2015 FSAE-Australasia

[Z]

SEVEN IN A ROW FOR MONASH!
===========================
The results are in (finally!).

This is a quick cut/paste/tidy taken from SAE-A facespace (apologies if any errors).

Place Team#Name......... Des ... Pres ... Cost ... Accl ... SkPd ... AtX ... Endu ... Fuel = Total
================================================== ===============
1 ..... 66 . Monash ......... 150 ... 68.4 ... 76.9 ... 35.2 ... 71.6 ... 100 ... 308.5 ... 84 .. = 894.6
2 ..... 101 Melbourne .... 116 ... 58.6 ... 81.4 ... 52.6 ... 54.2 ... 91.6 ... 325 ..... 68 .. = 847.3
3 ..... 13 . Canterbury .... 132 ... 71.4 ... 58 ...... 31.8 ... 75 ...... 93.9 ... 294.1 .. 65.9 = 822.1
4 ..... 47 . Auckland ....... 125 ... 75 ...... 54.8 ... 48.8 ... 64.8 ... 91.4 ... 186.6 .. 86.5 = 733
5 ..... 41 . UQ (C) .......... 137 ... 67.1 ... 81.6 ... 67.8 ... 55.6 ... 81.3 ... 154.6 .. 64.5 = 709.5
6 ..... 69 . Missouri ....... 113 .... 65.7 ... 83 ...... 47.1 ... 49.2 ... 66.1 ... 222.8 .. 50.3 = 697.2
7 ..... 88 . RMIT (E) ...... 92 ...... 61.5 ... 51.4 .. 25.2 ... 43.3 ... 85.2 ... 226.2 .. 95.8 = 680.7
8 ..... 10 . Wollongong .. 125 .... 64.6 ... 72.4 .. 41.3 ... 58.7 ... 92.7 ... 138.5 .. 71.6 = 665
9 ..... 14 . Curtin ............ 119 .... 65.6 ... 64.4 ........................... 86.8 ... 276.8 .. 48.9 = 661.4
10 ... 22 . Sydney ........... 112 .... 57.2 ... 75.2 .. 28.2 ... 3.5 ..... 76.8 ... 209.6 .. 69.5 = 628.5
11 ... 25 . Waikato ......... 102 .... 49.5 ... 67.6 .. 41.3 ... 43.1 ... 84.5 ... 147.2 .. 47.9 = 583.1
12 ... 3 ... Newcastle ..... 86 ...... 49.2 ... 64 ...... 42.8 ... 6.7 ..... 66 ...... 196.7 .. 48.2 = 559.7
13 ... 7 ... Edith Cowan . 131 ... 61 ...... 83.5 ... 75 ...... 71.8 ... 85.2 ... 7 .................. = 514.5
14 ... 111 Griffith .......... 77 ..... 40 ................... 3.5 ..... 3.5 ..... 62.3 ... 224.2 .. 51.7 = 458.8
15 ... 44 . UTasmania .... 119 ... 67.3 ... 62.5 ... 28.5 ... 24.4 ... 14.8 ... 99 ............... = 415.5
16 ... 63 . UNSW .......... 112 .... 64.4 ... 86.1 ... 42.5 ... 3.5 ..... 45.3 ... 14 .............. = 364.3
17 ... 8 ... Adelaide ........ 108 .... 64.3 ... 63.4 ... 31.3 ... 34.2 ... 52.6 ... 5 ............... = 358.8
18 ... 12 . RMIT (C) ...... 140 .... 66 ...... 79.6 ... 22.2 ... 28.2 ........ 0 ... 4 ............... = 340
19 ... 15 . ADFA ............ 104 .... 42.1 ... 71.4 ... 6 ........ 30 ....... 50.1 ... 13 ............ = 316.5
20 ... 16 . Sth Australia . 92 ...... 52.1 ... 78.1 ............................ 36.6 ... 6 .............. = 264.9
21 ... 21 . Tokyo Denki . 87 ...... 59 ...... 85 ...... 3.5 ..................... 22 ... 1 .............. = 257.5
22 ... 17 . Swinburne ..... 126 ... 57.7 ... 59.5 .................................................. ......... = 243.2
23 ... 28 . Taylor’s U ..... 93 ..... 69.3 ... 45.4 ........................................ 14 ............. = 221.7
24 ... 59 . UTS ............... 92 ..... 56.4 ... 40.5 ........................................ 11 ............. = 199.9
25 ... 9 ... IIT Roorkee ... 81 ..... 52.8 ... 58.9 ........................................ 2 ............... = 194.7
26 ... 42 . UQ (E) .......... 70 ..... 50.2 ... 16.5 .... 12.6 ... 3.5 ........ 43 .. 2 ............... = 194.3
27 ... 34 . James Cook .. 69 ..... 44.1 ... 10 ....... 5 ............................... 14 .............. = 142.1
28 ... 2 ... UWA ............. 62 ..... 0 ... 30.1 .................................................. ............... = 92.1
29 ... 46 . QUT ............. 0 ........ 0 ... 18.5 .................................................. .............. = 18.5
30 ... 29 . UWS ............ 0 .................................................. ...................................... = 0
~~~o0o~~~

From the Z-files - Sunday Enduros.
======================
Some quick comments while these messy little scribbles on bits of paper still make sense to me. Long drive home yesterday, even hotter this time, so some of the following may be overcooked.

