Formula Mazda w/Active Aero

[VSeaber]

To be clear- this car was running as an FS with a streetport 13B. We work with Old Dominion University and the motorsports program; one student used our car as a senior design project. The result: active aero.

The rear wing was controlled by a linear actuator and programmed / controlled by the ECU with postion feedback. Top speed at Road Atlanta was 149 mph at around 9600 rpm!

It really surprises Atlantics to see what appears to be a FM going about the same speed down the straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63wK9aHCD9c

Victor Seaber
www.oduviper.com

[mikey]

very cool. Not quite as slick as F1, nor as fast, but still cool and some good results!

[Franklin Futrelle]

I bet it will run a 22 at road atlanta. Thats sweet. I think i saw 138 at rd america on my FM with 2 degrees of rear wing. 10 mph is huge

[Rick Kirchner]

what is the fail-safe condition? thinking of all those active aero failures of years gone by where the driver enters the corner expecting downforce only to find there is none......

[dalz]

That's wild! But there's a reason why active aero has been banned in most forms of racing since the '60s, other than it's tightly controlled return in recent F1. What if it doesn't do what you want it to, at the wrong time, in the wrong place?

[VSeaber]

Active aero is an interesting topic. Funny how the ghosts of failures 30+ years ago are still around. Just like any component it can fail but I'd say it's safe to say that we understand a lot more than we did in the early days about ground vehicle aerodynamics.

I can buy a Ford or BMW with active aero, stability control, traction control, ABS, electric steering, active lane control and laser/radar cruse control.

We the racing community don't want to turn our back on technology out of fear; we need to push the envelope of what is possible in order to remain revalent to consumers (ordinary people) and automakers.

I'd hate to be constrained to 1970's technology (Nascar) out of fear of new technolgy failing. And I'd say the item that most often acts unpredictably in a race car and causes accidents is the driver.

To turn the question around: what if the ABS system in your street car did the wrong thing at the wrong time? It's fully active and in control of your brakes. How about stability control? Now mandated...

[Rick Kirchner]

there's an adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

all that crap on your street car has been engineered to be reliable to a 1x10^-9 kind of level, and then to fail in the safest possible manner. Hundreds of thousands of engineering hours, and standards. Notable exceptions (Audi pedal placement, toyota throttle control and ignition switches, hotel skyways, etc) fall into that engineering book of "don't let this happen to you".

It's not about being afraid of technology, it's about not being reckless.

It's cool, but it needs a spring that the actuator works against that would take it to full downforce against the aero load in the event of an actuator failure. That's just for a mechanical failure. How do you ensure that the software works properly under all conditions?

Sure it's cool, but other people are out there with you.

turned around differently, would you get into a General Aviation aircraft where you'd replaced all the flight controls with that system?

[mousecatcher]

To turn the question around: what if the ABS system in your street car did the wrong thing at the wrong time? It's fully active and in control of your brakes. How about stability control? Now mandated...

The active handling / stability in C6 corvettes has been known to fail in disastrous ways.

[iamuwere]

I think it is awesome.

[formulasuper]

Active aero is an interesting topic. Funny how the ghosts of failures 30+ years ago are still around. Just like any component it can fail but I'd say it's safe to say that we understand a lot more than we did in the early days about ground vehicle aerodynamics.

I can buy a Ford or BMW with active aero, stability control, traction control, ABS, electric steering, active lane control and laser/radar cruse control.

We the racing community don't want to turn our back on technology out of fear; we need to push the envelope of what is possible in order to remain revalent to consumers (ordinary people) and automakers.

I'd hate to be constrained to 1970's technology (Nascar) out of fear of new technolgy failing. And I'd say the item that most often acts unpredictably in a race car and causes accidents is the driver.

To turn the question around: what if the ABS system in your street car did the wrong thing at the wrong time? It's fully active and in control of your brakes. How about stability control? Now mandated...

