Formula Australasia 2006 Competition:- Updates, Pictures, Stories, and More

[RiNaZ]

like the title suggest ... pictures and updates!!!

p/s: can someone do me a favor and take pictures of a team from Malaysia?!

[PatClarke]

Well, tomorrow it all starts.
I offer my best wishes to all competing teams, and hope you have fun as well as learning heaps.
I will be there along with Ron Tauranac and Peter Gillitzer as your senior design judges so I really can't discuss stuff on here...yet =]
As usual I will have my camera and several gigabites of memory, so should anyone want specific pictures, then just ask and I will see what I can do within the limits of propriety.
Again...as usual, I will need someone to host my humble photographic efforts.
Again, good luck to all.
Pat Clarke

[Kyle Walther]

I know you guys are busy, but i am dieing for some pictures http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Florian]

hi, since our team is also down under we got a few pictures on our homepage

TUfast (http://www.tufast.de)

to find under: Australien 2006/Gallery

[Igor]

And for the people who can't read German, it seems RMIT won cost with Western Australia in second place.

Igor

[chavez]

pictures?

[Drum]

I heard those same rumours that RMIT won the cost event with UWA in second place.

Also, it sounds like RMIT won the presentation event, and got in the top three in acceleration and skidpad.

Sounds like it is neck and neck between UWA and RMIT at this stage. Not sure about results from other teams.

Pat Drum
RMIT Racing supporter via correspondence

[js10coastr]

..and all they had to do was to get rid of Drum. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif JK.

Best of luck to RMIT and UWA, you've got two amazing programs and I'd love to see both teams competing at their full potential.

[schuffy]

some pics from saturday:
schuffy.wobistdujetzt.com (http://schuffy.wobistdujetzt.com)

(pics will be deleted in 24h)

[Big Bird]

As of Saturday night results, with Cost, Presentation, Accel and Skid all scored, RMIT and WA are 1.5 points apart according to my dodgy hand calcs. RMIT has won presentation and cost, WA won acceleration and came second in skid pad, RMIT third in skid and second in acceleration. As for Autocross, we haven't seen any official results as I write this, but unofficially I heard that UWA and RMIT had best laps to within 0.1 seconds of each other. That was done with a stopwatch, no official times are being announced at the event.

Design finals were on as I left, featuring Munich, Swinburne, Deakin, UWA, Tokyo Denki and RMIT. No word as of time of writing.

Great comp, UWA looking great on track, Munich looking beautiful, Deakin takes my pick as the best designed car for some really nice packaging and ultra-neat bolt on suspension modules. Swinburne have built their best car yet (a work of art in my opinion), but unfortunately haven't had it through tech yet because of a few issues.

Newcastle crashed into a barrier quite hard in the practice yard (sounded like throttle stuck on), but as testament to a properly triangulated spaceframe and a good crush zone, the driver came out fine. Anyone who mopes about having to weld triangulation into the footbox needs to take a good look at the integrity of the Newcastle car - very well braced and the footwell structure is virtually undistorted. I'd dread to think what would have happened to the drivers feet if the bracing wasn't there.

All in all a great comp so far, looking forward to tomorrow. Good luck to all,

Cheers

[Scott Sinclair]

Thanks for the update Geoff.

Should be a cracking day tommorrow. Good luck to all involved.


Anyone with pictures please post them.

Cheers

[BryanH]

Some 2nd hand info from Rotor,
RMIT did about 4.1 on drag strip. Hats off to Brad! UWA & RMIT did 48's in Autocross, next car was in the 50,s. The track is set up much tighter this year hence the slower times. Alistair said RMIT06 car is much easier to drive than 05, balance is very good. Some of this is due in part to their ability to adjust F&R roll centres, ( Clever adjustable upper inner susp. points on the tub).
Mark said that the tight track didn't seem to suit the German car, ( and maybe a few others?)
The Deakin single had some problem that stopped from running today, so no indication of it's potential yet.
Total Lack of official results/updates just highlights how well run FSAE Germany was.

Cheers Bryan H

[Mike Claffey]

I'm really happy to say we did a 3.7 from a good start on the accel event - great work from Adam, Morgan and Graham working on the launch control with clutch =]

Also, it seems the autocross track is much tigher and twister this year from my perspective (the sideline).

As usual with aus events some interesting events unfolding, including the new design final with 4 members from each team - something fresh and new!

[Matt N]

Can somebody list car weights? That would be really cool for us state-side to know what we have to compete against in a few months...

Matt

[BryanH]

Design; UWA 1st RMIT 2nd

RMIT completed the first Enduro. UWA didn't, Differential oil leak caused them to be stopped by officials.

RMIT fractured a hub on the steering shaft in 2nd enduro. UWA finished but had a spin/off track that cost about 2 min.

TU car was fast with one of their drivers in it...

Deakin also seemed fast but had a wheel explode in first enduro and what seemed a pull-rod failure in the 2nd (Slid to a stop on it's tub)

Suprised that Wollongong was off the pace.

RMIT's fuel econ in 1st Enduro was good, so final tally is going to be close.

[schmason]

were you watching the endurance runs? we (UWA) completeted the first drivers leg in the first endurance run but were disqualified in the change over due to an oil leak from the diff. the second endurance run we spun on the 3rd lap but still managed to complete

the rmit car (awesome car) completed its first endurance run and didnt seem to have any problems, but on its second run it broke something in the steering on the straight on the first run and couldnt continue on. its going to be close no one has any idea who is going to win til the preso tonight. great comp its been neck and neck the whole way

[Disco]

Hello All,

Its been an incredible performancve by UWA and RMIT.

I know RMIT results are:
Cost 1st
Presentation 1st
Acceleration 2nd
Skid Pad 3rd
Autocross 2nd

I think UWA's are:
Cost 2nd
Presentation ??
Acceleartion 1st
Skid Pad 2nd??
Autocross 1st

Spoke with a couple of RMIT guys who said UWA were 15 points ahead of RMIT going into endurance. Going to be pretty close given fuel economy.

Good to all.

Cheers
Steve

[ThaiTran]

http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006/

i've done saturdays photos. sunday should be up soon.
cheers

[The Real Ruska]

What happens with the Munich car in Endurance.
Anybody knows their results?

[Drum]

Those fold-up chairs are a great place to mount a rear wing
http://images5.fotopic.net/?iid=ylylw2&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[schuffy]

some results are really incredible. how
can the uwa car be better in cost than
cars like tokyo,....? their car is very good,
showed very good performance in endurance
today, but its not the cheapest car io.


munich finished both enduro-heats. i saw the 2nd one, which looked very good. thanks to the organizers you get no times at all.so we ve to wait for the final results before we knows best in enduro. i think tufast, rmit, uwa and deakin
are same very high level, followed by the midclass.


i posted some enduro pics on
schuffy.wobistdujetzt.com (http://schuffy.wobistdujetzt.com)

[BryanH]

RMIT WINS!!!
Congratulations to the entire team, protecting RMIT's hard won honour. Thats 3 major wins attained in 5 short years. WOW

[Nick McNaughton]

Congrats to the RMIT team, another hard fought comp with a close result. Honourable mention to the UWAM lads and lasses, worthy design winners again and by the sounds of it, lightning fast on track. If they go international, look out..

[Natho]

Well done RMIT guys awesome job all year!

The unofficial results are.

1. RMIT 953
2. UWA 917

It all came down to the endurance. RMIT must have done well enough in the first endurance 2 hold off uwa who suffered a spin in the 2nd session which lost them about 1-2 min. RMIT suffered a steering column failure in the second endurance only about 20 metres into the event. With the lower fuel economy of the single cylinder the rmit guys just hung on. Great competition though! some great cars. well done 2 all!!!

[Disco]

I've never seen two teams dominant a competition that much!

Hester informs me RMIT amassed 960 points total!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

UWA were 40 points behind them.

Congratulations to both teams, absolutely deserved and I hope all goes well for the team members after their FSAE experience.

Particularly well done to Jacob Raynor and the team from RMIT.

Cheers
Steve

[Drum]

Congrats RMIT!!

I heard RMIT came in at 951pts, with UWA around 40 points behind.

Awesome job to the whole team! Managing to raise the bar again was a bloody good effort, especially since with each competition the standard of quality of all team is growing astronomically. Also it is an amazing effort to get a 1st at Detroit, 2nd in California and 1st in Australia all in 2006!! Hopefully this means you'll be able to make the trip to the US in 2007 (and I'll be able to see R06 in action)

Thanks to Stu and Deano for the updates, looking forward to chatting with the rest of you soon.

Pat
RMIT Racing Fan Club

[Eddie Martin]

Unofficial results

Overall
RMIT 1st
UWA 2nd
UOW 3rd
UNSW 4th

Enduro
RMIT 1st
UWA 2nd
UNSW 3rd
UOW 4th

Design
UWA 1st

An interesting competition. A lot of evolutionary designs with most teams keeping similar overall concepts to previous years.

Newcastle hit the barrier in the practice track on Saturday but luckily nobody was hurt.

In the 1st enduro RMIT and UNSW put in strong runs with UWA having a diff oil leak at driver change and UOW having a suspension problem.

The 2nd heat was run at a fast pace with UWA's 1st driver spinning just after the pit area. They got going again but lost time due to the off track and cones down.

Tokyo and UWA were strong in the skid pan. The acceleration times were quick as a lot of cars seemed to line up quite a way back from the start line.

Congratulations to all the teams that entered and that made it through all the events.

Eddie Martin
Team Sombrero (aka. UOW Racing Alumni)

[Smeagle]

Congratulations Jake and the RMIT team! I wish I could have been there to see it but I'll have a celebratory beer anyway.
It's a well deserved victory against very tough competition.
Well done

[the fat LION]

wow, sounds like it was a great competition, congrats to RMIT and UWA. Can't wait to see you guys in Detroit

[Jose Robledo]

Some of this is due in part to their ability to adjust F&R roll centres, ( Clever adjustable upper inner susp. points on the tub).

Cheers Bryan H[/QUOTE]


Hey!! hello everyone and congratulations to all that participated in the event and all those who supported them!! We know it's a victory just to finish the car and get to the competition!!

I'm especialy happy to learn that the RMIT team has incorporated into their design a feature that has been at the heart of our suspension design for the POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO F-SAE cars since our first attempt ever in 2004! The ability to adjust front and rear roll centers! It is something that a lot of people has asked me before "WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT" several times until they drive the car with one setup and then drive it with another setup by only adjusting the roll center!

It is something we haven't had the oportunity to actually quantify properly(only lap times and driver feedback) because of our lack of data logging equipment. Barely enough money to actually build the car!

Thanks and hope to hear from you and anyother team that has experimented with this setup!

