+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: FSAE Australasia 2018

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,688
    CORRECTION - The Munchen Skid-Pad time I gave in earlier post was only for one of their laps. I guess their other lap was the ~4.90 s, thus giving them an official averaged time of 4.758 seconds. Still quite (TU-) FAST!
    ~~~o0o~~~

    SUNDAY.
    =======
    Day starts cloudy but not raining. However, track is wet from overnight rains.

    Spectator friendliness of track is abyssmal. Spectators at ground level, behind fence, so must stand to see. Only a small section of track is visible from any vantage point.

    For reference, AutoX and Enduro tracks (both same) apparently ~1,150 metres long. Good lap-times (see below) are ~1m 20s, or ~80 seconds, so the "average speed" for the fastest cars is ~52 kph.
    ~o0o~

    AUTOCROSS.
    ===========
    Track still wet in areas, so cars running "wets" or "inters". (To be honest, with nowhere to sit I didn't take any notes and have now forgotten if it was officially declared "wet", or otherwise?)

    Many cars struggling to either start or finish their laps. This entirely due to the teams, and nothing to do with the weather.

    MOST INTERESTING (below are raw times, so not including any cone penalties):
    #E31 Munchen, at mass = 157 kg, fastest at 1:19.17.
    #66 Monash-C, at mass = ?, second fastest at 1:19.30, so barely a tenth-second behind.
    #E65 Monash-E, at mass = 274 kg, third fastest at 1:19.78, so only six-tenths behind, DESPITE BEING +117 kg HEAVIER THAN MUNCHEN!!!
    #13 Canterbury, fourth at 1:23.41.
    #14 Curtin, fifth at 1:23.74.
    Then increasingly large gaps to the rest.
    ~o0o~

    ENDURANCE.
    ===========
    Thunderous rumbling of black clouds on horizon, starting ~12 noon.

    Intermittent rain kicks-in ~1.00 pm, just as first teams go out. Starting order is "fastest in AutoX go first", so this will get interesting! Keep this in mind if puzzled by Natsoft lap-times.

    Several of these top teams do a mid-Enduro tyre change, from slicks to inters or wets.

    Munchen come in for such a tyre change, but some of the aluminium-hubs/motors are TOO HOT, so expand, and the carbon-wheel-shells are stuck! So the slicks go back on, and car goes back out onto wet track.

    Rain stops, sun shines, track dries, just as the mid-field cars start going out. Hence many mid-field-cars lapping faster than top-cars.

    Parked cars start populating the infield. I counted about six by the time it was all over. For example,
    #E88 RMIT-E - VERY fast for many laps, then inverter problem.
    #E42 UQ-E - reasonable times, then driver pushing on both pedals at same time, so software stop, then driver forgot proper restart procedure!
    #12 RMIT-C - steering-geometry is set-up better than yesterday, but still too much adverse castor-camber coupling, but this irrelevant because on fourth lap a front upright/axle failure.
    And others...
    ~o0o~

    Having spent all day standing up, which was necessary to see at least some of the racing, I didn't bother standing around waiting for the presentations. These always far too drawn-out and boring. But I'm guessing that overall results for top places, as well as further down the ladder, were likely influenced by Zeus&Co. Will find out when final results appear on the various FB pages.

    So right now is pizza time. Or maybe chinese?

    Driver-swap day tomorrow.

    Z
    Last edited by Z; 12-09-2018 at 05:42 PM. Reason: Un-mangle words.

  2. #12
    Thanks for sharing so much information. The car overviews were especially nice as like you said there was no brochure released so there is really no way to know what kind of cars different teams were running. Was the Monash E car 4wd or was it just a rwd monster with an emrax? Any other teams car stand out as interesting layout or well performing? Also do you think had it been drier the TUFast car would've pulled a larger gap on the 2 Monash cars or was outright pace compareable?
    Noah
    Student

  3. #13
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msk_9luD8h8&t=320s

    I attended the event as a spectator for the first time and put togethor a bit of a highlights package from each day - day 4 with auto-x and enduro attached above.

    First time really filming and editting video - so they are pretty basic, but I hope they give a good brief overview of each day.
    Curtin Motorsport Team
    2011 - 2014

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,688
    Noah,

    I would have liked to do a much better coverage of all the teams and cars, similar to the "Planet-Z" reporting I did back in 2013/14/15. Sorry, but SAE-A made that all but impossible this year.

