Try something different or be safe conservative?

[clausen]

Hi there,

We are currently working on the design of our car for the oz competition this year, and have chosen to run with a very unconventional rear suspension. We are certain that it will be at least a match for a good double wishbone setup, and I think we should gain some amount more drive out of it.

However we are starting to get cold feet with the idea as people like Monash have shown, even if the car is fast, if it looks too far out of the ordinary, the judges are likely to be difficult to convince of it's merits, and judge at least partially from their preconceptions. I understand that this is peculiar to the Australian competition where we dont have professional motorsport engineers doing the design judging (after the passing of the late Mr Smith). I know that one guy had ackerman geometry explained to him during last years event.

We are considering scrapping our unusual designs and following Wollongong's recipe for success.

What are people's thoughts?

Of course I would particular like Pat's advice if he's still around.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[clausen]

Hi there,

We are currently working on the design of our car for the oz competition this year, and have chosen to run with a very unconventional rear suspension. We are certain that it will be at least a match for a good double wishbone setup, and I think we should gain some amount more drive out of it.

However we are starting to get cold feet with the idea as people like Monash have shown, even if the car is fast, if it looks too far out of the ordinary, the judges are likely to be difficult to convince of it's merits, and judge at least partially from their preconceptions. I understand that this is peculiar to the Australian competition where we dont have professional motorsport engineers doing the design judging (after the passing of the late Mr Smith). I know that one guy had ackerman geometry explained to him during last years event.

We are considering scrapping our unusual designs and following Wollongong's recipe for success.

What are people's thoughts?

Of course I would particular like Pat's advice if he's still around.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[PatClarke]

Hi Paul,
Perhaps you want to talk with your Tech Advisor about this? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
PDR

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

[clausen]

I'll call you first thing in the morning http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have been given a deadline to make the decision tommorow.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd like to put down in the forum this evening though,

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Al]

Hi Paul,

If you believe your ideas will provide you with a measurable benefit then go for it. This competition is about learning and Im sure by following a different design path you will learn more than by simply taking the standard route to success.

Our general belief at Monash last year was that we werent capable of going in the same direction as Wollongong and beating them. They are too well oiled of a machine. So we tried different things, and benefited as a result.

My opinion would be to go the innovative way provided you have the resources to make it come to fruition,

Alistair

[Kevin Hayward]

Paul,

I think it is a bit harsh commenting on "Woolongong's recipe for success". I really think their car is not a bog standard FSAE car. It is quite an achievement of detailled design work and packaging. The differences in each car is noticeable - The suspension between years has had some pretty substantial changes - Eddie might want to comment on this. Having seen their attempt in 2001 made us realise that the Aussies could match the yanks in less time than we thought. Even though I think there is still a bit of a differential (at least in speed). Looking in the design tent at last years US comp on the last day and you would have found 4 quite different cars with distinct differing strong points.

If you have good reasons for switching suspension systems then do it. You will be able to convince the judges if you reasoning is good enough. My most common question of these cars is why does every innovation have to be visible on the car. We are working on very tight schedules and as a result many of our innovations are in the way we design and the way we test or build.

Sure a souble wishbone setup is not revolutionary. However what work are you doing to get the most out of it? What simulations do you write? What sort of damper testing takes place? What sort of optimisation routines do you use?

There is a lot of innovation to be had in that sort of stuff. I think it is this sort of detailled work that makes the difference.

...

Good luck with the new cars. I'm already looking forward to the next Australian comp as it was a great atmosphere last year. Thanks again to your team for helping us out when we came over last year.

Cheers,

Kev

Boring technical guy
UWA Motorsport

[BR]

Paul,

I don't claim to be an expert, but I believe there are procedures that can be followed which will make the decision easier.

I suggest you evaluate both double-wishbone and your new concept against the requirements the system is designed to meet. This will require you to brainstorm all of the requirements (including shallow things such as wow-factor, looks, etc), order them by importance, and see which design scores better.

Maybe you already know about this, but it seems as if you haven't used the process. If you don't know how the process works (I don't know what other unis teach, as ANU takes a different approach to most), just email me. It is a useful system and your answer will be far more reliable than the opinions of random individuals on the internet.

Cheers,

BR

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

Still, an unconventional design must be appreciated by the judges as long as it is backed up by real world data (testing) and lots of it. It would not make any sense for a judge, whether he knows what he's talking about or not, to take points off of a car that has proper performance data to back up the unconventional design.

I think the real problem might be that the more unconventional a design is it seems it takes longer to get it on the track for testing. It is a tough call... again the only real thing that matters is what the stopwatch says. If your car can gain two-tenths with your new design, but may lose three tenths because your drivers are not trained and your car has other gremlins it is not a gain at all! So unless you can gauruntee a time gain with a new design, whilst not creating other time-losing possibilities than go for it. Otherwise, if you only want to win the event, I wouldn't bother with something too different from the tried and true.

