Angry Joe's thoughts and rants on FSAE 2003

[Angry Joe]

When I speak, people listen (I think out of morbid curiosity) so I thought, as I pass into graduation I would give my thoughts on FSAE '03. First, My sincere thanks goes out to everybody that made the event possible. Your efforts have helped me and countless others realize their dream of building an honest-to-God race car from scratch while not quite failing out of school. That said, I have some suggestions:

1) Reigonal events. Baja does it successfully, and it would make things go much more smoothly. Even better would be regional events followed by a national competition a few weeks later for the top finishers.

2) The endurance has got to change. I understand that these are supposed to be reliable cars that don't need a full time crew chief to run, but let's face reality. They are prototypes, and even in the real world prototypes break stuff. A lot. Trust me, I've interned in the aircraft industry and things are no different for them. It sucks when you put a year or more into a car only to have it crap out on the biggest event because somebody dropped a cheese doodle into the chain tensioner.

I suggest allowing the car to have a full crew available. If something goes wrong, they come into the pits and work (with the clock stil running) to fix it. The time penalty serves to reward the most reliable cars. Additionaly, an arbitrary points system could be implemented to penalize the car for every malfunction.

3) Cost report: Way too much work, way too easy to cheat on. We worked our asses off on that thing and still got a miserible score. That time could have been used more constructively on, well, just about anything. And you all know we have loads of free time.

4) How is a F***ing rear view mirror manufactured? Are you high?!?!

Anyway I'm done bitching. Like I said, I know everybody tries their hardest to make this an enjoyable event, but there's always room for improvement. Good luck next year everybody...

Lehigh Formula SAE

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

[Angry Joe]

When I speak, people listen (I think out of morbid curiosity) so I thought, as I pass into graduation I would give my thoughts on FSAE '03. First, My sincere thanks goes out to everybody that made the event possible. Your efforts have helped me and countless others realize their dream of building an honest-to-God race car from scratch while not quite failing out of school. That said, I have some suggestions:

1) Reigonal events. Baja does it successfully, and it would make things go much more smoothly. Even better would be regional events followed by a national competition a few weeks later for the top finishers.

2) The endurance has got to change. I understand that these are supposed to be reliable cars that don't need a full time crew chief to run, but let's face reality. They are prototypes, and even in the real world prototypes break stuff. A lot. Trust me, I've interned in the aircraft industry and things are no different for them. It sucks when you put a year or more into a car only to have it crap out on the biggest event because somebody dropped a cheese doodle into the chain tensioner.

I suggest allowing the car to have a full crew available. If something goes wrong, they come into the pits and work (with the clock stil running) to fix it. The time penalty serves to reward the most reliable cars. Additionaly, an arbitrary points system could be implemented to penalize the car for every malfunction.

3) Cost report: Way too much work, way too easy to cheat on. We worked our asses off on that thing and still got a miserible score. That time could have been used more constructively on, well, just about anything. And you all know we have loads of free time.

4) How is a F***ing rear view mirror manufactured? Are you high?!?!

Anyway I'm done bitching. Like I said, I know everybody tries their hardest to make this an enjoyable event, but there's always room for improvement. Good luck next year everybody...

Lehigh Formula SAE

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

[A Reinke]

Joe, that's a good laugh there...but some good points in my opinion. I like the 'idea' of the Cost Event, but when its actually done you're left with an empty feeling. Its good for us to be 'broad' in our knowledge on how things on our cars are made, but the rear view mirror is a laf. At least it wasn't a ECM board like we got last year...that sucked. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I like your thoughts on the endurance event, we were one of the teams to have a failure that might have been repairable to finish the event. FSAE's defense will be that we should 'design' and test the cars endurance before competition. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

~Adam

[Richard Lewis]

As a team that drove 55hours each way to detroit, had problems, and only completed 1 dynamic event I really like the idea of regional events, leading to the big event. I guess the problem becomes how many to send from each region, what if 1 region is stronger than others, etc. Depite that, I'd think that it would be a good idea.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/Formula%20UVic%20Sig.jpg
http://uvic.fsae.ca

[A Reinke]

i felt bad for a few schools like that. MIT pulled in next to us in the paddock, we were all suprised. they roll out an unfinished car and they worked 24 hours non-stop on that thing. i felt bad when we were able to roll ours up and lock it away for the night; they kept working.

i think they competed in the endurance event only in the end. but every team needs some years to get rolling in the program...watch out for MIT in a few years. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Alfonso Ochoa]

Hi Guys,
Agree with angry joe about the cost report...We spent 4 days reducing costs to reach the 18000 and then find out that competitive cars are in the 12000 range...just impossible, too easy to cheat on, tottally agree...
About the cost event and the f***ng mirror, come on dude, of course you don't know that, but it is in the rules book, you have a complete year to researchon those various topics...
Take Care

Alfonso Ochoa Vega
cabezota311@hotmail.com
F-SAE USB Team, Venezuela

[Patrick W. Crane]

I agree that some things should be/need to be changed. But if its going to happen, chances are it'll happen a little bit at a time. One simple little thing that comes to mind right away is - washington (i think) was not allowed to finish as they had a piece of loose body work as a result of hitting a cone. Why not just let teams in such a situation enter the pits and remove the broken body work? I think that if a list of 20 or so such things was presented to whoever it is that makes the desiscions, they would be a lot more willing to make changes. Demanding a complete rework of the current system will probably ignored.

