Ideas to pursue for innovation points [Archive]

raska

11-18-2005, 04:40 AM

A little off the topic direction you goes were going on, but it's only 15 points isn't it? I don't think they could make it a signifigant portion, because 'Innovation' seems very qualitative doesn't it? How do you define it? I realize in the rules they say "Are any of the components or systems unique? Do the innovations add to the product's functions?", but it still raises questions to me. I'll use Western Australia for an example because they use a different suspension system than I have seen on any cars at competition. If they continue to use this system for the next 5 years to come, and the rest of the field doesn't convert, are they innovative because they are the only one using it? Or does it wear off after the first year or two? And how about something that is used say on passenger cars and has been for several years (I can't think of an example at this time at night) but has never been applied to a FSAE car? Would it be considered innovative even though it may be commonplace on other vehicles?

i.e. Unique in what respects? Unique in FSAE? Cars? Trucks? Automobiles? What about research that doesn't turn out to contribute all that well to 'the product's function'? Maybe the team 'did not take the time' to change their designs before competition and ran with it. This can steer further research and innovation on the subject in the right direction, but is the team going to be penalized for either a theory they couldn't impliment well enough to show improvements on the car, or due to mistakes or unforseeable events will not practically contribute additive benifit to the product/car? Opinions on the usefulness of a particular function might also differ from judge to judge, although this point might not be a problem since I believe we have a great group of judges who are looking to reward thinking with the goal of improving the vehicle. Maybe it should be called 'coolness factor' http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

11-23-2005, 04:47 PM

Tsk, tsk, mutter, mutter....

When this thread first came up I didn't have time to post on it. Anyway, I thought I'd wait and see what innovations all you bright young FSAE'rs were cooking up before I commented.

NOTHING! Shame on you all!!! No wonder the judges aren't awarding any innovation points. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (Apologies to any FSAE innovators out there who are saving their baby as a surprise. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

FWIW, IMHO, there is bugger all innovation in motorsport. For the most part raceteams just take a standard production car, or the standard model racecar from last year, and then try to improve it by making it more expensive - ie. using the same configuration of parts but replacing cheap steel with the most expensive titanium/aluminium-beryllium/carbonfibre/whatever...

Most of the so called "cutting-edge innovative breakthroughs" in motorsport are simply ideas that have been borrowed from other industries. Examples: Renault put a turbocharger on a farm tractor in 1902(?). Aircraft manufacturers started fitting them to fighter planes in WWII. Then, finally, at the end of the 1960's, turbos started to appear on a few racecars. Another ten years before they began to appear in F1 - supposedly the pinnacle of high-tech motorsport.

Or consider fibre-reinforced-plastics - used by boatbuilders and garden furniture manufacturers for decades before being picked up by racers. Advanced carbon-FRP - used on golf clubs and tennis racquets long before they appeared on any racecar. Or "active suspension" - fitted to baseline production cars (Citroen ID) from the mid-1950's onwards, before eventually making it to F1 30 years later (and it took the racers more than a few tries to get it right!). Etc., etc...

Occasionally someone in amateur motorsport gets a good idea they want to try out (perhaps they saw it on a farm tractor somewhere http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). They try it out on their homebuilt and it works. But hardly anyone sees it, so they try to promote it by offering it to a big-budget team. FAT CHANCE! The big$ teams are terrified of new ideas. The small guy actually has to pay the big team "sponsorship money" to put his innovation on their car! If it works the big$ team is a "hot-house of dynamic, edge-of-the-envelope thinking". If it doesn't work (because the big$ team stuff it up) it is hushed up, or the "whacko lone-inventor" is blamed as the scapegoat.

End of the main part of the rant. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So it is really not that hard for FSAE teams to earn "innovation points". All you have to do is build a car that is just slightly different to the standard car. If you borrow just one idea from somewhere other than FSAE you will be making a "radical breakthrough".

I will leave it a few days before listing some of the many "innovations" that I can think of, that could appear on FSAE cars. These ideas would actually provide a significant improvement in performance of the cars, so you could gain lots of "Dynamic Event" points as well as the few innovation points on offer.

Z

11-27-2005, 03:26 PM

Oh well... still nothing... This could have been a good thread. Obviously not many engineers here. "Engineer" stems from ingenuity (L. "ingenium" = cleverness). http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

So, probably wasting my time, but...

Some Possible Innovations for FSAE:
===================================

ENGINE - Rules are overly restrictive, but nevertheless, build your own FSAE optimised engine. Ie. a lightweight, compact, fuel-efficient, wide torque band, and inexpensive package that works best when breathing through a 20mm restrictor. Elsewhere I suggested a turbo/supercharged "1/8 of smallblock V8". Other innovations, apart from rotary valves, might be:
* Adiabatic combustion chamber - eg. flat-head engine with rectangular block of ceramic for head and ceramic topped piston. Hotter exhaust gases driving turbo make up for poor VE of small valves.
* Different types of S/C - of which there are countless...
* Innovative manufacturing - eg. fabricate block/crankcase from sheet steel (it has been done many times, but would still count as innovative in FSAE).
* Etc., etc...

DRIVETRAIN - Get rid of those gears!
* With good wide torque-band engine maybe no ratio changes needed at all - just a clutch and neutral.
* Or a torque converter (ie. hydro-dynamic donut from an auto-box), preferably with "lock-up"at higher speeds for better fuel economy. TC slip at low speeds gives "low gear". As used on many successful drag cars.
* Or any of many types of CVT...
* Or combine rubber belt CVT with a planetary gearset for an Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT). This eliminates need for clutch slip at start line - great for Acceleration event!
* Or hydrostatic IVT...

FINAL DRIVE - See "Torque bias ratio" thread for posts on "free-wheel diff" and "torque-steer diff" via spool and 2 clutches. The TSD clutches could be used for start and gear-changing, eliminating need for normal engine clutch.

BRAKES - Regenerative!
* Combine a hydrostatic IVT with a hydraulic accumulator. Only use on rear (driven) wheels at first. Main advantages are fuel economy, which should be significantly better, and more power for brief periods, so better acceleration out of corners, even with low power engine. This is a very worthwhile innovation, but may be illegal?

SUSPENSION - Beam-axles, lateral swing arms, or leading and trailing arms, are all simpler and can be made to work as well as, or better than the standard double-wishbone setup. A bit of innovation in passive interconnecting springs (Find "Z-bars") will give a big performance improvement in a simpler overall package.
* Or if you must use rockers (why?!), then do something useful with them like building them as rotary vane-type dampers acting on torsion-bar springs.

CHASSIS - IMO the WWU "twin-tube" chassis qualifies as innovative, so make something similar in sheet steel or aluminium, or extruded magnesium...
* Elsewhere I mentioned a steel monocoque "44 gallon drum" chassis - light, stiff, strong, cheap, easy to make, and different! Well, it is on 100 million production cars, but not yet on any FSAE cars.
* Or a fibreglass monocoque, like Jim Hall did when he first decided to copy the boatbuilders. It doesn't have to be carbon! Many teams already have wet-layup FG bodywork, so bond in the steel roll hoops/safety structure to spread the point loads, and add some UD cloth at 45 degrees to carry the main torsional loads. This is pretty obvious - has anybody done it?
* Or, disregarding apoplectic Design judges, make a wooden chassis (the original composite)! I'm sure many of the boaties I have known could build a plywood chassis that is lighter, stiffer, stronger than the standard tube frame. Not for me though, I hate woodwork...

CONTROLS - Again, too restrictive rules. I would have liked to suggest "side-stick steering"...

AERO - As I have mentioned many times before, there are huge performance gains to be had from good aero. Unless you blindly copy the standard front and rear wing thing here, pretty much anything is innovative. So, for example, if you do a live aero-undertray you have little option but to figure it out from scratch.

If aero sounds too hard, remember that the Wright brothers were relatively uneducated bicycle manufacturers. No aerodynamics lectures or textbooks, no google, CFD, FEA, CAE, rapid prototyping, wind tunnels... Well, they did built their own small wind-tunnel...

Z

Jersey Tom

11-27-2005, 04:39 PM

Dammit Z. You just gave away EVERYTHING we were gonna put on our '06 car. Now we gotta start from scratch and try to come up with somethin else between now and May.

11-27-2005, 05:11 PM

Never mind Tom, innovations are a dime a dozen. I just plucked the above ones out of thin air.

Of course, not all innovations work too well. So, guys, how about posting on all those hare-brained schemes you are throwing away??? Someone else might find them useful.

I was going to add in the above (way too long) post that most of the ideas are feasible for medium sized teams. Best approach would be to do the "innovation" with a separate small group doing a parallel program. If the idea can't be made to work in time then a "contingency plan" must be in place - ie. fit standard part.

Some of the ideas are actually beneficial for very small teams, because they result in a simpler, easier to build car, with better performance than the standard car. Eg. A lightweight, 600cc single-cylinder car with no gearbox - just a pair of "torque-steer" clutches between the final drive sprocket and the wheels.

Z

LCheung

11-27-2005, 05:41 PM

So where exactly are you drawing the line between innovation and just being different?

It just has to be is clever by the above "engineer" definition? Something doesn't have to be new or original to be clever.

Buckingham

11-27-2005, 08:56 PM

Usually, the difference between being innovative and being different is how well you can argue your case that the different solution is actually better.

Psychosis

11-28-2005, 12:23 AM

edit - re-read the rules, 4 wheels only http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"Vehicles may have two types of tires", thats all the rules really say. whats to say they have to be round (the rims do, but not tyres)... bear with me... anyone thought of caterpillar tracks http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fits in nicely with Zs torque steering effort.

LCheung

11-28-2005, 01:54 AM

dhaidinger,

I think that is basically what I was implying with my question. I wasn't really looking for an answer.

11-28-2005, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by LCheung:
Something doesn't have to be new or original to be clever.
Yes, that was the point in my first post. Fact is, there are very few "absolutely new" innovations anywhere. Most are a case of borrowing an idea or two from another industry, and then combining or slightly modifying them to give an "innovation" in your industry.

The FSAE judges are (apparently) bored of seeing the same old "standard" cars. So if you do something a bit different you might gain a few innovation points. And if you are clever (ingenious) enough to make it work well, then you might pick up a lot more Dynamic event points as well! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Jersey Tom

11-28-2005, 07:33 AM

bear with me... anyone thought of caterpillar tracks

Hmm.. caterpillar tracks covered with rubber from chopped up racing slicks. Imagine the size of your contact patch!

I think we may be onto something

Foote

11-28-2005, 05:08 PM

OK. I've got a few things to say.
First. The judges are not bored with the same old standard cars. Let's look at Cornell. They have a great car, it's all really well thought out and well engineered. It's not a very original car. In fact, I'd say it's the most ˜old standard' car at competition. In 2004 when we were at Detroit last, we talked to some of the Cornell guys as they were packing up. I guess they had been told by several judges that they didn't have enough innovation, and that their car was becoming boring or standard. We showed them some of our crazy innovations. Carbon torsion tubes, machined billet bulkheads, uprights, a-arms and brakes, a dry sump and custom made through rod dampers. Cornell creamed us in the design event, with a very well thought out, and very standard car.
This story has most likely been told on here before by James, sorry.
In class with Dr. Seal, I've heard hundreds of times that there are no truly new innovations in engineering. Engineers often take something already used in industry and cross apply it. Just try to think of something new, and I'd be willing to bet that it's been done somewhere else before.
The needle valve throttle used by oxford brooks last year (supposedly invented by them, but I think it's been used by quite a few teams in racing with little success). There is one of these on my air compressor to vent excess pressure.
The idea of using tank treads has obviously been used before in tank design, but also snowmobile dragsters use tank tread slicks on their rear end.
There are literally hundreds of other examples in engineering history.

Z, I have trouble figuring out exactly where you stand on car design. Fairly recently you posted a rant about all of the CNC work in FSAE, and that you'd like to see some more fabricated steel. This seems to me exactly contradictory to your rant this time. What sort of innovation do you actually think is worth it? Apparently we should not be looking into any advanced materials, and we should be using welding as our primary manufacturing method. But you also want to see hydrostatic drive with a gas accumulator? Maybe a beam axle also? You noticed our twin torsion tube chassis, but suggested we make it from metal?
Do you have a history in tractor design? Maybe you should look into a career in 1920's lemans racing, I'm sure they'd think your ideas are plenty innovative.

Storbeck

11-28-2005, 06:57 PM

In my opinion, the design event, and especially inovation points, should not be a factor at all when designing the car. The car should be designed to be the best performing car in the dynamic events that your team is capeable of building with the resources available to you. If that happens to include something that is "innovative", great, point it out to the design judges, along with all of the non inovative but cleverly designed and well thought out features of your car. If a feature appears on your car for any other reason than to make it perform better within the capabilities of design and manufacture of your team, I think you have made a poor decision. If I was a design judge this would be my judging criteria, and design and innovation scores would reflect it.

With that in mind, I think the question of "Ideas to pursue for innovation points" is irrelevent. The question is more like: "what should people be doing to make these cars perform better that they don't seem to be regularly doing?"

I would call the suspension design of the Western Austrailia car very inovative, but I doubt they did it because they wanted to get inovation points.

LCheung

11-28-2005, 10:14 PM

You have to realize that UWA didn't invent that suspension. A company in Austrailia called Kinetic did. From what I understand UWA did all the design and implementation for an FSAE car. Even then I think I've heard that Kinetic wasn't the originators of the idea, but they were the first I had heard of.

Though I see the advantages of the Kinetic H2 on the UWA car, it seems like a very heavy system. Their car weighed 474 at official weigh in, I wonder sometimes what it would have weighed with a standard system. I was told their last car weighed around the same with fox shocks. Was it worth it? Look at the event results.

They won design with their thorough understanding of what's involved with what makes their vehicle behave the way it does on a race track.

If enough judges think innovation is important, they need to do a few things:

1. Weigh more points towards innovation.
2. Have an award for most innovative component at the competition.
3. Steer the competition towards what they would like to see. Whether it is with the rules or a competition theme. There are obviously things that even they are curious about on a racecar that they don't have the time to explore, why not give a pointer or two. I'm not saying they tell people what specifically to develop, but if for example they think that a category like aero hasn't been pushed to the limit in FSAE then they can say so. Most of the time they are just telling teams what they are doing fundamentally wrong.

11-29-2005, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Foote:
Z, I have trouble figuring out exactly where you stand on car design.
Justin,

This is where I stand: I think a better design is one that works a lot better (ie. much faster lap times in FSAE), and is also a lot cheaper and more reliable. In short: MORE FROM LESS.

Regarding CNC'd vs fabricated uprights: This is a matter of detail design rather than innovation. Both types are common in FSAE. I was supporting the currently less popular (because old-fashioned and not shiny?) fabrication method because I think it gives a better product (lighter, stiffer, cheaper, as above). The manufacturers of countless millions of bicycles seem to think so too. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, I agree with Storbeck that you shouldn't design the car with the aim of gaining innovation points. Rather, you should aim for a fast, reliable, and cheap car (Rule 1.2). If doing something different from the standard cars (ie. being innovative) helps, then go for it. That's why most of my suggestions in the above list can actually be easier and cheaper than the standard car, while still being faster.

