Wow, that triggered quite the reaction.
Dear Pat, you tackled quite a few points in your argument. Let me first say, that I sincerely hope that you get well soon.
Before I start, I want to emphasize that I was not talking about the GP viewers, who I am also totally sure think that way. My problem is that many people in the FS community think that way
I know, that for the commercial fan, noise is a big part of cars especially in motorsports. I am also aware of the fact that this is hardly going to change, at least not in the next 2-3 decades.
However, I believe that the excitement in FS is about more. This is why I cannot stand these kinds of comments, and although I know that you are aware of what electric FS cars are capable of, you are feeding the ignorants, e.g. „electric car haters“.
This is the first point we disagree. I believe their are in fact people disrespectful to teams building electric cars. These includes judges. For example, at some competitions their are no judges with proper knowledge to judge electrical drivetrains. I am very curious about FSUK and FSA this year. I hardly doubt that a electric car will win design, because there are still a lot of judges who „do not know what to do with it“.
I believe in FS, excitement should be about what teams achieve.
I personally think it is way harder to get your own electric motor running with inverters and batteries, than just taking the hundretth suzuki 4cylinder engine and tuning it (this may not be totally fair).
Further it should be about performance. I envy a car that is fast. I really don’t care why (actually as an engineer I do) but my understanding does not make my fascination smaller. I hate it, when people discard achievements by so called „high budget teams“.
„...they are only so fast, because of their money...“ That is so disrespectful to teams that have achieved a certain status and with it a certain budget.
- Firstly I am still conviced that a good FS Team will do well in a competition, no matter the budget. E.g. Aristotle Racing in FS UK 2011
.- Secondly, money does not buy you success. There are two big misconceptions in FS: one is, that money makes your car fast. Money just gives you more possibilities to choose your technical solution, but you still have to choose it.
- Thirdly, I am disgusted, when I read about people talking about the „big teams“ where professors and companies build the cars. That just makes me sick, because it is untrue and just unfair to the people, that work just as hard.
Nobody ever asks why those teams have a high budget, which brings me to my next point:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:
FSAE/FS was formed to engance the hands on experience of young engineers. The FSAE initially could see that this aspect of education was being overlooked and set in place a competition to address this.
What has happened in recent years is teams are now using the event to enhance the technology, NOT the hands on experience of young engineers!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree. I still believe that the hands on experience of young engineers is still enhanced, I would argue even more than before.
The more professional nature of FS has made teams more professional. Their work is better structured, they have better resource planning (time AND money). I think a structured project is way better engineering than backyard tinkering.
Further, let’s view the FSAE Competition with its rules as a task.
So what I understand you are not satisfied about, is that the teams are not solving the given task in the way you want them to. How can you accuse them for that?
High budget teams did not find a gold mine and started building expensive FS cars. They started like any other team and did a good job solving the task.
Nobody ever asks why a sponsor gives lots of money to a FS team. There is really only two reasons.
- He wants to place his name in the industry among young engineers
- He wants GOOD young engineers
So why do some teams have more budget than others.
Because they do a better job!!!
They do a better job solving the given task. They do a better job marketing themselves. What does that for them? They have better possibilities to solve the task, e.g. more sponsoring.
I have to say here, that of course, you have a regional difference. I am aware of the fact that in different countries, companies spend less money in recruiting and sponsoring.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But not attractive to the average revhead! Be very aware of that fact! Blustering will not make that fact go away, no matter what your personal thoughts are!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Coming back to that. Does it have to be? Imho, a thing that is attractive to a broad average, does not necessary imply that it is good.
My question is, what is the goal oft he GP action. It is to promote FSAE.
But why do you want to bring a competition to a broader public if you think it hurts the competition. Isn’t becoming more famous and relevant what brought the big sponsors to the competition?
Cheers,
Alex
AMZ