budgets and judging

[dancin stu]

budgets and judges

we were thinking the other day

our university the last couple of years has been given huge sheets of fibrelam, nomex composite sandwich panels, essentially
aircraft floors. Now these are worth a fair bit of money, a few thousnad pounds worth. Now obviously the last two years the
cars have been built out of it cos it enables us to spend the money on other things.

at this years competition however, the team didnt get a favourable response from the judges, they believed it was
the wrong material for the job. so the team said, well we were given it free, and having analysed it, have found
in the correct application it is more than capable of doing the job. we were however given lower marks and in the critique
got told we were marked down for using the inappropriate material. Now then i think this is a bit harsh. what team is gonna
turn down free material, and also from the unis point of view it gives them a commercial partner so of course they are
gonna encourage us to use it, and the company said its a good material for the job, and they couldnt offer anything better in their product range.

going on from this, im sure we would all like to use racecar dampers, or at least do a bit of revalving on some foxs etc.
but we cant afford them either so we get marked down for using standard dampers. i knwo this year we are focusing more money
on dampers for this reason but at what detriment to other areas of the car.

do you think the judges should take into account how much budget you have? obviously if youve got loads you can get more and
build to a higher quality and quicker so you have more time for testing, which gets done at a privately hired exclusive use venue with
unlimited tires.

its not a rant, far from it, just think that the judges should take budgets more into account.

oh, and regarding sponsorship, we do absolutely shedloads of looking and have some quite big sponsors so were not short, but
not blessed with millions and we never stop looking.

[Kevin Hall]

The main thing that the judges want to see is confidence in your decision with experimental data to back it up. If you have performed all tests to ASTM/Whatever standards, and found the material to be strong, light, and meet the impact resistance, then obviously you know it will work. Don't cop out on them, and let them know that it's all you were willing to use, let them know that you CHOSE to use it, because you felt that for the loads you are applying, it is a VERY useable material. If your experimental data says it works, any panel could be put in its place for mass production, thus making a stronger, lighter car.........but, more expensive.

Just my 2 cents

Kevin Hall
University of Saskatchewan
'03-'04 Team Director

[James Waltman]

dancin stu,

I think that the material you are talking about is the same stuff we use in our chassis. Take a look at the picture and tell me what you think. We use it because it is an economical way to get very lightweight and very stiff panels. It is also quite easy to work with. For the cost accounting we priced out these panels in our tub at the full retail price and came up with $348.04. I think that this is a very reasonable price.

(Did you notice that in my explanation I didn't mention that it was donated?)
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/v35/V35pics/Bonding/Inside%20the%20front%20of%20the%20chassis%20during %20assembly.JPG

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

[Denny Trimble]

We pursue donations of steel tubing and carbon fiber. Just because something was handed to you doesn't mean you have to use it.

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

[Angry Joe]

Formula SAE is about making practical engineering decisions. If your team is short on money, and you have the material on hand, I think it is a very reasonable decision. My company makes many aftermarket automotive parts out of stainless steel. Why? Because their primary business is bathroom fixtures and we get stainless at bulk discount.

However you must make clear to the judges that what you used is not optimal.

If you did this, and perhaps told them what you would use under ideal circumstances, then I think you were treated unfairly. If you tried to pass this off as the 'right' material to use, then you deserved to be marked down.

I think it would be extremely hypocritical to expect us to build the 'perfect' car when we are severely constrained by budget, time and other practical limitations.



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> However you must make clear to the judges that what you used is not optimal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my experiance telling the judges what is wrong with your car might not be the best option if you don't want to get killed in design. Take a note from James and explain only the good points of your design, and why that is beneficial. I'm sure that Joe's stainless steel after market parts are marketed as "rust free and a cheaper alternative", not as "they are heavier than say a Ti part, but if we were a richer company we would go with the Ti".

Brent

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

[Angry Joe]

When a judge asks you about a design aspect you had to compromise, what are you going to tell him?

Lets face it, building a race car in a year with a small budget and limited facilities requires compromises. Lehigh's car this year was designed,among other things, to be quick and easy to fabricate. Given the testing time we (usually don't) have, is this not a good engineering decision?

Several parts of the car are going to be modlular, and easy to switch in and out to accomodate things such as powertrain changes (which, given our erratic engine sources, is a very logical decision for us)

Of course, I'm sure all the judges will see is "sub-optimal triangulation" and dismiss the design http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Oh, and we actually powdercoat most of our parts because it's quicker and cheaper than finishing them.



Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Angry Joe]

FYI, my biggest challenge at my job isn't designing good parts, it's designing them to be good while maintaining a reasonable manufacturing cost and assembly time.

Funny how 'cost' and 'time' keep coming up in both FSAE and the real world...



Lehigh Formula SAE Alumni
Team Captain 2002-2003

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

[Brent Howard]

I couldn't agree more Joe. The real world experiance with cost and time are probably the most valuble lessons that FSAE can teach us. All that I am saying is for Design don't walk in and say this car is comprimised. What you should say is why this design, after looking at all the options avalible, was the best possible choice. This choice could be based on cost as well as performance. Like I said before, you cannot justify poor engineering, such as single shear or improper sizing. However I think you can justify design features based on more than simply performance. I do find that Judges simply look at performance and style though, without much consideration for other aspects.

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

[ethanL007]

show them a weighted pugh analysis, with the cost metric weighted at 85-90%. it is a decision matrix that shows you looked at other design choices, but decided to use one particular one because it was the best for your design. i havent been to competition yet, but i don't really see how they can fault that approach. the design judges come from the automotive industry, right? they themselve use this type of a concept selestion method in their job.

Ethan Lessard
Team Captain
UNH Precision Racing
www.domesticpc.com/fsae (http://www.domesticpc.com/fsae)