The "regenerative braking hydrostatic IVT with accumulator" is possibly the most difficult suggestion I made. But it gives big performance gains, and as far as general automobile design is concerned, it would be a very worthwhile development (would look great on your CV too). Hydrostatic drives are common on ride-on lawnmowers these days.

Z

PS. Recently went to a "rock-crawling" comp. The guy who won it (only car to complete some sections) did it by borrowing some farm tractor technology. He had a switch/lever that would "overdrive" the front wheels to help pull the car around sharp corners. This is done automatically on many 4WD tractors whenever the steering gets close to full lock. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BryanH

11-29-2005, 04:22 AM

Justin, thanks for pointing out that the "emperor has no clothes". Methinks the Emperor should gas up the old citroen and get his sorry butt down to melbourne and actually see real live fsae.
If he had seen the Rotor/RMIT R04 combo in action he might have a diff view on just what might be "much faster" (apart from R04 with turbo & aero but we don't have a Tardis)

terra_dactile

11-29-2005, 06:28 AM

hi Z,
it is great to have your coments on this forum because you think outside the box, we also thought of using lightweight drive shafts in front of the car that would use braking to accumulate eneregy but in the rules under engine limitations
3.5.1.1 it clearly states that
<Hybrid powertrains utilizing on-board energy storage are not allowed>.
i guess some of the rules are made to ensure an equal playing field, imagen if you could use the engine hooked up with a generator and use an electric motor for acceleration, it would be so smooth.

Jude Berthault
Steering System Leader
Brake system R&D

Chris Boyden

11-29-2005, 08:29 AM

A hydraulic drive could be pretty cool...
If you take a simple tesla style disc pump and couple it to a tesla style disc turbine for the hydraulic motors....you may have a system that is fairly easy to fabricate and design.

A simple system could have a split drive motor to the rear wheels with a proportioning (differential) valve linked to the steering.
It would lend it self to 4wd (1 motor per wheel).

It may be tricky to keep the weight down.
Too bad about the onboard energy storage....a switch on the throttle to open up the accumulator circuit could be lots of fun.

Ford added a piggy back hydraulic drive to one of there 1 ton diesels(prototype I think) to
improve economy in town. It would provide regenerative braking and acceleration assist to the already large 600 ftlbs of torque.

"imagen if you could use the engine hooked up with a generator and use an electric motor for acceleration, it would be so smooth."

I think Hydraulic drives have a much better power to weight ratio than electrics do....
You'd probably get a similar feel to electrics though, (fairly linear).

Korey Morris

11-29-2005, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Chris Boyden:
A hydraulic drive could be pretty cool...

There is a design team at the University of Kentucky converting our old FSAE car to Hydraulic Propultion. I wish I had time to head it up, I think its an awesome idea. If it turns out good, we will bring it with us to competition, even though it won't be FSAE legal (they are using regen among other things). I am sure that the thing will weigh a ton.

Storbeck

11-29-2005, 12:22 PM

http://www.formula-hybrid.com

rjwoods77

11-29-2005, 12:31 PM

People has tried to use hyrdostats in baja for years. They always suck. To big, too heavy, to much losses, to ugly and too freaking loud. Would rather worry about a chain breaking versus 10 miles of hydraulic hoses and hot fluid. Just think. If it were allowed they would have to cover every hose in some sort of safety shielding. I dont like to jam up newish ideas but i can see it being a cluster f@#$ like it has been in baja.

Chris Boyden

11-29-2005, 01:06 PM

the hydraulic drives that I've seen on skid steer loaders are huge and heavy....i think they were wobble plate piston drive motors.

I agree that existing technology would be a heavy pig....
The disk style pump/motors may provide a substantial weight savings.

Psychosis

11-29-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Z:
PS. Recently went to a "rock-crawling" comp. The guy who won it (only car to complete some sections) did it by borrowing some farm tractor technology. He had a switch/lever that would "overdrive" the front wheels to help pull the car around sharp corners. This is done automatically on many 4WD tractors whenever the steering gets close to full lock. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ive used a fiddle brake system on my offroader before for tight corners, basically a handbrake for each rear wheel, works great.

As to innovation, and specifically aero, has anyone tried using flexible skirts yet. they have a huge amount of potential. as do my caterpillar tracks... *gets lost in his tangent*

as to CVT/IVT, i cant see hydraulic being the way forward. either a chain type (audi) or pushbelt (honda) or toroidal (torotrack) system would be best, with the least amount of losses. this requires expensive traction fluid though.

my favourite pet-hate is the butterfly throttle, someone mentioned brookes throttle (any pics?). the butterfly creates turbulence just before the air flows into the restrictor, is there a way to do it better?

BeaverGuy

11-29-2005, 02:36 PM

With throttles I don't see turbulence as a huge problem at any time other than full throttle. At part throttle you are trying to create losses, it is a matter of controlling them in the way you want. For solutions at WOT there are many that have allready been applied including the barrel, slide, and the "Spike". And there is also the possiblity that next year the throttle can come after the restrictor which could make the situation easier to negotiate.

11-29-2005, 03:11 PM

Nobody has pointed out there is an entire article about hydraulic propulsion in FSAE in the latest Racecar Engineering.

CMURacing - Prometheus

11-29-2005, 07:56 PM

as i seem to be pointing out more often recently, we used what we called the "cone" throttle mechanism in 2003 (which, dan g will point out, had a megasquirt) and 2004 (04 was the first year oxford brookes had one too), to no avail. i think our problem (and looking at the pictures in the article from RE, i have reason to believe its right) is that the motion of the cone/spike is far from simple in/out travel. in order to get any sort of usable throttle travel/power increase relationship, you have to have some rediculous nonlinear cone movement. the actuation was the part no one on our team ever really looked at, so we scrapped the idea. as soon as we did, we jumped 65 places in the overall standings.

this isn't to say innovation is bad, but i think leaps of innovation like mentioned here aren't for fsae. the "innovation" i think the judges are looking for is not just blindly following commonly accepted practices in the automotive/racing world. (ie, something like steering geometry. can you back up why you picked your ackerman geometry? what if you designed for roll steer to aid corner entry or to stabilize corner exit?). or, if you look at a part on a previous car and redesign it to accomplish the same purpose, while also being lighter, stiffer, and/or more reliable, that's innovation.

LCheung

11-29-2005, 11:24 PM

I think Z thinks that FSAE cars should be built in the millions, sold at Toys R Us, and made in China where labor is worthless. I thought we went over this, your manufacturing argument for steel fab uprights make no sense. In the production numbers (1000 specified by the rules) that we're dealing with CNC uprights are far superior. This is not to say that box steel uprights are not easier to do if you're making 4 parts.

Just because you see no CNC parts on bicycles doesn't mean you can't make CNC parts for FSAE car because the production numbers arne't feasible. So would you say that since consumer cars are made in the tens of thousands and there are very few CNC parts on those that you're going to conclude the same thing? Can I conclude that stamped steel body panels and unibody components are feasible because they are made in large numbers on consumer vehicles? What about castings?

Sorry for thread jacking, but seriously... maybe the judges are bored, but I'm sure there's many of us who still find the "standard" package a lot of fun to work with. I am all about the innovative/cool/different stuff, but the question is does it work. If it doesn't work then forget it.

There's a reason why so many people have converged on similar solutions. If the judges want to see otherwise they need to change the competition.

-Leon

Alexandre D.

11-30-2005, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by LCheung:
Sorry for thread jacking, but seriously... maybe the judges are bored, but I'm sure there's many of us who still find the "standard" package a lot of fun to work with. I am all about the innovative/cool/different stuff, but the question is does it work. If it doesn't work then forget it.

-Leon

I would add... does it work as well as if you spent all that time optimizing the standard package?

mozza

11-30-2005, 03:24 PM

Z do you know what mass is? All your ideas are cool and off the wall but nigh on useless! Whats the point of having all that on your car if it ends up weighing 300kg for only a few design points, when you can have a 180kg that performs well in the dynamic events where you can score more point.

11-30-2005, 04:15 PM

Bryan Hester,
You're a wanker. The RMIT 04 car is pretty much what I'm suggesting - a simple, lightweight, single-cylinder, "non-standard" car, which proved to be at least as fast as the well polished standard cars. I know you can't contribute anything positive here, but at least get your arguments right.

Jude (terra-dactile),
Yes, it's a shame about the "no hybrids or energy storage" rule. That's just the sort of thing the world needs these days. I believe there is an Australian company that is currently working under a Darpa contract to fit hydraulic regenerative braking to military trucks - they reckon the fuel saving is well worth it.

Chris (and others),
Hydrostatic drives are currently fairly heavy because, IMO, they are meant mainly for stationary purposes (production line stuff), or earthmoving type machines. When you've got a 10 tonne block of cast iron bolted to the back of your dozer/excavator, and a gorilla doing the maintenance, then you don't mind housing the hydraulics in a huge block of cast steel. The core parts of the pumps/motors are actually very compact and lightweight considering the (awesome!) amount of torque/power they can handle. BTW, I have a scheme for a hydrostatic IVT that has no hydraulic friction losses at cruising or top speed (there is a hint in my "innovations" post).

Psychosis,
Fiddle brakes (and "torque-steer" drive to left/right side) were banned at that rock-crawling comp, hence the guy used differential drive between front and rear! Caterpillar tracks still have little wheels on them to distribute the load (unless some kind of air bearing???). My preference for a large turn radius type racecar (eg. Indy) would be to have half-a-dozen or more smallish wheels down each side. No steering of the wheels, just differential thrust - gives great yaw stability. And the wheels would work like side-skirts...

Tim,
Haven't got that RE yet... should be interesting.

Leon,
I will gladly discus the pros/cons of CNC/fab, but perhaps on the other thread? FWIW I would love to have a CNC mill in the shed. But would even more prefer to have a CNC robotic fabrictor (maybe when the Chinese invent and start selling them...).

Mozza,
You're new, so I guess you don't realise that all along I have been promoting a "brown go-cart" as a faster sort of FSAE car - ie. a very simple, lightweight car. Most of my "innovation" suggestions above (which I posted to give you guys a starting point for further ideas) could be used on a brown go-cart. I think a 100kg car is feasible, and quite cheaply too.

Finally, to be blunt about it, the reason that most FSAE cars have converged to a common "standard" is mainly due to laziness, lack of initiative, and, above all, the fear of looking stupid. Build a standard car and come last, and people say "Well, considering your circumstances, you put in a good effort, keep at it...". Build a radically different car that doesn't do too well and people laugh at you, and call you "Fools!".

Z

jack

11-30-2005, 07:08 PM

Finally, to be blunt about it, the reason that most FSAE cars have converged to a common "standard" is mainly due to laziness, lack of initiative, and, above all, the fear of looking stupid. Build a standard car and come last, and people say "Well, considering your circumstances, you put in a good effort, keep at it...". Build a radically different car that doesn't do too well and people laugh at you, and call you "Fools!".

wrong.

i work very hard on our team, as do hundreds of other FSAE'ers and i can tell you, we dont show up with the cars we do because we are lazy. the cars look like they do because that is the best our team can do. its pretty lame when someone who has ZERO FSAE experience tells you you're car sucks becuse your lazy.

Z, how many FSAE cars have you built? none. are you an FSAE judge? no. have you even been to a competition in person? how many?

you really have no idea what you are talking about. the reason every racecar in every series is similair is because there is a formula that works the best. FSAE is probably the most "innovative" series around. but given the constraints evey team faces (something you clearly dont know a thing about), a certain formula has surfaced that is the best way to solve the problem.

the only way to get the cars to change from the current status quo is to change the rules. otherwise teams are going to keep doing what works. and considering FSAE is supposed to be "training" for when you get your job in "real" racing, it really doesnt make any sense to change the rules to something that doesnt resemble the rest of the world of motorsport.

Storbeck

11-30-2005, 07:14 PM

Z - I usually agree with you but here I don't.

What's so simple about the RMIT car? It looks to me to be a very well done car, and noone would argue about it being fast, but aside from it haveing a single cylinder motor and 10 inch wheels, it was very similiar to most fsae cars, a-arms all around, carbon tub is argueably more difficult than space frame, pushrods,...I don't see much inovation, but I see a lot of fundamentals that ar well thought out and well executed. I'm not that familiar with the car though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

About your ideas for "innovation"

Motor:
Why would you build your own motor when there are so many suitable motors to be purchased what work very well? How is it an advantage to do so? Surely your time would be better spent with something more borring and less "inovative" such as dyno tuning, exhaust, intake, cam, port shape, muffler, suspension tuning, etc... that most teams probably don't get in as much as they'd like

Drive train:
All of those motors we can purchase come with really good transmissions already attatched to them, it seems silly to use anything else. If you decide you really want to use a cvt, there are motors out there that don't have transmissions attatched to them, it has been done and will continue to be done.

Final Drive - I don't think the free wheel diff thing is such a bad idea.

Brakes :
Regenerative brakes?! are you serious? Asside from braking a couple of rules, how can it possibly end up being an advantage. Effective brakes for an fsae car are not trivial to come up with, but surely are quite doable, so the only advantage the regenerative braking could possibly give you is in acceloration. Take away the time we spend traction limited when it would do no good at all, and the extra power needed for the extra mass of the brakes when not traction limited, and it seems unlikely you could break even. Even if it did turn out to more than brake even, is it a significant advantage to have a little bit more power at the end of the few long straights we get? It's hard enough to get one of these cars reliable without the added complication, no thanks. You do realize we build a new one of these things every year right?

Suspension - Beam axles - I almost used a de dion this year so i guess I kind of agree, but eight a-arms will not keep you from winning this competition, they seem to work fairly well. When you really start looking at the use of a de dion rear, it's not that easy to do. The trouble is you have that big sprocket to get around. Once you have enough structure to get around that huge sprocket, and somewhere to mount the shocks, and you start looking at how much unsprung mas s you have, it doesn't look so good anymore. Adelaid used a gearbox on their de dion rear end, hardly simpler than using the sprocket that you can buy and bolt to your motor.

Chassis - metal tub idea might not be so bad. Fiberglass tub doesn't make much sense to me, takes very little if any more effort to use carbon fiber and doesn't cost much more.

Controls - My imaginatin is not capeable of comming up with a reason for side stick steering, but I think the various paddle and button shifting systems regularly seen on these cars are very worthwile.

Aero - I have absolutely no idea.

Regaurding CNC machining
You have to keep in mind that many schools have ready access to cnc machines at no or very low cost. The beauty of cnc machined parts to me is that it doesn't take much time acutally in the shop to make them, even if it takes more time total. Writing the code can be done in the computer lab which is open 24-7, while the shop is closed. Also, fabrication in my opinion requires more hard earned SKILL, with a little guidance a novice can make a cnc machined part in about the same amount of shop time as a skilled person, and you can have a monkey stand there and watch it with thier hand on the "oh shit" button while the skilled person does something more usefull. It takes many hours of shop time to learn to weld well. Right now I can think of one person on my team (me) who can weld well enough to make a fabricated upright, and possibly two who could probably do it with some practice.

I really don't think it is right to accuse teams of being lazy because cars are similiar. For one thing they aren't. Walking through the paddock of the fsae event there is an incredible variety of cars. I don't think there is hardly any laughing and accusation of foolishness. People are usually fascinated by the cars that deviate furthest from the norm and I think most wish them the best, want to see something crazy win. But my car will be very conventional and very simple, because that is, in my opinion, the best car my team can build. We need to have a stiff chassis, minimal slop in steering and suspension, stiff uprights, reliable drivetrain, low cg, well tuned motor, suspension, dampers, and brakes. We need to get the basics down. In order to do that the car must be done as soon as possible and in order to do that it must be as simple as possible. I think people outside of FSAE looking in loose sight of the fact that these things are designed built, tested, and raced in one year (usually more like 9 months, there was nobody from my team living within within 300 miles of my school last summer) in our spare time while attending college full time for engineering, by relatively few people, who often don't have much expierience with fabrication or machining. It's amazing how good some of the cars are.

my $.02

RiNaZ

11-30-2005, 11:13 PM

I could understand jack's frustration here when commenting on Z's "mainly due to laziness" post. And to given the benefit of the doubt, i think Z's post is mainly out of anger as a result of those who replied to his comments.

Becoz mainly, you could never get to the competition out of laziness or lack of initiative even if you purposely want to. Remember a while back in a thread where everybody on the forum wanted you to prove what you're worth by building your "FSAE" car or any similar car design? and your reply was that you got better things to do, like a home project or something and some other stuff that you have to attend to? (i wish i remember where that thread is at). Well, that shows, that FSAE is no small task. If it was ... you'd be building yourself an FSAE car just to prove these guys wrong.

I can imagine why some, if not all FSAE'ers, would take your "laziness, lack of iniatiative and fear of looking stupid" comment to heart. I do too ... working 12 hours a day at walmart, studying full time, and getting the car done by putting at least 3 hours a day (more on w/ends), is just uncalled for. And there is a reason why jack mentioned "ZERO FSAE experience" on his post. Realistically, even if a person has experiences in racing, or building their own race car, it doesnt come close to what FSAE is, where you have time and money constraint, university politics, not to mention full time studies etc all bundle up into one. FSAE IMO ... is truly one of a kind experience.

I dont know if you ever heard of Claude Rolle or late Carroll Smith talks about fellow FSAE'ers, but if you do, you would not hear anything less than the highest respect for all these students. Eventhough these head judges give you so much crap during design review, they always respect our effort and initiative even if it's just a "standard" car. Im sure your comments wouldnt work too well with these 2 head judges.

Guys, let's stick to the discussion professionally, and keep the name calling or what have you in a down low (intended not just for Z, but to everybody on the board). It's a shame when you hear all these degrading comments when you know it's a result of some other degrading comments.

12-01-2005, 03:21 AM

Ok guys, sorry about the "laziness" comment. Should've put a few of these in http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I know you all put a lot of time and effort into your cars, and that you've also got a lot of studying, etc., to do. But its pretty much the same for anybody in amateur motorsport - people who have full-time jobs, families to feed, mortgages to pay...

My point was that anytime anybody tries anything unconventional they are in for much more work than if they take the standard route. It's like trying to hack your way through thick jungle, rather than just following the well-trodden path. On top of that there is a never ending parade of arseholes telling you that you are mad, and "It'll never work!"

Taking the conventional route - the well trodden path - is certainly easier, and that was what I was getting at. Of course, you're never going to find much new down that road...

Jack,
I've got a fair idea of how FSAE works - it's not that much different to anything else in life. And even with all the "constraints every team faces" the standard car is not the "best way to solve the problem". But if you want a job in "real" racing, then sure, keep building boring cars... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Storbeck,
* RMIT (and Tokyo Denki, etc.) are/were described as anything from "no chance - too small", to "possibly the next wave"... They have a very different philosophy to the standard F4 car.
* Motor - Why do teams design/build their own housings for Torsens, or steering-racks? Because they are expected to design something, they think they can make a Torsen/R&P housing that is a bit better than the off-the-shelf one (lighter, etc.), and they figure a motor is too hard! My list was just some suggestions for what some team might want to do. I don't think a motor is too hard. And by the time you re-cam for the restrictor, new intake and exhaust, dry-sump to get the CG down, shoe-horn the wrong shape motor into your chassis...
* Drivetrain - as above, except gearchanging and slipping clutches at the startline can cost a lot of time with amateur drivers. An IVT can be a big advantage for acceleration from standstill.
* Regen Brakes - May be banned (rules are ambiguous) but you can use a smaller, lighter, cheaper engine, and you get much better fuel economy (worth 50 pts).
* Suspension - De-dion can be done with no chassis behind the seat-back/main roll-hoop. Likewise, front beam can be done with only 3 chassis strong points. Swing/trailing arms are also very easy and light.
* Remember - it is the whole package that counts!

Finally, I put that list of "Possible Innovations" up there as something for FSAE'ers to think about, or to spur further ideas. There have been very few further ideas. Instead there have been a lot of negative responses along the lines of "It'll never work!".

How much more criticism do you think a team that actually does this stuff will get? It won't be easy for them. Much easier (lazier) for them to follow the well-trodden path.

Don't believe me? Try building something different. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

James Morrison

12-01-2005, 06:55 AM

Following the well-trodden path isn't that simple either let alone trying to be innovative. This is my first year in FSAE and in charge of suspension design. Ever since I got the position I have been reading these forums everyday and trying to read three suspension books. I also had to teach myself how to use a 3d modeling program and suspension program as well. I would love to show up to competition with an alternative and better suspension design then 8 wishbones and rocker/dampers but I have my hands tied learning how to build the some old design car. Don't get me wrong I am not complaining about the workload, I enjoy doing it. Its just you have to learn the basics before you can improve and innovate. Maybe next year... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WSU_Al

12-01-2005, 08:57 AM

In my many years of racing, I have come to find out: It's always easier to race from an armchair, than get out and do it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

James Morrison

12-01-2005, 10:26 AM

start up cost is much cheaper too! plus fuel is free in gran turismo. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

12-01-2005, 03:36 PM

I hereby RETRACT my apology for calling you lazy.

You are, in fact, a pack of WHINGEING, WHINING, BLUDGERS!

The fact that you are:
1. Still at school at your age.
2. Partaking in extra-curricula motorsport.
3. Sitting here reading this.
Means that you belong to maybe 1% of the most privileged people on the planet! And you're complaining about it!!!

"Oooh, it's sooo hard... I have to work, like, 3 whole hours every day, on the car... And then I have to go to my part-time job... Aaand they expect me to study, too... Oohhh, moan, whinge... And sometimes I even have to mow the lawn at home... And cook my own food..."

All of you WHINGERS should get your fat arses out of those comfortable chairs, and go to Iraq, or Somalia, or any of the more "interesting" places on the planet. There they spend 12 hours a day pulling weeds out of the dirt TO EAT! And the rest of the time they're ducking bombs and bullets, or running from the other hungry bastards who want to chop their heads of with pangas.

"Ooohh, it's sooo hard to just build the standard car... And he's asking us to, like, actually fabricate stuff... With our own hands... Ooohhh, there's no way we could ever do anything innovative... Moan, whine, whinge... Ooohhh, it's just soooooo haaaard...."

Z

WSU_Al

12-01-2005, 04:01 PM

Jersey Tom

12-01-2005, 04:15 PM

Whoa, Z. Where's the love?

12-01-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by WSU_Al:
Now, are you going to sit there being an armchair racer, and keyboard warrior? Or are you going to do something innovative and new ...

Either way, please get back to the topic at hand...
The topic at hand is "Ideas to pursue for innovation points", and if you read the thread you'll see that I've done most of the posting on that topic! Most everyone else, you included, are whingeing and whining about how hard it is.

Back on topic:
Has anyone ever tried a sort of "double wide" FSAE car, placing the engine next to the driver, instead of behind? I have seen a car with an engine up front, and one in back, but never one next to the driver.
Anyone who starts a post with "In my many years of racing..." should know that sidewinders have appeared regularly in FSAE

Z

WSU_Al

12-01-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WSU_Al:
Now, are you going to sit there being an armchair racer, and keyboard warrior? Or are you going to do something innovative and new ...

Either way, please get back to the topic at hand...
The topic at hand is "Ideas to pursue for innovation points", and if you read the thread you'll see that I've done most of the posting on that topic! Most everyone else, you included, are whingeing and whining about how hard it is.

Back on topic:
Has anyone ever tried a sort of "double wide" FSAE car, placing the engine next to the driver, instead of behind? I have seen a car with an engine up front, and one in back, but never one next to the driver.
Anyone who starts a post with "In my many years of racing..." should know that sidewinders have appeared regularly in FSAE

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not whined at all, thankyou very much http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This year is my first year to FSAE, and I've never seen a "sidewinder", but have many in other forms of racing. If someone could point me in the direction to a website, team page, old videos, that'd be swell.

CMURacing - Prometheus

12-01-2005, 04:32 PM

i don't know about regularly...i've heard its been done once or twice, at least by uiuc, among others...? john bucknell had lots of info, i think he built it.

z, you didn't comment on my concept of "innovation" as the judges see it (on the last page)...i think its what makes FSAE different from other forms of racing you can build in your backyard...not every backyard builder is getting design experience, using all sorts of CAE tools, and trying to make parts as light as possible, occasionally breaking things in doing so.

i think if you approached a backyard drag racer type (and i have) and started inquiring if he could TIG weld 0.028" wall thickness tubing, he'd shun you away. But that's our niche, we're half-budget racer, half-pro team.

12-01-2005, 04:34 PM

Tom,

I enjoy discussing the merits or otherwise of CNC'ing vs fabricating, or the pros and cons of different suspension layouts, etc., etc. (It's a lot easier than the work I should be doing right now - yes, I'm here bludging like the rest of you.http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

But trying to get people to just think about innovation is like trying to put brains in statues!

You don't actually have to do all of it right now guys! But if you start talking about it now, it will be a lot easier 2 or 3 years down the track.

Anyway, anyone who is doing tertiary education and complains about how hard it is needs a big kick up the bum.

Z

Chris Boyden

12-01-2005, 04:40 PM

I agree that
1. We are lucky to be able to do this.
2. and that most people in the world have it
really tough...

I am personally very grateful for the opportunity to spread my wings a little and
have some fun in an awesome project.

But the blanket laziness label is a little overboard.....Most FSAE'ers, baja, or whatever kind of people, the dedicated ones, are definitely not lazy. They are generally top notch people. FSAE is all about fabrication....I'm not sure where that one came from. There's alot more than just CNC'd uprights vs. sheet metal.

Sticking your neck out and trying something different is a little risky...but it can be very rewarding, and you can learn alot.....I don't disagree...where would we be if people didn't try new things...(new to them sometimes, and that definitely applies to FSAE)

Anyway, now that everybody has got all riled up.
here's an idea for better or for worse.

Anybody ever thought about building an Ultrasonic carburator? That could be interesting for busting up some fuel droplets. It sure works good on water.
Is it innovative, well I'm sure that somebody
has already done this, but I haven't?
I can think of two approaches:
1. Have some kind of reed that vibrates in the air stream of a venturi that also has the jets...the 40 kHz reed vibrations cause a nicely atomized fuel cloud to be generated.

2. Or an electronic transducer (40 kHz Speaker/tweeter) that busts up the drops
This would lend itself towards a more standard efi control scheme with MAP or TPS load control.

Chris Boyden

12-01-2005, 04:51 PM

Z,
So what kind of hydraulic technology is in your brain? I didn't really pick up on your 'clue'.

Forum,
I'm fairly ignorant of the prevailing drives, but am fascinated by the simplicity and ease of manufacturing disc style pumps and turbines.
I haven't built any yet and am itching to get my hands dirty on yet another good project.

Why is it called hydrostatic? Is it because the IC engine or prime mover is generally run at steady state? Otherwise it seems like a hydrodynamic thing to me.

Some other applications of disc pump technology would be oil pumps, water pumps, fuel pumps, etc, maybe even a disc style turbo charger(disc turbine/disc compressor). A disc turbine is also very easy to run in reverse.

Whether or not this applies to FSAE, I agree that hydraulic drives could be put to good use in conventional cars and trucks, largely due to regen brakes. A large increase in efficiency is there for the taking.

Dave M

12-01-2005, 04:53 PM

Z, please build a FSAE car. Are you going to build a brown go kart, or a 700lb brown go kart with tons of innovation, and do it all in 9 months with $15K. Every team is innovating separately, and many come close to the same formula, which makes the cars look the same. Are the cars the same, no. They may be very different machines. Alot of teams would love to try new stuff but dont have the resources to do so. We dont have the budgets of F1 teams here. If every team had all the resources they needed, all the cars would still look the same, and you would be sitting here complaining about the lack of innovation even though it is all around you. Just because you dont read it here on the message board doesnt mean teams are'ntdoing cool stuff. Go to a competition and cruise the paddock, I think you'll find plenty.
"You are, in fact, a pack of WHINGEING, WHINING, BLUDGERS!

The fact that you are:
1. Still at school at your age.
2. Partaking in extra-curricula motorsport."

Still in school at our age? Im 22, what are you talking about. How old are you?
Partaking in extra-curricular motorsport, why not do something I love and get school credit for it.

Sincerly,
Dave M

12-01-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by CMURacing - Prometheus:
... this isn't to say innovation is bad, but i think leaps of innovation like mentioned here aren't for fsae. the "innovation" i think the judges are looking for is ..... look at a part on a previous car and redesign it to accomplish the same purpose, while also being lighter, stiffer, and/or more reliable, that's innovation.
Mike,
The posts are coming thick and fast. Hard to comment on all of them (I've got a bunch of detail tech stuff I'd like to discuss (hydrostatics, etc...), but don't want to hog the bandwidth.

Your above comments might be about detail innovation vs major innovations. Sure, the details count for a lot. But I don't think the major innovations are that hard. The main difficulty is that you are on your own.

Personally, I have seen a lot more innovation in amateur motorsport than in the professional ranks. I think this is because the amateurs are butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers, and, with no real engineering background, they are "on their own" from the start. Everything they do is an adventure in unexplored territory, so they may as well try the stuff that looks like it will work best, regardless of whether anybody has done it before.

Probably because of the school environment, I think most FSAE teams spend too much time "designing", and not enough time "exploring" - ie. building, testing, oops! breaking, re-building, etc. Moke from Auckland Uni once made a comment (memory?) that as a first year team they "built first, designed later". By all accounts that first year car was a good one.

