Beatle , talk about being fairly ignorant. Quoting yourself “How important do you guys think you are?”
“Cornell, Texas A&M, Michigan, Penn State, UTA, and so on) could easily compete against any of the current teams out there and be extremely competive” except they don’t compete on an equal playing field with the rest of the top current teams so you can’t say they are the best or even on par anymore.

Kimmo – Thank you for weighing in. From what I’ve heard FSG sounds impressive I wish I could have been there.
The presentations don’t have to be drastically different from competition to competition but yes modifications have to be made. That’s a part of showing how good your team is. Being able to adapt and excel in all scenarios. Presentations (cost, marketing, design) should evolve as the design of your car does. In Industry using the same presentation all the time will get you nowhere. You have to research your audience and make changes accordingly. This though usually comes only from experience so your first time will suffer.
Kimmo you must also admit that this variety will help you at all competitions. Something a judge pointed out in FSG can be used for FSAE next year and net you that many more points.

And as for CBR, tube frame cookie-cutters. This would not be a problem if the cookie-cutters were done well. A tube frame, stock CBR with a very well designed suspension could easily be top 5 dynamically at any comp. The cookie-cutter design also is not an excuse for a team performing poorly statically. The design judges also need to open their eyes and not be blinded by “flashy” materials or revolutionary drivetrains. A great design on paper that works poorly on track is just a piece of scrap and a lesson on what not to do. How many teams make design semi-finals in FSAE and have a poor car on track, and do this consistently year to year.

"tube frame cookie cutters with CBR engine"
where is the heart of the competition?

is it use of carbon fiber?
exotic design?
engine config?
or dynamics?
not every college has access to pre-preg, unobtanium, or a huge budget. but it seems to me like the complete package is what wins.

i've drooled over all the pics from events and seen spectacular cars but thesse aren't the ones htat have one. ( well not all)

i could be wrong and point out if i am.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatle:
There seems to be some anti-American sentiment here, and all I can say is grow up. The reason most American teams don't go to other comps is because the biggest and most prominent comp is in the U.S.! Are there teams that dont come to Michigan that are good teams, yeah for sure, but you should be able to recognize that certain American teams (Cornell, Texas A&M, Michigan, Penn State, UTA, and so on) could easily compete against any of the current teams out there and be extremely competive. Please refrain from making any comments like these, there fairly ignorant and you are only misrepresenting your team.

Beatle,

So what if there is some anti-american centiment? Take it like a man.

For once i might agree with answersforsomeguy

Just because of a teams illustrious history does not automatically secure them a good result. Team members come and go and unless the knowledge is successfully passed on and the new members have sufficent drive to become successful you wont find they will be competitive. In any case it may actually be harder for that team, given the pressure applied by their name.

It doesnt help when the team trys too much for technology or changes either. Redesigning the wheel between comps can lead to missed deadlines which can hurt pre comp preparation.

Like what Geoff has said previously, each competition has its attractions and draw backs and its really an individual team to decide where they want to go.

quote:

where is the heart of the competition?

The comment 'tube frame cookie cutters with CBR engine' wasn't implying that you need a monocoque (I hate the things, personally, but haven't had a whole lot of experience with them).

It was a comment on the state of originality (or lack therof) percieved in many of the FSAE-East entrants, or at least that's the way I took it.

Having a spaceframe and a CBR engine is fine. It's not fine if you just used the same design off of someone else without coming up with your own concepts and ideas.

The aim of the competition is to innovate. Innovation isn't necessarily a complex solution. Most times, it's a simple solution to a complex problem.

quote:

where is the heart of the competition?

As Darien said above...innovation is key to this competition. Is that not what a lot of engineering is about? But doing something that works for your individual team is what really matters because that is the only way to be successful in your own right. In general, as I would agree with Darien, the K.I.S.S. philosophy should be employed with just about every engineering design on these cars. The more "over-engineered" a design, the more problems that are inevitable to occur. I am not saying you shouldn't do a full blown monocoque, full carbon aero, turbo, etc etc etc, as these can be complex, great engineering designs, while at the same time applying the Keep It Simple Stupid philosophy at a given level. Isn't the quickest and dirtiest way from point A to point B a straight line?

In addition, the team building and comraderie that you build from participating in ANY of the SAE compeititons cannot have pricetags attached. Sure, there maybe better quality or more advanced engineering designs out there (which doesn't mean your design is bad/wrong/etc), but the essence of the competition is to compete as a team and work towards a goal of doing as best as possible in the competition. If you understand your design and all of the engineering that went on "behind the scenes" to create it, you will be successful, which has been proven to me time and time again over the past 4 years. Obviously, there is only one overall winner, but you can define "win" for your ownself and team.

My .05

I think what Beatle was saying was that calling out American teams for not travelling is a little silly. Regardless of what people may think, money doesn't flow like water in america, and most teams are just as broke if not more so than any other team, and therefore cant afford to travel (I hope you came to this conclusion on your own). Instead they focus their finances towards one big competition each year. Trust me, most people wouldnt have a problem with visiting Australia, Germany, or Brazil for a few weeks.

bornlazy: It was already stated money wasn't the issue. Obtaining a donation is easier in the US as opposed to Canada, England and Australia due to
1) Tax laws and tax deductible amounts from donations
2) The number of corporate sponsorship dollars available

As previously mentioned. If money was the issue how could 7 Canadian teams travel to Formula Student in 2005. Helsinki travels every year. The Australian teams come to North America.

Complaining of a money issues tells me your team is either relatively new or completely incompetent in fundraising. There is no reason why a well-established team who has an actual product and brand to show should not be able to get the sponsorship needed. You are running a small scale race team. Designing, building and racing is just half the challenge. The other half is obtaining and maintaining resources and sponsorship. Some teams have large budgets because of their university, others have large budgets because of their team members. If there is something your team wants there should be no reason why you can't get it (if established, a new team faces the first challenge of gaining acceptance from their university and growing from there). There was already a thread about team budgets, but a team's budget is a more closely guarded secret then a team's design.

Now people will come and say "My team has only a $20,000 budget or $15,000" The large teams won't say at all. Some established teams will say they only get $20,000-$30,000. But this is only cash and does not include all service and product donations. I can say the team I worked closely with did over $150,000 a year in business (This is giving a cash amount to all donations). Any team with Motec clearly runs over the $100,000 mark and so do the full carbon teams. I don't think any well-established team will ever honestly say what their true budget and donated amounts are. I have only heard one team ever admit to any amount over $60,000. Also I think if any of the teams that travel ever tell others their budget people will not understand. Few grasp the concept that travelling across the Atlantic or Pacific can easily cost a minimum of $20000 once all expenses are in.

Answeyforsomeguy, Im not sure you actually made a point. You claim that money isnt an issue for teams in the U.S., but then you go on to say that traveling abroad can cost $20,000 dollars, which is true. If anyone's team has an extra $20,000 dollars to put aside please post. MONEY IS AN ISSUE. As for teams like Helsinki, RMIT and UWA, they obviously have the money at their disposal and that is great, I hope they keep getting that money because I love competing with them. Most teams are not in that situation and it is niave to think so. Yes there is money available in the U.S., but there are also many more teams in the U.S.

bornlazy, every team that travels overseas has 'an extra $20,000 dollars to put aside'. Each one of them somehow can manage to fund their overseas trips and still put together their cars. Answerforsomeguys point was that it is probably easier for a team to get funding in the US to go overseas then it is other countries.

I know firsthand that going overseas has helped my team obtain funding. Most sponsors look at the event far more seriously if there is an overseas aspect to it and I doubt that many teams wouldn't be able to find the funding if they made it a priority.

As for focusing all your funds into one big competition every year, given the failure rates in endurance, I'd value the opportunity to go to more then one competition so that all the work that went into the car isn't wasted on a stupid oil overflow or the failure of some minor component or fastener. Giving your car mulitple oportunities to compete can let the car shine even with a bit of bad luck and you'll also learn alot more.

quote:

Originally posted by bornlazy:
Answeyforsomeguy, Im not sure you actually made a point. You claim that money isnt an issue for teams in the U.S., but then you go on to say that traveling abroad can cost $20,000 dollars, which is true. If anyone's team has an extra $20,000 dollars to put aside please post. MONEY IS AN ISSUE. As for teams like Helsinki, RMIT and UWA, they obviously have the money at their disposal and that is great, I hope they keep getting that money because I love competing with them. Most teams are not in that situation and it is niave to think so. Yes there is money available in the U.S., but there are also many more teams in the U.S.

bornlazy,

the reason why they 'obviously' have all this money put aside is because they work their cunts off to get it.

teams can settle with enough, or go that extra step to be able to compete in different competitions.

if you have a look at their sponsors list, which are even detailed in the event booklets let alone website, you can easily see the vast amount of companies that provide either inkind or monetary sponsorship to support these teams.

thats definately not to say it all came easy. we all know the lengths we have to go to get sponsorship and these teams 'obviously' rank it fairly high up in their prioritised list!

so before you start complaining about how hard it is for american teams, take a look in your own backyard at the motorsport history and associated wealth of available resources.

im not generalising this abroad all american teams because there are some which travel, and have been very successful.

