll need to be brought down some to get to the point where we enter a crisis area and are forced to think revolutionarily to get out. Ideally, you fix that situation before it gets too far - the fall from grace can be precipitious otherwise.

[Michael Jones]

P.S. Nice shocks, James...we made our own last year, and it's a huge project. We didn't have the manpower to really pull it off this year but I'd bet they'll be back next year, given that the person in charge of the project then is coming back for his master's. We'll see what transpires there - could be very interesting.

[RiNaZ]

hey sam, i also had a similar incident, although not to the extent of them checking my camera. I was trying to film UTA during their design semi, but one of the UTA guy stopped my from filming coz he said they were doing presentation. He said i could come back tomorrow and he'll be happy to answer any of my question. And i did, and i was lucky enough to get my hands on their carbon fiber rims and got about half an hour worth of explanation about it (even got to film it while he was talking). I dont know why he didnt let me film the design presentation, but i respect his decision. Im just happy i got my hands on those rims http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

UMR was pretty cool though. I was filming some of their presentation and nobody said anything. The guys at UMR were really friendly and their faculty advisor looked so young! I thought he was one of the team member. Although, i was wondering, why they always covered the rear wing (maybe the front wing too) all the time.

i guess there so many secrecy going around in this year competition. I have nothing against it and i just hope everybody would be in secrecy towards Cornell and work together to bring down Cornell!! (just joking Michael http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Hey michael, i read the thread about innovation vs winning a while ago. My intention wasnt to bring up the same topic twice, but i was just trying to see if there is advantages with the innovation that the teams had at the competition. Claude was talking about the stock FSAE dampers (as in FOX shox or KONI) as being too big. And he was talking about making the shocks smaller and making it more of a monoshocks. So that's why i was interested in asking the WWU guy if their custom shocks (which is a lot smaller than the usuall FOX shocks) has any advantage in their performance. By the way, I love Cornell's neat packaging. Everything looked like it was on its place. But i dont see anything new from the outside besides the new nose and that gear shifter. But im sure you guys had a lot of new things underneath the body. Congrats again.

[Michael Jones]

One drawback of custom shocks - the suspension guy insisted that ours last year were "just the same thing as Fox shocks" and trying to cost them as such. Flattering at one level, but a $250 per shock penalty at another. I managed to bargain him down to about $80 per, since they clearly weren't "just the same" and given the rules of the cost report, manufacturing things yourself actually does become cheaper, since you can foresake any R&D, marketing, retail chain markup, profit, etc.

If you're there next year RinaZ, I'm sure we'll have some interesting developments on the shock front, since the guy who did the custom ones is back. Can't imagine he'll just ignore the work he did.

As for bringing down Cornell, I'd prefer to have people try than not - it will keep us honest and trying to do different and better things. Without this pressure, it's too easy to do the same old thing.

As for what was new, the biggest addition was the electronic wastegate controller, which as I understand is probably the only one out there. Not super visible with the body on, but it is - the shiny box down near the turbo to be precise. Gear shifter was new for us this year, but of course paddle shifting's been done before. The frame was actually quite new (unconventional, we were told), with a flared lower bar allowing for a reduction in overall height, upper suspension rails tilted at an angle, a much smaller driver bay and a longer foot bay to accommodate larger drivers in a reclined position. The front crushable was engineered for the first time ever, made of medium-density energy absorption form reinforced with Kevlar and backed up by aluminum strips. An anondized Al fuel tank vs. titanium, and custom Tanner shocks vs. homemade, both projects that were time sinks last year and that people didn't want to try again this time. A return to hydraulic clutch as well. A new iteration of the ECM that solved a couple of the problems from the last one, and a lot more sensors fed into it and data acquistion. I think that's all the big stuff.

Packaging and final details is one thing we do spend some time on, yeah. This year was one of the better ones on that front, I think - 2002's car was similar. As both Carroll Smith and Jay O'Connell have now pointed out, aesthetics nominally is only 5 points, but there's a simple subconscious impression that a well-packaged, cleanly presented car presents.

[mtg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiNaZ:
Just curious mtg, during the R&T awards, your car seems to be spinning everywhere, is the wing a disadvantage during the wet?

Well i know the wings generate downforce and all and should give you more grip, but my question is more directed at the possibility that the wing adds more weight to the car and that's why the car wasnt having a lot of grip? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was a driver issue- I was trying to drive the balls off the car in the rain, and got a little loose on the first run. I got better on the next two runs, with the third being pretty decent. I lost some time though on the stop after the skidpad. I got down to about 2mph and went to hit the gas, then remembered I hadn't come to a complete stop yet and had to stop, then hit the gas.

The squirreliness under braking was a lot due to the water. I know the car was dancing all over, but someone told me it looked liked I stopped pretty quick. It felt slow.

If Cornell would have gone faster in the dry after Design Finals, and everyone would have had the chance to run in the dry, I think I could have layed it down a lot better.


The wings help whenever the car is moving, rain or dry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
UMR was pretty cool though. I was filming some of their presentation and nobody said anything. The guys at UMR were really friendly and their faculty advisor looked so young! I thought he was one of the team member. Although, i was wondering, why they always covered the rear wing (maybe the front wing too) all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure our advisor, Dr. Hank Pernicka, will be flattered.

Ahhh, the wing covers. They're one of those mysteries the authories say are better off left unsolved. [/Spinal Tap]

[RiNaZ]

Hey michael, yeah, i met some guys from my school at detroit who were thinking about starting a new team for 2005, so let's hope 2005 would be the year (my school has been trying for at least 7 years now). If not, im always gonna be there as an observer just like the past 3 years ive been. Ohhh and we're definitely put "bringing down Cornell" as one of our to-do list http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Hey mtg, i wish i can post a video up here in this forum. I have your first run on tape. I'll see if i can upload it on my personal website and link it here. Im not so good with websites, so it might take me a while.

[Michael Jones]

Best of luck on that, RiNaZ...For a rookie team, just try to get a car that runs and completes all dynamic events. That's hard enough, even with a few years of following the competition.

You can work to bring us down after that. I'm sure it's a goal that many teams have - in fact, I've seen evidence of it in people's trailers and heard of similar things in other labs we've visited on occasion.

