Fantasy Car [Archive] - FSAE.com Forums

rjwoods77

02-07-2013, 06:23 AM

JWard,

I am also interested in the possible/probable intrusion of the flat twin concept with rear aero. This was the biggest reason why flat engines didn't survive in racing and I would be curious if the same held true in FSAE thus debunking the layout in this series as well. Eyeballing various competitive cars it looks like there is room for one but unless someone took the time to overlay it in CAD it will remain an open discussion point. I have a parasolid file people can throw in and critique if so interested.

Engine Notes:

On a layout note about your desire for "2 or 3 gears". The model I spoke about had pushrods and vertical ports but if rotated 90 degrees would have longitudinal ports. You then could hook into a BMW motorcycle dry clutch, a traditional main shaft/lay shaft with a couple gears and then a BMW ring and pinion on a Drexler. OHC engines would revert back to vertical ports unless you adopted a bunch of rigmarole in the heads. Pushrods are great for compact heads that will intrude much less (approx 2 inches less per head/side) into aero areas as well as cheaper and lighter. After the experience I had with the B&S v twin you would be surprised how light.

jlangholzj

02-07-2013, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by mech5496:
Well...something much much faster compared to other cars will do it for me. Most probable electric and with tons of DF, would love to see how a 3G skidpad would look like. Add some awesome look (Hawks car looked amazing last year btw), and some unconventional thinking to achieve the above (and the WTF look in the faces of everybody), and go out ond dominate. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I always thought of going electric but I never really have done enough digging to figure out how much more they weigh having batteries and such.....or less for that matter.

I'm thinking that the sooner active aero disappeared because the gains outweighed the costs. I saw their rear wing go poof last year....and I'm not quite sure why....but I remember that the reasoning behind it was to "give more even tire wear during enduro"....which....i guess I've never seen a properly set up car get worn down to the treads anyway from just one enduro run so.....

Also the benefits to running 35kw would be regen on braking....could torque vector into and out of corners.

another thing...I've never really looked into it but does FSAE allow anything like an f-duct or blown exhaust??? Not entirely sure if the speeds we're at would provide any benefit even if we could....but it would be kind of interesting to find out.

Owen Thomas

02-07-2013, 10:59 AM

I was actually just thinking about this the other day..

Regarding the flat twin and aero, I think the concept lends itself quite well to undertray packaging. Presumably the engine can be tucked further forward than a similar V or parallel engine, which should allow for some aggressive early rising tunnels. The longitudinal or vertical crank would probably be a necessity for this.

A V twin with a longitudinal crank would also suit this concept very well (in fact probably better), but it sits farther back and doesn't provide as much space in the rear of the car. Space for something like a gnarly Maryland style wing, and more expansion area for the undertray. I don't have a lot of experience working with aero though, and agree with Rob that it's all just heresay until someone goes and does it/models it.

On a similar, more fantastical note, if someone were clever enough they could take the exhaust from each flat cylinder and use it to boost the undertray. That would raise a whole host of other potential issues, but hey it's worth thinking about.

Edit: John beat me to mentioning the exhaust blown aero, damn. As far as I know, it is completely legal.

JulianH

02-07-2013, 11:30 AM

There is a paper of blown diffusers in FSAE published.. I'm not sure but I think it's from Auckland. They did test runs, but I don't know if the system was ever used.

I don't know if the effect is there.

Concerning F-Ducts and stuff: Sure they are legal, but we don't need such fancy things because everything is allowed.

A DRS system like the Monash guys invented is far better than an F-Duct when it comes to decreasing drag.

We also developed a DRS system for the 2012 car but didn't use it because it was too heavy and the performances gains / amount of energy saved was not that big.

Electric cars (with regenerative braking) need about 7kWh of battery capacity to drive Endurance in the same speed as the combustion cars.

Last year we saw that two completely different cars (4WD ultra-lightweight Delft and our 2WD Aero car) were faster than all combustion cars in the German AutoX. This year, the Electric cars will slightly heavier due to new rules and more battery capacity but still, I think those cars will edge out the combustion cars again, if everything goes properly.

A car like SoonerJack proposed should be quiet suited (and possible to do, ask Delft...) to be the fastest car in every discipline.

And in the end, that's what you want...

rjwoods77

02-07-2013, 11:33 AM

To also note the valve cover to valve cover width on that engine model I produced in the "Fantasy Engine" topic is 21.5" from valve cover to valve cover on a 75.5x66mm 591cc engine which is barely wider than a typical FSAE tub. If you were to go 75.5x50mm 447.7cc, with direct scaling that would put you at 20.25". The packaging would be pretty nice (better than anything else in my opinion) with in a longitudinal crank and port setup, with the engine pushed up against the vertical roll hoop plane, with exhaust (turbo or N/A) in the "Firewall Triangle", intakes headed toward the rear of the car. Again having dealt with a 90 degree v twin I think it is superior to it in every respect as mentioned also in the "Fantasy Engine" topic. You could also use the engine cooling fan to exhaust warm air from the cooling fins, then to your exhaust pipe outlet, then into your aero if you found advantage to use it as well as being rules compliant. The fan on our B&S V twin was moving a HUGE volume of air at 650cfm at 3600rpm so says the engine data sheets. I wonder if you could use the "cooling fan" excuse like the...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46

...since it is the legitimate use of the fan to cool the engine. How awesome would that be if people purposely went to an air cooled engine in order to benefit from powered aero advantages if it were effective and legal???

Yannick

02-07-2013, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by SoonerJack:
I think Steven has a point http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Carbon Monocoque
Carbon Rims (10 inch)
Carbon A-Arms

4 * 35kW

About 6-7kWh of energy

Pretty nice big wings

Around 170kg, should be able to pull 2.5g and drive Accel in 3.5s...

It's not the sound of a V8 and not ultra-lightweight but that thing would fly!

you may want to check out our february newsletter. should be published in a week or so.

mech5496

02-07-2013, 01:04 PM

You guys going 4WD?! I did not see that coming...

JulianH

02-07-2013, 01:12 PM

Yannick had his final exam for this week today, you should not take him seriously http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

02-07-2013, 04:19 PM

..... brown go-kart, with aero-undertray .....

Z

Ben K

02-07-2013, 09:32 PM

Sucker Car will get you that 3G pretty easily....

Ben

JulianH

02-07-2013, 11:49 PM

Gladly, sucker cars are forbidden in FSAE.

Sure you can easily pull 3G lateral, but I think it's really dangerous.

Z, I like your brown go-kart idea (at least those sketches) but even if the car is super light and has an amazing working undertray, I think you will never be able to pull 3G's without wings. We worked on similar aero devices like you proposed for quiet a long time and they are super-efficient and nice, but don't offer enough downforce to do the job.

Put some cute little wings on it, and then it's maybe a fantasy car if one likes fuel-to-noise converter cars http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mech5496

02-08-2013, 01:32 AM

Things to make your car faster: Aero, weight and CoG height, yaw control/vectoring. All the above from most to less important. But probably the MOST important aspect if you want to win is reliability, so a simple as possible car for me please, while adressing all the above issues... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. For a dream car I would like awesome build quality for everything on it. As I like to say to new team members, be proud for every single bolt put in the car!

Mbirt

02-08-2013, 06:25 AM

Maryland's 2012 car with Wisconsin's 2012 powertrain.

jlangholzj

02-08-2013, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by mech5496:
Things to make your car faster: Aero, weight and CoG height, yaw control/vectoring. All the above from most to less important. But probably the MOST important aspect if you want to win is reliability, so a simple as possible car for me please, while adressing all the above issues... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. For a dream car I would like awesome build quality for everything on it. As I like to say to new team members, be proud for every single bolt put in the car!

take a page out of pagani's book and make all your own titanium fasteners.

rjwoods77

02-08-2013, 08:32 AM

I still want to see pictures of the Brown Gokart. I saw a couple many years ago but my memory has faded since.

mech5496

02-08-2013, 09:37 AM

I have visited Pagani about a year ago, these guys have really gasped the term awesome build quality; however it does not make much sense manufacturing your own fasteners, ProBolt ones will do for me! Rob, I think you refer to Brown Uni car from some years ago. Im pretty sure there are some pics floating around this forums.

Charles Kaneb

02-08-2013, 02:34 PM

My fantasy car?

The one my friends and I are building right now.

Why wouldn't yours be as close as you can get to that one?

mech5496

02-08-2013, 10:41 PM

Actually it is always the one you will build next year. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif On a more serious note, resources cost and time constraints do their best to distract you...

MCoach

02-08-2013, 11:16 PM

A bet someone can build a formula car under 330lbs without a touch of carbon on it. just to add that to someones list.

mech5496

02-09-2013, 12:14 AM

You most probably can...but why that negativity against carbon? It is often the easiest and probably fastest way to build certain things (especially non structural) and often is free (either scrap pieces or donated) plus it looks cool. So if you already got the equipment and know how, why avoiding it?

MCoach

02-09-2013, 12:37 AM

It's most certainly easy for us to build them and use them, it's another thing to spend several hundred hours laying up a carbon fiber tub and still call it a "weekend autocross car".

