Personal apology to UWA regarding 2012 FSAE-A Design Event

[Big Bird]

Firstly, I am writing this of my own volition. I do not claim to have any knowledge of the opinions of any other people or organizations. These are my words, I will own them and I will stand by them.

In 2012, the UWA FSAE team presented a unique suspension concept on an incomplete car at the FSAE-A competition. The car was awarded 3 points in the Design Event. I was the Executive Director of SAE Australasia at the time, and had outright executive control of the event. The chain of command stopped with me.

The Design judging team was operating under my command at the time. I did not intervene or ask for explanation from the Design Event judging team as to why the team received such a low score. I was aware of precedents prior to 2012 where the Design Event judging team had used its better judgement to reassess a team's score when it appeared the score did not match the true design knowledge of the team.

Given that I had the design process knowledge and, at the time, nearly 12 years experience in Formula SAE, I had sufficient understanding to know that 3 points was not an adequate score. I had spoken to the team both at the event, and prior to that a number of times during the year. I was very impressed with their knowledge and their creativity. Therefore I knew that their final score was not representative of their design knowledge. However I did not take any action to have their score investigated.

As such I take full responsibility for this oversight, and I offer the UWA team my sincere apology. I recognize that the score given was hurtful and even insulting to a team that was willing to take the risk of being innovative. We should be nurturing such inventiveness, for the sake of our future industry.

Furthermore, I heard reports of officials addressing UWA team members in a manner not appropriate to a student design competition. I did observe instances of officials being unnecessarily aggressive in their discussions about the UWA entry, although i do not remember seeing specific instances of inappropriate conduct towards the UWA team members. If such inappropriate conduct occurred then I accept that it occurred under my command and I will gladly work with the UWA team to make amends.

There are some in this community who might see apology as a sign of weakness. I do not. I believe an injustice occurred under my command, and for that I offer the UWA team my full personal apology.

I accept that there are some who will take offence at me addressing this issue under my own volition. I hope the majority will see it as the earnest attempt to resolve this issue as it is, for once and for all.

I have further explanation coming, but for now I have one thing to say. I request that all future references and posts regarding this issue be directed to me. I am sick to death of this issue being used as ammunition to bolster petty feuds on these forum boards. I am taking ownership of this issue, I will work with UWA to make amends at their end, and I will work with the event organizers to realign the event so that such genuine attempts at creativity are welcomed and assessed on merit. I cannot promise specific outcomes. But I promise I will do my best.

Sincerely,

Geoff

[HotRod Todd]

Geoff, you have big balls, and my (amongst many others) respect.

[Z]

I hope the majority will see it as the earnest attempt to resolve this issue as it is, for once and for all.

Geoff,

I also have full admiration for your efforts to resolve this issue.

As with many such situations in life, probably the best way to put an end to it is to do what you are doing here, and give it a full and open public airing. Let everyone involved have their say, back and forth a few times if necessary. Then, with it all "out there", it will quickly become ancient history.

For my part, I was never personally involved in the issue itself. However, my reasons for bringing it up on numerous occasions are NOT to fuel any feud, but more along the lines of "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it.". Specifically, the treatment of UWA at Oz-12 was, IMO, a serious failure in what is supposed to be an educational competition. Hopefully, by addressing this failure similar such occurances in the future can be avoided.

Here are three ways this competition can be changed to avoid such problems in the future.
~o0o~

1. FEWER POINTS IN DESIGN EVENT - The Design Event is undoubtedly very subjective, and awarding a large percentage of the total 1,000 points to this single Event is inviting trouble. Fewer points = less potential damage.

I think a big part of the "kick in the teeth" to UWA-12 was that in that particular year there were 200 DE points on offer, 50 points more than most other years. Presumably some of those points were available for pure "innovation", but UWA were denied virtually all the points.

In considering by how much the DE points can be reduced, it is a good idea to ask if DE is even NECESSARY to the competition, at all?

For example, consider a competition with Cost worth 200 points, Presentation worth 100 points, and the Dynamic Events making up the rest of the 700 points. Cost is a very important factor in any Engineering project, and as such, is worth quite a bit more than its current 10%. Especially if the scoring is made more objectively realistic than in some past years. Presentation is a very subjective assessment of a Team's "show and tell" skills, but these are a necessary part of real Engineering careers, so arguably are worth 10% of the total points.

But the "design" of the car itself is best judged by the Dynamic Events. So 700 points are awarded for "good design" there, with all these points being objectively, and thus very fairly, judged by a stopwatch.

The DE is often justified with the argument that it is more a test of the students' "design knowledge", than a test of the car itself. But, as the UWA-12 case shows, there are times when the students' knowledge exceeds that of the Design Judges. This makes the DJs incapable of a proper judgement. As this case showed, the result is that the most knowledgeable people at the competition, in that particular area, ended up the losers. It is a general truism that putting "experts" in positions such as those of the DJs, stifles progress.

Another rationale for the DE is that it gives an opportunity for the students to receive educational "feedback" from the DJs. But this feedback only occasionally happens, and is certainly not mandated in any Official Rules. A good example is the almost zero feedback, so far, from the recent Oz-14 DJs (ie. two weeks+ later).

Note that the majority of useful "design feedback" seems to occur wholly outside of the DE itself. Examples are the video reviews of individual Team's cars by Carroll Smith and Claude Rouelle that can be found on the web, and which were given well after the DEs were over. Similarly, the Driver-Swap-Day reviews that have become part of the Oz-Comps in recent years. And, of course, the huge amount of feedback on this Forum.

So, when considering how many points DE should be worth, or even if DE should be part of the comp at all, it is worth remembering that many thousands of years ago some Mediterranean villagers tried living without Kings, Queens, or any sort of Royalty at all. Apparently the resulting "democracy" worked quite well for them. Worth trying again, IMO. :)
~o0o~

2. LESS SUBJECTIVITY - After following this competition for a decade and a half now, I still have very little idea of what is expected from the students in the Design Event.

The oft-mentioned claim that the DE is a "test of the students' ability to defend their design decisions" sounds, to me, remarkably like the entry test to the Shakespearean Appreciation Society.
"Sooo... you say you lurv Othello, eh? Now, dahlinks, tell us why you think Othello is soooo much better than Macbeth..."

Whichever way I look at DE, I cannot see how the many different Design Judges can make their own personal, and undoubtedly subjective, assessments of the many different cars, and then somehow all come to an objectively fair ranking of the cars.

Specifically, the current guidelines (ie. in the many world-wide variations of the Rules) divide DE into many small sub-categories, with N points awarded to M sub-category. When all the cars happen to be small variations on a standard "cooky-cutter" theme, with each car having components that neatly fit into each sub-category, then there is some chance of this judging process giving a reasonably fair ranking of all the cars.

But imagine a Team that has built a potentially world-beating car, but has done so by focussing almost exclusively on only one of those many sub-categories. Perhaps they have built an Anti-Technology-Special, with most resources devoted to a Mega-DF-Undertray, and hardly any resources to chassis, suspension, engine, electronics, etc. Such a Team would score well in the Aero category, and maybe also in Big-Picture-Thinking. But why would DJs of any of the other categories award good points when the students say "Oh, we've spent NO TIME AT ALL on that stuff..."?

In short, the current guidelines reward a policy of "build a conventional car, then polish all its little bits". But this judging process has no chance of giving a good objective ranking to highly unconventional cars. (This point explained here (http://fastefoundation.org/publications/an_improved_model.pdf), from Bob's link in Oz-14 thread.) Any Team contemplating an unconventional car must factor into their overall-point simulations that they might score close to ZERO points in DE (ie. this proven historically by UWA-12).

This then becomes a huge impediment to progress. Especially so, if the number of DE points increases, as some DJs urge.

Anyway, on the Oz-14 Competitions thread I have suggested how DE might be changed to make it more objectively assessable, namely by a calculation of each Team's relative improvement over their previous year's performance. I am sure there are also other ways of providing clear and objective assessments that reflect the "Design" of the car, or of the effort put in by the Team.

But leaving DE up the the subjective opinions of a large number of DJs is always going to have an inherent, subjective, vagueness, especially for unconventional cars.
~o0o~

3. MORE OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY - A cliche, but a much needed one, given the opposite direction the competition seems headed in (see below).

At the very least, each Team's pre-comp Design Report, and each Design Judge's post-DE score-sheet, comments, etc., should be made publicly available as soon as possible after the Event. Since each year's car is supposed to be a completely new design I see no reason why the "last year's model" Design Reports should be kept confidential. Making public these Team-DRs, and the DJs' score-sheets and comments, then becomes a very valuable educational resource for all Teams around the world, and should help foster steady progress.

Also necessary, IMO, is that some sort of bio/CV of each of the DJs is made public, listing their areas of expertise, etc. These can then be used by the students when interpreting the scores and feedback. And along with "feedback" going from the DJs to the students, some sort of assessments going in the opposite direction would be helpful.

So as part of an overall post-comp de-brief, each Team should submit a written review of each of the DJs they had, and how educationally helpful they thought those DJs were. In wider (Western) society this process is known as "voting day". It is a useful process for limiting the damage caused by sub-standard Officials.

Summing up this section, it is noteworthy that the recent International Rule Committee's work on the 2015 Rules changes is about as far from O&T as it is possible to get. Sadly, the 2015 Rule changes are atrociously written (ie. great ambiguity+++), and seem to be an almost guaranteed source of future grief. Much of this can be directly attributed to the IRC's anonymity and refusal to engage in open discussions. Namely, a complete lack of O&T.
~o0o~

Apologies if I have gone too far off-topic. Again, the intent of above is to use the "lessons of History" to move the competition more towards Engineering Education, and further away from "Game of Thrones".

