2014 FSAE-Australasia [Archive]

Kevin Hayward

11-12-2014, 12:59 AM

Cost is an interesting case, and varies in importance between the upper and lower teams. I would argue it is even more important for the lower teams. Cost score is almost certainly not based on the performance of the car and data shows that the best cost teams are usually not the fastest teams. It means that nearly all cost points are open to all teams. For the teams earning around 400 points the cost event could end up being 20% of their score. Conversely for a team above 800 points the cost event may end up being only 10% of their score. In the midpack the points available for the dynamic events is greatly reduced due to the scaling effect of the faster teams. This means that cost will have a larger impact on the placing order in this area. Please note that design scores tend to follow the order of performance. If you add in marketing you find these two events will account for around 25-30% of a 400-500 point team. Only half of that for the top teams.

It is easy for teams to calculate how many points a $1k saving on the final cost should get you and how that equates to time on the track. Gaining 15 points in cost is the same as gaining 15 points in autocross. Simple fact is that cost should influence your design a fair bit, especially when there is a substantial performance gap between your team and the leaders. There is little justification for midpack teams running drexler diffs, ohlins shocks, AP racing master cylinders etc. You will get more points by putting a cheaper component in for the definite points advantage and taking the miniscule (if any) hit to performance.

Beyond that the rest of the points are for good reporting, avoiding penalties and manufacturing justification, all of which can be done well in advance. There are good examples floating around about how this can be done.

As an interesting aside this year's cost example in Australia is very full on. Possibly the most amount of work expected for the least amount of points on offer, so it will be interesting to see the difference in effort put in by teams. I think the expectations for this part of the Australian event (just the cost example) have exceeded what is reasonable, given that the teams already produce a fairly time consuming document which they have to defend at comp.

Kev

GTS

11-12-2014, 06:20 AM

Would suggest (potentially more elegantly) Kev that design for cost (or at least with cost awareness, not cost as an afterthought) is potentially one of only areas of competition where nearly universally all students putting in 100% effort are immediately 1,000% more useful as graduates. Cost has touchpoints in a good amount of practical engineering - far beyond what a part, assembly, system or product actually ends up costing.

So build it in, get it right. It's not in the competition just to ensure it's not a spending war, and it's certainly not in there to prove your worth at stuffing random numbers into templates... (a few of you have CFD for that).

11-21-2014, 10:54 PM

An FYI for any Teams near Sydney, or passing through on the way to FSAE-Oz-2014.

Next weekend, November 29 and 30, Eastern Creek Raceway (aka "Sydney Motorsport Park") is hosting the "Tasman Trophy" Historic Racecar Meeting (http://www.hsrca.com/tag/eastern-creek/).

Attending one of these days is a great opportunity for you students to absorb 50+ years of motor racing's "prior art". (And you can also absorb gallons of deep-fried cholesterol, by eating ANY of the food on offer!)

Learn how to design spaceframes (most of the racecars are from that era), and suspension bits like axle-bearings, uprights, linkages, little-gubbins, etc., and study the evolution of brakes, engines, aero, etc., etc...

In fact, I suggest a little competition to keep you busy. See who can find the car that scores highest on (Number of races won) x (Number of "REIB" on the car). Or maybe just find the car that has won at least one Championship, and has the most REIB.

Anyway, this would be especially useful for students who will be designing NEXT year's FSAE car. See what has ACTUALLY worked in the past, and compare it with what you see in Melbourne two weeks later...

Ahhh... yes..., I can already smell those delicious fish-flavoured cholesterol burgers... :)

Z

Jonny Rochester

11-22-2014, 12:23 AM

That is a good idea. Reverse engineering or at least knowing what went before helps you make something, anything... If we could get our car up to a robust level of a late 70s formula car with similar fasteners, I would be very happy at this point.

We have a healthy calender of historic racing at Baskerville Hobart, I go occasionally. And yes I see those REIB.

(UTAS engine is running, going back on the dyno in a few days.)

11-25-2014, 09:09 PM

Does anyone know if there is a "Driver Swap" day following this year's Oz comp? The Calder Park website makes no such mention...

I reckon it was the most "educational" part of last year's comp, with very good feedback of all the most important "Design" stuff, eg. ergonomics, power usability, handling foibles, etc...

Z

Norbs

11-26-2014, 10:19 PM

MCoach

11-28-2014, 05:32 PM

I'm very excited to see all these cars revealed on the other side of the world for the last big wing, loud exhaust, real race car competition before the sissy rules kick in for this year.

Jonny Rochester

11-30-2014, 06:44 AM

I have driven the UTAS car. We did another 1/2 day of testing and practice today. We are still without panels or body.

Message me if something is going down on the Monday or Tuesday as I will be stuck with the UTAS truck for a day before I get back on the ship.

Tonks

12-02-2014, 12:22 AM

I am excited to see how the field pans out. The top couple of teams should be rather close this year. (Auckland, I have been waiting every year since 2011 for you guys to kick butt - not to put any pressure on or anything....)

I'll be floating around and will do my best to keep the FSAE-A facebook page updated again this year. Hopefully I can get some more frequent updates going throughout the day rather than my previous sporadic bursts. I'm also setting up some sort of live audio broadcast (through a site called Mixlr) from Friday to Sunday (organised separate from SAE-A so I don't know if they have anything official planned but my guess is not). People are welcome to tune in if you can put up with my voice for 8hours a day :D <-- Will be chatting to teams throughout the weekend too and hopefully try and get some sort of chat thing going so that if anyone wants to ask specific questions of teams you can hear the response from one of the team members straight away (very open idea right at the moment though).

Get keen.

P.S. If there are any spectating alumni or members from teams that have pulled out this year that want to join me and co-host in babbling on for three days, lemme know!

Rex Chan

12-09-2014, 05:23 PM

Just a quick update - I went to visit Monash after work yesterday, and saw some FSAE cars for the first time in months. Monash, Auckland, Canterbury, ECU were all there.

Monash came back from testing, but didn't do that many laps. Issues with the pnuematic shifter is what I heard. Auckland were doing scrut checks and sorting out starting. Not sure if they'll run wings.

Canterbury were re-positioning their turbo, after it was pointed out on arrival in Australia that their original postion was outside the side-impact crash structure (I'm not up to date with chassis rules).

ECU looked pretty sorted - I didn't see Kev around, and only 1 familiar face. Maybe they were doing design/statics back at their hotel?

I'll be posting pics to my FB account during the weekend :)

Rex Chan

12-12-2014, 05:50 AM

Hi all (esp. Z who asked for it),

Here is a link to the FSAE-A fb page Albums. This is where I'll be putting all my photos of cars at the FSAE-A 2014 comp.

https://www.facebook.com/FSAEAustralasia/photos_stream?tab=photos_albums

12-12-2014, 06:06 AM

"PLANET ZED" IS BACK!
=======================

Yes, dear readers, the esteemed Editors at Planet Zed Publications have once again thrown caution to the winds, and have sent your favourite dribbling scribbler to FSAE-Australasia-2014!

So, for all of you in the Northern Hemisphere, settling in as you are for another cold, bleak, and boring winter, with only distant memories of the asthmatic wheezing of ill-tuned, restricted, sportsbike engines, combined with the delicate bouquet of hi-octane fuel and burning rubber, please tune in, sit back, make yourselves comfortable, and dream of how much better life is Down Under. Err..., or perhaps just dream of how much better you will be able to do all this stuff in another six short months.

But a word of warning! The following is NOT being brought to you by that wet-behind-the-ears, baby-faced, Junior Cub Reporter of last year. Oh, no, no, no... After 365 days of trawling the all World's Baddest Troublespots, from Bondi to Boganville (ie. East to West Sydney), you now have the grizzled-old-hack, recently promoted CADET (2nd Class) Reporter, Z, bringing you your mid-season fix.

So, this time no more Mister Nice Guy, filling your screens with fairy-floss drivel about the wonderful job all these hard-working young students are doing. Oh no, not this year! Now its just the low-down on the hard-hitting facts, brought to you with no punches pulled, and with most punches very low indeed!

No more woosy, sugar-coated, questions on "Team Mission Statements", blah, blah, blah... This year just two questions:
Q1. How much faster is this year's car, compared with last year's?
Q2. WHY NOT!!!???

So, without further ado, here are:

THE PROBABLES.
==================
(Three of these Teams will probably be on the Overall Podium come Sunday night. Listed in no particular order. Err... except one...)

(Note: "HMMM..." = interesting, "HUH!" = WT!)

1. TEAM #66, MONASH UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
======================================
ENGINE: KTM 450SXF, Single, E85, Turboed, 12.5:1 CR, 48 kW @ 10 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: M/Steel spaceframe, with bonded panels.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-Double-Wishbones, Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers, Uprights - F = 3-D printed Titanium (because free!)/ R = Machined Aluminium.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" x 8" Al-Rims, 7.5" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Mega-F&R-Un-Sprung-Wings + Undertray + DRS.
MASS: 198 kg, 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = -0.1s, SP = -0.1s, AX = small improvement.
HMMM...: 1st place in Oz 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, so...
~o0o~

2. TEAM #14, CURTIN UNIVERSITY (WA, Oz).
==========================================
ENGINE: Honda CBR600RR Four, 98 RON, N-A, 12.6:1 CR, 62 kW @ 12 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + DASD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Mega-F&R-Un-Sprung-Wings + UT.
MASS: 279 kg, 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = ?(no space to test), SP = same, AX = 5% better.
HMMM...: Heavy, but 2nd last year with similar car.
~o0o~

3. TEAM #47, UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND (NZ).
==========================================
ENGINE: Yamaha WR450F, 98 RON, N-A, 13:1 CR, 41 kW @ 9.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: Pre-preg Carbon skinned aluminium/nomex honeycomb.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + DASD + Machined-Al-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" Al-Rims, 6"F/7.5"R Hoosier R25B.
AERO: UT only!
MASS: 163 kg. 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = -0.2s, SP = -0.1s, AX = 6% better.
HUH!: Wings gave 10% AX improvement but have "reliability issues", so tossed. Car still fast in testing.
~o0o~

4. TEAM #101, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (Vic, Oz).
========================================
ENGINE: Honda CBR600RR Four, E85, N-A, 12:1 CR, 55 kW @ 9.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: Mild-Steel Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Pull-F/Push-R-SD + Folded-Steel-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Mega-F&R-Sprung-Wings + UT.
MASS: 250 kg, 45F/55R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = ?2% slower, SP = -5% (cos aero), AX = ~5-8% better.
HMMM...: Similar to last year's 3rd place car, but now with wings!
~o0o~

5. TEAM #8, UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (SA, Oz).
========================================
ENGINE: Yamaha YZF-R6 (600-four), 98 RON, N-A, 12.4:1 CR, 58 kW @ 8 - 12 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: "Old" Drexler.
CHASSIS: Mild-Steel-Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Al-Uprights (all 4 same).
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Mega-Sprung-Wings + UT.
MASS: 250 kg. 48F/52R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = -0.1s, SP = -0.3s, AX = 10% better.
HMMM...: Heavy, but 4th last year.
~o0o~

6. TEAM #7, EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY (WA, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: Custom! 600 cc Four(CBR head on bespoke block + 2-speed drive) , 98 RON, N-A, 12:1 CR, 60 kW @ 10 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool integreated into bespoke engine case.
CHASSIS: Carbon skinned aluminium honeycomb (~30 mm thk), cut-and-fold construction, full monocoque.
SUSPENSION: F = CroMo-DW + DASD + Folded-Steel-Upright, R = Folded CroMo folded sheet beam + 4-link + DASD .
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" Al-Rims, 6" Hoosier LCO.
AERO: F&R-Sprung-Wings, NO UT.
MASS: 184 kg, 44F/56R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = -0.2s, SP = -0.2s, AX = 10% better.
HMMM...: Major concept change = ~lightest 600-four in the world!
~o0o~

7. TEAM #10, UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG (NSW, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: Honda CBR600RR Four, 98 RON, N-A, 13.6:1 CR, 58 kW @ 10+ krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Pull-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Big-Sprung-Wings.
MASS: 205 kg, ?F/?R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Much better than last year's, because last year's hubs broke!
HMMM...: As above...
~o0o~

8. TEAM #41, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND (Q, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: Honda CBR600F4i Four, 98 RON, N-A, 12.1:1 CR, 59 kW @ 11.8 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW-Front + Folded-Steel-Beam-Rear + ZERO-WARP-Springing (= F&R-Axle-Heave/Pitch-Only-SDs + Roll-Only-Lateral-U-Bar).
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Un-Sprung-UT only.
MASS: 220 kg, 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Measured +10% Longitudinal-G, and +20% Lateral-G (Lat from lower CG).
HMMM...: Innovative car with some testing, some teething problems, but also some potential.
~o0o~

And ... the smokie (= dark horse).

9. TEAM #13, UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY (NZ).
===========================================
ENGINE: Husqvarna TC449 Single, E85, Turboed, 12:1 CR, 45 kW @ 9.3 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CarbonFibre-DW + Pull-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" x 8" Al-Rims, 7.5"(?) Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Big-F&R-Sprung-Wings + UT + DRS.
MASS: 218 kg, ?F/?R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = ?, SP = <5s, AX = ~20 - 25% better!
HMMM...: Good first attempt last year, much better overall concept this year.
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~

More coming...

Z

(PS. Thanks Rex.)

12-12-2014, 06:08 AM

THE POSSIBLES.
=================
(These Teams have a "Bradbury's chance" of making the Podium. Non-Australians can google Steven Bradbury, Australia's Ice-Skating Champion of the World, to see that if you keep working hard, and never give up, then, maybe, just maybe, but very, very rarely, fairy-tales can come true...)

(These listed only according to their race number, not on perceived performance.)

10. TEAM #3, UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE (NSW, Oz).
==============================================
ENGINE: Honda CBR600F4i, E85, N-A, 12:1 CR, 60 kW @ 10 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: MS-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Folded-Steel-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" x 9" Al-Rims, 7.5"(?) Hoosier R25B.
AERO: None.
MASS: 213 kg, 45F/55R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = -0.5s, SP = same, AX = faster! but test-track changed...
HMMM...: Built to "Formula Libre" (hillclimb) Rules, so requires much bigger MRH, etc., but more opportunity for FUN!
~o0o~

11. TEAM #11, SOPHIA UNIVERSITY (Japan).
===========================================
ENGINE: Yamaha WR450F Single, 98 RON, N-A, 13.5:1 CR, 43 kW @ 8.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: "FCC" LSD.
CHASSIS: CarbonFibre Monocoque.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Pull-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: Big-Wings, R-US, F-Sprung, + UT.
MASS: 210 kg, 47F/53R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Very hard to say (because Japanese custom is to answer all questions with "Yes!"), but probably similar to previous cars.
HMMM...: Previous good performer, so...
~o0o~

12. TEAM #12, RMIT UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: Yamaha Genesis 80FI Parallel-Twin, E85, N-A, 12.4:1 CR, 60 kW @ 10.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Custom 6-Speed-Duke-G'Box-in-CF-Case to Custom KAZ LSD.
CHASSIS: 3/4 CarbonFibre Monocoque + 1/4 Rear-Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: Carbon-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" CF-Rims, ?" Hoosier LC0.
AERO: None.
MASS: 168 kg, 48F/52R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc, SP = same?, AX = maybe 1 -2% better because better ergo.
HMMM...: Engine choice allows potentially very good car, but...?
~o0o~

13. TEAM #21, TOKYO DENKI UNIVERSITY (Japan).
===========================================
ENGINE: Honda PE06E 450 Single, 98 RON, N-A, 12.5:1 CR, 35 kW @ 8 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Pull-F/Push-R-SD + Folded-Steel-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" Al-Rims, 6" Hoosier LC0.
AERO: None.
MASS: 170 kg, 48F/52R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc, SP = same, AX = better because of Drexler.
HMMM...: Bad luck last year (broken CVs), maybe better this year.
~o0o~

14. TEAM #22, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY (NSW, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: Aprilia RXV 550 V-Twin, 98 RON, N-A, 12:1 CR, 40 kW @ 10.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7.5" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: None.
MASS: 182 kg, ?F/?R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc, SP, AX = ?, but drivers say better because ergo and last year's negative-trail (!) fixed.
HMMM...: Polished version of last year's mid-fielder, but still powered by a hand-grenade.
~o0o~

15. TEAM #23, TOKAI UNIVERSITY (Japan).
===========================================
ENGINE: Longitudinal-Crank (!) Suzuki DL 650 (bore down) V-Twin, 98 RON, N-A, 13.5:1 CR, 51 kW @ 8 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Shaft-Drive to Bevel-Gear-ATV-Diff (unknown make).
CHASSIS: Full Carbon Monocoque.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Push-F/Pull-R-SD + Folded-Steel-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Goodyear.
AERO: Mega-Sprung-Wings +UT.
MASS: 230 kg, 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: "Yes! Much improvement.".
HMMM...: Potentially good big-winged car, but quite wide (front track = 1300 mm, OA = 1520 mm).
~o0o~

16. TEAM #25, UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO (NZ).
===========================================
ENGINE: Suzuki GSR600 Four, 98 RON, N-A, 12.5:1 CR, 63 kW @ 11 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Mazda Viscous LSD.
CHASSIS: Mild-Steel Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: MS-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Folded-Steel-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7.5" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: UT only.
MASS: 244 kg, 49F/51R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Untested???
HMMM...: Does a mechanical paddle-shift, behind steering-wheel, via cable, and incorporating clutch, maketh a fast car?
~o0o~

17. TEAM #63, UNIVERSITY OF NSW (NSW, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: Aprilia SXV550 V-Twin, 98 RON, N-A, 12.5:1 CR, 48 kW @ 9.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool, driven by 3/8"-Triplex-Chain, and driving Aluminium-Drive-Shafts via Flex-Disc-CVs.
CHASSIS: All Aluminium-Honeycomb Monocoque, 30 mm and 12 mm thick.
SUSPENSION: All Aluminium-DW + Pull-F&R-SD(underfloor) + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" x 8" All-Aluminium-Rims, ?" Hoosier LC0.
AERO: None.
MASS: 160 kg, 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: All new car, better than last, but ... untested.
HMMM...: ALL ALUMINIUM CAR (did I mention that?) is lightweight, but they say that their hand-grenade is built with "Italian passion...".
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~

As a general note, the "Probables" are distinguished from the "Possibles" by having a good idea of just how much faster this year's car is from last year's. The "Possibles" either haven't done enough testing to quantify their improvement, or haven't even thought about it, or maybe are not telling me!

More coming ...

Z

12-12-2014, 06:12 AM

THE GOT-THE-WOBBLES.
=======================
Can you remember that feeling you had, after a very long, and tiring, and emotional night (read much alcohol consumed), and you were walking that long, long walk home, and it felt as if you had a pebble in your shoe, except that you might not have had any shoes on at all, and every now and then the footpath jumped up and smacked you in the face for no reason...? Ahhh, yes, ... life was never meant to be easy...

The following cars struck your faithful scribbler as having something that was not quite right...

Again, just in order of Team number. Maybe, hopefully, some of these cars can surprise.

18. TEAM #34, JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND (Nth Q, Oz).
================================================== ===========
ENGINE: Honda CBR600F2 Four, 98 RON, N-A, 11.1:1 CR, ?? kW @ ?? krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: CroMo Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW-Front + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" x 8" Al-Rims, 8" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: None.
MASS: ~300 kg, ?F/?R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: First year car, so INFINITE improvement! But untested...
HMMM...: Has radiator mounted behind engine. Quite sensible. But very wide, = ~1600 mm OA. And, err..., HEAVY.
~o0o~

19. TEAM #44, UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA (Tas, Oz).
===========================================
ENGINE: BMW ~500cc(?) Single, 98 RON, N-A, 12:1 CR, 16 kW(at wheel) @ ~4 krpm (see below).
DIFFERENTIAL: Spool.
CHASSIS: Mild-Steel Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7.5"-F, 6"-R Hoosier R25B, very old...
AERO: None.
MASS: 220 kg, 51+F/49-R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: First year, so INFINITE improvement!
HMMM...: NO PLENUM restricts power to 30 hp max. Front heavy car + low power = tests better with larger tyres on front. C'mon, Jonny, finish Enduro! (But car had starting problems today. Aaack!)
~o0o~

20. TEAM #84, WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (Poland).
================================================== ==
ENGINE: BMW G450X Single, E85, Turboed, 12:1 CR, 42 kW @ 8.5 krpm.
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: Mild-Steel Spaceframe.
SUSPENSION: MS-DW + Pull-F/Push-R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 13" Al-Rims, 7" Avon (medium compound).
AERO: None.
MASS: 220 kg, 50F/50R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: "Faster because TURBO! But will depend on driver..."
HUH!?: Highest "Front-RC" in FS-World. "Is for clearance of high-mounted R&P".
HMMM...: Guaranteed Fastest European car! Will "WhiteEagle Racing" truly soar with the eagles?
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~

And finally,

THE CODSWALLOP-ABLES.
=========================
Planet Zed's journalistic bias hasn't budged one iota here. All we will say is that battery powered electric motors are only fit for three things. Small children's toys, those little fans you clip onto your baseball caps to cool your face, and marital aids. And we note that all three are better done by hand!

Nevertheless, we will give these poor deluded fools their 15 seconds of fame.

21. TEAM #E17, SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (Vic, Oz).
================================================== ======
MOTOR: Twin Enstroj Emrax LC 228, rated power (total) 70 kW.
BATTERY: 96 x LiPo-cells, ~350 V, 7.1 kWh (~26 MJ!!! - when will they learn!).
DIFFERENTIAL: Electric.
CHASSIS: CarbonFibre-on-Al-Honeycomb Monocoque.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" x 8" Al-Rims, 7.5" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: UT only.
MASS: 240 kg, 45F/55R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: Acc = -0.1s, SP = -0.1s, AX = 5% better (though last year the smoke kept escaping).
HMMM...: Should Delft or Zurich be looking over their shoulders?
~o0o~

22. TEAM #E88, RMIT UNIVERSITY (Vic, Oz).
================================================== ======
MOTOR: Single Enstroj Emrax 228, rated power 45 kW.
BATTERY: 112 x LiPo-cells, ~450 V, 6.5 kWh (~24 MJ!!!).
DIFFERENTIAL: Drexler.
CHASSIS: CroMo SpaceFrame.
SUSPENSION: CroMo-DW + Push-F&R-SD + Machined-Aluminium-Uprights.
WHEELS & TYRES: 10" Al-Rims, ?" Hoosier R25B.
AERO: None.
MASS: 260 kg, 55?F/45?R.

IMPROVEMENT!?: "Massive!".
HMMM...: Again, should Delft or Zurich, or the C-cars...
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~

New Calder Park track is much bigger than Werribee, quite interesting, with Skid-Pad sited on worst surface available (good :))!

Weather tomorrow for start of Dynamic events should be warmish (25-30 C) and sunny, possibly with strong winds.

But eyelids now too heavy ... above "facts" may require massive adjustments ...

Maybe more tomorrow...

Z

Rex Chan

12-12-2014, 06:31 AM

Hey Z,

I think what you also need to add to your survey is how many really fast drivers each team has :D

Personally, I think ECU has to be near the top of the list - this is a car that has been to a comp already, so should have plenty of kms on the clock.

DMuusers

12-12-2014, 08:59 AM

Thanks for the info Z! Personally, I have to say I'm slightly underwhelmed with all the numbers though. Had expected teams be a lot lower in weight to be honest. Especially the single cylinders (except Auckland, 163kg is a good number and ECU is also quite light (for a 4))... Any idea on downforce numbers of the teams? ClA and CdA?
Curious to see all the acceleration and skidpad times, those should be good indicators of performance.

mech5496

12-12-2014, 10:44 AM

Cool cool cool COOL! Thanks Z!

SomeOldGuy

12-12-2014, 03:32 PM

Is there any live streaming of the competition set up at this point of the competition?

12-12-2014, 04:53 PM

Rex,

Thanks again for the link to pics. Regarding the drivers, it is quite a slog getting reliable numbers for the car itself, so I'm not sure how I would manage running a tape measure over all the driver's cojones!

But, agreed, driver skill and overall testing time makes a big difference. In most cases (may be a few exceptions...) the Possibles are in the lower list because they had not done enough testing to know "How much faster is this year's car?".
~o0o~

Daniel,

For some reason Teams like to quote Cl.A as N kg at M kph, with M being a very random number. Plus it was hard to always get hold of the Aero-Guy. I was doing my "journo" bit inbetween all the Teams getting Static Judged, and also trying to get through Scrutineering.

Acceleration event may be comparable to all other comps. But Skid-Pan is really on the worst section of track at the whole circuit. Much broken surface, several ruts, about 1/4 of one loop has quite bad adverse camber (slopes down-outwards, wish I had brought my bubble-level along to measure it). I like it! :)
~o0o~

SOG,

I'm still trying to master this interweb thing. Maybe ask Some Young Guy. Rex? :)
~o0o~

Now off to sit next to Skid-Pad!

Z

Moke

12-12-2014, 10:51 PM

Live times at http://racing.natsoft.com.au/results/

Numbers are just numbers, it will be the track that speaks loudest.

12-13-2014, 04:09 AM

SATURDAY NIGHT UPDATE.
========================

Some quick thoughts while I can remember them.

* Most results so far are shown on Rex's Facebook page.

* Today (Acc, SP, & AutoX) was hot (30+C), windy, and sunny, so track temps probably 50++C and good for grip.

* Acceleration was directly into a wind of maybe 10-15 m/s (30-50 kph). This speed guessed from throwing grass into the air and counting seconds and distance travelled. This may have helped the big-aero cars during launch, but also would have slowed their Vmax. Anyway, best times were,
1. #7 ECU 3.802 seconds,
2. #41 UQ 4.002,
3. #47 Auckland 4.206...
So 600-fours with beam-rear-axles had quite a jump on the next cars. :) Both ECU and UQ could have dropped quite a few more tenths if they had MORE REAR WEIGHT! As with almost all of the cars, they were both spinning wheels for first ~20 metres.

* Skid-Pad was bumpy and windy as noted. Top times,
1. #66 Monash 4.997,
2. #7 ECU 5.006,
3. #47 Auckland 5.030,
4. #101 Melbourne 5.205...
The 0.2 second jump to Melbourne probably due to ZERO suspension movement, at least as seen by these old and failing eyes. Rear may (???) have had a few millimetres movement? AutoX and Enduro track are much smoother, proving the adage of "Any suspension will work, if you don't let it." (at least in the typically smooth conditions of circuit racing). UQ, with soft-warp suspension, were smooth around SP and only fractionally slower than above times. UQ later spent some time "off-roading" in the AutoX, and handled it effortlessly.

* AutoX was ~1.2 km. Monash's best time of ~75 sec works out at around average speed of 57 kph (from rough mental calc). This time set later in the day when temps were up, and wind was down. Very interesting was the new (and controversial!) format that allowed unlimited runs for anyone caring to rejoin the queue. I think Curtin topped the table here with about 29 runs! Many other cars did 12++ runs. Note that Enduro is only 18 laps total. Reliability was good, with not too many failures.

