Design Event FSAE-A [Archive]

Charlie

12-11-2005, 11:36 AM

There's been some discussion about the FSAE-A design event but it's been muddled into other threads and so I decided to post here.

Keep in mind what I say is by no means an official word but my opinion; which may differ from how other judges see things. That's the good thing about posting this here because you can get feedback from others involved.

The Design event will always have one major issue, and that is you can't have all the same people judge the same cars. There is simply not enough time. So the result is you don't have a completely even playing field. Communication between judges, understanding of judging criteria, and spreading quality cars (from design reviews) among groups can minimize this.

The solution to this is having Design Finals. This means that the best cars do get a completely level playing field, and the winner is judged fairly. This puts resources to thier best use. The Design event is a lot of points but I think most would agree that the prestige factor is bigger than the points. Therefore more effort is put into deciding the proper winner than getting all cars ranked perfectly. Because nobody goes home upset because they think they should have gotten 9th in Design but they got 12th.

So.. for example in FSAE-A this year the two best cars in each design made the finals. Were they the 6 best cars? That is debatable, and really impossible to prove. But that's not the point of the finals. The point is to make sure that any car that is considered a possible winner gets a fair shake at the final prize. Yes it is prestigious to get into the finals, and I'm sure some teams were disappointed they didn't get in. But all a team had to do was prove to thier group of judges they are top 2 of 8 cars. If you can't do that, then in my opinion I don't think you really deserve to be in the finals.

The design event overall rankings seem to be far too carefully analyzed. One reason is the previously mentioned problem of different judging groups. The other is these are a lot of really good cars! Look at the points, not the ranking. Because in some cases 5 cars are under 10 points apart. So you might say that a car finishing 10th in design finishes 5th in Endurance and 5th overall, so the design judges must have missed something. But in reality maybe that car was only 8 points away from being 6th in design. It really was that close.

Comparing the dynamic events to design is nice, and certainly you want the results to be close. But it's not something that should always happen. They are two seperate events. All teams I saw had a good understanding of how to make a good vehicle. So any of those teams with a good testing program and trained drivers can have a solid finish dynamically without being stand-out in design. There is also the problem of teams having the knowledge but not being able to show the judges due to lack of information at the event or just poor communication skills.

Of course UQ was the only real obvious discrepancy at the event this year, being extremely good dynamically but only marginal in the design event. I was not in that judging group so I can't comment. I don't know why they were ranked where they were. But a car that good does not come by mistake so I know they did a great and competant job designing it. Only someone from UQ or the judging group can offer any info on that.

I was impressed by the judging group at FSAE-A. They are very dedicated and they really want to do the best job they can. Much discussion was put into every decision. However, it's a question of evaluating a lot of information in a short amount of time.

I have read all design reviews and if anyone wants comments I would be happy to oblige. Please contact me directly at cping@hra.com

Charlie

12-11-2005, 11:36 AM

Storbeck

12-11-2005, 05:10 PM

Charlie were you a judge, or an observer?

Thanks for the post, good points.

Andy

12-11-2005, 07:25 PM

Charlie,

My main concern with the Design event is this: If I am an employer looking to hire some good design engineers, should I let my decision be influenced by the relative scores/positions that the job applicants received in an FSAE Design event? I am sure that any young engineer who made Design finals, or even 1st in Design, will definitely mention that on their CV.

Well, at the moment, I don't think FSAE Design ranking is any sort of reliable measure of a student's design abilities.

UQld apparently lost their picture boards, and overnight they became design dummies. As far as the students' design abilities go, the Design scores suggest UQld are only half as good as UWA, whereas the dynamic events suggest UQld are neck and neck with UWA.

Anyway, to me, the current Design event seems to be too much about the students putting on a good show for the judges, with lots of flashy props, etc., rather than an attempt by the judges to find out just how good the students are at design, or how deeply they understand their subject, or, for that matter, how well they designed their car.

Engineers, generally, are not very articulate. Being a smooth talker or a good showman doesn't really have any connection with engineering design ability. In fact, often the inverse is true. I can see how showmanship can be an advantage in big companies where the engineer is constantly having to "sell" his ideas to the many levels of management. But that is a flaw in the culture of big companies. Small businesses generally prefer good design engineers to good BS artists.

I'll end with an analogy. Just say you are the coach of a football team (any code). You are into the Grand Final, and one of your key players has just dropped dead. You have two potential replacements: The short fat guy who has been everywhere, done everything, has the right answer to every question, and is great fun at parties. Or the other guy who comes across like a gibbering psychopath, has terrible body-odour, but can run like the wind, has the ball on a string, and can score points from anywhere on the field (insert your favourite footballing cliches here).

You want to win, so who do you pick? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Charlie

12-11-2005, 07:58 PM

Storbeck, yes I was a volunteer judge at FSAE-A this year.

Z, All fair points. But what is your solution? Kill design entirely?

The problems you state are well-understood. That's why the cars race! That's why dynamic events are so heavily weighted! That's why despite doing poorly in design UQ still got a 2nd place. Which I might add looks quite good on a CV/resume. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In the real world you will constantly have to sell your ideas before being able to act on them. Like you said, many big companies are like this. This is a good part of the real-world engineering experience, even if you think that part of the real-world sucks. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, at the moment, I don't think FSAE Design ranking is any sort of reliable measure of a student's design abilities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It's not perfect. Your error is that you are saying the overall/endurance results are a perfect measure because that is what you are comparing. I disagree. Good designs are passed on without students being knowledgable. Cars fail endurance. Drivers make mistakes, etc.

