2002 Solo II Nationals

[FSAE.com]

2002 SoloII Nationals
A Modified Thursday morning results:
1) 39.727 Gary Milligan 95 Phantom Special
2) 40.893 Scott Nardin 02 BBR Shark
3) 40.946 Joe Cheng 95 Phantom Special
4) 41.094 George Bowland 02 BBR Shark <--father of '91 FSAE champions Va Tech Team Captain Todd Bowland
5) 41.896 William Goodale 98 Dragon F1
6) 42.011 Michael D. Mahen 72 Lola 242
7) 42.865 Tyson Sawyer 72 Tui Super V
8) 42.971 Gene Cooley 73 TUI Special
9) 43.048 John Haftner 73 TUI Supervee
10) 43.208 Bernard Cooley 73 Tui Special
11) 43.454 Kenneth Hassler 02 UTA FSAE
12) 43.499 Erick Kohler 02 UTA FSAE
13) 43.508 Dwight Gilliland 01 Avenger MK II
14) 43.774 Bob Woods 88 UTA FSAE
15) 44.179 Erik Middleton 00 FSAE CalPolyPomona
16) 44.208 Brett Miller 00 CalPolyPomona FSAE
17) 45.198 Jerry Shields 72 TUI Supervee
18) 47.335 Oliver Ruck 88 UTA FSAE
19) 47.581 Gabe Anderson 02 Kansas FSAE
20) 47.687 Vernon W. Maxey 85 Lynx B Formula Vee
21) 47.995 Phil Alspach 72 TCR/Lola T204/13B
22) 48.665 Justin Rajewski 02 U of Kansas FSAE
23) DNS Scott Schmidt 01 U of Kansas FSAE

[FSAE.com]

2002 SoloII Nationals
A Modified Thursday morning results:
1) 39.727 Gary Milligan 95 Phantom Special
2) 40.893 Scott Nardin 02 BBR Shark
3) 40.946 Joe Cheng 95 Phantom Special
4) 41.094 George Bowland 02 BBR Shark <--father of '91 FSAE champions Va Tech Team Captain Todd Bowland
5) 41.896 William Goodale 98 Dragon F1
6) 42.011 Michael D. Mahen 72 Lola 242
7) 42.865 Tyson Sawyer 72 Tui Super V
8) 42.971 Gene Cooley 73 TUI Special
9) 43.048 John Haftner 73 TUI Supervee
10) 43.208 Bernard Cooley 73 Tui Special
11) 43.454 Kenneth Hassler 02 UTA FSAE
12) 43.499 Erick Kohler 02 UTA FSAE
13) 43.508 Dwight Gilliland 01 Avenger MK II
14) 43.774 Bob Woods 88 UTA FSAE
15) 44.179 Erik Middleton 00 FSAE CalPolyPomona
16) 44.208 Brett Miller 00 CalPolyPomona FSAE
17) 45.198 Jerry Shields 72 TUI Supervee
18) 47.335 Oliver Ruck 88 UTA FSAE
19) 47.581 Gabe Anderson 02 Kansas FSAE
20) 47.687 Vernon W. Maxey 85 Lynx B Formula Vee
21) 47.995 Phil Alspach 72 TCR/Lola T204/13B
22) 48.665 Justin Rajewski 02 U of Kansas FSAE
23) DNS Scott Schmidt 01 U of Kansas FSAE

[Shaun Bailey]

UTA got whooped by Cal Poly two years ago at Nationals with that car. Trophyed 5th and 6th what's up with them being beaten?

Shaun.

[Richard Lewis]

Out of curiosity, were any of these FSAE cars unrestricted?


