+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: 2016 Formula SAE Michigan

  1. #21
    Based on what it takes to build a car that's actually about $10k, I am very skeptical of Stuttgart's cost.

    Tennessee Tech's car cost, I'm much less skeptical about. $5500, was it? That car was built for one reason, win cost. It had a carburated V twin Briggs and Straton, centrifugal clutch, 600 sprint car rear axle, wheel and drive assembly. It had no muffler, aluminum/ steel everything, American Racer tires, and still weighed about 600lbs.
    It also had aluminum front and rear aero. However, I've never seen a car that wanted to tip over at such low lateral accelerations.
    Last edited by MCoach; 05-17-2016 at 09:21 PM.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  2. #22
    I heard the TTU car had an onboard pull start! Cool! Any vids?

    If TTU didn't skew the cost score so much, Stuttgart's score would have been worth about 15 points, instead of 8 (still not enough to change the outcome of this event)

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,633
    Firstly, many thanks to Moy for his pics!
    ~o0o~

    Regarding Cost Event, this remains only second to Design in its unfathomableness.

    From my quick look at car specs;
    * Cheapest car, Tennessee Tech, had a Vee-twin (admittedly B&S), spaceframe, some "black&round" 13" tires, WITH aero, for ~$5.5K.
    * Most expensive car, US Air Force, had a 450cc-single, spaceframe, 10" Hoosiers, with NO aero (USAF???), for almost ~$32K.
    Huh?????
    ~o0o~

    A handy reference for car specs (but missing #3 Graz TechU?) is here;

    http://www.fsaeonline.com/content/20...vent_Guide.pdf

    Rather amusing/disappointing in these "engineering specifications" is the mixture of every conceivable dimensioning system. Yep, you name it, inches, millimetres, cubits?, kilograms, pounds, ... are all in there.

    It reminds me of the Mars Climate Orbiter of 1998. Google this mission and you find phrases like,

    "... project cost of around 1/3 billion dollars (~$1,000,000/kg of the spacecraft itself)...
    ... NASA using metric units in its system software...
    ...the MCO manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, using "pounds-force" in its software...
    ...intended orbital elevation of 226 km above Martian surface...
    ...minimum survivable elevation of ~80 km before atmospheric friction causes burn-up...
    ...time of "orbital insertion" rocket burn ... miscalculated...
    ...actual final elevation after rocket burn ... 57 km..."


    Guess the result!

    And the really funny bit,
    "...several days before orbital insertion some ground staff noticed the discrepancies between calculated and measured positions and advised a course correction, but...
    ... these suggestions were dismissed..."


    Will they ever learn?

    Well, you only have to go as far as the second entry in above Event Guide to find,
    "Univ of Florida
    ...
    Wheelbase: 2950 mm (61 in)."
    !!!

    Z

  4. #24
    Maybe it is time for publicly available cost reports as well?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    492
    If you want to score well in cost, you need to understand how the cost event works, you don't need to build an actually cheap car ;-) The difficult task is to have all parts with all materials and all processes listed as it is much harder for the cost judges to check if your numbers are correct than to find parts which are just missing. Therefore the cost event never really worked to reward teams who build simple and therefore cheap to manufacture cars.

    Regarding GFRs weight. The just have less parts than most other cars in the field. Direct acting dampers, no ARBs, small engine without fancy stuff like adjustable runner length, no shitload of electronic gadgets. For me it's no surprise, there car is that lightweight. The bigger surprise is why their car is not much cheaper in cost than Stuttgart's ;-)
    Rennteam Uni Stuttgart
    2008: Seat and Bodywork
    2009: Team captain

    GreenTeam Uni Stuttgart
    2010: Seat and Bodywork / Lamination whore

    Formula Student Austria
    2012: Operative Team

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Bemo View Post
    If you want to score well in cost, you need to understand how the cost event works, you don't need to build an actually cheap car ;-) The difficult task is to have all parts with all materials and all processes listed as it is much harder for the cost judges to check if your numbers are correct than to find parts which are just missing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bemo View Post
    ...it is much harder for the cost judges to check if your numbers are correct than to find parts which are just missing.
    Having all the parts listed correctly, but with deflated costs for everything are not supposed to be how this event works. Let's not make it a race to the bottom.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by MCoach View Post
    Having all the parts listed correctly, but with deflated costs for everything are not supposed to be how this event works. Let's not make it a race to the bottom.
    Too late, that race has been happening for awhile now.
    Trent Strunk
    University of Kansas
    Jayhawk Motorsports
    2010-2014

    Now in NASCAR land. Boogity.
    Opinions Are My Own

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by theTTshark View Post
    Too late, that race has been happening for awhile now.
    I'm well aware, but I can still stand my ground and insist this is not racing where "whatever it takes" is encouraged to get ahead.
    This is supposed to be an educational event to teach good practices and students to learn what it takes to efficiently balance their cost/performance envelope.
    In the real world, it is obvious that this type of creative accounting has been well rewarded, but leads to situations that companies land themselves into like Enron and Volkswagen.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  9. #29

    GFR Performance

    Hi All,

    I'm sure that others have noted as well that GFR's overall 4th place is a pretty dramatic break with tradition for them.
    Ever since they started in 2010, they have (amazingly) won every endurance they managed to finish.
    (Equally impressive, they've won every single overall event whenever they finished the endurance)

    So for them to finish 7th in the endurance, almost 5 seconds a lap slower than TU Graz is a whole new experience.
    Any insights as to what happened here? GFR's previous car was on average 4,5 seconds a lap FASTER when racing the same TU Graz car in Germany last year.
    New drivers? The average lap times of the two drivers were very different, despite being quite similar at previous events.
    Or was something wrong with the car/simply not enough test kms?

    cheers,

    Thijs
    Alumnus
    Formula Student Team Delft

    2007 - 2008: Powertrain, Suspension
    2009: Technical Lead
    2010 - present: Grumpy Old Fart/Concerned Citizen

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Bemo View Post
    If you want to score well in cost, you need to understand how the cost event works, you don't need to build an actually cheap car ;-)
    This needs to change, along with efficiency scoring.
    UQ Racing

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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