The design event is not about presentation only. There were some ridiculously extravagant design boards and presentation that didn't make it to the finals, there were some cars in the finals with just rudimentary displays. I don't car about displays. But I would want to see data when I need more explanation. Some of the best data presented was NOT on some flashy board but on a laptop or notebook, something I could tell wasn't made for design but was part of the actual process. That's the best stuff. Although, I would't recommend doing that only as boards provide the quickest way of referencing information and there is a limited amount of time.

In summary, in my opinion-

-Design is a process of proving your design decisions in a short period of time- about 30 minutes. So organization and preperation does play a big role. There's no way to eliminate this.

-Flashy props or boards don't mean much. In fact I am suspicous of them because I know they were created just for this process. But if I ask for information and they provide it that's good.

-The judging team I worked with was very good and very knowledgable. They worked hard to properly rank the cars we judged. If the students did not properly provide judges with enough information then it is not the judges fault. Looking at dynamic results and using them to critcize design is easy. But as a judge you have to go off only what the students can tell you to justify thier design and design process, and compare it to your own experience and intuition.

-Design is 15% of the overall score! That's because it's not about what you say but what you do. That's why dynamic events matter most. But the design event is still good because it makes students justify thier designs under pressure. I learned more doing that as a student than anywhere else. Judge's questions made me think about what I'd done in different ways.

Storbeck

12-11-2005, 08:46 PM

There's another complication. At my school there is a system in place where you get a meager amount of credit for being on the FSAE team. You can eventually even substitute it for your "senior design" project if you are willing to deal with some bullshit (argueable less bullshit than senior design) as a result there are a whole lot of members on the team, but many are there "because I didn't want to take senior design". I imagine every one of them has FSAE on thier resume, but many of them have done little or nothing usefull. The only way a potential employer would know if they are really functioning members of the team or people who signed up for a one credit class is by talking to them, and asking them questions about the car.

There are something like 40 members on the team, of those the people who designed a part that went onto last years car can be counted on one hand. We have a ton of promising new members this year, but the fact remains.

I doubt we're the only school that is this way.

The point is that the standing in the design competition, and the standing in the overall competition, and wether your team deserved it, are irrelevent if the person in question wasn't an active member of the team anyway. It's also quite possible to have a guy that is a very good powertrain person, but doesn't have anybody to make him a winning chassis to put the motor in. It all comes down to the interview either way, same as design comp.

Andycostin

12-12-2005, 06:17 AM

In my opinion, I think that the design judges do a great job, charlie's right, covering sooo many cars on an even playing field would be almost impossible, but they seem to do a good job.
I still think that there were teams in Australia who may have been unlucky (UQld and Monash), but I also didn't see their presentations, so can't argue either way.
For our team, I can also say that whilst we did a great job to get 5th in design, there were area's that we could have improved upon in the actual presentations. But as we should've all learnt by now from participation in group assignments, there will always be a couple who lack the motivation to put in fully, and that's just what happens. You've just gotta hope that everyone else can pull together enough to cover the holes.

just my 2c

12-13-2005, 06:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charlie:
Z, All fair points. But what is your solution? Kill design entirely? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charlie,

No, don't kill it entirely. But make it more objective, and aim it more at rewarding good actual "design", rather than just good "presentation" of design ideas.

So instead of me just criticising, here is a possible alternative system of point scoring for FSAE:

COST - 100pts.
Split 50pts for manufacturing/costing knowledge, and 50pts for the "real cost" of the car. The real cost has to be much more realistic than now (as pointed out on another current thread, and also because of last event below). How much would an F4i, at 1000/year, new and/or with some sort of warranty, really cost? Perhaps use an independent assessor - maybe a retired tax collector? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PRESENTATION - 100pts.
Split 50pts for marketing presentation (as now - how much money the manufacturer of these cars will make), and 50pts for technical presentation (similar to current Design, where the teams sell the big picture design aspects of their car, eg. why small and light is better than big and powerful, or vice versa...).

DESIGN - 100pts.
Split 50pts from an exam type test of the students knowledge of general design (eg. "Which spaceframe structure - A, B, C... - is stiffer under the shown loadings"), and racecar specific stuff (eg. "Calc. RMD of this car"), and 50pts from Design judges appraisal of design details of the car (done while students are in exam).

SKID PAD - 50pts.
As is.

ACCELERATION - 50pts.
As is.

AUTOCROSS - 100pts.
As is.

ENDURANCE - 300pts.
Still gives a major emphasis on reliability (which IMO is a good thing), but maybe less of the "one spilt drop of oil and you're out!", because this is not realistic.

FUEL ECONOMY - 100pts.
It's getting expensive! Also FE is often a good indicator of a car's overall efficiency - gas guzzlers can be expensive to buy, wear tyres out quickly, require more maintenance$$$, etc...

BFYB - 100pts.
(Bang For Your Buck) This is calculated at end of comp as (Dynamic pts)/(realistic car cost), scaled appropriately.

Eddie Martin made the point that "you make your own luck". What he didn't mention is how much this stuff costs to make - it is expensive! Most teams know they might get "unlucky" and not complete Enduro. So, IMO, they try to at least do well in the prestigous Design event, which requires less luck. So they design/build something that ends up too sophisticated/complicated for their resources, which then results in them not completing Enduro...

If BFYB is made the new "prestige" event (via big trophy/good prizemoney), then the students are encouraged away from "showpony" cars which might do well in current Design, and towards the "fast and cheap" cars that are the stated objective of FSAE (see Rule 1.2).

This would be good for the development of future engineers.

