Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

Formula Student 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com

DIGITAL SPECIAL

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
 C A R E N G I N E E R I N G
AL w i t h R AC E
GO DIGIT

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

Available on:

VISIT OUR WEBSITE

www.racecar-engineering.com

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

www.racecar-engineering.com/sign-up-to-our-email-newsletter/
/RacecarEngineering @RacecarEngineer +Racecar Engineering
CONTENTS/COMMENT
F
ormula Student 2014 was, in a way,
CONTENTS the end of an era. The large wings that
were sported by but a few teams were
prevalent throughout the grid, as more
5 DELFT TAKES VICTORY teams sought the golden egg of downforce at
Electric car wins again in UK event the expense of drag. Organisers have taken a
view of the wing culture and moved to reduce
6 WINNER UNDER SCRUTINY the maximum size of wings for next year but,
What made the Dutch car so good? such as is the way in motorsport, teams are
8 OXFORD BROOKES already working on other ways to generate that
Top UK contender was fascinating same downforce level.
For 2015, it would seem that teams will be
11 AERO QUESTIONS investigating underfloor aerodynamics and face
The rise of big wings was a major topic the tough challenge of getting them to work
14 AEROBYTES even at low speeds seen in the FS competition.
Its a valuable lesson to learn if you want to
Team Baths entry in the wind tunnel
continue a career in motor racing any rule
19 BALANCING ACT change simply leads to another problem to
Perfecting balance in the tunnel solve, ground taken has to be won back in other
ways and with that comes extra cost.
21 A QUESTION OF RAKE
Yet, with the extra cost comes more
Further aero development
learning, and that is the key. It wasnt so long
23 YAW STUDIES ago that wings were being fitted to Formula 1
A final look at Team Baths TBR 14 in the cars with engineers not really understanding
MIRA wind tunnel their full effect. Now, a whole industry has
grown up around aerodynamics and the rule
28 2015 REGULATIONS book is now significantly fatter as regulators try
Changes are afoot for the 2015Formula to deal with the results.
Student UK event. We pick out the At an IMechE event held at the Bedford
key points. Modern School in November, exhibitors
included Lotus, Aston Martin and Nissan
FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 3
with the ZEOD, but also the Perrinn LMP1-H
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
have to employ a full time member of staff just
to understand the regulations and ensure that
the car, when it is built, is legal. As Formula 1
and sports cars look to reduce costs, word from
within the sports car camp is that what cannot
be policed (such as the braking systems) is just
being allowed to prevent restrictive regulation.
This approach leads to more innovation and a
far more interesting time for engineers.
This years Formula Student UK event at
Silverstone was won once again by electric cars,
but there is still a huge demand in racing for
combustion specialists, and there was a mix of
one, two and four cylinder engines. Lightweight
was still a target for some teams, and in their
presentation at Bedford, the University of Bath
revealed that it is looking at switching its design
to a one cylinder turbo next year, looking for
more power from a lightweight engine.
For the Formula Student competition, the
limitation on wings is just one change for next
year. We detail the full list of changes for 2015 in
this supplement but one thing is sure, the 2015
event is going to be fascinating.
ANDREW COTTON
Editor, Racecar Engineering
 AEROSPACE AND MOTORSPORT METALS

