Calspan sticker

[Claude Rouelle]

About 1/2 of the teams I spoke to in last Hockenheim FSG openly declared being a member of the TTC but did not have the Calspan sticker on their car as the contract somebody in their team must have signed and do stipulates.

This is irritating for 2 reasons;

1. Today if you want data to create tire model you will need 15 to 30 K$ and send to Calspan tire testing facility 8 to 20 tires depending the number of tests you want to perform and the accuracy and relevance of the model you want to create.That is for ONE type of tire! For 500 $ life time membership you can get data from several tests of many different tires used in FS/ FSAE. In exchange of such information 500 $ and a sticker is pretty low price.

2. It is just a matter of honesty and work ethics. If your team is a member of the TTC , somebody in your team must have signed a contract stipulating that you will put on your car a Calspan sticker. FSAE / FS competition is a unique learn-by-doing education opportunity but it is not only about engineering design; it is also about moral and integrity.

You could perform very well in the design event or even win the whole competition most probably on engineering skills and merit but if you are a TTC member without a Calspan sticker you are not a winner in my mind.

As for the few team members who did show me TTC data and tire modeling based on this data but who are even not part of the TTC, shame on them: they simply are cheaters.

[DougMilliken]

About 1/2 of the teams I spoke to in last Hockenheim FSG openly declared being a member of the TTC but did not have the Calspan sticker...
TTC members can download the Calspan logo from the TTC secure forum,
http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc/ --> TTC Sponsors --> Calspan Appreciation and Logos
As Claude says, this is part of the TTC license agreement.


As for the few team members who did show me TTC data and tire modeling based on this data but who are even not part of the TTC, shame on them: they simply are cheaters.
This is not only cheating, but very stupid -- because the list of paid member universities is public. We often ask design judges to download a copy before events to check for membership, at:
http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettcaccount.xls
It's up to each competition to decide how to deal with this problem (if it actually exists). Some design judges have privately told me that they would request extremely strong penalties.

On a happier note, TTC membership continues to grow and the TTC volunteers will have funds to support Round 6. This is tentatively scheduled for some time in 2015.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Thanks for the note, Claude. This is especially disappointing since I personally e-mailed all TTC members earlier this year (re)stating the importance of the Calspan decal. We know there's student turnover so reminding students of the terms and Calspan's significant contribution once a year seems reasonable.

And while your news is disappionting I was pleased to see a large number of Calspan decals at Michigan. I hope for more news like my experience at Michigan from the other competitions.

[Alumni]

First off, let me say that for all the students out there who want to pretend that FSAE is real motorsports, you better learn real quick to put stickers on your car if someone gives you a good reason to. And you should probably even ask them if they have a preference as to where they want it and what color it should be.

Now then - Claude, Doug - really? This forum is currently running rampart with blood out for the higher-ups running Formula and you come in here worried about some stickers, and again bring up pre-screening teams before the design event so that you can judge them accordingly when you get there? Are you serious? I know I've already had this discussion with Claude. There are 400 teams on that list Doug. Do you really expect design judges to carry around a check list among all their other duties? Why should it matter if a team is a member or not?

If a team can design a good car with or without your data, whether they are "stealing" or not, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE DESIGN OF THEIR CAR????? Last time I checked, the design event had nothing to do with intellectual theft.

Claude, did it ever occur to you that the "somebody on your team" may have signed up the better part of a decade ago? I highly doubt, and hope for the sake of said person, that they are no longer on the team. At what point does a team no longer have to run a sticker? Or are they trapped for life?

Lastly, had either of you or anyone involved with this gave two seconds of thought towards a penalty, you probably would have come up with the simple solution of NEXT YEAR DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MORE DATA. Was that so hard?

[DougMilliken]

Claude, Doug - really? This forum is currently running rampart with blood out for the higher-ups running Formula...
The TTC has no direct connection with any FSAE/FS Rules Committee(s) -- I'm not sure I understand why you are linking these together? TTC is run by volunteers, and we do not overlap with rule makers, organizers, or SAE, IME, etc. While Claude and I appear to agree on this topic, he posted on his own. I just happened to see his post and reply shortly after.