I hope that the other players in this UWA-12 issue, especially those on the Official side of things, can post their thoughts here, and help move things to a resolution.

Z

[Claude Rouelle]

Geoff,

Refresh my memory here. Did UWA submit their document on time? If so what was at that time the penalty for late submission? Just want everything to be clear here.....

[Moke]

I am not aiming this at UWA or any other incident in particular, rather at the competition as a whole; teams, judges, officials, scrutineers, volunteers and forum warriors.

Having been on the receiving end of wholesale condemnation from officials in 2005, I know first hand the hurt caused by this sort of treatment. After pretty negative comments from officials, the experience was topped of when jnr team members were called together for a ragging out of snr members by snr international officials over our overambitious designs and how we had done them a disservice by not just rehashing the 04 car. We went back to our motel, cracked some beers and discussed what had been said and our professional options of those officials. 2005 had been a toxic year within the team, very very expensive and we had burned bridges with the uni management. With a change in team management in '06, we decided not to let the experience define us as a team. The exact details of what when down have been forgotten and are unknown by the current team as it doesn't matter compared to the lessons learned.

What has happened can not be changed, nor to be honest should it, but lessons should be learnt by both teams and officials. Transparency, accountability and respect are paramount to preventing repeats of these situations happening again. Teams need to know on what basis they are being assessed before the event and provided with feedback afterwards. But they also need to respect the outcomes if they don't meet the defined criteria. Judges need to be accountable for their assessments of teams designs as teams need to be accountable for their designs and actions.

There is a culture of us vs them, which just leads to more problems than it solves. Teams get shitty and snarky at officials. The officials get shitty at the teams and close down. Having an open dialogue between teams and officials is going to be the most productive way to improve the event.

Oh and full credit to you Geoff.

[Claude Rouelle]

Brent,

Is the professional world you are working in now different?

[Moke]

Brent,

Is the professional world you are working in now different?

In what way Claude? I'm working for a nanofibre R&D and production company. Almost everyday the knowledge of and uses for nanofibre changes. As we are working in the R&D field our goalposts are always being moved and the requirements changed.

[Claude Rouelle]

Brent,

Thank for giving details on your job. Seems to be an interesting and challenging work in a new, promising, rapid developing industry.

I was just wondering if the kind of frustration and happiness you got at the OZ FSAE competition (you speak about toxic year, burned bridges but also transparency, accountability and respect) is something you sometimes experiment nowadays with your colleagues, management, customers or even in your private life with family and friends.

You also wrote: “Judges need to be accountable for their assessments of teams’ designs as teams need to be accountable for their designs and actions” You think judges are not accountable for their assessments? Can you give specific examples of what is missing and what can be improved?

[Moke]

I don't want to get this thread to far off topic as it is starting to go a little down a rabbit hole.

Within our team we had a culture (that I was part of) that if you weren't out at the workshop 24/7 you were a waste of space and that no one would be allowed to stand in the way of our goals. This put us offside with the uni and a number of good sponsors, not to mention that we had a large number of team members quit and never return. From this I learnt how to manage people with different goals, some work because they enjoy it, some work for the money, some for the betterment of the company, some for themselves. Each requires a different approach to motivate. New Zealand, and to some extent the world, is a small place to do business and there is a web of connections that you don't know about. Piss off the wrong person and you are done for. For example at a trade show we had the car at I was talking to a couple of elderly gentlemen for over an hour. After the show I got a call for one of our major sponsors, the gentlemen were his best mates and they were very impressed with us. Now this sponsor had been dicking us around a little, if I had bad mouthed them to these guys the phone call would have been much different. You never know who knows who - so don't burn your bridges.

With regards accountability of judges and teams:
I always found it was hard to get good feedback on the static events, and not just design, from the judges. At best we would get a copy of the marking sheet with very brief notes and normally it would be after the event. If a copy of the marks and comments were handed out at the same time the points were posted it would allow teams to seek clarification to how they were marked. Maybe through out the weekend there are debrief meetings where a team can book a slot with a judge if they wish. Limit the meeting to two or three team members and 15-30min and make it clear that marks will not be changed, it's for the teams to ask questions and listen not to argue.

Teams need to be prepared to present/explain/demonstrate/justify, call it what you will, their design choices, cost reports and business plans, if they are not prepared they need to understand that they will be held accountable and marked accordingly, (again not only talking about 2012 UWA). It is a fundamental of everyone's professional and private lives, that you'll be held accountable for your (in)actions. If I decide to hold off ordering materials and we run out I'm responsible for the lost production, just as I'm responsible if I have excess materials in stock.

[GTS]

In the spirit of covering bases and rolling any constructive feedback into future events (of which we should all hope there are many more);


Given that I had the design process knowledge and, at the time, nearly 12 years experience in Formula SAE, I had sufficient understanding to know that 3 points was not an adequate score. I had spoken to the team both at the event, and prior to that a number of times during the year. I was very impressed with their knowledge and their creativity. Therefore I knew that their final score was not representative of their design knowledge. However I did not take any action to have their score investigated.

BB, I was a visitor at the 2012 event sent at the behest of my then-employer, so this is more a third-hand view (one that admittedly thought the concept quite ingenious if incomplete - I hope the students involved have gone onto bigger things from the experience)...

Was the car complete? (If it wasn't, what would have been C5.11 applies).
Was the submission on-time? (If it wasn't, what would have been C5.9 applies).
Did the car pass rules at time of event (from my vantage point it didn't, and it sounded as though a clarification that should have been sought earlier on, wasn't).
Did the team exhaust its right to protest (A9), and if so, what happened?

Appreciably three points may not appear reflective of a year's work, though some insight into how it came to be would be helpful. Competition points are neither awarded on anecdotal experiences.

For an apology to completely hold water, BB, I'm hoping to next read "I'm 100% sure the car was complete, all submissions were on-time, the car passed all rules way ahead of time, and the team both lodged a formal process and lost unfairly - accordingly, I can 100% justify an injustice occured".


I recognize that the score given was hurtful and even insulting to a team that was willing to take the risk of being innovative. We should be nurturing such inventiveness, for the sake of our future industry.

Before jumping to conclusions that the process stifles creativity or that it was employed in a flawed manner (particularly when many involved value creativity, and some even seek involvement with the event to try to recruit especially creative types - in a competition that's seen much creativity), would we have a deeper insight into what actually happened?

Did the entry fundamentally meet competition requirements? From a third-hand point it wasn't clear that it did.


I believe an injustice occurred under my command

Could you qualify that for us? What do you think the score should have been? Why?

There's space for discretionary rescaling, of course - if this wasn't applied (your post doesn't indicate either way) and you're suggesting it should have been - to what degree? Why?

[GTS]

In the spirit of negating what appears to be a growing 'us-them' tone...


I always found it was hard to get good feedback on the static events, and not just design, from the judges. At best we would get a copy of the marking sheet with very brief notes and normally it would be after the event. If a copy of the marks and comments were handed out at the same time the points were posted it would allow teams to seek clarification to how they were marked. Maybe through out the weekend there are debrief meetings where a team can book a slot with a judge if they wish. Limit the meeting to two or three team members and 15-30min and make it clear that marks will not be changed, it's for the teams to ask questions and listen not to argue.

Let's have a discussion about how to make this happen (you may wish to commence a new thread). Consider that many judges can't commit two days (or that a two-day requirement would limit the involvement of many), that as you suggest we'd basically be running the DE twice over in terms of timing (e.g. it'd necessitate another eight hours), and that the third/fourth days are already very booked up for most teams. Also that there's no guarantee of a venue that actually allows the event to continue in any way, shape or form post-5PM, and that hosting anything else costs money for an event that's currently in a shortfall situation. These aren't criticisms, just constraints to work with.

One of the DE's suggested doing it over a Friday night dinner event with teams able to get feedback from four assessment sessions (e.g. of the four in eight sections), which would make for four hours to fund and find a venue for (organiser's end) and commit to (DE's end). A few proposals involved doing it post-event over Skype or Google Hangouts, though appreciably not everyone's available and the relevance of it is diminished; a few have suggested running such events over the course of the year to maintain an open dialogue. I'd stress the point of DE is to evaluate, not to educate, and discussions need to be limited therein, but this is no bad thing.

Not in any way definitive; just ideas, I'd keep 'em coming.


At the very least, each Team's pre-comp Design Report, and each Design Judge's post-DE score-sheet, comments, etc., should be made publicly available as soon as possible after the Event. Since each year's car is supposed to be a completely new design I see no reason why the "last year's model" Design Reports should be kept confidential. Making public these Team-DRs, and the DJs' score-sheets and comments, then becomes a very valuable educational resource for all Teams around the world, and should help foster steady progress.

Getting the DE data out I would think is low-hanging fruit that I'd hope is realised pre-2015. From the DJ perspective there was little point writing detailed notes if they weren't going to get back to the students involved.

A good and not uncommon idea that's currently a little roadblocked; in most (Australian) universities many may not be aware that project IP for undergraduate work actually resides with the individual student, not the universities involved. Appreciably then it's a bit of a minefield for a third party (e.g. SAE-A) to distribute relevant data, so much so that 2014 DJ's no longer have access to this information. Even handing CAD data between universities without all designers' consent can have very serious legal reprecussions if appropriate action is sought.

I would suggest, however, that if students wish to proactively reach an indepdent decision to disclose such data by themselves, that there exist frameworks to both release such data and store it (a university team I was involved with nearly a decade ago went through this very issue - it's certainly surmountable). The event organisers don't necessarily need to be the custodians of students sharing their own data.

(I'd also add that there's plenty of data already out there - results, competitor analysis, etc, that many students do not make any use of despite being very relevant - much of the problem isn't one of information scarcity).


Also necessary, IMO, is that some sort of bio/CV of each of the DJs is made public, listing their areas of expertise, etc. These can then be used by the students when interpreting the scores and feedback.

It's up to the event organisers to ensure DJs are appropriately qualified for their area. Students are welcome to ask how and why judges came to be at any time. There's a rubric available online to help interpret scores and feedback. I agree DE sheets should go back ASAP, though the process is designed as to not suffer signficant bias owing to differences in professional history between two individuals with professional experience within an area of expertise.

There are areas where the event can be improved that are more salient at any rate - translators for foreign teams (the language of the event might be English, however in a future context...), scheduling, some means by which team members not able to attend but that have design ownership in a particular area can actually contribute at-event, a practice run with prior judges pre-event...


And along with "feedback" going from the DJs to the students, some sort of assessments going in the opposite direction would be helpful.

So as part of an overall post-comp de-brief, each Team should submit a written review of each of the DJs they had, and how educationally helpful they thought those DJs were. In wider (Western) society this process is known as "voting day". It is a useful process for limiting the damage caused by sub-standard Officials.

Whilst not excluding a gap in feedback, let's be clear - DE and DJs exist to evaluate, not to educate. Evaluation happens at competition, education happens (not least) in universities. Results would indicate that those designing a car well tend to have it perform well also, and that the process broadly works. Where it doesn't there is a formal protest process that I would encourage anyone to use if they honestly see fit.

Just focus on the design, delivery and project management of a great product in a team environment. This is a deliberately significant brief - do it best and the rest takes care of itself.

[Moke]

... you may wish to commence a new thread

As this thread has gotten off topic and will only get further off track I have stated a new thread. http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11969-How-to-make-the-design-event-better.&p=122465#post122465


Where it doesn't there is a formal protest process that I would encourage anyone to use if they honestly see fit.

I think what puts people off is the 25 point bond to protest.

[GTS]

Thanks for starting the new thread, Moke.

As for the 25 points - there needs to be a disincentive against frivolity. Again, all ideas welcome.

[Big Bird]

Thanks to all for contributions thus far. GTS, thank you for your ongoing efforts to provide feedback and for calling for discussion about how we make it happen. Moke, cheers for the redirected Design Event thread.

As engineers our job, effectively, is to deliver on functional objectives. Amongst the top-level functional objectives of the FSAE event are engineering education, and the fostering of creativity and innovation. The UWA 2012 case was an example where a team came to the event with a genuinely creative and innovative approach to suspension design, and left the event with a competition experience (including their score and their interactions with people at the event) that could not be seen to have encouraged their venture.

My point is not that any certain person is to blame. I’m simply saying that I believe a set of circumstances has occurred in which one of our primary objectives has been overwhelmed by aspects of our lower level procedures. And that we should take a look at the issue.

I think it a rather narrow-focussed and rather futile argument if we just bicker about how many points a supposedly late submission is worth and the like. It is one thing to justify the score they got with respect to the current rules. What troubles me is the lack of interest in looking at this outcome and saying “hey hang on – maybe we need to revisit the rules themselves”. Do we value punctuality so much more than creativity that a late report swamps points gained for creativity? And why can’t we discuss such things without getting all defensive?

It does trouble me that the general tone on here is one of antagonism and dispute. Yes, you will find antagonism and dispute in the workforce. Yes, dispute has its place. But to me, good leadership is about bringing such disputes to their conclusion, building collaboration, creating common objectives and moving forward. Just because there are difficult characters in industry does not mean that, say, our most effective method of approach to the students is to be difficult.

As for specific details of the UWA entry:
No, the car was not complete. As such I did not believe it qualified for full points.
At this point in time, I do not know which submission was late, if any. I am not in the position to find this out at the moment, but if any of the judging staff visiting this thread have any information it would be very useful for you to share it. Claude, do you know which late report it is that you refer to?
Yes, the car was legal.
No, I do not know of any protest lodged by UWA at the time.

On the flipside, if we are aware of a set of circumstances that result in an outcome that is counter to one of our primary objectives, should we at least take a look at our rules, procedures, judging criteria etc to check that they are still sound? Knowing that the vehicle was generating significant interest, is the better approach to use some judges discretion to reward a genuinely innovative car – or to argue points of order from a rulebook.

I do know of a number of teams who have quoted this exact UWA episode when justifying why their team ethic is not one of innovation. I don't think this is a great state of affairs.

“For an apology to completely hold water, BB, I'm hoping to next read "I'm 100% sure the car was complete, all submissions were on-time, the car passed all rules way ahead of time, and the team both lodged a formal process and lost unfairly - accordingly, I can 100% justify an injustice occurred".”
No, I am afraid I do not agree with this premise. I would like to think that all teams qualify for justice, and that such a right should not be removed if, for example, you submit a report late. And I wasn’t arguing that they deserved the marks of a team that achieved all of those criteria.

But 3 out of 200?? Quickly looking through a few results sheets that I could download, the lowest design scores were generally around the 90 mark recently, including some incomplete cars, and I was also able to find an unfinished entry from a few years back that scored 66 even though I remember it being a much lower quality design and the designers not really knowing what they were doing. I might not know the exact details of what the judges specifically marked – but I do know that 3 is significantly less than 66, or 90. As such, I should have looked into this at the time.

I didn’t, and I apologize.

Finally, just in case the point was missed. I am not blaming anyone for this. I am simply recognizing that there is an unresolved issue out there and that we should address. And that if anyone has a problem with anyone who contributed to this result, whether it be a DJ or any other official, then I was the one ultimately responsible at the time.

[jd74914]

As engineers our job, effectively, is to deliver on functional objectives. Amongst the top-level functional objectives of the FSAE event are engineering education, and the fostering of creativity and innovation. The UWA 2012 case was an example where a team came to the event with a genuinely creative and innovative approach to suspension design, and left the event with a competition experience (including their score and their interactions with people at the event) that could not be seen to have encouraged their venture.
...
I think it a rather narrow-focussed and rather futile argument if we just bicker about how many points a supposedly late submission is worth and the like. It is one thing to justify the score they got with respect to the current rules. What troubles me is the lack of interest in looking at this outcome and saying “hey hang on – maybe we need to revisit the rules themselves”. Do we value punctuality so much more than creativity that a late report swamps points gained for creativity? And why can’t we discuss such things without getting all defensive?


I think punctuality is a extremely important lesson. In my professional life I have seen dozens of cases where good, creative ideas have quite justly been swapped for less creative idea for scheduling reasons. If you have a product with a publicized release data it MUST be done by that time. I have also seen people get "railed" for not finishing projects with very creative ideas. I've both been on teams and led teams on the receiving end of this too. Having to report to an angry senior level manager or VP when you aren't finished isn't pleasant, even if you believe the end result is more than worth the time charge. I don't want to sound like an antagonist here, but submitted reporting documentation late and then being penalized further for not finishing their design does not seem horribly unfair. I've worked on projects both internally and government funded with concrete deadlines; if you submit a report late to the government and a grant is on the line, you get penalized by both the government (monetarily) and your supervisors. I don't think learning this lesson here is unreasonable.

I was on a team which showed up with an unprepared car, scored scored extremely poorly in a design event, really didn't run in any dynamic events. During design we even had a judge tell us to 'f-off' when one of our guys presented a suspension justification.

Was our car unique like UWA's? No, but acceptable levels of professionalism shouldn't be determined based on uniqueness.
Were we a little shocked? Yes.
Did that make us angry? Not really; disappointed definitely Perhaps being from the NE USA makes our skin a little tougher than most, but we saw this as an opportunity to turn around. Since then the team has steadily been increasing both it's design and overall standings.

The social and presentation part of these scores may have been grossly unprofessional, but I'm not sure how anyone besides those directly involved at the time can truly assess that situation.

On another note (maybe this belongs in the other thread), our team's interactions with design judges have been in general very good. We've learned about their personal and professional projects, gotten advice, and had DJ's seek us out year after year to say hi and see how we are doing. We like to think we've had such experiences because while not always giving the best and most polished presentation, we are always honest, professional, and show lots of respect and genuine interest in feedback. This has really paid dividends over the years. We've even had some DJ's we've thought, at the time, we very gruff, demanding, or seemed less the interested during our presentation be exceptionally helpful after the fact. People are and will be people; wearing a different hat doesn't change that. It's disappointing to hear some teams have had different experiences. Again in my professional life, I have worked with a number of smart but very difficult to work with people who others hated and built a mutual respect which allowed us to get lots done. I don't see why the same can't be true here.

As my dad would say, while discouraging ground floor people is a management problem, allowing yourself to be discouraged at that rubber-meets-the-road level is a personal choice. Learning that is a valuable life lesson.

[GTS]

BB;

I'd suggest we all put a cap un unprofessionalism in the past - it's not easily substantiated, it cuts both ways (this and last year some students got well beyond what's acceptable and too close to a little physical) and unless dealt with at the time through channels that exist for it, remonstrating over it in the past doesn't fix anything. It's a time of year where all nerves are frayed - students can be (and as students we once were) nearly impossible to deal with given it's a single weekend to evaluate a significant body of work. As organisers there's stress at the significant body of work, the occasional bone-headed choices some of you make and insist on - often with year-on-year repetitions - and sometimes there are bigger things: as many of you know, in setting up 2012 FSAE-A something happened that nearly derailed the entire event.

