Formula Australasia 2006 Competition:- Updates, Pictures, Stories, and More

[Big Bird]

Greetings all,

Firstly, a quick one on track speeds. The Werribee track has always been a bit dodgy on the safety aspect, and given the lack of run-off no-one wants to be spearing into the rocks & grass at 60mph. Last year we had two teams crash into barriers which would have put the fear of god into the organizers, so I think it was no surprise at all to find the track tightened up this year to reduce overall speeds. If we want a faster track then we are going to have to find a US-style big open carpark - and that sort of stuff just ain't around in Oz.

Secondly, I doubt a very successful argument could be made that the tracks need to be made faster because it would suit some cars better. Seems a bit of a butt-about argument to me. I would venture that the point is to take note of the types of tracks we are driving on and then design to suit - rather than to design our ideal racecar and then wish the track suited it better. I know my opinion on this matter will be considered to be biased, but I will state that our design philosophy has always been to start with a track map and design the simplest car to suit.

As for the earlier complaints about the cost report, I'll preface my comments by saying that I was not part of the RMIT competing team this year, so I don't know specifics of the current cost report. But I can offer some insight given that I prepped the report for the US this year, and I expect the new one was similar.

Firstly, the cost report is not only about the cost of the car. The rules clearly state this. 30 points is allocated to cost, the remaining 70 points relate to report collation, presentation, knowledge of manufacturing procedures, etc. RMIT scored 21 / 30 for the cost aspect, which on mental calcs would put it somewhere around $16,000 calculated cost (given a minimum cost of $11,500 at this event). This is by no means a ridiculously under-estimated cost for this event (in the US we have competed against more complex cars quoted at $8,500).

Given that RMIT scored 85 points in total for the event, that means 64 / 70 was awarded for the quality of report, manufacturing knowledge and on-the-day discussion. None of these aspects have anything to do with the actual cost of the car, and are purely down to the research and presentation skills of the competing teams.

Yes, the composite tub adds expense - and from the reports I have worked on the tub comes out at about $2,000 more expenisve than a steel frame from memory. That is an accepted part of the design strategy the team has taken, and at no point has the team tried to hide it. However if you think that the RMIT car should be the most expensive one at the event, then you have missed the point of the design. Apart from some expensive carbon bits, there is stuff all in the car. There are no fancy pneumatic shifters, no forced induction, no fancy shocks, and a lot less coils / injectors / wires / leads / exhaust pipes / intake bits due to the single cylinder engine. Whats more the team has reduced the number of CNC'ed bits, and has relied a lot on laser cutting to reduce the piece cost of clevises and assorted other mounts and stuff.

In terms of the labour times, these have always been calculated as per the exact parts on the car, and as per a skilled technician making these parts for 1000 cars per year. This agrees with the context of the event, and this approach is the one used by teams the world over.

At risk of having my words taken out of context, I think even the RMIT crew were surprised to win the cost event, as the cost of the car usually puts us out of the overall contention. That does not imply that the team acted immorally or cheated to win, nor does it imply there is anything wrong with the event. It simply shows that despite taking a kick in overall cost, the team made a better effort to present their material than the other teams on the day.

My apologies for being annoyed earlier, but I thought it pretty poor that Andy saw fit to make some pretty pointed accusations at the RMIT lads, even after I had patiently explained the above points to him at the event. Ditto for the accusations of bias and the jibes at Pat from whoever 200sx is. Given that the majority of the competitors and judges alike are perfectly approachable in this comp, that sort of stuff is just pointless and detrimental to the whole event.

I can fully appreciate the disappointment of seeing a car fail to complete an event, and also to see a couple of teams taking home most of the trophies. We were in the same position in 2002. But rather than just vent on those that did well, we jumped in our car and drove to Wollongong to find out what it takes to succeed. That one thing turned our team around, and built a damn good relationship with the Wollongong lads as well. If anyone wants to take that as chest-beating it is not meant to be - just a more constructive approach to a disappointing result.

Cheers,

[Frank]

Me and a few mates reccon the track specs (WRT average speed) have matched the rules perfectly for the last few years (considering a fast car and fast driver).