...worried about some stickers, ...
Calspan has consistently given TTC a very favorable "student rate" for testing, with the understanding that the data will not be used for any commercial purpose. For TTC members, this is equivalent to a sponsorship. In exchange, Calspan requests that member teams run their logo. There is an approximate accounting of the sponsorship in the thread I noted earlier (where the artwork can be downloaded).


... and again bring up pre-screening teams before the design event ...
As noted above sometimes I've asked design judges to check and other times they have have asked me for the list without any prompting. In every case they decided on their own how to use it. I've never formally requested any kind of "pre-screening" and don't know where you got that idea from. The list is a spreadsheet, it can be sorted by university name or searched with little effort.

I'm not sure where all your apparent anger is coming from, or for that matter why you are anonymous? Since the tire tests are paid for by the member teams, any team that uses the data without joining TTC is effectively stealing from all the member teams--reducing the amount of testing that TTC can purchase in the future. The one-time member fee is the only source of funding for TTC.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

[Kevin Hayward]

Claude, Doug and Edward,

Thank you for the reminder. I hadn't received the email Edward mentioned. As faculty advisor I was the one that organised payment a while ago. (The students behind the initial request have long since left). I am fairly sure our car didn't have the sticker on it for the UK. Sorry for that, I will make sure we rectify that for the Oz comp.

There was no maliciousness in not having the sticker. The TTC is a great initiative that embraces all that is good about FSAE. Experienced professionals working with teams, and a lot of sharing of data and ideas. I would hate to see a lack of teams without stickers souring this relationship.

Kev

[Dylan Edmiston]

I feel like this is a consistent issue which partially stems from communication loss between team members throughout the years.

It may be worthwhile to update the contact list for each team and request that a general team email be used so it doesn't have to be updated each year. Kevin's post only shows that the contact list may be outdated.

[Thijs]

Let me start by stating the obvious, and say that the TTC is an important initiative, and that you should put stickers on your car if your team promised to do so.

However, let me also point something out that may play a role in why the sticker may sometimes be 'forgotten' rather than actually forgotten.
For many teams, especially the more well funded ones, only a fraction of their sponsors actually get a sticker on the car.
The size of that sticker corresponds roughly to the value that the sponsor has contributed to the team just that year.
If they want another sticker the next year, they'll cough it up again.

Without going into details considering our team's budget (although it's no secret that electric 4WDs aren't cheap to build), it's safe to say the presence of a sticker of a decent size for year upon year would correspond to many thousands of dollars for any other sponsor.

Without wanting to diminish Calspan's contribution, it should be obvious that the 'deal' they get is pretty unique, in terms of invested value per car for a sticker, and the fact that they automatically get a new sticker every year.
Keep in mind that teams are often asked to justify to (other, bigger spending) sponsors why they weren't given a better/bigger piece of real estate for their money.


(For the record: To my knowledge all our recent cars that used TTC tested tires have carried the sticker)

Thijs

[NickFavazzo]

A deal is a deal and sponsorship agreements reflect this. When you sign up for the TTC you agree to the sponsorship deal between TTC?Calspan and your team. what you negotiate and agree upon with other sponsors is between you and them. Plenty of our sponsors have individual sponsor contracts and they aren't meant to be a legally binding scary document but they are produced so that both parties have a clear understanding of the requirements of the sponsorship.

I think if any team forgets to place the sticker deliberately then you should seriously look at becoming a more professional unit and stop creating a bad name for yourselves and others. This competition depends on support from companies just like Calspan and if people are messing them around it would be much easier for them to just stop and this holds for any company really.

[JulianH]

I agree with Thijs here.
The last mail we got from TTC outlined the cost of the programm. Divided by the number of included schools, it's less than $1.000 per team over those years.
Yes it is a great initiative and yes, we are running the Calspan logo but it's the "cheapest" sticker per area on our car. For that kind of money (devided by 6-7 years) you normally don't get anything on the car.

To be honest, I don't know who signed the TTC contract for us and I don't have it in front of me, but the mail at least says "We are writing to encourage you to display the Calspan Corporation
logo on your vehicle". For me it sounded more like "please do it but if not, ok".

After the comments of Edward and Doug, I think that my interpretations were wrong. If there is a contract, Nick is absolutely correct: It has to be on the car and that's it.

Having said that, I think it's not worth making a big discussion about this in this forums, there are bigger concerns at the moment where this competition is heading. Fun fact, it has to do something with "ethics" as well..

Claude, I know you as one of the biggest supporters of students that I have ever met at an FS competition and I think that you have a strong interest in the "openness" of this competition. Therefore, I like to here your input (without hijacking this thread, let's do it in the 2015 FSAE Rules thread) what "we the people" can do so that we have an open discussion with the rules committee about the future of FSAE. FSAE is not motorsports, we don't need a FIA or a Bernie Ecclestone to do "what they please". Thanks.

Cheers,

Julian

[Rex]

As noted above sometimes I've asked design judges to check and other times they have have asked me for the list without any prompting. In every case they decided on their own how to use it. I've never formally requested any kind of "pre-screening" and don't know where you got that idea from.
Umm, are you sure? Because your above post literally says: "We often ask design judges to download a copy before events to check for membership..." If you're backing off of that statement now, or clarifying it to be a bit softer, so be it. But I don't think there's really any questions where Alumni got the idea of you requesting for pre-screening from - it's literally what you said in your previous post.


I'm not sure where all your apparent anger is coming from...
I think it comes from the continued perceived lack of understanding of how some FSAE teams operate, and/or the apparent quickness jump to incorrect conclusions, by design judges. Look at Kevin's post - clearly this type of decades-ago signed the agreement situation must be common. That's the first thing I thought of when I read Claude's original post of this topic - how at least some significant portion of the instances of missing stickers would be from lack of continuity in personnel over the many years since the agreement was signed. But rather than a reminder post here (since team member email addresses surely change over 10 years too, a reminder in a public forum in addition to reminder emails would seem to be common sense) without calling anyone losers (or, more correctly, "not winners") would seem more appropriate. I think it's the approach that causes the apparent anger (although I certainly don't intend to speak on Alumni's behalf - only my own; and I realize that your comments are not the same as Claude's comments).


...or for that matter why you are anonymous?
In a thread which includes competition design judges talking about using a list during competition to track down contract-violators of a separate entity that those judges also happen run, and where design event penalties have even been mentioned, surely this can't be a serious question... Only reason I use my original forum ID is because I'm 10+ years removed from FSAE, which surely is long enough that my comments are not associated with my old teams (although apparently not quite long enough for those teams to be immune from any lurking sponsor agreements I may have signed, that they may be completely unaware of, coming up to bite them in design judging!? Yikes!).


Since the tire tests are paid for by the member teams, any team that uses the data without joining TTC is effectively stealing from all the member teams...
I agree with this fully. I think any reasonable person would. If the contract says you run a sticker, then you run a sticker. If you use the data without paying for it, not cool. But I don't think the design event is the appropriate place to address these situations - rather it should be handled between Calspan, TTC, and the teams directly.

I think what y'all do with the TTC is great. I'm sure it takes time and effort, which as I understand it you receive no compensation for. I even get why you want to make sure folks run the stickers - it's not just holding teams to their agreements, but probably also protecting your business relationships with Calspan, which is also perfectly reasonable. But when it leads to calling people losers who probably don't know about a contract the team may have signed 10 years ago, and then moves on to comments about using membership lists during competition to screen who is a member or not, I think that gets people a little worked up (and in my opinion, rightfully so). As is often the case, it's the approach that is concerning, not the underlying issue itself.

I think if you guys went ahead and clarified that TTC membership, lack thereof, or sticker status will NEVER play a role in any competition setting (including but not limited to design judging), that would help alleviate many concerns.

[Alumni]

Thank you Rex, you saved me a lot of time. :)

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Here's a long post, but let me see if I can put a few things in perspective. I don't think this needs to be so stressful.

First, while there is no contract for anyone to sign there are definite "terms of use"--restrictions and responsibilities--associated with the TTC data. These have been posted on the public TTC website (http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettc.html) and included with the data on the private TTC forum (http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc/).

Doug Milliken and I spoke about this earlier today and agreed that we can do a better job conveying these terms to new/current TTC users.

Thus, we updated the public website and will be updating the private website shortly. We are now including a .pdf copy of the terms with all new private forum username approvals. While we have clarified some of the wording, the intent of the terms has not changed.

One of the terms is to display the Calspan sticker on your car every year your team uses the TTC data. We continue to encourage compliance.