In short - it's in the judges' advice to respect that nerves are frayed being a high-stress time for students. I'd suggest students adopt a similar approach. If anyone feels at any time it's getting beyond the stage where you'd have a beer with any individual involved after the event, seek a higher-level organiser and raise it there at the time.

The hardest thing about the competition, whether taking on creativity or otherwise, is actually delivering it. Which is part of the challenge. Of all the resources FSAE entrants do and don't have, the one that the competition guarantees and does not extend is time. This is significantly reflective of professional life. Multiple milestones in the competition are explicit - DR submissions and competition dates are just two, and they apply equally to all competitors. jd74914 is correct.

It may seem a narrow focus to bicker over, but then again, if it was a week late - of the 20 or so remaining competitors, I think we'd struggle to find one that wouldn't like a flux capacitor and an extra week. To argue it from the UWA side alone is a narrow approach. There are many that have innovated in the competition historically and made it on time. Many involved have gone onto very successful international careers.

That other teams quote UWA in a defeatist team ethic (particularly when there's so much that's wrong about it)... is frankly their loss. The competition cannot save everyone! It's up to any individual or collective to get up in the morning a decide whether they're aiming to be the best or the rest. And I've met a few teams as such too. Taking an unsubstantiated data set and calling it a calculated risk... again in terms of life lessons... is stupid. There are hard lessons here for such entrants that go well beyond the competition (take the two EV teams at FSAE-A 2014). Again, the competition can't save everyone.

If the car is not complete it doesn't qualify for any points. That's in the rule set students sign up to compete against, very unambiguously so. To be awarded points at all is discretionary. The be awarded discretionary points then to be late about it... well... the entrant is now in a difficult position, and so are the organisers, as they'd have to waive rules that every other competitor has met fairly to accommodate something else. So what's the scope for awarding points? Should such an entrant be allowed to finish above the last complete car that submitted all on time? No? Does finishing last with 3 points or finishing last with 30 change a great deal? Should it?

I'll stress again: any team feeling completely slighted has a protest process to exhaust.

I think the easiest way to alleviate this is to simply allow and encourage static-only entrants, and to award a prize accordingly. It may also see the competition through an impending darker period where a number of universities question their involvement for reasons discussed elsewhere. I doubt (with proper planning) that the UWA team would have known only a week out that their project was tracking in an unrecoverable manner with respect to key dates; allowing a static-only entrant would have allowed better resource distribution, would have allowed the design to shine on it's own and would have given the university recourse (if successful) to invest resources in a duly-awarded concept.

I'd prefer learnings from 2012 go into better outcomes rather than apologies that may be misplaced.

Misplaced because it wasn't just a single person that decided on three points, it was a team of volunteering professionals. BB you know me well enough to not fall for '1,000 Lemmings'-type arguments, however these people (DJs) aren't people fresh to the concept either. I don't like three points at all. I don't think the scope - on a late submission that's incomplete, without what recourse is provided to teams being exhausted - is a fair position to offer broad apologies for. Because it's not a scope that befits the competition. It's a competition about project delivery. For most grads, life will imitate this art. A lot.

Misplaced because discussions many were acoustically privy to - that a new design wasn't submitted to the rules committee on grounds that 'it might get out' - doesn't follow project management either. I don't see a public apology to the organisers here either - people that are already pretty busy on FSAE weekend. But what's a learning? For teams: stay creative! No one said it wasn't a good idea (many said it was a great one). In the spirit of constructive outcomes: if teams are really worried about such things, let's put an NDA around it. Let's build a construct that alleviates that risk. Let's hear from the UWA guys on what'd have helped here. Let's talk to the UWA guys about this being a normal part of any competitive event too. It's a two-way discussion.

I have followed FSAE since 2002 now. I still firmly believe the next revolution in FSAE won't be power train, suspension or aero - it'll be managerial (though EV possibilities come close). It remains a competition of project delivery - everything else is a vehicle for it and a function of it. If students take one lesson from their time at FSAE, it's this one: it's all possible, now plan to make it happen.

[Pete Marsh]

GTS, and others.

Briefly.

No one at UWA is aware of any late reports. Which one was it? One year there was a server problem with electronic submissions, but hard copies still had the correct post marks. I don't think that was even '12 though.

The rules for unfinished are clearly exclusion from the event. That was not applied. You also may have noticed unfinished cars in design FINALS at FSAE-A in the past, there is plenty of precedent. Where is the definition of finished enough to score points, but not enough to make finals? In the USA it was unofficially you had to score a dynamic point, but that was not in any rule book. Yes the car was a long way from finished , but there is PLENTY of precedent for equally unfinished vehicles scoring a lot more in design event.

What rule clarification submission would you suggest? The car had a full and detailed rule review, checked by the Faculty adviser, and no breach could be found. Since when do you have to clarify "it's a bit different to what you have seen before"?
The clarification procedure is clear, a rule number is required, which one do you think it was in breach of? The tech inspectors at the '12 event found NO issue with the concept. It was design judges that had an issue with it, and pushed that view of illegality with their influence. It's not the first time UWAM has been screwed over by on the spot rule "interpretations" by people on rules committees either. If they don't like the way their rule is interpreted by the English language they should write another for the future, not make sh*t up on the spot that better reflects their intention.

The design event did not go well because the judges seemed to have some preconceived opinions. Of note, the VD judging went along the lines of an argument about why we did not have camber curves or VSA lengths to present to the judges for our BEAM AXLE car! A camber LINE was draw on the spot, but still did not find favour.
I was not aware independent suspension was a rules mandated requirement, but it would appear in '12 design event it was. The reason the new suspension design was not scored was NOT because we did not know how to present it, but because the DJ REFUSED to look! It was almost as if they had been told it was illegal and COULD NOT WORK before the event? Claude was the only VD specialist to take the time to look at the system. (in his own time).

No one at UWA is suggesting the car was presented or prepared as it should have been, or should have scored well. BUT 3 out of 200? In all the history of FSAE around 30% of the available points is a really low score in design, and essentially only requires you to attend the event with a car of some sort. So 1.5% then?? the worst designed car of all time by a factor of 15? Are we really expected to believe this is just the natural order of things and "how it worked out"?

A protest? Against the officials? Is that really serious? Does anyone really believe that would have improved the situation? Keep in mind the same people with influence would be reviewing this protest, and these are the same people that did not even look at the car or how the suspension worked. Our Faculty adviser said not to bother, but would raise the issue in the adviser meeting after the event.

From a team member perspective, there was a clear message that we had done wrong, although exactly what was vague. Somehow we were cheating. Trying to gain an advantage. This just seemed so crazy, anyone anywhere near the team, or the competition, could see we were no match for Monash or GFR, or whoever. Our motivation was to maintain the mode separated soft twist of the Kinetics system without having to manufacture our own dampers, as the ability to do that had gone away. Not really that evil, or so we thought at the time.

SO-

The car was rubbish, but was and is legal. The suspension does work, and although much development is required to catch up with DW Independent, is doing what it says on the box. Some people jumped to the wrong conclusions, and put the boot in. The people on the receiving end of said boot got sore.

Sorry to go on about it, but some corrections of fact were required.

Pete

[GTS]

Pete, thanks for looping back.


No one at UWA is aware of any late reports. Which one was it? One year there was a server problem with electronic submissions, but hard copies still had the correct post marks. I don't think that was even '12 though.

Pete, if nothing was late, thank you for clearing that much up.


The rules for unfinished are clearly exclusion from the event. That was not applied. You also may have noticed unfinished cars in design FINALS at FSAE-A in the past, there is plenty of precedent. Where is the definition of finished enough to score points, but not enough to make finals? In the USA it was unofficially you had to score a dynamic point, but that was not in any rule book. Yes the car was a long way from finished , but there is PLENTY of precedent for equally unfinished vehicles scoring a lot more in design event.

With respect - you'd have a hard time arguing prior precedent against explicit rules with anecdote, though if any team wants to try, there's a protest procedure.

I'd certainly not recommend relying on prior applications of what is clearly (at best) discretionary.


What rule clarification submission would you suggest? The car had a full and detailed rule review, checked by the Faculty adviser, and no breach could be found. Since when do you have to clarify "it's a bit different to what you have seen before"?

Clear it with the actual rules committee. I'd put this in any team's planning, particularly if prior experience should lend you to suggest clarifications are worthwhile.


No one at UWA is suggesting the car was presented or prepared as it should have been, or should have scored well. BUT 3 out of 200? In all the history of FSAE around 30% of the available points is a really low score in design, and essentially only requires you to attend the event with a car of some sort. So 1.5% then?? the worst designed car of all time by a factor of 15? Are we really expected to believe this is just the natural order of things and "how it worked out"?

How'd the team present in other areas? VD is one of eight.

3 does not infer UWA in 2012 came to competition with the worst designed car of all time by any factor.


A protest? Against the officials? Is that really serious?

Yes - this is what the protest process is for.


Does anyone really believe that would have improved the situation? Keep in mind the same people with influence would be reviewing this protest, and these are the same people that did not even look at the car or how the suspension worked. Our Faculty adviser said not to bother, but would raise the issue in the adviser meeting after the event.

It seems you were poorly advised. A greater group of people assess protests than you suggest (as is stated in rules). At an allotted three points I'd suggest you had nothing to lose.