Have you ever seen a formula 500, A-Mod, or formula vee car? Those are for weekend autocrossers. Steel, aluminum, and accessibility to parts. Fix all of them with the best tools of the trade: a hammer and some other tool that resembles a chisel (typically a Craftsman screwdriver).

What things would you consider it for that is easier and faster than anything else?

Kirk Feldkamp

02-09-2013, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by MCoach:
A bet someone can build a formula car under 330lbs without a touch of carbon on it. just to add that to someones list.

Would you believe sub-250lbs (http://www.facebook.com/calracing?fref=ts)? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (No FaceSpace? - click here!) (http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/823366_10151479807338829_816356447_o.jpg) It's going to end up with some carbon, but just the required "rock guards" (aka "bodywork"). There are also no "OMG" metals on there either. It's just a simple, focused design with great execution. Watch out world! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

-Kirk

Charles Kaneb

02-09-2013, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by MCoach:
It's most certainly easy for us to build them and use them, it's another thing to spend several hundred hours laying up a carbon fiber tub and still call it a "weekend autocross car".

Have you ever seen a formula 500, A-Mod, or formula vee car? Those are for weekend autocrossers. Steel, aluminum, and accessibility to parts. Fix all of them with the best tools of the trade: a hammer and some other tool that resembles a chisel (typically a Craftsman screwdriver).

What things would you consider it for that is easier and faster than anything else?

Is it any better to spend several hundred hours welding together a steel tube-frame than to spend several hundred hours to lay up a carbon fiber tub?

There ain't an easy way to build a car. I've been lookin' for one for ten years.

mech5496

02-09-2013, 08:12 PM

Kirk, now that's not something you see every day; eager to see how they will go, as well as more design details. Definitely interesting....

MCoach

02-09-2013, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Charles Kaneb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MCoach:
It's most certainly easy for us to build them and use them, it's another thing to spend several hundred hours laying up a carbon fiber tub and still call it a "weekend autocross car".

Have you ever seen a formula 500, A-Mod, or formula vee car? Those are for weekend autocrossers. Steel, aluminum, and accessibility to parts. Fix all of them with the best tools of the trade: a hammer and some other tool that resembles a chisel (typically a Craftsman screwdriver).

What things would you consider it for that is easier and faster than anything else?

Is it any better to spend several hundred hours welding together a steel tube-frame than to spend several hundred hours to lay up a carbon fiber tub?

There ain't an easy way to build a car. I've been lookin' for one for ten years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't spend anywhere near hundreds of hours. It actually took 3 people less than a week including fully welding to put it into shape. No Cartesian involved, hand formed tubes. Most of that week was dedicated to classes as well. It just takes a little practice. So... what happens when someone unfortunately crashes the car? You just....build another one?

Easiest way to build a car? Minimize the manufacturing, buy lots of off-the-shelf parts (makes them easy to replace as well.) After the manufacturing has been minimized, simplify the designs. Want to make a fancy billet part? NO! you don't. You want to find the closest mass manufactured shape available and then do a stupid simple operation like drill a hole, or slot it.

JWard

02-12-2013, 02:58 AM

Brown gokart? Rear trailing arm monoshock, front a arms pushrod monshock suspension, 8 inch wheels with very simple looking uprights (who needs 5 axis!). Water cooled though so not quite as brown as Z would like. More pictures please berkley! What are these tyres from?

mech5496

02-12-2013, 09:43 AM

Yeah, Berkley's entry seems rather interesting, but still a but complicated to me (and I have my thing for monoshocks...)

Kirk Feldkamp

02-12-2013, 12:47 PM

We prefer "Cal Go Kart", thank you very much. Haha. Brown can't keep the title forever! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Although, if you've ever driven a car/kart with solidly-mounted single cylinder without a balance shaft, then you know it could also be referred to as a "brown note kart".

Rob Woods tells me the rear suspension is technically a "Satchell Link", but it wasn't designed with a name in mind. The rear came together as a result of a packaging, load, and manufacturing study. The front was a similar deal.

Sure, while not at a "Z level" of supposed simplicity (I'm not 100% convinced with the practicalities of his design's simplicity, but I respect his argument nonetheless), when was the last time your team had a car up and running 5 months before comp? FSAE West (Nebraska) in June, in this case. There is definitely room for improvement, but you've gotta shoot the engineers and build the damn thing at some point. Traditionally our team has struggled to get the car running around more than a month ahead of time. If this car doesn't speak volumes for simplifying the design, I don't know what does!

Yes, those are 8" wheels and tires originally built for Mini Cup cars by American Racer. They're inexpensive too, really inexpensive. The cost of a full set of tires is less than one single 13" tire. TTC data be damned if you can test 4X as much as before! In my opinion, 4X the driver training wins over fancy tire models every time, especially at this level where drivers can barely even keep pace with each other consistently on a kart track. Haha. Would TTC data be nice to have? You bet. Is there a tire testing machine in the world designed to give TTC-esque data for 8" wheels? Not from what I'm told!

The "secret" also isn't necessarily the simplicity. Many conscious decisions were made during the design process to place a premium on off the shelf kart parts, rather than building every last piece from scratch. Turns out, it takes a whole lot less time to buy a part and reverse engineer it for your purposes (perhaps modifying it slightly to fit the rules), than it does to design a part, order and ship material, and carve out time to fabricate/machine/finish a part. In my working experience, this is how 98% of the engineering world works (or wants to work) anyhow, so why not get used to it early on? It's definitely a useful skill to be able to identify and select parts that will work in a design you only have in your head. Plus, there is an infinitely wider base of off the shelf replacement parts when things eventually wrong.

If you guys want more pictures/video/information, I suggest you swamp the Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/calracing) with requests!

-Kirk

rjwoods77

02-12-2013, 12:59 PM

Kirk,

From what I can tell it looks like a Satchell link. I was going to wait to see full pictures before I went and said anything about the setup but until then I can say i am thrilled at the direction of the car. If it runs well this year maybe a case for the LC0 compound tires in that size could be made that Colesterling was speaking about a while ago.

Edward M. Kasprzak

02-12-2013, 01:19 PM

Yes, those are 8" wheels and tires originally built for Mini Cup cars by American Racer. They're inexpensive too, really inexpensive. The cost of a full set of tires is less than one single 13" tire. TTC data be damned if you can test 4X as much as before! In my opinion, 4X the driver training wins over fancy tire models every time, especially at this level where drivers can barely even keep pace with each other consistently on a kart track. Haha. Would TTC data be nice to have? You bet. Is there a tire testing machine in the world designed to give TTC-esque data for 8" wheels? Not from what I'm told!

It is possible for the TTC to test those 8" tires. The Calspan Tire Research Facility (TIRF) could only do free-rolling, though, because the tire is so small. They can only lower the head/driveshaft down so close to the belt--they had to modify TIRF to get drive/brake on the 10s in Round 5. While Calspan has been an incredible supporter of the TTC and the Formula SAE/Student series, we would consider a different facility for tires outside their capability.

We're always watching for tires to include in the next round of testing. While there are no plans underway for Round 6 (read "not happening in 2013"), we're always looking ahead. We're eager to see how teams respond to Goodyear's departure and where the current trend toward using smaller tires leads us. If 8s become popular enough we would consider testing them in Round 6.

Congratulations on having a driveable car so many months ahead of competition!

Kirk Feldkamp

02-12-2013, 04:43 PM

Call me crazy, but you guys may be jumping the gun by disregarding the American Racer tires without any real basis to go on. As far as I know, there hasn't been a FSAE team to use them so far... and there's clearly not any published tire data. They have a few compounds and a few sizes, so there's some variables to play with. Anecdotally, even at the very first test with the new car, with all of the myriad "new car problems" that popped up, the car was already faster than the previous car in skidpad testing. Clearly, it's not all doom and gloom. If some of the traditional FSAE tire companies don't want to play ball, that's their prerogative. Hopefully there will always be some company that wants to pick up the slack!

Ben K

02-12-2013, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Kirk Feldkamp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MCoach:
A bet someone can build a formula car under 330lbs without a touch of carbon on it. just to add that to someones list.

Would you believe sub-250lbs (http://www.facebook.com/calracing?fref=ts)? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (No FaceSpace? - click here!) (http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/823366_10151479807338829_816356447_o.jpg) It's going to end up with some carbon, but just the required "rock guards" (aka "bodywork"). There are also no "OMG" metals on there either. It's just a simple, focused design with great execution. Watch out world! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

-Kirk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay. You have my attention. I hope you guys can pull this off just to change up the competition a bit.

Ben

rjwoods77

02-12-2013, 05:37 PM

Kirk,

What is being used for a rain tire in that size? I didn't see anything on American Racer or Hoosiers website for that.

Kirk Feldkamp

02-12-2013, 06:54 PM

I haven't been privy to those plans. I believe the intent is either an ATV street tire or the "manufacturer's agent" route. You'd have to ask the team for the details.