Roll Cage and Chassis Tubing specialists

supporting Formula Student Racing

GENERAL & SALES ENQUIRIES

02476 645 551

simon@aerocommetals.co.uk

CHASSIS & ROLL CAGE TUBING GLOBAL

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

NOW STOCKING
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

www.aerocommetals.co.uk
 FORMULA STUDENT 2014 COMPETITION
Dutch success in UK
The TU Delft entrys all-round performance clinches victory in
another tight and competitive Formula Student shoot-out
By GEMMA HATTON
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
L
ast year saw the first electric car to
win the UK Formula Student event at
Silverstone and the trend continued
this year as TU Delft claimed the overall
top spot with their electric, all wheel drive,
centreless wheel concept.
Surprisingly, although Silverstones
microclimate varied from a blistering hot 23degC
on the Saturday, to a chillier 16degC during
some parts of Sunday with the continual threat
of rain, the Acceleration, Sprint and Endurance
events were barely affected by the weather.
Saturday saw the top five design finalists
fighting for position as judges scrutinised the
design, manufacture and engineering of every
area of the cars. Oxford Brookes finished top,
followed by Stuttgart, Zurich, Delft and Karlsruhe
a good indication of the teams to watch out for
throughout the weekend.
The dynamic events start with acceleration,
and unsurprisingly the electric cars dominated,
with the top six run-off becoming a battle
between the electrics. ETH Zurich took the top
time of 3.441 seconds for the 75m standing start
two tenths quicker than last years effort.
The next major dynamic event is the Sprint,
which comprises an 800m long tight track and
pushes the cars manoeuvrability and handling
to the limits. Delft secured top with an excellent
time of 48.748 seconds, nearly 6.5 seconds ahead
of second place Karlsruhe and that turned out
to be a turning point in the competition. Third
was Monash with its front and rear DRS proving
effective. To avoid the unpredictable Silverstone
weather playing havoc with the results, the top
five teams from the Sprint event all started the
Endurance event at the same time, resulting in a
grand prix-style finale to the competition.
Team Bath Racing opened the event, but
problems emerged towards the end of their race
when a fault led to the loss of the front brakes.
Meanwhile their UK rival, Oxford Brookes, had
their own worries to deal with; a slow Zwickau
car, three engine restart attempts at the driver
changeover and then a connector breaking from
the pneumatic valve block resulting in the driver
being unable to shift down through the gears.
Oxford Brookes finished 20 seconds ahead of
Team Bath Racing. Last years champions, ETH
Zurich had three motors dropping out due to
electrical drivetrain problems in the first stint,
and although their pace improved, they began
to lap slowly and held up triple champions
Stuttgart, who lost 13 seconds in one lap. The
Germans, who were competing against Oxford
Brookes for first, then found themselves stuck
behind another electric car from NTNU on their
final lap and had to hope that none of the teams
FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 5
from Munich, Chalmers, Monash, Delft and
Karlsruhe could beat them.
The first of the top five to face problems was
Chalmers, which had brakes issues after only two
laps. Next to suffer was the Munich team which,
after six laps, had a jubilee clip failure resulting
in the silencer hanging off. Delfts strategy was
to race to a specific lap time. However, each
stint is essentially a sprint, and the Dutch teams
pace was slow. Monash was the first to cross
the line and topped the times, while Karlsruhe
had gearshift problems but managed to take
third place. The Delft car completed the race in
a disappointing eighth place. Crucially however,
they remained ahead of their main rivals ETH
Zurich by 1.7 seconds and therefore the point
difference between them was minimal.
The final results were announced at the
closing Awards Ceremony, and TU Delfts
successful sprint time over their rivals helped
them to become the 2014 Formula Student
UK Champions with a total of 855.5 points. In
second place, 18.7 points behind, was three-time
champion Stuttgart and third was Karlsruhes
combustion car. Last years winners ETH Zurich
came in fourth due to several electrical problems
disrupting their weekend and fifth was Oxford
Brookes, snatching the top UK title by 1.2 points
from Team Bath Racing, which finished sixth.
FORMULA STUDENT DELFT DUT14
Dominating Delft
Six-time victors TU Delft brought a car packed with new ideas,
clever design and effective engineering to take the win
By GEMMA HATTON
T
he TU Delft Formula Student team
has enjoyed a rich history of success
since it was founded back in 2000
by two students. With six overall
competition wins under their belt since, the 2014
Silverstone event saw the TU Delft team and the
DUT14 car add another overall first place trophy
to their cabinet. Renowned for being one step
ahead of the game, with their 2012 car being the
first to feature four wheel drive, traction control
and torque vectoring at the UK competition, this
years car did not disappoint.
The most astonishing innovation in the
pitlane was undoubtedly TU Delfts effectively
centreless wheels which played a big part
in getting them to the design finals of the
competition. A trend that we began to see
last year was teams not only downsizing their
wheels from 13in to 10in, but also making the
tyres wider for increased grip. This was the first
6 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014
step of TU Delfts 2014 car; self-designing the
tyres in collaboration with Apollo to be smaller
and wider. The next issue to overcome was the
transmission; the team wanted to continue using
the same motors as last year but because the
tyre size was smaller, this meant that a smaller
gear ratio was required and prompted the
move to a one-stage planetary transmission,
which resulted in a 50 per cent weight saving
compared to last year. We thought to ourselves;
wheels have spokes why do they need spokes?
We can just put the gears in the middle of the
tyre and connect the ring gear directly to the
wheel, explains chief engineer Marinus van der
Meijs. We then had the transmission inside the
wheel, so why not the motors and the brake
discs too? I think its like a ladys handbag you
can fit more inside then you think. All of this
weighed in at just 10kg, which is 2kg lighter per
wheel than the 2013 car, the DUT13.
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
Our brake design is really special because we
have our hubs so big due to the large ring gear,
that the brake disc would not fit on the inside
of the hub, so we had to fit it on the outside. As
the disc is so large, we could have many holes
which allow us to brake harder and also as it is
on the outside, the air can flow around it so we
have better brake cooling, explains Tim Houter,
Delfts chief of vehicle dynamics. The brake discs
are made of an aluminium matrix composite
developed for the aerospace industry.
Of course, the wider tyres came with
new challenges, such as fitting the pullrod
suspension to the uprights and resulted in
over 55 design iterations to determine the
location of the arms which optimised the
design without the parts colliding.
Unfortunately, we couldnt fit the driver in
the wheels too, so we had to make a chassis,
jokes Meijs. We were at lunch and decided that