Our motivation was to maintain the mode separated soft twist of the Kinetics system without having to manufacture our own dampers, as the ability to do that had gone away. Not really that evil, or so we thought at the time.

(Which at the time I thought was very clever.)


From a team member perspective, there was a clear message that we had done wrong, although exactly what was vague. Somehow we were cheating. Trying to gain an advantage.

The question of whether your car was legal was only decided at event - though I'd prefer to leave arguing the other side on that much to those actually judging in 2012.

How do you think it appeared from the organisers' perspectives, Pete? I'm not trying to be snide, just trying to guide the story to some constructive ends, particularly in light of:


The car was rubbish, but was and is legal. The suspension does work, and although much development is required to catch up with DW Independent, is doing what it says on the box.

I'd be keen to see anyone involved at either end suggest and substantiate an appropriate score.

[Z]

GTS,

You are defending the indefensible.

The whole point of this thread, stated several times by different posters, and yet again very clearly by Geoff a few posts up, is that the Design Judging process in 2012 FAILED. Some DJs cocked-up. Those DJs were DERELICT IN THEIR DUTIES, which is to encourage students to one day become better Engineers. (<- The whole point of this competition!)

Yet your tone from the beginning has been that it was the UWA students who failed. Even without evidence you have suggested that they failed to submit documents on time, failed to seek clarification on unspecified Rules, failed to follow the correct protocols for formal protests, etc, etc. Meanwhile you have NOT made the slightest admission that ANY DJs did anything wrong.

In 2012 the UWA students did what many people who have tried to "push the envelope" have done, and that is that they over-reached. The next year, in 2013, they regrouped and were back on the podiums. But in 2012 some DJs did their utmost to discourage those UWA students from ever attending another FSAE-A comp. Perhaps from even being Engineers.

So, if you want to earn any respect as an FSAE Official, then show the students that you genuinely want to fix the problems that were clearly broken in 2012, and can break again in the future.

Since you are now an acting FSAE-A Official you should be well aware of which Officials were involved in this particular incident. I ask you to please encourage those 2012 Officials to put their viewpoints on this issue here on this open and public Forum.

Specifically, exactly why was UWA-12's Design only awarded 3 points out of 200?

Details, please.

Z

(PS: And let's not pretend that "formal protests", conducted behind closed doors, and officiated by those who are being protested against, are worth squat.)

[luxsosis]

With respect - you'd have a hard time arguing prior precedent against explicit rules with anecdote, though if any team wants to try, there's a protest procedure.

I'd certainly not recommend relying on prior applications of what is clearly (at best) discretionary.


I'm fairly sure the explicit rule you're referring to says the team should receive zero in the case of an unfinished vehicle?

If we'd got a zero score that would've been fair enough, there's a rule there that says so. If we'd gotten 120, 90, 60 points, that'd would've been OK because the car wasn't finished, and there's plenty of precedent for unfinished cars that didn't compete in dynamics doing very well in design event (precedent is what a large part of our legal system uses).

A score of 3 appeared to much of the team as a considered, deliberate message that we were being punished for not toeing the line and building a standard car that complies with the preconceived notions. This is coming off the back of 2011, when we brought the "wheel pods". These did not violate any rule, and actually passed tech. We were informed during the Cost event that they were illegal, and had to be modified in an arbitrary way to be made legal.



Yes - this is what the protest process is for.
It seems you were poorly advised. A greater group of people assess protests than you suggest (as is stated in rules). At an allotted three points I'd suggest you had nothing to lose.


Can you provide any more information as to who this greater group of people is? The rules (Australian Addendum specifically) says that "key officials" are to be approached. I don't believe there would be many officials, if any, on a protest committee that weren't involved in the original decision and thus don't have a conflict of interest.

Also, risking a score of -22 for an unknown gain seems like a bit of a risk.



3 does not infer UWA in 2012 came to competition with the worst designed car of all time by any factor.


What does it infer?

Has any other team in the history of FSAE received a single digit design score? I wasn't able to find one with some brief research over several comps.

The purpose of the design event, as I understand it, is to test the design of the car and the knowledge of team against said design. So as Pete said, was the 2012 UWA presentation one of the worst designed cars, and least knowledgeable group of students, in the history of FSAE? I find that hard to believe.

[Kevin Hayward]

It was clear that the design event in 2012 was a shambles. There was a number of problems, with one design queue scores so bad that no team made the finals (including the fastest car at the competition).

As a result the whole approach to the event in Australia was changed for 2013, into a much better system. Although it remains far from perfect.

Being at the competition I got the distinct impression that the score for design for UWA was very closely linked to the drama from the year before (i.e the wheel pods). I think there were a number of people closely associated with the rules committee that were quite annoyed at UWA's reluctance to seek rules approvals. This was for both the wheel pods and the application of some of the suspension rules. Also in 2011 UWA, which was still considered one of the top Australian teams brought a second year car, took the points penalty and still finished second. This annoyed a lot of people and probably showed that a 50 point penalty is probably not enough when a top team decides to run a 2nd year car.

I will admit that I was in the camp of people annoyed with UWA taking a second year car in 2011. If other top teams decided to do the same the whole competition could turn very far from its intent as a design and build competition. I also advised UWA (as did others) to seek rules approval far ahead of the competition. At that time I was thinking they were going further than they did, and into illegal territory.

I was completely wrong in thinking they needed a rules approval. The system, once viewed, was clearly legal and quite a good approach. I think their design event score was wrapped up in the vested interests of a few involved with design. I had at least one design judge mention there score to me prior to its release with some glee. It was very clear to me that a message was intended, and a few of the judges didn't like how UWA had lost their way.

The 2012 design result needs to be viewed alongside the drama involving UWA in 2011. It was a two year argument between a few people close to the rules committee. In the end everyone lost. UWA were put off, and others were discouraged by what they saw as a multi year attack on innovation. Likewise some of the judges involved with the decision are no longer seen at FSAE-A.

A sad end to petty disputes. I think, as I believe Geoff does, that this issue should be dropped. There will be no satisfactory response from some of the judges involved (especially those no longer associated with FSAE-A), and there is little hope in repairing the damage done to the teams in a short space of time. However time can erase mountains. Well time, wind and water. At least we have the wind covered.

Kev

[GTS]

You are defending the indefensible.

And you're entitled to your opinion.


The whole point of this thread, stated several times by different posters, and yet again very clearly by Geoff a few posts up, is that the Design Judging process in 2012 FAILED. The DJs cocked-up badly. The DJs were DERELICT IN THEIR DUTIES, which is to encourage students to one day become better Engineers. (<- The whole point of this competition!)

The DJ's suty is primarily to evaluate. You seem stuck on it being to 'educate'. I can't help you here.


Yet your tone from the beginning has been that it was the UWA students who failed.

The competition exists to evaluate delivery of a project. It wasn't delivered.


Even without evidence you have suggested that they failed to submit documents on time...

No, I've simply asked if they did,


...failed to seek clarification on unspecified Rules...

The precent for testing compliance of a new design is clear, and by the team's own admission they'd admitted some difficulty here previously,


...failed to follow the correct protocols for formal protests...

A formal protest was not lodged - quite different to a protocol not being followed correctly,


Meanwhile you have NOT made the slightest admission that ANY DJs did anything unnacceptable.

To date that's correct. I'm one for assuming any party is innocent before being proven guilty, and for substantiating any accusation fully before accepting it. There exists the possibility in rules that with deductions, a very low score could be realised. There's also provision for discretionary rescaling and numerous other means of providing constructive support beyond the evaluation provided in Design Event, some of which was actually put into action in 2014.

(I'm repeating myself here, however) I personally think the concept of the car was fantastic. Before finger-pointing and blanket apologies, I'm simply asking for appropriate context.


In 2012 the UWA students did what many people who have tried to "push the envelope" have done, and that is that they over-reached. The next year, in 2013, they regrouped and were back on the podiums.

Which is correctly laudable, something I can personally speak of having been one of the judges. In my area at least the student concerned was among the most impressive I've met, despite some critical flaws in the design. Even more impressive - he was a third year student.


But in 2012 some DJs did their utmost to discourage those UWA students from ever attending another FSAE-A comp. Perhaps from even being Engineers.

You're as ever consistent with the sensationalist bullshit, completely blind to your contribution to creating the very dynamic we're trying to avoid between officials and students.

As you'd have to be an idiot to volunteer to turn up to an event with the explicit intention of contributing to it's demise, most have better things to do with their time. I'd suggest you find a more appropriate and productive context for your observations, Z. Read this any way you will, I hope part of which is to infer that there's certainly space for idiocy all around.

Any engineer that doesn't learn from failure enough to be discouraged from their profession... is a fool.


So, if you want to earn any respect as an FSAE Official, then show the students that you genuinely want to fix the problems that were clearly broken in 2012, and can break again at any time.

Despite your suggestions of respect or otherwise, I do just fine.

There are many issues to improve with the competition and less combative ways of fixing them. I've posted some suggestions above. I tend to start with the notion of us all being fortunate enough to provide for - from all perspectives - a volunteer-run event with significant learning value.

You might earn a little more respect in being a little less combative yourself, Z.


Specifically, exactly why was UWA-12's Design only awarded 3 points out of 200?

As mentioned previously, I won't answer this as I'm not responsible. The project was eligible for zero as students should be aware. I personally would have argued for more than 3 on what I know, which is incomplete, which is why questions have been asked: were there late submissions, how was the presentation in other areas of the event, was there a protest, etc. The brilliant if at-the-time incomplete and unproven vehicle dynamic system implementation does not make a complete car.