Just a thought...

- Patrick W. Crane
University of Victoria
quote: "i do not approve of racing near concrete walls"
- Speaker at Team Captain's meeting, Detroit 2003.

[Charlie]

The problem with endurance is simply the enormity of the event. There aren't enough people to police a rule like that. If there were a subjective rule for endurance repairs, there'd have been 80 heated arguements on Friday. Who's to say one team gets to fix, and one doesn't? I wouldn't want to be that person.

Perhaps we could have 'two strikes', where anyone can fix thier car, once. But there are so many cars, how long would this extend the event? It already takes up most of the day.

I hate it, but I don't see another alternative. We had a great year go down the drain with an endurance failure in 2001, so I know the feeling.

I'd love to see regional events. The more the better, just don't restrict them, and make the 'big one' in Detroit the last one (so we have a reason to finish early).

I worked my ass off on the Cost report, asked several questions to the rules committe, still missed out on a bunch of points. The Cost Report score sheet still does not match the points breakdown in the rules. The Cost report is VERY frustrating. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE
5th Overall Detroit 2003

[gug]

this is my first f-sae, so i cant comment on how hard the cost report is to write up, although i can see how easy it would be to cheat on. the aim of the cost report (IMHO) is to stop bill gate's son (i pray that man never breeds) entering in a million dollar magical car. its aim is admirable, but obviously it fails due to the cheating.
however, could you imagine if it was not part of f-sae? the competition would suddenly benefit people with nice (read: rich) sponsors, and brilliant engineers could be beat by someone with daddy's chequebook. i do recognise that the people above are bagging it cause it sucks to do, not cause they want to get rid of it, but anyway.
what we need is a replacement for the cost report. something that can make sure these cars are not just trick peices of racing equipment, but true engineering solutions to a unique problem.
what is this replacement? buggered if i know.
btw, while im ranting, i think that the f-sae catagory is actually really well suited for us. the fact that there is no class of racecar that is as big as a f-sae, goes around such a tight circuit, and has such engine restrictions, forces us to be original and think up of new solutions to these problems. while the best a-mod builder will certainly have some good advice and ideas worth using, we cant just copy off anyone. the best design for a f-sae car is still way off, and its up to us to experiment and find it.
anyway, here is a question for you all:
what needs to be changed to get the cost report working?

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

[Charlie]

I disagree that a high-dollar car would win the FSAE competition. Does money help? Yes. But a car with more expensive features isn't necessarily faster. In fact I think a more complicated car is harder to get right (though possibly better in the end). Look at the Ohio state car in 2001. A beautiful car, it impressed me, but it seemed to be built with little regard to cost. However, it couldn't beat the much less expensive appearing (my own personal judgements here) Cornell car that year. (I use 2001, because Ohio had endurance problems the last 2 years).

Plus, 30 points of 100 in the Cost report are for total cost. The rest are totally up for grabs, even for the most expensive car. So the cost report hardly shoots down an exotic car.

Lets face it, money in FSAE would buy more tires, gas, equipment, testing time, materials, and capital expenses, far sooner than it would result in a supercar.

Although it does make you mad when you spend hours agonizing over the cost event, and the cost judges don't even LOOK at your car. I asked him if he wanted body panels off, he said no. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif So whos to say anything in that car is what I said it was?

-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

[Mr2fastna]

Ohio State still finished 3rd in 2001 so I would say that the car was pretty competative. As far as not finishing the endurance we've gone from a $2.00 relay to a $1.00 bolt, both probally do to over-testing and both fixed in about 30 seconds time. I really would like to see the endurance run more like a real racing event but as it has been noted it would be hard to police everything and to make sure that only safe cars made it back on track. Hope to see everyone again next year with more "wiz-bang" goodies http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif that the design judges will over look again and of course the same tub http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif, thats life. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[PatClarke]

Quote Mr2fastena:
"Hope to see everyone again next year with more "wiz-bang" goodies that the design judges will over look again and of course the same tub."

It is good to see teams consider the judges are supermen with infallible memories and xray vision.
Tip. If you have "whiz bang goodies" on your car and you do not bring them to the attention of the judges, then you deserve what you get! It is possible the judges may notice, and in many cases they do, but if not it is your fault !
I usually ask the team two questions towards the end of the judging. 1. What are you most proud of about your design, and 2. What would you do different on this car if you had the opportunity to start again.
These questions are specifically chosen to give the team a last chance to tell me about the things we might have missed.
Many teams (Not including OSU) submitted a dreadful quality design review. Remember, this document is really a precis of the information that should be in your design presentation, but does not have any specific field to mention "whiz-bang gadgets". Once again, if you don't tell the judges, they may well miss it, especially when you use a carbon tub, carbon fibre being a block to xray vision http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Sam Zimmerman]

We do hear at the awards ceremony and on the forums about the lack of quality in the pre-event design reviews, so I do not understand why the schools get zero feedback on their design review. Did we just miss out on it? Is there somebody we can ask, preferably somebody who judges it, to review it? Since it is worth no points directly, can we find out exactly how it is used? Help, I need direction for next years team!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PatClarke]

Good point Sam,
It was me who raised the issue at the award cermonies, so I should put my money where my mouth is.
I have all the reviews here on my laptop. If any team want some feedback on their design review, then email me at fsaetech@ozemail.c*m.au and I will helpn where I can.
Regards
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Spec]

Suddenlee,

Do you have all the reviews from the Detroit competition or just the Australian one? Thanks.

