Sunteți pe pagina 1din 27

Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

Formula Student 2014


Formula Student

Delft strides to victory in Understanding the Four-part aero study

UK event with electric car effect of the big wings of Team Baths TBR 14
AL w i t h R AC E

Subscribe to the digital edition
for fast and easy access to Racecar
Engineering anytime, anywhere.

Available on:


All the breaking news, technical

developments, race results and
rule changes as they happen.

Have the latest developments delivered direct to your inbox by signing up to our email newsletter,
and keep up to date with breaking news and commentary as it happens by following us
on social media.

Subscribe to our newsletter
/RacecarEngineering @RacecarEngineer +Racecar Engineering

ormula Student 2014 was, in a way, with the ZEOD, but also the Perrinn LMP1-H

CONTENTS the end of an era. The large wings that

were sported by but a few teams were
prevalent throughout the grid, as more
concept and Nicolas Perrin was there to discuss
engineering with students of all ages. The fatter
rulebook in sports car racing means that he may
5 DELFT TAKES VICTORY teams sought the golden egg of downforce at have to employ a full time member of staff just
Electric car wins again in UK event the expense of drag. Organisers have taken a to understand the regulations and ensure that
view of the wing culture and moved to reduce the car, when it is built, is legal. As Formula 1
6 WINNER UNDER SCRUTINY the maximum size of wings for next year but, and sports cars look to reduce costs, word from
What made the Dutch car so good? such as is the way in motorsport, teams are within the sports car camp is that what cannot
8 OXFORD BROOKES already working on other ways to generate that be policed (such as the braking systems) is just
Top UK contender was fascinating same downforce level. being allowed to prevent restrictive regulation.
For 2015, it would seem that teams will be This approach leads to more innovation and a
11 AERO QUESTIONS investigating underfloor aerodynamics and face far more interesting time for engineers.
The rise of big wings was a major topic the tough challenge of getting them to work This years Formula Student UK event at
14 AEROBYTES even at low speeds seen in the FS competition. Silverstone was won once again by electric cars,
Its a valuable lesson to learn if you want to but there is still a huge demand in racing for
Team Baths entry in the wind tunnel
continue a career in motor racing any rule combustion specialists, and there was a mix of
19 BALANCING ACT change simply leads to another problem to one, two and four cylinder engines. Lightweight
Perfecting balance in the tunnel solve, ground taken has to be won back in other was still a target for some teams, and in their
ways and with that comes extra cost. presentation at Bedford, the University of Bath
Yet, with the extra cost comes more revealed that it is looking at switching its design
Further aero development
learning, and that is the key. It wasnt so long to a one cylinder turbo next year, looking for
23 YAW STUDIES ago that wings were being fitted to Formula 1 more power from a lightweight engine.
A final look at Team Baths TBR 14 in the cars with engineers not really understanding For the Formula Student competition, the
MIRA wind tunnel their full effect. Now, a whole industry has limitation on wings is just one change for next
grown up around aerodynamics and the rule year. We detail the full list of changes for 2015 in
28 2015 REGULATIONS book is now significantly fatter as regulators try this supplement but one thing is sure, the 2015
Changes are afoot for the 2015Formula to deal with the results. event is going to be fascinating.
Student UK event. We pick out the At an IMechE event held at the Bedford
key points. Modern School in November, exhibitors ANDREW COTTON
included Lotus, Aston Martin and Nissan Editor, Racecar Engineering



Roll Cage and Chassis Tubing specialists

supporting Formula Student Racing


02476 645 551


Over the last few years Aerocom Metals have become more involved with DISTRIBUTION
the formula student competition, supporting teams around the world with
both technical knowledge and discounted materials. With our expertise Aerocom work closely
being in high strength steel tubing we have focused our help on the with the major
distribution networks to
chassis and roll cage tubing, to this end we now carry large stocks of the
ensure international
regulation sizes in a range of materials including T45, 4130 and CDS.
carriage charges are kept
to a minimum and are
cost effective

Alloy Stainless
>> 4140 >> 13/8

LARGE STOCK RANGE >> 4340 >> 17/4

>> 4330 >> 15/5
Aerocom holds one of the worlds largest stock ranges in roll cage tubing on
>> S515
the shelf at our facility in Coventry, with over 50 sizes of T45, 100 sizes of
4130 and 40 sizes of CDS & 15CDV6. We also carry a full range of bar, >> 300M
sheet and plate to meet all of your requirements

Dutch success in UK
The TU Delft entrys all-round performance clinches victory in
another tight and competitive Formula Student shoot-out

The TU Delft electric entry was dominant in the tight and twisty Sprint event and held on to their points advantage to win overall, despite a slow Endurance race

ast year saw the first electric car to time of 48.748 seconds, nearly 6.5 seconds ahead from Munich, Chalmers, Monash, Delft and
win the UK Formula Student event at of second place Karlsruhe and that turned out Karlsruhe could beat them.
Silverstone and the trend continued to be a turning point in the competition. Third The first of the top five to face problems was
this year as TU Delft claimed the overall was Monash with its front and rear DRS proving Chalmers, which had brakes issues after only two
top spot with their electric, all wheel drive, effective. To avoid the unpredictable Silverstone laps. Next to suffer was the Munich team which,
centreless wheel concept. weather playing havoc with the results, the top after six laps, had a jubilee clip failure resulting
Surprisingly, although Silverstones five teams from the Sprint event all started the in the silencer hanging off. Delfts strategy was
microclimate varied from a blistering hot 23degC Endurance event at the same time, resulting in a to race to a specific lap time. However, each
on the Saturday, to a chillier 16degC during grand prix-style finale to the competition. stint is essentially a sprint, and the Dutch teams
some parts of Sunday with the continual threat Team Bath Racing opened the event, but pace was slow. Monash was the first to cross
of rain, the Acceleration, Sprint and Endurance problems emerged towards the end of their race the line and topped the times, while Karlsruhe
events were barely affected by the weather. when a fault led to the loss of the front brakes. had gearshift problems but managed to take
Saturday saw the top five design finalists Meanwhile their UK rival, Oxford Brookes, had third place. The Delft car completed the race in
fighting for position as judges scrutinised the their own worries to deal with; a slow Zwickau a disappointing eighth place. Crucially however,
design, manufacture and engineering of every car, three engine restart attempts at the driver they remained ahead of their main rivals ETH
area of the cars. Oxford Brookes finished top, changeover and then a connector breaking from Zurich by 1.7 seconds and therefore the point
followed by Stuttgart, Zurich, Delft and Karlsruhe the pneumatic valve block resulting in the driver difference between them was minimal.
a good indication of the teams to watch out for being unable to shift down through the gears. The final results were announced at the
throughout the weekend. Oxford Brookes finished 20 seconds ahead of closing Awards Ceremony, and TU Delfts
The dynamic events start with acceleration, Team Bath Racing. Last years champions, ETH successful sprint time over their rivals helped
and unsurprisingly the electric cars dominated, Zurich had three motors dropping out due to them to become the 2014 Formula Student
with the top six run-off becoming a battle electrical drivetrain problems in the first stint, UK Champions with a total of 855.5 points. In
between the electrics. ETH Zurich took the top and although their pace improved, they began second place, 18.7 points behind, was three-time
time of 3.441 seconds for the 75m standing start to lap slowly and held up triple champions champion Stuttgart and third was Karlsruhes
two tenths quicker than last years effort. Stuttgart, who lost 13 seconds in one lap. The combustion car. Last years winners ETH Zurich
The next major dynamic event is the Sprint, Germans, who were competing against Oxford came in fourth due to several electrical problems
which comprises an 800m long tight track and Brookes for first, then found themselves stuck disrupting their weekend and fifth was Oxford
pushes the cars manoeuvrability and handling behind another electric car from NTNU on their Brookes, snatching the top UK title by 1.2 points
to the limits. Delft secured top with an excellent final lap and had to hope that none of the teams from Team Bath Racing, which finished sixth.