-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~fsae[/center]

[FSAE.com]

2002 SoloII Nationals
A Modified Thursday combined results:
Total Afternoon Morning
1) 78.440 38.713 39.727 Gary Milligan 95 Phantom Special
2) 80.787 39.841 40.946 Joe Cheng 95 Phantom Special
3) 81.259 40.165 41.094 George Bowland 02 BBR Shark
4) 81.311 40.418 40.893 Scott Nardin 02 BBR Shark
5) 82.809 40.913 41.896 William Goodale 98 Dragon F1
6) 83.728 41.717 42.011 Michael D. Mahen 72 Lola 242
7) 85.523 42.658 42.865 Tyson Sawyer 72 Tui Super V
8) 85.894 42.440 43.454 Kenneth Hassler 02 UTA FSAE
9) 86.321 43.113 43.208 Bernard Cooley 73 Tui Special
10) 86.583 43.075 43.508 Dwight Gilliland 01 Avenger MK II
11) 86.596 43.097 43.499 Erick Kohler 02 UTA FSAE
12) 86.855 42.647 44.208 Brett Miller 00 CalPolyPomona FSAE
13) 87.028 42.849 44.179 Erik Middleton 00 FSAE CalPolyPomona
14) 87.107 44.136 42.971 Gene Cooley 73 TUI Special
15) 87.299 44.251 43.048 John Haftner 73 TUI Supervee
16) 87.686 43.912 43.774 Bob Woods 88 UTA FSAE
17) 91.645 46.447 45.198 Jerry Shields 72 TUI Supervee
18) 92.464 45.129 47.335 Oliver Ruck 88 UTA FSAE
19) 95.372 47.685 47.687 Vernon W. Maxey 85 Lynx B Formula Vee
20) 96.276 47.611 48.665 Justin Rajewski 02 U of Kansas FSAE
21) 97.173 49.592 47.581 Gabe Anderson 02 Kansas FSAE
22) 97.940 49.945 47.995 Phil Alspach 72 TCR/Lola T204/13B
23) NoTime DNS DNS Scott Schmidt 01 U of Kansas FSAE

[Dr. Bob Woods]

The level of the real A-mods increased this year which put some of the FSAE cars down a bit (at least the ones without wings). All cars had the restrictors in place. The UTA car with wings, F02, performed quite well. It is much lighter than the Cal Poly car. UTA's Ken Hassler was one place out of the trophies in A-mod, but received a trophy for being the fastest FSAE car in A-mod. UTA's Angie Hamilton won A-mod Ladies (in F02) against a real A-mod car.

We are still working on getting our own class, but we need more people attending.

[Richard Lewis]

First off I must say I'm impressed with UTA 02. Its a great looking machine.

I was wondering if you could tell me how your aero package was recieved by the judges this year. I know Carrol Smith has been quoted as saying "they are the first team to do wings correctly" or something to that extent. But were you penalized in the design event for having wings, or did you have troubles justifying them to the judges?

I know for our area, we have events that reach speeds of over 150km/h in our FSAE car. We feel that to compete in these events we NEED some aerodynamic aid, however we're worried that in Detroit it will be severly frowned upon. (Even though we are supposed to be designing for the weekend autocrosser, and in our weekend autocrosses up here, wings would be a big help)

I look forward to hearing from you.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~fsae

[wingman]

Hi everyone,

Dr. Woods answered Shaun's question about the field....(i.e. there were some SMOKIN FAST A-mod cars this year) as for the finishing order for the FSAE cars, there were two main differences between 2000 and 2002.

1. Cal Poly broke a drive shaft on Thursday thus losing the 3rd runs for both drivers.

2. UTAs 02 car is the most well sorted FSAE car I have ever seen!!! And the team was the most organized.....

Prior to CP 00 breaking, UTA 02 and CP 00 were within a 10th of a second of each other. First lap CP was faster, second lap UTA was faster, and Dr. Woods 88 car was about 1/2 a second back.

The CP 00 and the 88 Woods car had similar time differentials to the results two years ago. Both cars have been greatly improved, but neither were a match for the 02 UTA car. All the drivers for the cars were top notch in my opinion!!

UTA 02 weighed in at 570 with all the telemetry on board and CP 00 was up at 620 so the weight differential was not THAT large but still significant.

Even though I wanted that ol CP 00 car to win, the margin was so close if you take away the breakdowns of the CP 00 car that it was a great battle!! We all went out to dinner with Carol Smith who just happened to be in town (nudge nudge wink wink) and had a great time!!

