Course Design Feedback & Discussion - FSAE Lincoln

[raitinger]

My name is Lawrence Raitinger, I've been the AutoX and Endurance event captain/co-captain at FSAE Lincoln for 2012 & 2013. First off I'd like to say congrats to all the teams that made it out to Lincoln this year, and I was really impressed to see all the cars complete endurance. I believe it was straight up 50%, that ties the highest completion rate for any FSAE event, and I would love to see it beaten next year.

As we move into our event wrap up and review phase we would like to take input from you guys on all things course design before we begin work on new courses for next year. I can't take any real credit for the course designs, that all goes to one of SCCA's top course designers, Roger Johnson, he does all the real design work. If you have comments that aren't specific to the Lincoln courses, that's fine just make sure to say so. You can throw in anything else for Lincoln that isn't covered in the SAE post event survey, just don't hijack my thread.

FSAE Lincoln 2013 - Course Map (https://www.dropbox.com/s/byze35fshtat20d/2013%20Site%20Map%20Revision5.6%20May31.pdf)
Each grid square ~ 25', there are a ton of layers you can turn on and off.

This year we were able to have AutoX and Endurance set up by the end of Tuesday before all the teams showed up, and we posted some driving videos of both courses on Thursday night. Next year it's our goal to again get the courses done on Tuesday, but also get some higher quality, wider angle, videos up Tuesday night. We might even get some FSAE car video for applicable vantage and speed, and hell, I bet one of the SCCA crew could do a coaching video too.

As you might imagine it is a little tricky to design courses that appease all parties involved. We have novice drivers/novice cars to expert drivers/expert cars, and everything in between. Some would like to see courses be more tight and technical or more open and flowing, while in reality these things are not strictly related. Overall, we try to have courses that address all the dynamic attributes of the cars, are easy to navigate, and are engaging enough for the drivers to have fun. We also try to eliminate overly technical elements that would put novice drivers at a serious time disadvantage or worse a cone plowing off course.

Of course there are those pesky average speeds that have to be addressed as well. My hat goes off to Roger here for being able to incorporate all the great dynamic elements into these courses while hitting our average speed goals spot on. You might wonder how such course design is accomplished, it turns out Roger kind of wrote the book. Check it out below, there is a ton of good info that should be helpful for reading and driving courses, as well as help with your dynamic performance design assumptions for specific course elements.

SCCA Course Design Manual (https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8efhtrp4xt65bu/CourseDesign4.1.2.pdf)

Thanks, and I look forward to your comments!

Lawrence

[Claude Rouelle]

Lawrence,

1. Last year at FSAE Italy there was one tight corner that about 1/2 of the cars could not take without making their car spinning with the throttle with consequence for most of them to hit at least 2,3,4 or even more cones. Several teams complained but the organizers showed them the rule book,. In fact this tight corner radius was 0.5 meter larger that what the minimum corner could be. Most drivers hate it but all spectators loved it! I think there should be such a tight hairpin to test the car (and driver) steering abilities.
I even think that this hairpin should preceded and followed by 2 relatively long straights so that we can appreciate the cars both braking and acceleration strengths.

2. This is not Baja but I wish there could be some relatively high speed portions of the track that could be bumpier than what we usually see. That would show which car have decent damping and the best possible tire contact patch consistency.

3. I wish there could be some 270 degrees medium speed long corners that would add fatigue to the tires on only one car side. Then a heavy braking. The car will come in the braking zone with cold tire on one side and hot (too hot?) tire on the other. They will have to setup and drive their car to cope with these issues; it will be up to the drivers the students to work on this.

4. I wish we could have quite asymmetrical circuits for example all fast corners left and all tight corners right. Or all left end tight entry opening exit and the contrary for let end corners. All left hand corners smooth and all right hand bumpy. It would push the students to think asymmetrical and work on their car setup (camber, damping, aero, diff etc... ) accordingly.

5. I think we should have corners with mixed braking and cornering zones that obliges the driver to trail brake. You will see the cars which lock only one wheel and have major dynamic corner weight issues.

6. I wish the track width would slightly change from one corner to another (not much; one meter) to possibly have some corners with different possible trajectory and test driver adaptation skills.

In other short words, make it safe, unusual but technically difficult for car setup

The FSAE most beautiful track is Brazil because it is a very green environment (lots of trees), there is a lot of elevation change, several of camber and blind apex corners and you can see practically the whole track from anywhere you stand. A sort of mini Brands Hatch or a mini twist Martinsville road course if you want. It is for sure contributing to the nice atmosphere of the competition. If you add the emotion and the enthusiasm of Brazilian singing Sambas, you get an idea of the feast; I love it there! It is a go kart track with many additional cones so it relatively low speed and it is safe with a lot of grass between the track and the guard rails.

Juts my 0.02 $ perspectives.

[Claude Rouelle]

Lawrence,

Additional thoughts.

Look at Turn 2,3,4 at Suzuka: a succession of chicanes which are different geometries. If you take the "right trajectory" for the first one you will lose a lot of time in the last one. There are a few example alike on the long Nurburgring.

PS1 There a free of charge simplified lap time simulation software on our website. It is not perfect but it is useful. It is "only" a mass point but it is within a fraction of a percent of the real lap time (with good drivers) so it is very useful to understand and simulate cars and track. Several FSAE teams use it so there are already several available car and track libraries.
PS2 Our company has been involved in several track design (Miller Park was one of them) in the US but we did that with more sophisticated software: the main goal was not only to predict lap time for different car categories but to design the shape and the size of escape zones and gravel traps.

[Nayrsiemanym99]

Lawrence,

Excellent job with track design and event operation at Lincoln.

-I greatly enjoyed how early and available the tracks were to walk. This is truely taking advantage of the space available at Lincoln.

-A complex design combining everything from single cone to multi-cone turns, super wide to super narrow, and long corners to hairpins is something that makes Lincoln amazing.

-I like that different drivers can very easily see the track in different ways. It gives those who take the time to walk the track and talk about it an advantage.

Elements of Lincoln tracks that I especially like:
-Single cone apex turns of widening radius in Autocross
-The tight section into a long straight in Autocross
-The long sweeping Left turn in Endurance

-I didn't like that the endurance tracks remained similar from year to year. Mix it up for next year.

-I liked that the track designs were posted early online and they were laid out VERY accurately. Great job to the SCCA guys who worked hard to set them up! It allows us to take advantage of simulation tools like OptimumLap and train drivers on our own tracks by setting up similar elements.

-I agree with Claude that a difficult track element near the spectators would be a great addition.

-There were a few confusing points in the drivers meeting like "four wheels off course." Making sure all event captains use the same phrasing could easily fix that. I did like that there was only one meeting which covered everything dynamic event wise.

-Of the competitions I've attended, Lincoln tracks have been by far my favorite.

Thanks for sharing the Manual!

Cheers,
Ryan Johnson
Crew Chief
McGill Racing Team

[raitinger]

My first thoughts from Claude's points. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Add spin cone of impending penalty doom http://i.imgur.com/jK0GXXr.png (http://imgur.com/jK0GXXr)

-Add FSAE log pit, aka rumble strips
-Add super sweeper, this has got to be in the ball park of 270deg
http://i.imgur.com/pTORcwa.png (http://imgur.com/pTORcwa)
-Substantial asymmetry, enough to begin thinking about crankin in some wedge?
-Trail braking corners.
-Varied track width, I'd say most US courses have this to some extent already. Are talking about more driving line options than this? I suppose we do choke down exits fairly tight.
http://i.imgur.com/xaA4qiL.png (http://imgur.com/xaA4qiL)

http://i.imgur.com/9hfS5vj.png (http://imgur.com/9hfS5vj)

http://i.imgur.com/nHNzpMk.png (http://imgur.com/nHNzpMk)

http://i.imgur.com/VgXnF1B.png (http://imgur.com/VgXnF1B)

-Make Lincoln more pretty, add elevation change, trees, and Brazilian women.

But seriously.

I kind of like the idea of the straight-hairpin-straight, but the cone hitting part might be unnecessary. You should be able to give room on the outside of the turn for a little runoff without loosing the "tightness" of the fast line. The lap times will separate the cars out without the need for penalties. Though it does sound fun to watch. Most courses do lack the opportunity to test outright acceleration, really hard braking, and the transitions to and from each.

There is certainly the opportunity at Lincoln to add in a bit of bumpiness in high speed turns, but I'd guess a majority of the teams can't even afford an accurately tunable set of shocks. They take what they can get.

I'm kind of surprised at the emphasis on asymmetry. I suppose it would lend itself to some killer design questions and certainly separate the men from the boys, so to speak. Unfortunately the number of team's that could make these adjustments with any real confidence is probably very small.

I'm also a little surprised at the interest in pushing driver's skills further coming from a design judge. Good to really good drivers can already knock off around 3-5sec a lap. There always the old this is an "engineering" competition argument.

If you look to the second half of Roger's course design manual it's like a rather analog version of a basic lapsim. Make some assumptions about lateral and longitudinal accel capabilities, and start braking down course elements...lengths straights, radius of corners, etc. I STRONGLY encourage teams to check it out combined with the to-scale course maps. We would have killed to have that info, back in the day...

[raitinger]

Ryan,

Thanks for the input, I'm glad you enjoyed the courses. Testing the courses in the prepared miata, I thought this years AutoX course flowed much better and was much more fun.

Next year both courses will be completely new. We are considering developing 3 well sorted courses for AutoX and Enduro each that we can then just cycle through each year.

I agree, a tough technical section for the spectators would be cool. It might be a bit tougher to implement a very technical element in endurance for safety reasons, but I bet we can figure something out.

Yeah the drivers meeting was a little rough around the edges, it was everyone's first year presenting. The four wheels off course is a little confusing on/off when course isn't the difference between pavement and grass. For our purposes it only means within all of the gates/cone walls. The chalk line is only a visual reference, as long as you make it through all the gates you're good.

Lawrence

[MCoach]

One of the tracks that I hear about that is the favorite of many is the VIR track. It was technical, had elevation and camber variation which made it very enjoyable for spectators and drivers alike. The closest thing that I've driven to that is the Mosport karting track.

Asymmetry in a course makes it fun and takes some thinking from the design end of things. Play it safe and set up a car to be easily drivable in both directions or get out of the safe zone and try to set up the car to match?

There was a certain corner from the Michigan endurance track, I believe it was the 2nd to last corner. It was almost a straight away. It was fast, required only a little steer input and the cars that took it well looked very elegant.

Curbs could be added. I know it's not standard autocross procedure, but if anyone is looking for a little added experience, it's good practice for GT and faster style cars. Super low ride height and avoid the bumps or slightly higher ride height and slam the curb. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The straight-hairpin-straight would be fun. It would be able to test a car in full accel and decel conditions. Steady state comes hard, fast, and fleeting before flying out of a corner again.

One corner style that I like to navigate is a decreasing radius sweeper because it takes driver focus to get into and out of it quickly. Some of the interesting variations on it are a constant inner radius and decreasing outer radius, a constant outer radius and increasing inner radius, or both starting relatively wide and decreasing at different rates. It moves the apex further down the line and keeps you on your toes to not carry too much speed into it.

---

The Lincoln track seemed awesome, and was cool to see the Mini video, running the course and giving a very good study tool for drivers. Bravo on the course design and thank you very much. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Luniz]

@Claude: The problem in the 2011 FS Italy Corner was not the corner itself but the two corners leading into it and exiting the particular situation. Cars couldn't approach this corner from the outside, nor could they exit at the outside which made the "effective" radius very small.
But I agree, it was hilarious to watch ;-)

And concerning straight-hairpin-strait: This was FSUK 2009 (look at 00:43 onwards): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1zgUjCwNY4

[Lorenzo Pessa]

Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
1. Last year at FSAE Italy there was one tight corner that about 1/2 of the cars could not take without making their car spinning with the throttle with consequence for most of them to hit at least 2,3,4 or even more cones. Several teams complained but the organizers showed them the rule book,. In fact this tight corner radius was 0.5 meter larger that what the minimum corner could be. Most drivers hate it but all spectators loved it! I think there should be such a tight hairpin to test the car (and driver) steering abilities.


That's not correct.

In the last two years there was that tight corner.
But that tight corner was not alone but in a sequence of three tight corner without enought road between each corner.
Drivers had not enough room to set the correct trajectory to the second and the third corners.

Even if my former team had a car capable to turn around minimum corner (it was verified before), our (experienced) drivers had to use gearshift to get the car inside the last two corners. And in the last two or three laps something got broken.
Rookie drivers had very little chances.

You missed to say that many of that cars were blackflagged.

That was an example of stupid interpretation of rules.


Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
I even think that this hairpin should preceded and followed by 2 relatively long straights so that we can appreciate the cars both braking and acceleration strengths.


That's a more appropriate interpretation of rules.

[Bemo]

I loved that element Luniz is talking about. It was implemented in the 08 and 09 AutoX course at FS UK (for Endurance it wouldn't be a good idea http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
The differences how the cars got around that single cone coming out and getting back into the slalom were huge. And seeing the old videos when Tobi just took the wheel spin option near to perfection is still soooo incredible http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Francis Gagné]

(I did not went to Lincoln so I cannot talk specifically)

I do agree that you need at least one very tight corner to make sure the team make sure the car had appropriate steering lock. In Michigan 2011 there was a tight box after some sweepers, and you had to make a quick left, brake then going to almost full lock at right. The car had to be very stable under braking and you needed a small turning radius. Some cars at the comp (even fast ones) just couldn't make it. It tested the drivers, but also the car a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_hNlu7TgQ (at 0:39)

[jlangholzj]

One of my favorite corners to watch last year in the (off season) were turn 1 and 11 at Circuit of the Americas. I think something like that could help fulfill a straight/hairpin/straight setup.

turn 11 has a slight downhill chicane comming into the hairpin followed by a massive DRS zone. would give the cars a nice high-speed chicane/sweeper to build up some speed (possible trail braking there) along with the hairpin and its ensuing straight

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.cotaexperiences.com/assets/background/251/large/Circuit-of-the-Americas-Experiences-Formula-1-United-States-Austin-Turn-12-and-Turn-15-View.jpg


turn 1 comes out of the second straight with a HUGE uphill incline, followed by a hairpin left and downhill and after a few quick corners leads to some awesome esses (S's....sweepers...whatever...you get my point!) that was also very fun to watch. this turn would also give you guys some of the things you've been wanting.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfR_rBztmJOsaG0ofQif7GotH5debfp pyVw24IFUwRspafb-t-

Also kudos to the guys that do the track setup. I've never driven the autoX or endurance in CA or NE but the setup in lincoln is considerably better and the drivers I do talk to quite enjoy it!

