FSAE + Innovation = Dead?

[FFDave]

Why is it that when a team of students build a car that is against the so called "norms"� and is slightly outside the box, why is it that they are criticized by not only the scrutineers, the judges but also advisors. They receive praise from other students but get put down by the senior officials. Is FSAE a competition for engineering students designed to develop and foster ingenuity or merely a competition to win?

What I am referring to is the reception a team received at the recent Australasian Formula SAE event in Melbourne. As soon as their car was rolled off the trailer and taken to scrutineering it, and the team were lectured by senior officials that the car they had built was "not what the competition was about and that it was too technical, complicated and pointless in its design"�. There was nothing overly complicated about the car nor its design. Certainly nothing in comparison to the events thoroughly deserved and stunning winning car from Western Australia. It was purely designed with a different approach to the "standard"� FSAE car. The officials came across as narrow minded and stuck in their views. Instead of looking at the car for its many different and creative ideas, it was heavily criticized and scrutinized.

The car itself in my opinion was stunning and unfortunately did not compete in the dynamic events due to a clutch issue (One of the only parts on the car carried over from the previous first year car). The officials commented to the team that they had "bitten off more than they could chew"� and implied that the team had somehow failed. All this without even knowing anything about the team or the weeks building up to the competition. The fact that the car was nearly ready to compete less the noise test and brake test was a credit to the extremely dedicated team considering the events which unfolded leading up to the comp.

They were told they should copy other successful teams designs (isn't that a form of plagiarism). Not only do I consider the comments made by certain officials irresponsible and inappropriate but I think they are the ones who clearly do not know what the competition is about. I'm of the opinion that the car they built is what the competition is about and FSAE and motorsport will move forward if more teams thought outside of the box and took a gamble on an idea. What sort of an engineer came up with the fan car, active suspension, the twin chassis Lotus, zero-shift or front torque transfer? The one who follows others or the one who takes a different approach. They took on an ambitious project and I hope that they can find sufficient funding to get to Formula Student UK or other European or USA events because I look forward to seeing it on the track. Nothing Ventured Nothing Gained. Now that I've put you all to sleep, your thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

[FFDave]

Why is it that when a team of students build a car that is against the so called "norms"� and is slightly outside the box, why is it that they are criticized by not only the scrutineers, the judges but also advisors. They receive praise from other students but get put down by the senior officials. Is FSAE a competition for engineering students designed to develop and foster ingenuity or merely a competition to win?

What I am referring to is the reception a team received at the recent Australasian Formula SAE event in Melbourne. As soon as their car was rolled off the trailer and taken to scrutineering it, and the team were lectured by senior officials that the car they had built was "not what the competition was about and that it was too technical, complicated and pointless in its design"�. There was nothing overly complicated about the car nor its design. Certainly nothing in comparison to the events thoroughly deserved and stunning winning car from Western Australia. It was purely designed with a different approach to the "standard"� FSAE car. The officials came across as narrow minded and stuck in their views. Instead of looking at the car for its many different and creative ideas, it was heavily criticized and scrutinized.

The car itself in my opinion was stunning and unfortunately did not compete in the dynamic events due to a clutch issue (One of the only parts on the car carried over from the previous first year car). The officials commented to the team that they had "bitten off more than they could chew"� and implied that the team had somehow failed. All this without even knowing anything about the team or the weeks building up to the competition. The fact that the car was nearly ready to compete less the noise test and brake test was a credit to the extremely dedicated team considering the events which unfolded leading up to the comp.

They were told they should copy other successful teams designs (isn't that a form of plagiarism). Not only do I consider the comments made by certain officials irresponsible and inappropriate but I think they are the ones who clearly do not know what the competition is about. I'm of the opinion that the car they built is what the competition is about and FSAE and motorsport will move forward if more teams thought outside of the box and took a gamble on an idea. What sort of an engineer came up with the fan car, active suspension, the twin chassis Lotus, zero-shift or front torque transfer? The one who follows others or the one who takes a different approach. They took on an ambitious project and I hope that they can find sufficient funding to get to Formula Student UK or other European or USA events because I look forward to seeing it on the track. Nothing Ventured Nothing Gained. Now that I've put you all to sleep, your thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

[scooter2131]

Dave,

I noticed you said "young team". I think what immediately sets off design judges and other advisors is when teams try to start off with lots of innovation without truly and completely understanding the fundamentals of what lies behind the performance of the cars we build. Only after teams understand the fundamentals can they optimize the "traditional" design. After that innovation seems to be well applauded in my mind. It's innovation that's not thoroughly thought through or has no history backing up the design process that pisses off design judges. That's my $.02.

