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]

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

[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

[clausen]

I'll call you first thing in the morning

I have been given a deadline to make the decision tommorow.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd like to put down in the forum this evening though,

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Al]

Hi Paul,

If you believe your ideas will provide you with a measurable benefit then go for it. This competition is about learning and Im sure by following a different design path you will learn more than by simply taking the standard route to success.

Our general belief at Monash last year was that we werent capable of going in the same direction as Wollongong and beating them. They are too well oiled of a machine. So we tried different things, and benefited as a result.

My opinion would be to go the innovative way provided you have the resources to make it come to fruition,

Alistair

[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

[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

[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

[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

[clausen]

Thanks guys,

Kevin, I certainly wasn't using the term 'recipe for success' in any negative way. I'm very familiar with what makes their car so good. The thing is that their car looks normal, ours wont.

BR, I am intersted in the system you're talking about. In this case though, we had made the decision to go the unconventional way through proper engineering process. The reason we are reconsidering it purely has to do with the peculiarities of the competition.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide