Solar Freaks

Why? Because a single ballasting formula can in no way accommodate for both 1 and 2 lap races.
Well, i personally think its a design decision and aren't too fussed with keeping the 2 lap races.
Personally, Ive always recommended teams aim for 9-10 watts which is in-between the limits and
gives you a good overall performance.

Its no secret that a higher powered car will advantage you in the longer distance races, its basic
physics. The lighter car with the better power/weight will accelerate faster, but it still faces the
same drag a higher powered car has, thus it'll never reach the speeds attainable by the higher
powered cars.

I see several advantages to having 2 lap races:
- Makes the students think about there panel powers; Best P/w isn't always the better option.
- Makes the students think about gearing; Gearing for 2 laps is different to 1 lap races.
- Students will form a strategy. Not just find the best gear ratio and sit on it all day.
- Increased focus on aerodynamics.
- Greater focus on car stability and quality.

Disadvantages to 2 lap races.
- Unfair for the lower powered cars.
However this will be evened out next year as the 10W Pmax limit is applied.

As Marc mentioned in an earlier post Here, the formula is derived to have a crossover point at the
end of the first lap. Maybe we should readjust it so its crossover point is at the end of the second
lap?? That way all cars are equal in the finals when it really counts??

I still think its too early to choose the easiest option out and go for 1 lap races.
My view is, lets see how we go with the 10W limit next year before we scrap the 2 lap races.

A vote? I like it. Quick question....I haven't submitted a vote yet but is it possible for a single person to vote more than once? Just thought that I’d check in case you get the same people voting over and over again. Then again, I suppose someone could just make hundreds of different user accounts .

TonyB wrote:I see several advantages to having 2 lap races:
- Makes the students think about there panel powers; Best P/w isn't always the better option.
- Makes the students think about gearing; Gearing for 2 laps is different to 1 lap races.
- Students will form a strategy. Not just find the best gear ratio and sit on it all day.
- Increased focus on aerodynamics.
- Greater focus on car stability and quality.

It sounds good in theory, but I somehow doubt that the majority of teams go out of their way to select and/or purchase specific panel powers, let alone think about them a whole lot in that manner. Many will simply use a panel that is available to them. I can also imagine that panel costs and durability would be more of a factor in panel selection for schools.
If everyone considered things in great detail and had the money, we probably would have seen 32 12W panels in WA.

I agree that the 2 lap races seem to increase team focus on aerodynamics, but there is no reason why this design area shouldn't already be carefully considered for the 1 lap races.

With the new designated stopping area being located after the first bend, there is also no reason why any less thought should be put into car stability for only 1 lap races. Virtually all instances where a car crashed or came off the guide rails in WA came at the end of that first lap on the first corner.

Another thing to consider about racing distance is that if we use the Tas track for the nationals next year, 1 lap races will go from approx. 95m to at least 110m and 2 lap races will go from approx. 181m to somewhere between 210m and 215m. That's like an extra 30m compared to the national/NSW track.

TonyB wrote:Disadvantages to 2 lap races.
- Unfair for the lower powered cars.
However this will be evened out next year as the 10W Pmax limit is applied.

With the 12W limit being reduced to 10W it's not so bad if it's against a 7 or 8W panel, but it also has to be remembered that there will no longer be a lower power limit for next year and so teams could potentially go with 5W or even lower and then have to carry a 0g panel.
Yes, that would then be a design choice, but if a team were to construct a car with only a 4 or 5W panel and managed to still beat a car with more than twice the power, then I would tip my hat to their efforts. That would take some skill and really get teams thinking about car stability and how to keep it on the track.
Isn't the challenge about maximising vehicle efficiency/minimising car losses and aren't the cars meant to in some way emulate the low power big solar cars and not the high power NASCARS?

TonyB wrote:Maybe we should readjust it so its crossover point is at the end of the second
lap?? That way all cars are equal in the finals when it really counts??

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see those using higher panel powers being all that happy about this. While it would even things out for 2 laps, it would then just relocate the disadvantage to the higher powers over 1 lap and they may then have some trouble actually getting to the 2 lap races in the first place.