Criticisms welcome. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Matt Gignac

12-13-2005, 08:17 PM

Some pretty good ideas, but I think they would probably bring about the same issues as now.

The structure for design you suggested can badly harm certain teams that dont go a particular design path. You'd have to ask questions that are relative to the vast majority of fsae cars, or at least the general concepts. This may encourage teams to build a vanilla spaceframe and f4i car in hopes of finding out the most answers as possible on the design quiz during actual design of the car.
Maybe if this type of evaluation were put into place, you'd give teams a certain amount of time to give the why's and how's, not the how much's (ex: why did you choose that type of chassis and how did you optimize? how did you proceed for the design of the braking system? what were your goals in terms of suspension design and how did you achieve these goals?).
But this is exactly how the current design event scheme works, minus the whole presentation and salesmanship thing.

Also, I think it is a very bad idea to have judges poking and proding around the car without any input by the team, as it is very probable that they might miss some neat features that aren't immediately visible but are actually quite interesting (maybe a particular use of a bracket, some clean little adjustment method for some part, a clever manufacturing method, or a bit of code in the ECU).

For the cost event, this has been an issue of much debate, but it is extremely hard to put a value on an engine. The f4i is very available, and Honda gives engines to many fsae teams, so it is reasonable to assume that Honda would supply your company with 1000 engines at a reasonable cost for your production run. Some of the single cylinder engines being used are not as popular, so it is a lot harder to source these secondhand, and manufacturer support is questionable. Granted, if you can get them made for you, it'd probably be cheaper, but probably not by very much (consider the wr450f with a whole bunch of titanium parts and dry sump, vs the all aluminum and steel f4i with nothing too fancy).

Fuel economy is probably not high on the list of design priorities for a small race car which must only do a few laps before an opportunity to refuel. Fuel economy is still important though since this is the general trend the auto industry in general is going towards, but I don't know if it's enough to be worth as much as skidpad and acceleration combined. Also, this could encourage teams to drive at 5/10ths, keeping the revs low to save fuel, which wouldn't really be within the spirit of the autocross. Maybe have something like fuelscore = (100 - r*fuelused/enduroscore), where r is some constant to make this make sense. At some point before my time here, McGill placed 1st or 2nd for fuel economy because our pneumatic shifter got stuck in 4th, but we were slow as hell, and it was lame.

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

Kevin Hayward

12-13-2005, 09:59 PM

I'm going to add fuel to the fire. But I believe unless you are capable of explaining your designs and presenting them to another, you are a bad engineer.

Maybe a good scientist, but a bad engineer.

Most engineers end up in positions where they must manage projects. Sometimes very large projects. A lack of communication skills is definitely a detriment in these situations.
In this way the design event is very much like real life.

I know many people who graduated University with high exam marks that make horrible engineers. I am sure that I am not the only person that knows people like this. An exam style section to the design event only encourages this.

Currently the FSAE competitions asks a lot of the students in order for them to be successful. I would hate to see the comp start to baby the students with the goal of trying to eliminate subjectivity.

Here is the problem: The design event requires you to not only design, manufacture and test a high quality vehicle it also requires you to communicate your efforts to the judges satisfaction.

Engineers are supposed to be able to solve problems.

Kev

Eddie Martin

12-13-2005, 11:18 PM

I have to say the design event at FSAE-A this year was a great success and a huge improvement. Congrats to the officials and volunteers involved in the process.

I have to agree with Storbeck, every student needs to be judged completely independently of their "resume" and the teams performance. The potenial employers really need to question the student hard about their time in fsae. I have seen people from Wollongong with "members of the championship winning team" plastered on their resumes and they weren't even on the team at the time or just stopped by the workshop once or twice. You can have idiots in succuessful teams and geniuses in not very successful teams. It has to be on a case by case basis.

This is an engineering competition where you have to demonsrate your product. Its about design, sales, cost and very importantly performance. Thats why you have a points set up like you do. You can practice the design, cost, sales, acceleration, skid pan and fuel economy event at your home base as many times as you like (500 points) and set up a similar course for the auto and enduro to practice (another 500 points). Assuming your car is the best and fastest at the competition but you have well trained and low talent drivers the most you are going to lose is 2 seconds a lap in enduro and maybe 3 seconds a lap in autox. This adds up to about a 100 points lost total, so i can't see how a well organised and disiplined team with an awesome car (barring big human errors at the competition) could end up scoring less then 800 points (assuming small errors across other events) or pretty much a podium finish.

I think you could walk up and down the pit lane and take detailed photos of the top 10 cars. Then without any understanding just blindly copy their designs and just build something to a really high standard (build qualitywise). Get it running really early and then get the thing reliable by just making something that breaks heavier and doesn't lighter etc. Get yourself a good driver or two and just guess some set up changes. With 5 months or so of this i think you could get it going very fast. It would turn up at the competition and look really impressive from a distance (good build quality) and be very fast but would do really poorly in design because the students wouldn't understand anything about. The reverse would also be true if you had a really well designed and understood car that only had limited testing (1 month) and a less organised team. It would do really well in design but not so well in the dynamic events. That is why you have a spread of points, too demonstrate all aspects of an engineering project.

My comments about luck, were that all systems and parts are made by humans. Any failure, whether it was poorly designed, built, installed, maintained or driven, is the fault of a human and hence there is no luck only good prepation. Thats not to say you need to play the blame game, students make mistakes and its a great learning experience, as long as they were giving 100%. Whether a part or system is complex/simple or cheap/expensive it is still a human's creation.