Feel free to post up any pics of anti-Cornell motivational posters and propaganda here - it's all in good fun after all, and it just gets us fired up anyway. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[jack]

the next time wwu shows up in detriot it will be with a much more "conventional" car, so until then we can only speculate on what is "better". but right now we need to climb the mountain called fundraising...

[Kevin Hayward]

I thought I would post a reply on behalf of Western Australia. First of all we cannot really divulge how we cure without an autoclave. The process is under patent application and the commercial backers do not wish us to let out any of the info.

Once the patent is all cleared it will only be a matter of time before the process becomes more well known.

...

Secondly I wanted to state that we felt honoured to be in the finals with UTA and Cornell. We have a huge admiration for both teams and the history they have created in the competition.

However we are not trying to build cars that win design ... we are trying to build cars that win the competition ... and at 13th place overall we still have a lot of work to do.

I am intrigued by discussions on innovation. I really do not think that anything on our car was particularly innovative. Some of the processes we used in design and manufacture definitely were and the curing method is the example that most teams would know. However I would assume that most teams have come up with very innovative processes to cope with the restrictions in time and money that defines FSAE.

Back to the car though ... everything we did can be found on another competition car ... if not in FSAE. So I really do not see how innovation really made much difference in design. What we really focussed on was systems integration and trying to build an overall competitive package. It is clear that anybody trying to build the same car as UTA or Cornell will be beaten by UTA or Cornell. They have been doing it longer and better for years.

I am skeptical of a couple of things in FSAE that have become standard and do not share much in common with most forms of competitive motorsport. The first is the idea of spaceframes being better than monocoques. There is no way that is true.

We built our monocoque chassis cheaper, faster, lighter, stiffer than our last spaceframe. The only bonus I would give to spaceframes is accessibility and the ability to make late changes.

The other main issue I have is the single brake on a Torsen LSD. Simulations and physical testing both show that the twin rear brakes definitely outweigh the weight penalty. I know of no other situation in motorsport where this sort of thing is done on a competitive level (please correct me if I am wrong). We made the switch from a single to double and will not even think of going back now ... Woolongong paved the way for the Australian teams doing this.

...

I think as a group of engineers we need to make sure that we are undergoing a full design process, which means giving due attention to conceptual design.

...

Lastly I would like to say that I thought the judging was of an extremely high standard (which I know is really easy to say having won the event). The judges really knew what they were talking about. Once we reached Semis we got the idea that it didn't really matter what we had built but rather how much we knew about it and why we had built it. After finals I think all of our team had pretty much nothing left to say.

Personally I wanted to find a little corner to sit in and start muttering to myself incoherently.

After the event was conducted it was really great to chat to the judges on a more friendly basis. We learnt a lot from them and if any judges read this forum I wanted to say thanks for your time and input.

Cheers,

Kevin Hayward
UWA Motorsport

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

One easy way to cure without an autoclave is to use hot water under pressure. You can either use bladders, or have a pressurized tank and throw your stuff in a bag (with a vent for the bag, preferably to vacuum).
The autoclaves I've used are 60-90 psi, and most municipal water systems are at 60.... The only trick is to make sure you have the right ramp rates.

[Kevin Hall]

Jon

Same thing for myself with noise. We passed by 3 or 4 dB with a Hindle can 2 years ago. This time, it failed by 9 dB with some sputtering due to a loose sensor, and then by 5 after that was fixed. A thin sheet over the end with a scientifically determined number of holes brought that down to 106. The new testing procedure was not overly exciting. Our laptop suffered horrible COM port errors, and was difficult to keep on the right program long enough to get a proper RPM reading.

It seems very interesting that they are willing to trust a laptop now whereas they never did before.

Being a fairly new team, having competed with our third car this year, I was left feeling as though there is so much more to learn. My faculty advisor has asked me to look into the FSAE-A comp for Dec. I don't think that as a team we are organized enough, or can come up with what it takes just yet. Design is a large part of the competition, and having the right answer for the judges is tough. There are a lot of books out there....even a few with WRONG info (ala Carroll Smith stating that Ackermann is a theory, and may work, but parallel steer is still best......try run that by Claude Rouelle!!)

There is a lot to this competition, and it takes good record keeping, hard work, and ....well, a lot of acceptance that not everyone can win. Kudos to Cornell, Auburn, UTA, etc, etc, etc. Your establishment as the old and new GIANTS will continue to raise the bar. For those of us who are graduating out, I say winning the competition is what drove us, but the teamwork, the fun, and the overall learning experience is worth it any day.

[RagingGrandpa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Feel free to post up any pics of anti-Cornell motivational posters and
propaganda here - it's all in good fun after all, and it just gets us fired up
anyway. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well now that you mention it... someone thought this would be funny to draw on our firewall template last year.
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~lovelljc/ChazCornellCensored.jpg

[Michael Jones]

Very well done. Firewalls are a great place for trash talk graffiti, no?

WTF is up with the pixelation though? I'm curious as to what's on the shirt and who the other stick figure represents.

And while there, WTF is that other stick figure doing? I mean, given the slight lean back and the hands, the best I can figure is that he's protecting his head while recoiling.

Best I can figure is you went for some easy booty and we responded by farting in your general direction. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Sam Zimmerman]

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks Michael. Nothing like a real good laugh while trying to put together a budget on a day's notice for a meeting with the college dean in the morning.

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sam Zimmerman:
http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks Michael. Nothing like a real good laugh while trying to put together a budget on a day's notice for a meeting with the college dean in the morning.

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering what Ferarri (and cornell ;-) spends to win championships, I think asking for only $50,000 would be generous.

-Mike Waggoner

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

someone brought up that they disapproved of the single brake on the Torsen, i see it used with most schools, curious what others have to say about this subject and what they have found to work for them
Mike Duwe
uW-P Drivetrain

[Tim Heinemann]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Congratulations to the other innovative teams. I got a chance to see a few of them but I'm sure I missed a bunch. Everyone should post some pictures of the cool stuff they did.

Colorado State nice car and a sweet gearbox
RWTH Aachen with the trick cone type CVT and the Mahle engine
Lehigh lots of cool stuff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanx for the laurels, there you are:

http://www.ecurie-aix.rwth-aachen.de/en/vehicles/eac02/krg.html

Our drivetrain guys had a really big deal in getting this thing running in time and so our car was virtually untested in Detroit. We now have to sort everything out and get rid of all the electronic gremlins etc. as the whole car has been done very Q'n'D.