As I have mentioned previously, couldn't we somewhat address the problem with a second "2 lap" ballasting formula? Yes, it may complicate things a little on race day, but that way we could perhaps make everyone a little happier. I think something could be made to work and having different amounts of ballast wouldn't be a whole lot different to the electronics - no electronics scenario we have at the moment.

Marc

miseli wrote:A vote? I like it. Quick question....I haven't submitted a vote yet but is it possible for a single person to vote more than once? Just thought that I’d check in case you get the same people voting over and over again. Then again, I suppose someone could just make hundreds of different user accounts .

You can only vote once per user or IP address. The voter may change their vote at any time by simply revoting. Guests may also vote, however, its limited to 1 vote per IP.

miseli wrote:It sounds good in theory, but I somehow doubt that the majority of teams go out of their way to select and/or purchase specific panel powers, let alone think about them a whole lot in that manner.

Well I know the top teams do think about panel powers. The 2010 winners sure did, David mentioned to me in a PM that they strategically opted for a higher power panel knowing it was a 2 lap final. This is a design decision every experienced team thinks about.

miseli wrote:I agree that the 2 lap races seem to increase team focus on aerodynamics, but there is no reason why this design area shouldn't already be carefully considered for the 1 lap races.

Correct, they should consider aerodynamics for both single and 2 lap races. However i think 2 lap races will make them focus a little more it. Its all about engineering.

miseli wrote:With the new designated stopping area being located after the first bend, there is also no reason why any less thought should be put into car stability for only 1 lap races. Virtually all instances where a car crashed or came off the guide rails in WA came at the end of that first lap on the first corner.

I agree, the new stopping area does test allow for cars to pass the first bend at high speeds, therefore stressing them harder, however we can argue that the higher speeds generated from a 2 lap race tests/stresses the cars even further for a longer period.

miseli wrote:Another thing to consider about racing distance is that if we use the Tas track for the nationals next year, 1 lap races will go from approx. 95m to at least 110m and 2 lap races will go from approx. 181m to somewhere between 210m and 215m. That's like an extra 30m compared to the national/NSW track.

Thats great, i honestly don't see a problem with the extra distance. Any experienced teams that do their research, will know they will benefit from a higher powered panel and engineer for it.

miseli wrote:With the 12W limit being reduced to 10W it's not so bad if it's against a 7 or 8W panel, but it also has to be remembered that there will no longer be a lower power limit for next year and so teams could potentially go with 5W or even lower and then have to carry a 0g panel.

I don't know why an experienced team would do this. Itll be really hard to grab hold of a 4-5 watt panel at the required voltage (14-16 volts) to achieve good system efficiency. If they do manage to win with a 5 watt panel, ill also take my hat off to them.

miseli wrote:Isn't the challenge about maximising vehicle efficiency/minimising car losses and aren't the cars meant to in some way emulate the low power big solar cars and not the high power NASCARS?

Exactly. Car losses affect you heaps more in 2 laps as opposed to 1 lap. Eg, drag/friction both increase with speed. They really aren't emulating NASCARS, they are still all about efficiency and precision, and if you think they are emulating NASCARs, then isnt that why we are going to 10 watts.

miseli wrote:I can't see those using higher panel powers being all that happy about this. While it would even things out for 2 laps, it would then just relocate the disadvantage to the higher powers over 1 lap and they may then have some trouble actually getting to the 2 lap races in the first place.

Well that was my point. Currently, the teams are slowly shifting to a higher power as they see the advantage. If we shift the crossover point to the end of the second lap, we can still have 2 lap races, and the teams will slowly make the move to lower powered panels (which is what we want to achieve) as they realize the higher powered panels are of no benefit. Therefore, we can have an even playground with 2 lap races, and no disadvantage at all to the lower powered cars. And if a team does decide to go and use a higher powered panel, im sure they will still make it through the 1 lap races if their car is of a high standard.

Personally, i do want to see more lower powered cars. However, i would also like to see the 2 lap races stay. I think having 2 or even 4 different weights could be too much for the officials and racers on race day, but im sure we can work something out if need be.

Anyways, i think we should experiment with something like this to shift the focus to a lower power.
W (solar array and ballast) [grams] = 250 x (Standardised Panel Power [watts] - 6) + 300
What do you think??