    It was much easier when I could use the A4-sized magazine-style programs with a half-page entry on each car as a starting point. That stopped in 2016 when the program shrunk to under A5-size (in '16 and '17 I was DJ'ing so had access to all the Design Reports). And it was much, much easier when I could sit somewhere (on a chair I brought myself), watch the events, listen to some clear commentary giving times, etc, and then write down notes on the interesting highlights. But none of that possible this year.
    ~o0o~

    FAKE NEWS!
    ========
    I should point out that much of what I write here, as in previous years, should be read with a degree of scepticism. I try to confirm the various "bits-of-information" from several different sources, but not always possible. And even when info is confirmed multiple times, the supposed "fact" AIN'T NECESSARILY TRUE. Nothing new here. It has always been thus.

    For example, ADFA had a quite beautifully welded exhaust pipe which looked to me to be Stainless Steel. I recall the welder saying "...it is 1 mm thick SS". Their FB says Titanium?

    Regarding the comments below, I may change my mind on some of them when I eventually get to see the official results. I know the results have been released, but other than some snippets I found on some team's FBs, I haven't yet been able to find the full "Final Results". Certainly not on SAE-A's website, nor on their FB, at least not anywhere I looked. Groaaannn!
    ~o0o~

    "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~

    "Any other team's car stand out as interesting layout or well performing?"

    I recall quite a few years ago the Japanese Sophia cars being exceptionally well finished, almost like mini-F1 cars. However, back then they never seemed to perform too well on track, often not even making it out there. Of course, I thought, the DNSs might be the result of having to ship a car across the world, and other such difficulties.

    This year #11 Sophia had their "mission statement" printed boldly across their rear-wing: "MAKE SOPHIA GREAT AGAIN!".

    BUT! (1) The quality of finish of their bodywork was, to put it bluntly, quite "papier-mache"-ish. Err, perhaps done by the local kindergarten class. And there were many rusty steel brackets, obviously last minute additions to hold things together. And a rusty steel front-wishbone that had obviously broken and then been "mended" by welding some steel splices either side of the break.

    BUT! (2) The car was FAST! Not quite TU-fast, but it posted one of the fastest single Skid-Pad times (see Natsoft), and it had fastest single lap in Enduro. This Enduro time largely due to it running later in the day when the conditions were better, but still impressive.

    So I guess the car's outwards appearance was due to the team focussing on TESTING, TESTING, TESTING (and more testing...), rather than wasting time polishing a show-pony.

    For reference, it was the lightest car at comp, at 155 kg (<- subject to confirmation, but I doubt the organisers will release the official weight data), has the standard-ish single Yamaha 450, full-ish aero package, and the new 6" x 16" Hoosiers (LCOs, IIRC).

    WELL DONE SOPHIA!
    ~o0o~

    "Also do you think had it been drier the TUFast car would've pulled a larger gap on the 2 Monash cars or was outright pace compareable?"

    At Monday's driver swap day (yesterday) I heard that one of Monash's gun drivers posted a ~1:15 lap-time in the TU-Fast car. This was a stop-watched time, so not available on Natsoft. So compared with the Munchener's fastest AutoX time of ~1:19, that amounts to a 5% improvement. Apparently Munchen's best drivers couldn't make it down-under.

    So, it seems that TU-Fast could well be TU-Faster!
    ~o0o~

    TU-INTERESTING (1) - From a brief discussion with some Muncheners on Monday, their battery/accumulator is ~45 kg, the inverter/controller (for all 4 motors) is ~3 kg, and each of the four hub-mounted motor/gearboxes is ~5 kg. So all up ~68 kg. I forgot to ask about the mass of the wiring and cooling circuits, and the small cooling radiator and fans. But say about 70+ kg for their total "propulsion system".

    Now think about tossing all that E-junk and replacing it with a Jawa 500 cc aircooled single, which weighs ~28 kg and is good for 70+ hp, and a simple, single-speed, drivetrain similar to ECU's. Or any of many other possible drivetrain layouts (think poly-V-belts...), but with similar minimalism to ECU.

    Methinks a sub-130kg, 70+ hp, C-car, with world's-best-aero, is quite feasible!
    ~o0o~

    TU-INTERESTING (2) - Given that, due to differential thermal expansion, their CF-wheels got stuck on their hot aluminium-hub-gearboxes during Enduro, I asked the Muncheners if they had considered a "Hirth" joint, or were even aware of such. Nope, none of them had heard of it. This despite Herr Helmuth Hirth being one of their very own!

    SHAME, YOUNG MUNCHENERS, SHAME.

    Just in case some Muncheners are reading this, here is an old thread covering such old (German?) joints.