* 1st - 66 Monash - Had MANY problems on both Saturday and Sunday. They had an engine problem both days that gave a flat spot in the power between off-throttle and full-power, but no one could diagnose the cause. This glitch maybe never properly fixed (?). In the second Enduro (the faster one for most Teams) they had a rocker-cover oil leak and were black-flagged.

Nevertheless, the juggernaut rolled on and crushed all before it! By almost 50 points! Clearly both a fast car, and a good Team that can smoothly overcome the many glitches that are inevitable in these types of events.

* 2nd - 101 Melbourne - Also had some problems, including OOC and slower lap times apparently caused by (front?) brakes jammed on. Nevertheless, mostly ran very smoothly, no doubt due to lots of testing and some actual suspension movement this year (rock hard last year! ).

* 3rd - 13 Canterbury - Very smooth and driveable, again no doubt due to much testing. But also an exceptionally well-built car, which had no apparent failures. My only note of "...engine coughing at end AX2" was later explained as due to running out of fuel at the end of the day. This Team should be a strong force for a long time to come. Even their cooking at the campsite was done with clockwork precision!

* 4th - 47 Auckland - On the bumpy SP track I had written "Auk - very smooth on dips (better than Monash)". But then in Enduro1 a cone hit their side-mounted intake and snapped it off at the restrictor, so DNF. In E2 a weld on their shifter-linkage broke, causing their first driver to be stuck in first-gear for some (?) laps. Second driver did his stint entirely in second-gear, still setting 1:39.4 sec times, only a few seconds slower than the fastest. A bigger undertray and better reliability (luck?) will see this Team right at the top.

* 5th - 41 UQ(C) - In Enduro1 they failed to restart at driver change because heat-soak warmed the water, so the EMS refused to play because it thought the engine was too hot! In E2 my poorly scribbled notes suggest that either the throttle was stuck open, or the driver was constantly pushing on the brake pedal, but either way the rear-brake-disc ended up looking like a potato-crisp. Good concept car that can challenge for top place if the Team focusses on all the little details.

* 6th - 68 Missouri - Ran reliably and smoothly all weekend, but not especially quickly. I don't have many notes on it, other than a few of its times. However, it does make me wonder how much of a "backwater" the Oz-comp really is?

* 7th - 88 RMIT(E) - It is worth noting the AutoX times and Overall result for this Electric car. Then remind yourself that it is a heavyweight 255 kg, has the small 10" x 6" tyres, only has average power, and has NO aero. These good results are most likely from a simple-spec car that was well set-up (with some carry-over from last year) with no obvious weaknesses.

* Tough-luck award goes to ECU who were a genuine chance for first place. Unfortunately, a loose intake manifold stopped them from setting a good AX time on Saturday. Then in both Enduro sessions on Sunday they had a small oil-leak that got them black-flagged. I understand these leaks came from a difficult to find crack in their oil-tank. Best wishes to ECU in their upcoming overseas comps!

* Over-achievement award has to go to Griffith. This first year, very small, low budget Team seemed to only show-up for Presentation (they scored lowest), and completely abandoned Cost, but nevertheless did really well. My notes say that in the generally slower E1 they set a time of 1:46.6, which made them third fastest Team up to then. But in E2 they lost a front-wheel due to a "... sheared "low-budget RE" on a wishbone...". Will be interesting to see how they progress next year.

* Gripes: Running order in both Enduros was fastest-in-AX-first (ie. so Monash out first, etc.). Also NO Dynamics points updates were given on the Saturday or Sunday. BORING!!! Much of the interest in these comps comes from seeing who is "...in with a chance" on Sunday morning, then having to wait til the very last Enduro run to see what the final results will be.
~~~o0o~~~