Dominating Delft
Six-time victors TU Delft brought a car packed with new ideas,
clever design and effective engineering to take the win

Advanced design of the victorious DUT14 includes

smaller, wider tyres, all wheel electric drive with
integrated hub motors, a full aero package and a
lightweight lithium polymer cell pack

he TU Delft Formula Student team step of TU Delfts 2014 car; self-designing the Our brake design is really special because we
has enjoyed a rich history of success tyres in collaboration with Apollo to be smaller have our hubs so big due to the large ring gear,
since it was founded back in 2000 and wider. The next issue to overcome was the that the brake disc would not fit on the inside
by two students. With six overall transmission; the team wanted to continue using of the hub, so we had to fit it on the outside. As
competition wins under their belt since, the 2014 the same motors as last year but because the the disc is so large, we could have many holes
Silverstone event saw the TU Delft team and the tyre size was smaller, this meant that a smaller which allow us to brake harder and also as it is
DUT14 car add another overall first place trophy gear ratio was required and prompted the on the outside, the air can flow around it so we
to their cabinet. Renowned for being one step move to a one-stage planetary transmission, have better brake cooling, explains Tim Houter,
ahead of the game, with their 2012 car being the which resulted in a 50 per cent weight saving Delfts chief of vehicle dynamics. The brake discs
first to feature four wheel drive, traction control compared to last year. We thought to ourselves; are made of an aluminium matrix composite
and torque vectoring at the UK competition, this wheels have spokes why do they need spokes? developed for the aerospace industry.
years car did not disappoint. We can just put the gears in the middle of the Of course, the wider tyres came with
The most astonishing innovation in the tyre and connect the ring gear directly to the new challenges, such as fitting the pullrod
pitlane was undoubtedly TU Delfts effectively wheel, explains chief engineer Marinus van der suspension to the uprights and resulted in
centreless wheels which played a big part Meijs. We then had the transmission inside the over 55 design iterations to determine the
in getting them to the design finals of the wheel, so why not the motors and the brake location of the arms which optimised the
competition. A trend that we began to see discs too? I think its like a ladys handbag you design without the parts colliding.
last year was teams not only downsizing their can fit more inside then you think. All of this Unfortunately, we couldnt fit the driver in
wheels from 13in to 10in, but also making the weighed in at just 10kg, which is 2kg lighter per the wheels too, so we had to make a chassis,
tyres wider for increased grip. This was the first wheel than the 2013 car, the DUT13. jokes Meijs. We were at lunch and decided that


Aero design focuses on balancing drag and downforce. Last years
car ran wingless after aero development time ran out

Suspension arm design took 55 iterations before optimisation with the smaller tyre package was achieved

we needed a material similar to a sandwich; two

strong materials on the outside which are not
so good in bending such as carbon fibre and
then a lightweight filling such as aluminium
honeycomb. The result of this was a chassis that
weighs as much as a crate of beer and is 3kg
lighter than the DUT13s foam core design.
Last year, the TU Delft team had developed
their first attempt at an aerodynamics package, Radical rethink of wheel and hub design looks inside-out but is light
but the design and manufacturing challenges and functional. Exposed brake disc gets maximum cooling
of making successful wings meant that they
decided to run without it. This year however, the
team started the design process much earlier,
allowing prototypes to be made and tested Carbon fibre and aluminium honeycomb sandwich
before being included in the cars final design as results in a light but rigid chassis structure
well as improving the assembly and production
procedures. This resulted in the successful the number of wires per battery package was
implementation of front and rear wings as well reduced from 40 to two. Another example is
as a diffuser. To address the issue of the front found in the sensor node design. Unlike previous
wing blocking undisturbed air to the diffuser cars that had a unique design for each part, a
and the cooling, the nose height was increased, shared a common sensor node was developed
creating a slot for smooth air to flow through. that could be used anywhere on the car;
For electric cars in particular, reducing drag is increasing data reliability.
vital because the higher the drag, the more Regenerative braking combines with lightweight lithium polymer
energy required to accelerate and therefore Battery efficiency batteries to provide efficient energy management
larger and heavier accumulators are needed The energy of the car is stored in an accumulator
the exact opposite to Delfts lightweight motto. made of lithium polymer cells and (you alone which is why we have regenerative
Thus the rear wing was one of the smallest in guessed it) is extremely lightweight. If we braking. When we brake, energy is put back into
the paddock, featuring two elements but still made our accumulator out of batteries found the accumulator and this generates around 30
produced just enough downforce (75kg at in a normal car it would weigh around 200kg, per cent of our total power.
60km/h) to ensure the aerodynamic forces act in whereas ours only weighs 40kg because of After spending time analysing the car, it was
the centre of the car. these lithium polymer cells, highlights Meijs. clear that every aspect of the car was not only
The whole electronic system has been It is also extremely efficient, with a 6.4kWh innovative and well designed, but manufactured
completely redesigned, there is nothing taken output. Usually my iPhone lasts for a day without effectively and properly finished. It is no wonder
from last years car. We now also design our own recharging, but if I could somehow connect then, that the entire paddock was talking about
battery management system (BMS) which gives it to this accumulator, my iPhone would be their car and it will be interesting to see how
us much more opportunity to really integrate powered for three years without needing to the winners of the UK event will do against a
all the systems together, points out Marinus recharge. Despite this, we cannot power our car whole host of German rivals in the next round of
Geuze, chief of electronics. The idea behind throughout the endurance on an accumulator Formula Student at Hockenheim.
this redesign was to be as simplistic and as
lightweight as possible, so components that
needed to communicate closely were placed We had the transmission inside the wheel, so
together, reducing wiring and thus interference.
Using this philosophy in the BMS meant that why not the motors and the brake discs too?

Keeping it simple
Resisting the temptation to rewrite the textbooks, OBR topped
the British teams with shrewd engineering and clear planning

xford Brookes Racing (OBR) have Last year our team struggled in the the use of materials, says Simmons. We dont
been one of the top UK Formula competition, so I learned a lot of lessons and have the money or the expertise to do a carbon
Student teams for many years, sometimes its good to have a big learning fibre tub so we tried to get that similar weight
along with Bath and Hertfordshire. experience because it makes it very clear the with a different concept. This was achieved by
This year, the team came to Silverstone armed areas you need to focus on, reflects George maintaining the aluminium skins on the outside
with a reliable single cylinder car which won the Simmons, team leader of OBR 2014. The first of the chassis but switching to carbon fibre on
design final and snatched the UK top spot by 1.2 thing I did when I became team leader was go the inside, and flat parts of the sandwich panels.
points from Bath, finishing sixth overall. through a list of all the competitions and work By laying up the skin material themselves,
out exactly what we needed to do. Last year we the team has been able to vary the number
threw away 1000 points over the competitions of plies, rather than a standard thickness with
through failing endurances, yet we did much the aluminium. It gave us complete control
better in the static events. That told me that and saved us 8kg, says Simmons. By using the
we had a good concept but just struggled with folded concept we can still get the low density
the execution, which is why we stuck with a of carbon fibre into the monocoque without
very similar concept this year, without trying having all the expensive tooling costs. Were
to overstep the mark anywhere. We decided to maybe 3-4kg heavier than the efficient carbon
build a good car, which we could execute well in fibre monocoque of our competitors, but we
the time that we had and focus on the delivery, have spent thousands of pounds less.
rather than trying to take two steps forward and New methods, materials and designs so often
ending up going one step back. lead to unexpected problems. Simmons reveals:
When we bonded the aluminium and carbon
Chassis fibre chassis together, we used a hot press, and
OBR has been famous for its folded aluminium the coefficient of thermal expansion of the two
chassis since 2011, but this years new materials meant that we actually ended up with
development was the use of carbon fibre a banana shaped chassis for a while which set us
to reduce weight. We did a complete mass back about a month. Overall, the manufacture
analysis of last years car and our monocoque of the monocoque was completed in under
Cost effective folded aluminium monocoque was combined with weighed 38kg other teams could probably two months and due to OBRs efficient use of
carbon fibre elements for a significant weight reduction fit two monocoques in that, so we improved materials to achieve a cost-effective solution,
they received an award from event sponsor GKN.