And let's not forget KU, who had worse problems than CP and spent all night Thursday trying to put the pieces of their rear end back together. They were great to hang with, they even helped CP fix their drive shaft and still got their car back out there on Friday, even though they were out of the points....

The most impressive thing about Nationals is seeing all those cars, and all that talent in one place at one time!! The Shark and the Phantom were both AWSOME!!!!!

Congrats to UTA.....and to the rest of you out there, you are cheating yourselves by not going to nationals simply for the experience and knowledge it provides you prior to hagin it all out in Pontiac!!

Cheers,

Wingman

[King Missile]

Cant comment for Erik, my co-driver, but my performance on Thursday was pretty sorry. I seemed to be in a fog most of the day and never really got a grasp on the South course. I think there was time to be had in the very first turn but whether I would have found it on my third lap I'll never know.

We had problems the second day with our wings. First, with our aero on the chassis, the car get pretty low at speed. Low enough to smack one of the front endplates on an expansion joint and crack it. The guys did a great job of getting eveything sorted out before Erik went for his 3rd run. As he crossed the finish the left endplate on the rear wing gave up and jettisoned itself. Unfortunately it took half on a wing rib with it, so ther was no way to reattach it. We declared a mechanical to figure out what we were gonna do. This gave me an opportunity to concentrate on my 3rd lap. I went without the end plate. There was a med. speed right hander at the end of the "sticks" section of the course. The car turned into a dirt-tracker and I had to fight to recover and hold my speed. I managed to make it up everywhere else, especially the last turn. I think I ended up 11th overall.

It was nice to see the old girl run again, but I think she's ready for pasture. UTA's car really raised the bar for FSAE at the Nationals. I have to hand it to Erick and Ken from UTA, it was a good scrap. And thanks to the KU team for offering up their facilities to repair our car.

Other people to thank:
Dave Cook (its still his car, no matter what Cliff says)
Ian (the wing guy)
Owen (the suspension guy)
Cliff (the guy that let us do this)
Jim (F125 pilot for hire)
David, Robert, and Royal (the three stooges that drove straight through from CA to be there and help out)
Everyone else on the Cal Poly Team. Hopefully something good will come out of this.

For all the teams that did NOT show up... Shame... I am not sure if the rules still call for the car to be designed for the "weekend autocrosser" but this was the ULTIMATE weekend autocross. And you missed out... Its a real good opportunity to run your cars without the pressure of the static events on a REAL autocross course, not that twisty knot of cones thats barely wide enough to walk briskly through that SAE uses.

I probably wont be back next year unless:
1. I am running F125
2. Cal Poly wants me to drive again (fingers crossed)
3. I hit the lottery and build a Phantom Special killer.
or
4. I am someone elses tire warmer.

Cheers

Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?!

[wingman]

That king missile guy....

He can't spell, but he sure can drive.

Let this be a lesson to all you out wanna be's out there....

that ol dog Bo Duked his way
to his best time of the day....

It was a sight to see!!!

I don't care if have a Ferrari in your pit, without a good driver it don't mean...... anything /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the handbag.....

The good news is, it has wings on it.....

The bad news is, someone flipped em upside down!!

This is my farewell as well, those autoclavin Texans done passed me by....

Best of luck to all you up and comers

Cheers.......and may the downforce be with you!!

[Dr. Bob Woods]

UTA did poorly in the design judging last year due to our lack of preparation. The judges all loved our aero package (the best I can tell), but we just didn't present it well. I think that judges are more likely to be impressed with multiple-element wings, aero into the suspension, etc., than with a small conventional single-element wings bolted to the chassis (but I can't really speak for the judges).

[J. Cheng]

I have to say that I was really impressed by the 02 UTA car. I reckon that without a restrictor and hence be able to pull a bigger wing, it will certainly give us regular AM guys a run at the championship.

Since there is no official AMod website around, I hope you kids don't mind an older guy hanging around here for some fresh ideas.

