2014 FSAE-Australasia

[DMuusers]

2 endurances? And the best one counted? Or the worst?
Also, how long was the track? Just the standard 1 km?

[JulianH]

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.

[Moke]

945.5 Monash
881.0 ECU
870.6 Auckland
770.0 Melbourne
728.0 UQ
722.2 Curtin
696.5 RMIT Electric
695.9 RMIT Petrol
650.1 Sydney
504.8 Wollongong
470.6 Swinburne Electric
459.4 Waikato
437.5 Denki
428.1 Tasmania
417.8 Adelaide
387.4 Canterbury
339.6 Tokai
303.3 Newcastle
237.6 Sophia
237.5 Warsaw
237.3 NSW
124.6 James Cook
25.76 UWA Electric
25.8 QUT

[MCoach]

Will there be anywhere available for the full score sheet for download?

I'm also curious what the split on fuel efficiency and endurance points is. ECU was flying out there but I'm sure they were caught on fuel efficiency. Amazing coverage, though. It was fun to keep up with the whole competition. Very impressive drive from everyone. If there is award for persistence, be sure to pass it off to the E-car from Swinburne!

[mech5496]

Great coverage, really enjoyed the live streaming! Z, are you gonna be at the drivers' swap day? I remember a great thread from a couple of years back with excellent commentary from drivers on other teams' cars, any chance to repeat sth like that?

[GTS]

(Whilst it's still fresh and I've a spare moment)

The best aerodynamics section performances in Design Event were improved upon this year, which was reflected in what grades were given. Whilst no team was allocated a perfect score, three teams shared a top grade higher than the best last year. Bear in mind that we don't just grade what's built, but an entire design process.

Excellent first-year aerodynamics performances from Tokai and University of Melbourne with some very deep considerations of what aerodynamic performance actually means to a vehicle on-track beyond headline lift and drag numbers. UoM didn't built everything intended but was - critically - able to demonstrate closure of a design, delivery and validation cycle with regard to aerodynamic performance (despite some questionable backyard engineering to keep front wing located... one might suggest karma delivered on as much in AutoX II with a demonstrated failure between man, car and wheel).

Monash University, whilst not significantly changing their package from last year, presented a completely different take on aerodynamics. The quantity of their presented effort - in terms of what went from concept to delivery - was significantly lesser, however the quality of work presented was considerably deeper than in 2103. Those graduating will take with them some significant learnings from this year's work (that will serve well in careers moving forwards), and leave an impressive legacy in what questions to ask, what processes to apply, what considerations are of note. If I were a competitor asking after anything (and the team seems quite friendly/approachable), ask after the processes, not the wing CAD (2015 rule changes notwithstanding).

Some entrants didn't feature complete packages however showed a particularly deep understanding of some issues; a particular highlight was University of Sydney's 'radiatorologist'... I've read Masters' theses on cooling with a lesser command of radiator implementation that this guy. Very impressive.

The hurt locker (AKA some helpful hints and observations):

A few teams took on advice from last year, which was positive and duly rewarded. A few didn't, which makes our job easier but not as enjoyable for the teams concerned.

Two presentations got bogged down in justifying last-minute changes to vehicles when something unexpected happened (despite some serious attempts from the judges to steer it otherwise). I'd ask you all to consider simply admitting the gap up front, but talking about what could and should have been. In both cases there was clearly some knowledge underneath a subterfuge of trying to pull a fast one over the judges with some questionable science (we weren't fooled).

Three teams opened with the equivalent of suggesting they had little to present because their dog ate their homework - you won't be eligible for a perfect score without something built and validated, but you can still get a respectable-to-great score for demonstrating understanding even if none of it makes it to the car for any number of resourcing issues. If you don't build aerodynamic considerations into your design processes, you won't have anything to present at the Design Event. As with any part of the car, Design Event is just a show of what you went through to get the car we have in front of judges on the day - if you don't consider aero for the majority of the prior 364 days, don't expect to score brilliantly on the 365th.