The suspension system saw the introduction
of carbon wishbones which the team ensured
went under rigorous fatigue and tensile

The addition of an aero package mated to a lighter

and more powerful car helped the OBR team to
deliver impressive results on the track

Along with the new lightweight monocoque, organisation and planning allowed the team to deliver the project on schedule.
As a result, they reaped the benefits of track testing time to finish the event as top British entrant


testing of the bonding techniques and insert
designs. The team managed more than 50,000
maximum load cycles on the fatigue test with
the bolt breaking before the actual wishbone
or insert. Furthermore, the bearing sizes have
been reduced in more than 50 per cent of the
suspension components; decreasing weight and
improving dynamic performance further.
Maintaining their keep it simple approach,
OBR decided to stick with the one cylinder 510cc
KTM 530 EXC motorbike engine, but raise the
cylinder size to 570cc for a better performance
boost, which helped them achieve tenth in
the Sprint event, the first UK team. The car also
featured an aerodynamics package for the first
time, composed of a front and rear wing.
It is clear that OBRs success was all down to
preparation. What really helped us in the design
competition was gaining data throughout all of
our testing and ensuring that we were recording
everything, says Simmons. For the first time in a
long time we did a chassis torsional stiffness
test for example. The 570cc KTM single-cylinder bike engine was familiar technology, but the carbon wishbones are all new
As well as individual component testing, the
car itself had run 250km before competition, five
times more than OBR had ever managed before.
What spaceframe?
Overall this year, we have managed to keep a

steady rate of progress. Generally you find that he Australian team from Edith Cowan University since 2010. Our chassis is made from two sections,
in the weeks before competition, you have to (ECU) arrived with a 4 cylinder, 10in wheel front and body with a bonded front roll hoop between
stay and work all nighters, whereas we actually concept, including aero. But what really got the two sections, says Le. The construction technique
completed the whole year without a single one. the teams and judges talking was their innovative rear begins with flat aluminium honeycomb and carbon
We focused on having really good progress suspension and their custom built engine. skin panels which are then cut by CNC machines. The
tracking methods to ensure that we got the car The rear suspension is a De Dion axle with Satchell cut line dimensions are determined by what angle we
finished one month before competition. Im links and has many benefits, explains Phil Le, the teams choose to have the bend at. Once the panels have
surprised with how well the team is doing if Im technical director. We have been able to remove the been routed we begin construction of the chassis and
honest. We are now running with competitive rear spaceframe as all of our suspension loads are fed each bend and joint is reinforced with a microfiber
times in the sprint event, even against some of straight back into the carbon chassis, so we have lost and wet lay-up carbon. All hard points feature a
the electric cars. around 10kg when compared to previous years. Using bonded aluminium insert to take any loads and others
the Satchell link as a form of triangulation over the feature a threaded insert for parts that need to be

Last year we had Watts link or Panhard bar means that we do not need
an extra suspension point on the engine or chassis.
retained. The resulting weight of the chassis is 20kg
with a bonded front roll hoop and the entire process

a good concept but The engine is based on the Honda CBR600RR, and
has been in progress since 2010 with the manufacture
took an impressive two weeks.
Such an ambitious design led to many problems,

just struggled with

commencing last year. The block is a machined billet but the end result was an innovative car that is exactly
casing that weighs under 13kg, says Le. We have used a what the Formula Student judges wish to see. In
standard Honda CBR head. Internally, the rotating parts addition, their custom built engine completed all of the
the execution are all from the CBR but we have reduced the gears dynamic events, proving the reliability of the concept.
from six to two, and made our own final drive to suit
the FSAE tracks. The final drive is now running off a spur
gear and is mated to a spool that is located within the
gearbox side of the block. One of the main advantages
of this design was being able to flip the head around so
the exhaust can exit out of the back, while the intake
is towards the front. We have been able to drop our
crank centreline by some 120mm compared to the
standard Honda CBR, which decreases the CoG height.
Overall, the rear could be tightly packaged resulting in
a low yaw moment of inertia. However, as the engine
was originally designed to run with 13in wheels, ECU
have had to run extreme driveshaft angles. This will be
changed in future designs by lowering the gearbox
height, as well as making it narrower.
The team is also famed for its cut and fold Machined billet block holds Honda CBR internals. De Dion
technique used in the manufacture of their chassis axle with Satchell links removes need for rear subframe



We are a company specialising in the supply of

motorsport and automotive parts and accessories.

We are a specialist manufacturer and distributor of

a wide range of brake discs and rotors suitable for
Formula Student applications.
Non standard and bespoke designs a speciality.

We are the approved supplier of

TRS Race Harnesses to the
Formula Student market.
Contact us for a design spec sheet.

For all enquiries contact:

01282 867533 / 07598 438268

Advancing aero
Despite comparatively low speeds, Formula Student cars now
display some sophisticated aerodynamic thinking

ike them or not, they are faster so its not worth going partial, Hamer continues. However, these conclusions were largely
says Oxford Brookes team leader, If you suddenly lose downforce at the rear going based on CFD simulations so it may be that only
George Simmons summing up into a corner, you want to ensure that you are the true effects of DRS can be demonstrated in
the general consensus around removing a similar amount of downforce from a full scale wind tunnel, something that Monash
the pitlane regarding the multitude of wings the front to guarantee balance during cornering. have regular access to. The real question is
and aero systems. This year saw new debates For instance, we can do a lane change with the just how effective is DRS on Formula Student
surrounding Drag Reduction Systems and wing DRS open because we are still producing the applications? It will be interesting to discover the
size. With 85 per cent of the top 20 and around same amount of downforce that we were in answer at next years event and see how many
half of the grid now featuring aero, more and 2010, even with the DRS activated. teams are running such a system.
more teams are switching to such designs, even Other teams are not so certain about
if they dont have quite the right amount of time the benefits of DRS, such as this years UK Front wings
or resources to do so. The governing bodies are competition winners, TU Delft. At the start of Arguably the most impressive aerodynamic
stepping in to regulate the use of aero to reduce the year we looked at DRS, and it is a system device was Team Bath Racings front wing, and
costs, close up the competition and to ensure we would like to implement, explains Marinus was a talking point amongst most of the other
that teams actually understand the concept of Geuze, chief of electronics. The problem we saw teams. We are quite proud of our intricate
aerodynamics to optimise performance. with DRS is that it takes too long for the air to front wing, which only weighs 3.5kg the
re-attach to the wing again. In Formula Student same weight as last year but double the size,
Rear wings and DRS there are such short straights and many corners highlights Dave Turton, Project Manager.
Last years event at Silverstone saw the so the DRS would have to be on and off quickly, The wing is essentially an exercise in vortex
introduction of a Formula 1-style Drag Reduction so the time when the air is actually attached is management as Francisco Parga, head of
System (DRS) for the first time on both the too low to really gain anything. Aerodynamics explains, The wing design seeks
combustion and electric cars of Karlsruhe Racing,
which caused quite a stir. Previously, other
teams had manually adjustable wings, where
the middle element of the rear wing would be
pivoted downwards, reducing drag for specific
events such as acceleration. A few more of the
top teams featured DRS this year, with Monash
university utilising the most advanced system
which included both front and rear DRS. The
team from Melbourne are renowned for their
aerodynamics, first featuring wings in 2002,
and their aero philosophy has helped them Monash Universitys entry featured DRS front and rear. The middle Swedens Chalmers University used full scale wind
to win the Australian competition for the last and top flaps on the rear wing open for straight line speed tunnel tests to create their innovative design
five years and become one of the worlds best
Formula Student teams.
Large wings are part of Monash motorsport,
but we started hitting the point where making
it larger was really limiting us due to drag,
explains team leader Ed Hamer. Therefore, we
incorporated a DRS system to allow us to be
more aggressive with our aerodynamics whilst
maintaining a low drag number, so this design
gives us the best of both worlds; a large amount
of downforce without so much of a drag penalty.
Monashs aero package is a three element front
and rear wing, and down the straights with DRS
activated, the top flaps on the front wing and
the middle and top flaps on the rear wing all
open to reduce drag. We looked at having an
adjustable system with cornering, but the time
delay in needing max downforce isnt really there Overall second place finishers Rennteam Uni Stuttgart went with a comparatively simple yet effective aero package



to take use of the vortices shed by the footplate top essentially prevents air spilling over and off
to improve overall performance of the wing. the wing. The overall curved shape was down
The vortex in the footplate channel is captured, to CFD simulation results and the rear wing was
allowing the vortex to grow and power up designed to balance the front wing. Unlike most
which helps to seal the low pressure area on the race cars, a Formula Student car is front limited.
underside of the wing from the higher pressure Usually drag is a major issue, and the rear wing
around the wing. This can also be achieved with is the largest drag producing aero surface on the
big endplates that extend close to the track, car and the front wing generates little drag in
but this creates problems during pitch under comparison. Therefore, generally a rear wing is
braking which could result in the wing hitting designed to be as efficient as possible and then
the ground, and a potential disqualification. the front wing is used to balance the rear. With
As the vortex increases in strength, it grows the low speeds in Formula Student, we dont
and therefore the channel needs to grow with really care about drag, so I designed the front
it, so initial iterations expanded this channel wing to be as big as possible, while keeping
by a simple curved endplate design. During the driver happy, and then designed a more
development, we noticed the flow would detach conventional rear wing to suit.
The University of Baths entry featured an impressive front wing itself on the outboard side of the channel, which
that uses vortex management to improve efficiency. Structure is clearly detrimental. Therefore to keep the flow Negative impact
weighs only 3.5kg, but drag would be punitive at higher speeds attached, the endplate had to be flapped. It then The Swedish 2012 FSUK winners, Chalmers,
made structural sense for the wing flaps to blend managed to complete full scale wind tunnel
into the endplate and the turning vane on the testing for the first time and the result was an
innovative aero package. Last year the aero was
With the low speeds in Formula Student, over-adjustable; the rear wing was mounted
using several struts, whereas now we have two
we dont really care about drag carbon fibre plates with a fixed pivot point,
which we used CFD to determine the effective
height, says Raman Yazdani, aerodynamics
Spaceframe vs Monocoque engineer on the Chalmers team. The plates also
shield the clean flow from the highly turbulent

