SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2007-01-0897

Aerodynamics for Formula SAE:

On-Track Performance Evaluation
Scott Wordley, Jessie Pettigrew and Jeff Saunders
Monash University

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics 2007

(SP-2066)

2007 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 16-19, 2007
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-776-3036
Tel:
724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2007 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA

2007-01-0897

Aerodynamics for Formula SAE:

On-Track Performance Evaluation
Scott Wordley, Jessie Pettigrew and Jeff Saunders
Monash University
Copyright 2007 SAE International

ABSTRACT
The measured on-track performance of a Formula SAE
car with a high downforce aerodynamics package is
presented. Data logged from variety of different driving
tests is used to determine how the addition of wings
affects the cars acceleration, cornering, braking and
slaloming abilities. These results are then compared with
analytical predictions for the same car, presented in
earlier papers [1,2].

INTRODUCTION
Race cars commonly make use of aerodynamic devices
to generate increased normal load on the tires, which
can improve the cars acceleration (in all directions) in
segments of the track where it is grip-limited. The
downforce produced by wings and other aerodynamic
devices is usually accompanied by an increase in drag,
but with careful design the net result is often a faster car
and reduced lap times.
It is well known that aerodynamic forces increase as a
function of velocity squared, so the higher the speed the
more
important
aerodynamics
become.
The
specifications for Formula SAE tracks generally limit
speeds to below 100 km/h, which makes it difficult (but
not impossible) to generate effective levels of downforce.
Other negative factors must also be considered when
using wings for FSAE, including their additional drag,
weight, and their effect on the cars centre of gravity
height and polar moment of inertia.
Because of these conflicting interactions, the only
reliable way to determine if wings can improve the
performance of a FSAE car is to make back-to-back
measurements on-track, using the same car, with and
without wings. This is the object of this paper.
This work is the third in a series of papers which
document the design, development and validation of a
high downforce aerodynamics package for the 2003
Monash University Formula SAE car. The first paper [1]
explains FSAE rule considerations for the use of
aerodynamic devices and the process used in their initial

specification. In this paper, an aerodynamically balanced

wing package was designed to produce maximum
downforce within the stated acceptable limits of
increased drag and reduced top speed. The net effect of
these wings on the cars performance in the FSAE
dynamic events was then predicted. The addition of the
wing package described showed the potential for
significantly improved cornering, braking and slaloming
with only slightly diminished straight line acceleration.
The second paper [2] documented the detail design and
testing process for this wing package. A range of CFD,
wind tunnel and on-track testing was presented to
quantify and validate the aerodynamic performance of
these wings.
This paper will examine how the addition of this wing
package to the Monash Formula SAE car affects its ontrack performance in the four dynamic events;
Acceleration, Skid Pan, Autocross and Endurance.

VEHICLE PARAMETERS
The 2003 Monash Formula SAE vehicle was utilised for
the following tests (see Figure 1). The full specifications
of this car including its engine power, gearing, weight,
CG height, polar moment of inertia and aerodynamic
coefficients, both with and without wings, can be found in
[1]. These specifications describe the race ready
condition of the car for 2003. Since that time the car has
been modified to increase its durability and robustness
for long term testing. The major changes include a
slightly detuned engine map and improved cooling
system to extend engine life, and stronger one-piece
cast wheels to enable machine changing of tires.
These changes, along with the addition of sensors,
wiring, break-out box and a dedicated data logging
power supply have resulted in reduced engine power,
and increased weight, CG height and polar moment of
inertia compared to the values quoted in [1]. These
changes have not been quantified, but the increased
weight is estimated at 50 kg.

steering rack displacement. The accuracy of this device

is quoted as 1%.

TEST PROCEDURE
The different on-track tests were designed with two aims
in mind. Firstly, the tests had to accurately replicate the
four different driving events (Acceleration, Skid Pan,
Autocross and Endurance) defined in the FSAE
competition rules [3]. This allowed the overall change in
the cars performance to be gauged. In addition to this,
an understanding of how the wings affect acceleration,
braking, steady state cornering and transient response
was also desirable. For this reason a braking zone was
added to the end of the acceleration run, and a series
slaloms were tested (within the size range allowed by
FSAE rules) to gauge differences in transient response.
The four different tests are described in more detail
below.
Figure 1: 2003 Monash FSAE car, with and without wings.

