What would you change?

[Sam Zimmerman]

Just out of curiosity, if you had full control of FSAE for a year, what would you change and why? Would it be a single rule or a drastic change?

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing (http://www.uidaho.edu/~racing)

[Denny Trimble]

1) A real autocross course (70ish top speed). We hit 80 at local autocrosses pretty regularly. Isn't this what we're designing for?

2) Endurance repair rule: allow repairs to be made "on the clock" if the car makes it back to the driver change area, with the tech inspector's approval required before the car re-enters the track.

I think #2 is most important... being DSQ'd because of a simple, easy-to-fix problem is the most negative experience I've had with FSAE.

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03)

[Daygo Nighthawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Denny Trimble:
1) A real autocross course (70ish top speed). We hit 80 at local autocrosses pretty regularly. Isn't this what we're designing for?

2) Endurance repair rule: allow repairs to be made "on the clock" if the car makes it back to the driver change area, with the tech inspector's approval required before the car re-enters the track.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, and agreed. Also,
3. Longer endurance (22 laps is more like qualifying..)

4. Ideally, some other real 'track' event. All those cars that completed the endurance go head to head.

5. Better/equal judging, this goes for Design and Cost. The cost judging was pretty lame this year (2003), and I know many teams 'engineer' their cars waay down, many times unjustifiably. Design could use some smoothing too.

___________________________________
College is a fountain of knowledge . . .
and the students are there to drink.

[clausen]

A control tyre

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Charlie]

I really like the event as it is, it really works well. There are problems but mostly they have unclear solutions. A control tyre would be nice, because it would take that variable out. On the other hand we are almost the only place you can experiment with tires, and I like that.

I think the series would be well served with another 'invitation only' event. There are so many cars in Detroit, all the events go so fast that few cars really get looked at carefully and not enough teams get good feedback on what they did right/wrong. This is a shame because it should be thier best opportunity to learn.

Say the top 25 teams + The top 10 teams that failed endurance are invited to a 2nd event a month later... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[A Reinke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1) A real autocross course (70ish top speed). We hit 80 at local autocrosses pretty regularly. Isn't this what we're designing for?

2) Endurance repair rule: allow repairs to be made "on the clock" if the car makes it back to the driver change area, with the tech inspector's approval required before the car re-enters the track.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well said. i agree #2 should be allowed for fairness. if a car breaks down in a real race situation, it can be fixed and go back out with the time penalty it suffered.

as for the autcross, i agree it should be more realistic to what SCCA sets up normally. i guess since its just a formula competition they can make the track smaller...but i think there should be more spots to really test the cars acceleration and hard braking.

cost event, bah. it always sucks. it has no origanization it seems, and no point when we are in Detroit. i'm really sick of the cost report and everything associated with it.

~Adam

[Angry Joe]

-I would not require teams to know how a F***ing rear-view mirror is manufactured.

-I would do away with the cost report completely, it is a waste of time and does nothing to discourage extravigant spending.

-Endurance would allow teams a 15-20 minute window to repair their car

-An autocross course more in line with the endurance. I know speeds have to be kept down but it is a little bit ridiculous...

-Split the competition into reigonal events, with a possible national event for the finalists.

-Change the rules so cars cannot look like the roller skates of a toddler. We have a reputation to maintain here, guys http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The difference between racing and a crack addiction is that racing costs more and has a more adverse affect on your social life

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula (http://www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula)

[Sam Zimmerman]

Since I started this thread I will put my two cents in. I would either require the design judges to abide by the premise of the competition or change the premise. More emphasis should be placed on manufacturability and whether the vehicle is a viable prototype for a weekend autocross vehicle.
Secondly, instead of doing away with the cost competition I would give that portion the attention it deserves. This would include checking the entire vehicle for compliance and then making the cost of the vehicle (plus penalties) worth 100 points and get rid of the other areas where points are handed out in this event.
A rule stating that teams who fail to show up cannot enter again for another couple of years is appropriate.
The one suggestion I completely disagree with is having regional competitions. I love the fact that there are so many teams at the event.

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing (http://www.uidaho.edu/~racing)

[Denny Trimble]

I disagree with the proposed "if you don't make it to Detroit, next year's team is screwed too" rule. People come and people go, continuity is a hard thing to get at some schools, and it's also one of the most critical factors in succeeding in FSAE. Teams are already penalized for lack of continuity, they don't need more punishment.