* The other big controversy was the NON-scaling of the Design scores. These were from a highest of 122 (Monash) to 6? for the lowest(?). So really the whole event was only worth ~60 points. You may hear more about this later... Interesting watching Team Supervisors vs Officials, in, err, ... spirited debate! :)

* Casualty Ward: (Taken by Team #, and from paddock gossip.)
#13 Canterbury - Electrical gremlin has visited their solenoid operated gear-shift, and/or the wiring loom. Hence poor performance so far.
#23 Tokai - Unknown problem, but it was parked in the infield for most of the day.
#34 James Cook - Not through scrutineering yet, but on upside when they finally got weighed their original estimated weight of ~300kg dropped to a real 259 kg. Yeayyy!
#63 UNSW - The All-Ally car was still struggling through scrutineering last I looked.
#84 Warsaw - Engine electrical connectors, and possibly turbo? (blue smoke in exhaust).
And many other smaller problems for other Teams, but seemingly fixable...

* Enduro (x 2) tomorrow should have similar weather conditions to today. Predicted rain in afternoon, but only few mm? Same course as AutoX, but run backwards (ie. AX = Anti-ClockWise, E = CW).

Z

Rex Chan

12-13-2014, 04:10 AM

The fsae-a page promises live stream on sunday. I saw something being setup today, so hopefully it works tomorrow 😊😊

Rex Chan

12-13-2014, 04:20 AM

One more thing Z,
Melbourne had minor engine troubles for accel and early autox, then major engine issues in last few autox laps, where the drivers noted a power loss.

Turns out coil pack on cylinder #1 decided to vibrate out of its slot, so we ran on 3 cylinders by the end of autox (when it was sounding really bad). Issue is now sorted (replaced with spare coil-pack). So hopefully the MUR engine will be sounding angry as usual for enduro ��

Note to future MUR teams - keep an eye on your coil packs, and don't let fat drivers sit on them. This makes them bend and not fit into the cam cover properly �� and then you lose a cylinder and the car pulls really poorly in accel. ��

mech5496

12-13-2014, 04:35 AM

Thanks Rex and Z for the updates! Rex do you have any more "naked" car photos? Would love to see those! Also the Natsoft timing page does not seem to work for me no matter what I tried; I managed ton catch up due to FSAE-A page and Monash twitter

Rex Chan

12-13-2014, 04:50 AM

Hi mech,

I didn't take many more details shots today, but will try tomorrow in the enduro line.

The live-timing seems to be off for now, so maybe we all need to screenshot it :D

DMuusers

12-13-2014, 04:58 AM

Teams can have unlimited autocross runs?? What's the reasoning behind that?

Rex Chan

12-13-2014, 05:20 AM

Teams can have unlimited autocross runs?? What's the reasoning behind that?

I don't know why, but I suspect it's to allow more runs from teams that have prepared well. We're such a small comp (25 teams), and we only go to comp once a year (unlike the euro teams or USA teams). I'd say it was done to give teams more opportunity to "practice"/experience comp.

ChristianChalliner

12-13-2014, 06:52 AM

I'm doing my best to keep up with this via here and the facebook page. Good to see the beam cars running so well! Also good luck to UTAS I hope you get it fixed for endurance and good job on the design score :)

I don't suppose anyone has the results sheets from accel, skidpan and autox?

Oh and I love the unlimited runs idea, it's a shame we can't do that in the UK.

Rex Chan

12-13-2014, 07:01 AM

Just for you, Christian 😛

ChristianChalliner

12-13-2014, 07:15 AM

Thanks Rex :) If I've added these up correctly then (cost, design, presentation, accel, skid) Monash is on 394.8 with ECU right behind on 393.3! Looks close at the top.

SkeH14

12-13-2014, 05:22 PM

Thanks for all the great coverage guys! As someone who is following the competition from a couple continents away it's cool to get all the details.

Does anyone have any info on issues with Monash and their car? On their facebook page they mentioned that they took the car off site last night and had to be re scrutineered this morning.

ChristianChalliner

12-13-2014, 05:36 PM

Awesome news that UTAS fixed their car! :D Just watching the livestream now.

Scott Monash

12-13-2014, 05:38 PM

Live video stream available here:

http://inpitlane.com/archives/15527

Massive congratulations to Johnny Rochester and the UTAS team who just completed their first endurance this morning after an all night engine rebuild.

Fastest cars will be out on track for the first heat in the next hour.

Best of luck to all teams, its a really tight comp and should be some amazing racing.

Scott

Scott Monash

12-13-2014, 05:41 PM

Monash had to reweld a cracked alternator mount last night and do a little work on the cooling system.
Thanks to RMIT combustion who made their workshop available to us.
Wasn't too late a night, can't wait to get out on track.

ChristianChalliner

12-13-2014, 06:03 PM

Gutted for UQR :(

Moke

12-14-2014, 02:38 AM

FSAE-A 2014 OVERALL POINTS

Electric: 696 points, 7th overall - RMIT ev

3rd 871 points - University of Auckland
2nd 881 points - Edith Cowan University
1st 915.5 - Monash University

12-14-2014, 05:41 AM

Sunday Night Wrap-Up.
========================

Nine hours in the saddle tomorrow, so herewith just the nitty-gritty.

The Big Question for this year was "How much faster are you this year, than last year?". In Monash's case next year, they will have to say "a lot faster than last year". Which is this year...

Err..., OK, too much sun... Put simply, "Monash, LOOK OUT!".

Yep, the pack is hunting them down. As seen in Moke's post above, the gap is closing (Monash were almost 200 points clear last year). Here are Top 10, although only the points for top three available at time of writing.

1. #66 Monash - 915,
2. #7 ECU - 881,
3. #47 Auckland - 871,
4. #101 Melbourne,
5. #41 UQ,
6. #14 Curtin,
7. #E88 RMIT (E),
8. #12 RMIT (C),
9. #22 Sydney,
10. #10 Wollongong.
~o0o~

From the "Z-Files" (ie. little scraps of paper scrunched up in pocket).

Enduro 1.
==========
* Cloudy and cool and hot and sunny and very strong gusts.

* Sophia dead on track.

* UQ lift inside-rear-wheel on a hairpin, and engine cuts out. Initially thought that driver had accidentally hit kill-switch without noticing, and then could not restart car, so parked it. Later discovered that the rear-beam, with no warp-mode bump/droop stops (!), had hit some wiring and shorted or severed it.

* Monash gets cone stuck under front-wing and loses ~3 seconds per lap.

* Monash fastest lap ~78 seconds.

Enduro 2.
=========
* Canterbury dead on first lap. Ahhh... TURBO! (+++)

* Melbourne now have new Team song - Kenny Roger's "You Picked a Fine Time to Leave Me Loose Wheel". (Actually, wheel-centre shears off mid-corner. Z's-Forensic-Analysis-4-U finds the ~triangular 3-bolt flange has sharp edges, which, under braking/cornering loads flex and dig into the highly-optimised (ie. TOO THIN) aluminium wheel-centre, initiating 3 x classic stress-raisers. And classic fatigue-failure ensues!)

* Warsaw dead in infield.

* Tokyo Denki spin off track and down a very gentle grass slope. Driver does at least a dozen doughnuts trying to get back onto track. Eventually succeeds and carries on. Huge cheer!!!

* UQ complete E2 with good times, though better drivers were in E1.

* Auckland's times good, but looks doubtful they can beat Monash's E1 times.

* Curtin very reliable and consistent all weekend.

* ECU first lap 81 seconds, then improve to consistent 77s.

* Monash's rear-DRS fails on lap 4. The top-flap of rear-wing "inverts" itself (ie. front flops upwards) so it is at ~30 degree "lifting" AoA. Lap times drop about 3-4 seconds. Driver couldn't see this (front DRS still worked) so he thought rear tyres had "gone off".

So, by the end of Enduro most top-of-ladder places depended on Fuel consumption...
~o0o~

Bottom line, attrition rate this year was much less than last. Perhaps only four (?) cars failed to score in Enduro. Given the huge amount of AutoX laps also covered by most Teams, this reliability improvement, though STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH (! :)), is a positive sign.

PS1. Daniel, as noted by Rex, unlimited AutoX is because Oz is a small comp, so MORE FUN! Basically, everything is already set-up, so may as well continue until end of day.

PS2. Congratulations to UTAS for finishing (both?) Enduros, Jonny for working all night to evict numerous gremlins from the engine, and Warsaw and other Teams (sorry, forgot who) for donating numerous parts to said effort.

PS3. DO NOT buy a "low mileage" BMW-450-single that may come up for sale in Tasmania in near future!

PS4. The All-New, All-Aluminium UNSW car eventually made it through scrutineering, but "failed to proceed" further. However, its scutineered weight was 151 kg. Now, if they toss those stupid F&R-PullRods+Rockers, then I reckon a comfortable 149 kg, or less!

PS5. Christian, I guess you are already looking at ECU's and UQ's websites? :)

Z

DMuusers

12-14-2014, 06:34 AM

2 endurances? And the best one counted? Or the worst?
Also, how long was the track? Just the standard 1 km?

JulianH

12-14-2014, 06:49 AM

Moke

12-14-2014, 01:02 PM

945.5 Monash
881.0 ECU
870.6 Auckland
770.0 Melbourne
728.0 UQ
722.2 Curtin
696.5 RMIT Electric
695.9 RMIT Petrol
650.1 Sydney
504.8 Wollongong
470.6 Swinburne Electric
459.4 Waikato
437.5 Denki
428.1 Tasmania
417.8 Adelaide
387.4 Canterbury
339.6 Tokai
303.3 Newcastle
237.6 Sophia
237.5 Warsaw
237.3 NSW
124.6 James Cook
25.76 UWA Electric
25.8 QUT

MCoach

12-14-2014, 01:21 PM

Will there be anywhere available for the full score sheet for download?

I'm also curious what the split on fuel efficiency and endurance points is. ECU was flying out there but I'm sure they were caught on fuel efficiency. Amazing coverage, though. It was fun to keep up with the whole competition. Very impressive drive from everyone. If there is award for persistence, be sure to pass it off to the E-car from Swinburne!

mech5496

12-14-2014, 02:43 PM

GTS

12-14-2014, 06:49 PM

(Whilst it's still fresh and I've a spare moment)

The best aerodynamics section performances in Design Event were improved upon this year, which was reflected in what grades were given. Whilst no team was allocated a perfect score, three teams shared a top grade higher than the best last year. Bear in mind that we don't just grade what's built, but an entire design process.

Excellent first-year aerodynamics performances from Tokai and University of Melbourne with some very deep considerations of what aerodynamic performance actually means to a vehicle on-track beyond headline lift and drag numbers. UoM didn't built everything intended but was - critically - able to demonstrate closure of a design, delivery and validation cycle with regard to aerodynamic performance (despite some questionable backyard engineering to keep front wing located... one might suggest karma delivered on as much in AutoX II with a demonstrated failure between man, car and wheel).

Monash University, whilst not significantly changing their package from last year, presented a completely different take on aerodynamics. The quantity of their presented effort - in terms of what went from concept to delivery - was significantly lesser, however the quality of work presented was considerably deeper than in 2103. Those graduating will take with them some significant learnings from this year's work (that will serve well in careers moving forwards), and leave an impressive legacy in what questions to ask, what processes to apply, what considerations are of note. If I were a competitor asking after anything (and the team seems quite friendly/approachable), ask after the processes, not the wing CAD (2015 rule changes notwithstanding).

Some entrants didn't feature complete packages however showed a particularly deep understanding of some issues; a particular highlight was University of Sydney's 'radiatorologist'... I've read Masters' theses on cooling with a lesser command of radiator implementation that this guy. Very impressive.

The hurt locker (AKA some helpful hints and observations):

A few teams took on advice from last year, which was positive and duly rewarded. A few didn't, which makes our job easier but not as enjoyable for the teams concerned.

Two presentations got bogged down in justifying last-minute changes to vehicles when something unexpected happened (despite some serious attempts from the judges to steer it otherwise). I'd ask you all to consider simply admitting the gap up front, but talking about what could and should have been. In both cases there was clearly some knowledge underneath a subterfuge of trying to pull a fast one over the judges with some questionable science (we weren't fooled).

Three teams opened with the equivalent of suggesting they had little to present because their dog ate their homework - you won't be eligible for a perfect score without something built and validated, but you can still get a respectable-to-great score for demonstrating understanding even if none of it makes it to the car for any number of resourcing issues. If you don't build aerodynamic considerations into your design processes, you won't have anything to present at the Design Event. As with any part of the car, Design Event is just a show of what you went through to get the car we have in front of judges on the day - if you don't consider aero for the majority of the prior 364 days, don't expect to score brilliantly on the 365th.

To those that suggested they didn't focus on aero because it wasn't important, please remember that cars don't drive in a vacuum, your engines (if IC) will only compress what pressures are available after losses (start with BMEP=...), your electrons will only take you so far (if EV) if you're wasting them doing something else. Not being able to measure something (for time, resources, noise, any reason) is no excuse for not applying basic science to at least make for a directionally correct effort. At a basic level engines and batteries aren't really unlike us - lithium ion likes similar temperatures to humans, and a few might consider that if they'd consider trying to breathe in a separated region aside a strong wind, that their engines - needing a good deal more air - might also perform sub-optimally if their air intakes were so installed.

A few teams were still a little unconvinced that their efforts to generate downforce was somehow more relevant in a corner than when in a straight line. One team got the cornering bit right, but didn't rotate wheels, move a ground plane, pitch/roll the car or steer wheels, and effectively developed a car around a condition not usually achieved un practice unless a Marvel superhero were to throw a car perfectly across a broadly frictionless surface at constant yaw with a driver in it... who inexplicably required downforce.

Much confusion about CoP and CoG relations, however two teams identified a need to tame the CoP migration, and one actually showed an attempt to design this in.

The number of teams able to identify how a gurney flap worked increased from 0 (2013) to 2 (2014).

The number of teams able to identify turbulence model boundary conditions (e.g. able to put some sense against their CFD models) increased from 1 (2013) to 4 (2014).

No team has yet made an attempt to change the shape of their car (hint hint) to make it easier to mesh, and accordingly make CFD considerably more painless and realistic.

No team was able to explain why they'd use the adjustment they had in their wing flaps.

One team suggested that CFD can't model separation well... well then.... why use it / how come an entire industry uses it for just this / why not just admit your limitations here and get onto what you did to get around them / etc.

Consider what CFD is used for; two teams discovered that modelling bluff objects in front of cooling ducts (to simulate effects of e.g. wishbones, pull/pushrods, coilovers etc) made a surprising difference to cooling flows in accordance with "if I put something in front of it that blocks airflow... (mega CFD later) it'll block airflow", but used CFD no further to take what was a obvious baseline and iterate further to a more ideal solution. Don't undertake considerable work for something that's obvious! If you're benchmarking the degree to which an effect relative to a usage condition, that's OK - then use that to move further forwards.

Six teams complained about limited CFD resources - I'll write what was said last year - cloud-based solutions exist and are inexpensive, however not having a tunnel or mega CFD are neither yet impediments to winning aero (not currently by a long way)

DRS implementations were similar and crude. Consider what's happening to the car here beyond lift and drag.

A surprising number of teams didn't understand wing theory sufficiently to understand whether or not they wanted their wings stalled or otherwise.

One team didn't understand multi-element wing theory enough, and arrived with three wings bounded by endplates rather than a triple-element wing, however insisted it was the latter. This should have been picked up earlier.

The team with the best surface finish on their wings (and it was awesome)... had it on the wrong side.

We saw some startling consistency between team with diffusers generating <10kg of load at 60km/h and nose geometry generating likely the same amount in lift... get the basics right! There's no excuse for a front end that doesn't respect what the car needs to do - go fast.

We had one team insist "yeah it's like this for looks" (down from 3 in 2013) - get it right, fast cars look good - not the other way around.

One team made an honest attempt to move the CoP down usefully though didn't master keeping their rear wing functional, particularly in yaw, making for some interesting performance on track (this particular car has great potential however).

A consistent number of teams to 2013 (8) insisted that their radiator worked "because we've never overheated" when asked "how much heat are you rejecting here". This is a university competition, not a trade competition - start with science. Admittedly the design loads stated varied from 2kW to 44kW... the latter was for a ~45kW engine, which we suggested might make an interesting starting discussion point for anticipated fuel consumption/overall engine efficiency, giving rise to "hang on that's gotta be wrong! Can you ask me that again?" (A second chance was granted)...

Only two teams using wings could explain why, from first principles/wing theory, they'd chosen the elements they'd actually used. Insisting that profile x was developed for racing... is not a reason.

Only two teams had some smarts implemented concerning pressure relations either side of the radiator in the duct. Remember, if this doesn't exist, air will not move.

Anecdotally a surprising number of team captains seem to have difficulty believing that the overall speed and reliability of their vehicles is not in any way directly related to the medium it drives through. I would suggest reconsidering such a legacy.

Casual discussions outside of judging with many students allocated to aerodynamics development haven't read any texts on as much. Two had bought Katz (presumably because it has "racing" and "aerodynamics" in the title) but not actually read it. Get a copy of Hucho, and read, and learn. Stand on the shoulders of giants to take in the view, see the lie of the land, and then make your own original contribution. Scott Wordley read and researched to start a revolution in just one area of applicable Formula SAE aerodynamics some ten years ago now, and it's within your power to be just as original, to learn just as much, and to move the game forwards just as significantly - let legacy of prior work be more about a process than a package.

This is all I can remember for now.

GTS

12-14-2014, 06:51 PM

Conclusions

The winner of the competition did not have what I'd consider the best aerodynamic package at competition (though very, very close), though they certainly had the best research and totality of understanding relevant to the problem by a significant margin (being the significant gain from 2013 - it really will be an impressive legacy if heeded). This isn't noted to slight what is a very significant achievement, more to point out that there's more than one way to skin a cat (which is a proverb, and I in no way wish to slight cats... I have two... Still very much living and with fur intact…).

Despite the gloom of the current state of the automotive and racing industries in Australia, we've got some serious potential professional aeros among the crowd. Please don't let the current state of available grad employment dismay you. There are more than a handful of you at this 2014 event that (assuming you like the aero work you were doing) really should pursue a career in it. There's seriously promising (and deservedly earned) talent among you.

As per my usual vested interest to see Australasian (yes New Zealanders, this includes you) engineers continue a strong legacy of being over-represented in high-level fluids/aero work globally beyond university careers, if you want to bounce a few thoughts around after comp, get in touch.

#farewelldownforce?... #welcomeoriginality grounded in first principles, delivered, validated and iteratively further developed. For those that embrace the change - it'll be a best chance to really shine in years - you'll grow a commodity that'll serve you epically beyond these competitions.

Hope to hear from a few of you soon; should a return invite and my availability align, see you all next year.

Rex Chan

12-15-2014, 06:37 AM

Great coverage, really enjoyed the live streaming! Z, are you gonna be at the drivers' swap day? I remember a great thread from a couple of years back with excellent commentary from drivers on other teams' cars, any chance to repeat sth like that?

I took videos of our fastest driver (Andrew Gunn-Melbourne uni) giving feedback on Woolongong, Curtin, Sydney.

Will post links to YouTube if the team/Gunny are ok with it 😀😀

mech5496

12-15-2014, 09:57 AM

Great Rex, that would be awesome, thanks! It would also be interesting if others chime in. I am quite interested in UQ's car handling and comments....

Mitchell

12-15-2014, 03:40 PM

Our car only completed a few laps before a critical suspension part failed. We actually have had a pretty unreliable car this year with many testing days cut short. We only just managed to limp through endurance. This was mostly due to teething issues with nearly a whole car full of new components, the only parts carried over from 2013 are the engine, wheels, steering wheel, shocks and radiator.

General reception of our car was great with many teams having a very close look. The simplicity and weight of the rear beam impressed alot of people and the mode separated suspension recieved alot of positive feedback. Drew from Monash had a few laps and his main notes related to ergonomics, once I have the full report I will post it here or maybe he will.

Our whole team is extremely happy with our results, we beat alot of cars that made very minor changes and finished every event. Two beam axles in the top 5, I will guess that we will see more in coming years. This concept has alot more pace in it and I believe the team will be focusing on an iteration for next year and a major focus on driver training in the 2014 car.

Tonks

12-15-2014, 09:37 PM

Daniel, if I am correct, there are always 2 Endurances in Australia and the faster one counts. Don't know if it is just speed or "best combined scoring in Endurance + Efficiency".
So if you DNF once, you can still score Endurance points. Would be nice for e-Cars in Europe ;)

I read somewhere that the track was ~ 1.2km long.

Track was 1.6km long. 9 laps per driver. As lap times were so long, the 145% time for efficiency was somewhere near 120s which allowed all the field to be considered for efficiency scoring. Also, endurance is based on times only, not the combination of endurance and efficiency.

It is pretty good running two enduro's. You should come down under and try it some time ;)

12-15-2014, 10:56 PM

Monday - Driver Swap Day, and Concluding Notes.
===================================

So, the "nine hours in the saddle" was closer to fifteen, thanks to a short detour to Oakleigh Go-Karts for the Driver Swap Day yesterday, and ... Melbourne traffic!!! :(.

Nevertheless, the DSD is undoubtedly the most educational part of this whole competition, IMO. I strongly suggest more Oz Teams get along to these, and overseas Teams should consider something similar. The two main benefits are peer-to-peer criticism of your car from other Teams' best drivers, and the opportunity to experience first-hand the performance of the other cars.

MORE PLEASE! :)

(Looking forward to the write-ups...)
~o0o~

Further to Mitchell's comments on the UQ car, it is worth noting that after their DNF'd Enduro 1 (ie. due to a wiring failure unrelated to the suspension), the car broke its R&P mounts just before half-way through E2. The breakage was not terminal, but meant that the second driver had very sloppy steering throughout his stint, with the rack-BJs randomly catching on the bodywork. So estimated -5 seconds per lap...

I have to give high praise to Mitchell and the whole UQ Team for the very calm way they handled all their problems. There is an apt quote about "... when all around you are losing their heads...".

(And I now have another post-it note on the pile on my desk reminding me to do some sketches explaining various issues discussed with various students regarding the UWA/UQ "Quad-Beam" style cars (I think Geoff coined that term). Err..., maybe January++...? One main thing to point out now is that during hard cornering the central Roll-Mode-U-Bar can carry the whole weight of the car, or more. So ~300 kg going through its links. So NO pretty little aluminium lever arms with a hole drilled into the most highly stressed section... But more later.)
~o0o~

Further regarding "calmness under pressure", I would like Swinburne to know that I spent a long time living in an entirely solar powered house, and will again shortly, after current sale goes through. Also travelled to Darwin in early 1990s to see one of the first Across-Oz solar races. But those things are powered by a very conveniently located nuclear fusion reactor, ONE HUNDRED MILLION MILES AWAY! I am not so fond of cars powered by coal-fired steam-engines, especially when they CANNOT take me to town and back.

Nevertheless, if they want Delft and Zurich looking over their shoulders, then the same big-picture rules apply to E-cars as C-cars. So, KEEP CALM HEADS, and think about a "constant speed around track, brown-go-kart-with-aero-undertray", albeit powered by coal-smoke. And see other notes below.
~o0o~

After much argy-bargy and long-winded official letters going to and fro, the Design scores were eventually sorta-scaled upwards, with Monash ending up with 144, and bottom placed JCU at 79. So somewhat of a back-down from the Officials, but two pages of weasel-words on their Official letter explaining why they had NOT BACKED DOWN AT ALL.

Ahh..., who said that FSAE is not Mini-F1!?
~o0o~

And did you hear that your faithful correspondent got to shake Claude's hand? But that was only BEFORE names were exchanged. (NO hand-shaking during later photo op!) A cordial but all too brief discussion followed where Claude, if I understood him correctly, suggested that his advice to Teams would be to steer well clear of Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers. Given the notes below, perhaps you students can ask him to expand on his opinions at his upcoming seminar. (See, Claude, free advertising! :))
~o0o~

SOME "HOW TO GO FASTER" NOTES - A lot to be said, but keeping it focussed.

* DASDs - This year five Teams used Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers. To restress this, five Teams have now abandoned Push/PullRods&Rockers. In the Overall Ranking, these Teams came 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ..., 5th, 6th. The hole in that list was filled by Melbourne at 4th, who, as noted earlier, had an effectively rigid suspension. Certainly, there was no visible movement, and their "bouncing on the tyres" in Skid-Pad suggested no effective damping. So their F-PullRod/R-PushRod&Rockers were not doing much.

Importantly, the above is NOT a conclusive argument that DASDs are a huge advantage. Those cars achieved their good results for a whole host of other reasons. But the above does give a good case that DASDs are NOT A DISADVANTAGE. That statement is a double-negative, so technically it says nothing. But it is worth thinking about... (And yes, there are real advantages!)

* ERGO - This is one of the biggest ingredients to winning (or losing!) the competition, but perhaps the most overlooked. Hopefully, more comments from the Driver Swap reports.

* THE LOST ART OF SUBLIME BRACKETRY - These cars are just a collection of brackets. I saw very few good brackets at the comp, and far too many poor ones. Wheel-centres are a good example, and most were very poor. ECU's "Wubs", and one other (sorry, can't remember who), were good.

It seems that the introduction of calculators created a generation who cannot do sums, spellcheckers => generation who cannot spell, and FEA => generation of young engineers who cannot do good structural design.

I have said this before, but your best teacher here is Nature. Easiest is to go look at trees. If you want to do some really high level studies, then I suggest a trip to your local Museum, and find the "Bone Room" and spend a long time in there. The bones are usually hooked-up in their skeleton configuration, so you must try to image where all the muscles connect, and where all the major loads go, etc...

* VEHICLE DYNAMICS - Big subject, so very, very briefly.

Forget about calculating the car's Under-Oversteer Handling Balance in a steady-state corner. THERE ARE NONE! (Well, you might do some calcs to please the Design Judges, but don't kid yourself that these will make your car faster.) Most of FS/FSAE "cornering behaviour" is, in fact, dominated by longitudinal-load transfers, and even more so by the engine "lighting-up" the rear tyres.

So, other than choosing the most appropriate tyres, and having them all point in the right direction (ie. no wonky compliances), and not considering Aero just now, here is what will make your car faster VD-wise.

Acceleration - You all need MORE R%! Also more anti-squat, and a good driveline package (ie. enough power, but mostly a good clutch+++).

Skid-Pad - The right Ackermann at front, right toe-settings at rear, and smooth torque modulation from the engine, in the range of 0 - 10% of maximum (ie. with throttle barely cracked open).

AutoX and Enduro - Again, MORE R%!!! And less Yaw-Inertia. All these cars will go a lot faster if they can turn into the corners faster, and then use their abundant power better when coming out of the slow to mid-speed corners. There is far too much rear-wheel spinning in the slower sections, always accompanied by glacially slow forward progress.

This has not changed since the first comp I saw a dozen years ago, and is a direct result of the never-changing fashion of building (almost) every new car with the "ideal" ~50:50 weight distribution. <= WRONG!

However, note that going to more R% for AX and E will also mean having to have lighter and quicker steering that has greater lock (ie. the front-wheels should steer through greater angles). This is because on a track with close-to-Rules-spec hairpins, such as this Oz-14, most cars struggle to get around the tighter corners without a bit of rear tail-slide. Adding a lot more positive Ackermann will help here too. This is all achievable with simple but well-designed "bracketry".

I personally think the non-winged Auckland car would have won this comp if it had a bit more R%.
~o0o~

Finally, huge thanks to the "Geoff and Kev Commentary Team"! Much, much better than that semi-professional wannabe wanker! Next time, more vox-pops from the G&K Team, please! And you students should get your speeches ready before G&K come around. It could be the start of a whole new career for you. :)

Z

GTS

12-16-2014, 12:31 AM

After much argy-bargy and long-winded official letters going to and fro, the Design scores were eventually sorta-scaled upwards, with Monash ending up with 144, and bottom placed JCU at 79. So somewhat of a back-down from the Officials, but two pages of weasel-words on their Official letter explaining why they had NOT BACKED DOWN AT ALL.