Bob (Paasch),

Geoff has always been quite clear that their RMIT '06 car was strongly inspired by TDU's 2002 car. When I first saw that small and neat '02 TDU car, amongst the hordes of typically oversized (in LWH) "four-cylinder + 13"s" cars, I immediately thought "At last! At least one Team understands this problem.".

The only other car at that 2002 Oz-comp that was nearly as small as TDU was Wollongong, albeit with four+13"s. Gong won that year (even though they had NO suspension movement ). TDU were not allowed to compete for points because of some lame tech issues, but were allowed to run in Enduro, and were fast.

I see all of today's single+10"s cars as being in some way derived from that TDU car, via Geoff and RMIT's efforts.
~~~o0o~~~

So, with this year over, what sort of car should Teams do next year?

Hmmm.....???



Which of above would be easiest to build?

Which would be cheapest?

Which would best satisfy the customer, by being most fun?

Z

(PS: In E1 some gremlins visited USyd's hand-grenade and ... pulled the pin (= rod exits block)! Ahh, built with Italian passion, eh... )

[Rex Chan]

An update for Melbourne: Enduro2 - first driver brakes were fine (Max Pearse), but on first lap of 2nd driver (Dave McGahey), brake pressure went up and stayed up, so brakes overheating. Haven't looked at data yet, but will confirm. MUR also runs a PDM, and during AutoX, the water temp limits had to be raised, so engine cutting out at around 120C :O Had issues in skidpad with front brakes as well (high pressure).

So it looks like bigger/better brakes for MUR 2016. And bigger cooling system, though the team plans to go single cylinder in 2016...

[GTS]

GTS,

As you are aware ECU is a small team...

Kev;

Having been part of the "Adelaide year" I appreciate the intent behind moving the event around a little (or moving some funding around a little, or just making it more equitable for non-Victorian teams to get to Victoria. Given the quality of the event I'd think it's fair to suggest that no one in Australia wants to not turn up. It is massively important that students get a chance to shine in front of prospective employers. This said... the V8SC crowd (not least) was out in force seeking to fill places (two judges joining two days prior arrived for just that reason), and I'm working to setup a few calls too. This said, not the same as holding the event in a fertile jobs environment, particularly when your students really are good enough to hold their own overseas. We had two aero students last year that were that good - one is now at a LM team, the other quite sadly is no longer with us - but this year in aero alone we had 6-7 (ECU among these)... with more coming out of the woodwork after Design Event.

Kev, if you were to get involved, I would happily support you in making the Australian competition more equitable to this end. Whilst the years of 50+ graduate jobs in local production are gone, there are still good jobs out there, and we certainly don't lack for world-class students. For the few broken cars out there this year, nothing quite beat the disappointment of meeting a student with the best projects/GPA's/potential/etc going... that wants to work in top-level motorsport, but doesn't think it'll happen for them despite their potential suggesting otherwise.

I can understand and respect ECU's choice. In a perfect world I'd hope you'd find it equitable to compete everywhere. Hopefully ECU moves closer to this ideal sooner not later.

We can muse about gripes offline. I'll call out your 2014 efforts for two reasons - I didn't actually mark ECU's effort, ECU were among the first teams assessed last year and as the outgoing captian she asked to set the grade to couch expectations for the remaining teams. I didn't disagree with her score, and frankly were she here this year she'd not have disagreed with ECU's very much deserved score after a significant improvement. As for irate... that's for interpretation; your presenting student was interpreted as not taking the event seriously (again, not just me) - this year the same student was among the most engaged, and the work very much improved - I'm glad he was engaged, he needed to talk about what appeared to be an effort among the best in the competition. He acquitted himself very capably - he should be proud. We didn't get to chat about his future ideals, though if he wants a career doing aero I hope he chases it down.