[Jose Robledo]

I'd love to exchange views, ideas and info with you guys whenever you have time! Have you been able to gather data about this during testing? Stuff like camber change in bump and roll at different roll center settings? Effects of changing only the front vs. changing only the rear?
At one time at certain tire pressure we were able to do away with the front ARB totally, since changes to it had almost negligible effects on lap times at the highest front roll center setting! Although this could be attributed to what we called DRIVER ADAPTABILITY JAJAJA! Anyway without datalogging we are still speculating!

Thanks again, congratulations! and I hope we can elaborate further on this since we're sticking to the concept for the future cars and hopefully we'll be able to learn something extra from it!

[Naught]

Jose Robledo,

As the roll centre approaches the height of your cars' CG (Centre of Gravity), the rolling moment effect of your suspended mass is greatly diminished - your suspension geometry resists rolling much more. You will find therefore that by raising your roll centre, your cars roll stiffness will be increased. BUT, beware. An anti-roll bar needs a roll angle (a car takes time to roll) to be able to react the rolling forces, but a high roll centre has this anti-roll force what ever the roll angle. For the driver, this means that the car will seem to have more (quicker) response, at the sacrifice of 'compliance grip'. I guess this topic should really be discussed in another area if people want to throw ideas back and forward more.

Anyway, congrts to the boys from RMIT! From pics, the car looks like someone left it in the drier too long... but F = M.A ! well done.

Michael

[Skyline]

Phew.. that was a freakin close competition! Well done to Jake, Ben, Mark, Brad, Matt, Lee, Al, Rob, Andrew, Chris and TOP JOB to the entire RMIT Racing crew for pulling it off!

Also massive congrats to UWA, the Gong, Tokyo Denki and ALL teams, you ppl rock!

Ah yes, the adjustable upper A-arms.. we werent able to test ours properly either due to time constraints, but nevertheless the current setting which we were on (massive camber change) worked a treat over the comp weekend. Its still no Kinetic suspension though... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Alan]

Congrats to RMIT. Can't wait to see some more detailed pictures of their car. Hats off to UWA and UOW as well. It sucks I won't be around when they come to the States as I thoroughly enjoyed working with both of them last year.

Hey Stuart, where's my shirt? I'd love to show it off to my counterpart at work who is a UWA alumnus.

[EK]

Congrats to RMIT

I'm from University of Newcastle and just wanted to say thanks to University of Auckland for lending us a spare impact absorber and University of Wollongong for letting us borrow a race suit. We replaced the front bulkhead, passed re-scrutineering and were ready to compete in the first enduro when we had ECU issues. We got them sorted for the second enduro, so at least the event ended with a chequered flag for us.

Sorry we missed the presentation but we were all buggered from what seemed like a very long and Murphy's Law packed event for us.

Good luck to all those Aussie teams competing in the US event.

[ThaiTran]

http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/DSC_9998-253.jpg
http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/DSC_0136-114.jpg

http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/DSC_9924-198.jpg

http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/_DSC0470-370.jpg
http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/_DSC0465-366.jpg

http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/_DSC0382-306.jpg
http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/medium/_DSC0375-301.jpg

more pics here (http://www.ttp.bizmail.com.au/sae2006sun/)

[Scott Sinclair]

Congrats to the RMIT crew on the win. Also congrats to the UWA guys on an excellent performance. Sounds like a real battle between the two teams right to the very end.

Bring on the aussie domination overseas!

[PatClarke]

Well, it's all over for another year, and I thought you might like to hear from one of the judges.
As Eddie said, this year mostly evolutionary designs, and sad to say, several of the mid to better teams slipped slightly.
In the Design Finals there were 3 A+ cars and 3 A cars.
A+ UWA. Certainly evolutionary but most certainly a new car. Impressive features and innovations and impressive knowledge by the team. A tierod failure in Enduro 1 spoiled their event allowing RMIT to get them.
A+ RMIT. Again evolutionary but a new car, the supposed 'revolutionary r/c adjustment ( Quote... Some of this is due in part to their ability to adjust F&R roll centres, Clever adjustable upper inner susp. points on the tub). Had no bearing at all, the car always running with the shortest VSAL in every event. Suffered a strange metallurgical failure in the 2nd Enduro when the steering column broke, but by that stage, they had done the job.
Congratulations to this fantastic team, and surely the concept of a lightweight single is totally proven
A+ Munich. Runner up in design in Germany and third here. A fantastic car, but their design event was spoiled a little by not having the right people to present their case. On track, the car seemed a little too big for this years (tighter) Aus course.
A. Tokyo Denki. Impeccably built spaceframe car with load paths etc impeccably worked out. If I were in the market for a FSAE car, this is probably the car I would buy.
A. Deakin. The latest evolution of the Sidewinder. Improved in most ways, the addition of a differential made it much more nimble on track. Suffered several structural failures over the weekend, something the team will have to address. Failed to finish both Enduros when cones damaged the suspension.
A- Swinburne. Maybe shouldnt have been in the design final. Spaceframe car very different to previous Swinny efforts. Slow to get to the events, not making Accel, Skidpan or Autocross, and failing to finish both Enduros.
There was some consternation that UWA and RMIT cleaned the Cost event. I dislike the cost event as it is currently, but teams should remember that the event doesnt reflect the cost of that actual car presented, rather the cost of the production line models (that never get made) Billet components and composite structures are quite cheap to make in commercial quantities.
All in all, another great Aussie event and I have the sunburn to prove it.
For those overseas interested in the visitors. The Indian team struggled, but eventually made the track in Enduro 2. The Malaysian team had a long list of tasks after their first visit to the Tech tent, went away to try rectify things and were not seen again until Sunday afternoon. Some of their problems were incapable of being addressed. Aalborg from Denmark were plagued with Electrical problems, but eventually made the track. The car showed ferocious low end power, something which caught out the driver who spun and stalled...Then the electrical gremlins recurred. They won the FISITA Endeavour Award.

Finally, I have over 700 pictures!!!! What will I do with them?

Regards to all
Pat

Edit. Just realised. 3 Singles in the Design Finals!

[todkill]

Did swinburne manage to get out onto the track at all end in the end?

I was a bit dissapointed that i didn't get to see it run, it looked great

[PatClarke]

Todkill
Swinburne started both Enduros, but DNF'd both times. They nosed into the fence in the second enduro, but continued unmarked...Probably due to their thermoplastic bodywork.
The car did look good. I have some pix
Pat

[Jose Robledo]

Originally posted by Naught:
Jose Robledo,

As the roll centre approaches the height of your cars' CG (Centre of Gravity), the rolling moment effect of your suspended mass is greatly diminished - your suspension geometry resists rolling much more. You will find therefore that by raising your roll centre, your cars roll stiffness will be increased. BUT, beware. An anti-roll bar needs a roll angle (a car takes time to roll) to be able to react the rolling forces, but a high roll centre has this anti-roll force what ever the roll angle. For the driver, this means that the car will seem to have more (quicker) response, at the sacrifice of 'compliance grip'. I guess this topic should really be discussed in another area if people want to throw ideas back and forward more.

Anyway, congrts to the boys from RMIT! From pics, the car looks like someone left it in the drier too long... but F = M.A ! well done.

Michael

HI MICHAEL! I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS SO I'LL POST THE SUBJECT LATER ON THE OPEN FSAE DISCUSSION FORUM! HEY ANY PICTURES OF THE CARS IN THE PADDOCK AREAS (STATIC)! LOVED THE RACING ONES, GREAT PICTURES, MY HAT'S OF TO WHOEVER TOOK THEM!! AND ONCE AGAIN COGRATS TO EVERYONE INVOLVED, TEAMS, SUPPORTERS, ORGANIZERS, JUDGES ETC.!!

[Skyline]

Originally posted by PatClarke:

Had no bearing at all, the car always running with the shortest VSAL in every event.


Um, actually no... If you have a good look your pics, only the front was running with the shortest VSAL. The rear clevis was set one notch higher, bringing the roll axis closer to horizontal (it is forward-inclined by default).

Also, the rear toe-link was adjustable inboard as well, and you will notice that the clevis was set to give us bump steer at the rear http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cheers..

[Charlie]

Originally posted by PatClarke:
A+ UWA. Certainly evolutionary but most certainly a new car. Impressive features and innovations and impressive knowledge by the team. A tierod failure in Enduro 1 spoiled their event allowing RMIT to get them.


Thanks for the report Pat, interesting stuff.

But how did UWA's tie rod failure 'allow RMIT to get them'? Didn't they get their chance in the 2nd endurance? Or did this failure cause a performance deficit in the 2nd enduro for some reason?

[PatClarke]

Hi Charlie,
The cone/tierod incident for UWA happened in the first enduro, whilst RMIT put in a very fast time.
In the second enduro, under pressure to catch the RMIT time (and the fuel economy card they held) the UWA team went out very hard. On only the second or third lap, the driver lost it in a big way, costing the team a lot of time and cones. After this the UWA car lapped fast and clean, pulling back some time, but the damage was already done.
The steering column failure for RMIT happened in the second heat, but the event was already won.

The end result was that UWA went into the enduro with a small points lead but in the end lost the event by 30 odd points.

Pat

PS, is the car in your avatar the car I am working on in mine?

[Drum]

quote:
Originally posted by PatClarke:

Had no bearing at all, the car always running with the shortest VSAL in every event.



Um, actually no... If you have a good look your pics, only the front was running with the shortest VSAL.

Ganesh, I think what Pat is saying is that RMIT's car always has a shorter VSAL than any other car out there, which is probably true. Pat loves our short VSAL http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pat (Drum)

[Moke]

Wow, I just woke up having got home at 2am. What a weekend, RMIT (we did smoke them in the skip off) and UWA showing their class, all we could manage was showing a lot of leg and other bits.

Once again much fun was had and it was oh so sweet to see our car finish enduro, then gutting to have a wing mount rodend snap (number 4929829 on my list of things to break) when we were lapping well.

Thanks to all the teams that helped us out and to the officals.

I'd like to say that me out, but I can't back that up.

[Macker]

There was some consternation that UWA and RMIT cleaned the Cost event. I dislike the cost event as it is currently, but teams should remember that the event doesnt reflect the cost of that actual car presented, rather the cost of the production line models (that never get made) Billet components and composite structures are quite cheap to make in commercial quantities.
I would just like to agree with Pat re the Cost Event, I don't like it as it is now. We went fairly poor in actual cost of the car against some of the other top teams, and only made up points in things like Report format and manufacturing items.
I personally believe there are some Photoshop gurus at comp who happened to do their teams Cost Report, and that either receipts should be checked by judges, or actual cost of the car should count for even less of the overall points than it does now.

Andrew

[PatClarke]

Andrew,
You should visit the FSG site and see how the cost event is done at the German event.
Pat

[Tim.Wright]

Congrats to RMIT and UWA, both cars looked red hot all weekend!