"Weasel-words"?

Not true at all.

The request - to rescale to the maximum 150 for the 2014 and all future FSAE-A events - was not met. The letter stated the rationale for the choice, how it is applied and what is to happen in future quite clearly.

Consider that the rules state that discretionary ranking and accepting/respecting judges' decisions as final are all part of rules agreed to by competing. That the intent of the competition is to best prepare students for a professional life beyond it, and that the competition is run by very-well-intended professionals volunteering time - much of which is unseen beyond the event itself, and some of which is presently ongoing.

Please have a little respect for the judges and officials in a public forum.

DMuusers

12-16-2014, 06:33 AM

Track was 1.6km long. 9 laps per driver.

This can't be true. 1.6 km*18 laps = 28.8km which is way too long for an endurance. It's either 1.2 km (which adds to about 22 km) or there were fewer laps. If there were fewer laps and it was still 1.6km then the average speed of the fastest cars was around 77 km/h (assuming 75 seconds a lap which i read earlier in this thread). If it was 1.2 km assuming 75 seconds a lap the best average speed was around 58 km/h, which seems more reasonable. Unfortunately there aren't any times posted on the FSAE-A website (yet).

mech5496

12-16-2014, 08:46 AM

Z thanks for the comments! I agree that both Kev and Geoff were great, I saw almost the entire streaming session and it was great! Please PLEASE repeat it next year! Mitchell thanks for the insight, that makes your achievement even more impressive! I expect great things from such concepts in the future! Keep the DS comments coming guys!

Marshall Grice

12-16-2014, 10:36 AM

This can't be true. 1.6 km*18 laps = 28.8km which is way too long for an endurance. It's either 1.2 km (which adds to about 22 km) or there were fewer laps. If there were fewer laps and it was still 1.6km then the average speed of the fastest cars was around 77 km/h (assuming 75 seconds a lap which i read earlier in this thread). If it was 1.2 km assuming 75 seconds a lap the best average speed was around 58 km/h, which seems more reasonable. Unfortunately there aren't any times posted on the FSAE-A website (yet).

that distance is in reference to the driver swap day course, not the competition endurance course.

Rex Chan

12-16-2014, 03:12 PM

This can't be true. 1.6 km*18 laps = 28.8km which is way too long for an endurance. It's either 1.2 km (which adds to about 22 km) or there were fewer laps. If there were fewer laps and it was still 1.6km then the average speed of the fastest cars was around 77 km/h (assuming 75 seconds a lap which i read earlier in this thread). If it was 1.2 km assuming 75 seconds a lap the best average speed was around 58 km/h, which seems more reasonable. Unfortunately there aren't any times posted on the FSAE-A website (yet).

In the second Monash enduro, Chris Heath ended up lapping in 1:19.xx seconds. In first enduro, Melbourne did 1.19.xx to 1.25.xx laps. I think 1.2km is the correct distance.

Tonks

12-16-2014, 05:40 PM

Ah! I apologise, the track was ~1.2km. Sorry about that, my error. Not sure where I got the 1.6km from

ChristianChalliner

12-16-2014, 08:01 PM

GTS - I'm not an 'aero guy' per say but your posts with regards to various concepts and the shortfalls in design i find very interesting, particularly with regards to the ideas that you should still know the effects even if you aren't running wings. It's something i keep saying to our 'bodywork' guy but it never gets through!

Still, i find your reports interesting and it's made me think more about aero, i've also invested in a copy of Hucho to get a bit more of an insight.

Lastly, i hope the livestream is ran next year and for other competitions, i had a great time watching and discussing ideas/concepts with others and i think i gained a lot from it. As i said on there at the time it would be good to meet you all at a competition and have a beer or two if we're ever at the same comp :)

Christian

GTS

12-16-2014, 08:09 PM

Christian, the other judge at comp (Kalliope) is even more vigilant on bodywork design!

Hucho's a cracking read and more importantly it lists its references very well, so if students want to read more, it's a great starting point.

If you push the Aus comp organizers I understand there's an effort underway to have judges etc possibly available via video throughout the year, with a Q&A type thing available for review by teams. I think it's a good idea! Maybe something others could add suggestions to, and some idea of how it should be facilitated.

Failing (or additional to) this, a beer or three is good too :D

12-16-2014, 08:24 PM

...I have to give high praise to Mitchell and the whole UQ Team for the very calm way they handled all their problems. There is an apt quote about "... when all around you are losing their heads...".

"If..."
=====
(Rudyard Kipling)

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Z

MCoach

12-17-2014, 12:10 AM

This could have wider implications, but one thing I wish was broadcast was the design review of the finalists/winners. If this is supposed to be an engineering competition that encourages everyone to learn, then I'd place equal importance on the review compared to the actual cars running, even if less exciting. The review always goes over the pros and cons of the information shared by those students who presented the car and where they could improve and where they excel. I know making note of attending the review at every competition I've been to has made me re-consider how much I don't know of what I don't know. Just being aware that (for example) CoP migration can be a concern instills me with a with a will to seek how out large of a concern, what factors may aggravate this concern, and if there are larger fish to fry before becoming tripped up on details of my possible CoP migration.

The posts like that from GTS I highly value. Thank you!

There are a few videos on Youtube recorded by students, and Claude at several competitions gives some of the best feedback. Bill Riley also gives some depth to help. There's a reason these are done publicly at competitions, I just think it should be a little more public if possible!

Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6-sr8D6WPU

Jonny Rochester

12-17-2014, 04:34 AM

It has been an epic week. I'm home now after sailing on the ship last night with the truck (and UTAS car hidden under camping gear).

Our team is on a high after full participation in endurance, both rounds. We came 14th overall, came 3rd in fuel efficiency (as a side effect of low power), and we won the CAMS award.

Jonny Rochester

12-17-2014, 05:05 AM

We did some late lights in the preceding weeks/days and somehow got the car together with a tiny bit of testing, however we had not yet bought new tyres. It was mostly bits of sticky tape, some aluminium sheet and a few rivets that got us through scrutineering.

Acceleration and skidpan was a very poor result because of poor tyres, but we could hardly believe we were entering dynamic events and progressing through the comp.

I suited up for autocross but our engine locked up during practice. The short story is, I thought that was the end, I got a bit emotional. But our faculty adviser helped pull some strings and with some spare parts magically appearing and the keys to the Monash workshop, myself and 6 other UTAS students did an all nighter and fixed the car. (Engine out on bench, etc.) Thanks also to the Canterbury guys using the same building that had a similar engine, and gave good advice.

So with 2 hours sleep, I suit up for endurance. And all at the same time, Wollongong give us newish tyres! (Which we had to change on the ground with tyre levers and soap). Despite having to suit up myself, I see about 5 guys from various teams trying to change our tyres without success, so I had to show them how to do it. With so much stuff going on at once driving endurance was a struggle. I probably hit too many cones for it to count. But we looked after the car and our afternoon drivers had a change to watch the videos of the course, and they got a result for us.

Maybe 1.5 or 1.7kg of fuel?

Our car has very heavy steering. Power feels good, but I havn't driven the other cars.

We missed autocross, but still a bit emotional to finish both endurance runs, despite the score or hitting cones.

Also, we came 11th in design. I was in the pits answering questions the whole time in design. I don't know what our other team members said or how it was judged.

Jonny Rochester

12-17-2014, 05:09 AM

The after party, and after after party back at the campsite... I doubt anything will be said about this on a public forum, but you can imagine if Dr Wordly did a shirt swap with Maddie Tonks it would be very tight! The dress he was wearing didn't help either.

Tim.Wright

12-17-2014, 05:43 AM

[B] ... A cordial but all too brief discussion followed where Claude, if I understood him correctly, suggested that his advice to Teams would be to steer well clear of Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers.

Really??

Tim

GTS

12-17-2014, 06:04 AM

The posts like that from GTS I highly value. Thank you!

There are a few videos on Youtube recorded by students, and Claude at several competitions gives some of the best feedback.

Anytime. Any suggestions you (or anyone else) can put together about judges/industry might contribute in a more structured way throughout the course of the year would go a long way.

Claude is spot on with a lot, particularly on team culture.

mech5496

12-17-2014, 07:41 AM

mdavis

12-17-2014, 09:17 AM

A cordial but all too brief discussion followed where Claude, if I understood him correctly, suggested that his advice to Teams would be to steer well clear of Direct-Acting-Spring-Dampers.

Z

That's funny, since he told us in Canada 2013 that he felt a team could win with DASD's (which Monash has clearly shown to be true).

This could have wider implications, but one thing I wish was broadcast was the design review of the finalists/winners. If this is supposed to be an engineering competition that encourages everyone to learn, then I'd place equal importance on the review compared to the actual cars running, even if less exciting. The review always goes over the pros and cons of the information shared by those students who presented the car and where they could improve and where they excel. I know making note of attending the review at every competition I've been to has made me re-consider how much I don't know of what I don't know. Just being aware that (for example) CoP migration can be a concern instills me with a with a will to seek how out large of a concern, what factors may aggravate this concern, and if there are larger fish to fry before becoming tripped up on details of my possible CoP migration.

The posts like that from GTS I highly value. Thank you!

There are a few videos on Youtube recorded by students, and Claude at several competitions gives some of the best feedback. Bill Riley also gives some depth to help. There's a reason these are done publicly at competitions, I just think it should be a little more public if possible!

Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6-sr8D6WPU

This. All of this.

Anytime. Any suggestions you (or anyone else) can put together about judges/industry might contribute in a more structured way throughout the course of the year would go a long way.

Claude is spot on with a lot, particularly on team culture.

Steve Fox has an SAE seminar in the US where he will come to a University to give a presentation to teams. SAE funds the trip, and he sat down with our team leadership for breakfast. Unfortunately, his flight arrangements didn't allow more detailed design review, but he was very frank about project goals/undertakings (maybe to the point of gruff, but I didn't think it was bad) and changed our minds about some things that we had been set on doing. We were only able to have a small amount of discussion with him at Lincoln 2013 after that talk, but that may have been our problem for not seeking him out at competitions to close the feedback loop from his visit. That would make a pretty good starting point, if Australia (and other countries) wanted to do something similar.

-Matt

Jonny Rochester

12-17-2014, 05:04 PM

I don't think the Australasia comp has a design finals part. The teams are just judged individually. I was not aware of any public address from the judges about the design of the cars. Let me know if there was, I would be interested.

So far, I only know of the design score as a single number.

12-17-2014, 06:35 PM

... I was not aware of any public address from the judges about the design of the cars...

I was also hoping to see a "Design Review" by all the Judges at the end of this comp, but nothing... Last year there was a very general one, but not relating to any specific cars.

Given the supposed educational nature of the comp, such Design reviews should be the most central part of the whole show. Not much point doing an exam and then NOT being told what parts you got right or wrong. No learning there.

So maybe the DJs can provide a short written review of all the cars here? Please? :)

Or maybe just a list of outstandingly good features on some given cars, and another list of shocking design errors from "...you know who you are!".

Anyway, the Driver Swap reports provide really useful feedback. Perhaps even better than DJ reviews, because they are based on the actual performance of the car on track.
~o0o~

Regarding Claude and DASDs, I interpreted a rapid sideways oscillation of his head, together with words to the effect of "I would no advise...", as a general disapproval of the idea.

But only one person can conclusively clear this up. Claude???

Z

MCoach

12-17-2014, 06:42 PM

GTS

12-17-2014, 06:58 PM

A bit of this is going to be venue-specific for FSAE-A, unfortunately. The organisation this year didn't delve into where people stayed and Calder Park didn't leave the option to gather all around >5PM to review the cars. A place to do the review on a Friday night fell through, and only three of us DJ's were available to do it at the campsite on Saturday night. It should be standardised next year though this would have been a general feedback session akin to 2013 (though with better acoustics). Thus some of this will depend on where the event is held. There are a few other ideas being floated (e.g. staffed translators etc, running the cars through 4 DE meets in sequence, etc).

A 'top x' review might be ideal.

I'm happy to review the cars as I remember them though frankly there were 16 judges/8 areas and they're not all represented here - I would suggest most would want feedback from other areas - however, most can be reached through the SAE throughout the year, indeed a number of teams got in touch with me throughout the year, and at this event a number asked for contact details. Maybe this should be formalised.

For those that saw the DE judging forms (or that have reviewed their feedback), is it sufficient? (Bearing in mind we have ~10 minutes to write and transcribe it).

I'd add that his much is out of step with limiting Design Event to 150 points (from 200).

I wouldn't suggest the driver swap isn't valuable, though I'd similarly not suggest that it's more valuable than the Design Event in the same context.

Tonks

12-17-2014, 07:28 PM

Jonny, I don't know if the Australasia competition actually does it. I would hope so. If not, that's my first suggestion to do is for that to be held next year.

In other competitions, after the top 3 designs are selected, the feedback that is normally provided individually to teams is given publicly to the top 3 as shown in my linked video.

This used to be the case, however because Australia has such a small field in 2013 it was introduced to have one set of judges that go around and judge all the cars. This meant there were no discrepancies between area judges and negated the need for design finals. It also meant that more areas/systems are analysed (ie project management, more area specific details, testing/validation) and presented before the judges, and included more team members to show that the collective team knew their stuff rather than 6 individuals. It is something that Geoff Pearson (aka Big Bird) introduced and I believe is working quite well in terms of being able to 'strut your stuff' (for lack of thought for a better description) and show what your team has learnt.

A description on how the design event is now run in Oz is here: http://www.saea.com.au/rules-and-downloads - the Australian addendum links to the event handbook (Part B is the design event details)

Big Bird

12-17-2014, 07:49 PM

Jonny, I don't know if the Australasia competition actually does it. I would hope so. If not, that's my first suggestion to do is for that to be held next year.

In other competitions, after the top 3 designs are selected, the feedback that is normally provided individually to teams is given publicly to the top 3 as shown in my linked video.

One of the reasons for the new Design Event format was so that the Saturday night could be used as an open Design Review and Event Review session. Maybe 2-3 hours long, vox popping various judges and team members to discuss designs, event preparations, officials feedback, etc. The idea was that this would be of mre benefit to the students than locking four design finalists and the senior design judges away behind closed doors.

The opportunity hasn't been utilized yet.

A major problem has been getting design judges to commit to two days in a row. Might be an idea for next year to sign up judges who can only work both days.

MCoach

12-17-2014, 08:10 PM

Thank for filling me in, Madeleine.

The gist of structure seems sound, so hats off to our friend Geoff. I'm not necessary looking for a re-presentation of the selected top cars to the judges. I think with as few of entries that exist in Oz, it's a fair system but I could sway either way on it. However, the feedback part is really what I'd like to see. I think by pointing out the highs and lows as GTS has done helps promote consciousness among the competitors of the topics and methods that may otherwise go unnoticed, both good and bad, of those on top.

I think if we didn't have Pat Clarke around constantly reminding everyone of bad engineering practices we would certainly see many more poorly inspired cars with features such as rod ends in bending and poorer ergonomics. The same goes for the opposite end of the spectrum. We know what a bad example looks like (Thank you, Pat!), what about the good examples? That's what I'm getting at.

Big Bird

12-17-2014, 10:09 PM

Fully agreed MCoach. Examples of good design need to be demonstrated to the teams, along with the rationale for them being good design. This is not so the designs can be copied, but rather so that the students might gain an understanding of the underlying mental engagement of a good engineering designer.
Typically, when we criticize, we point out the faults. This is a fair thing. But fault-finding alone only leaves the student with a growing list of things not to do. Creativity is a positive process, so we need to engage the students with what is good design too. As such, I fully agree with the idea of a design critique of the best cars

GTS

12-17-2014, 10:47 PM

How do we do this and best promote originality? There's a lot of me-too up and down the grid... which is not what FSAE is about!

There's plenty of career outside of university to take safer bets in :D

Big Bird

12-17-2014, 11:29 PM

max_ger

12-18-2014, 01:55 AM

For those that saw the DE judging forms (or that have reviewed their feedback), is it sufficient? (Bearing in mind we have ~10 minutes to write and transcribe it).

I highly recommend giving judging forms to the Teams! We were lucky enough to get extensive Feedback from our DJ Team at FSG14, but the judging form was already a good thing. It was also good for the judges when they where discussing our design after the design Event. Many design decisions of our new car were driven by the short Feedback on the judging form. Bonus: There were bad AND good things listed!

Edit: The forms were filled in during the judging process.

Jonny Rochester

12-18-2014, 03:28 AM

One reason I would be interested in how the judges judged design, is that Monash won again with the same car. In my small mind, I did not expect Monash could win with the exact same design, but I was wrong. Maybe any of the top 15 teams could have won design with the cars they had, with the result determined by how smart the team are at answering questions during judging. It would be interesting to hear those answers, not that I'm expecting we would or should. I maybe showing my ignorance, not sure. I know Monash have simulators to predict competition results, and they target that, and have the resources to micro-manage the comp complete with leaders stationed around the place complete with radios and ear pieces.

But, if we design a car for the weekend autocrosser, should it take 30 people to look after? A good design should be a bit more robust that that surely. A good design would be a turn-key car that can be managed at at event with only 1 or 2 people. But dynamics are after design in the comp, and I'm not suggesting it be changed. Just something to think about.

Rex Chan

12-18-2014, 04:11 AM

Hi Jonny,

It's been a while since I was really into FSAE and how the comp works, so this may be out of date:

The stated aim of FSAE is to design something for the weekend autox-er, but as student engineers, if the aim is to win comp, then we'll do everything within the rules to win. Of course, every teams goals are different.

I've heard the simple weekend track car vs. high techy min-F1 thing a lot. I think a high-tech car *would* be easy for 1 person to run on a typical autox weekend. It's just that we aim to win/drive really fast. And for that, you need more people. Race series of all levels have teams behind them at race weekends, do they not? It's just that autox-ing seems to be a more individual effort (hill-climbs in Australia).

Regarding design, I think one just needs to understand why the car designed the way it was. Being able to justify/explain why something was done.

Further, I'm sure most teams will tell you how/why they designed almsot any bit on their car, if they have the time. It's how I learnt most of the stuff I know about FSAE :D

GTS

12-18-2014, 05:08 AM

One reason I would be interested in how the judges judged design, is that Monash won again with the same car. In my small mind, I did not expect Monash could win with the exact same design, but I was wrong.

There were small differences however you've a valid point - it's very difficult to police too. To be fair to Monash, they weren't the only team appearing with barely-evolutionary to damn-near-identical designs to prior year/s. Maybe the other judges could chime in, in aero at least the presentation was significantly different to the year prior. Not so the car, however the students involved were considerably richer for the experience, which is the ultimate intent. By the tenant of the rules it flew a little close to the wire in execution. That's just my little realm however, and the scores weren't consistent.

How to police it? Should we? I kinda like BB's innovation prize.

A good design would be a turn-key car that can be managed at at event with only 1 or 2 people. But dynamics are after design in the comp, and I'm not suggesting it be changed. Just something to think about.

That's the intent. I'd be keen to see the Design Event occupy a higher proportion of overall score.

GTS

12-18-2014, 05:37 AM

I've heard the simple weekend track car vs. high techy min-F1 thing a lot.

Just to be clear - there's very little mini-F1 about a Formula SAE car (at least none at FSAE-A). The competition's rationale is very different, the resources (esp. skill sets involved) are very different, the project aims are very different. Optional wings, four wheels and independent suspension do not an F1 synonym make.

Consider that to develop a competition bicycle in a student team environment would be a very complicated and contested space. Formula SAE throws students a considerably more complex project by way of lending a scope very likely to exceed any resource budget, and it does so very deliberately. A team then needs to make choices in a very deliberate manner. It's a competition of project management and delivery in a group environment.

It is also, very strictly, not a race event. Formula SAE cars do not race, and the competition is not a race.

I wouldn't be a rush to learn from other teams to that degree. Observe, understand, apply logic and critique. The last bits are the most important. There is too much to copy that's poorly done or poorly understood by its creators, and that's OK, so long as monkey-see-monkey-do attitudes aren't employed. This is a key problem the design judges were cringing over. We need to incentivise original thought; there used to be more of it. There's plenty on the top cars that's less-than-not-ideal, just as there was last year, the year before that, etc. If not for a sharp forthcoming change in rules (I can only speak for aero to this end), we'd see it on next year's cars just because it's on the top car this year. That's not science nor smart.

We need to incentivise original thought.

(\\rant over)

Pete Marsh

12-18-2014, 08:32 AM

You've touched a raw nerve here Jonny!

I won't hijack this thread (much), perhaps this issue should have it's own, but if you want to know why it is the way it is, just look at the treatment UWAM '12 got! The first car to present a new and genuinely innovative suspension design in recent history, shunned as troublemakers and cheaters by people I used to respect! That is what you get if you stray too far from THEIR idea of an FSAE car.

Many schools and teams strive to win the event, and the recipe that is REWARDED consistently at all the events is long term iterative development with strong and consistent (and skilled) faculty guidance. This is what is required to win in FSAE, simple reality. It is so very true FSAE is a primarily project management competition, but the amount and autonomy of the management being done by students (that turn over each year) varies widely throughout the competition teams.

I am perhaps uniquely qualified to comment on this issue, as I have been with the team through the highs of a World Cup win, to the lows of abject failure, and both types of team structure and philosophy.

I can assure you, going your own way, trying to justify everything on design merit rather than accepted practice, is MUCH harder, but also MUCH more educational. It does not produce points or trophies (or cars) as efficiently.

I'll ask the question of the community, is there a correlation between the successful teams and their cohort career outcomes? Is the quality of student intake and teaching really that much better? Are we rewarding the behaviour that is the desired "ideal"?
I'm not "having a go" at anyone here, just asking the question. At my school, the education is MUCH worse than it once was, and there is little doubt in my mind this has (adversely) affected the teams performance. But is it a competition between students, or schools? It seems to me less than 5% of teams have the structure and resources required to win a comp. What of the members of the other 95%, is their work somehow inferior?

IMO, the comp still achieves great things, but there is little or no connection between educational outcomes and points and trophies for the individual student. In fact I suspect the opposite is the case, that there is more opportunity for the individual to learn and develop in a lesser team. (ie. not World Champ seeking).

I don't think this really matters, as long as you know a lack of trophies does not equate to personal, or educational, failure. Plenty of teams have never won a trophy, but I'm sure they have produced some great engineers.

Pete

JulianH

12-18-2014, 11:49 AM

I'd like to see an innovation bonus, outside of the Design Event. Up to 50 points bonus available for a genuinely innovative design, to be awarded at judges discretion at end of weekend. Maybe up to 25 available for second most innovative. If they are to be awarded, they are announced at final presentation, but locked in before start of Sunday's track activities (so judges can't fudge results at end of weekend - not saying that they would)

I like the idea, but don't think we should further introduce a "subjective part" into the scoring.
Some designs are really interessting but it's not certain if they are "good". Just being innovative for "innovative reason" is not the way to go in my opinion.

One good example: The inner wheels of Delft this year (one of the most innovative features (besides their tires) that I have seen in Europe 2014). I have no idea about gearboxes and so on, so for me it was an awesome idea, they promoted it really good during design judging and a lot of judges (at least at FSA where I was on the dark side) agreed and gave them "innovation points". A couple of others thought it was a good idea but had some flaws and a "standard" design (like Stuttgart or Zurich) would have been the better choice. So what now? Give them the 50 points? Or give them to Stuttgart because they made the right call not to make such a design?

I would like to see a special award for something like that. Make 3-4 categories and give a trophy to the team with "Best Use of Brown Go-Kart methods", give an award for "Most innovative weight reduction without using CFRP" or "Best Bang for the Buck". That's a nice goal for a team that is probably not competing for Overall Victory in my mind.

In Germany/Austria, the "big stack bullies" (Delft, Zurich, Zwickau, Stuttgart, GFR) "grab" all the special awards for most innovative powertrains (of course), best lightweight concept (of course), and so on. Most special awards correlate with "overall performance" which (sadly) correlates strongly with money, resources and so on. I think that could be changed.

GTS

12-18-2014, 02:36 PM

I'll ask the question of the community, is there a correlation between the successful teams and their cohort career outcomes? Is the quality of student intake and teaching really that much better? Are we rewarding the behaviour that is the desired "ideal"?
Pete

No! I've never employed anyone from a winning team. That's not to say that there aren't great graduates on winning teams, just that winning itself does not aid careers.

At my school, the education is MUCH worse than it once was, and there is little doubt in my mind this has (adversely) affected the teams performance. But is it a competition between students, or schools? It seems to me less than 5% of teams have the structure and resources required to win a comp. What of the members of the other 95%, is their work somehow inferior?
Pete

Oh, you missed a phenomenal discussion after design event...

Big Bird

12-18-2014, 03:11 PM

Good morning,
How appropriate Pete chimed in overnight. The UWA suspension interpretation of a couple of years ago was exactly the case I was thinking of when I proposed an innovation bonus.
I cannot remember the judge's reasoning, and I don't think it was ever released publically. But there was a team who genuinely had a go at something innovative, and for their efforts they received a design score of three points. Out of 150. Now to me that sends a message that if you want to be truly innovative, then you need to prepare to sacrifice all for your cause.
I can speak from personal experience too, having been through all this with our early single cylinder cars at RMIT.
I understand that an extra "subjective" points allocation can make some uncomfortable. But the present judging criteria has to tick so many categorical boxes (powertrain, brakes, chassis, innovation, aesthetics, blah, blah etc etc) that innovation just gets swamped. And who wants to risk losing all (a la UWA) for the sake of getting maybe one or two marks difference in Design?

Big Bird

12-18-2014, 03:16 PM

And don't get me started on quality of education. Now there is a red rag to a bull...

Big Bird

12-18-2014, 03:22 PM

Or the state of Australian engineering.
Same angry bull. Now two red rags...

Pat Clarke

12-18-2014, 07:21 PM

Geoff, be fair!

The UWA car got a whole lot more than 3 points from the judges initially.
However, their car was far from complete and so suffered a significant point loss from that.

Then they were penalised for late/non submission of paperwork.

I admit that 3 points, when viewed in isolation looks bad, but there was more to the situation than has been expressed here in several posts over the last couple of years!

When a team bring an unfinished car to the event and have failed to meet the document requirements, the result will be a low score, regardless of how 'innovative' the car may be. UWA in Australia in 2011 is not the first time we have seen that happen.

Cheers

Pat

12-18-2014, 07:26 PM

I'd be keen to see the Design Event occupy a higher proportion of overall score.

GTS,

As Pete and Geoff have hinted at, the last time that happened the car with undoubtedly the most "innovative" chassis/suspension design in the history of FS/FSAE got 3 points out of 200! IMO that single act of Design Judging did more to discourage young Engineers from innovating than any amount of test-track failures.

If you truly want to help produce a better next generation of Engineers, then you must give them a better Education. Simply "incentivising" them with hollow promises of more Design points, when they all know they may well end up with 3/200 (or 1/200?), will only have them doing the same-old same-old, albeit out of carbonfibre-skinned titanium-honeywhatsit.

Education comes from explaining the millions of little details of what works really well, what less so, and what is a guaranteed disaster. All these little details must be repeated over and over again. "Theory" and "practice" must be shown to be constantly affirming each other.

For example, "Now look at this broken wheel-centre for a beautiful practical example of all this fatigue failure theory. See how the stresses from these spokes have...".

Only when good Education is in place will good Innovation follow.

So, once again...

"... maybe the DJs can provide a short written review of all the cars here? Please?
Or maybe just a list of outstandingly good features on some given cars, and another list of shocking design errors ..."

