The premise behind this competition

[clausen]

Hi,

My question for today is - are we building prototypes of cars that would be suitable for the weekend amatuer racer or not?

After seeing WWU's V8, Delfts car, and hearing that this year people are developing cars with moving wheelbase, active ballast, proper active suspension, I'm wondering - Has this part of the rule book been thrown out the window, or aren't these people ever doing well in the competition? I guess my question is partly answered by the fact that Wollongong's car probably could be produced for the money specified in the rules.

What I'm asking is are the design judges looking at this thing as a competition to design the ultimate little autocross car, or one that can be built reasonably cheaply?

Either is cool with me, I'd just like to be sure of what we're aiming for.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Ben Beacock]

From what I've heard, there's a definite split amongst the judges on this issue. Some are of 'pure' standard-- that simpler is better if it gets the job done (and finishes the endurance). Others realize this but want to push the technology aspect so that students will learn more in their endeavors to make something complicated and reliable at the same time.

Our AWD design is completely on the latter side of that, but the rest of the car will be very simple and functional. The beauty of it is that if it doesn't prove itself in testing (I doubt that) it can still be run as a competitive RWD car.
The automotive market is full of 'upgrades' so why should the racecar market be any different? If they are proven to work, the customer will likely be willing spend a bit more for the extra 'option' or on the car that has it built in.

Ben Beacock
Co-Manager
2004 Gryphon Racing - University of Guelph (http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/uogracing)

[PatClarke]

Paul,
FSAE is an engineering competition. Sure the premise is to build a 'prototype' but thats only to set the ground rules.
The obvious answer to that is a simple spaceframe car with a motorcycle engine in the back, and thats the route most successful teams take.
Invariably, the teams who dream up outrageous efforts in an attempt to dazzle the judges run out of time and inspiration, and like WWU, Delft etc, fail when it comes to the competition.
The judges like to see clever engineering, but mostly they have enough experience to know what works and what doesn't, and judge accordingly.
My 2 cents worth.
Pat

BTW Driver variable wheelbase? Moveable ballast?
These drivers generally have enough trouble just steering around the course!

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Denny Trimble]

Yeah, we realized it would be too difficult for the driver to control moveable ballast, and too complicated to design an electronic control system to move it, so we're training a monkey to hang onto the roll hoop while wearing a lead jacket.

He's having a hard time getting through the Milliken book though...

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03, '04)

[clausen]

LOL http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide

[Travis Garrison]

Paul, I know its not exactly what you asked, but just to let you know I think some of the cars entered in FSAE aren't necessarily built to win, rather they are built as a different kind of learning exercise. I know that the guys on our V8 car (Viking 30) learned a great deal about a lot of issues most teams never even have to think about, even if the car had too many bugs when it arrived in Detroit.

I wouldn't suggest going with a wild design purely to dazzle the judges, but if you think you might learn something more, or enjoy your work more by doing something crazy then its not at all a waste of time...and cars like Delft's our Viking 30 don't hurt the resume, hell some of our graduates get to say they built an engine http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Travis Garrison
WWU FSAE

[Sam Zimmerman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suddenlee:
FSAE is an engineering competition. Sure the premise is to build a 'prototype' but thats only to set the ground rules.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat,

My question is similar to what I think Paul is getting at. If the premise of competition is as listed then the judges should not award teams for doing things that would make the vehicle difficult or expensive to produce in a production line. While many cars have cool ideas and the students have done very good work on these ideas, I would dock points for custom carbon fiber steering wheels, custom ECU's, and the like. These are simply not things that a manufacturing company that would try to sell this car for a profit would be interested in IMHO.
Now, if the premise of the competition was to create the ultimate autocross car, I could see awarding teams who put the hard work into carbon fiber everything, custom shocks, unique V-8 engines, etc. That is all really cool stuff. Having the "concept of competition" differ from the actual judging procedures, however, only creates confusion among new teams and, I would suspect, inconsistency in the judging.

Please, lend another 2 cents and let me know if I am out to lunch on this or not. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

[Charlie]

No offense but I am sick of questions like this.

If you ask 10 people this question you will always get 10 different answers.

LOOK AT THE RULES! The point distribution, and the event description. That will tell you the premise. Lots of ideas go into the competition, but the rules are the result of compromise within the rules committee. So there should never be any question what the point of the competition is.