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,
but the design and manufacturing challenges
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
before being included in the cars final design as
well as improving the assembly and production
procedures. This resulted in the successful
implementation of front and rear wings as well
as a diffuser. To address the issue of the front
wing blocking undisturbed air to the diffuser
and the cooling, the nose height was increased,
creating a slot for smooth air to flow through.
For electric cars in particular, reducing drag is
vital because the higher the drag, the more
energy required to accelerate and therefore
larger and heavier accumulators are needed
the exact opposite to Delfts lightweight motto.
Thus the rear wing was one of the smallest in
the paddock, featuring two elements but still
produced just enough downforce (75kg at
60km/h) to ensure the aerodynamic forces act in
the centre of the car.
The whole electronic system has been
completely redesigned, there is nothing taken
from last years car. We now also design our own
battery management system (BMS) which gives
us much more opportunity to really integrate
all the systems together, points out Marinus
Geuze, chief of electronics. The idea behind
this redesign was to be as simplistic and as
lightweight as possible, so components that
needed to communicate closely were placed
together, reducing wiring and thus interference.
Using this philosophy in the BMS meant that
Aero design focuses on balancing drag and downforce. Last years
car ran wingless after aero development time ran out
Radical rethink of wheel and hub design looks inside-out but is light
and functional. Exposed brake disc gets maximum cooling
Carbon fibre and aluminium honeycomb sandwich
results in a light but rigid chassis structure
the number of wires per battery package was
reduced from 40 to two. Another example is
found in the sensor node design. Unlike previous
cars that had a unique design for each part, a
shared a common sensor node was developed
that could be used anywhere on the car;
increasing data reliability.
Regenerative braking combines with lightweight lithium polymer
Battery efficiency batteries to provide efficient energy management
The energy of the car is stored in an accumulator
made of lithium polymer cells and (you alone which is why we have regenerative
guessed it) is extremely lightweight. If we braking. When we brake, energy is put back into
made our accumulator out of batteries found the accumulator and this generates around 30
in a normal car it would weigh around 200kg, per cent of our total power.
whereas ours only weighs 40kg because of After spending time analysing the car, it was
these lithium polymer cells, highlights Meijs. clear that every aspect of the car was not only
It is also extremely efficient, with a 6.4kWh innovative and well designed, but manufactured
output. Usually my iPhone lasts for a day without effectively and properly finished. It is no wonder
recharging, but if I could somehow connect then, that the entire paddock was talking about
it to this accumulator, my iPhone would be their car and it will be interesting to see how
powered for three years without needing to the winners of the UK event will do against a
recharge. Despite this, we cannot power our car whole host of German rivals in the next round of
throughout the endurance on an accumulator Formula Student at Hockenheim.
We had the transmission inside the wheel, so
why not the motors and the brake discs too?
FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 7
FORMULA STUDENT OXFORD BROOKES RACING
Keeping it simple
Resisting the temptation to rewrite the textbooks, OBR topped
the British teams with shrewd engineering and clear planning
By GEMMA HATTON
O
xford Brookes Racing (OBR) have
been one of the top UK Formula
Student teams for many years,
along with Bath and Hertfordshire.
This year, the team came to Silverstone armed
with a reliable single cylinder car which won the
design final and snatched the UK top spot by 1.2
points from Bath, finishing sixth overall.
Cost effective folded aluminium monocoque was combined with
carbon fibre elements for a significant weight reduction
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
8 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014