And as the competitiveness of these cars increase over the years, the size of course (and therefor cars) decreases to maintain the correct average speed

That's why I'm begging for data.

[Big Bird]

Sorry Frank, I haven't been up to our other campus since Tues after comp - as soon as I can get some data I'll let you know.

Cheers,

[Doggyollie]

I am having trouble with the result links posted. Does anyone have a copy of the results or a link that works. Or perhaps an idea of what is going on with the results as it sounds like there may have been problems.

All I am really looking for is the number of participants?

Thanks,
Ian

[ad]

Originally posted by Doggyollie:
I am having trouble with the result links posted. Does anyone have a copy of the results or a link that works. Or perhaps an idea of what is going on with the results as it sounds like there may have been problems.

All I am really looking for is the number of participants?

Thanks,
Ian

Team wise it was about 30

[Helena]

27 teams to be exact. I have the pdf version of the results - pm me if you still wanted that.

[Tommo]

Hey Frank,
I think you've begged enough

Aus06: 721m, 93kph, 47.3s, average 54kph
Aus05: 673, 89, 40.9, 59
Aus04: The data's around here somewhere...

Just for comparison
US06: 1050, 81, 66.4, 56.9

Rules say average speed between 48 to 57 kph
So are all around the top end of that or just over

The big difference (especially when looking at engine choice) is throttle usage
Time at full throttle in US was almost double that of Aus in 06 (thats us, anyway)
A product of have real corner rather than lots of wiggles
Still didn't seem to trouble the red lawnmower though

Cheers
Tom

[Frank]

awesome!!

thankyou!!

[GSXR05K]

Hi all,

I started reading about FSAE-A to find out how long each of the Endurance Heats are in length.?

More pertinant to this thread is that an important point should be brought up about the rules. The point is divided into three parts. One is that the rules are based on traditional US style autoX tracks. Second is that a team wouldn't be competitive on US autoX's without aero and a big 4cyl. Third is that FSAE seems unfairly making courses much smaller (go-cart size).

The very first sentence in the rules says teams are to conceive... autocross racing cars. This is significant in two ways. Since FSAE was founded in the US, it would seem that autoX/Endurance courses would resemble common US autoX courses. If you go to common autoX courses in the US, they are rather large and spread out. Second is that they are autocross racing cars, not shifter karts, F3000, or any other breed of cars.

Having just competed in the largest US autocross event, which hosts karts and FSAE, it is apparent that aero and a big 4cyl is needed to be competitive. In the FSAE class, there were 20 entrants, and ALL the top teams ran aero. Additionally out of all 1100 entrants that were not F125, only 3 cars had faster times than the FSAE class, and they were all A-Mods, with ground effects and other unrestricted aero.

Our team was a little dissapointed last year at FSAE West, were the course was set up in a manner that no one with an auto cross type vehicle, let alone passenger vehicle, could cleanly navigate. It wasn't a lack of a poor car or driving (Our same autox driver took 7th at SCCA nationals, with only 9 total vehicles faster than him.) Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.

With the three points now being made about traditional autox style tracks, being competitive in autox, and FSAE tracks not being set up in the "spirit" of autox, I would like to address some issues brought up in the latter part of this thread.

Our team fully understands engineering, and how to analize a track and build a car to suit. We also understand that in the world of engineering, what the rules say to do, and what actually does the best job, is what the best engineers figure out. However, for our fiercly competitive team, we feel a little jaded when we pour our sweat and blood into a project, just to arrive at the pinnacle event of the year unprepared for the most valuable portion of the event.

We would like to see the event changed to suit the rules. Make the autox and endurance courses more like their intended form. Or have the wording of the rules reflect what the officials are actually going to set up for us.

I don't think this is a "butt-about argument". RMIT came to our event last year, and the non-autox type course clearly benefited their design. My whole team has great respect for RMIT and all the teams that have been champions. But with the "spirit" of the competition in mind, we'd challenge any (RMIT) type car to an US autocross. Please understand I'm not singling out RMIT, just that type of design philosophy.