everal teams switched The technical challenge came in monocoque for this year, but flow caused by the headrest, which we validated
to a full carbon fibre two parts; firstly you have to do featured an electric powertrain, in the wind tunnel. A big change in the front is
monocoque design, while your design using materials you a self-developed accumulator that we have integrated the nosecone design
others stuck with an aluminium have never used before but you package and carbon rims for the with the midpart of the wing. Usually you
rear spaceframe - and the debate also have to source the materials first time. This is a huge challenge would have a negative angle of attack to get
over which is better continues. in parallel with your design. Its a for any team regardless of budget downforce. However, we have a positive angle
Team Bath Racing (TBR) was bit of a chicken and egg scenario, or manpower. However the Swedes because we raised the nosecone to allow more
one of the teams that invested because your design depends made it look easy, finishing eighth air to feed the diffuser and provide cooling for
in manufacturing a carbon on your available resources, overall and fifth in the Acceleration the sidepods. During wind tunnel testing we
composite chassis to increase its but the resources you want are and Endurance events. The main learned that when you have high angles of
competitiveness alongside the top determined by your design. challenge with a monocoque attack at the front (which we need to balance
European teams in competition. Another limiting factor of a carbon is having everything ready very the car) it has a negative impact on the yaw
The main advantage of such a composite monocoque is the early and once made you cannot inertia. This is because the faster the car goes,
design is the significant reduction sheer expense around 60,000 change anything, says chief the more upwash we get which starts to effect
in weight, with TBRs chassis worth of resources went into TBRs engineer Henrik Meland. Switching the rear and so we actually lose some grip in at
shedding 8kg compared to last chassis and probably explains to electric, we had a lot of new the rear when we go fast.
year. Of course, such an advantage why many teams, including components which was difficult Another notable design feature was
doesnt come without compromise Monash, run a spaceframe. The to integrate into the car, so we Monashs wings, which are unsprung. This
as TBR project manager Dave big difference between us and the used a computer assistant design means that the downforce they produce goes
Turton explains: It is a very long higher level European teams is we which created a 3D assembly to directly to the tyre, or through the uprights at
lead-time component. We started still run a steel spaceframe, says ensure that everything fits. We are least, says Hamer. The front is probably 60 per
making the patterns for the chassis team leader Ed Hamer. Although really happy with our monocoque. cent unsprung and the rear is fully unsprung.
back in August last year and have it is a hybrid spaceframe as we It weighs about 18.5kg which is a This allows us to have softer suspension, rather
been flat out with SES testing. do use composite panels, our very good weight for our first year. than having the design determined by the aero
Working out all the details of the philosophy is points per dollar Overall, a carbon composite loads. And it also allows stability in our wing
different laminates, the rotation so for the amount of points in the monocoque clearly does have a during cornering as it doesnt pitch with the
of the fibres and using completely competition for the amount we performance gain which is why it chassis. A lot of teams dont quite get the wing
new materials was a really steep spend, a spaceframe is a much is seen in championships such as mounting right, but if done in the right way it is
learning curve. Whatever you better solution. Formula 1. However, the expense, safe to do unsprung.
think will take one month takes time and resources required mean Like any form of motorsport, the boundaries
about three. Luckily for Bath, they Huge challenge that only the top teams can afford are constantly being pushed by the teams to
have their own autoclave within A dark horse in the competition to do it. So, will regulations try to discover that performance advantage over
the university, which allowed was the team from the Norwegian force teams to more cost effective their competitors. With DRS now front and rear,
samples to be quickly turned University of Science and solutions? Or would that just underfloors and diffusers, it looks like the 2015
around and enabled them to Technology (NTNU) which distance Formula Student from the regulation changes will be a major factor in
make the entire chassis in house. not only switched to a carbon real world motorsports industry? future aerodynamic designs.


ct ion
to pro
esi gn
m d
- f ro fit i
d to esh o
ri i g n e m
s o rs
e de nch ut gea or
in e i t s ar ith sy t - c o n
k i
s ear ings, w straigh elerat

ve en rkit nt g
Gea ceme ox ca lical o
s r
e ac

ot i R e p la
ge a rb
n t , h e
to o
p t

u tom oto
rs p o rt orig ngage signed
dog atios d eed
e le
A ad a n d m e, six a
a n dr
u m sp
s f o
e ax
r liv gs and
asin s fo
e ro e of tial ma pon axle c nsaxle
o x es r m anc e rang equen og- o m d a
rb rfo id th s or d , rna
lc hen
Gea igh-pe uce a w xes wi mesh arsets al A
xle d inte trengt nits a ms
r h o d b o h ro g e i n e s l u te
Fo pr ar ync -ratio for ori
g at s, ia ys
, we d ge n, s Upr cation erent sion s d
use -spee lectio d close nts li iff e n han
v e n s e n e m e a p p
l ete d
s u s p
r i g ht- s e
se rn nt a lac p
com enden
t nd on
- p atte geme ect rep p r l eft a ng resp
as d
ir ind
e fo eri
ring loped
ve ks cks ste
i a l s ha rs g rac ring ra roving
dev nts
ren acture of erin tee imp
e iffe f Ste ratio s tions,
fitm s l ip d manu isition h - c a
ials ited OEM acq
SDs , Hig appli
e rent lical lim s and ecent type L n s e
driv eel
Diff TB he ce r ur r plate- ati o
y ra h o p l i c d a n df
A b it t n
Our used . W marke e of ap drive a
n 80s o ng heel-
bee the 19 w als s ra ty .
e no ormou four w arran
sinc X, we uk
Tra n - r a n e n
a r a nd
e t i m ew
fe . co.
e r e l i f ai
cov ,
ont fes .qu ks,
and ding fr y Quai w
u b
ed w w oa
incl vered
al l c o
ower r 114
4 W: Seven
P 0) 1
732 ad, O
4( yR
T: +4 Vestr ited
.uk d, n fo
r red
i fe .co ring Lt ngdom Scather ion
al i ty acc 008
ua ee Ki f u r
at Qu 9001
fo @q Engin nited info ISO
E: i uaife 5EL U
Q 4
RT t, TN1
Ke n

The flying limpet

We take one of the most interesting looking Formula Student
designs from the 2014 UK competition to the MIRA wind tunnel

overing Formula Student gives the the car, and clearly a great deal of design and span-wise ground clearance, a complex end
Racecar Engineering editorial team a manufacturing time had gone into this aspect, plate with vertical openings just ahead of the
close-up view of whats happening especially where the front wing was concerned. flaps and, underneath, a sculpted chord-wise
in this well-supported competition and, TBR was therefore expecting high levels of grip inverted channel just inboard of the end plates
inevitably, the opportunity to make their own enhancement from its 2014 aerodynamics. footplate (Figure 5). One might surmise that
judgements about each entry. Racecar Editor What would the wind tunnel results say? some Formula 1 influence was exerted here!
Andrew Cotton remarked that; the University First, a brief tour of TBR14s aerodynamics On to the first baseline runs then, with the
of Bath presented a novel design that we package is in order. The car (Figures 1 & 2) usual caveat about the MIRA wind tunnels
thought merited further investigation, so it was is dominated by its large plan area wings, fixed floor and that the test cars wheels
to them that we made the offer of a half day in although it did also have a new cooling remain stationary. The boundary layer control
the MIRA full-scale wind tunnel. package this year, housed in the left hand fence, used in all REs sessions, was in place
The University of Bath has been contesting sidepod (the exhaust is contained within the throughout, but the front wings ground
Formula Student for over 10 years, first as Bath smaller right hand sidepod). The rear wing proximity to the fixed floor will have produced
University Racing Team (BURT) and since 2006 (Figure 3) is a straightforward large chord a degree of underestimated forces and
under the Team Bath Racing (TBR) banner. At three-element design with no span-wise calculated coefficients.
Silverstone in July 2014, TBR finished seventh deviation in the selected profiles, mounted
overall and was second highest UK entry with high and just aft of the rear axle line. The front Speed sensitivity
its Aprilia V-twin powered TBR14. This was wing (Figure 4) however, is something of a As usual, the first runs were conducted at
the third year that TBR had run with wings on work of art, featuring a tapering span, variable different test speeds to check for any changes

