@rustlerboi1052 actually it does. because of the relatively low speed these cars will run you have to run a extreme wing in order to get more downforce
the only aero package that makes sense on an FSAE car is ground effects. Anywhere below 60mph this will not create any more than maybe 60lbs of downforce. instead you could just engineer a better suspension geometry to get the necessary contact with the tarmac. this competition isn't about sticking a big ass wing on the back. judges frown upon this type of stuff.
I know the results of the last few years. GFR has an aero package that was justified by lower lap times and DAQ. They are one of the few teams (out of maybe, 3 or 4 off the top of my head) that had ANY daq to back up their choice to run an aggressive aerodynamics setup. So in turn, I can almost guarantee you that this team did not have any conclusive justification besides putting it on a truck bed and seeing how it pushes the scales.
The team has actually published a number of SAE papers on the design, development and justification of the aero package, check it out if you're interested;
Aerodynamics for Formula SAE: Initial Design and Performance Prediction (2006-01-0806)
Aerodynamics for Formula SAE: A Numerical, Wind Tunnel and On-Track Study (2006-01-0808)
Aerodynamics for Formula SAE: On-Track Performance Evaluation (2007-01-0897)
Search for Monash Motorsports facebook for videos of wind tunnel testing
That wing does absolutely NOTHING.
rustlerboi1052 1 year ago
@rustlerboi1052 actually it does. because of the relatively low speed these cars will run you have to run a extreme wing in order to get more downforce
3star2nr 11 months ago
@3star2nr
the only aero package that makes sense on an FSAE car is ground effects. Anywhere below 60mph this will not create any more than maybe 60lbs of downforce. instead you could just engineer a better suspension geometry to get the necessary contact with the tarmac. this competition isn't about sticking a big ass wing on the back. judges frown upon this type of stuff.
rustlerboi1052 11 months ago
@rustlerboi1052
Check the results for the FSAE competition for the last few years.
You really should do some actual analysis instead of making incorrect and unfounded statements like that.
LukePAUS 6 months ago
@LukePAUS
I know the results of the last few years. GFR has an aero package that was justified by lower lap times and DAQ. They are one of the few teams (out of maybe, 3 or 4 off the top of my head) that had ANY daq to back up their choice to run an aggressive aerodynamics setup. So in turn, I can almost guarantee you that this team did not have any conclusive justification besides putting it on a truck bed and seeing how it pushes the scales.
rustlerboi1052 5 months ago
Comment removed
LukePAUS 5 months ago
@rustlerboi1052
The team has actually published a number of SAE papers on the design, development and justification of the aero package, check it out if you're interested;
Aerodynamics for Formula SAE: Initial Design and Performance Prediction (2006-01-0806)
Aerodynamics for Formula SAE: A Numerical, Wind Tunnel and On-Track Study (2006-01-0808)
Aerodynamics for Formula SAE: On-Track Performance Evaluation (2007-01-0897)
Search for Monash Motorsports facebook for videos of wind tunnel testing
LukePAUS 5 months ago
@LukePAUS
Hm... interesting. I will read those.
rustlerboi1052 5 months ago
@LukePAUS
I also did not realize that this wasn't a US team. I was talking strictly for US teams that have done data acquisition.
rustlerboi1052 5 months ago
holy crap!! that thing looks awesome!!!
AusPete1983 2 years ago
sweet
b18c5integra 4 years ago