+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 105

Thread: Hatin on wings and monocoques

  1. #31
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFR750R:
    I'll second that Charlie, just because X team does Y doesn't mean it's why they're fast. It could even be the case that Y makes them slower but Z more then makes up for it. Or you can't make Y work without invisible Z. (I hope that explaination is not too obtuse)
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What hasn't been mentioned is the enormous difference the driver plays in this. I'm sure that putting the fastest car's driver into the slowest car, will show a Huge improvement. Yes, a car with better parts has the potential for better performance, but it all depends if the pilot can make use of it.

    In other words, there's a ton of performance to be had by using a good driver - far more than what one part can add. If one's not available on the program, see if you can find someone on campus. Of course everyone think's they're a great driver, so they'd have to provide background info to prove it.
    Tube-frame, carbon composite-shell, Honda-powered, mid-engine Mini: www.kimini.com.
    Buy my book: How to design and build a mid-engine sports car - from scratch. http://www.kimini.com/book_info/

  2. #32
    The Oklahoma approach, low budget and simple:

    1. find a dedicated aerospace student and have him design a good aero package
    2. set up mock dynamic events in a parking lot
    3. drive without wings
    4. drive with wings
    5. repeat with second driver
    6. compare times
    7. enjoy faster car
    8. stop speculating on forums
    Matt Brown

  3. #33
    I like that method. However, most aero people here cannot compute when you flip a wing profile upside down so we do it ourselves.
    Jared Anderson
    University of Kansas
    Jayhawk Motorsports FSAE

  4. #34
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Superfast Matt McCoy:

    3. drive without wings
    4. drive with wings
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    thats a bit too simple though. i don't know how you guys run your wings, but unless all your aero mounts unsprung you need:

    3a. redesign suspension

    data or lap times wont be worth much unless you at least consider your wheel, damping, and roll rates. and thats assuming you have a good mechanical balance to start with. and the faster the track the bigger the difference will be.
    John Valerio
    Queen's FSAE
    http://engsoc.queensu.ca/formulacar/

  5. #35
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John Valerio:

    thats a bit too simple though. i don't know how you guys run your wings, but unless all your aero mounts unsprung you need:

    3a. redesign suspension
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No it's not and no you don't. If you want to make the most of your aero you need to do some suspension setup, but we did this test on our 2006 car, which was never designed for aero and we changed nothing but the addition of a front and rear wing. The difference was significant, our wings are well worth it, even with no suspension changes. Stiffer springs and some other minor changes makes aero even better, but i'm not talking about even better. I'm talking about with vs. without.
    Matt Brown

  6. #36
    I am a spaceframe guy, through and through. I respect the teams that design and build monocoque cars, but I would vote against it for my team. Carbon is easy to lay up to a moderate quality level, but the curve up from there is pretty damn steep. Not having access to an autoclave is also a big problem. Having done a couple of carbon nose cones in the past, as well as a fair number of carbon/kevlar remot control boats, Id say that a monocoque would be a HUGE undertaking. For the level of quality that I would want, It would be a very long design process, followed by a lot of test layups, followed by a very intricate final layup to do the actual race monocoque. I greatly prefer the ease of manufacture, as well as the flexibility, of a tube frame design.
    "I couldn't find the sportscar of my dreams, so I built it myself" -Ferdinand Porsche

  7. #37
    fair enough. my point was just that you won't be comparing the fastest each setup can be. i guess we run stiff enough and slow enough that just throwing wings on won't dig you into the ground.
    John Valerio
    Queen's FSAE
    http://engsoc.queensu.ca/formulacar/

  8. #38
    The driver can be huge or almost unimportant. For instance, in FSAE you have top level drivers that get lots of seat time and come from racing backgrounds...against kids that are still wrenching on brand new cars up to the point of the dynamic events. Obviously for a single class of racing the discrepency is huge.

    Nascar on the other hand is the epitome of US motorsports and every driver has already proven themselves otherwise they wouldn't have gotten that far (Micheal Waltrip and Kenny Wallace excluded). In 2005 all 5 roush drivers were in the top 10 in points at the end of the year. In 2006 only 1 was. Right now, every single Hendricks driver has one a race and they've one all but 3 races this year. The equipment makes a bigger difference then the drivers. In 2005 Jeff Gordon missed the chase, this year he's leading the points. Did he change, no, his cars have changed. And this is why Nascar continues to screw with us, and give us stuff like the COT to deal with. They don't like teams being able to one up each other, which makes no sense because once you nueter the teams ability to make changes then all you have is a bidding war for the best driver and everyone else might as well go home.
    'engine and turbo guy'
    Cornell 02-03

  9. #39
    I think the subject is FSAE.

    Besides, you are also talking about oval racing. At least on the 1.5 and bigger oval tracks (Indy excluded), the driver plays a very small role.

    Road courses are a different story.
    -Charlie Ping

    Auburn FSAE Alum 00-04

  10. #40
    When I worked FSAE West last year I saw first hand how important the drivers were. For example, at the skid pad competition, several drivers took too many laps, or didn't switch to the other half of the pad. In the acceleration competition, it was easy to tell who knew how to shift and who didn't. In the autocross, I was one of the cone chasers, and I replaced cones over and over because drivers forgot where their wheels were and turned in too early.

    The best that suspension, tires, and wings can do is perhaps make up some time after these errors occur. Isn't it better to get a driver who's less likely to make the errors in the first place?

    Putting a kid in the car who hasn't slept in 48 hours, who drives a Honda Accord, and putting him into something that weight 1/10 as much with tons of power and grip is a huge component of the overall package. If the driver has no experience, it's pretty clear what's going to happen.

    I realize not every college has a Schumacher willing to drive the car. My point is that it's worth some serious effort to find someone on campus that had at least driven a formula car. You guys are building something similar to an aircraft, and having a pilot who knows how to handle it is a huge part of the package.
    Tube-frame, carbon composite-shell, Honda-powered, mid-engine Mini: www.kimini.com.
    Buy my book: How to design and build a mid-engine sports car - from scratch. http://www.kimini.com/book_info/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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