[Marshall Grice]

having not seen the competiton,the car in question, nor the team members who built said car, I would say that a car that didn't run well enough to participate or finish the dynamic events also doesn't meet the intent of the rules for fsae. Innovation in fsae is obviously a hot topic right now but comments made to the effect of "everybody hates us be cause we innovated too much" seem a bit out of line. performance speaks for itself. as a side note "bling" has no effect on competition results.

[RacingManiac]

what exactly does the car have and what ticks the scruitineer off on the car to make them make such comment? I think we all saw the picture of the car posted in the FSAE-AUS thread, and it is a stunning looking car, but nothing I'd expect to be that far off the norm. At least without a closer inspection. Can at least someone give us a run over of the car?

[FFDave]

When i say young team i was referring to years in the competition and not knowledge. A sixth overall in 2004 for a first year attempt in a highly competitive series such as FSAE Australia shows that knowledge was not an issue in my opinion. I am not trying to start a debate in relation to a particular car as there are many other examples but more of a debate over the merits a team gets for innovation and creativity in this competition.

[Storbeck]

I've heard a few times about how the judges and scruiteneers supposedly blasted this car, but I still don't know what for.

I thought it looked like a very well done car.

Please give us some specifics. What was said by who, what was wrong? Etc...

[scooter2131]

Point noted Dave. I was not aware of the previous performance of Auckland nor do I assume that anyone on this forum or any team lacks knowledge. Infact I feel that 90% of people involved in FSAE know more than I do. I'm just here doing what I love.

This discussion is interesting to say the least, infact it started this summer when a lot of people spoke up about wanting more points for design and less emphasis to be placed on performance. It's obvious that the organizers of FSAE are more concerned with performance than design and innovation. When the FSAE rules come out with point weightings equally distributed between design and dynamic events, then I agree, no one should be sticking their nose up at too much innovation.

In the mean time, everyone should take the condescending view on innovation with a grain of salt. Everyone is going to have their own opinions. If a design judge doesn't like something, there are proably good reasons behind it. But at the same time, they are human and have their own biases about everything.

[Greg H]

Have any of you even checked out their web site (http://www.fsae.co.nz)? It looks to me like they had a pretty good idea of what they were getting themselves into. There are some cad drawings and manufacturing photos on there to give you a more detailed view of the car.
I have always wanted to stray away from the 'standard' car, but there's got to be a perceived advantage for trying something new. I can understand the judges if they thought it was innovation for the sake of innovation, but maybe the team's motive wasn't fully explained.

[PedalOnTheRight]

Great points Dave, although I do feel there is much more risk for a new team to create an "outlandish" in their first effort. Yet when do we ever see veteran teams coming out with radically new concepts and innovations? Cornell is great at what they do because they seem to improve on previous designs each year and have generated a tried and true FSAE model that impresses judges. But is their car really innovative and new, or an excellent representation of optimization?

I believe if a team can make a completely innovative example that does well dynamically, and is explained through detailed testing and analysis, no one should fault them. Bravo Auckland (but bring some new clutches!)

[FFDave]

Im certainly not going to go into names Storbeck as everyone has their own opinions and although i dont agree with them it certainly doesnt mean they are wrong. I would like to get peoples opinions on why the "tried and true" approach to a design is considered the best way. I would never dare to start a debate on Monocoque vs Spaceframe or Aero Vs No Aero but if team members have a strong knowledge in a certain area and believe they can do it better, smarter and cheaper then why are we still advised to take a more conservative approach to minimise the risk of failure? Wouldnt you learn more from trying these ideas.

[Alexandre D.]

The judges will never argue about a car that is too innovative if you can prove that the car is better (in the FSAE guideline).

An innovation without the standard part as reference is a gamble. An innovation referenced to a standard (and proven on the same car) is an improvement (if the innovation performs better in the spirit of the competition).
An innovation worthy of implantation is a future standard.

If that team could prove that their car performed better than the standard one, then judges were wrong to criticize them. Else, you can't blame the judges.

[magicweed]

I think Dave just hit the nail on the head. We are dealing with not a lack of innovation, but an environment that tends to stiffle creativity. When building a car that is intended to compete in less than one calendar year, from concept to track, creative ideas may need to be squashed in favor of the "easier, tried and atrue, standard" thing to do. We are under a lot of pressure from ourselves as engineers to make the best car we can, but also have a responsibility to sponsors/schools/teammates to not let them down. This is a great weight, and none of us I believe intend to go to competition hoping to fail. However, we are afraid of failing infront of everyone. This forces a lot of teams into the conservative design approach, which leads to cookie cutter cars. We can't fear failure, and we can't let others make us fear failure.

I believe Edison's quote goes "I didn't find one way to make a light bulb. I found 1000 ways to NOT make a lightbulb" If there's no possibility of failure, then you can't really succeed, can you.

In other words, get the car running, start testing, and forget about anyone who doubts you simply based on their fear that you tried to do too much. I mean, what do they have invested in your car? If there was some sort of critcal design flaw I could understand, but when it comes to the drive of young engineers that really love what they do, anything can happen. Good luck to you guys, hope the car works well when it goes. It looks amazing from the pics.

[PatClarke]

Dave,
When the Kiwis presented their car in Melbourne, I'm sure they were not lectured by anyone about their ideas or presentation.
I had read their design review and was looking forward to seeing the car, and was quietly tipping it to win Design!
When the team arrived, they were simply not ready, and their car never passed tech. Thats what disappointed people in Werribee! The team showed so much promise last year and their new design was extremely interesting to say the least, but again, it wasn't ready!

My personal thoughts were that they had built a mini Formula 3000 car rather than a FSAE car, and as a result the car looked too big and needlessly complex. It was also clear there were some strange personal dynamics occurring in the team, and some team members I spoke with were disappointed at the lack of overall management which had allowed the project to get out of control.
When talking with the team, I kept hearing sad tales of being let down by outside suppliers or sponsors. Permitting a complex project to get to a deadline without securing crucial parts (like monocoque) or having a 'Plan B', is a management failure! Sorry, but thats it! and blaming others for your own failures is never productive.
I am not at all surprised that there is some acrimonious mail flying around because there were several heartbroken Kiwis in Werribee, and I felt sorry for them, but the simple fact is that they were there with a car that was not ready to run, and they were unable to make it run.
There are sound lessons to be learned and I am positive the best learners will be the Kiwis themselves. FSAE is primarily about project management and thats where the team failed.
As for the opening line in this thread about innovation being frowned on in FSAE, that is simply nonsense! There were innovative cars at Werribee, and there was little on the Kiwi car that was actually 'innovative'! Complicated, yes, innovative, not really.
I am NOT denigrating the team efforts, however, criticism of their effort is warranted, and I sincerely hope that anything I have said is seen as honest and well meaning criticism rather than simply 'bagging' them.
Cheers
Pat

[FFDave]

Thanks for your comments Stan as you can see exactly what I am trying to get at. I suppose it depends on which path you choose to take in this competition. Thanks also to Pat as I was eagerly awaiting your input on this subject and I agree with some of your comments. For a car with a full aero kit (and correct me if I'm wrong) 220-225kg is quite reasonable for a car with aero. Could you expand on the car being too complex? If the car needs a team of engineers to run as you commented at the competition then I believe the winning entry would need 2 F1 teams plus a few NASA scientists thrown in for good measure. But anyway Thankyou for your comments.

Furthermore to what the thread was intended to be about – Perhaps in the modern motorsport age with many new systems and innovations being immediately banned because of an apparent performance advantage, there is no longer a need to teach young budding motorsport engineers about innovation and creativity and to purely focus on optimization and incremental improvements?.

[KevinD]

granted i have only one year of experience at this, i think many of you are missing the point of the competition. and i'll tell you now it is not innovation. there are only a fraction of the total score devoted to being innovation, and thus, after reading these two threads i can only shake my head and wonder why people put so much time into it. from my understanding, the judges are out there looking for the best TEAM. a team is the only thing that will make your car finish the endurance. leadership, and good communication are all key to this, and these are the key aspects an employer will look for an employee (and thus the reason for hosting these competitions). This is why cornell wins year after year. they are hardly innovative... the car looks very similiar year after year. but they execute better then everyone. a winning team will avoid the active suspension system, or homemade v-8, in turn for using a tried and true suspension with a F4i engine with loads of testing and evaluation with optimization. This is what is worth the most points in design. knowing your stuff about everything on the car, how it theoretically should function, and how it does function in the real world. not just how innovative your car is.

[Storbeck]

I still haven't heard any explanation about what any judges might have disliked about the car other than it not being finished.

The "innovation vs. non-inovation" thing is irrelevent in my opinion. What about the car was disliked by any or all judges? I see the tipped back motor, requiring a dry sump. I can see some possible performance advantages to that, as well as the obvious extra complication it adds. I think it's a great idea, if you can get it to work. The car apparently did not ever actually run, but that doesn't mean there was anything fundamentally wrong with the car, it means a team bit off more than they could chew. They did not build the fastest car they were capeable of building, they tried to build one that was faster, and came up short. Though it appears they made it oh so painfully close.