Figure 1: Team Bath Racings nicely constructed TBR14 was dominated by its wings Figure 2: Front and rear wings were especially potent

Figure 3: Rear wing was a conventional large chord triple-element design Figure 4: Front wing was a complex design


The aim with TBR14 was to generate high
in the aerodynamic performance. The results as
coefficients at approximately 40mph (17.9m/s)
and 60mph (26.0m/s) are given in Table 1, with
the changes reported in counts, one count downforce with wings, and this it most certainly
being a coefficient change of 0.001.
The first observation to make is that in did. The inevitable penalty for that is high drag
baseline trim TBR14 set two new Aerobytes
records; the highest drag coefficient and
highest negative lift coefficient we have seen UH16 racecar (RE December 2013, V23N12) on maximum wing and flap angles set at front
in our MIRA sessions. It would go on to achieve which a 75 count gain at the front combined and rear, so in that sense the comparison is
even greater heights during the session! with in a loss of 36 counts at the rear. The valid. The main difference was obviously due
Facetious remarks aside though, the aim primary cause in TBR14s case, however, to TBR14s triple-element rear wing, which
with TBR14 was to generate high downforce appeared to be that the rear mounts in the rear required that it needed more front downforce
with wings, and this it most certainly did. The wing were (inadvertently) allowing the wing to to attain the desired balance (45-50 per
inevitable penalty for that is high drag, but pivot to a reduced angle as air speed increased. cent front) whereas UH16 needed less front
the teams approach was to not be concerned Although the difference in wing angle between downforce to attain a balance.
about drag; downforce was the target. 40mph and 60mph was not measured, and
The coefficient changes brought about by most of the angle reduction appeared to be Relativity
changing speed initially looked puzzling in at quite low speed, the difference in the CL As discussed in our earlier analysis of the
some respects. The drag coefficient reduced values would seem to be most reasonably University of Hertfordshires UH16, the benefit
slightly at the higher speed, as is often explained this way, accompanied too, as it was, to grip that is derived from downforce is
seen; but the overall negative lift coefficient by a significant drop in drag. relative to the cars weight. So, Table 3 shows
decreased in magnitude at the higher speed, downforce at 60mph as a proportion of all-up
and this is not what is usually seen. The front Inevitable comparisons vehicle weight including driver on two high
downforce coefficient (-CLf) certainly followed For those who havent already reached for downforce single seaters and on the two
the usual pattern of increasing at the higher their December 2013 issues, the comparative Formula Student cars we have tested. Clearly,
speed, this most likely down to improved flow baseline run data on the two Formula Student any comparison between cars running to
attachment under the front wings suction cars we have now tested are shown in Table different regulation sets has little technical
surface as speed increased. But for the rear 2. The fundamental difference between the validity, but it is of more than passing interest!
downforce coefficient to reduce significantly at two cars aerodynamic configurations was that The F1 Hondas high minimum weight
the higher speed was unusual. the University of Hertfordshires car featured a clearly hampered its downforce to weight
We have seen more modest speed sensitive dual-element rear wing, compared to TBR14s ratio, whereas the hillclimber had no
losses of CL magnitude due entirely to triple-element rear wing. minimum weight limit. Both of these designs,
aerodynamic and related mechanical effects While the two cars did not have the same however, developed a significant proportion
in the past, for example on the University of aerodynamic balance in their respective of their downforce with their underbodies,
Hertfordshire Formula Student Racing Teams baseline configurations, they both had and so downforce values will have been

Table 1: baseline aerodynamic coefficients on TBR14 at Table 2: baseline data on two Formula Student cars at 60mph
different speeds CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D UH16 1.146 1.797 1.055 0.742 58.70 1.568
40mph 1.446 2.430 0.900 1.530 37.02 1.701 TBR14 1.389 2.355 0.970 1.385 41.20 1.695
60mph 1.389 2.355 0.970 1.385 41.20 1.695 Difference +243 +558 -85 +643 - +127
Change -57 -75 +70 -145 +4.18 -6
% change -3.9% -3.1% +7.8% -9.5% - -0.4%

Figure 5: Interesting underside detail on the front wing Figure 6: Setting up the trip strips on the front tyres



Figure 7: The front wing deflected air over the top of the tyres Figure 8: The front end plates also deflected air around the outside of the tyres

Table 3: downforce at 60mph as a proportion of Table 4: the effects of trip strips on the tyres
vehicle weight including driver CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
Car Downforce at 60mph as % of Without, 1.446 2.430 0.900 1.530 37.02 1.701
all-up weight 40mph
Honda RA107 Formula 1, best 18% With, 1.470 2.497 0.900 1.597 36.03 1.699
configuration 40mph
DJ Firestorm hillclimber, best 26% Change +24 +67 nil +67 -0.99 -2
Without, 1.389 2.355 0.970 1.385 41.2 1.695
UH16, baseline configuration 28% 60mph
TBR14, baseline configuration 46% With, 1.401 2.409 0.946 1.463 39.26 1.719
Change +12 +54 -24 +78 -1.94 +24

underestimated by the MIRA fixed floor Wheel lift and lift-inducing flow over the tyre tops is
wind tunnel. The Formula Student cars To conclude this first extended episode on this spoiled, hence total downforce increases.
front wings may have been held back to years Formula Student car well examine the However, front downforce did not follow the
an extent by the fixed floor, but their total effect that trip strips on the tyres had. Readers usual pattern, with no change at 40mph and a
downforce readings would have been closer will recall that the purpose of fitting trip strips modest reduction at 60mph. Figures 7 and 8
to reality on track. just downstream of the tops of the tyres is to may provide clues to this behaviour. In Figure
For all that though, UH16s downforce to better simulate the manner and location that 7 we can see that the steep, high upper flap
weight ratio at 60mph was very respectable, the flow would separate from the tyres if they is deflecting air over the tyres and in Figure 8
were rotating. It is well established that the flow we can see the end plate is also deflecting air
remains attached further down the downstream outboard of the front tyres.
The TBR14 could drive side of non-rotating exposed tyres than when
they are rotating, and this leads to erroneous Next up we detail further the progress of Team
across the ceiling, if it drag and lift readings. By installing the right-
angled strips in the appropriate location, more
Bath Racings TBR14.
Racecar Engineerings thanks to the staff and
were able to get there, at a representative values for overall drag and lift
are generated.
students at Team Bath Racing.

remarkably low 86.8mph As to the exact location of the trip strips,

the rule of thumb used at MIRA is to tape trip
Simon McBeath offers aerodynamic
strips that are about 15mm (0.6in) tall aft of, advisory services under his own brand of SM
yet its clear from a glance at the figures that and level with, the tyre top (see Figure 6), Aerotechniques
of TBR14 was well ahead, the car generating which puts them at about the 11 oclock or
almost half its own weight in downforce at 1 oclock position, depending from which side In these pages he uses data from MIRA to
just 60mph. It should be added that this was you view. The strips are also tapered on the discuss common aerodynamic issues faced by
partly due to its commendably low vehicle outside corners, again to enable more realistic racecar engineers
weight, but aerodynamics certainly played flows to develop. How did they affect TBR14s
the major role. The inevitable calculation aerodynamic data? Table 4 reveals all. Produced in association with MIRA Ltd
immediately follows, which is to establish In all but one respect these results fitted
the speed at which TBR14 could drive across the usual generally observed pattern of drag
the ceiling, if it were able to get there, and and downforce increasing with the trip strips Tel: +44 (0) 24-7635 5000
Vceiling works out at a remarkably low in place; earlier flow separation creating Email:
86.8mph (38.74m/s). bigger wheel wakes, hence drag increases, Website:


Racecar Eng 190x135_Layout 1 08/10/2012 09:10 Page 1



Our innovative design and precision performance engineering makes us

your perfect Motorsport partner. Our world-class engineers are
committed to delivering world class services where your exacting
requirements will be mirrored by our exacting standards.

Contact us to see how we can engineer your competitive advantage.

T. +44 (0) 1480 474402 Dynamic Engineering


A ratchet screw system

enables quick and secure
coupling of the connectors.