Z

(PS: (Pat just posted.) So, Pat, why have the DJs never made any of that public? How many DE points did UWA-12 actually score, before all those penalties were applied? Do YOU consider their design a good one, and worthy of praise? Would you, or do you, encourage other students to go down that route?)

GTS

12-18-2014, 07:27 PM

Geoff;

How about starting with teams needing to present documentation and drawings for last year's car in addition to the current, with evidence of a proper document control system that dates both correctly? (Or just maybe an end-of-year drawing submission under an NDA etc) to be used to judge contribution against the next?

The whole 'did you run last year's car' issue is not rigorously implemented. I agree that we need to incentivize innovation, to do so we need a presentable baseline. I don't want to see a token "Bosch Award" or similar - I want to see points!

Teams of 60+ running broadly similar cars is... a bit ridiculous and unfairly disadvantages those who try something genuinely new with sound engineering reason. It's also contrary to the spirit of the competition. Have mega teams if the resources can be corralled, sure, but have a mega contribution to show for it. The cry (for those that heard it) as the cost event was called out from the winning team of "so what did we win now?" was unsportsmanlike, arrogant, and most importantly (and relative to what the competition's about) totally missed the point.

This recent notion of weighting dynamic events to a greater degree at the expense of design points is a bit silly unless we're talking teams that can reasonably afford to compete with a consistent effort at more than one competition in a calendar year with regularity. F1 teams get 18-20 races to strut their stuff and still blow it a few times a year, the probability of it happening to a FSAE team is considerably higher.

GTS

12-18-2014, 07:57 PM

GTS,

As Pete and Geoff have hinted at, the last time that happened the car with undoubtedly the most "innovative" chassis/suspension design in the history of FS/FSAE got 3 points out of 200! IMO that single act of Design Judging did more to discourage young Engineers from innovating than any amount of test-track failures.

If you truly want to help produce a better next generation of Engineers, then you must give them a better Education. Simply "incentivising" them with hollow promises of more Design points, when they all know they may well end up with 3/200 (or 1/200?), will only have them doing the same-old same-old, albeit out of carbonfibre-skinned titanium-honeywhatsit.

Education comes from explaining the millions of little details of what works really well, what less so, and what is a guaranteed disaster. All these little details must be repeated over and over again. "Theory" and "practice" must be shown constantly affirming each other.

For example, "Now look at this broken wheel-centre for a beautiful practical example of all this fatigue failure theory. See how the stresses from these spokes have...".

Only when good Education is in place will good Innovation follow.

I think PC has beaten me to it, however the three points was genuinely on a number of other issues also. The last beam UWA car I judged was poorly executed despite a good concept... and the student representing the relevant area shared highest marks at event. The particular student - had either of the aero judges had a job available - would have earned an interview then and there. There are 8 areas of design and the criteria are known.

It is very difficult to judge any magnitude of innovation without a baseline. The rules are specific about carryover, but it's very hard to enforce unless sufficient documentation or equivalent measure is employed to substantiate a baseline. It is without question an area lacking in the current rule set.

Formula SAE does not provide baseline education, Z. As a former university educator I do share your concerns, and there's much that can be done for it, though the competition doesn't reach into university and dictate policy (as much as we might like it to). Education is neither anecdotal nor trial and error. We can provide lists of what worked and didn't within a limited context as observed one weekend a year, under specific conditions and as applied on specific vehicles. A university I was involved with 04-08 + '10 developed a culture of priding itself on working on what worked, putting aside what didn't. First principles didn't make the grade. The resulting culture turned the FSAE team into a broadly trade experience. A meeting is scheduled next week at that particular university to discuss this very issue, which has reached a crisis point.

Education shouldn't reward good features, it should reward good thinking. FSAE is a an avenue to put it in context, which is a long and complex road full of noise, pitfalls, reality checks, compromises, learning and experiences therin. If it doesn't come back to good thinking, there's no loop to close with why a university should support or involve itself in the competition. Particularly given the significant opportunity cost of investing in FSAE against other project-based learning initiatives. It costs a (generally) six-figure sum of money to run FSAE at any given university, and most university departments have about as much in capital expenditure allocation for an entire year - not just the 20 or so students at the core of the competition. Some of the chats at competition with faculty simply - and very seriously - concerned whether or not the competition would feature in their plans in ten years. Five years. Even two years.

We cannot simply reward and compare outcomes. The challenge is considerably bigger, and the competition is designed intentionally such that "million of little details" cannot be run through. The breadth and depth of the scope is intentionally significant to ensure that smart decisions need to be made early on, and executed practically with good technical rigour.

I've no doubt that research for good information shouldn't include assessment of the best in field - there's no reason to go Marco Polo on everything - however this needs to be weighted against a need to be critical about it. The discussion I had with a faculty advisor - concerning why his team absorbed another university's design wholesale in 2013 with little critical scientific rigour beyond it having the most points on the day the year prior - should never happen.

It is too easy to circumvent by incrementally iterating last year's car. This is probably a good and realizable place to start.

So, once again...

"... maybe the DJs can provide a short written review of all the cars here? Please?

Or maybe just a list of outstandingly good features on some given cars, and another list of shocking design errors ..."

Z

For those not having the head judge's details, I would be happy to forwards any messages (just PM me) supporting a motion towards complete transparency of the Design Event findings (I really don't understand why it's not done for all static events).

The head judge for this year's comp is considering organising an online feedback session (this unofficial medium seems only to attract me of the 16 judges...) what we can do to enhance and moderate the robustness of the feedback process is probably the subject of a separate thread, which should certainly be put together.

Big Bird

12-18-2014, 09:32 PM

I think I was being fair. My whole argument was to do with the fact that the competition does not reward innovation, or at least not in a way that provides any real benefit for risk taken. I wasn’t pointing blame at anyone. I was simply calling a fact that a genuinely creative and interesting interpretation of the rules, albeit unfinished and with late paperwork, scored only three points, while I have seen some – dare I say – bloody awful cars over the years, scoring much much higher than that. Yes, the judges might have being doing everything to the letter of the law. But an instance like the UWA instance sends off alarm bells in my head that the letter of the law might not be achieving all that we want either.

Now it actually says in the judges marking sheet that “strictly speaking, innovation is extremely rare in FSAE”, which is then followed up by various marking guidelines to give a score out of 10. So, at most, a truly creative design, perfectly understood, gets you 10 points out of 1000. And what does a garden variety cookie cutter car get? 2?? 5?? So you might pull up to, say 8 points on your most pedestrian rivals and less than that on your more top-end rivals. To get those few points, you risk having maybe a new concept that needs a lot of validation, testing, etc. It seems barely worthwhile. When you then consider what you are exposing yourself to in terms of potential losses, it becomes a lot easier just to rebuild last years car –driver training will save a few points from cone hits, we will get our reports in on time since they are all the same as last year’s ones…

Now I of all people am probably most responsible for raising awareness of the points economy in this comp. And at times it makes my stomach turn when I hear teams cop out of stuff because of low reward points wise. But if we want more innovation and creativity, then we simply need more points for innovation and creativity…

luxsosis

12-18-2014, 10:10 PM

Pat/GTS/others, having been involved in both the 2011 and 2012 UWA teams (which presented the "Wheel Pods" and the "Aerobeam"), it's not just the official scores and results that Pete is talking about. Being penalised for an unfinished car and late paperwork is fair enough (although in 2013 three teams didn't compete in dynamics and the lowest design score was 90).

The issue in my mind is that the reception and attitude we received from some circles was extremely unpleasant, unwelcoming and unappreciative of the effort and innovation that was in the concepts. Some people we talked to were very interested, and basically all the students I talked to were keen to learn more and enjoyed seeing how the 2012 suspension worked. Others appeared to approach it with pre-conceived thoughts which made it difficult to discuss what we did, why we did it and how we went about it. After our cars, which were a result of a genuine attempt to innovate, came close to being called outright legal and malicious attempts to circumvent the rules, it suddenly became a whole lot less fun.

Geoff said it right, if you want to do something completely different it can turn out amazing, but be prepared to sacrifice everything to get there.

GTS

12-18-2014, 10:25 PM

luxsosis

12-18-2014, 10:32 PM

If this is true, this must change. Time for a reflection paper, Geoff?

For what it's worth, although I'm no longer directly involved, from what I see talking to people involved in the latest competitions and viewing all the feeds/updates etc, things do seem to be improving. That we have yourself GTS here now providing feedback is a sign of that!

MCoach

12-18-2014, 11:50 PM

I have finals tomorrow, but I think we have sparked a new debate (or struck on old wound...) and have quite a bit to contribute as to the posts from the last 24 hours or so as soon as my dedication to classes blows over.

I'll drop some words soon on my thoughts about this on Saturday...Having stared the chopping block in the face for our entire SAE program for several years now, I can tell you quite about innovation and the complications of keeping a low budget program alive and how that's changed some of the way we do things around our parts. Part of the topics brought up that may be more interesting to explore are the teams converging on each others designs as visual reach has stretched globally making it really easy to say "huh, that's a cool wing, it was part of this year's winning car. I should make my wing look just like that because that's what the winner did." and converging on their own solutions, developing a competitive, but very repetitive formula.

Innovation keeps engineering alive. If it weren't for the creativity and shear genius (madness???) of the human brain, then we'd all have been replaced with computers decades ago.

That's it for now...

Kevin Hayward

12-19-2014, 03:50 AM

GTS

12-19-2014, 06:49 AM

I think one of the keys to understanding the design event is to move past the idea of it being an event that rewards the best designed car at the competition. While that might be what we want it to be the reality is that it is the best presentation of the design process that wins.

2014 Oz made that clearer to us than in any other competition. Compared to the eventual winners we arrived with a car that was nearly 20kg lighter (with a larger engine), more powerful, with some truly unique designs, excellent build quality, lower cost (by the cost report), was as fast, more reliable, and put together by a much smaller team (i.e simpler design). We were surprised not to win design.

However Monash clearly trumped us in design presentation. They were professional, and had plenty of people ready to speak to the judges. They had prepared for what the event was rather than what they wanted it to be, and we have learnt a valuable lesson from the experience. Monash knew that it was one of their alternate years (i.e. low development year on a 2 year cycle) and had obviously burnt the candle at both ends preparing a good presentation.

Innovative design has never been well recieved in Australia. Some of the best conceptual approaches in the country did not recieve good marks early on. Early Monash aero cars, RMIT 2003, UWA 2003, RMIT 2004, UWA 2004, Monash 2011, UWA 2012, UQ 2014 (sorry for the missing years and cars). Please note that in 2003 UWA did win design although by the marks rubric it was placed in 6th or 7th before direct intervention by a couple of judges causing what should have been an obvious decision in the first place).

I don't think this is a good situation. I would rate innovation much higher and rely a lot less on a rubric. Many truly great engineering products would fail miserably on a rubric against their competitors. However it is difficult to deny there is a benefit in assessing the students ability to present their design process, insight, and ability to field tricky questions. The event currently targets this rather than the actual design of the vehicle. On that basis the placings were accurate.

Kev

Some interesting thoughts.

I was actually accused of making someone at Monash nearly cry last year :) This year (I'll say it again) the presentation was much better. Very different direction though. Despite being The Original Batmobile (TM), Monash alone didn't have highest aero marks. Nor last year (where the highest mark was lower).

It's not about the best designed car at competition, neither about the best presentation. it's about both, though in terms of design ownership, the latter is a requirement to talk about the former. You can't expect the judges to award mega points to an awesome-looking car that can't be explained by those presenting it. If you're suggesting that points go to the slickest presentation, that's grossly unfair. And inaccurate.

(This, and I think you're missing RMIT 2010 from your list!)

UQ 2014 scored well in every area asides from the one area where their presentation - and knowledge - was severely lacking, and was marked accordingly. And believe me, the two judges concerned tried very hard to extract knowledge beyond the presentation style. Because we want to see all students succeed, particularly where efforts are part of a fundamentally well-designed car.

It does surprise me - and I'm no head judge - that after the marks are in we all head into a room after a long and rigorous process and are asked whether any one team should be marked up or down. I understand it is offered in good faith, to account for anything the rubric may not have accounted for. It is not a completely unfounded decision, there is much discussion, but neither is it structured - which is a concern, as it would leave students without a firm basis as to base future decisions from. Believe me, the judges talk passionately about the creations and deliberate pros and cons at significant length. This year no raw scores were touched. You can begin to understand why, then, rescaling to maximum to give the 'best car on day' maximum points is so contentious. 'Best on day' doesn't mean a great deal. This year's best car in design was simply not as good as last year's. The competition needs relative indications, not least such that standout efforts are clearly identifiable. I don't support getting rid of the rubric (this does't mean things can't be improved, read on).

This is about how well a team's effort can do. In a collective, multidisciplinary, outright sense.

Kev, I'd point out that individual key innovations do not make a complete design. This might not be what you're suggesting explicitly, but let's spell it out all the same. Innovate in any key area, integrate it well, understand the tradeoffs and there's no reason not to score well. Simple. If this is done at the expense of competitiveness in any other area, then don't. The earlier comment on aero (as there were teams in 2014 scoring between 0-10%) counts: innovate wherever you want however if you don't pay aero much attention 364 days a year, don't expect to ring in the points on the 365th. The same applies to any other judged area. For most of my FSAE year I was part of a team building it's own engine. If everything worked as it should have, the engine was a jewel in concept. Mega innovative. The suspension had some nice touches too. Regrettably we discovered (within 10 days of comp), that despite best intentions and completely reflective of our skewed resource allocation, could we not simply bolt the suspension with the nice touches to our jewel of an engine concept and turn up at comp. Unsurprisingly the judges present noted this discrepancy and none were surprised that max points were not awarded despite our team's significant innovation. The competition's about delivering a complete car. Allocate resources accordingly. I'll stress it again - the notion that students won't be able to do everything 'best' in FSAE is intentional. We need to find a better way of rewarding this, and the opposite where the effort has been minimal by comparison.

Reject the notion that innovative design is poorly received in this country. Whether part of a car that did well at comp or otherwise, most I know that were core to innovative designs have gone on to have great careers for which FSAE experiences were pivotal. I hope your students go onto great careers. Not simply because there's a specific degree program going on, but because (if the car is reflective of original student work) they deserve to.

Within that I do, however, share the notion that an capably (or more) resourced team shouldn't be able to turn up with a barely-evolutionary design and compete against more significant design efforts where the are comparably successful. It's a way to win the competition, sure, but we should consider whether it should be. "A formula that wins" isn't even a consistent aim across different university's involvements.

AFAIK currently there really is no mechanism to prove what's new and what's carried over. Having some continuity in judging staff is neither an effective nor reliable control. If such a mechanism were put in place, there'd be a rationale to have teams defend the amount of work actually done, and awarded in points accordingly. I don't just mean 'show us your drawings' - in some instances I have no idea whether or not CFD, aerodynamic testing or the like were even completed by the current team.

I don't mean to harp on it for the sake of it, but let's talk potential solutions.

As for ECU's car - there's a few key things to get right from an aerodynamic perspective. If done, I'm confident it'd have been regularly faster than the eventual winners. I thought ECU's car was technically sweet asides, there was a hell of a lot right, and has considerably more potential as a platform - I actually sought out students to say as much. The strength of the design to the leading team's aero was lesser - the gap was not a function of presentation of the design. If that gap didn't exist, ECU would have won design. it came second by an incredibly close margin, considerably less than the first-to-second margin last year. I'm happy to talk aero offline.

It's going to be an interesting 2015 comp.

(Just FYI Kev, I'm dead tired whilst writing this.)

Kevin Hayward

12-19-2014, 11:49 AM

Moke

12-19-2014, 02:17 PM

Okay I don't want to start a shit fight but I think that there is a little bit of historic selective memory. One of my first impressions of FSAE-A in 2004 was the professionalism of 3 teams in particular, UWA, RMIT and the Gong, which were the teams to beat at the time, and (what seemed to us and others) the organizers bias toward these teams over the next few years. I remember seeing our cars lined up with the start line of acc, then seeing UWA team members roll there car back a metre to "clean the tires" and then allowed to start from there. Or being allowed to scrut on wets or do skid pan on them. There will always a degree of tall poppy syndrome and closer scrutiny of the top team(s) of the time whether it is fair or not is.

The UWA suspension of the time was was a great innovative design but like Monash's big wings after a few years could it still be called innovative and did it deserve to win design? I'm sure that your understanding of the system had improved and were able to better present it to the judges. In 2005 we showed up with what we thought was a pretty innovative design, VARTM monocoque, tilted engine, supercharger, wings, brakes callipers integrated into uprights - we bombed in design because the car was incomplete and was had no idea if any of it even worked so couldn't present our design. Afterwards I jumped on these very forums and blasted the judges for not giving us better marks, now I realize that engineering design is the sum of the parts and more importantly it must work.

We made our jump from middle of the pack to design finals on the back of better preparation through the year. We would have almost monthly design reviews with the facility and other team members where we would practice our presentations. Now the alumni also takes part in design reviews, in fact tomorrow we are having a mini design review and sense check on their plans for next year.

There are two approaches to the comp, go to win or try some new stuff. Although not entirely independent they take different approaches, resources and skills of the team and the learning outcomes will be different. It's up to each team to make the call as to the approach they want to take. I've always liked a 2 year approach to the comp as it gives the better chance of achieving both.

Design will always be subjective. I, for one, can not stand a large number of products on the market however they are selling well as others love the design. By having just the one set of judges FSAE-A has kinda addressed this by removing inconsistency but there will still be a degree of bias in what the judges want to see. If I were to judge composites in design I would be more interested in the physical construction of the composite parts rather than FEA results, so if a team put up their FEA jockey and not a guy who was hands on I would be less impressed. Until there are a set of judges that travel the world judging comps and giving advice there will be this debate.

Big Bird

12-19-2014, 02:42 PM

Thanks everyone for the engaging discussion. Ours may be a small comp, but we are certainly concept-rich on track (so many different vehicle types!), and opinion rich on these forum boards. And yet for the most part we can engage openly and honestly without too much aggro or preciousness. It always makes for some healthy cogitation leading up to Christmas, and once again my Christmas shopping is way behind schedule as a result.

Cheers all,

Big Bird

12-19-2014, 03:34 PM

Gday Brent, only saw your post after I had sent mine off. I'm living out in the bush these days mate, the internet is delivered by horse out here and it takes some time to assemble the box of pixels they send out when I hit the "refresh" smoke signal.

I think the solution to the Design Event problem is simply to get more FSAE savvy people in the Design judging team. We are having some quite high level discussions here about education and intent of the event, etc. I observed the final Design discussions last Friday night, and maybe GTS and one or two others aside, the judging team were industry volunteers who are not quite as up-to-speed with this competition as we are. Now I understand the dangers of becoming completely introspective and self-obsessed if we were to close ourselves off to outside opinion, and we need industry input. But we also need educationalist input, and we need MORE ALUMNI input.

Judging us lot is a tough gig. We have some pretty strong opinions, and we have some pretty motivated high achievers amongst us. We need more of us stepping up into the judging roles...

GTS

12-19-2014, 04:02 PM

GTS,

My comments were not a complaint, merely an observation. Monash won the event clearly. The gap in aerodynamics is real and acknowledged. It is a strength area for Monash. ECU has other areas that they out-design Monash, and as you state the finish was close. It would be hard to argue that Aero isn't the most important area for speed since the development of the 'big aero' rules. I would still hold that Monash must have out-presented the rest of the field to take the win. The car was very close to the 2013 car, and I would probably pick a couple of cars that were better designed overall (It is still clearly a very good vehicle). So as I see it the car was in the top three cars there, judges having no definitive measure of what was changed and what wasn't, with the strongest design presentation in the field. Am I missing anything?

Oh, I'd suggest Monash won it by the skin of their teeth, seriously. It really was very close.

I don't doubt there's some placebo effect in it at times; some organisers asked if we needed to rescale to create more of gap between Monash and the next, and most judges were pretty adamant about not rescaling as they felt the end result was accurate - ECU really did deserve to nearly take it.

Obviously I only judged aero - which the Monash team presented excellently on (a very significant upgrade from last year) - a few judges left Monash suggesting they were expecting a deeper degree of understanding.

They do a bit of stuff differently: presenting team members wore a shirt, were ready, present, and were engaging. They still got nerves! (In my area at least) but it seemed there were many checkpoints in the student's minds as to 'take this seriously; make an effort to be ready'. Which was a good and industry-relevant thing.

I agree that a few innovate parts do not constitute an innovative car. I also agree about resource allocation. To make big changes to the platform some details need to be relegated to the quick and dirty design team to be improved on in iteration 2. The other side of the coin are those focusing on detail design at the expense of platform integration or innovation.

This is true. Just spitballin' however if we made an attempt in rules to judge differences, then we can decouple the resource allocation to push innovation from sapping resources at the expense of points, to something university's could manage independently. An R&D team in addition to a FSAE team or similar. Whilst there's a tradeoff, super large teams moving the design forwards incrementally are not fair to small teams trying for significant differences. For this reason alone I think scaling back design to the FSG limit (150 from 200) is dangerous. With multiple years to get a basic design right, the probabilities of completing all design events are significantly higher. Not the intent of the rules.

Simply awarding the "Icarus Award for Innovation" won't cover it.

So I'm still very much for judging what's changed firmly. Would it alienate teams that run it as a 'race team experience'? Who knows. Tokyo Denki I think has been running a similar car since 2004 or so. I could be wrong.

I also want to clearly state that I believe Monash are quite an innovative team. Aero aside, the true innovation for Monash is not in design...

The aero concept they have is very well developed, though Ill be honest (and I hope the many copycat teams are reading this) there are some things with the approach that are either fundamentally flawed, or could be done a lot better. Is it the best version of the "Monash Concept" yet? Yes, without question, and there is a ton that can be taken to other teams by way of process, learnings, etc.

There are ways of innovating beyond the "Monash Concept" however. That it's one of the first and best should not limit anyone from trying. I'd love to see a team rock up next year with a detailed appraisal of the concept, a considered approach to why different could be better, and an attempt at implementation. Ironically this logic would look very similar to Monash's initial justification for a foray into wings.

Not doubting it'd be hard work, however.

...but in project management. Their cars have quite conservative changes year to year with some ideas having very old roots, but with good justification. They have developed the vehicle to a point where it is impressively quick and regularly out-performs cars that on the face of it seem better. During the Oz comp they showed how well they cover all aspects of the competition. A couple of items I noticed (not a complete list)...

All very true points and all completely realisable by other teams - it's all free.

Some teams sadly didn't even have a faculty advisor present, by comparison.

I have no doubt that they will respond very strongly to the major rule changes in effect next year. While I heard a number of complaints as to how Monash conduct themselves, it is not up to them to lay down and give up advantages they have gained by applying strong innovative project management principles.

True, however some of the complaints were directed towards items very clearly spelled out in rules, by competing teams agree to the rules, yada yada...

But no complaints on the general professionalism. It really is stuff accessible to any team, and more importantly than that - it's stuff that breeds a competitive culture relative to the competition aims, which is great.

While SAE might wax lyrical about this being an engineering competition and not a racing event it is the team that plays the racing game the best that ends up winning the competition. I don't have too much of an issue with it. The engineers that can best figure out to win a motorsport event are likely to be great engineers at figuring out how to build supersonic airliners, or bullet trains. It a capitalist society engineering is an inherently competitive field.

Well... IMHO true motorsports runs quite differently but there are certainly lessons to take everywhere. Unmanaged and unmitigated teams usually have a Lord of the Flies moment 66% of the way in and tend not to recover. This is true of FSAE and anything else. Above all else it's a team competition, and learning that the sum of a collective effort tends to exceed the sum of parts alone when done correctly... is an important lesson.

I will take you up on your offer to talk aero offline. It is not a personal area of strength, nor one well covered by faculty at ECU. The students have done their best in the last couple of years, but often the difference is in knowing what you don't know.

Anytime.

...I remember seeing our cars lined up with the start line of acc, then seeing UWA team members roll there car back a metre to "clean the tires" and then allowed to start from there. Or being allowed to scrut on wets or do skid pan on them. There will always a degree of tall poppy syndrome and closer scrutiny of the top team(s) of the time whether it is fair or not is.

This must stop.

...engineering design is the sum of the parts and more importantly it must work.

I think the design judges should wear this on a t-shirt throughout event :D

We made our jump from middle of the pack to design finals on the back of better preparation through the year. We would have almost monthly design reviews with the facility and other team members where we would practice our presentations. Now the alumni also takes part in design reviews, in fact tomorrow we are having a mini design review and sense check on their plans for next year.

This is an excellent approach. I was a little surprised to find some teams still do it once near the end of the year, consult with a Gantt chart and realise that there's little time to do anything with the feedback. Or that faculty (at some universities) doesn't get involve to sense-check it all for learning value.

Design will always be subjective... If I were to judge composites in design I would be more interested in the physical construction of the composite parts rather than FEA results, so if a team put up their FEA jockey and not a guy who was hands on I would be less impressed. Until there are a set of judges that travel the world judging comps and giving advice there will be this debate.

Well... the point of having industry people is to provide a balanced point of view considering all that is salient to the relevant portion of industry from an engineering science perspective. A relevant example (and not to slight yours) would be a team that has a composite part that's a beautifully built execution of poor science in design - the build quality in such an instance is secondary.

There is a rubric to standardise as much, which is important, as getting to competition as a student and discovering your year of work is misaligned with the pr*ck judging it is not going to make for happy students, and over time is not going to make for a favourable learning experience.

Accordingly not studying what's judged as a student is not going to make for a happy student, however (a quote reiterated at some length over the weekend) we can't award style points as a straight trade for some RTFM.

Thanks everyone for the engaging discussion. Ours may be a small comp, but we are certainly concept-rich on track (so many different vehicle types!), and opinion rich on these forum boards. And yet for the most part we can engage openly and honestly without too much aggro or preciousness.

Yes, Australasians are awesome :D

Kevin Hayward

12-19-2014, 05:07 PM

Moke,

Not selective memory at all. I wasn't at the 2005 comp (one of the handful I missed). While I think the design event in 2004 didn't reward innovation (UWA and RMIT) they certainly did get recognition in following comps. I am also fairly sure that somewhere along the line Auckland got a rough deal, but I wasn't commenting on the years (and cars) that I missed.

Geoff and I had a bit of a discussion about this. The main question was:

Assuming that refinement usually follows an innovative year, should a team get the design credit in the year of big innovation, or in the following refinement of the idea?

Both are difficult to do. For Australia I think we see the refinement rewarded rather than the original car.

I would also agree that once a team is established they get a better run through everything else. The teams (Woolongong, UWA, RMIT, Monash at different times) end up pushing the limits allowed and do gain an advantage. I don't like it, but I am reluctant to put any of the blame on the teams. In the end the practices are allowed by the event organisers, and by failure to punish you could make an argument that they are endorsed. Missing the years UWA won, I can stay on my high horse and claim that I have only been on the innocent side of these interactions. When I was a student we had plenty of stories as to how the top teams bent the rules to their favour, and maybe a couple of how we started to do the same to extract an advantage. By the way this sort of behaviour towards the 'favoured' teams is not restricted to the Australian competition.

It's not fair, but there is no such thing as a fair fight in life. At least it provides good material for a couple of rants over a few beers.

Kev

Moke

12-19-2014, 06:22 PM

Geoff, the internet is the same here and I live in the largest city. They are busy rolling out high speed fibre to all the small hick towns forgetting where over a quarter of the population lives. I was going to add more about the volunteer situation but funnily enough had to go do some Christmas shopping.

