Design, calibration, and experimental validation of an aerodynamic‑load measurement system for the Mississippi State Formula SAE vehicle — and for vehicles beyond it.
MSU’s FSAE team has no system for measuring the real‑world aerodynamic effects of the vehicle’s aero package.
Every wing, undertray, and endplate on Car 133 is sized from CFD and hand calculation. None of it has ever been checked against a load the car actually produced on track. Without that check, the gap between prediction and physics stays invisible — and it compounds into every design cycle that follows.
Closing that gap lets the team calibrate its own predictions, quantify their error, and build a car that behaves on track the way it was designed to.
How accurately can an instrumented FSAE vehicle measure downforce, drag, and center‑of‑pressure location under combined loading — and can the aerodynamic effects of two wing settings be reliably distinguished?
A modular aerodynamic‑load measurement system could support prototype, aftermarket, and other motorsport vehicle development. By directly measuring the forces produced by wings, spoilers, and similar devices under real operating conditions, it lets engineers validate computational predictions, compare design configurations, and improve stability, safety, and efficiency — without relying solely on costly wind‑tunnel testing.
Modularity, maintainability, and scalability are treated as first‑class design requirements, not afterthoughts.
Load ranges, bandwidth, mounting envelope, and what the car and the test environment will actually tolerate.
Sensing, load path, mounting, and data acquisition suited to the selected loading conditions and test environment.
Characterize accuracy, repeatability, and measurement uncertainty against a reference the system itself did not produce.
Can it resolve a change in wing loading? Where does it stop being trustworthy in practical use?
Robust enough for future testing and engineering applications, with modularity, maintainability, and scalability designed in.
Fig. A — Measurands. Vertical load L and streamwise load D are measured directly; the centre‑of‑pressure station xcp follows from the resolved moment about a known reference.
Every field above is set during Objectives 01–02 and published here as it is fixed. Nothing is listed until it is decided.
Course deliverable dates are taken from the ASE 4712 Fall 2026 schedule and are fixed. Work phases are the team’s proposed plan, not yet agreed with advisors — they will be revised at the weekly check‑in and re‑published here. Fabrication, bench calibration, and on‑vehicle validation fall in Capstone II (Spring 2027); Capstone I covers definition, research, and initial execution.
Updated as work lands. Each objective carries only what has actually been completed — nothing is marked done ahead of the evidence.
Statement of Work signed by both team members and both faculty advisors. Problem statement, research question, five objectives, and the individual responsibility split are now the agreed scope of the project.
Two‑person team confirmed. Dr. Shreyas Narsipur and Dr. Vivek Khare agreed to advise, giving the project coverage in both applied aerodynamics and experimental instrumentation.
Fix the expected load ranges, required bandwidth, and the mounting envelope the car will tolerate. Everything downstream is sized from these numbers.
Survey on‑vehicle aerodynamic load measurement and instrumented‑wing techniques. Feeds both article reviews.
Compare candidate sensing approaches against the requirements from Objective 01, with cost and manufacturability weighted for a student team.
Newest first. Every course deliverable is archived here once submitted, alongside the announcements that go with it.
The team website is published and will be maintained for the rest of the semester. Progress and announcements post here first; monthly status reports are archived below as they are submitted.
Scope agreed and signed. The research question is fixed: how accurately an instrumented FSAE vehicle can measure downforce, drag, and centre‑of‑pressure under combined loading, and whether two wing settings can be reliably distinguished.
| Deliverable | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Statement of Work | 04 Sep 2026 | Submitted |
| Proposal presentation | 04 Sep 2026 | Delivered |
| Project website | 04 Sep 2026 | Published |
| Article Review #1 | 18 Sep 2026 | Scheduled |
| Monthly Update — September | 30 Sep 2026 | Scheduled |
| Article Review #2 | 02 Oct 2026 | Scheduled |
| Monthly Update — October | 30 Oct 2026 | Scheduled |
| End‑of‑semester write‑up | 20 Nov 2026 | Scheduled |
Sources reviewed for the literature survey and the two article reviews are listed here as they are read.
A measurement system is only finished when someone else can trust a number it produced. These are the conditions we are building toward.
A measured value of downforce and drag for Car 133, and a quantified error against the CFD the aero section already runs. The first real calibration of the team’s predictions.
Aero decisions made against measured data instead of simulation alone — wing trim, slot gaps, and undertray work checked on track rather than argued about.
A transferable method for measuring aerodynamic loads on prototype, aftermarket, and other motorsport vehicles without buying wind‑tunnel time.
Problem definition, literature and state of the art, measurement requirements, system design, calibration and test planning, and the data‑reduction pipeline. Ends with the design frozen and ready to build.
Fabrication and integration, bench calibration against an independent reference, on‑vehicle validation testing, and the two‑setting wing comparison that answers the research question.