I’ve only just discovered this thread recently, so I’m a little late with delivering my two cents. Coming from a team that has competed internationally, I would say it’s something a true FSAE fanatic should try at least once. It is a very rewarding experience. Not to mention I think it is a shame to spend a whole year building and developing a car to only compete with it once.

As for comments made earlier with regards to the level of competition at the European events. I think Mike T.’s and nick robert’s comments about the level of dynamic competition at FS are completely false. Proof of this can be found in our (Toronto’s) endurance scores from the two events. We actually scored better in Detroit than in England, a 344 compared to a 339. The European cars definitely aren’t slow, and they are only getting faster. I think in a couple of years the Germans and the Austrians are going to do to FSAE what the Australians started doing three years ago, that is give the North American teams a wake up call.

I’m not saying any one competition is better than the other. What I am saying is if you ever get the chance to go to an overseas event, take it. And if your team doesn’t have enough money, then go out and find it. There is no reason why a team with about 10 members can’t pool together the resources to travel to another country while still building a competitive car.

Well there’s my two cents. That is two Canadian cents, which only comes out to about 1.78 cents American.

I've been trying to get a few minutes together to respond to this thread, given that there have been a few posts added since my earlier one. Upon later reading of my post it came across a lot crankier than intended, so sorry ‘bout that folks. Sometimes an intention to be forthright can come across as inflammatory. That’s the danger of the written word I guess.

My opinion stemmed from how some of the earlier posts could have been interpreted – with background being a slightly shortened fuse given some of the less-than-sportsmanlike comments that were unfortunately thrown our way during the California event. Whilst 99% were exceedingly friendly and welcoming during our trip to the US, there were a vocal and rather arrogant few that felt the need to deride us. Some people can only deal with their own lack of results by believing those that finished ahead of them are somehow privileged. Personally I heard quite a few “those cashed up RMIT wankers” - type jibes around the sheds. Given all the time and money that we had spent to get there, it didn’t go down too well.

I will state here and now that we had no troubles with any of the teams represented by contributors to this thread. (Well as far as I can tell – seems this thread has been hijacked by a whole army who want to hide behind aliases, and I usually try to ignore such posts). Apologies to Nick and Andy if I caused any offence with my brashness, we found both of your teams to be exceedingly friendly and sportsmanlike. I was hoping any misunderstanding was just a mis-communication across cultures.

There seems to be some belief that RMIT is a big-money team. We are not. Any perception along those lines is purely due to stupid amounts of work by dedicated team members over many years. What’s more, as Disco has stated above, our presence at international events has been funded to a large extent out of our own pockets. As an example, the team scored maybe $20,000 support for the US events this year, and total cost would have been closer to $50-60,000 by the time we counted airfares, accommodation, hire cars and stuff. We came up with the shortfall. That is a lot of nights scrubbing pots for each of us.

Granted, we have a carbon fibre tub. Our uni has an aerospace school, and as such we can get access to out-of-date carbon fibre through ties with industry. It is actually easier for us to build with composites than with steel, given our lack of welding and jigging facilities compared to some. Aside from that, there is nothing technically “special” about our car aside from painstaking detail and packaging. If we didn’t have the aerospace link we wouldn’t do carbon – but I doubt that affect our competitiveness a great deal. The carbon accounts for maybe 15-20kg of weight saving at most – the other 40-50kg below FSAE “standard” comes from conscious design decisions and trade-offs.

I would never argue that the top US teams are not competitive. That was not my point. My point was that there seemed to be an unstated belief that we would keep travelling as the US event is the most important in the world. In some ways it is – I’d return purely to try and win the Design Event, as that is the most challenging one I have seen. But in terms of technical interest, innovation, facilities and employment opportunities, there are now other events that rate as high if not higher. It just gets a little grating to hear someone state that their own competition is the most important when very little they have to say indicates knowledge of any other than their own.

When top teams say that they won’t bother travelling because it interferes with the summer break and anyway the good guys come to us – well it all seems a bit complacent. The first metaphor that is coming to my mind is the British motorcycle industry in the 50’s and 60’s. From the comfort of their own industry dominance they wrote off the Japanese for years - and by the time they realized the threat to their industry dominance it was too late. Given that competitors in FSAE will be driving the auto industry in future years I could also draw parallels to the American motor industry as well – it seems that I hear more of mass redundancies in the US companies than I do of European and Asian companies. I’m not trying to be inflammatory here, I am trying to be constructive through my own experience. I have spent time working both in American and Japanese multi-nationals and there was very real concern within the American company that their business practices were becoming stale and complacent against some of their more adaptable competitors. (Isn't Toyota the number 1 auto company these days? Speaking of which, if you are interested in different business philosophies, try looking up the Toyota / Aisin Crisis as an example of the adaptability of the Japanese business model). We are moving into a global economy, and we all have to become more aware and flexible to cope with it.