An innovative solution
for harsh environments
Very high contact density
Ratchet screw coupling
6 different sizes
Lightweight aluminium shell
2 to 114 contacts
Optimum space saving
Oil and fuel resistant
IP 68
High shock and vibration
Vibration absorbtion flange
Arctic grip or
knurled design
Lightning test passed
USB version available

LEMO SA - Switzerland
Phone : (+41 21) 695 16 00
Fax : (+41 21) 695 16 02
Contact your local partner on

Fine tuning a high

downforce rear wing
Studies continue in the wind tunnel using Team Baths TBR14

he University of Bath 2014 Formula to match its weight and therefore stick to the involved reducing the overall rear wing angle
Student entry was selected from the ceiling) of just 86.8mph. While this was partly one degree by shortening the rear mounting
UK competition by the Racecar thanks to the cars low weight, aerodynamics struts; the second adjustment required the
Engineering editorial team for a pre-booked played the major role. fitment of new rear end plates that enabled
half-day session in the MIRA full-scale wind a nine degree reduction of the flap angles,
tunnel just before they headed off to Germany Seeking balance giving a 3.5 degree overall angle reduction (see
for the next competition. In baseline trim with trip strips added to the Figure 3). The resulting data is shown in Table
TBR14 was the third car from the tyres to better simulate the flow separations 1, with changes (except to %front) expressed
University of Bath to feature an aerodynamic expected with rotating wheels, TBR14 was as counts, where 1 count = a coefficient
package and, as well as incorporating an all- somewhat short of front downforce, the change of 0.001.
new hybrid composite/steel tubular chassis, target %front figure being in the 45-50 per The changes in the coefficients suggested
there had been particular emphasis on cent range as the car had a 50/50 front to rear that the rear wing was quite near to its peak
developing new wings for its 2014 contender. weight distribution with driver aboard. So downforce setting at the steepest angle here
The basic philosophy was high downforce some rear wing adjustments were performed (19.5 degrees), and although it is only a three
and never mind the drag, so large plan area to gauge the level of response and gain more point plot, the graph in Figure 4 of CLr versus
wings with aggressive profiles front and rear information about the effects of fine tuning overall wing angle supports that assertion,
were developed. The front wing in particular towards a balance. The first adjustment with perhaps another degree of adjustment
was a cleverly made device with a number of
interesting, tricky to manufacture features (See Table 1: the effects of reducing rear wing angle
Figures 1 and 2). CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
As a reminder of last months first episode Baseline data 1.401 2.409 0.946 1.463 39.26 1.719
on TBR14, the car set new Aerobytes records
-1deg 1.385 2.386 0.959 1.427 40.19 1.723
for drag and negative lift coefficients, so it
Change -16 -23 +13 -36 +0.93 +4
certainly met its high downforce target, and
calculations showed it had a Vceiling (the -3.5deg 1.275 2.258 1.034 1.224 45.81 1.771
speed at which it could generate downforce Change -126 -151 +88 -239 +6.55 +52

Figure 1: The TBR14 featured a potent wing package Figure 2: The front wing was particularly eye-catching

Eect of rear wing adjustments


1.300 -CLr

15 16 17 18 19 20
Overall rear wing angle, deg

Figure 3: New rear end plates facilitated lower flap angles to be tested Figure 4: Rear wing adjustments showed where on the lift slope the settings were



Figure 5: Low drag mode for the acceleration test Figure 6: Rear wing in the first dual-element configuration

Table 2: the effects of the low drag rear wing mode Table 3: power absorbed with different drag coefficients, BHP
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D Speed, m/s (mph) 10 (22.4) 15 (33.6) 20 (44.8) 25 (56.0) 30 (67.2)
Baseline 1.401 2.409 0.946 1.463 39.26 1.719 CD = 1.401 1.33 4.44 10.52 20.55 35.51
Low drag 0.834 1.289 1.421 +0.132 110.24 1.546 CD = 0.834 0.78 2.64 6.26 12.23 21.14
Change -567 -1120 +475 -1595 +70.98 -173 Extra BHP av. 0.55 1.80 4.26 8.32 14.37

Table 4: the effects of removing the upper rear flap Table 5: effects of the steepest dual-element rear wing
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
Baseline 1.320 2.385 1.165 1.221 48.83 1.807 Baseline 1.293 2.257 1.052 1.206 46.61 1.746
Remove 1.053 1.937 1.417 0.520 73.15 1.839 Max 1.181 2.044 1.222 0.822 59.80 1.731
flap angle
Change -267 -448 +252 -701 +24.32 +32 Change -112 -213 +170 -384 +13.19 -15

available before its peak was reached. By Element removal the configurations tested, although by
backing the wing off to 16 degrees overall Although the aerodynamic philosophy driving the dual element wing harder, to the
a fairly well balanced set up was achieved. behind TBR14 was to achieve maximum point where wool tufts showed significant
Nevertheless, achieving a balance by reducing downforce, it was nevertheless very sensibly separation on the flaps suction surface,
total downforce was not the overall aim, decided to evaluate a dual element rear wing the excessive front bias from the previous
and well come back to further investigations configuration while the opportunity was configuration was redressed somewhat.
on this later. available. The car was initially in a different Still, the front end overpowered the rear,
configuration for the first adjustment to that and although it would not be hard to attain
Low(er) drag setting used as a basis previously so the baseline a balance from this position if so desired,
For the 75m standing start acceleration test, results in Table 4 are somewhat different to the high downforce package was still the
the team adopted what it was hoped was a those shown in earlier comparisons. Initially configuration of choice.
low drag configuration for the rear wing, akin then the upper flap was removed and the
in principal to the DRS open arrangement first flap was also set to the maximum angle Next up, well take a look at the quest for
seen in Formula 1, but with both flaps set currently available (see Figure 6). more front percentage downforce, and we
more or less horizontal by raising their leading As might be expected, rear downforce will see how the car responded to
edges and thus completely opening up the decreased significantly with the removal rake changes.
slot gaps above the element in front (see of the upper flap, and balance shifted Racecar Engineerings thanks to the staff and
Figure 5). The rules require all wing elements excessively to the front. Interestingly students at Team Bath Racing.
to be installed for all track events, and though the front downforce coefficient was quite
driver operable DRS systems are permitted, similar to the low drag rear wing set up CONTACT
Bath did not exploit this aspect. The data is evaluated earlier, and although this in part Simon McBeath offers aerodynamic
shown in Table 2. a coincidence, it also demonstrated the advisory services under his own brand of
A 40 per cent reduction in drag coefficient potency of the front wing. SM Aerotechniques
was achieved with this rear wing setting then, The flap looked as though it could be run
which would indeed release more power steeper, so new adjustment holes that allowed In these pages he uses data from MIRA to
during the latter phase of the acceleration a 50 degree angle (relative to the horizontal) discuss common aerodynamic issues faced
test. Table 3 shows the power absorbed in on the flap were drilled, with the main by racecar engineers
BHP at the two drag coefficients across a element also adjusted on its support struts
speed range, and the extra power available to the maximum possible angle again. This Produced in association with MIRA Ltd
when running in the lower drag coefficient achieved an overall angle of 11.5 degrees, and
configuration. With just 62bhp peak power the results are shown in Table 5, relative to a
available, the percentage gains become quite new baseline as ride heights had also come in
significant. Academic readers will need to for adjustment in the interim. Tel: +44 (0) 24-7635 5000
forgive the ongoing indiscriminate mixing of Once again rear downforce was a lot lower Email:
imperial and SI units! than with the three-element wing in any of Website:



Balancing act
honed in the tunnel
Monitoring the effect of rake changes on overall balance

he Formula Student UK competition at ground wind tunnel), meaning in simple evaluate was fitting different height Gurneys to
Silverstone in July saw Racecars editorial terms mission accomplished on the overall the upper surface of the top flaps trailing edge.
team taking its first close look at the aerodynamics target! The baseline aerodynamic The results of two different Gurney heights are
2014 entries, and Bath Universitys TBR 14 entry data at 60mph is shown in Table 1 for reference. shown in Table 2 compared to the previous
caught the editorial eye. So, Team Bath Racing Evidently then, TBR 14 produced high configuration (not the same as the baseline
was this years Formula Student invitee to a downforce with the expected high drag in Table 1), with changes reported in counts
half-day session as Racecars guests in the MIRA penalty, but the teams simulations showed where 1 count = a coefficient change of 0.001.
full-scale wind tunnel. In this third instalment that downforce at these levels of efficiency So both small and large Gurneys proved to
(of four), we take a look at the best way of (-L/D) would yield gains in lap time. The balance be useful if modest balance shifters, the larger
balancing out the aerodynamics. (percentage front) looked not unreasonable ones being more potent. Its interesting to
Team Bath Racing had only been exploiting as a starting point in the session, but with compare the other effects of the two different
a wing package on its cars since 2012 and as a a weight distribution with driver aboard of Gurney heights though, with similar modest
result it was still putting a lot of development around 50 per cent front, a bigger proportion additional drag increments and not totally
effort into this aspect of the cars design. of the total downforce was needed on the front dissimilar, minimal effects on downforce. In
Indeed, particular emphasis went into the end. After investigating rear wing adjustments both cases the effect was to generate a small
wing design on TBR 14, especially at the front, which reduced total downforce but improved amount of extra front downforce and knock
which featured a number of intricate details as balance, the team moved on to some tests to off some rear downforce, with the percentage
is evident in our photos. Overall, the quest was find ways of obtaining more front downforce. front value heading closer to where the team
clearly for maximum downforce without much felt the balance needed to be. The losses at
concern about drag. For readers who have Balance transfer the rear may have been aerodynamic but were
missed the previous two Racecar instalments on The construction of the front wing meant that more likely the mechanical result of more
TBR 14, the car set new Aerobytes records for there was little inherent adjustability available, front downforce overhanging the front axle, so
CD and -CL (as measured in the MIRA stationary so the first and most obvious modification to offloading the rear tyres.

