quote:

I stand by the comment that I made on that first post nine months ago. Namely, if you want to do well overall in FSAE, then build a car that wins Endurance, and DON'T try to impress the Design judges.

good idea to get a top 3 finish, but it probably wont get you first place

Frank,

From FSAE-Aus 2005;

Design; 1st = 150pts, 24th (last) = 45pts, Difference = 105 pts.

Endurance/FE; 1st = 374pts, 3rd (THIRD!!!) = 214pts, Difference = 160pts!!!.

Win big in Enduro and you push everyone else out the back door.

Z

quote:

Originally posted by Z:
At the moment the Design event rewards the good BS "presenters" by calling them good "designers".

Now you're just talking out your ass. Yes, there is a hurdle for teams to get over, getting into design semifinals. But once they are there (10 to 15 cars in the US event, typically), presentation skills take a back seat to engineering communication.

For two or three hours, judges walk from car to car. Some ask about test methods and want to see data. Some push, pull, shake, and get in the cars. Some do everything they can to dismantle your justification for doing X ("If you don't have any data for that cush drive, then you didn't really engineer anything, did you?" (our only data was binary - halfshafts broke before, now they don't)).

It's really a great thing to be interrogated by some of the great minds from motorsport and production cars. Z, I know you are an "outsider" by choice, so you won't care about names or credentials, but I think you're seriously misjudging what happens in the design tent.

quote:

Originally posted by Z:
I plan on logging out of here at the end of the year (wasting too much time here ). But before I go, some last comments regarding this thread:

...

I have argued these and other points, IMO quite rationally and persuasively, for these last nine months - ie. a lot longer than would be possible during a 20 minute Design assessment. There has been very little in the way of rational counter-arguments, either from the students or the judges.

The end result of all this is that the Design event is encouraging FSAE to become a self-perpetuating system that turns out fundamentally flawed cars of the "standard" design.

Proof? The Design judges DO NOT penalize the poor design aspects of the standard car. This is most likely because the Design judges are ex-FSAE'ers who built just such cars themselves. Instead, bizarrely, they give well detailed versions of the standard but flawed car, supported by the standard but incorrect arguments noted above, high marks!

And much worse yet, the judges actively encourage new students to build these flawed standard cars!!! (There are many examples of these sorts of "judge's design recommendations" here and on other sites.) This can not be good for the development of future engineers.

I stand by the comment that I made on that first post nine months ago. Namely, if you want to do well overall in FSAE, then build a car that wins Endurance, and DON'T try to impress the Design judges.

Merry Xmas!

Z

Eric (Z),

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I don't know of any winner that hasn't figured out that you have to do well in the endurance. That's almost a no brainer given the points distribution.

On the other hand, as a judge, I try not to reply to technical/design comments with specific answers here, simply because I think it is inappropriate. It is not my place to tell the students what to build; rather it is their job to justify their designs to me.

I take exception to your premise that the design competition is won by B.S.'ers and not by design. For some reason, you seem to think that we never look at what is presented, but rather simply listen to the students. That is incorrect.

- Dick

Eric, I enjoy listening to you ramble on. I think many times you offer insightful opinions, and certainly different perspectives on things. However, I see a certain amount of stubbornness on both yours and your critic's part. There seems like there are much better ways to change people's minds then on the internet. Thus, why don't you become a design judge? Looking at the amount of time you spend on this website, I'm guessing that you would have enough free time to do the judging thing. Seriously, this internet argumentative bullshit isn't working; Do something that would have an impact on us fsae'rs.
PS. I'd have no problem being in your design tent.

quote:

Originally posted by Z:
Mainly because of the use of the four cylinder road bike engine, the standard car has poor mass distribution. The CG is too high for the desirable narrow track - due to upright engine with deep sump - resulting in lifting of inside wheels in corners. The CG is too far forward in the desirable short wheelbase - due to chain-drive, forward leaning cylinders - resulting in rear wheel spin out of slow corners. And the yaw inertia is too large - again because of engine shape pushing driver forward - resulting in less agility through slaloms, etc.

Furthermore, many aspects of the car are unnecessarily complicated - for example, the "pushrod and rocker" type suspensions that place the coilovers as high as possible, giving high CG, extra mass, flex, stiction, and cost.

I have argued these and other points, IMO quite rationally and persuasively, for these last nine months - ie. a lot longer than would be possible during a 20 minute Design assessment. There has been very little in the way of rational counter-arguments, either from the students or the judges. (Arguments such as "rockers give a better motion ratio for lighter springs and better damper control, and allow for rising rates, etc.", are, as I have pointed out quantitatively, nonsense. This is an example of "talking the talk" - ie. giving the "standard" expected answer, even when it is wrong.)

Well Z what you saw at Carrum Downs in 2002 was probably not a typical competition. The track was the smallest and tightest layout any fsae competition has ever been run at, I think. Go to Pontiac or some of the other Australian competitions venues at say Lang Lang, Tailem Bend or Werribee and you would see a very different type of course. Normally a lot faster, wider and generally more open.

The cars you would have seen were produced by mostly inexperienced teams and so they weren't as well packaged as they could have been. Most probably had too wider track and longer wheelbase for that event and to a lesser extent a normal fsae layout. From memory only Tokyo, Wollongong and RIT were under the fsae "benchmark" of 227 kg (500 lbs). So taking things like this into account it would have made most of the cars appear to be less than nimble in slaloms and around slow corners. Lifting wheels and spinning out was also probably a result of the inexperienced teams present.

Most cars in Oz are now much better packaged and the teams are more experienced, with lighter cars. If you ever get to one of the American competitions watch Texas A&M, UTA or Cornell to name a few in the Enduro and you wont be saying how slow the cars are. These cars are moving seriously quickly, watch some of the videos on UTA's website and you will see how big and fast a normal fsae track is. This is the 2003 Enduro track. http://maepro.uta.edu/fsae/vidoes/KH%202003%20FSAE%20enduro%205b.mpg
I think this is from the first Formula Student, an all time classic FSAE video.
http://maepro.uta.edu/fsae/trackpages/zips/KH1998England5F98.zip

I agree that a majority of the cars are too complex / sophisticated for the teams building them, in terms of human resources, and I agree that the majority of the cars should be simpler and hence built earlier, better tested and understood. I think a cause of this problem is that in, what i assume is, a normal university program many side projects; forced induction, wings, pneumatic shifters etc., are run to give students a project to do through out the year to gain academic credit. When the item gets pretty well developed it will normally go on the car and this can lead to cars having lots of "extra" systems on them. In regards to having a "standard" 600-4 engine layout there are a lot of advantages to them; cost, availability and reliability plus if these cars were put into production for the "weekend autocrosser" I don't think he would want to build a custom single cylinder engine from a small block motor every time it let go or had problems. He would want to go to the nearest bike wreckers grab an engine and put it straight into the car. Also most teams build custom low profile sumps these days to lower cg. as much as possible. While the 600-4 is probably not the very best setup for these cars they are very good and hence used by a lot of teams.

Look at the top 3 in design at the 2005 Oz comp; a carbon tub with kinetics suspension, variable runner length plenum etc, a very well packaged car single cylinder with carbon tub and 10 inch wheels and a simple space frame single, none of them "standard" fsae cars. Check the results from about the last 10 Pontiac competitions and I think you will find that the enduro winner has also won overall.

Well Z I'm not sure what to say! That's quite a consiracy theory you've got going. FSAE cars are a fundamentally wrong design created by myth and perpetuated by alumni judges. heh. Like Mr. G said you are entitled to your opinion.

I just find it hard to believe that with some 300 FSAE teams out there nobody has found this out and built a car that, according to you, should dominate.

As long as the design finalists perform near the best on the track I think that's a farfetched idea that the design event is fundamentally flawed. When I was designing a car we found we came to many of the same conclusions as other teams without knowing it. I think part of that is learning from the same sources but a lot is just the fact that engineering process leads in a similar direction most of the time.

Anyway I think my comments have run thier course and I hope this has cleared up some mystery from the event. Hope to be back next year.