In response to the cookie-cutter topic, I don’t necessarily believe that a tube frame 600 is in any way inferior to other designs. One of my favourite cars each year is the UQueensland car, being that it is always so simple and effective. And more than once I’ve used Cornell as an example of how to do this event properly – with particular reference to their systems approach and top-down design development. What bores me is the number of teams who just look at last year’s winner and try to copy it. That is what I call cookie cutter design. We were placed right next to the track entry at FSAE East, so we saw every car as it was walked to the track. We couldn’t believe the number of Cornell and UoW clones that passed by us. At first we wondered why Cornell was spending so much time walking their car around the pits – until we realized we had seen “Cornell” go out onto the track about 5 times and only come back twice. Later we learned to distinguish between the different Cornells by the different team shirts.

Now after the two US events the first thing that occurred was enquiries as to how we all get WR450 engines. I am sincerely hoping that this is a case of renewed exploration of a wide variety of options, rather than just knee-jerk reactionism to a new supposed “magic ingredient”. There is nothing special in the bits, it is the integration of the physical design into your own team’s capabilities that is the key.

I’m getting philosophical and my fingers are down to stumps. Sorry for the rant. Nick, I wish you guys all the best in your future venture to Formula Student, you will have a great time over there and I reckon your car will be well appreciated. And the track is a hoot.

Cheers all.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bird:
We were placed right next to the track entry at FSAE East, so we saw every car as it was walked to the track. We couldn’t believe the number of Cornell and UoW clones that passed by us.

I bet next year there are going to be more 450s and/or more cars without the traditional rear suspension box.

Anybody remember what was Formula SAE 10 years ago? A great competition between US and Canadian Teams, before Leeds University participate at the FSAE Event. And what´s happened since that, we have now over 250 teams, 7 competitions around the world and I have no idea how many students are involved in this competitions.

Formula SAE was getting global in the last 10 years, like the whole business world. And the business is getting faster each year, not only in industry, also in FSAE. It is a great opportunity for each student to attend different competitions on different continents.

As engineer your market isn’t a closed one, just for US companies or German ones, it is a global market. Your competitors are coming from all over the world. Japanese car manufactures catch up ideas from German ones, and Germans copy the production philosophy of Japanese companies and so on. You have to go around and looking for the others, understand what they have done and why the have done that.

If you just wait in your Backyard and looking what’s happen when a new competitor shows up, it could be too late. I’m not saying that you must go to another competition to build a great car but it could help, not only for your task as engineer. You will make experiences you never forget, get to know people who are great, making new friends it just will broaden your horizon. And if you think that is not a good reason to go to another competition, just open a beer in your backyard and stay home. And this applies for all teams around the world!

The other guys just try to get the money and go to another competition. I was 2 times in Australia and once in US, forget what placing we had in 2002 in Melbourne, but I will not forget the people there, the parties and Australia!


So Geoff, you was in UK, in US and now it is time to come to Germany next year!

Frank Roeske

Student Racing Team 99-03
Formula Student Germany 04-??

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frank "Ruska",

As a Brit who emigrated to the USA with a young family early in my career, who spent the major part of that career working on international projects for an OEM, with British, French and German partners, and who spent 2 1/2 years living and working in Italy, I fully support what Goeff and Frank have said.

My wife and I actively encourage teams to find the time and funds to participate in the international FSAE competitions. Like FSAE itself, the learning experience of traveling and competing abroad cannot be obtained in the classroom. The benefit of experiencing different cultures, getting to understand different ways of doing things, and making friends and contacts that will remain for the rest of one’s life cannot be underestimated.

We have heard that many of the US students rely upon summer jobs to earn money to pay for their education, and hence cannot give up the time to travel to Formula Student or Formula Student Germany, and for the Aussie and Kiwi teams making the trek to the US or Europe, in addition to the financial cost, there is an additional strain. Typically they use “last year’s car” for the trip while still having to build this year’s car. The same applies to US, Canadian and European teams going “down under”. However, we encourage all teams to try and make the stretch for at least one overseas trip. It will be a “once in a lifetime” opportunity.