ACCELERATION AND BRAKING TEST

DATA AQUISTITION

The acceleration and braking test involved the car

accelerating as fast as possible from a standing start for
a set distance (110m) at which point the driver braked as
hard as possible (see Figure 2 below). The acceleration
distance of 110m was chosen as it corresponded to a
point at which the engine reached its maximum RPM in
th
4 gear. Using data from these tests it was possible to
extract times for the Acceleration Event (0-75m) and also
to measure braking distances and decelerations.

A MoTec Advanced Dash Logger (ADL) was used to

record a range of data from the car during on-track
testing. The data logger used a dedicated power supply
to eliminate alternator charging noise from the reference
signal. The various sensors used for these tests are
detailed below.
WHEEL SPEED
Wheel speed was measured at the left front wheel only
using a 0.9mm thick laser cut steel trigger wheel with 15
teeth attached at the hub. A Honeywell Hall-effect sensor
was then attached to the upright and adjusted to give the
desired 1.0mm gap between the trigger wheel and
sensor face. Logged at 200 Hz, this set-up gave a
resolution of 1% at a velocity of 36 km/h which was
considered acceptable. Due to the fact that only one
wheel speed sensor was used, right hand turns (where
the left hand side of the car tracks a larger turn radius)
read slightly higher speeds than left hand turns.
ACCELEROMETER
Vehicle acceleration was measured using a Crossbow
LP 3-axis accelerometer which was mounted near the
front axle line of the car and logged at 100 Hz. The polar
alignment of this sensor was set by performing straight
line runs with the car and adjusting the alignment until
the recorded lateral accelerations averaged zero. The
non-linearity of each axis as quoted by the manufacturer
was 0.2%.
STEERING ANGLE
Steering angle was recorded at 100 Hz using a
Longfellow II LPT linear potentiometer which measured

Figure 2: Explanation of acceleration and braking test

SKID PAN TEST

The skid pan test (defined in FSAE rules [3]) is a figure-8
track with two circles, each 15.25 m in diameter. The car
enters the track at the centre of the 8 and completes 2
consecutive laps on the right circle before crossing over
and completing 2 consecutive laps of the left circle and
exiting out the centre of the 8 (see Figure 3 below). In
competition, the second lap on each side is timed as a
test of the vehicles maximum steady state cornering
speed.

TESTING VENUES
The acceleration, braking, skid pan and slalom tests
were conducted on the infield of the Calder Park
Thunderdome Raceway in Melbourne, Australia. The
autocross/endurance track tests were conducted at
Gippsland Park, in Morwell, Australia. The Morwell circuit
was quite hilly (unlike the traditionally flat competition
courses), and the map provided has been annotated to
show this. The track surface at both locations was
reasonably old and worn asphalt with rock aggregate.
For each test, back-to-back runs where conducted on
the vehicle, with and without wings. Each test was
repeated a minimum of 6 times to allow the tires to reach
a stable operating temperature and to allow for driver
errors or inconsistencies.
Figure 3: Explanation of skid pan test

SLALOM TESTS
A series of slaloms were laid out in a straight line using
cones. The driver was given space to accelerate to a
comfortable speed before beginning the slaloms. Data
from the first two slaloms was disregarded to allow the
car and driver to find their maximum speed and establish
a smooth rhythm. Three different slalom spacings were
separately tested, 8m, 12m and 16m as shown in Figure
4 below.

Tire compound, driver and vehicle set-up where held

constant throughout all tests, to ensure that changes in
performance where affected by the addition of wings
only.

RESULTS
ACCELERATION AND BRAKING RESULTS
Figure 6 plots vehicle speed versus distance for the
acceleration and braking test. Three different
aerodynamic configurations were tested; no wings; wings
in low drag configuration and wings in standard (high
downforce) configuration. Due to the close similarity in
the no wings and low drag wings results, a detail view
of this graph is provided in Figure 7.
For the low drag configuration, the angle of the three
flaps is adjusted to decouple their interaction with the
main plane (see Figure 5). These angles were
determined from wind tunnel tests which aimed to
minimize the drag of the rear wing, which usually
constitutes around 40% of the cars overall drag. As the
front wing only contributes 10% of the overall drag, it was
not changed for the low drag configuration.

