+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 189

Thread: UTAS build thread

  1. #31
    Yes, half my comments are tongue in check. But genuine questions about other things. We have done the thing where you sit in it, whiteboard behind, grid drawn on whiteboard, take a photo etc...

    Fast tracking to some other issues. This is a current suspension design some boys are working on today:





    I myself prefer inboard Formula Ford style. What do you think?
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

  2. #32
    Quick look: Rodends in bending?

    See: http://www.formulastudent.de/academy...ds-in-bending/
    Tristan
    Delft '09 Team member, '10 - Chief Electronics
    'now' (Hardware) Security Engineer

  3. #33
    This is for front suspension if not clear. (Rack not pictured yet).

    Please delete your rod ends link, as that is no what is depicted here.
    Last edited by Jonny Rochester; 03-24-2014 at 07:57 AM.
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    162
    Johnny, have a look at the forces on that rocker pivot bracket and the shock mount bracket. Where do the forces go?

    Pat
    Last edited by Pat Clarke; 03-24-2014 at 08:24 AM. Reason: spelling
    The trick is... There is no trick

  5. #35
    Pat,
    Unhelpfull (Answering a question with a question)
    Last edited by Jonny Rochester; 03-24-2014 at 01:13 PM.
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    162
    Johnny,
    It is not for me to design your frame.
    FSAE is an engineering design competition (despite your stupid statement to Claude!).
    You are the competitor, supposedly the designer.
    I have pointed you to a serious design error.
    That should be help enough.
    But obviously you don't need it, so that's the last from me.

    Pat Clarke
    The trick is... There is no trick

  7. #37
    I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I haven't visited this forum in many years but I needed some information for an FSAE rebuild.
    I have no dog in this fight so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm loving the slight undertones of tension between the posters. I can appreciate Johnny's courage in posting such detail and having decent answers for the questions, even if they aren't based on supreme engineering optimization. I think the likes of Pat and Claude, who deserve great respect for who they are and what they have contributed to FSAE, sometimes suffer memory loss on how some novice teams operate. Previously I mentored a team of rookies and I can attest that none of them would know if a chassis was made of chewing gum just by driving it. When I joined FSAE at UT Austin, I'd never driven anything that didn't have 4wd and a bed. Johnny's team might only be 5 guys with 0 faculty support or leadership and he seems to be consciously selecting the best path for they're situation, all the while using this forum to determine what can be improved without asking for handouts.

    To me, FSAE is about learning. That level of learning is highly dependent on the program at each university and the nature of FSAE leads to a large variety of programs.
    Some students learn how to just "build a car", soaking up as much knowledge from what is a TIG welder to what is inelastic weight transfer.
    Some students get into the fine art of shock tuning, roll moment distribution, understeer gradients, etc
    Some students hone their CNC machining skills, pun intended.
    Some master precision trail braking and apex clipping.
    Some eat gas station burritos, drink red bull and make beautiful CAD assemblies.
    I could go on and on, but none of this occurs without the ultimate goal of building a running car and competing with it.

    That being said, Johnny, your frame is poorly optimized, your bellcrank mount is piss poor, you should do more in CAD, and your sphericals are too large, but I like your first post and the look on the driver's face so you're a winner in my book. Keep up the good fight.

  8. #38
    I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I haven't visited this forum in many years but I needed some information for an FSAE rebuild.
    I have no dog in this fight so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm loving the slight undertones of tension between the posters. I can appreciate Johnny's courage in posting such detail and having decent answers for the questions, even if they aren't based on supreme engineering optimization. I think the likes of Pat and Claude, who deserve great respect for who they are and what they have contributed to FSAE, sometimes suffer memory loss on how some novice teams operate. Previously I mentored a team of rookies and I can attest that none of them would know if a chassis was made of chewing gum just by driving it. When I joined FSAE at UT Austin, I'd never driven anything that didn't have 4wd and a bed. Johnny's team might only be 5 guys with 0 faculty support or leadership and he seems to be consciously selecting the best path for they're situation, all the while using this forum to determine what can be improved without asking for handouts.

    To me, FSAE is about learning. That level of learning is highly dependent on the program at each university and the nature of FSAE leads to a large variety of programs.
    Some students learn how to just "build a car", soaking up as much knowledge from what is a TIG welder to what is inelastic weight transfer.
    Some students get into the fine art of shock tuning, roll moment distribution, understeer gradients, etc
    Some students hone their CNC machining skills, pun intended.
    Some master precision trail braking and apex clipping.
    Some eat gas station burritos, drink red bull and make beautiful CAD assemblies.
    I could go on and on, but none of this occurs without the ultimate goal of building a running car and competing with it.

    That being said, Johnny, your frame is poorly optimized, your bellcrank mount is piss poor, you should do more in CAD, and your sphericals are too large, but I like your first post and the look on the driver's face so you're a winner in my book. Keep up the good fight.

  9. #39
    Johnny,

    I second everything that Auerbach and a few others have said. Keep up the good work. As long as you can come up with a car that can reliably move under it's own power and keep 4 wheels on the ground (well - maybe an occasional 3 is acceptable) you'll do far better than most teams. Not just first year teams. All teams. No matter what competition you enter, finishing endurance and making an attempt at all events will probably put you in the top 1/3 of competitors, and the only way you can expect to get there is with a well built (not necessarily well designed) and tested car. The most beautiful and complete CAD model and design report won't mean a thing when the green flag drops.

  10. #40
    Auerbach and Canuck,

    Thankyou for your observations. You are probably correct in those ideas. Counting active members that design and make stuff, we are a small team. Most of the designs here are not my own, but I have led them away from worse (side engine with 2 chains etc). I have my own ideas, I can see the obvious. I need to get better at Inventor, the CAD here is not my own. I personally am not a final year student in charge of design. But anyway...

    Pat,

    I just don't like getting a question in response to a question. Don't take it too hard.
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts