The Global Formula Racing Team

[bob.paasch]

Oregon State University and Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg-Ravensburg Announce Global Formula Racing Collaboration

Followers of the Formula SAE and Formula Student series will witness a groundbreaking event in the 2010 racing season. The BA Racing Team from the Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg-Ravensburg (DHBW-R), Germany, and the Beaver Racing Team from Oregon State University (OSU) have combined forces this year with the goal of competing as a single international entity.
This innovative global collaboration is the first of its kind in the history of both the US-based Formula SAE and EU-based Formula Student programs and is the result of three years of discussions and planning between team members and faculty from both universities. Previously, DHBW-R and OSU students have collaborated on designing certain aspects of one another’s vehicles. This year the collaboration has moved to whole new level: The two universities have designed an entire car together and are entering the US and EU competitions as one and the same team: Global Formula Racing (GFR).

Design
During a series of meetings held in Germany in August 2009, GFR team leaders decided on the overall concept for the 2010 car: an ultra-lightweight vehicle with a full monocoque chassis and single cylinder engine. This concept has been realized over the last several months through trans-Atlantic collaborations on virtually all subsystem design tasks:
• A team of students from both universities designed the suspension.
• The CFRP (carbon fiber) monocoque chassis was designed and analyzed by DHBW-R students while OSU students concurrently developed the CFRP manufacturing processes and designed the chassis interfaces.
• Engine development was also split between the universities, with engine simulation studies done at DHBW-R and physical validation of those simulations at OSU.
• DHBW-R students did electronics design.
In any team design project, frequent communication between members is a critical ingredient of project success. Because GFR team members are based at two different sites, this communication must be conducted virtually—and the fact that these sites are nine time zones apart has presented unique logistical challenges. Project meetings occur frequently and are held at all hours of the day and night. Communication tools include a variety of virtual teaming technologies, including Skype, Google Documents, Catia V5 and Teamcenter Engineering.

Manufacturing
The collaboratively developed GFR design is being used to manufacture two identical cars—one at the OSU campus in Corvallis, Oregon, USA, and the other at the DHBW-R campus in Friedrichshafen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Effective supply chain management is a significant challenge in this effort, the biggest concern being where to purchase and manufacture vehicle parts. For each manufactured part, the team has had to decide whether to (1) manufacture two parts in Germany and ship one to the US; (2) manufacture two parts in the US and ship one to Germany; or (3) manufacture one part in each location. Off-the-shelf purchases require similar decisions. In a trans-Atlantic design collaboration, manufacturing capabilities, shipping costs, taxes and tariffs, and lead times must all be considered.

Management
Clearly, managing such a venture is a not simple task, and GFR has developed a unique project management structure to deal with its globally distributed design, manufacturing and supply chain management issues. Upper management consists of a steering committee comprising graduate student advisors and faculty members from each university. This committee is responsible for high-level decisions regarding team structure and management. Undergraduate student leaders at both locations manage design, manufacturing logistics, communication channels and daily team operations and advise team members. Sub-teams of students from both schools handle detailed design and manufacturing responsibilities.

Competitions
The Global Formula Racing team is currently registered for five 2010 competitions: Formula SAE Michigan, Formula SAE California, Formula Student UK, Formula Student Germany and Formula Student Italy. Students from both universities will participate in each of these events. They will use the vehicle assembled at OSU for the US competitions and the one assembled at DHBW-R for the European competitions.

GFR 2010
DHBW-R and OSU students are working effectively to design and build an excellent vehicle. By combining knowledge, experience, and resources of two top-10 teams from 2009, the Global Formula Racing team expects to be very competitive in the 2010 international events. GFR team members and supporters are excited to see what this season will bring. We look forward to seeing you on the track!

[bob.paasch]

Oregon State University and Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg-Ravensburg Announce Global Formula Racing Collaboration

Followers of the Formula SAE and Formula Student series will witness a groundbreaking event in the 2010 racing season. The BA Racing Team from the Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg-Ravensburg (DHBW-R), Germany, and the Beaver Racing Team from Oregon State University (OSU) have combined forces this year with the goal of competing as a single international entity.
This innovative global collaboration is the first of its kind in the history of both the US-based Formula SAE and EU-based Formula Student programs and is the result of three years of discussions and planning between team members and faculty from both universities. Previously, DHBW-R and OSU students have collaborated on designing certain aspects of one another’s vehicles. This year the collaboration has moved to whole new level: The two universities have designed an entire car together and are entering the US and EU competitions as one and the same team: Global Formula Racing (GFR).

Design
During a series of meetings held in Germany in August 2009, GFR team leaders decided on the overall concept for the 2010 car: an ultra-lightweight vehicle with a full monocoque chassis and single cylinder engine. This concept has been realized over the last several months through trans-Atlantic collaborations on virtually all subsystem design tasks:
• A team of students from both universities designed the suspension.
• The CFRP (carbon fiber) monocoque chassis was designed and analyzed by DHBW-R students while OSU students concurrently developed the CFRP manufacturing processes and designed the chassis interfaces.
• Engine development was also split between the universities, with engine simulation studies done at DHBW-R and physical validation of those simulations at OSU.
• DHBW-R students did electronics design.
In any team design project, frequent communication between members is a critical ingredient of project success. Because GFR team members are based at two different sites, this communication must be conducted virtually—and the fact that these sites are nine time zones apart has presented unique logistical challenges. Project meetings occur frequently and are held at all hours of the day and night. Communication tools include a variety of virtual teaming technologies, including Skype, Google Documents, Catia V5 and Teamcenter Engineering.

Manufacturing
The collaboratively developed GFR design is being used to manufacture two identical cars—one at the OSU campus in Corvallis, Oregon, USA, and the other at the DHBW-R campus in Friedrichshafen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Effective supply chain management is a significant challenge in this effort, the biggest concern being where to purchase and manufacture vehicle parts. For each manufactured part, the team has had to decide whether to (1) manufacture two parts in Germany and ship one to the US; (2) manufacture two parts in the US and ship one to Germany; or (3) manufacture one part in each location. Off-the-shelf purchases require similar decisions. In a trans-Atlantic design collaboration, manufacturing capabilities, shipping costs, taxes and tariffs, and lead times must all be considered.

Management
Clearly, managing such a venture is a not simple task, and GFR has developed a unique project management structure to deal with its globally distributed design, manufacturing and supply chain management issues. Upper management consists of a steering committee comprising graduate student advisors and faculty members from each university. This committee is responsible for high-level decisions regarding team structure and management. Undergraduate student leaders at both locations manage design, manufacturing logistics, communication channels and daily team operations and advise team members. Sub-teams of students from both schools handle detailed design and manufacturing responsibilities.

Competitions
The Global Formula Racing team is currently registered for five 2010 competitions: Formula SAE Michigan, Formula SAE California, Formula Student UK, Formula Student Germany and Formula Student Italy. Students from both universities will participate in each of these events. They will use the vehicle assembled at OSU for the US competitions and the one assembled at DHBW-R for the European competitions.

GFR 2010
DHBW-R and OSU students are working effectively to design and build an excellent vehicle. By combining knowledge, experience, and resources of two top-10 teams from 2009, the Global Formula Racing team expects to be very competitive in the 2010 international events. GFR team members and supporters are excited to see what this season will bring. We look forward to seeing you on the track!

[bob.paasch]

More info will be available soon at:

http://www.global-formula-racing.com/home

[bob.paasch]

Global Formula Racing team images:

http://groups.engr.oregonstate.edu/SAE/GFR_photos/DHBW_car.jpg

The EU car will compete as #10 at FS Germany.

http://groups.engr.oregonstate.edu/SAE/GFR_photos/OSU_car.jpg

The US car will compete as #11 at FSAE MIchigan.

http://groups.engr.oregonstate.edu/SAE/GFR_photos/FSAustria_2009.jpg

The two teams at FS Austria 2009.