Joe

[wingman]

By all means Oh driver of the infamous Phantom!!

But you may get asked for your opinion now from another old guy....

Yes I agree that the 02 UTA car is a beautiful machine, but just to set the record straight, A 2 year old relic from Cal Poly that beat UTA at Nationals in 2000 and all but your car and the pod racer in A mod to take 5th and 6th, showed up with a new team and very little tuning and was nipping at UTA's heels the hole way, even with a broken half shaft causing the loss of 2 of their runs.....so even though the UTA car is pretty, and well sorted, it did not totally dominate by any means.

And yes I'm biased given I'm a Cal Poly Alum, but here is the question.....

Given the nature of the of the FSAE competition, how beneficial are suspension mounted aerodynamics vs. their added complexity given that the cars are currently capable of 300 to 400 pounds of downforce at 60 MPH.

I ask this question after watching the UTA car lift the inside rear like a dog peeing on a bush, (possible due to jacking loads caused by the suspension mounted belly pan.)

I have always felt that aero is a good idea in FSAE, but feel that the little guys without big UTA budgets can benefit from a very simple aero package

The reason I pose this question is you are not able to suspension mount your aero package on the phantom, but seem to do just fine even on the off road course they call a track in Topeka.

Thoughts Anyone??

[J. Cheng]

Ah, the Cal Poly car. Yes, it's pretty fast and it's a great contrast to the UTA car. Big simple wings vs. small sophisticated wings.

I believe your commemt about putting downforce via sprung/unsprung part has a lot of merit. First I have to say that the UTA connection system is both simple and effective. The only compromise is that the sprung part has to be higher to clear the undertray which puts the c.g. up higher. The Phantom, as you have noticed, does worked pretty well with the downforce imposed on the sprung mass. I have to say that the car does touch down too often and too hard in my opinion. This year's North course was brutal especially with the large bump at the end of a real high speed section (79 mph) when brakes need to be applied. I would say with the differential speed typical of SCCA's National courses at Topeka, the car is operating at (or even slightly beyond) the outer limit of running downforce on the sprung mass without compromising low speed mechanical grip. If the typical FSAE competition has lower speed differential (which I believe it does), I don't see why putting download via the sprung mass would be a disadvantage. Especially if the sprung mass can be lowered down.

One question I like to ask is that what kind of terminal speed does the Cal Poly car has and what kind of top speed did the car see at Topeka this year. Same question to the UTA group if they care to disclose the numbers. The reason I am asking is that I suspect the UTA car might be a bit conservative on the wing size. I also started off with a smaller front wing the first year in fear of the total drag. The car did go faster with a bigger wing later but has since shown that at higher speed events, lap time would improve with less wing. It seems that when the car's drag limited terminal speed is about 20% higher than the highest attainable speed on course, the car would produce the best lap time. Higher than 20%, there is not enough wing. Lower than 20%, the car doesn't accelerate at the fast sections. This is assuming that the car is not underpower to the point where high percentage of the run was done at WOT. If possible, please provide datalogging results on percentage time with WOT. I suspect UTA's wings might grow in size in the future, especially if the FSAE course has a lower top speed.

Joe

[wingman]