Good to see I'm not the only one on track that is concerned with the safety of this device. Even though it was discussed by the stewards at the ARRC a couple of years ago they never came to a complete agreement & the subject was dropped. It can not really be compared to an ABS system since even if the ABS fails your brakes still work as normal power brakes.

"I can buy a Ford or BMW with active aero, stability control, traction control, ABS, electric steering, active lane control and laser/radar cruse control."

If any of these systems fail on a street car it's not a big problem since you're not driving 100% on the edge on the street.

[Trey Range]

Awesome! I don't see how this is any bigger risk than running older/less reliable racecars on track, which people do all the time. I remember one NASA race where a stock car dropped the entirety of its oil pan on the track (by itself, no collision) and caused 5+ crashes, but what are you going to do, ban older racecars? Active Aero is used by a couple of BMW racers and several GT-R's, mainly AeroMotion, for $8k+, and I haven't heard of catastrophic failure.

Care to disclose the lap time difference?

And details on the motor/trans?

[VSeaber]

It can be compared to a ABS system as under any conditions there still is downforce. The system simply adjusts the amount of downforce.

I'm guessing 20 years ago there were similar discussions with the advent of fuel injection. Oh no, it runs really high fuel line pressures. It's just a bomb waiting to go off. Oh no, the computer controls it-- what if it goes all HAL 9000. What if it's in an accident- carbs are safer.

Let's focus on real issues, not 'what if's' driven by events that took place 30+ years ago.

This system is no different than a lot of what is on other SCCA cars in other classes. In this case it is a drag reduction/downforce trim device instead of a driver aid.

It's difficult to connect with the younger generation enough to begin with to get them into our sport without all of our cars having the technology level of a FV. No offense to FVs meant. There are a couple of innovation-encouraged classes in SCCA- ASR and FS are unlimited, CSR/DSR fairly open rules. Let's keep it that way.

[Wren]

I did my graduate work in controls and dynamics. I think it's cool.

Did the student publish? Are technical details available?

[KodaBear]

That's very cool! And Don't let these guys scare you, Scca guys are generally scared of technology.

[TrackBrat]

There is actually a senior design team here at ASU that is going to do something but it is going to change the angle of attack of either side of the wing. They are going to be testing it on one of the Bondurant mazdas. Not sure if it is going to be one or multiple elements but that video is pretty sweet.

[Brian.Novak]

Very cool, love it! I'd be interested in seeing anything that was published as well, wondering what the system is reacting to, etc.

Let's all keep in mind this is someone's senior design project, not something that is going to be rolled out to the masses. I understand the active aero worries out there, but many of those were old tech on MONSTER cars that were on the absolute knife edge. As long as this thing fails in a "safe" position, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I'd check it out closely and ensure the bases were covered, but ultimately, I'd have no worry about it on track at a regional in FS...

I'd be more worried about some of the drivers on track at Nationals than this car.

[VSeaber]

And we've done our homework on the aero...

Full scale testing at Langley wind tunnel.

[Brian.Novak]

And we've done our homework on the aero...

Full scale testing at Langley wind tunnel.

No doubt you have!

Don't let the cranky ones bother you

[iamuwere]

Someday, I will own a wind tunnel. I don't know why, but I want to put a lot of stuff in a wind tunnel just because I want to to be better.

[KevinFirlein]

I think its cool as hell. Could it fail ? sure, just the same way as I watched a rear wing fly off a FA car who was in front of me in quals once when his mounts failed. Yeah he crashed, so by this thread I guess all cars with rear wings are dangerous to drive. Hell I hit the wall at Homestead in a IRL car when the rear wing came off back when teams were playing games and as a R&D guy I was expendable. Never knew it was gone till I tried to turn. Was north of 216mph when the lights got turned out. Should wings be banned ? The current FA rules allow mettalic chassis cars to run skirts lower then the tub which I did in 1998. Anyone who remebers the Speed telecast knows my car snapped away from me at T1 at Mid O. It was caused by me running wide at t13 and scrubbing the skirt off on the curb. I got to the next fast turn and oh well. Its not a bad rule or bad tech, sometimes **** happens.