-Kirk

AxelRipper

02-12-2013, 08:41 PM

Pretty sure Concordia ran the American Racers a few years ago. If I remember right, they've now got those mounted to their pit cart.

mech5496

02-12-2013, 11:41 PM

Kirk,

nice to hear the car is fast out of the box, should be a great satisfaction when a rad concept works. Regardinv tires, some compounds migt be well suited to FSAE. As long as rain tires go, you can akways groove some slicks... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MCoach

02-13-2013, 12:27 AM

Out of complete curiosity, does anyone know what compound that the UC Berkeley car is using?

JWard

02-13-2013, 04:25 AM

Sorry kirk, at the time of writing it felt impossible not to use the brown go kart name. It is certainly 'more complex' than that described by Z. are the uprights off the shelf too then? They look very easy to machine from what I can see, but wouldn't surprise me if they're off the shelf (looking at the brake mounts). I'd love a description / picture of the corner assembles if anyone from Berkeley can comment...?

Anyway, congratulations on the early build and the positive preliminary performance indicators!!!

(i was going to use pointer but thought it was a bit too much)

Tinomik

02-16-2013, 11:22 AM

Fantasy car is a weird concept. Strangely enough innovation and creativity does not stem from lack of constraints, but the opposite.

A fantasy FSAE car, without budget or people constraints.

1. 4WD electric, max regen brake for min battery weight, carbon fibre monocoque, maybe active mass damper, and a very strange suspension package

2. E-85 turbo (electrically assisted), optimized for 4000-10000RPM to minimize friction losses etc. Hybrid frame, stressed engine. Maybe some rockets too, vectored to provide either thrust or downforce.

JulianH

02-18-2013, 10:28 AM

As Charles Kaneb posted, the fantasy car can be your newest creation, so our fantasy car will hopefully become reality this year http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.amzracing.ch/media/news/20130218_en.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/media...&type=1&l=8d888b99f1 (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151377063016107.473774.92330576106&type=1&l=8d888b99f1)

169kg
4WD electric drivetrain
4x 35kW

0-100kph in roughly 2.6 seconds

Enough downforce to drive upside down way below the top-speed of 115km/h

PatClarke

02-19-2013, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by JulianH:
Enough downforce to drive upside down way below the top-speed of 115km/h

Mmmmm, have a long hard think about that statement Julian ;-)

Pat

JulianH

02-19-2013, 07:16 AM

Well Pat, these comments are of course always "theoretical" and more "popular science" http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Let me rephrase that:

At about 100 kph, the car produces enough downforce that it can not only overcome the weight of the car but also would produce enough F_z on the ceiling to have the required F_x for the drag and the rolling resistance so that it doesn't slow down.

Will M

02-19-2013, 01:18 PM

Also, if you were in the ceiling wouldn't it be called "upforce"? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-William

JulianH

02-19-2013, 01:23 PM

You're right Will http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In this case we would imitate an airplane and produce lift http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luniz

02-19-2013, 01:58 PM

If you consider the coordinate system attached to the car as it is usually done, then the polarity of F_z wouldn't change... ;-)

PatClarke

02-19-2013, 09:51 PM

And, theoretically speaking Julian, how are you going to get to 100kph+ on the ceiling?

You might gather I hate these 'drive on the ceiling' statements...usually attributed to dumbass commentators on TV ;-)

Pat

JulianH

02-19-2013, 10:05 PM

One could build a ramp http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think this metaphor is quiet useful if you are trying to explain this phenomenon to someone who has no idea what "a lot" or "a bit" of downforce is.

If a car is able to "double its weight" (F_z_Aero = m*g) at certain speeds, I think this is quiet useful considering the effects of downforce in cornering speed. (...(1+F_z/mg)).

But to spare you the "pain", we won't use the commentator-ceiling-stuff again http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Crispy

02-19-2013, 11:55 PM

So why precisely can't it be done? With a long enough tunnel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHDojzNA8gs) it seems like you could make it happen. There is already a small scale proof of concept (http://youtu.be/A_nYNuoZteA?t=7s) http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PatClarke

02-20-2013, 01:37 AM

Chris,

I never said it couldn't be done theoretically, but in practice, it is almost impossible. It is certainly implausible.

Of course most of the dumbass commentators make statements like 'It develops it's own weight in downforce, so it could drive on the ceiling'. Now, that is impossible ;-)

Pat

Crispy

02-20-2013, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by PatClarke:
Of course most of the dumbass commentators make statements like 'It develops it's own weight in downforce, so it could drive on the ceiling'. Now, that is impossible ;-)
Pat

Agreed, I think the fun would really start when the down(up?) force is double the car's weight.

02-20-2013, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by JulianH:
... so our fantasy car ...
169kg ...
Enough downforce to drive upside down way below the top-speed of 115km/h
Julian,

You are on the right track (light car + aero), but I think more is possible. I will post in more detail later (on another thread), but briefly here for those fantasizing about aero.

Let's say you have about ~2.5 kN downforce (= ~170 kg car + ~50 kg driver + bit more) at ~30 m/s (108 kph).

Then CL.A = Downforce/Half-rho-V-squared = 2500/(0.6 x 30 x 30) = 4.6 m^2 (I think you might have more?). This is roughly a high-lift wing of area A = ~2 m^2, and CL= ~2.3. This is quite feasible IMO.
~o0o~

BUT ! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, average FSAE speeds are supposed to be half the above (ie. around 50 kph). So to "drive on the ceiling", or have "~3G cornering", at this lower speed you need FOUR times as much CL.A. So CL.A = ~15 to 20 should be the goal, which I also believe is feasible.

BUT ! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, a lightweight car that can drive on the ceiling at 50 kph will, quite literally, have a TON of downforce at 100 kph, which is a potential car breaker.

So two possible solutions.
1. Use variable geometry aero, which is currently legal. (Not a "Drag" Reduction System, but a "Downforce"RS!)
2. Better yet, build a robust, lightweight car (= brown go-kart + aero-undertray) and drive at a steady ~70 kph throughout Autocross/Enduro. Conveniently, this speed pushes all other teams back to zero points for these events.

Z

(PS. Pat, is aero a bit too C&I for you?)

Frank

02-20-2013, 05:09 AM

I would like:

A comfy seat position with elbow room, where the steering setup lets me pull steer.
Slipper clutch
Spool
Air bottle shifter (but I’d settle for a good stick shifter)
2 pedals
Hand clutch
Stiff steering shaft, no slop/lash
Stiff a-arms
Stiff pedal box
Brake balance bar that works. With a cockpit adjuster.
Super silky throttle
Long steering arms, say 100mm.
No Aero
Spaceframe
180kg
18kg NSM Front
16kg NMS Rear
3000Nm/deg FEA
7” Tyres
13” x 6.5” Rims
-2 static camber Front and Rear
Kingpin = camber
30mm scrub
20mm trail
8deg castor
No ARBs
Staked sphericals on the a-arms,.
Shims on the upper a-arm chassis pickup.
(I’ll usually change camber using ride height)
1200mm VSALs
1575mm WB
1100mm FT
1050mm RT
45% front weight, NO MORE
Ohlins double adjustable around 3Ns/mm
High natural frequencies ( brown go kart).
2.8Hz front 4.0Hz rear
100% ackerman at 35deg/25deg Steering
4 Cyl 600cc
Natural aspirated
Plenum < 1 Ltr
Restrictor outlet 50mm
30mm throttle plate and progressive linkage
77Hp at 10,000
75% max torque at 5,500rpm
Dry sump
External fuel pump
EFI
Traction and launch control
No Data Acquisition
No Dash
3 gauges, analogue battery voltage, fuel level, and oil pressure
PDM with modes to save engine
Big radiator hanging off back of car
2 big fans
mechanical water pump
an OEM thermostat
Painted Black
Gratuitous use of cadmium, black oxide, hard anodising, heat treatment, and natural finish carbon.

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/images/media/UQRacing.jpg

Kevin Hayward

02-20-2013, 05:17 AM

Z,

70kph through a hairpin is a heck of a lot more than 3g. There are also plenty of track layouts where the limitation is yaw acceleration rather than lateral g capability. Should the brown go-kart should be a sidewinder? How far can we go just reducing yaw inertia?

I wonder if the change to aero should involve a way to rapidly change aero balance to promote yaw acceleration where needed. Perhaps a car that shifts aero balance rapidly forward during braking to induce a temporary rapid yaw acceleration. Shift it rearwards rapidly on exit to recover the car.

The flexible aero offers an untapped area to limit drag and downforce. I would love to see teams solutions to the downsides of the big aero packages.

Kev

JulianH

02-20-2013, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Z:
Julian,

You are on the right track (light car + aero), but I think more is possible. I will post in more detail later (on another thread), but briefly here for those fantasizing about aero.

Let's say you have about ~2.5 kN downforce (= ~170 kg car + ~50 kg driver + bit more) at ~30 m/s (108 kph).