Guys if you are going to vote, please share your choice and reasoning with us.

As I mentioned in the other thread I like the two lap races simply because they are better to watch, as seen in both the 2009 and 2010 finals, the two lap races were great to witness. I don't think a one lap race is really long enough and it would reduce the spectacle of the final.

From a design point of view I think the change from a one lap race to a two lap race is a unique part of the competition and it is definitely something that we took into consideration when building our car. I also think the extra emphasis that it places on aerodynamics, stability and overall efficiency is important.

Anyway, I think the idea of using two different ballasting formula's is workable because by the time you get to 2 lap races there will only be 8 cars left in the competition. The power of the panel will already be known and so all that has to be done is 8 calculations and the addition of ballast, something the teams will obviously have to be prepared for.

Redlands wrote:Anyway, I think the idea of using two different ballasting formula's is workable because by the time you get to 2 lap races there will only be 8 cars left in the competition. The power of the panel will already be known and so all that has to be done is 8 calculations and the addition of ballast, something the teams will obviously have to be prepared for.

Having two formulas in the competition means we a level playing field. Personally,i would like to see the favor shifted slightly to benefit lower powered cars that's why i suggested that formula.

Redlands wrote:As I mentioned in the other thread I like the two lap races simply because they are better to watch, as seen in both the 2009 and 2010 finals, the two lap races were great to witness. I don't think a one lap race is really long enough and it would reduce the spectacle of the final.

I have to agree, in the past 2 years we have had very exciting finals, where the slower car in the first lap caught up in the second lap and took out the comp. A good example of this was in 2009, Stealth Vs Kill-switch, stealth was geared slightly higher, accelerated much slower, then caught up right before the end. excellent entertainment. Doesn't happen very often in single lap races. Usually in single lap races the winner is known halfway through the race.

What i would like to see is more lower powered cars, with the 2 lap races remaining. As i said earlier, if we shift the benefit towards low power cars, everyone will start to take advantage of it.

In the mean time, i think decreasing to the 10W limit is enough, but also taking out the 2 lap races would be overkill?

TonyB wrote:Well I know the top teams do think about panel powers. The 2010 winners sure did, David mentioned to me in a PM that they strategically opted for a higher power panel knowing it was a 2 lap final. This is a design decision every experienced team thinks about.

Well yes, one would expect the top teams to think about these sorts of things. I was more referring to teams in general. Very few would actually sit down and do the calculations or run simulations to get some feel of what the current ballasting formula is doing.
Then again, discussions concerning the matter have been up here on solarfreaks for quite some time now and anyone can read those.

TonyB wrote:I don't know why an experienced team would do this. It’ll be really hard to grab hold of a 4-5 watt panel at the required voltage (14-16 volts) to achieve good system efficiency. If they do manage to win with a 5 watt panel, I’ll also take my hat off to them.

This is true. I was simply pointing out that it could be possible to see panel powers as low as 5W next year if the rules end up going that way and so the move of the power limit from 12W to 10W will still do little to even things out for these panels. Yes, it will be a little bit more difficult getting hold of such a low powered panel with the required voltage, but it can be done and so should not be completely discounted in terms of the ballasting formula and racing distance. If a team can pull it off then well done to them. They ought to be given the chance though.

TonyB wrote:Exactly. Car losses affect you heaps more in 2 laps as opposed to 1 lap. Eg, drag/friction both increase with speed. They really aren't emulating NASCARS, they are still all about efficiency and precision, and if you think they are emulating NASCARs, then isnt that why we are going to 10 watts.

Well ok, NASCARs and any other all-mighty powered vehicles might have been a little over the top as an example, but you might see what I'm trying to get at. At the moment everything is pointing towards high power and somehow I don’t think that that was/is the idea behind the challenge.
Currently, teams can simply opt for a high powered panel if some aspects of their design are not up to scratch and then still be able to do well. Stick a 5-6W panel on some of these cars and then let’s see how they go.
Although the present ballasting formula is aimed to even things up over 1 lap, does it do this for good or not so good cars? It seems that it may perhaps be set up for an almost unreasonably good car and so as soon as a car lacks that little bit of quality, it’s time to bring out the big guns - even for the 1 lap races.