[woodsy96]

Uhhhhh...wow. That IS different.

I am very interested to see how the venture goes, though I don't think I would like to be involved in such a thing personally.

To me it seems to be kinda outside the spirit of the rules and the intention of FSAE, though. It would be good experience in communications for people intending to join a large multinational company, but I think that some of the other lessons learnt would not filter down through to all the team members as they would in a smaller/local team structures.

But that's just my opinion.

Is there one team leader/ project manager for the whole project or one at each end? Or is there no project manager as such and the whole thing is run by the faculty advisors/graduates?

[RiNaZ]

i think this is a good communication and project management exercise. Boeing 787 program is done this way.

Good luck to all of you.

[Essayee]

That is very cool. I've daydreamed about that sort of venture before, I never thought I'd actually see it happen. Good luck to the team, I'm sure this presents a whole new challenge to the project, although I'm sure it also presents a series of benefits.

I don't think it necessarily goes against against the intention of FSAE. The rules just say something along the lines that a team has to be represented by a university to compete, but it doesn't say you need to all come from the same university. I know our program has a few members from a local community college which doesn't have a team. They're interested enough in the competition to travel to the other side of town to help the program, and many of them have been great additions to our team, why stop them?

Once again, best luck to the team. It'll definitely be a pleasure to compete against you this year.

[L B0MB]

UWA could join forces with Stuttgart... If you can't beat 'em... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

[Jersey Tom]

Pretty slick. I'd think this sort of thing would make an interesting white paper (or SAE paper), particularly regarding the project and document management.

But the real question is... what color will it be?

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Graduate and faculty advisors? Lucky. We have a single faculty advisor who is completely hands-off, and personally, I like it that way. But I guess for a venture like this, you need that sort of management. In any case, congrats and good luck.

+1 on the color

[DJHache]

Just as a reply to RiNaZ, the 787 is two years behind schedule and plagued with communication and build problems.

For sure GFR will have their work cut out for them, they will probably make pretty attractive graduates for large multinationals though!

[Solidworks FSAE Tutorials]

I'm imagining a zipper logo

http://www.0-60mag.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lotd1.jpg

[bob.paasch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woodsy96:
To me it seems to be kinda outside the spirit of the rules and the intention of FSAE, though. It would be good experience in communications for people intending to join a large multinational company, but I think that some of the other lessons learnt would not filter down through to all the team members as they would in a smaller/local team structures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I first approached Steve Daum, the manager of FSAE for SAE International, with this idea four years ago. He gave us the okay to proceed. It took us that long to put this in place. We’ve also vetted this with the FS and FSG organizers.

We expect this will result in a different experience for the students that participate. The students will gain some experiences in some areas, but perhaps lose in others. We wanted to try something different at that "fourth" management level. Distributed global design is today a standard business practice at many companies. “The world is flat.”

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is there one team leader/ project manager for the whole project or one at each end? Or is there no project manager as such and the whole thing is run by the faculty advisors/graduates? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Management is different on the two sides, and reflects to some degree the pre-existing management systems. On the OSU side, we have team co-captains, a senior and a junior. On the DHBW-R side, there is a technical management sub-team with three people. Altogether, we have 16 seniors and about 10 active underclassmen at OSU. At the DHBW-R, there are 33 active team members, all third year students.

For those not familiar with the Duale Hochschule concept, it is a three-year program leading to a Bachelors degree. The students spend two three-month terms each year at school, and two three-month terms each year in coop working at their company. This has presented some challenges, as the schedules are different for each year.

I have hosted a small number of DHBW-R second year students at OSU each spring & summer since 2005. The first of these students helped organize the first Formula team at DHBW-R in 2006 (then they were known as BA Ravensburg, and the BA Racing Team). In 2009 I had 5 DHBW-R students do their internship at OSU, and they help provide some additional team leadership on the DHBW-R side.

