Try something different or be safe conservative?

[clausen]

Hi there,

We are currently working on the design of our car for the oz competition this year, and have chosen to run with a very unconventional rear suspension. We are certain that it will be at least a match for a good double wishbone setup, and I think we should gain some amount more drive out of it.

However we are starting to get cold feet with the idea as people like Monash have shown, even if the car is fast, if it looks too far out of the ordinary, the judges are likely to be difficult to convince of it's merits, and judge at least partially from their preconceptions. I understand that this is peculiar to the Australian competition where we dont have professional motorsport engineers doing the design judging (after the passing of the late Mr Smith). I know that one guy had ackerman geometry explained to him during last years event.

We are considering scrapping our unusual designs and following Wollongong's recipe for success.

What are people's thoughts?

Of course I would particular like Pat's advice if he's still around.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[clausen]

tgww, The same Honda engine.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[BR]

Paul,

I don't claim to be an expert, but I believe there are procedures that can be followed which will make the decision easier.

I suggest you evaluate both double-wishbone and your new concept against the requirements the system is designed to meet. This will require you to brainstorm all of the requirements (including shallow things such as wow-factor, looks, etc), order them by importance, and see which design scores better.

Maybe you already know about this, but it seems as if you haven't used the process. If you don't know how the process works (I don't know what other unis teach, as ANU takes a different approach to most), just email me. It is a useful system and your answer will be far more reliable than the opinions of random individuals on the internet.

Cheers,

BR

[jack]

sure WWU could of built a steel tube frame car and even might of won...

...but then there wouldnt be the V8 car...

by all means try crazy ideas!

jack @ WWU
http://www.etec.wwu.edu/

[The guru of guru's]

Hey fellas
I dont understand what u mean by unconventional, do you mean innovative beacuse its a design event and points are awarded to innovative designs...i hope. Do you mind if i ask wat type of engine you will be running with this suspension setup?
Cheers

You can have any colour car as long as its black. Henry Ford

[Kevin Hayward]

Paul,

I think it is a bit harsh commenting on "Woolongong's recipe for success". I really think their car is not a bog standard FSAE car. It is quite an achievement of detailled design work and packaging. The differences in each car is noticeable - The suspension between years has had some pretty substantial changes - Eddie might want to comment on this. Having seen their attempt in 2001 made us realise that the Aussies could match the yanks in less time than we thought. Even though I think there is still a bit of a differential (at least in speed). Looking in the design tent at last years US comp on the last day and you would have found 4 quite different cars with distinct differing strong points.

If you have good reasons for switching suspension systems then do it. You will be able to convince the judges if you reasoning is good enough. My most common question of these cars is why does every innovation have to be visible on the car. We are working on very tight schedules and as a result many of our innovations are in the way we design and the way we test or build.

Sure a souble wishbone setup is not revolutionary. However what work are you doing to get the most out of it? What simulations do you write? What sort of damper testing takes place? What sort of optimisation routines do you use?

There is a lot of innovation to be had in that sort of stuff. I think it is this sort of detailled work that makes the difference.

...

Good luck with the new cars. I'm already looking forward to the next Australian comp as it was a great atmosphere last year. Thanks again to your team for helping us out when we came over last year.

Cheers,

Kev

Boring technical guy
UWA Motorsport

[PatClarke]

Hi Paul,
Perhaps you want to talk with your Tech Advisor about this?
PDR

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

[Dick Golembiewski]

My thoughts on this were made public in a little piece I wrote 3-4 years ago on team management. Nothing has changed.

As has been stated here often by Pat and others (as well as in Carroll's little paper on design judging) your job as competitors is to convince those of us who (or in my case, who may, as I don't know if I am yet) judge your entry of the merits of your design.

The best way is very simple - PERFORM! Even if it's after-the-fact in Oz and the UK. (In the US the finals are held after the performance events.)

Carroll Smith and I were discussing this topic one time over some beers at Big Buck's in Detroit. He pointed out something that is really obvious to someone my age, which is that Jim Hall had the opportunity to live in both worlds.

His innovative days ran from the early 60's through 1970. A lot of that innovation came from Chevrolet. (Paul Van Valkenburgh was involved in some of that, and when he was a design judge he specifically liked to look for innovation.) Fiberglass chassis construction, wings, automatic transmissions and ground-effects aerodynamics were just a few of the things that were on Chaparral cars. However he didn't win that much...

In the 1970's, Jim moved into a partnership with Carl Haas, and ran Brian Redman in Lola F5000 cars. There wasn't one whole heck of a lot of innovation in those cars, and the team concentrated on preparation and racecraft. They also dominated the series. When the series morphed into Can-Am II, they did the same the first few years. In 1978, he won the triple crown (Indianapolis, Pocono and Ontario) with Al Unser with a terrible (conceptually) Lola chassis, that was developed. When John Barnard designed the 2K, the concept of using the underbody airflow to produce downforce was no longer innovative, as Lotus had introduced it in the 78 and 79. In fact the car didn't do well in 1979, and it took some development before it completely dominated the series the following year.

One of the first questions I ask student design groups is "What is your overall objective?" If you're trying to innovate you may not perform too well until the concept is fully developed.

This topic has been debated on-and-off since the early days of SAE student vehicle competitions. A lot of faculty members, having been trained as researchers, want to look for new and innovative ways to do things. Some faculty advisors (and even a few judges) having seen the competition for a number of years, are somewhat bored with it, and want a new, innovative challenge. Gross changes appeal to such folks.

I've always thought that given the turnover inherent in student groups, the challenge remains fresh. The better schools maintain some sort of continuity and their designs tend to be incremental. If one looks closely, one can see that there has been a lot of redesign and development. It's not usually apparent superficially, but it's there. Those schools tend to do well - maybe not every year - but more often than not. There is an awful lot of new detail design work and development in those cars.

Practical engineers face the reality of making things work - technically, economically, environmentally, etc. These competitions serve to develop those skills.

The Mini-Baja rules still say: "The object of the competition is to simulate real-world
engineering design projects and their related challenges."

The FSAE rules don't quite put it that way, but it is still there.

Is there innovation in the real-world? Of course there is. However that innovation must still be developed.

It's up to you as to how you approach the project. Learning to accept responsibility for one's decisions is an important intangible one learns here. You get to decide what your overall objective is. You get to set your design specifications and performance targets when developing a plan to meet that objective. (Design reviews were due a few days ago, but insightful readers will note my outline for writing one or presenting one's design to the judges in those words.) You have to be comfortable with those decisions, and accept the consequences.

It's a simple as that! <grin>

- Dick

[PatClarke]

Hi again Paul,
Do you have my mobile number? I will have it with me all day. I'll be in the office all day so its okay to call
PDR

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

Still, an unconventional design must be appreciated by the judges as long as it is backed up by real world data (testing) and lots of it. It would not make any sense for a judge, whether he knows what he's talking about or not, to take points off of a car that has proper performance data to back up the unconventional design.

I think the real problem might be that the more unconventional a design is it seems it takes longer to get it on the track for testing. It is a tough call... again the only real thing that matters is what the stopwatch says. If your car can gain two-tenths with your new design, but may lose three tenths because your drivers are not trained and your car has other gremlins it is not a gain at all! So unless you can gauruntee a time gain with a new design, whilst not creating other time-losing possibilities than go for it. Otherwise, if you only want to win the event, I wouldn't bother with something too different from the tried and true.

-Chris