Frank

12-14-2005, 12:40 AM

Personally, i think there's a few things happening in design judging that are not necessarily the best, but they are understandable

1 If you see very similar designs 15 times, you'll prefer the car with some "innovation"

2 Judges get all mushy when a team "makes a significant improvement"

3 Judges like "trick stuff" even if the cars gets away from the overall concept of the competition (not trying to start a %^$#fight, but IMO UWA is getting away from the concept)

4 "Bling" helps, when it should not

5 There are few judges who have built a similar car, and understand the design adequately.

6 There's simply not enough time for a judge to inspect the car. You really need a peaceful, quite, ordered environment to inspect a car.

7 IMO design judging should be conducted AFTER the enduro, but i realise this is nearly impossible

8 The definition of "prototype" is different to some judges. For example, we use rapid prototyping parts a fair bit, some judges love that, some think it's crap.

8 (cont) Another example.. Judges asks "what's this ugly so and so part here, why is it like that", team responds "We couldn't be arsed. This works. The engineering effort to make it look like a showroom Honda product was too much for us." Some judges don't mind, some get really shirty.

9 IMO Judges don't have enough appreciation cars that have been driven many miles and inspected (with appropriate inspection methods). IMO Green cars shouldn't even be allowed to run at the comp, let alone considered for design finals.

Finally, I must add that I'm not sore about our design marks. We didn't deserve any better. Why? Here's why. UQ had:

1 No design boards (it was because of a stupid shipping mistake)
2 No prepared introductory speech
3 Little reference to the overall concept of the competition
4 No backup data, design folder
5 Only one person in the judging tent (Mark Fenning) actually designed anything on the car, and he designed 1/3 of the car, I designed the other 1/3, and 1/4 was carried over design from previous cars, and 1/12 was designed by the "rest of the team"

i didn't go beacuse im sick of it, and because last time i went to design judging a judge made a wisecrack about my age. I had been kicked out of scruitineering already, and didn't feel like destroying our hopes of any points by telling muppet judges where to go. Some of them need this (but most are good).

Ben Inkster

12-14-2005, 10:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Engineers, generally, are not very articulate. Being a smooth talker or a good showman doesn't really have any connection with engineering design ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Z,
I feel as though your comment is only partially true. You are right when you say "engineers are not smooth talkers" but this is only when they are talking to members of the opposite sex. But when it comes to discussing a system/design they have researched, designed, built, lived and breathed for the last year, 2 years or whatever, an engineer should understand it well enough to discuss with design judge. A judge should be able to probe the engineers knowledge of the system and be given a valid answer with some sort of evidence beyond their own personal opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> DESIGN - 100pts.
Split 50pts from an exam type test of the students knowledge of general design (eg. "Which spaceframe structure - A, B, C... - is stiffer under the shown loadings"), and racecar specific stuff (eg. "Calc. RMD of this car"), and 50pts from Design judges appraisal of design details of the car (done while students are in exam).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you cannot be serious about this? Engineering a race car is not like ordering a sub at subway or a choose your own adventure novell, you don't tick the box on spaceframe B, suspension F, engine G, and then build it. Rather, there are infinite solutions to design race car, and the engineers role is to sort through these solutions and find the best one (with respect to any variable you believe has an effect e.g lap times, ease of manufacture, weight etc). The purpose of the design event is to explain to the judges why your solution is better than any other possible solutions, and the consequence of this is that you require a very good understanding of your vehicle/system/design in its intended application. IMO using an exam style design event would only act to stifle creativity, reduce knowledge depth, encourage inadequate physical testing and reduce overall vehicle quality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3 Judges like "trick stuff" even if the cars gets away from the overall concept of the competition (not trying to start a %^$#fight, but IMO UWA is getting away from the concept)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frank,
What is the concept of the competition? everyone has their own and UWA's might be different to yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
4 "Bling" helps, when it should not
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree in part, but I do believe that a well finished car is often misunderstood to be "bling". A well finished car usually communicates to the judges that the team has had enough time to design and give thought to even the smallest components and still make it to the competition. If a car has "Bling" with no explainable function then I think the judges would tear you apart.

-Ben

12-15-2005, 04:50 PM

Matt, Ben,

My above proposed restructuring of FSAE points was just a "suggested alternative" to get people thinking about what is good about current FSAE, and what might be improved. Can't improve anything without first thinking about it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would see the Design event going something like this:

Students do their "marketing" presentation in front of appropriate judges. Then Design judges come in and students do their "technical" presentation. This is equivalent to "introductory speech" in current Design event, but points are included in the Presentation event (in my scheme) because that is what it is. Having just heard the student's spiel, which should include all the "neat" features on the car, the judges then do their detail appraisal of the car (=50pts of Design).

Meanwhile the students sit their exam, which is intended to be an objective test of their knowledge (= the other 50pts of Design). Whether this is a verbal, written, or multiple choice exam is open. I gave the written/multiple choice examples because I think they are the most objective. And with a "hard copy" of the answers there is no chance for arguments like "But I didn't say that, you misunderstood me...". Also fairer if all students (at any one event) have to answer exactly the same questions.

I gave the example of "Which spaceframe structure is stiffer...?" (and this can be any sort of spaceframe - bridge, crane, etc.), because a large proportion of FSAE frames I have seen are very badly laid out! Despite (or because of???) all the CAD/FEA/etc., many students seem to have no feeling for where the structural members should go to best carry the loads. Endless waffle about how the frame was "optimized" doesn't make a piss poor frame any better. (No offense intended http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

Finally, I have known a few excellent design engineers who I am sure would do very poorly in a "presentation" type test of their abilities. These guys fall roughly into two types: There is the shy, introverted type who will just sit there quietly, meekly offering a "Yeah, I guess so..." whenever the judge tries to drag an answer out of him. At the other end of the spectrum, there is the more confident guy who will not be bothered spelling out every little detail when giving answers, and will thus come across as an arrogant arsehole - "Why? Well, because the transformation matrix is non-diagonal. Obvious, isn't it!". (The quiet guy was thinking the same thing, just wasn't sure how to say it.)

