+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87

Thread: 2015 FSAE Michigan

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    What I find quite intriguing as well is that they weren't that fast in both acc or skidpad, but still manage to get top results in AutoX and Endurance. Anyone know if they had any problems during skidpad and acc?
    Some background: it rained Friday morning, and the track was declared "wet". By 1100 the track was starting to dry out, perhaps to the standards of "damp", but the stewards made the decision to require rain tires for everyone for the entire morning (skidpad & accel) session. Everyone was waiting until the end (1200), as it was clear the track was getting faster by the minute.

    With our overall concept, GFR doesn't expect to be near the top in c-car accel. In skidpad our drivers made some mistakes due to the challenging conditions.
    Last edited by bob.paasch; 05-18-2015 at 02:25 PM.
    Bob Paasch
    Faculty Advisor
    Global Formula Racing team/Oregon State SAE

  2. #32
    GFR? Late submissions? I thought you guys were making no such mistakes... :PIit is a pity losing a comp because of that, but fair is fair! Anyway, congrats to Graz and GFR for the exciting battle! Kev, I think that's the first time in a while that I (even partially) disagree with you. And that is because some really good cars/teams have suffered from problems really almost beyond control; flat tires, dead starters and the e-equivalent of those, stuck AIRs..

  3. #33
    Would Dr. Paasch or anyone be willing to explain GFR's magic clutch?!?

    Flawless launch and doesn't seem to pull the clutch at the end of the lap.
    There's a video from autocross on their facebook page:

    https://www.facebook.com/TeamGFR?fref=nf
    Austin G.
    Tech. Director of APEX Pro LLC
    Auburn University FSAE
    War Eagle Motorsports
    Chief Chassis Engineer 2013
    Vehicle Dynamics 2010-2012

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Goost View Post
    Would Dr. Paasch or anyone be willing to explain GFR's magic clutch?!?
    Hehe...no magic there at all... EDIT: Listened to the end a few more times and he shifted into neutral when he rolled in.

    'Flawless' part of the launch is part driver / part tuning - probably leaning a lot more on the driver than the tuning.
    Last edited by Swiftus; 05-18-2015 at 05:05 PM.
    Jay Swift
    Combustion Powertrain
    Global Formula Racing 2013-2014

  5. #35
    Swiftus,

    Thanks!

    Does he shift out of neutral without manually releasing the clutch?

    Seems like he presses a button on the dash and zippp...
    Austin G.
    Tech. Director of APEX Pro LLC
    Auburn University FSAE
    War Eagle Motorsports
    Chief Chassis Engineer 2013
    Vehicle Dynamics 2010-2012

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Harry,

    Feel free to disagree, but I don't think flat tyres and dead starters are beyond your control as a designer. You choose/design both.

    I would say a puncture is not your fault, but not flat tyres in general. The design of the rim can have a big impact here as well as your manufacturing procedure. Is it a 3 piece wheel, 2, or 1. Three piece wheels can be quite difficult to get to seal well. If the rim is not well sized and the join between the rim halves is not gooped up well.

    However no-one forces teams to run 3 piece wheels, it is designed. I have been involved with cars that the tyres were always going towards flat. A few fixes to design such as welding the rim halves together works a treat for fixing it.

    Dead starters happens to be something that I wish I didn't know about, but we have had a fair few of them. Caused by locked relays, poor wiring connections, and needing to over use them for a poorly starting engine. Maybe the engine choice is a bad one. Again well within the control of the team.

    Cant comment on the AIR, as I don't even know what it stands for.

    There are some teams out there that never seem to be "unlucky", while some seem to collect bad "luck". One of our team members had an interesting theory about studying. His advice was that studying just starts using up your luck, and he wanted to maintain super high levels of luck while sitting the exams. It didn't go well.

    ...

