Course Design Feedback & Discussion - FSAE Lincoln

[tromoly]

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

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

[whiltebeitel]

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

Z/Claude Course design at it's finest!

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

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

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

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

[Z]

Troy,

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

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

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

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

Whiltebeitel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Know thyself.

Z

[mdavis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Matt

[coleasterling]

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

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

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

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

[theTTshark]

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

[raitinger]

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

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxe...it?usp=sharing


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

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

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

Lawrence

[raitinger]

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

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

Files & PDFs can be downloaded from here, PDFs and Full Site Map

[MCoach]

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

[raitinger]

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

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