I'm yet to see anyone that was directly involved answer what the entry should have received. I won't openly speculate this either, as I was not directly involved.

There are key learnings to take forwards, however not all are on the organisers' side. Blanket apologies without context do not help.


(PS: And let's not pretend that "formal protests", conducted behind closed doors, and officiated by those who are being protested against, are worth squat.)

Yours is advice students can take at their own peril. Formal protest procedures exist in most competitive events for these very reasons. Your us-them approach of advocating pessimism before an inevitable fall is... about as productive as it sounds.

[GTS]

I'm fairly sure the explicit rule you're referring to says the team should receive zero in the case of an unfinished vehicle?

If we'd got a zero score that would've been fair enough, there's a rule there that says so. If we'd gotten 120, 90, 60 points, that'd would've been OK because the car wasn't finished, and there's plenty of precedent for unfinished cars that didn't compete in dynamics doing very well in design event (precedent is what a large part of our legal system uses).

Precedent is what our legal system may look to for relevance in context, though it's far from a definitive, and the OP lacks context.

As mentioned I'd prefer to amend the competition in future to allow static-only entrants. Gets rid of the ambiguity around it, with relevance to a changing industry it kills a few birds with the one stone.


A score of 3 appeared to much of the team as a considered, deliberate message that we were being punished for not toeing the line and building a standard car that complies with the preconceived notions.

As difficult as it is, I'd view them as three points, and wouldn't take anything lying down - neither should you.


This is coming off the back of 2011, when we brought the "wheel pods". These did not violate any rule, and actually passed tech. We were informed during the Cost event that they were illegal, and had to be modified in an arbitrary way to be made legal.

Not that it matters, however I was (as were others) especially surprised that with a more radical change in 2012 a legality clarification wasn't sought in advance. (And I loved the wheel pods).

luxosis, the smoking gun I'm looking for is that the diminishing score was in any way linked to questionable legality or lack of understanding about the car. Plenty of anecdote abounds. If anyone really viewed it as such, then A9.3 was designed explicitly for such reasons. I've personal thoughts around this which aren't for sharing (you're welcome to chat offline) though they're really not important if all recourse available to you was not actually used. Not using any of the recourse available effectively means the results were accepted. Accepting the result at event (where something could have been done about it) and then having it linger on a forum two years on (where nothing can be done about it) isn't smart.


Can you provide any more information as to who this greater group of people is? The rules (Australian Addendum specifically) says that "key officials" are to be approached. I don't believe there would be many officials, if any, on a protest committee that weren't involved in the original decision and thus don't have a conflict of interest.

A little context here for those missing it - this is a volunteer-run competition by people that broadly have your best interests at heart - which is why they volunteer. An incredible amount of time and sacrifice goes into running a FSAE project; even more just to turn up. The intent is to see it rewarded fairly in a way that all competitors are equally respected.

This said, this isn't the FIA and there's neither time nor monetary resources to take the matter offline or out-of-event. In future there may be, not today. A protest is discussed by all judges. From experience (not 2012), there's plenty of space for discord among them.

I'd happily work towards means to effect this (suggestion above and in another thread) though such sentiments are for a future-facing discussion, which is taking place elsewhere. Please join in. Use your experiences productively.


Also, risking a score of -22 for an unknown gain seems like a bit of a risk.

Turning up to competition and relying on precedent against what competitive rules you agree to by competing... is a risk. In a 'what's productive' context, I think rule changes should start here. I personally don't think the event should be so rigorous towards teams taking on board projects so significant as to be a high risk of non-completion in their first year; my reasons for as much come from my experiences however - I'd start with not every student or faculty thinks their FSAE investment about necessarily being a car that finishes, and I personally don't think it has to be. I think the rules encourage a lot of problems that touch on DE and end up elsewhere too. Part of a different discussion. I hope you join it.


What does it infer?

Has any other team in the history of FSAE received a single digit design score? I wasn't able to find one with some brief research over several comps.

The purpose of the design event, as I understand it, is to test the design of the car and the knowledge of team against said design. So as Pete said, was the 2012 UWA presentation one of the worst designed cars, and least knowledgeable group of students, in the history of FSAE? I find that hard to believe.

I don't try to believe anything without context. There are unanswered questions. We can drop it or get to the bottom of it. I believe the score should have been different, but I am neither in a position to offer comment to that end of make useful changes. I can help teams cross t's and dot i's to ensure what can reasonably be done from an entrant's end is covered, and we can pass on event suggestions for the future.

As Kev suggests, much has changed, and it will get better. Hopefully with your and others' assistance. Which can be done moving forwards.

I can't stress it enough - I'd beg students moving forwards to please, please, please, use the protest procedure if you believe you've been unfairly slighted. Be familiar with it. It's a year's worth of your best work - if you really believe in it, if you can back that up and if your work falls into one of the very few cases coming off second-best in an unfair manner - fight for it if you have to. The organizing body actually encourages you to.

[Big Bird]

Thank you all for your contributions again. Some useful feedback is being generated here, and my intention is to summarize the constructive feedback into a submission which I will forward to the FSAE-A Consortium. There are good people on the FSAE-A Consortium who will welcome the opportunity to improve the event. Thus, constructive discussion is useful and necessary for the ongoing health of the event. It is a shame that the standard “discussion” tactic for most engineers is to take a side and defend at all costs. Thus, many of the discussions on these boards get heated, and constructive ideas get lost as we take sides and defend our own position at all costs.

Z and GTS, I’ve said this on another thread and I will repeat it here. You are fighting on the same team. I know you both, and I respect you both greatly for the ideas you have to improve this competition. You are both passionate about the value of this competition, you both recognize that today’s engineers need opportunities like this to become work-ready graduates in a university system that is becoming increasingly irrelevant and dysfunctional. You are both original thinkers and bloody good engineers. It is great that you are energizing each other to think harder about how to improve this event. I STRONGLY suggest that it is now time for the two of you get together for a beer. I will facilitate this if necessary. I will keep pouring beers down your throats until each of you have looked each other in the eye and uttered the following phrases at least once:
“Hey, that is a good idea”
“I agree”
The Australasian FSAE comp needs the both of you. It would be a bloody good day if you guys could put your differences behind you and work together for the benefit of all. And I extend that to all members of the Australasian FSAE community. It is time to put the personal differences and divisiveness behind us and start collaborating towards building a better event.

Regarding comments about going over a two-year old event:
- No we cannot change the past. But we can learn from it.
- This issue is still raw and unresolved, as evidenced by the way it is regularly quoted both on these forum boards and in general conversation
- I have regularly heard the UWA 2012 example quoted as a reason for teams to not try anything adventurous or innovative in their designs.

Regarding comments about judges being volunteers – yes, I agree that they deserve to be treated with respect. Yes, I agree theirs is a difficult job. But I also believe they are not beyond questioning or accountability. The fact is, there are literally thousands of stakeholders in the FSAE community – university technical, administrative and academic staff; cash and in-kind sponsors; event volunteers; competitors and their partners (?!), family and friends, etc etc. Our event is dependant on a huge amount of goodwill across a wide range of stakeholders. An issue such as this one erodes goodwill and undermines the integrity of the event.

I recognize my own inaction at the time has contributed to this issue being left unresolved, and I am willing to stand here and say that, given my position at the time and my FSAE experience I was probably the most qualified official to recognize and attempt to resolve the situation. I didn’t. I apologize for this.

In response to comments about who this apology is directed to – it is to the FSAE-A community. As a whole. Aspects of it are directed specifically to the UWA team, naturally enough.

To those who are offended that I am taking this action – if taking responsibility for an issue, and attempting to resolve it transparently and then learn from it is somehow offensive, then I guess I have to apologize for that too. I have done this because I am concerned at the damage that this instance has caused within the Australasian FSAE community.

Now in regard to the issue itself, I’ll put my point as simply as I can.

This competition is about inspiring creative and innovative engineering. That is one of the central tenets of FSAE – and in fact creativity is mentioned twice in the opening clause of the FSAE rulebook.

One of the most creative, legal entries in Australasian FSAE history, received the lowest non-zero score in the Design Event that I could find, by a significant margin. The car was unfinished, and there are questions as to some report submission dates that I cannot answer at this point in time. But given that I have seen unfinished cars presented by teams of lesser design knowledge than the UWA team score 60+ in Design, then the UWA result is worthy of enquiry.

Enquiry may find that there were errors in the implementation of the rules, or that the rules are not serving the intent of the comp, or both, or neither. As engineers we should be able to question such things without censure or reprisal. We should also be able to accept facts, ideas for solutions and resolutions without same. Our event should be transparent and fair, and respectful for all stakeholders.

My concerns:
- That we are not encouraging creative engineering, as evidenced by my own observations of the aftermath of this incident
- That in this instance, the team did not seek a rules clarification, and did not feel comfortable seeking a rules clarification
- That when, having seen the UWA design in July 2012, I took it on my own initiative to seek a rules clarification from the Rules Committee prior to the event, my request was ignored on the basis that it did not come from an entered team.
- That rather than recognize that rules are there to serve the intent of the comp, we are sending a message that the intent of the comp (in this case, creative and innovative design) is superceded by the rulebook. I’ve seen many arguments here about how this entry should have been scored by the rules – but no-one seems to want to discuss how the rules themselves might be failing us.
- That in this instance, the team did not protest, and did not feel comfortable lodging a protest
- That we all have to be so bloody adversarial about this. Chill, everyone. Can’t we discuss stuff without everyone getting their knickers in a knot?

Cheers all,

Geoff

[Z]

Geoff,

Ahhh... I was just about to submit a rather long post, but now I should perhaps start again...

The gist of my message is this.

"Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."
~~~o0o~~~

"GTS" is the only currently serving Official that is posting here.

Unfortunately, in his comments I see an "Us vs Them" attitude that, IMO, does NOT bode well for future students. Especially for any students thinking "C&I". (So, contrary to what you said Geoff, this puts GTS and I on opposite "teams". I prefer to support the students.) I also see very little to suggest that future UWA-11&12 type events will be actively avoided. In fact, many of GTS's suggested changes ring strong alarm bells that there will be much more of this in the future.

For example, in my just written draft I had,
"(GTS ...)
* You want DE to be worth more points, as in 2012.
* You want to give the DJs a greater SUBJECTIVE influence on the whole competition, by allowing "Static only" cars that cannot be evaluated objectively, say, by a stop-watch."
~~~o0o~~~

Any Engineering competition that has a large subjective content, coming from a small number of unaccountable Officials, with no "Openness and Transparency", will always end badly.

I am, and always will be, "adversarial" to this approach. My view is that the students should be given an objectively clear set of Rules, and their "engineering" should then be judged in an objectively clear way, say, with a stop-watch. Simple as that.

(Sadly, the IRC's work on the 2015 Rules Changes is another example of this sort of downhill slide. The majority of the problems there stem from the IRC's complete lack of O&T in their work. I foresee much "bad History, doomed to be repeated" in 2015...)
~~~o0o~~~

Anyway, I reckon the only way these problems can be truly solved is with much more O&T. (Mega-sunshine surely does solve those mould problems in the bathroom...)

So, the last bit of my just drafted post was this.

"(GTS ...)
It seems that you have exchanged PMs with Pat Clarke since this topic was again raised. Pat was one of the Officials at the centre of the UWA-11&12 incidents. So,

* Can you urge Pat to post his versions of those events here?

* If not, then can you give your version of the events, as you understand them from any PM's you have recently exchanged with Pat or other Officials?

* If neither of the above, then can you explain WHY THE COVER-UP???"

Z

[GTS]

Z, Geoff says play nice and I quite like Geoff, so let's play nice.

I can't post anything private and this isn't the forum to post my private thoughts either. You can swap beer credits for the latter at best. 2012 is not mine to comment. I'll happily talk UWA aero in 2013. I'd suggest eliciting anyone to chat anywhere involves having a welcoming forum to do so. Just as birds don't nest on boiling hydrochloric acid, individuals won't spend valuable time in a forum where a few dedicate unabated resources to slagging them off openly. As I'm neither busy sledging judges to and fro nor involved directly in this, the invite is better served coming from elsewhere. There is no cover-up here; in addition to being legitimately not privy to the information you seek, I simply am not in a place to comment.

What I can do is encourage students to do all they can to be ready for competition and to compete fairly. Bring a car meeting competitive rules - this included (at the time) completion. Roll learnings into project management - if organizers have had a beef with your less-radical last attempt to be ingenious, get the next one checked. If there's a protest process, use it. This is common sense and covers all bases. Common sense extends to there being space for idiocy in all roles, whilst acknowledging that the majority of the individuals running the event are doing it because they want to see students do well.

The competition is one of project delivery - it's not a competition to build a 'quickest car', which is why much of the judging will remain qualitative. I hope you one day accept this. If you want a stopwatch competition, take up motorsport. This isn't it. No qualitative process is perfect. You advocate abandoning it and I strongly disagree - I'm for making it better. You suggest it's not at all open and subjective - whilst not perfect (and many of us work to improve it), it's far from as you suggest: I can understand your not being familiar with the rulebook and competition document; you are simply not a competitor, how you enjoy the competition is up to you. Consider that the best part of 200 students yearly turn up not having read it either: we cannot make open what people do not seek to see.

Far from ending badly, the last two years (new format) have been pretty good. There's always space for improvement.

If it was a competition to build a 'quickest car', we'd likely not have seen UWA attempt - in a single year - the design revolution we're discussing here. With development it could be very quick. Not likely with student resources in a single year, though. FSAE deliberately asks more than is possible in a year of student resources, and forces smart choices. If the best entrants were from teams against a stopwatch, then many of FSAE's best graduates - who've gone onto great, great things - would have missed much from their involvement in the competition. Many particularly challenging and creative developments wouldn't have happened at all.

Geoff, I too am concerned that the team did not seek to exhaust any avenues to avoid or amend what happened. Not feeling comfortable doesn't quite cut it; there's a significant resource spend on the line here. Having seen faculty supervisors (who cannot, by rules, get involved) protest at 120dB+ on scaling differences between 'high' and 'perfect' you might appreciate that that not a peep, not a whimper at three points on two hundred is a bit hard to swallow. I'm directing thoughts on this at students as it's actually up to students to protest if it's appropriate - not Faculty.

I'm similarly concerned that the competition's rules still don't transparently welcome the unfinished bold strides with open arms. This is, I believe, a significant gap.

Static-only entrants should be welcomed before universities start requesting them. The competition needs to change and reflect the world around it. There is less money, less demand and less need in Australia for FSAE. There are and will be less resources to commit to it in future. By rules, UWA was eligible for zero in 2012. I'd prefer that this avenue strictly not exist. If UWA had a legitimately all-round kick-ass design in 2012 (no evidence to this yet), I'd have preferred the team go home kings of as much, with every bit of support and endorsed justification to come back with a running development of same in the next year.

The challenge, as ever, is to find balance.

Z, far from there being a small number, the process now is quite large. There are over 16 judging officials. Far from unaccountability, there is some - if it's used.

The OP (sorry Geoff) came off as terribly one-sided. That's not quite the truth either. There are lessons on both sides, and without awareness of both, either on their own suffers. Having a bitch about three points without context of what could have been better delivered and tested... is about as useful as standing by three points without investigating what allowed as much and being open about the findings. Standing alone on either side just leaves with adversarial, vested arguments.

Geoff, from time to time I hear UWA cited as an excuse too. I remind those I meet that they've some fairly short and shallow memories in FSAE if they want to indulge, solely, in that much in setting bounds to their potential. FSAE, FSAE-A in particular, has been a very, very rich space for creativity be it welcomed, critiqued, chided, suffering pre-detonation, unfinished, compromised, succeeding gloriously or any combination thereof. I remind them that life can't kick them as hard as they'll kick themselves, I remind them of what's possible and I encourage them to go touch the sky.

There are those that remain fixated on what they can't do. It'd take more than erasing UWA 2012 to move them.

[luxsosis]

Geoff, I too am concerned that the team did not seek to exhaust any avenues to avoid or amend what happened. Not feeling comfortable doesn't quite cut it; there's a significant resource spend on the line here. Having seen faculty supervisors (who cannot, by rules, get involved) protest at 120dB+ on scaling differences between 'high' and 'perfect' you might appreciate that that not a peep, not a whimper at three points on two hundred is a bit hard to swallow. I'm directing thoughts on this at students as it's actually up to students to protest if it's appropriate - not Faculty.


GTS, right or wrong there didn't seem to be much point at the time. We weren't competing for places, the actual point score wasn't particularly important. The team was already defeated having missed the deadline, this was a "kicked when your down" moment.

Also, it's not a protest against receiving a B- when you think you deserved an A. It's more akin to protesting the teacher after she's sent you to the naughty corner because you pointed out an error she made. As Kev said...



I was completely wrong in thinking they needed a rules approval. The system, once viewed, was clearly legal and quite a good approach. I think their design event score was wrapped up in the vested interests of a few involved with design. I had at least one design judge mention there score to me prior to its release with some glee. It was very clear to me that a message was intended, and a few of the judges didn't like how UWA had lost their way.
Kev

[GTS]

luxsosis, I'm not suggesting that a protest should have been around points for the sake of points either.

I wasn't a judge but I was there. Read A9.3 carefully.

[Moke]

their "engineering" should then be judged in an objectively clear way, say, with a stop-watch.

They are, 675 out of 1000 points or 67.5% are judged solely by the stop watch + 40 points from cost that is for lowest cost. But that is a discussion for the design thread as it is off topic for this one.

This is probably going to sound harsh -

I think if people are letting this define all that they got or will get out of their FSAE experience, then with the power of hindsight, I can say you are going to have a bad time the rest of your life. You will work on projects to have them scraped by a bean counter, have credit given to others for your work, have your lunch cut by back room deals and finally give your all to grow a company from a two man band to 30 staff over 7 years to never receive the shares in the company you were promised to ultimately not even getting a handshake from the owners the day you leave. If you let this define you and not grow from the experiences then you might as well just give up and stay home.

Yes, FSAE is your life at the time, hell we used to have beds at the workshop where I slept 5-6 nights a week for over 6 months. Yes, it hurts when you don't get the results you believe you should. But take it as the learning experience it is meant to be, so it might not have be a positive one but I'd hope you learnt something during the year if not the weekend.

You might not have been given the points in design but you did conceptualize, design, build, ultimately race a very unique design. Your peers and employers will be more interested in the before comp results than the at comp results.

[Z]

GTS,


... this isn't the forum to post my private thoughts ...

Huh???

Are you saying that all your posts above are NOT, in fact, your true thoughts?

And, by implication, are you suggesting that you have a HIDDEN AGENDA, that will never be revealed to the students or general public?

What ever happened to good old-fashioned straight-talking, and honesty?
~o0o~


There is no cover-up here; in addition to being legitimately not privy to the information you seek, I simply am not in a place to comment.