Just wondering if anyone out there has the complete finishing order. We still do not know where we (Curtin) finished! (we were all too destroyed to make it up to the city on Sunday night)

Pat - Any chance you could squeeze your photos onto the event DVD when it's released??

Cheers

Timbo

From: The Other University in Western Australia

[Rob86]

What an awesome weekend! The level of competition each year never ceases to amaze me. UWA and RMIT had slick packages, the single really is a winner but UWA's engine was as smooth as silk, the sound of it in the acceleration event was awesome.

the other thing that really impressed me was the level of team spirit and good will amongst all the competitors. All teams were willing to help others in various ways to get as many cars on the track as possible, I have some good shots of Newcastle with a flame job 'V' nosecone http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Still recovering from Sunday night...



edit: apparently results will be here (http://www.sae-a.com.au/fsae/results.htm)

[Cherian Thomas]

Congratulations to RMIT and UWA! Both cars are simply awe inspiring. I can't wait to see you guys dominate overseas next year.

Timo,

We're in the same position you are. There were errors in the results posted at the presentation ceremony. We're still waiting on the official results.

Cheers,

Cherian

University of Adelaide Racing Concepts 2006

[BryanH]

Originally posted by Charlie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:
A+ UWA. Certainly evolutionary but most certainly a new car. Impressive features and innovations and impressive knowledge by the team. A tierod failure in Enduro 1 spoiled their event allowing RMIT to get them.


Thanks for the report Pat, interesting stuff.

But how did UWA's tie rod failure 'allow RMIT to get them'? Didn't they get their chance in the 2nd endurance? Or did this failure cause a performance deficit in the 2nd enduro for some reason? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Charlie here, Pat seems to be saying that UWA would have had a fast enough time to win enduro if they didn't break or spin. (If Granny had nuts....) The fact that RMIT set an unbeatable time/economy in the morning on a green track says it all.

Cheers Bryan Hester

[Rob86]

Adelaide rocks

[PatClarke]

Hi Bryan,
What Pat was actually saying that in the close competition, UWA blinked first. Both cars broke, but with UWA breaking in the first Enduro, they put themselves in a pressure position, and they..er 'blinked'in the second.
I understand your bias Bryan, but in truth, there was sod all to chose between the two teams, and to a degree, luck favoured RMIT. Had the failures been in the opposite heats, then the boot might well be on the other foot.

Personally, I am chuffed at the RMIT win. After the virtual three way dead heat two years ago,which Wollongong won from RMIT and UWA, Last year it was UWAs turn and this year RMIT capped off a stupendous year.

Currently, the best three FSAE/FS cars in the world are RMIT, UWA and TU Graz with daylight second before the other Euro, US and Brit teams. Which car do I prefer? All of them!
Regards
Pat

PS, I wish people wouldn't try to read some secret meaning into my posts. If I have something to say, I'll say it.

PPS, Timo, I will send a CD or two for Erin to distribute, Meanwhile I have some HUGE close up action shots which would make good posters for any team involved. Not every car, but a good selection. PM me for details

PPPS
Hi Drum. I think you will see that Deakin VSAL is pretty well as short as RMIT =]

[Welfares]

4th overall for UNSW, pretty happy with that.

3rd in acceleration with a green driver,
and our top driver(in his final year, congratulations Dr) with our team leader managed to pull out a 3rd in enduro/fuel economy.

Car stayed in one peice all weekend despite letting the B team loose in the afternoon, sorry to all the cones i destroyed.

I guess all we've got to do now is go driving untill something falls off.

Oh yeah, and build another car.

[oz_olly]

I would like to thank the guys from Adelaide Uni and the 'red bulls' for donating some rod ends to our saddening failure in the first enduro. We're just lucky that it failed right at the driver change and not at the top of the hill or some nasty place like that. We have already started reviewing designs to completely remove rod ends from our suspension except for the push/pull rods. I thought it was an awesome competition this year and even better to see the Indian blokes get their car on the track.

The highlight of the event for me has got to be at the function when after talking to Ron Tauranac for a while and pointing out the lonely girls on the dance floor he decided to go cut a rug and showed up all the young fellas.

Congrats to RMIT, I love that car and completely agree that it looks like a 4WD.

Cheers

Olly

UNSW@ADFA

[Rob86]

ok official results are up (http://www.sae-a.com.au/fsae/results.htm)

This is the best result that Adelaide has ever recorded and I am incredibly proud to be sitting behind the top 3 teams.

It is a real shame that the incorrect scores were posted on the sunday night but before anyone says anything about the organisation of FSAE-A have a quick think about what the volunteers do for the comp, how much you pay to enter (practically nothing!) and the simple existence of the event!
We were all cut on sunday night to find that we were placed very low despite scoring what we thought was pretty good, however would not think of disputing the organisers.

[Rob86]

ok, might be behind the top 4, or 5, or...
things don't add up *sigh*

all comments still hold though

[Cherian Thomas]

This is getting a wee bit tiresome...

The autocross scores in the official results have been mixed up. The autocross results sheet makes sense, but the scores have been mixed up while being carried over to the overall points calculation.

It's been quite an emotional rollercoaster for the Adelaide team. From 13th at the awards ceremony to 4th in the official results today, to now possibly 5th or who knows what. I'm sure UNSW and QUT (and possibly others) are feeling the same way.

While I agree with Rob that we should all be grateful for all that the organisers do for us, I do hope they get the results right sometime soon.

Oh, and it would be nice to see some sort of staging system to enforce the 30cm line for the acceleration event next year.

Cherian
University of Adelaide Racing Concepts 2006

[ad]

I would just like to add a few additional comments about Wollongong's 'suspension problems'

In the first enduro it was a front right outboard pickup failure (unseen on all previous cars with many more testing hours accredited). And within the 3 hours between events the lower a-arm was completely rebuilt and front uprights repaired and passed through scruitineering just in time.

This was in essence the 'lack' of pace seen in the second enduro among a 'lack' of front brakes.

Many thanks to RMIT for their assistance over the weekend and the Kangan Welding crew who made it possible for us to return in time for the second enduro.

All in all it was a great competition, good rivalry but with everyone willing to help a mate out in need.

Congrats to RMIT and UWA for their awesome result!

[Micko..]

Yeah I totally agree with the Adelaide guys, whilst we are totally stoked with our results (especially since we did the whole enduro on 3 cylinders after a injector connection came loose) it would have been nice if they were correct the first time around.

One thing that has puzzles me is the error tally against us, officially we had 3 off courses and 23 cones!! With our whole team watching we were expecting around 5-6 cones each driver with no off courses, which is exactly what both of the drivers expected.

Speaking to one of the marshals they said that the penalty counting was not very well controlled at all, and could be as bad a +-5 to 10 cones depending on which car the marshal at that area is watching. Thankfully our position wouldn't have changed if we had got the penalties that we expected, it is just frustrating to see such a variance.... have any other teams noticed this??

Anyway, it was a fantastic weekend, huge congratulations to RMIT and UOW, both have team discipline, motivation and organisation that leaves us for dead.... and it defiantly shows in their cars. Between them they will no doubt keep the 1 or 4 cylinder debate going for a while.

Cheers,

Mick

QUT

[Garlic]

I totally agree that the event organizers should be given lots of credit and, yes, forgiven when they make mistakes because they are so valuable and work very hard.

However, this event has gotten a pretty bad reputation for getting it right the first time, when it comes to scoring.

Perhaps they need to re-think their methods and/or scoring timeline to give themselves some breathing room and time to make sure what's presented is correct.

[Stuart Saare]

Great competition, with some stunning cars all around the pits. Well done to RMIT for the win, (we will continue the rivalry come Detroit!) and for every other car that finished the Enduro.

Just to clarify what happened to UWA over the weekend, Pat is slightly mistaken. The steering tie rod actually broke on Saturday afternoon in our last Autocross run, just before the event closed. Fortunately, we had already set quick times to win the event by that stage. The part got fixed overnight and we were ready for Enduro on Sunday morning.

UWA was actually DNF'd in the first enduro heat because of an oil leak from the differential NOT a mechanical failure! The oil leak was simple to fix and completed for the second enduro. It was in the second enduro that our first driver spun, about 30 seconds after RMIT had just speared off the road. The spin cost about 1 minute in track time, plus 20 seconds for the off-course and then whatever cone penalties were applied as well. Oh well, thats racing.

Anyway, an awesome competition that was thrilling to be a part of. Cheers to all that attended, competed, volunteered, marshalled, supervised, scrutineered and any other job I've missed.

P.S. Alan, your shirt is in the mail so who knows when it will get to you, say G'day and Merry Christmas to Ben on behalf of UWAM.

[PatClarke]

Rinaz opened this thread and specifically mentioned his interest in the team from Petronas Uni of Technology.

The team arrived with a completed car, and there will be pix when Dan G. posts them later today.
They ran into trouble in Tech and were sent away with a shopping list of required tasks. They worked all Friday and Saturday nights to no avail, returning to the event as spectators on Sunday afternoon. The fact they missed every event as well as suffering huge penalties in design due to failure to submit a proper DR is the reason for their ultimate low score.
I think the team came to the event with no proper knowledge of what the event is all about and might have been better off staying at the event, mingling with other teams, rather than staying off campus to try fix a car that, in all honesty, was never going to be allowed to compete.
Rinaz, if you have any connections there, you might be well advised to open a dialogue with them, pointing them to the online resources available, not least this forum.
They had all the hardware bits they needed, engine, brakes, wheels, tyres (Silverstones, custom made for the comp), what they clearly lacked was the knowhow to stitch together a cohesive design.

On the other hand, the Indian team from RVCE competed with a significantly better car than we have seen from the subcontinent before, proof that these new teams do learn quickly. There will be pix of the Indian car posted soon.
The reason for the low design score for Curtin is due to penalties incurred. The car was actually quite good, in fact just as good as the one they brought last year ;-) I feel sad for this team as they are forever in the shadow cast by their neighbours in Perth.

And speaking of the other Perth team. Yes, I got their two DNFs mixed up. The tierod breakage was on Saturday and the differential leak was on Sunday morning. How I managed this slip of memory is beyond me as I have several pictures of the actual cone breaking the actual tierod on the actual car!! They will be here for all to see.

Perusing the pictures is interesting. Deakin had a front chassis pickup failure which they fixed. My pictures show a visible bend in the same side wishbone on their first Enduro lap. This bend grew lap by lap (aided by the odd cone) until eventual collapse....also caught on Pat's camera.

If anyone wants info on other specific teams, just ask.
Regards
Pat

[ben]

Originally posted by Rob86:
ok official results are up (http://www.sae-a.com.au/fsae/results.htm)

This is the best result that Adelaide has ever recorded and I am incredibly proud to be sitting behind the top 3 teams.