Regarding the question what wins FSAE, innovation or -say- more conservative engineering:

http://fsae.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=763607348&f=125607348&m=6736033494&r=8376079505#8376079505

Stralsund with a Honda-powered tubular steel frame car has placed 20th, our result with the Cone-Ring-CVT etc. is 114th. Okay, we obviously hope to change this in the near future as soon as the gearbox is completely reliable and we get rid of some of the extra weight our car has gained above what was designed because in the end everthing had to be done with the usual ASAP attitude.



Tim

[Pico2]

I don't think there is a general lack of enthusiasm for innovation. But I do think that it needs to be carefully thought out as to the benefits of the design, which then has to make it to the judges with understanding, clarity, and acceptance of criticism (hopefully constructive). Our overall place was 17th, and we had an all-wheel drive car. So I don't think innovation hinders a team, you just have to understand that doing something different has to be backed up with results, but not necessarily dynamic results. My personal experience is that the competition isn't all about results but the learning along the way, and you'll learn a lot more with innovation than you will with repeat designs.

[John Bucknell]

Hi all.

Forgive my late coming to the forums, the best excuse I can offer is that I was distracted. To those who don't know me, there was a nice bio in this year's program - but in short I competed from 90-95, a judge the last three years and an automotive/motorsport engineer for the last nine.

Back to the reason I am responding to this particular thread - I like the above phrasing from Pico. We design judges aren't opposed to innovation at all - in fact many of the pure motorsports types come just with the hopes of seeing something extraordinary. We just need to be convinced that the innovation is an improvement over the norm. In short, show us data.

Coming at it from the other direction, my understanding of the entire system isn't comprehensive - and I've had fifteen years of background to lean on, and I scrutineer Formula One. The books out there only have the most basic knowledge - and none that I know of really get into the systems aspect of small racecar design (Carroll's do somewhat, from a 1978 vintage). Your assumptions based on what you've been able to learn in a few years may conflict radically with the known truth among professionals - much to your dismay during judging. So even if you have data, there is a good chance you'll misinterpret it. For example, three schools (that I saw) came with 'spike' throttles this year. All with claims that it outperformed a blade type - the only one with data showed it didn't through nearly it's entire range of motion (and the one spot it did was within testing accuracy). My first thought was that someone published something with wild claims (maybe here on the forums?). If such claims appear, test them before bringing them to competition.

What I am saying is I am a proponent of innovation, with the qualifier being you must be able to gain perspective and make 'data driven' decisions. There isn't any other project you are likely to encounter in your engineering career which will allow the kind of freedom FSAE allows - so now is the time to take risks. Ultimately what you learn will be the most valuable thing.

John

PS I don't know the rules about judges discussing technical topics, but I'm open to answering any manner of questions within my realm of expertise...

[Denny Trimble]

Here's a question: What did Renault have figured out at the beginning of the season that everyone else didn't, regarding launch control or a lack thereof? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[John Bucknell]

My understanding is that Renault is able to determine the engagement point of the clutch exactly so that the driver doesn't have to modulate during a launch (mostly thanks to SPEED TV commentary for putting us on the right track). Perhaps it is more complicated than that, but this would allow just throttle modulation as part of the launch sequence from the driver (throttle is already mapped in first gear to allow much in the way of 'feel' at low speeds). Kind of runs close to the limit of what is considered traction/launch control - but evidently legal which nobody else has figured out yet...

[Vector006]

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

The other main issue I have is the single brake on a Torsen LSD. Simulations and physical testing both show that the twin rear brakes definitely outweigh the weight penalty.
...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This debate has been a common topic on this forum, single brake vs dual brakes. Can you enlighten me on the simulation and physical testing your team has performed? Is it predominantly different for braking in corners?

[Kevin Hayward]

Excuse me if I do not go into too much detail on our simulations and testing procedures. However the basics should be quite clear.

In order to be able to study a trade-off of mass and braking properly in simulation you would need to have a full lap time simulator. From there it is simple to assume that the simulator needs to have both a proper braking and drivetrain model. The complexity of the simulation will depend on whether you want to treat it quasi-steady state or full transient.

As for testing our two previous cars were single rear brakes which gives an initial estimate. Simple tests of brake balance can also see how sensitive the cars perfromance is to rear brake bias.

Of course all of this is only important for braking while turning ... and yes it does make a big difference.

If you want to only brake effectively in a straight line then stick with the single rear brake it should do that just as well as twin rears.

Kevin

[rotor]

Kevin
"If you want to only brake effectively in a straight line then stick with the single rear brake it should do that just as well as twin rears."
When should the driver be braking???

Mark Hester
Chief Engineer
RMIT

"Its good to be single"

[clausen]

Well you do need to combine braking and a bit of cornering if you're going to hug the edge of the traction ellipse the whole time.

[rotor]

braking while cornering is usually used when the car is not balanced through fast corners not the slow corners we deal with in fsae. The importance of braking early and power well before the apex is massive in an fsae car. Of course this depends on how big your car is and how much you can treat an autocross track like a full size track...

Mark Hester
Chief Engineer
RMIT

"Its good to be single"

[RagingGrandpa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rotor:
braking while cornering is usually used when the car is not balanced through fast corners not the slow corners we deal with in fsae. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you're not trailbraking on FSAE courses, you're missing out big time.
While braking into a corner, our team's single rear brake often stops the diff housing, but when the inside rear wheel lifts as it does occasionally, you see it rotate backwards because the brake only made the differential start slipping. Wouldn't happen with dual rear brakes.

[Chris Boyden]

Could you explain trailbraking, RacingGrandpa?

[Big Bird]

Well of course I am going to agree with Rotor, he's my teammate. But the way we have our car set up, it would be a waste of time to add the weight / complexity / cost of an extra rear brake for some small gain under trail braking.

Our design philosophy with the small single is to "buy" a bit of corner speed by trading off a bit of straight line speed. Therefore less speed to scrub off, less weight to pull up - lesser need for brakes at all. The end result is that most corners only need a quick dab on the brakes if anything, and then onto the throttle to steady the car and drive it through.