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr2fastna:
Ohio State still finished 3rd in 2001 so I would say that the car was pretty competative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The car was very competitive, it was a great car and great team. You totally missed my point. I was saying that, in my opinion from visuals of the Ohio State and Cornell cars from 2001, the Ohio State car appeared to have much more expensive materials, etc. But it was still at the same level (a bit below maybe?) as the Cornell car. My point was, money does not win the competition, and the cost report will never keep teams from spending everything they can get 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

[PatClarke]

Hi Spec,
I have all the design reviews from Australia AND Pontiac =]
So ask away. I have already had some requests, so it might take me a day or two to respond.
Regards
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Brent Howard]

Hey Suddenlee

Spec is the new team leader at the University of Calgary. We were car number 33 this year. If you could please send a critique of our review to either or both howard_brent@hotmail.com and smpurdon@ucalgary.ca. Thanks for the feedback.

Brent Howard

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

[mtg]

Suddenlee,
Can you send a design review critique for the University of Missouri - Rolla (UMR) to me? We were car number 26 in Detroit this year.

mtg7aa@umr.edu

Thanks,
Matt

www.umr.edu/~formula (http://www.umr.edu/~formula)

[Angry Joe]

I don't think the endurance request is unreasonable. Teams work unpoliced in their paddocks, why can't they here? If it's a major breakage then you're not going to fix it in time anyway (maybe an imposed time limit?) and anything that is blatantly unsafe will be obvious to the stewards, a car with a steady oil leak is not going to slip by them. Plus there can be designated pit areas that can be easily monitored.

I don't see an easy solution for the cost report. I agree that throwing money at a team doesn't work any better here than it does at Formula 1. Cash doesn't get your act together, and that's what you need to win. If teams are willing to spend 100 grand for a space-age car that still breaks on the endurance, so much the better for those of us who set realistic goals.

Lastly, I appologize for being so blunt on the rear-view mirror topic, but I was desperately trying to get the team to meet deadlines for a working car when I remembered that section and it made me see red...

Lehigh Formula SAE

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

[Brent Howard]

I agree about endurance joe. It's obvious that there are already unsafe cars on the track....based on the number of entries that do not complete the run. Therefore if you are pulled over for an infraction adn can fix the car in the pits while still being in the alotted time more power to you. Really sucks to waste an entire year of work only to discover that a tiny defect was overlooked. Secondly, as far as the cost report I have already suggested that the rules be amended to really focus what teams report. My biggest problem with the cost report is how much time do you actaully report for machining? Do you report every set-up, dial in, etc.... Or do you only report major set-ups and use fairly unrealistic MRR based on impossible RPM's? If we reported the actual time it took to machine our car it would be astronomical. I think that our team was in the middle of reporting (14000) while some teams report much more and some much less. I feel that the cost report should be based on a standard cost per material removed....not based on whatever a team feels is correct. Anyway, good discussion Joe.

Brent

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

[PatClarke]

An interesting observation.
I have had requests from 8 teams for comment on their design review. And none really needed any help. I guess that those who don't care, don't care, and those who do, do! =]
Rather than post an email address on here, please just email me as it is much easier for me to just click on 'reply'
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Brent Howard]

Thank you very much for such a detailed and quick response Mr. Clarke. I found it extremly useful to hear some constructive critisism from the judges in an enviroment where we do not have to attempt to justify mistakes. It will greatly increase the qualitity of our review next year. I highly suggest that most teams take advantage of Mr. Clarke's offer soon before he gets tired of writng them.

Brent Howard

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

[This message was edited by Brent Howard on June 03, 2003 at 11:43 AM.]

[PatClarke]

Thank you Brett,
But 'Mr Clarke ' is my father. I'm Pat =]

Still getting requests, and still from teams that did a good or reasonable job. I am beginning to look forward to a team with a poor one so I can cut loose =]..Nah, I wouldnt do that!

Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[karter]

Pat, couldn't get your email address to work so could you send review for University of New Mexico car #41 to karter43@comcast.net

Thanks
Stephen

[JG_GRYPH]

Pat,
Could you send the university of Guelph our comments and suggestions? We were a first year team, and these will definitely be beneficial in next years desing. jgoertz@uoguelph.ca, thanks.

Jeremy Goertz
University of Guelph
Formula SAE, Team Manager

OUT

[breathes fire]

After reading enough of these posts, I've decided to join the whine and cheese party.

I suggest you guys/gals take some time to seek the advice of some road racers. Expecting a car to run 13.66 miles without breaking is FAR from an unrealistic expectation. That's like 6 laps on a road course! Imagine going to watch a race and 2/3 of the pack breaks down by the 6th lap!