Both these guys might do brilliant design, but get poorly marked. On the other hand, some charming dimwit who has learnt to "talk the talk" might get top marks - nothing like jargon to make you look smart! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Dick Golembiewski

12-15-2005, 05:42 PM

Eric (Z):

Here in the states, the presentation event is separate from the design judging.

Further, as judges we do look the cars over. It is not just a Q&A session. Because the first round only gives us approximately 25 minutes with each team, we have to do a lot. I often tell teams I'm judging that I am not being rude if I'm not looking directly at them while they are telling me about their design. Rather, I'm trying to have a look at the car as well.

I might add that one of the purposes of the SAE student vehicle design competitions (written or unwritten) is to give students the opportunity to perform many of the functions they might be called upon to undertake when employed, and learning how to sell one's design is one of them. To think that we judges can be blinded by "biodegradeable styrene" is incorrect. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif We see through that stuff. Still, if a team isn't enthusiastic about their own design, it sends a subliminal message.

- Dick

12-15-2005, 06:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dick Golembiewski:
...To think that we judges can be blinded by "biodegradeable styrene" is incorrect. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif We see through that stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I reckon it takes at least a month, working alongside someone on a daily basis, to figure out if they actually know their stuff, or are just good at talking the talk. Or, alternatively, are too quiet to talk about it. 25 minutes is not enough.

Bernie Ecclestone is reported to have said that, when he owned Brabham, he "found Gordon Murray in a broom cupboard". Murray was/is one of the best racecar designers ever, but was, presumably, rather quiet about promoting his talents.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...Still, if a team isn't enthusiastic about their own design, it sends a subliminal message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good designers are never happy about the finished product - time/money constraints, etc. They always figure they can do better next time! If they don't, then they're not good designers! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Z

Mike Claffey

12-15-2005, 09:58 PM

I think the exam style design event is a really badly thought out idea. If you had this "exam" it could mean setting aside some poor sods that have to study a whole bunch of stuff instead of working on their vehicle. Then they would come to the competition, sit the exam, get maximum points - I get the feeling all the larger teams would do something like this.. Because it would almost be a free 50 points - and all the smaller teams would suffer, because their core members would not have time for this. We draw our members from oil / gas / mining background – about 5% actually have any racing experience.

I think the event should have a larger focus on design – 300 points, ongoing visits from judges all weekend, so on, because at the centre of this it is an engineering competition to test university student's ability to design and build a race car, then race it. Most of our team comes in at the start of the year with absolutely no knowledge of vehicles, and they go through the year picking it all up. We don't have much of a racing culture over in WA - and I think by reducing design, and turning this into a more of a racing competition will just move the focus away from innovation and different vehicle concepts (which usually result in a longer designing, smaller test phase – to just pumping out an update of last years car in July and then trying to lure the quickest race driver into doing some course at your uni, so you have a chance of winning the comp.)

IMO the competition is too sensitive to having the right driver. We have drivers within a second of each other, whereas some teams have a driver who is 5 or so seconds faster than the rest.

I think the competition is good how it stands, and we don't need to go redesigning the wheel on how it runs, because the Vast Majority of teams thought it was run well and was excellent event. The only thing that stands out in my mind for improvement is to replace the odd few judges who do not work in the racing field with ones who do. On the other hand perhaps having to sell to people who are at a ˜lower level' (used loosely) of vehicle knowledge shows how well the target audience will receive the car?.. I don't know. There are judges who don't like our ideas, and judges that do. I'm sure it's the same for all.

Z, you seem to have a strong opinion against the way the event runs. I didn't meet you at it, were you even there? I've always run by the opinion, don't knock it until you have tried it. I think you might feel differently after a few comps.

I'm not about to bash anyone's design ideas or concepts on this board, what's the point? But I have to say I can't wait to see the NZ car compete on the track, the combination of fat tyres, fat torque and fat wings looked like a gearbox destroying combination (especially with that r6 box.) What they produce next year I expect to be awesome.

Disclaimer: anything I say is just my opinion, and I'm not trying to incite people by this post http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mike C
BAM! UWAM

Charlie

12-15-2005, 11:18 PM

Sorry I have not replied to this thread but I have been flat out at work!

I appreciate all the replies. I think it is a good discussion to have. I especially appreciate your comments Frank, as UQ was a big question in my mind. I am sorry you chose to sit out design as from what I've heard it was much improved. I have great respect for what you've done and congrats on a great overall finish. Also, I encourage you to think about volunteering to judge. FSAE alums know better than anyone how this process works and in my opinon make the best judges. I think the process is good but it relies on good people to make it work. You can help be a part of making a process you think is wrong better.

Z I think some of your ideas are intriquing. I don't think FSAE scoring is perfect, especially considering the cost event so I think new ideas are good to consider. However this is just about design so I won't waiver too much.

I think the design event is very good. The thing it has to have, as I mentioned, is competent judges. Since they are all volunteers this can be tough. But I disagree that it takes 'at least a month' to see if someone is a competent designer. If this is true there is no hope. I certainly would vehemently disagree that a written exam can find these designers better than questioning from a competent judge. If this is true then the best designers all have 4.0 GPAs!