Last year our team struggled in the
competition, so I learned a lot of lessons and
sometimes its good to have a big learning
experience because it makes it very clear the
areas you need to focus on, reflects George
Simmons, team leader of OBR 2014. The first
thing I did when I became team leader was go
through a list of all the competitions and work
out exactly what we needed to do. Last year we
threw away 1000 points over the competitions
through failing endurances, yet we did much
better in the static events. That told me that
we had a good concept but just struggled with
the execution, which is why we stuck with a
very similar concept this year, without trying
to overstep the mark anywhere. We decided to
build a good car, which we could execute well in
the time that we had and focus on the delivery,
rather than trying to take two steps forward and
ending up going one step back.
Chassis
OBR has been famous for its folded aluminium
chassis since 2011, but this years new
development was the use of carbon fibre
to reduce weight. We did a complete mass
analysis of last years car and our monocoque
weighed 38kg other teams could probably
fit two monocoques in that, so we improved
the use of materials, says Simmons. We dont
have the money or the expertise to do a carbon
fibre tub so we tried to get that similar weight
with a different concept. This was achieved by
maintaining the aluminium skins on the outside
of the chassis but switching to carbon fibre on
the inside, and flat parts of the sandwich panels.
By laying up the skin material themselves,
the team has been able to vary the number
of plies, rather than a standard thickness with
the aluminium. It gave us complete control
and saved us 8kg, says Simmons. By using the
folded concept we can still get the low density
of carbon fibre into the monocoque without
having all the expensive tooling costs. Were
maybe 3-4kg heavier than the efficient carbon
fibre monocoque of our competitors, but we
have spent thousands of pounds less.
New methods, materials and designs so often
lead to unexpected problems. Simmons reveals:
When we bonded the aluminium and carbon
fibre chassis together, we used a hot press, and
the coefficient of thermal expansion of the two
materials meant that we actually ended up with
a banana shaped chassis for a while which set us
back about a month. Overall, the manufacture
of the monocoque was completed in under
two months and due to OBRs efficient use of
materials to achieve a cost-effective solution,
they received an award from event sponsor GKN.
Suspension
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
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
in the weeks before competition, you have to
stay and work all nighters, whereas we actually
completed the whole year without a single one.
We focused on having really good progress
tracking methods to ensure that we got the car
finished one month before competition. Im
surprised with how well the team is doing if Im
honest. We are now running with competitive
times in the sprint event, even against some of
the electric cars.
T
he Australian team from Edith Cowan University
(ECU) arrived with a 4 cylinder, 10in wheel
concept, including aero. But what really got
the teams and judges talking was their innovative rear
suspension and their custom built engine.
The rear suspension is a De Dion axle with Satchell
links and has many benefits, explains Phil Le, the teams
technical director. We have been able to remove the
rear spaceframe as all of our suspension loads are fed
straight back into the carbon chassis, so we have lost
around 10kg when compared to previous years. Using
the Satchell link as a form of triangulation over the
since 2010. Our chassis is made from two sections,
front and body with a bonded front roll hoop between
the two sections, says Le. The construction technique
begins with flat aluminium honeycomb and carbon
skin panels which are then cut by CNC machines. The
cut line dimensions are determined by what angle we
choose to have the bend at. Once the panels have
been routed we begin construction of the chassis and
each bend and joint is reinforced with a microfiber
and wet lay-up carbon. All hard points feature a
bonded aluminium insert to take any loads and others
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

FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 9

 MOTORSPORT

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
sales@hewpro.com
www.hewpro.com
FORMULA STUDENT AERO

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

L
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

FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 11

FORMULA STUDENT AERO

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

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

12 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014

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

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

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

u tom oto
rs p o rt orig ngage signed
e
dog atios d eed
e le
A ad a n d m e, six a
fiv
nd
or
a n dr
xim
u m sp
ent
s f o
e ax
r liv gs and
asin s fo
r
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
e
nd
tr
Gea igh-pe uce a w xes wi mesh arsets al A
s
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
H
eng
a
as d
ir ind
e fo eri
ring loped
ve ks cks ste
i a l s ha rs g rac ring ra roving
e
dev nts
t
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
u
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
by
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
d,
P 0) 1
74
732 ad, O
o
tfo
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
-2
ua ee Ki f u r
rm
at Qu 9001
fo @q Engin nited info ISO
n
E: i uaife 5EL U
Q 4
RT t, TN1
Ke n
TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

The flying limpet

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

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

14 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014


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
being a coefficient change of 0.001.
The first observation to make is that in
baseline trim TBR14 set two new Aerobytes
records; the highest drag coefficient and
highest negative lift coefficient we have seen
in our MIRA sessions. It would go on to achieve
even greater heights during the session!
Facetious remarks aside though, the aim
with TBR14 was to generate high downforce
with wings, and this it most certainly did. The
inevitable penalty for that is high drag, but
the teams approach was to not be concerned
about drag; downforce was the target.
The coefficient changes brought about by
changing speed initially looked puzzling in
some respects. The drag coefficient reduced
slightly at the higher speed, as is often
seen; but the overall negative lift coefficient
decreased in magnitude at the higher speed,
and this is not what is usually seen. The front
downforce coefficient (-CLf) certainly followed
the usual pattern of increasing at the higher
speed, this most likely down to improved flow
attachment under the front wings suction
surface as speed increased. But for the rear
downforce coefficient to reduce significantly at
the higher speed was unusual.
We have seen more modest speed sensitive
losses of CL magnitude due entirely to
aerodynamic and related mechanical effects
in the past, for example on the University of
Hertfordshire Formula Student Racing Teams
Table 1: baseline aerodynamic coefficients on TBR14 at
different speeds
CD -CL -CLf
40mph 1.446 2.430 0.900
60mph 1.389 2.355 0.970
Change -57 -75 +70
% change -3.9% -3.1% +7.8%
Figure 5: Interesting underside detail on the front wing
The aim with TBR14 was to generate high
downforce with wings, and this it most certainly
did. The inevitable penalty for that is high drag
UH16 racecar (RE December 2013, V23N12) on
which a 75 count gain at the front combined
with in a loss of 36 counts at the rear. The
primary cause in TBR14s case, however,
appeared to be that the rear mounts in the rear
wing were (inadvertently) allowing the wing to
pivot to a reduced angle as air speed increased.
Although the difference in wing angle between
40mph and 60mph was not measured, and
most of the angle reduction appeared to be
at quite low speed, the difference in the CL
values would seem to be most reasonably
explained this way, accompanied too, as it was,
by a significant drop in drag.
Inevitable comparisons
For those who havent already reached for
their December 2013 issues, the comparative
baseline run data on the two Formula Student
cars we have now tested are shown in Table
2. The fundamental difference between the
two cars aerodynamic configurations was that
the University of Hertfordshires car featured a
dual-element rear wing, compared to TBR14s
triple-element rear wing.
While the two cars did not have the same
aerodynamic balance in their respective
baseline configurations, they both had
Table 2: baseline data on two Formula Student cars at 60mph
CD
-CLr %front -L/D UH16 1.146
1.530 37.02 1.701 TBR14 1.389
1.385 41.20 1.695 Difference +243
-145 +4.18 -6
-9.5% - -0.4%
Figure 6: Setting up the trip strips on the front tyres
FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 15
maximum wing and flap angles set at front
and rear, so in that sense the comparison is
valid. The main difference was obviously due
to TBR14s triple-element rear wing, which
required that it needed more front downforce
to attain the desired balance (45-50 per
cent front) whereas UH16 needed less front
downforce to attain a balance.
Relativity
As discussed in our earlier analysis of the
University of Hertfordshires UH16, the benefit
to grip that is derived from downforce is
relative to the cars weight. So, Table 3 shows
downforce at 60mph as a proportion of all-up
vehicle weight including driver on two high
downforce single seaters and on the two
Formula Student cars we have tested. Clearly,
any comparison between cars running to
different regulation sets has little technical
validity, but it is of more than passing interest!
The F1 Hondas high minimum weight
clearly hampered its downforce to weight
ratio, whereas the hillclimber had no
minimum weight limit. Both of these designs,
however, developed a significant proportion
of their downforce with their underbodies,
and so downforce values will have been
-CL -CLf -CLr %front -L/D
1.797 1.055 0.742 58.70 1.568
2.355 0.970 1.385 41.20 1.695
+558 -85 +643 - +127
 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