Excuse the delay,
Had to earn my paycheck....
As for your observations...The 2000 Cal Poly Car began to feel the drag from the aero at 60mph and above. I always felt that the rear wing on the cal poly car was too large, resulting in aspect ratio efficiency loss countering the increased area. This situation was not an issue at FSAE and the aero package made the car faster and more drivable for less experienced drivers.
I am now a firm believer in using under body aero on FSAE cars, and would have on the car I worked on given enough development time and resources, simply because of the downforce with little or no drag increase. The Cal Poly car didn't have the data acq system on board this year so it will be hard to quantify my observations, but it seemed that UTAs 02 car had MUCH more top end and better acceleration than the cal poly car on course. In talking with them, the downforce capability of the two cars was very similar.
The reason for my previous comments were as a result of reading a recent issue magazine in which it implied that UTAs car was the BEST and the ONLY way to implement aerodynamics on FSAE cars, which I do not agree with. Those "simple" wings on the Cal Poly car are that way for a reason....The team didn't need to be sponsored by NASA to develop them.....At the end of the day it comes down to a simple trade study....does performance advantage of aerodynamics outweigh the increase in weight, drag and complexity they introduce. Both the Cal Poly 00 car and the UTA 02 car faired much better in competitions after their first time out in Detroit as a result of more development time (in other words neither car was finished on time) and as a result, other teams that spent more time testing and tuning beat these two potentially better cars their first time out......and even at Nationals this year, the Cal Poly car was set for MAX down force rather than being tuned for the track. But the wings still made the car get around the course considerably faster than if the car did not have them.(refernce Bob Woods' times vs. the Cal Poly Car)
I would like to see more aero packages on FSAE cars in general, and believe that very simple aero packages are justafiable and a possibility for any formula SAE team, not just "the big guys"

Wingman

[Dr. Bob Woods]

Joe Cheng, please contact me offline &lt;woods@mae.uta.edu&gt;.

It is good to hear all of the discussion. When we got back, we discovered two errors in the suspension setup in the UTA F02 car: it was two soft in the front (built different than designed). Therefore, it was lifting the rear tires in a turn. Ken said that he calculated that he should have done 3 seconds total better after reviewing all the g-data. I tend to agree.

[J. Cheng]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wingman:

I am now a firm believer in using under body aero on FSAE cars,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe for the slower speed our cars operate at, wings are more effective than undertray since drag is not an issue. Ran some tests on two full-size undertrays a few years ago and frankly, the numbers are disappointing. They generate a fraction of what the wings generate. I would say getting the wings right is more important. I wonder (and would love to know) if UTA has numbers on the wings and undertray seperately to show their respective gain.

Joe

[Dick Golembiewski]

As a judge, I am grinning....

You folks tell us....As my former boss (Hired me out of school - former Shadow team manager, Brabham designer...) used to say, "You're supposed to be engineers!"

I am glad to see folks THINKING.

THINK some more.

(My friends at SAE are going to be upset with the fact that I again, responded here. I like the fact that there is now a simple forum.)

- Dick

[Kenny]

I have just recently become active on this list, and am pleasantly suprised to see all the good discussion. I have been through all the posts to this subject (SCCA Nationals) and I would like to thank everyone for the kind words. We are very happy with the 02 car, and it gets better every time we take it out. We have been fighting with inside rear wheel lift (which obviously wasn't sorted out for Nationals), and the handling wasn't completely dialed in. In fact, after driving the car this past weekend with new settings, I feel the car wasn't even partially dialed in for Nationlas. I would like to address as many of your thoughts as I can, and I think I need to set the record straight on a few things (Mr. Wingman)...

Joe: The Phantom is the class of the field in my opinion. A very well sorted out car with excellent drivers is all but impossible to beat, and I admire your effforts more every year. I agree with your assesment that the undertray doesn't provide as much downforce as wings, but it does have significantly less drag ( a big concern with only 80hp). This allows us to run less wing without sacrificing too much downforce. Aero into the chassis is appealing for the sake of simplicity, and we did that with our first aero package on the 01 car. To be fair, I think we never got the wheelrates and damping correct (too stiff and too soft, respectively) and the car was (is) a handling nightmare until the wings put a big downforce Band-Aid on the problem. Our cars are just too light to run stiff enough to handle the aero loads. Watching the Phantom on the track, I would say that you are running at the limits of being too soft, which tells me that you are pretty compliant at lower speeds. At 700 lbs, I think you have a little more freedom to run stiffer wheelrates, maybe I'm wrong. Our top speeds on the North course were in the 75-80 mph range (mid 5th gear), which is almost terminal. Acceleration peters out after 3rd gear, approx 65 mph. I also agree that our cars will start to give you A-mod guys a real run for your money in the future. In fact, I WILL give you a run for your money in 03.....if you liked '02, you aint seen nothin' yet.

