Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Printable View
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
I do not see how it has any different effect than before. It still uses a ~1.4 factor.Quote:
Originally posted by squirrelboy:
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Time plays a significant role in efficiency. ~2.8 liters gasoline equivalent makes you come 4th or 13th, a ~35 point range.
Squirrelboy,Quote:
Originally posted by squirrelboy:
Looking at the results, I can't help but notice how significant is the effect of E85 in the fuel efficiency scoring. It somewhat eclipses the effect of including time in the equation. Did that catch anyone off?
Check out rule D8.22. Politicians of the world want us to think in CO2, so the rules use it to come up with the 1.4x scaling factor. Using the engineering unit of lower heating value, you'll arrive at about the same difference in energy between the two fuels.
Check out how tight ETS (93) and Akron (E85) were in fuel efficiency. Both have wings, 10's, WR450's, Web Cams, and were driven extremely well. I don't see anything wrong with the conversion factor.
As for our success with E85, we spent more time working on engine controls and calibration this year and it paid off. It's a 399 lb car with aluminum bodywork and a $250 ECU on 13's, but we spent a lot of time on the dyno. We set CO2min particularly low and it played fun games with the fancy new efficiency formula.
Mbirt,
I wish I could see your design poster. What lambda value were you at? (at your design point, whichever you set it at)
but the issue with efficiency is that is also greatly affected by driving style and handling. If one is able to carry more kinetic energy through the corners, he would increase efficiency by a lot, without even changing the tune.
Efficiency is a holistic metric, of engine chassis and driver, rather than just engine. Therefore it seems very "political" that powertrain awards were almost identical to efficiency.
Now thermal efficiency (or BSFC) is truly an engine and engineering metric. But that is very hard to measure in a competition. Efficiency is better than economy.
We got sick and tired of having yet another single cylinder engine that was sick and tired. I have always openly admired how clean and crisp ETS's car runs. We use a Woodward MotoTron 48-pin ECU and used to run a controller program from a third party sponsor. It was an improvement from the megasquirt we used to run, but still had some issues with consistency. Woodward sponsored us with their MotoHawk utility for Simulink to create our own ECU program, but we couldn't squeeze their base engine model out of them. We took on the challenge of creating our own engine model in MotoHawk and it took far less time to get the motor running than I expected thanks to the help of a highly competent EE that joined the team. It is a simple model that only contains what we need, but remains incredibly flexible for adding functionality as needed. We no longer have phantom starting, idle, and misfire issues--it just works all the time 100% of the time. It feels so good to hit the start button and know that it will crank 2 revolutions, fire, not flare excessively, and settle to a smooth 2700 rpm idle without driver throttle input. That's what we calibrated for and our student-created program finally makes it consistent.Quote:
Originally posted by Tinomik:
Mbirt,
I wish I could see your design poster. What lambda value were you at? (at your design point, whichever you set it at)
but the issue with efficiency is that is also greatly affected by driving style and handling. If one is able to carry more kinetic energy through the corners, he would increase efficiency by a lot, without even changing the tune.
Efficiency is a holistic metric, of engine chassis and driver, rather than just engine. Therefore it seems very "political" that powertrain awards were almost identical to efficiency.
Now thermal efficiency (or BSFC) is truly an engine and engineering metric. But that is very hard to measure in a competition. Efficiency is better than economy.
As for lambda, ~.9 at certain speeds at WOT and leaner everywhere else http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
The equation for the FEV Powertrain Development award factors cost, accel, endurance, and fuel efficiency scores. I'm not sure what the multipliers are because the numbers I found were from before fuel economy was increased to 100 points.
Firstly, many thanks to Robby, Flo..., and others for posting all the pics and "hot gossip" here, as it happened!
I find it strange that the interweb enables Nigerian princes to (constantly!) keep me up-to-date with how much money they want to send me, and it lets all those pretty and scantily clad young girls tell me how much they want to be my friends, but it somehow doesn't allow the SAE to post the FSAE results here as they are collected??? Ah, well, ... progress I guess... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~
Bob,
The age old solution to your problem is "ether in a can".