There is a Faculty Advisor on each side. My counterpart at DHBW-R is Professor Dr. Thomas Nickel. Professor Nickel and I have known each other for 15 years.

As DHBW-R is undergrad only, the grad students are all from OSU. Fall term there were two grad students at DHBW-R mentoring the team on design. This winter term there is one grad student at the DHBW-R working with the team, mostly with second year students, as the third year students are out on coop.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by L B0MB:
UWA could join forces with Stuttgart... If you can't beat 'em... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that would mean the rest of us would only face one of their bloody cars at FS Germany, rather than both. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It would also mean another FSG slot open! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, I would not underestimate the management difficulties of this venture. A huge amount of trust must be built before this will work. Also, the cultural differences between Americans and Germans are not large, but they do exist. Don’t know about Australians and Germans. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Plus, Western Australia and Stuttgart are six-months out of phase on their development process.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jersey Tom:
Pretty slick. I'd think this sort of thing would make an interesting white paper (or SAE paper), particularly regarding the project and document management. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We’re already working on two SAE papers, one on the educational/curricular aspects of distributed global design, and one on the product data management system. Our OSU SAE President is doing her honors thesis on the management system design on the OSU side. We have supply chain management teams on both sides, that may work itself into another paper.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the real question is... what color will it be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Images awaiting approval, but the US car will be orange and black, the EU car blue and white. Other than that, they will be identical.

[Zac]

Interesting idea. As has been noted several times, global R&D organizations are becoming more and more common. If this helps students learn how to work within those types of structures, then awesome. I do have a couple questions though.

Is the manufacturing of the two cars going to be staggered? or are the two cars going to be built "side by side?"

Outside of FSAE has their traditionally been a lot of cooperation between the two schools?

Did anyone list "First FSAE cars to feature interchangeable parts" in that thread from a couple months back?

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rp:
Distributed global design is today a standard business practice at many companies. “The world is flat.” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a very interesting concept, but this statement stuck out to me. I don't know of a single high-performance engineering product that was designed this way.

Porsches are made in Germany, by Germans. Fighter planes and stealth bombers are made in America, by Americans. Formula 1 cars are made in England, by the British.

Does anyone have a counterexample? The only one I can think of is the early 2000s Bentley GTP car, which was an Anglo-German collaboration. When speaking to one of the team managers, he said the project would 'never happen again' because of the cultural issues.

[Adambomb]

I think this is a really cool idea, basically cutting your R&D in half, as well as greatly simplifying manufacturing (i.e., making 2 identical parts generally takes about 1.3 times the overall effort of making a single part, in my experience with one-off stuff). Also would be really good on the resume from a globalization aspect.

Although the communication challenges are, no doubt, huge. ISU offers a globalization class (jointly between the engineering and world languages and cultures dept. as both a senior level undergrad and graduate course). For our final project we were to work in a group mixed with undergrads and grad students, and also on-campus and off-campus (distance education) students. I'll just say it was a huge test of everyone's communication skills (at best), and a giant cluster (at worst). And we were all in the same state! But then again I hear similar things from my friends in industry working with remote offices in India and China. I bet they would have appreciated an opportunity to get some practice at it in a university environment; it is a formidable task, and requires top notch management and communication skills.

[BeaverGuy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rp:
Distributed global design is today a standard business practice at many companies. “The world is flat.” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a very interesting concept, but this statement stuck out to me. I don't know of a single high-performance engineering product that was designed this way.

Porsches are made in Germany, by Germans. Fighter planes and stealth bombers are made in America, by Americans. Formula 1 cars are made in England, by the British.

Does anyone have a counterexample? The only one I can think of is the early 2000s Bentley GTP car, which was an Anglo-German collaboration. When speaking to one of the team managers, he said the project would 'never happen again' because of the cultural issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


All the major comercial aircraft and automobiles being built today are done in this way to some extent. It may not be apparent but the engineering, design, and manufacturing that goes on even with a production item is more detailed and at a higher level than what most FSAE teams do. And while a large portion of the design may be by one group they still have to integrate with engineers, suppliers, and manufacturing groups that are located on other continents and speak different languages. Sometimes it is a great success sometimes it can be a big failure.