[Michael Royce]

A little history, again! The 9m OD Hairpin turn requirement was put into the Rules after the events at the Ford Australia PG, where we had a single pylon, 180 degree turn to get onto the steering circle, and at Bruntingthorpe where we had similar turns to get between the go-kart track and the go-kart track pits for the Autocross, and off the hard standing onto the go-kart track for Endurance. Even then, some cars had a really hard time with a very poor turning circle.

As track designers we have to work with the facility we are given. At Lincoln, Roger J. has a very nice, large expanse of concrete, but no elevation changes!! At MIS, the course designers have to work with a very narrow (210 feet wide between concrete walls) but long strip. At VIR we had the elevation changes, but a narrow track that was just over a mile long. Nice for the drivers, but it meant a lot of cones and volunteers, and was difficult for communications. In Oz, the Werribee track has an elevation change, but it is very, very narrow. At Formula Student, we have had some FIA kerbing to cross in the past, and this year and last, Andy Ringland and co have done a very nice job laying out a track that appears to combine some tight parts while others give the car its head (I have not had the chance to drive it). At Formula Hybrid this year we had Endurance on the road course outside the oval. Exactly 1.0 km long with some significant elevation changes. We set it up nice and open to let it flow nicely.

So, as I said, we have to work with what we get! Usually, the facility will largely dictate the track layout, as it did at Fiorano for FSAE Italy. Normally we try to have some tight bits and some where the car can get up some speed, with some hard braking. Where we can, we like to include a nice long, fast sweeper or 180 degree turn. We were able to at the Ford Romeo PG for the Michigan event several years ago, but often the facility will not allow it.

[Charles Kaneb]

Can you put a sudden, uneven, unavoidable bump or crest of about 1" in a high-speed section? The main purpose would be to break undertrays that would contact the ground within the mandatory minimum bump suspension travel.

[AxelRipper]

I think the competition should be shaken up every once in a while. Hairpins would be nice, but I really like the asymmetric idea...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Martinsville_Speedway,_September_2011_overview.JPG

[raitinger]

Claude,

It seems there is decent interest in having a "showcase" technical course element. What vantage points would be ideal, I know it depends on each element. I'm guessing to the rear and inside of corner entries, or maybe out in front of the cars aligned with the longitudinal axis at the apex point?

I have vague memories of some design judges milling about with a radar speed gun??? Am I dreaming? The idea of a speed trap could be pretty fun as well. One of those automatic road side speed displays, "Your Speed Is...."

Design Judges & Everyone,

I'm curious as to how many teams were able to put our to-scale course maps to good use, whether it be in the early stage of design, lapsims, or event set-up. As I mentioned before I would have loved to have detailed competition maps, especially early in design when you are trying to quantify what it is these cars are intended to do, go real fast, and how well they need perform to win.

Spectators,

What course elements do people like to watch most? If we think about this early on, we can place to coolest elements nearest the spectators.

[raitinger]

MCoach,

I've never seen anything about the VIR tracks, I'll have to check it out. Anyone have some course maps/pics?? Unfortunately Lincoln is almost as flat as they come. There noticeable grade for drainage, but the cool factor of elevation change is out of our reach. 60 acres of concrete for dynamic events is pretty ok though. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The curbing idea is really interesting and could add in some of the "bumpiness", but I'm struggling to see how it could be implemented and secured.

We use the decreasing radius corners pretty lightly right now, mainly to save the less experienced drivers a lot of grief. We try to avoid adding toooo much to the effect highly skilled drivers on lap times.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Luniz,

That looks like a driving nightmare, but I bet it was awesome to watch. So who had the best Gymkhana, E-brake, rally skills??

I bet everyone was actually pissed because they didn't get to do it with exploding balls of fire in their background. Someone needs to talk to Monster Energy & DC Shoes for sponsorship!

[raitinger]

Lorenzo & Bemo,

Was the section similar to a condensed version of what Claude was talking about T2-3-4 at Suzuka?

http://i.imgur.com/AJonJZO.png (http://imgur.com/AJonJZO)


Bemo, I think I need to see the Tobi wheel spin option video, do you have a link?

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Francis,

I'm on the fence about sections which are THAT tight. Too me they are right on the edge of being nothing more than a maneuverability test, but then even some of the bigger cars are able to carry substantially higher speeds through those sections. So the difference in dynamic performance is still there.

Additionally, with the avg speeds the rules call for there will always be some tight/slow section, if for nothing more then to bring down the average course speed. Especially if you want any kind of decent speed sweepers and straights.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

jlangholzj,

I see we have another vote for a hairpin!

T1 & T11 at COTA are definitely solid. I think some of the best sounds were to be heard right around the beginning of the breaking zone into T11, you got to hear all the nastiness of the downshifts going into the hairpin followed by the all out accel from the exit.

T1 is going to be historic, from the start/finish elevation you just see this mountain of asphalt with no apex in sight. The Ferrari challenge cars seemed to have the most action on T1.

T18-19-20 was also a really nice view with plenty of spins and passing.

[raitinger]

Mr. Royce.

Thanks for all the history info! I'm surprised to find out so many courses have used the single pylon turns, but I don't think I've ever seem one on a US course. Do the students seem to enjoy them, the ones that aren't really tight anyway?

Lincoln is very fortunate to have the large expanse of concrete, and that is primarily why I wanted to start this discussion. Really we are only limited by the rules and our imaginations, so we would like to take full advantage of the opportunity, and work to improve the competition.

I helped set up the Formula Hybrid course last year, when part of the course was on the oval. It will probably be the only time I get to set up an off camber slalom. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Charles,

We've had spots set up with 1" abrupt bumps in Lincoln. For some reason many people complained at the thought of bottoming out at speed. Where is their sense of adventure?

[raitinger]

AxelRipper,

I agree with the shaking up of the competition. I always thought rolling rules changes would be fun.

I present to you the next evolution in skip pad design.

http://i.imgur.com/ErdX6tS.jpg (http://imgur.com/ErdX6tS)

[Charles Kaneb]

Originally posted by raitinger:
Charles,

We've had spots set up with 1" abrupt bumps in Lincoln. For some reason many people complained at the thought of bottoming out at speed. Where is their sense of adventure?

That is EXACTLY what I wanted - a bunch of broken undertrays and parts ripped off cars with inadequate ground clearance.

Lincoln has enough perfect concrete to be able to design a nearly glass-smooth autox course. It is a lot smoother than our test site. It is a lot smoother than most teams' test sites. If you don't want teams running considerably stronger ground-effect aero that hasn't been tested under similar conditions to the competition conditions, then you should use the bumpy parts as well as the smooth ones.

Otherwise you're going to see a car that has never pulled more than 2.5g in testing (with 1" of ground clearance) to pull 3+g for the very first time at competition with 1/4" of ground clearance. Between the additional downforce and the very abrasive and sticky Lincoln surface some car whose team has a smart aero guy will be way beyond its test conditions.

[mdavis]

Originally posted by raitinger:
Charles,

We've had spots set up with 1" abrupt bumps in Lincoln. For some reason many people complained at the thought of bottoming out at speed. Where is their sense of adventure?

I didn't drive autocross but I did walk both the initial course and the modified one. I was rather disappointed that the track was moved out of the ~1" dropoff and onto the smooth section of track. A lot of teams run as little ground clearance as possible, but they need to get over it if the track has some bumps. Also the teams running super spindly a-arms are probably not going to like the bumps, but it's a simple matter of not building your car for the super smooth glass sheets that the course can be.

As for your question about using the course maps, we discussed it on the 12 hour drive from Cincinnati to Lincoln, spending time looking over the map, discussing how we would drive it, which ones are the important cones, etc. Unfortunately, we were quite wrong in our initial assumptions, and the extra time to walk the course on Wednesday was massively helpful.

-Matt

PS, that course design handbook was extremely interesting to read. It could be quite helpful for setting up courses in the future for our team.

[Z]

Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
1. Last year at FSAE Italy there was one tight corner that about 1/2 of the cars could not take without making their car spinning with the throttle with consequence for most of them to hit at least 2,3,4 or even more cones. Several teams complained but the organizers showed them the rule book,. In fact this tight corner radius was 0.5 meter larger that what the minimum corner could be. Most drivers hate it but all spectators loved it! I think there should be such a tight hairpin to test the car (and driver) steering abilities.
I even think that this hairpin should preceded and followed by 2 relatively long straights so that we can appreciate the cars both braking and acceleration strengths.
Claude,

I agree with you 100% on this point!
~~~o0o~~~

Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
2. This is not Baja but I wish there could be some relatively high speed portions of the track that could be bumpier than what we usually see. That would show which car have <STRIKE>decent damping and</STRIKE> the best possible tire contact patch consistency. (My edit.)

Claude,

On this particular point I agree with you 1,000% !!! (Err, if that is possible http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, and except that UWA style soft twist-mode suspension is a bigger advantage than damper rates. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
~~~o0o~~~

Lawrence,

Here is a link to one of my rambles on the "Bump Map" (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/73320357151?r=34420087151#34420087151). That map might help you decide on suitable heights and lengths of any bumps that you add to the tracks. Ie., hills don't make the suspension work, but bumps about 1 to 2 inches high by 2 to 20 feet long will.

One possible option for "temporary" bumps would be large, moulded rubber mats that are (weakly) glued to the concrete at critical points of the track. Think giant cow pats, say, 10 feet across and 2+ inches high at middle, tapering to 1/4" at edge, that are scattered around corner entries, exits, etc. Bad suspension cars have to drive the long way around, while good suspension cars take the shortest route.

Z

[nick roberts]

You've opened up quite the can of worms Lawrence.

I have always been a fan of utilizing the same course for autocross and endurance. Besides providing the drivers with a bit more time on a given course which can even the playing field when considering driver skill, it makes the competition feel a little more 'racy'. Essentially Autocross becomes 'qualifying' for the 'race', or endurance. At Lincoln you could potentially take it a step further and use the autocross/endurance track for the practice course as well. This would even the playing field even more as it is difficult for a good driver to get everything out of the car in 2 laps, let alone an average driver. Practice course laps could be limited to keep things from getting out of hand.



Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
Lawrence,

1. Last year at FSAE Italy there was one tight corner that about 1/2 of the cars could not take without making their car spinning with the throttle with consequence for most of them to hit at least 2,3,4 or even more cones. Several teams complained but the organizers showed them the rule book,. In fact this tight corner radius was 0.5 meter larger that what the minimum corner could be. Most drivers hate it but all spectators loved it! I think there should be such a tight hairpin to test the car (and driver) steering abilities.
I even think that this hairpin should preceded and followed by 2 relatively long straights so that we can appreciate the cars both braking and acceleration strengths.

Despite the fact that I hated the 5MPH hard right turn shown in the video linked by Francis, I think that there should be this type of element on a course, but only if it flows with the connecting elements of the course. At Michigan '11 in particular the entry was great, a hard brake zone with a slight pitch left to set up for the hard right, but on exiting the driver immediately encountered 2 consecutive tight slaloms. Yuck. Not only is that frustrating for the driver, but its no good to watch either.

I love the idea of a long straight, nice hairpin, long straight sequence. At Lincoln they could almost swap that in for the showcase 180 between corner station 1 and 6.



Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
2. This is not Baja but I wish there could be some relatively high speed portions of the track that could be bumpier than what we usually see. That would show which car have decent damping and the best possible tire contact patch consistency.

You want more bumps just ask the course designers. At Lincoln it would be easy to add numerous 1-1.5" bumps. Each of those 25' square blocks has a seam around the perimeter, and a good number of them are pretty nasty.

Has it ever been policy for higher up design judges to request elements for the course design? That could understandably get out of hand, but if the requests were as simple as some of the suggestions going around here I would imagine Roger and Lawrence could accommodate to some extent.



Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
6. I wish the track width would slightly change from one corner to another (not much; one meter) to possibly have some corners with different possible trajectory and test driver adaptation skills.

I would say that Lincoln is substantially better than Michigan and the old Fontana courses, but there were a few corners that could have benefited from a wider exit to allow a more creative line. However, at some point the majority of drivers will gravitate towards the line most used just to avoid ending up in the marbles.


http://i.imgur.com/xaA4qiL.png

In my opinion this sequence would be significantly more enjoyable to drive/watch if the first left turn wasn't almost 180. As it is there is no way to maintain speed and you end up with a more awkward directional change as opposed to a more flowing sequence of increasing radius/decreasing angle turns.

-Nick Roberts

[nick roberts]

Originally posted by Z:
One possible option for "temporary" bumps would be large, moulded rubber mats that are (weakly) glued to the concrete at critical points of the track. Think giant cow pats, say, 10 feet across and 2+ inches high at middle, tapering to 1/4" at edge, that are scattered around corner entries, exits, etc. Bad suspension cars have to drive the long way around, while good suspension cars take the shortest route.

Z

I doubt LAP would appreciate SAE bonding rubber mats to their apron.

Seriously though, Lincoln has plenty of bumps the course designers could incorporate into the design.


-Nick Roberts

[raitinger]

Originally posted by Charles Kaneb:

That is EXACTLY what I wanted - a bunch of broken undertrays and parts ripped off cars with inadequate ground clearance.

Lincoln has enough perfect concrete to be able to design a nearly glass-smooth autox course. It is a lot smoother than our test site. It is a lot smoother than most teams' test sites. If you don't want teams running considerably stronger ground-effect aero that hasn't been tested under similar conditions to the competition conditions, then you should use the bumpy parts as well as the smooth ones.

Otherwise you're going to see a car that has never pulled more than 2.5g in testing (with 1" of ground clearance) to pull 3+g for the very first time at competition with 1/4" of ground clearance. Between the additional downforce and the very abrasive and sticky Lincoln surface some car whose team has a smart aero guy will be way beyond its test conditions.

Charles,

I can feel the hate for aero cars is strong in you, but I think you are being a bit optimistic about all of the broken parts induced by a 1" bump. If anything I'd guess most of the parts that would break are suspension related. We address what we might see a potential issues in Tech, Grid, and on course. I spoke to several teams personally about various ground clearance issues. Only one team was going to actually get DQ'd for very consistently contacting the track, but they broke down before they were pulled from endurance.

Plus, why would you really want other teams' cars to break so badly. So, you can sit back and manically laugh as your plan to run a rather high ride height has finally become a success. EVERY car should be at the lowest ride height that you can get away with, aero or non aero.

It's my goal for teams to come to Lincoln and get the best performance out of their car as possible, period, especially regardless of their at home test conditions. Every team pays a decent chunk to enter the competition, and we should try to get you your money's worth. I have no interest in trying to penalize teams for exploring a perfectly viable design option such as ground effect aero.