An Australian company sells this product with what I reckon is the best-ever product name, ... EVER! Here is some of their marketing... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoti...on_biggrin.gif
http://mediaserver.dwpub.com/press-r...5/SYBgirls.jpg
~~~~~o0o~~~~~
Finally, regarding the cars, I really like Robby's signature quote;
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It seems (IMO) that all the cars at this comp still have a long way to go before "achieving perfection". There is still a great deal that can be "taken away" from the cars, and they will be much better for it. Less time taken for design and build. More time for driving and fun. And faster and more reliable cars at comp. So higher placing, and more happiness! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Z
Breaching rule IC2.2.1...Quote:
Bob,
The age old solution to your problem is "ether in a can".
An Australian company sells this product with what I reckon is the best-ever product name, ... EVER! Here is some of their marketing...
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)
The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another.Quote:
Originally posted by jpusb:
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)
The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Quote:
Originally posted by theTTshark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jpusb:
I always liked more the pre 2011 endurance running order (top design finalists and autox starting at 2 pm)
That's why he said PRE 2011... The PRE 2011 format was to run slowest to fastest in the morning group, then lunch break, then design finalist, then FASTEST to SLOWEST starting with the Auto-X winner.
I don't really like that system either for the simple fact that it separates the design finalists from everyone else. As in 2009 at Michigan where the finalists ran on a wet track but then the sun came out and everyone after them ran on a dry track.
The most fair format for the purpose of determining an endurance winner, and only to determine an endurance winner, is to run either fastest to slowest or slowest to fastest based on auto-x times.
The 2011 format was a complete bastardization attempt at running an endurance. There's no other way to put that.
That would explain this video well then.Quote:
Originally posted by theTTshark:
The problem was that only design finalists were allowed to run then. The rest of us top Auto-X finishers then had significantly different conditions compared to the design finals teams. In 2011 we had won auto-x, the design finalists got to run in the sun, and by the time they got to us ~5pm, it had decreased temp by at least 10F, got cloudly, and started to mist/sprinkle, then they started putting teams who had barely passed tech out there with us. Needless to say, we weren't too pleased. The weather was one thing, but running with teams 20-35 seconds slower than us was ridiculous to say the least. Now at least all the top auto-x finishers get the chance to have the same conditions as one another.
http://youtu.be/bYhJd8x0BIc
Congratulations to all teams at FSAE-MI. I was unable to attend Wednesday & Thursday due to a day job commitment, but was able to be on-site all day Friday & Saturday. Tony & Bill had the Design Event well under control. Dr. Dave Redszus (Design Event Captain for Lincoln this year) also assisted. My informal survey of teams on Friday & Saturday showed that practically all teams received Design debriefings from at least one (and frequently several) Design Judges.
I don’t know how you all feel about it, but the ‘Call for a Design Judge Review’ program seems to be working well. Chris Patton (ex-GFR) was the designated phone guy this year. He did an excellent job.
Congratulations to the winners of the Best Three View Drawing Award. The quality of three view drawings in the DRs was up quite a bit (again) this year. This award is working out far better than even I could have imagined when we rolled it out a few years ago.
Now for a few comments and a few questions…
Congratulations to U. of Akron, Zips Racing. Did anyone else notice that they reinvented themselves this year? Mono-cylinder engine, 10” tires, wings. Wow! THAT is a lot to bite off in one year, and a third place overall to show for it!
Congratulations to Cornell as well. Absolutely AWESOME Accel run. Perhaps the fastest run in FSAE history? (Anyone know, for sure?) For those of you who did not see it, you missed something special! Cornell has always had a strong engine program, but this year they tried something different in their chassis set-up. I know a few of you asked about and discussed it with Cornell. The rest of you… well, ask Cornell!