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
configuration
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
60mph
Change +12 +54 -24 +78 -1.94 +24

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

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

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

16 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014

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

ENGINEERING THE ADVANTAGE

THROUGH QUALITY DESIGN

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

sales@titan.uk.net

www.titan.uk.net Dynamic Engineering

 MOTORSPORT
CONNECTORS
M SERIES

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
mechanism
6 different sizes
Lightweight aluminium shell
2 to 114 contacts
Optimum space saving
Oil and fuel resistant
IP 68
High shock and vibration
resistance
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
info@lemo.com
Contact your local partner on www.lemo.com
 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

Fine tuning a high

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

T
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

1.500
1.450
1.400
-CLr

1.350
1.300 -CLr

1.250
1.200
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

FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 19

 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

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

20 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014

 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

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

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

FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 21

 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

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
CD -CL -CLf -CLr
Previous config. 1.293 2.257 1.052 1.206
+19mm RRH
Change
1.320
+27
2.385
+128
1.165
+113
1.221
+15
Ride heights
As configured for this wind tunnel session, TBR
14 had a low ride height and solid spacer in lieu
of the damper units. This allowed ride height
increases only (using shims on the load cell
pads under the tyres), which of course would
likely not increase the percentage front value
but would at least enable the cars response to
ride height changes to be gauged. Two changes
of front ride height were evaluated, with the
results in Table 3.
The effects, then, of even small front ride
height changes were quite potent. There was
a significant though non-linear loss of front
downforce as front ride height was raised, with
little change in rear downforce (drag), equating
to a loss of percentage front and efficiency
with each front ride height increment. The
front needs to be run at the lowest ride
height possible, commensurate with avoiding
excessive ground contact in worst-case pitch
and roll combinations, to obtain the best
percentage front possible.
Next, the rear ride height was increased, and
as only one sample was scheduled for brevity,
a bold change was made in order to gauge the
response with the rear tyres being raised by
Raising the rear added a
%front -L/D
46.61 1.746 significant total downforce
48.83
+2.22
-1.807
+61
increment at the front end
19mm. Table 4 shows the data relative to the
immediately previous configuration.
So raising the rear added a significant total
downforce increment, most of which was at
the front and this in turn provided another
useful increment of percentage front. The gain
was quite efficient too. With the front wing
overhang (to the leading edge) corresponding
to almost 54 per cent of the cars short
wheelbase, a 19mm increase at the rear axle
would have caused the wings leading edge to
drop by 10mm. In addition, that 19mm increase
over the 1540mm wheelbase represents an
angle change of 0.7 degrees. So, at the front,
the wings height was reduced by 10mm and
the wing angle was increased by 0.7 degrees,
both of which would add downforce. The
rear wings angle would also have increased
by 0.7 degrees, which would have generated
additional downforce that would mitigate
the aerodynamically induced mechanical
losses at the rear axle arising from the front
downforce gain, and so the rear also gained
downforce. Thus, although TBR 14 featured no
aerodynamic underbody as such, rake changes
still proved to be potent tools in establishing
total downforce and balance. And providing
the raised rear ride height didnt compromise
the suspension kinematics or cause excessive
ground contact at the front end, it looked like a
helpful balance adjustment.
Next up in our TBR 14 series we will look at
some curious results found when applying
yaw angle.
Racecar Engineerings thanks to the staff and
students at Team Bath Racing.
CONTACT
Simon McBeath offers aerodynamic
advisory services under his own brand of
SM Aerotechniques
www.sm-aerotechniques.co.uk.
In these pages he uses data from MIRA to
discuss common aerodynamic issues faced
by racecar engineers
Produced in association with MIRA Ltd
Tel: +44 (0) 24-7635 5000
Email: enquiries@mira.co.uk
Website: www.mira.co.uk