I'd love to see if Victors team was able to run active front as well as the rear. So they could have max grip under braking and turns and full tilt down the straight. I'd test it.

[Rick Kirchner]

I think y'all missed the point, and in missing it Kevin, you proved it. There's a reason stuff like sliding skirts got banned - you couldn't depend on them to work. It's not that wings are bad, it's when folks go beyond acceptable margins for construction (or for that matter, maintenance) that things go bad.

Yeah, it's cool, but just exactly what are the differences between this moveable aero (at the amateur level) and the stuff that failed VERY frequently at the pro level when a lot more experienced folks were throwing a lot more money at the problem.

It looks to me like the difference is between a hydraulic actuator and a computer driven positioner. That makes me feel a lot better!

Flight qualified software for targeting - the kind that is going to kill someone (hopefully the intended target) is my business. **** happens alright. In the case of one product (not ours) the Special Ops forward observer called a 2000lb bomb in on his position because the system put his GPS coordinates in as the target when he changed the batteries......

I asked a simple question at first, and frankly, I'm amazed at the lack of logic that's displayed by several of the people here in trying to make an "argument". Maybe this is designed well, but the next one might be built by joe knucklehead, and I doubt you'd sing the same tune if you were hauling the car down for a slow corner and took it up the dukey chute from a guy whose home-built active aero had failed.

[KevinFirlein]

actually I'd consider it no different then any number of piss poor maintained cars that have parts fail on them and take people out all the time at club races. I see no difference in getting taken out by an active aero failure and yet another driver who thinks that even though he is the 4th car in line he should be able to brake in his normal brake position , takes everyone out, then starts arguing that someone short braked him.

FS allows for alot of stuff. Its part of the class and if you run races that are grouped with them thats the price of admission.

[preston27]

I could not emagine a cooler teacher than one that would try a students project and go 149mph. My hat is off to Vic. That student will never forget you. Wish all teachers were that commited.

[pahillclimber]

I think this is neat, the coolest thing that I ever saw was the ISMA SuperModifieds running at Flemington Speedway, doing 150+mph, 11 second laps around a 5/8 mile paved oval with their active top wings, flat on the straights and bouncing up in the turns, and that was around 1999.
I would love to try active aero on my hillclimb special build, need something to catch Bowland's wonder car.

Rich Sweigart

[Brian.Novak]

I think y'all missed the point, and in missing it Kevin, you proved it. There's a reason stuff like sliding skirts got banned - you couldn't depend on them to work. It's not that wings are bad, it's when folks go beyond acceptable margins for construction (or for that matter, maintenance) that things go bad.

Yeah, it's cool, but just exactly what are the differences between this moveable aero (at the amateur level) and the stuff that failed VERY frequently at the pro level when a lot more experienced folks were throwing a lot more money at the problem.

It looks to me like the difference is between a hydraulic actuator and a computer driven positioner. That makes me feel a lot better!

Flight qualified software for targeting - the kind that is going to kill someone (hopefully the intended target) is my business. **** happens alright. In the case of one product (not ours) the Special Ops forward observer called a 2000lb bomb in on his position because the system put his GPS coordinates in as the target when he changed the batteries......

I asked a simple question at first, and frankly, I'm amazed at the lack of logic that's displayed by several of the people here in trying to make an "argument". Maybe this is designed well, but the next one might be built by joe knucklehead, and I doubt you'd sing the same tune if you were hauling the car down for a slow corner and took it up the dukey chute from a guy whose home-built active aero had failed.

Completely understand what you are saying here, but on a case by case basis I think experimental stuff like this could be approved for use in FS if people wanted to try running it.

[Trey Range]

I think y'all missed the point, and in missing it Kevin, you proved it. There's a reason stuff like sliding skirts got banned - you couldn't depend on them to work. It's not that wings are bad, it's when folks go beyond acceptable margins for construction (or for that matter, maintenance) that things go bad.

