Printable View
Despite running in the morning group, we were able to pull off a first place fuel efficiency (and first place powertrain award) under the new rules that factor in lap time. The new calculation is nothing to be afraid of if the cal is good and the drivers are smooth.
Bump.Quote:
Originally posted by RobbyObby:
So far I've updated most Static events (except 82 on in cost), pending the order of the top teams in each event. I've also added the first page of the Accel scores.
Here's the link to the score sheet again, since it got lost in the first page of this thread:
https://skydrive.live.com/redi...key=!AAKY9Xt0TuRmapw
If you see that other scores are posted by other teams and available let me know so I can keep updating!
Do you think FStotal could post this and get the teams to fill it out? Or has everyone left ?
Site is open only to pick up transporters, I'd imagine most everyone is gone by now.
Sorry you are totally right, it was 4 am here and I was reading the results from a blurry cellphone photo I got sent, that's also why I posted just 3 of each.Quote:
The previous post of endurance scores is incorrect. Michigan State came in 3rd place in endurance, 9th overall. Zips took first, Tallinn second in enduro.
Could you kindly upload that blurry cellphone photo? The suspense is killing me.
I'd take it too! Or just tell me where Mississippi State ended up. I knows it's low because we had an electrical failure in the first half of endurance.
haha sorry guys I can't upload it right now.
But anyway, Cornell just put a link to another photo very much alike
https://twitter.com/CornellFSA...260004769795/photo/1
Hope it works.
Thanks alot for the link.
anyone have the second sheet?
Had an amazing weekend and overcame many of problems not only over the past year but but at comp as well with hard work and a dedicated team. A special thank to the guys from Saginaw Valley State as well as Cornell for the support at the competition.
While we were not quite able to run in accel or skidpad due to sound issues however we did make it to Autocross and put down an impressive 56 second time for a car with no first gear and a bad tune along with other issues getting us into the evening group for endurance where we broke a chain on our first lap which then broke our shift linkage. A sad end but we were just happy to be there and had a great time which would be clear to anyone who checked out our paddock and we did it all with a 6 member team and a small budget for the love of the game.
LTU wants everyone to KCCO and hopes to build off this success for next year!
Thanks all,
Kyle
Was a hectic but great time.
We got 8th in acceleration and it was the first time driving the car. We have no driving aids such as traction and launch control.
We were excited! But then we had a series of unfortunate events with the drive train.
Skid pad the Diff mount broke, then in autocross master-link broke and then a course worker broke our suspension by improperly towing us. We raced and worked hard to fix it for endurance. We lined up for Endurance and only got about 100ft as a cir-clip on our axles holding a tripod broke causing it to pop out.
Game over, we will be coming back strong next year.
Team #89
Florida Atlantic University
Congratulations to all the teams involved. It looks like it was a close competition.
Definitely interesting how the balance of different concepts played out, as well as their relative performance.
For those that were there I am wondering if there was any indication of why ETS didn't make design finals. A very light car that finished all the other events with a very high score, and a usual contender for high design placings. Was it a case of the car under the wings was essentially the same as the previous year? A bad design presentation maybe?
Kev
I think they are as baffled as anyone....It seems like they have made sizable gain outside of aero as well. So it's anyone's guess why they didn't make it...
Being at the track this year with really no one to cheer for(and cheering for everyone) it was interesting to see how the cars perform. A few aero singles in enduro was essentially at V-max or sounds like like going down the fast side of the track. You can hear non-aero car having to play with throttle with the kink where as the aero car(Maryland and Akron in particular) seems basically pinned the throttle. The Tallinn was impressively fast also, being aero with "big" engine....At the same token though Stuttgart was the fast car in the wet, and it was running "only" with undertray...
Quite a special design result. In the last 20 years only three teams have managed to win design in Michigan and not finish endurance:
1999: Leeds with what was a landmark car with what was at the time unique composite construction
2000: RIT with the first really well built minimalist car
2013: GFR with a development of their current concept
GFR has taken out the last 4 years in the design tent, clearly showing they have a mastery of the event. The 2013 comp was well and truly decided in the design tent with the top 5 placings within the score margin awarded between design finalists.
Kev
That was a quiet interessting event to watch (hear).
