Course Design Feedback & Discussion - FSAE Lincoln

[EPMPaul]

For the exiting the track speed difference issue, is it possible to just make an extra lane.. offsets timing and driver change by 6-8 ft to the left.... So long as no one goes into that lane while on the course, could avoid the issue... not sure it wouldn't create more problems than it solves but it could be an option

[raitinger]

At first I was thinking that it looked reminiscent of Sebring....but something just didn't sit right. It Sebring is flat, but bumpy like Lincoln, but I felt like it didn't convey it properly. Then I realized I knew I had seen this layout before!

Behold!

http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/Pho...-track-map.jpg

MCoach,

You've figured us out. Copying an MX track layout is just the first step in my dream of creating SAE Formula Baja.(aka Baja chassis and suspension, with Formula engines) Next comes the whoops.....for suspension testing of course. If SAE Baja won't loosen up the rules for cooler engines, then we can start to make FSAE tracks that slowly evolve Formula cars into Baja.

[raitinger]

[/QUOTE]

Raitinger,

Still no hairpin bends???

(As specified in the Rules, these would require a car to do a 180 deg turn in about the width of one of your paving blocks, namely less than 9 metre outer-wheel-path diameter.)

I know all the teams complain when a proper hairpin is put in the course ("Awww, it's just toooo haaaaard..."), but as I pointed out earlier my 30 ton loader used to manage them just fine. Also some of the better designed, full-size production cars of olden days.

Good places to put such a hairpin would be at the bottom left or right of either of your tracks.

If you don't want to do such "Rules spec" hairpins, then maybe you can put the tighter corners in a place where wider entry and exit lines take the car's outer-wheels over some big cracks/steps in the pavement. Cars that can corner sharper thus avoid these steps.

Or maybe do a genuine "hairpin" section of track. Here the outsides of the two lanes are 9 metres apart, with a row of cones down the centreline. Past the last centreline cone the "outside" of the track widens out to maybe 20 metres. This way a "well designed" car simply takes the U-turn in the 9 metre wide section, while the "poorly designed" cars have to drive a bit further to get to the wider section, where they can then take the U-turn without knocking over cones.

Again, the goal of this is to get better educated engineers who can design production cars with good (= tight) turning circles.

Z

Z,

I'm not sure what your definition of a hairpin is, but I'd say there is a hairpin on the lower right of Autocross. The radius obviously isn't as small as you would prefer, but I think it qualifies. Also, the rules specify a minimum OD for hairpins, certainly not a "rules spec" turn. From Michael Royce's history lesson earlier, it sounds like the hairpin rule may have been implemented to accommodate the limitation of a few sites. Now people seem to think that since it's in the rules, it should be used as a performance gauge. I agree that very small diameter turns do have a place on FSAE courses and should be used, but to take it down to a 180deg 9m OD is getting a little sadistic. It's not that it's too hard, but it is damn annoying for competitors. Especially when you hear of people employing little driving tricks to navigate the 180, the time difference between good and bad drivers is already huge. Why make it worse when you can still accomplish 90% of your dynamic performance evaluation with a slightly less sadistic corner?

To qualify, I guess I think of hairpins being at the end of a "high speed" straight. If you look at what we have set up for AutoX, the straight prior to the hairpin is the max rules legal length. We estimate, cars will be peaking out at around 60mph before they begin braking into a 180 about the size of skid pad, so down to about 20-25mph. The sadistic part about a 9m OD hairpin is that the driver only has to misjudge braking a little bit to be in big trouble for the whole section. With our amateur drivers and experimental at best cars, it can begin to be more trouble than it's worth.

Admittedly, this is one of the corners that I plan to look at closely after we get the course set up to see how it drives. Ideally this would end up being a "first gear" corner, even though I know FSAE gearing is all over the place.

It's not quite a 30 ton, but now everyone can have a visual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp5y00LxZcY

[raitinger]

Canuck Racing,

I have seen at least one 180 degree sharp short radius hairpin (in Italy) and I did not see any problem except that several drivers did not have the car or the driving skills or both to negotiate it. I think one 180 degrees minimum legal radius should be part of the competition. Or better 2 or 3 in a row: Left - Right or Left - Right - Left. The speed is minimum; risk of crash is minimum too. It is possible to make is difficult and safe. It looks like a parking lot exercise; yes so what; this is not racing. it is FSAE / FS! There will also be other faster corners, larger radius on the track.

In a general; way, I still find this kind of track too easy on drivers (sils and fatigue) and on cars. Too many low speed and high speed slaloms. I do like the tightening radius of the Autocross, I wish there was at least one in the Endurance. And of course a few tight hairpins, ideally one after the other. But to be honest I never designed such tracks so I am not the best one to offer good alternatives. In any case it will be fun.

Claude,

As I mentioned to Z, when we were discussing the idea of a straight-hairpin-straight, I was envisioning a high speed straight into a very small radius. In this instance I think the 9m OD is a bit harsh. When you mention kind of an "overall" low speed hairpins or series of hairpins, that doesn't seem that bad. To be honest though all I can picture is the parking lot exercise. This is the direction we were moving to at the bottom left of endurance. We had also thought about a second left hand hairpin following the right-hander after the straight at the bottom right of AutoX.