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03)

[Brent Howard]

I think that the current cost report set-up is useless, simply because the rules are not well defined enough to provide actual comparison between vehicles. Currently there is so much room for teams to interpret the rules that a team can drastically increase or decrease their prototype cost. They cost that we take from the cost report doesn't need to be accurate in terms of real US dollars (it already isn't anywhere close), it simply needs to be able to compare team A vs B. For this reason I think a much much expanded table of values should be introduced so that every team charges the same for things like milling a set amount of steel, or jigging costs for the chassis (actually setting the chassis up on the jig).

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Big Bird]

It seems a few people here aint that pleased with the Cost Report, usually with the argument that costs can still go through the roof. Good point, but remember the actual cost of the car is worth only 30 points out of the whole event.

For my 2.2 cents worth, I like the format of the "Cost Report" as it is. It forces us to confront and understand manufacturing processes and costs as we design. This is especially beneficial since some unis outsource some/all of their manufacturing. What sort of engineers would will be if we don't understand how our designs are going to be made?

If they renamed it the "Manufacturing Event" rather than the Cost Report, it might become a little clearer to all that the goal isn't just to minimize the cost of the car. It is about understanding and presenting the manufacturing processes and cost implications of our designs. Combined with a design event to present our technical understanding, and the presentation to tie the whole package together, I think the static events give a nice overview of wider project management.

Cheers all,

Geoff Pearson
RMIT FSAE 2003

Design it. Build it. Break it.

[Angry Joe]

I apollogize for being blunt, but cost report = useless pile of crap. I weep for the trees that died to make ours.

There is a solution, and that is to give every team $20,000 in "FSAE Bux" that are redeemable at any automotive or race shop in the country (okay, the world). That would pretty much solve everything http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If that's no good, there are other ways to cut cost:

-Make the Pep Boy's Futura all-season the spec tire

- Chassis must be made from balsa wood or uncooked pasta, like those model bridge competitions

- All bolt-on components must be purchased from Meineke (I smell a sponsorship deal...)

- Teams that have enough money to display their name in an excessively creative fashion (like in your brake light, or embroidered in a seat cushion) must give every other team $500

- Teamsters from the big three give reigonal seminars to FSAE teams called: "extortion and you: raising sponsorship in the 21st century"

Okay, I think it's past my bedtime...

The difference between racing and a crack addiction is that racing costs more and has a more adverse affect on your social life

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula (http://www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula)

[DJ Jockey]

Angry Joe: are you really that bitter and twisted? I'm assuming you don't know how a mirror is manufactured...

Anyway, the purpose of the cost report is not so much to limit the amount that teams spend, but to make them think about budgets, costing, and manufacturability. - And while it seems like a "pile of crap" (and may well be) it really has nothing to do with sponsorship or the spending money.

Yes, there will always be the rich teams against the poor teams, but it's what you do with what you've got that counts.

[Charlie]

I like the idea of the cost report, and I don't think it should be deleted from the FSAE competition. It does need revising though. It seems ambigous, and there is rampant cheating. I don't want it so heavily enforced that if you missed a nut or bolt you get severely penalized, but major items should be accounted for, and those major items listed in the cost report should be the ones on the car, and no 'extras'. There was absolutely NO checking for any of this last year. And no feedback on the cost report either. They did schedule a session or something I believe to ask questions, it was the morning of the dynamic events. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Kelsey]

It seems to be quite the debate about the cost report, so I guess I'll give my thoughts.
Having done a lot of work on the cost report the past two years with the team I can whole heartedly say that they do not play a large enough role in the competition for the amount of work that they require.
I agree with charlie, they area good idea and teach us how to present the business side of engineering and not only the technical side, but the way the cost report is used in the competition needs some serious revamping.
The judges did not check to see if what we had stated in our cost reports was actually attached to the car....including the major things!
If the cost report remains such an insignificant / invisible part of the competition things will only get worse in my mind..and the winning team of the cost event will be the one that can fudge the numbers the best...instead of being the team that has actually spent the time and effort to determine what it would actually cost to develop an FSAE car.
All said and done, unless they make some changes to the cost event to make the cost report valid and significant, the 10+ hours spent developing it can be spent actually doing something worth while, like working on the car!

One another note, what are the opinions about sound testing at the FSAE competition?