Yes, obviously car losses will greatly affect performance over 2 laps. But as you have mentioned, the single biggest killer over that second lap is the air drag. Isn’t this then just playing into the hands of inferior high powered cars?

While the change from 12W to 10W was initially brought up by both John and myself from a racing perspective, the main reason why it will be passed in the end is to attempt to reduce some of the overall racing mass of the high end cars due to safety concerns.

TonyB wrote:Well that was my point. Currently, the teams are slowly shifting to a higher power as they see the advantage. If we shift the crossover point to the end of the second lap, we can still have 2 lap races, and the teams will slowly make the move to lower powered panels (which is what we want to achieve) as they realize the higher powered panels are of no benefit. Therefore, we can have an even playground with 2 lap races, and no disadvantage at all to the lower powered cars. And if a team does decide to go and use a higher powered panel, im sure they will still make it through the 1 lap races if their car is of a high standard.

While it would be nice to see a move towards the lower powers, I don't know if the challenge should continue to be about going for a particular panel power because it's the optimal one to go for. Rather, it should be about designing and constructing a vehicle where the panel power matters very little. Otherwise we may as well get rid of the ballasting formula altogether and just have everyone race at the same power. I don’t want to see this happen because the whole low vs high power thing makes for great entertainment.
If a push towards the lower powers was to occur in terms of the ballasting, what would happen to those that have gone out and purchased higher powered panels over the last few years? I don’t know if you’d be allowed to tape over 50% of your active cell area.

TonyB wrote:Anyways, i think we should experiment with something like this to shift the focus to a lower power.
W (solar array and ballast) [grams] = 250 x (Standardised Panel Power [watts] - 6) + 300
What do you think??

I don’t mind that formula. For 2 laps, I don’t see a problem. You may have a little difficulty getting a few of the committee members agreeing to it though if it was supposed to cover the single lap races as well. It already seemed like a bit of a push to get the slope increased from 175 to 200g/W last time around. I don’t know how the extra 50g/W would be received although the slope was 220g/W for a few years up until 2003.

TonyB wrote:Having two formulas in the competition means we have a level playing field. Personally, i would like to see the favor shifted slightly to benefit lower powered cars that's why i suggested that formula.

Couldn’t agree more. I have always been of the opinion that things ought to advantage the lower cars slightly if they are built well. If two formulas were to be set up, then both should perhaps be arranged to benefit the lower powers ever so slightly.

Redlands wrote:Anyway, I think the idea of using two different ballasting formula's is workable because by the time you get to 2 lap races there will only be 8 cars left in the competition. The power of the panel will already be known and so all that has to be done is 8 calculations and the addition of ballast, something the teams will obviously have to be prepared for.

Agreed. Only the top 8 would need to be re-ballasted and calculations can already be done long before the quarter finals are reached. Why we could even sort out and prepare the actual ballasting itself for the top 8 seeds while they aren’t racing in the earlier rounds as one would expect most of them to make it to the final eight. Remember, if all goes to plan, the top 8 seeds don’t race in rounds 3 and 4 with the new racing format.

Marc

miseli wrote:Yes, it will be a little bit more difficult getting hold of such a low powered panel with the required voltage, but it can be done and so should not be completely discounted in terms of the ballasting formula and racing distance. If a team can pull it off then well done to them. They ought to be given the chance though.

Definitely. They deserve every chance. That's why i suggested the above formula. I'm not against lower powered cars, I'm just against scrapping the 2 lap races. That's why i suggested we redo the formula to shift the crossover point. The formula will shift the edge in favor of the lower powered cars, and it'll be an even playing field in the finals when it counts, high or low powered. We need to also take into consideration that next year the upper limit is 10 watts, so any advantages will be minimised.

miseli wrote:While the change from 12W to 10W was initially brought about by both John and myself from a racing perspective, the main reason why it will be passed in the end is to attempt to reduce some of the overall racing mass of the high end cars due to safety concerns.