This year's "endurance" heat was completed in 23 minutes. That's a sprint race. A true endurance would take at least 3 hours.

[Angry Joe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by breathes fire:
After reading enough of these posts, I've decided to join the whine and cheese party.

I suggest you guys/gals take some time to seek the advice of some road racers. Expecting a car to run 13.66 miles without breaking is FAR from an unrealistic expectation. That's like 6 laps on a road course! Imagine going to watch a race and 2/3 of the pack breaks down by the 6th lap!

This year's "endurance" heat was completed in 23 minutes. That's a sprint race. A true endurance would take at least 3 hours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but how much development did those cars recieve? They are probably running tried and true parts and have been tested. It is exceedingly unfair to compare one-off prototypes with a few weeks of testing (or less) to fully developed track cars.

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Brent Howard]

I agree Joe, plus those cars do break quite often, however are given the chance to repair failures and continue with the race. Something like a loose bodywork panel would not stop any real race team from finishing the race. They might simple tightea bolt during the next pit stop, and they would have nearly full services in the pits.

Brent

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

[Charlie]

I don't see the compliant, it's not like you built a prototype and all of a sudden someone expects you to drive it in an endurance race.

You know exactly what the car needs to do, build it to do it! If something is questionable, either do lots of testing, or make it stronger. I think our car was a lot more robust than most, and so it was pretty heavy. But we had no problems in endurance.

-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

[Schumi_Jr]

I'm sorry "breathes fire" but I'm going to have to join the "jackass who flames people on forums party". I think your comments are completely unjustified. Have you actually built an FSAE car? Engineering is a very demanding degree and at our school you are expected to spend minimum 60 hours on lectures, labs and homework- just to pass. Add FSAE to the equation and that leaves zero hours for a social life.

Simply bringing a car to the competition is a huge achievement. Bringing an extensively designed, developed and tested car is phenomenal. I am blown away at how much development some schools can do while still passing all their courses.

We didn't finish the enducance this year because a hoseclamp wasn't tightened properly. That is stupid. Most teams don't finish endurance because their car has barely been driven. I have seen teams actually welding their frames at the competition. The Mclaren MP4-18 only ran 16 laps the first day at Paul Ricard and there was a full-time staff of engineers and technicians who built the car. It's called "shaking down" and it's often a long process of finding and fixing little gremlins. Some people just don't have the resources to finish their car in time to do a proper shakedown.

Anyway... I agree with your first comment, we can learn a lot from the pros- I just don't think anyone has the right to criticize teams if they haven't gone through FSAE themselves.

Aaron Johnston
University of Waterloo FSAE

www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~fsae (http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~fsae)

[Charlie]

Yeah it sucks when great cars get sidelined by small problems. But part of this competition is being a race team, and part of being a race team is having a system to make sure everything is ready to go for the endurance race http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif It's too bad when a design gets slighted by a missed check. We've seen it too. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Maybe the US will see two events soon so that won't kill a good year.

-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

[This message was edited by Charlie on June 04, 2003 at 10:37 PM.]

[PatClarke]

Karter Steven, the email address will work if you replace the '*' with an 'o'.
Everyone else worked that out =]
Still waiting for a team who put in a sh*t review to ask fo an appraisal =]
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[leclercjs]

Hi,

I think that the idea that was mentionned earlier of if, in endurance, if you have problems, you could work on your car and the time would go on. I think it will be like in wrc rally. If the two pilots are able to fix the car in the dynamic zone, I think a lot of team would have completed succesfully the endurance event. Our car had problems at the 19th lap and at first, we tought it was the gas, but it was only a wire going to the battery that had loossen and wasn`t giving any more energy to the electronic. Two pilots would have notice it and fix it in no time and we would actually had finished the endurance event.

Jean Sébastien Leclerc
Dir. Formule SAE-Poly

Jean Sébastien Leclerc
Formule SAE Poly

[Frank]

i think the "enduro" is too short...

should be at least an hour

[breathes fire]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We didn't finish the endurance this year because a hoseclamp wasn't tightened properly. That is stupid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Aaron, here's a tip. After you tighten a hoseclamp, tightly wrap duct tape around it: a clear visual indicator that the clamp was tightened. Additionally, it will prevent chaffing against any nearby lines.

This is something your propeller-head professors won't teach you!

[Andy Houk]

Hey breathes fire, here's a tip don't run your mouth or you're going to get flamed. Just a few comments, let me start with the obvious.

If a hose clamp is improperly tightened and then you wrap duct tape around it won't it blow off anyway?

I also think you crossed the line with the "...propeller head professor..."� comment. I agree there are some professors out there with their collective heads buried in their research but not all of them. I take offense to comments like that because my professors gave me the knowledge to do what I do in FSAE and what I do in my job. My college professors are the ones that taught me how to weld, machine, build engines, and build structures. They also taught me how to think like an engineer and incorporate those "real world"� skills into designs so they work properly, the first time. So before you go around offending all professors with a blanket comment like that, think about it because there are professors out there that would make you look silly in any subject and any skill.

Maybe I'm being hard on you and you didn't really mean to offend but it sure looked like you did. Why don't you post where you are from so we can see some credentials? Maybe people will take you more seriously then.