Z

12-01-2005, 05:21 PM

Chris,
Ultrasonic carb? Yeah, could be an advantage. Busting up the droplets certainly seems to be a good thing. I guess its a matter of how much energy you have to put in. Would the 40 kHz (why 40?) speaker do a better job than a high pressure injector? Direct injection (into cylinder) with high pressure pumps seems to be a big advantage (Audi at Le Mans). Maybe some sort of piezo sound generator in the cylinder??? Unfortunately, combustion mechanics/chemistry isn't my strong suite.

"Zero-loss" hydrostatic drive: will have to get back on that one - truck is here, gotta work...

Z

Chris Boyden

12-01-2005, 07:47 PM

40 kHz....just out of the air. I believe above ~30 kHz is considered ultrasonic. If you could tune the ultrasonic piezo device to the frequency that "resonates" the drops, that would help find the right frequency. But, I think that most piezo transducers are narrow band oscillators...I'll have to do some digging.

I wonder if you could use a diesel injector for direct injection? The viscosity of gas vs. diesel may mess you up. I wouldn't know where to get a gasoline DI injector....the diesel injection pumps may have a fair amount of parasitic loss as well in order to generate 2000 psi or higher injection pressures. It wouldn't be too bad for higher output engines, but starts to chip away at lower outputs.

jack

12-01-2005, 08:02 PM

Z, have you ever been to a competition in person? Which comps and which years? Just wondering....

Didier Beaudoin

12-01-2005, 09:05 PM

It looks like I'm a bit different from some other FSAE team members, but I personally love this kind of discussion. Z is great for making us think outside the box, and I for one don't care being called lazy.

This is the kind of discussions that make things go forward, as it forces us to think about what we are doing right now and what would be possible to do to get better.

A member from our team had a great idea from this discussion, we'll see how it turns out, but it looks promising.

Thanks Z.

Draksia

12-01-2005, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Chris Boyden:

I wonder if you could use a diesel injector for direct injection? The viscosity of gas vs. diesel may mess you up. I wouldn't know where to get a gasoline DI injector....the diesel injection pumps may have a fair amount of parasitic loss as well in order to generate 2000 psi or higher injection pressures. It wouldn't be too bad for higher output engines, but starts to chip away at lower outputs.

Most diesel injectors need to the lubrication properties of diesel function correctly. Your injection pressure numbers are a little off 25,000 psi is not at all uncommon.

VW makes quite a few gasoline direct injection motors so that would be a likely place to source injectors though they are probably too large. Izusu also made a direct injection gas engine. Direct injection definetly allows great efficeny and higher compression ratios.

rjwoods77

12-01-2005, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by WSU_Al:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
I hereby RETRACT my apology for calling you lazy.

You are, in fact, a pack of WHINGEING, WHINING, BLUDGERS!

The fact that you are:
1. Still at school at your age.
2. Partaking in extra-curricula motorsport.
3. Sitting here reading this.
Means that you belong to maybe 1% of the most privileged people on the planet!

"Oooh, it's sooo hard... I have to work, like, 3 whole hours, every day, on the car... And then I have to go to my part-time job... And they expect me to study, too... Oohh, moan, whinge... And sometimes I even have to mow the lawn at home... And cook my own food..."

All of you WHINGERS should get your fat arses out of those comfortable chairs, and go to Iraq, or Somalia, or any of the more "interesting" places on the planet. There they spend 12 hours a day pulling weeds out of the dirt TO EAT! And the rest of the time they're ducking bombs and bullets, or running from the other hungry bastards who want to chop their heads of with pangas.

"Ooohh, it's sooo hard to just build the standard car... And he's asking us to, like, actually fabricate stuff... With our own hands... Ooohhh, there's no way we could ever do anything innovative... Moan, whine, whinge... Ooohhh, it's just soooooo haaaard...."

Z

Obviously this ranting diatrabe is the result of little thought, and much diarrhea of the mouth.

You don't know the hardships anyone on this forum has been through in their lives, just as most don't know about yours. Everything you said can be repeated back to you, and is just as pertinent. However, there is no need for that, as there is no need for the post in the first place.

Now, are you going to sit there being an armchair racer, and keyboard warrior? Or are you going to do something innovative and new compared to your norm, like build your own car, or go and offer your local Uni your wisdom, advice, and help, to prove your mettle?

Either way, please get back to the topic at hand, and leave your thoughts about FSAE lavish lifestyles and pontifications on the worlds poor and hungry, out of it.

Back on topic:
Has anyone ever tried a sort of "double wide" FSAE car, placing the engine next to the driver, instead of behind? I have seen a car with an engine up front, and one in back, but never one next to the driver. Anyone heard of this before? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that some people wouldnt know about the sidewinders done in formula kinda shows Z's point about lazyness. Some dont know because some cant look past what "they know it will work so lets just stick to that". All goofy, unsucessfull ideas should be looked upon with the same scrutiny as the normal and succefull. Just because someone else sucks at making something different doesnt necessarily mean it is a shitty idea.

Back to what you wanted to know.

University of Illinois Urbana Champlain had a FSAE version of a 600cc sprint car. 1995?

Kansas State University did one with a short wheelbase, 10" tires and a honda 400ex engine i think it was. 350lbs car i heard. 2001?

University of Deakin did a fanastic looking one with 8 a arms, lots of carbon fiber and a yamaha 450wr i think it was. Under 400lbs car. 2005?

That stoopid looking full size contraption that got airplay for no reason in Racecar Engineer recently did it. 180040500505005550 lbs and 2 oz. 2005?

I know there are 2 more I think but they were really old and I cant remember what they were.

rjwoods77

12-01-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Rob Woods:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WSU_Al:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
I hereby RETRACT my apology for calling you lazy.

You are, in fact, a pack of WHINGEING, WHINING, BLUDGERS!

The fact that you are:
1. Still at school at your age.
2. Partaking in extra-curricula motorsport.
3. Sitting here reading this.
Means that you belong to maybe 1% of the most privileged people on the planet!

"Oooh, it's sooo hard... I have to work, like, 3 whole hours, every day, on the car... And then I have to go to my part-time job... And they expect me to study, too... Oohh, moan, whinge... And sometimes I even have to mow the lawn at home... And cook my own food..."

All of you WHINGERS should get your fat arses out of those comfortable chairs, and go to Iraq, or Somalia, or any of the more "interesting" places on the planet. There they spend 12 hours a day pulling weeds out of the dirt TO EAT! And the rest of the time they're ducking bombs and bullets, or running from the other hungry bastards who want to chop their heads of with pangas.

"Ooohh, it's sooo hard to just build the standard car... And he's asking us to, like, actually fabricate stuff... With our own hands... Ooohhh, there's no way we could ever do anything innovative... Moan, whine, whinge... Ooohhh, it's just soooooo haaaard...."

Z

Obviously this ranting diatrabe is the result of little thought, and much diarrhea of the mouth.

You don't know the hardships anyone on this forum has been through in their lives, just as most don't know about yours. Everything you said can be repeated back to you, and is just as pertinent. However, there is no need for that, as there is no need for the post in the first place.

Now, are you going to sit there being an armchair racer, and keyboard warrior? Or are you going to do something innovative and new compared to your norm, like build your own car, or go and offer your local Uni your wisdom, advice, and help, to prove your mettle?

Either way, please get back to the topic at hand, and leave your thoughts about FSAE lavish lifestyles and pontifications on the worlds poor and hungry, out of it.

Back on topic:
Has anyone ever tried a sort of "double wide" FSAE car, placing the engine next to the driver, instead of behind? I have seen a car with an engine up front, and one in back, but never one next to the driver. Anyone heard of this before? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that some people wouldnt know about the sidewinders done in formula kinda shows Z's point about lazyness. Some dont know because some cant look past what "they know it will work so lets just stick to that". All goofy, unsucessfull ideas should be looked upon with the same scrutiny as the normal and succefull. Just because someone else sucks at making something different doesnt necessarily mean it is a shitty idea.

Also for anyone who has the "fsae is as good and complicated as it gets" give it a rest. This competition is easier to design for than even a normal passenger car. You get to throw away just about every human variable with this thing and the fact that there is almost no wheel travel means suspension analysis takes less time that other vehicles. I talked to a design judge about how he kept roll center migrations down to something rediculously small in a baja 1000 tropy truck without screwing everything else up. That is around 30" of travel folks. Can you image that analysis? Just because someone hasnt designed in fsae specifically before doesnt make them an armchair anything. I guess the Olley, Millikans, Terry Stachell, Fred Puhn, etc. are all armchair no-nothings because they havent been blessed with the "everything in fsae is platinum" experience. I came from mini-baja and I dont see anything really that different. Different design constraints but the concepts remain the same.

Back to what you wanted to know.

University of Illinois Urbana Champlain had a FSAE version of a 600cc sprint car. 1995?

Kansas State University did one with a short wheelbase, 10" tires and a honda 400ex engine i think it was. 350lbs car i heard. 2001?

University of Deakin did a fanastic looking one with 8 a arms, lots of carbon fiber and a yamaha 450wr i think it was. Under 400lbs car. 2005?

That stoopid looking full size contraption that got airplay for no reason in Racecar Engineer recently did it. 180040500505005550 lbs and 2 oz. 2005?

I know there are 2 more I think but they were really old and I cant remember what they were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CMURacing - Prometheus

12-01-2005, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Z:
Probably because of the school environment, I think most FSAE teams spend too much time "designing", and not enough time "exploring" - ie. building, testing, oops! breaking, re-building, etc. Moke from Auckland Uni once made a comment (memory?) that as a first year team they "built first, designed later". By all accounts that first year car was a good one.
Z

I think THIS is because of the emphasis FSAE puts on reliability. You want to ensure that your car is "beefy" enough to make it through 22km without a mechanical failure of ANY kind. example: in 2005, we were almost DQ'd because one of our oil seals (a $3 part we didn't even make) was seeping (about a drop an hour) oil out of our diff housing. i think the safety/tech inspectors demand as much perfection out of us as the design judges do, and that drives us to actually design parts that work before we just throw something on and destruction test it.

by all means, for a first year car, i say "build first, design later"...its the only way to get a working car done in one year (sometimes two) without an established protocol. once you have a car that finishes all the events, though, you start designing "innovation"...and eventually a lot of details adds up.
Someone posted about shaving weight from a car. If the sub-group leader shaved a tenth of a pound from his system, he got a dollar. if he got that all the way up to a whole pound, instead of 10 dollars (for each tenth), it became a case of beer. if i had one more year here, i'd probably try to put that motivation in for 2007.

Greg 08

12-02-2005, 04:32 AM

Our team made a sidewinder in 2000, but it was done with an aluminum chassis which is much more difficult to do now because of the rules. It did quite well at its time. Our school has also tried some other things like running the engine backwards for packaging that we aren't doing this year. There are many reasons, but first and foremost is it is very hard to train and retain knowledgeable people capable of something like that given our univeristy's politics.

Greg Ehlert
Michigan Tech FSAE

terra_dactile

12-02-2005, 06:47 AM

hi ,
I believe that thier is a fine line between inovation and just being differnet for the sake of not following the standard. I find it is hard to place well in design by optimising design so that the whole car is well integrated and clean , and still have enough time to test a car enough to do well dynamicaly. In the septemeber issue of RCE our team ETS gets pretty negative review because we push to design and buiold almost everything on our car, ECU, Dampers, Mags, and many others.I dont think that every team is on an even playing field, so little inovations to some take great effort becuase of resources, when i was in college befoire university , we tried to complete a baja and formula car in one year, with 8 people, the baja was finished and we went to comp but the formula never made it, the cars were as some have mentioned, build first designed never. The point is that the design judges have a very difficult time judging because every one has a differnet set of resources, thier was a team in UK that had a beautiful inovative car, but when asked how they made it it was evident that it was payed for , so should it get inovative points if it was not done by the students or is that part of the game. I have to congradulate teams like University of Western Autrailia who have found a balance to be able to inovate in design and still perform well in dynamic events. In UK we finished first in design and had many inovative parts on our car, we did not finsih the endurance because of a mechanical failure to un upright, thats the chanmce we took by having a car the had only one part that could be transfered from the previous year, (plastic bushing) we took this cahnce to inovate , shedding 160 lbs from our previous car which weighed in at 510 into 2005 and now is down to 350lbs.
I believe it is awesome to see tha reaction of other teams when they see inovative feature of our car but the it really sucks not to finish the endurance race, so their needs to be a balance between the two, i guess that what seperates the best form the worst teams, were they put thieir priorities.

p.s sorry for the long post!

Jude Berthault
ETS Formula SAE
Steering Team Leader
Brake System R&D

Chris Boyden

12-02-2005, 08:00 AM

Most diesel injectors need to the lubrication properties of diesel function correctly. Your injection pressure numbers are a little off 25,000 psi is not at all uncommon.

VW makes quite a few gasoline direct injection motors so that would be a likely place to source injectors though they are probably too large. Izusu also made a direct injection gas engine. Direct injection definetly allows great efficeny and higher compression ratios.

University of Central Florida

I must be thinking of IDI diesel pressures. They are (I think) an order of magnitude lower.

I imagine that direct injection gas engines don't suffer from knock and preignition because of a lack of fuel during compression.

What VW models are these DI gas engines sold in?

Draksia

12-02-2005, 08:26 AM

I had a VW IDI but I am not sure of the pressures but it not as much as current direct injection ones.

As for the VW models here the new 2.0L Turbo FSI is a direct injection gas engine. It is currently used in new models of Jetta and Audi A3. The rest of the world gets a much larger selection of direct injection gas engines as well as a much larger diesel selection too. I little information about the actual engine models. I know there are some SAE papers about the VW direct injection gas engines.

drivetrainUW-Platt

12-02-2005, 10:58 AM

I know where building a race car not a lawnmower, but I think the briggs at competition last year shows that the technology can be crossed over.

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/feature/2005/johndeereivt.html

check out this for you hydro guys, IVT, it used an electronically contorled hydrostatic drive to change the speed of the outer gear of a planetary gear set. There is a good video on that sight next to the picture.

Matt Gignac

12-02-2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Z:
I hereby RETRACT my apology for calling you lazy.

You are, in fact, a pack of WHINGEING, WHINING, BLUDGERS!

The fact that you are:
1. Still at school at your age.
2. Partaking in extra-curricula motorsport.
3. Sitting here reading this.
Means that you belong to maybe 1% of the most privileged people on the planet! And you're complaining about it!!!

"Oooh, it's sooo hard... I have to work, like, 3 whole hours every day, on the car... And then I have to go to my part-time job... Aaand they expect me to study, too... Oohhh, moan, whinge... And sometimes I even have to mow the lawn at home... And cook my own food..."

All of you WHINGERS should get your fat arses out of those comfortable chairs, and go to Iraq, or Somalia, or any of the more "interesting" places on the planet. There they spend 12 hours a day pulling weeds out of the dirt TO EAT! And the rest of the time they're ducking bombs and bullets, or running from the other hungry bastards who want to chop their heads of with pangas.