Rotor's a master at this, the rest of us are getting our heads around it with testing, but it works really nice when you start getting used to it.

The other thing we thought about was the pitch attitude of the car in cornering. If you have to trail brake right into the corner, turn in the middle, power out, you have three different pitch attitudes of the car to deal with for each corner when trying to set up the car. Add in the brake bias variables loading tyres in different ways and my little brain doesn't cope with how you'd find a consistently nice turn-in setup. By getting all the braking out of the way in a straight line, we are pretty well throwing the car in with a level pitch attitude that we can hold right through the corner. Minimizes variables we have to think about when designing camber geometries and stuff. So far setting up the car has been a fairly straightforward process.

Obviously if you are running one of these big four cylinder earthmovers http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif you'll have to set your brakes and geometry differently to deal with the extra braking distances and stuff. But I just thought I'd throw in the above twaddle to let you all know what is going on inside our brains down here.

Cheers all,

[RagingGrandpa]

Trailbraking: To keep the tire traction maximized, the aformentioned traction ellipse, the brakes are applied at the end of a straight and then gradually released through, relatively, the first third of the following corner. The weight transfer to the front of the car seen under braking helps load the front tires, which will provide a quicker turn-in to the corner. Therefore trail braking allows you to brake later in the straight and use every bit of grip to make the next corner, as opposed to braking in a straight line at the end of a straight, then releasing the brakes and turning in.

Many different philosophies can be used when setting up a car. The attitude change of the car through the different sections of the corner is significant- the forward weight transfer is the whole reason turn in is helped, and obviously once the brakes are released and throttle is applied the weight will equalize and then transfer rearward. I would be incredibly suprised though if, for these reasons, you specifically instruct your drivers to 'Brake THEN Turn'.

[Denny Trimble]

Just for the sake of argument, no criticism here:

How does your car get from full pitch under braking, to "even" pitch and full roll in the corner? Does your driver:
1) lift abruptly off the brake and jerk the wheel at the same time? Or does he
2) smoothly reduce brake pressure as he increases steering?

Corner entry is when the front tires have to overcome the yaw inertia of the car to induce turn-in. If you're lifting off the brake before you turn-in, you're giving up that extra normal force on the front tires to help rotate the car. But, I'm sure there are other ways to get a small single FSAE car to turn-in.

[rotor]

I would consider the main aim is to get on the throttle well before the apex which is something not done by many fsae drivers who then complain of understeer.
There is deffinately not a line in the sand for when to brake it is just more efficient for getting on the power before the apex to get most braking in a straight line. Having the outside front tyre a little bit more loaded in the first 1/4 of a corner is not as important as setting up the rest of the corner if that makes sense.
Gokarting has always tought me to brake into the apex but most of that comes from pitching the kart and using the side force on the tyres to slow it down but having an fsae car slide into a corner is a little tricky, maybe with outboard brakes it is possible?
cheers denny for making me think about this a little more, i will pay more attention to my driving style this weekend (while we are testing on sticky new goodyears! stop getting so excited big bird!)

MArk Hester
Chief Engineer
RMIT

"its good to be single"

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RagingGrandpa:
our team's single rear brake often stops the diff housing, but when the inside rear wheel lifts as it does occasionally, you see it rotate _backwards_ because the brake only made the differential start slipping. Wouldn't happen with dual rear brakes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much castor and scrub radius are you running? If you're lifting the inside rear on braking, you may be lifting the outside front on corner exit.

[George]

There is a very strong argument for not using a torsen at all as a rear diff in fsae. I'd suggest getting the whitepaper avaiable on it, as well as reading the info on the torsen website, then having a very good think about what happens as your car goes around a corner, and what happens when you begin to apply power.

As far as myself and the UQ team are concerned, the torsen is not the right solution for an lsd rear diff in an fsae application.

[Eddie Martin]

I think the braking set up on your car goes back to what works for your car and what doesn't. If any component or system doesn't suit the overall package don't use it.

Rotor, for driving techniques i think you should lift off early into the corner, coast through the corner and once you are out of the corner only apply gentle throttle until the next corner. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I'm sure all the other OZ teams would agree with me, that they would be a lot happy if you adopted this technique at the next OZ comp. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Eddie

[gug]

while we are on the trailbraking topic, has anyone done any simulation with a program like msc.adams to determine how much yaw inertia effects a formula sae car?

i tried to do the calcs by hand a while back, comparing the amount of force at each wheel required to accelerate the car to the correct rotational speed with the amount of centripital force required. but the answers i got were dodgy. now i dont have time to get msc.adams.

[Big Bird]

Denny, (and RagingGrandpa)

No offence taken, in fact I enjoy a bit of critical analysis. I think I've learnt more bouncing stuff back and forth on these forums than I have in any classroom.

Having re-read my last post it is possibly a bit misleading. It is not as if we a braking our thing half way down the straight, waiting for it to settle, and then casually turning in at constant speed. It is probably more of a punch on the brake to load up the front end, turn in quick and get the power on as early and as smoothly as possible. Most of the corner is traversed with with a level pitch attitude, which is the condition we tried to set up our suspension geometry to work best under. (Good grief, what terrible English). We did this after analyzing the 2001 FSAE-A track, and found that only four corners would really require braking, whilst the other ten were more constant speed entry. We figured given that we would be slower in a straight line, and hopefully quicker in corners with the lighter weight, then we'd be better off focussing on constant speed stuff and just work around the few heavy braking instances.

In my mind trail braking is a slower process where you are gradually lifting off the brake as you run into the apex of the corner, and our thing just doesn't work that way. The braking process for us happens pretty damn quick so there is very little finessing going on. For a bigger, faster car, then I'm sure this driving method would be more suitable.

My history is in bikes, and given a general lack of experience on four wheels we based a lot of our design decisions on two wheeled comparisons. I had a 250GP bike for some time, and we were trained to brake as quick as possible and then just slap the thing on its side as quick as you could to get the entry transients out of the way. You'd then power all the way through the corner. I then bought a bigger bike which was a hell of a lot faster in a straight line, but was heaps heavier. By the nature of the longer braking distances and slower turning response you had to trail brake right into the corner. It made the bike a whole
lot harder to set up, suspension was a nightmare. I just gave up and went back to 250s.