We have been fortunate to travel to most of the international competitions, and will again be in Balocco in 3 weeks time. We will see a number of the teams there, including one from the USA who are making the stretch.

Michael Royce,
DaimlerChrysler, retired.

bornlazy: Obviously I made a point because some people did understand it.

“Most teams are not in the situation of Helsinki, RMIT and UWA”. So what you are trying to say is that America’s top teams are either too lazy or incompetent to make an effort to compete worldwide. Because grouping the above three teams in with Oxford Brookes and Toronto tells me that a country’s top teams can go out get the necessary funding, make the required sacrifices and showcase their car to the world

Or do you mean that the top American teams that have existed for nearly a decade longer then all these other internationals and have yet to develop the resource base necessary to do what these other teams do are somehow not in the same situation. I would agree. The Americans teams are in a situation 10 times better.

And to say that you can’t get money because of the number of teams is another poor argument. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to show ratio of GDP versus # of FSAE teams per country

In terms of $Million
1 United States 12,485,725
2 Japan 4,571,314
3 Germany 2,797,343
4 People's Republic of China 2,224,811
5 United Kingdom 2,201,473
6 France 2,105,864
7 Italy 1,766,160
8 Canada 1,130,208
15 Australia 707,992
32 Finland 193,491

But I leave you with the following numbers to crunch. Other then the UK you would need to have 10 times the number of teams in any other country. The only one where you probably do have 10 times the number of teams is Finland.

You should read the Business section of your newspaper a little more often bornlazy but as your name implies I guess that’s not unexpected.

Can anyone come up with a half-decent excuse for the American teams as to why they don’t travel.
What has been used already
1) Money
2) Competitiveness of the other comps
3) The need of summer jobs (Because obviously students in Australia, Canada, Finland and the UK don’t need jobs)
4) Everyone else already comes to the US

And each one of these arguments have been countered.
Is there one good argument that can’t be easily countered by a little economic knowledge or statistics or common sense. Why are the most thoughtful arguments coming from non-Americans and are then countered with “Because” or “ALL CAPS” or “We’re better” as if those are well laid out counter-points. I know the majority of people on this forum are engineers but stating “MONEY IS AN ISSUE” as the main point to our argument is kind of immature and shows lack of thought.

Hahah, answerforsomeguy; I hope your not secretly on my team. If you are, and I find out, you'll have to do the de-ionized water initiation agian, ummmmkay?

I think Geoff and Frank have made some of the best points here. We would love to be able to come to Formula Auzzi, and I think we could easily raise the funds to go, yet December is a heavy month for our build schedule.

A lot of the guys on our team are putting in 40-50 hours a week ontop of co-op jobs, and 4th year courses. We are working really hard, and plan to run East as our main event. Another event would be fantastic, and if our guys all weren't leaving to get a grown up job, an international event could fit in the years schedule.

I don't think we have the right to judge an american team for only running East/West, just as we shouldn't look down on a UK team only running the Student events. Im stoked for some of the more mobile teams which attend a bunch of events, and really make there name stand out above the rest. That commitment to using their own funds to travel the world with there team is what really should be seen as noble.

The teams that really work hard on the car owe it to themselves to run at least 2 events.

answerforsomeguy-
you make it sound like there is an infinite amount of money available. the problem is we have to compete for that money that companies put aside for charity.

In Oklahoma American college football is king. We get a list at the beginning of the year with local businesses and corporations that we cannot contact and if we do the school will pull our funding and our residence. Then after we get that list we get another list that the college of engineering sends us of people that they are trying to hit up for money and we cannot contact them either. So after all that we land very few huge sponsorships and are lucky to attend two events in the states as well as travel to 4 other regional events. I Attended Formula student this year as a spectator and would love to bring the car, but 20,000 more is possible but would take a lot more work than an 8 man team can afford.

quote:

Originally posted by itmstgofast:
answerforsomeguy-
you make it sound like there is an infinite amount of money available. the problem is we have to compete for that money that companies put aside for charity.

Yes, the individuals putting in the hours behind the scenes are doing it for nothing, but in the main FSAE and FS aren't charitable events...

The programme can easily pull money from the promo/marketing pot or the recruitment/graduate training pot, not just the charitable/goodwill pot. Don't sell yourself as beggars, sell yourselves as something useful?

BUT: Non-money is even better - we've just blagged half a workshop full of tools for the christmas period by offering to look after them whilst the hire-shop is closed for the holidays. Cost to shop - absolutely minimal; value to a team with no tools - phenomenal. Cost:Value ratios of more than 1 are good...