I'd say a special congrats are in order for Auburn, for showing everyone you can still be good without ANY aero, even at Lincoln. There will always be a place in FSAE for simple.

[raitinger]

Originally posted by mdavis:

I didn't drive autocross but I did walk both the initial course and the modified one. I was rather disappointed that the track was moved out of the ~1" dropoff and onto the smooth section of track. A lot of teams run as little ground clearance as possible, but they need to get over it if the track has some bumps. Also the teams running super spindly a-arms are probably not going to like the bumps, but it's a simple matter of not building your car for the super smooth glass sheets that the course can be.

As for your question about using the course maps, we discussed it on the 12 hour drive from Cincinnati to Lincoln, spending time looking over the map, discussing how we would drive it, which ones are the important cones, etc. Unfortunately, we were quite wrong in our initial assumptions, and the extra time to walk the course on Wednesday was massively helpful.

-Matt

PS, that course design handbook was extremely interesting to read. It could be quite helpful for setting up courses in the future for our team.

Matt,

We changed the AutoX course this year and last year due to one of these concrete seam bumps. Last year we had a rather substantial 1.25"+ step input style bump near the end of a max length rules legal straight. The bump ran diagonal to the driving line and would have probably been in some peoples braking zone. This year, as you know, we had .75"-1" bump at about the midpoint of a medium sized 180deg sweeper.

In both instances the course was moved about 15' feet to the side to avoid the bumps. This was more based on our designed intentions for the course rather than to appease people's complaints. You see there are quite a few concrete squares out there and the courses are designed at home on the computer without knowing where all the nasty bumps are. It also goes along with our thought process from my previous post to Charles, we try to give you guys the best course we can put together. We have 60 acres of concrete, if all we have to do get rid of a bump and make the course better is shift it 15' to the side, why on earth wouldn't you do it? Would we just be lazy?

On an also rather important note, we have a nice site and we'd like to keep it. Placing the course over bumps that we believe might incite contact and potentially damage the site is in no ones best interest. I don't think this years bump would have caused any ground contact, just a lot of unsettling mid corner.

Lawrence

[Charles Kaneb]

Originally posted by raitinger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charles Kaneb:

That is EXACTLY what I wanted - a bunch of broken undertrays and parts ripped off cars with inadequate ground clearance.

Lincoln has enough perfect concrete to be able to design a nearly glass-smooth autox course. It is a lot smoother than our test site. It is a lot smoother than most teams' test sites. If you don't want teams running considerably stronger ground-effect aero that hasn't been tested under similar conditions to the competition conditions, then you should use the bumpy parts as well as the smooth ones.

Otherwise you're going to see a car that has never pulled more than 2.5g in testing (with 1" of ground clearance) to pull 3+g for the very first time at competition with 1/4" of ground clearance. Between the additional downforce and the very abrasive and sticky Lincoln surface some car whose team has a smart aero guy will be way beyond its test conditions.

Charles,

I can feel the hate for aero cars is strong in you, but I think you are being a bit optimistic about all of the broken parts induced by a 1" bump. If anything I'd guess most of the parts that would break are suspension related. We address what we might see a potential issues in Tech, Grid, and on course. I spoke to several teams personally about various ground clearance issues. Only one team was going to actually get DQ'd for very consistently contacting the track, but they broke down before they were pulled from endurance.

Plus, why would you really want other teams' cars to break so badly. So, you can sit back and manically laugh as your plan to run a rather high ride height has finally become a success. EVERY car should be at the lowest ride height that you can get away with, aero or non aero.

It's my goal for teams to come to Lincoln and get the best performance out of their car as possible, period, especially regardless of their at home test conditions. Every team pays a decent chunk to enter the competition, and we should try to get you your money's worth. I have no interest in trying to penalize teams for exploring a perfectly viable design option such as ground effect aero.

I'd say a special congrats are in order for Auburn, for showing everyone you can still be good without ANY aero, even at Lincoln. There will always be a place in FSAE for simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Raitinger, I wasn't THAT serious about wanting to see broken parts! I know what it feels like to have an unexpected problem screw up competition. The team I'm on brought an aero car to Lincoln this year and it worked fairly well.

My point was that allowing lower ride heights than in testing will allow aero teams to achieve significantly more downforce than they had in testing. Between that and the high-grip surface at Lincoln teams will attain significantly more grip than they had in testing. We left the DAQ off, for cost event points, so I don't have a peak or sustained lateral acceleration measurement for you, but I can say that we had to stiffen our springs by about 35% from our surface at home to avoid bottoming out.

I think most of the teams that'll be able to build a car that can pull 3+g on that surface next year will be the ones who generated their load cases around being able to generate that sort of lateral grip and did the right sort of analyses on them. On the other hand, if something's going to break from a one-time overload, it's most likely to do it now in the fastest corner on a course this smooth and grippy, since the ratio of lateral acceleration in fast corners to lateral acceleration in slow corners is going to continue to rise. If we have to anticipate a couple of fairly large bumps it'll let us operate closer to our test conditions.

[raitinger]

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 Claude Rouelle:

I even think that this hairpin should preceded and followed by 2 relatively long straights so that we can appreciate the cars both braking and acceleration strengths.[/b]
Claude,

I agree with you 100% on this point!
~~~o0o~~~

Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
2. This is not Baja but I wish there could be some relatively high speed portions of the track that could be bumpier than what we usually see. That would show which car have <STRIKE>decent damping and</STRIKE> the best possible tire contact patch consistency. (My edit.)

Claude,

On this particular point I agree with you 1,000% !!! (Err, if that is possible http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, and except that UWA style soft twist-mode suspension is a bigger advantage than damper rates. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
~~~o0o~~~

Lawrence,

Here is a link to one of my rambles on the "Bump Map" (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/73320357151?r=34420087151#34420087151). That map might help you decide on suitable heights and lengths of any bumps that you add to the tracks. Ie., hills don't make the suspension work, but bumps about 1 to 2 inches high by 2 to 20 feet long will.

One possible option for "temporary" bumps would be large, moulded rubber mats that are (weakly) glued to the concrete at critical points of the track. Think giant cow pats, say, 10 feet across and 2+ inches high at middle, tapering to 1/4" at edge, that are scattered around corner entries, exits, etc. Bad suspension cars have to drive the long way around, while good suspension cars take the shortest route.

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Z,

We are definitely going to strongly look the straight-hairpin-straight for next year at Lincoln. The challenge for AutoX is that the entire series of elements will take up a sizable length of the track and have high enough speeds to potentially pull up the avg course speed quite a bit. There may have to be rather slow elements for the entry to first straight and exit of the last. Maybe even end up having a bit of a mountain switchback kinda feel, that actually sounds pretty sweet! The challenge for endurance would be primarily safety. The tight radius of the hairpin brings the entry exit traffic a little too close for comfort, not to mention, the braking/turning/spinning into the hairpin is just asking a pileup accident. However, it would be the ultimate test of your braking system, a more accurate assessment of corner exit coupled outright acceleration, and a less suspension/aero based more powertrain based evaluation of fuel efficiency.

On the subject of rubber cow pats, cow patties here is KS, I would tend to shy away from that approach for multiple reasons. Mainly due to what Claude eluded to with the, this isn't baja, comment. The rules don't remotely discuss added in bumps to any courses. Also, there's the implementation. Weakly glued isn't really isn't much of an option. It would have to be confidently secured for the duration of the event, and then easily removed. We are allowed to bolt-in to the concrete, but bolting in several bumps at potentially different locations each year is probably not good stewardship of the site.

Now, a philosophy of having bumps on course to see who has done the suspensions design exercise the best and filter the ranks of top teams is one thing. As someone said in the suspension thread ,I don't remember if it was you Z or not, but teams can do quite well with virtually no suspension at all. Hence FSAE's place on the bump map next to karts and those oh so competitive indoor forklifts. Adding or insuring bumps on course to keep the idea that you need to "design" a suspension alive is something else entirely, and is something I could support. Two inches of theoretical suspension travel doesn't mean the car won't act an awful lot like a kart. Without hijacking my own thread, this isn't to say that suspensions that have kart like tendencies are not the result of a well sorted suspension design given most FSAE conditions.

The FS Germay video Tobias referenced here (http://bnerd.de/2012/07/live-stream-formula-student-germany-2012-hockenheimring/) is about as good as your going to get in FSAE without purposely adding manufactured bumps. Tobias also makes a great observation which notes the cars that show visible "unhealthy" suspension traits do not appear to sacrifice any time. So continues this circle shaped semantic argument on the focus of this competition and perceived acceptable design solutions, better served by another thread.

I did stumble upon the ideal product for this situation, with a name like Road Quake, you know it's good. Road Quake!! (http://www.plasticsafety.com/road-quake-temporary-portable-rumble-strips)

Side note: Tobi, you and your organizers coverage of FSG is really awesome, keep up the good work!!

[Charles Kaneb]

If you design a straightaway-hairpin-straightaway section, you do not have to make the straightaways all that long - if you make the hairpin less than 180 degrees.

If you need 80' of separation between the exits of the corners leading into and leading out of the hairpin section, and you have a 150 degree hairpin, then if the hairpin is 30' or so wide, you can have two 100' straightaways (100' sin 30 = 50').

Two of these back-to-back would be a nice element to add.

[raitinger]

Nick, a man of many competitions.

Yes, yes, quite the can of worms.

The old reused AutoX course method. I've never accounted for all of the driver potential here for inexperienced drivers to get a better feel for the course along with getting the most out of their cars. Especially if we were to copy the course design into the practice course. I don't know how out of hand it might get, but I it would certainly bring some added incentive to have your car sorted out and through tech earlier. Which I would only guess would lead teams doing better for the rest of the dynamic events. Unfortunately, the two courses, AutoX/Enudrance, would need to be somewhat different to accommodate a variation in speed more or less spec'd by the rules and addition of the passing zones for endurance.

The straight-hairpin-straight, seems to be quite loved by everyone involved, so we will certainly look at adding one in. As I mentioned in an earlier post the hairpin is one of those elements that would be acceptable and easy to do for AutoX, yet would be a safety concern in Endurance. This would be the downfall of the shared AutoX/Endurance course, you'd probably have to limit yourself to course elements that are acceptable for both events.

You are right on the bump situation, we have them, we could put them in. We could really use a "surveyed" bump map to identify where they are and their severity. Anyone volunteering?

We won't allow the leather Aussie hat crew to become too demanding, but I think they can certainly bring something to the table. It also seems the students would enjoy seeing the differences in handling put directly on display.

I'd agree that a several corners are aggressively limiting on corner exits. I can tell the primary reason for this is to limit the turning radius and in turn speed, all in a effort to hit the rule spec avg speeds.

Lawrence

[mdavis]

Originally posted by raitinger:
Matt,

We changed the AutoX course this year and last year due to one of these concrete seam bumps. Last year we had a rather substantial 1.25"+ step input style bump near the end of a max length rules legal straight. The bump ran diagonal to the driving line and would have probably been in some peoples braking zone. This year, as you know, we had .75"-1" bump at about the midpoint of a medium sized 180deg sweeper.

In both instances the course was moved about 15' feet to the side to avoid the bumps. This was more based on our designed intentions for the course rather than to appease people's complaints. You see there are quite a few concrete squares out there and the courses are designed at home on the computer without knowing where all the nasty bumps are. It also goes along with our thought process from my previous post to Charles, we try to give you guys the best course we can put together. We have 60 acres of concrete, if all we have to do get rid of a bump and make the course better is shift it 15' to the side, why on earth wouldn't you do it? Would we just be lazy?

On an also rather important note, we have a nice site and we'd like to keep it. Placing the course over bumps that we believe might incite contact and potentially damage the site is in no ones best interest. I don't think this years bump would have caused any ground contact, just a lot of unsettling mid corner.

Lawrence

Lawrence,

You guys are completely justified in changing the course, and I understand your reasoning completely. A ~1.25" step input would break a lot of cars, especially if there are cars still on the brakes at that point. And I agree completely about not wanting to damage the site. The Lincoln location is fantastic (so much concrete it's not even funny), and doing everything to keep that site is absolutely a good idea.

The thing that I really liked about the endurance course was the left hand sweeper (series of 2 corners that pretty well seemed like a sweeper from the driver change area) where there was a set of bleachers last year (myself and another guy from our team drove out to spectate on Endurance day last year) where there were no bleachers this year. Since I was in the driver change area for our team during endurance, I was able to see the cars there, but that was definitely a showcase corner, in my opinion. Other than that (I watched the last handful of cars from the bleachers), the right hand sweeping corner before the checkered flag station and the slalom right in front of the bleachers were awesome. As a suspension guy, I love watching the cars through quick transition type elements (like the slalom) as well as being able to see the cars in a more steady state corner (the right hander, and even the left coming out of the slalom onto the straight/passing zone). Going back to the big left hander, I really liked that there was a nice patch of sealant/small (~1/2") bump towards the middle of that corner that worked to unsettle the cars. You can definitely see it from our onboard video, and I could see it while watching from the driver change area. If you can find more bumps like that and incorporate them into the different sections of corners, that would be awesome. I know it is one of the things that I would look for on course walks while making the maps for our drivers (the Canada competition had no course maps whatsoever, so even a hand drawn map was better than nothing). I understand it would take a lot of work (there's a lot of concrete to cover to find bumps of all different input sizes, etc. but you could probably cover a lot of it during events like Spring Nationals and Nationals in the fall) but I'm sure you could get some volunteers (I would, but I'll be all out of vacation time this fall).

If you look at the video of the top 5 from FSG last year, at the 9 minute mark, there is a very nice decently high speed transition element that would be really nice to see added to the course. They're a lot of fun to drive, and if there's a big enough time penalty (enough entrance/exit cones) for over cooking it, you should limit the number of drivers pushing beyond the limit of their cars and themselves. This information could be quite useful to design judges (if in the autocross course, and therefore before design finals) or to other team members. It's also fun to see how well other teams cars are working.

Edit: I forgot to say, I like the way the courses are set up in the US a lot better than those in Europe. The fewer cones the better, imo. Our local SCCA region has started removing extra cones from the tracks and it helps a lot. Much less sea of cones, especially when the tops of cones are at eye level.

-Matt

[Claude Rouelle]

A few additional comments

1. About bump(s). I believe that is not the height or the length of ONE bump which will makes us see good car ride or the suspension and chassis elements reliability (our goal is not to make a breaking car circuit; again this is not Baja); it is the frequency of several bumps in a row in the car heave and pitch natural frequency region that will make noticeable difference.

