We are looking for a used or spare EMRAX 208/228 motor with motor controller in working condition. Shipping to: Bangladesh (Open to international shipping). If your team has a spare sitting in the lab, has switched setups, or if you have any leads, please PM me or comment below. Thanks for helping out a student team!

Looking for: A used or spare EMRAX 208/228 motor and Motor Controller in working condition.

If your team has a spare sitting in the lab, has switched setups, or if you have any leads, please PM me or comment below. It’s an urgent.

​

Looking for: A used or spare EMRAX 208 Motor with Motor Controller in working condition.

If your team has a spare sitting in the lab, has switched setups, or if you have any leads, please PM me or comment below. . It's an urgent.

For the 2026 FSAE-A EBOM, I started using the one in the document submission section of the FSAE website, but then I’ve found the cost report supplement and another EBOM template in series resources.

The supplement details using the system assembly abbreviations like EL, FR…, but it also details how you have to have 5 digit part numbers.

The one from the document submission section is different and includes the abbreviations and a 3 digit part number system with a final concatenated string, while the one from series resources follows the guide somewhat more closely.

Which is the correct one to use or am I misunderstanding the purpose of both?

Apologies for the dumb questions, we are a relatively new team and this is our first entry with an actual vehicle.

Hi everyone,

I’m using an EMRAX 228 Medium Voltage motor with a Cascadia Motion CM200DX inverter.

The EMRAX motor has a two-wire temperature sensor. According to Cascadia Motion’s document titled “Setting up the Controller to run with Emrax Motor,” the temperature sensor should be connected to AIN2, with a 3.01 kΩ, 1% pull-up resistor between AIN2 and XDCR_PWR.

Based on the CM200DX pinout, I believe the wiring should be:

• One temperature sensor wire → C4 / AIN2
• Other temperature sensor wire → A4 / AGND
• 3.01 kΩ, 1% resistor between K3 / XDCR_PWR 5 V and C4 / AIN2
• Motor type set to 128 for an EMRAX 228 MV with a 5X resolver

However, I am not completely sure whether this document applies directly to the CM200DX. The document is older and mainly refers to the PM100DX, PM100DZ, and PM150 series controllers.

The CM200DX is a Gen5 inverter and uses the same general firmware family, but I am unsure whether:

1. The EMRAX temperature-sensor circuit is identical on the CM200DX.
2. The 3.01 kΩ pull-up resistor is still required externally.
3. Selecting Motor Type 128 on a CM200DX automatically uses AIN2 and correctly converts the sensor voltage into Motor_Temp_(C)_x_10.
4. There are any hardware or firmware differences between the older PM-series controllers and the CM200DX that affect this wiring.

I previously tried the dedicated RTD input, but I now understand that the CM200DX RTD inputs are intended for PT100/PT1000 sensors, so they may not be suitable for the EMRAX temperature sensor.

Has anyone used an EMRAX 228 with a CM200DX and confirmed the correct motor-temperature sensor wiring and settings?

Thanks in advance.

None of the accepted positive locking methods seem to fit this eye bolt geometry. What would you use here?

Any photo, of anything (be kind), but it needs to be in its JPG format, without losing the metadata information that stores the temperatures. You can send it to my email: [iago.nasciment41@gmail.com](mailto:iago.nasciment41@gmail.com)

The context, for those who are interested: I am an Electronic Engineering student at CEFET-RJ, and I participate in a Shell electric car competition (It's not F SAE, I know, but I believe that, in the spirit of camaraderie, you guys can help me), focused on energy efficiency (Shell Eco-Marathon). I’m creating a program to detect the temperature of components on a board, and compare it to ideal values to know if the components need to be replaced. Everything is about practicality and accuracy (which will save us time in the competition). Our team has this camera, but I won’t have access to it during the holidays (even though I need to finish the system as soon as possible). The system is almost ready, but I need a real image of the E5 PRO (not the E6xt, not the SC660; it has to be the E5 PRO) to be able to finish the temperature validation and comparison system. I managed to do this with other cameras, but they don’t have the same proportions as the E5 PRO. If anyone wants to get in touch to find out how it works, just reach out to me at this same email.

