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

[markocosic]

Originally posted by Jenner Collins:
You have seen a few comps now, what are your thoughts on how this situation could be improved?

Air Horns!

[Chris Boyden]

interesting, thanks for the post Marko.

400gs for 3.5 AH is nothing to scoff at.
400gs * 2.2 lbs/kg ~ .88 lbs LI ion vs. ~3.5 lbs SLA

SLA's typically run ~1 lb/AH.
If they are running a switching regulator, then the 17V to 12 volt = 5 V drop can be efficient, but a Linear regulator 17V to 12 volt drop can be inefficient and burn up that extra 1.5 AH you pointed out...

Nice stuff there as well.

[markocosic]

Starter ran at 17V. Pretty sure that everythign else did too - no regulation down to 12V. Li-Polymer, not Li-Ion if memory serves.

Starters couldn't give a monkeys. Fuel pumps are fuel-cooled and won't mind the over-voltage. Not sure whether they'd even draw extra power given the same regulated pressure. Tweak the dwell-time on the coils, tweak the peak&hold cycle on the injectors and they won't care or use any extra power. ECUs are internally regulated down, won't mind, and don't add significantly to you vehicle's power draw. Cooling fan will most probably like the 17V - so long as you're not after passenger-car longevity.


What's with this trying to do engineering in lbs anyhow? Almost as bad as 'doing government' in french...

[Jenner Collins]

Hi Marko,

I was just wondering if you are part of the Cambridge Uni team assembling themselves? I have met a few people from that team who were at a few comps having a look...

[Macker]

There is a better way to address your concerns. That is to put a proposal in writing and have it listed for discussion at the event debrief meeting ...Oh yes, that debrief didn't happen in recent years because teams werent interested enough to send someome.

Hi Pat,
does that mean there won't be/hasn't been an event debrief this year...? If there is going to be, do you have the details?

Andrew

[PatClarke]

Andrew,
I don't know! Remember, I am no longer an official part of FSAEA, just a visiting volunteer judge.
Your best bet would be to contact Erin at the SAE-A office and see what is planned.
I do believe the Design Judge's comments will be sent to their individual teams. Again, the SAE-A office is the best source of information.
Regards
Pat

[Big Bird]

First of all congratulations to Jake, Andrew, Grinchy, Ganesh and all the crew in the 06 RMIT team for a first rate result at this years comp. Given the "retirement"� of most of the senior team members after Detroit this year, the new team would have been excused for some drop in performance or placings. But the result was the best yet and so full kudos to you all. A job very well done.

Also congrats to both the UWA and UoW lads for once again putting in first rate performances. I know both of these teams had also lost a lot of senior team members this year, and yet both of them managed to pull it all together. You can never underestimate either of these teams.

A few other notes and I'll start with the positives:
* Adelaide had a very neat car, and if I noted correctly they were the first through scrutineering and onto the practice track. This is the sign of a very well organized and prepared team, and their results showed it. Well done to all concerned.
* Curtin had a nice simple car with some really neat design features and it is a real shame their overall results didn't show as such. I particularly noted the nice double-shear mounted rear rockers on roll hoop node points. Well done.
* UNSW continue to build solid, reliable cars that score well. One of the most underrated teams in Oz. Lovely solid rear bulkhead loaded in plane
* I've already gushed about the Deakin car. They have built some wonderful little vehicles over the past three years, and it is only a matter of time before they sort out the gremlins and give us all a scare. To Ash and the crew, keep up the good work.
* After 5 years of non-finishes, the Monash guys have knocked together three solid finishes in their last three events (including one overseas, which is a huge task in itself). Well done lads!
* QUT – really stepped up this year and put in a top result for a team that has only one (?) prior entry in this comp. Very simple, neat and fast.
* As Pat said above, the Indian team took a big step forwards this year. Teams from India and Malaysia are building these cars in countries that have never seen a 600cc road-bike, nor without other FSAE cars to look at. Keep this in mind and you'll respect what a huge project they have undertaken, and what a great effort they have put in to get here.
* Cheers to our friends at Tokyo Denki, for their great humour and their continued support of the Oz event. Great little car, excellent load paths, and by the intent of the rules probably the best interpretation of a car for the amateur weekend autocross racer. I know Pat loves this little car, and I also know TDU have got some great stuff coming in future years.

And I regret to offer some negatives:
* It seemed more teams than ever were finishing their cars in the pits over comp weekend. This is very disappointing, especially given that this is now a mature event here in Oz. There were numerous examples of teams who had obviously spent too much time trying to "design"� a world beater without truly addressing the basics and/or what was feasible given their own particular time-frame / resources / budget etc. Forget trying to be "trick"�, if you are finishing below 750 points each event it is not the trickness that is holding you back. You will build a stronger base for current and future success by completing the project on time and having the car tested and reliable. If that means your car might be 5kg heavier, have 5hp less, or score 50 points less in design then so be it. We are building an engineering product here, one that needs to be designed, manufactured, tested and delivered on time – and there are no bonus points for something that would have blown everyone to the weeds if we had have waited until January. Any team of final year students is capable of building a simple vehicle capable of completing the tasks required – even on the most meagre of budgets – and it is only the decisions made within your own team that will affect that end.
* The whinging above about costing rules / "poor"� judging / implied favoritism etc. Was all this really necessary? I'm biting my tongue right now because I'm pretty annoyed by the posts of a couple of competitors above – might get back to this at a later stage.