I review the results carefully, and do several ‘what if’ analyses. That usually leads to several questions about what happened to teams I did not actually see during dynamics.
Virginia Tech, would you care to tell us what happened to Accell & Skid Pad?
GFR, (Dr. Paasch) thanks, as always for the clear, in-depth explanation of your team’s efforts, both the highlights as well as the warts… I, for one, enjoy reading the candid, honest reports on your team’s efforts. Good luck at Baja this week.
Maryland, Missouri S&T, Michigan-Ann Arbor, Wisconsin & Penn State (31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th & 35th place). WOW! Top teams relegated to 30th plus positions due to Endurance DNFs. What happened?
RIT, I personally witnessed your heroic struggle to remove, disassemble, rebuild, and re-install your starter in the staging area of Endurance. You kept swingin until there was no swing left in ya!
Air Force Academy was on their way to a strong finish, until the tip of their attenuator fell off, ending their Endurance run prematurely. Seems I can recall that happening to a top team in Germany a few years ago…
I am not trying to single any team’s failures out for ridicule. I always find it interesting to hear ‘the rest of the story’… As I have always said, my interest in this competition stems from the diversity of all the cars. At competition, there are so many other little micro-stories to be told as well.
There is always something to be learned at Formula SAE! Again, Congratulations to all teams who competed this year!
Steve,
I believe the record for fastest accel is Michigan-Ann Arbor with a 3.766 in 2010 (Cornell's run this year was a 3.830) so not quite, but close!
Do we get to include e-cars? Delft's 3.454 run (with 4wd burnout) last year at FSE was absolutely astonishing.Quote:
Originally posted by vtec_24:
Steve,
I believe the record for fastest accel is Michigan-Ann Arbor with a 3.766 in 2010 (Cornell's run this year was a 3.830) so not quite, but close!
Yes, nice try Bob, BUT... E-cars (especially with AWD) are e-cars. But, you are right, Delft's run was awesome as well. I was talking about IC cars only. So, Michigan Ann-Arbor @ 3.766 is the all-time best? (IC)
I guess they were talking about FSAE Michigan.
The best combustion time I know of is Budapest at FS Hungary 2012 with 3.653, before that it was Helsinki with a 3.678 at FS Hungary 2011.
Looks like Hungary has some good pavement, not that I would be biased or anything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
soooo... I had a design judge come up and review our teams score with us and explain why we got an 81, I saw it written in blue pen and then in the official results I see we have a 60. Is there some kind of scaling thing? am I missing something because all scores seems to be nice round even numbers???
someone help me or let me know who I can contact pease
Yes, you're missing something. The first thing the design judge should have explained was that the score on that sheet and your official score *will* be different. Think of the score on the sheet as being for our (design judges) internal use. At Michigan our goal is to place each team into an appropriate bin, corresponding to 100+ points (design finalist), 100 pts, 80 pts, 60 pts and 40 pts (this applies to most of the field). We're confident we can score you into the correct bin, but we know there is no way we can tell you that you're 2 points better than team X and 1 point behind team Y. We just can't operate at that resolution. Thus, the official score reflects the bin or group you are placed in. The score on the sheet helps the DJs and the lead DJs determine the correct bin.
I hope that explains it.
That helps alot however if the score on the sheet was to place us in a "bin" and we got an 81, wouldn't the appropriate bin be the 80 bin.
Nope, they just don't properly stage the cars. A mistake made at many comps IMHO.Quote:
Originally posted by VFR750R:
Looks like Hungary has some good pavement, not that I would be biased or anything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Dr Kasprzak,
Such large bins 20 points for a small range of 60 points appears to be too coarse a resolution to give good feedback through the scores. I also wonder at the wisdom of reserving 50 points (out of 110 point range) for only 8% of the teams.
What are the the reasons for such a coarse bin size, and what keeps the design team unable to provide more resolution? Also why are almost half the points in the effective scoring range reserved for the top 10% of teams?