In simple terms the records

meant mission accomplished
on the aerodynamics targets
Table 1 baseline data at 60mph
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
Baseline data 1.401 2.409 0.946 1.463 39.26 1.719
Figure 1: Team Bath Racings TBR 14 is set up in the MIRA wind tunnel. The
Table 2 the effect of front gurneys boundary layer trip fence is clearly visible in the foreground
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
Previous confign 1.275 2.258 1.034 1.224 45.81 1.771
+6mm Gurney 1.291 2.262 1.048 1.214 46.34 1.852
Change +16 +4 +14 -10 +0.53 -19
+18mm Gurney 1.293 2.257 1.052 1.206 46.61 1.746
Change +18 -1 +18 -18 +0.80 -25

Table 3 the effects of front ride height changes

CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
Previous confign 1.275 2.258 1.034 1.224 45.81 1.771
+3mm FRH 1.271 2.212 0.985 1.227 44.52 1.740
Change -4 -46 -49 +3 -1.29 -31
+6mm FRH 1.273 2.191 0.964 1.227 44.01 1.722
Figure 2: TBR 14s aerodynamics were dominated by its large, aggressive wings;
Change -2 -67 -70 +3 -1.80 -49
the front wing incorporated some intricate detailing



Figure 3: Small front Gurney Figure 4: Large front Gurney

Figure 5: Project manager Dave Quick Lift Jack Turton does the hard work while Figure 6: Re-checking the cars alignment after installing tyre shim plates
aerodynamics leader Francisco Parga supervises the placement of front tyre shims

Table 4 the effects of raising the rear ride height Raising the rear added a
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
Previous config. 1.293 2.257 1.052 1.206 46.61 1.746 significant total downforce
+19mm RRH
increment at the front end
Ride heights 19mm. Table 4 shows the data relative to the the raised rear ride height didnt compromise
As configured for this wind tunnel session, TBR immediately previous configuration. the suspension kinematics or cause excessive
14 had a low ride height and solid spacer in lieu So raising the rear added a significant total ground contact at the front end, it looked like a
of the damper units. This allowed ride height downforce increment, most of which was at helpful balance adjustment.
increases only (using shims on the load cell the front and this in turn provided another
pads under the tyres), which of course would useful increment of percentage front. The gain Next up in our TBR 14 series we will look at
likely not increase the percentage front value was quite efficient too. With the front wing some curious results found when applying
but would at least enable the cars response to overhang (to the leading edge) corresponding yaw angle.
ride height changes to be gauged. Two changes to almost 54 per cent of the cars short Racecar Engineerings thanks to the staff and
of front ride height were evaluated, with the wheelbase, a 19mm increase at the rear axle students at Team Bath Racing.
results in Table 3. would have caused the wings leading edge to
The effects, then, of even small front ride drop by 10mm. In addition, that 19mm increase CONTACT
height changes were quite potent. There was over the 1540mm wheelbase represents an Simon McBeath offers aerodynamic
a significant though non-linear loss of front angle change of 0.7 degrees. So, at the front, advisory services under his own brand of
downforce as front ride height was raised, with the wings height was reduced by 10mm and SM Aerotechniques
little change in rear downforce (drag), equating the wing angle was increased by 0.7 degrees,
to a loss of percentage front and efficiency both of which would add downforce. The In these pages he uses data from MIRA to
with each front ride height increment. The rear wings angle would also have increased discuss common aerodynamic issues faced
front needs to be run at the lowest ride by 0.7 degrees, which would have generated by racecar engineers
height possible, commensurate with avoiding additional downforce that would mitigate
excessive ground contact in worst-case pitch the aerodynamically induced mechanical Produced in association with MIRA Ltd
and roll combinations, to obtain the best losses at the rear axle arising from the front
percentage front possible. downforce gain, and so the rear also gained
Next, the rear ride height was increased, and downforce. Thus, although TBR 14 featured no
as only one sample was scheduled for brevity, aerodynamic underbody as such, rake changes Tel: +44 (0) 24-7635 5000
a bold change was made in order to gauge the still proved to be potent tools in establishing Email:
response with the rear tyres being raised by total downforce and balance. And providing Website:



The effects of
positive yaw
Concluding our probe of the University of Baths FS contender

eam Bath Racings 2014 Formula Student Looking at drag first, keep in mind that drag a roll moment that produced a net increase in
contender was selected for a session as force is measured in the axis of the car and the downforce across the rear axle; lift reduction
Racecar Engineerings guest in the MIRA turntable it rests on, not in the direction of the occurred over the rear of the car as yaw was
full-scale wind tunnel after TRB 14 had caught wind. Furthermore, not shown in Table 1 are added. Further speculation will best be done
the editorial eye at the Silverstone Formula the side forces, which naturally also increased over a drink!
Student competition in July 2014. In the final with yaw. Calculating the windward direction
instalment of our aero session, we examine yaw component of the drag and side forces The front wing
response and the front wing in more detail. and adding them together, so they are also As reported in the September issue,
In the previous three parts we have looked independent of the effectively changing frontal (RE V24N9) one of the talking points of
at comparisons with 2014s Formula Student area, produced the data in Table 2, which July 2014s Silverstone Formula Student
car from the University of Hertfordshire, and shows that the total force in the windward competition, and rightly so, was the front wing
at topics such as speed sensitivity, wheel lift, direction did in fact increase with yaw, as would on TRB 14 (see Figure 2). Aerodynamics team
rear wing adjustments, front wing Gurneys and have been expected. leader Francisco Parga explained the thinking
ride height adjustments. Time permitting, it Perhaps the most puzzling aspect was behind the design: The reduced ground
was always intended to try some yaw angles the gain in rear downforce at yaw. Or is it clearance at the centre was mostly a packaging
on the car, but with just a few minutes of the so puzzling? The University of Hertfordshire constraint. If we went any higher, we would
session left there was time only for two positive Formula Student car also showed an increase have had a tiny centre section as the nose was
(nose to the right) yaw angles to be evaluated. in rear downforce at positive yaw (up 3.6 in the way (the wings were designed to fit the
Nevertheless the data, shown in Table 1, was per cent at 5 degrees yaw compared to 2.5 nose and not vice-versa...). We could also run
certainly thought-provoking. per cent at 6 degrees with TBR 14), although slightly lower in the centre as our worst case
Changes between configurations are the response at negative yaw was the opposite, scenario for ground-strike was for the wing
shown in counts where 1 count = a coefficient and this was ascribed to the cars asymmetric tips in roll plus pitch.
change of 0.001. [194] The key points then sidepods affecting the rear wing differently In planform shape, the wing diverges
were: drag decreased, total downforce at positive and negative yaw angles. So, outwards [towards the rear] to compensate
increased, front downforce decreased, rear possible contributors in this instance could for some of the losses incurred by the centre
downforce increased notably and balance be; the feed to the rear wing was enhanced as section. The inboard part of the wing was losing
shifted to the rear. Efficiency (-L/D) also yaw was added; side force on the large, high- a bit of performance relative to the outboard
increased markedly at yaw. mounted rear end plates generated part due to the centre section arrangement.