Wingman: On weight-we were 540, not 570.

On budgets-Exactly how much is a "UTA" budget? Is it alot, say more than Cornell, or Lawrence Tech?? Apparently there is some urban legend that UTA has unlimited hundreds of thousands of dollars and the latest most expensive technology. I would invite you to come see our facility and make parts on our WWII surplus lathe, or our mill with no quill feed. Come draw your car on a 4 year old copy of SolidWorks ,or AutoCAd 14, and do the FEA on our 12 year old version of ALGOR. Moreover, I challenge you to squeeze a dollar out of Dr. Woods.....he's very, hmmmmm, selective with our budget /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Don't take that the wrong way, Dr. Woods, I'm just playing. I guess the point I want to make is that UTA struggles with money just like all teams do, and it bothers me when people make (incorrect) assumptions about our operations. We scrimp, save and re-furbish to get by each year. And as I like to say, we push the edge of yesterday's technology.

On wings- I like your approach to aero: Simple, single element wings, double decker in front, into the chassis, big sturdy car with lots of power (our '02 car is NOT up to the maximum available) and lots of downforce. It is obviously a good working package. We choose to use smaller, more sophisticated multi-element wings, unfortunately NASA turned us down when we asked to use the Kennedy Space Center and some of their best aerodynamicists, so we had to go with a low-rent Yugoslavian grad student. No NASA, no windtunnel testing, just a poor international student and a student copy of Fluent.

On Relics- The said "whooping" at the 2000 Nationals given to UTA by Cal Poly and their 2 year old relic of a car was taken by our own relic, Dr Bob Woods (he must be at least 49 years old) in his own relic, the 88 car (read, 14 years old). I'm all for bragging rights, but let's present all the facts, eh?

Having said all that, I'm not trying to start a pissing contest or a flame war. I hope everyone who readss this will take it in the light-hearted manner in which I wrote it. I love the good discussion we've started here, let's keep it up.

And Joe, would you please contact me offline as well &lt;racer_kenny@hotmail.com&gt;.

Regards,

Ken Hassler
UTA

[Richard Lewis]

Wow, you guys have mills and a lathe? (actually I'm serious) Whining about a WWII surplus lathe really is falling on deaf ears here. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca

[Kenny]

Who's whining? I mereley stated that the lathe is WWII surplus (refurbished by the 1998 team). The point I was trying to make is that it's not the latest and greatest, and we have worked very hard to have the privelege of an in-house lathe. Now, the mill I was whining about, it's a real pain to use without quill feed, but I am very well aware that something is better than nothing. I am also very well aware that many teams have far less than we do. Some don't even have shop space on campus. In no way was I trying to minimize their plight. All I wanted to do was disspell any rumor that UTA operates on a Ferrari budget. Sincere apologies for any feathers I may have ruffled.

On another subject, I would like some input from teams on their enthusiasm for going to SCCA Nationals, and what it would take to raise the level of enthusiasm enough to go to Nationals.The obvious downsides are cost and time. Entry is relatively expensive, it takes basically a full week of your time, and it's no fun to go to so much trouble only to get beaten (badly) by the A-mods.

The upside is that it such a pleasant change from the FSAE competition. Very little pressure, much less formal, just plain racing and hanging out. There is national exposure to be had, and SCCA is now recognizing Formula SAE separately from the A-mods. Dr. Woods has spent the past few years trying to get our own class for Nationals, but the low FSAE turnout hasn't given him enough ammunition to warrant such a change. I don't know how many teams are aware that UTA held a driving weekend open to all schools. We drove in our lot on Saturday, andthen autocrossed on Sunday. We had more than 30 drivers in our class that weekend, the largest A-mod class our division has ever seen, and if I'm not mistaken, the largest A-mod class ever in SCCA history. From a business standpoint, I would think that SCCA would want to do everything they could do to get that kind of turnout at Nationals.

Anyway, I would like to hear some feedback.