It is a real shame that the incorrect scores were posted on the sunday night but before anyone says anything about the organisation of FSAE-A have a quick think about what the volunteers do for the comp, how much you pay to enter (practically nothing!) and the simple existence of the event!
We were all cut on sunday night to find that we were placed very low despite scoring what we thought was pretty good, however would not think of disputing the organisers.

On one level I agree with you - however I think teams are entitled to things being a bit more organised than that with respect to scores.

You should volunteer to help at these comps because you think it's important, and then treat it with the same professionalism as your job. People's future careers are on the line - it is very important to get things right.

Ben

[Dan G]

Ok guys, everyone give Pat Clarke a nice thank you for all of these pictures...

http://evilengineering.com/gallery/v/UMDracing/FSAE/AUS06/

438 shots in total. A 1024x768 res shot is available if you click on the blue link in the top left corner of one of the individual image pages. Larger res versions can probably be had from Mr. Clarke if asked nicely.

Once again I have to say the overall level of these Australasia cars looks higher than what I saw at both east and west competitions last year. You guys are wizards at carbon. Great job everyone.

[Drum]

Thanks for all the photos Pat!

They are always a good look at the competition especially for those who weren't able to be there.

It is also good to pass the time looking at FSAE-A photos while stuck inside the house as snow accumulates at a rate of about 6"/hr outside.

It is an official 'snow day' at work today and tomorrow. It makes that sunshine in Australia look even more inviting.

Pat

[Dan G]

For some reason the photo upload stalled just after I left for work this morning. So expect the rest of the 438 pics to be up in a few hours.

[Fil]

Congratulations to RMIT and UWA on a phenominal job this year. You guys keep pushing the bar further and further.

This year monash finished all events again(those at the afterparty saw wordley and andrew in skirts again), we are stoked with this result( we still dont know what place we came as our autocross score wasnt counted). The car was running well the enitre weekend, unfortunately our enduro was not crash hot but thats FSAE for you.

Big thanks to the Auckland guys, every year you guys make the comp a laugh and this year was no different.

Also a big congratulations to the guys from Aalborg in Denmark, these guys were a laugh and did it tough the whole week/weekend but pulled through in the end.

[terra_dactile]

Hi all,
I just wondered if anyone had a list of the car weights,

There seems to be alot of good use of carbon fibre by most of the teams, carbon fibre wheel were pretty common!

Thanks

Jude Berthault
ETS FSAE 2003-Current
Vehicle Dynamics Leader

[darienphoenix]

One thing that has puzzles me is the error tally against us, officially we had 3 off courses and 23 cones!! With our whole team watching we were expecting around 5-6 cones each driver with no off courses, which is exactly what both of the drivers expected.

Sitting in the grandstands we saw a fair few drivers go straight through the chicane just before the first stand - perhaps this is where the out-of-course penalties occured?

Not familiar with autocross terminology, but I'm talking about the S-bend before the first grandstand where two cones were laid down to direct the drivers.

[RiNaZ]

Originally posted by PatClarke:
Rinaz opened this thread and specifically mentioned his interest in the team from Petronas Uni of Technology.

The team arrived with a completed car, and there will be pix when Dan G. posts them later today.
They ran into trouble in Tech and were sent away with a shopping list of required tasks. They worked all Friday and Saturday nights to no avail, returning to the event as spectators on Sunday afternoon. The fact they missed every event as well as suffering huge penalties in design due to failure to submit a proper DR is the reason for their ultimate low score.
I think the team came to the event with no proper knowledge of what the event is all about and might have been better off staying at the event, mingling with other teams, rather than staying off campus to try fix a car that, in all honesty, was never going to be allowed to compete.
Rinaz, if you have any connections there, you might be well advised to open a dialogue with them, pointing them to the online resources available, not least this forum.
They had all the hardware bits they needed, engine, brakes, wheels, tyres (Silverstones, custom made for the comp), what they clearly lacked was the knowhow to stitch together a cohesive design.



hi pat,
i was just about to PM you on getting more details on the team from malaysia. Im glad you did before i even asked. Greatly appreciated.

I have been in contact with one or two guys from Malaysia. I did whatever i could in pointing out resources and everything. Unfortunately, i hardly get any replies. I was planning on going to the competition if they would let me crash in with them but never got a confirmation on that. (Flight ticket from US-Oz is expensive enough http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I'd do my best to help them out for next year's car. We should have at least 2 teams from malaysia for 2008 competition.

They got really good engineers over there, but most of them are book smart rather than mechanically inclined. So im really excited that there are schools in malaysia who are sending teams for FSAE. It would definitely a great benefit to them in not just being book smart.

thanks again pat!!!

[200sx]

Originally posted by PatClarke:
There was some consternation that UWA and RMIT cleaned the Cost event. I dislike the cost event as it is currently, but teams should remember that the event doesnt reflect the cost of that actual car presented, rather the cost of the production line models (that never get made) Billet components and composite structures are quite cheap to make in commercial quantities.

I'd have to agree, the judges, whilst generously volunteering their time, lacked a lot of training. Our team didn't have one of our acceleration runs timed, and received an excessive ammount of penalties, which the judges could neither explain nor rectify. As Pat said many people are dissappointed that the 2 most expensive cars took achieved the top 2 places in the cost event. Pat read the rules please. The car that is reflected in the cost report needs to be the prototype vehicle. NOT THE PRODUCTION VEHICLE. These two universities exploit the fact that the judges do not know what they are doing, and it takes away from the rest of us who spend a lot of time playing by the rules.

[Andycostin]

These two universities exploit the fact that the judges do not know what they are doing, and it takes away from the rest of us who spend a lot of time playing by the rules

I agree 100% 200sx. I even remember a conversation that I had on sunday night at the after party with a member of one of these two teams regarding the cost report.... Their advise was to exaggerate (lie) the true cost of the parts until you were caught, and then just back off a little..... great when you're actually trying to learn something, and I don't mean how to lie!!!
Very disappointing in my opinion, and I know that the guys from Munich felt the same, after coming to the event with a car that was similar in many ways to these top two, but then costed as $4-5K more due to the truth.
Hell, even our cro-moly space frame, with a vacuum formed plastic body was around $5k dearer....

I'm going to end my rant, I just hope that something useful comes from this years competition, maybe even a turn around in the leniency in following the rules that certain teams are shown.

Cossie

[repeatoffender]

it looks to me that everyone is focusing alot on the negatives, and who won this or who won that.

you all were able to compete, show off your pride and joy and have a great time were you not?

so there may be a few problems with officials, but they volunteer their time, and they are only human. if they are found to be negligent then thats another story!

and as far as the cost report goes, its very dependant on 'manufacturing' and 'assembly' time. rather than just purchased parts. notice the tops teams utilise a very large majority of customised parts. how is a judge to notice an error in a CNC'd hard point manufacturing times, or how long it actually takes to assemble a system to a car unless they have had experience with the actual vehicle?

maybe the teams crying out that its unfair didnt spend enough time actually thinking the cost report through? sure there is probably alot of bullshit in the cost report, and 'photoshopping' going on, but with limited judges how can it be enforced?

[Andycostin]

I agree repeatoffender, just pointing out a problem. I understand it would be hard to police, but also not exactly "fair" for teams to target weak points when they should be above it.
As for us, the cost judges had trouble finding a part on the car for us to explain production manufacturing processes, so I can guarantee that our cost report wasn't expensive due to purchased parts.

Cossie

[PatClarke]

Quote 200SX "Pat read the rules please".

Normally I don't respond to anon posts. You should identify yourself if you want any cred to be given to your posts. Did you register just to lodge your complaints? Did you even consider the effect of words like "The Judges don't know what they are doing"? Let me assure you that the cost reports from both RMIT and UWA were tottally within the rules, and have been adjudged to be so by teams of judges in Australia, Britain and the US. Clearly it is not the judges who 'Dont know what they are doing"
Deep breath!!!
Okay, I have read the rules, and I may see some of them in a different light to you. We used to wonder how some of the visiting teams could get their cost so low, and teams here are now learning how to play that game. Whether that is right or wrong is immaterial, they are within the rules. If you found a loophole in the regs that let you get more power or lighter weight or better grip, would you use it? If Michael Schumacher enrolled in your uni as a student, would you recruit him as a driver? Of course you would.

I dislike the cost event, and really, I have little interest in it. As I have mentioned before, take a look at the FSG site to see a different take on cost.

Negative posts in public and criticism of judges/officials (regardless of that criticism being couched in apologetic terms) is still criticism. I have been subjest to some unfair criticism in the US event, and as a result I was hurt and will never darken the door of that event again. I am not the only one.

I see the Australian event as being one of the best and fairest in the world, however it still is a little fragile, and a struggle to make it all work.

There is a better way to address your concerns. That is to put a proposal in writing and have it listed for discussion at the event debrief meeting ...Oh yes, that debrief didn't happen in recent years because teams werent interested enough to send someome.

FSAE/FS/FSAE-A/JFSAE etc are difficult and expensive to run in terms of people as well as cash. The event needs more input from teams than just sending in an entry fee and then turning up.
How many teams volunteered some of their hangers-on to act as flag marshalls or cone placers/counters?

I know there is an adrenaline letdown after the event and it is easy to whinge, but noone is out to spoil your event either deliberately or negligently. The volunteers are all doing their level best...Give 'em a break and air your grieveances in private, otherwise there is a chance they won't come back.

Simple equation all over the world..
No Volunteers = No Competition
Think about it. Nurture and care for your volunteers!
Pat

[Jenner Collins]

Hi Pat,

Do you know if there are debrief meetings at the end of all competitions or is that something that only happens/happened in Australia?

The FSG crew asked for feedback via their website which was good.

You raise a good point about teams actually helping at their local events. I have only been to two competitions so far, but as far as I am aware no one from the IMechE in the UK, for example, has asked for help re: volunteers. Maybe this is something to look...

It is obvious that all comps have problems with staffing, whether it be because of numbers or quality, and an example for us was in Germany this year.

I watched our car behind another for atleast 1/4 lap during the enduro coming up to a passing zone, and the marshal watching that zone had his eyes elsewhere and we had to wait atleast another half lap. This happened twice and we lost about 14 seconds in total. Now there are swings and roundabouts for everyone, but 15 seconds against Helsinki, Tu Graz, UNSW et all, some of the worlds best teams is not to be sniffed at.

You have seen a few comps now, what are your thoughts on how this situation could be improved?

[Chris Boyden]

As an electromechanical person, I was excited to see UWA's power distribution board from Pat Clarke's open cockpit photo.
It appeared to be a 9 channel solid state/mosfet based power board with fuses. It also appeared to have 3 banks of non-lead acid batteries, which also means that a more advanced charging system was employed. Nice work! I'd like to hear more about it if anybody from UWA is so inclined or any other teams that attempted non-standard lead acid/electromechanical relay based power distribution.