---

As for the value behind the decal, we can look at it a few different ways:

1. We estimate the cost of re-creating the TTC without discounts, donations or volunteers since 2005 (including hiring the test facility, paying the directors for their time, buying/shipping tires, etc.) at around US$300,000. Teams get this for US$500, in some cases paid many years ago, and the value continues to increase. Sure, any current team only uses a subset of the data, but even so the ratio is impressive.

2. Calspan has provided tens of thousands of dollars of support to FSAE/FS teams through academic discounts to the TTC. In return for the academic discount they want to see their logo on any car that uses the TTC data. We believe this is reasonable. For what it's worth, Calspan never asked how many teams were members. They were just as engaged and professional when there were only 25 members as now when there are over 380. I don't believe in dividing their contribution by the number of member teams or the number of years the TTC has existed. They are a direct supporter of each team that uses the TTC data.

3. What would it cost for an individual team to reproduce the subset of TTC data they're interested in? Claude's numbers are in the ballpark. You're talking about many thousands of dollars to generate professional quality data. If someone covered those costs it would merit a decal. So does the work done through the TTC.

Note that the TTC volunteers do not ask for any recognition on your vehicle for themselves or for the TTC as an entity. Also, the Calspan decal doesn't need to be huge. I've seen 1x3 cm decals that were plenty adequate.

---

It's true that via e-mail to TTC participants I "encouraged" use of the Calspan logo. I prefer the carrot to the stick. If you need the stick, I'll point you to the terms of use and (for those teams who can't justify the space on a cost basis) remind you that there is no requirement to use the TTC data. It's just an available resource. If you don't use it you don't need the decal.

And there's no requirement, official or otherwise among the design judges, that you need TTC data to do well in Design. There is also no "pre-screening" or pre-judging of teams as has been suggested. There *is* a public list of TTC members which anyone can reference. Some design judges are more in tune with it than others, and in the past we have asked some fellow design judges to put it on their radar. For the last 10 years we have been watching for teams using TTC data who aren't members. If it didn't bother you last week it shouldn't bother you this week, either.

Alumni, I cannot accept what appears to be an argument that theft is acceptable. And for what it's worth I do carry a list of 380+ registered TTC members with me while design judging at FSAE-Michigan. Plus, Doug & I are only an e-mail/phone call away for our fellow design judges at other competitions if a question arises.

When a team's school is a TTC member, the team is using the data and the Calspan sticker is not present I am personally disappointed and occasionally a bit miffed (it depends on the circumstances). With my TTC hat on I can say that the TTC does not specify/request any judgment or penalties at competition for omitting the sticker. With my design judge hat on I can say that I have never held a missing sticker against a team, although I always express why it needs to be there. Thankfully I have never personally encountered a team who has competed with stolen TTC data--this would be unacceptable behavior and Doug and I are in favor of it being held against their design score.

As for the TTC e-mail contact list, in recent years this list is maintained from username registrations on the TTC private forum. (Kevin, you still have an e-mail address on the list. I sent you a PM about it.) Since the TTC data is accessed through the private forum this seems like a good way to maintain a list of those using the data.

Rex, thank you for your thoughtful post. Hopefully this message clarifies a few things. I'm not sure I understand your reference to calling anyone "losers"--we (Doug and I working together for the TTC) have made no such comments. Maybe you're referring to Claude's "not a winner in my mind" remark. Otherwise, I hope I've addressed all the open issues.

[Rex]

Rex, thank you for your thoughtful post. Hopefully this message clarifies a few things. I'm not sure I understand your reference to calling anyone "losers"--we (Doug and I working together for the TTC) have made no such comments. Maybe you're referring to Claude's "not a winner in my mind" remark. Otherwise, I hope I've addressed all the open issues.

Ed, thanks for a nice thoughtful response, as your responses generally seem to be. I respect that.

On the losers point, your assumption is correct - "not a winner" = "loser" in my mind, from the post that started this whole thing. My fault for changing the words. In any case, I believe the connotation is that such folks are no good, and my point is simply that such judgment coming from a competition official seems particularly harsh considering many of the students in question very likely do not know any better! For what it's worth, I do recognize that you, Doug, and Claude are separate people, and it was not my intent to lump all 3 together. Although to be honest, from a student perspective I suspect that's often how it's viewed - "the judges" collectively.