    My first post on the thread (also covers other stuff).
    http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthrea...ll=1#post41147

    Post covering important design features of such joints.
    http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthrea...ll=1#post33518

    Post with sketches of different joints.
    http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthrea...ll=1#post26286

    The "three-tooth face-spline" would be the most suitable type for a joint between Munchen's wheel-hub and CF-wheel. I nowadays refer to such a joint as a "Three-Dog-Drive", or a "Cerberus-Coupling".

    Z
    Last edited by Z; 12-11-2018 at 12:49 AM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,688
    FAKE NEWS - From various sources it seems that a certain Herr Hellmuth (two ells, not one) Hirth was active in German engineering around the early 1900s, built aircraft engines, and founded Mahle. But Wikipedia has the "Hirth Joint" being invented by one Albert Hirth. Now the above Hellmuth had a father named Albert, and he happened to be a machinist/toolmaker. But elsewhere I found that the "Hirth Joint" was patented in 1928 by a Carl Albert Hirth.

    Nevermind, "face-splines" are a cracking good way of bolting things together. They were used on many aero and racing engines from the 1930s onwards, are nowadays used to hold together the rotating assembly of jet engines, and are also used in many more mundane areas. And as mentioned in above links, the "3-dog-drive" variation is easily made with a hacksaw or angle-grinder (or, gee-whiz, even a 3-D printer!), and it works exceptionally well.
    ~o0o~

    TU-EVEN-FASTER - When the rain started coming down during Enduro, Monash quickly changed to their wets. Interestingly, they ran 10" slicks, but 13" wets, which I think are Goodyears (not sure what code?). As noted before, the poor Munchkins were stuck with their slicks for the whole very wet Enduro, because their wheels were stuck on the hubs. Keep this "wets vs slicks" in mind when comparing Natsoft lap times.
    ~o0o~

    IN THE LAP OF THE GODS - Possibly worst affected by the rain during Enduro were the teams just below the level of Munchen and Monash, but above all the rest. If Curtin, ECU, or Canterbury had slower AutoX times, then they may well have finished higher up the ladder in Overall results. Ahh, yes, Zeus&Co can do that to you.
    ~o0o~

    BTW (1). Curtin did an excellent job of switching from their usual 4-cylinder engine to a Yamaha Genesis + belt-and-cones CVT. This is the most successful implementation of rubber-band-CVT I have seen in the whole FS/FSAE world. I know other teams have done it before, but this Curtin implementation was very neat, to the point that it looked just like any other well-built FS car. So NO HANDICAP from running the fairly bulky belt-and-cones.
    ~o0o~

    BTW (2). Yet again Canterbury came with an entirely new C-car with entirely new engine. In the past they have run fours and singles, so this time it was a Triumph Daytona 675 cc triple. The gist of this policy is to make each batch of students engage in a full engineering cycle, rather than just polishing earlier generation's work. The car ran well all weekend (that I saw), and if not for Zeus&Co they would have finished higher Overall. Although a DQ in Fuel???
    ~o0o~

    OFFICIAL RESULTS - Are finally on SAE-A website. Many, many DNAs and DNFs.

    Sadly, and as always, Oz-teams' "progress" is very Escher-ian.

    Z

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,688
    BTW (3) - Had a closer look at TU's aero on Monday, with the car up on stands so I could see underneath. They have world-leading aero-downforce (of CzA = ~6.7 m^2), but...
    ... MUCH MORE IS POSSIBLE (IMHO).

    And with even LESS drag.

    Z

  7. #17
    #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.

    Due to having 2 motors mechanically independent, we have effectively made an open diff. The inside wheel spins at any speed with throttle input. Chassis setup and warm tyres could improve this, but it causes team discussion about how to stabalise this, most saying "torque vectoring" wanting to use the steering sensor input. But more experienced drivers (and myself) would prefer a mechanical solution unless they can keep both wheels the same speed under high load.
    Last edited by Jonny Rochester; 12-12-2018 at 10:13 PM.
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

  8. #18
    Thanks for the updates gents.
    Z - thanks for the specifics - And yes you know we're on the same page with what we'd like to build.

  9. #19
    Nice to see some activity on the forums again! Huge thanks to Z for all the very informative posts for yet another year. Johnny (or others), any driver swap day impressions you wanna share maybe?

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Buffalo, NY USA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Rochester View Post
    ..."torque vectoring" wanting to use the steering sensor input.
    First question -- what will their algorithm will do when the car gets loose (limit oversteer) and the driver is on opposite steering lock to catch it...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 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