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

[Ben C-M]

Noun

Autocross - a form of motorsport that tests the skill and speed of a driver over a course marked out with traffic cones

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/autocross"

Never make assumptions.

[Frank]

just for the record

I'm sick of people whining about it too.

I was just after numbers to highlight what is happening (without showing to much emotion about it)

[Charlie]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
More pertinant to this thread is that an important point should be brought up about the rules.

The very first sentence in the rules says teams are to conceive... autocross racing cars.

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.

Our team, as well as other teams that compete in actual autox, were hoping for a course that abided more by the rules.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but

YOUR TEAM DID NOT READ THE RULES if they were so suprised about the course.

You read the first sentence and assumed you knew what the course was like? Don't make the mistake again.

The rules are very specific, and they define a course that you should engineer your car around. corner radius, average speed, etc. Not whatever your perceptions are.

I did not personally measure the course, but considering that the course was setup by SCCA people that set up regular autocross courses, and they went by the rulebook when setting it up, I can only assume that they did their best to define a proper sutocross course as they know it that met the rules.

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
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.

This was done years ago, take a look yourself.

Better luck next year.

[GSXR05K]

Ad - I did not make an assumption as to what the rules meant. I thought I pointed out a logical word by word definition of what autocross is.

Within the Autocross Objective, the rules define the course as "tight"�, and the autocross specifications do give a minimum track width. But the rules don't give a specification for maximum track width. What makes many autocross courses challenging is that the course is so open, with many disputable lines, and plenty of room for safety.

And yes, we have been trying to build that car that is dually competitive.

Ben C-M --- ???Definitions from a collaborative project? What does that definition really tell me about autocross? How do you know the qualifications of anyone who provides definitions for these web-dictionaries?

Noun
Autocross - "Autocross is the sport of trying to navigate your car through a defined course faster than your competition. It is a performance driving event. It is designed to accommodate cars ranging from sporty sedans through dedicated race cars."�
Retrieved from "Secrets of Solo Racing, Expert Techniques for Autocross and Time Trials"� - Henry A. Watts.

You could make a lot of assumptions from Wiktionary - never make assumptions.

Charlie - You are trying to primarily emphasize that our team did not read the rules, but you do not know that. We, just like any other competitive team, have read and analyzed the rules countless times. You are more subtly trying to point out that we were surprised by the course.

Your argument is that: Our team did not read the rules if we were surprised about the course.
Our argument is that: A team does not know what autocross is if you were not surprised about the course.

There has already been another member of this forum who commented that the course was "restrictive."� I don't think they would have this opinion if they expected the track to be that way. So are you implying that he and his team did not read the rules also?

You say that we made assumptions, and that that was a mistake; yet you admitted making assumptions yourself. You said you assumed the autocross course was setup like a regular one. But from my experiences, regular autocross courses are not set up with the minimum track with being predominantly used through the track. I understand that they were trying to setup an autocross course that was proper and abiding by the rules. I'll re-state that there is no maximum restriction on track width, which with creativity could have been incorporated.

The main point I'm trying to make is that if students only had this competition as a guide to what autocross is, and then finally went out and raced an actual one, most would really be surprised.

Thank you for all the responses. Our team is already beginning to work on our philosophy for next year, and want to use this forum and any other tools to become the best we can be.

Aaron

[Ben C-M]

I picked one of many possible definitions, and the one you have is just as good as the one I have. The point is that none of us infered what autocross meant, all we took from it is that it's a track that has lots of corners, nothing else. The word autocross basically differentiates it from racing (with multiple cars on track) and tells us it's not just straight line performance.

Given that your team has been competing for a number of years, one would expect that you have a decent understanding of the track style. If you were a first year team, you probably should check out the competition in advance to get an idea of what track layout to expect or ask for previous years track maps.

I'm pretty sure if you read through the SCCA rules, or the Formula 1 rules, you wouldn't be able to get any better an idea of what their track looked like then if you read the FSAE rules. Also, there are a number of old track maps that are posted around (and at least one of the FSAE websites), so you could use that as a guide.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
Charlie - You are trying to primarily emphasize that our team did not read the rules, but you do not know that. We, just like any other competitive team, have read and analyzed the rules countless times.

You are more subtly trying to point out that we were surprised by the course.

Your argument is that: Our team did not read the rules if we were surprised about the course.
Our argument is that: A team does not know what autocross is if you were not surprised about the course.

I didn't think I was being subtle.

The fact is, you keep centering on the word 'autocross'. This word is as basic as 'racetrack.'

The rules CLEARLY define the course. And that definition does NOT fit in with a production-car-style autocross. it is an FSAE autocross.

I really thought, that after my post, you would read the rules. I guess not. So I will spoon feed it to you.

The objective of the autocross event is to evaluate the car's maneuverability and
handling qualities on a tight course without the hindrance of competing cars.

5.6.3 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds

The following specifications will suggest the maximum speeds that will be encountered on the course.
Average speeds should be 40 km/hr (25 mph) to 48 km/hr (30 mph).

Straights: No longer than 60 m (200 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no
longer than 45 m (150 feet) with wide turns on the ends.
Constant Turns: 23 m (75 feet) to 45 m (148 feet) diameter.
Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).
Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 7.62 m (25 feet) to 12.19 m (40 feet) spacing.
Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The minimum track width will be 3.5 m (11.5 feet).

And Endurance for good measure:

5.7.4 Endurance Course Specifications & Speeds

Course speeds can be estimated by the following course specifications.
Average speed should be 48 km/hr (29.8 mph) to 57 km/hr (35.4 mph) with top speeds of approximately 105 km/hr (65.2 mph).