Finally, an observation relating to the top three teams at this year's comp (and I stress I'm trying not to sound conceited here, in our case I'm just passing on an observation of my fellow team members). In each of these three teams there exists a strong culture whereby old team members take an active interest in the ongoing success of the team. From RMIT I observed maybe 20 team members from over the past 5 years attending this years event to provide support and encouragement – and I know most of these team members have attended team design reviews over the year, or have made themselves available to answer queries that the new team may have. (And to their credit, our current team has always taken the time to listen to advice offered). Wollongong had a strong contingent of old team members on hand at this years comp to do the same, and from what I have seen the UWA crew have a strong culture of alumni support, and a healthy respect for the achievements of their previous team members. I'll even add that the Monash lads have quite a few of their alumni interested and involved, and it is noteworthy how they have turned things around in the last couple of years.

On the flipside, I saw some very experienced and knowledgeable FSAE "old boys"� at the event over the weekend who were utterly exasperated at seeing their old teams making fundamental design and management errors this year – but throughout the year their teams were too proud to ask for or accept their advice.

If you truly want to see your team succeeding in this comp, stop wasting time worrying and arguing about "trickness"�, or the fancy materials of your competitors, and start seriously thinking about knowledge transfer and succession plans. Attending to this will take you a lot further than any particular design philosophy you may have. Your predecessors are a huge wealth of knowledge, and your successors are going to carry your work to future success. Start thinking long term plans, drop the cocky "forget our past teams, this year we'll blow everyone away"� mentality, and your team might start making inroads into some ongoing success.

Anyway, enough for one night. Cheers to all,

[Kevin Hayward]

Another great post Geoff ... I was waiting for this one.

Just want to add my congrats to RMIT, and all the teams that got a car built and running.

It seems to me, from the results at least, that racing improves the breed. The teams that travel seem to develop a lot of strength in both speed and consistency. Surely RMIT's results alone should be enough to encourage other teams to go through the hassle of travelling ... Sorry still haven't got over this issue

As for the cost report ... give it a rest. The event is crap as it is. Sure the prices do not account for the real cost, but they strongly favour teams that do more.

For example machnining and material costs make it cost a lot less to make your own dampers than to buy even a low priced set of mountain bike shocks. Basically the more you make the cheaper the car in the cost event. Personally I don't see the problem with this.

Good luck for the next few months to the OZ teams that travel.

Kev

[Eddie Martin]

A lot of the cars seemed to have a very limited amount of testing before they turned up at competition. I think teams really need to look at the car they can build with the resources (human and non human) they have at their disposal and not try to scale down a formula 1 car. You will learn just as much from building a simple space frame car and understanding and testing the hell out of it as you will trying to build something with all the bells and whistles. You'll probably go better at the competition with the simple well tested/understood car as well.

I strongly believe you need to have at least 3 months of testing before you get to the competition to make sure the car is reliable, drivers are experienced and comfortable with their machine and most importantly to have more fun. I don't think it would be a fun year if you drive the car for a day or so before competition and then turn up and hope for the best. Every decision should be made so that the car can hit the track early. If you haven't got 90% of your components under construction 6 months before the competition it is time to redouble your efforts and simplify whatever you can. A month out from the competition is just too late.

A university I was impressed by was James Cook University. They didn't finish their car in time for the competition this year but they all turned up looking professional in team uniforms and had their eyes and ears open for the whole weekend. They also volunteered to help with the running of the dynamic events which I'm sure gave a great insight into what to do and not to do to be successful at the competition.

The volunteers all do a great job, especially standing out in the sun all day for the enduro till the very last car finishes. If you think things can be improved get in there and volunteer yourself once you have graduated. It isn't as easy as it looks. Just a note to competitors; if you feel yourself getting angry when talking with an official (or a team mate is), get out of the situation and cool off for a minute or send a calmer team member into discuss the issue. Large amounts of swearing, insulting the competition/rules/other teams will not get you or your team viewed in the best light. Remember there is a 25 point penalty for arguing with officials

I don't know if the cost report has changed much in the last couple of years but I did quite a few of them and they were very loosely based on reality. I understand the intent of the event but it is very open to creative accounting. Good luck to the teams that maximize their car under the rules.

[Frank]

It's hard to add to the words of wisdom passed on by guys like Geoff, Eddie, Kevin and Pat.

I heard Glen McGrath say that "Cricket is very simple game, but we chose to complicate it"�. In my opinion FSAE is the same.

It was great to be marshal in the slow section of the course this year, and get a close look at the behaviour of these cars. It also hammered home my belief in the importance of achieving the simple parameters, being prepared, and vehicle testing.

I think the most important goals for FSAE teams are (in order of merit):

1 The driver's controls are the most important. If the driver lacks confidence in a system, or is uncomfortable, you won't win.

2 The car MUST have had SOME testing. I'd say 10hrs minimum. I like testing, and prefer cars that have done >40hrs, even though they get a bit "dog-eared"� by then.

3 A broad torque curve, and the ability to balance the car using the throttle is a fundamental requirement, regardless of what the power plant is.

4 It must be light, 220kg at the most for a 4 cylinder (I sound like a broken record).

5 Physically large cars are slow. I don't think a top team would entertain a wheelbase over 1600mm, or a track over 1200mm

6 The core team members must understand ALL the workings of a competition, and this can only be learnt by observation and prior participation. They must appreciate the time constraints and be prepared.

7 The car must start and restart.

8 A car must be able to be balanced by some means. Good tyre choice is the first step. A slightly rearward weight split helps.

9 The drivers must be drivers. The best ones have wealthy parents that have spent tens of thousands (sometimes more) of dollars in teaching them to drive.

10 You must take the static events seriously, and understand what the judges want to see. Prior involvement with the events is preferable.

The ability to manage knowledge ranges considerably from team to team. So does the level of university support and available resources. But if you can achieve the above 10 goals, you're always going to finish in top 5 at FSAE-A.