2015 FSAE-Australasia

[Shuff]

well there wasn't exactly a lot of people shopping at Calder park was there.
Plus the jobs being offered sound pretty bloody enjoyable to me. Not everyone wants to do their own business straight away.
That can come in the sequel.

[Z]

Yes, after you learn about business plans, RoI, and the (obvious?) fact that most "answers" are very, very wrong.

In business terms this modern notion that "...there isn't a correct answer..." (or "all answers are equally correct...") can get very painful, very fast. But your new boss will tell you about that.

Z

[Shuff]

There are most definitely wrong answers, I totally agree, but this years answer isn't wrong, it isn't to exactly right either. I look forward to working with my new bosses and continuing to learn and maybe in the future help student engineers get to where they want to be rather than dishing a load of bullshit about how they are wrong and there is only one right way to do anything. Seriously mate your input isn't helpful to any of us trying to learn and share our experiences with each other but if it makes you happy to tell us that we are wrong and making bad investments than be my guest. I've got better things to do with my time, like learning and experimenting with a race car and making myself a better engineer.

[Scott Monash]

Kev, I have sent you an email. Cheers

Scott

[driver08]

The slow speeds experienced last weekend were ridiculous. The university who got their faculty advisor to change it due to safety should be ashamed. The preliminary course that the marshals laid out was completely fine apart from the tire barriers. I agree the tire barriers are stupid, however the final course was not representative of what and FSAE course should be. The final course barely met rules (pretty sure that some were violated however we didn't get a chance to measure because it was changing every 5 seconds which is inherently more dangerous since the drivers didn’t know the course). All overseas courses are much higher speeds and last years course at Calder was faster as well. To the university that complained – it might be time for you rethink your place in the competition, we are building racecars after all.....

[Mitchell]

The slow speeds experienced last weekend were ridiculous. The university who got their faculty advisor to change it due to safety should be ashamed. The preliminary course that the marshals laid out was completely fine apart from the tire barriers. I agree the tire barriers are stupid, however the final course was not representative of what and FSAE course should be. The final course barely met rules (pretty sure that some were violated however we didn't get a chance to measure because it was changing every 5 seconds which is inherently more dangerous since the drivers didn’t know the course). All overseas courses are much higher speeds and last years course at Calder was faster as well. To the university that complained – it might be time for you rethink your place in the competition, we are building racecars after all.....

There were many teams unhappy with the safety of the track. We never asked for it to be slower. You can thank Rob Chadwick for the speed. We asked for the tyres to be removed. It's fun to pretend you're building a racecar but the reality is there were many cars with very little drive time, amateur drivers and no run off on high speed sweepers.

This is not motor sport. It's an engineering demonstration. One serious incident and every uni would seriously consider spending their money on "formula washing machine"

Just to be clear, never had an issue with track concept, speed, layout or Robs work (which would be impossible to please everyone). The only issue was the safety concerns with the tyre barriers which in my opinion were completely unnecessary.

[Z]

"D7.2 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds
D7.2.1 ... Average speeds should be 40 km/hr to 48 km/hr."

"D8.6 Endurance Course Specifications & Speeds
D8.6.1 ... Average speed should be 48 km/hr to 57 km/hr with top speeds of approximately 105 km/hr."
~o0o~

Fastest time in Enduro (from Natsoft) = 1:36.9 = ~97 seconds.

Track distance (from several Teams' DAQs) = ~1,500 metres.

So, fastest Enduro-lap average speed = ~1500/97 = ~15.5 m/s = 55+ kph. (So Chadwick has hit the bull's-eye, average speed Rules-wise. Not sure about top speeds???)

So, ... advice to drivers who want to go faster ......

BUILD FASTER CAR!!!

Z

[Kevin Hayward]

Z,

Again the rules have a little bit of a wording issues. Should the average speed be derived from:

1) from the fastest lap
2) the fastest run from the fastest team
3) the median from the comp
4) the average of all times
5) Some other average

Taking the average speed from the fastest lap is probably not the best measure of "average" in this case, although including struggling teams is likely not the best either. I would think the average speed from the winning endurance run is probably the best measure of the maximum allowable.

That being said the winning Endurance run was performed by Melbourne. The average tap time of their run looks closer to a 1:43 or 1:44 (by observation, feel free to do the calc). This puts an average speed of 52km/h, which is on the low end of the allowable range. Without checking data I would be fairly sure that top speeds would have been down on 105km/h.

A 48km/h average speed would have meant an average lap time of 1:52.3 Quite a few teams didn't achieve that. Should the speed range indicate some sort of range of speeds from the worst to the best cars there? If so the lap times should have varied from 1:52.3 to 1:34.7 from worst to best.