Please don't take these questions as antagonistic, as they are not meant in that fashion. I am really interested in the reasons for not using the full point range, reserving a large amount of points for a few teams, and providing little resolution for the remaining 90% of teams.
Kev
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an additional scaling factor added according to each design bay? I remember hearing from a design judge a few years back that that they scale the scores in each design judge group, because its impossible to control how easy or hard a group of judges is going to score a team. If every team in a design que receives higher scores than most, don't they scale that appropriately to account for the inherent subjectiveness of each group of design judges?Quote:
Originally posted by Edward M. Kasprzak:
Yes, you're missing something. The first thing the design judge should have explained was that the score on that sheet and your official score *will* be different. Think of the score on the sheet as being for our (design judges) internal use. At Michigan our goal is to place each team into an appropriate bin, corresponding to 100+ points (design finalist), 100 pts, 80 pts, 60 pts and 40 pts (this applies to most of the field). We're confident we can score you into the correct bin, but we know there is no way we can tell you that you're 2 points better than team X and 1 point behind team Y. We just can't operate at that resolution. Thus, the official score reflects the bin or group you are placed in. The score on the sheet helps the DJs and the lead DJs determine the correct bin.
I hope that explains it.
No. See my next reply.Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Tron:
That helps alot however if the score on the sheet was to place us in a "bin" and we got an 81, wouldn't the appropriate bin be the 80 bin.
There isn't a scaling factor, per se. I was the lead design judge in my queue at Michigan. At the end of the first round I debriefed with one of the two Chief Design Judges. He quizzed me on why we felt each bin was appropriate for each of our cars. The chief judges do this across all the judging queues, and it's their call on whether a queue is too generous or stringent--they make the final call on the bins and sometimes they make adjustments. This is how differences in queues are handled.Quote:
Originally posted by RobbyObby:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an additional scaling factor added according to each design bay? I remember hearing from a design judge a few years back that that they scale the scores in each design judge group, because its impossible to control how easy or hard a group of judges is going to score a team. If every team in a design que receives higher scores than most, don't they scale that appropriately to account for the inherent subjectiveness of each group of design judges?
We can't assume that the average of all the cars in each queue is equal, so there's no numerical way to do this directly. Thus, the scoresheet we hand back to the students has numbers which are truly "for internal use only".
I'll finish by saying that I'm always impressed by how hard all the DJs work to be as fair and accurate as possible. We really try to get the final scores "right". I didn't have an appreciation for this in my student days, or even in my faculty advisor days.
Kev,Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Dr Kasprzak,
Such large bins 20 points for a small range of 60 points appears to be too coarse a resolution to give good feedback through the scores. I also wonder at the wisdom of reserving 50 points (out of 110 point range) for only 8% of the teams.
What are the the reasons for such a coarse bin size, and what keeps the design team unable to provide more resolution? Also why are almost half the points in the effective scoring range reserved for the top 10% of teams?
Please don't take these questions as antagonistic, as they are not meant in that fashion. I am really interested in the reasons for not using the full point range, reserving a large amount of points for a few teams, and providing little resolution for the remaining 90% of teams.
Kev
These questions go beyond my ability to talk about them. You need one of the Chief Design Judges or event captains for a proper reply. Just as you're not trying to be antagonistic, I'm not trying to be evasive.
While I've put a lot of thought and effort into the design event, I haven't worried much about the points breakdown. My impression is that it seems to work well, and likely reflects the achievement of the teams in the event. The top teams (finalists) really do separate themselves from the rest and it's much harder to bin the mid-field teams with lots of resolution, so I'm okay with the breakdown as it is.
True, FSH has unique surface and the difference is most noticeable in lateral accelerations.Quote:
Originally posted by VFR750R:
Looks like Hungary has some good pavement, not that I would be biased or anything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
While I agree staging in FSG is the best I've seen in FS comps, I've also seen much worse in other competitions than FSH. However data acquisition doesn't lie and I've never seen a wheelie in any other competitions. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifQuote:
Originally posted by TMichaels:
Nope, they just don't properly stage the cars. A mistake made at many comps IMHO.