After driving our 2002 car (4 cyl) it reminded me a lot of the old superbike, so rather than struggle around all that wallowing mass again it seemed more sensible to try and replicate the feel of the GP bike on four wheels.

Sorry if the above seems a little self indulgent, I'm just explaining where we came from. And I'll put it on the records now that I was, and still am, a completely useless bike rider.

Cheers all,

[RagingGrandpa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeWaggoner at UW:
How much castor and scrub radius are you running? If you're lifting the inside rear on braking, you may be lifting the outside front on corner exit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not the suspension leader on our team, but I understood lift to be a roll stiffness issue. We've never SEEN the front lift, not to say that casual observation is by any means accurate. When the rear lifts we make changes as necessary, agreeing that it's not ideal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Bird:
Most of the corner is traversed with with a level pitch attitude, which is the condition we tried to set up our suspension geometry to work best under. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I mentioned pitch, I wasn't refering to visible changes in attitude of the car, as with as little suspension travel as we're talking and high wheel rates, we don't notice pitch through a corner without instrumentation. The point is weight transfer, which will cause some pitching of the car, in ways that depend on the damping, trajectory, suspension geometry, etc. of the car which would be cumbersome to go into. You're more hardcore than me if you're doing calculations only for the sake of forum posts. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
Rotor, for driving techniques i think you should lift off early into the corner, coast through the corner and once you are out of the corner only apply gentle throttle until the next corner. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I'm sure all the other OZ teams would agree with me, that they would be a lot happy if you adopted this technique at the next OZ comp. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sitting here at work with another one of our team's good drivers, we are amazed by this statement. You used the word 'Coast'! Take lap times having drivers apply throttle as early and as hard as possible without losing the rear end. Transition from brake to steering, don't stop one than start the other. I realize the brake pedal is very hard on many of our cars, but you'd be suprised how much pressure modulation is possible even with so little travel. Anyway, try it and take some times, and if you run faster your way, PLEASE, PLEASE report that back to us. It'll be really interesting.

Good thread.

-RG

Apparently I took Eddie alittle too seriously http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

There's a jacking effect with castor, that if everything is rigid makes one of the wheels lift off the ground when the wheel is turned.

I think this thread is good for tech content, but it's kind off topic from the original.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RagingGrandpa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeWaggoner at UW:
How much castor and scrub radius are you running? If you're lifting the inside rear on braking, you may be lifting the outside front on corner exit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not the suspension leader on our team, but I understood lift to be a roll stiffness issue. We've never SEEN the front lift, not to say that casual observation is by any means accurate. When the rear lifts we make changes as necessary, agreeing that it's not ideal.

Good thread.

-RG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kevin Hayward]

Grandpa (The Raging one),

When Eddie mentioned "coast" he was definitely joking.

Still I hope Hester takes the advice this year in Australia ... for those that haven't seen him drive you haven't seen how good he is.

In fact I would hope that he (and other Aussies) would decide to gently accellerate from the start line until a little speed is generated and then coast until the finish. It would make our job a lot easier.

...

Geoff I see the points you make about the car you have built. I definitely acknowledge that it is a different way to build an FSAE car. In fact I don't think I saw much braking in 2003 from you guys anyway ... Let me ponder that one for a while.

One question though ... when it comes to bikes which is quicker around a tight racetrack: a 250cc machine or the heavier 600cc bikes?

I don't really follow bikes but it seems to me that the power to weight ratio may be close without a driver ... but with one ...

And one other question Geoff ... did you manage to change gears in Australia at all? It has nothing to do with the braking stuff I was just curious as to how much your speed changed throughout the course.

Kev

[gug]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RagingGrandpa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
Rotor, for driving techniques i think you should lift off early into the corner, coast through the corner and once you are out of the corner only apply gentle throttle until the next corner. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I'm sure all the other OZ teams would agree with me, that they would be a lot happy if you adopted this technique at the next OZ comp. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sitting here at work with another one of our team's good drivers, we are amazed by this statement. You used the word 'Coast'! Take lap times having drivers apply throttle as early and as hard as possible without losing the rear end. Transition from brake to steering, don't stop one than start the other. I realize the brake pedal is very hard on many of our cars, but you'd be suprised how much pressure modulation is possible even with so little travel. Anyway, try it and take some times, and if you run faster your way, PLEASE, PLEASE report that back to us. It'll be really interesteing.

Good thread.

-RG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im pretty sure Eddie was being sarcastic. well, not really sarcastic, it would be a huge help to us if rotor would drive like that... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif i would actually like to see him clean the course of cones, push them all off the track with RMIT's car...

actually, my memory isnt good, but i think rotor was several seconds faster per lap than anyone else in RMIT's car at the last competition. is that right?

[Eddie Martin]

I was definitely being sarcastic. If you saw hester (rotor) drive at the last oz comp he was blindly quick and super smooth. Telling him to slow down was a joke. I did find sarcasm not as common in America as in Oz.

Raging Grandpa,
Maybe you should try coasting though, it is a technique we used to great effect in the 2003 American enduro.http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (Note: the last sentence may contain traces of sarcasm)

[Big Bird]

This thread is now miles off the original topic, but its good fun.

RG - we certainly haven't performed calculations for the sake of these forums. They were more the rough philosophies behind where we were going when we were doing all our Susprog design earlier last year. I'd like to be more hardcore, but I waste too much time reading these forums!

Kevin, I personally wasn't changing gear around the course. I physically couldn't after about the third lap, which is the result of squeezing a 6 foot 5 frame into something the size of a long shoebox. However I believe Rotor was spending most of the time in 2nd and 3rd gear, with 1st used only at that really sharp hairpin.

GP250's versus 600's - good question, and a lot depends on the rider. At the top level nationally at Phillip Island, the best 250 riders got down to 1:37's a few years back, whereas the 600's were around 1:39 - 1:40 (??) at the time. Don't know what the 600's do now, but the national 250GP class has been canned. The 600's are quicker in a straight line, the 250's quicker in corners (better tyres, lesser weight, etc). As an aside, at Phillip Island top A-grade Oz 250GP riders only spend around 22% time per lap on full throttle, and PI is considered to be probably the most wide-open track in Oz. So when you think of power to weight ratio as a guiding factor, remember that for the other 78% of the lap lesser weight is an advantage irrespective of horsepower.