As was mentioned eariler Boeing's 787 was designed in a similar but much more diversified way with parts suppliers also doing the design work. That would be akin to giving your machine shop the interface points and input loads and telling them to design and make the part for you. Some of the the suppliers were up to the task while others weren't.

BTW, this process started at Oregon State after I left so I don't know much more about it than the rest of you. I just work in an industry where I interact with engineers in other countries almost daily.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BeaverGuy:
All the major comercial aircraft and automobiles being built today are done in this way to some extent. It may not be apparent but the engineering, design, and manufacturing that goes on even with a production item is more detailed and at a higher level than what most FSAE teams do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree that the development of most engineered products today uses resources from across the globe. Very few companies, if any, split management across countries. This is the part of the team that would concern me. I look forward to discussing that aspect of the project with the practitioners at competition.

As mentioned above, the 787 is a great example of what not to do I think. If you want to point to a successful product, look at the F22 or F35 programs.

[Pennyman]

Goodluck guys!

I wonder what team will be doing tire analysis? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[RiNaZ]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJHache:
Just as a reply to RiNaZ, the 787 is two years behind schedule and plagued with communication and build problems.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and that's why i think this joint venture program is a good exercise for young engineers to experience and learn what it's like to work with other people with different background and mindset.

[Aaron@Kaist]

any teams up to joining with KAIST south korea?

[bob.paasch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron@Kaist:
any teams up to joining with KAIST south korea? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron, one of the big problems with forums is it is hard for people to tell if your post is serious or in jest. I don't see any "smileys", so I'm going to assume your question is serious. If so, your question is about as naive as "what's the best engine for FSAE."

For the benefit of the community, I'd like to add some thoughts on some of the necessary prerequisites for a FSAE/FS collaboration.

1) What is your motivation for wanting to form a global FSAE team? Are you hoping for KAIST to be more competitive, or are you looking for a unique educational opportunity for the students? In my opinion, forming a partnership with another team will not make the teams more competitive. The added project management challenges far outweigh the advantages of more people working on the technical aspects. This is consistent with other forum discussions on the practical limits to team size, but with a distributed team the management issues are about 5 times harder.

2) I refer back to Geoff Pearson's excellent post "Reasoning your way through the FSAE design process," wherein Geoff discusses four levels of design/management. Many of the technical posts to this forum discuss innovations at levels 1 & 2, component design and system integration. The DHBW-R/OSU project is operating at level 4, the Project Management level. I think that to try a project like this, the teams need to have solid existing foundations on all four levels. Quite frankly Aaron, based on your team's past performance, I don't think KAIST has an adequate project management foundation yet.

Another aspect involving project management, there's no reason not to tinker and redesign and evolve your team's project management systems just like all teams do with their vehicle's suspension, chassis, powertrain and electrical systems. We have an Industrial Engineering senior project team dedicated to designing a supply chain management system for the collaboration. I expect to have an IE team working on this system every year, evaluating, redesigning and improving. It brings a new group of students into FSAE, students that might not normally pick an FSAE senior project.

3) You will need strong administrative support at both universities. You will need faculty advisors that are 100% committed and will champion the idea over the years that it takes to get going, and you need upper administration that is supportive of educational innovation.

4) I think this only works if this is a "marriage of equals," that is the two teams involved need to be at roughly the same competitive level, otherwise the interpersonal dynamics between the teams can get skewed. In our case, both OSU and DHBW-R had top ten finishes last year. It is better if the two teams have complementary strengths. DHBW-R brings a strong automotive electronics capability. At OSU, all our EE's think they're going to get a job at Intel or Tektronix, so it's hard to get our EE's interested in automotive electronics. At OSU we have some experience and manufacturing capability in CFRP composites that DHBW-R currently lacks.