2. We need 1 or 2 270 degrees constant radius but also 1 or 2 270 degrees decreasing and increasing radius followed by a corner turning the opposite way. A tight left hand corner after a increasing radius right hand and a fast left hand corner after a decreasing right hand corner is a good idea. That is the best way to see the car handling in constantly changing lateral AND longitudinal accelerations.
Some sacrifices in the usual theoretical trajectory will have to be made but that is where you will see if drivers are able to make good decisions ("wrong" entry for the benefit of a "good" exit or vice versa), and if good car can react to such driver input.
The difference in good and not so good cars lap time will definitely be bigger.

My other 0.02 $ advice.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

VIR was mentioned earlier in this thread. While the elevation changes and camber were a plus, I don't think it had much else going for it (other than being very scenic!). The narrow racing surface left few options for course setup -- just about the whole course was slaloms and chicanes. Imagine trying to setup a course someplace even narrower than Michigan, with no possibility of any tight turns (no 90s, no hairpins). The sprawling track was also inconvenient for track marshalls, cone chasers and spectators, in part because a grove of trees was located in the middle of the circuit!

I like some of the ideas discussed in this thread. I don't think artificial bumps are necessary, and some suggesting a 1 inch bump may be assuming the car will be at static ride height while on the track (not true!). Increasing radius, decreasing radius, one-cone hairpin, a hard braking zone, increasing/decreasing slaloms, linked corners, etc. are all good.

Whatever future layouts are chosen, I hope rules D7.2.4 and D8.6.3 are not invoked too often. If it's looking like they will, I suggest a discussion with the Rules Committee.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

If I can dream for a minute: Given the oval racing heritage in North America, and all the interesting vehicle dynamics that come with asymmetry, I'd love to see an "oval" event at Michigan or Lincoln. Two 180s just a little bigger than the skidpad radius connected by two straights (make the straights so that half the track length is cornering, half straights). Give each driver four or five laps and count the best lap. 50 points skidpad, 50 points acceleration, maybe 75 points "oval" and reduce the autocross points to keep the total at 1000. Oval and autocross could run at the same time, just as skidpad and accel do now. I know MIS doesn't really have the room to do this without getting creative, but Lincoln could.

[/dream off]

[raitinger]

Originally posted by Charles Kaneb:



Mr. Raitinger, I wasn't THAT serious about wanting to see broken parts! I know what it feels like to have an unexpected problem screw up competition. The team I'm on brought an aero car to Lincoln this year and it worked fairly well.

My point was that allowing lower ride heights than in testing will allow aero teams to achieve significantly more downforce than they had in testing. Between that and the high-grip surface at Lincoln teams will attain significantly more grip than they had in testing. We left the DAQ off, for cost event points, so I don't have a peak or sustained lateral acceleration measurement for you, but I can say that we had to stiffen our springs by about 35% from our surface at home to avoid bottoming out.

I think most of the teams that'll be able to build a car that can pull 3+g on that surface next year will be the ones who generated their load cases around being able to generate that sort of lateral grip and did the right sort of analyses on them. On the other hand, if something's going to break from a one-time overload, it's most likely to do it now in the fastest corner on a course this smooth and grippy, since the ratio of lateral acceleration in fast corners to lateral acceleration in slow corners is going to continue to rise. If we have to anticipate a couple of fairly large bumps it'll let us operate closer to our test conditions.

Charles,

I understand your point a little more clearly now as a safety/reliability concern. I'd say teams are already in this boat of coming to Lincoln and experiencing higher accelerations than their test site. As you mentioned your team had to up the spring rate, I've heard of other teams having part failures right out of the box when they show up to Lincoln on parts which already have some solid testing hours completed.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, I think this is more a product of the very "grippy" concrete surface rather than any huge advantages in ground effect aero. No one is going to get away with a 1/4" ride height. If you watch some driving videos from Lincoln you'll see there are enough bumps to keep that from happening, unless MAYBE it's an unsprung set-up. In this respect the playing field is leveled a bit.

I suppose we should let it be know, if you plan on coming to Lincoln, expect a higher coeff of friction and in-turn higher accelerations.

You're right on the necessary lengths of the the straights for the hairpin. You'd preferably want the entry straight to be longest and the exit to be long enough to ensure the opportunity for cars to show their maximum corner exiting ability. Yes all of the packaging becomes easier the farther you get from a 180 deg hairpin.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Originally posted by mdavis:

Lawrence,

You guys are completely justified in changing the course, and I understand your reasoning completely. A ~1.25" step input would break a lot of cars, especially if there are cars still on the brakes at that point. And I agree completely about not wanting to damage the site. The Lincoln location is fantastic (so much concrete it's not even funny), and doing everything to keep that site is absolutely a good idea.

The thing that I really liked about the endurance course was the left hand sweeper (series of 2 corners that pretty well seemed like a sweeper from the driver change area) where there was a set of bleachers last year (myself and another guy from our team drove out to spectate on Endurance day last year) where there were no bleachers this year. Since I was in the driver change area for our team during endurance, I was able to see the cars there, but that was definitely a showcase corner, in my opinion. Other than that (I watched the last handful of cars from the bleachers), the right hand sweeping corner before the checkered flag station and the slalom right in front of the bleachers were awesome. As a suspension guy, I love watching the cars through quick transition type elements (like the slalom) as well as being able to see the cars in a more steady state corner (the right hander, and even the left coming out of the slalom onto the straight/passing zone). Going back to the big left hander, I really liked that there was a nice patch of sealant/small (~1/2") bump towards the middle of that corner that worked to unsettle the cars. You can definitely see it from our onboard video, and I could see it while watching from the driver change area. If you can find more bumps like that and incorporate them into the different sections of corners, that would be awesome. I know it is one of the things that I would look for on course walks while making the maps for our drivers (the Canada competition had no course maps whatsoever, so even a hand drawn map was better than nothing). I understand it would take a lot of work (there's a lot of concrete to cover to find bumps of all different input sizes, etc. but you could probably cover a lot of it during events like Spring Nationals and Nationals in the fall) but I'm sure you could get some volunteers (I would, but I'll be all out of vacation time this fall).

If you look at the video of the top 5 from FSG last year, at the 9 minute mark, there is a very nice decently high speed transition element that would be really nice to see added to the course. They're a lot of fun to drive, and if there's a big enough time penalty (enough entrance/exit cones) for over cooking it, you should limit the number of drivers pushing beyond the limit of their cars and themselves. This information could be quite useful to design judges (if in the autocross course, and therefore before design finals) or to other team members. It's also fun to see how well other teams cars are working.

Edit: I forgot to say, I like the way the courses are set up in the US a lot better than those in Europe. The fewer cones the better, imo. Our local SCCA region has started removing extra cones from the tracks and it helps a lot. Much less sea of cones, especially when the tops of cones are at eye level.

-Matt

Matt,

The high speed sweepers are definitely the most exciting elements to drive in the these cars, IMO. The next endurance course will most certainly have one. It was actually designed as the showcase turned to be viewed from last years grandstand placement, but we decided to rearrange the driver change and staging area so the bleachers got nixed. The best high speed sweepers you could get your hands on were when the second day of UTA Texas AutoX Weekend used to travel to a local SCCA event on Sunday. Occasionally, the site would be another huge concrete airplane parking lot in Mineral Wells or the Texas Motor Speedway. Both had opportunities for serious speed, 90+mph in the FSAE cars, I believe most everyone either ran out of gears or HP to push wings. I'm sure there are better vids, but here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqKwiI5Kqek) is one from the speedway. I distinctly remember being on course at the Mineral Wells site when the suspension started doing the funny high frequency things Claude & Z would like to happen at FSAE speeds, and thinking, "I don't believe this suspension was meant to do this."

After watching some more of the Lincoln driving videos, you can definitely see the cars experiencing "bumpiness" albeit not at the high frequency Claude & Z are interested in. The surface is not smooth as glass by any means.

In regards, to the transition section at FSG. I'd call it a "lane change". These used to be used pretty heavily at FSAE West/California, mainly because of the site constraints. Personally I'm a big fan of lane changes, and actually hadn't noticed that we didn't have any of these in AutoX or Endurance. We have the offset walls towards the end of AutoX, but they don't create quite the same effect.

Also, after watching several of the FSG driving videos, I think there is something to say for the sea of cones approach vs. a minimalist SCCA approach. The FSG method looks to be much better at creating constant radius turns, regardless of speed and size of radius. Many of the SCCA style elements we use can end up being driven as point and shoot corners, where drivers execute very quick rotations of the car to navigate the course as apposed to sustained turns.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
A few additional comments

1. About bump(s). I believe that is not the height or the length of ONE bump which will makes us see good car ride or the suspension and chassis elements reliability (our goal is not to make a breaking car circuit; again this is not Baja); it is the frequency of several bumps in a row in the car heave and pitch natural frequency region that will make noticeable difference.

2. We need 1 or 2 270 degrees constant radius but also 1 or 2 270 degrees decreasing and increasing radius followed by a corner turning the opposite way. A tight left hand corner after a increasing radius right hand and a fast left hand corner after a decreasing right hand corner is a good idea. That is the best way to see the car handling in constantly changing lateral AND longitudinal accelerations.
Some sacrifices in the usual theoretical trajectory will have to be made but that is where you will see if drivers are able to make good decisions ("wrong" entry for the benefit of a "good" exit or vice versa), and if good car can react to such driver input.
The difference in good and not so good cars lap time will definitely be bigger.

My other 0.02 $ advice.

Claude,

1. I see what you are saying in regards to the type of bumps necessary to achieve the higher frequency conditions associated with a "harder to design suspension". But, for now I think bringing in bumps would be outside the rules scope. If it wasn't a good thing that only 50% of the field didn't complete endurance, I think this may be a more important issue. Best I can imagine, is a double apex corner with each apex arranged at the intersection of 4 concrete seams, and such that the wheels are hitting a ridge one at a time.

2. I'd also agree on the need more constant radius turns. I think FS Germany is doing a really good job of incorporating them.

Is this what you were thinking for the combined 270 deg+tight radius turns? From Shanghai International Circuit, T1-2-3 & T11-12-13.

http://i.imgur.com/rQwAwwK.jpg (http://imgur.com/rQwAwwK)


Lawrence

[jlangholzj]

Originally posted by raitinger:
turns. I think FS Germany is doing a really good job of incorporating them.

Is this what you were thinking for the combined 270 deg+tight radius turns? From Shanghai International Circuit, T1-2-3 & T11-12-13.

http://i.imgur.com/rQwAwwK.jpg (http://imgur.com/rQwAwwK)


Lawrence

I think if you took 11,12,13,14,15 that would be VERY fun to not only drive but watch! If you so desired you could put some high-speed chicanes or something on the "straight". Nothing real sharp but something to put some lateral G-s on these girls at 40+ would be fun to see.

I think the combination would be a fun showcase side of the circuit

[Claude Rouelle]

Lawrence,

1-2-3 and 11-12-13 is definitely what I mean.

However it seems that the map you have is the Go-Kart circuit without the cones. But in principles and without looking at the scale the reducing or increasing radius is what I mean.

In other words, what we are looking for is not only a a change of radius and lateral G but also a serious changing longitudinal G. We are looking for hard braking (or acceleration) under increasing (or decreasing) steering angle. There you see good cars and good drivers.

I was at FSS (Spain) first event and I helped the organizers to create the track. We worked crazy, way past midnight but it came good. It had all the "vicious" but safe parameters I suggested. The drivers loved it. They said it was a very physical track with no real time to recuperate. At equal drivers skills that is where you see cars with good and bad ergonomic.

For the record, I was also at FSC (China) in 2011 and in my opinion the track was too fast and therefore unsafe in case of major impact. I did voice my concerns to the organizers but it did not have any influence. It was a fast track, actually too fast, and for sure a track where cars with good aero would have make at least a 5 seconds advantage.

As far as bumps I think it would be un-natural and probably unsafe to add artificial bumps. There are some bumps at FSG which are "good enough" to evaluate the ride quality of the cars. However, If I remember well these bumps are on a portion of the circuit which not no significantly alter the lap time. I would prefer to see them in a fast corner.

******

Just for the story.... at FSC 2011 TU Munich was about 6 seconds faster than the BIT (Beijing). After the endurance a professional Chinese racing driver drove the German car while a German student drove the Chinese car. The delta lap time went to under 2 seconds. Good news for the BIT guys; the car was not bad at all. Bad news: they had to work on their drivers' skills.

China Formula Student community is waking up quickly and well. I bet at least 1 or 2 of the 4 registered Chinese teams at FSG will show some strengths this year.

[Claude Rouelle]

jlangholzj

I]these girls at 40+ would be fun to see[/I]

You speak about speed or age?

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

[jlangholzj]

Originally posted by Claude Rouelle:
jlangholzj

these girls at 40+ would be fun to see

You speak about speed or age?

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

uumm...both?! I've seen some pretty good looking moms... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Back to cars, they HAVE to be a girl right? I mean...your part may function properly and be a prime example of angular engineering...but its not SEXY! Parts should be sexy...right claude? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[jlangholzj]

...and after digressing...I actually had another idea for our *lust* over a stright/hairpin with some curves...

Bathurst has an interesting combination through 2-6 as well. Something to consider anyway...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGXCOfC4OL-ZuQpLp7tnSgbUrliSH5BL-7YVEN3-gno2KY78YJ

[mdavis]

Originally posted by raitinger:
Matt,

The high speed sweepers are definitely the most exciting elements to drive in the these cars, IMO. The next endurance course will most certainly have one. It was actually designed as the showcase turned to be viewed from last years grandstand placement, but we decided to rearrange the driver change and staging area so the bleachers got nixed. The best high speed sweepers you could get your hands on were when the second day of UTA Texas AutoX Weekend used to travel to a local SCCA event on Sunday. Occasionally, the site would be another huge concrete airplane parking lot in Mineral Wells or the Texas Motor Speedway. Both had opportunities for serious speed, 90+mph in the FSAE cars, I believe most everyone either ran out of gears or HP to push wings. I'm sure there are better vids, but here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqKwiI5Kqek) is one from the speedway. I distinctly remember being on course at the Mineral Wells site when the suspension started doing the funny high frequency things Claude & Z would like to happen at FSAE speeds, and thinking, "I don't believe this suspension was meant to do this."

After watching some more of the Lincoln driving videos, you can definitely see the cars experiencing "bumpiness" albeit not at the high frequency Claude & Z are interested in. The surface is not smooth as glass by any means.

In regards, to the transition section at FSG. I'd call it a "lane change". These used to be used pretty heavily at FSAE West/California, mainly because of the site constraints. Personally I'm a big fan of lane changes, and actually hadn't noticed that we didn't have any of these in AutoX or Endurance. We have the offset walls towards the end of AutoX, but they don't create quite the same effect.