Also, if it is a "butt-about argument" to make the courses larger for the aero/4cyl cars, it would seem a "butt-about argument" that there is not a large enough track in Oz.

I'm just speaking up for the few teams that actually do autocross, and believe autocrossing it is an important part to really understanding what the writers of the rules wanted student engineers to learn.

Thanks for your time,

Aaron G.
SDSM&T FSAE
Project Manager and Ergonomics Lead
fsae.sdsmt.edu

[ad]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
Hi all,

I started reading about FSAE-A to find out how long each of the Endurance Heats are in length.?

More pertinant to this thread is that an important point should be brought up about the rules. The point is divided into three parts. One is that the rules are based on traditional US style autoX tracks. Second is that a team wouldn't be competitive on US autoX's without aero and a big 4cyl. Third is that FSAE seems unfairly making courses much smaller (go-cart size).

The very first sentence in the rules says teams are to conceive... autocross racing cars. This is significant in two ways. Since FSAE was founded in the US, it would seem that autoX/Endurance courses would resemble common US autoX courses. If you go to common autoX courses in the US, they are rather large and spread out. Second is that they are autocross racing cars, not shifter karts, F3000, or any other breed of cars.

Having just competed in the largest US autocross event, which hosts karts and FSAE, it is apparent that aero and a big 4cyl is needed to be competitive. In the FSAE class, there were 20 entrants, and ALL the top teams ran aero. Additionally out of all 1100 entrants that were not F125, only 3 cars had faster times than the FSAE class, and they were all A-Mods, with ground effects and other unrestricted aero.

Our team was a little dissapointed last year at FSAE West, were the course was set up in a manner that no one with an auto cross type vehicle, let alone passenger vehicle, could cleanly navigate. It wasn't a lack of a poor car or driving (Our same autox driver took 7th at SCCA nationals, with only 9 total vehicles faster than him.) Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.

With the three points now being made about traditional autox style tracks, being competitive in autox, and FSAE tracks not being set up in the "spirit" of autox, I would like to address some issues brought up in the latter part of this thread.

Our team fully understands engineering, and how to analize a track and build a car to suit. We also understand that in the world of engineering, what the rules say to do, and what actually does the best job, is what the best engineers figure out. However, for our fiercly competitive team, we feel a little jaded when we pour our sweat and blood into a project, just to arrive at the pinnacle event of the year unprepared for the most valuable portion of the event.

We would like to see the event changed to suit the rules. Make the autox and endurance courses more like their intended form. Or have the wording of the rules reflect what the officials are actually going to set up for us.

I don't think this is a "butt-about argument". RMIT came to our event last year, and the non-autox type course clearly benefited their design. My whole team has great respect for RMIT and all the teams that have been champions. But with the "spirit" of the competition in mind, we'd challenge any (RMIT) type car to an US autocross. Please understand I'm not singling out RMIT, just that type of design philosophy.

Also, if it is a "butt-about argument" to make the courses larger for the aero/4cyl cars, it would seem a "butt-about argument" that there is not a large enough track in Oz.

I'm just speaking up for the few teams that actually do autocross, and believe autocrossing it is an important part to really understanding what the writers of the rules wanted student engineers to learn.

Thanks for your time,

Aaron G.
SDSM&T FSAE
Project Manager and Ergonomics Lead
fsae.sdsmt.edu

Aaron,

You make the assumption that by stating 'Autocross Racer' in the rules that they instantly mean similar to SCCA style autocross tracks.

The rules define minimum track widths and corner radii along with other track variants.

Also, while with the Wollongong and CalPoly teams at FSAE West comp all three teams (RMIT, UoW and CalPoly) attended an SCCA event the weekend before the big event. RMIT did extremely well for their small car and smaller single engine. All of this attending to fueling issues! Their car outperformed cars which were designed for the autocross track!

I share your dissapointment as we also noticed the track at the FSAE West comp as 'restrictive'. While similar here in AUS the organisers have their reasons, safety maybe, but from the times UWA and the rest of the top five have respectable times.

The trick for you would be to design your car to compete in both SCCA and FSAE and find your compromises.