"Ooohh, it's sooo hard to just build the standard car... And he's asking us to, like, actually fabricate stuff... With our own hands... Ooohhh, there's no way we could ever do anything innovative... Moan, whine, whinge... Ooohhh, it's just soooooo haaaard...."

Z

Granted, we are lucky to be able to attend post-secondary education, and it's something that many of us often take for granted, but to generalize all FSAE students as lazy is perhaps a bit harsh and un-called for.

On your suggestion that we get out of our armchairs and go to Iraq or Somalia, I don't believe you are entitled to make this comment. Maybe you're a devout activist for third world causes that has spent more time than we ever could helping others, but I'd think the frequency with which you posted on this thread suggests otherwise.

Before you blast my comment saying that us students in fact do not care about the plight of the world outside the western world or whatever well-off niche of civilization we may be from, I'd like to point out that there are many students involved in design teams at my school that also spend a considerable amount of time doing fund-raisers for Montreal area charities.

My second to last point on the topic of this particular post is that you must remember that pointing one finger involves the other four pointing right back at you. You are criticizing a bunch of people for doing something wrong (in your opinion anyways), while you don't seem very eager to do any better. Surely if building an FSAE car (in 9 months) while taking classes, working and whatever else may be going on in life, is so simple, then you could build one no problem while working full time and whatever else is going on in your life, right?

Finally, I don't think you fully understand the scope that is involved in Formula SAE. It's more than building a car. Finding a place to build a car at our school was a heck of a process in the first place, then getting access to labs/machines was even worse. As it is, we have access seven hours a day, and only during the winter semester. Then every year we have to teach the new students (which is most of our team) all about CAD, FEA, the basic principles behind each sub-aspect of the car, etc. We could easily just design it with our maybe ten core members, but then we alienate the new kids, who get frustrated, leave, and then once we graduate the team is gone. Then we also have to worry about sponsorship, which is no small feat.

And for fuck's sake, it's something we do for fun, let's not take it too seriously!

On the topic of innovation, it depends innovation relative to what? For our team, we're going with a few things we've never tried before, so these are innovative for us. Some of these things have been done in fsae before, but we're still learning just as much from it as if it were never done before by anyone.

There's also some stuff that we thought up (incidentally some of these ideas were also suggested by Z in other threads), but we didn't because it would involve too many compromises to other aspects of the car (for example, turning the engine 180 and a little gearbox to reverse rotation, but packaging of some other sub-systems suffered).

Also depends on your definition of innovative. An innovative chassis construction might save weight and increase stiffness, but it still serves the same purpose as a conventional tube frame, just better. So nobody is re-inventing the wheel, just making it lighter, stiffer, shinier and easier to make (or some combo thereof). Suspension will always control chassis movement and abosrb bump disturbances, the frame will always hold all the parts together, the drivetrain will get the power from the engine to the rear wheels, and the engine will always make usable power, heat and noise.

In this respect, I think good packaging is one of the most innovative things you can do in FSAE. I think I'd be most impressed by an FSAE car that uses nothing but the minimum required frame tubes required by the rules, and use these to mount everything you need. Definitely more impressed than a carbon monocoque that has the same hardpoints as a conventional tube frame chassis, but connects them with snadwich panels instead of tubes.

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

Buckingham

12-02-2005, 03:20 PM

Z,

I think your views about the "standard" FSAE design are a little too harsh. Being from a racing background, I would think you would have a greater appreciation for the teams with "standard" cars that finish the endurance event year in and year out, with an understanding that it doesn't happen because they are just that lucky. There are a lot more points (and knowledge) to be gained by focusing on the performance of a "standard" system than the performance of an "innovative" component.

Only 15 out of 1000 points are allocated to innovation. On the other hand 675 are allocated for SYSTEM performance.

I would also argue that once an engineer understands how to properly design the entire system, innovating new components becomes a lot easier.

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely a place for innovation, but only when the innovation provides more return on investment than a properly executed "standard" design.

Steve Yao

12-02-2005, 06:26 PM

The KSU sidewinder was actually brought to competition in 2003. I think work started on it in that 2001 timeframe. They never passed the brake test due to undersized brakes as I understand it.

As far as I know they are the ones that started the trend of hoisting your car overhead during the panoramic shot(2003).

12-02-2005, 08:16 PM

Chris,
Regarding hydraulics: I'm not sure what you mean by "tesla style disc pumps"???

A hydrostatic pump/motor is one that can develop high torque even when the fluid is "static" (ie. not flowing). Common examples are piston pumps, gear pumps (like an engine oil pump), and vane pumps. They are either of fixed displacement per revolution (eg. gear and vane), or variable displacement (eg. a piston pump with variable stroke, like a "swash-plate" or "wobble-plate").

A hydro-dynamic impellor/turbine is the common donut-shaped lump in auto-boxes. The impellor "throws" the oil, giving it momentum and kinetic energy, then the turbine "catches" the oil, reconverting its momentum back to torque. These necessarily rely on the oil moving, so always have viscous frictional losses. Although I reckon if you use mercury as the fluid it would have ~0.01 x the viscous losses of oil ('cos density x ~20, and viscosity much less). Same weight, but much smaller package.

The "no viscous loss at cruise speed" hydrostatic IVT I was thinking about might be similar to the John Deere link in Mike Duwe's post. I couldn't get the JD video to work, but since the IVT is on a tractor it must be good! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Basically my idea is to have a planetary gear set, drive the sun gear with an input shaft from the IC engine, and connect the planet-cage to the output (ie. it drives the diff). The ring gear (which can rotate in the housing) is connected to a variable disp. swash-plate pump/motor, which in turn is hydraulically connected (ie. 2 short pipes) to a fixed disp. roller-vane pump/motor on the input shaft (sun gear). This could all fit in the space of a typical bike engine clutch/gearbox.

(Edit: Oops! Got that backwards. The variable. disp. swash-plate is connected to the input shaft (sun gear), and the fixed disp. pump/motor turns (or is turned by) the ring gear. Other configurations are also possible, eg. hydraulic pump/motors on the output shaft.)

With the swash-plate set for zero displacement there is no oil flow, the ring gear is locked solid, and the input just drives through to the output like a normal planetary gearset. This would happen in "top gear" (ie. top speed), and since no oil flow, minimal viscous frictional losses. With the swash plate set for more displacement, the fixed disp. pump on the ring gear sends oil to the swash-plate on the inlet shaft giving it more torque. That, combined with the ring gear "slipping backwards", gives a higher torque output at lower speed - ie. low gear. There is more oil flow now, so more viscous losses, but the car typically has more than enough power at low speeds (ie. traction limited, not power limited) so these frictional losses are not a big problem.

The normal way of expressing gear ratio as a number means you have a higher number here (eg. high gear = 3:1, low gear = 12:1). With even more swash-plate displacement you can pass through zero car speed ("infinite gear ratio") and on to "large negative" or reverse gear ratios (most viscous losses here, but who cares!). Hence no need for a clutch, or those bad smells at the startline! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The above is hard to explain in words... Maybe think of a normal car differential, both driven wheels off the ground, and engine running at constant speed. If you now grab (or brake) the left wheel, then the right wheel turns faster. Vary the speed of the left wheel - say with a CVT between it and the input shaft - and you vary the speed of the right wheel, but through a different speed range. For instance, if you spin the left wheel forwards fast enough, the right wheel (the output) stops turning, or runs in reverse!

There are similar sorts of IVTs that use steel-belt and toriodal CVTs, coupled with a planetary gearset, to get the range of output shafts through zero speed (hence through "infinite" ratio).

Z

12-02-2005, 09:35 PM

Dave M,

"700lb brown go-cart with tons of innovation..."???

I'll say it again: All of the innovations I suggested on that list can be used on a lightweight, simple, cheap, and easy-to-build car.

"Innovation" does NOT mean you have to stack a whole lot of "extras" onto an already complicated car. "Innovation" can mean replacing 2 or 3 complicated components with a single, simple component. It is the whole package that counts.

For example, just considering the drivetrain, you might custom-build a simple but torquey (maybe turboed) 600cc single-cylinder engine. Couple this directly (well, include a dog-clutch neutral) to a chain or gear reduction going to a torque-steer-differential (consisting of 2 electro-hydraulically activated multi-plate clutches either side of the final drive sprocket/gear). This would look like a bulked up direct-drive go-cart, except the TSD clutches would be used for pulling away from standstill, and perhaps even slipped a bit for very low speed corners.

Sure, you would also need a small hydraulic pump and tank, maybe an oil cooler, and extra sensors and software. But all this should be considerably lighter and more compact than the standard (heavy!) F4i with its 4 cylinders, clutch, gearbox, chain drive, Torsen, clutch/gearchange linkages, etc. And it might work better because more controllable in corners due to the electronically controlled TSD.

And, as seen on other threads, there are teams that put a great deal of work into FSAE'ing their F4i - including EFI tuning; custom cams; intakes and exhausts; drysumps; and even talk of machining bespoke heads. So which approach is going to be cheaper?

Oh, yes, some kids never go to school, and in the western world quite a few leave at ~15 to get a job. Tertiary education is a luxury not everyone can afford, so enjoy it! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jack,

Only FSAE comp I went to was Dec 2002 in Melbourne (last one with Carroll Smith). The well-polished "standard" car from Wollongong came first and also picked up most of the minor awards. But it could have been even faster. The track was very smooth, but when the car slid (cornering) its rear wheels would jump and start bouncing. There was no rear suspension movement to damp this bouncing, which cost it a bit of time... I think it was the same car that won in the US in 2003 (I guess they must have fitted softer springs).

That was also the first year for the Tokyo Denki car (160kg?). There was some nonsense about its starter being dangerous, so it was removed and the car was allowed to run, but not for points. It had a carburetored 450cc single and tyres that looked like mud tyres off a Quad (huge knobs). There was something seriously wrong with its carby/spark/tuning, because it was coughing and spitting everywhere. The drivers didn't seem to have much seat time either. Nevertheless, in the Enduro it was turning times that were only a few seconds slower than Wollongong (ie. faster than almost everyone else), and they were looking very comfortable.

I was there for the three days so had a good look at all the cars and talked to the teams (some US cars and Straslund? also there). I've also had a close look at some FSAE cars at motorshows - eg. MSEC 2000 in Detroit, and others.

Z

james17

12-02-2005, 10:30 PM

You know Z, you seem to be dodging a very important question, what is your FSAE history if any? I think all of the over privileged lazy swine on this board will agree with me that if you've never done it you really have no idea what is involved, so maybe try it and then get back with us? As far as innovation for innovations sake, we have this argument with freshman all the time. They ask why it's not a turbo, we say because we don't have to time, money, or personal to design and build a functional turbo engine. They ask why it's not AWD, same answer. They want to know about a CF tub, same thing. The basic point is that any FSAE team, at least any of the ones that win, are building race cars to win a competition. If the competition was to build a car with a 3500lb minimum weight and a hydraulic regenerative braking system, then I'm sure you would indeed see some hydraulic drives. I've been around racing my entire life, real racing, watching the guys come out the drag strip every weekend with some different aerodynamic trick, or turbo down pipe, or suspension pickup point in search of finding some little trick that will shave .010 of a second. At the same time I watch F-1, NASCAR, CART, IRL, and whatever else there is, where money is no option and reliability is number one. I think FSAE is the perfect mix between the two, weekend racers building Street Stocks in their backyard with stick welders and 300 engineers on the payroll building a car that cost more then most make in a lifetime. I personally really want to FSAE car with a structural steel "uni-body" central tub that hangs magnesium doghouses front and back with a electronic AWD system and a supercharged 609cc CF and titanium 20,000 RPM V-12, but I never will because our stupid wet sump F4i, 4130 chassis, wish bone suspension car gives my team the best chance of winning, simple. On a side note, anyone know of a sport bike that comes with such an engine?

Dick Golembiewski

12-02-2005, 11:07 PM

It's been awhile since I've visited and commented here. A few months ago I sent the following to Charles at RACECAR ENGINEERING. It wasn't published, so I've decided to share it here as a way to provide some perspective:

Dear Charles,

I've been following the commentary re: Formula SAE® in Racecar Engineering for many years now. The comments in Vol. 15, No. 9 have prompted me to write.

I've seen the SAE student design competitions from every perspective, save SAE headquarters staff - and in jest I threaten to do that one day. I've been a student member, team captain, student branch president, safety official, competition organizer, rules committee founder, member and chair, faculty advisor in several incarnations, and now motorsports design judge. As such I have my own view as to what the competitions are about.

First and foremost they are not about the judges, officials, faculty advisors, or scribes. They are for the students – most of whom are undergraduates. These are not competitions to see who can be the most innovative, but rather who can best meet the objectives set forth in the rules.

After the launch of Sputnik there was a great upheaval in education here in the U.S.A. (where the competitions originated) as it was feared that we had fallen behind the U.S.S.R. in mathematics, the sciences and engineering. Theoretical studies were stressed over practical applications and design. Industries were beginning to complain that recent graduates were strong in theory, but weak in the practical skills necessary to design and develop new products. The student vehicle design competitions were first developed in the early 1970's in order to provide those skills, which were once thought absolutely necessary for graduate engineers.

Most faculty members nowadays are researchers, and as such want to see innovation. So do some design judges. The sad part nowadays is that most faculty have gone from undergraduate to post-graduate studies and then to academia without ever having practiced engineering in industry.

For many of the student competitors, these projects are the first time they have ever designed and built something. To those of us who have been involved with these competitions for many years, many of the designs may be "conventional" (in the context of these competitions), but they are new to many of the students. It is true that the top schools have excellent teams in which continuity from year-to-year is maintained. Still, even at those schools, these projects represent the first efforts of many team members, and as such it is the first time that they have had to make design decisions. (We try to catch those who simply copy a previous entry without demonstrating knowledge of the design trade-offs.)

Sure, it's nice to see innovation, but it is development that makes a design into a winner, and given the short time frame (and the fact that these are full time students) many opt for simpler designs. I would submit that from what I've seen, nine-time champion Cornell University introduces innovative bits incrementally, and only after they have been developed. That's much the same as one might do in either industry or motorsports.

Further, the number of entries that successfully complete what should be a relatively simple "endurance" test is pitifully low. That I would again hypothesize is because although many of the designs are very much the "same" to us judges, they are "new" to the students. The time to "shake up" the competition with radical changes to the rules is after we start seeing 50% or more of the teams finish the endurance event. Until then, these competitions still serve their intended purpose of providing a means by which young engineers first apply the theoretical knowledge learned in the classroom, and develop the practical skills necessary to design, develop and manufacture products.

- Dick Golembiewski

12-02-2005, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by james17:
You know Z, you seem to be dodging a very important question, what is your FSAE history if any? I think all of the over privileged lazy swine on this board will agree with me that if you've never done it you really have no idea what is involved...
James,

I guess you missed the post directly above yours???

Yeah, sure I've got no history whatsoever in FSAE, or in any other form of motorsport. So what? That's really a pissweak argument against my ideas. If you've got some technical reasoning, then let's hear it!