Gug, thanks for reminding the world what a truly pathetic driver I am. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yes, Rotor was approximately 15 minutes a lap faster than I was. Here's hoping we all forget that one day.

But I'm following Eddie's driving technique to the letter and I'm just not getting any quicker....

Cheers all,

[BryanH]

HI just thought I should get this thread back on track.Rotor is a pro driver and as such is just another tool in the student's toolbox. he can only lap as fast as the car will go, ergo if the car is balanced and has good power to weight it will be quick. The big advantage of having a pro driver is that they can get a new chassis close to it's potential lap time very quickly, within 5 laps and also identify fundamental design problems very quickly.This is either good or very bad news for the chief engineer! Current Open wheel race cars from F-Ford to F-1 are designed to brake only in a straight line.any steering angle on heavy braking results in locked inside front.The car is braked hard in more or less straight line then turned hard across the apex for a straight as possible corner exit. mph gained on corner exit is carried all the way down to the next corner. The best way to compare driving styles is datalogging 2 or more drivers with a mycron with trackmapping and you can clearly see why braking too late is slower overall. Actually changing your driving to suit is bloody hard even when you can see what you are doing wrong!
One thing I don't agree with is designing a car specifically for autocross, a well balanced race car that is fast on a big open fast track will be fast anywhere. The only things we change between predominatly fast sweeper tracks and tight tracks is castor and maybe ackermann. BUT if your car won't work on a fast track it's back to the ProEngineer, and a lot of the f-sae cars I have seen would be V. scary on a fast track.
For all the pple who want to bag Lehigh's philosophy consider this; If Ferrari, Renault, Bar built an F-SAE car the minium target weight would be 90kg and 120kg would be easily achieved with bulletproof reliability.
And a Torsen would'nt be in sight,they are for girly road cars.
None of this is meant to denigrate the achievements of all the students who design and build stuff in no time with no money that I could spend weeks crawling over, I'm just saying that the pinnacle is a fair way in the distance.............I costs nothing to build smart except for the occasional whack in the ego.

[Chris Boyden]

Bryan,

So, what would Ferrari, Renault, or Bar do in lieu of a Torsen diff?

Chris

[RagingGrandpa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bryan M. Hester:
Rotor is a pro driver and as such is just another tool in the student's toolbox. he can only lap as fast as the car will go, ergo if the car is balanced and has good power to weight it will be quick. ... Current Open wheel race cars from F-Ford to F-1 are designed to brake only in a straight line.any steering angle on heavy braking results in locked inside front ... One thing I don't agree with is designing a car specifically for autocross, ... If Ferrari, Renault, Bar built an F-SAE car the minium target weight would be 90kg and 120kg would be easily achieved with bulletproof reliability... I costs nothing to build smart except for the occasional whack in the ego. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, here we go.
1- Ergo! Vis-a-vis! Concordently!!! Someone's been watching the Matrix too much. Trying to impress with your english are we? We're engineers dude!
2- Why would you be unable to apply braking and cornering loads at the same time? Sure maximum braking is only possible when you're braking in a straight line, but some braking is still available while the car is transitioning from longitudinal acceleration to lateral acceleration. And locking the inside front when doing this? Why? Before you answer "It's obvious- the inside tire is unloaded under cornering", remember the answer to Claude Rouelle's annual question, "What happens when you turn the steering wheel?" Someone on your team should know this answer, if not, it's definately to my advantage not to tell you. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
3- Why on earth would you design a car for anything but the competition it is to compete under? High-speed stability is a non-issue for FSAE competitions, so to make a car that was to preform as well as possible on a large road course would be crazy if it was to compete in a setting where tight, close-spaced turns were the norm.
4- I don't understand how you compare professional, incredibly-funded racing teams to student engineering teams. If we had nothing but FSAE to do during our days, had a production car companies fully supporting us, and had budgets in the millions, sure the cars would get lighter. We're students though, we go to class, and we get sponsorship that is well under $100k annually. Lehigh's car was an excellent example of innovation, but competition demonstrated that cars weighing upwards of 380lbs do much better with respect to performance and reliability. IMO Penn State's car will be the new weight benchmark, completing all the dynamic events. Until you can do that, weight is a moot point.

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One thing I don't agree with is designing a car specifically for autocross, a well balanced race car that is fast on a big open fast track will be fast anywhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oval cars are designed for ovals, dragsters are designed for straight line acceleration, FSAE cars are designed to autocross.

[Denny Trimble]

As fast as an F1 car is on a road course, it would be hampered by its length (turning radius, yaw inertia) on an autocross course.

[rotor]

Its funny how people take things so literally!
Until you figure out whats behind the comment you cars will always be a pig to drive, but why listen to me im only a driver.. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[BryanH]

Denny, please consider F1's design concepts, not their actual dimensions.Current model sprint karts(Trulli,CRG Tony) are unbeatable around a tight car park and easy to lap fast at Phillip Island. I would pay to watch someone drive Toyko Denki,s around P.I.
If active diffs are not used then updated versions of the plate type is by far the most popular choice now. A lot of development was put into these diffs for front wheel drive race cars in Europe.Spool diffs are very common now, It just removes a setup variable and is light and reliable
In Australia poking sticks into each others cages is expected and enjoyed

Please try and get to the USGP,and blag your way into the pits and get a close up look at the cars, you need to get real close to see the good bits.Dressing up as Ferrari pit crew has worked over here.

[BryanH]

If I have learn't anything from running drivers in controlled fomulas its that you have to ignore what the others are doing, Stop yourself from being sucked into copying what they are doing. Do your own thing,Listen to your drivers.
Take inspiration from innovative open wheel cars of the last 5years,pinch design detail from current F-Ford and use your own brains to package it.

[Ashley Denmead]

Would someone care to post a pic or two of Penn state's car and LeHigh's car? havnt seen them yet!