[markocosic]

Hi Chris B,

Disclaimer: I'm a MechE and not a Sparky, and this isn't my car, but as I understood it Lulea ran a "non-std" electrical system in their '06 FSUK car:

http://www.cosic.org.uk/galleryv2/main.php?g2_itemId=4999
http://www.cosic.org.uk/galleryv2/main.php?g2_itemId=5002

Li-Polymer battery back, ~3.5Ah, ~17V nominal, funky charging system. More than enough cold-crank amps for the starter (spins the engine noticeably quicker as a result of the increased voltage) and more than enough watt-hours (the equivalent of a (17/12)*3.5Ah or 5Ah lead acid) in reserve.

Where is it? The battery is that teeny black thing under the throttle body and held on by white velcro straps. How heavy? ~400g IIRC. All their charging control/power distribution/fuses etc are on the back of that alloy plate. Better performance, naff-all mass compared to SLA, cost a matter of how you record it on the cost-report, but not insane as it's in-house and the components themselves (think laptop suppliers) are relatively inexpensive. Fairly sure it was them that Won the 'best use of electronics' prize too, heh!

[markocosic]

Originally posted by Jenner Collins:
You have seen a few comps now, what are your thoughts on how this situation could be improved?

Air Horns! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Chris Boyden]

interesting, thanks for the post Marko.

400gs for 3.5 AH is nothing to scoff at.
400gs * 2.2 lbs/kg ~ .88 lbs LI ion vs. ~3.5 lbs SLA

SLA's typically run ~1 lb/AH.
If they are running a switching regulator, then the 17V to 12 volt = 5 V drop can be efficient, but a Linear regulator 17V to 12 volt drop can be inefficient and burn up that extra 1.5 AH you pointed out...

Nice stuff there as well.

[markocosic]

Starter ran at 17V. Pretty sure that everythign else did too - no regulation down to 12V. Li-Polymer, not Li-Ion if memory serves.

Starters couldn't give a monkeys. Fuel pumps are fuel-cooled and won't mind the over-voltage. Not sure whether they'd even draw extra power given the same regulated pressure. Tweak the dwell-time on the coils, tweak the peak&hold cycle on the injectors and they won't care or use any extra power. ECUs are internally regulated down, won't mind, and don't add significantly to you vehicle's power draw. Cooling fan will most probably like the 17V - so long as you're not after passenger-car longevity.


What's with this trying to do engineering in lbs anyhow? Almost as bad as 'doing government' in french... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Jenner Collins]

Hi Marko,

I was just wondering if you are part of the Cambridge Uni team assembling themselves? I have met a few people from that team who were at a few comps having a look...

[Macker]

There is a better way to address your concerns. That is to put a proposal in writing and have it listed for discussion at the event debrief meeting ...Oh yes, that debrief didn't happen in recent years because teams werent interested enough to send someome.

Hi Pat,
does that mean there won't be/hasn't been an event debrief this year...? If there is going to be, do you have the details?

Andrew

[PatClarke]

Andrew,
I don't know! Remember, I am no longer an official part of FSAEA, just a visiting volunteer judge.
Your best bet would be to contact Erin at the SAE-A office and see what is planned.
I do believe the Design Judge's comments will be sent to their individual teams. Again, the SAE-A office is the best source of information.
Regards
Pat

[Big Bird]

First of all congratulations to Jake, Andrew, Grinchy, Ganesh and all the crew in the 06 RMIT team for a first rate result at this years comp. Given the "retirement"� of most of the senior team members after Detroit this year, the new team would have been excused for some drop in performance or placings. But the result was the best yet and so full kudos to you all. A job very well done.

Also congrats to both the UWA and UoW lads for once again putting in first rate performances. I know both of these teams had also lost a lot of senior team members this year, and yet both of them managed to pull it all together. You can never underestimate either of these teams.

A few other notes and I'll start with the positives:
* Adelaide had a very neat car, and if I noted correctly they were the first through scrutineering and onto the practice track. This is the sign of a very well organized and prepared team, and their results showed it. Well done to all concerned.
* Curtin had a nice simple car with some really neat design features and it is a real shame their overall results didn't show as such. I particularly noted the nice double-shear mounted rear rockers on roll hoop node points. Well done.
* UNSW continue to build solid, reliable cars that score well. One of the most underrated teams in Oz. Lovely solid rear bulkhead loaded in plane
* I've already gushed about the Deakin car. They have built some wonderful little vehicles over the past three years, and it is only a matter of time before they sort out the gremlins and give us all a scare. To Ash and the crew, keep up the good work.
* After 5 years of non-finishes, the Monash guys have knocked together three solid finishes in their last three events (including one overseas, which is a huge task in itself). Well done lads!
* QUT – really stepped up this year and put in a top result for a team that has only one (?) prior entry in this comp. Very simple, neat and fast.
* As Pat said above, the Indian team took a big step forwards this year. Teams from India and Malaysia are building these cars in countries that have never seen a 600cc road-bike, nor without other FSAE cars to look at. Keep this in mind and you'll respect what a huge project they have undertaken, and what a great effort they have put in to get here.
* Cheers to our friends at Tokyo Denki, for their great humour and their continued support of the Oz event. Great little car, excellent load paths, and by the intent of the rules probably the best interpretation of a car for the amateur weekend autocross racer. I know Pat loves this little car, and I also know TDU have got some great stuff coming in future years.

And I regret to offer some negatives:
* It seemed more teams than ever were finishing their cars in the pits over comp weekend. This is very disappointing, especially given that this is now a mature event here in Oz. There were numerous examples of teams who had obviously spent too much time trying to "design"� a world beater without truly addressing the basics and/or what was feasible given their own particular time-frame / resources / budget etc. Forget trying to be "trick"�, if you are finishing below 750 points each event it is not the trickness that is holding you back. You will build a stronger base for current and future success by completing the project on time and having the car tested and reliable. If that means your car might be 5kg heavier, have 5hp less, or score 50 points less in design then so be it. We are building an engineering product here, one that needs to be designed, manufactured, tested and delivered on time – and there are no bonus points for something that would have blown everyone to the weeds if we had have waited until January. Any team of final year students is capable of building a simple vehicle capable of completing the tasks required – even on the most meagre of budgets – and it is only the decisions made within your own team that will affect that end.
* The whinging above about costing rules / "poor"� judging / implied favoritism etc. Was all this really necessary? I'm biting my tongue right now because I'm pretty annoyed by the posts of a couple of competitors above – might get back to this at a later stage.

Finally, an observation relating to the top three teams at this year's comp (and I stress I'm trying not to sound conceited here, in our case I'm just passing on an observation of my fellow team members). In each of these three teams there exists a strong culture whereby old team members take an active interest in the ongoing success of the team. From RMIT I observed maybe 20 team members from over the past 5 years attending this years event to provide support and encouragement – and I know most of these team members have attended team design reviews over the year, or have made themselves available to answer queries that the new team may have. (And to their credit, our current team has always taken the time to listen to advice offered). Wollongong had a strong contingent of old team members on hand at this years comp to do the same, and from what I have seen the UWA crew have a strong culture of alumni support, and a healthy respect for the achievements of their previous team members. I'll even add that the Monash lads have quite a few of their alumni interested and involved, and it is noteworthy how they have turned things around in the last couple of years.

On the flipside, I saw some very experienced and knowledgeable FSAE "old boys"� at the event over the weekend who were utterly exasperated at seeing their old teams making fundamental design and management errors this year – but throughout the year their teams were too proud to ask for or accept their advice.

If you truly want to see your team succeeding in this comp, stop wasting time worrying and arguing about "trickness"�, or the fancy materials of your competitors, and start seriously thinking about knowledge transfer and succession plans. Attending to this will take you a lot further than any particular design philosophy you may have. Your predecessors are a huge wealth of knowledge, and your successors are going to carry your work to future success. Start thinking long term plans, drop the cocky "forget our past teams, this year we'll blow everyone away"� mentality, and your team might start making inroads into some ongoing success.

Anyway, enough for one night. Cheers to all,

[Kevin Hayward]

Another great post Geoff ... I was waiting for this one.

Just want to add my congrats to RMIT, and all the teams that got a car built and running.

It seems to me, from the results at least, that racing improves the breed. The teams that travel seem to develop a lot of strength in both speed and consistency. Surely RMIT's results alone should be enough to encourage other teams to go through the hassle of travelling ... Sorry still haven't got over this issue http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the cost report ... give it a rest. The event is crap as it is. Sure the prices do not account for the real cost, but they strongly favour teams that do more.

For example machnining and material costs make it cost a lot less to make your own dampers than to buy even a low priced set of mountain bike shocks. Basically the more you make the cheaper the car in the cost event. Personally I don't see the problem with this.

Good luck for the next few months to the OZ teams that travel.

Kev

[Eddie Martin]

A lot of the cars seemed to have a very limited amount of testing before they turned up at competition. I think teams really need to look at the car they can build with the resources (human and non human) they have at their disposal and not try to scale down a formula 1 car. You will learn just as much from building a simple space frame car and understanding and testing the hell out of it as you will trying to build something with all the bells and whistles. You'll probably go better at the competition with the simple well tested/understood car as well.

I strongly believe you need to have at least 3 months of testing before you get to the competition to make sure the car is reliable, drivers are experienced and comfortable with their machine and most importantly to have more fun. I don't think it would be a fun year if you drive the car for a day or so before competition and then turn up and hope for the best. Every decision should be made so that the car can hit the track early. If you haven't got 90% of your components under construction 6 months before the competition it is time to redouble your efforts and simplify whatever you can. A month out from the competition is just too late.

A university I was impressed by was James Cook University. They didn't finish their car in time for the competition this year but they all turned up looking professional in team uniforms and had their eyes and ears open for the whole weekend. They also volunteered to help with the running of the dynamic events which I'm sure gave a great insight into what to do and not to do to be successful at the competition.

The volunteers all do a great job, especially standing out in the sun all day for the enduro till the very last car finishes. If you think things can be improved get in there and volunteer yourself once you have graduated. It isn't as easy as it looks. Just a note to competitors; if you feel yourself getting angry when talking with an official (or a team mate is), get out of the situation and cool off for a minute or send a calmer team member into discuss the issue. Large amounts of swearing, insulting the competition/rules/other teams will not get you or your team viewed in the best light. Remember there is a 25 point penalty for arguing with officials

I don't know if the cost report has changed much in the last couple of years but I did quite a few of them and they were very loosely based on reality. I understand the intent of the event but it is very open to creative accounting. Good luck to the teams that maximize their car under the rules.

[Frank]

It's hard to add to the words of wisdom passed on by guys like Geoff, Eddie, Kevin and Pat.

I heard Glen McGrath say that "Cricket is very simple game, but we chose to complicate it"�. In my opinion FSAE is the same.

