F1technical.net

The first official event of the "2013" season...

UWA brought something interesting(some pic might be from Facebook, so if you have FB filter you might have trouble viewing them):

Quite. Good on them for doing something unique. Wish I could see more of the underside of that front suspension structure.

Jersey Tom wrote:Quite. Good on them for doing something unique.

werd check the mounting of the fire extinguisher on the push bar.

In all seriousness wtf is up with the suspension not even sure what they are trying to do there.

I'd wager they're trying to go fast.

I started making a list of interesting points about the thing but it's a bit too long and disjoint for a post. Those 'W' shaped cutouts front and rear have more of my curiosity than the ultrashort FVSAL on the front susp, or "outboard" dampers.

so when I google what FVSAL means I get JTs blog and still no idea what it stands for.

The "dampers" for some reason seems to be for rule compliance.....I am still not quire sure how the chassis(the holds the engine and driver) are attached and interacted with the chassis that has the wheels....

flynfrog wrote:so when I google what FVSAL means I get JTs blog and still no idea what it stands for.

Front view swing arm length?

Pierce89 wrote:

flynfrog wrote:so when I google what FVSAL means I get JTs blog and still no idea what it stands for.

Front view swing arm length?

ah!

so it looks like they are attempting some sort of double chassis?

There are some results update on FSAE-A's FB page, curiously the UWA car is not on any of them....I am guessing here but I wonder if they deemed the car illegal....

https://www.facebook.com/FSAEAustralasia

Is that a cast upright I see?

Jersey Tom wrote:I'd wager they're trying to go fast.
Those 'W' shaped cutouts front and rear have more of my curiosity than the ultrashort FVSAL on the front susp, or "outboard" dampers.

If you are talking about the shape of the floor, I doubt that is working. The intake should not be raised so much because it is generating lift on the front. Which means it will generate less DF, if any, than with a low intake and the balance is messed up because the CoP is far rearwards.

Nah not the shape of the floor. Look right about at axle centerline on the front susp, between the two bulkheads There's a sheet/plate metal cutout maybe 1/4" thick in a "W" shape. Also on the rear susp. Some sort of flexure force element maybe.

Not to say that any of this is necessarily good design engineering or whether or not it meets the objective they were trying to achieve, but I do like when kids are willing to do things a bit unconventional.

http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201211075188 ... ver-design

Not much to be found about the car ...

As they have decided not to participate in dynamic tests it looks like they did not achieve all their goals .
The basic ideas reduce parts count and parts cost (less machining),increase parts functionalities (integration) etc etc is exactly what you have to do if you want to get people take notice.

http://motorsport.mech.uwa.edu.au/news/ ... cally.html
http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8256 ... 9520687151

Well looking forward to the explanation....

FYI the rule he was referring to:

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. The judges reserve the right to disqualify cars which do not
represent a serious attempt at an operational suspension system or which demonstrate handling
inappropriate for an autocross circuit.

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 5174_o.jpg