Then CL.A = Downforce/Half-rho-V-squared = 2500/(0.6 x 30 x 30) = 4.6 m^2 (I think you might have more?). This is roughly a high-lift wing of area A = ~2 m^2, and CL= ~2.3. This is quite feasible IMO.
~o0o~

BUT ! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, average FSAE speeds are supposed to be half the above (ie. around 50 kph). So to "drive on the ceiling", or have "~3G cornering", at this lower speed you need FOUR times as much CL.A. So CL.A = ~15 to 20 should be the goal, which I also believe is feasible.

BUT ! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, a lightweight car that can drive on the ceiling at 50 kph will, quite literally, have a TON of downforce at 100 kph, which is a potential car breaker.

So two possible solutions.
1. Use variable geometry aero, which is currently legal. (Not a "Drag" Reduction System, but a "Downforce"RS!)
2. Better yet, build a robust, lightweight car (= brown go-kart + aero-undertray) and drive at a steady ~70 kph throughout Autocross/Enduro. Conveniently, this speed pushes all other teams back to zero points for these events.

Z

(PS. Pat, is aero a bit too C&I for you?)

Z,

we don't have the wind tunnel results of the car yet, but if we compare it with last year's car, the max. DF setting should be a bit higher than your calculated value, yes.

But of course far away from 15-20. In fact, I think it is impossible to achieve this high numbers, even if you design the car 100% to aerodynamics. I simply can't think of an aeropackage that is able to do it.

But I also think that "3G cornering" is possible without these excessive high numbers. I think the good Aero Teams are not that far away from this value...

Julian

Frank

02-20-2013, 05:23 AM

i say:
MOAR to yaw acceleration.
MOAR to corner exit traction.
MOAR to rear weight.
MOAR to stiff chassis

BOO to electronics
BOO to bad ergo
BOO to bad controls
Boo to weight

Kevin Hayward

02-20-2013, 05:26 AM

Frank,

Car sounds like a lot of fun. Wouldn't be the number 1 concept for speed. Was having a chat to the alumni from Swinburne the other day. There is just something very fun about the four cylinder "conventional" cars. I'm not a good enough driver to make the best use of the more modern high aero cars, the increased grip means your reactions have to be even faster. However I used to love controlling the back end of these cars with a nicely built throttle.

I really wish the 2004 UWA car (05 US) was sitting in my garage rather than in a museum. Heaps of fun, and not the least bit scary when the back end got out.

Kev

Frank

02-20-2013, 06:26 AM

I have not validated lap simulations, but personally, I don't think aero makes these cars significantly faster. If it's an open track, by FSAE standards, then I believe aero can be faster.

One thing I know for sure is that poor design features make FSAE cars slower than excellent design features can make them faster.

Kevin Hayward

02-20-2013, 10:34 AM

Frank,

Both lap sims and empirical testing say the same thing about aero. I am about as sure as I can be that the aero makes the cars faster. This was also the case before the aero rules were changed, although not by anywhere near the same margin. One interesting thing that also came out of the testing (aero vs. not) was that not only were the times quicker for the winged car, but the difference between the different drivers was less indicating that it was easier for the drivers to drive the vehicle. I have felt this first hand recently. When driving the older non-aero fours of UWA (and the ECU ones) it is noticeable that as the speed builds the car gets harder to keep in a straight line. For the aero car which tends to run more rearward RMD (to get around low speed corners) and a rearward COP (for stability in slaloms) it gets more planted and becomes incredibly difficult to spin the car. As the yaw comes on the car the big endplate acts as a weather-vane and pulls the car back in line. I have only driven the ECU cars a couple of times and when I have I'm amazed at the speed at which things happen compared to the older cars. They have higher grip (some pretty big numbers on the lateral G) and they spend a much larger time pointed in roughly the right direction.

You are spot on with your last line however, and if you don't mind I'm going to start using it verbatim. The aero is not enough to turn a poorly designed car into a super quick car, and in fact adds another level of complexity to the design and vehicle dynamics. There is nothing worse than seeing these cars with trick wings or carbon do-dahs but with horribly designed load paths.

Kev

JulianH

02-20-2013, 12:00 PM

I think Kevin is spot on. Aero makes your car faster. Period. We also experienced that our 2012 car was the most simple car to drive ever. You couldn't spin it. Compared to our 2011 car which spent about 80% of the time in a sliding state it was a huge step forward.

In my opinion people should start "accepting" Aero as just another feature like a Traction Control for Combustion Cars or Torque Vectoring or a Carbon Monocoque instead of a Space Frame.

You don't win a competition just because you used a 15kg Monocoque instead of a 30kg Space Frame but it probably makes your car a bit quicker.

The same thing is with wings. You don't win but you go a bit quicker.
In the end the best argument is probably still "Auto-X FSG 2012". I think we had 6 Aero-Cars in the Top 7 (without the cones of RIT and Chalmers, we would have had 8 Aero Cars in the Top9) in combined classes (And that the Delft Car -as the only non aero car- was exceptional, should be obvious..).

Markus

02-20-2013, 08:46 PM

There was also 5 teams from top 6 (combustion) running D2704 Goodyears... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This thing is a bit two-folded: the teams that have the resources to build wings usually have fast cars to begin with, so you see a lot of wings in the top teams.

Pippo69

02-21-2013, 09:46 AM

Four of the Final Five teams at FSG 2012 had big wings AND 13" Goodyears.
It is not one single part of the car that makes it a fast car...

Max Trenkle

02-21-2013, 10:04 AM

Yeah, in sim you will find that the greatest rate of return in lap time will come from increase lateral acceleration, downforce, and the proper final gear ratio.

Markus

02-21-2013, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Pippo69:
Four of the Final Five teams at FSG 2012 had big wings AND 13" Goodyears.
It is not one single part of the car that makes it a fast car...
If you want to pick with it, tires are the only single part that will make the car go fast.

A car without wings can be fast.
A car without tires really can't...

Enough said, FSG last year isn't really a place to make judgements about how much the wings help, only about what the trend will be in future. And we all know it's gonna be more wings.

MCoach

02-21-2013, 10:52 AM

Power only matters up to a certain point, after about 50hp it's pretty diminishing returns and after about 75hp you're not getting anything else other than maybe a better accel time.

Gear ratio you only gain on if the driver is able to control the car, being traction limited rather than power limited in several gears rather than just first.

Aero, I've seen a curious thing in lap sims as it always seems to be a gain. Even large wings with a 1:1 L : D there is a gain. Sure, to compensate for the drag you can up the gear ratio and start using more of 4th + 5th, but the lap times still fall. The only thing is that fuel consumption goes up with drag and the driver's start spending more time near WOT.

Lateral acceleration is ALWAYS welcomed.
Longitudinal acceleration is beneficial but nowhere near as much as lat.

I liked working with the D2704's they will be surely missed.

But again, these are only math and a little obersvation.

Max Trenkle

02-21-2013, 12:28 PM

Well the driver is something you can't simulate http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
You just have to hope they stay cool and smooth.

02-22-2013, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Z,

70kph through a hairpin is a heck of a lot more than 3g.
Kev,

Yes, a hairpin at 3G is only about half that speed (~10 m/s, 36 kph). At 72 kph the Gs are x4!

My main point was that either:
1. You can corner at 3G on the fast corners, but have to "drop out of warp" around the low speed corners (ie. little aero downforce).
Or,
2. You take the low speed corners at 3G, but then have the axles snap off at high speeds due to the TON of downforce.

So some downforce reduction at higher speeds will probably be needed. Drag is not a problem with good aero design (stay tuned...).
~o0o~

BTW, the UC Berkeley car is headed in the right direction. Still a bit too complicated, but I like the 8" tyres, and especially like the very quick build time. Well done! Enjoy your 5 months of testing and getting faster. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Big Bird

02-22-2013, 04:40 AM

I haven't seen the UC Berkeley car, but like the idea of a "quick build" design.

I've always had this desire to build an "Anti-Technology Special":
- Steel spaceframe
- Swing axles F&R
- Direct acting shocks
- Pitman arm steering
- Spool
- 10" aluminium wheels
- air-cooled single cyl engine
- carbureted
- balsa bodywork (with a nice baltic pine stain)
- No aero
- No carbon
- Something made of dried kelp

Objective - build the simplest, lowest parts count, lowest process count car possible within the rules.

Swing axles? Why not? We were so close to it with our early geometry, why not go a little further and remove two chassis node points per corner. Simplifies upright articulation too.

Balsa bodywork? Make the thing look like a flying fruit box. Maybe allow on compound curved panel for the nose cone and a bit of a "bonnet" - polished aluminium?

Carbureted? Just coz I'm lazy, and I have seen Tokyo Denki whipping nearly all with a carbed 450 in 2002

Kelp? Damn cool material. Light, tough, formable, and at the end of the day you can shred it and serve it with Japanese noodles.

Pitman arm steering - light, almost friction free, no outboard bearings to bind a rack up.

Motor - Honda XR400 with electric start?? Single gear?? JAP speedway motor with electric start? Maybe kick or pull start from the cockpit (hey, it is a fantasy, OK?).