Also, after watching several of the FSG driving videos, I think there is something to say for the sea of cones approach vs. a minimalist SCCA approach. The FSG method looks to be much better at creating constant radius turns, regardless of speed and size of radius. Many of the SCCA style elements we use can end up being driven as point and shoot corners, where drivers execute very quick rotations of the car to navigate the course as apposed to sustained turns.

Lawrence

Lawrence,

That onboard is quite fast, and would be slightly terrifying to drive in any of our team's cars from that era.

A lane change is exactly the type of maneuver I was thinking of. And with this talk of the Shanghai circuit, you could probably do a lane change sequence on the straight. Something like a double lane change, then single lane change right before the braking point for the hard right hander. If you set the distances correctly, Claude would have his ideal vantage point to view the cars and their drivers. Lane changes are definitely a lot of fun from the drivers seat, and also entertaining from the stands, especially when done correctly.

And of course, as soon as I said something about our local region getting away from the sea of cones, they went right back to it yesterday. Even after figuring out the important cones there were so many it was quite difficult to actually pick them out, and that was in a nice slow STR Miata. We actually got to run something similar to the walled section of the autocross course at Lincoln at a local event, although something designed to be a challenge for Corvettes is quite straight for a small FSAE car. The Lincoln autocross walls were much more appropriately sized, and looked quite fun from our onboard video and based on the driver comments.

-Matt

[AxelRipper]

Few more comments, some serious, some not so much.

Increasing/decreasing radius sweepers are incredibly fun. We generally use them in testing, as it can either allow more speed into a hard corner in a small lot (where we could barely hit second) or it can just be a tricky corner for drivers, as you have to scrub off speed coming through the corner in order to get the exit right. A decreasing radius left into an increasing radius right, each at more than 90 degrees is an incredibly fun section to run. The local indoor kart track we usually did driver training had a section that was like this if you were driving the course backwards, and it was a ton of fun. Corner in hot, scrub off speed and trail brake a little bit, then on the gas early and accelerate out. Total blast.

Also, since I brought up ovals, and others have (in some form) agreed http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I will admit that we did try one once in testing just for fun. Was more of a trioval though in the lot. Straights were really quite short, but longer than most courses we could get in the lot (still under regulation length). Had one probably 70 degree corner, and 2 that were... well... whatever gets back to itself, offset a bit. You know, Pocono style. It was a lot of fun to run, as you could truly appreciate what you could carry through the corners. Maybe I'm just too American....

And if we wanted to introduce bumps into the courses, why not switch back to running the Silverdome? The DR SCCA has autocrosses there still. Of course, that might be infringing upon Baja territory a bit....

[raitinger]

I thought I would bring this thread back to life, while people are looking for another source of internet distraction as finals are looming for many. It just happens to also coincide with the time of year when we fire up the planning process for FSAE Lincoln 2014.

As a recap of whats happened in this thread so far.......I'm the Endurance Capt and AutoX Co-Capt for FSAE Lincoln. Since we have such an amazing site for course design, we really don't have any restrictions in terms of the types of, rules legal, courses we can create. So, I came here looking for some feedback on what people like and don't like, mainly; what's fun to watch, fun to drive, and the right balance of technically challenging for the cars and drivers.

A few of the popular items that have been discussed so far;

1. Straight-hairpin-straight elements
2. Arranging existing bumps into corners for separating the men from the boys in suspension design
3. Creating courses that are very asymmetrical in their weighting of left/right turns to create the opportunity for teams to tune for this
4. High speed sweepers
5. Showcase elements near the spectators
6. 270deg+tight radius combo turns
7. Ovals..................
8. Lane change elements
9. Decreasing/Increasing radius sweepers, 270 deg turns
10. Something about girls over 40

If anyone else has some more input or comments on topics already discussed I'd love to hear it. I don't think we heard from very many drivers, so please chime in.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

I was at FSS (Spain) first event and I helped the organizers to create the track. We worked crazy, way past midnight but it came good. It had all the "vicious" but safe parameters I suggested. The drivers loved it. They said it was a very physical track with no real time to recuperate. At equal drivers skills that is where you see cars with good and bad ergonomic.



Claude,

Would anyone have map of the Spain track, I'm curious to see how you put it all together.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Lawrence,

That onboard is quite fast, and would be slightly terrifying to drive in any of our team's cars from that era.

A lane change is exactly the type of maneuver I was thinking of. And with this talk of the Shanghai circuit, you could probably do a lane change sequence on the straight. Something like a double lane change, then single lane change right before the braking point for the hard right hander. If you set the distances correctly, Claude would have his ideal vantage point to view the cars and their drivers. Lane changes are definitely a lot of fun from the drivers seat, and also entertaining from the stands, especially when done correctly.

And of course, as soon as I said something about our local region getting away from the sea of cones, they went right back to it yesterday. Even after figuring out the important cones there were so many it was quite difficult to actually pick them out, and that was in a nice slow STR Miata. We actually got to run something similar to the walled section of the autocross course at Lincoln at a local event, although something designed to be a challenge for Corvettes is quite straight for a small FSAE car. The Lincoln autocross walls were much more appropriately sized, and looked quite fun from our onboard video and based on the driver comments.

-Matt

Matt,

That speed should be slightly terrifying in any FSAE car from any era. At some level this is still just a situation where you and your buddies got together and decided to build a racecar. Do you completely trust all your friends design and manufacturing abilities with your life..........doesn't matter, got to race.

On the sea of cones approach, I will say that I think it does a better job of forcing people into sustained turns. Now, this isn't always what you want, but when you do, it's I think it's better than the spartan cone approach.

Lawrence

[theTTshark]

I definitely like the idea of having decreasing radius corners, I think those are the hardest in the business to conquer from a design/set-up/driver standpoint. Braking is definitely the hardest task for a driver to do, and no one will ever be perfect at it. That said, having a good car and a good race engineer who understand how to setup a car will definitely show here. Simply put I would like to see more of them. Increasing radius corners have their place, but I find that in general most of them are very very easy corners to get around simply because it's easier for a driver to increase the throttle than it is to decrease the braking the right amount.

I would like to see less of is small slaloms. Usually they ruin the flow of a course (looking at Michigan here). That's not to say to get rid of them entirely. They certainly have their time, place, and need in the competition, but instead of having 3 of these in one course make some medium speed and some fast speed slaloms. Most cars will handle different in all three and it will be important to have good setups/training for each kind.

In tandem with the slalom idea above, one thing I hate is courses that just constantly make you switchback and forth on yourself. Yet again I look to Michigan as the epitome as this. Granted they can't do much about it, but by the end of the course you feel like you've just been through a blender. Long duration corners are not the devil, and while I know Lincoln has some, I think making some corners that require more than 45 degrees of vehicle heading change have larger corner radii would add another added element to the courses. Currently it seems like most corners in the 45-120 degree range are all tight corners. Yet again, don't get rid of all the slow corners, but allow some diversity.

[AxelRipper]

On the topic of Slaloms (and I may have mentioned it already in this thread): Varying distance slaloms. Preferably decreasing distance.

[MCoach]

Increasing radius slaloms are interesting in their own right. Great cars will stay settled and make their way out in one piece. Good cars will either come out slowly or in a flurry of tire spin. Decreasing radius slaloms is like packing an entire course of decreasing radius turns into a very short section of track. Very exciting section of track that isn't really seen anywhere.

+1 to variable radius slaloms. One thing I've never attempted other than when a course was reset incorrectly is a combined increasing/decreasing slalom. Something that sounds exciting is a decreasing slalom in halfway and increasing on the way out. It'd be sort of like a hairpin turn.

[raitinger]

I definitely like the idea of having decreasing radius corners, I think those are the hardest in the business to conquer from a design/set-up/driver standpoint. Braking is definitely the hardest task for a driver to do, and no one will ever be perfect at it. That said, having a good car and a good race engineer who understand how to setup a car will definitely show here. Simply put I would like to see more of them. Increasing radius corners have their place, but I find that in general most of them are very very easy corners to get around simply because it's easier for a driver to increase the throttle than it is to decrease the braking the right amount.

I would like to see less of is small slaloms. Usually they ruin the flow of a course (looking at Michigan here). That's not to say to get rid of them entirely. They certainly have their time, place, and need in the competition, but instead of having 3 of these in one course make some medium speed and some fast speed slaloms. Most cars will handle different in all three and it will be important to have good setups/training for each kind.

In tandem with the slalom idea above, one thing I hate is courses that just constantly make you switchback and forth on yourself. Yet again I look to Michigan as the epitome as this. Granted they can't do much about it, but by the end of the course you feel like you've just been through a blender. Long duration corners are not the devil, and while I know Lincoln has some, I think making some corners that require more than 45 degrees of vehicle heading change have larger corner radii would add another added element to the courses. Currently it seems like most corners in the 45-120 degree range are all tight corners. Yet again, don't get rid of all the slow corners, but allow some diversity.

Trent,

As I've mentioned before in this thread, typically we have shied away from decreasing radius corners. This has been mainly to keep less experienced drivers from simply being caught off guard. I think the way decreasing radius corners are sometimes setup in the SCCA can lead the untrained eye to miss this important piece of information. If the course was set up in a way that either made it blatantly obvious or allowed the visual cues to naturally convey the corners uniqueness, I think we would be in the good.

I'd say slaloms are used as very convenient filler for some courses, especially historically for SAE. They're just to darn easy to just throw in there. A good low/med speed and a higher speed slalom are all you need, after that they become pretty redundant quickly.

Couldn't agree more with your comments regarding longer duration corners. Re-watching some of the Lincoln driving vids I think higher deg change corners are where we can make the most improvements. We only had a hand full of spots that amounted to any sustained lateral g's. Though, as soon as we start adding in more sustained duration corners, you will certainly be turning back on yourself much much more. Be ready to be blended I suppose.

Lawrence

[jlangholzj]

Trent,

As I've mentioned before in this thread, typically we have shied away from decreasing radius corners. This has been mainly to keep less experienced drivers from simply being caught off guard. I think the way decreasing radius corners are sometimes setup in the SCCA can lead the untrained eye to miss this important piece of information. If the course was set up in a way that either made it blatantly obvious or allowed the visual cues to naturally convey the corners uniqueness, I think we would be in the good.


Wouldn't this be something that should be picked up not only on a course walk-through but a track map as well? I'm by no-means an "experienced driver" but I've been able to pick up on the ones at our local auto-X pretty quickly. Of course you run into a dilemma here still, how far can you push a track design before you're singling out the good drivers and not the good cars?



I'd say slaloms are used as very convenient filler for some courses, especially historically for SAE. They're just to darn easy to just throw in there. A good low/med speed and a higher speed slalom are all you need, after that they become pretty redundant quickly.

Couldn't agree more with your comments regarding longer duration corners. Re-watching some of the Lincoln driving vids I think higher deg change corners are where we can make the most improvements. We only had a hand full of spots that amounted to any sustained lateral g's. Though, as soon as we start adding in more sustained duration corners, you will certainly be turning back on yourself much much more. Be ready to be blended I suppose.

Lawrence

Yes and Yes. Some larger sweepers would be great. Also teams that don't have proper oil management will start to see issues as well! As previously stated I'd really like to see a long straight into a hairpin and then could we possibly work that into a bit of a sweeper? I'm thinking a 270* left hand off the straight that opens up into a swept right hander. Also could we use one of the slaloms as more of a high speed chicane? Would be something a little more different than the typical slalom.

[raitinger]

Increasing radius slaloms are interesting in their own right. Great cars will stay settled and make their way out in one piece. Good cars will either come out slowly or in a flurry of tire spin. Decreasing radius slaloms is like packing an entire course of decreasing radius turns into a very short section of track. Very exciting section of track that isn't really seen anywhere.

+1 to variable radius slaloms. One thing I've never attempted other than when a course was reset incorrectly is a combined increasing/decreasing slalom. Something that sounds exciting is a decreasing slalom in halfway and increasing on the way out. It'd be sort of like a hairpin turn.


On the topic of Slaloms (and I may have mentioned it already in this thread): Varying distance slaloms. Preferably decreasing distance.

Axel, & MCoach

Unless the distance change is severe, I don't think decreasing distance slaloms offer as much for testing vehicle dynamics, as they do for testing drivers. If driven well the change in speed is fairly minimal. I'd say it's only when driven incorrectly that you'll see instances that compare to the decreasing radius corners. Just getting behind in 'the rhythm' of the slalom becomes far too easy, and drivers are forced to play catch up one way or the other.

All of the slaloms in Lincoln have been increasing distance, primarily to be simple for the drivers, secondarily it guarantees minimal cone hits.

The decreasing first half, increasing second half just sounds terrible. I'm personally not all that big a fan of driving slaloms, but that sounds very frustrating. It sounds like one of those things you'll never feel like you did right.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall driving a very large diameter sweeper slalom. Now, that was interesting. They had it set up with equal spacing, so overall you are traveling at a steady pace, yet you would be loosing time if you weren't really varying your speed for the inside/outside direction changes. Finagling each direction change to manage how much you've rotated and how much you vary your speed was really fun to drive.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Wouldn't this be something that should be picked up not only on a course walk-through but a track map as well? I'm by no-means an "experienced driver" but I've been able to pick up on the ones at our local auto-X pretty quickly. Of course you run into a dilemma here still, how far can you push a track design before you're singling out the good drivers and not the good cars?

Yes and Yes. Some larger sweepers would be great. Also teams that don't have proper oil management will start to see issues as well! As previously stated I'd really like to see a long straight into a hairpin and then could we possibly work that into a bit of a sweeper? I'm thinking a 270* left hand off the straight that opens up into a swept right hander. Also could we use one of the slaloms as more of a high speed chicane? Would be something a little more different than the typical slalom.


jlangholzj,

Just by having been to an autocross before, that makes you an 'experienced driver' compared to probably a 1/3 or 1/2 of the field who has never been to an SCCA event. Reading a SCCA style cone course especially at FSAE speeds and vantage heights at least takes a little practice to get good. But, you are right, I think most would recognize a decreasing radius corner, either from the map or the course walk. It's when it comes to endurance that becomes pretty likely that many more people are going to cook that corner and push/spin and plow some cones. With a little work on the cone visuals and leaving a little extra space for people to get things under control, I be it could be manageable.

I don't know if we will come up with a sweeper larger than the big left hander that we've had the last two years, but there is definitely room for more sweepers in general. Not sure what you are describing with the slalom as a high speed chicane. Something like the lane change element?