Kelsey Gier
University of Calgary - Dino's Motorsports
2003 Powertrain Leader
UofC Motorsports (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[This message was edited by Kelsey on October 07, 2003 at 04:44 AM.]

[Angry Joe]

How many of the hours spent on the cost report could have been better used towards other things like, say... building a race car?

I know we all have SO much leisure time but still...

The difference between racing and a crack addiction is that racing costs more and has a more adverse affect on your social life

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula (http://www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula)

[fsae_alum]

Okay, time for the perspective of the alum.... Having worked professionally (full time) in industry for 10 years, I have to say the the whole cost report is an absolute JOKE. What they're asking for is a BILL OF MATERIAL with ROUTING operations and costing built into it. I think the concept of having engineering students learning first hand what a Bill Of Material and a Routing is...is a great idea. However, I suspect (have also seen first hand) that the cheating within those cost reports is so blatant that cost is sometimes as little as HALF of what it probably should be. When we put together our cost report, it took up TWO 1.5" thick notebooks. We had a FSAE "Consultant" from a big name school look at our report to receive criticism and he said that it was WAYYYYYY too big. We replied that it included EVERY part on the car. He said THAT was the problem....that in the end it should only encompass a little more than 1/2 of the parts of the car. That's how you get the cost down from 20k to 11k like everybody else. Having spent the past decade creating BOM's and Routings, I can say that to expect a BOM and Routing report for a FSAE car to be less than 150 pages thick is basically telling them from the beginning to cheat. It took us MONTHS to get our cost report together....and for what???

The WHOLE cost report portion of the competition REALLY needs to be reworked. It's a good idea that has been executed very badly IMO.

In spite of...

[Angry Joe]

The person that worked on our cost report worked their ass off on that thing, and followed the requirements to the letter. I looked at it, and honestly don't know how to improve it, except to cheat. We got one of the lowest scores at competition.

I would have asked a judge about it but I didn't notice the score until after competition. Were we to do it again, we would have cheated. Blatantly.

The difference between racing and a crack addiction is that racing costs more and has a more adverse affect on your social life

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula (http://www.lehigh.edu/~insae/formula)

[clausen]

How was the cost report for the Uni of West Washington car with the V8?

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[EliseS2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clausen:
How was the cost report for the Uni of West Washington car with the V8?

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember Engines are costed by cc's and by the output. So building your own V-8 is costed the same as getting a F3 from a junkyard.

[Charlie]

It was in fact, cheaper-it was around 550ccs.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Matt Gignac]

But modifications to an engine you buy have to be costed also... so what exactly can be considered a modification on the WWU V8? Would the dry sump be considered "stock"? Plus the gearbox encompasses the diff and suspension points, that has to be considered seperate

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Gignac:
But modifications to an engine you buy have to be costed also... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since when? I don't believe that is correct.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Brent Howard]

Yeah, every modification to a purchased part must be costed. So I have to say I'd be disappointed if WWU able to cost their completly custom engine as only $687.50. Even if you simply drill a new mounting hole, or weld something to the engine that should be costed. Not that I think the judges have, or will, be that picky.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[gug]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brent Howard:
Even if you simply drill a new mounting hole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but their engine came stock like that! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
another example of a failure of the cost report. maybe admin should start up a new poll, is the cost report pointless or not?

- if it isnt coming, you need a bigger tool.

[Brent Howard]

We all already know the answer to that one Gug.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Charlie]

I'm really suprised you all think this way. I think the rules make it quite clear that the engine is not costed, that modifications to the engine are not costed, and even if the transmission or CVT is not integral, it is STILL not costed. Where did this idea come from?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4.3.8 Engine Costing
The cost of the engine depends upon the performance rating of the engine. The engine performance rating is based upon the power potential of the manufacturer's specification of the engine without restrictor modification.
The engine is considered low performance if it is capable of producing less than 5 horsepower per 100 cc displacement (industrial engines, etc.). A high performance engine is capable of 5-10 horsepower per 100 cc (normal motorcycle engines with 2 valves per cylinder, etc.). An ultra high performance engine is capable of more than 10 horsepower per 100 cc (new high tech engines, 3- or 4-valves per cylinder, etc.). The engine is considered to be purchased with all of the required components and systems necessary to run. The engine costs listed below include the transmission/CVT device regardless of whether it is integral to the engine or not. Engines that come equipped with an integral transmission, differential, and U-jointed axles must estimate the cost of the differential and U-joints separately. Items driven by or beyond the general function of the engine and/or transmission must be costed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you only cost the differential and driveline, along with all the other specific parts listed in the cost report. No internal modifications to the engine are mentioned in the cost report listing, nor are they applicable in my opinion, because the engine cost is too generic. If you cost engines by cc's only, why in the world would you charge for modification of any engine, because in the real world thier cost is going to vary dramatically anyway.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[A Reinke]