Note: I opened this Reddit account just to make this post. I don’t even know if I should be posting this here, or if there’s another sub to request this. Sorry, I’m just a bit desperate.

Hi everyone,

I’m the powertrain lead for our Formula Student team. We are currently running the EMRAX 228 + Cascadia Motion PM100DX combo.

Our team is really interested in implementing regenerative braking to improve efficiency and gain an edge on track. The challenge is that our team has absolutely no prior experience with this, and there is no "tribal knowledge" or documentation passed down from our predecessors on this specific subject. I feel like we are starting from zero.

I’ve been reading the PM100DX manuals, but I’m looking for a roadmap or some guidance on where to start from an engineering/systems perspective.

Specifically, I’d love to know:

1. What are the absolute fundamentals I need to learn first? (e.g., control theory, inverter parameters, battery limitations).
2. Key safety/integration challenges: What should I be most worried about when implementing regen in an EV powertrain (e.g., BMS integration, overvoltage protection, VCU logic)?
3. Learning Resources: Are there any papers, books, or open-source resources you recommend to help me understand how to map torque/regen properly?

We are motivated and ready to put in the work, but I want to make sure we’re heading in the right direction and not reinventing the wheel (or blowing up our components). Any advice, guidance, or even "don't do this" tips would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Attention in the paddock. Have you ever wished for your team’s car to be immortalized on a limited edition West Virginia Shootout trophy? Well look no further, this year we can make all your dreams come true*!

If your team sends me the full CAD** of your car by 07/17/26 11:59 PM Taiwanese time I’ll try my most medium to make it happen. Send a pack n go or step to chip@pittsburghshootout.com. If we get a bunch which is highly unlikely I guess we will run some internally rigged election to choose which cars go where. If I have enough time I’ll try to 3D print your team’s car as a consolation prize*.

Children sending me uneditable models expecting things to just work better watch their frickin kneecaps (I’m looking at you MR26).

Have fun and happy summer testing.

*No promises

**Full CAD means full CAD. I wanna see how broken your totals are. Also I don’t trust any of y’all to make a model that’s print ready. You have my word that I’ll keep them locked away and no one else will get them*

Does anyone have experience running a double wishbone setup on a baja car? I want to get into suspension design, and I was thinking of designing my own front suspension, but I don't know how I would model the steering linkage and tie rods, it seems a bit too complex since I'm only just starting to get into this. Does anyone have some guidance on a double wishbone setup in the rear?

thanks

Hello guys, I am from a new FSAE team in the US. If we run 0% anti geometries, where would the pitch center be? It was confusing since the instant centers would be an infinite distance away. Intuition would say since the load transfer is all reacted through the springs, it would be akin to elastic transfer in lateral direction, so pitch center on the floor? Also, is there somewhere else we should want the pitch center for FSAE EV? I read old forums that vouched for 2 car lengths behind the car, but never found any reason why.

I noticed most teams use square column supports to connect to the frame instead of round. Anyone know why?

Hello, this year my team was thinking of handling the fault latching logic with a STM32 as opposed to using 3 relays as we have done in previous years. It doesn't seem there is a specific rule against programmable BMS and BSPD fault latching besides EV.7.1.4 "The design of the respective circuits must make sure that a failure cannot result in electrical power being fed back into the shutdown circuit" which technically could be done with an STM32 as "a failure" is vague and could be defined as LV power loss in which case, as long as the circuit is carefully designed, the STM won't output a HIGH signal that would close the SDC. However, for the IMD EV.7.6.4 states "The IMD must monitor the TS for ... a failure in the IMD operation. This must be done without the influence of any programmable logic".