[Frank]

i think you missed the point andy...

the tape indicates that its tight, as opposed to just in place....

i have similar ideas about lockwire...

i wont enter the debate about which is better.... nylocks / spring washers..

but the lock wire indicates the bolt is certainly tightened...the person applying lockwire ((there is only one person on the team that applies lockwire)) has the responsibility of checking the fastener is tight first...

of coarse you could say, "well never do a bolt up not tight" but the reality is that these projects have so many (untrained) mechanics working on the vehicle at once, that such indicators are a comfort to the team manager

as for propeller-heads.. hmm that would like be me saying nice things about my lecturers...

i have respect for them as academics, but when it comes to the actual design of the car, i have had but one lecturer from my university ever say anything directly useful about the design of this car....

of coarse the theory learnt along the way is invaluable....

most "enthusiasts" struggle with simple calcs, and some don't even understand the concepts of inertia / second moment of area

perhaps suddenlee/argus has some comments about such issues??

[This message was edited by Frank on June 05, 2003 at 02:17 PM.]

[Angry Joe]

I have had professors that are extremely intelligent. I've also had a professor ask me if it was okay to weld aluminum to steel. He was my solid mechanics professor.

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Denny Trimble]

Of course it's OK... just head up to Sequim, WA, strap some C4 on a couple plates, throw it in the pond and run.

http://www.highenergymetals.com/Aluminum-Ta-Stainless_162X_w-names.jpg

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

[Charlie]

I guess the duct tape would work OK, but Carroll Smith always said there should be no excuse for anything on the car that is not tightened. If you use his rule of 'if you put it on, tighten it' (even if it's coming right back off) then you'll never have a problem.

I pressure tested our system just before endurance, that kinda tells you it's good to go too. We also had soldered battery connections. It's all in the details. I'm not implying we're perfect by any means (we did have something start leaking that we overlooked, luckily not enough to take us out) but a perfectionist attitude is what will pay off in the end. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.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

[This message was edited by Charlie on June 05, 2003 at 08:41 PM.]

[A Reinke]

a thought from me:

if fsae is supposed to imitate a real racing situation, even SCCA racing, all teams have time to fix or repair their car if something fails. during a race teams can enter the pit, remain there as long as they need to fix it and then return to the track to race with the penalty of losing time/laps from not being out there. why can't FSAE do this?

[Sam Jowa]

We're not racing! I don't feel that is the intentions of this event. This is stricly a Design, Build, Test atmosphere.

[breathes fire]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.Reinke:
a thought from me:

if fsae is supposed to imitate a real racing situation, even SCCA racing, all teams have time to fix or repair their car if something fails. during a race teams can enter the pit, remain there as long as they need to fix it and then return to the track to race with the penalty of losing time/laps from not being out there. why can't FSAE do this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the case in Mini Baja. But they have a lot less entries. I would imagine this could turn into a real circus for event organizers.

If FSAE teams could repair their car during endurance they would lose on average 37 points per minute of repair; after 8 minutes, even a front runner would be just about out of the points. Even simple fixes would devastate a team's score.

Instead of requesting the rules to be changed, why not use them to your advantage? If you just finish the endurance event, you've beat 2/3 of the pack. Focus on reliability. This is where consulting the advice of someone that has experienced several race cars quit on them is vital.

It's just a suggestion. Good luck with your movement to have the rules changed, but I would take a different approach.

[Angry Joe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by breathes fire:


This is the case in Mini Baja. But they have a lot less entries. I would imagine this could turn into a real circus for event organizers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet another argument for reigonal FSAE events.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If FSAE teams could repair their car during endurance they would lose on average 37 points per minute of repair; after 8 minutes, even a front runner would be just about out of the points. Even simple fixes would devastate a team's score.

Instead of requesting the rules to be changed, why not use them to your advantage? If you just finish the endurance event, you've beat 2/3 of the pack. Focus on reliability. This is where consulting the advice of someone that has experienced several race cars quit on them is vital.

It's just a suggestion. Good luck with your movement to have the rules changed, but I would take a different approach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scoring could always be changed. And even if it wasn't, it would eliminate many stupid problems like a loose muffler or lost bodywork.

It isn't as if we weren't aware of the rules. I am well aware that simply finishing the endurance puts you in good standing. We tried our best to get the car done early and got two weeks of hardcore testing. You know what killed us in the end? A weak battery. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you still can't win.

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Sam Zimmerman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We tried our best to get the car done early and got two weeks of hardcore testing. You know what killed us in the end? A weak battery. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you still can't win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to start a ruckus, but I must say that this is a victim's approach. I would suspect that your battery was strong enough to start your car at the beginning of the event or you wouldn't have had it in there. If that is the case, then most likely either you were drawing current from the battery while driving or your engine wasn't tuned well enough to provide for starting at operating temperatures. In either case, it was not the battery's fault, it was the team's fault and that, imho, is what the endurance race is designed to do, separate the teams who produced a reliable race car from the ones who didn't.