GTS, tall poppy will always exist, it's why Ozzie's pick on us Kiwis - it's jealously. Top teams will always be seen to be unfairly advantaged, we have all heard rumours about the teams getting massive amounts of money. I think it is how that team carries itself that determines how other teams view them. From my dealings with them Monash have always been good guys, however I hear that the wins are starting to go to their heads. When all the members of a team have only ever won they'll start to get a bit of a complex.

Kev, I don't think we ever got the chance to talk as we were always head down in our cars, that and you were "The Kevin Haywood". I agree that it seems to be the refinement that does better than the innovation, but then there are plenty of examples where this is the case. Apple is often credited with making the first smartphones and tablets, however we all know that they refined the concepts. In my industry I see many millions of dollars of funding going to universities for concepts/innovation that never goes anywhere, however there is no money for refining these into mass production.

I think that the volunteers do the best that they can (and without them the comp would be right f'ed) but as you said Geoff, they often don't have a FSAE background or work in an area that is 100% relevant. Maybe non automotive industries need to be engaged, get backing from CAT or Boeing for example, we forget that it's not about cars rather engineering to make a car. If you value your FSAE experiences then you have a responsibility to give back a little and dig into your bag of tricks and help out. Try and get you employer/supplier/customer to sponsor the event or prize, tell them that it will mean more engineers like you rat her than that guy that got straight A's but is trying to weld steel to aluminium. See if someone from marketing wants to judge biz prez, get your boss/co-worker to be a design judge if (like me) you don't back your skills, yet, or just help putting cones back or sweeping the track.

Now that I'm done creating female versions of me (scary I know), I'm hoping to get the Team team support team team together again for comp next year (Moke TV commentary anyone?). If we can make the volunteering experience more enjoyable then I'm sure it will grow as a movement and mean that the comp grows. FSAE-A used to be seen as the cream of the crop, now it is FSG, lets get the crown back. They have a large industry backing which will be hard to beat but if we put alumni power to use we should be able to give it a good crack. I want my daughters to have the chance in 15 year to have a go at FSAE, of course they won't be allowed to date an engineer.

GTS

12-19-2014, 08:30 PM

Oh... I'd offer a bit of perspective. It's just Formula SAE. Sure, it's significant, but the point of it is to move students beyond it in a significant rush and onto better things.

Who has more money, which German comp you went to, what rank on an unofficial international scale you occupy is... all beyond the point. They're valuable experiences, sure, but these are not what students should strive to take with them beyond their time here. Consider that there are quite a few universities that don't feature in the top 10 that really aren't quite worried about it... as their grads are ridiculously over-represented in high-level motorsports. There is no direct correlation.

Worrying about whether or not those judging have an FSAE background or not is a small thing to worry over. Some judges have auto industry, LM, F1, V8SC, etc backgrounds, many with international experience. If it came down to a binary choice, I'd take that over FSAE as their PoV's come from a place we should hope to get graduating students into quick smart. Thankfully we get both; the mix is pretty good. I can't stress it enough - we legitimately struggle on determining what's new work. Get this much sorted and the ability to judge the quality of what's actually done will take care of itself.

Engineering the competition for the sake of the competition etc... I'll be honest: I've actually interviewed grads from such programs for jobs... which they didn't get. Consistently. Most engineering employers want grads with ninjutsu levels of first principles knowledge, application skills and soft skills... not grads that can game a specific co-curricular program. If we treat FSAE as an institution we've missed the point. It is in fact a project space, and organisers and contributors should exist to guide students through it - where 'guide' means 'ensure you're getting the most learning value out of this'. That whole discussion about 'would you rather take the student with A+'s trying to weld aluminium to steel'... is a furphy. You'd rather take the student with a great GPA, with time management skills, with common sense, with project work experience. You can have it all and this is what the competition is supposed to be able to enable. Yes, it's hard, but so is life and you can have it all. Too much faculty (including one of the winning teams cited) relies on students that will give it all for FSAE. Stupid. Wrong. Not the point of uni. Not good for career. I've never worked for any employer that'd take the binary choice on 'fck the grades, I want the common sense' when frankly there are grads that present with the lot, and teaching someone what not to weld to what and why is a lot easier than running them through years 1-4 of a four year degree program they didn't really pay enough attention to. This in turn affects industry investment.

Same goes for treating is as a grinding mill for a given concept. Unless people are there to splice in a good dose of 'YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG, CONSIDER THIS', then it serves only to create crap grads. One team, for example, presented us last year with a compendium of >180 CFD runs. Which was long. Unfortunately there was a lot that was wrong/irrelevant/etc about it. When the appropriate emotions flared and a student said 'but I've been doing this for five years!' I contended with 'this looks more like one year five times over, with some key understanding gaps, sorry'. Yet this student had done all that had been asked of him - considerably more in fact - and was educated within the FSAE 'system'.

The role of having it all scrutinised by people quite far removed from it can't be understated.

Monash attitude? Some Monash guys presented themselves very professionally - warmly, wonderfully, humbly - this comp. There were some (and I stress a minority) fairly ugly displays of sportsmanship too, though it'd be unfair to single out Monash only here. Whilst it's the culmination of a significant co-curricular year's work for all - nerves are a little frayed and all look genuinely sleep-deprived on day - we had a number of teams presenting as though it was a complete joke, which is pretty sh*t too, especially considering what most volunteers have to go through to get a day off given the present climate of the local automotive industry. To them I'd suggest... drink in the better parts of that Monash attitude, and make it your own, pronto.

We do need to put noggins together and have a very hard think about what the competition is to mean in future. In five years it'll look very different with very little actual automotive engineering done by the three to-be-ex-manufacturers on the ground, and a practically depleted supplier base. The days of running the three manufacturer logos on the FSAE-A cars are numbered. I'd drop the direct comparisons with FSG and simply focus on what the competition needs to mean, and to whom. I'd think a reflection exercise with the SAE-A is in order sooner than later.

An example? I once worked for an electric vehicle manufacturer that put heads together and thought of a student project competition that'd create the kind of grads we really wanted. The end result was very different to FSAE.

And yes, plenty jealous of Kiwis - I'd happily move to Auckland, it's a great place.

12-19-2014, 09:07 PM

Why The Design Event Will Never Encourage Innovation, and Should Only Be Worth 100 Points.
================================================== ==================

I am in complete agreement with Kevin in much of the above. (But too much above to pull quotes from...). ECU's car was the OUTSTANDING one at this comp, and deserved to be clear winner in Design. I am still getting my head around its CG-height. That number alone was enough to win it Design! (Subtly more on this below...)

Unfortunately, the ECU car is probably too good. It is an exceptionally NEAT AND TIDY design. But IMO most DJs interpret this as SIMPLE AND BORING. It is a sad fact of life that most H. Sapiens equate "innovation" with "complication". And DJs are simply an average selection of H. Sapiens.

I also agree with Kevin that the current approach to Design Event is really about presentation. Since there is already another event for that, clearly spelt out with a capital "P", it should not be scored twice. I pity the poor student genius who can pop out sublime designs, but unfortunately has difficulty expressing himself in words, and has a bit of BO, a hint of halitosis, and a touch of Tourette's. Sorry son, but bottom of the ladder for you!

Yes, the ability to sweet-talk the DJs may be useful in future careers, but that is only because not much seriously good engineering gets done these days (ie. because too much food! :)).
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

To find out if the Design Event can really reward "innovation", perhaps we can try a test case to see how consistent the DJs "innovation marks" might be.

GTS, I hope you can offer your opinion here. (And thanks for simply being here!)

And can any other DJs reading this please also make comments? Even non-Oz DJs, such as Pat or Claude?

A Test Case: Consider F:R MASS DISTRIBUTION, specifically R%.
===========================================
(Yes, I am flogging this, but...)

I would guess that 99+% of all FS/FSAE cars ever built have had R% = 45 - 55%. Similarly, the vast majority of current spec-series Formula cars, from FF to F1, are also in this range.

But (!), there have also been many RWD racecars built over the years, and many that are being built now, that have considerably higher R%. These cars typically race in more liberal series, typically those without spec tyres, etc. So, with Rules like FSAE.

So, BIG QUESTION - If an FSAE car turned up at competition with 65%R, then would it deserve extra Design Event points for "innovation"?

A team moving to such a design would require some deep-thinking big-picture analysis. The car itself would require considerable redesign of many major parts. But other than having a shorter nose, and a somewhat rearward MRH, it would not look much different to all the other cars. The DJs might not even recognise that this unique R% has any significance. Maybe not even after the students repeatedly explain why this is so.

In fact, the DJs might just see in front of them an incredibly boring "brown-go-kart".

So, IS 65%R INNOVATIVE, OR NOT???
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

BTW 1.

Simply awarding the "Icarus Award for Innovation" won't cover it.

As I recall, young Icarus cocked it up badly. Exuberance of youth and all...

His old-man Daedalus got it right, though... :)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

BTW 2.

Kevin, This 2005 post (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?4388-ALL-TURBO-SUPERCHARGED-TEAMS-PLEASE-READ&p=84466&viewfull=1#post84466) hints at where I think your biggest gains can be found (the hints are emboldened). You have a potential world-beater.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~~

BTW 3.

Xmas shopping??? Aaaaaarrrggghhh!!!!!

Z

Big Bird

12-19-2014, 09:48 PM

I'm certainly someone who could be tarred with the "treating FSAE as an institution" brush - and have done a pretty decent job of indoctrinating students with a reasonable introduction to the "gaming the system" game. Having said so, given my present lack of employability, and my educational background and leanings, I'm happy to pitch in my 10c worth.

GTS, I agree that there is little value in making a career out of competing in FSAE. And the international rankings to me have never held much sway - a bit like comparing apples with fish to determine which is the best coffee table. It just all seems a bit contrived and irrelevant.

But I am keeping involved to some extent because I am legitimately scared for the future of this event here in Australia.

We have seen once strong university supporters of this event pass by the wayside. Teams that were the foundation of this event are not showing up. Other teams are informing me that their uni no longer supports their project in any way and they have to find all funds and resources themselves. Our event entry fee is the highest in the world, but the venues we have provided have been very second rate. Most international teams that come over here never come back. Teams that innovate feel that they are alienated. Event results are posted but very little feedback gets back to the students as to what they have done right and wrong. And as far as educational outcomes go, it seems the greatest learning comes from discussions like this between interested outsiders, and between the teams themselves - while those that are making money out of this event are very slow on the uptake to get out there and actually educate the competitors, and the unis themselves, as to what this event is all about. The alarm bells are ringing, mate. We need major overhaul. And we need it now.

I am vocal about alumni as they are the ones that are passionate about this event, know the ins and outs and pitfalls of competing, and are most likely to share their opinions around once the judging is done. GTS, I think I remember you saying that of the DJ’s there on the weekend, only 3 of them were interested in being around to offer feedback once Friday was finished??

I believe you have nailed it on the head though when you say that we need evidence that the work being presented is new work. I would be most in favour of dropping some of these hoop-jumping submissions that are now required (business logic plan??), and provide a document specifically comparing last year’s design to this years. All major components. Teams that can bring a photograph of their current car sitting next to their previous year’s car, maybe bodywork off, get bonus points. Or even better – a 25 point event called the “Proof That This Car Is Different To Last Year’s Car” event embedded into the Static Events, whereby the teams have to use their own initiative to impress us with the way they prove that the two cars are different. Video format maybe?? If we prescribe the format, then the teams will begrudge having to do it (once again, Business Logic Plan, anyone??). If we make the proof a competition in itself, then that is about the best motivator there is to get them to apply themselves.

The competitors need to be informed as to how and why they were judged as they were for each and every one of the events. Judging is useless if the reasoning isn’t explained.

I might leave that there for a while. Got to go outside to do some mowing…

Cheers all

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 02:12 AM

If I may continue on a little...

In regard to industry representation, I will never argue that it is all a bad thing. I am all in favour of industry representation - especially through design judging - as it provides our students with some real insight into their future careers. Some comments though:
- there are plenty of FSAE grads out there in industry who could provide this guidance. This is not about institutionalizing and worshipping FSAE in itself. It is about having capable and interested design judges who know the FSAE event.
- We should not be focussing on automotive industry engineers only. Most engineers in Australia will never get anywhere near an automotive job. Lets see where our FSAE grads have gone, and bring them to the event so that they might offer their own stories to our students. We would do a great service to the students if we could break them out of the Ford/Holden/Toyota/Bosch mindset and open their eyes to other opportunities
- The revision to Design Event format that we proposed was intended to offer the flexibility to accommodate any number of available design judges. The more the merrier. If we have 40 judges, then by all means set them all loose. Get every one of them talking to a student. If it is a novice first year, then who cares, so be it. The intended outcome is education, so lets give every student an opportunity to talk to an industry engineer. What's the harm in that?

We need passionate people willing to share their knowledge, and every year I see dedicated alumni flying across the country to support this event. Lets engage them more with design judging jobs. Easy.

p.s. I am not shunning the industry engineers who don't have FSAE experience. I am saying that we can supplement them with FSAE alumni, that's all.

GTS

12-20-2014, 06:15 AM

Sorry Z, I can't agree with you.

No team was allowed to "Present" in our design session (that's two sections), which is consistent with the intent of the event. I can't vouch for the others. A good third of entrants tried to make it a presentation, and were denied this much. There's a formal protest process that teams are encouraged to follow should they feed they've been treated unfairly.

Far from being sweet-talked or otherwise, the design judges are all engineers (you know, that profession graduating FSAE students hope to join). And thus have been engineering students. And accordingly are equipped to relate to student difficulties in communicating good design. Rather than look to the presentation inherent in the design, the judges are actually quite accommodating of differences in presentation style and proficiency. We try - and are asked to try - to look beyond the very issues you suggest, and to assist students in demonstrating what knowledge they've earned and applied throughout the project.

Your assertion is wrong, and shows some significant disregard for the capabilities of those that give up their time to judge - and why they're asked to.

It is an exceptionally NEAT AND TIDY design. But IMO most DJs interpret this as SIMPLE AND BORING. It is a sad fact of life that most H. Sapiens equate "innovation" with "complication". And DJs are simply an average selection of H. Sapiens.

Your honest opinion is wrong. All the design judges were very impressed with ECU's design, CoG height particularly. As none of the 16 of them (plus the supporting and superior case of volunteers around them) have logged on here to slag you off in an indiscriminate, unfounded manner, I'd ask that you do similarly.

Unfortunately, the ECU car is probably too good.

There is little doubt that ECU had, in some key respects, an excellent concept. You're welcome to re-read earlier posts as to why as much doesn't make for a complete car.

ECU lost points to Monash in aerodynamics. Know why?

ECU didn't lose points because the student in question had to be asked to be take his sunglasses off and actually look at the judges when they were addressing him, as per common courtesy, because we don't judge presentation. They didn't lose points because the car was being wheeled away at the scheduled time of the design event and had to be brought back, with some students actually asking if we could do the design event later. Same reason.

ECU lost points - and I'll keep this brief as it's really up to the universities involved and the SAE-A as to whether detailed feedback should be broadcast publicly - because their design wasn't as good, and because the level of knowledge and rigour applied to it wasn't as good. Period. Neither design or design process was perfect, and ECU's less so. This despite one of the Monash students stammering with nerves all the way through it to the point of having to stop, costing time - with both aero judges asking him to calm down twice - and the ECU student being considerably more comfortable. If matters truly were as you suggest, the points tally would have been the opposite, with the difference enough for ECU to have tied or won design.

Despite an impressive CG height, it'll take more - or a relative fall in the competition's standards - to win design. Because it takes more to make a great overall design. This is a function of the competition presented, not the relative slickness of the competition's presentations. The CG height different is indeed transformative in a performance context (whilst it's unique); and there are plenty of dynamic events to show of the magnitude of this effect in where it can be demonstrated ceteris paribus. As it turned out (and as those judging broadly, anecdotally predicted) it couldn't, because the design was simply not as strong (and even compromised) in other areas, despite there being much that's a good base to move forwards from. There are no doubts that a development of this car could herald a genuine performance breakthrough in the competition.

And let's stress again - the overall difference was very, very small. Ridiculously small on raw scores. Small enough that a very real problem in rescaling, as requested, was that the difference could have quite really tipped the balance in overall scores unfairly had it come down to a single point's difference, which there was a very real chance of having happen.

As for your reference case (F1 only recently went to 45/55 - as you are aware, competitive F1 cars were previously more rear-biased).

So, BIG QUESTION - If an FSAE car turned up at competition with 65%R, then would it deserve extra Design Event points for "innovation"?

A team moving to such a design would require some deep-thinking big-picture analysis. The car itself would require considerable redesign of many major parts. But other than having a shorter nose, and a somewhat rearward MRH, it would not look much different to all the other cars.

Any good design will deserve more points if the students can explain it. This is not a function of how it's presented. Design Event sees plenty of well-presented poor design, which scores poorly, and great design presented with compromised presentation skill accordingly, which scores well.

I'd encourage anyone to work on their presentation skills because they serve well in career, particularly when concepts need to be communicated across a diversity of people, skill sets, cultures, language barriers and the like. As this is a student competition, this is not what we're looking for at Design Event. We can and do decouple these two skills, they're put in different events intentionally to avoid the very problem you're suggesting.

The DJs might not even recognise that this unique R% has any significance. Maybe not even after the students repeatedly explain why this is so.

In fact, the DJs might just see in front of them an incredibly boring "brown-go-kart".

You're demonstrating an appalling and illogical attitude towards those that give up their time, not least considering that some of them were once Formula SAE students themselves that learned from the experience, went into industry, and kept on learning. Among the judges we counted at least five national and three international racing categories of experience, over 10 road vehicle development groups and more. Your assertion of what we might and might not recognise on R%... is bullshit.

I'm not sure whether you're joking, ignorant or just trying to be a dick. Clear it up for me, so I can be clearer about whether contributing to this community is worthwhile.

As I recall, young Icarus cocked it up badly. Exuberance of youth and all...

His old-man Daedalus got it right, though... :)

The metaphor is correct. Apply it to the last bit of your post I just quoted.

Show a little respect for those giving up time to facilitate the event, Z. This one's even dedicating time to answer you.

GTS

12-20-2014, 06:36 AM

But I am keeping involved to some extent because I am legitimately scared for the future of this event here in Australia.

This is a legitimate concern. There is less money for any of this than there ever has been owing to what's happening to the industry that supported and needed it.

Things will never be the same. The competition requires a new paradigm on a number of fronts in Australia.

We have seen once strong university supporters of this event pass by the wayside. Teams that were the foundation of this event are not showing up. Other teams are informing me that their uni no longer supports their project in any way and they have to find all funds and resources themselves. Our event entry fee is the highest in the world, but the venues we have provided have been very second rate. Most international teams that come over here never come back. Teams that innovate feel that they are alienated. Event results are posted but very little feedback gets back to the students as to what they have done right and wrong. And as far as educational outcomes go, it seems the greatest learning comes from discussions like this between interested outsiders, and between the teams themselves - while those that are making money out of this event are very slow on the uptake to get out there and actually educate the competitors, and the unis themselves, as to what this event is all about. The alarm bells are ringing, mate. We need major overhaul. And we need it now.

Unless we can get a venue donated, nothing significantly will change, unfortunately.

The local industry that needed the students will never return to Australia in the same magnitude. What we write here of Formula SAE applies equally to automotive engineering qualifications - that capital is going, going, soon to be gone. I remember getting up the day GM announced a new CEO thinking 'if it happens any day, it'll happen today'. I was working for a competitor company and driving a VE on evaluation when the press pre-release came through. I stayed enough to see the last of the remaining three announce closure, I saw the purchasing department start to downsize as local suppliers fell by the wayside. Every contract not renewed cost engineers their livelihood in an industry that for many had a touch point in FSAE.

Even the paradigms involved in vehicle engineering are changing.

The competition needs a new point of relevance in Australia.

One of the most constructive things we can do for next year is couple it with a careers fair, and push to make the feedback open. These are subjects of a different thread.

I am vocal about alumni as they are the ones that are passionate about this event, know the ins and outs and pitfalls of competing, and are most likely to share their opinions around once the judging is done. GTS, I think I remember you saying that of the DJ’s there on the weekend, only 3 of them were interested in being around to offer feedback once Friday was finished??

This is true. Only 3. This said, had the review happened at 5PM on Friday, this would have been different.

I believe you have nailed it on the head though when you say that we need evidence that the work being presented is new work. I would be most in favour of dropping some of these hoop-jumping submissions that are now required (business logic plan??), and provide a document specifically comparing last year’s design to this years. All major components. Teams that can bring a photograph of their current car sitting next to their previous year’s car, maybe bodywork off, get bonus points. Or even better – a 25 point event called the “Proof That This Car Is Different To Last Year’s Car” event embedded into the Static Events, whereby the teams have to use their own initiative to impress us with the way they prove that the two cars are different. Video format maybe?? If we prescribe the format, then the teams will begrudge having to do it (once again, Business Logic Plan, anyone??). If we make the proof a competition in itself, then that is about the best motivator there is to get them to apply themselves.

Agreed. Maybe we could push this as a scaling against the DE scores.

The competitors need to be informed as to how and why they were judged as they were for each and every one of the events. Judging is useless if the reasoning isn’t explained.

This is a low-hanging fruit that should be addressed first. It's super important.

The revision to Design Event format that we proposed was intended to offer the flexibility to accommodate any number of available design judges. The more the merrier. If we have 40 judges, then by all means set them all loose. Get every one of them talking to a student. If it is a novice first year, then who cares, so be it. The intended outcome is education, so lets give every student an opportunity to talk to an industry engineer. What's the harm in that?

Nada for the harm, BB :) We occasionally need some money to fly them down, though... there's some great talent out there.

p.s. I am not shunning the industry engineers who don't have FSAE experience. I am saying that we can supplement them with FSAE alumni, that's all.

I agree - what was the split this year? Section D was 50/50.

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 06:50 AM

There is a perfect venue on the Hume Highway near Wodonga that we can get for close to FOC. You could pay for a lot of judges accommodation with the money you saved on track hire....

Pat Clarke

12-20-2014, 07:33 AM

Thank you GTS

Pat

ChristianChalliner

12-20-2014, 02:40 PM

If I can add an outsiders perspective?

I cannot pretend to understand what's happening in Australia with regards to the auto industry nor will I pretend to. So if you believe the competition is losing it's relevance then I can only take your word for it and from briefly scanning the internet it does seem to be true.

That being said, I love the Aus competition and the teams which go to it. Why? because in my opinion this competition and the concepts present are some of the most diverse seen at any FSAE event, these teams go for the crazy ideas, and then they go on to prove the merits of them and that they were right to push these concepts. This is something I have not seen on the same scale at the UK competition.

Please don't misunderstand my meaning, I am not trying to slander any European, American or other team but the concepts I saw last year and have seen in previous years at the UK event have been rather derivative. If I had painted every car black then I would have had a hard time saying which University presented the car. Now I know these teams work extremely hard to produce these cars and I don't wish to take anything from them (far from it) but they are for the most part very conservative, they follow the norm rather than try to be different. I think this is rather true of the attitude most take to the competition here, in that, they fear the failure of trying something new and unproven.

This is something I am experiencing currently, I am trying to push through a major change at my University to actually make us competitive and stand out but it has been extremely difficult to do so and the concept was not received with open arms initially.

I see no such fear from the Aus teams. You only have to look to Monash, ECU, UQR, ADFA, UWA, RMIT for examples of where significant ideas (such as wings, one cylinders, beams, etc) have originated before gaining widespread acceptance.

I would hate to see the Aus competition go under and I think FSAE as a whole would suffer for it.

Christian

GTS

12-20-2014, 03:44 PM

Most international teams that come over here never come back.

BB,

In what'll be my last post before Z resurfaces to explain his conduct;

This statement troubles me as a few people did mention it and were very much concerned about the 'event competitiveness' as per the world rankings. We are a long way from anywhere. It costs a significant amount of money to travel to or from Australia in an engineering project context.

Until the advent of world rankings - which I should stress are maintained by the promoters of the German event (make of this what you will) - there was a good deal more competitiveness with more overseas teams turning up to compete. Remember also that FSAE-A was one of very few events outside of FSAE, and that there was originally only one FSAE event in the US. There is much that means coming here is simply less attractive, feeding a downwards spiral which combined with external industry factors may render FSAE-A unattractive in future altogether.

The opportunity cost of travelling to events that are not the Australian event, for many, is considerably lower than for our event. We now have a unofficial world ranking scale (which some take too seriously) which does three things to the Australian event: (1) as less teams turn up (we have less universities locally and are a bloody long and expensive way away), there's a high-confidence probability that the 'competitiveness' factor of our event is lesser, (2) as just finishing the event is difficult owing to it being a student designed-and-built competition, the ranking scale favours competitors that compete more often (as does a 5% overall points shift from Design Event) - most of our teams compete once and (3) as these effects are not mutually exclusive, their effect compounds.

As stated, the unofficial World Rankings are maintained by the promoters of one particular licensed event - which also uses a unique rule set.

Now I'm rapt that there are more and more events around the world as I think it's a good vehicle to get students involved in project-based learning, however like you I'd like to see this problem addressed. There are many possibilities, from funding an invite to a 'best' team to compete (or resourcing our winners to compete overseas), a second Australian competition at midyear (yes... I did just write that), providing the best industry-based learning resources for registered entrants (think about it), convincing the SAE to adopt an official world ranking system that actually accounts for regional concerns as mentioned above, asking the SAE to consider providing funding, at an international level, for 'best of best' competitions... lots of things.

It will involve some off-the-wall thinking, but it's due.

Z,

I await your response to my earlier post.

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 04:27 PM

Thanks GTS. Food for thought as always.

A second Oz comp?? Insanity!! That would never work... ;)

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 05:07 PM

Christian, thanks for your considered words. Kev and I were waxing lyrical about this diversity of concepts quite a bit last weekend. A wide variety of concepts, presented by an even wider variety of socially uncomfortable people. It's Beauty and the Geek meets the British Superbike Championship meets the Quambatook Tractor Pull. But with less tractors. And on four wheels. And a distinct lack of Beauty. Except of course Maddy. And maybe Kev.

Now where was I??

Our industry is a classic case of lack of understanding our own competitive advantage. Yes, we have innovative engineers, with the ability to both create and deliver. But then we funnel them into foreign multi-national mass-manufacturers. Using tightly managed processes to avert any risk. To mass manufacture cheap cars. On high wages.

Creative people in risk-averse companies, owned offshore, using tightly controlled process, to mass manufacture cars at a Hyundai price-point. On BMW wages. Seriously??

We have a lot to offer. We just have no belief in ourselves. And we are realizing this far too late. If at all...

Kevin Hayward

12-20-2014, 05:20 PM

GTS,

Despite an impressive CG height, it'll take more - or a relative fall in the competition's standards - to win design. Because it takes more to make a great overall design. This is a function of the competition presented, not the relative slickness of the competition's presentations. The CG height different is indeed transformative in a performance context (whilst it's unique); and there are plenty of dynamic events to show of the magnitude of this effect in where it can be demonstrated ceteris paribus. As it turned out (and as those judging broadly, anecdotally predicted) it couldn't, because the design was simply not as strong (and even compromised) in other areas, despite there being much that's a good base to move forwards from. There are no doubts that a development of this car could herald a genuine performance breakthrough in the competition.