In terms of decreasing radius corners for endurance, the turn around before the straight/passing zone about half way up the left side will be set-up so that it drives as a decreasing radius. The radius following the big sweeper at the top left will also be set up to have the affects of a decreasing radius.

Claude, I think I might be a little scared of and intrigued by the course you would come up with if left to your own devices. Oh wait, I think I've found it......The test track from Forza Motorsport 2, sorry for the blurry blow up, I could only find one image. This is the new inspiration!

[raitinger]

For the exiting the track speed difference issue, is it possible to just make an extra lane.. offsets timing and driver change by 6-8 ft to the left.... So long as no one goes into that lane while on the course, could avoid the issue... not sure it wouldn't create more problems than it solves but it could be an option

Paul,

That enter/exit area of the course is already very wide, and the extra exit lane was exactly what I was thinking about to help with the speed difference issue. I was thinking we would just extend a cone line up and split the driving lane, so once a car had entered that lane the car still on track could accelerate past.

[Claude Rouelle]

Rationger.

"I think the 9m OD is a bit harsh."

Why?

[Claude Rouelle]

Raitinger,

"..This is the direction we were moving to at the bottom left of endurance."

Pale tentative. 33 ft is not tight enough

I wish there could be 3 or even hairpins really 180 degrees in a row. It is low speed for sure but I guarantee you that it is spectacular. You will see the cones flying. You will see the good drivers and the good cars and the bad car driver wishing for a handbrake!

[JulianH]

Claude,

the problem with "3 hairpins in a row" is mostly that the drivers are not able to position their car after the first or the second corner to be completely on the outside to use the 9m OD.
In Italy 2013 they had to rebuild the track to make it possible to drive through for most of the cars.

I'm with you that there should be such corners but it is quite a risk to build them in such a way that it forces Off-tracks.
In Italy we had several Black Flags and therefore retirements from Endurance because the cars couldn't do 3 hairpins in a row.

I think teams should "suffer" if they design a car unable to be fast through such hairpins (e.g. lose lap time) but it should not be in a way that multiple teams fail to complete Endurance because of it. Maybe I'm a bit too "soft" here.

I like the idea of straight-hairpin-straight to see performance under braking, tight cornering and acceleration (at best downhill braking and uphill acceleration) but it is difficult to make this arrangement safe so that a brake failure at 100kph does not end catastrophic.

[Claude Rouelle]

Julian H

"....the problem with "3 hairpins in a row" is mostly that the drivers are not able to position their car after the first or the second corner to be completely on the outside to use the 9m OD."

That is their problem! Come on, you are no complaining that your car cannot take 3 consecutive sharp hairpins?

"...but it is quite a risk to build them in such a way that it forces Off-tracks."

Again that is the team problem. And of track at such low speed represent minimal risk

"In Italy we had several Black Flags and therefore retirements from Endurance because the cars couldn't do 3 hairpins in a row"

Again that is the team problem. The teams (car + driver) adapt to the track, not the other way around.

That being said, and to be clear I also want to see some fast corners, (bumpy ideally) but taking 3 consecutives hairpins should be a minimum requirement.

2 years ago Lola came to the ALMS Long Beach Grand Prix with 2 LMP2 cars which were not able to negotiate the last hairpin for a lack of steering angle. See... it happens to the professionals.... I hope FSAE/FS teams can spare themselves a similar embarrassment.

[Rex]

I'm confused about the goals here with all this course design stuff. Is the goal to make a course layout (by including 3 consecutive "hairpin" turns linked closely enough) that some current cars are unable to negotiate, thus creating a new engineering challenge requiring new design goals? If so, how about a rules change so everyone is clear that such a corner sequence will/could be included? I'll admit that the idea of 3 180 hairpins linked closely enough that a car might not be able to get back to the outside edge of the track before the next one is NOT what I would interpret from reading the rules as-written. I think most people think of a hairpin as including at least short straightaway (or mild curve) sections before/after, and most folks would assume a 9m turning circle would be sufficient for any obstacle the course may include, no? Adding additional "tests" of a car's ability through challenging course design seems fair, but if those tests are outside of what you'd normally see at an autocross (in terms of the types of obstacles encountered) or what the average autox guy would interpret from reading the rules, then addressing them in the rules in advance seems only fair as well.

Or is the goal to see which drivers are good enough to slide/yaw a car around such a sequence to overcome turning circle limits, thus creating more gap between teams that recruit excellent drivers vs. teams that let the most dedicated engineers/fabricators drive? This probably wouldn't be the intent, but it sure could be a nasty unintended consequence of making ever-more-demanding dynamic event courses. For the autocrosses I've been to, the trend seems to be: the more technical/demanding the course, the more the driver matters and the less the car matters. Perhaps my experiences are unusual in this regard?