Figure 1: TBR 14 showed some interesting behaviour when at yaw Figure 2: The front wing was a talking point among the Formula Student
fraternity and certainly warranted close attention

Table 1 the effects of positive yaw on TBR 14 Table 2 total windward direction forces at yaw
CD -CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D 60mph
Previous config 1.412 2.404 0.989 1.415 41.15 1.703 Yaw angle Windward direction total force, N
+6 degrees yaw 1.400 2.578 0.984 1.594 38.17 1.841 0 650.7
Change -12 +174 -5 +179 -2.98 +138 6 666.8
+12 degrees yaw 1.338 2.683 0.894 1.789 33.32 2.005 12 696.2
Change -74 +279 -95 +374 -7.83 +302



Figure 3: The upper surfaces of the front wing and end plate diverted air over Figure 4: Viewed from below the shape of the outboard channel in the
and around the tyres wing is clear

Additional images are courtesy: Francisco Parga

Figure 5: Large losses in total pressure (blue zones) reveal where vortices were beginning Figure 6: Areas of low static pressure associated with the vortex cores enhanced the
to form; those under the end plate footplate and wing channel are the important ones wings performance

By diverging at the endplates, we gained incorporate flaps into the endplate to cure Racecar Engineering extends its thanks to the
some of the load back at the centre section. these separations. Once the endplate was staff and students at Team Bath Racing, and to
Arguably, this is something we would have flapped it made sense (from a structural MIRA for the use of their wind tunnel. Subscribe
done anyway, even if we did not have issues perspective) to combine the main flaps with to Racecar Engineering to keep up to date with
with the inboard part of the wing, as it seemed the endplate flaps. further studies. In our next study, the BTCC
like a pretty strong tweak. The front wing was both taller relative to the comes under the spotlight.
The divergent shape towards the rear wheels and wider (equal to the cars width) than
also tied in with trying to keep the tip vortex many categories permit, and it was evident CONTACT
from bursting too early. The channel just that this directed air over and around the front Simon McBeath offers aerodynamic
inboard of the footplate catches the initial wheels, potentially a useful benefit. But the advisory services under his own brand of
footplate vortex, and allows it to grow and behaviour of the underside of the front wing is SM Aerotechniques
seal the low pressure under the wing from the best visualised with CFD. The CAD rendering in
higher pressure in the surrounding air without Figure 4 better shows the shape of the wings In these pages he uses data from MIRA to
bursting and leaving a lossy area of total underside. Figure 5 shows a transverse plane discuss common aerodynamic issues faced
pressure on the outboard section of the wing. at 15 per cent of the front wing chord revealing by racecar engineers
As the vortex grows, we needed to expand where there were losses in total pressure; the
the channel to grow with it. The divergent beginnings of various vortices are apparent. Produced in association with MIRA Ltd
planform made this relatively easy (Figure 3). The vortices under the wings channel
Once we had a wing we were fairly happy and end plate footplate are the important
with, we noticed some separation on the ones, as figure 6 demonstrates. This is a static
outboard side of the divergent channel. (At pressure plot just ahead of the first slot gap Tel: +44 (0) 24-7635 5000
this point we were running a more standard and the vortices have now developed to create Email:
endplate configuration.) We decided to performance-enhancing low pressure regions. Website:



Lightweight, High Cranking

Batteries from VARLEY
Li-16 12.8V 16.1Ah LiFePO4
Same size as a 15, cranks like a 30 but weighs
only 3.2kg, 670A cranking current

Li-5 12.8V 5.5Ah LiFePO4

Smaller than an 8, cranks like a 15 but weighs
only 1.1kg, 335A cranking current.
Fully UN tested, long storage life, fast re-charge
and UK technical support.

Whats ahead for 2015?

In Formula Student, as in all motorsport, rule makers have to
balance fair competition against restricting innovation

ince electric cars were introduced into arguably the most successful Formula Student much bigger aerodynamic wings, but they are
Class 1 in 2012, it is fair to say that Team ever, has run such a system since 2012. Not probably getting too big now, said Deakin.
rapid development has made them only does this mean extra grip, but it also allows Quite a few teams just have a big wing without
a dominant force in the competition. the team to implement regenerative braking understanding how efficient it is. Diffusers,
With the last two years seeing electric systems, boosting their overall efficiency. It is underfloors and DRS (Drag Reduction Systems)
champions (ETH Zurich in 2013 and TU Delft in very easy for a four wheel drive car to get lots will remain unrestricted with the only concern
2014) and the top six acceleration shoot-out more grip, resulting in approximately 20-30 per being the safety of the wing mounts and DRS
consistently made up of electric cars, it is time for cent more acceleration achieved at low speed flaps. Changing the regulations occasionally
change and, as ever in motorsport, that change when their car is grip limited, said Deakin. If you in this area should make teams think again, go
is decided by the regulations. do the calculations, its around 40mph where back to first principles and understand how to
For 2015, a series of amendments have the car no longer becomes grip limited so up optimise the use of aerodynamics properly.
been made in order to restrict the aerodynamic to that speed they have a massive advantage
devices on the cars, and reduce the power of on acceleration. The problem with that is these Electronic throttle control
the electric cars. The battery power limit for EVs systems are expensive, complicated and not This is something we have wanted to do for a
has been lowered to 80kW and the regulations all teams can compete fairly, so if we can peg long time, says Deakin. However, the judges task
governing where aerodynamic devices can be the four wheel drives back a little bit, they will of actually looking through all the software is a
positioned have been re-written. The full set still have all the advantages but the overall challenge. The additional brake device will use
of regulations, including those for FSAE and performance should reduce a little. In fact, analogue electronics to measure the brake and
Formula Student UK, can be found by clicking maximum power is very rarely reached on the throttle signal as well as the current delivered
a link found HERE. endurance track and in only a few places in the by the battery. If those three parameters go
Prior to the regulations being published, sprint event do cars ever use more than 50 or out of sync, for example if the driver asks for a
Racecar Engineering talked to Andrew Deakin, 60kW. Under the new regulations, rear wheel lot of brake and no throttle, resulting in a large
Vice Chancellor of Formula Student and steering has been permitted. amount of current being delivered to the electric
Chairman of the International Rules Committee. motors, then the device will kill the electrics
At the moment we believe that, three years Aero reductions acting as a back up to their electronic throttle
ago when the rules were written, there was With nearly 50 per cent of the grid now running control system. It is similar to the petrol cars
parity between the best petrol cars and the best an aerodynamics package, including the top where they have two throttle springs, so if one
electric cars, said Deakin at the Formula Student 18 cars, there is little dispute that the way to go breaks, there is always a second one there
UK event in July. However, electric car efficiency is aero. With the restrictions on the rear wings, there are two systems working. But we are just
has improved. Bringing it down 5kW would limiting their size and location, teams have developing the details of that at the moment.
make the average power between the two much started to look at the underbody in a bid to claw
closer. Another innovation that electric cars have back some of the lost downforce. We opened 2016 regulations
been developing is four wheel drive. TU Delft, up the regulations about five years ago to allow Looking ahead at the regulations for 2016,
there are a few options on the table and

Three years ago, there was parity between the

FSAE is looking closely at costs, engine size
and restriction on drivers. The Committee is
considering prohibiting drivers who have driven
best petrol cars and the best electric cars for professionally funded teams from driving
in FSAE dynamic events. It is also considing
changes to the driver cell to fit both the 95th
percentile male and 5th percentile female
driver. However the big changes will come in
costs, addressing design for cost, design for
manufacturing, sustainability and life cycle
of the product.
Also under consideration is the increase in
engine size to around 750cc in order to make
it easier for teams from some areas of the
world to compete. The Committee has invited
feedback on what size would suit, particularly in
Electric cars, particularly those with four wheel drive, are proving more able on acceleration and can use energy areas where 600cc or smaller engines are not
recovery systems, but the acceleration advantage is set to be reduced by proposed rule changes to power outputs commonly available.


Racecar Engineering

Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

Volume 23

Racecar Engineering
Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

Volume 24
July 2013 Vol 23 No 7 UK 5.50 US $13.50

Porsche 911 RSR June 2014 Vol 24 No 6 UK 5.95 US $14.50

tackles the GT world Toyota TS040

9 770961 109104
Tried, tested and ready to win Le Mans?
Fuels revolution Porsche 911 RSR Aston Martin Rapide S

Caterham CT05 Toyota TS040 Empire Wraith
June 2014

Caterham CT05 Empire Wraith Citron C-Elyse

July 2013


British team drinking in Formula 1 aero technology French newcomer on the

9 770961 109098

the last chance saloon meets latest hillclimber World Touring Car scene

Aston Martin Audis V6 engine Fuels of the future RCE June Cover ACSG.indd 1 17/04/2014 12:29

Hydrogen-powered Rapide Open-source data of the A sustainable solution to

completes Nrburgring 24 R18 Le Mans powerplant the fossil fuel dilemma?

RCE Cover July.indd 1 22/05/2013 11:33



Special Subscription Rates: 1 year (12 issues)

Print Digital
UK 44.95 (usually 71.40 SAVING 37%) UK 34.99 (SAVING 51% off the cover price)
US $99.95 (usually $162 SAVING 38%) US $49.99 (SAVING 70% off the cover price)
ROW 64.95 (usually 99 SAVING 35%) ROW 34.99 (SAVING 65% off the cover price)
+44 (0)1795 419 837 quote N407
REF: N407 (for digital)

N407_2.indd 1 28/05/2014 10:02