Regards,

Ken Hassler
UTA

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Lewis:
Wow, you guys have mills and a lathe? (actually I'm serious) Whining about a WWII surplus lathe really is falling on deaf ears here. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-------------------------
_UVIC Formula SAE Team_
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Richard Lewis]

Sorry Ken, I meant it in jest. (hence the /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif at the end) I guess it didn't come across that way.

We are a 2nd year team now, and struggling every step of the way. We were repeatedly told that year two would be a lot easier than year one. And while I have no doubt that our final product will be vastly superior to our rookie car, everything else seems twice as hard to get done.

Things like the nationals would be totally off limit to us from a budget standpoint unfortunately. (ie: travel expenses) But judging from the washington state autocross, local events like that can definately benefit FSAE teams a great deal. (unless of course you crash your car... ahem)

Just for reference, we built a car (and a team, tools, lots of 1 time expenses, etc) for well under $15,000US last year. However, we placed 95th overall, and 6th among rookies. (which we weren't that happy with) Now I know that our budget is quite small by most standards, but you can do a lot, with a little... and I see no reason to assume that UTA has a crazy-huge budget, anymore than any other well established team.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca

[wingman]

Hello Ken, Richard and Joe,

Its good to finally hear from students and racers in addition to alums......

Hey Ken, I have nothing but good things to say about UTAs program, read between the lines here guy!! My comments about recourses have little to do with cold hard cash. I think all would agree that UTA is a legacy team that has done an extremely good job at acquiring and maintaining knowledge and resources from year to year. This is quite commendable given that very few schools are able to accomplish this iteration and as a result try to reinvent the proverbial wheel every year.

I think it takes $10-20K cash to build a formula car, but the infrastructure that accounts for test equipment and track time is, How you say....

Priceless......

In fact, quick shout out to the Cal State Northridge team and Alums that put together a really great formula event at CSUN last Saturday!!
I think there were 10 cars there.

So call off the dogs there Ken, this is all in good fun!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OK back to the tech/performance stuff.
Ken, there is NO WAY you can tell me that Dr. Woods has not continued to improve and upgrade the 88 car, so make sure were talking apples to apples here. I bet the performance of his car is much improved over even 2 years ago, but you guys know that given the data you were recording with the on board systems that have been added to that car....
As for the weight 530 vs. 570 (approximately), I merely reiterated the value that was given by the weight judges at nationals, but I think you guys were carrying a bunch of data acquisition goodies, so if you say 530, 530 it is!! Cal Poly's car was still 600+...YIKES!!

Dr. Woods, the Phantom was 3-4 seconds faster than UTA and Cal Poly at Nationals this year, and you say that the 02 UTA car had another 3 seconds of untapped potential?? This coming from the man who has adamantly stated for years that FSAE cars are not competitive in A-mod, Oh but wait, you also used to say that aerodynamics don't work on FSAE cars, but I digress.....

Finally to Joe,

Yes I fully agree that underbody aero is not as effective as wings at low speed (that's why the Cal Poly cars had WINGS.... BIG WINGS) I merely stated that the underbody work is FREE if you can make it light enough for which UTA did a very good job!!)


So I trust I have not offended anyone....and I look forward to further discussion.

Cheers

[Dominic Venieri]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Woods:
The level of the real A-mods increased this year which put some of the FSAE cars down a bit (at least the ones without wings). All cars had the restrictors in place. The UTA car with wings, F02, performed quite well. It is much lighter than the Cal Poly car. UTA's Ken Hassler was one place out of the trophies in A-mod, but received a trophy for being the fastest FSAE car in A-mod. UTA's Angie Hamilton won A-mod Ladies (in F02) against a real A-mod car.

We are still working on getting our own class, but we need more people attending.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RPI is working on getting out to Nationals next year, but the trip to Topeka and back during the first week of school isn't something we can convince our professors to let us miss class for, at least not yet.

We were able to make it to the Northeast Division Championships this year, where we took 4th and 5th(out of 5). The 2 cars we competed against were all trophy winners at nationals. Bill Goodale in the yellow "Dragon F1", yellow framw, big wings front and rear, full length undertray, and an 1100cc 2 stroke. The other was Tyson Sawyer (with a co driver) in his 72 blue Super Vee. We were able to hang pretty close with those guys, as we have at other events over the summer.