Despite ECU's change of course, I'll happily offer my support throughout the year (get my Skype details offline).

As for future judging - irate or otherwise - I'll probably not be among the judges for now; there are (in keeping with threads mentioned in this email) people now able to judge just as well who are also able - critically - to employ students. I can make connections (and have) but I have no jobs or postgraduate opportunities to offer aero project grads, and others do.

Still, if someone wants a hand on an honest effort from time to time, I'm happy to help. Keep in touch.

[Z]

Adam,

Sure [using "kW-hour" to measure energy] is not standard. But earlier you said you drove 10 hours to the comp, and if you know how many kW your car puts out on a highway cruise, then it sure is useful!

But I do NOT know that number. Who does? How do you find it out? (<- Think carefully about this, or read below...)

I DO know the amount of fuel used during cruising, because I easily measure that number every time I fill up. The Energy-consumed for a given journey is then very easy to calculate (with or without factoring in thermal efficiencies).

Alternatively, I might somehow know the Force required to push the car along at cruising speeds (ie. to overcome aero-drag + tyre-rolling-drag +...). Then the "...kW your car puts out" is simply Force x Velocity, with Velocity in m/s. To get Energy-consumed for given journey I must then multiply the F x V by Time-driving. But easier is to just work out Energy-consumed = Force x Distance-of-journey!

I note that when buying gas appliances (heaters, cookers, etc.) the appliance makers often advertise the Power output of their product in units of MegaJoules/hour! Apparently, they say, this makes it easier for you to calculate the cost of running said appliance, because the gas is sold in units of $/MJ.

But I am not really fussed how much it costs to run the gas appliance. I will find that out when I get the bills. What I do want to know is how fast it will heat the room, or cook my food. I want to compare the gas appliance's power output against the alternative electric heaters/cookers, and their power output is given in (standard units of) KiloWatts!

Bottom line: ENGINEERS LOVE TO OVER-COMPLICATE THINGS!!!

(It makes them feel oh-so-clever... )
~~~o0o~~~

To Team-Leaders in 2016,

Further to above shouting, and back to Oz-15, I noticed from many short chats, and some eavesdropping, that there are still a great many students who think that to do well in this competition their car must have HIGH HORSEPOWER!!! Melbourne's good performance (2nd Overall with ~80hp NA-four) might further encourage this sort of thinking. So, too, Monash's and Canterbury's turboed-singles.

Meanwhile, I also saw umpteen cases of broken or sticking throttle-cables, and many other rather trivial problems, that resulted in cars getting a zero score in a particular Dynamic event.

So, with "Concept-Direction-2016" discussions starting soon, I wonder if instead of letting your testicles make those big decisions (hey, I was young once too... ), you remind yourselves that,
"TO FINISH 1st, FIRST YOU MUST FINISH!!!"
(ie. do the little things right, before chasing more power).

You might also look at GFR's website and see what they claim for maximum horsepower. (I take it that GFR do not want to give away too many secrets, but their horsepower figure is in the public domain.)

Z

[GTS]

I wonder if instead of letting your testicles make those big decisions (hey, I was young once too )

(Ha ha ha ha)

Ah, but they are young

[Mbirt]

Further to above shouting, and back to Oz-15, I noticed from many short chats, and some eavesdropping, that there are still a great many students who think that to do well in this competition their car must have HIGH HORSEPOWER!!! Melbourne's good performance (2nd Overall with ~80hp NA-four) might further encourage this sort of thinking. So, too, Monash's and Canterbury's turboed-singles.