Oh, BTW, I've got no history with your girlfriend, and I've never done it with her, but I'll bet I've got a pretty good idea of what is involved. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Z

12-03-2005, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Dick Golembiewski:
... These are not competitions to see who can be the most innovative, but rather who can best meet the objectives set forth in the rules...
Dick,

The objectives set forth in the rules:

Rule 1.1 "...so that the knowledge, creativity, and imagination of the students are challenged..."

Rule 1.2 "...the car must have very high performance [and] must be low in cost, easy to maintain, and reliable..."

In short - use the student's creativity and imagination to build a fast and cheap car.

Apologies if I am getting repetitious, but I am convinced that it is possible to build a faster and cheaper car than the standard car, but it will require the students using some creativity and imagination! That is, they will have to think "innovatively" to come up with a different design to the standard one.

There is at least one team that is trying to comply with these objectives (ie. fast and cheap). But one of the lead designers there is getting all sorts of flak from some boneheads on this forum for doing so. Do you think he will become a better engineer if he ditches the Briggs and copies a standard car?

I kind of wonder how NASA ever managed to land a man on the moon, given that they didn't have any "standard" lunar module designs to, err, copy???

Z

Dick Golembiewski

12-03-2005, 04:40 AM

Eric (Z),

My comments weren't directed at the specific case of that car, but rather at the subject in general. The original thread was re: ideas for innovation. As I said, there is nothing wrong with innovation, we certainly encourage it, but innovation strictly for the sake of innovation won't necessarily be successful. Some of the comments in the issue I cited imply that the competitions should be all about innovation - which they certainly aren't. To win one has to have the entire package. That may or may not include lots of innovation.

Some competitors are proud of their innovative bits, and that's to be expected - and lauded. However, we occasionally get complaints from competitors who don't perform particularly well, but think that they should score higher because of some innovation.

On the other hand, as I stated these competitions are often the first time many students have ever designed and built something. When I did it, I was like a kid in a candy store, and many students feel the same way. (Gee...I get to build a racecar and use other people's money to do it! Yes, we had to raise it, but it didn't come out of our pockets.) Still the scope of FSAE can be overwhelming for many students - especially those who only do it once - their senior year. (A reason successful teams have built cultures which bring people up over all or most of their tenure as students.)

I can't - and won't - disagree with your statements. (Who was it who said, "Simplify and add lightness" - too true!) Those who have read my thoughts here and elsewhere or who have had me speak to them know I advocate overcoming obstacles.

What I want to point out is that these are not contests to see who can come up with the most innovative design. Ron Taurnac was never considered particularly innovative, but his cars sure won a lot of races nonetheless. Jim Hall had two incarnations: The first was incredibly innovative, but he didn't win as much as many others. When he settled into preparing reliable racecars he won - a lot! (The flexible Lola F5000 cars, then in Can-Am II, and finally in USAC/CART. The Bernard designed champ car was considered to be innovative, but was it? Certainly in that series, it and the Penske PC7 were the first to use "ground effects", but the idea had been used in F1 for a couple of years. In any event, it didn't win (I don't have the 1979 record in front of me, but if it won that year it might have been once) until after it had been developed (and was almost unbeatable in 1980).)

Sure Chapman also innovated - and won - but it isn't necessarily a requirement.

Big Bird

12-03-2005, 07:32 AM

Loving this thread. Keep up the pot stirring everyone.

At FSAE Oz this weekend I've had the good fortune to chat to quite a few highly regarded people on the topic of FSAE car design. Two interesting and similar points of view I'd like to note.

Firstly, speaking to Dr Sano from Tokyo Denki University, (and if you know anything about F1 history you might recognize his name as the designer of Honda's first F1 grand prix winning car in 1965 - a very highly regarded engineer). To paraphrase him - he thinks FSAE is a wonderful opportunity for us, but we tend to make our designs far more complicated than they need to be.

Secondly, talking to Sig Oguran (Japanese F1 journalist and TV commentator) about a conversation he had with Ross Brawn (Ferrari F1), after viewing the FStudent entries this year. He thinks that FSAE is a wonderful opportunity for us, but we tend to make our designs far more complicated than they need to be....

They were the two that stand out to me in terms of their credibility - but that same sentiment has been echoed many times around the pits this weekend. And the growing opinion that I have picked up on is that the better designs (and you could argue if this is innovative - I would), are the ones that look at the FSAE "standard" and try getting rid of some of the complexity. An example - Queensland ditching their diff for a spool - and coming up with something that is quicker to build, neater, and still plenty fast enough.

Just thought I'd add that, as I'm a bit of a fan of the Z design philosophy - if not necessarily in specific execution then definitely in terms of the thought processes behind them.

Cheers all,

Dan G

12-03-2005, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Z:
There is at least one team that is trying to comply with these objectives (ie. fast and cheap). But one of the lead designers there is getting all sorts of flak from some boneheads on this forum for doing so. Do you think he will become a better engineer if he ditches the Briggs and copies a standard car?
That darn Briggs really stirs up the pot, hunh? The kicker is that it was in an AWFUL state of tune for that 39th place finish this year.

I've been following this thread but haven't had much to add. For one, I think you guys are getting a little too cranky over Z's pokes at your creativity. You shouldn't feel like you have to defend the difficulty of the work you've done or accomplishments you've attained to anyone. And I don't think that is what Z is saying either. Sure, it'd be a lot easier to swallow some of his words if you knew he had 6 years on a top FSAE team and has been a design judge every year since, but that experience isn't required to have applicable knowledge.

Z-man is just challenging you to act on some of those "out of the box" ideas we've all had. Send two guys off on a side project working on a goofy idea that everyone is sure won't work. Then be pleasantly suprised when it does work, and might be worth adapting to the car.

Granted some of the stuff like the IVT and radical engine swaps don't qualify as measly 'side projects', but they could be something you could experiment with on a test rig in the couple of months after each year's competition. Call it your R&D phase.

magicweed

12-03-2005, 09:05 AM

Like Dan, I've been keeping an eye on where this thread is going and it seems to have taken a turn towards debate, rather than ideas. This is expected in a discussion of "innovation" where the words meaning is different for everyone. I personally consider innovation to be localized, especially in situations like FSAE. Development of new products take long cycles of design and testing before they can perform at the level which they were intended to. Cornell is an excellent example of this. They go from concept to product in long cycles. They don't hastily cobble together a concept and throw in on in time for competition. They proove the designs merits in rediculous amounts of testing and refinements. I know everyone uses them as a benchmark, and for good reason. A "standard" car is simply a teams adaptation of what has been seen to be successful in competition to their own car. Our team is a thrid year team, and in terms of innovation, our design is hugely innovative in terms of our team. We're completely changing our chassis design, drivetrain package, intake and exhaust packages. These changes may not be innovative in industry as a whole, but are vast challenges for our team and shouldn't be looked at as "standard" by any means. I guess my point is, innovation shouldn't be viewed at as simply revolutionary, and given the few points we are rewarded with for such things, revolutionary becomes irrelevant. We should concentrate on creating reliable competetive cars. Once you have a package you are confident can be refined over several iterations, then you can become more wild and revolutionary. I've seen the pains of having the parts we take for granted (A-arms, uprights, etc) become problems in assembly and manufacture. I can't imagine trying to deal with some exotic unproven concept someone finally completed in the last month before competition.

Big Bird

12-03-2005, 09:56 AM

Agreed, I think the offence some took at Z's "laziness" quip might have mistook the intent. I interpreted it as lazy thinking as opposed to any laziness in our application to the task at hand. Nobody doubts how many hours we dedicate to this. But I'd consider thinking lazily as not being able to even consider or discuss alternatives to the norm. And teams like Cornell are more scared of those who come out of left field, than those who try to beat them at their own game.

Oh, and as an edit to my above post - it was Ross Brawn's comment that we over-complicate. Poor grammar on my behalf.

Cheers,

james17

12-03-2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by james17:
You know Z, you seem to be dodging a very important question, what is your FSAE history if any? I think all of the over privileged lazy swine on this board will agree with me that if you've never done it you really have no idea what is involved...
James,

I guess you missed the post directly above yours???

Yeah, sure I've got no history whatsoever in FSAE, or in any other form of motorsport. So what? That's really a pissweak argument against my ideas. If you've got some technical reasoning, then let's hear it!

Oh, BTW, I've got no history with your girlfriend, and I've never done it with her, but I'll bet I've got a pretty good idea of what is involved. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, My GF would take one listen to you and laugh you back to Australia, so how about we leave her out of this, ok?

Second, you seem to be missing one main point here. The goal in any competition is to win, simple. My team's goal is to score as many points as possible per our resources in order to give us the best chance of placing well in comp. This thread could just as easily be "Why don't FSAE teams place more emphasis on all-out acceleration and less on corning?", it would be just as relevant. Teams put emphasis where they feel there are points to be gathered, this isn't NASA and it sure isn't F-1, we essentially have four years of all-out effort to build a winning racing vehicle and engineering team and then were gone.

I didn't miss your post above my original; it just didn't answer my question. Showing up and watching a comp has nothing to do with the actual effort involved. I have literally dozens of extremely innovative designs floating around in my head, but in 24 months with 4 people and less then the cost of a new Buick in my budget it's not exactly practical to build a very innovative car. My "technical explanation" is this, sometimes parts break. Parts also need to be designed, built, paid for, and be reliable enough to withstand all the forces that are thrown at them. I can see why someone with no racing experience at all would miss this, but there are thousands upon thousands of different things that can go wrong during a race, and any part our team uses needs to be ready for all those possibilities. I really wish I had transcripts of arguments we have with 90% of the freshman that come through our shop, they really do sound exactly like you, maybe a little weaker on the engineering jargon, but essentially the same thing. The other 10% are the people that have a logical thinking pattern, have some sort of practical automotive experience, and are usable as team members.

In 2001/2002 our team set about building a VERY innovative car. The vehicle was very close to being an aluminum and carbon fiber uni-body. It had 5 machined aluminum bulkheads with large diameter square wall aluminum tubing running between them with structural carbon outside that. The vehicle also had a good deal of innovation in the engine and drive train categories, and was one of the safest FSAE cars ever designed. I would guess they got the full points for innovation, but because of time limitations the car simply wasn't up to the competition. Innovation is nice, but if not practical, it means nothing in terms of winning the competition.

DaveC

12-03-2005, 10:53 AM

I've held off on commenting thus far, but as someone who has owned an automotive shop specializing in turboed sports cars and off road machines and has built several vehicles from the ground up, I've got to say I fully agree with James and the others as far as Z seems to be missing the point of fsae to a certain degree. Any yes, experience does help in deciding how to prioritize the limited resources available to a certain team. Not to mention, most fsae members are not greatly experienced. Even though I know a little bit more than average coming into the team, I still have never worked with a big team of people to accomplish a goal such as this. So, it comes down to the fact that we are students, and we need to be able to walk before we can run. Given that team members are only on a team for a few years at most before graduation means this will always be the case. There is still a lot to be learned applying "standard" engineering solutions to a complex problem, especially within the context of a team situation, building it, testing it, and actually using it in comp. Unless you have built a couple of vehicles, fsae or otherwise, you have no right to call the people who have "lazy". You have no idea what is really involved. You might think you do, but just as with someone elses GF, your performance might not be up to standard without some experience. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My experience with performance vehicles is that first, they need to work well. It doesnt really matter how much "innovation" is in the vehicles design, all that matters is performance and reliability. Also, innovation takes time and money. If you have an innovative idea that you believe will work, it doesnt matter at all unless you have the time and money to make it work. If you have ten people building the car, to also expect them to dedicate even more time to pursue innovations that might or might not pan out is difficult given the time allowed to produce the car. If you have a bigger team and a big enough budget, more R and D is possible. Unfortunately, many do not have such luxury. With cars, the devil is in the details. Even a "standard" car will still stretch the ability of most teams to be able to sucessfully implement relatively simple designs. Evidence of this is shown in the poor showing of cars able to finish "endurance". You just cant understand why this is so unless youve done it.

So, please build a competitive, reliable racecar or off road vehicle, then get back to us. I bet your ideas will have changed.

12-03-2005, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by james17:
In 2001/2002 our team set about building a VERY innovative car. The vehicle was very close to being an aluminum and carbon fiber uni-body. It had 5 machined aluminum bulkheads with large diameter square wall aluminum tubing running between them with structural carbon outside that.

It's funny how people who constantly remind you that "I've been around racing my entire life, real racing..." (James' earlier post), always seem to think that innovation = complication. For example James' idea of an innovative FSAE engine is a "CF and titanium 20,000 rpm V-12". On the other hand, I (who claim no experience) have been advocating a much simpler 600cc single-cylinder "1/8 of smallblock V8" because I think it would work (ie. package very well), could be done cheaply, and would be very reliable.

Similarly, James thinks that an innovative chassis must have "5 machined aluminium bulkheads" and lots of carbonfibre. Again, I have most often suggested a sheet-steel tub that could be cut, folded up, and welded together in half a day (by one person!), and would cost ~$100 in materials. And as well as being lightweight, it would be very stiff, strong and reliable.

James, read Big Bird's post on the previous page.

Z

12-03-2005, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by DaveC:
...as someone who has owned an automotive shop specializing in turboed sports cars and off road machines and has built several vehicles from the ground up,...

... Unless you have built a couple of vehicles, fsae or otherwise, you have no right to call the people who have "lazy". You have no idea what is really involved. You might think you do, but just as with someone elses GF, your performance might not be up to standard without some experience.

...So, please build a competitive, reliable racecar or off road vehicle, then get back to us. I bet your ideas will have changed.
Another lazy one... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, Dave, you've been doing "it" for how many years now? It's all pretty exciting at the moment, hey? How many times have you actually done "it"? With how many different classes, and, err, chassis sizes? On how many continents?

Do your homework Dave - use Find with keywords "Z" and "Africa".

Whether you're talking about women or racecars, the fundamentals stay the same. Except that racecars are a lot easier to understand. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Z

DaveC

12-03-2005, 06:27 PM

So, Dave, you've been doing "it" for how many years now? It's all pretty exciting at the moment, hey? How many times have you actually done "it"? With how many different classes, and, err, chassis sizes? On how many continents?

What the hell are you talking about?

On the other hand, I (who claim no experience) have been advocating a much simpler 600cc single-cylinder "1/8 of smallblock V8" because I think it would work (ie. package very well), could be done cheaply, and would be very reliable.

This just confirms the point I made in my previous post. Yes, lets all build our own custom "Z" motors. Sure, no problem... and I'm sure it'll outperform a "standard" 600cc 4. I actually dont believe Kawasaki, Honda, etc. are likely up to this challenge, but for the average fsae team, no problem... Look, I wont say nothing you have said makes sense, I'm happy to hear your contributions, but what youre saying in this thread seems naive.

Oh, sorry z: here you go (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=naive)

12-03-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by DaveC:
My experience with performance vehicles...
Which you rashly assume is more than that of people you have never met.

So, just how experienced are you?