Yeah, it's cool, but just exactly what are the differences between this moveable aero (at the amateur level) and the stuff that failed VERY frequently at the pro level when a lot more experienced folks were throwing a lot more money at the problem.

It looks to me like the difference is between a hydraulic actuator and a computer driven positioner. That makes me feel a lot better!

Flight qualified software for targeting - the kind that is going to kill someone (hopefully the intended target) is my business. **** happens alright. In the case of one product (not ours) the Special Ops forward observer called a 2000lb bomb in on his position because the system put his GPS coordinates in as the target when he changed the batteries......

I asked a simple question at first, and frankly, I'm amazed at the lack of logic that's displayed by several of the people here in trying to make an "argument". Maybe this is designed well, but the next one might be built by joe knucklehead, and I doubt you'd sing the same tune if you were hauling the car down for a slow corner and took it up the dukey chute from a guy whose home-built active aero had failed.

Are you contending that an active aero failure is inherently worse than a tire blowing (which happens) or a cooling system failure spewing water (and maybe antifreeze), or any number of other things that can cause crashes on track?

P.S. Ad hominem attacks when people don't agree with you is not a great strategy IMO.

[romoman]

I think this is great and it's neat to see being done at a college level. I say try everything!

[rperry]

So moving suspension, tires, steering, etc. are ok. Moving wings are too dangerous?

[cooleyjb]

A failure of the wing?

Hell, I've seen this car go out to 'see how the car reacted' with no wings on it. It did WAY better than people expected.

Victor. Really cool stuff. I can't wait to see it next time I'm up there. Obviously I didn't notice it last time I was up there.

I also have a few things that I need to work on and you might be able to help out as well.

--Joe

[Rick Kirchner]

Actually Trey, that's not an ad hominem attack. It was an observation of a trend where people referred to items unrelated to the technology at hand in order to make their point.

And in your example, you are referring to well developed technologies that have their own safety features (tires are x-rayed) and their very infrequent failure rate in an attempt to make your point.

Really, when is the last time you saw a tire "blow" when it wasn't preceded by physical damage - especially on an SCCA car?

[Wren]

Really, when is the last time you saw a tire "blow" when it wasn't preceded by physical damage - especially on an SCCA car?

May of 2012. Mosport. The damage was signifigant.

[Trey Range]

Actually Trey, that's not an ad hominem attack. It was an observation of a trend where people referred to items unrelated to the technology at hand in order to make their point.

And in your example, you are referring to well developed technologies that have their own safety features (tires are x-rayed) and their very infrequent failure rate in an attempt to make your point.

Really, when is the last time you saw a tire "blow" when it wasn't preceded by physical damage - especially on an SCCA car?

There was a blowout on a BMW club racing car at Road Atlanta on the back straight at 150+ mph that the driver was lucky to survive, happened in 2012. Hoosier tire blew out with no contact precipitating the blow out. I'm not saying it is common, my point was just that we all know that any time we get on a track something could fail and lead to very serious problems for us and our vehicles. I think it is no different to have any one failure over another, unless the failure rate is actually way higher.

http://vimeo.com/40428032

I don't care how "well developed" tires are, they can and do still do that^ on occasion.

[brownslane]

May of 2012. Mosport. The damage was signifigant.

There was a total of five tire failures that weekend. One resulted in the car nailing the tire wall (driver's left) in T8 (flat in top gear). It took off the whole left side of the car. The other four might be considered "partial" failures as Jeremy managed to pull in before the tire disassembled.

BTW, Goodyear never explained the failures. All the usual culprits (low pressures, overheating, punctures, etc) were eliminated. Sometimes things, however well engineered, fail.

Victor, I think that your system is waaay cool! It must be a real BLAST to have your old FM continue its acceleration way past when it would normally "hit the wall"....metaphorically speaking, of course!

With that said, I do agree that poorly engineered, designed or under-constructed, such a system would make for some incredible in-car footage!

Yours appears to be well thought out, well constructed and properly engineered...and really cool...

Did I mention it is cool?

Best, Tom