I reckon it would be a good challenge, cheap, easy to build, and I'd love to see how close you could get to the front with it...

rjwoods77

02-22-2013, 07:07 AM

Geoff,

I also thought that it would look rather classy to do a clear coated copper plated (or shiny copper painted) frame with walnut burl veneer covered body panels.

In Mini Baja everyone has the cord pullstart routed with a pulley to the cockpit just over your right shoulder so you can start it still belted up. I wanted to give it a go but the team wanted electric start.

Jawa 500 on E85 would work great.

Frank

02-22-2013, 10:16 AM

I have seen Tokyo Denki whipping nearly all with a carbed 450 in 2002

If you lay out a tight track then a "mario kart" should win.

what about a spring starter? http://springstarter.com/uploa...starter_on_ferry.wmv (http://springstarter.com/uploads/springstarter_on_ferry.wmv)

i can picture a Tokyo Denki driver furiously winding a handle to start their mario kart http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rjwoods77

02-22-2013, 10:36 AM

Frank,

That is pretty cool. I always loved this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlUTFi3cN00

...I am convinced that some of sound effects from Star Wars was based off of this. Also on an interesting side note I came across the fact that all the high powered v12 fighter engines were all fork and knife connecting rods to keep the overall length of the engine down...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/for...conrods-2-resize.jpg (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/engines/181416d1319512885t-connecting-rods-fork-type-vs-side-side-merlin-conrods-2-resize.jpg)

jlangholzj

02-22-2013, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by rjwoods77:
Geoff,

I also thought that it would look rather classy to do a clear coated copper plated (or shiny copper painted) frame with walnut burl veneer covered body panels.

In Mini Baja everyone has the cord pullstart routed with a pulley to the cockpit just over your right shoulder so you can start it still belted up. I wanted to give it a go but the team wanted electric start.

Jawa 500 on E85 would work great.

kind of like the new peugeot onyx?

http://thesuperslice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/001-peugeot-onyx-concept.jpg

rjwoods77

02-22-2013, 12:34 PM

jlangholzj,

I have never been a fan of copper in flat-ish surfaces since it always appears to be too much shine. On tubular/conical surfaces it works much better since its just enough to look sharp but not overwhelming such as this example...

http://urbanvelo.org/wordpress...9/03/day-4-31_61.jpg (http://urbanvelo.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/day-4-31_61.jpg)

This car is a decent overall example...

http://images.forum-auto.com/m...oodTorpedo%29-03.jpg (http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/336499/1924_Hispano-Suiza-H6C%28TulipwoodTorpedo%29-03.jpg)

...but on a FSAE car go very shiny on the rims, frame tubes, mirror, accent and then a deep dark rick burl on the bodywork/monocoque. I remember watching a Zagato bodied Aston Martin polished to perfection at a vintage race at Watkins Glen so years ago...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d...atpanzer/6074818326/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dryheatpanzer/6074818326/)

...The sunshine reflected off of the the car as if it drove through a shimmering halo coming out of the Esses and I froze to watch it every time. I could imagine on a nice sunny day a copper plated roll hoop and rims beaming light into the by standers would create a lot of smiles.

You could also do a patinated copper on black theme as well to get a real striking and original look such as this would represent...

http://www.bikermetric.com/201...copper-bmw-r513.html (http://www.bikermetric.com/2011/03/hugos-leather-and-copper-bmw-r513.html)

...you'll notice that I brought this all back to the flat twin idea of this topic. Anybody want to try fitting in my CAD to see what it looks like in comparison to other setups???

AxelRipper

02-22-2013, 03:05 PM

The issue with copper comes down to weight. Just a straight up density run:

Aluminum: 2.70 g/cm^3
Iron: 7.87 g/cm^3
Copper: 8.96 g/cm^3

So you'd actually be better off with steel bodywork than copper. Yes, it looks good, but if you had the skills to make it look good you could do the same thing out of aluminum (or Magnesium as I've seen done by one of the European teams) and then polish the hell out of it. The key here is getting the bodywork stiff enough and straight enough because a mirror shows all blemishes. The one finish worse than high gloss black at showing any bodywork flaws.

02-22-2013, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Big Bird:

I've always had this desire to build an "Anti-Technology Special":
- Steel spaceframe
- Swing axles F&R
- Direct acting shocks
- Pitman arm steering
- Spool
- 10" aluminium wheels
- air-cooled single cyl engine
- carbureted
- balsa bodywork (with a nice baltic pine stain)
- No aero
- No carbon
- Something made of dried kelp

Objective - build the simplest, lowest parts count, lowest process count car possible within the rules.
Geoff,

YES !!! (On most of your points. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

However, I am a bit more of a bamboo and hemp sort of guy. No, not for smoking! Seriously, hemp used to be the gold standard for ropes amongst olden day sailors. Like bamboo, it is very fast growing, and very strong. These (and your balsa, kelp, +++) are the original composites.

Could a team realistically use hemp on an FSAE car? Well, look at Henry Ford's Hemp Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8) (A cynical person might say that the grainy footage showing the sledgehammering of the body panels is due to attempted suppression of this information. After all, the OEMs don't want the buying public thinking that cars can be made crash proof. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

Also good to see that others are realising that brown (= copper, walnut, Ferrari red, ++) can be a sexy colour! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
~o0o~

Swing axles? Why not? We were so close to it with our early geometry, why not go a little further and remove two chassis node points per corner. Simplifies upright articulation too.
If possible, could you expand on this quote in the Suspension Design thread? What was your reasoning, etc.? (I will be adding more there soon.) I am getting PMs from students who are worried about going the "radically short FVSA" route. In particular, they are worried that the Design Judges might not like it.

I seem to recall your 2005/6 (?) RMIT car having very short FVSAs, but still managing to win a few comps?

Z

rjwoods77

02-22-2013, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by AxelRipper:
The issue with copper comes down to weight. Just a straight up density run:

Aluminum: 2.70 g/cm^3
Iron: 7.87 g/cm^3
Copper: 8.96 g/cm^3

So you'd actually be better off with steel bodywork than copper. Yes, it looks good, but if you had the skills to make it look good you could do the same thing out of aluminum (or Magnesium as I've seen done by one of the European teams) and then polish the hell out of it. The key here is getting the bodywork stiff enough and straight enough because a mirror shows all blemishes. The one finish worse than high gloss black at showing any bodywork flaws.

I said copper plating and/or paint, not copper paneling.

ChristianChalliner

02-24-2013, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Big Bird:
I haven't seen the UC Berkeley car, but like the idea of a "quick build" design.

I've always had this desire to build an "Anti-Technology Special":
- Steel spaceframe
- Swing axles F&R
- Direct acting shocks
- Pitman arm steering
- Spool
- 10" aluminium wheels
- air-cooled single cyl engine
- carbureted
- balsa bodywork (with a nice baltic pine stain)
- No aero
- No carbon
- Something made of dried kelp

Objective - build the simplest, lowest parts count, lowest process count car possible within the rules.

Swing axles? Why not? We were so close to it with our early geometry, why not go a little further and remove two chassis node points per corner. Simplifies upright articulation too.

Balsa bodywork? Make the thing look like a flying fruit box. Maybe allow on compound curved panel for the nose cone and a bit of a "bonnet" - polished aluminium?

Carbureted? Just coz I'm lazy, and I have seen Tokyo Denki whipping nearly all with a carbed 450 in 2002

Kelp? Damn cool material. Light, tough, formable, and at the end of the day you can shred it and serve it with Japanese noodles.

Pitman arm steering - light, almost friction free, no outboard bearings to bind a rack up.

Motor - Honda XR400 with electric start?? Single gear?? JAP speedway motor with electric start? Maybe kick or pull start from the cockpit (hey, it is a fantasy, OK?).

I reckon it would be a good challenge, cheap, easy to build, and I'd love to see how close you could get to the front with it...

Some of those ideas might not be so far into the future for my team at FSUK.

Swing axles (sortof) - Check
Direct Actuating SD's - Check
Partially Hemp made bodywork - Check
Steel Spaceframe for 2014 - Check
No aero - Check
13" wheels this year but possibly moving to 10" in 2014

We'll see if it actually gets the funding to get built.

Big Bird

02-24-2013, 06:23 PM

Woo hoo! Let me know how it goes Christian. Big tick on the hemp front.

Sort of swing axles??

ChristianChalliner

02-25-2013, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Big Bird:
Woo hoo! Let me know how it goes Christian. Big tick on the hemp front.

Sort of swing axles??

I will do http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lancaster Links is what I was meaning when I said 'sort of swing axles'.

My chassis designer isn't happy but ho hum.

Big Bird

02-25-2013, 11:28 AM

Christian, I meant the same as well. LL's.

I would have thought the chassis designer would have been rapt with two less node points per corner...

ChristianChalliner

02-25-2013, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Big Bird:
Christian, I meant the same as well. LL's.

I would have thought the chassis designer would have been rapt with two less node points per corner...

Ahh ok then,

Yeah so would I but he seems unhappy that suspension err 'ruins' his design.