It was great to be marshal in the slow section of the course this year, and get a close look at the behaviour of these cars. It also hammered home my belief in the importance of achieving the simple parameters, being prepared, and vehicle testing.

I think the most important goals for FSAE teams are (in order of merit):

1 The driver's controls are the most important. If the driver lacks confidence in a system, or is uncomfortable, you won't win.

2 The car MUST have had SOME testing. I'd say 10hrs minimum. I like testing, and prefer cars that have done >40hrs, even though they get a bit "dog-eared"� by then.

3 A broad torque curve, and the ability to balance the car using the throttle is a fundamental requirement, regardless of what the power plant is.

4 It must be light, 220kg at the most for a 4 cylinder (I sound like a broken record).

5 Physically large cars are slow. I don't think a top team would entertain a wheelbase over 1600mm, or a track over 1200mm

6 The core team members must understand ALL the workings of a competition, and this can only be learnt by observation and prior participation. They must appreciate the time constraints and be prepared.

7 The car must start and restart.

8 A car must be able to be balanced by some means. Good tyre choice is the first step. A slightly rearward weight split helps.

9 The drivers must be drivers. The best ones have wealthy parents that have spent tens of thousands (sometimes more) of dollars in teaching them to drive.

10 You must take the static events seriously, and understand what the judges want to see. Prior involvement with the events is preferable.

The ability to manage knowledge ranges considerably from team to team. So does the level of university support and available resources. But if you can achieve the above 10 goals, you're always going to finish in top 5 at FSAE-A.

[gug]

hey all, my pictures are up at here (http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/%7Emboyd/06_12_16_FSAE-A/). there is a big Adelaide bias to them, but the webpage shows thumbs if you want to skip thru them http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My bloody camera did the Canon trick of not recording a whole bunch of images, so even though I was down at the hairpin when Monash (I think) spun, then kept on spinning for 2 more loops trying to get back on the track, and got fantastic pics of all the dirt spraying out and the car looking like it was in a rally, they didn't record. I'm crushed. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

If anyone wants full resolution ones for printing, send me a PM or an email.

[muffrx4]

Geoff, nice of you to mention Swinburne once again. I recall from one of my business subjects a quote;
'A mistake is a sign of new learning and skills, whilst 'doing correctly' is simply recognition of prior knowledge"

It all comes down to perspectives, do you want to become a decent engineer in one year or rule the fsae universe for a decade. That said, I suppose if FSAE was meant to be a learning experience it would be done by mech eng uni students.

Swinburne 2006 are proud of the fact that we concieved, designed and built a car in 12 months, surely thats the point.

On the matter of cost event, my personal probs lie in that 350+ page document that 20% of the team worked on for 2 weeks. Surely instead of costing the whole car piece by piece a team can come up with a figure, say 11.5k, and show detailed costings on 5 compulsory items to show an appreciation of the money spent.

congrats to all teams, and a big thanks to tufast for the encouragement and support.

please note email address below, it's full of useful information.


Tim Newton
team principal
Swinburne 2006
teamSwinburne@ses.swin.edu.au

[UQ Turbo]

Congrats to everyone, it was a great comp.

I am seeking a few opinions however, especially from the teams running aero / 4 cylinder cars.

Would you like to see the enduro track opened up a bit? This would mean tyre temps up, wings would have a more dominant effect, a greater range of cornering speeds would be experienced and (most importantly I think) the gearbox would actually be used.

I personally thought enduro had too much of a go-kart feel and a lot of design and development into powerful engines and aerodynamics was wasted.

I understand the need for safety (and I don't blame the track for UQ's placing) but I do think it would be more satifying for most teams.

UQ Turbo

[Brinn]

I've gotta agree UQ Turb,

Considering UQ and UOW were a pair of the only (?) turbo teams there we also had a bit of a gripe (to ourselves) about the tightness of the circut, we only touched 100% throttle for milliseconds on 1 or 2 of the enduro laps.

Although its not all about straightline speed, RMIT & UWA had cars setup ideally for the track; light, tight & zippy, it worked in their favour.

UOW were lucky enough to finish the 2nd enduro after the 1st failure, had the track been any faster i recon they wouldnt have made it to the end of the 2nd as well.

*EDIT* My pics are up:here (http://s128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/Brinn_J/FSAE-A%202006/)

[MalcolmG]

I, and I think the majority of the rest of the UoA team, would love the track to have been a bit more open. I know our car would've been much more suited to a faster track. Whether that means the track *should* be more open is a different story. I'm not sure how the officials decide on the track layout/how tight to make it, but it would be pretty useful to have an idea of what it would be like in the design stage of each year.

In 2004 the track was apparently a lot more open, I wasn't around then but I have the results and I see UoW set the fastest autocross time with a 39.3(were you turbo back then?), which is considerably faster than the times I saw this year, which IIRC was around 47.? for UWA. That is a pretty significant difference, almost enough to make the difference between taking the weight penalty of a 4cyl, sc or turbo and maybe some wings/other aero; versus building the lightest car possible.

I know we'll be taking a good look at our data from the event and our experiences from it and having a good hard look at what direction we're going to take next year, I just hope we don't turn up next year with 50hp, 180kg, and gearing to 95km/h to find the track doesn't have any cones on it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Chris Boyden]

Starter ran at 17V. Pretty sure that everythign else did too - no regulation down to 12V. Li-Polymer, not Li-Ion if memory serves.

Li-Ion using a polymer substrate, akin to lead acid vs SLA. Yes a slightly different technology.



Starters couldn't give a monkeys.


As long as it doesn't get too hot and melt magnet wire insulation coating. Current draw will go up ~30%. I imagine, that starters are well engineered to handle the abuse people give them and you're probably right, they couldn't give a rat's ass. But if you're designing your own coils, etc....heat is the biggest enemy.



Fuel pumps are fuel-cooled and won't mind the over-voltage. Not sure whether they'd even draw extra power given the same regulated pressure.


good point.



Tweak the dwell-time on the coils, tweak the peak&hold cycle on the injectors and they won't care or use any extra power.


yep



ECUs are internally regulated down, won't mind, and don't add significantly to you vehicle's power draw.


Electronics are rated for specific voltages, and abusing the maximum limits can get you into trouble. In this case it seems fine. But, I would consult with the ECU mfg. to see what the max input V before trusting a blanket statement. But automotive electronics can withstand higher and higher voltages, without consequence, if the designers used those parts. Power draw can go up, because the regulator can waste power as heat (depending on type), But is probably insignificant.




Cooling fan will most probably like the 17V - so long as you're not after passenger-car longevity.

What's with this trying to do engineering in lbs anyhow? Almost as bad as 'doing government' in french...


I converted, why can't you convert back! You guys are too blame for lbs anyway. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[ad]

http://s128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/Brinn_J/FSAE-A%202006/?action=view&current=IMG_3372.jpg

sad shot that one Brinn

[ad]

http://s128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/Brinn_J/FSAE-A%...current=IMG_3372.jpg (http://s128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/Brinn_J/FSAE-A%202006/?action=view&current=IMG_3372.jpg)

sad shot that one Brinn[/QUOTE]

[Frank]

I'd like to quantify the track speeds. I suspect most would be surprised by the figures.

Could someone from either Woolongong, Western Australia, or RMIT help me please?

Could you please post the length (m) of the endurance course, the top speed reached in endurance, and the fastest lap time in endurance of your fastest driver.

Could you post these for 2004, 2005, and 2006 FSAE-A (not really interested in overseas comps)

Thanks in Advance

Frank

[Brinn]

Originally posted by ad:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/Brinn_J/FSAE-A%202006/IMG_3372.jpg

sad shot that one Brinn

Sure is mate, I havent seen any others yet...

[Big Bird]

Greetings all,

Firstly, a quick one on track speeds. The Werribee track has always been a bit dodgy on the safety aspect, and given the lack of run-off no-one wants to be spearing into the rocks & grass at 60mph. Last year we had two teams crash into barriers which would have put the fear of god into the organizers, so I think it was no surprise at all to find the track tightened up this year to reduce overall speeds. If we want a faster track then we are going to have to find a US-style big open carpark - and that sort of stuff just ain't around in Oz.

Secondly, I doubt a very successful argument could be made that the tracks need to be made faster because it would suit some cars better. Seems a bit of a butt-about argument to me. I would venture that the point is to take note of the types of tracks we are driving on and then design to suit - rather than to design our ideal racecar and then wish the track suited it better. I know my opinion on this matter will be considered to be biased, but I will state that our design philosophy has always been to start with a track map and design the simplest car to suit.

As for the earlier complaints about the cost report, I'll preface my comments by saying that I was not part of the RMIT competing team this year, so I don't know specifics of the current cost report. But I can offer some insight given that I prepped the report for the US this year, and I expect the new one was similar.

Firstly, the cost report is not only about the cost of the car. The rules clearly state this. 30 points is allocated to cost, the remaining 70 points relate to report collation, presentation, knowledge of manufacturing procedures, etc. RMIT scored 21 / 30 for the cost aspect, which on mental calcs would put it somewhere around $16,000 calculated cost (given a minimum cost of $11,500 at this event). This is by no means a ridiculously under-estimated cost for this event (in the US we have competed against more complex cars quoted at $8,500).

Given that RMIT scored 85 points in total for the event, that means 64 / 70 was awarded for the quality of report, manufacturing knowledge and on-the-day discussion. None of these aspects have anything to do with the actual cost of the car, and are purely down to the research and presentation skills of the competing teams.

Yes, the composite tub adds expense - and from the reports I have worked on the tub comes out at about $2,000 more expenisve than a steel frame from memory. That is an accepted part of the design strategy the team has taken, and at no point has the team tried to hide it. However if you think that the RMIT car should be the most expensive one at the event, then you have missed the point of the design. Apart from some expensive carbon bits, there is stuff all in the car. There are no fancy pneumatic shifters, no forced induction, no fancy shocks, and a lot less coils / injectors / wires / leads / exhaust pipes / intake bits due to the single cylinder engine. Whats more the team has reduced the number of CNC'ed bits, and has relied a lot on laser cutting to reduce the piece cost of clevises and assorted other mounts and stuff.

In terms of the labour times, these have always been calculated as per the exact parts on the car, and as per a skilled technician making these parts for 1000 cars per year. This agrees with the context of the event, and this approach is the one used by teams the world over.

At risk of having my words taken out of context, I think even the RMIT crew were surprised to win the cost event, as the cost of the car usually puts us out of the overall contention. That does not imply that the team acted immorally or cheated to win, nor does it imply there is anything wrong with the event. It simply shows that despite taking a kick in overall cost, the team made a better effort to present their material than the other teams on the day.