    I tend to think that the good designer doesn't say "We were unlucky that X happened this year, we couldn't do anything about it, I guess that is just racing". Rather they would say something like "X will not happen again" and then gets on with fixing it. Starters and tyres going flat have been happening in FSAE for a long time, any team that has been around for a while (i.e. all the design finalists) should have designs in place to prevent those problems.

    It might seem a little insensitive, or an effort to rub salt into the wounds, but engineers should own their failures to prevent them in the future. Furthermore judging should place much more emphasis on reliability than it does at the moment. Are you aware that out of all of the cars that competed in dynamics there was a higher percentage of teams that finished endurance that didn't make design finals? (31 out of 79)

    Kev

  7. #37
    The design event also does not take into consideration cost - real or team. Those two being the actual cost to make a part per the cost report and what a team pays for it after sponsorship etc...

    Never in my life have I had an engineering project that didn't have a budget. You go over you lose (unless it's a government contract .)

    Thus, a team with a larger budget that can afford intricate machined uprights, hubs, engine plates, always has the advantage over a team that doesn't have those resources available, even if the designers on the "budget" team know their stuff better than the team with the perfect uprights.

    The business logic case was supposed to help address this but appears to have failed (as expected.)

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by bob.paasch View Post
    Some background: it rained Friday morning, and the track was declared "wet". By 1100 the track was starting to dry out, perhaps to the standards of "damp", but the stewards made the decision to require rain tires for everyone for the entire morning (skidpad & accel) session. Everyone was waiting until the end (1200), as it was clear the track was getting faster by the minute.

    With our overall concept, GFR doesn't expect to be near the top in c-car accel. In skidpad our drivers made some mistakes due to the challenging conditions.
    Thanks for clearing that up Bob! I know that you don't expect to be in the top, but didn't hinder you at FSG last summer
    Johan Sahlström

    Lund University 2010-2015

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Alumni View Post
    The design event also does not take into consideration cost - real or team. Those two being the actual cost to make a part per the cost report and what a team pays for it after sponsorship etc...
    .....
    Thus, a team with a larger budget that can afford intricate machined uprights, hubs, engine plates, always has the advantage over a team that doesn't have those resources available, even if the designers on the "budget" team know their stuff better than the team with the perfect uprights.
    ...
    This is partially true.

    A team with a larger budget can afford things that a team with less budget cannot. This, however, can be justified in design.

    From the 2015 rules:
    Quote Originally Posted by 2015 Rules
    S6.1.1 The concept of the design event is to evaluate the engineering effort that went into the design of the car and how the engineering meets the intent of the market both in terms of vehicle performance and overall value.
    S6.1.2 The car that illustrates the best use of engineering to meet the design goals, a cost effective high performance autocross car, and the best understanding of the design by the team members will win the design event.
    The bolded sections are italicized in the manual.

    If you tell the judges that cost is one of your design goals, and justify all of your design decisions to both performance and cost, there should be no penalty in design.


    There is a separate cost event, which should take cost into consideration. I agree that the cost event is poorly done (We are often cited in our report review for not including items such as tachometers and coolant temp gauges, which do not exist on the car and are thus not costed), but don't blame the design event for these faults.
    Andrew Palardy
    Kettering University - Computer Engineering, FSAE, Clean Snowmobile Challenge
    Williams International - Commercial Turbofan Controls and Accessories

    "Sometimes, the elegant implementation is a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." ~ John Carmack

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" ~Arthur C. Clarke

  10. #40
    Given that the design portion of this event should have nothing to do with how well the car will place in dynamic events, I am surprised some of you think that the best represented car will place 1st in all dynamic events...or vice versa....

    Not all teams in US (or in the world) are in warm, wide, middle of nowhere sections of a landmark where many kids play around with go karts all year round.

    I understand this is the way it is and I am in acceptance but you just cannot deny the facts that those teams are in advantage...I've even heard ETS say some teams they know of "hire" drivers...I guess everyone is in it to win it but I was a part of FSAE for many other reasons.
    Last edited by JustNutsandBolts; 05-19-2015 at 08:49 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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