-Chris

[The guru of guru's]

Hey fellas
I dont understand what u mean by unconventional, do you mean innovative beacuse its a design event and points are awarded to innovative designs...i hope. Do you mind if i ask wat type of engine you will be running with this suspension setup?
Cheers

You can have any colour car as long as its black. Henry Ford

[clausen]

Thanks guys,

Kevin, I certainly wasn't using the term 'recipe for success' in any negative way. I'm very familiar with what makes their car so good. The thing is that their car looks normal, ours wont.

BR, I am intersted in the system you're talking about. In this case though, we had made the decision to go the unconventional way through proper engineering process. The reason we are reconsidering it purely has to do with the peculiarities of the competition.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[clausen]

tgww, The same Honda engine.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Eddie Martin]

Hi Guys

I don't think there is a standard route. You learn as much as you want to. After all you only get out what you put in.

As long as you understand why you do what you do and you do it well, i think the judges will appreciate it.

From our point of view every car we have built been quite different. There were no carry over parts from the 2001 to the 2002 except the engine, no parts even fitted on the new car except for the engine. We have made three completely different suspension systems that use their tyres very differently. We have quite a few features that I haven't seen many other teams do, its just they don't jump out at you. The judges know what they are.

An example on the 2002 car, stumpy, (that went to America in 2003) was a custom made system to gain shock speed histograms, it cost us $10 total. I think that is very innovative. It is just not very obvious.

Good Luck to everybody getting their cars ready for the American Competition this May. Make sure you come by our pit and say hi.

Regards
Eddie Martin
UOW Racing

[PatClarke]

Hi again Paul,
Do you have my mobile number? I will have it with me all day. I'll be in the office all day so its okay to call
PDR

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

[Aaron Harnden]

clausen,
My opinion, forget convention, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Following others only limits the boundaries of your own creativity, but it does give you a benchmark to aim for. Ask yourself what's the purpose of the car? I'm going for the premise that it's to get a person around a track as quickly and safely as possible. But then again i'm also of the belief that FSAE cars are far too complicated for their intended use. The same addreniline pumping ride could be had for the weekend autocrosser with a far cheaper and simpler solution, but who am I to judge?

If your design handles as good or better than "conventional" designs or has benefits in weight, cost, or manufacturability then why not? Just because other teams have had success with alternate designs?

Ask Pat what he thinks, his advice is invaluable. It'd be interesting to see your "unconventional" design if you do decide to run with it. It's great to see teams pushing the boundaries and making people think. Who knows, we both might rock up in the second week of December sporting the same peculiar design... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wish you and your team all the best.

Aaron Harnden
Phantom Engineering
Chief Design Engineer 2004

I may not always be right, but i'm never wrong...

[Disco]

Clausen,
Interesting topic this one. If it's competition success your after and not just "the educational" side your after, there two main things that are going to count in my view.

You and the team. You have to point out the innnovation to the judges and make them see the benefits. We only get 30 minutes with the design judges so you have to make every word count. Judges shouldn't have to look for the innovative design. Having visited and spoken to Eddie, and seen the story boards, its very clear cut why they are so successful.

Secondly, the judges themselves. Some judges are open to innovation, some are not. In particular it's hard for a new design judge to see the benefits of innovation having not seen the cars on track yet. So really all they know is off fast cars in past events. That's why, in my opinion, design should always be judged after the dynamic events. At least the judges could then see the innovatice design worked.

Cheers
Steve

[Charlie]

I'm with Kevin and Eddie. Don't think innovation is something that has to stand out and say 'I'm different'.

If you 'forget convention' thats a huge mistake, because its probably convention for a reason. And I also think doing something different JUST because its different is a huge mistake.

The great ideas are the ones that not only find a new solution to a problem, but a BETTER solution. I mean, you can walk with your hands just fine, you can even make really cool carbon fiber hand-shoes and everything, but I think the feet are still more effective.

Our 03 car was pretty damn plain. We didn't plan on being conservative per say, we had plenty of wild ideas. But most of them were proved to not be worthwhile. That said, our goal in 03 was to build a robust car that had a good chance to finish in the top 10 (which we'd never come close to doing before). I think the cars performance is a testament to solid design theory (not trying to be different, just trying to do the best possible thing).

And then there were a few ideas that proved themselves worth doing like our shifting setup... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[jack]

sure WWU could of built a steel tube frame car and even might of won...

...but then there wouldnt be the V8 car...

by all means try crazy ideas!

jack @ WWU
http://www.etec.wwu.edu/

[Dick Golembiewski]

My thoughts on this were made public in a little piece I wrote 3-4 years ago on team management. Nothing has changed.

As has been stated here often by Pat and others (as well as in Carroll's little paper on design judging) your job as competitors is to convince those of us who (or in my case, who may, as I don't know if I am yet) judge your entry of the merits of your design.