As for the discussion about suspension vs. chassis mounted aero, I must agree with the UTA folks, that the suspension mounting is a significant improvement. Comparing our 2001 car, which was chassis mounted front/rear/undertray to the 2002, suspension mounted front/rear/no undertray, we were able to see higher cornering speeds, as well as better tunability of the shocks.

We are working with the NEDiv to form an SAE class out here. There are 10 schools within easy driving distance of us here, including well established teams like Cornell, RIT and Brown, along with a lot of new and up and coming teams, so the potential for a really competitive SAE class exists. I'm just wondering what it is going to take to motivate these other schools into coming out for events.

For next season, we plan on running 2 cars, a bunch of regional events, the National Tour stop, the closest Pro Solo, and the Divisionals. The number of events run with the 2003 car depends on when it gets back from Formula Student, but the 2002 car will be out there as often as it can.

www.formularpi.com (http://www.formularpi.com)

[Kenny]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wingman:


So call off the dogs there Ken, this is all in good fun!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hey, no worries at all here. The only place I'll sick the dogs on you is on the track /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I'll have to 'cause you guys were pretty darn quick. It was great to hang out with you guys, also. You are absolutely correct about Woods' car, it has come a very long way since 1988. It's suspension has been tweaked and tuned within an inch of it's life, and I feel that it is possibly the best, most neutral handling car I've ever driven. It also weighs about 600#, A&M ran with the fastest cars in 1999 in their 600 + pound car, Cal Poly runs very quick with a 600 pound car, hmmmmm, what's the problem with a little weight (Mr. Smith) ? I will concede that it takes a great deal more thought to design a 450 pound car, but hear this, our older overbuilt cars are more reliable. The 88 car runs basically without fail everytime it goes out (except for the odd snapped drive shaft). So, I will argue that if you want aero, enough power to pull it around, and a car sturdy enough to take the punishment year after year, there's nothing wrong with a 500-550 pound car. We took a real beating over the 02 car weight, and I don't think we deserved it.

As for budgets, I think you're right. 15-20K should get you a quality car and a trip to Detroit depending on how many folks you take, and where you stay. For the car, of course you need cash, but you also need material, services, and facility donations. But travel costs cash....period. I thnk we spend in the neighborhood of 3000 for detroit. That's vehicles, accomodations and food for 15 people. It takes 10-20k for travel to UK or Austrailia depending on plane fares and mode of car transport. Travel is the real killer in my opinion. I'm sure this is the biggest reason for low FSAE attendance at NAtionals, after all, students (generally) are by definition....poor. I know I am. However, Nationals is a whole lot cheaper than Detroit, and I strongly encourage teams to plan it into your budget. What is happening to the 100+ cars built each year, anyways??

More news later,

Ken Hassler
UTA
The Phantom was 3-4 seconds faster than me each day. Comparing my G-Analyist data with Woods', it is painfully obvious that I lost 1.6s on Thursday due to horrific rear wheel lift. We had pretty much fixed it for Friday, but it still cost me some time. What really hurt me on Friday was that I wasn't calibrated as a driver to take full advantage of the aero. The car was capable of 1.9g, but there were times I would chicken out, brake into a corner at say 1.1 or 1.2 g, then corner at about 1.6-1.7g. I neede to throw the car into the cornesr a little harder, had I done so I think I could have dropped down into 6th place which would put us right there with the big boys. So I guess both Dr. Woods and I will have to eat our words about FSAE cars not being able to compete with A-mods. Been preaching that for some time now, and in all honesty I didn't think I'd ever see the day when we could hang with the big boys. Just wait till next year...
I hope you guys keep bringing that winged monster out (Cal Poly). And cheers to your buddies who got that local auto-x together with all the FSAE cars. That's exactly the thing we need to get the recognition we deserve in the SCCA community.