The only other point in your response which I would further address is the concept of holding stolen TTC data against a team's design score. While I understand why you might feel this way given the time you've invested in that data, I still fundamentally disagree with this design score deduction concept - TTC issues should be dealt with outside of competition, as TTC is not related officially to competition. If you take off your TTC hat for a moment and step back from the situation, I believe you'll see that this is no different than a SolidWorks rep being invited to the design tent by competition officials, verifying SW licenses as teams come through and show SW files, and having the authority to impact a team's design score if any infringements are found. Sounds pretty outlandish to me. Which in no way condones stealing IP of any kind, but it's the typical slippery slope - whose IP do you officially protect, who makes a judgment of infringement, etc. Better to leave such things out of an already subjective (and sometimes contentious) design judging process, in my opinion.

So by all means, encourage compliance because folks should clearly comply with whatever they agree to (irrespective of sponsor space value or whatever other BS reason - a deal's a deal), and it sounds like lots of good steps are being taken towards making the criteria more broadly known which is of course a key point in any infringement claim. Carrot first, stick next if carrot proves ineffective - all good. TTC is a good idea that probably merits fighting for (I say probably because I've never seen the data myself, but I assume it's wonderful). But I would still suggest that it should be done outside of the design competition; otherwise I feel that the distinction between roles become too blurred. Just my $0.02. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I enjoy the dialogue and hope it ultimately results in more folks using the stickers like they should.

[Claude Rouelle]

Alumni and all,

Before creating my own company I worked for 11 different employers, mostly racing teams. One of them was my best boss,….well….on the professional side, and I had a lot of respect for him...until I sadly and unfortunately witnessed a behavior that made me lost all the credibility I had for him; he cheated on his wife, several times, not just a one-time mistake. I would have preferred not to notice because in my mind this guy was on a pedestal and was going to stay there.. Worse; he gave us in meeting lessons about the morality of business with our customers... And yet he is still a very good business leader but I can't trust him anymore. You can't be a super manager at work and a poor father or husband at home; or vice versa (in that case you are working at the wrong place). Character is a whole 8 to 6 or 6 to 8, Monday to Friday as well as weekends.

Similarly, you can be a winner “in my brain” in design but if I know you cheat you won’t impress me at all.

I will not give more or less point to any team which is using the TTC data with or without the Calspan sticker and I will not bother to check if a team is a TTC member before the design judging because at the moment of the design competition, I judge the students on their engineering knowledge and their ability to understand and explain the what, the how and the why of their design. Who am I to judge them on their ethics? It is a problem between them and them more than between them and me

That being said….. It could be that they did not know or they did forget... And yes Alumni it did occur to me that the contract could have been signed long time ago by somebody else. If they knew that they had to put a Calspan sticker and didn't, then they are both stupid and cheaters and they lose their credibility. If it was an "honest mistake".... well... it is still a mistake. There should be a faculty advisor or a team leader double checking these kinds of things. Not knowing that the Calspan sticker is mandatory if you are part of the TTC just shows how little the team is organized and it inevitably poorly reflects on the team: it falls in the same category as “we left the laptop in the truck so we cannot show you the kinematics study or the data analysis…”

If a FSAE/ FS team is using a cracked version of our OptimumTire software (in that case they cannot tell us they did not know) that we sell at less than 1 % of the professional price or any of our other software, I will not give them less points in design judging but a) they will never find a job in my company and they cannot count on me for reference now or 10 years from now (I do not forget this kind of guys). If they use the student version for professional purpose or they use a cracked version then things are clear: I will simply sue them.

Weather you willingly cheat or simply “forgot”, in the real world there will be consequence, including losing your job. “I did not know” will not be a defense line. You will be paid to know and the earlier you know that, the better.

If I can share here a lesson I learnt from a mentor many years ago …. There are 3 questions that you want to positively answer if you want to do good business:
1. Is it legal (in the US big companies could hire an army of lawyers to make it legal.... :) )
2. Is it fair: is it a win-win situation?
3. Does it comply with the golden rule: Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you.

Whether the Calspan sticker wasn't on the car because you “did not know” or you forgot or you simply do not care of worse you cheated, there is at least one of the 3 questions that you did not answer positively; you are not doing a good business.

At the end put the famous Caplan sticker, stop worrying about it and let discuss more important engineering things.