Sure I've heard the story that Gordon Murray was "found in a broom cupboard". Let me ask you this, did Bernie work with him in a broom cupboard for a month before he brought him out? If not how did he know he was any good?

Should we encourage students to do well in communication skills (essential for reaching thier potential) or should we find every possible way for them to avoid getting better at communication? No. I think even if it isn't a perfect system if you emphasize that students must be able to communicate properly to succeed that is a very good thing!!! Like I said I had a hell of a time in my first design review but it was a real eye-opener and the experience I had in those events made me a much better person and engineer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
a large proportion of FSAE frames I have seen are very badly laid out! Despite (or because of???) all the CAD/FEA/etc., many students seem to have no feeling for where the structural members should go to best carry the loads. Endless waffle about how the frame was "optimized" doesn't make a piss poor frame any better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just stated what a design judge does. He uses his experience to see if something like a frame is properly designed. You admit that you think you can do that from this statement. Then he quizzes a student about what he sees wrong. If the judge sees enough wrong no amount of fast talking from the student will convince him. If its marginal perhaps sufficient explanation can be given. But talking is only maybe 5% of the issue here. Therefore the design is the final deciding factor and not the talking. Of course like I said this is only possible with judges that know thier area and have confidence in it. Not always the case. But the system is not what's flawed. Just needs good people.

Basically what I want to emphasize is this: Design is NOT NOT NOT about presentation first. I've been a competitor that made only a half hearted attempt at design boards but a whole-hearted attempt at succeeding in the event and we made semi-finals in US two years in a row. I have now been a judge and accepted teams into finals that had just simple graphs and notebooks as backup.

Obviously Z I don't dismiss your opinion as I've listened and been courteous this long. But in the end you say the design event is a sham which awards showmanship and pretty displays. And having been a close part of the event I say that is JUST NOT TRUE. And I honestly don't beleive you have enough connection with the event to understand that. On the surface yes there are teams with nice stuff. But if you arranged teams in order of presentation quality the design results would be much, much different.

Dick Golembiewski

12-16-2005, 10:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charlie:
Sorry I have not replied to this thread but I have been flat out at work!

I appreciate all the replies. I think it is a good discussion to have. I especially appreciate your comments Frank, as UQ was a big question in my mind. I am sorry you chose to sit out design as from what I've heard it was much improved. I have great respect for what you've done and congrats on a great overall finish. Also, I encourage you to think about volunteering to judge. FSAE alums know better than anyone how this process works and in my opinon make the best judges. I think the process is good but it relies on good people to make it work. You can help be a part of making a process you think is wrong better.

Z I think some of your ideas are intriquing. I don't think FSAE scoring is perfect, especially considering the cost event so I think new ideas are good to consider. However this is just about design so I won't waiver too much.

I think the design event is very good. The thing it has to have, as I mentioned, is competent judges. Since they are all volunteers this can be tough. But I disagree that it takes 'at least a month' to see if someone is a competent designer. If this is true there is no hope. I certainly would vehemently disagree that a written exam can find these designers better than questioning from a competent judge. If this is true then the best designers all have 4.0 GPAs!

Sure I've heard the story that Gordon Murray was "found in a broom cupboard". Let me ask you this, did Bernie work with him in a broom cupboard for a month before he brought him out? If not how did he know he was any good?

Should we encourage students to do well in communication skills (essential for reaching thier potential) or should we find every possible way for them to avoid getting better at communication? No. I think even if it isn't a perfect system if you emphasize that students must be able to communicate properly to succeed that is a very good thing!!! Like I said I had a hell of a time in my first design review but it was a real eye-opener and the experience I had in those events made me a much better person and engineer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
a large proportion of FSAE frames I have seen are very badly laid out! Despite (or because of???) all the CAD/FEA/etc., many students seem to have no feeling for where the structural members should go to best carry the loads. Endless waffle about how the frame was "optimized" doesn't make a piss poor frame any better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just stated what a design judge does. He uses his experience to see if something like a frame is properly designed. You admit that you think you can do that from this statement. Then he quizzes a student about what he sees wrong. If the judge sees enough wrong no amount of fast talking from the student will convince him. If its marginal perhaps sufficient explanation can be given. But talking is only maybe 5% of the issue here. Therefore the design is the final deciding factor and not the talking. Of course like I said this is only possible with judges that know thier area and have confidence in it. Not always the case. But the system is not what's flawed. Just needs good people.

Basically what I want to emphasize is this: Design is NOT NOT NOT about presentation first. I've been a competitor that made only a half hearted attempt at design boards but a whole-hearted attempt at succeeding in the event and we made semi-finals in US two years in a row. I have now been a judge and accepted teams into finals that had just simple graphs and notebooks as backup.

Obviously Z I don't dismiss your opinion as I've listened and been courteous this long. But in the end you say the design event is a sham which awards showmanship and pretty displays. And having been a close part of the event I say that is JUST NOT TRUE. And I honestly don't beleive you have enough connection with the event to understand that. On the surface yes there are teams with nice stuff. But if you arranged teams in order of presentation quality the design results would be much, much different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put Charlie. You're one of the thousands who have benefitted from the educational experience these competitions provide. (As am I - 'lo those many years ago!)

Chris Boyden

12-16-2005, 03:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Should we encourage students to do well in communication skills (essential for reaching thier potential) or should we find every possible way for them to avoid getting better at communication? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, alot of engineers are quiet people...but they can definitely benefit from being articulate and well spoken. Having to stand up and defend a design with the spoken word is something that has to be done everyday.
I know that I have trouble with it.