We got a DNF with two laps to go because our radiator hose fell off. Even with two months of testing we didn't prevent this, but it was because of decisions made by our team throughout the year. It wasn't the fault of the rules, it wasn't the car's fault; it was our fault. It seems as though many teams are trying to find something or someone to blame for not finishing in the endurance event rather than taking responsibility, learning from it, and moving on to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing

[Angry Joe]

Sorry, I wasn't looking for sympathy. The point is, all the preparation in the world can mean squat because of something miniscule that you overlooked. A mistake? Yes. But I don't think it should sink an entire event.

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is the case in Mini Baja. But they have a lot less entries. I would imagine this could turn into a real circus for event organizers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mini Baja is divieded into more events than Formula, and the one today in Troy Ohio has 140 entries....same as FSAE.

Brent

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

[eon]

Angry .. g'day!!

At what point do you say ok enough is enough? The name of the event is "E n d u r a n c e" with an emphasis on design - which is what the competition is ALL about - if something fails then thats http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif a chance to learn some "real life" lessons.. like whatever can go wrong can and will go wrong.

If you started to allow minor repairs during an enduro just where do you make the line in the sand ?? I could see some of the teams turning up with they're own legal rep's just to argue the toss of what was "legally" allowed!!

One of the great pleasures of this competition is seeing your teams efforts paying off and one of the greatest heartaches is seeing the luck go against them, Wollongong last year had a battery fail at the driver change in the enduro - simply failed to crank the motor.. that same battery uncharged started the car a week or so later with no charging.. 'twas the luck of the draw (and a DAMN long way to go to see that happen !!) but thats racing and life!!!

&lt;puts down rant megaphone!!&gt;

nuff said!!

Steev in Aus

[ben]

I guess this argument is often divided by those who finish and score a lot of points and therefore think its a great event, and those who break something and want the competition totally re-worked.

Until our #17 runs at Formula Student I'll sit on the fence rather than say something I'll want to retract when something goes bang!

Ben

[Angry Joe]

There's a very easy way to draw the line. If you can fix it in 15 minutes, you're good. If you can't, you're done. If you can do an engine swap in 15 minutes then you deserve to get back out there http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Charlie]

So, say that was the rule, and your car broke and it took you 16 minutes to fix it. I think you'd still have a post here.

Besides, that's hardly a line. What's 'fixed'? A car that overheated but now has cooled down? A car that broke a tie-rod but the team has 'rigged' a new fix? There'd have to be an instant safety inspection, and there's a judgement call again.

What happens when a judge tells you your 15 minutes is up, or your car is not sufficiently fixed? Angry people, arguements, and posts about how a judge or the rules ruined thier year.

-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

[Angry Joe]

Nothing is perfect. I still think my way is better http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Teams rip their cars apart between events and nobody inspects them. Why should here be any different?

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

As someone who has not yet turned a wheel in anger at the FSAE competition, I guess I'm in a position to apply an un-biased opinion of the endurance event!

The whole objective of this competition is that we are designing a prototype race-car for a company that wishes to sell these things to the non-professional weekend auto-crosser. They have assigned a certain amount of points to various categories and have even been kind enough to tell us how many points each category is worth. The team with the highest amount of points wins. One of those categories is the endurance/fuel economy event, for which they have decided to alot a full 1/3 of the available points.

At this point you're all going "Well, DUH!", but stick with me... If you are a company looking at 140 entries for a possible design contract, would you want to award one to a car that couldn't even complete 22 laps without breaking down? Or would you be much more likely to hand that contract to one of the 30 or so cars that did? Finishing the endurance event is a sure sign that a team has brought a well thought-out design, has prepared their car in a professional manner, and has validated their car through testing. (Why should a team from Texas have a car that over-heats in Detroit? That's at least a little ironic!)

As a competing team it is no mystery that finishing endurance is paramount to getting a good overall score. If you look back through the results over the last decade, the top ten teams in the endurance event were more or less the same top ten teams overall. So that is going to be my nubmer one goal for 2004 - bring a car that will, without any doubt, finsih the endurance event.

Besides, as Carrol Smith points out in "Engineer to Win" -

"... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MATERIAL FAILURE-ALL FAILURES ARE HUMAN IN ORIGIN.

By definition, any component that is properly designed, properly manufactured from the correct grade of the correct material, properly installed, inspected and maintained and is not overly abused in service WILL NOT FAIL DURING ITS DESIGNED SERVICE LIFE. If it DOES fail... then it was either underdesigned, badly manufactured, improperly installed, and/or maintained, or it was grossly abused." - Carrol Smith, 1984

We've most likely all read that paragraph and it really is true. If it was my money and if I was the company handing out the contract, I sure wouldn't give it out to a team whose car failed to finish the 22 lap endurance event FOR ANY REASON.

That said, I hope that I don't have to eat my words next year when I bring a car up to Detroit for the first time!

Chris,
Mercer University - Drive!
Coming to an Auto-X course near you, May 2004!

[Sam Zimmerman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The whole objective of this competition is that we are designing a prototype race-car for a company that wishes to sell these things to the non-professional weekend auto-crosser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree with most everything else you wrote, the quoted statement is not true, in my opinion. If the competition was about selling a car to a non-professional, weekend autocross enthusiast then the design competition would be very different than it currently is.