Figure 4: Explanation of slalom test

AUTOCROSS/ENDURANCE TRACK TEST

A course design, typical of those seen in the Autocross
and Endurance events was also tested. A detailed track
map of this course can be found in the appendix. The
course includes two straights, eight corners and three
slalom sections.

Figure 5: Rear wing in standard configuration (left), rear wing in low

drag configuration (right).

Figure 7: Previous graph, detail view.

Figure 6: Acceleration and braking, vehicle speed versus distance.

These results show that when the wings are set in their
low drag configuration, the car can accelerate at the
same rate as the car without wings. The difference in
performance is barely measurable. Whilst wings can not
be completely removed nor re-added to a car for different
events, adjustments (such as changes in angle of attack)
are allowed. This means that the low drag rear wing
setting can be used in the Acceleration Event for
negligible losses compared to the bare car.
In their standard, high downforce configuration, the
addition of wings to the car results in a slightly slower
rate of acceleration. Comparing the times taken to cover
75m from a stationary start (Table 1 below), the standard
configuration winged car is 0.23 seconds, or 4.4%
slower. This difference can be used as an indication of
how wings affect the cars acceleration in the autocross
and endurance events where such a high downforce
wing setting would be used.

The comparison of braking performance again shows

little difference between the bare car and the low drag
wing configuration, with the graphs very closely
overlaying each other. Conversely, the car with wings in
standard configuration has significantly improved braking
performance. Figure 5 shows that this gain occurs in the
initial stage of braking where the aerodynamic drag is
highest. This additional drag allows the car to reach its
maximum deceleration rate as soon as the brakes are
applied.
Due to the fact that braking performance is important in
the endurance and autocross events where speeds
range between 40 km/h and 80 km/h, the most
appropriate metric is the average deceleration rate
between these speeds. From this data, braking distances
can also be calculated. These results are given in Table
2 below.

Table 2: Braking decelerations and distances.

Table 1: Acceleration times.

The wing car in standard configuration is seen to

generate an average of 0.33 g more braking deceleration
in this speed range, allowing it to brake approximately
8m later than the non-winged car.

SKID PAN RESULTS

Figure 8 below plots front left wheel speed versus
distance for the skid pan test, while Figure 9 plots
measured lateral accelerations versus distance. The car
was tested with wings (in the standard configuration) and
without wings.

Table 3: Skid pan average speeds, lateral accelerations and times.

The winged car gave an average skid pan speed of 32.5

km/h, versus 29.2 km/h for the same car without wings; a
10.2% improvement. This gain was also reflected in the
measured lateral accelerations, with the car averaging
1.09 g and 0.82 g, with and without wings respectively, a
gain of 0.27 g due to the wings.
Using the assumed driven skid pad radius of 8.5m (as in
the predictions made in [1]) with the measured average
vehicle speeds equates to average times of 5.92
seconds (wings) and 6.28 seconds (no wings) for a
single lap. Timing lights are required to make more
accurate recordings of the actual lap times, but were not
available for this test.
SLALOM RESULTS
Figure 8: Skid pan front left wheel speed versus distance.

As expected, these results show that the FL wheel speed

for the right hand loops (0-100m) reads faster than the
left hand loops (100-200m) due to the difference in the
turn radius that the left wheel tracks. It will be assumed
that the car is actually maintaining the same speed for
each side, and this speed can be found by averaging the
results of both sides (see Table 3).

Figure 9: Skid pan lateral acceleration versus distance.

The left front wheel speeds and lateral accelerations for

slalom spacings of 8, 12 and 16m are plotted in Figures
10 to 15. As in the skid pan results, the maximum peaks
in the speed graphs indicate that the car is passing the
left hand side of the slalom cone, resulting in a higher left
front wheel speed.

Figure 10: 8m slaloms, front left wheel speed versus distance.

Figure 11: 8m slaloms, lateral acceleration versus distance.

Figure 12: 12m slaloms, front left wheel speed versus distance.

Figure 13: 12m slaloms, lateral acceleration versus distance.

Figure 14: 16m slaloms, front left wheel speed versus distance.

The winged car is always faster than the bare car, by an

average of 9% for the three different slalom spacings
tested.
AUTOCROSS / ENDURANCE TRACK RESULTS
The
Gippsland
Park
circuit
was
used
for
autocross/endurance testing. Cones were used on track
to add slalom sections to some of the more open
straights. The resulting course was logged at 750 meters
in length, and was considered typical of the type of track
seen in the Australasian FSAE competition (see Figure
17 below). A larger, annotated track map can be found in
the appendix.