Big Bird

02-25-2013, 10:53 PM

Suspension ruins his design? I guess he must feel the same way about driver controls too. And the driver. All those ugly things detracting from his pristine design. Your chassis designer doesn't go by the name of Le Corbusier, does he?

As many have said on here, your chassis designer is effectively designing a big bracket. How many others on the team have the luxury of only having to design one bracket? Give him a kick in the bum and tell him to stop being so precious.

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tom Wettenhall

02-26-2013, 08:57 PM

Fun thread!

Geoff, love the simplicity focus. Similarly, with a couple concessions for what I think will make pace:

Concept:
MASS CENTRALISATION AND LOW CG
1020 steel spaceframe with detachable machined aluminium rear bulkhead
Monoshock front and rear, Ohlins TTX25.2
Pushrods front and rear, unequal double wishbones from 4130 (Due to more power (=pitch movement) plus buggerall roll, want longer VSALs than pure swing axles)
Spool
600cc SOHC LC triple with rear tilted reversed cylinders on E85. ~14:1 compression. 3 speed sequential transaxle. 3 injectors in the runners and a showerhead just below the restrictor.
Dry sump (Love the idea of an accusump, but I can't see it being as thin or lasting as long as a full dry sump)
Goodyear 2704 tyres (sigh...)
Carbon or fibreglass structural seat with driver laid back 50-odd degrees to the vertical
1060mm front track, 1040mm rear track, 1585mm wheelbase
50% target front weight

Details:
Folded steel uprights
Proper strong pedalbox with adjustable heel rests only
Linear R&P steering with 200 degrees lock to lock on 30-35 degrees steered angle. 100mm steering arms (good idea, that man)
Single radiator left side, exhaust right side facing forward
Dash: SLM, starter, killswitch. That's it.
Mechanical linkage shifter with shift cut and hand cable clutch (route the cable in a sensible fashion so it doesn't require gorilla arms)
MoTeC EDL3, PDM15 and M400 under the seat along with an enduro + 2 laps fuel tank and a LiFePo4 battery.
Adjustable head rest
Driver adjustable brake bias (One more thing to stuff up, but given we never see the comp track before we get there...)

Big Bird

02-26-2013, 11:36 PM

Thanks Tom, I'm enjoying this thread too.

Re: the intent behind the Anti-Technology Special

I have often thought that the ATS would make a good project to attempt now I'm beyond FSAE - and I am sure I could drag together a team of other post-FSAE tragics to help out.

The purpose would not be to prove that the fastest / best / sexiest racecar in the world would be aircooled, have LL's and would look like a rabbit hutch on wheels. Rather, I would love to build it just to set a benchmark for everyone. Give ourselves a modest budget and arm ourselves with a modest workshop (mig welder, lathe, tool box, wood saw etc. - a slightly upmarket farm shed), and do our best to build an honest little racecar.

The rules of engagement would be something like this:
- Gather a team of, say, six competent people, each with full time jobs
- Define time limits - e.g. no one person may spend more than two hours a day, or ten hours a week total, on the project
- Define budget - e.g. investment pool of $2000 each
- Define standards of behaviour - e.g. tools down when any of the following are on the telly: Bathurst 1000, any MotoGP, Classic Restos, Blokesworld
- Define material and process boundaries - e.g. no materials or processes allowed that were not available to an engineer prior to 1948
- No calculators or computers allowed - slide rules only
- Plans to be drawn up on drawing boards, in correct third angle projection

Design, build, test and develop the car within a twelve month period, then take it to the local FSAE competition and put it up against all the university-entered, over-designed wonder-cars. I doubt it would win, but I doubt it would finish last either. A decent amount of time testing and driver training, and it would set a very useful benchmark for performance - the definitive FSAE performance baseline. Now that would be educational.

And any team that finished behind the ATS would be sentenced to six months barn construction service in their nearest Amish community - just to make sure the lesson was learnt.

Cheers all,

Frank

02-27-2013, 12:31 AM

I'm super keen to build an ATS!

Not so sure about the that drawing board business.. hand calcs yes, but I draw the line at pencils

Big Bird

02-27-2013, 01:19 AM

Cool! So between you, me and Z, we have Qld, Vic and NSW represented. Now we just need grumpy old men from Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the NT, and we have got the whole country covered http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Big Bird

02-27-2013, 01:22 AM

p.s. nice pencil pun, Frank. To be blunt, I need to sharpen up my act a bit on that front. My form is a bit sketchy...

Tom Wettenhall

02-27-2013, 02:02 AM

Well, if you want a hand... I've always wondered how an FSAE car built by pros (or plain old alumni tragics) would go. Unfortunately, I can't add an extra state to the list, being in Albury.

I understand the ATS much better now I know its reason for being. I still reckon you'd be better off with monoshocks and wishbones though, as it's easier to tie them to a spaceframe - the pre-existing longitudinal stringers are in better places relative to the locations for a sensible roll centre. Also, the structural analysis is more pencil-and-sliderule friendly as there's negligible bending loads involved, wishbones are dead easy to make anyway, and two shocks are cheaper than four.

Frank

02-27-2013, 03:24 AM

Designing an ATS would mean I'd be far to busy to post in this forum. That's a good thing yeah?

I've been lately working for an "ex-government department" who transport lots of coal by rail. In my first week there I was told, "You are not allowed to use 3D CAD, you're an engineer. It's your job to produce inaccurate hand sketches and vague verbal descriptions of components. Draftsmen then spend weeks trying to to make your concepts into working designs using AUTOCAD."

Big Bird

02-27-2013, 10:34 AM

Frank, we have a whole community here dedicated to vague verbal descriptions and incomplete ideas - myself included. Sounds like a dream job http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tom, I'd go as far as to say I wouldn't implement your suggested improvements on the ATS - because they are the universally accepted "improvements". My vision of the ATS is that EVERY designer obsessed with vehicle performance would look at it and say "geez, I wouldn't have done that". I'd want suspension designers to universally agree that their own suspensions were superior. I'd want all the engine guys to look at the ATS engine and snigger. I'd want chassis designers to look at it and think "Square tube? Ugh!". Etcetera. If everyone looked at the ATS and thought it too simple and naieve to be effective - THEN it would be an effective benchmark.

My hypothesis has always been that with our obsession with detail level "improvements", we often end up with a sub-optimal whole.

Maybe this is the seed for my long-elusive PhD...

DannytheRadomski

02-27-2013, 07:08 PM

On this thread I keep seeing tube frames, but why would you want tube frames? I don't really understand it.

PatClarke

02-27-2013, 07:13 PM

Danny, they are discussing the ATS!
The Anti Technology Special!

It's an 'old fart' thing ;-)

Pat

Frank

02-27-2013, 10:15 PM

Hi Pat,

What's your wish list for the ATS?

PatClarke

02-28-2013, 12:12 AM

Hi Frank,

When you get to my age, it doesn't matter as long as the rear seat is comfortable, the mini bar is stocked and the chauffeur is fully qualified ;-)

Pat

Kevin Hayward

02-28-2013, 02:09 AM

An ATS using a spaceframe is a little odd. It is way easier to build a fibreglass boat than weld a spaceframe.

Everytime this conversation comes around we ignore composites because its carbon and we cant do carbon without an autoclave. Excuse the language but that is poppycock.

The ATS should almost certainly feature a monocoque. Folded aluminium or maybe even a fibre glass chassis using a bathtub as a mold (I have seen high school kids do that one). Otherwise your just admitting you prefer fishmouthing steel with files much more than sitting back with a beer and waiting for the epoxy to dry.

One particularly cool thing I saw done by another group of high school kids in WA was making an electric car out of plywood. The whole thing was put together in about a day using handtools while other schools struggled with simple welded steel frames with horrible welds that took way longer to make. The thing is the plywood wonder not only looked better, but it ran the pants off the rest of the vehicles. Now substitute plywood with something even easier to work with ... say balsa wood ... and wrap the thing in a few layers of fibreglass (or maybe some black fabric) either side. Super stiff, super easy and the only tools required can be brought from bunnings for about the cost of a case of beer. I know a few high school kids that aren't afraid of a little glue and they can build it while you sit back and relax.

I don't think there has a team yet that has shown how easily a composte car can be put together if the focus was on speed of build and simplicity of manufacturing.

Now add to the boat (I mean car) a set of balsa wood beams wrapped in fibreglass (or your chosen fabric) from Z's brown gokart and you could get rid of a lot of that pesky welding.

We should be thinking how we could build these cars with the skills we left high school with, rather than the skills that we have developed over years of building over complicated vehicles.

So Geoff you collect Frank and a few other experts and I'll go out and buy some fabric and glue and recruit a few high school students. At the end of it all we can meet up and find out who has built the true ATS.

Kev

Frank

02-28-2013, 05:02 AM

I like plywood. I dont like messing around with glue so much.

So what to do for the ATS roll hoops?

And spring / damper from a kmart bicycle? or something more rugged?

And could you convert a canoe?

rrobb

02-28-2013, 06:43 AM

Bathtub mold?

Molds are too involved for a true ATS.

Do it Rutan style, but with simple flat panels instead of fancy hotwired shapes.