Regards,
Tobias
Dr Kasprzak,
Thank you for your response. I would love to here Steve Fox's comments (and others) on the design score distribution. I put the following up for general feedback, rather than to put you on the spot.
I have no problem accepting either that the top teams really do distinguish themselves, nor that a bin system has its merits. Merely that the bins seem very coarse and the top teams are overly rewarded for their achievements.
The design scores of 2013 had an average of 78, and a standard deviation of 25. That means that 92% of the teams were contained within 1 standard deviation from the average. The top team is close to a full 3 standard deviations from the average (not unexpected). However the performance gap of a team scoring 3 std Devs in design compared to 1 is not seen in any of the other events. This is a simple case of human perception not accurately matching the reality, and is incredibly common when people are asked to assess real situations. I accept that it is not necessary to force the scores to fit a statistical distribution, but it does occur in the other events in the competition already, indicating that the actual performance of teams does fit a reasonable distribution.
I would suggest that if the design team is rewarding between 40 and 150 points at comp then the average should be closer to 95 with a standard deviation of just under 20. This would put the top 5% of teams at above 130 and maybe a design finals cutoff between 110 and 120. This is still a large reward for the high placing teams and a lot more realistic representation of the effectiveness of the design as seen in other areas.
Alternately keep an average of 75 and run to a std Dev of 25 utilising the full score of 0 to 150 for worst to best. This would mean the top 5% would score above 125 with a design finals cut-off at about 110.
Either which way a design finals cut-off at 100 seems too low, which is made obvious by the large number of teams at this figure.
Also it shouldn't be overly difficult to keep the bin system, but decrease them to a size of 10 points instead of 20. i.e sorting teams into 10-15 bins, instead of 4.
Kev
Well....Quote:
Originally posted by Markus:
However data acquisition doesn't lie
A. there is limited accuracy in any data aq.
B. Data aq measures what it is told, and when you measure the wrong thing, the wrong way... the data becomes "a lie"
Especially in Accel, staging by a few cm different can give "wildy" different results, within the 50ms range. (its actually easy to calculate).
I'd like to see a video of said wheelie. That would look awesome.
My 2 cents on design scoring.
All points are valid. Having large bins, somewhat overcomes the subjective nature of design judging.
But I agree with Mr. Heyward that the top 9 teams are given a very big "boost", especially if the 10th teams are really close to entering the chosen ones.
Having a 25 range for all of them? Having 20 teams instead of 9 in the finals? Second is more time consuming, but also more educational for more teams. I wonder if time is the reason the 3 stage design event was changed.
I favor transparency in all events. Cost and design, one never knows why or how other teams perform. How they get 10k cars with carbon and titanium for example, or which aspects of design did they do well/bad (engine/chassis/susp/aesthetics?). FSAE is not about "trade secrets", and care should be taken to not give away designs or such stuff. But it is about learning, and i think everyone would benefit from making things like cost reports, or interim design scores available to all teams.
That was a long 2 cents.
I did a FSH vs FSG acceleration results comparison.
I looked at all teams in the FSH acc. top20 that also ran in Germany two weeks earlier.
I don't now how to display a table here, but all teams drive significantly faster in Hungary, 0.46s faster on average. For example, nr 1 and 2 are 0.56 and 0.41s faster than they were in Germany.
This results in an acceleration event where 48% of all teams manage sub-4 second runs. Compare that to 6% in Germany and 1.5% in Michigan. Something special is going on there.
Sorry I don't follow the design discussion but I gotta say this,
@ theTTshark
As someone else said, that is why I said pre 2011, top 5 design teams and then top autox (almost the same track conditions), and it was ALWAYS a GREAT show for everyone, except us drivers coming next :'(.