22 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014

 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES

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

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

FORMULA STUDENT 2014 www.racecar-engineering.com 23

 TECHNOLOGY AEROBYTES
Figure 3: The upper surfaces of the front wing and end plate diverted air over
and around the tyres
Figure 5: Large losses in total pressure (blue zones) reveal where vortices were beginning
to form; those under the end plate footplate and wing channel are the important ones
By diverging at the endplates, we gained
some of the load back at the centre section.
Arguably, this is something we would have
done anyway, even if we did not have issues
with the inboard part of the wing, as it seemed
like a pretty strong tweak.
The divergent shape towards the rear
also tied in with trying to keep the tip vortex
from bursting too early. The channel just
inboard of the footplate catches the initial
footplate vortex, and allows it to grow and
seal the low pressure under the wing from the
higher pressure in the surrounding air without
bursting and leaving a lossy area of total
pressure on the outboard section of the wing.
As the vortex grows, we needed to expand
the channel to grow with it. The divergent
planform made this relatively easy (Figure 3).
Once we had a wing we were fairly happy
with, we noticed some separation on the
outboard side of the divergent channel. (At
this point we were running a more standard
endplate configuration.) We decided to
24 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014
Figure 4: Viewed from below the shape of the outboard channel in the
wing is clear
Figure 6: Areas of low static pressure associated with the vortex cores enhanced the
wings performance
incorporate flaps into the endplate to cure
these separations. Once the endplate was
flapped it made sense (from a structural
perspective) to combine the main flaps with
the endplate flaps.
The front wing was both taller relative to the
wheels and wider (equal to the cars width) than
many categories permit, and it was evident
that this directed air over and around the front
wheels, potentially a useful benefit. But the
behaviour of the underside of the front wing is
best visualised with CFD. The CAD rendering in
Figure 4 better shows the shape of the wings
underside. Figure 5 shows a transverse plane
at 15 per cent of the front wing chord revealing
where there were losses in total pressure; the
beginnings of various vortices are apparent.
The vortices under the wings channel
and end plate footplate are the important
ones, as figure 6 demonstrates. This is a static
pressure plot just ahead of the first slot gap
and the vortices have now developed to create
performance-enhancing low pressure regions.
Additional images are courtesy: Francisco Parga
Racecar Engineering extends its thanks to the
staff and students at Team Bath Racing, and to
MIRA for the use of their wind tunnel. Subscribe
to Racecar Engineering to keep up to date with
further studies. In our next study, the BTCC
comes under the spotlight.
CONTACT
Simon McBeath offers aerodynamic
advisory services under his own brand of
SM Aerotechniques
www.sm-aerotechniques.co.uk.
In these pages he uses data from MIRA to
discuss common aerodynamic issues faced
by racecar engineers
Produced in association with MIRA Ltd
Tel: +44 (0) 24-7635 5000
Email: enquiries@mira.co.uk
Website: www.mira.co.uk
 VARLEY LITHIUM

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.