As an Aero-Guy, I loved to see so many incredible packages on the cars. Normally the saying is "put wings on, will work somehow, car will be faster" but the event with a lot of good cars showed that there is quiet a difference between a "bolt on" Aero package and a well included set of wings.
Of course, I'm also glad to see that my hometown of Stuttgart could secure the victory without wings. It's good message to all the teams that you don't need wings to win, it's just a feature to play with.
Design was really interessting. GFR seems to know what the American judges like to know / hear. Of course the car is refined from last year and has an impressive set of wings but they struggeled a lot last year with an comparable car in Germany and Austria where they missed the Finals by quiet a margin. ETS won Design in Germany (against basically everyone) and now missed the Finals with and updated car.
I think, all in all, 2013 will be an awesome season. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Julian
You are missing an important part:Quote:
I think, all in all, 2013 will be an awesome season.
In FS/FSAE every season is an awesome season http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I was surprised to see so many front runners drop out during (and even before) endurance. The list includes no less than GFR, Kansas, Missouri S&T, Michigan-Ann Arbor, Wisconsin, RIT, Maryland, and SD School of Mines. Can anyone remember the last time that happened? 3 of the 4 fastest cars on track, all failed to complete endurance.
In my opinion though, this opened the field up, and allowed many deserving teams to jump into the spotlight and get the recognition they've long deserved (Akron, Cornell, Michigan State, to name a few).
Are the final autocross scores posted somewhere? I can't seem to find them posted anywhere. I'd like to try and get my spreadsheet completely filled out ASAP, so you guys can play around with the sorting if you want.
Talking about design finals, remember that design is partially about having a fast car but it is also how you know and understand your car that counts.In fact, how you as a team attacked the problem in terms of budget, time, and resources to get the faster car you could.
Let us take 2008 for an example, Wisconsin Madison had a blindly fast car (beautiful too, and sounded insane on track), and they were not in finals. They placed 2nd in autox and endurance.
The same year ETS placed 2nd in design finals, but in autox and endurance was not close to the top ten.
Maybe between FSG 2012 and FSAE MIS 2013 some teams have worked harder than others on the data gathering, testing, and so on and maybe that is what the MIS design finals show.
In 2010, we had a fast car (I think we were 9th in the first half of the endurance, in autox I messed up so we were 16th) and did not go to design finals. In 2011, the car was not close to that and went to finals (and finishing endurance ended 20 overall).
I think you get my point.
EDIT: After re-reading some existing information, I render my following post somewhat irrelevant.
Nevertheless, the design event should be more clear.
A car's design should also be judged if it meets the basic requirements of the competition. In the rules however it refers to the "market". I guess with the business logic case that would be better defined. What if i show up with a car designed for non-FSAE but real world tracks, because i decide that that is my market?
So if the "market" is a FSAE-Track autocross, i assume doing well in dynamics somewhat proves one's design. Or at least portrays how it meets some requirements. Cause if I bring just data to prove my design, it might as well be wrong data, that were hand picked.
I assume a high priority requirement is the car to be reliable, and really, start. In any market, if customers start complaining of the reliability of a fun race car, it probably wont work. A design that fails there is a failed design. Also being fast should be a requirement.
So it does beat me, how designs that fail in meeting the basic requirements of the competition, still make it, and even win design. Maybe blame manufacturing. But a good design should include not only manufacturability, but the fact that a student machines/makes it. No? Am i wrong?
It also beats me how, sometimes one can play "spot the differences" between the teams old car and new one, and still do great in design. Obviously if one has been tuning the same component for 2-3 years, evolving the same concept for more, they will have data etc. Some teams seem to be judged more on that than others (very similar car with minor changes). Sometimes innovations make in through.
There has been various posts on this forum about the design event. And i think (hopefully) with the business logic case, the teams will know more on how to approach it, and give a chance to an "outsider" to know why and how to score well.
In any case, I really liked TU-Graz's car, very good new concept, and i am sure it will be greatly evolved.
Here are pics from day 4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9...s/72157633470333703/
Congrats to all teams!
Please email me if you would like high res/original files at randyfloresca@gmail.com
Thanks for capturing all of Kettering's highs on Saturday, Randy! I'll be emailing you shortly.