Lawrence

[raitinger]

I think this is the Spain course Claude was mentioning earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxtTJNmsG4

Not too shabby, you can certainly pick out a couple of the 270*+tight radius reverse direction elements. There also seems to be some bumpiness to contend with. It is a bit tough to gauge the available speed range from the video, but it looks like an excellent use of the event space.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

The course maps for FSAE Lincoln 2014 are complete. For some reason the layers don't seem to be working correctly on all files, but I'll try to get that resolved. Also, disregard the corner speed and accel assumptions, this was just a basic tool for us to estimate the speeds in specific areas.

We were able to incorporate many of the elements that people were interested in. So, I think everyone will really enjoy this year's courses. These are subject to change once we get everything set up on site. We'll be looking at safety, cone visuals, fun factor etc etc. Comments are certainly welcome, but the major aspects of the layout are finalized. For the teams that do pull data from these maps, how easy or difficult is this format? If needed, we can look at other means of delivering the info.


PDFs and Full Site Map (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bxeyn45rNs51M3FXb21DcnBVNzQ&usp=sharing)


http://i.imgur.com/0ZFC6Fk.png (http://imgur.com/0ZFC6Fk)

http://i.imgur.com/EVNCJwX.png (http://imgur.com/EVNCJwX)

[Alumni]

Any concern with the driver change exit being in the middle of a straight? Particularly given the distance it is from a passing zone, I could see a lot of cars being nearly run over as they slow down to exit as the car behind them is still accelerating.

Stalling re-entering the track could also be an issue.

Otherwise looks like a blast. I wish I had had the chance to drive this in endurance.

[mech5496]

Wow! Just wow! Seems like the most intriguing track layout I have seen in FSAE competitions so far, and indeed it includes most of the suggested ideas!

[raitinger]

Any concern with the driver change exit being in the middle of a straight? Particularly given the distance it is from a passing zone, I could see a lot of cars being nearly run over as they slow down to exit as the car behind them is still accelerating.

Stalling re-entering the track could also be an issue.

Otherwise looks like a blast. I wish I had had the chance to drive this in endurance.

Not really any concerns with the start. For scale each grid square is 25'x25', and the cars are actually launched a little more than 25' to the right of the driving line. Of course the starter only sends cars when there is an open spot on track with no one coming for decent ways.

For the exit I do see the concern you are talking about, and we had one instance last year where this was an issue. Someone was just a little too aggressive with trying to get around the car exiting the track.

[MCoach]

At first I was thinking that it looked reminiscent of Sebring....but something just didn't sit right. It Sebring is flat, but bumpy like Lincoln, but I felt like it didn't convey it properly. Then I realized I knew I had seen this layout before!

Behold!

http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/Genova-SX-track-map.jpg

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

At first I was thinking that it looked reminiscent of Sebring....but something just didn't sit right. It Sebring is flat, but bumpy like Lincoln, but I felt like it didn't convey it properly. Then I realized I knew I had seen this layout before!

Behold!

http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/Genova-SX-track-map.jpg

I'm thinking Road America (with many more wiggles, of course)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Road_America.svg

There's only so many ways to fold a track onto a rectangle of available land! Maybe they can try for Suzuka in 2015? That would be, um, "interesting".

[Z]

Raitinger,

Still no hairpin bends???

(As specified in the Rules, these would require a car to do a 180 deg turn in about the width of one of your paving blocks, namely less than 9 metre outer-wheel-path diameter.)

I know all the teams complain when a proper hairpin is put in the course ("Awww, it's just toooo haaaaard..."), but as I pointed out earlier my 30 ton loader used to manage them just fine. Also some of the better designed, full-size production cars of olden days.

Good places to put such a hairpin would be at the bottom left or right of either of your tracks.

If you don't want to do such "Rules spec" hairpins, then maybe you can put the tighter corners in a place where wider entry and exit lines take the car's outer-wheels over some big cracks/steps in the pavement. Cars that can corner sharper thus avoid these steps.

Or maybe do a genuine "hairpin" section of track. Here the outsides of the two lanes are 9 metres apart, with a row of cones down the centreline. Past the last centreline cone the "outside" of the track widens out to maybe 20 metres. This way a "well designed" car simply takes the U-turn in the 9 metre wide section, while the "poorly designed" cars have to drive a bit further to get to the wider section, where they can then take the U-turn without knocking over cones.

Again, the goal of this is to get better educated engineers who can design production cars with good (= tight) turning circles.

Z

[Canuck Racing]

Z- If you want some hairpins go stand out at the far end of FSG or MIS.

Also, with your 180 degree turn idea, how do you deal with two cars driving head on at each other during endurance separated only by a thin line of cones? Even if you replaced them with low height water barriers - assuming those exist - you'd still have a very messy scene if a car lost it under brakes or acceleration.

[Claude Rouelle]

Canuck Racing,

I have seen at least one 180 degree sharp short radius hairpin (in Italy) and I did not see any problem except that several drivers did not have the car or the driving skills or both to negotiate it. I think one 180 degrees minimum legal radius should be part of the competition. Or better 2 or 3 in a row: Left - Right or Left - Right - Left. The speed is minimum; risk of crash is minimum too. It is possible to make is difficult and safe. It looks like a parking lot exercise; yes so what; this is not racing. it is FSAE / FS! There will also be other faster corners, larger radius on the track.

[Claude Rouelle]

In a general; way, I still find this kind of track too easy on drivers (sils and fatigue) and on cars. Too many low speed and high speed slaloms. I do like the tightening radius of the Autocross, I wish there was at least one in the Endurance. And of course a few tight hairpins, ideally one after the other. But to be honest I never designed such tracks so I am not the best one to offer good alternatives. In any case it will be fun.

[EPMPaul]

For the exiting the track speed difference issue, is it possible to just make an extra lane.. offsets timing and driver change by 6-8 ft to the left.... So long as no one goes into that lane while on the course, could avoid the issue... not sure it wouldn't create more problems than it solves but it could be an option

[raitinger]

At first I was thinking that it looked reminiscent of Sebring....but something just didn't sit right. It Sebring is flat, but bumpy like Lincoln, but I felt like it didn't convey it properly. Then I realized I knew I had seen this layout before!

Behold!

http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/Genova-SX-track-map.jpg

MCoach,

You've figured us out. Copying an MX track layout is just the first step in my dream of creating SAE Formula Baja.(aka Baja chassis and suspension, with Formula engines) Next comes the whoops.....for suspension testing of course. If SAE Baja won't loosen up the rules for cooler engines, then we can start to make FSAE tracks that slowly evolve Formula cars into Baja.

[raitinger]

[/QUOTE]


Raitinger,

Still no hairpin bends???

(As specified in the Rules, these would require a car to do a 180 deg turn in about the width of one of your paving blocks, namely less than 9 metre outer-wheel-path diameter.)

I know all the teams complain when a proper hairpin is put in the course ("Awww, it's just toooo haaaaard..."), but as I pointed out earlier my 30 ton loader used to manage them just fine. Also some of the better designed, full-size production cars of olden days.

Good places to put such a hairpin would be at the bottom left or right of either of your tracks.

If you don't want to do such "Rules spec" hairpins, then maybe you can put the tighter corners in a place where wider entry and exit lines take the car's outer-wheels over some big cracks/steps in the pavement. Cars that can corner sharper thus avoid these steps.

Or maybe do a genuine "hairpin" section of track. Here the outsides of the two lanes are 9 metres apart, with a row of cones down the centreline. Past the last centreline cone the "outside" of the track widens out to maybe 20 metres. This way a "well designed" car simply takes the U-turn in the 9 metre wide section, while the "poorly designed" cars have to drive a bit further to get to the wider section, where they can then take the U-turn without knocking over cones.

Again, the goal of this is to get better educated engineers who can design production cars with good (= tight) turning circles.

Z

Z,

I'm not sure what your definition of a hairpin is, but I'd say there is a hairpin on the lower right of Autocross. The radius obviously isn't as small as you would prefer, but I think it qualifies. Also, the rules specify a minimum OD for hairpins, certainly not a "rules spec" turn. From Michael Royce's history lesson earlier, it sounds like the hairpin rule may have been implemented to accommodate the limitation of a few sites. Now people seem to think that since it's in the rules, it should be used as a performance gauge. I agree that very small diameter turns do have a place on FSAE courses and should be used, but to take it down to a 180deg 9m OD is getting a little sadistic. It's not that it's too hard, but it is damn annoying for competitors. Especially when you hear of people employing little driving tricks to navigate the 180, the time difference between good and bad drivers is already huge. Why make it worse when you can still accomplish 90% of your dynamic performance evaluation with a slightly less sadistic corner?

To qualify, I guess I think of hairpins being at the end of a "high speed" straight. If you look at what we have set up for AutoX, the straight prior to the hairpin is the max rules legal length. We estimate, cars will be peaking out at around 60mph before they begin braking into a 180 about the size of skid pad, so down to about 20-25mph. The sadistic part about a 9m OD hairpin is that the driver only has to misjudge braking a little bit to be in big trouble for the whole section. With our amateur drivers and experimental at best cars, it can begin to be more trouble than it's worth.

Admittedly, this is one of the corners that I plan to look at closely after we get the course set up to see how it drives. Ideally this would end up being a "first gear" corner, even though I know FSAE gearing is all over the place.

It's not quite a 30 ton, but now everyone can have a visual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp5y00LxZcY

[raitinger]

Canuck Racing,

I have seen at least one 180 degree sharp short radius hairpin (in Italy) and I did not see any problem except that several drivers did not have the car or the driving skills or both to negotiate it. I think one 180 degrees minimum legal radius should be part of the competition. Or better 2 or 3 in a row: Left - Right or Left - Right - Left. The speed is minimum; risk of crash is minimum too. It is possible to make is difficult and safe. It looks like a parking lot exercise; yes so what; this is not racing. it is FSAE / FS! There will also be other faster corners, larger radius on the track.


In a general; way, I still find this kind of track too easy on drivers (sils and fatigue) and on cars. Too many low speed and high speed slaloms. I do like the tightening radius of the Autocross, I wish there was at least one in the Endurance. And of course a few tight hairpins, ideally one after the other. But to be honest I never designed such tracks so I am not the best one to offer good alternatives. In any case it will be fun.

Claude,

As I mentioned to Z, when we were discussing the idea of a straight-hairpin-straight, I was envisioning a high speed straight into a very small radius. In this instance I think the 9m OD is a bit harsh. When you mention kind of an "overall" low speed hairpins or series of hairpins, that doesn't seem that bad. To be honest though all I can picture is the parking lot exercise. This is the direction we were moving to at the bottom left of endurance. We had also thought about a second left hand hairpin following the right-hander after the straight at the bottom right of AutoX.

In terms of decreasing radius corners for endurance, the turn around before the straight/passing zone about half way up the left side will be set-up so that it drives as a decreasing radius. The radius following the big sweeper at the top left will also be set up to have the affects of a decreasing radius.

Claude, I think I might be a little scared of and intrigued by the course you would come up with if left to your own devices. Oh wait, I think I've found it......The test track from Forza Motorsport 2, sorry for the blurry blow up, I could only find one image. This is the new inspiration!

http://i.imgur.com/uTyaum9.jpg

[raitinger]

For the exiting the track speed difference issue, is it possible to just make an extra lane.. offsets timing and driver change by 6-8 ft to the left.... So long as no one goes into that lane while on the course, could avoid the issue... not sure it wouldn't create more problems than it solves but it could be an option

Paul,

That enter/exit area of the course is already very wide, and the extra exit lane was exactly what I was thinking about to help with the speed difference issue. I was thinking we would just extend a cone line up and split the driving lane, so once a car had entered that lane the car still on track could accelerate past.

[Claude Rouelle]

Rationger.

"I think the 9m OD is a bit harsh."

Why?

[Claude Rouelle]

Raitinger,

"..This is the direction we were moving to at the bottom left of endurance."

Pale tentative. 33 ft is not tight enough

I wish there could be 3 or even hairpins really 180 degrees in a row. It is low speed for sure but I guarantee you that it is spectacular. You will see the cones flying. You will see the good drivers and the good cars and the bad car driver wishing for a handbrake!

[JulianH]

Claude,

the problem with "3 hairpins in a row" is mostly that the drivers are not able to position their car after the first or the second corner to be completely on the outside to use the 9m OD.
In Italy 2013 they had to rebuild the track to make it possible to drive through for most of the cars.

I'm with you that there should be such corners but it is quite a risk to build them in such a way that it forces Off-tracks.
In Italy we had several Black Flags and therefore retirements from Endurance because the cars couldn't do 3 hairpins in a row.

I think teams should "suffer" if they design a car unable to be fast through such hairpins (e.g. lose lap time) but it should not be in a way that multiple teams fail to complete Endurance because of it. Maybe I'm a bit too "soft" here.

I like the idea of straight-hairpin-straight to see performance under braking, tight cornering and acceleration (at best downhill braking and uphill acceleration) but it is difficult to make this arrangement safe so that a brake failure at 100kph does not end catastrophic.

[Claude Rouelle]

Julian H

"....the problem with "3 hairpins in a row" is mostly that the drivers are not able to position their car after the first or the second corner to be completely on the outside to use the 9m OD."

That is their problem! Come on, you are no complaining that your car cannot take 3 consecutive sharp hairpins?

"...but it is quite a risk to build them in such a way that it forces Off-tracks."

Again that is the team problem. And of track at such low speed represent minimal risk

"In Italy we had several Black Flags and therefore retirements from Endurance because the cars couldn't do 3 hairpins in a row"

Again that is the team problem. The teams (car + driver) adapt to the track, not the other way around.

That being said, and to be clear I also want to see some fast corners, (bumpy ideally) but taking 3 consecutives hairpins should be a minimum requirement.

2 years ago Lola came to the ALMS Long Beach Grand Prix with 2 LMP2 cars which were not able to negotiate the last hairpin for a lack of steering angle. See... it happens to the professionals.... I hope FSAE/FS teams can spare themselves a similar embarrassment.

[Rex]

I'm confused about the goals here with all this course design stuff. Is the goal to make a course layout (by including 3 consecutive "hairpin" turns linked closely enough) that some current cars are unable to negotiate, thus creating a new engineering challenge requiring new design goals? If so, how about a rules change so everyone is clear that such a corner sequence will/could be included? I'll admit that the idea of 3 180 hairpins linked closely enough that a car might not be able to get back to the outside edge of the track before the next one is NOT what I would interpret from reading the rules as-written. I think most people think of a hairpin as including at least short straightaway (or mild curve) sections before/after, and most folks would assume a 9m turning circle would be sufficient for any obstacle the course may include, no? Adding additional "tests" of a car's ability through challenging course design seems fair, but if those tests are outside of what you'd normally see at an autocross (in terms of the types of obstacles encountered) or what the average autox guy would interpret from reading the rules, then addressing them in the rules in advance seems only fair as well.