Figure 15: 16m slaloms, lateral acceleration versus distance.

In all cases, the average values of front left wheel speed

are higher for the winged car, demonstrating that it is
capable of traversing the slaloms faster.
A similar difference is evident in the lateral acceleration
plots, but it is less visually pronounced due to the
necessary scale of the graphs.
A clearer means of comparison is to take the average
front left wheel speeds and plot them versus slalom
spacing as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 17: Track-map coloured by wheel speed, car without wings.

Logged data comparing the performance of the car with

and without wings for one lap of this course is provided in
the appendix. These results plot the time variance,
vehicle speed, lateral acceleration and throttle position
versus distance traveled. The two data sets (wings and
no wings) are overlaid to make comparison easier.

Figure 16: Average vehicle speed versus slalom spacing.

Figure 16 shows that average speed increases

approximately linearly with increasing slalom spacing.

The start-finish line (0m) is located near the braking point

for the first series of 9m slaloms. The speed trace shows
that the winged car is able to maintain a higher speed
through these slaloms and reach wide open throttle
sooner resulting in a higher exit speed into the first
straight (30m). Once on the straight, the non-winged car
is able to accelerate faster than the winged car and at
the braking point (85m) both cars are traveling at the
same speed. The variance graph shows that the winged
car has already gained 0.5 of a second on the nonwinged car by this point.

The winged car brakes slightly harder into the first wide
left hand turn and is able to generate an average of 0.2g
more lateral acceleration and hold a higher speed
through this series of three open corners. At the 300
meter mark the winged car is 1.3 seconds ahead.
Performance through the following 9 meter wide slaloms
is similar for both cars, while the next 12 meter wide
slaloms see the wing car gain a little time only to lose it
again entering the long left hand corner beginning at
400m. Once it reaches its maximum steady state corning
potential the winged car is again able to maintain a
higher lateral acceleration and feed in throttle much
earlier on corner exit. Through the open, sweeping
section of track which follows, the winged car is able to
maintain speeds which are between 10 and 20 km/h
faster than the bare car, which increases its lead to 3.5
seconds by the 625m mark.
In the final series of tight low speed corners the
performance of both cars is very similar, and by the end
of the lap the winged car is a total of 3.3 seconds ahead.

DISCUSSION
The experimental data will now be compared with the
initial performance predictions made in the earlier paper.

Figure 18:
measurements.

Comparison

of

acceleration

predictions

and

ACCELERATION COMPARISON
SKID PAN COMPARISON
Figure 18 shows a comparison between the predicted
acceleration results [1], and the results measured
through on-track testing. The considerable difference
between the theoretical predictions and the experimental
data can be attributed to a number of factors. It is
believed that the tire coefficient of friction used in the
predictions (1.6) was unrealistically high for this event,
given that the tires are generally cold at the start of the
test. Also, the predictions do not account for the loss of
acceleration due to shifting times (~0.25 sec per shift for
3 shifts), which are quite pronounced in the experimental
data. The test vehicle is also heavier and producing less
engine power than is assumed by the initial model.

Predicted skid pan speeds from [1] are compared with

the measured skid pan speeds below in Table 4. Once
again, the absolute values of the predicted speeds are
significantly higher than those measured (~20%). Again,
this difference is attributed to the theoretical coefficient of
friction used in the simulation and the increased weight
of the test vehicle.
The relative differences seen for the wings-on versus
wings-off cases are more similar, with theory predicting a
5% increase in speed compared to the 11% increase
measured on-track.

Despite these discrepancies, both sets of results show a

very similar loss in speed due to the use of wings, when
viewed as a function of vehicle speed (rather than
distance). Further testing, model development and
correlation is needed to improve the predictions to a
point where they can accurately simulate this event.

Table 4: Comparison of skid pan predictions and measurements.

SLALOM COMPARISON

AUTOCROSS / ENDURANCE COMPARISON

In the first paper [1], the improvement in relative slalom

performance due to the addition of wings was gauged by
comparing both the cornering potential and the yaw
acceleration potential of the car, with and without wings,
as these are the main factors that influence slalom
performance. This analysis predicted that the winged car
should always be faster than the non-winged car, but
without a complicated dynamic simulation, it was not
possible estimate the magnitude of the expected
improvement.