-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

[Ben Beacock]

Thats a very valid point. The subjective static events are only a third of the total score. And even with a bad design you can still pull off half the marks in the static events which means we're talking about 1/6 of the total score. At the top it makes a difference of about 6 places overall and farther down its more like 10.

Sounds alot like how I used to figure out if I wanted to do an assignment or go out for a pint. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Ben Beacock
Co-Manager
2004 Gryphon Racing - University of Guelph (http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/uogracing)

[PatClarke]

Sam, as a judge I would never penalise a team for pushing the envelope ('Cause thats what we want you to do) but I want to hear the rationalisation behind the decisions made. Something done to dazzle the judges, or to look cool is a valid reason for doing it (its called 'marketing'), but if the team try snow the judges by telling them something that is obviously BS, then woe betide them. BTW, we did have more than one team tell us lies last year!
The intent of the comp was never to have every school build an exact copy of the Missouri Columbia chassis (best in 2002) and bolt in the Cornell powertrain (best in 2002)and have every one finish equal in design, and then slog things out on the track to find a winner. Its an engineering compettion, not a motor race. Its an engineering competition designed to roll over the rocks and find the best young engineers we can.
Personally, I only pay scant attention to the 'racing' part of the comp, even though I do find it interesting to watch. After all a self tapper can fall off the worst sh*tbox as the best car comes up to lap it for the fourth time, and puncture the fast car out of the comp...too much uncontrollable luck there for me.
You win cost by being the best number fiddler, you win presentation by being the best BS slinger, but you win design by having experienced and knowledgable judges agree with your design goals and achievements. And thats why I am a design judge...Thats where my interest lies.
I regularly hear tales about 'How do the judges know you are not just feeding them a load of BS?'
Well, let me tell you, when the judges sit to discuss your car and presentation at primary judging time, it is not uncommon to hear all agree "That was the biggest load of horses*it I have heard all day!" The judges know when they are being snowed, and NO ONE gets into design finals on bluster and lies.
What does disappoint me is when a team present a good car, one with solutions the judges like, but cannot explain how they came to their conclusions! They may even admit they copied something else without understanding the rationale behind it.
Please be assured that the judges do like nice solutions. They like the use of modern technology used appropriately and demonstrably understood. They understand the need for that mythical production car to win its most important race......The one off the showroom floor!!!
So marketing IS important, one does need some sizzle in the steak, and just because we are engineers, we do not have to be the archtypical introverted dullards!
There, thats 20c worth http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Pat D'Rat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Sam Zimmerman]

Thanks Pat. It is always good when you ask for 2 cents and get 20.
http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

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

[Mechanicaldan]

From a quick look at the points distribution, it's becomes difficult to argue that the FSAE competition is an 'engineering' competition. With 675 dynamic points, it appears to be a racing competition. 250 points for engineering? Now, I've been at the last 2 FSAE competitions, and know of the amount of engineering work that goes into the cars, but the points don't seem to carry enough weight to award "engineering." Why not split the points more evenly between dynamic and static events? Why not expand more on the design competition? That's where the engineering shows up, doesn't it? Or, maybe the racing does prove the worth of the engineering? Hmm..... Well, isn't it a little unbalanced to have the Endurance event worth more than the sum of all three Static events?

Cyclone Racing
www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm (http://www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm)
Iowa State University
Project Director

[This message was edited by Daniniowa on November 11, 2003 at 03:45 AM.]

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daniniowa:
With 675 dynamic points, it appears to be a racing competition. 250 points for engineering? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know the cars they are racing? Those cars are built from scratch. How they perform on the track is a result of thier engineering. You can't decouple the racing and engineering like you just did. It is no coincidence that the top finishers in the dynamic events usually do very well in design.

In the 'real world' there is nobody to tell you how great your design is after it fails. Get used to it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A great design will perform well on the track, that's why the points are the way they are.

-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]

I agree with you to an extent, Charlie. These are race cars, so if they don't race very well that should tell you something. However I still believe the endurance is too stringent in this regard, since even the best race car can get taken out by something very trivial (who had to retire because a cone caught their bodywork?)

Professional race cars break stuff too because, like our cars, they are designed to push the envelope. The difference is one failure doesn't write off an entire year of work (well, usually not anyway!)



Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Charlie]

I'll give you that. The event was originally configured with 2 endurance races, with the fastest one counting. That makes it a lot easier to account for the little things that break. But in any race event any sort of failure pretty much takes you completely out of contention, you've got to make sure you take care of the details. I believe that you can make 95% of your own luck through preparation.