I think that (at least in FSG) the judges are looking at the procedure you have used to make your engineering decision more compared to the final design (of course you don't want to make basic design mistakes). What I mean is the method you have used is important, and how you have used your tools and datas to make the decisions. In my experience the winning team is operating as a group of engineers and not as a group of hobby people in a garage.Quote:
Originally posted by Tinomik:
A car's design should also be judged if it meets the basic requirements of the competition.
...
What if i show up with a car designed for non-FSAE but real world tracks, because i decide that that is my market?
So if the "market" is a FSAE-Track autocross, i assume doing well in dynamics somewhat proves one's design. Or at least portrays how it meets some requirements. Cause if I bring just data to prove my design, it might as well be wrong data, that were hand picked.
...
But a good design should include not only manufacturability, but the fact that a student machines/makes it. No? Am i wrong?
...
Maybe it is a good practice to machine yourself in the workshop, but for me I go to engineering university to learn engineering and not to become a mechanic in a workshop... I don't think the Airbus engineers are building the CFK wings themself just to prove to that it is easy to make?
I do, but (!), in my opinion, GFR always had one of the most sophisticated analysis I've ever seen. I watched their presentation at the FSG Workshop in the fall of 2011 and visited there shop in Germany in the spring of 2012 and what I saw was really nice. A lot of data, a lot of analysis. But still the "failed" in Design in FSA and FSG. According to their team they got scored down because the car was simply "the same" as in 2011 and the judges in Europe didn't like this. Maybe the US-judges look above this point but if you come to an European competition with a "nearly" 2nd year car, you won't score high in design.Quote:
Originally posted by jpusb:
Maybe between FSG 2012 and FSAE MIS 2013 some teams have worked harder than others on the data gathering, testing, and so on and maybe that is what the MIS design finals show.
I think you get my point.
But maybe GFR will prove my theory wrong and score high again in design.
Yes, Tobias, I know that FSAE is always awesome but after four years of watching the competition, I think at least I will see the best one so far http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
One thing to note, the process for Design changed this year. They essentially adopted the FSG model, with a preliminary round on static day and a final round at the end of first day dynamic. The previous model had three rounds, with finals after endurance. So this year the judges made their decisions after autocross but before endurance.Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Quite a special design result. In the last 20 years only three teams have managed to win design in Michigan and not finish endurance:
1999: Leeds with what was a landmark car with what was at the time unique composite construction
2000: RIT with the first really well built minimalist car
2013: GFR with a development of their current concept
GFR has taken out the last 4 years in the design tent, clearly showing they have a mastery of the event. The 2013 comp was well and truly decided in the design tent with the top 5 placings within the score margin awarded between design finalists.
Kev
Stuttgart's position in Design impacted their overall position only because they ran the entire endurance in the wet. Had they run in the dry like Akron, Tallin, Laval and Cornell, their margin would have been much larger. My congratulations to them for an excellent performance.
ETS also had an outstanding performance in endurance given they ran mostly in the wet. My condolences to Auburn, who easily would have been top 6 or so if not for the UMich-oil-on-track delay and the weather.
Hey is it possible if I made a thread where everyone could link their pictures. Would be nice to have a collaberation of pictures from the whole event since there wasn't a big photo taken during the event.
To see all the cars.
Bob,
Thanks for some clarification for those that weren't there, especially for the change in the order of the design event. There have been teams that have done well in design that have done poorly in endurance before, on the basis of a distinct knowledge gap between them and other teams. Every design judge I have spoken to about GFR has spoken highly of the team's process and knowledge, many stating they are leagues ahead of most teams.
Sorry to hear that your team wasn't able to finish. GFR has owned the comp for the past three years, with some truly impressive engineering and speed.
It would be great if we could hear a bit more about the event from the people that were there. The coverage over the normal channels (streaming, this forum, twitter, fstotal etc) has been pretty lacking and we have FSAE fans around the world eager to know the inside stories of the successes and failures of the comp.
Kev
I am pretty curious as to what happened to GFR, they didn't start the endurance at all. For that matter, RIT also suffered some kind of issue and didn't start enduro also. A group of us were talking to the RIT guys in their pit probably 1.5-2 hr before their starting slot and they don't seem to be panicking about any fault, though they did seem to be trying to start their car.
GFR posted their AutoX winning lap on their FB page, and that was something else....
I'm dying here! Anyone have more info on the final scores?