Couldn't agree more. Having a 2.5kg brick flying around the track at 30km/hr is dangerous, but its also entertaining when it flys off . Anyways, going to 10 watts will only decrease the race weight by 400 grams. I think it'll be more effective to tip the favor slightly towards low power, then more teams will slowly start using a lower power panel and decrease the overall race weight.

miseli wrote:I don't know if the challenge should continue to be about going for a particular panel power because it's the optimal one to go for.

It isn't about choosing a particular panel power. Its still all about build quality and engineering. A high quality low powered car can easily beat an average quality higher powered car. Car quality and design is still the single most important race winner.

miseli wrote:If a push towards the lower powers were to occur in terms of the ballasting, what would happen to those that have gone out and purchased higher powered panels over the last few years? I don’t know if you’d be allowed to tape over 50% of your active cell area.

Many teams i know purchased the higher powered panels to take advantage of the extra power. They already have existing lower powered panels, so i don't think this is a major concern. The average panel power at this years event was 8.75W, with only 6 cars having powers above 10 watts. 90% of cars had powers within ±2 watts of that.

miseli wrote:I don’t mind that formula. For 2 laps, I don’t see a problem.

Well the plan was to even it out for the finals. That formula was just derived from the top of my head with no real calculations, just to give us a rough idea what it might look like. Calculations/simulations will be necessary if any changes to it are implemented.

Attached is a document from Ian Gardner (posted wit his permission) giving us his take, with simulation data, on two lap races.

Two suggestions here,

Out of the Top 4 cars, 3 had 8-9 watts (engelec panels)(i think).
Galaxy (engelec panels) beat Stilletto (scorpio panels, 10-11 watts) in two lap races
Yes the winning car was 10-11 watts, the next 3 though were lower power, yet fantastically designed so went well. If you are refering to 6 watts as low power and 9 watts as high power, just cancel this thought, i thought itll twist your minds abit (...not)

Also, what if we were to, and im only suggesting, starting the 2 lap races at the semi-finals, not quarter finals so more lower power cars can have a bigger chance at the gold medal. No new ballasting formulas, just delay. Less time aswell so finals can be done in higher light i guess.

Anyway, i havn't really voted yet, i can't decide between excitment or being fair...

I do like the two lap races. But it should be fair.

Suppose we didn't make any changes, left the ballasting formulas the same, and had two laps for the finals. As said earlier, it's no secret that the high power cars have the advantage over two laps. Even if they don't (as indicated by Ian's simulations), the students will still attempt to use this to their advantage.

I would love to see more lightweight cars. Bring back the 5 and 6 watt panels, they were a hoot! Especially when the slightest gust of wind blew them off the track...

If we use two formulas, it would take more time in scrutineering, but not by much, I don't think. Compared to checking the rest of the rules out, one extra calculation would not take long. Everything's already been measured for the 1 lap weighting, use the same data to calculate the second - it would take what, 5 seconds?

Instead of Yei or Nei, perhaps we should vote on a solution. The options could be:
- keep as is
- separate ballasting formulae for 1 and 2 laps
- set ballasting formula for 2 laps (light cars have advantage)
- 1 lap

Spam Meister wrote:Instead of Yei or Nei, perhaps we should vote on a solution. The options could be:
- keep as is
- separate ballasting formulae for 1 and 2 laps
- set ballasting formula for 2 laps (light cars have advantage)
- 1 lap

Good point. Ill edit the Poll.

Spam Meister wrote:I would love to see more lightweight cars. Bring back the 5 and 6 watt panels, they were a hoot! Especially when the slightest gust of wind blew them off the track...

Me too. Thats why I'm in favor of advantaging the lower powered cars. But keep the the 2 laps at the same time. I think lower powered deserve an advantage anyways. Why? because an average quality High powered car will beat and average quality low powered car. Basically, higher powered cars are more immune to dud build quality as opposed to low powered car.

Consider this scenario...
The bearings in both a 6 watt car, and a 10 watt car seize at the same time. Increasing rolling resistance by 1000%.
Which car is affected more???

I support he idea of 2 ballasting formulas, but that will do nothing to bring down car weights. I say shift the favor towards lower power cars because they are harder to build, and keep the 2 laps.