The track testing results given in the appendix showed

an overall improvement of 3.3 seconds per lap (for a 52
second lap) or a 6.3% reduction in lap times due to the
addition of wings. Over the course of a 22 km endurance
event such an improvement would result in the winged
car lapping the non-winged car not once, but twice.

The experimental results presented in Figure 16 show

that the winged car is in fact always faster than the nonwinged car, by an average of 9%.
If we examine Figures 19 and 20 (reproduced from [1])
which plot relative cornering and yaw acceleration
potential versus speed, and consider the range of slalom
speeds measured on-track (30 km/h 60 km/h) we find
that the average predicted margin of improvement is
quite similar at 10%.

Analysis of the data showed that the winged car gained

most of its advantage from the higher corner exit speeds
it was able to generate and carry onto the following
straights. It was also able to brake harder and later than
the non-winged car. Although it was not able to
accelerate quite as fast in a straight line, the winged car
still achieved the same top speed by virtue of its higher
corner exit speeds.
These experimental observations compare reasonably
well with the qualitative predictions made in [1].

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In summary, it was found that the addition of the wings to
the 2003 Monash FSAE vehicle resulted in the following
performance changes:

Figure 19: Predicted relative cornering potential versus velocity, with

and without wings.

Table 5: Summary of results.

It should also be remembered that the test vehicle is

around 50 kg heavier than its race weight due to the
addition of the data logging system and more robust
components designed for long term durability.

Figure 20: Predicted relative yaw acceleration potential versus

velocity, with and without wings.

The improvement in performance due to the addition of

wings will be a function of the ratio of aerodynamic
downforce to the total static weight of the car and driver.
If the downforce is kept the same and the total weight of
the car and driver is reduced from its current 350 kg to
the race weight of 300 kg the performance improvement
due to the addition of wings will be increased. For this
reason the summary results tabled above should be
considered conservative.

CONCLUSIONS
Data measured from on-track testing has shown that
wings can be used to significantly improve the
performance of a Formula SAE car. These gains are
most evident in braking, large radius corners and corner
exit speeds, with the trade off being a small reduction in
straight line acceleration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Scott Younnes; Philip
Juric, Bob Wright; Roan Lyddy-Meaney; Jarrod
Hammond; Nick Trevorrow; Shaun Johnston; Annika
Harvey; Borzou Shahsavand; Ryan Gordon; Rob Harbig;
Andrew Brandt; and Jayce Moore for their continued
support and many years of hard work on this project.

REFERENCES
1. Wordley, S.J., and Saunders, J.W., Aerodynamics
for Formula SAE: Initial Design and Performance
Prediction, SAE Paper 2006-01-0806, 2006.
2. Wordley, S.J., and Saunders, J.W., Aerodynamics
for Formula SAE: A CFD, Wind Tunnel and OnTrack Study, SAE Paper 2006-01-0808, 2006.
3. SAE, 2006 Formula SAE Rules, US Comp Edition,
Society of Automotive Engineers, USA, 2004.
4. Case, D., Formula SAE: Competition History
1981-2004, Society of Automotive Engineers, USA,
2005.
5. McBeath, S., Competition Car Downforce, Haynes
Publishers, Somerset, 1998
6. Katz, J., Race Car Aerodynamics, Bentley
Publishers, USA, 1995.
7. Hucho, W., The aerodynamics of road vehicles,
Butterworths Publishers, London, 1965.
8. Coiro, D.P., et al, Experiments and Numerical
Investigation on a Multi-Component Airfoil
Employed in a Racing Car Wing, SAE paper
970411, Topics in Vehicle Aerodynamics, pp. 221231, 1997.
9. McKay, N.J. and Gopalarathnam, A., The Effects of
Wing
Aerodynamics
on
Race
Vehicle
Performance, SAE Paper 2002-01-3294, 2002.
10. Milliken, W.F., and Milliken, D.L., Race Car Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE International, 1995.

CONTACT
Scott Wordley: scott.wordley@eng.monash.edu.au
Jessie Pettigrew: jpet7@student.monash.edu.au
Website: http://users.monash.edu.au/%7Efsae/

APPENDIX

LOGGED AUTOCROSS / ENDURANCE DATA:

Black traces: no wings; Grey traces: with wings