okay, so say you have a stock Suzuki, if you use the stock fuel injection system (hypothetically) and stock ignition...then you dont have to cost it?

why cost a Motec then?

[Charlie]

Read the rules, come on now. Or at least read my post more carefully, I said there are specific engine parts you are required to cost and fuel injectors and ECU are two of them.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[James Waltman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kelsey:
...the 10+ hours spent developing it can be spent actually doing something worth while, like working on the car!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the 10+ hours estimate is exceedingly low. Three of us put in a total of about 90 man hours in the 36 hours before we sent off our report (at about the last minute). That doesn't count the work I did before that point (maybe 150 hours and certainly 1 spring break). Mike Waggoner and Travis Garrison are good guys but I don't want to sit in a small room with them for 30 hours straight ever again.

James Waltman
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

[Matt Gignac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (C) Modified (Purchase and Alter) Part – Use the full retail
cost of the part as above, plus the cost of the modifications taken
from the Operations Cost Table in Section 4.3.9 of the Rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way I see it, if you put in different pistons, connecting rods, a dry sump system, even just removing gears, you`d have to cost the part and labor to put it together.

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think that the 10+ hours estimate is exceedingly low. Three of us put in a total of about 90 man hours in the 36 hours before we sent off our report (at about the last minute). That doesn't count the work I did before that point (maybe 150 hours and certainly 1 spring break). Mike Waggoner and Travis Garrison are good guys but I don't want to sit in a small room with them for 30 hours straight ever again.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I KNOW it takes more than 10 hours to do this cost report. Our report took probably 30 hours of my time before the last weekend and then three of us worked all weekend getting the final touches done one it....including one sleepless night and a 4 am trip to get slurpies. All in all I'd say at least 150-200 man hours. Kelsey wasn't one of the ones working all night that Sunday, so maybe he is just refering to his 10 hours.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Gignac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (C) Modified (Purchase and Alter) Part – Use the full retail
cost of the part as above, plus the cost of the modifications taken
from the Operations Cost Table in Section 4.3.9 of the Rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way I see it, if you put in different pistons, connecting rods, a dry sump system, even just removing gears, you`d have to cost the part and labor to put it together.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I can see how the rules are open to interpretation a bit, but I feel that there is a very good reason why the engine has it's own section, it is because it is treated differently from evry other part. Your engine comes with pistons, and you do not cost them, so why do different ones cost more? The only engine criteria for costing is displacement.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Sam Zimmerman]

I like this topic. Seems like most people are somewhat disgruntled with the cost event.

I think Charlie is right, by the rules. I would say that if I could change the rules that the engine pricing would be changed. Why would a stock 600cc carburated engine cost the same as an modified fuel injected 600cc engine with custom pistons, valve jobs, fuel system, etc? Maybe the rules should read, "The engine is considered to be purchased with all of the required components and systems necessary to run. The engine costs listed below include the transmission/CVT device regardless of whether it is integral to the engine or not. Any modifications from the engine as purchased, must be accounted for. Custom engines must use the machining cost guide."

Or maybe not. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing (http://www.uidaho.edu/~racing)

[Kelsey]

Thanks for the back up Brent! The 10+ hours I spent on it was just printing off drawings and making small corrections, not including the BOM, Manufacturing processes and that stuff..each of those took about 5 hours just for my sections;they were fairly automated thanks to a 4th year design project 2 years ago (though I had to learn how to use the programs again!). I may not have spent all night working on the cost report (I was working on the Engine and drivetrain! You volunteered to be up all night Brent! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Though we did spend 200 total hours to make the cost report...a hge waste of time), but I understand that with 200 man hours into a cost report..it's a huge waste of effort for teams!

Kelsey Gier
University of Calgary - Dino's Motorsports
2003 Powertrain Leader
UofC Motorsports (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)