Z

DaveC

12-03-2005, 06:44 PM

I just very clearly stated my experience a couple posts up. I had the business for a bit over two years before I decided it wasn't going to be my career.

Even though I know a little bit more than average coming into the team,

This is probably true. I, most likely, have a bit more experience building cars than most others who are new to fsae. Sorry if you find that offensive, I didnt take a poll, I'm just assuming. Stands to reason that maybe I did some work on cars before I opened my business, though...

12-03-2005, 07:20 PM

Dave,

So you've "built several vehicles" over a period of a few years. That is NOT a lot of experience!

Furthermore, it gives no indication of your level of competence, or understanding.

If you have any "Ideas for innovation", please post them.

If you have a convincing argument why any of the above ideas won't work, please post ("I tried to build a 600cc single and couldn't get it to work" is not convincing).

Or, for example, if you have a convincing argument that the standard, and rather complicated, "double-wishbone and push/pullrods and rockers" suspension is necessarily better for FSAE than my simpler alternatives, please post ("because they're on all REAL racecars" is not convincing).

Something specific, please, Dave. Not just "I've got all this awesome experience, so I know best!". http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

DaveC

12-03-2005, 07:34 PM

So you've "built several vehicles" over a period of a few years. That is NOT a lot of experience!

Those were just my personal vehicles... It takes a lot to get people to pay you big bucks to build an entire vehicle. Of course, many people do just that, but it takes a lot to get there. Obviously many, many people have way more experience and knowledge than I do. I'm still young, and only ran the business for a couple of years. If you really want to know what I've done (I know nobody cares), email me, lets not waste more space on this crap.

Next, I never said anything about knowing best, because I don't. Stop putting words into my mouth. I'm new to fsae, so I'm not here to argue technical specifics, rather I'm here to learn. Hopefully I'll have more to offer as time goes by. However, I do know what it takes to make custom-built vehicles work, and have rebuilt most components on a vehicle at some point, an auto tranny being an exception. I'm starting on one in a few weeks, though. So, I can offer my thoughts on some of the stuff spewing from your keyboard...

On second thought, I dont even know where to start with all the ideas of yours I dislike on the first page of this thread. First, please read the rules. Racing cars are defined by the rulebook, "what if" conversations are fine, but not to be taken seriously. I already stated what I think of your engine idea, and I similarly dislike the wooden chassis idea, huge gains from aero, etc...

james17

12-03-2005, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by james17:
In 2001/2002 our team set about building a VERY innovative car. The vehicle was very close to being an aluminum and carbon fiber uni-body. It had 5 machined aluminum bulkheads with large diameter square wall aluminum tubing running between them with structural carbon outside that.

It's funny how people who constantly remind you that "I've been around racing my entire life, real racing..." (James' earlier post), always seem to think that innovation = complication. For example James' idea of an innovative FSAE engine is a "CF and titanium 20,000 rpm V-12". On the other hand, I (who claim no experience) have been advocating a much simpler 600cc single-cylinder "1/8 of smallblock V8" because I think it would work (ie. package very well), could be done cheaply, and would be very reliable.

Similarly, James thinks that an innovative chassis must have "5 machined aluminium bulkheads" and lots of carbonfibre. Again, I have most often suggested a sheet-steel tub that could be cut, folded up, and welded together in half a day (by one person!), and would cost ~$100 in materials. And as well as being lightweight, it would be very stiff, strong and reliable.

James, read Big Bird's post on the previous page.

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe the reason people who have been around racing there entire life all have the same argument is because they are all right, maybe?

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, I give up, atleast when freshman tell me they can build a car in half a day they can see me roll my eyes...

Jersey Tom

12-04-2005, 11:29 AM

You can come up with all sorts of crafy ideas on paper. Absolutely brilliant, very innovative stuff. But when you start going hog wild with it, you wind up not getting your car done on time. Or something fails. And forget any sort of time estimate if you haven't been involved in FSAE or any motorsport. If you haven't done something hands-on, take whatever estimate you have and multiply it by 5 or 7, and that is how long it will take.

There are no amenities on a FSAE car. Every subsystem is a critical path item - without it, the car doesn't function. Reliability is key, and simplicity usually yields reliability.

Combine this with the fact that you have a team of undergraduates, for many of which this is their first design project. You don't have a bunch of guys working for Ford SVT.

I would leave innovation to independent studies, of which there is on average 1 a year relating to FSAE at CU. Or leave really crafty stuff to the top 1-2 design engineers on the team.

I'm not knocking innovation. Its good to blank-page redesign major things here and there if there will be a worthwhile performance increase. But don't just do wild things for the hell of it. That time and money can be spent better elsewhere. Your goal is to build a fast, reliable, winning car. Determine what is restraining you from doing better, and address those issues one at a time.

12-04-2005, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Big Bird:
Firstly, speaking to Dr Sano from Tokyo Denki University, ...the designer of Honda's first F1 grand prix winning car... he thinks FSAE is a wonderful opportunity for us, but we tend to make our designs far more complicated than they need to be.

Secondly,... Ross Brawn (Ferrari F1)... thinks that... we tend to make our designs far more complicated than they need to be...

Anybody care to comment on what they think these excessive "complications" are, and how they might be deleted from the standard car?

Would this require any "innovative" thinking?

Z

"An engineer is someone who can do with one dollar, what any fool can do with ten."

CMURacing - Prometheus

12-04-2005, 05:21 PM

i suspect that that sano and brawn, come from a type of racing where everything is custom made, could see a 600cc single, air-cooled, possibly forced induction, with a NASCAR style restrictor plate as the simplest way to do fsae. hence, adapting a water-cooled, naturally aspirated, multi-cylinder sportbike engine is not "ideal"...however, i think given the development timeline, budget, and personnel avaliable to most teams, and the results some people are able to achieve, the sportbike engine is a much more feasible option.

i'd love to see our team, for example, go to a 2-year design cycle, which would give us 4 months more testing/tuning time while also extending the design timeline from 9 months to one year. in this way, we'd probably be open to a bit more innovation. but it means either not going to competition one year (unacceptable, as we'd lose most of our multi-year sponsor deals), or designing 2 cars in one year (when one is hard enough!)

John Valerio

12-04-2005, 08:21 PM

hey guys
i've been following this discussion/slug fest a feel it's about time to chip in.
Z, in response to your question about Dr. Sano's view on complication in FSAE, i would first point out that i completely agree with what he said. I think we try to make our cars too complicated. Case in point: the embarassingly low number of cars that finish endurance. Its only a 20 minute race. I admit that our team hasn't finished endurance since 2002 because of parts failures. Last year we were pulled out because or problems on our turboed single cylinder. And the thing i would like to point out is that directly after we were pulled out, Michigan Dearborn with that briggs twin that everyone seemed to like to dismiss away as a cometitor drove right by us and finished about 40 places overall better than us. So what was the better product, our bored out, turbocharged, intercooled, single cylinder sitting between a carbon fibre monocoque, carbon fibre rear differential box, and all carbon suspension tubes or a briggs twin with a cvt and a steel frame that did twice as well as we did in the end? There's your elimination of complication to get a better result right there.
that, of course is a pretty wild simplification example though. there are other, less extreme examples, such as sticking with a manually actuated shifter instead of going pneumatic or electric and for some reason losing downshifts halfway through enduro.
every day i'm in our shop and have to listen to our baja team (who we share our shop with) give me grief about spending too much time on the computer and not building. it doesn't help that they won the the baja west 4 hour endurance race in arizona either.
i, and the rest of the fsae'ers on this forum who live and breathe formula want to build the best car we can. we all lose sleep thinking about placement for the steering rack, or draw new uprights on our notes in class. we all fall into the trap of over designing the car on paper, but then having it roll out in the few weeks (if even that early) before comp. sometimes we can't draw the line. using my shifter example from above, there has been interest every year to design paddle activated pneumatic shifting, but how much do we really need it? i don't know what the average system can achieve in terms of shift times (i'm not including auburn in this generalization because their shifting system just blows my mind, just listen to the 1st to 2nd shift on their video on their website! did it shift? i dont know! its that fast) but over the summer the TPS data logs were showing our good drivers were hitting .1 seconds from full throttle to full throttle between gears. how much time do you want to invest on a system that is arguably more "complicated" than an indy-style push pull lever with a mountain bike brake clutch compared to the gains from it?

the other thing i would like to comment on is the "ideal" engine discussion. i think a project such as machining your own engine is a little out of scope in this competition. the only team to come close to that is the washington v-8. i agree that was one beautiful car, with amazing execution. i'm not sure how many years it took to implement that, but they also took the heads (and pistons...? not sure on that one) from two kawi 250s and made their own bottom end. i'll be very impressed if i see another team raise the bar further in terms of scope of a project like that. so for in terms of a fully machined 600cc single, probably won't see one of those anytime soon. and don't even tell me how much simpler singles are to run than f4s. saying that around our team is opening pandora's box. it would be a multi year project just to design the starter motor to get that huge thing turned over. our 470 starter had 5 bolts shear off due to kickback during excessive starter motor use (running starting and idle enrichments) this past summer. also they're alot louder and much less fuel efficient. for a more technical and indepth discussion of the merits of singles i can refer you to our engine guy who practically jumped for joy when the decision was made to go back to an f4 this year after 3 years of singles.
so intead of falling into the trap of saying you're wrong and not offering my opinion, i'll give my ideal formula engine. we need to pick motors which make the same amount of power before and after we restrict and put custom ECUs on. the cbr's are great, they're pretty much bullet proof, and you can make some wicked power with them, but the fact that their built for give or take 110 hp, and we put on average 75-80 horse (until we get choked) through them shows that the motors are more than we need. their overbuilt (for formula) and too heavy for our application. on the other hand we ran a suzuki ltz-400 bored out to 470ccs and turbocharged last year. the motor makes 32 hp stock, and we ended up pulling 65 hp out of her with the turbo. once this happend, all the drivetrain components started failing. we sheared a total of 5 teeth from two sets of transmissions from our 5th gears while tuning, we smoked one race clutch, and one stock clutch with the race springs shimmed with washers. we also sheared a weld on our right driveshaft. so that was definately way too much power to put through that motor, and it showed. i think RMIT has the right idea, they use a motor that makes 59 hp stock, and ended up with a bit more power after tuning (perhaps someone from RMIT can give the specific numbers), that coupled with a centrifugal clutch, manually actuation paddle shifters and possibly the best driver in all of fsae allowed them to do very well.
they chose their engine well, yet i still believe there are better engines out there. i still think singles are better left in go karts, and f4s left in race bikes, so what's in between. there aren't many teams running twins out there. i would favour an inline instead of V configuration for drivetrain packaging reasons. i could see a twin that makes somewhere in the vicinity of 80 hp being the perfect engine for us. so instead of spending three months of 2 am nights on [insert preferered solid modelling software here] and mastercam to try and design your own engine which by some magical means will be better than one designed by a company with teams of people being paid to design just spend some serious time investigating the "innovative" choices out there.

Kevin Hayward

12-05-2005, 06:49 AM

John,

Just a small point. Melbourne University made an engine of there own for a few years. It ran in comp. Finished enduros. Was a single cylinder I think.

Probably not brought up as much as the Western Washington v8 because of either the "cool" factor or that it wasn't done in Australia.

The thing did not use very much fuel at all and hopefully someone from Melbourne might post some details of it.

Cheers,

Kev

Dick Golembiewski

12-05-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by CMURacing - Prometheus:

i'd love to see our team, for example, go to a 2-year design cycle, which would give us 4 months more testing/tuning time while also extending the design timeline from 9 months to one year. in this way, we'd probably be open to a bit more innovation. but it means either not going to competition one year (unacceptable, as we'd lose most of our multi-year sponsor deals), or designing 2 cars in one year (when one is hard enough!)

When I speak to student groups, I usually recommend that they have a look at how things are done in industry. All the good ideas aren't necessarily dropped into the product at once. There is no "best" mousetrap.

One can establish an R&D function, where ideas are tried and tested first, before being integrated into the entry in the future. The ideas don't have to work right away, but what is learned (even if the idea fails) is worth a lot. Once a concept is proven and developed it can be integrated into the car for a given year.

Now, that takes an organizational structure and culture in which that type of activity can work. A lot of student grouops have trouble getting a single entry done, but so many are "mature" nowadays (as opposed to when I was a student and these competitions were new) that enough could do so. Of course the problem with students is that everyone wants their great idea incorporated, and they want it done NOW - not after they've graduated. Again, it takes a culture that encourages an R&D approach to innovation.

Kevin Hayward

12-05-2005, 10:45 AM

One of the things that we did in UWA was move to an 18month cycle a few years ago. This meant that in the second half of the year the preliminary design and studies would be started for the next car.

This shifted to a 24month cycle for the International campaigns.

The end result of the 18month cycle is that there is always design occuring. The first 6 months do not tend to be mind-blowing in terms of achievements. However it definitely accelerates the team coming together and minimises the work lost at the start of the year.

Simple fact is that innovative design takes time to develop.

Cheers,

Kev

John Valerio

12-05-2005, 01:05 PM

kevin,
sorry for the mistake on my part, i had not been aware of melbourne's achievements. after checking out the history section of their webpage, it seems that their engine did take 2 years to develop and maufacture, was a parallel twin cylinder, and had an overall displacement less than 600ccs. and then in 2004 they turbocharged it, all with good success. if any of this is wrong, i welcome corrections as the website is a bit less than 100% specific. i think that what they did was an amazing feat, and whoever conceived that plan definately knew the score. its a shame they went to the RR for their '05 car but they must have had their reasons and that is a sweet motor regardless.
it also seems they (or the engine team/guy, at least) agreed with my theory that inline twins are the "ideal" (ideal in that if you were going to build a motor specific for the competition, what would you build) way to go for formula.
it also makes sense they got better fuel economy with a twin, as the singles are really thirsty engines. we're cutting our fuel tank size down this year due to the shift to the f4.

Chris Boyden

12-05-2005, 02:30 PM

Basically my idea is to have a planetary gear set, drive the sun gear with an input shaft from the IC engine, and connect the planet-cage to the output (ie. it drives the diff). The ring gear (which can rotate in the housing) is connected to a variable disp. swash-plate pump/motor, which in turn is hydraulically connected (ie. 2 short pipes) to a fixed disp. roller-vane pump/motor on the input shaft (sun gear). This could all fit in the space of a typical bike engine clutch/gearbox.

With the swash-plate set for zero displacement there is no oil flow, the ring gear is locked solid, and the input just drives through to the output like a normal planetary gearset. This would happen in "top gear" (ie. top speed), and since no oil flow, minimal viscous frictional losses. With the swash plate set for more displacement, it sends oil to the vane pump on the inlet shaft giving it more torque. That, combined with the ring gear "slipping backwards", gives a higher torque output at lower speed - ie. low gear. There is more oil flow now, so more viscous losses, but the car typically has more than enough power at low speeds (ie. traction limited, not power limited)

I like the idea. Since we never talked about
the planetary gears in circuits class, I had to look them up. They're awesome little devices....although I've pulled them in and out of an automatic tranny, I was in a hurry to get the car working, so I didn't study them like I normally would... rather fascinating really and quite simple.

