+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: FSAE Australasia 2018

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    Noah,

    "Was the Monash E-car 4wd or was it just a rwd monster with an emrax?"

    The Monash E-car #65 is in many ways the real standout of this competition.

    I say this because its on-paper spec is reminiscent of a bottom-of-the-ladder team's rough-n-ready attempt to enter the E-division, by taking their last year's (overweight) C-car, tossing the C-engine, replacing it with a biggish battery-pack, and then bolting a single Emrax (228?) BEHIND the rear-axle-line, with a chain-drive going forward to a spool. And, indeed, this is pretty much what Monash have done, quite openly, and with the aim of getting their two C and E-cars built as quickly and cheaply as possible.

    The "standout" part is how fast this Monash E-car is on track. It really does show that a car can have outstandingly good performance on track even when it is nowhere near as "optimized" as most students think it must be. Much kudos to Monash for being brave enough to take this seemingly "low-tech" approach. Especially so, when you consider that Monash have a high reputation to uphold, and going "low-tech" could have ended up being very embarrassing for them.
    ~o0o~


    Z
    Really hurts to read because that is what Cal Poly attempted to achieve the past few years but never quite got all the pieces together for race day. At least it's validating in a way that someone else was able to succeed with that strategy.
    Noah
    Student

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    PERTH, Western Australia
    Posts
    208
    I'm surprised it isn't done more often. Start simple, make that good, then make it complicated. Crazy to do it the other way...
    ex-UWA Motorsport

    General team member 2013-15, Vehicle Dynamics Team Lead 2012
    Project Manager 2011, Powertrain minion 2009/10

  3. #23
    Well, we did something similar with our first e-car in 2014. We took what we already had from the combustion era, placed the battery box where the engine was, and a donut-style motor (Yasa) right on the axle, housing the diff in it. The car was 240kg and "geared" (due to direct drive) to a top speed of 172kph, but it was dead reliable and thus faster than all previous combustion vehicles of the team.

  4. #24
    Unfortunately this year I was unable to make it for the first time since 2014, however it was an interesting comp to follow! (Albeit through people in my team, rather than SAE themselves). As you say Z it is dissapointing how the comp was organised and despite the SERIOUSLY cool cars this year, it was hard to follow any know what was happening without talking to my team. The most recent post from SAE is still from Friday.. anywho!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Rochester View Post
    #E43 UTAS, 265kg without aero (but wings went on in pits then came off again). Only driven in the week before comp, (yeah, I drove it a bit. Had enough power.) Stuggled to get through EV inspections. Failed rain test the forst time. Then failed brake test and wasted time. Got to endurance but only made 2 laps as we couldn't charge the battery due to software issues with charger.
    Do you mind me asking how it failed rain test? The thought of an EV failing rain test has always made me uneasy and I am just a little curious. Great to hear you guys have a running EV though, im looking forward to seeing how it goes in years to come.
    Jack
    Student

    University of Auckland - F:SAE:47

    2014: Suspension ~ 2015: Suspension Leader ~ 2016: Chief Engineer ~ 2017: Misc suspension stuff ~ 2018: Misc aero stuff

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by noah View Post
    ...[the very simple Monash E-car] is what Cal Poly attempted to achieve the past few years but never quite got all the pieces together for race day.
    (^ My emphasis.)

    Noah,

    A "mission statement", or "team motto", that I suggest would benefit all teams is,

    "Do LESS, but do it BETTER, and do it SOONER!"

    Rule 1.1 challenges the teams to do five things, namely "...Conceive, Design, Fabricate, Develop, and Compete with small, formula style, vehicles.". So,

    1. Conceive ... the simplest possible vehicle that gets the job done. This requires making very good high-level assumptions, preferably backed up by wide-ranging studies of the prior-art, and realistic lap-sims.

    2, 3. Design and Fabricate ... the small number of essential parts of that vehicle. This requires high levels of "craftsmanship" skills to ensure every part works well, and never fails. Importantly, get this done ASAP, so you can spend as much time as possible on next phase.

    4, 5. Development and Competition practice ... because students' "craftsmanship" skills are rarely at the level needed, (because they are still learning!), so some parts inevitably need "fixing". Even Munchen's car had "fixed" brackets on it.

    MOST IMPORTANTLY - Learning to use CAD/FEA/CFD programs does NOT maketh thou a good craftsman. Only real-world practice, practice, practice..., gets you there.

    Anyway, above is pretty much Monash's recipe, and has been for as long as they have been winning. About a decade now.

    Z

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Here is a link to some photos I found on UNSW's FB page.

    https://www.facebook.com/UNSWRedback...type=3&theater
    ~o0o~

    TOLD YOU SO MOMENT - Looking at these photos reminded me that the top-three cars in BOTH C and E-divisions ALL RAN DASDs! Well, almost. The only exception was #E31 Munchen's rear-Spring-Dampers, which were pushrod-rocker actuated to get them "out of the wind". However, Munchen's fronts, and all corners on all other podium cars, were all "Direct-Acting".

    Clearly, Push/PullRods&Rockers are NOT necessary for success. In fact, the "correlation" would now suggest that if you fit P/PR&Rs, ... then you go to the bottom of the ladder.
    ~o0o~

    Other noteworthy points.
    #14 Curtin - The Belt-n-Cones CVT's front-pulley, and a small part of the rear-pulley, are visible in front of the left-rear-wheel.

    #13 Canterbury - Had overheating problems pre-comp, so hastily bolted a "truck radiator" to side of car. This radiator was attached via some mild-steel angle-iron brackets with mill-scale finish. Such last minute modifications are typical of any project that "pushes-the-envelope".

    #E31 TU Munchen - Even the best have to make such last minute "fixes". Look for the bracket between top-of-main-roll-hoop and rear-wing. Apparently, the original, more "optimised", bracket (CF? Al?) wasn't up to scratch, hence the fabricated-sheet-steel version, complete with speed-holes!

    Ahh, yes, "fab'd-sheet-steel" will fix anything!

    Z

    (Edit: Also #63 UNSW - This once "all-aluminium" car now has steel wishbones, steel driveshafts, and some other steel-stuff, and is rapidly climbing the ladder. Came second here, in C-division.)
    Last edited by Z; Yesterday at 09:19 PM.

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

Posting Permissions

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