+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17
Results 161 to 167 of 167

Thread: Horsepower

  1. #161
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bob.paasch:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EHog:
    1st place auto-x at FSAE WEST had ~96HP and the car weighed ~425 with wings.

    2nd place auto-x at FSAE WEST had ~48HP and the car weighed ~413 with wings.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    ... and the 3rd place Autocross at FSAE West had ~45 HP and the car weighed 325 with an undertray.

    The same car without the undertray was 2nd in autocross at FSAE Michigan, 1st at FSUK, 2nd at FSG, and 4th at FSA.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    My question is, how much power do teams have?
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    GFR, not much...

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    How much do you believe this helps times?
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As Steve and Pat are fond of saying, this is a handling competition, not a power competition.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    Also, a fundamental question that I simply do not know the answer to... Why was a restrictor of 19/20mm implemented? Was it a safety precaution or more of an engineering design challenge?
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The restrictor was implemented primarily a safety precaution, but it certainly has worked out to be a nice design challenge.

    My question for you, if you're only getting 48 HP out of that Ape, why bother? The 450 singles are cheaper, simpler, and lighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I wish people at my school would understand that.
    Carlos Vargas
    Florida Tech FSAE

  2. #162
    http://www.twowheelsblog.com/p...re-eicma-show-wvideo

    MV Agusta have confirmed that the F3 engine is 675cc; however they are claiming that it is the most compact and narrow in the supersport class.
    Nathan

    UNSW FSAE 07-09

  3. #163
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    211
    298 points in enduro + 2.9L and 1st in fuel. (results revised - not first in fuel, but still first combined enduro fuel, and first dynamics)

    Not unheard of sure, but also.....

    1st accel, and 1st Autocross, giving the overall dynamics win from Monash's magic machine.

    With a 210 Kg FOUR CYLINDER ENGINE!!!!! OMG!

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> UWA was able to win autocross and endurance/fuel (is it efficiency like at FSG or economy like at FS?). Some simulations tell us that a concept like RMIT or Monash should score more points in dynamics overall. Was UWA exceptionally strong of did their competitors have some bad luck? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is economy like FS but for 125 points like no where else. RMIT didn't show their potential, but there were other good singles there. I guess a few people are going to have to re think their simulations. Turns out 4 cylinders can still be useful after all.

    One happy Power train lead,
    Pete

  4. #164
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Pete,

    A single winged car did put in the quicker lap times though in both Autocross and Endurance. Also about 0.4 seconds faster on the skidpad.

    I think you have not given the whole story

    Kev

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    "With a 210 Kg FOUR CYLINDER ENGINE!!!!! OMG!"

    Man, those things are heavier than I realized. I thought the CBR600 engine was somewhere around the 60kg mark.

    Unless of course, Pete, you resurrected one of those coal-fired jobs from back when you started in FSAE...

    Geoff Pearson

    RMIT FSAE 02-04
    Monash FSAE 05
    RMIT FSAE 06-07

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  6. #166
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    467
    Congrats on the impressive powertrain development, Pete! But how much of great efficiency score can be attributed to your (and your teammate's) driving, I question... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
    The endurance and autocross scores are also helped significantly by the most experienced driver in FSAE. Pete has won more autocrosses than probably any other driver. Even with Pete the UWA car had slower lap times than Monash. It was a lack of hit cones that meant the difference in both of the events.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What if you had put the same amount of effort into developing Monash's powertrain and you had also driven their car? The friction and inertia of 3 extra cylinders cannot be ignored--especially when a single has a ball/roller-bearing bottom end and at least one ball-bearing on each camshaft.

    There was another car this year that won accel, won endurance, and used 2.3L fuel. ETS's thumpitty-thumper at FSAE California. They also snagged 3rd in skidpad without aerodynamic tomfoolery.

    2011 has proven that a naturally aspirated single can win accel and a 4-cylinder can win fuel efficiency.


    CORRECTION: Oregon State/GFR won accel with their single at FSAE West 2010.
    -----------------------------------
    Matt Birt
    Engine Calibration and Performance Engineer, Enovation Controls
    Former Powertrain Lead, Kettering University CSC/FSAE team
    1st place Fuel Efficiency 2013 FSAE, FSAE West, Formula North
    1st place overall 2014 Clean Snowmobile Challenge

  7. #167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    211
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 2011 has proven that a naturally aspirated single can win accel and a 4-cylinder can win fuel efficiency.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    My point exactly! And yet 12 months ago it seemed everyones simulations had proved a 4 cylinder was not competitive.

    @Kev - The results are down, but I think the points delta between skid and accel was about the same.I agree we were lucky Luke caught a cone in Autocross. Enduro was fuel saving, but we had nothing for Monash's fastest lap anyway. I don't want to take anything away from Monash's car, it is VERY fast, but it is not the ONLY answer as some would suggest.

    I don't like the focus on my driving, it's not that relevent and is unfair to all the other drivers that are just as good, and often with far less experience than me. I think it is generally accepted you have to have at least two really good drivers to do well in FSAE, and IMO Monash brought the strongest driver line up, not UWA. They obviously have worked to get their drivers up to a high standard, and it shows in their results. It's just not true to suggest there is a significant skew in the results due to driving standards.

    Pete

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17

Posting Permissions

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