www.varleyredtop.com
FORMULA STUDENT REGULATIONS
Whats ahead for 2015?
In Formula Student, as in all motorsport, rule makers have to
balance fair competition against restricting innovation
By GEMMA HATTON
S
ince electric cars were introduced into
Class 1 in 2012, it is fair to say that
rapid development has made them
a dominant force in the competition.
With the last two years seeing electric
champions (ETH Zurich in 2013 and TU Delft in
2014) and the top six acceleration shoot-out
consistently made up of electric cars, it is time for
change and, as ever in motorsport, that change
is decided by the regulations.
For 2015, a series of amendments have
been made in order to restrict the aerodynamic
devices on the cars, and reduce the power of
the electric cars. The battery power limit for EVs
has been lowered to 80kW and the regulations
governing where aerodynamic devices can be
positioned have been re-written. The full set
of regulations, including those for FSAE and
Formula Student UK, can be found by clicking
a link found HERE.
Prior to the regulations being published,
Racecar Engineering talked to Andrew Deakin,
Vice Chancellor of Formula Student and
Chairman of the International Rules Committee.
At the moment we believe that, three years
ago when the rules were written, there was
parity between the best petrol cars and the best
electric cars, said Deakin at the Formula Student
UK event in July. However, electric car efficiency
has improved. Bringing it down 5kW would
make the average power between the two much
closer. Another innovation that electric cars have
been developing is four wheel drive. TU Delft,
Three years ago, there was parity between the
best petrol cars and the best electric cars
Electric cars, particularly those with four wheel drive, are proving more able on acceleration and can use energy
recovery systems, but the acceleration advantage is set to be reduced by proposed rule changes to power outputs
26 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2014
arguably the most successful Formula Student
Team ever, has run such a system since 2012. Not
only does this mean extra grip, but it also allows
the team to implement regenerative braking
systems, boosting their overall efficiency. It is
very easy for a four wheel drive car to get lots
more grip, resulting in approximately 20-30 per
cent more acceleration achieved at low speed
when their car is grip limited, said Deakin. If you
do the calculations, its around 40mph where
the car no longer becomes grip limited so up
to that speed they have a massive advantage
on acceleration. The problem with that is these
systems are expensive, complicated and not
all teams can compete fairly, so if we can peg
the four wheel drives back a little bit, they will
still have all the advantages but the overall
performance should reduce a little. In fact,
maximum power is very rarely reached on the
endurance track and in only a few places in the
sprint event do cars ever use more than 50 or
60kW. Under the new regulations, rear wheel
steering has been permitted.
Aero reductions
With nearly 50 per cent of the grid now running
an aerodynamics package, including the top
18 cars, there is little dispute that the way to go
is aero. With the restrictions on the rear wings,
limiting their size and location, teams have
started to look at the underbody in a bid to claw
back some of the lost downforce. We opened
up the regulations about five years ago to allow
much bigger aerodynamic wings, but they are
probably getting too big now, said Deakin.
Quite a few teams just have a big wing without
understanding how efficient it is. Diffusers,
underfloors and DRS (Drag Reduction Systems)
will remain unrestricted with the only concern
being the safety of the wing mounts and DRS
flaps. Changing the regulations occasionally
in this area should make teams think again, go
back to first principles and understand how to
optimise the use of aerodynamics properly.
Electronic throttle control
This is something we have wanted to do for a
long time, says Deakin. However, the judges task
of actually looking through all the software is a
challenge. The additional brake device will use
analogue electronics to measure the brake and
throttle signal as well as the current delivered
by the battery. If those three parameters go
out of sync, for example if the driver asks for a
lot of brake and no throttle, resulting in a large
amount of current being delivered to the electric
motors, then the device will kill the electrics
acting as a back up to their electronic throttle
control system. It is similar to the petrol cars
where they have two throttle springs, so if one
breaks, there is always a second one there
there are two systems working. But we are just
developing the details of that at the moment.
2016 regulations
Looking ahead at the regulations for 2016,
there are a few options on the table and
FSAE is looking closely at costs, engine size
and restriction on drivers. The Committee is
considering prohibiting drivers who have driven
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
areas where 600cc or smaller engines are not
commonly available.
 NOW AVAILABLE IN
PRINT & DIGITAL EDITIONS
SPECIAL SAVINGS WHEN YOU SUBSCRIBE
Racecar Engineering

Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

7
Volume 23

Racecar Engineering
Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

Volume 24
July 2013 Vol 23 No 7 www.racecar-engineering.com UK 5.50 US $13.50

Porsche 911 RSR June 2014 Vol 24 No 6 www.racecar-engineering.com 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

06
Caterham CT05 Toyota TS040 Empire Wraith
June 2014

Caterham CT05 Empire Wraith Citron C-Elyse

DIGIT
July 2013

07

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

PRINT AL
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

NEVER MISS AN ISSUE READ ON YOUR IPAD, KINDLE OR ANDROID DEVICE

GET IT BEFORE IT HITS THE SHOPS ACCESS YOUR ARCHIVE AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON
KEEP AHEAD OF THE COMPETITION ENHANCED DIGITAL CONTENT COMING SOON

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)

www.chelseamagazines.com/racecar-N407
+44 (0)1795 419 837 quote N407
REF: N407

www.chelseamagazines.com/racecar-N407D (for digital)

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