To those that suggested they didn't focus on aero because it wasn't important, please remember that cars don't drive in a vacuum, your engines (if IC) will only compress what pressures are available after losses (start with BMEP=...), your electrons will only take you so far (if EV) if you're wasting them doing something else. Not being able to measure something (for time, resources, noise, any reason) is no excuse for not applying basic science to at least make for a directionally correct effort. At a basic level engines and batteries aren't really unlike us - lithium ion likes similar temperatures to humans, and a few might consider that if they'd consider trying to breathe in a separated region aside a strong wind, that their engines - needing a good deal more air - might also perform sub-optimally if their air intakes were so installed.

A few teams were still a little unconvinced that their efforts to generate downforce was somehow more relevant in a corner than when in a straight line. One team got the cornering bit right, but didn't rotate wheels, move a ground plane, pitch/roll the car or steer wheels, and effectively developed a car around a condition not usually achieved un practice unless a Marvel superhero were to throw a car perfectly across a broadly frictionless surface at constant yaw with a driver in it... who inexplicably required downforce.

Much confusion about CoP and CoG relations, however two teams identified a need to tame the CoP migration, and one actually showed an attempt to design this in.

The number of teams able to identify how a gurney flap worked increased from 0 (2013) to 2 (2014).

The number of teams able to identify turbulence model boundary conditions (e.g. able to put some sense against their CFD models) increased from 1 (2013) to 4 (2014).

No team has yet made an attempt to change the shape of their car (hint hint) to make it easier to mesh, and accordingly make CFD considerably more painless and realistic.

No team was able to explain why they'd use the adjustment they had in their wing flaps.

One team suggested that CFD can't model separation well... well then.... why use it / how come an entire industry uses it for just this / why not just admit your limitations here and get onto what you did to get around them / etc.

Consider what CFD is used for; two teams discovered that modelling bluff objects in front of cooling ducts (to simulate effects of e.g. wishbones, pull/pushrods, coilovers etc) made a surprising difference to cooling flows in accordance with "if I put something in front of it that blocks airflow... (mega CFD later) it'll block airflow", but used CFD no further to take what was a obvious baseline and iterate further to a more ideal solution. Don't undertake considerable work for something that's obvious! If you're benchmarking the degree to which an effect relative to a usage condition, that's OK - then use that to move further forwards.

Six teams complained about limited CFD resources - I'll write what was said last year - cloud-based solutions exist and are inexpensive, however not having a tunnel or mega CFD are neither yet impediments to winning aero (not currently by a long way)

DRS implementations were similar and crude. Consider what's happening to the car here beyond lift and drag.

A surprising number of teams didn't understand wing theory sufficiently to understand whether or not they wanted their wings stalled or otherwise.

One team didn't understand multi-element wing theory enough, and arrived with three wings bounded by endplates rather than a triple-element wing, however insisted it was the latter. This should have been picked up earlier.

The team with the best surface finish on their wings (and it was awesome)... had it on the wrong side.

We saw some startling consistency between team with diffusers generating <10kg of load at 60km/h and nose geometry generating likely the same amount in lift... get the basics right! There's no excuse for a front end that doesn't respect what the car needs to do - go fast.

We had one team insist "yeah it's like this for looks" (down from 3 in 2013) - get it right, fast cars look good - not the other way around.

One team made an honest attempt to move the CoP down usefully though didn't master keeping their rear wing functional, particularly in yaw, making for some interesting performance on track (this particular car has great potential however).

A consistent number of teams to 2013 (8) insisted that their radiator worked "because we've never overheated" when asked "how much heat are you rejecting here". This is a university competition, not a trade competition - start with science. Admittedly the design loads stated varied from 2kW to 44kW... the latter was for a ~45kW engine, which we suggested might make an interesting starting discussion point for anticipated fuel consumption/overall engine efficiency, giving rise to "hang on that's gotta be wrong! Can you ask me that again?" (A second chance was granted)...