Just a quick point here, although once again I am stressing that I am not arguing the result. ECU was behind Monash in the dynamics by less than 8 points (This will be less once the efficiency results are corrected). The only event that Monash was faster was Autocross. Monash had a better trained and more experienced driver team. Take out hit cones and ECU would have won the dynamic events. A fair comment given that most of the cones were hit by drivers competing in their first competition. Perhaps Monash would have gone faster in Endurance, but they had a few notable reliability concerns. Of the two most objective dynamic events (skidpan and Accel) ECU came out with a big margin to Monash.

Yes the ECU car was compromised in some areas, as was Monash. I don't think in this case that the dynamic event results confirm the statement you have made.

I will say thank you for your feedback. We have received no other feedback from the design team. The only thing that another judge mentioned to the guys was that the car needed more adjustability. A confusing comment given that every adjustment available for a conventional car could be made on the ECU car and then some (as evidenced by the difference between the skidpan and accel setup).

Kev

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 05:26 PM

Hear, hear. Thanks GTS. Whoever you are ;)

Mitchell

12-20-2014, 07:17 PM

At UQ our competition week went something like this:
Wednesday 3rd: we hadn't had a track day in over a week due to exams, component failures, mistakes and workshop delays. All the stars aligned on this day and the car was prepared for a track day with a brand new beam axle and spool. It was around 1am when it was discovered the toe links didn't really fit.

Thursday 4th: Early start to try and get the car to track because we desperately wanted aero data before comp. Undertray was pressure tapped. Toe links were put in the kitten killing single shear. No kittens died. Car got to the track (Willowbank) which is about a 1 hour drive from uni at 2:30pm. We managed 2 hours of testing time and logged some aero data.

Friday 5th: Car was taken to lakeside (~1 hour away too.) for the first no-failure track day of the year. I use the term no-failure lightly, during the day the steering wheel broke off (was only tack welded to check steering wheel angle and meant to be fully welded afterwards, this was forgotten) and the firewall delaminated and folded in half. Both were easy backyard fixes and repaired correctly that weekend. The good news of this is it gave us some confidence in the car which was severely lacking until this point. When we got back from the track day at ~5pm we painted our new trailer.

Saturday 6th: Bits and pieces were repaired, full day in the workshop.

Sunday 7th: Everything packed and trailer loom made (all nighter for a couple guys)

Monday 8th: Discovered the car we intended to tow with was not compatible with our trailer lights (at 4am .. ) had to tow with one of the slowest cars known to man, a nissan navara 2.5. We drove 19-22 hours to Shepparton. This was a massive day but turned out to be very valuable as it allowed us to get some driving time on tuesday. Got into bed at ~2am.

Tuesday 9th: Headed to Monash and managed some testing time at the netball courts, mostly skidpan. ARB was broken, maybe from transport but most likely from poor design. We replaced it with a 25mm barstock (no risks at this point) for some more testing time in the afternoon. We then went to our to the campsite and resealed the stator cover to get rid of an oil leak. All the clutch cover bolts were loose too! another 2am finish

Wednesday 10th: Testing with Melbourne at the oakliegh kart track. The car was behaving perfectly until the welds on the beam axle cracked, due to the stainless filler wire on a mild steel beam (not our decision .. ) We took the car to Monash and had a 1:30am finish in the workshop plating up the corners. We also re-welded our swirl pot tabs as they had torn off completely.

Thursday 11th: Set up at Calder Park, missed our scrutineering slot because our event guide was a previous version. The car wasn't really ready though so no big deal. Worked on the car for the rest of the day checking over bits and pieces.

Friday 12th: First pass through scrutineering was simple. only minor fixes: heat shield on filler, trim the tray, better catch can mounting, drain hole in tray and longer bolts in submarines. Passed clear second attempt. Everyone passed egress first try. Small fuel leak from rollover valve in tilt test, relocated valve higher and this was fixed. Passed noise and brake first attempt.

Saturday 13th: Put new tyres on (our only set) in the morning and went out for skidpan. Set a decent time and then our academic adviser found a broken bolt on the tray. Every single sprocket bolt was completely sheared, had probably never been tensioned properly. Threw new bolts in and did a few more skidpans. Then went to acceleration, surface was very dusty but we managed a solid time. Car was then prepped for autocross. Rob, our tech director, set the fastest time. Few loose bolts were luckily found beforehand. Car was performing well.

Sunday 14th: Sent car out for first endurance with the intention of running before the track got way too hot as we only had the single set of tyres. Was going to be Rob and Jarryd (a karting driver on the team) but a few wires shorted in Robs session and the car was turned into a lawn ornament. We assumed it was the killswitch but luckily review of the video revealed otherwise. Our electrics guy did a great job finding the broken wires and the car was sent out for endurance 2 with Chan (Team principal) and Jarryd. I was an absolute mess and for someone who doesn't usually get rattled was in tears for most of this run and after. Geoff tried to interview me but I actually couldn't speak due to being completely emotionally overwhelmed and physically exhausted. The drivers did a brilliant job with fairly clean runs until the steering rack broke. Chan still brought her home though and amazingly only used 1.9kg of fuel! Great engine. Got our trophy for acceleration and then discovered we were 5th overall. Extremely happy with that. Thing get hazy from about 1 hour previous to the afterparty til about 10am the next day.

Monday 15th: Steering was fixed at Monash. Car went out in the driver swap day. This is when I left to fly home for work but I saw the car come rolling to a stop as I was leaving. ARB arm had completely broken which is pretty impressive and a great data point for future designs.

There has been a bit of discussion here about the price of innovation. I would like to add my thoughts. Firstly I should specify that I don't really believe that we were particularly innovative on a competition scale as what we tried had been done before by the great guys at UWA. We were however innovative internally to our team as we worked out all our design and manufacturing processes with minimal external reference. Many things were overlooked, a few components were neglected, but we achieved our overall goals with an improvement in competition results and a completely new car finished in a year. Everyone even did well with their university results too! I can't even count the all nighters this year and we were pushing them as early as febuary, I have estimated that this years process was somewhere around the 150-200 hours per week. When you split that between ~8-10 people it is a massive task. Lack of sleep, stress and a massive emotional investment means things get overlooked/forgotten/ignored. We were extremely lucky to finish every event.

Our car was well received in design and our result (9th) reflects upon the sacrifices that had to be made to just get it done. Despite zero practice or planning for the design event the judges seemed to enjoy the car, our explanations and our efforts - where they were actually applied. I am still yet to receive any detailed feedback. I would love to say that I would do it differently but I am not sure how. ECUs decision to skip a competition and focus the car on the following year is a safe one. The risks of changing so many components & concept could be controlled with better team management. I don't know how Monash do it but we have tried multiple different ways to get more team members motivated and involved with little or no effect. There is a pretty big problem in the sense that everyone on our team is a volunteer with no academic or other benefit from participating, besides the obvious --to some-- effect of becoming a better engineer. When just completing a job is significantly quicker than teaching someone new to do it, with a massive amount of time already invested, it takes someone special to sit down and share that knowledge. This is compounded when the skill/knowledge they are sharing is close to completely self learnt. Sorting out these problems, applying more rigour to our design process and iterating our car will hopefully provide the return on our investment. I want to fill that silver cup with xxxx.

12-20-2014, 09:13 PM

In what'll be my last post before Z resurfaces to explain his conduct;

GTS,

Regarding presentation within Design, you earlier wrote,

It's not about the best designed car at competition, neither about the best presentation. it's about both,
...
in terms of design ownership, the latter [presentation] is a requirement to talk about the former [design]. You can't expect the judges to award mega points to an awesome-looking car that can't be explained by those presenting it.
...
I only judged aero - which the Monash team presented excellently ... They do a bit of stuff differently: presenting team members wore a shirt, were ready, present, and were engaging. ... Which was a good and industry-relevant thing.
(My added emphasis.)

And so on it goes...

The DJs are all human. It is a fact that half of them are of below average resistance to sweet-talking spin-doctoring. (Think about it, it is a statistical fact.) The end result is that the Design Event is the second most influenced by subjective bias in the whole competition. I am fine with 100/1000 points being awarded to the Team with the best ability to peddle bulldust, ie. "Presentation Event". That is good education for the realities of the real world.

But I do not want to see ~300/1000 points handed out for purely subjective reasons. This could happen if Design scoring was pushed up to, say, 200 points, not forgetting that Cost has a fair degree of subjectivity in it as well.

Design Event should be about the design of the car itself.
~~~o0o~~~

Regarding the DJ's ability to judge the students' "knowledge".

Earlier (page 7) I wrote,

"SOME "HOW TO GO FASTER" NOTES -
...
* VEHICLE DYNAMICS -
...
AutoX and Enduro - Again, MORE R%!!! And less Yaw-Inertia. All these cars will go a lot faster if they can turn into the corners faster, and then use their abundant power better when coming out of the slow to mid-speed corners. There is far too much rear-wheel spinning in the slower sections, always accompanied by glacially slow forward progress.

This has not changed since the first comp I saw a dozen years ago, and is a direct result of the never-changing fashion of building (almost) every new car with the "ideal" ~50:50 weight distribution. <= WRONG!
...
I personally think the non-winged Auckland car would have won this comp if it had a bit more R%." (Some emphasis added.)

This was blindingly obvious to me when I first saw these cars in 2002. I was harping on about it on these Forums back in 2005, as per the link back on page 12. I have continued to push this point over the last few years.

This single issue of R% is the most overwhelming factor in improving the performance of these cars. It is a trivially simple thing to explain theoretically. Small boys with no education at all can understand it practically.

But how many Design Judges have discussed this issue with the students over the last ~30 years of FS/FSAE?

It appears the answer must be "NOT many!", given that so few Teams have gone down this path.

Pat has posted here since I asked this question, but NO SPECIFIC REPLY to "R%?". I doubt Claude will give a specific reply, since he won't even post his thoughts on "DASDs?".

It follows that there is very little FUNDAMENTAL education happening here.
~~~o0o~~~

GTS, I have read and re-read your post addressing this question of "R%?". Again, I CANNOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC ANSWER! The most I can find is,

... good design will deserve more points if the students can explain it.
...
Among the judges we counted at least five national and three international racing categories of experience, over 10 road vehicle development groups and more. Your assertion ... is bullshit.

Paraphrased, that is,
"You are students, so you have to explain everything.
But we are DJs, so we are very clever, so WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING!"

I am not seeing good Education in that attitude.

Z

Jonny Rochester

12-20-2014, 09:24 PM

Thanks for that story Mitchell, I can relate to it well.

Fasteners and good welding is sort of important. These cars seam to shake themselves to bits. I wonder if we soft-mount the engine reliability would go up.

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 09:38 PM

For a little comp, we write a lot of words...

Now, lining myself up here to get shot down mercilessly...

GTS and Z, I know you both personally. And I have had lengthy discussions with the both of you about the state of Australian education, the future of FSAE-A, the lack of dedicated Design judges, and the decline in quality of current graduates. And you know what? You are both batting for the same team. You might have some differences in the way you want to implement change, but you both want the same change. As do I. And as do many people in this community.

We do have problems with lack of feedback in this competition. I knew it as a student competitor, I pushed for it as a faculty advisor, and then I struggled to push it through as one of the organizing consortium committee. It is an area that needs work.

GTS, you are one of the first design judges to take this issue seriously, and we thank you for that. Sincerely. Sincerely sincerely. Your efforts have been a breath of fresh air.

Z, you have been pushing for greater understanding and have played devils advocate on many occasions. Your methods are provocative, but I also note that you have taken extreme lengths over the years to explain your point of view. And the sketches you have provided are engineering art.

Now please, can we shake hands and make up? Move on? It pains me no end to see people of the same opinion tearing each other to shreds to win a battle within your own team. With the dwindling fortunes of Australian industry slowly pulling the curtains on us all, we need to fight together, not with each other.

Thanks gents,

Geoff

Jonny Rochester

12-20-2014, 09:56 PM

More hand shaking and hugs.
459

Big Bird

12-20-2014, 10:18 PM

Its all one big love-fest Jonny. And you seem to be at the centre of it all

:)

Pete Marsh

12-20-2014, 10:24 PM

Moke, re Comp strategy and practices to win,
Unlike Kev, I was there, and will accept responsibility. I was in roles directly responsible for the type of things you see going on, FROM WINNING TEAMS. I make no apology, because as any team that competes regularly to win international comps will tell you, this is what the FSAE competition is at the top level, right or wrong. Every point counts. If a competitor starts 1m behind the line and you can't get their time excluded (RMIT), then you have to do it to, you can't let them have those extra couple of points, or you will get beaten. (and did anyway that year). There may even be a case for this being relevant to the educational aspect of the comp. In business, it is important to be able to see where and why you are winning or loosing to your competitors. An engineer should understand the role they have in their enterprise to make the product win by more and loose by less.

RE Team structure styles-

As I tell all our new guys on the UWA team, Kev, Nando and others delivered a very capable concept in their time in the team, but they didn't race it too well. So while there were some good results, and design event wins, a comp win eluded them. My influence brought a trade background and Rally experience. A discipline better suited to FSAE than you might at first imagine. With some star team members in key areas, and more focus on driveability and usability, a lot of work on tyres and set up consistency, and more aggressive pursuit of every available point, wins followed.

BUT! With continuous iteration it ended up requiring fairly advanced knowledge in each vehicle area just to understand the car, let alone make an improvement on it. With school support disappearing, and close Faculty guidance along with it, it became difficult for new team members to learn enough during their time in the team to do much, or any, design improvement.

There was somehow an unwritten, unspoken, expectation, I think from Kev's time, that each car would be better than the last. We held onto this FAR too long. The team found itself trying to out do previous efforts, (and other top teams), with less manufacturing resource, a smaller team with less experience (recruiting went away with faculty support), no guidance, and a underlying design concept from people that left 5 years ago. Needless to say, it didn't end well.
Even without reducing resources, it now seems ridiculous to me a group of new fresh faces can somehow out design and build the previous group each year indefinitely. This requires you to absorb the lessons learned by your predecessors, and carry on where they left off, which of course you can do to an extent, but eventually this process takes up all the available time, and there is nothing left for the car.

Many teams iterate and develop the designs to a state of awesomeness, which is cool, and they are rewarded for it in the event, which is easy to understand. Claude suggested to us a five year plan is right, with a world championship (attempt) at the end, and a new start after. I can see that, IF there is long term control and guidance of the team and it's resources.

But what if that's not there, and you try to run a 1 year program?

If you allow your somewhat fresh team members design freedom to work from first principles, address the stated need, and find a solution, honestly, compared to the iterative way, the designs are rubbish. A car that is a collection of these things iterated by a slightly more experienced group having their first go at that, well, it's going to have some LTI (Less Than Ideal) about it. BUT, it IS their work! The reality, at my school at least, is that 3rd and 4th years CAN NOT, by a big margin, design a GFR (insert whatever awesome team you like) beater in their first attempt OF DESIGNING ANYTHING on their own. At UWAM this is slightly further complicated by not having the resources to manufacture a complete car, so a large number of components must be sourced from old cars, so some great concept ideas have to be scrapped if they need too many different big ticket items.

SO, the car is going to have it's issues, and won't be at the comp standard, and hence will score poorly. But the students will have learnt a LOT about fundamental engineering design and project management. Arguably a LOT more than the student handed a well defined component design brief, and a half a dozen previous examples of the part, and a specific shortcoming that requires addressing. Still a very valid engineering design experience sure, but of a very different nature. Ideally, you would of course do both, and this is UWAM's goal, but achieving it has proved difficult. Should this be rewarded at all at the comp?

Realistically, a first year design car by students with 0 to 1 year FSAE prior experience will never do well at comp the way things are, and this is probably as it should be, but it would be kind of nice (in a group hug kind of way) if there was some recognition that what they had done was at least worthwhile, and maybe even good. The treatment UWAM '12 got was soul destroying for those involved. Only Claude (of the DJ/officials) took the time to look at our idea and offer some words of encouragement, for which I thank him very much, and without which would have almost certainly meant the end of the concept and probably the team. The support from other teams was also really good, greatly appreciated, and made a big difference.

I applaud UQ for having a go at the side rocker beam suspension system ("mechanically mode separated suspension" I call it), and I don't know what their team structure is like, but I would be chuffed if they could refine it into a world beater, or at least an Aus comp winner. It is great to hear from GTS they were well received in design event this year. I would be interested to here from them on their take of this years comp and design event with an "innovative", but not fully developed, car.
Likewise, I strongly suspect ECU has a long term development plan, and the guidance, stability and resources to carry it out. It seems easy to forget that that car is the first iteration of a pretty radical, and impressive, solution. They may not have won this year, but I'll be stunned if they don't win with that concept in the future.

Pete

Kevin Hayward

12-21-2014, 01:10 AM

Nicely said Pete. I think UWA needed to change direction after 2006. I would hold that car as almost the pinnacle of the era, and competitive against any of the current crop. Hard to iterate from there. I wonder how things would have gone for the Uni if the EV team was more friendly to students running the show instead of being a Uni driven exercise. One good electric team instead of 2 marginal teams would have been a very interesting development for the Uni. I hope that one day there can be a revival at UWA. As much as they are now competitors it was a lot of hard work to get it going and competitive. The new crop have a massive task in front of them, and none of the advantages of being unheard of.

I think there are 3 important stages in developing a world competitive team:

1. Develop a belief that at some stage you can win. This means building 1-2 fairly straightforward cars and getting your team organised and pointed in the right direction. Very important in this stage to learn how to design a car that finishes all events. Reliability is key here and needs to be continued on as the team develops. The only important comp results here is to put a score up for every event. Many teams never achieve a belief in themselves to develop a good product and expect that they can never be competitive with the flashy cars up front.

2. Develop your design and manufacturing skills in order to create a unique competitive advantage. This is the time for innovation and rapid improvement in what you design and build. During this your statics results should be improving markedly, and you should be starting to press against the edges in the rulebook.

3. Learn to race the cars. Development and driver training become crucial as does racecraft. Finally you can begin to hope to win Autocross, and as we all know autocross performance is a pretty good indicator of the finishing place of a team (assuming reliability).

As the time goes on stage 2 may often need to be revisited, and after a big fall maybe stage 1. I have seen teams get no further than stage 2, and plenty that try to skip stage 2 altogether. When I left UWA we were only just starting to get the final stage into place. The team was much better at racecraft and vehicle development by Detroit 2005 than it was in Oz 2004. Monash have been the best team I have seen in being able to maintain themselves at such a high level for so long. They came up out of a lull in the Oz comp and maybe the first few years they didn't have a lot of competition, but instead of taking easy wins they destroyed the opposition. Last year they won by around 200 points, the year before by over 100. While they haven't been one of the most innovative teams in terms of design they have done a lot more than most, walking a very tight path of doing enough to stay highly competitive, while not doing too much that they over-extend. This years competition (regardless of the upcoming rule changes) showed very clearly that they will now need to make some pretty big changes if they want to stay on top too much longer.

When Auckland are reliable they are quick. The new rules will work towards them a little, probably enough to account for the difference this year.

If Curtin can bring their huge weight down and start to carve out a few design advantages they have the team management, build quality and development skills to do well.

UQ needs a lot of work on many areas, but their team was tight. 2 years of good development could see them fighting with the best. I reckon if the Auckland or ECU guys built the UQ car with a few on the shop floor improvements it could have placed in the top 3. This car was very impressive despite it's modest finish. The team was very tight.

Swinbourne electric look like they are on the right path. A couple of really good years on this track and they have the potential to make the IC cars pointless in a combined competition.

The ECU concept has a lot of legs, and is already competitive. Although the team will be largely a new one next year (about half of the 25 members at this years comp were 1st and 2nd years).

Personally while I was a bit gutted that ECU didn't get over the line this year I was really excited by what I saw in Australia. Reliability was high and it looks like teams are back on the innovation bandwagon. Hopefully a revival of the OZ teams on the world stage is coming. Also interesting discussions with faculty advisors and SAE-A. A show of hands for those willing to see some non-Victorian venues in the future was good to see. We were also assured that the SAE-A does not see the competition as having to stay in Melbourne. A lot of details would need to be solved such as volunteers etc, but hopefully one day we can see comps in Queensland, NSW, SA (again) and maybe even WA. Definitely the time to revitalise the competition has arrived. I hope that we can get EA involved and like GTS mentions get this comp to be more relevant to Australian engineering in the post automotive manufacturer era.

...

Lastly Pete, I have heard rumors of your graduation ... please assure me they are exaggerated and we can expect to see you as a student for the next 10 years.

Kev

GTS

12-21-2014, 07:25 AM

Z (I'll start here).

Take your earlier Kipling quote regards words, knaves and fools and apply it to what you've quoted of mine.

There are two events. Design and Presentation. Complete different purposes and yes, there is some degree of interrelation, no more than needing to accelerate out of a corner doesn't obliterate the need for an acceleration event.

We are asked, as judges, to do our best to extract relevant information from students in design. Our job is easier if it can be presented well, and at the other end its difficult if the students concerned are mute or intent on presenting something other than their design (which actually happened twice this event). Either way, we do the job.

The remarks on presentation are made as they affect team culture. Monash certain occupied the top end. At the other we had teams that really didn't give a rat's about the event, and guess what, it showed in the integrity of their design. The clock ticks on 15 minutes all the same. If we get a team looking like junkyard dogs and talking smack that can explain a 100% design, that's what they'll get. Yet to happen.

On design ownership, if a team puts a year of work into a design and when it comes time to bear it to scrutiny has someone present it that doesn't own it, doesn't understand it as well, isn't passionate about it - which ironically happens usually because teams believe it's better to have someone 'who presents well' do the design event - then guess what, we can't award points just because it looks awesome if the person trying to tell us why doesn't have a legitimate clue about it (twice at this and last year's event in my section). We will fumble through language barriers in addition to all shades of social awkward to search for understanding.

The best Design Event aero presentation last year scored 10%. The worst tied for top place.

The DJs are all human. It is a fact that half of them are of below average resistance to sweet-talking spin-doctoring. (Think about it, it is a statistical fact.) The end result is that the Design Event is the second most influenced by subjective bias in the whole competition. I am fine with 100/1000 points being awarded to the Team with the best ability to peddle bulldust, ie. "Presentation Event". That is good education for the realities of the real world.

Design judges are professionals from an industry that prides itself on an ability to assess much in an impartial, scientific manner.

Your statistics are unfounded shit. That's a technical term. Don't teach anytime soon.

But I do not want to see ~300/1000 points handed out for purely subjective reasons. This could happen if Design scoring was pushed up to, say, 200 points, not forgetting that Cost has a fair degree of subjectivity in it as well.

Design Event should be about the design of the car itself.

Well guess what, you're in complete luck. Design Event is about the design of the car itself. Your hysteria about what you think the design judges are or aren't, there's a lower noise floor in the static events than the dynamic events. If a great design is going to shine anywhere, these are easy points.

Regarding the DJ's ability to judge the students' "knowledge".

Earlier (page 7) I wrote,
(Some emphasis added.)

This was blindingly obvious to me when I first saw these cars in 2002. I was harping on about it on these Forums back in 2005, as per the link back on page 12. I have continued to push this point over the last few years.

This single issue of R% is the most overwhelming factor in improving the performance of these cars. It is a trivially simple thing to explain theoretically. Small boys with no education at all can understand it practically.

But how many Design Judges have discussed this issue with the students over the last ~30 years of FS/FSAE?

It appears the answer must be "NOT many!", given that so few Teams have gone down this path.

Pat has posted here since I asked this question, but NO SPECIFIC REPLY to "R%?". I doubt Claude will give a specific reply, since he won't even post his thoughts on "DASDs?".

It follows that there is very little FUNDAMENTAL education happening here.

Wow. Where to start.

I'm sorry that you believe R% is the only "most overwhelming factor in improving the performance of these cars" you see. There are, in fact, many.

Appreciably it'll come as a complete shock to you, however the 15 minutes allocated per team is to judge the design. Not:

To educate students,
To interfere in a faculty's educational program or principles,
To cater for the wide gamut of student levels within any given FSAE team,
To understand a university's drivers for competing in the competition and how this affects educational goals,
To gauge the quality of the student(s) concerned,
To make decisions on the best means of delivering relevant knowledge,
To devise and deliver a means of testing the understanding of such knowledge,
To devise a feedback program in learning to ensure the knowledge was applied and further learned from in a correct manner...

...or the myriad other things that constitute the professional delivery of education... which you seem to have little concept of, and have confused for what design judges actually do in the Design Event.

Those wanting a formal education pay for it and receive it in a learning institution. To participate in FSAE, competitors must be linked to one. Many universities internationally use FSAE as a project-based learning vehicle, and some have even in part devised degree programs around it in part. Design judges and the design event exist to competitively evaluate the net work of educational processes and programs at a variety of learning institutions as applied in a project-based learning environment. The event does not exist to replace formal education: it is a complement. Sure, some universities make a better fist of closing that loop better than others, and have greater success accordingly, and have used that success to drive further uptake of their degree programs.

What the hell do you reasonably expect, in as complex an engineering system as a car, a third-hand individual to impart in fifteen minutes?

If a small boy can understand it, the problem is not the complexity or obscurity of the knowledge. If you've posted it here ad nauseum, the problem isn't a paucity of the knowledge.

At the other end - I don't make any attempt to compress many years of experience in my field into some sort of a quarter-hour knowledge enema. Teams that have sought out my advice do so over many sessions and many hours each, which starts a journey. One uni asked for an hour after their dynamic events and got it. Those involved left with more questions despite more understanding. I don't give fish because it's a crap way to teach anything.

What journey student teams take to trade of many complex factors to design a car - starting with what information is considered, how it is considered, where any why choices and compromises are made - is their own learning experience. It doesn't end at the end of competition.

If you want to see a formula where lessons passed on year-on-year are absorbed cumulatively in the endless pursuit of competitive performance, go watch F1. That's not what Formula SAE is for. Students are free to absorb or ignore information from any source and do with it what they will. They're allowed to make highly original breakthroughs and mistakes in equal measure. We judge how and why it comes together.

GTS, I have read and re-read your post addressing this question of "R%?". Again, I CANNOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC ANSWER! The most I can find is,

Paraphrased, that is,
"You are students, so you have to explain everything.
But we are DJs, so we are very clever, so WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING!"

I am not seeing good Education in that attitude.

We provide feedback as a starting point. There is much that can be done around the immediacy and the transparency of that feedback, though that feedback is not and will never be a set of definitive answers able to be used in a formulaic context. If we gave all the answers, it'd not be a student competition set in a learning environment. Deal with it.

The most a student will get out of me is a suggestion, if I'm asked for suggestions outside of the design event to this end, to consider where any why CoG should be. That there might be better answer than what a team might currently run. Do I know more? Can I formulate a process to give a specific answer? Sure. Couldn't I pass that onto the student in question? Only if I'd completely missed the point of the competition.

It takes a particular kind of agenda to take such a comment and interpret it as you have. Your attitude - promoting some sort of combative relationship with industry seniors - is not something I'd suggest students seek to emulate.

GTS

12-21-2014, 07:48 AM

Now please, can we shake hands and make up? Move on? It pains me no end to see people of the same opinion tearing each other to shreds to win a battle within your own team. With the dwindling fortunes of Australian industry slowly pulling the curtains on us all, we need to fight together, not with each other.

BB, no problem getting on with anyone - I'll go toe to toe with anyone and have a beer later too. Want to discuss R% to the death or whatever the transient effect of the moon's pull has on a car, no problem. I'll pitch in.

That kind of relationship involves respect, however, and I won't accept an open display promoting a lack of it. Particularly for a competition that solely exists to better prepare graduates for industry life, and is run by industry volunteers believing that the best use of their time one sunny Friday of the year is to contribute to and invest in the continuance of the next best generation in their own profession.