Since we're not overly concerned with the appearance, there's no need to spend a million hours sanding and finishing to get a pretty finish on it.

Balsa or foam for the core, on a per panel basis depending on loads. Both are pretty cheap and easy to source.

Interconected beams (with or without an intergrated undertray) would be pretty easy to do also. Maybe use a stronger wood for the core here like spruce or fir.

If you use some UWA style "W" springs you end up replacing 4 semi-expensive coil springs with some cheap steel plate cut with a common torch.

This also allows a single u-bar for roll instead of two. Easier, cheaper, and by de-coupling the roll mode from all the other suspension modes you don't need pimp shocks to get good dynamics. Just use whatever you can source quick and cheap. Like the discount store MTB shocks mentioned above.

For engine, I'd go with a Jawa (aircooled with a carb) with a plain centrificual clutch from a common yard kart. Do a chain drive to a cheap OTS mini-sprint solid axle.

I really like the idea of fabing up a simple pulley system for a pull start too. Should be easy enough.

There'd still be some welding to do for the roll hoops and probably fabricated steel uprights.

Simple, cheap, quick/easy to build, easy to drive, and probably much faster than most of the complicated, barley running POSs that many teams bring to comp.

My goal would be to spend more on tires during the many months of testing we'd have than we spent to build the thing in the first place.

Even including all those tires, I think you could do the whole thing for less than $10K USD.

Kevin Hayward

02-28-2013, 06:45 AM

Frank,

The glues a bit messy ... that's why I'll have the younger kids helping http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Simple bolt in rear hoop and supports. Bond or bolt the front one in. Admittedly the downside to the monocoque is that you do need to test a couple of things. Not difficult to do if you approach it using physical tests. Have to use up some of the relaxation time to do it unfortunately.

Because of giving you a downside I'll give you an upside. If you don't want to cut out the plywood / balsa shapes there are plenty of local guys with CNC routers. Set you back about $100 for the machining of all the forms you would want.

Spring dampers from wrecked old school motorbikes. Two per rear end. Or you may want to look at elastomer pucks from the F500s in the US, or similar materials from some pushbikes. I met a guy in Perth about a decade ago doing some amazing things with the damping properties of elastomers.

I'm beginning to think the car should have a case of beer rule. If any individual part costs more than a case of beer, or takes longer to make than drink said case amongst a few mates then the priorities are wrong.

Kev

Francis Gagné

02-28-2013, 09:08 AM

I agree than flat panel monocoque is a great idea. It can be really simple to build. With post-glued inserts. Every mounting holes can be drilled by hand and easily positioned without any jig. You need paper and a plotter if you're fancy or just a good square angle ruler if your more patient.

In the same idea, why no a cut and fold with aluminum panels with some aluminum sheet lap joints? The idea is absolutely not new and the material either. You can probably buy the panel prebonded and stock, you need to route the cuts, some glue and you have a chassis. You can cut the holes with an hand drill and a holesaw before folding and glue inserts from the outside. For me it's easier to build, I have a router, epoxy and acetone. I don't own a welding machine, and I have no idea how to use one either... On the other end you do have to test the panel.

With a commercially available alu sandwich panel of 0.028" 5052-H32 Facing Sheet with 1" total thickness a 38" square foot tub would be 16kg (35lbs) w/o hoops and inserts. Panel cost of about 500$! Since it has pretty much the same specific stiffness as fiberglass, it's ductile, and less expensive it would be an appropriate choice for a mold-less, jigless chassis. And you don't need to build a bodywork.

As for the ATS rules itself :

Originally posted by Big Bird:

The rules of engagement would be something like this:
- Gather a team of, say, six competent people, each with full time jobs
- Define time limits - e.g. no one person may spend more than two hours a day, or ten hours a week total, on the project
- Define budget - e.g. investment pool of $2000 each
- Define standards of behaviour - e.g. tools down when any of the following are on the telly: Bathurst 1000, any MotoGP, Classic Restos, Blokesworld
- Define material and process boundaries - e.g. no materials or processes allowed that were not available to an engineer prior to 1948
- No calculators or computers allowed - slide rules only
- Plans to be drawn up on drawing boards, in correct third angle projection

Design, build, test and develop the car within a twelve month period, then take it to the local FSAE competition and put it up against all the university-entered, over-designed wonder-cars. I doubt it would win, but I doubt it would finish last either. A decent amount of time testing and driver training, and it would set a very useful benchmark for performance - the definitive FSAE performance baseline. Now that would be educational.

I don't know if we should really limit materials, process, computers/program, tools allowed but all equipment prices should be included in the price limit. (Assuming a 10000$ limit) If you want a 2000$ computer, you have 8000$ left for the car! If you want a 5000$ mold for the chassis/bodywork build, you have 3000$ left. Donations or man time, if any, have to be included in the cost limit. Just like a real locost build. Standard tools may be exempted (Conventional lathe and milling, hammers, screwdrivers, blow torch, welder, drill, etc) all other process are by production cost (CNC, laser cutting, professional painting, etc are to be declared in the cost). Then everything is left to a strategy and engineering choice, lots of creativity involved. The price limit should be at the limit of what is possible for making a legal car.

But may be I'm not old enough to get it...

mech5496

02-28-2013, 09:28 AM

We built our first monocoque using some of the ideas here. Mold was built as a 3D puzzle using only flat surfaces. Curves for aisthetis were hand curved using foam, body filler and some laser cut guides. Monocoque was built using VARTM and room temp cure. Core was high density foam panels, hand cut using a plotter printed drawing; inserts and holes were also located in the same fashion. The whole thing took 3 fairly inexperienced people and about two weeks to build. Having experience building a spaceframe I dare saying monocoque was easier, and if we had a sponsor for the resin it would be cheaper too...

02-28-2013, 06:49 PM

A plywood monocoque is VERY feasible for FSAE. I would say potentially better performance (less weight, more strength, etc.) at less cost and time (and smell!) than a CF tub.

Look at the evolution of "18 footer" sailing skiffs on Sydney harbour for a good example (these are very light, and very fast, "surfboards" with a massive sail and 3 man crew). Originally traditional wooden boat construction, then fibreglass+foam-core, then CF+honeycomb, then (~1990s?) plywood "eggcrate" construction (= multitude of laser-cut ~2mm thick plywood ribs and stringers, skinned in similar thickness plywood). Not sure what is the current favourite construction?

Another example is the Mosquito bomber from WWII. Also the plywood chassis Marcos, err, "low-volume" sports cars from the UK from 1960-70+s (eventually changed to space frame). These were of incredibly simple construction of flat plywood panels, mostly just stapled together!

Look for "aircraft plywood", which is widely available and reasonably priced. Best quality from Scandinavian countries (I think mainly Finland?). This is available down to 3-ply only 0.4mm total thickness (!), though mostly the individual plies are 0.5mm thick. Multiple thin sheets can be laminated against a mould like CF pre-preg, but with lower density. Look at many "architectural" features, chairs, etc.

A one-piece moulded tub about 10mm thick at floor level, tapering to 2mm at top, and locally thicker at suspension, etc., attachments, would work well. Hardest part would be the Structural-Equivalency Rules...
~o0o~

But making moulds for tubs is too much work for me. And so is fish-mouthing dozens of tube ends, so no spaceframe either (and the space frame still needs bodywork!).

So as I have said before, it is an ALL-STEEL MONOCOQUE for me! Roughly speaking, a laid down 44-gallon drum with a hole cut into the top.

I would use galvanised steel sheets mainly 0.6mm and 1.0mm thick, with some 1.6mm for local stiffening. Prototype sheets hand cut with a "nibbler". Later models use laser/plasma/whatever-cut sheets. The laser-cut sheets can be self-jigging (tab-A fits into slot-B). All welded together with a hand held spot welder, or MIG with "spot welding" timer (ie. it gives a ~1 second burst, then turns off).

Lots of 1-D curves to add stiffness and strength. "Skeletonised" rear for engine access (ie. some tubework). Total weight less than 30 kg. Total material cost ~$100.

One big advantage is the ease of making changes. Want to bolt something heavy where there is only thin skin? Spot-weld some top-hat sections there to spread the load. You find the cockpit is too narrow for your new and very fast, but widebody, driver? Slit the whole tub lengthwise and spot-weld in an extra 100mm widening strip.

The other very real advantage is that this is probably the safest type of FSAE chassis possible (take a sledge hammer to a 44 gallon drum to see how tough they are). The typical bodywork that clothes current spaceframes is no real protection against wishbones penetrating the cockpit. And look at the location of front wishbones relative to sensitive parts of the driver!
~o0o~

Oh, and rubber bungee cords for suspension (seriously!). The high strain-energy/mass meant they were almost universal on early aeroplanes. Easy to adjust spring-rate by using more or less loops of the cord. Cheap, and they have internal damping...

But I've rambled on long enough .....

Z

mech5496

02-28-2013, 11:14 PM

Z,
Thats certainly ATS, although I wouldn't do much of it in FSAE, mainly because I love high quality parts. Junkyard wars racecar maybe?