Or is the goal to see which drivers are good enough to slide/yaw a car around such a sequence to overcome turning circle limits, thus creating more gap between teams that recruit excellent drivers vs. teams that let the most dedicated engineers/fabricators drive? This probably wouldn't be the intent, but it sure could be a nasty unintended consequence of making ever-more-demanding dynamic event courses. For the autocrosses I've been to, the trend seems to be: the more technical/demanding the course, the more the driver matters and the less the car matters. Perhaps my experiences are unusual in this regard?

[Z]

The following taken from a 2013 version of the Rules, but I remember similar at least as far back as ~2000.

D7.2 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds
D7.2.1 The following standard specifications will suggest the maximum speeds that will be encountered on the course. Average speeds should be 40 km/hr (25 mph) to 48 km/hr (30 mph).
...
* Straights: No longer than 60 m (200 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no longer than 45 m (150 feet) with wide turns on the ends.
* Constant Turns: 23 m (75 feet) to 45 m (148 feet) diameter.
* Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).
* Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 7.62 m (25 feet) to 12.19 m (40 feet) spacing.
* Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The minimum track width will be 3.5 m (11.5 feet).
...

D8.6.2 The standard specifications for the FSAE Endurance Course are:
* Straights: No longer than 77.0 m (252.6 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no longer than 61.0 m (200.1 feet) with wide turns on the ends. There will be passing zones at several locations.
* Constant Turns: 30.0 m (98.4 feet) to 54.0 m (177.2 feet) diameter.
* Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9.0 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).
* Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 9.0 m (29.5 feet) to 15.0 m (49.2 feet) spacing.
* Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The standard minimum track width is 4.5 m (14.76 feet).
... etc....

(My emboldening.)

Part of what originally attracted me to FSAE is this focus on "agility" of the cars (in the Rules at least!). A bit like going to the circus to watch the acrobats, rather than watching a running race like a marathon (yaaaawwnn, ... except for when they start collapsing at the end...:)) .
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~


Originally posted by Claude:
I wish there could be 3 or even [more] hairpins really 180 degrees in a row. It is low speed for sure but I guarantee you that it is spectacular. You will see the cones flying. You will see the good drivers and the good cars and the bad car driver wishing for a handbrake! (My emphasis again.)

Claude,

YAHOOOO!!!!! I knew there would be something WE AGREE ON.

I am 1,000% with you on this one! And also the "more bumps in the higher speed corners...". :)
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~

Raitinger,

The Hough loader (rhymes with "rough and tough") that I used to own was a bit bigger than the CAT you linked to, and I recall it having a tighter turning circle (the two inner wheels almost touched).

I have a "World Cars Catalogue" from the 1960s that has a page of specs on each of the models built that year (I picked it up for ~$1 at a school fete). I flicked through it last night and there are many cars there with turning circles less than 10 metres "between WALLS" (so this includes the nose overhang).

My old Pug 404, with a wheelbase of 2.65 m (104", so medium/full-size passenger car), from that era is listed with turning circle of ~9.6 m (between walls). It had very conventional front-strut-suspension and R&P steering. Interestingly, many similar sized cars have much larger turning circles, some up around 12 m. The main difference between these cars is the quality of their detail design. The Peugeots where very conventional designs, but very well executed.

FSAE is supposed to an "educational" exercise. Yet I see many VERY BADLY designed steering systems on these cars. A little probing reveals that "the steering was done by some guy N? years ago..., and so far it works sorta OK, so we keep using it". In other words, none of these students have learnt, or will learn (?), how to design a good steering system. And when they go into the passenger car world, the attitude is "Well, the customer should practice their three-point turns...". Not a good attitude, IMO.

And, BTW, the biggest advantage of an exceptionally tight turning circle? Watching your passenger's face as you rather suddenly do a U-turn in a narrow alley! :)

Anyway, here (hopefully) is some ascii-art of a hairpin that would benefit the well-designed cars (eg. simple, low-powered, non-aero cars, with attention-to-detail-steering), and would penalise the cars with bad steering geometry, or perhaps with a long-overhang, wide front-wing.

.. = used as spacers,
o = cones,
8 = haybales or water-barriers down middle.

xxx = path of car with "good" tight steering.
============================
......o...o..o..o...o......
..o.......................o..
..o.......................o..
..o.......................o..
..o.........x..x.........o..
..o.....x....8....x.....o..
......ox.....8.....xo......
......ox.....8.....xo......
......o.x....8....x.o......
......o.x....8....x.o......
.......|<--9m-->|.......


xxx = path of car with "bad" steering.
===========================
....|<---15+m--->|....
......o...o..o..o...o......
..o.......x..x..x.......o..
..o..x................x..o..
..ox....................xo..
..ox....................xo..
..o..x.......8.......x..o..
......o.x....8....x.o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
......o...x..8..x...o......
......o...x..8..x...o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
Note extra distance covered here. Maybe +1 sec, at least?. Or they can knock over cones...


For safety the Enduro should have a slow entry to a short hairpin-entry-straight, and the safety barrier down the middle. The AutoX can have the hairpin(s) at the end of a long straight, and no centre barrier, because only one car on track at a time.

Z

[JulianH]

Julian H

"....the problem with "3 hairpins in a row" is mostly that the drivers are not able to position their car after the first or the second corner to be completely on the outside to use the 9m OD."

That is their problem! Come on, you are no complaining that your car cannot take 3 consecutive sharp hairpins?

"...but it is quite a risk to build them in such a way that it forces Off-tracks."

Again that is the team problem. And of track at such low speed represent minimal risk

"In Italy we had several Black Flags and therefore retirements from Endurance because the cars couldn't do 3 hairpins in a row"

Again that is the team problem. The teams (car + driver) adapt to the track, not the other way around.

That being said, and to be clear I also want to see some fast corners, (bumpy ideally) but taking 3 consecutives hairpins should be a minimum requirement.

2 years ago Lola came to the ALMS Long Beach Grand Prix with 2 LMP2 cars which were not able to negotiate the last hairpin for a lack of steering angle. See... it happens to the professionals.... I hope FSAE/FS teams can spare themselves a similar embarrassment.

Claude,

well we weren't complaining too much, I think our car was among the fastest through that section ;). With a short wheelbase and 4WD Torque Vectoring, it's not such a big challenge, yes.
But there were teams from Italy that only participated in FSAE Italy and got black flagged in their only Endurance event of a year because of that issue.
I mean, yes of course, that is their problem, they had an error in their car design, but I think this is not a reason why you should "lose a year of work".

We had a similar issue in Austria 2011 where our car was only able to power-slide around a hairpin. We lost a lot of time every lap, we learned our lesson and did it better in the next years. I think this is more the way to go in an education process like FSAE.

Z's idea with a turn that hurts bad cars but does not force them to retire is a good compromise in my opinion.

[whiltebeitel]

Raitinger,

"..This is the direction we were moving to at the bottom left of endurance."

Pale tentative. 33 ft is not tight enough

I wish there could be 3 or even hairpins really 180 degrees in a row. It is low speed for sure but I guarantee you that it is spectacular. You will see the cones flying. You will see the good drivers and the good cars and the bad car driver wishing for a handbrake!


Claude and/or Z,

How do you consolidate the push for teams with good drivers with the idea of FSAE as an engineering showcase?

3 tight 180* turns take only one misjudgment by a driver on entry to put the car in a bad position. A car that can make a 25 ft. turn would not be able to drive around the subsequent hairpins if it slid a foot or two too far wide on the exit of the first turn. This is not lessened by making the straights very short.

This is the same comment with decreasing radius turns and decreasing radius slaloms. In autocrossing, a good driver that is mentally prepared, and can look 2-3 moves ahead will destroy a lesser driver in these maneuvers The loss of momentum and trying to mentally "catch up" is tough to recover. I'd venture to say, it is more taxing than when making a similar misjudgment on a road course.

Also, I want to bring up a safety concern. While something that pushes the "lesser" teams to hit cones or try to skid around a turn to make it may seem spectacular or entertaining, this poses problems for the corner workers, timing, and start line workers. Every time a cone gets tossed, someone has to run and replace it between cars. This naturally puts a warm body close to the racing line on a hot track. If multiple cones and/or a stalled/spun car is added to the mix, suddenly you have to yellow/red flag cars who aren't very experienced at recognizing or paying attention to flags. This significantly increases the probability of an incident.

To take the example of a yellow flag incident to the logistical side, then you have to give more re-runs, and that's a PITA with all the extra factors surrounding cars entering and leaving the AX event on that day.

Do you think the juice is worth the squeeze? Should the track be more technical to disproportionately benefit better drivers, increase the risk, and potentially complicate the logistics just to see a more exciting race and maybe see a slight difference in car setup between a hand full of cars?

Raitinger,

You guys have an awesome course, and I've been impressed by how Lincoln tracks have been set up since the first even in '12. Our team used the course map to realize how many points we were throwing away in AX and Endurance by going no aero in '12. The course maps were plenty good for building lap sims around the older tracks. We used these to make design decisions around August of the year before the competition. Thus the change from a narrow track, no aero car in '12, to a winged, wide track car in '13.

[Claude Rouelle]

Julian H,

So you want an easy circuit for the first year teams and a more difficult one for the more experienced teams? If you go this way you also want tech rules different for new and more experienced teams?

The rules are the same of everybody

FSAE is to prepare you for real engineering life. When you will go for a job interview the rules and the hiring criteria are not going to be different if you are 22 or 26 years old, German, Italian, Indian or Brazilian (I would hate to think they would be different)

Whiltebeitel

If there is a safety issue, the cones will only be placed back when it is safe to do so. As in any corners in any competition.

"...How do you consolidate the push for teams with good drivers with the idea of FSAE as an engineering showcase?"

What if in real life you have good product but a bad marketing or a bad sales force? Or the other way around?

Every competition in the world will have winners which are the best combination between people and machine. FSAE and FS competition are not different

Come on guys..... Stop whining and make sure you can drive a car in successive hairpins of 9 M OD. That is it.

Now that being said The Lincoln circuit is very good and challenging. And no matter what I will have fun watching the cars. In ANY corners. But we are all in pursuit of excellence and it can even be more challenging

Claude

[JulianH]

Claude,

I don't know why you are so obsessed about this and come up with strange comparisons... Of course I don't want different courses for different teams...

I will stand by my position, that it is a bad move to make tracks that DQ teams on purpose even if they are "within the rules". There is not only an "intend of rules" for teams while designing parts on the car, there is also an "intend of the rules" for organizers when they design a track. And in my opinion, this intend is to have a challenging track but not a track that is dangerous or reason for mutiple DQs.

I know that you will answer with "if the teams designed their cars properly they should have no problem with that". Yes, I know. But there are also still dozens of teams using rod ends in bending or what ever crazy parts I still see at events that are just have to fail at one point or another.

FSAE is education and in my opinion education shouldn't be that cruel that one single mistake is going to cost you a whole year. That's it.

[tromoly]

Raitinger, the layouts look like a lot of fun, honestly I'm a little jealous that I won't have an opportunity to be there driving, very nice work.

[raitinger]

Let's make an analogy.

Let's look at FSAE & FS as just another educational class like all the other ones we take at university. Most of the time we will get a course outline at the very beginning of class giving us all the subjects that will be covered and potentially be responsible for knowing when it comes to the final. You could say that the outline is much like the SAE rules. As you go through your class, you will learn the subjects from the syllabus spending extra time and emphasis on the subjects which are most important. Again, in FSAE the majority of our time is spent designing a car the will fit together, start, move, turn, stop, and not break. As a secondary, time is spent making the cars do these things well enough to garner fast competition event times.

At the end of most classes there will be a final test, for FSAE it's the competitions. Occasionally, there is a final evaluation which contains some form of curve ball. For those not familiar with the baseball term, it is more or less a problem that is very unexpected. The are few reasons that a specific problem is perceived as a curve ball.

1) Your professor is asking you about the information in a different way to see if you truly have a grasp of the subject.
2) You are asked to combine subject concepts in a way that you haven't been asked to do before, but is likely the next logical step in understanding the subject.
3) You feel the subject you are being questioned on was not emphasized throughout the class, and feel it is somewhat unfair to be placed with a large amount of weight on a final. Your professor may reply that the curve ball question was covered in the syllabus or study guide maybe, and therefore is fair game.

I think the difference between Claude & Z and others would be where they place this curve ball of the 9m OD turn, or series of turns. I think Claude & Z place this curve ball somewhere at 1) or 2), while many others feel that it is more of a 3). It has been my experience that the professors who like to throw the curves are the ones who are very knowledgeable, passionate, and focused regarding their field, in the same respect they may be less apt to keep the big picture in sight. In their mind the curve ball is the tool used to see if you can put the cherry on top of your understanding of the subject, some even go so far as to say that they are helping you proceed to the next step in you understanding of the subject. The reality though, is that the curve ball turns into more of a pass/fail type evaluation, as opposed to a distributed grading A,B,C,D, F. You either can solve the problem on the spot or you cannot.

Tech inspection aside, the FSAE individual dynamic events are structured in such a way that as long as you complete the event and keep it between the cones, you will receive points. How many points is determined by how fast you complete the event. In essence I think this what most people see as the "Spirit of the Competition", and I think most see the 9m OD turn and certainly the series of turns as a break from that "Spirit". That type of evaluation is better suited for a maneuverability event similar to SAE Baja.

So, sure the 9m OD turn is fair game to put in the event because it is in the rules, but that doesn't mean the students won't think whoever did it is kind of an A-hole.

[whiltebeitel]

Whiltebeitel

If there is a safety issue, the cones will only be placed back when it is safe to do so. As in any corners in any competition.

"...How do you consolidate the push for teams with good drivers with the idea of FSAE as an engineering showcase?"

What if in real life you have good product but a bad marketing or a bad sales force? Or the other way around?

Every competition in the world will have winners which are the best combination between people and machine. FSAE and FS competition are not different

Come on guys..... Stop whining and make sure you can drive a car in successive hairpins of 9 M OD. That is it.

Now that being said The Lincoln circuit is very good and challenging. And no matter what I will have fun watching the cars. In ANY corners. But we are all in pursuit of excellence and it can even be more challenging

Claude

Claude,

I think you're missing the point. There is a balance between technical design, marketing, setup, and driver skill to name a few. All of these play a very important role in a successful FSAE team. I'm not discounting that in any way. I am simply asking you to elaborate on what factors you are trying to emphasize in these completions. This changes what dictates the ideal combination, and thus what "excellence" looks like.

Your recommendations to the course would increase the influence of drivers, relative to the technical design of the car. Do you think this is the way the competitions should go? Should more emphasis be put on maximum steering angle and driver expertise, or are the competitions a good balance of priorities as they currently exist, in your opinion?

If the 9 m OD is so important, why not just reduce the size of the skidpad course to 9 m? Would that not adequately address the issue?

[Z]

... the FSAE individual dynamic events are structured in such a way that as long as you complete the event and keep it between the cones, you will receive points. How many points is determined by how fast you complete the event. In essence I think this what most people see as the "Spirit of the Competition", and I think most see the 9m OD turn and certainly the series of turns as a break from that "Spirit". That type of evaluation is better suited for a maneuverability event similar to SAE Baja.

So, sure the 9m OD turn is fair game to put in the event because it is in the rules, but that doesn't mean the students won't think whoever did it is kind of an A-hole.

Raitinger (and others),

The above quote, and similar by others, are deeply disappointing. They leave me somewhat speechless...

Those comments are compelling evidence that FSAE is becoming less and less about "educating young engineers", and more and more about "let's pretend we're all in a Mini-F1 comp! Yeah..., yeeehahh!... we're all REAL RACERS!"

The "9 metre minimum diameter hairpin" has been in the Rules forever. Yet the insatiable urge to pretend that "We're in a real racing series..." means that in practice the tightest turns nowadays are the Skid-Pad. The students have been smart enough to see this, so over the years they have also been lazy enough to only design their steering for such larger radius corners. Very little "educating" happening there.

As I have pointed out (maybe too many times now), a 9 m OD turn is a doddle for a car with ~1.5 m wheelbase. In fact, 7 m OD is trivial, and is what I have put in all my sketches. It is only incredibly INCOMPETENT engineers who could not do this, or else lazy students who know they don't have to. So tell the students at the beginning of the year that there WILL BE a proper hairpin at their end of year comp. If their car fails to negotiate said hairpin, then mark them down as being really STUPID! Geez, do you really want incompetent young engineers like that designing your next car (or Jumbo Jet!)?

And as for the "...only the best drivers could get around a 9 m hairpin" argument! Grooaaann, mumble, BULLDUST!!! [Under breath - How can anyone be so STUPID!] In a ~1.5 m wheelbase car with TYPICAL passenger-car steer-angles, my dear old grandmother could do it! (Err, well, perhaps not fair, because you've all seen the movies, and you know what we vampires can do...:)) But geez..., you turn the wheel left, you turn the wheel right. And as should be obvious, all this happens at LOW SPEED, so NO QUICK THINKING required!

Hmmm, since I seem to have got my voice back... :)

This issue of "Let's only PRETEND we're educating the students wrt steering-geometry" is in the same league as "Let's PRETEND that the students have to design a 'fully operational suspension with 2 inches of travel', but let's never give them any reason, whatsoever, to actually use such a suspension!". The earliest events in the parking lot in MiddleSomeWhereUSA(?) had some little cracks and waves, etc., in the pavement. Not really what I would call bumps-worthy-of-a-good-suspension, but that doesn't matter, because such tracks are quickly being ironed-out. "Whoaa..! They don't hold F1 races on crappy parking lots like that!"

Ahh, yes, peer group pressure. We must all copy the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". Education be damned! Leave that to the nerds...

Z

[Z]

Here is updated version of ascii-hairpins.
~~~o0o~~~

.. = used as spacers,
o = cones,
8 = haybales or water-barriers down middle.

xxx = path of current cars with typically"bad" steering.
======================================
....|<---15+m--->|....
......o...o..o..o...o......
..o.......x..x..x.......o..
..o..x................x..o..
..ox....................xo..
..ox....................xo..
..o..x.......8.......x..o..
......o.x....8....x.o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
......o...x..8..x...o......
......o...x..8..x...o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
If 15+ metre wide turning-area is not enough for the poor little dears, then increase the top section to a whole football field...


xxx = path of car with just acceptable steering, as per Rules.
==========================================
......o...o..o..o...o......
..o.......................o..
..o.......................o..
..o.......................o..
..o.........x..x.........o..
..o.....x....8....x.....o..
......ox.....8.....xo......
......ox.....8.....xo......
......o.x....8....x.o......
......o.x....8....x.o......
.......|<--9m-->|.......


xxx = path of car with good steering (designed by dim-witted baboon),
and driven by frail, 80 year old, grandmother (note sensible driving line).
================================================== =
......o...o..o..o...o......
..o.......................o..
..o.......................o..
..o.......................o..
..o.........x..x.........o..
..o......x...8...x......o..
......o..x...8...x..o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
......o..x...8...x..o......
.........|<.7m.>|.........

Z

[tromoly]

Z, I have respect for what you say, but is the name calling really necessary?

For the record, our last few cars that I have seen data for are designed to steer around a 6m-outer diameter, and can personally say last year's car is able to turn tightly.

[whiltebeitel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHgjFPhhzY8

Z/Claude Course design at it's finest!

All kidding aside, Z, if you can put it out there like you suggest, then it's not really an issue. The thing is, a good driver is going to beat the living pants off a "meh" driver is an extremely tight set of switchbacks. If you two like rewarding good drivers that can really make a car dance, then that's fine.

Then again, didn't you just say this is about educating young engineers, not a mini-race? Then why put in a maneuver that, while not impossible by any means, rewards very technical driving and not so much the design around the precise definition of the rules minimum radius requirement?

I've seen a large number of people drive the same car, on the same track, same day with a very tight "box" that forces a 90* entrance, 180* hairpin, and 90* exit. That is exactly where the best driver made up the most time. Because it's low speed, has little room for error, and you can use a good bit of throttle steer if you're smart.

Make hairpins if you like. It gives a good batch of drivers a significant advantage over others. Personally, I like your diagrams for proposed ideas. I just don't think you can imply these changes will primarily reflect better car design over better driver skill.

[Z]

Troy,

I am getting increasingly frustrated by the lack of "well-reasoned" thinking, anywhere in the whole world! (Believe me, I also have many other discussions with academics on subjects several levels more abstract than FSAE, and sadly the lack of clear thinking there is just as bad as here, if not worse.)

Listening to "reasoning" that is stupid, and then saying "Well done little Jonny, here is another gold-star.", is what brought society to this point. On the other hand, the more that people point out that a stupid argument is "STUPID!!!" (see below), then the more likely that all of you will have a better future.

Unfortunately, my lifetime has been in the middle of the long down-hill slide. You younger people will most likely see more of the same. Or you can try to change it.

BTW, congratulations on being able to design a car with a tight turning circle (not that hard, eh?). I just wish your Team could be rewarded for its efforts, by being able to show how much faster you can go around real hairpins.
~~~o0o~~~

Whiltebeitel,

Here is an example of the poor-reasoning I am talking about.


I've seen a large number of people drive the same car, on the same track, same day with a very tight "box" that forces a 90* entrance, 180* hairpin, and 90* exit. That is exactly where the best driver made up the most time.

And what did you expect? That, with all else equal, the best driver would be mid-field, or slowest!!!???

More to the point, where does "engineering design/education" come into this? It is the same car every time! How does the above support your main argument that, "I just don't think ... [hairpins] ... will primarily reflect better car design over better driver skill."???

(Logically, as a support to your main argument, the above quoted section is a "non-sequitur". You may as well have told us what you had for breakfast.)

Anyway, put your "best driver" into your team's double-decker bus, I'll put my Granny into Troy's car above, and I am quite sure I know who will be faster. ("Well done Nana! Now you rest up while I get you your tea, and those nice digestive biscuits you so like." :))

(BTW, the gymkhana racing you linked to is popular primarily because amateurs can get good at it quite quickly. Everything happens relatively slowly, and "offs" are relatively harmless. But it does require reverse-gear.)
~~~o0o~~~

Bottom line, for those of you who do not want "9 metre hairpins" in FSAE, please ask yourselves "Why?".

Do you REALLY think they will only benefit better drivers, rather than better designed cars? Or (more likely IMO) is there a voice in the back of your head saying "No way, dude! Everyone will laugh at us! We should be going more, you know..., F1...".

Know thyself.

Z

[mdavis]

I've seen a large number of people drive the same car, on the same track, same day with a very tight "box" that forces a 90* entrance, 180* hairpin, and 90* exit. That is exactly where the best driver made up the most time. Because it's low speed, has little room for error, and you can use a good bit of throttle steer if you're smart.

Make hairpins if you like. It gives a good batch of drivers a significant advantage over others. Personally, I like your diagrams for proposed ideas. I just don't think you can imply these changes will primarily reflect better car design over better driver skill.

If you don't want to lose the advantage to other teams with "better" drivers, get your car done early, and get your drivers comfortable with the car. I can tell you from my experience, a comfortable driver in a meh car is going to be faster than a fast driver in a car that they have <5 hours of seat time in.

I do think the proposed courses look fun to drive, and I'm sad that I'm not going to get a chance to drive them.

My 2 cents on the slow corner(s) in a course design. Fast corners are more fun from the driver's perspective (at least mine), whereas slow corners show off driver skill/comfort with the car, but are less fun. So, if you're going to have very slow corner(s) on track, then you're going to need to make up speed somewhere so that the cars end up in the speed range defined by the rules. So if you add 2-3 extremely slow hairpins, then there are probably going to be some more sweepers, where the aero cars can show off their extra grip (or the cars that actually let their suspension work can show off mechanical grip).

The one thing I don't see in the course maps that I think are another way to set good cars apart from not well sorted cars are slaloms where a couple of cones decrease distance, then they increase again. Let the brave (and prepared) drivers come flying in and brake after the first cone. The only problem is that you have to keep the local track star right near the 2nd-3rd cones in that slalom during the morning session (and most of the afternoon) to help put those cones back up when the get killed all day. I also like seeing "trick" cones that stick out on the entry to corners (2nd cone sticks an extra foot towards the line, when the 3rd cone in the corner is the apex cone), because they push the drivers to know how to pick out important cones on a course. It's not something that is hard to learn (4-5 autocrosses driving any car that is legal, and talking to the local hotshoes), but it does make a big difference.

-Matt

[coleasterling]

If you don't want to lose the advantage to other teams with "better" drivers, get your car done early, and get your drivers comfortable with the car. I can tell you from my experience, a comfortable driver in a meh car is going to be faster than a fast driver in a car that they have <5 hours of seat time in.
-Matt

I don't have much to add about the course itself, but I think this isn't necessarily true. We have had the good fortune to have "good" drivers the past several years. Keep in mind that the current guys are NOT slow. Our previous "very good" drivers nearly always beat the "good" drivers, either immediately, or after a couple laps in the new car.

I'm not in the least saying that getting the car built early and getting tons of testing and seat time isn't valuable. It is huge, but EVERY team should be aspiring to that regardless of having good drivers or not. If not, you're doing something wrong. One of the best ways to gain points immediately (with a decent car) is to put a great driver in it. We look for drivers across our entire university and don't limit drivers to the car's design team. We look at autocrosses, car shows, ask around for guys with kart or dirt track experience, etc...

As far as the course goes, I understand the reasoning behind the successive, tight hairpins. I think it is good to push teams to develop more technically sound cars, for sure. However, I think the difference in time between a good and an average FSAE driver probably amounts to more time than properly vs. improperly designed steering. Thats just a guess, obviously. It would definitely more distinctly separate the top teams from the average, though. I also doubt it would affect points distribution among top teams. It would push the top teams to implement some design changes and think a little differently, which is good. The average team would do the same, but wouldn't benefit as much from it, based on driver skill alone (assuming I am correct about driver skill affecting time more than steering design for the hairpins alone).

[theTTshark]

I still wish the autox wasn't quite so slalom happy, but it's a lot fewer slaloms than the Michigan course. But overall it looks really nicely done.

[raitinger]

Here is a revised map for Lincoln. Our straight in AutoX was too long, the Endurance straight length limit had been used.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxeyn45rNs51Qm9uZFRuQUJlQ1lWSS00UWtFeWx2MkVzVHFZ/edit?usp=sharing


Also, this brought up some interesting questions on why the course element rules and average speed rules are different for AutoX and Endurance. As a competitor I took it at face value. AutoX was intended to be more tight and technical, and Endurance allowed us to "really open them up" on a more open and flowing course. Well, in practice I think many would agree, the difference between AutoX and Enduro can end up simply being the addition or subtraction of a handfull of speed limiting elements while the rest of the course pretty much contains the same sizes and types of elements.

From a course design standpoint, in certain instances, the difference in rules seem counter intuitive. Mainly when we would want to put elements together in AutoX that have higher chances of creating unstable handling (some higher speed, some not), which we might shy away from in Endurance due the close proximity of other cars on track. It would be much safer to place higher speed elements in AutoX, with cars that are always safely spaced, vs. Enduro where 3 or 4 cars bunching up is not uncommon.

Maybe some of the FSAE historians can shed some light on the original intention in the rules.

Lawrence

[raitinger]

Here are the course maps for FSAE Lincoln 2015. We are running a little behind on getting these out this year, but I hope you all enjoy!

I would recommend using the files from the link, because Imgur seems to tweak the green driving line in Endurance to an annoyingly light shade.

Files & PDFs can be downloaded from here, PDFs and Full Site Map (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bxeyn45rNs51fmgtUkxNS1hqOEQ2WF9Jc1Uxejdle nNjaUVUNnRyMWozRk4ydm56ekZ6LVk&authuser=0)

http://i.imgur.com/RSxuu7hh.jpg (http://imgur.com/RSxuu7h)

http://i.imgur.com/SE1DZ3Ch.jpg (http://imgur.com/SE1DZ3C)

[MCoach]

Do you have radii for each of the corners and what is the square grid sizing?. I'm eyeballing that hairpin cautiously.

[raitinger]

Do you have radii for each of the corners and what is the square grid sizing?. I'm eyeballing that hairpin cautiously.

The grid squares are 25' x 25'. I'll see what I can do about putting the radii for each corner on the pdf.

[raitinger]

Just in case anyone missed the Facebook posts of the 2015 Lincoln AutoX and Enduro track videos.

Auto X (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxW17PoN9pAoogle.com/open?id=0Bxeyn45rNs51fmgtUkxNS1hqOEQ2WF9Jc1Uxejdle nNjaUVUNnRyMWozRk4ydm56ekZ6LVk&authuser=0")


Endurance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=2D2sr6W4OjU&app=desktop)

[Alumni]

First off, I'm incredibly jealous of anyone who it getting to do even a single lap of that course. Excellent work. If only we could find somewhere other than MIS...

Secondly - if it hasn't been noted yet, there is a very misleading pointer cone at 0:26 in the video. Had I been driving I most certainly would have (or at least made an attempt to) run into the passing zone at full steam. Per the SCCA, pointer cones should only ever be placed on the inside of corners.