How about having the formula crossover point somewhere between the end of the 1st and second laps? Just some ideas..

TonyB wrote:Couldn't agree more. Having a 2.5kg brick flying around the track at 30km/hr is dangerous, but its also entertaining when it flys off

Haha . There’s nothing like a spectacular high speed crash, but it's only great entertainment for whoever the car doesn't belong to. Somehow I reckon that it wasn’t all that fun for the teams that had severe crashes in WA though.

TonyB wrote:It isn't about choosing a particular panel power. It’s still all about build quality and engineering. A high quality low powered car can easily beat an average quality higher powered car. Car quality and design is still the single most important race winner.

Yes, I agree and I too have pointed out several times that a high quality car will still win regardless. I have however also just been raising the issue of what may happen in a race with 2 cars that are identical in all areas except for their panel powers which happen to be at either end of the power spectrum.
No, it shouldn’t about choosing a particular panel power. Putting a power advantage somewhere does then however make it about this to some degree. If teams know that it is there, it’s inevitable that they will aim to make use of it.

TonyB wrote:Many teams i know purchased the higher powered panels to take advantage of the extra power. They already have existing lower powered panels, so i don't think this is a major concern.

It might not be a problem for some, but it could be for others. I don't know? Just something else to consider from the committee's perspective I suppose .
I know that it wouldn't be an issue in Tas since everyone down here goes with 6 - 8W panels anyway. It costs less that way.
I can however guess that it may be a little bothersome for some on the mainland though as there are quite a number of panels about the place made from the 2 Scorpio #6 panels.

TonyB wrote:Attached is a document from Ian Gardner (posted with his permission) giving us his take, with simulation data, on two lap races.

Yes, I am familiar with all the simulations that Ian has performed regarding the power issue and, while I agree with the general trend of his findings, I believe (based on my own modeling) that the difference between the high and low powers in good sun may be a less than what he has found over 1 lap. Over two laps this then translates to the high power panel having an advantage. Then again, it all depends on the inputs and, at the end of the day, simulators are never completely accurate anyway. I would much rather base a formula on measured on-track testing.
In the mid and lower sunlight ranges, I am more or less in agreement with the trends of his results.

As he has clearly pointed out, he has modeled his simulations on a very good car.
Let's face it, the average car at present still has plenty of room for improvement and so, in general, this then swings things towards the higher powers.
The car air drag coefficient of 0.004 (not the standard Cd) that he uses in the simulations is hardly the norm, particularly with the larger cross-sectional area rule in play this year. I would put most cars that competed in WA up at about 0.007 or 0.008 or even higher. The car chassis mass used for the simulations is also down at 400g (including egg/eggs) and this, in reality, is a good 100-200g lighter than the average car with eggs.

Wheel-slip was also not factored in and this is far more likely to occur with the lower power cars, especially on the national track which offers so very little traction. Wheel slip at the start of a race could very readily cost a car half a second in a one lap race in good sunlight.

This is all still only just considering the high sunlight simulation. If some of these changes are applied to the lower sunlights, it just gets worse.

I have always been of the opinion that ballasting formulas ought to perhaps be based on a more average designed and constructed car. That way, if something with some quality is designed and built, there is then a slight advantage there for the lower powers - which is what I think we should be aiming to encourage.

Spam Meister wrote:I would love to see more lightweight cars. Bring back the 5 and 6 watt panels, they were a hoot! Especially when the slightest gust of wind blew them off the track...

TonyB wrote:Me too. Thats why I'm in favor of advantaging the lower powered cars. But keep the the 2 laps at the same time. I think lower powered deserve an advantage anyways. Why? because an average quality High powered car will beat and average quality low powered car. Basically, higher powered cars are more immune to dud build quality as opposed to low powered car.

Make that three of us. If I wasn’t trying to make things as fair as possible for everyone, I wouldn’t even hesitate to vote for setting up the ballasting for 2 laps. Tony, I think that you are correct in saying that this would be the best way to get teams to shift towards the lower powers. Lower powers certainly deserve an advantage and so why not present them with one? The higher powers have been basking in it for the last 7 or so years after all.