Seriously, comon guys someone must have a picture of the second and third page!
Quote:
Originally posted by Dash:
I'm dying here! Anyone have more info on the final scores?
How much oil was really spilled on that track!? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif There's more oil sorbent than tarmac visible in Missouri S&T's video...
Bob, the design actually changed last year, but it's a good point.
Rumor around the track was that their starter failed right before they were supposed to go out.Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Bob,
Thanks for some clarification for those that weren't there, especially for the change in the order of the design event. There have been teams that have done well in design that have done poorly in endurance before, on the basis of a distinct knowledge gap between them and other teams. Every design judge I have spoken to about GFR has spoken highly of the team's process and knowledge, many stating they are leagues ahead of most teams.
Sorry to hear that your team wasn't able to finish. GFR has owned the comp for the past three years, with some truly impressive engineering and speed.
It would be great if we could hear a bit more about the event from the people that were there. The coverage over the normal channels (streaming, this forum, twitter, fstotal etc) has been pretty lacking and we have FSAE fans around the world eager to know the inside stories of the successes and failures of the comp.
Kev
Just got an email from the collegiate site, results should be posted on students.sae.org today.
GFR didn't fail their starter, it was one of the other weak links in the CRF450X starting geartrain. I can personally attest to their upgraded starter being difficult to fail.
It seems as though brake lights had a low survival rate this year. At least UW-Madison and Illinois were DNF'ed at the driver change for them. Ours was starting to die Friday morning and a courseworker was kind enough to point it out to us. We changed it Friday evening and had no problems.
Congrats to Akron on an excellent performance and a strong-running first year thumper. A few other teams seemed to have hurt otherwise great single-cylinder cars by diverting resources toward turbocharging. We have this excellent quote from Geoff Pearson printed and hanging in our office:
Quote:
When considering turbos and singles in FSAE, the critical dimension is the distance between the exhaust port and the turbo itself. The further the better. For example, when we won Formula Student in the UK, the turbo was in a bin back in Melbourne.
Matt, excellent work on fuel economy! I was in RIT's pit when they were prepping before endurance. I wont speak for them but there was too much shushing and not enough chuggin when they tried to start. They have a very nice car though. Seems like the Honda 450 is dying out as I think only GFR and Maryland were using it.
I am looking forward to Formula North next week, should be nice and hot!
The short answer is nothing on our car failed, it just failed to start for endurance. The long answer is somewhat more complicated. I will try to stick with the facts as I know them.
This year at the drivers meeting before endurance we were informed by the endurance captain that external batteries would not be allowed in the endurance queue.
From the 2013 SAE rules:
D8.11 Endurance Vehicle Starting/ Restarting
D8.11.1 The vehicle must be capable of starting / restarting without external assistance at all times once the
vehicle has begun the heat.
This rule expressly prohibits the use of external batteries or other forms of external assistance during driver change or in the event of a stall on course. However, like many teams, we have always interpreted this rule to allow an external battery for starting before the endurance heat begins. We have used an external battery to start our car for endurance at every competition since at least 2005, a total of 22 competitions. Our internal battery was sized to start the car on the track and in the driver change.
We've had some cold start issues with the CRF450X this year, so given this restriction, we warmed up the car to operating temperature before leaving our pit for fuel. We had insulating panels on the radiator openings and a space blanket around the engine to conserve heat. We did fuel fill when called at 1430 and rolled the car to the endurance staging area.
As most people know by now, U Michigan had an oil leak on their first lap. They were black flagged, and endurance was stopped while the oil was cleaned up. This took about an hour. In the mean time, a cold front was moving in, bringing rain, 25 kph wind and a 10C drop in temperature about the time of the restart of the race.
We were the last car to go, at around 1700. With a now cold engine we failed to start on the internal battery. We tried for a good amount of time, eventually exhausting the internal battery. We were then told by the endurance officials we could use the external battery if we rolled back to the staging area behind the queue. We did this, started the car on the external battery, and rolled to the endurance start line with the engine running. At this point a discussion took place amongst 3-4 endurance officials, including the event captain. There were apparently mixed opinions about letting us run. They decided we could run only if we restarted in the queue on the internal battery, and we were instructed to shut down the motor and attempt a restart in line. Unfortunately, the internal battery was still discharged from the previous attempts. We could not restart and received a DNF.