No one here should accept unfounded criticism of the intent, professionalism or capability of these people. Beyond being flat-out wrong and suggesting a wholly illogical disconnect with students in the competition and what industry professionals they become, it (more critically) promotes values quite contrary to what the competition's about.

Can you imagine if these values were adopted by students wholesale? We'd wind up lacking volunteers to run the event. I certainly wouldn't attend.

Moke

12-21-2014, 03:59 PM

Z; While I appreciate and respect that you like to shit stir and challenge the status quo, your attacks on the creditably and personalities of the volunteers is way out of line. They give up their time at their own expense to help out at each event and without them there would be no comp and therefore no one for you to talk at on these forums. Next year it will cost me about $500 in flights, $150 rental car, $300 accommodation, $500 food and other expenses and a week pay to volunteer, for what? Someone to attack my integrity? Why should I bother when it will cost me nearly $3000? Because I give a shit about the quality of new engineers. As the old rugby saying goes: Play the ball not the man.

I don't know if you have sat in on a Biz prez, but it is very different to design. It is like comparing a investment plan to a product's technical data sheet, one covers the commercial/accounting side with little focus on the products and the other is product focused with very little on the commercial side.

-------~~~~~~~~~~~-------

With the power of age, hindsight and beer I have come to an epiphany, which may well be somewhat controversial;

The competition weekend is not important and the results ultimately irrelevant.

What is important and relevant is the 51 weeks leading up to that one weekend. That is when the design and innovation is done, that is when little baby engineers learn what they need to become useful members of the world. A team might not do so well at comp but I would argue that they have learnt no less that the team that wins, maybe even more. Their design might not ever win design but they now skills needed to make that design work. The comp is a show and tell with some back patting validation. Of course if you had told me this back then I would have told you that you're out of your freaking mind.

Focusing on the automotive industry will end this competition. It would interesting to see the percent of grads that go into automotive is, I would pick less than a third and of that even less into racing. Which leaves 2/3rds going in other directions - Hell, I'm Operations Manager at a nanofibre R&D and production company. It is these other industries that need to be engaged. FSAE is an engineering comp where the product happens to be a race car. The skills learnt are transferable to other products and that needs to be made known.

12-21-2014, 06:56 PM

GTS and Moke,

This competition is, without a shadow of doubt, supposed to be about Educating young Engineers. Other than the stopwatch as the ultimate "Judge", the DJs in the Design Event currently have the largest influence on this Education, within the competition itself.

Example. A student on another thread has just asked what sort of differential he should buy. Pat Clarke, a long time DJ, has just now advised the student that regardless of what diff he buys, he will have to "defend his choice to the Design Judges", or words to that effect.

In the above, I see a clear signal from a DJ that the student should aim to please the DJs first, and the stopwatch second. That is, the subjective DJs put themselves above the objective stopwatch in the role of "Educators". (And yes, I know the merit of this attitude has been discussed many times before...)

And what is the end result of ~30 years of students aiming to please DJs first, and the stopwatch second?

The average performance of the cars has barely budged. The bell-curve is wider, but its centre isn't moving. There is VERY LITTLE EDUCATION happening here, at least as far as the stopwatch judges it.

Young Engineers being taught to please their subjective "industry seniors" first, and the objective stopwatch second, is NOT GOOD for society in general.
~o0o~

And BTW, GTS, I am considerably your "senior". But I am used to youngsters showing very little respect for their elders these days... :)
~o0o~

More Xmas shopping... and then family comes a-knocking... Uuugghhh!

Then..., assuming no one else bothers, I will spell out why MORE R% can give such a large performance improvement.

Z

(PS 1. Has anyone considered that this comp would run just fine with NO DJs at all? Could save yourself $3k, Moke.)

(PS 2. To sum-up all of above, the DJs are, for the most part, preventing progress.)

GTS

12-21-2014, 07:06 PM

Ha. Still combative I see, and wrong on so many counts.

Education isn't about a stopwatch.

BB, you know where I am right now. Those that seek me may find me through you, or others.

12-21-2014, 07:09 PM

... wrong on so many counts.

Education isn't about a stopwatch.

GTS,

Details?

Z

Moke

12-21-2014, 07:45 PM

Z;
I don't rate myself enough to judge design, I probably could, but someone needs to put cones back, put cars on fire out, sweep the track, scrutineer the cars, hold the noise meter, keep track of times, tilt test cars, fuel the cars, drink beer with friends made at FSAE, etc. Sure teams could donate members which would be fine for the big guys but for the smaller teams it would be a killer. There are more than the doz or so design judges volunteering their time.

Also might I suggest doing your shopping online, it saves a lot of time and is often cheaper.

ahill3207

12-21-2014, 08:13 PM

Just my 2 cents, but asking students to justify and explain their decisions, and giving scores for their ability to do that, should not be considered a bad thing. I work for a large company in the automotive industry, and if I show up in my senior supervisor's office to ask for help, funding, or whatever is needed for a decision I've made that needs his support, I better be damn sure I can explain the issue and my reasoning for the decision, and explain it well and concisely. If I can explain it well, he knows I've done my homework and is much more likely to give me the help I need. It's not about "pleasing" the design judges, it's about being able to explain your design decisions and rationale to someone who has not been there to learn the ins and outs of your vehicle the entire time it was designed and built. The better you can explain your design, the better you understand it.

12-22-2014, 12:40 AM

Just had an idea while wrapping presents.

In the spirit of "simplificate, and add more lightness", I have been contemplating just how necessary are the DJs. Certainly, quite a few Teams have now found that P/PR&Rs are utterly useless, and have tossed them. So maybe the same can be done with the DJs, for the betterment of all? (*) :)

Let's assume that the intent of the Design Event is to encourage the students to bring cars each year that are better designed than last year's.

I would say that the most objective way to judge whether a car is '"better designed" is via the stopwatch. Specifically, in the Acceleration and Skid-Pad Events, which are very consistent tests of performance, especially if held at the same venue each year. Also possible in AutoX, if the same track is used, or if some sort of time scaling can be done to account for track changes (eg. via a spec test car driven by the Stig...).

So, devise a little formula that takes the Team's times in these events, in both this and last year's comps, and produces a score from 0 to 100. (Take 100 as enough points for this "Better Design Event". Give first year Teams default "last year times".)

* If big improvement in times, say, dropping one or more seconds (?), then Team scores the maximum 100 points.

* If NO DIFFERENCE in times, namely no improvement, then 50 points. Typically, this is what the top, but stagnating, Teams would get.

* If much slower times, say, slower by one or more seconds, then 0 points, because this is clearly a Team that was once good, but now gets marked down because no knowledge transfer...

The main advantage of this system is that it gives a very real 50 point encouragement to build a better car. No need to convince your "Boss" that it is better, with all that fancy sales-talk mumbo-jumbo. You just PROVE that it is better, with a stopwatch!

Then, finally, maybe, ... some progress for society in general.
~o0o~

(*) And just think, all those 16 hard-working, volunteer DJs could take the day off, and enjoy themselves at home wrapping Xmas presents. And no hassles about giving written feedback to all the Teams. Err..., except 15 of the Oz DJs haven't bothered with that here... :)

Z

Tim.Wright

12-22-2014, 02:07 AM

Anyone who's ever done any real testing can tell you that trusting laptime alone is a far too simplified way of assessing vehicle performance as a whole.

Unless you think driver skill and weather conditions are legitimate parts of a vehicle's design...

Moke

12-22-2014, 03:12 AM

* If much slower times, say, slower by one or more seconds, then 0 points, because this is clearly a Team that was once good, but now gets marked down because no knowledge transfer...

So by this plan UWA with the so called "most innovative suspension design" that only got 3 points would now get 0. Pretty quickly large innovation leaps would stop as teams would become risk adverse and only make small changes as needed rather than risk getting zero.

12-22-2014, 03:42 AM

Brent,

That UWA Team scored 3/200 possible DE points. So -197 behind the Top-Teams.

With my suggested system Teams with "no change" performance get 50/100. This will typically be the score achieved by Top-Teams that are "coasting" on the back of their previous years' efforts.

So, take a big innovative risk and cock it up, and -50 points behind the TTs. A reasonable penalty for cocking up.

Take the innovative risk and get it right, and +50 points ahead of the TTs. A worthwhile reward.

Importantly, even if you are not quite as fast Dynamically as the TTs, you can still win Outright because this year's students made a bigger Design leap in this year.

Isn't that roughly what the Design Event is supposed to be about?

Z

Moke

12-22-2014, 05:00 AM

So, take a big innovative risk and cock it up, and -50 points behind the TTs. A reasonable penalty for cocking up.

So UWA cocked up with their "most innovative suspension design" as it was not as fast on track as the previous year?

Using them as an example they would get a max of 50 - best design, someone with a slightly quicker car gets their 50 stopwatch points and lets say just 1 point in static design = 51 points, slight improvement beats innovation.

Edit: Forgot to say that the second team, lets call them Team M spent their year testing, tuning, improving reliability and training drivers, rather than a new design.

NickFavazzo

12-22-2014, 07:43 AM

I go away for a few days and came back to quite a read!

Just quickly. I don't recall any late submissions in 2012. I was quite upset with the score not following what was set out in the rules. From my understanding at the time there were no penalties to be applied (as per rules) other than C5.11.2/3.

In my opinion we should have either scored 0 (as per my interpretation of the rules) or more than 3.
3 was the ultimate "fuck you" it cut right to the soul. To be told by so many that you are wrong, causing trouble, presenting ideas outside the rules, cheating, etc etc.
Looking back on it, it was an absolute disgrace that the only people interested in the concept was Claude, who we spent some time with to help understand what we were trying to do and people from other teams. Claude and other competitors made me proud to have tried something different, contrasting greatly from many officials I had to interact with.

Had I not been part of a successful team in previous years I would have left and never came back to the comp. It was absolutely heartbreaking to be, what felt like, attacked for trying something different. It is also without a doubt why my involvement with the team has dropped off since then.

Scoring 3 said we understood nothing behind what generated our concept and nothing about any design category. We were effectively told we knew nothing and that our constant attempts at innovation were attempts as cheating. We designed 75mm of BUMP travel into our aerobeam cars JUST so we could display that we truly had suspension. Find me another team that has to do something similar.

Reading the design event feedback sheet there was so little understanding of vehicle dynamic basics that from the comments we could see that either the judge didn't know we didn't have beams axles or he/she didn't understand the differences between basic suspension types.

This definitely hit a raw nerve. So apologies for my language and ranting.

I need to re-read this thread and hopefully I'll have something constructive to add.

Big Bird

12-22-2014, 12:32 PM

Ladies and gents, in the interests of putting the issue to rest, I am accepting responsibility for the 2012 UWA Design scoring issue. Please see my apology elsewhere on these boards. I request that you respect my actions by directing further Forum discussion on this topic directly through me.

Thank you

mdavis

12-23-2014, 03:40 PM

Would anyone mind posting the ECU CG height with/without driver? Based on looking at the engine package, it would seem to be incredibly low, and that has been repeated here, but I'm curious how low. I'd also be interested in weight bias (%F, with or without driver) if the team is willing to share it.

Kevin Hayward

12-23-2014, 06:14 PM

190mm with driver. Test was a little lower, but with such a high tilt angle even half a degree out makes a big difference. Measurements were consistently between 180 and 190.

55% rear with driver.

Kev

12-23-2014, 06:17 PM

Kevin,

All four wheels moved 150 mm forward = world-beater! :)

Z

ChristianChalliner

12-23-2014, 06:58 PM

190mm!!!! That's insane. I was thinking <250 was probably the limit for us if we drysumped, no idea how we'd get to 190.

Kevin I was thinking that given you run a custom bottom end why did you decide on the orientation engine>gearbox>diff? If you somehow managed to drive over the top it might be possible to get engine>diff>gearbox if you see where I'm going? So your outdrives came out just behind the crank shaft axis. Then you'd have even more rear weight and an even shorter car. Maybe even Z's driver inside the wheelbase is possible?

Moke

12-23-2014, 09:55 PM

I looked back at our 2005/2006 car and the COG was 180mm with smaller wings and, this will make you somewhat happy Z, 60% rear. Didn't win anything at comp.

Kevin Hayward

12-24-2014, 07:03 AM

Christian,

Main limiting factor was the exhaust manifold. Very close to the gearbox. Could have angled the head up, but theguys were trying to keep machining simple. Hard to run through all the engine design iteration conducted over a number of years. Lots of compromise everywhere with the powertrain. Whenever something looks like we did something a bit odd the reason is usually to do with ease of manufacture, ease of rebuilding and chasing reliability.

Z,

If both wheels can go forward by 150mm some very cool packaging ideas can be investigated. Guys are working on it.none of the things we talk about in the workshop is that simplicity is not easy. Tokyo Denki had a couple of cool ideas that would work well with achieving that.

I think in a few years time we could be seeing a big change in how simple and small these cars become. Enough teams are playing around with the ideas. If a few of the best teams bite and give it a go we could see the end of the mini-f3 cars.

Kev

mech5496

12-24-2014, 07:27 AM

Take a look at my post at "beams" tread...driver can be within the WB almost entirely and with reasonably low GC and inertia. I had a similar assembly with a rearward tilted JAWA somewhere...

12-24-2014, 09:42 PM

Quick note during mid-Xmas-chaos...
~o0o~

Tim,

Anyone who's ever done any real testing can tell you that trusting laptime alone is a far too simplified way of assessing vehicle performance as a whole.

Unless you think driver skill and weather conditions are legitimate parts of a vehicle's design...

But "anyone who's ever done done any real testing" knows that they MUST ACCOUNT FOR the different levels of "driver skill and weather conditions", otherwise NO POINT DOING THE TESTING! :)

Fair comparisons of this year's and last year's cars are possible...
~o0o~

Brent (Moke),

So UWA cocked up with their "most innovative suspension design"...
[example compares innovative-cock-up vs polished-faster car] ...
... slight improvement beats innovation.

Yes! I would prefer to see cars with constantly IMPROVING performance score highly in Design, rather than cars that are subjectively assessed (?) to be INNOVATIVE. This because I believe most H. Sapiens are utterly incapable of recognising real innovation. (If they were, then we would see much more of it. More on this later in Geoff's new thread (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11965-Personal-apology-to-UWA-regarding-2012-FSAE-A-Design-Event) in the "General" section of the Forum...)

However, it is well known that constant polishing suffers from the Law of Diminishing Returns. So occasional "innovative leaps" must be made if you want constant improvement.

I looked back at our 2005/2006 car and the COG was 180mm with smaller wings and, this will make you somewhat happy Z, 60% rear. Didn't win anything at comp.

The lower the CG, the more R% required!

This hinted at (spelt out?) in 2005 post on Gordon Murray's BT55 and MP4/4 (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?4388-ALL-TURBO-SUPERCHARGED-TEAMS-PLEASE-READ&p=84466&viewfull=1#post84466). More details later.
~o0o~

Harry,

They're coming...
~o0o~

Originally by Paracelsus, about 500 years ago:
"The dose maketh the poison."

Anyone know how much chocolate maketh it poisonous? ... I don't feel well ...

Z

GTS

12-25-2014, 04:27 AM

As a few people offline have asked that I respond...

The competition weekend is not important and the results ultimately irrelevant.

What is important and relevant is the 51 weeks leading up to that one weekend. That is when the design and innovation is done, that is when little baby engineers learn what they need to become useful members of the world.

Correct. Glad someone gets the point of why the competition exists, and why universities co-fund it. You're welcome to try the "Dear Prof. University Faculty Head, we need a six-figure sum of money to build a faster car than last year's". Let me know if you do, I could use a good chuckle.

Z; While I appreciate and respect that you like to shit stir and challenge the status quo, your attacks on the creditably and personalities of the volunteers is way out of line.

In the spirit of sportsmanship - which all involved in the competition are encouraged to follow - also wise advice.

GTS,

Details?

No, it'd be a waste of time.

A student on another thread has just asked what sort of differential he should buy. Pat Clarke, a long time DJ, has just now advised the student that regardless of what diff he buys, he will have to "defend his choice to the Design Judges", or words to that effect.

(blah blah hysterical crap later)

That's right - Pat has just advised a student to think for themselves, to research as much leading towards a decision that they will own, and to make the process sufficiently robust to explain to others. Pat has directed the student to any answer other than a formulaic response at best and 'because Pat Clarke said so' at worst. In directing the student to consider their engineering choices, Pat's probably given the student the best advice possible. Asking 'Pat, what might I consider in choosing a differential - here's some stuff I've already researched, I'm a little unsure of these issues, etc' might elicit a different answer.

Let's assume that the intent of the Design Event is to encourage the students to bring cars each year that are better designed than last year's.

Let's not, because your assumption is incorrect. It's not what it (or the competition) is primarily for.

But "anyone who's ever done done any real testing" knows that they MUST ACCOUNT FOR the different levels of "driver skill and weather conditions", otherwise NO POINT DOING THE TESTING! :)

Fair comparisons of this year's and last year's cars are possible...

This works if vastly underestimating the complexity of this as a field of study and what compounds it. Doing this reliably is significantly beyond undergraduate study for many competing teams. Noise factors in a FSAE complicate matters further, and limited repeatable running creates further variance.

Unsurprisingly, there are reasons why this isn't something the competition's structured around.

I believe most H. Sapiens are utterly incapable of recognising real innovation.

For a keyboard warrior so critical of those encouraging others to challenge and find confidence in their own beliefs/concepts/designs, you're quite keen to promote your own ideologies. With an amazingly low awareness for what these statements can do in a discussion forum (supposedly) dedicated to a constructive, highly-formative, learning activity.

As in you really have no f**king clue.

Some students actually read your bile and take it literally... then when some of us (DJ's or otherwise) attend a university, giving time with departing and incumbent students in this program to help best structure their efforts moving forwards, there's a lot of work to do to restore confidence in thinking independently again... as three of us experienced recently, with this very thread - and your comments - directly quoted.

If you think there's that much merit in your point of view and delivery, volunteer. Apply for judging, join the rules committee, wreck the joint if you see fit. There's always room for professionals with the students best interests at heart, if you fit that bill.

And BTW, GTS, I am considerably your "senior". But I am used to youngsters showing very little respect for their elders these days...

No, you're just older. Respect is earned.

I'm out - this thread (including my own involvement) isn't taking a constructive direction.

Merry Christmas all.

Pat Clarke

12-25-2014, 05:38 AM

GTS, read your PMs

Pat

bob.paasch

12-25-2014, 04:20 PM

Yes! I would prefer to see cars with constantly IMPROVING performance score highly in Design, rather than cars that are subjectively assessed (?) to be INNOVATIVE. This because I believe most H. Sapiens are utterly incapable of recognising real innovation. (If they were, then we would see much more of it. More on this later in Geoff's new thread (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11965-Personal-apology-to-UWA-regarding-2012-FSAE-A-Design-Event) in the "General" section of the Forum...)

For a keyboard warrior so critical of those encouraging others to challenge and find confidence in their own beliefs/concepts/designs, you're quite keen to promote your own ideologies. With an amazingly low awareness for what these statements can do in a discussion forum (supposedly) dedicated to a constructive, highly-formative, learning activity.

As in you really have no f**king clue.

Actually, you're both wrong, but GTS is more wrong. H. Sapiens are pretty good at recognizing conventional verses "creative" (or non-conventional) ideas. But within the category of "creative" ideas there is little agreement amongst even "experts" as to what is a "good" idea verses a "bad" idea. So the idea of assessing "innovation" in the FormulaSAE design event and rewarding such (implicitly, the "good" ideas) falls flat on its face.

In the early 1990's I was fortunate to attend a two week workshop on "Creativity in Engineering Design" at Stanford University, led by Design School faculty Bernie Roth, Doug Wilde and Rolf Faste. The workshop remains one of the highlights of my academic career. Rolf and I had a very nice side discussion on evaluating innovative design, and he pointed me to a paper he'd recently written on the subject. I urge forum members, and especially the design judges, to read it themselves: http://http://fastefoundation.org/publications/an_improved_model.pdf

Scott Monash

12-25-2014, 06:32 PM

12-25-2014, 06:54 PM

GTS,

Respect is earned.

Yes, I was going to mention that earlier.

I start people off at a neutral "respect" level of ZERO, after which their actions move them up or down.

So far I have overlooked your emotional writing and profanity because it is so common amongst your younger generation.

But your complete lack of interest in discussing DETAILS has moved you down a few notches.
~o0o~

Bob,

But within the category of "creative" ideas there is little agreement amongst even "experts" as to what is a "good" idea verses a "bad" idea. So the idea of assessing "innovation" in the FormulaSAE design event and rewarding such (implicitly, the "good" ideas) falls flat on its face.

Agreed! That was EXACTLY MY POINT! :)

(Errr..., maybe too many "http"s in your link, so http://fastefoundation.org/publications/an_improved_model.pdf)

Z

12-27-2014, 07:56 PM

WHY MORE R%?
===============

As noted earlier, IMO most cars in FS/FSAE have TOO MUCH REAR-WHEELSPIN coming out of the slow and medium speed corners.

Some might ask, "Isn't that what they're supposed to do, given that the comp is about going as fast as possible, in order to score maximum points?"

My answer is "No, you don't score more points by spinning wheels. Just the opposite!".

So, below are some reasons why you can score MORE POINTS by having LESS WHEELSPIN.

Following reasons are roughly in reverse order of importance.
~~~o0o~~~

REASON 4. FUEL ECONOMY - Mega-wheelspin out of corners = much fuel wastefully injected into the engine for the mostly USELESS purpose of tearing little bits of rubber off the rear-tyres.

A typical 13" tyre rolled, with NO longitudinal-slip, around the 1,200 metre Oz-14 track would do about 730 revolutions. A 10" tyre would do about 850 revs. Of course, some slip always happens whenever the tyre is forcefully pushing the car forwards. On the other hand, the reverse slip from braking reduces the total number of revs. Due to entropy the number of wheel revolutions required for a good "fast lap" will be somewhat higher than the above-quoted numbers. So, maybe a MAXIMUM of 850 revs for the 13" tyres and 950 revs for the 10"s?

I would be interested if any DAQ-Guys could post their numbers for rear-wheel-revs/lap, in Oz-14 AutoX and Enduro. (Think of it as a contest to find the wheelspin champs!) Some simple calcs would then show how much fuel was wasted on unnecessary wheelspin, and how many FE points lost.
~~~o0o~~~

REASON 3. SLIDING MU IS LESS THAN STATIC MU ("Mu" = "Coefficient-of-Friction") - As all you TTCers know, the tyre longitudinal-slip-ratio curves climb steeply to a peak Fx at a lowish "Slip-Ratio" (however you choose to define "SR"), but then usually drop to lower values of Fx at higher SRs. This drop-off can be quite significant, often more than 10%. (Any Tyre-Gurus care to share their numbers, taken from the car's DAQ systems?)

It should be fairly obvious that to get around the track as fast as possible, the car should maximise its longitudinal and lateral accelerations. It follows that the tyres should operate close to their Fx and Fy peaks. So mega-rear-wheel-Slip-Ratio = not good.
~~~o0o~~~

REASON 2. BETTER CONTROL - Auckland's car was the only one I noticed where the driver was able to "keep the boot in" as the rear-tyres lit up. Even so, the driver had to take a cautious line around the bends because of the lesser directional control from the rapidly spinning rears (ie. Fy drops together with Fx, as in point 3 above, so less sideways control). Most of the other cars had the driver rapidly backing off the throttle as soon as the rears broke free, giving jerky forward progress.

I am guessing that some cars (eg. Monash?) had reasonably effective Traction-Control, which did a smoother job of "backing off the throttle" than the other drivers could manage. This TC would also have been effective in preventing "wasted fuel", as above. But note that while turning the power down can save fuel, keep the Mu high, and help with car control, it does not actually make the car faster. TC simply lessens the bad effects of UNUSABLE power.
~~~o0o~~~

REASON 1. THE BIG ONE - To a first approximation (ie. assuming the CG is at ground level, for now) the maximum possible forward acceleration of the car is directly proportional to R%!

So, MORE R% = MORE ACCELERATION out of all those low to medium speed corners!

In equation form the maximum possible forwards force, Fx, capable of accelerating the car is,

Fx(max-from-rear-wheels) = Tyre-Mu x Rear-Fraction x Weight-of-Car,
(where RF = R%/100, and Weight-of-Car = Mass-of-Car x G).

Putting this in terms of "G" units of acceleration, gives,

Maximum-Longitudinal-G = Mu x RF. Simple as that!

So, RF is a FIRST-ORDER performance factor, and should be near the top-of-the-list of any Team's "How Can We Go Faster" discussions.
~o0o~

Looking at this in a bit more detail, we include the "Rear-Load-Transfer" term (ie. second part in brackets below) due to Inertia acting on a CG that is above ground. With CG height H, on a wheelbase L, the above equation becomes,

Max-G = Mu x (RF + (G x H)/L).

Putting this in less self-referential form,

Max-G = RF/(1/Mu - H/L).