-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]

I agree with Angry Joe on this. I do think that the current rules regarding endurance elimination may need to be changed slightly to allow for problems to be fixed with the clock counting (this will at least allow for teams whose cars are easily fixed to place ahead of teams with catastrophic failures) and also maybe the number of laps completed should count as well. It is not very good the way it is now where one car can finish 21 laps and leak a little bit of oil and they are given the same place as a team that couldn't even pass tech.

Brent

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

[1975BMW2002]

charlie wrote:

How they perform on the track is a result of thier engineering.

I would like to make an ammendment ot that... How they perform on the track is a result of thier engineering, and the skill of the drivers.

If there is one thing that I have learned in 6 years of autocrossing, it is that driving is everything. I think it was Wallongong's site that mentioned that they had a professional driver beat their best driver by a significant margin on a skidpad. Not sure it was Wallongong, but I know someone said that. Driving is a HUGE part of the equation. The team that was able to practice and train their drivers well, will beat a team with a car that would be able to turn in better times with equal drivers.

just my '02 cents worth
Bill

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

I don't think winning is the most important thing. Learning new things and getting cool stuff to put on your resume is. It's a neat feather in your hat that your team won the comp., but I think I'd have rather had 'produced a V8 from scratch', or optimized a car's components until it was ~100 lbs lighter than everyone else's, and I'd have learned more from those things as well.

-Mike Waggoner
Western Wash. U. Alum
U. Washington Grad Student

[LukeT]

I agree with Charlie on this. Also, part of the challenge by having dynamic events worth so many points is that we must finish engineering fast so that we are able to get driving/testing time. If we're still changing parts come April, not only will our faculty advisor kill us all, but those new parts now have the opportunity to show us that we undersized them. (probably in the endurance race, with .5 laps to go)

-Luke Thompson
Vandals Racing 2003-04
University of Idaho

[ben]

As tech director for Birmingham this year my take on this subject will shape a lot of our car.

My take is that, were we to arrive at FStudent with yet another tube-framed, CBR600 powered car with a stressed floor, blah, blah... and still retired I'd have been gutted.

As it is we are doing a complete clean sheet design (I really do mean clean BTW). If it then retires I will at least be able to say I did something different and innovative. Much like Mike's opinion.

Who is the average autocrosser BTW? From what i can see the average weekend autocrosser runs a Miata. Are the A-Mod boys the average or the pinacle?

Ben

University of Birmingham
www.ubracing.co.uk (http://www.ubracing.co.uk)

[Mechanicaldan]

Ben,

Why all the past DNFs in Endurance?

Cyclone Racing
www.cyclone-racing.com (http://www.cyclone-racing.com/fhome.htm)
Iowa State University
Project Director

[ben]

Good question. We have had crap electrics as a rule. We sorted that this year (my first year full time on the team), and then the water pump (Davis Craig electric) failed.

I'm not saying we anticipate failing again in the Endurance, the point really was that these are prototype cars and failures are always possible. If I'm going to have a failure in endurance I'd rather it be on an innovative car that I can get a lot more credit for in terms of getting a job afterwards. Dare I say these comps are a means to getting a career, rather than an end in themselves?

Ben

University of Birmingham
www.ubracing.co.uk (http://www.ubracing.co.uk)

[Denny Trimble]

Ben wrote:
"Who is the average autocrosser BTW? From what i can see the average weekend autocrosser runs a Miata. Are the A-Mod boys the average or the pinacle?"

Well, I think the "average" autocrosser races their daily driver. They might spend a bunch of money preparing it, but most autocrossers can't have a dedicated racecar. However, I see about 30% of the local autocrossers who do have dedicated racecars. Some will even buy the latest greatest car that has the best advantage in its class. And we're talking BMW's and STi's here. Not cheap!

Also, at the SCCA AutoCross National Championships in Topeka, Kansas, several people came up and talked to the FSAE teams about "where can I buy one?" and "what happens to the old ones, wink wink?" They want to go as fast as the A-mod crowd without spending $50k-$100k.

I don't think we could sell 1000 cars in a year, but maybe 200. There is a market if you can keep the price below $25k.

If only we could have a 75MPH autocross course in Detroit... 4th gear slaloms are so much fun.

Oh yeah, and check out the latest issue of Grassroots Motorsports (Evo on the cover). Nice coverage of UTA and UW http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03, '04)