2015 FSAE-Australasia

[Scott Monash]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the kind words guys, we appreciate your comments and analysis.

Its very interesting seeing how people have interpreted this year's car from outside the team.

The one observation that really rang true in there for me was from Z...

"KNOW THYSELF"!

I couldn't agree with him more.

You do need to be very realistic about your limitations, and part of that is accepting that your limitations will change every year.
If we had the same limitations now as we did back in 2005 when we started this push, then we wouldn't have done a very good job would we?
We are a much different team than we were then, yes with more people and more access to resources.
We have worked VERY hard to obtain both of these and then hold onto them long term.
We would encourage other teams to do the same, for those playing the long game that's part of the competition.
I realise Z has his tongue firmly in cheek, but I can reassure everyone that we have a large intake because we work to promote our program and attract the best students and then utilise them to the fullest and then some. Why wouldn't you?

To not take full advantage of those resources to develop the best car we can would be criminal.
Maintaining execution and reliability while still allowing innovation and evolution is the challenge.
We have seen many teams over extend and pay the price in the past.
We know our history and we don't want to be that team, ever.
We are quite conservative, and the work that goes into a car is not always evident from the current car itself.
We are working hard to evolve our concept and respond to changing rules while maintaining a high level of execution and concept utilisation.

Wings have been dramatically reduced this year, removing or reducing a key performance advantage we have had for many years.
We have worked hard to develop the best aero package we could, but understood that we would no longer have significantly more downforce than any of our competitors.

We looked for a new angle, and thought back through the history of FSAE....

Cornering performance is always going to be critical.
If the aero playing field is levelled then this competition becomes one that will be decided (conceptually) by mechanical grip, resources and execution being equal which we know it never is.

The teams that can maximise mechanical grip, particularly on bumpy tracks like Aus and Germany will have a significant advantage going forward.
That's why we have invested 2 years of research and some of our best students to develop our hydro system.
What decided this for us was myself and a few other team members driving the UWA 2011 car a couple of years back.
Like Kev says that suspension system was more beneficial than the significant aero of the time.
It was a revelation.

Kev you have our priorities a little backwards, as you will notice when you see the car and the plumbing diagram for the hydro.
Our priority is low load variation in cornering and over uneven tracks, via high independent roll stiffness but low warp stiffness and single wheel bump.
Platform control is less important with our unsprung front wing, hence pitch and heave is controlled by conventional monospring shocks at the front and rear. I think the UWA system did this hydraulically also, but we simplified it.

Also note that we designed this car to allow both hydro and conventional suspension to be run, and we have tested extensively with both.

We also tested the 10" Avons and found we didn't like their performance (like most teams).
I also visited GFR in the states mid year and checked out their cars, and tried to understand how such a simple concept could be so fast.
They don't even use a diff these days, and from memory didn't get around to making their roll bars for Europe?
Oh well, they still wiped the floor with almost everyone
They may know how to get a simple car like that to perform at that level but we don't as yet, and we have built many such cars.
You play to your strengths so if we need to get a little more complex to compete, so be it.

Light weight is also important.
You take every bit you can get, as soon as you are confident you can get it without compromising reliability or testing time.
Hence the new carbon wheel shells and the new carbon tub that is in development.
We cannot afford high temp tooling carbon for moulds and so have been forced to develop cheaper methods and also make use of a small autoclave. The current chassis is interchangeable with the coming tub to give us the testing and redundancy we insist on.
And with both suspension systems. I don't envy the guys that figured out how to do this.
The wings are all new and much lighter, and much smaller.
With the titanium printed stuff we went and chased that sponsorship and have developed a good partnership with CSIRO.
Its faster, cheaper, stronger and lighter than anything else we could make. Why wouldn't we use it?
I don't have a number at hand but I am pretty sure this is our lightest car ever by some margin (for those who care about such things).
Also our lowest CoG height car ever, due to less wings, low mount turbo, lower nose etc.
What's MUCH more important is that it is our fastest car yet.

Power is also important.
We have gone to the bigger engine this year and completely repackaged the turbo down low, for low CG.
The new engine allowed us to get rid of our external alternator saving a lot of weight (5kg?).
We developed a fuel accumulator to save more power by running the fuel pump less.
We insist on positive charging on our cars for reliability and restart.
Its our most powerful single ever with 51 kW now (improved since video was shot).
Mechanical shift is now gone as we have some confidence with the pneumatics now.

So that's a little bit about the philosophy behind this years car.
I can see why it might be a little confusing at first look, but it is still consistent with our ethos.

As always we are not trying to produce a car that is singularly light, or powerful, or high DF or low CG.

We have produced the fastest car we possibly can within the constraints of time, resources and expertise, just like we have for the last 10 years.

I'm really proud of the job the team have done.

Its going to be a really close and hard fought comp this year, and we cant wait to see everyone at Calder!
And the camp ground!

Scott

[Kevin Hayward]

Scott,

Thanks for the increased insight. From what I can understand your increased focus on mechanical grip should see a few more changes over the next few years that will continually move the car away from what we have traditionally seen from you. It definitely looks like it will be your fastest car so far, I was just curious more about the order of doing things and how the systems have been made to work together. I am very interested to see the detail. As I mentioned I don't think that you guys are heading down the rabbit hole of over-complexity.

The UWA system used mechanical 3rd springs as your system does, no hydraulics for that part. Stiffening these up does allow for reducing pitch/heave and achieving some of what your unsprung aero does for attitude and height control. Not as good as unsprung aero, but I would think most of the way there. I think your implementation is going for the same goals as the UWA hydraulic cars with what looks like similar plumbing. Sizing is different, which is what I am mainly interested in going over. I think back in 2004/5 if we had put a Monash aero package on a UWA car then nothing would have come close for years.

GFR is definitely the benchmark at the moment. It looks like you guys have made a big step over your past car in terms of potential performance, and I am sure you have an end goal of this path and how it will end up being superior to GFR. One thing I have learnt about competing against you guys is that you wont settle for anything less than being the best in the world.

I agree with you that the speed GFR shows implies that they are dealing with the vehicle dynamics much better than everyone else at the moment. I also think we are heading into an era of the most simple car winning, but I guess we will see whether that starts to play out or not.

...

I understand that in the post big-wing era that you guys needed to adapt to stay at the top. In the video your team produced the team member claimed that you have the same downforce this year as last year though. Given the big changes to the rules this year that is a scary thought. The ECU guys managed to get the same as last year, but had to add surfaces, and move a few things around to do it (and we didn't match your numbers last year). Increased mechanical grip and the same downforce from Monash is not something that I want to hear about right now

Look forward to catching up in a few days.

Kev