When the boss asks, "hows it going?", "why did you do it this way?"....etc....if you can't answer basic questions without stepping on your tongue every time you speak, than the boss might walk away saying, "Man, that guy doesn't know his shit", even if he/she does.
Then you get pulled from projects and talked about behind your back for no good reason.
It's really good to be able to communicate complex technical stuff in such a way that makes it easy to understand.

12-17-2005, 05:53 PM

I plan on logging out of here at the end of the year (wasting too much time here http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). But before I go, some last comments regarding this thread:

PRESENTATION EVENT - I certainly agree with the many comments above that good engineers should be able to persausively argue their points of view.

Good engineers need many skills. For example they should be able to make good cost assessments of their designs. This is what the Cost event is for (supposedly). Accordingly, it is scored under "Cost Event".

Similarly, and as I have explained in several of the above posts, the students presentation skills should also be assessed. But that should be scored under "Presentation Event", because THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

For obvious reasons engineers like to think of themselves, foremostly, as good designers. At the moment the Design event rewards the good BS "presenters" by calling them good "designers". What next? Assess the students' golf swing, and their ability to lose graciously to the CEO on the golf course (because these are both important talents to develop in the corporate environment) and include these also in their Design scores???

Keep "Design Event" for design.

DESIGN EVENT - When I first came to this site, some nine months ago, I commented that I thought the "standard car" design was too complicated and fundamentally flawed in some aspects, and that better, simpler designs were possible.

To summarise very briefly;

Mainly because of the use of the four cylinder road bike engine, the standard car has poor mass distribution. The CG is too high for the desirable narrow track - due to upright engine with deep sump - resulting in lifting of inside wheels in corners. The CG is too far forward in the desirable short wheelbase - due to chain-drive, forward leaning cylinders - resulting in rear wheel spin out of slow corners. And the yaw inertia is too large - again because of engine shape pushing driver forward - resulting in less agility through slaloms, etc.

Furthermore, many aspects of the car are unnecessarily complicated - for example, the "pushrod and rocker" type suspensions that place the coilovers as high as possible, giving high CG, extra mass, flex, stiction, and cost.

I have argued these and other points, IMO quite rationally and persuasively, for these last nine months - ie. a lot longer than would be possible during a 20 minute Design assessment. There has been very little in the way of rational counter-arguments, either from the students or the judges. (Arguments such as "rockers give a better motion ratio for lighter springs and better damper control, and allow for rising rates, etc.", are, as I have pointed out quantitatively, nonsense. This is an example of "talking the talk" - ie. giving the "standard" expected answer, even when it is wrong.)

Instead of rational, technical arguments in support of the standard car, a great many of the responses have been along the lines of "I'm not going to go into specifics, but, Z, you've never been to FSAE, so you don't know what you are talking about...". Or as you put it, Charlie, in the earlier Design Event thread, "as an experienced FSAE'er I VEHEMENTLY disagree...", again, with no technical justification for your stance.

The end result of all this is that the Design event is encouraging FSAE to become a self-perpetuating system that turns out fundamentally flawed cars of the "standard" design.

Proof? The Design judges DO NOT penalize the poor design aspects of the standard car. This is most likely because the Design judges are ex-FSAE'ers who built just such cars themselves. Instead, bizarrely, they give well detailed versions of the standard but flawed car, supported by the standard but incorrect arguments noted above, high marks!

And much worse yet, the judges actively encourage new students to build these flawed standard cars!!! (There are many examples of these sorts of "judge's design recommendations" here and on other sites.) This can not be good for the development of future engineers.

I stand by the comment that I made on that first post nine months ago. Namely, if you want to do well overall in FSAE, then build a car that wins Endurance, and DON'T try to impress the Design judges.

Merry Xmas! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Frank

12-18-2005, 06:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I stand by the comment that I made on that first post nine months ago. Namely, if you want to do well overall in FSAE, then build a car that wins Endurance, and DON'T try to impress the Design judges. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

good idea to get a top 3 finish, but it probably wont get you first place

12-18-2005, 06:49 PM

Frank,

From FSAE-Aus 2005;

Design; 1st = 150pts, 24th (last) = 45pts, Difference = 105 pts.

Endurance/FE; 1st = 374pts, 3rd (THIRD!!!) = 214pts, Difference = 160pts!!!.

Win big in Enduro and you push everyone else out the back door. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Z

Denny Trimble

12-18-2005, 07:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
At the moment the Design event rewards the good BS "presenters" by calling them good "designers".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're just talking out your ass. Yes, there is a hurdle for teams to get over, getting into design semifinals. But once they are there (10 to 15 cars in the US event, typically), presentation skills take a back seat to engineering communication.

For two or three hours, judges walk from car to car. Some ask about test methods and want to see data. Some push, pull, shake, and get in the cars. Some do everything they can to dismantle your justification for doing X ("If you don't have any data for that cush drive, then you didn't really engineer anything, did you?" (our only data was binary - halfshafts broke before, now they don't)).

It's really a great thing to be interrogated by some of the great minds from motorsport and production cars. Z, I know you are an "outsider" by choice, so you won't care about names or credentials, but I think you're seriously misjudging what happens in the design tent.

Dick Golembiewski

12-19-2005, 11:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
I plan on logging out of here at the end of the year (wasting too much time here http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). But before I go, some last comments regarding this thread:

...

I have argued these and other points, IMO quite rationally and persuasively, for these last nine months - ie. a lot longer than would be possible during a 20 minute Design assessment. There has been very little in the way of rational counter-arguments, either from the students or the judges.

The end result of all this is that the Design event is encouraging FSAE to become a self-perpetuating system that turns out fundamentally flawed cars of the "standard" design.