I had a subsequent discussion with SAE. Their position was that the procedural change for endurance starting was reasonable, and that while D8.11 doesn't disallow the use of external assistance before the heat begins, there is also no rule that explicitly allows the use of external assistance before the heat begins.
We've had driver change restart issues before with our internal battery (FSUK 11, FSG 12, and almost at FSAE-M 12). We increased the capacity of our battery 30% this year in an attempt to overcome this problem. And Mbirt is correct, we are running the larger TRX450 starter on the CRF this year as well. But we're not there yet. Obviously this is an area our engine guys will be working on before FSG and FSA.
As for me, I gave myself 24 hours to get over this. I have a BajaSAE competition starting on Wednesday. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Bob,Quote:
Originally posted by bob.paasch:
The short answer is nothing on our car failed, it just failed to start for endurance. The long answer is somewhat more complicated. I will try to stick with the facts as I know them.
This year at the drivers meeting before endurance we were informed by the endurance captain that external batteries would not be allowed in the endurance queue.
From the 2013 SAE rules:
D8.11 Endurance Vehicle Starting/ Restarting
D8.11.1 The vehicle must be capable of starting / restarting without external assistance at all times once the
vehicle has begun the heat.
This rule expressly prohibits the use of external batteries or other forms of external assistance during driver change or in the event of a stall on course. However, like many teams, we have always interpreted this rule to allow an external battery for starting before the endurance heat begins. We have used an external battery to start our car for endurance at every competition since at least 2005, a total of 22 competitions. Our internal battery was sized to start the car on the track and in the driver change.
We've had some cold start issues with the CRF450X this year, so given this restriction, we warmed up the car to operating temperature before leaving our pit for fuel. We had insulating panels on the radiator openings and a space blanket around the engine to conserve heat. We did fuel fill when called at 2:30 and rolled the car to the endurance staging area.
As most people know by now, U Michigan had an oil leak on their first lap. They were black flagged, and endurance was stopped while the oil was cleaned up. This took about an hour. In the mean time, a cold front was moving in, bringing rain, 15mph wind and a 50deg drop in temperature about the time of the restart of the race.
We were the last car to go, at around 5:00PM. With a now cold engine we failed to start on the internal battery. We tried for a good amount of time, eventually exhausting the internal battery. We were then told by the endurance officials we could use the external battery if we rolled back to the staging area behind the queue. We did this, started the car on the external battery, and rolled to the endurance start line with the engine running. At this point a discussion took place amongst 3-4 endurance officials, including the event captain. There were apparently mixed opinions about letting us run. They decided we could run only if we restarted in the queue on the internal battery, and we were instructed to shut down the motor and attempt a restart in line. Unfortunately, the internal battery was still discharged from the previous attempts. We could not restart and received a DNF.
I had a subsequent discussion with SAE. Their position was that the procedural change for endurance starting was reasonable, and that while D8.11 doesn't disallow the use of external assistance before the heat begins, there is also no rule that explicitly allows the use of external assistance before the heat begins.
We've had driver change restart issues before with our internal battery (FSUK 11, FSG 12, and almost at FSAE-M 12). We increased the capacity of our battery 30% this year in an attempt to overcome this problem. And Mbirt is correct, we are running the larger TRX450 starter on the CRF this year as well. But we're not there yet. Obviously this is an area our engine guys will be working on before FSG and FSA.
As for me, I gave myself 24 hours to get over this. I have a BajaSAE competition starting on Wednesday. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I fixed some weird formatting issues in your post here
Thanks
Wow, you guys have some pretty potent cold fronts over there.Quote:
Originally posted by Sormaz:
...In the mean time, a cold front was moving in, bringing rain, 15mph wind and a 50deg drop in temperature about the time of the restart of the race.
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, although I was kind of disappointed that you didn't fix Bob's awkward use of '24 hours' into the way more practical 71.4 millifortnights.
Sormaz: So 10 degC change in temperature is equal to a 50 degF change? I suggest working on your own stuff. "Fixing" other posts isn't going so well.
Competition Results are now posted online!
You can also see post event article online at http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/
Haha that is what I get for shutting my brain off why I try to stir the pot. Relative!=absolute. Oh well
Not even worth editing at this point...the damage is done