Using this last equation, it is worthwhile to take several different levels of Mu, say a highish "peak" value and a lower "wheelspin" value, then for each of these do a surface plot of Max-G (vertical-axis) against different values of RF and H/L (on the two horizontal axes). Two things should be apparent.
1. The lower the car's CG, then the more RF it needs for good acceleration.
2. Cars at the low-CG/high-RF end of the map have relatively less change in Max-G levels at different Mus, compared with cars with high-CG/low-RF. In other words, low-CG/high-RF cars accelerate faster out of the corners even when their rear-tyres "light-up". Conversely, the low-RF cars just sit their smoking their tyres.
~~~o0o~~~

(More coming ...)

Z

12-27-2014, 07:58 PM

Finally, not "Why?", but ...

REASON 0. WHEN IS "MORE R%" NEEDED?
===============================

All of the above reasons are only relevant when the car is "traction-limited". That is, when the car has more than enough power to light up its tyres, but not enough traction to make good use of that power. So, when is that?

The calculations required to find the dividing line between "traction-limited" and "power-limited" are extremely simple, namely,

Mechanical-Power = Force * Velocity,
(where F, V = vectors, * = dot/scalar-product, and thus Power = scalar).

In agricultural circles this Power is usually called the "drawbar-power", and the Force is the "drawbar-force". So the Force in above equation is that exerted by the ground to accelerate the car forwards (or to pull a plough). From the previous post, and taking all vectors to be longitudinal, we get,

Power = Mu x RF(dyn) x Mass-of-Car x G x Velocity,
(where RF(dyn) = Rear-Fraction INCLUDING the dynamic-rear-load-transfer term).
~o0o~

Let's do some rough comparisons of different types of racecar to make sense of the above equation. We seek the "VelocityT/PL" at which the car switches from Traction-Limited to Power-Limited.

To simplify things, let's assume that in all examples below,
Mu = 3/2 (ie. 1.5),
RF(dyn) = 2/3 (eg. like a car that has static 50F:50R, but during hard acceleration ends up with 67%R),
so Mu x RF(dyn) = 3/2 x 2/3 = 1,
and G = 10 m/s.s.

With these simplifications, VelocityT/PL = Power/(Mass-of-Car x 10).
~o0o~

EXAMPLE 1. FORMULA-VEE - Cheapest formula racing series ever, so naturally low powered, and using heavy-ish VW-Beetle parts. These cars race on conventional circuits, so spend most of their time between 100 kph (~30 m/s) and a top speed of about 200kph (~60 m/s).
Power = ~50 kW (at MOST!, actually closer to 50 hp),
Mass = ~500 kg,
so, VelocityT/PL = 50,000/(500 x 10) = 10 m/s (36 kph, at most).

So, only traction-limited off the start line (ie. for ~one second), then power-limited everywhere else. Hence they manage fine with about 50-55%R, close to equal sized tyres F&R, and NO NEED for more rear grip.

http://www.veecentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Storm.jpg
~o0o~

EXAMPLE 2. FORMULA-5000 - Inexpensive but fast formula racing series from ~1970s, with F1 levels of power, or more, from hotted-up, 5 litre, stock-block V8s, and very few restrictive Rules. Raced on the same circuits as F-Vee and F1, so mostly speeds of 100 kph to 300+ kph (~30 - 90 m/s).
Power = ~420 kW,
Mass = ~700 kg,
so, VelocityT/PL = 420,000/(700 x 10) = 60 m/s (216 kph).

So, traction-limited for about half the lap (ie. out of ALL slow and medium speed corners), and power-limited only on the really high speed stuff. So MASSIVE NEED FOR REAR GRIP! So 60-70%R and monster rear slicks...

http://www.sportscardigest.com/wp-content/uploads/MSC11Rnd3R3JayEsterer1.jpg
~o0o~

EXAMPLE 3. FORMULA-SAE - Student Engineering competition, nominally based on "autocross" racing, so conducted on very twisty tracks to maintain low speeds, and thus better overall safety. Rules mandate track-design such that average speeds are about 50 - 60 kph (~15 m/s) and top speeds below about 100 kph (~30 m/s).
Power = ~60 kW,
Mass = ~300 kg,
so, VelocityT/PL = 60,000/(300 x 10) = 20 m/s (72 kph).
(Note that a lightweight car, 200 kg total, with a cracker of a 60 kW engine, can have Vt/pl = 60,000/2000 = 30 m/s (108 kph)!)

So, TRACTION-LIMITED FOR MAJORITY OF THE LAP. Or, at the very least, TOO MUCH WHEELSPIN coming out of all the slow to medium speed corners. And note that in the two preceding examples, aero-drag lowers Vt/pl because of the much higher speeds of those cars, so power is lost to aero-drag, but in FSAE the lower overall speeds lessen this aero influence.

Bottom line, find photos elsewhere, or just look at your own car, but ...,
... all your cars NEED MORE REAR GRIP!
~o0o~

FINAL CASE STUDY: SWINBURNE (#E17) - The Swinnians were kind enough to explain to this "old caveman who had only mastered fire" how they had managed to "hand-cuff lightning, and put it in a bottle", or some such. And something about "the benefits of learning how to integrate complex electro-mechanical systems ...", and, err..., other marketing buzz-speak ... which I have forgotten.

Nevertheless, they had a headline power figure of 70 kW, and a car (~240 kg) plus driver Mass that could have been under 300 kg total. So, comparing these figures with all the other cars at Oz-14, they SHOULD have had a lightning quick car.

However, by the above reckoning and their quoted figure of 55%R, with 70 kW available they would have been traction-limited around most of the track. So they would have been EVEN FASTER if they had more rear grip from more R%.

BUT (why!!!???) for reasons that are beyond this caveman, they geared their 2 x OVERSIZED Emrax 228 motors so that the notional "70 kW" is only available at the very top speed of the car, about 110 kph (ie. the motors are direct-drive). Even more baffling, is that this gearing puts the motors in a rather INEFFICIENT part of their efficiency map, for most of the car's track time (ie. spends most time at <90%, cf. peak = ~96%). Even worse, the torque available from this gearing CANNOT give good acceleration, maybe only 0.8 G maximum... (I suspect an irrational, ideological belief that "E-Car MUST = direct-drive"?)

Soooo..., speaking only as a caveman ... if Swinnie want to stay with this overall concept, then I suggest two smaller (and lighter!) motors, perhaps the Emrax 207s. But gear these ~4:1 so they operate most of the time at their peak efficiency. This gearing then gives an available thrust force (ie. "drawbar-push") of ~5 kN, implying ~1.7 G acceleration, IF the rear tyres are suitably loaded (ie. ~100%R(dyn)). The ease of re-positioning batteries, etc., should make a low-CG/high-RF car very easy to do.

Furthermore, this "more R%" allows smaller front wheels and tyres (eg. <6"x10"), for less mass. Toss the PushRods&Rockers for less mass again. More R% also means more braking-regen-energy can be extracted from the rear-wheels. Perhaps all of it in Enduro, so front brakes are only for scrutineering and AutoX. So along with the lighter motors, a lighter battery pack can be used. And if the Team has any clever software/EEs, then torque-vectoring means that, in principle (*), the steering-linkage also becomes redundant, with directional control as per ZTR lawn-mowers. (* But conventional steering-linkage must be kept to please the scrutineers, and as back-up...).

So, all up, the concept can head in the direction of Ben Bowlby's DeltaWing racecars, albeit with full-width front-track. The DeltaWings have about 72+%R. Despite all the experts crying "It'll never work!!! Too much R%!!! ...", and so on, the "half-power + half-mass = same-speed + less-fuel" concept has actually worked very well indeed. And with the relative ease of implementing torque-vectoring on E-cars, an even more extreme low-CG/high-R% E-car might work even better (eg. power-on-understeer is easily fixed, etc.).

Then..., maybe..., Delft and Zurich might have to look over their shoulders...

But, of course, Caveman-fired "C"-cars will always be faster. Especially if Enduro is made longer than "a quick trip to the corner store for a pint of milk...". :)

Well reasoned criticism most welcome, especially from Swinnie. :)

Z

Menisk

12-28-2014, 12:49 AM

Below is a bunch of longitudinal slip data from the UQ 2014 car in both acceleration and autox driving. I'll start with acceleration. The first plot is some of our best runs when we were testing at lakeside. We found the fastest way to do the runs was to drop the clutch at 14k RPM and use the inertia of the engine to generate the slip quickly as the tyres were hooking up hard and in turn self regulating the slip. For the record track temps were somewhere in the order of 55C and we were smearing the rubber off the tyres during autox we had so much heat in them. We literally had treadwear markers disappearing as the surrounding rubber filled them in as it smeared across the carcass of the tyre.

http://i.imgur.com/5z2xlrD.jpg

This next plot is from the acceleration event at comp. The day was warm but the track temps were definitely not as high, by the end of the event the tyres were plenty sticky as we'd be doing multiple runs in succession and I had our driver weaving, braking and accelerating on the coast back to the start line between runs. The surface seemed dusty to begin with and we definitely weren't hooking up nearly as well. Realistically by the end there really couldn't have been much dust left with all the cars clearing it. My only conclusion is the surface was rougher and we were relying on the mechanical adhesion of the tyres far more than the chemical adhesion on a smoother surface. Here we would have been better winding back the launch RPM and starting from a lower slip. We initially responded by dropping the RPM back to a 12k dump and as the temperature came into the tyres and we started hooking up a little we made the wrong decision of putting the RPM limit back up under the poor assumption our problem that day was one of tyre temperature. Because the surface was crap we didn't end up with the tyres limiting the slip themselves and staying in their optimal range. Most of our experience has been that our 13" Hoosiers love slip. We won the acceleration event in 2013 with a 10k RPM limiter dump in first and put down a time only 0.05s slower doing a 14k dump in second without a gear shift.

http://i.imgur.com/mXs8fO8.jpg

The key to winning acceleration is as much normal force on the rears as possible, the power to back it up and holding the tyres in their optimal slip range (15-40km/h for us). The reason ECU beat us was likely a bit of static rear weight bias (we were 50/50 due to the shitty job of packaging an F4i motor in a minimum wheelbase) but also because they had a different link position that offered a heap of anti-squat that drives the rear wheels into the ground for a brief moment at the start line. We intended to do the same but unfortunately lacked the test time.

The next set of plots are from endurance at FSAE-A. I'll start with the plot of slip measured as a ratio. You can see a general trend and you can see that the fx-sr curve falls over as you add lateral force (the different colours). However it's messy and doesn't seem to have an awfully nice correlation.

http://i.imgur.com/WdtIKje.png

I've ended up finding that slip measured in km/h is a far better indicator of longitudinal force. There is still noise to the curve and that is to be expected as the points are generated off different patches of road, some good, some bad. there are some interesting things to take from the picture below. The first being wheelspin is not necessarily a bad thing. You can see that the peak longitudinal force comes later in the curve as you start adding lateral load to the tyre. If you've got a driver that's running around the edge of the friction circle and putting power down as hard as your car can, he will be spinning up tyres and the back will be stepping out a bit. It's not an indication of a loss of grip so much as the tyres finding the new operating zone which needs a bit more slip angle and a bit more slip ratio. If you watch any of the cars on LC0s that are going fast you'll note that the lack of cornering stiffness means they need to drive the cars incredibly sideways. It's not an indication of a lack of grip, it's just found in a different place.

http://i.imgur.com/ZE9zNQd.png

Jonny Rochester

12-28-2014, 06:43 AM

Thanks for this analysis Menisk. It is obviously from real experience, and well written in a language I can understand. Communication is important as well! A description with Fz and Fy etc. is too hard for me to follow, and even a "full" mathematical model can never be complete to describe something so dynamic as drifting a car, the driver taking his own judgement to find best grip etc. Thanks for trying to bridge this gap.

mech5496

12-28-2014, 11:15 AM

I will echo Jonathan, that was a great input, thanks!

Tim.Wright

12-28-2014, 02:00 PM

In my experience, the laptime sensitivity of R% of a given car depends heavily on the track geometry. It favours tracks with long straights and the advantage continues also when you are power limited.

The price you pay is less cornering performance (due to tyre load sensitivity) less stability (cornering stiffess is also load dependent), a slower lateral acceleration response to steer (generally considered bad feedback to the driver).

Consider also that most of the time you are traction limited in FSAE is when you are cornering. Weribee is not Monza, like anything R% is a trade off...

Tim.Wright

12-28-2014, 04:21 PM

Though, I will concede one point. With amatuer drivers, you aren't so likely to fully exploit gains in cornering performance and stability. But if you give them better traction and they will use it.

MCoach

12-29-2014, 12:37 PM

One of my favorite plots I ever made looked at various radii and comparing tire angle vs lateral acceleration.

It doesn't mean much on it's own, but it's neat. Combine it with a yaw plot and now you can start doing some serious calcs and estimations. :)
Semi related here is the time vs velocity and yaw on a different set of radii. You use get an idea of how stability changes over different velocity and corner radii when using wheel angle, yaw, and accel measurements together. Second plot, red is V, green is yaw, units are undesignated. These are old pictures so not very relevant to our current design.

12-29-2014, 10:16 PM

Menisk,

Thanks for the data. :)

I think there are some other things that can be taken from the above plots, but on the other hand I am not sure of all the background details that go with all those little dots, so I better not speculate.

I would be interested to know if you can extract the number of "wasted wheel revolutions" you had in the Enduro event. So, the number of times the rears spun more than they had to, to generate peak-Fx, coming out of the corners. This can then be used to estimate "how much fuel wasted", and "how many FE points lost".

I am mostly interested to know if this is a BIG points difference, or not worth fussing over? Note that Monash might have had Traction-Control (???) so NOT lost too much fuel, and ECU were 35 points behind, and Auckland another 10 back. So, for ECU and Auckland, could less wheelspin = less fuel wastage = change of podium positions?
~o0o~

Tim,

The price you pay is less cornering performance (due to tyre load sensitivity),
less stability (cornering stiffess is also load dependent),
a slower lateral acceleration response to steer (generally considered bad feedback to the driver).

* The TLS is fixed by putting larger tyres on the back, and smaller on the front. See red car, previous page, for hints. :)

* I reckon AutoX style courses benefit from less stability.

* Slower lateral response, with SAME steering-ratio, is an inevitable consequence of increasing the distance from CG to front-wheels. But solution is simply to speed up the steering-ratio (and increase max-lock), as I suggested on page 7.

With amatuer drivers, ... give them better traction and they will use it.

Yes! And so easy to use. Just stomp on the skinny-pedal, and go fast! :)

Z

Tim.Wright

12-30-2014, 02:47 AM

* Slower lateral response, with SAME steering-ratio, is an inevitable consequence of increasing the distance from CG to front-wheels. But solution is simply to speed up the steering-ratio (and increase max-lock), as I suggested on page 7.

A faster ratio doesn't decrease response time to a given lateral acceleration. It just means you have to move the wheel less to get there. The transient response time from ay=0 to any nominal value will remain the same.

Regarding the tyre sizes, you could equally put larger tyres on the front and rear and enjoy more cornering grip. Like I said, the correct direction to go (prioritising traction or cornering speed) will depend on the track geometry and can be understood from even a simple lapsim.

The worst case for stability is under brakes. While instabilities may help maneuverability on a tight track once you get to the point that the driver can't control the car under brakes, then some of your top speed advantage is going to be thrown away by him braking earlier.

RenM

12-31-2014, 06:27 AM

I am mostly interested to know if this is a BIG points difference, or not worth fussing over? Note that Monash might have had Traction-Control (???) so NOT lost too much fuel, and ECU were 35 points behind, and Auckland another 10 back. So, for ECU and Auckland, could less wheelspin = less fuel wastage = change of podium positions?

Traction Control is not very fuel efficient with an engine that uses intake-manifold fuel injection. The only way to control the power output fast and reliable is by changing the ignition and thus deliberately making the engines efficiency worse. TU-Graz ran Traction Control some years ago and their fuel efficiency really got bad.

12-31-2014, 07:11 PM

Happy hangovers, all!

2015, and a brand new set of Rules! :)
~~~o0o~~~

A faster ratio doesn't decrease response time to a given lateral acceleration. It just means you have to move the wheel less to get there. The transient response time from ay=0 to any nominal value will remain the same.

Regarding the tyre sizes, you could equally put larger tyres on the front and rear and enjoy more cornering grip. Like I said, the correct direction to go (prioritising traction or cornering speed) will depend on the track geometry and can be understood from even a simple lapsim.

The worst case for stability is under brakes. While instabilities may help maneuverability on a tight track once you get to the point that the driver can't control the car under brakes, then some of your top speed advantage is going to be thrown away by him braking earlier.

Tim,

All three of your points are typical of the sweeping, and lame, QUALITATIVE excuses that Engineers use to AVOID CHANGE.

Sorry to be so blunt about this, but although those excuses are nonsense they will certainly convince some students that "more R%" is a very dangerous option to take.

Taking these in reverse order.

3. "... once you get to the point that the driver can't control the car under brakes, ..."

I have driven many cars with extreme R% and they brake just fine (ie. just set the brake-balance to "extreme-R%"). Putting it another way, you are saying that Porsche 911s are crap on a racetrack.
~o0o~

2. "... the correct direction to go (prioritising traction or cornering speed)..."

This suggests an exclusive-or option. Namely, EITHER the car is good in a straight line, OR it is good around corners, but it CANNOT BE GOOD AT BOTH. Although this excuse is beloved by FSAEers, it is nonsense "and can be understood from even a simple lapsim".

(Interestingly, even very small children know that the fat kid has to sit closer to the middle of the see-saw to get the right balance. It is beyond me why student engineers cannot see this. They seem to think that a see-saw can only "balance" if there are two equal sized kids at equal distances from the fulcrum. Groaaannn..., education system down the crapper... :()
~o0o~

1. "The transient response time from ay=0 to any nominal value [is worse with high-R%]."

This sweeping generalisation is oft-repeated (ie. it appears in RCVD!), but is very misleading.

Consider a SINGLE given car doing the "step-steer" transient-response test that usually goes with the above claim. Fit one lateral-G-accelerometer to the very nose of the car, and another at the very tail of the car. Do the step-steer test and check the two lat-G curves. The nose-lat-G curve rises very rapidly and very high, before settling down to its "steady-state" value. The tail-lat-G curve starts off in the NEGATIVE direction, before slowing down, reversing, and eventually reaching steady-state.

The point is that any lat-G measurements made towards the tail of the car always have slower "transient-response" than those made towards the nose. This is simply a kinematic side-effect of where the measurements are taken. But the different lat-Gs, and different transient-responses, are of THE SAME CAR! The car as a whole does not change performance! This is a good example of "cogitatio caeca", namely getting lost in the alphabet soup of algebraic analysis, and not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Anyway, there are many other factors also involved, but if you are still convinced that more-R% makes for a slowly responding car, then please give a QUANTITATIVE argument, theoretical or empirical, supporting your view. Please include all the relevant parameters and assumptions. I will then show where you went wrong, and how Porkers can actually get around a racetrack quite quickly.
~~~o0o~~~

RenM,

Yes, I guess something like ETC (ie. drive-by-wire) would be needed to make TC help with FE.

When the Fuel scores come out we might know more.

Does anyone know when all the detailed scoring will be available???

Z

Jay Lawrence

01-05-2015, 09:02 PM

Z,

With regards to traction control: on my last year on my team and as powertrain leader I wanted to implement traction control, but I was aware of the FE issues of using an ignition cut to do so (and I'm not sure your ETC idea would work from a looped control perspective; I would think it would hunt around quite a bit due to the capacitance between the throttle and combustion chamber on a FSAE car; though possibly it could just use a lookup table based on groundspeed or something). Instead I implemented a gear position sensor (the CBR600F4 engine didn't come with one) that in turn determined which aim turbo speed and which fuel map to use (i.e. gear dependent tuning, 3 speed gearbox), and was able to theoretically save a bunch of fuel (I had a dyno graph for each gear and the amount of power curve cut out, particularly in 1st gear, was enormous). This was a 190kg car without aero and with 72kW and a little over 100Nm, so was very often traction limited. Anyway, this method requires a turbo.... and wasn't actually all that effective in practice (although the dyno graphs are pretty darn cool).

GTS

01-06-2015, 06:07 PM

Teams, check your Dropboxes

bob.paasch

01-08-2015, 01:33 PM

What a great link, thanks for that Bob.

I think they hit the nail on the head, with their creativity and innovation model.
This framework neatly accounts for the similarity and difference between useful and not useful innovative ideas, and explains why you can't have one without the other.

This is why I think that innovation should not be rewarded for its own sake, particularly at the FSAE level.
Successful innovation should be its own reward.
Take inspiration from the best ideas or solutions around, explore them, understand them and their weaknesses, and then if (and only if) you see potential benefits to innovating, then do so.
Do not think that different is always better, its not.
Do not expect a hand out just because something is different, particularly if you cant demonstrate why it needed to be.
This kind of thinking is probably an artefact of the "copying culture" that the article discusses and the workshop tries to break down, as a key inhibitor to the cooperative design process.
Have a health amount of respect for what has come before, you are not the first engineer to walk the earth.

Teams that state that their primary mission in FSAE is to "be the most innovative" scare the hell out of me.
Completely abandoning convention invites multi-faceted disaster.
In my opinion, the path to success lies in maintaining a delicate and measured tension between convention and innovation.
And not fooling yourself.
We are engineers, let the data be your guide.

I notice with disappointment the latest Design Judging guidelines released by SAE (http://www.fsaeonline.com/content/FSAE%20Design%20Score%20Sheet%20150pt.pdf) still include a "Creativity" category.

Guidelines for scoring Creativity include:

"Will this car cause a rule change?" Given the 2015 rules changes, this would make the 2014 GFR, Monash, and other "big aero" cars some of the most creative of all time. :^)

"Have the judges learned something new?" Depends too much on the corporate knowledge of the judges. I've witnessed Design Judges describe as "new" an idea that I've seen on an FSAE car at competition 10 years previous. And too many times, I've seen ideas that did not increase the point scoring performance of the car rewarded by the design judges for being "different".

The related article on the workshops they ran is even more interesting and relevant:

http://www.haakonfaste.com/fastefoundation/publications/integrating_creativity_into_the_ME_curriculum.pdf

If there are any materials from those workshops that you could share with me Bob, I would really appreciate it.
Are the authors still active in design teaching (this was all published some time back)?
Are the workshops still running?

Unfortunately, I did not walk away from the workshop with a big binder of material like Claude gives out in his seminars. The workshop was completely immersive and experiential. The participants were also, it turned out, experimental subjects, as the instructors tried differing exercises and course structures throughout the 5 or so years they taught the class.

I do have some good references to experiential creativity exercises (many used in the Stanford workshop) that I have incorporated into my design classes:

"Experiences in Visual Thinking" and/or "Thinking Visually: A Strategy Manual for Problem Solving" both by Robert McKim. (Both out of print, but used copies available used on Amazon.)
"Conceptual Blockbusting" by James Adams
"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards (good sketching skills beget creative engineering solutions, don't they Z?)

and two references on Jung/Myers-Briggs personality types:
"Please Understand Me II" by Keirsey & Bates
"Type Talk at Work" by Kroeger and Thuesen

Stanford no longer does the workshop. Sadly, Rolf Faste passed away 10 years ago. Bernie Roth and Doug Wilde both retired, but Doug is still active in work on team based creativity and the use of MBTI in forming creative teams. I use his theories for team formation in my junior-level design methodology class, a prerequisite for the senior capstone design class that produces our BajaSAE and FormulaSAE cars. Interested forum members should search "Teamology."

It is also good to see that a lot of what they are talking about has slowly, over time, become best practice in the broader education sphere, not just engineering (even though not that many engineering academics are aware of these developments just yet, the inertia is great due to learned teaching techniques as stated in the article). I am personally working hard to push the flipped classroom teaching model, cooperative learning, peer-assisted teaching, heterogeneous team selection and peer assessment for group work in all of my design subjects and more broadly within my faculty. Its still early days but we are slowly making progress, much of which is driven by student feedback and unit review scores.

Students, if you are lucky enough to experience some of these techniques (applied well) and feel that they are more beneficial to your learning, please make that fact known. It takes take but universities are listening.

For others interested in this field (and it is very relevant to FSAE teams) I would also recommend the work of Felder and Brent (their Cooperative Learning Workshop was the highlight of my academic career), and Prince.

I have a lot more to reply to, with respect to discussions further back in this thread but that is going to take some time so I will leave it till I am back in the office.

Cheers,

Scott

The sad reality is too many of my fellow engineer faculty focus solely on the physical science, and disregard and dismiss the appropriate application of that science to solve real problems involving people. I'm lucky in that OSU has a strong core of faculty active in research and teaching in design theory and methodology. There is a lot of interest in creativity and innovation in engineering design, and more universities that are incorporating design theory into their engineering curricula. Most of the push is coming from mechanical engineering, especially the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Committee and their conference.

IMHO, good design process is the foundation of a successful FSAE team. I consider it one of the strengths of Global Formula Racing.

bob.paasch

01-08-2015, 06:07 PM

As a followup to the above post, while the references provided give a good overview of creativity problem solving and innovative thinking, they don't talk about the nuts and bolts of design process. Here are some good references on product design process:

"The Mechanical Design Process" by David Ullman
"Product Design and Development" by Ulrich and Eppinger
"Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development" by Otto and Wood
"Engineering Design" by Dieter and Schmidt

I prefer the first two, they are the most concise treatments of the subject. I am a very strong believer in students gaining mastery of this material before they do senior capstone design.

01-08-2015, 07:44 PM

[This taken from Bob's post above, but similar words repeated by many others:]
There is a lot of interest in creativity and innovation in engineering design...

I am going to be a PITA and split some hairs here.

When members of this Forum are reminded that the Rules state,
"A1.1.1. To give teams the maximum design flexibility and the freedom to express their 'C&I' .....",
most people translate this "C&I" as "creativity and INNOVATION".

BUT (!!!), in fact, the "I" stands for IMAGINATION. There is a big difference!

I suspect that this subconscious interpretation of "I stands for innovation" is a result of the nowadays overuse of this buzz-word, mostly by industries and University departments that never produce a skerrick of it, but nevertheless find that using the word improves sales...

(Note that I am NOT directing this at Bob's or anyone else's school in particular, just making a general observation. I have a friend who wholesales egg products (err, that's the yolks, and/or the whites...) packaged in plastic "wine-skins". He named the company "Innovatech". Yep, catchy, innovative, hi-tech name, with several layers of meaning. Oops, another one...)
~o0o~

Anyway, some questions to ponder.

1. Which of "INNOVATION" or "IMAGINATION" is more important to foster in young Engineers?

2. Which of the above two is the more "fundamental" skill required of good Engineers?

3. Are the above "I"s independent skills, or is one an "enabler", or "catalyst", or perhaps even a "prerequisite", of the other?

Neatest correct entry gets ... an EXTRA 3/200 points in DE! :)

Z

MCoach

01-08-2015, 09:15 PM

There's a reason this exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Imagineering

Jay Lawrence

01-08-2015, 09:23 PM

1. Imagination
2. Imagination
3. Imagination is the enabler.

Do I win?

On a personal note, I realise that I myself am not very imaginative. It's a bit of a weakness for sure, but I often find myself making others realise that their heads are in the clouds and together we can come up with a better solution (a more innovative one perhaps?). Maybe that means I have half the skills required to be a real engineer, though I think you'd find that in the 'real world' that university/FSAE is supposed to be preparing people for, there's greater demand for an analytical engineer vs. an imaginative one

02-08-2015, 10:38 PM

1. Imagination
2. Imagination
3. Imagination is the enabler.

Do I win?

Jay,

Yes! But WHAT do you win?

Well ... I reckon your answers have gotta be worth at least 3 points out of 1,000! :)
~~~o0o~~~

Some further thoughts on IMAGINATION.

... in the 'real world' ..., there's greater demand for an analytical engineer vs. an imaginative one.

This is puzzling because it suggests that "imaginative" = "IMPRACTICAL". This is, IMO, completely back-to-front.

My view is best explained by thinking about how someone, say a Young Engineer, can develop their "Imaginative Skills". This is an EASY thing to do (again IMO), because, like all skills, it just requires PRACTICE.

But practice of what?

From my dictionary,
"imagination, n. 1. the faculty or action of producing mental images... ",
and digging a bit deeper,
"image ... from Latin 'imago' = a copy...".

So, really, "imagination" is nothing more than "recalling", or "recollecting", or "remembering" visual copies of stuff you have seen before.

Imagination is simply the pictures you form in your head, when thinking of things you have seen in the past.

The more wild, and crazy, and DIFFERENT things you see in the real world, then the better your imagination. I reckon people who are described as being "exceptionally imaginative" might, in fact, have a sort of high-speed but slightly faulty "image projector" in their heads, and are mixing up some of those pictures.

Anyway, I reckon an "Imaginative Engineer" is nothing more than someone who has seen a tremendous amount of the "prior art", in every possible field ... err ... imaginable :), and can remember most of it. (Edit->) Which should make them quite PRACTICAL.

So when IE's customer comes along, which might be a FS-Supervisor/Team-Leader, and asks for an "imaginative" solution to some problem, then IE simply sits back, looks at the place where mental images form best (might be the ceiling, or the floor just in front of their feet), and starts sifting through said images.
"Hmmm..., well there's that interesting grumlink that used to hang off the back of old Fergies... Or the scarpum-bone on an Armadillo might do it. Yeah, those natural solutions usually work well... Or maybe the front half of a grumlink stuck on the rear half of a scarpum-bone... Or I once saw a..."
~o0o~

Bottom line, if you students want to develop your "Imaginative Skills" so you can build a REALY FAST CAR, then you should spend a lot more time climbing around car-wreckers' yards, or at Historic Racecar days, or in the bone-room at the local Museum (*), and so on...

(And the next step to FAST CAR is to apply your Critical Thinking Skills (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11819-Psychology-for-Engineers-understanding-your-people&p=120989&viewfull=1#post120989) as you sift through all those imaginative images...)

Z

(* Literally, "home of the Muses", and "Muse, n. a goddess that inspires a creative artist...".)