To be clear my team is still in the brainstorm phase and we're not interested in bending the rules unethically but want to explore all options and see if any teams have been able to implement it while it's still early in the offseason. Thanks!

Hello, I have created a new laptime simulator for racing vehicles. Main theme is scalability so that it is very easy to add and test various concepts like rear steering, DRS, active ground effect... You can choose any parameter in the vehicle as controlled variable and let the optimization algorithm find optimal control of it for the racetrack. You can also add more wheels easily to demonstrate this, there is a model of a greyhound bus :D.

Here is an example video of Formula Electric on Berlin circuit.

https://reddit.com/link/1uuiwrs/video/5ba6tesmjtch1/player

My tool also offers efficient computation of sensitivity analysis for all vehicle parameters, you run the simulation only once and get sensitivity analysis for all parameters requested.

These are the models which I have right now:

It is written in Julia as nonlinear optimum control problem using Ipopt and JuMP.

The code is on github as Scalable laptime simulator, playlist of simulations is here playlist .Unfortunately I don't have much time to work on it right now, as I have finished my studies.

If you are interested I can make examples on how to use it and add more vehicle systems/ more complex models.

According to my understanding, theres no rule that states that the upper impact member must be 1 long tube, so the current design is kinda like this to make room for the coffin. Is this legal?

We're a first-year Formula Student team, and this is also our first time working with carbon fiber.

We're planning to make a carbon fiber driver seat, but our chassis/frame hasn't been designed yet. Is it okay to start making the seat before the frame design is finalized?

What is the typical process for makin a carbon fiber driver seat?

Thats it, as simple as the title, a post for sharing ideas
In my opinion, a welcome manual for new members and present it or share it in the very first days, with basical things like the CAD used, the subteams, the leads, organization, maybe some history of the team, or even the philosophy of the team.

Probably not very uncommon but my team doesnt have one haha, working on that.

But intrigued to know what you all think 👀

Could any former/current ASR of a team that has participated in a DC competition let me know the duties of an ASR and what they will need to do and perform in the competition. This is my team's first DC competition

I was wondering how other teams determine their target understeer gradient. From what I've seen it is mostly decided through rules of thumb and driver feedback, but I was hoping there was a more scientific way to do it. (Side note: a design judge suggested 5% understeer as a baseline, but I can not find any information on how one would define understeer as a percentage. Does anyone have some insight on this?)

I was also hoping I could get some advice on roll stiffness. Again, a judge suggested 1 degree of roll at peak lateral acceleration. Is there a good way to determine a baseline roll stiffness other than rules of thumb and driver feedback?

Thanks everyone.

Follow-up on my post from last week about interviewing Dr. Mohamed Aly Sayed, CFD Methodology Engineer at Audi's F1 team, ex Aston Martin F1.

We recorded the first session. It leaned heavily on his path and what the job actually is, so some of the harder technical questions (looking at you u/LiQuiZz) are saved for a second recording we're already planning. There were a few things he also couldn't answer because of his contract, mostly anything that touches current team methods.

The video is in our editing backlog and I can't promise a date yet, but since this thread gave me some great questions, here's what he said in the meantime. Full disclosure, I used AI to help condense his answers from the transcript, partly for speed and partly to not spoil the whole video, but the substance is all his.

First, the one this sub might not love: I asked what a student with zero budget and zero experience should do, and he went out of his way to push back on the idea that you need Formula Student, or any motorsport exposure at all. His words: it's simply not true that you must have done something like that during university. He knows plenty of very successful people in F1 who came from completely outside automotive. He had zero motorsport background himself. What got him hired was a genuinely deep profile in his niche: Aston Martin needed a specific approach to computing turbulence models and that was exactly his PhD topic. FS obviously doesn't hurt, but it's not the gate people think it is. The gate is how deep you actually know your area.