Only two teams using wings could explain why, from first principles/wing theory, they'd chosen the elements they'd actually used. Insisting that profile x was developed for racing... is not a reason.

Only two teams had some smarts implemented concerning pressure relations either side of the radiator in the duct. Remember, if this doesn't exist, air will not move.

Anecdotally a surprising number of team captains seem to have difficulty believing that the overall speed and reliability of their vehicles is not in any way directly related to the medium it drives through. I would suggest reconsidering such a legacy.

Casual discussions outside of judging with many students allocated to aerodynamics development haven't read any texts on as much. Two had bought Katz (presumably because it has "racing" and "aerodynamics" in the title) but not actually read it. Get a copy of Hucho, and read, and learn. Stand on the shoulders of giants to take in the view, see the lie of the land, and then make your own original contribution. Scott Wordley read and researched to start a revolution in just one area of applicable Formula SAE aerodynamics some ten years ago now, and it's within your power to be just as original, to learn just as much, and to move the game forwards just as significantly - let legacy of prior work be more about a process than a package.

This is all I can remember for now.

[GTS]

Conclusions

The winner of the competition did not have what I'd consider the best aerodynamic package at competition (though very, very close), though they certainly had the best research and totality of understanding relevant to the problem by a significant margin (being the significant gain from 2013 - it really will be an impressive legacy if heeded). This isn't noted to slight what is a very significant achievement, more to point out that there's more than one way to skin a cat (which is a proverb, and I in no way wish to slight cats... I have two... Still very much living and with fur intact…).

Despite the gloom of the current state of the automotive and racing industries in Australia, we've got some serious potential professional aeros among the crowd. Please don't let the current state of available grad employment dismay you. There are more than a handful of you at this 2014 event that (assuming you like the aero work you were doing) really should pursue a career in it. There's seriously promising (and deservedly earned) talent among you.

As per my usual vested interest to see Australasian (yes New Zealanders, this includes you) engineers continue a strong legacy of being over-represented in high-level fluids/aero work globally beyond university careers, if you want to bounce a few thoughts around after comp, get in touch.

#farewelldownforce?... #welcomeoriginality grounded in first principles, delivered, validated and iteratively further developed. For those that embrace the change - it'll be a best chance to really shine in years - you'll grow a commodity that'll serve you epically beyond these competitions.

Hope to hear from a few of you soon; should a return invite and my availability align, see you all next year.

[Rex Chan]

Great coverage, really enjoyed the live streaming! Z, are you gonna be at the drivers' swap day? I remember a great thread from a couple of years back with excellent commentary from drivers on other teams' cars, any chance to repeat sth like that?

I took videos of our fastest driver (Andrew Gunn-Melbourne uni) giving feedback on Woolongong, Curtin, Sydney.

Will post links to YouTube if the team/Gunny are ok with it 😀😀

[mech5496]

Great Rex, that would be awesome, thanks! It would also be interesting if others chime in. I am quite interested in UQ's car handling and comments....

[Mitchell]

Our car only completed a few laps before a critical suspension part failed. We actually have had a pretty unreliable car this year with many testing days cut short. We only just managed to limp through endurance. This was mostly due to teething issues with nearly a whole car full of new components, the only parts carried over from 2013 are the engine, wheels, steering wheel, shocks and radiator.

General reception of our car was great with many teams having a very close look. The simplicity and weight of the rear beam impressed alot of people and the mode separated suspension recieved alot of positive feedback. Drew from Monash had a few laps and his main notes related to ergonomics, once I have the full report I will post it here or maybe he will.

Our whole team is extremely happy with our results, we beat alot of cars that made very minor changes and finished every event. Two beam axles in the top 5, I will guess that we will see more in coming years. This concept has alot more pace in it and I believe the team will be focusing on an iteration for next year and a major focus on driver training in the 2014 car.