Straights: No longer than 77.0 m (252.6 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no longer than 61.0 m (200.1 feet) with wide turns on the ends. There will be passing zones at several locations.
Constant Turns: 30.0 m (98.4 feet) to 54.0 m (177.2 feet) diameter.
Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9.0 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).
Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 9.0 m (29.5 feet) to 15.0 m (49.2 feet) spacing.
Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The minimum track width will be 4.5 m (14.76 feet).

Your posts are long and analyatical, but it all boils down to this:

If your definition of 'autocross' in your head does not meet the above criteria, and you didn't realize this until you got to the competition, then you did not read the rules properly.

Look at the required average speeds... were you acheiving those at a normal autocross? Look at the corner radius spelled out in the rules... was that something you saw at a regular autocross? If not, you have a right to be suprised--when you read the rules. Not when you arrived.

[Kevin Hayward]

Charlie,

Don't get drawn in, it seems as though this is a purely antagonistic thread development that makes little to no sense.

I wonder why somebody would want the course different anyway. The tight tracks are much more of a challenge to drive well as well as being safer.

I vote for keeping FSAE unique.

Kev

[ad]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Charlie,

Don't get drawn in, it seems as though this is a purely antagonistic thread development that makes little to no sense.

I wonder why somebody would want the course different anyway. The tight tracks are much more of a challenge to drive well as well as being safer.

I vote for keeping FSAE unique.

Kev

Here here, i agree

[Big Bird]

Aaron,

Thanks for your post. Certainly no offence taken at our end, and given that you have taken the time to explain your argument well, as well as quoted the team you are aligned with, then full respect for that. Oh, and you have taken the time to use vowels - which is a lot more than can be said for others on these boards. But I am mixing threads and getting away from the point.

I have heard comments at many different tracks that the layout will suit one style of vehicle design over another. I've heard it in our own team when we show up to a track that looks quite fast. Personally I have never bothered about such theories as they only distract you from the task at hand, and there are a lot of other factors that are going to affect your performance more. As the usual examples I'd offer driver comfort and ergonomics, brake / clutch / gearshift / throttle feel, engine smoothness and reliability, handling setup, and most of all driver and team familiarity with the car. Whether your team philosophy is big and fast, or small and nimble, or somewhere in between, it is attending to the details that will affect your final position more than the particular shape or style of the car.

As for the 2006 West event, I don't think track layout particularly suited our concept any better than any other team. The following are the top ten Autocross and Endurance results, in order, from West last year:
AUTOCROSS:
Kansas
Michigan State
Wollongong
Texas A&M
Toledo
RMIT
Akron
Ohio
RIT
UM Rolla

ENDURANCE:
Texas A&M
Wollongong
UM Rolla
RIT
Washington
Toledo
RMIT
Oklahoma
Clemson
Akron

Now from the above I don't think any distinct conclusions can be made as to whether the track favored one particular type of car. There are singles and fours, spaceframes and carbon tubs, naturally aspirated and forced induction, 10" and 13" wheels, aero and non-aero designs, and cars that were black, white, blue, silver, red, yellow, green, gold and purple. I've seen similar mixes in most of the comps I've attended. The rules are spot on in my mind, as they give the opportunity for any team to succeed, with any design - as long as the team designs within their own capabilities.

I have read many times that the organizers aren't too interested in changing the rules until the current ones have been mastered. Given that we are still consistently seeing maybe only 30-40% of teams completing all dynamic events, then there is still an argument to be made that a good proportion of the teams are still not "getting it". The primary purpose of this comp is not to expose us to Autocross, nor necessarily prepare us for careers in motorsport, but to expose us to a comprehensive engineering design project - where we are given a design brief, and have to assess our own resources and form our own strategies to see that we complete the project on time. The fact that the product is a racecar (nominally an "Autocross car"), hooks us in - but it is just a product and the processes are the same for a racecar, a bridge or a clothes peg. It is our skills in project management and awareness that are setting us aside from the standard engineering graduate - and why companies as widely varying as automotive, aerospace, renewable energy and biomedical are scouting FSAE events for grads.

The other factor we need to consider, now that FSAE is a truly world competition, is that we don't end up with rules that unfairly favor one nation. Autocross is obviously big in the US, but it is pretty well unheard of in most other countries. Here in Oz we just don't have the expanses of spare asphalt to run autocross at a major level. (The closest we have is hillclimbing, and that is also a lot more open than FSAE). I agree it is a shame that you have to build a car that is not ideally suited to cross-enter into your own national championships. But keeping FSAE unique in its layout at least helps levelling the playing field somewhat.

Cheers Aaron - and compliments for what I thought was a really nicely made car. Keep up the good work.

[nick roberts]

Originally posted by GSXR05K:
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.

First off I would hardly call our car an "FSAE specific" car. With a WB of 68" and track of 48" we were one of the biggest cars at the top in West along with Rolla. Last year i would have agreed with you about the tracks being too tight compared to an autocross course, but our team has adapted to this to design a formidable SCCA/FSAE car. Our results at Nationals this year were less then satisfactory but i believe that has more to do with our lack of aero which is being remedied this year. I feel that the courses set up at the FSAE events i have attended have been designed to take the driver out of the equation as much as possible. This is, afterall, a design competition and not a driver competition. If there were enough room to pick lines and do more driving the gap between experienced drivers and less experienced drivers would probably grow even larger then it is now. Safety is also a concern at FSAE events. If you gave every car at the event the chance to get up to 70-80MPH like we see at SCCA events there would almost definetely be more dangerous accidents both for the drivers and the spectators.

-nick roberts
Kansas University