Proof? The Design judges DO NOT penalize the poor design aspects of the standard car. This is most likely because the Design judges are ex-FSAE'ers who built just such cars themselves. Instead, bizarrely, they give well detailed versions of the standard but flawed car, supported by the standard but incorrect arguments noted above, high marks!

And much worse yet, the judges actively encourage new students to build these flawed standard cars!!! (There are many examples of these sorts of "judge's design recommendations" here and on other sites.) This can not be good for the development of future engineers.

I stand by the comment that I made on that first post nine months ago. Namely, if you want to do well overall in FSAE, then build a car that wins Endurance, and DON'T try to impress the Design judges.

Merry Xmas! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric (Z),

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I don't know of any winner that hasn't figured out that you have to do well in the endurance. That's almost a no brainer given the points distribution.

On the other hand, as a judge, I try not to reply to technical/design comments with specific answers here, simply because I think it is inappropriate. It is not my place to tell the students what to build; rather it is their job to justify their designs to me.

I take exception to your premise that the design competition is won by B.S.'ers and not by design. For some reason, you seem to think that we never look at what is presented, but rather simply listen to the students. That is incorrect.

- Dick

Mike Cook

12-19-2005, 01:02 PM

Eric, I enjoy listening to you ramble on. I think many times you offer insightful opinions, and certainly different perspectives on things. However, I see a certain amount of stubbornness on both yours and your critic's part. There seems like there are much better ways to change people's minds then on the internet. Thus, why don't you become a design judge? Looking at the amount of time you spend on this website, I'm guessing that you would have enough free time to do the judging thing. Seriously, this internet argumentative bullshit isn't working; Do something that would have an impact on us fsae'rs.
PS. I'd have no problem being in your design tent.

Eddie Martin

12-19-2005, 08:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Z:
Mainly because of the use of the four cylinder road bike engine, the standard car has poor mass distribution. The CG is too high for the desirable narrow track - due to upright engine with deep sump - resulting in lifting of inside wheels in corners. The CG is too far forward in the desirable short wheelbase - due to chain-drive, forward leaning cylinders - resulting in rear wheel spin out of slow corners. And the yaw inertia is too large - again because of engine shape pushing driver forward - resulting in less agility through slaloms, etc.

Furthermore, many aspects of the car are unnecessarily complicated - for example, the "pushrod and rocker" type suspensions that place the coilovers as high as possible, giving high CG, extra mass, flex, stiction, and cost.

I have argued these and other points, IMO quite rationally and persuasively, for these last nine months - ie. a lot longer than would be possible during a 20 minute Design assessment. There has been very little in the way of rational counter-arguments, either from the students or the judges. (Arguments such as "rockers give a better motion ratio for lighter springs and better damper control, and allow for rising rates, etc.", are, as I have pointed out quantitatively, nonsense. This is an example of "talking the talk" - ie. giving the "standard" expected answer, even when it is wrong.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Z what you saw at Carrum Downs in 2002 was probably not a typical competition. The track was the smallest and tightest layout any fsae competition has ever been run at, I think. Go to Pontiac or some of the other Australian competitions venues at say Lang Lang, Tailem Bend or Werribee and you would see a very different type of course. Normally a lot faster, wider and generally more open.

The cars you would have seen were produced by mostly inexperienced teams and so they weren't as well packaged as they could have been. Most probably had too wider track and longer wheelbase for that event and to a lesser extent a normal fsae layout. From memory only Tokyo, Wollongong and RIT were under the fsae "benchmark" of 227 kg (500 lbs). So taking things like this into account it would have made most of the cars appear to be less than nimble in slaloms and around slow corners. Lifting wheels and spinning out was also probably a result of the inexperienced teams present.

Most cars in Oz are now much better packaged and the teams are more experienced, with lighter cars. If you ever get to one of the American competitions watch Texas A&M, UTA or Cornell to name a few in the Enduro and you wont be saying how slow the cars are. These cars are moving seriously quickly, watch some of the videos on UTA's website and you will see how big and fast a normal fsae track is. This is the 2003 Enduro track. http://maepro.uta.edu/fsae/vidoes/KH%202003%20FSAE%20enduro%205b.mpg
I think this is from the first Formula Student, an all time classic FSAE video.
http://maepro.uta.edu/fsae/trackpages/zips/KH1998England5F98.zip

I agree that a majority of the cars are too complex / sophisticated for the teams building them, in terms of human resources, and I agree that the majority of the cars should be simpler and hence built earlier, better tested and understood. I think a cause of this problem is that in, what i assume is, a normal university program many side projects; forced induction, wings, pneumatic shifters etc., are run to give students a project to do through out the year to gain academic credit. When the item gets pretty well developed it will normally go on the car and this can lead to cars having lots of "extra" systems on them. In regards to having a "standard" 600-4 engine layout there are a lot of advantages to them; cost, availability and reliability plus if these cars were put into production for the "weekend autocrosser" I don't think he would want to build a custom single cylinder engine from a small block motor every time it let go or had problems. He would want to go to the nearest bike wreckers grab an engine and put it straight into the car. Also most teams build custom low profile sumps these days to lower cg. as much as possible. While the 600-4 is probably not the very best setup for these cars they are very good and hence used by a lot of teams.

Look at the top 3 in design at the 2005 Oz comp; a carbon tub with kinetics suspension, variable runner length plenum etc, a very well packaged car single cylinder with carbon tub and 10 inch wheels and a simple space frame single, none of them "standard" fsae cars. Check the results from about the last 10 Pontiac competitions and I think you will find that the enduro winner has also won overall.