The best way is very simple - PERFORM! Even if it's after-the-fact in Oz and the UK. (In the US the finals are held after the performance events.)

Carroll Smith and I were discussing this topic one time over some beers at Big Buck's in Detroit. He pointed out something that is really obvious to someone my age, which is that Jim Hall had the opportunity to live in both worlds.

His innovative days ran from the early 60's through 1970. A lot of that innovation came from Chevrolet. (Paul Van Valkenburgh was involved in some of that, and when he was a design judge he specifically liked to look for innovation.) Fiberglass chassis construction, wings, automatic transmissions and ground-effects aerodynamics were just a few of the things that were on Chaparral cars. However he didn't win that much...

In the 1970's, Jim moved into a partnership with Carl Haas, and ran Brian Redman in Lola F5000 cars. There wasn't one whole heck of a lot of innovation in those cars, and the team concentrated on preparation and racecraft. They also dominated the series. When the series morphed into Can-Am II, they did the same the first few years. In 1978, he won the triple crown (Indianapolis, Pocono and Ontario) with Al Unser with a terrible (conceptually) Lola chassis, that was developed. When John Barnard designed the 2K, the concept of using the underbody airflow to produce downforce was no longer innovative, as Lotus had introduced it in the 78 and 79. In fact the car didn't do well in 1979, and it took some development before it completely dominated the series the following year.

One of the first questions I ask student design groups is "What is your overall objective?" If you're trying to innovate you may not perform too well until the concept is fully developed.

This topic has been debated on-and-off since the early days of SAE student vehicle competitions. A lot of faculty members, having been trained as researchers, want to look for new and innovative ways to do things. Some faculty advisors (and even a few judges) having seen the competition for a number of years, are somewhat bored with it, and want a new, innovative challenge. Gross changes appeal to such folks.

I've always thought that given the turnover inherent in student groups, the challenge remains fresh. The better schools maintain some sort of continuity and their designs tend to be incremental. If one looks closely, one can see that there has been a lot of redesign and development. It's not usually apparent superficially, but it's there. Those schools tend to do well - maybe not every year - but more often than not. There is an awful lot of new detail design work and development in those cars.

Practical engineers face the reality of making things work - technically, economically, environmentally, etc. These competitions serve to develop those skills.

The Mini-Baja rules still say: "The object of the competition is to simulate real-world
engineering design projects and their related challenges."

The FSAE rules don't quite put it that way, but it is still there.

Is there innovation in the real-world? Of course there is. However that innovation must still be developed.

It's up to you as to how you approach the project. Learning to accept responsibility for one's decisions is an important intangible one learns here. You get to decide what your overall objective is. You get to set your design specifications and performance targets when developing a plan to meet that objective. (Design reviews were due a few days ago, but insightful readers will note my outline for writing one or presenting one's design to the judges in those words.) You have to be comfortable with those decisions, and accept the consequences.

It's a simple as that! <grin>

- Dick

[PatClarke]

Thanks Dick, that is more or less what I was going to tell Paul when he called me....but I am still waiting for the phone to ring =]
PDR

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

[clausen]

Hi again guys,

Thanks for all that.

Your phone was unavailable when I tried in the morning Pat.

Anyhow, we decided to stick with our non standard solution to the problem of getting the power to the ground.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Gareth]

Evaluating designs is a critical part of being a good engineer. After initial brainstorming/concepting the pros and cons of each alternative must somehow be quantified. For our cars it's generally a compromise of speed vs feasibility (cost, time to construct, etc).

Quantifying the benefit for each is the difficult part, showing how critical your skills in the design-of-experiments are. Many times this step in the design process is left out and the coolest option is chosen (or the benefits of each are swayed by the designer towards the option they like most). This is dangerous because design judges often see through the "cool factor."

Proper decisions must be made considering test data (stopwatch, data acq, flowbench, etc), theoretical analysis (CAD,CAE, CFD etc), manufacturing practices, and material costs. Only when all feasible options have been explored, can a proper engineering decision be made. If you can prove that you went through this process then no judge can tell you that you were wrong (unless you didn't do your analysis correctly, for example). Ideally this is where you prototype and re-evaluate your decision. Depending on the time and cost this may not be feasible (we're building prototype cars, right?)

After a design is chosen and it's been built, testing and validation is a NECESSARY step in the design cycle. No design is complete without determining if it is better than previous designs. Here is where judges will kill you. You can show why you made the decision initially, but if you can't back it up and explain why it's on the car, then it's still no good. From experience, I can vouch that most judges would rather see that you tested your part and found that it doesn't work as well as a previous design, than just slapping it on the car and calling it a day. It's even better if you have the time to make modifications and improve the design.

Finally, don't forget to return to the initial design criteria to see if you meet it. Any design presentation that shows that these steps were taken is top notch in my books. Pat, what do you think?

It's all part of the design cycle...

test, design, analysis, prototype, test, design...