My apologies for being annoyed earlier, but I thought it pretty poor that Andy saw fit to make some pretty pointed accusations at the RMIT lads, even after I had patiently explained the above points to him at the event. Ditto for the accusations of bias and the jibes at Pat from whoever 200sx is. Given that the majority of the competitors and judges alike are perfectly approachable in this comp, that sort of stuff is just pointless and detrimental to the whole event.

I can fully appreciate the disappointment of seeing a car fail to complete an event, and also to see a couple of teams taking home most of the trophies. We were in the same position in 2002. But rather than just vent on those that did well, we jumped in our car and drove to Wollongong to find out what it takes to succeed. That one thing turned our team around, and built a damn good relationship with the Wollongong lads as well. If anyone wants to take that as chest-beating it is not meant to be - just a more constructive approach to a disappointing result.

Cheers,

[Frank]

Me and a few mates reccon the track specs (WRT average speed) have matched the rules perfectly for the last few years (considering a fast car and fast driver).

And as the competitiveness of these cars increase over the years, the size of course (and therefor cars) decreases to maintain the correct average speed

That's why I'm begging for data.

[Big Bird]

Sorry Frank, I haven't been up to our other campus since Tues after comp - as soon as I can get some data I'll let you know.

Cheers,

[Doggyollie]

I am having trouble with the result links posted. Does anyone have a copy of the results or a link that works. Or perhaps an idea of what is going on with the results as it sounds like there may have been problems.

All I am really looking for is the number of participants?

Thanks,
Ian

[ad]

Originally posted by Doggyollie:
I am having trouble with the result links posted. Does anyone have a copy of the results or a link that works. Or perhaps an idea of what is going on with the results as it sounds like there may have been problems.

All I am really looking for is the number of participants?

Thanks,
Ian

Team wise it was about 30

[Helena]

27 teams to be exact. I have the pdf version of the results - pm me if you still wanted that.

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

[Tommo]

Hey Frank,
I think you've begged enough

Aus06: 721m, 93kph, 47.3s, average 54kph
Aus05: 673, 89, 40.9, 59
Aus04: The data's around here somewhere...

Just for comparison
US06: 1050, 81, 66.4, 56.9

Rules say average speed between 48 to 57 kph
So are all around the top end of that or just over

The big difference (especially when looking at engine choice) is throttle usage
Time at full throttle in US was almost double that of Aus in 06 (thats us, anyway)
A product of have real corner rather than lots of wiggles
Still didn't seem to trouble the red lawnmower though

Cheers
Tom

[Frank]

awesome!!

thankyou!!

[GSXR05K]

Hi all,

I started reading about FSAE-A to find out how long each of the Endurance Heats are in length.?

More pertinant to this thread is that an important point should be brought up about the rules. The point is divided into three parts. One is that the rules are based on traditional US style autoX tracks. Second is that a team wouldn't be competitive on US autoX's without aero and a big 4cyl. Third is that FSAE seems unfairly making courses much smaller (go-cart size).

The very first sentence in the rules says teams are to conceive... autocross racing cars. This is significant in two ways. Since FSAE was founded in the US, it would seem that autoX/Endurance courses would resemble common US autoX courses. If you go to common autoX courses in the US, they are rather large and spread out. Second is that they are autocross racing cars, not shifter karts, F3000, or any other breed of cars.

Having just competed in the largest US autocross event, which hosts karts and FSAE, it is apparent that aero and a big 4cyl is needed to be competitive. In the FSAE class, there were 20 entrants, and ALL the top teams ran aero. Additionally out of all 1100 entrants that were not F125, only 3 cars had faster times than the FSAE class, and they were all A-Mods, with ground effects and other unrestricted aero.

Our team was a little dissapointed last year at FSAE West, were the course was set up in a manner that no one with an auto cross type vehicle, let alone passenger vehicle, could cleanly navigate. It wasn't a lack of a poor car or driving (Our same autox driver took 7th at SCCA nationals, with only 9 total vehicles faster than him.) Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.

With the three points now being made about traditional autox style tracks, being competitive in autox, and FSAE tracks not being set up in the "spirit" of autox, I would like to address some issues brought up in the latter part of this thread.

Our team fully understands engineering, and how to analize a track and build a car to suit. We also understand that in the world of engineering, what the rules say to do, and what actually does the best job, is what the best engineers figure out. However, for our fiercly competitive team, we feel a little jaded when we pour our sweat and blood into a project, just to arrive at the pinnacle event of the year unprepared for the most valuable portion of the event.

We would like to see the event changed to suit the rules. Make the autox and endurance courses more like their intended form. Or have the wording of the rules reflect what the officials are actually going to set up for us.

I don't think this is a "butt-about argument". RMIT came to our event last year, and the non-autox type course clearly benefited their design. My whole team has great respect for RMIT and all the teams that have been champions. But with the "spirit" of the competition in mind, we'd challenge any (RMIT) type car to an US autocross. Please understand I'm not singling out RMIT, just that type of design philosophy.

Also, if it is a "butt-about argument" to make the courses larger for the aero/4cyl cars, it would seem a "butt-about argument" that there is not a large enough track in Oz.

I'm just speaking up for the few teams that actually do autocross, and believe autocrossing it is an important part to really understanding what the writers of the rules wanted student engineers to learn.

Thanks for your time,

Aaron G.
SDSM&T FSAE
Project Manager and Ergonomics Lead
fsae.sdsmt.edu

[ad]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
Hi all,

I started reading about FSAE-A to find out how long each of the Endurance Heats are in length.?

More pertinant to this thread is that an important point should be brought up about the rules. The point is divided into three parts. One is that the rules are based on traditional US style autoX tracks. Second is that a team wouldn't be competitive on US autoX's without aero and a big 4cyl. Third is that FSAE seems unfairly making courses much smaller (go-cart size).

The very first sentence in the rules says teams are to conceive... autocross racing cars. This is significant in two ways. Since FSAE was founded in the US, it would seem that autoX/Endurance courses would resemble common US autoX courses. If you go to common autoX courses in the US, they are rather large and spread out. Second is that they are autocross racing cars, not shifter karts, F3000, or any other breed of cars.

Having just competed in the largest US autocross event, which hosts karts and FSAE, it is apparent that aero and a big 4cyl is needed to be competitive. In the FSAE class, there were 20 entrants, and ALL the top teams ran aero. Additionally out of all 1100 entrants that were not F125, only 3 cars had faster times than the FSAE class, and they were all A-Mods, with ground effects and other unrestricted aero.

Our team was a little dissapointed last year at FSAE West, were the course was set up in a manner that no one with an auto cross type vehicle, let alone passenger vehicle, could cleanly navigate. It wasn't a lack of a poor car or driving (Our same autox driver took 7th at SCCA nationals, with only 9 total vehicles faster than him.) Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.

With the three points now being made about traditional autox style tracks, being competitive in autox, and FSAE tracks not being set up in the "spirit" of autox, I would like to address some issues brought up in the latter part of this thread.

Our team fully understands engineering, and how to analize a track and build a car to suit. We also understand that in the world of engineering, what the rules say to do, and what actually does the best job, is what the best engineers figure out. However, for our fiercly competitive team, we feel a little jaded when we pour our sweat and blood into a project, just to arrive at the pinnacle event of the year unprepared for the most valuable portion of the event.

We would like to see the event changed to suit the rules. Make the autox and endurance courses more like their intended form. Or have the wording of the rules reflect what the officials are actually going to set up for us.

I don't think this is a "butt-about argument". RMIT came to our event last year, and the non-autox type course clearly benefited their design. My whole team has great respect for RMIT and all the teams that have been champions. But with the "spirit" of the competition in mind, we'd challenge any (RMIT) type car to an US autocross. Please understand I'm not singling out RMIT, just that type of design philosophy.

Also, if it is a "butt-about argument" to make the courses larger for the aero/4cyl cars, it would seem a "butt-about argument" that there is not a large enough track in Oz.

I'm just speaking up for the few teams that actually do autocross, and believe autocrossing it is an important part to really understanding what the writers of the rules wanted student engineers to learn.

Thanks for your time,

Aaron G.
SDSM&T FSAE
Project Manager and Ergonomics Lead
fsae.sdsmt.edu

Aaron,

You make the assumption that by stating 'Autocross Racer' in the rules that they instantly mean similar to SCCA style autocross tracks.

The rules define minimum track widths and corner radii along with other track variants.

Also, while with the Wollongong and CalPoly teams at FSAE West comp all three teams (RMIT, UoW and CalPoly) attended an SCCA event the weekend before the big event. RMIT did extremely well for their small car and smaller single engine. All of this attending to fueling issues! Their car outperformed cars which were designed for the autocross track!

I share your dissapointment as we also noticed the track at the FSAE West comp as 'restrictive'. While similar here in AUS the organisers have their reasons, safety maybe, but from the times UWA and the rest of the top five have respectable times.

The trick for you would be to design your car to compete in both SCCA and FSAE and find your compromises.

[Ben C-M]

Noun

Autocross - a form of motorsport that tests the skill and speed of a driver over a course marked out with traffic cones

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/autocross"

Never make assumptions.

[Frank]

just for the record

I'm sick of people whining about it too.

I was just after numbers to highlight what is happening (without showing to much emotion about it)

[Charlie]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
More pertinant to this thread is that an important point should be brought up about the rules.

The very first sentence in the rules says teams are to conceive... autocross racing cars.

Our team was a little dissapointed last year at FSAE West, were the course was set up in a manner that no one with an auto cross type vehicle, let alone passenger vehicle, could cleanly navigate.

Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.


I am sorry to be so blunt, but

YOUR TEAM DID NOT READ THE RULES if they were so suprised about the course.

You read the first sentence and assumed you knew what the course was like? Don't make the mistake again.

The rules are very specific, and they define a course that you should engineer your car around. corner radius, average speed, etc. Not whatever your perceptions are.

I did not personally measure the course, but considering that the course was setup by SCCA people that set up regular autocross courses, and they went by the rulebook when setting it up, I can only assume that they did their best to define a proper sutocross course as they know it that met the rules.


Originally posted by GSXR05K:
We would like to see the event changed to suit the rules. Make the autox and endurance courses more like their intended form. Or have the wording of the rules reflect what the officials are actually going to set up for us.


This was done years ago, take a look yourself.

Better luck next year.

[GSXR05K]

Ad - I did not make an assumption as to what the rules meant. I thought I pointed out a logical word by word definition of what autocross is.

Within the Autocross Objective, the rules define the course as "tight"�, and the autocross specifications do give a minimum track width. But the rules don't give a specification for maximum track width. What makes many autocross courses challenging is that the course is so open, with many disputable lines, and plenty of room for safety.

And yes, we have been trying to build that car that is dually competitive.

Ben C-M --- ???Definitions from a collaborative project? What does that definition really tell me about autocross? How do you know the qualifications of anyone who provides definitions for these web-dictionaries?

Noun
Autocross - "Autocross is the sport of trying to navigate your car through a defined course faster than your competition. It is a performance driving event. It is designed to accommodate cars ranging from sporty sedans through dedicated race cars."�
Retrieved from "Secrets of Solo Racing, Expert Techniques for Autocross and Time Trials"� - Henry A. Watts.

You could make a lot of assumptions from Wiktionary - never make assumptions.

Charlie - You are trying to primarily emphasize that our team did not read the rules, but you do not know that. We, just like any other competitive team, have read and analyzed the rules countless times. You are more subtly trying to point out that we were surprised by the course.

Your argument is that: Our team did not read the rules if we were surprised about the course.
Our argument is that: A team does not know what autocross is if you were not surprised about the course.

There has already been another member of this forum who commented that the course was "restrictive."� I don't think they would have this opinion if they expected the track to be that way. So are you implying that he and his team did not read the rules also?

You say that we made assumptions, and that that was a mistake; yet you admitted making assumptions yourself. You said you assumed the autocross course was setup like a regular one. But from my experiences, regular autocross courses are not set up with the minimum track with being predominantly used through the track. I understand that they were trying to setup an autocross course that was proper and abiding by the rules. I'll re-state that there is no maximum restriction on track width, which with creativity could have been incorporated.

The main point I'm trying to make is that if students only had this competition as a guide to what autocross is, and then finally went out and raced an actual one, most would really be surprised.

Thank you for all the responses. Our team is already beginning to work on our philosophy for next year, and want to use this forum and any other tools to become the best we can be.

Aaron

[Ben C-M]

I picked one of many possible definitions, and the one you have is just as good as the one I have. The point is that none of us infered what autocross meant, all we took from it is that it's a track that has lots of corners, nothing else. The word autocross basically differentiates it from racing (with multiple cars on track) and tells us it's not just straight line performance.

Given that your team has been competing for a number of years, one would expect that you have a decent understanding of the track style. If you were a first year team, you probably should check out the competition in advance to get an idea of what track layout to expect or ask for previous years track maps.

I'm pretty sure if you read through the SCCA rules, or the Formula 1 rules, you wouldn't be able to get any better an idea of what their track looked like then if you read the FSAE rules. Also, there are a number of old track maps that are posted around (and at least one of the FSAE websites), so you could use that as a guide.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
Charlie - You are trying to primarily emphasize that our team did not read the rules, but you do not know that. We, just like any other competitive team, have read and analyzed the rules countless times.

You are more subtly trying to point out that we were surprised by the course.

Your argument is that: Our team did not read the rules if we were surprised about the course.
Our argument is that: A team does not know what autocross is if you were not surprised about the course.


I didn't think I was being subtle. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The fact is, you keep centering on the word 'autocross'. This word is as basic as 'racetrack.'

The rules CLEARLY define the course. And that definition does NOT fit in with a production-car-style autocross. it is an FSAE autocross.

I really thought, that after my post, you would read the rules. I guess not. So I will spoon feed it to you.


The objective of the autocross event is to evaluate the car's maneuverability and
handling qualities on a tight course without the hindrance of competing cars.



5.6.3 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds

The following 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).

And Endurance for good measure:


5.7.4 Endurance Course Specifications & Speeds

Course speeds can be estimated by the following course specifications.
Average speed should be 48 km/hr (29.8 mph) to 57 km/hr (35.4 mph) with top speeds of approximately 105 km/hr (65.2 mph).

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 minimum track width will be 4.5 m (14.76 feet).

Your posts are long and analyatical, but it all boils down to this:

If your definition of 'autocross' in your head does not meet the above criteria, and you didn't realize this until you got to the competition, then you did not read the rules properly.

Look at the required average speeds... were you acheiving those at a normal autocross? Look at the corner radius spelled out in the rules... was that something you saw at a regular autocross? If not, you have a right to be suprised--when you read the rules. Not when you arrived.

[Kevin Hayward]

Charlie,

Don't get drawn in, it seems as though this is a purely antagonistic thread development that makes little to no sense.

I wonder why somebody would want the course different anyway. The tight tracks are much more of a challenge to drive well as well as being safer.

I vote for keeping FSAE unique.

Kev

[ad]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Charlie,

Don't get drawn in, it seems as though this is a purely antagonistic thread development that makes little to no sense.

I wonder why somebody would want the course different anyway. The tight tracks are much more of a challenge to drive well as well as being safer.

I vote for keeping FSAE unique.

Kev

Here here, i agree

[Big Bird]

Aaron,

Thanks for your post. Certainly no offence taken at our end, and given that you have taken the time to explain your argument well, as well as quoted the team you are aligned with, then full respect for that. Oh, and you have taken the time to use vowels - which is a lot more than can be said for others on these boards. But I am mixing threads and getting away from the point.

I have heard comments at many different tracks that the layout will suit one style of vehicle design over another. I've heard it in our own team when we show up to a track that looks quite fast. Personally I have never bothered about such theories as they only distract you from the task at hand, and there are a lot of other factors that are going to affect your performance more. As the usual examples I'd offer driver comfort and ergonomics, brake / clutch / gearshift / throttle feel, engine smoothness and reliability, handling setup, and most of all driver and team familiarity with the car. Whether your team philosophy is big and fast, or small and nimble, or somewhere in between, it is attending to the details that will affect your final position more than the particular shape or style of the car.

As for the 2006 West event, I don't think track layout particularly suited our concept any better than any other team. The following are the top ten Autocross and Endurance results, in order, from West last year:
AUTOCROSS:
Kansas
Michigan State
Wollongong
Texas A&M
Toledo
RMIT
Akron
Ohio
RIT
UM Rolla

ENDURANCE:
Texas A&M
Wollongong
UM Rolla
RIT
Washington
Toledo
RMIT
Oklahoma
Clemson
Akron

Now from the above I don't think any distinct conclusions can be made as to whether the track favored one particular type of car. There are singles and fours, spaceframes and carbon tubs, naturally aspirated and forced induction, 10" and 13" wheels, aero and non-aero designs, and cars that were black, white, blue, silver, red, yellow, green, gold and purple. I've seen similar mixes in most of the comps I've attended. The rules are spot on in my mind, as they give the opportunity for any team to succeed, with any design - as long as the team designs within their own capabilities.

I have read many times that the organizers aren't too interested in changing the rules until the current ones have been mastered. Given that we are still consistently seeing maybe only 30-40% of teams completing all dynamic events, then there is still an argument to be made that a good proportion of the teams are still not "getting it". The primary purpose of this comp is not to expose us to Autocross, nor necessarily prepare us for careers in motorsport, but to expose us to a comprehensive engineering design project - where we are given a design brief, and have to assess our own resources and form our own strategies to see that we complete the project on time. The fact that the product is a racecar (nominally an "Autocross car"), hooks us in - but it is just a product and the processes are the same for a racecar, a bridge or a clothes peg. It is our skills in project management and awareness that are setting us aside from the standard engineering graduate - and why companies as widely varying as automotive, aerospace, renewable energy and biomedical are scouting FSAE events for grads.

The other factor we need to consider, now that FSAE is a truly world competition, is that we don't end up with rules that unfairly favor one nation. Autocross is obviously big in the US, but it is pretty well unheard of in most other countries. Here in Oz we just don't have the expanses of spare asphalt to run autocross at a major level. (The closest we have is hillclimbing, and that is also a lot more open than FSAE). I agree it is a shame that you have to build a car that is not ideally suited to cross-enter into your own national championships. But keeping FSAE unique in its layout at least helps levelling the playing field somewhat.

Cheers Aaron - and compliments for what I thought was a really nicely made car. Keep up the good work.

[nick roberts]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
Our team was a little dissapointed last year at FSAE West, were the course was set up in a manner that no one with an auto cross type vehicle, let alone passenger vehicle, could cleanly navigate. It wasn't a lack of a poor car or driving (Our same autox driver took 7th at SCCA nationals, with only 9 total vehicles faster than him.) Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.


First off I would hardly call our car an "FSAE specific" car. With a WB of 68" and track of 48" we were one of the biggest cars at the top in West along with Rolla. Last year i would have agreed with you about the tracks being too tight compared to an autocross course, but our team has adapted to this to design a formidable SCCA/FSAE car. Our results at Nationals this year were less then satisfactory but i believe that has more to do with our lack of aero which is being remedied this year. I feel that the courses set up at the FSAE events i have attended have been designed to take the driver out of the equation as much as possible. This is, afterall, a design competition and not a driver competition. If there were enough room to pick lines and do more driving the gap between experienced drivers and less experienced drivers would probably grow even larger then it is now. Safety is also a concern at FSAE events. If you gave every car at the event the chance to get up to 70-80MPH like we see at SCCA events there would almost definetely be more dangerous accidents both for the drivers and the spectators.

-nick roberts
Kansas University

[Big Bird]

Yep, agreed. I saw cars at FSAE East that looked dangerous driving at 30mph in a straight line. The poor old corner marshals didn't know which way to run. They are doing us a favor, best we don't go maiming them and all http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers

[Wes Snaza]

Hello Everyone,

I have had the opportunity to read through the recent posts, I was also humored by the title of the thread as "Formula Australasia 2006 Competition:- Updates, Pictures, Stories, and More."� It definitely shows how easy it is for engineers to get "off topic."�

The posts were all very interesting with everyone making valid points, although some were presented more professionally than others. I would like to defend my fellow colleague, Aaron, on his discussion on the Formula SAE West course. Our team understood that our car dimensions were going to be a hindrance on an FSAE track, this knowledge stemmed from the fact that we had over 12 years of combined experience from previous competitions, which were of course in Detroit. Any FSAE team member that has attended both FSAE and FSAE West understands that the inaugural West competition was much tighter than even a traditional Detroit course. I feel that I am correct in stating these facts and I would be open to any corrections.

The next point I would like to make is one that Aaron also pointed out earlier in his post. All our team members are very educated in terms of the rules; this is instilled early on with first year members. Yet, I do not believe Aaron was "whining"� in his posts, his comments were mainly in discussion of what FSAE is all about. Yes, winning is important, but that is not the overall goal of the project. I believe students involved in FSAE have the dedication and drive to be a successful engineers- thus FSAE as a project is accomplishing what I believe is its goal.

Back to FSAE West 2006- our team learned a very valuable lesson last year, which was the importance of preparation. We didn't do poorly because of the dimensions of the autocross course. If I was going to point a finger at our why our performance was where it was last year I would have to say it was due to rain! Due to our improved management this year and the quality of students we have on the team we feel we will be very competitive in Fontana.

On a final note, thanks Geoff for your comments on our 2006 car, they are greatly appreciated. I wish you and your team best of luck at your upcoming competition(s).

Wes Snaza
Engineering Lead
SDSM&T Formula Hardrocker Racing