So WHY ALL THE WORDS???

Honestly, Blind Freddy can see that this is a cover-up. That is why it has festered for so long. That is why Geoff had to take the bold step of offering his own personal apology for the mistakes of others.

But the Officials who were responsible for this injustice have been doing their best to bury it over the last two years. Mostly by ignoring it, but occasionally with red-herrings such as "it was just the standard penalties for late document submissions", etc.

And you, GTS, are aiding and abetting them in this cover-up by repeating these, so far unsubstantiated, allegations. And by doing NOTHING to reveal what actually happened, such as making public the relevant documents. Or are those documents covered by some "SAE-A Official Secrets Act"?
~o0o~

In all your words above, I see the meaningless middle-management double-speak that is designed to do nothing more than provide a ready-made cover-up for future cock-ups, or possibly gross injustices. For example;


The competition is one of project delivery - it's not a competition to build a 'quickest car', which is why much of the judging will remain qualitative.

What does that mean? How are future students supposed to interpret that? And where in the Rules does it say "The competition is one of project delivery, NOT about building a quick car..."? Or can Officials now unilaterally redefine the meaning of the whole competition, on a whim?

More specifically, how can a Team that brings the objectively "quickest car" to the competition be said to have NOT "delivered on the project"? Or, worse yet, might some future Team be able to bring a "slow car" to comp and still win DE, possibly then worth 1000/1000 points, because you "qualitatively" judged them to have the best "project delivery", while the "quickest car" might only get 3/1000 points?

GTS, for the benefit of the students you can either clarify this issue of what exactly "project delivery" means in your opinion (you have mentioned it several times now), and how you would score it in DE, or you can keep it as part of your hidden agenda. Your choice.

But I, for one, have seen enough to NOT TRUST YOU one iota.
~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~

Brent,


... 675 out of 1000 points or 67.5% are judged solely by the stop watch...
... But that is a discussion for the design thread ...

Yes, I want to post some more on your other thread soon. But I am now trying to put together some detailed design advice for yet another thread, that will hopefully be of some educational use for some other students. Sadly, it seems that more work is required to "stop the rot", than to "improve the education"...

And yes, 675/1000 points are judged by the stop-watch, which I like. But it is now a historical fact that a Team can lose 197 points in DE, with no explanation coming from the DJs as to exactly why those points where lost. And the obvious conclusion here is that the Team lost those 197 points because they brought a C&I car.

So, if a Team wants to win the comp outright, and if they try to do this with a C&I car, then they MUST aim to out-score ALL the other Teams by ~200 points in the stop-watch judged Dynamic Events. That is, they must push everyone else back to <480 Dynamic points. Clearly a big ask, and a big DISCOURAGEMENT from "pushing the envelope".

Welcome to "The Boring New World"... :(

Or put another way, why bother studying Engineering?

Much more to say ... but later...
~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~

Pat Clarke,

Are you ever going to show some back-bone on this issue?

As I understand it, you were at, or very close to, the centre of it. You know all the little details.

Either make public why UWA only received 3/200 points, or make it clear that you want to keep this issue festering forever.

Z

[GTS]

Are you saying that all your posts above are NOT, in fact, your true thoughts?

No. As I’ve written, I think UWA was entitled to more than 3. I’m capable of waxing lyrical about what I thought was great and crap on the car as much as the next observer, and accordingly I think as much from an incomplete perspective of not having been among the judges involved.

I believe there’s little point discussing why as the entry - by the rules the students involved signed up to compete against - was not eligible for points.

What recourse there was available to the students to challenge the result was not used. Their choice.


And, by implication, are you suggesting that you have a HIDDEN AGENDA, that will never be revealed to the students or general public?

Interesting use of pronouns, and no.


What ever happened to good old-fashioned straight-talking, and honesty?

It’s there: the entry honestly deserved more than three, the entry honestly was eligible for zero, the students honestly had recourse available to them that they didn’t use.


Honestly, Blind Freddy can see that this is a cover-up. That is why it has festered for so long. That is why Geoff had to take the bold step of offering his own personal apology for the mistakes of others.

Read the previous post and my previous line a few times over. The students had recourse to deal with it proactively at the time. They didn’t. Epic whinge over.

There are learnings to take forwards on both sides. Many have moved forwards. You seem stuck in the past here.


But the Officials who were responsible for this injustice have been doing their best to bury it over the last two years. Mostly by ignoring it, but occasionally with red-herrings such as "it was just the standard penalties for late document submissions", etc.

I’d love to have any one of the officials involved comment on it here. I can’t help that you can’t see the degree to which you limit the very open conversation you seek. You’ve taken an open thread on a matter - again - and sought to make it personal.


And you, GTS, are aiding and abetting them in this cover-up by repeating these, so far unsubstantiated, allegations. And by doing NOTHING to reveal what actually happened, such as making public the relevant documents. Or are those documents covered by some "SAE-A Official Secrets Act"?

I’ve done no such thing. I’ve simply asked questions. As with most people not involved with organising the 2012 event, I have no access to any documentation. Your assertion is about as powerful as me accusing you to make public the relevant documents and quit with the cover up. You’re about as relevant as I am to the 2012 judging team.


In all your words above, I see the meaningless middle-management double-speak that is designed to do nothing more than provide a ready-made cover-up for future cock-ups, or possibly gross injustices.

Try reading them a few more times. You’re wasting time here.


How are future students supposed to interpret that?

http://students.sae.org/cds/formulaseries/about.htm
http://www.saea.com.au/formula-sea-a


And where in the Rules does it say "The competition is one of project delivery, NOT about building a quick car..."?

Article 1 of the competition rules.


Or can Officials now unilaterally redefine the meaning of the whole competition, on a whim?

No, we read the rulebook.


More specifically, how can a Team that brings the objectively "quickest car" to the competition be said to have NOT "delivered on the project"?

Many ways. Read the rules.


Or, worse yet, might some future Team be able to bring a "slow car" to comp and still win DE, possibly then worth 1000/1000 points, because you "qualitatively" judged them to have the best "project delivery", while the "quickest car" might only get 3/1000 points?

Slow is a bit of a stretch, however it’s not a requirement to be fastest to win. Ask Geoff (who pioneered much to this end). Of the 15 SAE-A competitions, the fastest in autocross has won the event 8 times… not 15.

Dynamic events cannot be judged qualitatively and concern the point majority. Your assertion is impossible, as someone took (and evidently wasted) time to point out to you. It is similarly impossible for the quickest car to score 3.

You’re trying very hard now to be obtuse with context.


GTS, for the benefit of the students you can either clarify this issue of what exactly "project delivery" means in your opinion (you have mentioned it several times now), and how you would score it in DE, or you can keep it as part of your hidden agenda. Your choice.

I don’t need to have an opinion on it, the task is quite clear in the competition rules.

I don’t score project delivery in DE, I score aerodynamics.


And the obvious conclusion here is that the Team lost those 197 points because they brought a C&I car.

So, if a Team wants to win the comp outright, and if they try to do this with a C&I car, then they MUST aim to out-score ALL the other Teams by ~200 points in the stop-watch judged Dynamic Events. That is, they must push everyone else back to <480 Dynamic points. Clearly a big ask, and a big DISCOURAGEMENT from "pushing the envelope".


I tend to think it’s quite big of Geoff to try and accommodate these rants of yours, Z.

For someone who’s been to most of the 15 events here you’d have been privy to a solid amount of innovation at the competition. You’d have walked past students that are now engineers with great careers in creative roles, that ‘cut their teeth’ with FSAE-A involvement. Many of these students work internationally today, and some even maintain strong networks with those they met at the competition - organisers included. Not all the creativity looked quite like the UWA 2012 entry but it’s been bold, it’s been significant and it’s been there - even in 2014 - it’s been lauded and encouraged. Over 15 years and numerous entrants’ worth.

Your continued attempts to aggressively, broadly slight the (volunteer) organisation of one of the greatest opportunities students are afforded in engineering study on basis of one incomplete example are pathetic.

Feedback from events year-on-year is rolled into successive years’ organisation. The design event is now very different. The conversations behind final results are very different in nature to what you suggest. Whilst you were typing out your latest rant, some organisers and the SAE-A were working to get DE results out to teams, and I was visiting a team and discussing the competition with relevant faculty from a sponsorship perspective.

Whilst you were being destructive, others were bring constructive.


But I, for one, have seen enough to NOT TRUST YOU one iota.

Your agenda is patently clear too.

The students, faculty, competition supporters and other organisers that urge me not to be involved in this forum may have a point. Geoff insists that we’re two people on the same team, and I want him to be right. Maybe the majority that insists I'm wasting my time is right, and you’re actually the bitter individual you’re suggested to be. If you think Geoff’s cause worthwhile, seek a way though him to contact me offline and talk it though. Let's not do it here. Enough. I and others can't seem to convince you that your comment goes too far, running often quite contrary to your objectives. If you wish for organisers to appear on these boards and discuss events of note, I'd suggest a more reasoned approach. Not least because others (e.g. Geoff, Moke) have asked. Nicely.

Geoff, I am sorry. This is as much of an olive branch as I can offer. This can't go on. It's so OT in a way that helps no one.

Z, this is a second thread I’ll withdraw from on account of your making it needlessly personal on ridiculous reasons. There was one official contributing on the forums, Z, there is now zero - this is your doing. If it's what you sought, well done. My interests (as ever) are with students' and I hope, for their sake, that most agree with your motivations.

[Moke]

I'm sorry but this has gotten ridiculous suggesting there is a conspiracy to keep UWA down.

https://i.imgflip.com/g3udi.jpg