Interestingly we had a good data point in Missouri with a car that finished top 5 in Lincoln. Their lap times were very consistent with an average time of around 1:53. This is an average speed of under 48km/h for the endurance run. So a top 5 Lincoln team was unable to complete the endurance run with an average speed of 48km/h.

By these measures this track is slower than previous years, slower than the prominent international tracks, and probably more technically difficult (i.e. more speed variation). I don't think this is a bad thing in itself. As the cars get quicker the tracks inevitably need to tighten up to meet the intent of the rules.

What is frustrating to some teams is that the track was changed throughout the weekend from one that would have still been in the allowable range, to one that was a lot slower. The process of change was also difficult to follow. While most saw the obvious value in removing the tyre barriers, there were many that didn't have a problem with the rest of the track that was laid out at the beginning. The process got very messy with a few vocal teams causing the volunteers setting out the track a lot of un-needed grief.

If the track is to be altered during the event based on feedback from the teams it should be done with more transparency.

...

On a side note I was asked by Rob Chadwick what I thought of the course (in its original state). My comments were that I thought the tyre barriers were a bad idea, and apart from one straight that I had paced out as being too long it was representative of many tracks I had seen and a good mix of technically difficult sections with decent straights, sweeping curves and hairpins (pretty generous ones). At his request he drove me around the track later to check the straight, where I realised that I had made an error in my pacing, due to not seeing a direction change cone. Tyre barriers out of that original track and it would have been an acceptable track as it was.

I think Rob and his team were harassed for no good reason.

Incidentally we mentioned that one of the members travelling with us is a motorsport liason in our university who is one of 3 CAMS approved track inspectors in WA, with many years of experience running events and approving tracks. We offered to involve him in the discussions with the disputing teams, but the help was refused.

Kev

[driver08]

It was pretty rich to see that members of the team who were abusing the course manager over such pressing safety concerns belonged to the very same team who had to pull a photo off their Facebook showing how proud they were to be wearing thongs in their workshop under a loose engine block.

....

It's perfectly fine for a team to make their concerns known to the organisers, but to complain to the extent that the track was changing as teams were walking it minutes before enduro, meaning that drivers were getting into the car literally not knowing what was ahead of them is surely more concerning than some loose tyres.

[Z]

Kev,

Again the rules have a little bit of a wording issues...

Yes, as always. More effort fixing the wording would stop a lot of other problems before they start.
~o0o~

... we had a good data point in Missouri ... lap times ... around 1:53 ... So a top 5 Lincoln team was unable to complete the endurance run with an average speed of 48km/h.

By these measures this track is slower than previous years, slower than the prominent international tracks, and probably more technically difficult (i.e. more speed variation). I don't think this is a bad thing in itself. As the cars get quicker the tracks inevitably need to tighten up...

I agree (with the emboldened bit). These results are actually high praise for the average Oz-comp cars (well, the ones that actually made it out there and lapped in under low 1:50s).
~o0o~

What is frustrating to some teams is that the track was changed throughout the weekend ... The process of change was also difficult to follow. ... got very messy ...

This I was not aware of. Getting rid of the tyre barriers earlier was fine, but I must have been talking to Teams in the pit area in the next suburb (and also getting nuked by the sun!) when the other changes were happening.

Again, and as always, the simplest solution to all this is...

If the track is to be altered during the event based on feedback from the teams it should be done with more transparency.

I suggest one big step in that direction, assuming Calder is used again, would be to move the pit area to the apparently unused pit buildings right next to the Dynamics area. Then whenever a dispute arises it only takes one call on the PA-system and all Team Leaders can take one step out of their pits, or a few steps away from the Dynamics area, and an "Open and Transparent" discussion can follow. Their was a perfect "focal point" area for these sort of discussions right inbetween the Dynamics area and the unused pits. (Well, perfect after removal of the thistle and other weeds...)

And, incidentally, the nearby paved area where some sort of bike riding school was being conducted (why?), should instead have been covered with "Do Engineering in Oz!" tents, and other such promotional venues that would boost the general vibe of FSAE-Oz as a place for students to springboard from school to the wider world.

There are courses nowadays in Unis for "Event Planning" and such, and IMO this FSAE-Oz could have been done much, much better.

Could've, should've, ... and with the right planning..., would've been bigger than Ben Hur!

Z

(PS. I could nominate my daughter to do such event planning (she was doing that course in uni). But, unfortunately, for last few years she has been away doing her "work experience", partying hard in Banff!)