5) You need schedule compatibility. We are on the quarter system at OSU, with our fall design quarter running from the end of September to the first of December. DHBW's fall quarter coincides almost exactly. Winter (manufacturing) and spring (testing) are more challenging, as the first competition for the US car is two months ahead of the first competition for the EU car.

6) You need software compatibility. The teams have to be familiar with the same CAD software. You will need a PLM system of some kind to handle data management, and PLM systems are notoriously difficult to install and manage. You need people on both sides familiar with the same suspension, engine sim, FEA and CFD software.

7) You need cultural compatibility, and some education in cultural differences. In the end, the teams are mostly 18-22 year old university students, so there's a lot of common ground to build off of, but you can't ignore the differences. Plan to spend time and money on building relationships between the team members. One of the main benefits to OSU hosting DHBW-R exchange students every spring term is to build personal relationships between the DHBW-R and OSU team members. One of the main reasons OSU went to FS Germany and FS Austria last year was to build personal relationships between the DHBW-R and OSU team members. Do not underestimate the team-building effects of shared camping and beer. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

8) Related to 7) above, if you team with Germans, know that they always want more power from the engine. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Looks like maybe I have the outline for an SAE paper....

[Babelation]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BeaverGuy:
All the major comercial aircraft and automobiles being built today are done in this way to some extent. It may not be apparent but the engineering, design, and manufacturing that goes on even with a production item is more detailed and at a higher level than what most FSAE teams do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree that the development of most engineered products today uses resources from across the globe. Very few companies, if any, split management across countries. This is the part of the team that would concern me. I look forward to discussing that aspect of the project with the practitioners at competition.

As mentioned above, the 787 is a great example of what not to do I think. If you want to point to a successful product, look at the F22 or F35 programs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One big problem with this is that the 787 is a commercial product and the F22 and F35 are both military products with essentially unlimited budgets. The F22 has also gotten into trouble recently because of its high operating costs, $14,000/hour! These two are certainly not very good examples to follow in my opinion.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Babelation:
One big problem with this is that the 787 is a commercial product and the F22 and F35 are both military products with essentially unlimited budgets. The F22 has also gotten into trouble recently because of its high operating costs, $14,000/hour! These two are certainly not very good examples to follow in my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any example that can blow everything else out of the sky is a good example. The F22 is a high-performance product built using the latest technology, CAE, and manufacturing techniques that is costly to operate and labor-intensive to maintain. Sounds a lot like a race car to me.

Furthermore, neither project has an unlimited budget (My old roommate works for Lockheed in project management).

[Bemo]

The Honda F1 team had an unlimited budget in '08...

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bemo:
The Honda F1 team had an unlimited budget in '08... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is one of many reasons they were slow.

[bob.paasch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
Any example that can blow everything else out of the sky is a good example. The F22 is a high-performance product built using the latest technology, CAE, and manufacturing techniques that is costly to operate and labor-intensive to maintain. Sounds a lot like a race car to me.

Furthermore, neither project has an unlimited budget (My old roommate works for Lockheed in project management). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F22 was designed in the late 80's and early 90's. Distributed design didn't really exist then, the tools needed hadn't been developed yet.

I don't see where the F22 is a good example of product design and manufacturing. Lockheed took 15 years from prototype to first production model delivered. The cost skyrocketed to the point where the Air Force (& Congress) cut the projected procurement from 750 planes to 183. The budget was not unlimited, but the total program cost is expected to exceed $62 Billion. That's pretty close to unlimited.

The F35 uses distributed design and manufacturing. While Lockheed is the prime, there are a lot of subcontractors, including some international subs, designing and manufacturing subsystems such as wings (Alenia) and engines (Rolls Royce).

I would suggest "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Friedman as a must read for any engineer. I've assigned it in my senior-level CAMD classes.

[Barky]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bemo:
The Honda F1 team had an unlimited budget in '08... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is one of many reasons they were slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but their 2009 car...

[Bemo]

Yep, that one was really fast.