By the way, I am slowly starting to load up a bit of footage from the national event. Unussapiens, you can view your dead heat with Tigger by following the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y6B8ERHDq8

If anyone wants me load up something in particular, let me know.

Marc

Lol! I got two votes, I think.
Separate ballasting formula for 1 and 2 laps, although it will be hard for the organizes.

Marc when will you have the quarter finals uploaded?

4 different weights!!! muahhahahahaaa

Just sorting things out as I am writing this. Were you after any race in particular? I don't think that I'll load up every single one, probably just one from every best of three unless someone requests the others.

Marc

jhg wrote:Lol! I got two votes, I think.

Nah it wont let ya. You may re vote at anytime but it cancels your previous vote.

Different IP?

Marc in relation to video's could you upload the 3rd final? it would be good if you had the footage up till just after the cars are stopped and removed

I just watched this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFM_5JKCyaU

Our weekend was nearly over before it even began! if that car had of hit us we would have been in all sorts of trouble!!

Someone mentioned earlier the difficulty schools will have getting lower powered panels. I think it might be an issue at Aquinas because the only usable panels available are 3x 12W Scorpio's which were only purchased this year.

The ideal thing would be to give schools a year to organise new power, ie ban 12W panels for 2011.

Any panels producing over 10 watts will be masked to reduce the power to within the upper limit. so higher powered panel are still usable.

Redlands wrote:Marc in relation to video's could you upload the 3rd final? it would be good if you had the footage up till just after the cars are stopped and removed

Redlands, I've tried to load up not only the 3rd final but also the 1st and 2nd races several times and Youtube just seems to have a problem with processing them. I've no idea what's wrong as the format and size of them are no different to any of the others I have been uploading. I'll keep at it though.
I'm afraid that the footage that I have of the last final race ends just as you guys are stopping the car.

In the meantime, your second Semi Final race against Girrawheen SHS' Galaxy can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1KQutYKN3M

I have also loaded up a few other races featuring cars that belong to some of the members on solarfreaks so far.
Jun, although Galaxy is already racing in the above clip, its second 5th round (round of 16) encounter with Queechy HS' Devil's Delirium can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xTvXkRmyqs

Firefly and Stiletto, the final and deciding 5th round race between Moorebank HS' Aether and Stiletto can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o20wfjh-MI

Karo, the first 3rd round race between your car, Karo IV, and Guildford Grammar's Aurelia II can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVljSnfGIA

Redlands wrote:Our weekend was nearly over before it even began! if that car had of hit us we would have been in all sorts of trouble!!

Yeah, it was pretty close. The HAZZ car also then went on to crash in its 2 other round robin races and I very much commend the team for being able to almost fully recover for Sunday's knockout event. Although the car had lost some speed on day 2, they still managed go on and collect 4th place which was a great effort. Had the car carried the same form as in that first round robin race into Sunday, and stayed on the track, I think that it may not have been all that far off either of the top 2 over 2 laps.

Redlands wrote:Someone mentioned earlier the difficulty schools will have getting lower powered panels. I think it might be an issue at Aquinas because the only usable panels available are 3x 12W Scorpio's which were only purchased this year.

The ideal thing would be to give schools a year to organise new power, ie ban 12W panels for 2011.

TonyB wrote:Any panels producing over 10 watts will be masked to reduce the power to within the upper limit. so higher powered panel are still usable.

I had guessed that it might be an issue at some schools.
As Tony has mentioned, so as not to force schools to go out and purchase new panels straight up, any that register over 10W next year will be masked off by the scrutineers to reduce their power. I don't know if you'd be allowed to tape over a 12W Scorpio and take it down to say 6 or 7W though if the ballasting formula happened to be set up for 2 laps.
Didn't Aquinas go with 6W panels in 2009? What happened to those?

Marc

Just loaded this up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P9lfgaT0Ms

It's of some on-board footage from the 2009 test car while being given a run in the few minutes between knockout rounds in Fremantle. I didn't want to risk smashing it to pieces on a second lap and so had to stop the thing directly after the finish line.

Marc

That reminded me of a video I made a couple of years ago. We raced two cars, both with a camera in their cockpits. The result can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhWg7bpZbM0.