Meanwhile, I also saw umpteen cases of broken or sticking throttle-cables, and many other rather trivial problems, that resulted in cars getting a zero score in a particular Dynamic event.

And Auckland's performance without turbos, wings, and redundant cylinders can give some testimony to the value of getting the basics right first. It's a real shame about their endurance luck...

As for RMIT, their engine came from the factory with a lovely bit of banned F1 technology attached to it. Why custom gearboxes year after year?

[tromoly]

As for RMIT, their engine came from the factory with a lovely bit of banned F1 technology attached to it. Why custom gearboxes year after year?

Packaging would be my guess. It's a nice engine (especially when unrestricted), but the secondary pulley and shaft eat up a bunch of room. There's a photo floating around the forum of our first year with the engine, it's nowhere near optimized but gives a visual of the layout.

[Shuff]

It was done so the team could learn how to do it. Worked out pretty well for some of them.

[Kevin Hayward]

Following my previous update post on ECU I thought I would give a little bit of a wrap-up of my impressions of the comp, entitled the good the bad and the ugly.

The Good:
- The amazing step-up of a lot of teams. This has been the best introduction of new ideas into the Australian competition for a long time. Even those teams with conventional overall designs tended to implement them better than previous years. This view has been shared by a number of judges and competitors.
- Watching Woolongong in Autocross/Endurance. Their quicker drivers really put on a show. A slightly less refined car than some of the other quick cars, but lacked nothing in raw foot to the pedal speed.
- Watching the Melbourne car. Probably needs a bit of skidpan setup, but what an amazingly balanced car for the track, looked glued to the ground with drivers just a shade less aggressive than Woolongong
- Watching Canterbury. I would say the class act of the competition. Only 3rd attempt, but an amazing finish in nearly all events. A couple of crucial driver errors in Endurance away from winning that event easily.
- Griffiths. Unbelievable speed from a very basic car from a 1st attempt. Great attitude with smiles all around.
- RMIT-E with probably the first electric car in Australia to run good endurance times. Still not world-competitive, but definitely ruffling feathers.
- Solid finish from Tasmania, who endured having their build torn apart on the forums.
- Comp ran smoothly and organised with a lot of teams getting scrutineered on the Thursday.
- Live feed video footage and timing
- Missouri's amazing consistency in Endurance. Probably the lowest variation of first to last lap pace. Showed the value of experience in driving and competition, although I think they suffered in overall time due to the Australian tracks being quite different to what we see overseas.
- Running endurance fastest to slowest allowed plenty of time for the struggling teams to make sure their cars were ready.

The Bad:
- Once again small number of industry representatives, especially sad due to the quality of the teams this year.
- The cost
- Problems from both Auckland and ECU prevented a close competition finish, letting Monash take their 7th with a fractured performance. A similar performance from them next year and the comp win will likely go to one of the New Zealand teams.
- No posting of dynamic results until the final day.
- No USA chant from the Missouri team.
- Running endurance fastest to slowest was boring to watch.

And now the points that will alienate some people I admire greatly:

The Ugly:
** I have removed comments from this section following a discussion outside this forum - I am unsure as to the best place to air these concerns, but this forum probably isn't it. I believe that the comments I made were factual and relevant, but have removed them as I realise the hurt they have caused.

...

My final verdict:

Despite the issues my own team faced, and apart from the Ugly ultra-competitive side this was one of the best Australian competitions for a long time. The buzz that was felt when it looked like the Autocross was going to be won by one of 3 teams not in the top 3 the previous year was electric. The innovative solutions and vehicle variation was interesting, I wish I had the time to go over a lot of the cars in detail. Finally a number of teams have nearly caught up with the leader. Another year of improved designs and development and we could see a level of competitiveness that has not been seen in Australia ever.

Which just begs the question where is the interest from the larger engineering community?

Kev

[Jonny Rochester]

Thanks for the commentating at the contest Kevin. I wasn't in a position to hear it all (will have to find some videos) but what I heard was entertaining and informed. Almost genuine excitement when a car did a skid, in a Bill Lawry kind of way!