Have you seen WWU car (I think) from some years ago? It used some 100mm dia CF tubes running on both sides of the driver with bonded machined aluminum bulkheads for mounting suspension etc.

IMO plywood monocoque is as labour inyensive as a CF tub, and harder to do any calcs, so CF for me. Folded/bonded/riveted aluminum panel monocoques (see Oxford Brookes, Cardiff, Swansea and others) seem neat and easy to buold. Same could be done with pre-fabbed CF flat panels.

03-01-2013, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by mech5496:
Have you seen WWU car (I think) from some years ago?.
Harry,

Here is WWU's "Twin-Tube" chassis, taken from a 2005 thread. Quite a good idea IMO.

http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/images/V35%20Chassis_jpg.jpg

From the same 2005 thread, here is my post on the 44-gallon-drum chassis. (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/59910078621?r=93510309621#93510309621) This post also suggests a sheet steel version of the WWU Twin-Tube, which would make an incredibly simple, ATS-style, chassis.

Z

Luniz

03-02-2013, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:

I don't think there has a team yet that has shown how easily a composte car can be put together if the focus was on speed of build and simplicity of manufacturing.

Kev

Kev, have you ever seen the Oxford Brookes car? It's a folded/riveted/glued Aluminium sheet and honeycomb panel design, and they have told me that they built it with three people in less than a week. Simplicity of manufacturing and easily achievable accuracy were their main goals as far as I can remember...
If you are on facebook, search for them and browse through their galleries, they have published a ton of pics!

Moreboost

03-02-2013, 04:54 AM

WA 2011 car with a Ka-racing's engine and 8" tyres

The catch - good luck finding off the shelf tyres

Kevin Hayward

03-02-2013, 05:43 AM

Luniz,

ECU did it before Oxford Brookes, and even they weren't the first. The ECU chassis takes a couple of guys a week to build and each year has got a little quicker. Still think it can be done even easier if you changed suspension types to avoid needing any sort of chassis accuracy.

Kev

Markus

03-02-2013, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Moreboost:
WA 2011 car with a Ka-racing's engine and 8" tyres

The catch - good luck finding off the shelf tyres

Tires are easy to find. Fitting everything into the corner is more work but doable.

mech5496

03-02-2013, 08:24 AM

?,

2005 is waaay to old for me in these forums, I was still in high school back then. Thanks for pointing that very thread out. On the "huge steel tube" of yours, one thing that worries me is local bending stiffness on the suspesnion mounting points of A-Arms. On the other hand it should have and outstanding torsional stiffness. But the actual chassis section loaded in torsion is extremely short and most of it is the cockpit area, which should be cut open and therefore not great for torsion (cockpit perimeter ribs can do a fair bit of work). The sidewalls see out-of plane bending (from A-Arms) and thin sections don't really like out-of-plane bending. Things would be significally better with a beam setup though....

DannytheRadomski

03-02-2013, 02:51 PM

As long as its an ATS, why not skip suspension? Or do something like torsion bars or leaf springs? Could you use the flex of the chassis as suspension?

nowhere fast

03-02-2013, 06:03 PM

Danny, rule T6.1 states: “The car must be equipped with a fully operational suspension system with shock absorbers, front and rear, with usable wheel travel of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) jounce and 25.4 mm (1 inch) rebound, with driver seated.” Meaning that the car must have suspension, and it’s unlikely that chassis flex would be considered a fully operational suspension system. However, I still think there is a way that the suspension could be simplified further.

For some time now I have had the idea of a ‘bulldozer inspired’ suspension. The typical FSAE car has a 4 degree of freedom suspension system (heave, roll, pitch, warp), bulldozers only have a single degree of freedom suspension system (only warp, although I’m simplifying things a bit here). You only need 1 DOF to keep 4 wheels in contact with uneven ground, so why add more if you’re aiming for simplicity?

A car with only a warp DOF would not need suspension springs, as the cross weights would simply balance themselves. The geometry of the suspension arrangement would determine the lateral load transfer distribution (e.g. for a rearward distribution the front wheels would travel further during a warp movement than the rear wheels).

The car would likely be cited as being in breach of the intent of rule T6.1, but I think it meets the rule as it is written. Each wheel could have the required travel relative to the chassis, and there are no restrictions given on the travel of the wheels relative to each other.

This suspension could be achieved by using beam axles front and rear which are attached to the chassis on longitudinal pivots through the car centreline. The front and rear axles could then be coupled in a few different ways. One way would be to have pull-rods at each wheel which act on bellcranks, the two bellcranks on each side of the car would then be coupled by a longitudinal pushrod or cable between them. LLTD can be adjusted with different pickups on the bellcranks. The suspension would technically be over constrained with a longitudinal connection down the left and right sides, so it would be necessary to provide some compliance somewhere or maybe just connecting one side would be a better idea.

A simpler way would be to replace the pull-rods and bellcranks with wire rope and pulleys. Changing the longitudinal position of the pulleys or changing the position of where the wire rope connects on the outboard side would change the LLTD. By attaching the front outboard end of each cable to the upright away from the steering axis, the cross weights will change when the wheels are steered, which may allow a spool or live axle rear to be used (I haven’t thought too hard about this, it may over constrain the system).

Alternative suspension types to the centre pivot beam axles could be used by coupling the left and right sides in a similar way to how the front and rear were coupled, but I think the beam axle is the simplest option.

Dampers are required by the rules, but the warp mode may need damping anyway. Deflection of the tyres may allow the axles to roll in opposite directions to each other while it is travelling over flat ground. Damping should help keep this deflection of the tyres in check. Conventional dampers are not ideal because of the gas spring rate, and asymmetric damping properties. A through rod or rotary damper (motorcycle steering damper perhaps?) would be better choices. You could also make some kind of friction dampers or use the damping properties of an elastomer or rubber, as suggested by Kevin and Z, in order to satisfy the rules while keeping things low tech.

For those that aren’t familiar, suspended bulldozers have two longitudinal beams called track frames which the track and rollers etc. mount to on the left and right sides. These track frames are mounted to the main chassis on a pivot with a lateral axis somewhere towards the rear of the machine. The front of the left and right track frames are then coupled together by an equaliser bar which is free to pivot about an axis which lies on the centreline of the bulldozer chassis. When the front of one track frame moves up, the other moves down.
The recent UWA car is similar in some ways. Replace the ‘w’ springs with pivots, and the u-bar with a pivot, and you have your bulldozer style suspension.

mech5496

03-03-2013, 12:39 AM

MWhat you described is actually Z's twinbeam interconnected setup, only Z setup allows pitch/heave motion. Bulldozer style susension would be even simpler to build, but I'm quite sure it will be deemed illegal.The scrutineers like to check suspension travel by jumping up and down on the chassis. In that case, bulldozer setup would not pass...

03-03-2013, 03:26 AM

Nathan,

You may not be aware of it, but I have been flogging that horse since the last century (PM me and I can send you a year 2000 SAE paper).

Don't expect any results soon. Citroen used a similar suspension on its 2CV, designed in late 1930s. Farm tractors (and bulldozers, and ride-on-mowers, and +++) have used similar since the first steam traction engines rattled out of their sheds in the early 1800s. Wooden carts have had soft twist-mode (= soft warp) since, well..., forever...

It is really only motorsports people that can't figure it out. For example, it took UWA's 2012 team of students "a couple of hours" (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/46620518151?r=45020818151#45020818151), using drawings and an actual car, to explain it to Claude, the motorsport expert.

Z

nowhere fast

03-05-2013, 03:02 AM

Harry,

I agree that it probably wouldn’t be allowed to run. However, you could place a brick underneath one wheel and the other 3 would remain in contact with the ground, while most conventional cars would lift a wheel in this circumstance. You could repeat this for the other wheels to demonstrate that they all meet the travel requirement.

Z,

Back when I was in a team I saw a sketch of a z-bar concept you posted on here. It didn’t occur to me that the arrangement I proposed above is essentially the same as the z-bar concept, but with the spring elements replaced with rigid elements to lock the heave, pitch, and roll modes. I have also seen some of your more recent posts on the topic, so I am certainly aware of your stance.

mech5496

04-25-2014, 02:21 AM

Geoff,

YES !!! (On most of your points. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

However, I am a bit more of a bamboo and hemp sort of guy. No, not for smoking! Seriously, hemp used to be the gold standard for ropes amongst olden day sailors. Like bamboo, it is very fast growing, and very strong. These (and your balsa, kelp, +++) are the original composites.

Could a team realistically use hemp on an FSAE car? Well, look at Henry Ford's Hemp Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8) (A cynical person might say that the grainy footage showing the sledgehammering of the body panels is due to attempted suppression of this information. After all, the OEMs don't want the buying public thinking that cars can be made crash proof. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

Also good to see that others are realising that brown (= copper, walnut, Ferrari red, ++) can be a sexy colour! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
~o0o~

Z

Back from the dead and a tad offtopic, but this picture came through yesterday and I tought that anti-technology lovers would like it! (Some interesting features indeed)
257