[Denny Trimble]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bryan M. Hester:
Denny, please consider F1's design concepts, not their actual dimensions.Current model sprint karts(Trulli,CRG Tony) are unbeatable around a tight car park and easy to lap fast at Phillip Island.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian,
How do you perceive I haven't been paying attention to "F1's design concepts"? I'm just curious where that comment came from. I locked myself up in my room for a couple days when "Ferrari Formula 1: Under the Skin of the Championship-Winning F1-2000" showed up. I was excited to see many parallels between my design process and Ferrari's. No, I don't execute to the same level as their hundreds of employees with more experience and budget than any of us, but I'm also not some American ASSCAR fan. We make design decisions based on the requirements of the FSAE dynamic events; we use simulation and physical testing; I understand a very light car can do well, but I haven't seen it yet http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Come on over! I believe the lightest car in the top 5 this year was Cornell at 47X lbs?

I like the pit crew uniform idea... maybe next year http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[John Bucknell]

For reference, www.Bosch-Motorsport.com (http://www.Bosch-Motorsport.com) has a free program called LapSim that might help you all with the single/dual real brake question. Rumour has it there is a minimum weight which might make it less that absolutely useful (no, I don't use it - I wrote my own http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

That Peter Wright book is featured in this month's Racecar Engineering - also talks about the Weismann Quick Shift tranny. Now there is a F1 supercool piece of technology (circa 1958) - go find the patent (USPTO.gov) and try to wrap your head around a trans with no shift forks and no dogs and allows full power upshifts.

[RagingGrandpa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ashley Denmead:
Would someone care to post a pic or two of Penn state's car and LeHigh's car? havnt seen them yet! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Find Lehigh's photos at http://community.webshots.com/album/93292617loDzfe

Search the forums and google for PSU, I don't have access to our team's competition photos from my workplace.

[BryanH]

Greetings Ye Old Rager, Alas trailbrake was sacrificed on the Alter of Speed.His soul was traded to that Devil (blank).Carry thyself to the village green to witness an annual joust & beseech the bravest Knight to whisper this devils name in your ear.
I apoligize to all for despoiling what was a very entertaining thread but the Ricer Knight could no longer get his armour over his head!

And he has to test his 60% more powerful, 10kg lighter, Goodyear shod, black steed today.

[RagingGrandpa]

Uuh, someone wanna translate that for me?

[BryanH]

Translation:
Since the early 80's there has been shift in driving style in top level circuit racing/rallying partly due to the incoming drivers serving a long apprenticeship in karts. I was only suggesting that if you don't currently race then go along to a national level race meeting, watch the cars cornering up close and try to talk to the datalogging guys about what is actually going on out there. Ignore my bit about talking to the drivers - if you can get the big headed pricks to talk at all it'l be mostly bullshit.....
bryan hester

[BryanH]

Innovation;
I considered that the main advantage of using single cyl in F-sae was not weight but driveability and traction. This theory has been impossible to test as it would require you to build 2 cars with 4 cyl & single same weight,power etc.
Well, on tuesday the Ducati Motogp team have more or less done the test for all you 4cyl devotees.
Their "twin fire" engine effectivly operates as a 2cyl and Capirossi peeled 1.8 sec off his sunday race times testing it. Troy Bayliss dropped 8 tenths but he was feeling effects of big crash on sunday. Charlie, are you very friendly with a camshaft maker?

[fsae_alum]

As Cornell said, you can't bring innovation unless it has been fully tested (both on paper and on the track). That being said, here in the US, we have a thumper that might prove ideal if somebody wished to go that route. Has anybody looked at the Cannondale 440 (yes from the same guys that make the bikes). They have a 440cc 4 stroke thumper that can be punched out to around 480cc. The engine has the intake on the front side and the exhaust on the backside. This makes it a straight shot in and out the engine. Furthermore, it is geared as a dirtbike and ATV and thus doesn't have a 170 mph top speed. It's geared for a much lower top speed of around 65 mph (6 speed tranny IIRC). This means that you get a choice of gears to be in for the course instead of just 2 gears where you're spending half the time at the bottom end of the powerband. The flipside is that you're always changing gears. The Cannondale 440 also has USER PROGRAMMABLE FUEL INJECTION straight from the factory!! Having looked at the engine it is very small and very lightweight. It also has TONS of torque. Dealers (that also sell other brands and sportbikes) have sworn up and down that the 440 will put away any 600cc sportbike right off the line. It's only when the 600 gets up in the revs that it catches up. The other things that the dealers said was that Cannondale would more than likely be willing to sponsor a team. Just something to think about. Before anybody says anything, NO, I do not Cannondale or a bike shop. I just stumbled accross this engine a while back and thought it would be a great cantidate for a team that likes to think outside the box.

[Chris Boyden]

fsae_alum,

That sounds like a pretty cool single.
I just posted a bit about the 660R raptor motor and the YZF450 439cc atv motors on the Yamaha thread. The Raptor moves like a bat out of hell because of all that torque, I imagine that the YZF 450 kicks out plenty of torque as well. Both are 5 valve singles with six speeds, but they definitely don't have user programmable fuel injection.

[fsae_alum]

Boyden....the other thing that I noted is that it still has a high redline of around 10k IIRC. I've been reading where some guys in Cali have been using them in enduro carts recently. The Cannondale is a 4 valve. There are also a nice collection of aftermarket parts available for them too. Again, innovation isn't great unless it has been proven and works flawlessly.

[Chris Boyden]

10k is a pretty good redline for a single.
I think the Raptor 660 redline is about 9k.
I'm not sure about the 436cc, might be higher.

[Big Bird]

We are getting just over 10,000 from our WR450 with the restrictor, no real effects from the restrictor at these speeds.

Cheers,

Geoff

[Ashley Denmead]

Geoff,

have you performed many internal modifications to the WR? camshafts etc?? or has the bulk of teh development work gone into intake and exhaust design?

[The guru of guru's]

Geoff
We have had alot of negative comments about the single's "gulp" factor. How have you guys tried to over come it?
Cheers
Dave

[rotor]

All of the principles used for improving "the gulp" on a single are similar to that used on a four cylinder so using what your predessors have found will give you a good starting point. For your info we are now making around 15hp more than the standard carb set-up, yes you heard right - 70hp at 10,500

Mark Hester
Chief Engineer
RMIT

"since when has motorsport been about making friends..."