If I were to manufacture a non-street legal car and attempt to sell it to somebody who may use it 4 minutes per weekend out, two weekends per month during racing season, and only 6 months per year, I would have to sell the car for damn cheap in order to get any of these guys to buy it. Therefore, in my judging of the prototypes the following items would get docked: carbon fiber, ECU's made in-house, shocks made in-house, anything else made in-house that could be bought from a variety of retailers, engine modifications that produce marginal returns, or anything else that makes a cool engineering project but raises the price of the car beyond about $15,000. Look at the cars which make the finals in design. While they are great cars that are designed beautifully, they are not designed to be sold to a weekend autocross enthusiast. They are designed to be sold to judges at the once a year FSAE event. If I could have my FSAE wishes granted, I would have the design judges return to judging according to the premise of the competition (which I am told they used to do). I would also have the cost report held up to the car and ensure that nobody cheats it (a monumental task at this point, because I believe they would find "accidental omissions" in about 95% of the cars).

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing
2002-2003 Team Leader

[woollymoof]

If the weekend racer weren't willing to pay US$25000 then wouldn't the cut off be cheaper?

[eon]

Sam .. .g'day http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Some thoughts on your thoughtful post...

"If I were to manufacture a non-street legal car and attempt to sell it.." - who said anything bout these cars being non street legal, they have to pass tech same as any other "race" car making them legal for they're particular event.

Parts manufacture: at some points one of this "variety of retailers" had to start they're business usually making small competitive components in competition with the bigger companies, making a niche market for themselves.

Your insistance on buying only mass produced items precludes any chance of the small manufacturer being able to survive. This would be a shame since the race car your considering buying has been made by just one of these small manufacturers.

I agree that I would be looking at compatability with some of the more common parts available but that wouldn't be the thing controlling my spending urges. To see how small companies fair with specialised parts go to any street machine meet - the "one off guy" is usually making a killing.

Steev in OZ

[Sam Zimmerman]

Maybe, but if you are talking about a vehicle that costs $25,000 to produce then what would it have to sell for? What kind of non-professional weekend autocross enthusiast would buy that car?

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing
2002-2003 Team Leader

[gug]

i guess you've got a legitimate point here Sam, but do you want to be driving a bean-counter approved car rather than a one-off special racing against other one-offs?

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

[Sam Zimmerman]

I would rather be driving an F1 car. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Given the premise of the competition, however, in the design event a well built, reliable car that costs $10,000 should beat the hell out of a well built, reliable car that costs (a legitimate) $25,000 even if it gives up a couple of tenths in the autocross.

Perhaps I am way off. For the more experienced people here, do you think the design and cost events follow the premise of the competition?

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing
2002-2003 Team Leader

[woollymoof]

I agree with gug. Perhaps the 25k limit should be there, but just to keep the really rich teams from spending stupid amounts of money over the less off teams. Get rid of the reasoning that these cars are for the weekend racer.

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

I would say that there isn't really a market for this car, as the class it is most related to, A-mod in the SCCA, is a class where people usually build their own cars for the fun of it. That makes this a hypothetical competition for a market and company that do not really exist. The fact that there isn't a market for this car shouldn't prevent us from building a car to the fictitious company's specs and within their limits. We aren't doing a marketability analysis here! We're trying to win a contract. If the company thinks there's a market, good for them.

Does spending more money usually mean a better car though? Wollongong's car didn't look too expensive to me; neither did Cornell's or UMC's, for that matter. In fact, I'd be willing to make a gamble that a team with too much money to use might be tempted to find more exotic and expensive solutions to the problem of designing an FSAE car than are really necessary. This takes time away from getting the car designed and built, which then impedes on testing time. Of all the time spent during the year on a car, I've been told over and over again that testing is the best use of time. Anything that cuts down the amount of testing will affect the product brought to Detroit.

These cars don't need a MoTec M800/880 to function well. In fact, the top times in autocross and acceleration, (although accel. might have been more of a luck thing - who got out on a dry track), went to cars from Ohio State and UTA, both of which sported PE_LTD ECU's at a mere cost of $800. These cars don't need carbon fiber. They don't need a lot of stuff that I saw on lots of cars. Keep it simple. Simple usually means cheaper (and lighter).

I think it was Colin Chaplin who said "Add lightness and simplify". Usually that makes for a cheaper car. I've also heard a quote from somebody at GM that goes something like -"parts left off don't weigh anything, don't cost anything, and don't cause service and reliability problems". This philosophy also makes for a cheaper car. Would a team spending more money really have that great an advantage over a team that spends less money on fancy bits and more time on testing? Especially when the cost/benefit ratio might look like $500/hp gained or $50/lb saved? Perhaps then there is some natural best price for these cars that the rules hint at, somewhere between $10K-20K. Anything outside of that range will probably do more to hurt competition performance than help it!

Just some more thoughts for me to be completely mixed up about when I actually build one of these things!

Chris,
M.U.D. Motorsports,
Coming to an Auto-X course near you, May 2004!

[gug]

speaking of the cars not fitting in any catagory, the format of this competition smells of safety freaks to me. to get the adcademics who get scared carrying their cup of tea back to their desk to endorse a competition such as this they had to remove the speed of a full racetrack and the power of a-mods. while adelaide uni has full support from the staff (at least, the people against it have not revealed themselves yet. there will be horses heads appearing in their beds as soon as they do reveal themselves! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif ), i hear that other teams have trouble.
im not totally against this class. while i would enjoy competing in a true class, and it would actually fit the design brief; the rules and restrictions promote unique solutions.
look, the government is after me and im sure that my phone line is tapped, so if people dont agree with my theory about why the cars are restricted in this way, feel free to post your reasons.
ha, you probably think elvis is dead...

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

[Patrick W. Crane]

Ok, so how about this then. Next year, after the competition in Detroit we all get together at an outdoor kart track and have a real race. It would have to be completely unofficial and hush hush, as everyone in charge (university deans and such) MIGHT not like it. I live in Ottawa (Canada's capital for those who don't know) and at one of the local tracks, the rotax series of go-karts sees about 140km/h on the back straight. These karts have about 30 hp. So we should be able to have lots of fun and those with areo would love it even more. They could have their own class even. To address the safety problem, think about what Fsae requires that karts don't... Front crush zone, suspension, roll hoops, brake lights - and here is the kicker - seat belts! These tracks are designed for karts that have no safety features so there is tons of grass runoff and tire barriers between sections of track that come close to each other.

Imagine. Having to use all your gears, high speed sweepers, and a track that is wide enough to have a "racing line".

Don't take this the wrong way, I love the competition as it is, but sometimes it seems we are over designing for such tight courses. Of course for higher speeds, you would want longer fvsa lengths and several other key things...

Maybe its the immature kid/racer in me that wants to really open these babies up a bit more, but driving these cars around such an tight autocross course feels like breathing through a straw - and aren't we required to do that anyway?

Not sure where this is going, I'm just saying... Wouldn't it be fun?

- Patrick W. Crane
University of Victoria
Engine Team/Testing UV04
quote: "i do not approve of racing near concrete walls"
- Speaker at Team Captain's meeting, Detroit 2003.

[Angry Joe]

1) I don't think a cost limit will accomplish much. Like I said, an expensive car is not necessarily a good car and vice-versa.


2) There are a lot of dedicated autocross cars out there with a good deal invested in them. IMO a good FSAE car fills that niche, provided it's less than $15k. Plus, you could take it to track days and what not. We all can vouch that driving these cars is an experience you can't get driving a miata. I think a mass-produced car without too much high-tech gadgetry could hit the price target pretty easily.

3) As much as I dislike the slow courses run at competition, I understand the liability concerns. Kids racing around in custom built race cars tend to make people nervous, particlarly those with "risk" and "management" in their job titles. Plus, the risk to corner workers rises exponentially with speed. So while I wish it was faster and more race-like, I don't think that is going to happen.

Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MercerFSAE C. Burch:
..cars from Ohio State and UTA, both of which sported PE_LTD ECU's at a mere cost of $800. These cars don't need carbon fiber. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohio State's car does. It's what connects the front wheels to the rear. CNC mold, carbon fiber tub. Cheap enough for ya? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I agree with most of your statements, however, to really understand the car you need datalogging equipment. Most of the more expensive stuff is easier to use, so you learn more and spend less time figuring out the details. Any ECU will run an engine, the M800 does a lot more than run an engine. If I am not mistaken, Ohio State and UTA have some significant datalogging systems (either home-built or purchased) in addition to the inexpensive ECU.

-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

[Igor]

Regarding the idea to have a race of your own after the competition, you might try
http://www.waterfordhills.com/
It's a small race track for hobby racers and only a couple of miles from Pontiac. I'm not sure you'll whether you'll be able to find many outdoor kart circuits in Michigan.

Igor
Delft University of Technology

-----------
On time, on budget or works.
Pick any two.

[Garbo]

Pat,

Dude, we newfs blew a couple c-notes each doing 'driver training' in Quebec on the drive home. I would be all over getting as many teams as possible to meet at a track. We drive through Ottawa anyway and Quebec is full of wicked kart tracks but I'm sure we can find something closer to Pontiac... just needs a bit of organization (not my bag, baby!)

Speaking of organization... we made a sort of half-hearted attempt at getting a bunch of the Canadian Schools to party in Windsor on sunday evening. Based on our 'experiences' there, you should all aiming for a night in Windsor next year, maybe use it as a springboard for the kart track racing...

g

[formula_geek]

In regards to:

&gt;Ok, so how about this then. Next year, after the competition in &gt;Detroit we all get together at an outdoor kart track and have a &gt;real race.

I'm all for it! Of course, I can't throw Kettering's support behind it, (I'm done in December), but you could probably talk the team into it.

We had the opportunity to do exactly what you are suggesting a couple of days before Formula Student 2002. We rented the track a before competition, and had a chance to set things up on a "real" course. Unfortunately when the day of competition arrived, they had littered the track with cones, turning it into a standard FSAE-style speed killer. We also had the chance to switch cars with the University of Toronto after competition was over.

Waterford Hills does rent out their track... (but is probably a bit on the large size, some elevation changes, etc)

Travis Slagle
Kettering University FSAE

p.s.
Thanks again Toronto, and sorry about those off-course excursions http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif