2014 FSAE-Australasia

[Tonks]

Daniel, if I am correct, there are always 2 Endurances in Australia and the faster one counts. Don't know if it is just speed or "best combined scoring in Endurance + Efficiency".
So if you DNF once, you can still score Endurance points. Would be nice for e-Cars in Europe

I read somewhere that the track was ~ 1.2km long.

Track was 1.6km long. 9 laps per driver. As lap times were so long, the 145% time for efficiency was somewhere near 120s which allowed all the field to be considered for efficiency scoring. Also, endurance is based on times only, not the combination of endurance and efficiency.

It is pretty good running two enduro's. You should come down under and try it some time

[Z]

Monday - Driver Swap Day, and Concluding Notes.
===================================

So, the "nine hours in the saddle" was closer to fifteen, thanks to a short detour to Oakleigh Go-Karts for the Driver Swap Day yesterday, and ... Melbourne traffic!!! .

Nevertheless, the DSD is undoubtedly the most educational part of this whole competition, IMO. I strongly suggest more Oz Teams get along to these, and overseas Teams should consider something similar. The two main benefits are peer-to-peer criticism of your car from other Teams' best drivers, and the opportunity to experience first-hand the performance of the other cars.

MORE PLEASE!

(Looking forward to the write-ups...)
~o0o~

Further to Mitchell's comments on the UQ car, it is worth noting that after their DNF'd Enduro 1 (ie. due to a wiring failure unrelated to the suspension), the car broke its R&P mounts just before half-way through E2. The breakage was not terminal, but meant that the second driver had very sloppy steering throughout his stint, with the rack-BJs randomly catching on the bodywork. So estimated -5 seconds per lap...

I have to give high praise to Mitchell and the whole UQ Team for the very calm way they handled all their problems. There is an apt quote about "... when all around you are losing their heads...".

(And I now have another post-it note on the pile on my desk reminding me to do some sketches explaining various issues discussed with various students regarding the UWA/UQ "Quad-Beam" style cars (I think Geoff coined that term). Err..., maybe January++...? One main thing to point out now is that during hard cornering the central Roll-Mode-U-Bar can carry the whole weight of the car, or more. So ~300 kg going through its links. So NO pretty little aluminium lever arms with a hole drilled into the most highly stressed section... But more later.)
~o0o~

Further regarding "calmness under pressure", I would like Swinburne to know that I spent a long time living in an entirely solar powered house, and will again shortly, after current sale goes through. Also travelled to Darwin in early 1990s to see one of the first Across-Oz solar races. But those things are powered by a very conveniently located nuclear fusion reactor, ONE HUNDRED MILLION MILES AWAY! I am not so fond of cars powered by coal-fired steam-engines, especially when they CANNOT take me to town and back.

Nevertheless, if they want Delft and Zurich looking over their shoulders, then the same big-picture rules apply to E-cars as C-cars. So, KEEP CALM HEADS, and think about a "constant speed around track, brown-go-kart-with-aero-undertray", albeit powered by coal-smoke. And see other notes below.
~o0o~

After much argy-bargy and long-winded official letters going to and fro, the Design scores were eventually sorta-scaled upwards, with Monash ending up with 144, and bottom placed JCU at 79. So somewhat of a back-down from the Officials, but two pages of weasel-words on their Official letter explaining why they had NOT BACKED DOWN AT ALL.

Ahh..., who said that FSAE is not Mini-F1!?
~o0o~

And did you hear that your faithful correspondent got to shake Claude's hand? But that was only BEFORE names were exchanged. (NO hand-shaking during later photo op!) A cordial but all too brief discussion followed where Claude, if I understood him correctly, suggested that his advice to Teams would be to steer well clear of Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers. Given the notes below, perhaps you students can ask him to expand on his opinions at his upcoming seminar. (See, Claude, free advertising! )
~o0o~

SOME "HOW TO GO FASTER" NOTES - A lot to be said, but keeping it focussed.

* DASDs - This year five Teams used Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers. To restress this, five Teams have now abandoned Push/PullRods&Rockers. In the Overall Ranking, these Teams came 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ..., 5th, 6th. The hole in that list was filled by Melbourne at 4th, who, as noted earlier, had an effectively rigid suspension. Certainly, there was no visible movement, and their "bouncing on the tyres" in Skid-Pad suggested no effective damping. So their F-PullRod/R-PushRod&Rockers were not doing much.

Importantly, the above is NOT a conclusive argument that DASDs are a huge advantage. Those cars achieved their good results for a whole host of other reasons. But the above does give a good case that DASDs are NOT A DISADVANTAGE. That statement is a double-negative, so technically it says nothing. But it is worth thinking about... (And yes, there are real advantages!)

* ERGO - This is one of the biggest ingredients to winning (or losing!) the competition, but perhaps the most overlooked. Hopefully, more comments from the Driver Swap reports.

* THE LOST ART OF SUBLIME BRACKETRY - These cars are just a collection of brackets. I saw very few good brackets at the comp, and far too many poor ones. Wheel-centres are a good example, and most were very poor. ECU's "Wubs", and one other (sorry, can't remember who), were good.

It seems that the introduction of calculators created a generation who cannot do sums, spellcheckers => generation who cannot spell, and FEA => generation of young engineers who cannot do good structural design.

I have said this before, but your best teacher here is Nature. Easiest is to go look at trees. If you want to do some really high level studies, then I suggest a trip to your local Museum, and find the "Bone Room" and spend a long time in there. The bones are usually hooked-up in their skeleton configuration, so you must try to image where all the muscles connect, and where all the major loads go, etc...

* VEHICLE DYNAMICS - Big subject, so very, very briefly.

Forget about calculating the car's Under-Oversteer Handling Balance in a steady-state corner. THERE ARE NONE! (Well, you might do some calcs to please the Design Judges, but don't kid yourself that these will make your car faster.) Most of FS/FSAE "cornering behaviour" is, in fact, dominated by longitudinal-load transfers, and even more so by the engine "lighting-up" the rear tyres.

So, other than choosing the most appropriate tyres, and having them all point in the right direction (ie. no wonky compliances), and not considering Aero just now, here is what will make your car faster VD-wise.

Acceleration - You all need MORE R%! Also more anti-squat, and a good driveline package (ie. enough power, but mostly a good clutch+++).

Skid-Pad - The right Ackermann at front, right toe-settings at rear, and smooth torque modulation from the engine, in the range of 0 - 10% of maximum (ie. with throttle barely cracked open).

AutoX and Enduro - Again, MORE R%!!! And less Yaw-Inertia. All these cars will go a lot faster if they can turn into the corners faster, and then use their abundant power better when coming out of the slow to mid-speed corners. There is far too much rear-wheel spinning in the slower sections, always accompanied by glacially slow forward progress.

This has not changed since the first comp I saw a dozen years ago, and is a direct result of the never-changing fashion of building (almost) every new car with the "ideal" ~50:50 weight distribution. <= WRONG!

However, note that going to more R% for AX and E will also mean having to have lighter and quicker steering that has greater lock (ie. the front-wheels should steer through greater angles). This is because on a track with close-to-Rules-spec hairpins, such as this Oz-14, most cars struggle to get around the tighter corners without a bit of rear tail-slide. Adding a lot more positive Ackermann will help here too. This is all achievable with simple but well-designed "bracketry".

I personally think the non-winged Auckland car would have won this comp if it had a bit more R%.
~o0o~

Finally, huge thanks to the "Geoff and Kev Commentary Team"! Much, much better than that semi-professional wannabe wanker! Next time, more vox-pops from the G&K Team, please! And you students should get your speeches ready before G&K come around. It could be the start of a whole new career for you.

Z

[GTS]

After much argy-bargy and long-winded official letters going to and fro, the Design scores were eventually sorta-scaled upwards, with Monash ending up with 144, and bottom placed JCU at 79. So somewhat of a back-down from the Officials, but two pages of weasel-words on their Official letter explaining why they had NOT BACKED DOWN AT ALL.

"Weasel-words"?

Not true at all.

The request - to rescale to the maximum 150 for the 2014 and all future FSAE-A events - was not met. The letter stated the rationale for the choice, how it is applied and what is to happen in future quite clearly.

Consider that the rules state that discretionary ranking and accepting/respecting judges' decisions as final are all part of rules agreed to by competing. That the intent of the competition is to best prepare students for a professional life beyond it, and that the competition is run by very-well-intended professionals volunteering time - much of which is unseen beyond the event itself, and some of which is presently ongoing.

Please have a little respect for the judges and officials in a public forum.

[DMuusers]

Track was 1.6km long. 9 laps per driver.

This can't be true. 1.6 km*18 laps = 28.8km which is way too long for an endurance. It's either 1.2 km (which adds to about 22 km) or there were fewer laps. If there were fewer laps and it was still 1.6km then the average speed of the fastest cars was around 77 km/h (assuming 75 seconds a lap which i read earlier in this thread). If it was 1.2 km assuming 75 seconds a lap the best average speed was around 58 km/h, which seems more reasonable. Unfortunately there aren't any times posted on the FSAE-A website (yet).

[mech5496]

Z thanks for the comments! I agree that both Kev and Geoff were great, I saw almost the entire streaming session and it was great! Please PLEASE repeat it next year! Mitchell thanks for the insight, that makes your achievement even more impressive! I expect great things from such concepts in the future! Keep the DS comments coming guys!

[Marshall Grice]

This can't be true. 1.6 km*18 laps = 28.8km which is way too long for an endurance. It's either 1.2 km (which adds to about 22 km) or there were fewer laps. If there were fewer laps and it was still 1.6km then the average speed of the fastest cars was around 77 km/h (assuming 75 seconds a lap which i read earlier in this thread). If it was 1.2 km assuming 75 seconds a lap the best average speed was around 58 km/h, which seems more reasonable. Unfortunately there aren't any times posted on the FSAE-A website (yet).

that distance is in reference to the driver swap day course, not the competition endurance course.

[Rex Chan]

This can't be true. 1.6 km*18 laps = 28.8km which is way too long for an endurance. It's either 1.2 km (which adds to about 22 km) or there were fewer laps. If there were fewer laps and it was still 1.6km then the average speed of the fastest cars was around 77 km/h (assuming 75 seconds a lap which i read earlier in this thread). If it was 1.2 km assuming 75 seconds a lap the best average speed was around 58 km/h, which seems more reasonable. Unfortunately there aren't any times posted on the FSAE-A website (yet).

In the second Monash enduro, Chris Heath ended up lapping in 1:19.xx seconds. In first enduro, Melbourne did 1.19.xx to 1.25.xx laps. I think 1.2km is the correct distance.

[Tonks]

Ah! I apologise, the track was ~1.2km. Sorry about that, my error. Not sure where I got the 1.6km from

[ChristianChalliner]

GTS - I'm not an 'aero guy' per say but your posts with regards to various concepts and the shortfalls in design i find very interesting, particularly with regards to the ideas that you should still know the effects even if you aren't running wings. It's something i keep saying to our 'bodywork' guy but it never gets through!

Still, i find your reports interesting and it's made me think more about aero, i've also invested in a copy of Hucho to get a bit more of an insight.

Lastly, i hope the livestream is ran next year and for other competitions, i had a great time watching and discussing ideas/concepts with others and i think i gained a lot from it. As i said on there at the time it would be good to meet you all at a competition and have a beer or two if we're ever at the same comp

Christian

[GTS]

Christian, the other judge at comp (Kalliope) is even more vigilant on bodywork design!

Hucho's a cracking read and more importantly it lists its references very well, so if students want to read more, it's a great starting point.

If you push the Aus comp organizers I understand there's an effort underway to have judges etc possibly available via video throughout the year, with a Q&A type thing available for review by teams. I think it's a good idea! Maybe something others could add suggestions to, and some idea of how it should be facilitated.

Failing (or additional to) this, a beer or three is good too