[Chris Boyden]

That sounds pretty good. 70 hp out of single at 10500 rpm and a semi-dry sump to boot!

Care to post a torque curve?!

Chris

[Denny Trimble]

Yeah, that's pretty amazing. Did you test the carb setup on your dyno, to verify you're really making that much more than stock?

That's an achievement to make more power than Yamaha can, and through a restrictor! Good work!

[rotor]

Denny/Boyden

The boys last year ran the engine as it came from yamaha before they injected it and it made between 50 and 55 hp depending on exhaust length. That was straight of the drive sprocket onto the engine only adapter on our chassis dyno. The injected setup from 2003 and the current setup has only been tested through the rollers while in the car and has made 60hp at the tyres, so using a very low drivetrain loss to convert gives an approx power of 70hp at the sprocket.
Its certainly gets your attention in a sub 190kg (418lb) car!

Mark Hester
Chief Engineer
RMIT

"its good to be single"

[rotor]

As far as gulp factor went, we just made a big plenum to offer a bit of reserve air and minimize the pressure fluctuations. No special widgets or anything fancy. There was a bit of experimentation with exhaust lengths, but we just ended up at the standard Yamaha length.

We haven't been playing around with cams or anything. Only internal mods were some grinding mods to the inside of the rotor cover, primarily for extra clearance and weight saving. This was easily done by forgetting to tighten the rotor nut.

In regard to the above data about capacities, the WR is 449cc, and has a five speed box. We generally only use up to third, and rarely use first. It saves stuffing around changing gears and unsettling the car. (Used fourth only once in the acceleration event). The power spread is pretty broad. The YZ450 box is a four speed for what this is worth. The electric start gear for the WR looks like it bolts straight on to the YZ450, can find out total cost of the conversion if anyone wants the info,(after FStudent though). The earlier YZ/WR426 is a different animal, you have to get aftermarket parts to convert that to electric start.

As an aside, please note you won't find the firing order in any of the published Yamaha Service material, and you need this info to program the ECU. Our engine guy spent weeks chasing down this info. We finally determined cylinder firing order as below:

1

Hope this helps,

[Big Bird]

Oops, apologies to rotor - I was using a computer here at uni and thought it was logged in under my name. So the above twaddle is my responsibility. You all probably figured that by the length of the post anyway....

Cheers

[BryanH]

Rotor, it seems that the WR450 now has enough power to pull some tastefully designed wings around?

[The guru of guru's]

RMIT's car may fly away if it had wings!!! Have you guys started building the cf chassis? We are starting in a week if all goes well.

Dave.

[bouwmad]

I was wondering what engine management system you are using on your wr450?

[Mazur]

That was six years ago brah.

[Mbirt]

Wow, that's forever ago. I'd guess Bosch K-Jetronic in that case.

[Mumpitz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mbirt:
Wow, that's forever ago. I'd guess Bosch K-Jetronic in that case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pff D-Jet is where it's at, analog EFI FTMFW!
I happen to have one out of a VW type 3....

[Kirby]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mbirt:
Wow, that's forever ago. I'd guess Bosch K-Jetronic in that case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have loved to see the early EFI cars in FSAE.

I can just imagine them trying to adapt a L-Jetronic from an early datsun!!

[Zac]

EFI? I want to see some Hilborn MFI setups.

[AxelRipper]

a single in fsae?

I'm gonna guess it used Keihin FI...

[Big Bird]

Aah yes, the early days. Obviously things were pretty primitive way back in 2004, we didn't have anywhere near the level of technology you guys have at your disposal now. For fuel injection we used a horse syringe we picked up at the vet, the driver would listen for when the intake valve opened and then quickly squirt a dose of fuel up the port. With his other hand he would bang a flint rock against the cylinder head - that was for spark. The engine management system was effectively self-learning, because if he got it wrong we would beat him with a stick.

This is the whole reason we changed to a single. Our driver was going mad trying to keep up with the four.

Hope this helps...

[Drew Price]

Don't forget that D-Jet fires the injectors off a contact breaker signal - I would love to see the design judges faces when you tell them how you have to file and set point gap every hour of run time from all the vibration. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

L / LH was a big step forward with that breakerless triggering and 4-bit (8-bit?) processors.

Probably be better off using a little side-draft SU at that point, something that in hindsight might not have been a bad idea as an initial run setup to start developing the chassis, since the majority of cars don't have their wiring and tuning really figured out till it gets down to the end of the wire.

[Kirby]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Drew Price:
Don't forget that D-Jet fires the injectors off a contact breaker signal - I would love to see the design judges faces when you tell them how you have to file and set point gap every hour of run time from all the vibration. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

L / LH was a big step forward with that breakerless triggering and 4-bit (8-bit?) processors.

Probably be better off using a little side-draft SU at that point, something that in hindsight might not have been a bad idea as an initial run setup to start developing the chassis, since the majority of cars don't have their wiring and tuning really figured out till it gets down to the end of the wire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last carby car that ever recall was USQ in 2005. I believe apart from G fuel starvation issues it may have also caught fire.

On second thought I think this car from FSAE-A '09 was carby: yfrog . com /3lmgwj

[AxelRipper]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kirby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Drew Price:
Don't forget that D-Jet fires the injectors off a contact breaker signal - I would love to see the design judges faces when you tell them how you have to file and set point gap every hour of run time from all the vibration. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

L / LH was a big step forward with that breakerless triggering and 4-bit (8-bit?) processors.

Probably be better off using a little side-draft SU at that point, something that in hindsight might not have been a bad idea as an initial run setup to start developing the chassis, since the majority of cars don't have their wiring and tuning really figured out till it gets down to the end of the wire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last carby car that ever recall was USQ in 2005. I believe apart from G fuel starvation issues it may have also caught fire.

On second thought I think this car from FSAE-A '09 was carby: yfrog . com /3lmgwj </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, we ran carb in Cali '09 and MIS '10, snatching 3rd in fuel economy at each comp. It started a lot easier than the EFI, and just had a problem of leaning out up top, which we attempted to fix at the last minute before MIS by throwing an injector inline. I also recall seeing at least 2-3 other cars at MIS this year running carbed singles.

[Adambomb]

As I recall we used a DTA computer in '03 and '04. Don't remember which model, but it was pretty archaic.