I feel you pain from 2011, that year I just went to the comp to shoot photos, no stress, I was at the grandstands cheering for you (I have always liked your car and MS&T) at the endurance, and it was a joke how your driver had to spend sometimes half a lap (or more, I think 1 lap even) in 1st gear coasting behind some backmarker. Please let me clarify that I don't have anything against slow or problematic cars (we've all been there), but it is pretty obvious they should not run at the same time with the fastest cars, I don't know what people that plan endurance were thinking that year.
Endurances in 2008 and 2010 were insane.
Tinomik:
www facebook com /photo.php?fbid=4396597040347&
is the best I can provide you. And you're right, all tools are as accurate as the people using them. I was referring more to the difference in lat.acc we noticed between FSG and FSH but sorry I wasn't that clear in the previous post. I can confirm this later but it was quite huge.
And on a sidenote, we did some experimenting years ago with transponder location: nosecone vs. main hoop was about 0,5s in acceleration. So staging really does make difference. FSG does it right by staging in trap height, other comps usually do it on ground level.
Thijs: Our skidpad time in FSH 2011 was 4,826s, no aero (+ rear inner wheel in the air so couldn't go faster http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoti...on_biggrin.gif). That might give some indication, unless TMichaels finds some faults in the skidpad staging too...
Markus,
Pretty awesome! We should have brought DUT12 there for an acceleration run http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Nice!Quote:
Originally posted by Markus:
www facebook com /photo.php?fbid=4396597040347&
I have to admit though that the FSG way of staging is not rules compliant...Quote:
Originally posted by Markus:
Tinomik:
www facebook com /photo.php?fbid=4396597040347&
is the best I can provide you. And you're right, all tools are as accurate as the people using them. I was referring more to the difference in lat.acc we noticed between FSG and FSH but sorry I wasn't that clear in the previous post. I can confirm this later but it was quite huge.
And on a sidenote, we did some experimenting years ago with transponder location: nosecone vs. main hoop was about 0,5s in acceleration. So staging really does make difference. FSG does it right by staging in trap height, other comps usually do it on ground level.
Thijs: Our skidpad time in FSH 2011 was 4,826s, no aero (+ rear inner wheel in the air so couldn't go faster http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoti...on_biggrin.gif). That might give some indication, unless TMichaels finds some faults in the skidpad staging too...
Maybe the radius at skidpad was not right... Jokes aside. I only wanted to point out that the achieved times can not necessarily be directly compared due to several factors (track going downhill, staging with more distance to the starting line, track being too short) influencing them.
Which is why I am always careful with stating something about world's quickest whatever run, etc.
If Guinness wasn't there, it didn't happen ;-)
The short story is that we didn't make it through noise/brake on Thursday. We didn't pass noise the first time through so we spent a few hours repacking mufflers. This put us into brakes late into the day, and with 6 runs we couldn't get them to lock. We fixed our braking issues and when we went to brakes on Friday morning, we got called back to noise and did not pass. We didn't have a fully stickered car until sometime after 2 pm on Friday. It was very frustrating, our decibel meter was reading 4-5 dB under the official meter, so we went into noise with false confidence.Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Fox:
Virginia Tech, would you care to tell us what happened to Accell & Skid Pad?
The short story is that we didn't make it through noise/brake on Thursday. We didn't pass noise the first time through so we spent a few hours repacking mufflers. This put us into brakes late into the day, and with 6 runs we couldn't get them to lock. We fixed our braking issues and when we went to brakes on Friday morning, we got called back to noise and did not pass. We didn't have a fully stickered car until sometime after 2 pm on Friday. It was very frustrating, our decibel meter was reading 4-5 dB under the official meter, so we went into noise with false confidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ouch. I didn't think the VT car was loud compared to McGill and Akron. Could it be possible that you've got an aerodynamic device resonating?Quote:
Originally posted by mmw2753:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve Fox:
Virginia Tech, would you care to tell us what happened to Accell & Skid Pad?
It's definitely a possibility, and we are very aware that we were not the loudest car out there.