Your concept is similar to the drives that John Deer came up with...

Anyway thanks for the reply.. I've got to think about it some more before I comment on it further.

As a side note, I'm starting to see where Z is coming from.....and I must apologize insulting him when I first got agitated with him for stirring the pot...I had the same feeling many others have voiced. But in the end, I've found that he's quite open for discusssion, teaching, and learning. Sometimes it's good to set the ego aside and think outside the box.
But I admit, it's hard to not take shit personally sometimes... At least Z's critisism and comments are followed by alternatives, not just bitching. I hate it when somebody says no, without offering suggestions or alternatives.

Buckingham

12-05-2005, 03:25 PM

so when is someone going to show up with a set of tweels?

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000130025753/

12-05-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by John Valerio:
so intead of falling into the trap of saying you're wrong and not offering my opinion, i'll give my ideal formula engine...

...i still think singles are better left in go karts, and f4s left in race bikes, so what's in between. there aren't many teams running twins out there. i would favour an inline instead of V configuration for drivetrain packaging reasons. i could see a twin that makes somewhere in the vicinity of 80 hp being the perfect engine for us. so instead of spending three months of 2 am nights on [insert preferered solid modelling software here] and mastercam to try and design your own engine which by some magical means will be better than one designed by a company with teams of people being paid to design just spend some serious time investigating the "innovative" choices out there.
John, Thanks for the positive contribution. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I quite like twins too. I would favour a V-twin (full primary balance, 270/540 firing), or flat-twin "boxer" (even better balance, 360/360 firing). With a longitudinal crank both of these would package very neatly (eg. M-D's Briggs). The reason I am proposing a single is that I don't know what to call the simpler alternative - the no-cylinder engine? (Well, a "Wankel", but I don't like them because of their very poor fuel efficiency.) Ie. I was suggesting the "simplest possible" engine.

Here is a site, http://www.barebones.net/machines.htm that does pretty much what I was suggesting. All of their engines are based on production units, but there is not much that is left untouched.

When considering what is the "ideal" engine for FSAE, I think one of the most important factors is; "How does it integrate with the rest of the car". Specifically, "How light can the whole car be, how low can the car's CG be, and how squashed up can everything be for a low yaw MoI?". A laid-down single (or parallel, or boxer-twin) helps a lot here. The cylinders can be laid either longitudinal or transverse.

Saying it again; IT IS THE WHOLE PACKAGE THAT COUNTS, not just horsepower, etc... For example, why do Honda, Yamaha, etc. (all builders of very good multis) never fit multis to their MotoX bikes?

To "lay-down" an engine that was designed to "stand-up" (as most bike engines are), you have to re-work its oil system - ie. dry-sump and add scavenge pipe to the cam/rocker-box. Doing this to any of the many ~600cc MotoX singles might involve machining a new crankcase (not that hard?). Once you've done that a few times, and added new intake and exhaust, re-cammed, added scavenge to head, etc., etc., you're not far from building the whole thing! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course, I would buy in pistons/rods/valves, etc., from the relatively cheap V-8 aftermarket. (Also, the Rob Woods suggested "Half-a-busa" scooter engine already has most of this done.)

Can anyone explain why a single should have worse fuel consumption than a multi, given equivalent horsepower and quality of tuning? I am not sure this is necessarily true???

Anyway, any other thoughts on what would be the "ideal" (legal) FSAE engine, assuming the team has plenty of resources (people/money/machinery)?

Also, any other thoughts on what "complications" Sano and Brawn were thinking of, and how to get rid of them?

Z

Big Bird

12-05-2005, 04:55 PM

A short post since I'm a bit busy. I'm not so sure about singles being thirsty - I remember RMIT in 2003, ISAT in FStudent 2004, and Tokyo Denki this weekend all taking out fuel economy wins, usually with around 2.5 litres consumption. RMIT did a 1.9 litre run last year as well. Usually we gave ourselves a 20-30 point bonus at the end of the weekend with the fuel economy trump card.

Other than that, this thread is finally maturing a little. Thanks John especially for setting it back on track. I'll offer a few more details on my discussion with Dr. Sano when I have a few minutes.

Cheers,

John Valerio

12-05-2005, 05:54 PM

Z, i agree that it's definately not all about maximum power. with our 378 lb car putting out 65 hp we should have been a bigger contender in the accel, autox, and enduro but the driveability just wasn't there. because of the turbo, not only would it take a 1/2 second to spool up before putting the power down, but coming off full throttle trying to upshift, you had to wait just as long for the engine to unload itself enough to be able to change gears. it became easier to shift w/o clutching because if you clutched to upshift the engine would just rev up and if you were already close to redline you would bounce off it a bunch. not clutching allowed the engine to slow itself down faster, but it still caused troubles in terms of overall accel. i'm confident that our car was one of the fastest accelerating cars out there, but you only saw that acceleration for one gear until you had to shift and only after the turbo spooled up. so yeah, the whole package is key.
check out the firenze team's engine setup, they use a 90 degree ducati 610 air cooled twin. it's half "layed down" just due to the nature of the motor. its a nice setup with one mean sounding motor.
in terms of some of the stuff you mentioned, we can't run wankels (rules), longitudinal cranks are tough since the drivetrain has to take a 90 degree turn. of course that may not be bad depending on what type of diff you're running. it seems thats the reason dearborn did that (dearborn guys want to comment?). i could see their system having less drivetrain losses than a cvt to reduction gearbox to chain to diff setup. they do though, have that cvt secondary and "carbon fibre" driveshaft pretty far up in terms of cg.
but yeah, the hunt for the ideal sae engine continues.

Dan G

12-05-2005, 10:53 PM

Our '05 FSAE car design pulled heavily from the very successful Baja cars in the past few years. Its no suprise that our FSAE drivetrain bears a striking resemblance to the Baja one! Even down to that red diamond logo on the motor.

The off the shelf Rubicon front diff is a great part. We're really happy with it. So many teams spend a ton of time and effort on the rear diff. We buy one from the local dealer and toss it in the car. No special housings, no wacky hybrid axles. Just Rubicon parts out to the wheel.

The briggs lends itself to a large variety of packaging options. We get dizzy turning and flipping the block around in our heads visualizing the ideal configuration.

Lukin

12-05-2005, 11:08 PM

Is this Z's thread on how to make friends and influence people?

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

MoboostWRX

12-06-2005, 10:55 AM

Believe me I would like to see a horizontally opposed 610cc engine, but it is not like most college have the time to build a custom engine. Look at car companies, they spend over 5 years testing an engine before even putting it in a production car. Most ME students dont stay in college for more than 4-5 years, so that would mean that a freshman would need to start development from some pre-existing engine to even make feasable. Not to mention that they need to test and tune a new car for each of those year they are there without flunking out. Then there is that lovely money factor. BOOM! "Wow, that was a good test run." A 5 whole minutes and I get to build another one. (Great rejoycing). Refinish crank, new pistons, new Sleeves, and new rods. 2k-3k once all said and done nad you still dont have good engine. I mean I even had a good idea once that was just out of our ablitity range. Kawasaki make a 250cc parallel twin. Slap 2 of those together and your at 500cc, which is the best I can do for rignt now, but that even request a custom cast block and crank. I just cant see this withou either a lot of funding or a team of 25 4.0 gpa engine gurus with dynamic, tuning and machine abilities. The name of the game is RELIABILITY, our team has had countless ideas, but we always shoot them down because we lack the true complete understanding and difficultly of the task at hand. Ingenious idea came from 2 kinds of people, those how do it as a career and those that have lot of free time to think.

12-06-2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by MoboostWRX:
Believe me I would like to see a horizontally opposed 610cc engine,
Hmmm, the 2CV "big-block", with S/C? Maybe for a European team on a tight budget? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regarding the argument that "Honda (Yama/Kawa/Suzi/etc.) have got better engine designers than us, so we should just buy one of their engines".

The first part of this argument is probably true, but the flaw is that Honda et al most certainly don't design an engine intended to breath through a 20mm restrictor, nor be squashed flat for the lowest possible CG, nor be shoe-horned into the back of a small racecar. If they did they would not have the cams/valves/port-sizes they do, and they wouldn't have the cylinders almost upright, and (even worse) leaning forwards slightly, and with a deep wet-sump. The amount of time/money that FSAE teams spend correcting these "design flaws" shows, to me at least, that the F4 type engine is a long way from "ideal" for FSAE (eg. read currently running thread on reducing intake port diameters with putty/welding/machining/etc.).

I might have more of a rant on this later, but I am becoming more and more convinced that, despite all the computer-aided-everything, the speed of technological development is actually grinding almost to a halt. Read Horst Hardenberg's "The Middle Ages of the Internal-Combustion Engine" to see how fast it used to be.

...Then there is that lovely money factor. BOOM! "Wow, that was a good test run." A 5 whole minutes and I get to build another one...
So that doesn't happen with F4i's??? Plenty of pics on this site of bike engines with ventilated blocks. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...I just cant see this [build-your-own-engine] withou either a lot of funding or a team of 25 4.0 gpa engine gurus with dynamic, tuning and machine abilities.
Will Attard, where are you? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Jersey Tom

12-06-2005, 08:42 PM

A boxer 610cc 4cyl would be tight, use the pistons out of an F4i..

A collaborative engineering project would be cool. Get a couple engineers from different schools, design develop and manufacture an engine and transmission... I'd love to do it just don't have all the resources/knowledge here at CU. Got killer machine shops though..

magicweed

12-06-2005, 09:03 PM

Personally I'd like to adapt the Honda VFR 500 engine to the application, with a transaxle. I think the small displacement V-four configuration would be excellent for our application allowing for a tight package near the seat with a centralized location in the chassis. That or a turbo Nnija 500R inline twin. They make 50hp stock with a more boost friendly 10.8:1 compression. I could also shrink the ports to increase the charge velocity, but I've alread got another thread going on that as Z pointed out.
I dont think that the FSAE development is stagnant, as I'm sure all of us could come up with ideas to pursue, but the issue is time and money. However, that 500cc inline twin might be worth looking into. I think I found my engine combo for next year. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RiNaZ

12-06-2005, 09:05 PM

that's not a bad idea jersey tom. Maybe it can go further than just engine and trans., Would love to see that happen.

Eddie Martin

12-06-2005, 10:32 PM

Z, your "thinking outside the box" approach is refreshing but maybe doing "Diplomatic forum posting 101" may help with acceptance of your ideas and views. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In regards to your comments about the 2002 Oz comp our car was handling badly and costing us a lot of time. When we were testing our car before the competition we would generally run on old formula ford tyres or worn out hoosier's (cost) on very smooth tracks. Our wheel rates were quite soft and we had the car going well. When we got super sticky tyres and a much bumpier track, issues with the dampers arose. They were really bad on the first autox runs, we made some changes and the car was better, then more changes for the enduros and the car was better again. We changed dampers and did some dyno work before the USA in 2003 which helped a lot.

Toyko were quiet fast and it was a great first year car but teams like UWA, UNSW, Melbourne, USYD, RIT etc. were much quicker. Toyko were using a simple washer as a restrictor and our engine group leader spent most of the weekend getting their engine to run properly and getting them through the three stickers (even running something crazy like 50 psi in the tyres to get through the brake test).Their custom starter motor was on a reduction ratio of something like 8:1 and constantly engaged, so it was spinning extremely fast all the time.

This is an engineering design competition that just happens to be for racing cars. Whether you want to go simple or sophisticated it should depend on your human resources. When a racing car enters the picture and the red mist descends, logic seems to go out the window. With any engineering product a testing and development period is critical to validate design decisions and make improvements. If you don't test your car a lot (3 months) before the competition you can't possibly learn as much as building something super radical that struggles though the events and doesn't finish the enduro. To get anywhere near a 1000 points you need to finish every event and do well in all events so reliability and practice should be number one on the priority list for both static and dynamic events.

Every year about 150 "standard" spaceframe, 600-4's with 13 inch wheels are built. Of them probably 5 to 10 are top class. Of the "radical" cars maybe 30 to 40 are built and maybe 1 or 2 are top class. People then assume that you have to go standard to be successful all the time ignoring the 140 or so standard cars that don't reach the top shelf. What matters at the end of the day is that the vehicle is well thought out, integrated and packaged, understood by the students and tested. UWA and some others have proved that a carbon tub can be successful as have RMIT and others with a single. It doesn't matter what you do or what concept you set out for your vehicle, you just have to do it well.

BeaverGuy

12-06-2005, 10:35 PM

I think a custom boxer engine certainly solves some of our problems. However, looking to any of the 600 cc 4 cylinder engines for pistons would just reintroduce problems. One of our problems with these is the speeds they make power and torque at. The bore to stroke ratio is the fundamental reason that these engines want to rev so high. With the same pistons and displacement you don't get rid of one of the basic problems of these motors. I'm not sure what the diameter of the 250cc 4cyl pistons are but I imagine they would be a better fit as they are sure to be a smaller bore.

I would think a 600cc flat four, or eight with a redline around 8-9k rpm and a CR approaching 15 if NA would be a good selection for a motor. Though there would be the obvious problem of cylinder head design, cam design, and engine dynamics to deal with. Those are certainly more fun than trying to cram a fixed engine in the same space as the driver and rear suspension.

Drivetrain wise I definitely like a CVT and unidirectional clutches instead of a traditional diff.

Kevin Hayward

12-07-2005, 07:10 AM

I find it funny that innovation posts nearly always end up talking about different engines to run in FSAE. I would have thought it fairly clear that while the engine is important other parts of the car contribute greatly towards the overall performance of the car.

I know a few years ago that some of the top judges were split between Aerodynamics and dampers as being the two biggest areas for potential change.

They seem like logical places to place resources. Developing your own dampers is not out of the question. I wonder why we haven't seen even more innovation in this area. One of our students in electrical looked into Rheological Dampers. We ended up not going with them dues to the Kinetics system but there was definitely a lot of potential. It would not be two hard to build your own (as most of the existing ones we found were very heavy).

What about builing custom (super small) conevtional dampers with lightweight materials. It may not appear innovative but how many do you see at comp? Some may disagree but I do not think there are any great FSAE dampers to be had off the shelf.

What about a hydraulic springing system like on the Team for Holland Lemans vehicle?

I wont talk about aero because my knowledge is lacking in that area.

It seems to me that a lot of potential performance is being missed by chasing after new engines and radical redesigns. What about putting resources into finding the right tyres and how they work? There is enough evidence to suggest that there are more viable choices than just Hoosier and Goodyear. You have to get very innovative to compare tyres well without massive amounts of money to go testing. The Consortium was a start but definitely not enough to choose well amongst all the candidates out there.

On another note I don't think there is enough mentioned about innovative design and manufacturing processes. Last US comp we got grilled by one of the judges about the design procedures we used and how we came to our decisions.

Kev