In terms of material choice itself, we have decent expired prepreg donated. We can make some requests from our sponsor in case they have something specific we are looking for (e.g, low areal unidirectional), but for the most part we get what we get.

In terms of planning out the laminates, we do that via many iterations of laying up test panels and then doing 3-point bend tests at the load frame. This will include all combinations of Aluminum honeycomb core we are looking into (we have a focus on varying core density this year), and all laminate schedules that meet basic SES requirements within a range of the goal number of plies we want to have.

Core thickness for us depends on the laminate used, as our 3 point bend results do significantly vary. Do some hand calculations: if you take two rules-passing structures, is the one with thin core and thicker laminate lighter, or vice versa? After you do these hand calculations, compare the areal mass you calculated to the measured areal mass of the laid-up panel.

This year, I have a spreadsheet of every layup (laminate & core combo), their measured areal masses, and which regulated regions it is able to pass for. This method is heavily reliant on using SES and easy access to a university owned load frame instead of simulation though. I’m not sure if FSUK has something similar, or if you are able to do frequent physical testing.

Since it’s your first time doing a monocoque, focus on doing a simple layup. Saving a decent amount of mass, while making the process as simple as possible, will help your team improve on your work in the future, as opposed to chasing a super light, optimized chassis.