Hi guys this is a bit of a random question but does anyone how/why we (Swansea institute H.E.) got to 12 place in the design comp? Most of the guys in the team are still wondering why we scored so high with a heavy bucket of a car with a lot of flaws…



James Morris
Swansea Institute of H.E.

if this isn't a joke, I'd say it's because FS design has little to do with design, and lots to do with shiny parts and bodywork finishing.

IMHO they should just be honest and call it a car show.

flavorPacket,

I would have to disagree with your comment about FS design judging. This year I would have to say that I preferred the FS design competition over the FSAE East design competition. In the FSAE East comp there wasn’t a single suspension/vehicle dynamics judge in our design group. None of the judges in our preliminary group wanted to discuss the topic. On the other hand in FS I found the design judging to be more organized and better planned. For example, in FS the design judges had carefully read our design report, and had asked us questions about some of the comments we made in it. There also was one judge who specifically wanted to speak about top level design, and how we go about deciding on our vehicle layout. We have never come across this in the first round of FSAE judging. I know it’s probably easier to conduct the design comp in FS due to the smaller car count. But there is no excuse for not having a suspension/vehicle dynamics judge in one of the cues of FSAE-E.

And as for your comment about FS design judging being a car show. Our team scored quite well in design with a simple car, as did Cincinnati. Just because some of the cars near the top looked fancy, it doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t know what they were talking about in their presentations.

Upon re-reading of my last post I think I came off as a little too judgmental towards the FSAE-E design judges. This was not done intentionally. I know design judges are volunteers just like everyone else who make these competitions possible. I was merely using FSAE-E as a means of comparison to show how well executed I thought the FS design comp was.

Vince,

it seems like you and I had opposite experiences between east and student. I had 3 suspension/VD judges in prelims at east, and maybe 1/2 of one in the UK. It's a shame that this event remains so subjective.

Regarding your comments about 'simple cars' placing well, I have no doubt that they could answer questions well and prove good engineering design. BUT, can you explain the following occurrences during endurance from cars in the top 10 of design?

-not enough steering angle to get around the course
-hubs came loose
-wild, shuddering vibrations from the drivetrain/rear suspension that startled everyone watching

The cars that had these problems all looked sharp. That is where I drew my conclusions about design. I believe that you'd agree with me when I say that a car with one of these problems would NOT make it to semifinals at east. That's my point.

quote:

Originally posted by flavorPacket:
if this isn't a joke, I'd say it's because FS design has little to do with design, and lots to do with shiny parts and bodywork finishing.

IMHO they should just be honest and call it a car show.

I half agree with favorpacket, I think all the cars in the top 20 are all visually attractive.
BUT our car used the same bodywork as our 06 car as no one in our 07 team was interested in designing and making a new one, it was just re-sprayed, and our 06 didn’t score so well.
As for shiny bit’s our aluminium rear end was ripped to pieces by the design judges for poor packaging and design integration.

Quite a few interesting comments here!

Firstly, it seems to me that there have been both good and bad experiences with Design Judges' knowledge and / or methods at both Formula Student UK and FSAE East. Would be interesting to hear some comments about the judging consistency in the FSAE West, German or Australian competitions?

As far as the James's query about a heavy car with flaws scoring well, it (hopefully) means that you did a good job of communicating your knowledge to the judges. At FSUK at least, we are briefed to concentrate on assessing the team's knowledge - that way a team who bring a 'clone' of a successful previous car, but don't know how or why it works, should score lower than a team who bring a flawed car but really know their stuff. Usually this is most apparent if the team point out the flaws themselves, explain why they did it wrong (resources, poor research, time) then explain how they would fix it given the opportunity.

I agree with 'flavorPacket' that cars with wheels that fall off etc. have no place scoring well in design. Unfortunately the FSUK timetable requires that design scores are submitted before the cars run endurance. I think the German schedule would work better here, the Design Final occurs after endurance. I will suggest it to the IMechE but I am doubtful it will happen - a Design Final has supposed to have been scheduled for the last 2 competitions at least but always gets cancelled for organisational reasons...

'Shiny' cars can and do score better than 'dull' ones - form often follows function and part of the score is visual appeal to the target market. Well-prepared cars with good wiring, neat and tidy bodywork etc. always make a good impression. And good impressions always count, that is part of human nature and basic psychology. It is not the most important factor though, nor is the technology 'wow' factor, but everything counts to some degree and teams that score in the 90 - 110 point range could have wildly differing reasons for not scoring those 50 or so points. It's a package, after all.

Ian Murphy
Design Judge Team Leader (D5) Formula Student UK