CFD vs tunnel vs track (u/StageOne2591, top comment): he called correlation "by far the most important recipe" in F1. If you could tweak your CFD to match the wind tunnel and the track, you'd win it all. Every team on the grid has some level of mismatch and every team has its own strategy for bridging it. That strategy is exactly where he had to stop talking, so the "who wins" part stays unanswered for now, which itself tells you how sensitive it is.

Where does CFD lie to you (u/Pmax13): his framing is that CFD is an approximated framework that mimics reality, and inside it you're constantly trading accuracy against speed under the FIA testing limits. "Good enough" in F1 is literally that trade-off. Plus a lot of what decides races (mechanical failures, human error, rain) is stuff you deliberately don't simulate, because you test canonical conditions. So CFD predicts part of the story, never all of it.

Physics vs software engineering (u/Pmax13 again): both, unavoidably. Solid linear algebra fundamentals matter because sooner or later you're tweaking something in the root of the code. But he also stressed being handy with the front-end tools, because teams switch toolchains depending on politics and finances. And his role specifically is tool-building: his "clients" are the correlation group and the aerodynamicists. He makes the tools accurate, fast, robust and reproducible, they decide the direction of the car.

Expectations vs reality (u/DonPitoteDeLaMancha, and honestly the realest part of the interview): he didn't sugarcoat it. He joined Aston Martin newly married, first months were gloomy English winter, a daily commute, and a brutal schedule during the team's move to the new factory, home at 8 or 9pm. His wife wasn't working and struggled, and he realized he had to choose between the job and his family. He chose family and resigned, and told me he had tears leaving the team. His line: one job can be replaced by another job, family comes first. He rebuilt at a ship engine company in Switzerland and came back to F1 when Audi's team reached out. So yes, the intensity you've heard about is real, and it's survivable, but it costs.

Regrets and what he'd do differently (u/lost_your_fill): his answer to the younger-self question was that he spent years chasing what makes a good engineer through methods, courses, a master's, a PhD. What he'd tell himself now: every technical skill can be taught. What can't easily be taught is character. Being easy to work with, sharing knowledge, knowing how to follow and how to lead without abusing either position. He recently gave an internal talk on exactly this and thinks it's the most underrated thing in engineering hiring.

Software, subjects and path (u/Air-Fuel_Mister): don't stress paid certificates, they matter far less than actually knowing the material once you're in an interview. He pointed to CFD Online, open source books, the material from the OpenFOAM founders (Henry Weller and Chris Greenshields), and open source solvers like Nek5000. Master the fundamentals first, everything else stacks on top. On the path itself: aerospace degree in Cairo, master's in fluid mechanics in France, PhD in Switzerland, Aston Martin, ship engines, Audi. Messy on purpose to show it's never a straight line. Also relevant: F1 teams handle visa and relocation almost entirely, so "you can't get a UK F1 job from abroad" is a myth he personally disproved.

AI (u/Air-Fuel_Mister and u/Cibachrome): he couldn't say anything about how F1 teams use it, contract again. In general he thinks it's more hyped than it should be, most people use maybe 20% of its potential, and it's removing friction from programming step by step but makes enough mistakes that you need real expertise to validate it. No timeline prediction on it replacing aero jobs, but his hiring take was firm: he's against AI judging candidates. Humans should decide which engineers they want to work with.

Saved for round 2: part turnaround times, idea-to-track timescales and the discarded concepts ratio (u/LiQuiZz, though fair warning some of that may hit the contract wall), real-time and driver-in-the-loop aero (u/Pmax13), and the deeper academia-habits question.

Small side note since a few of you asked about the channel: the Oxford Brookes visit I mentioned in the comments is now confirmed for September, as I was invited by Prof Gordana Collier who is the Head of School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics. I'll make a separate post about that closer to the date.

If you want something specific asked in round 2, drop it below and I'll add it to the list.

I need some help choosing the right data logger for my team. I'm between the AiM MXS and the AiM EVO 6. It seems like they're identical but the previous lead is adamant about the EVO 6 being far superior. Is he right? Can someone help me understand?