It is a beautiful car in my opinion. What was wrong with the car? What did these nasty judges and scruitineers say about it?

[Z]

FFDave,

Name names! Be specific about who said what about which bits of the car. There is no doubt that the officials and judges have their prejudices. Getting these out in the open benefits everyone in the long run.

Next try to get the car sorted and over to some of the other comps to prove your point (I'm assuming you're part of the team).

In the meantime you can remind (the more civilised North-eastern) Australians about the RL Tri-Nations result! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Z

[Denny Trimble]

Kevin,
I agree. All this talk of innovation, why there isn't enough of it / why it is perceived to be criticized by judges, seems misguided to me.

<unsolicited rambling>

The point of the competition is to win. It's not to make a novel device. If a student takes up resources to further their own education, at the expense of the team's placing, that's a disservice to his teammates, IMHO. That's why it's a competition, not a research conference!

You may say "but I'll learn more if I do <insert crazy new project here>". But, I would argue that the pursuit of a winning car will teach you to work towards a defined goal, and you will learn plenty outside your current realm of knowledge!

Execution is far more important than innovation if you want to win in motorsport. In FSAE, this mostly translates into experience, management, facilities, and manpower. If you don't understand the design problem to begin with, you won't design a good car. If you can't manufacture it, you won't have a car at all. If you don't train your drivers well, they won't get within 4 seconds of the car's capabilities. If you don't do durability testing, you will fail endurance. If you don't do performance testing, your car will be slow.

Innovating, on top of all of the work it takes to execute well, is quite difficult for an FSAE team, with revolving student populations, classes, jobs, and girlfriends. It takes a sick person to start drawing the next car before they're done with the current car (Good job UWA!).

The 2005 team here at UW was the pinnacle of my experience in FSAE (I'm not involved this year). With several years of experience between the four or five key designers, and improved fabrication skills, we executed very well, and got a very good result. Was there anything on the car that had never been done before in motorsport? No. But, we understood the design problem much more from the beginning, and it showed in the end product.

</unsolicited rambling>

[Storbeck]

I'd be interested to hear Z's opinion on this car.

For some reason Z's opinion is always entertaining one way or another, it usually ends up in either some enlightenment or a bloody slug fest/pissing match.

Seems to me like the only really unusual part of the car is the orientation of the moter. Since these motors are just not the right shape to fit into these cars, they tried to put it in there in an orientation that works better for packaging. Seems like a good idea to me, I've always wanted to put it in backwards, it never occured to me that tipping it way back might get some or all of the gains with possibly less complication/compromise.

I see no reason why any judges would want thier comments to be kept a secret, though one should be very carefull to not misrepresent a judges opinion.

[Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KevinD:
... i think many of you are missing the point of the competition. and i'll tell you now it is not innovation.

... a winning team will avoid the active suspension system, ... in turn for using a tried and true suspension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, so what about UWA, the winners of FSAE-A???

UWA didn't have "active" suspension, but they did have a radically different one to the "tried and true suspension". They probably didn't score many "innovation" points for their suspension (anyone know how many?), but apparently it did help a lot with their car's handling, which in turn helped them pick up a swag of dynamic points.

(Edit: Should also add that ALL the losing cars - ie. everyone but UWA - used the "tried and true" suspension. So obviously a stupid idea to put the "T&T" suspension on your car, huh? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The gist of FFDave's argument is true - the majority of H. Sapiens are terrified of change. So much so that they even criticise others for straying from the flock.

Z

[Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Storbeck:
For some reason Z's opinion is always entertaining one way or another, it usually ends up in either some enlightenment or a bloody slug fest/pissing match. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Posts coming thick and fast... (see above, Andy).

For the more sensitive souls out there; Please realize I am always smiling/grining when posting here.

Or perhaps you might want to put Grandpa Simpson's voice to my posts. Or Homer's...???

Z http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[FFDave]

Once again thanks for all your experience and insight. Many interesting and important points have been made and i hope everyone is learning something or thinking about it a little more. Just for the record i agree with most of you. For the record i am not currently a member of the team although i wish i was. And the engine did run at the competition.

[RacingManiac]

Does that engine also reverses intake and exhaust?

I think most judges are for innovation at FSAE, but they need you to be able to back up and validate your ideas for them to actually buy into your point. It certainly is hard IMO, for a young team to put a lot of different ideas into the car without having the ability to back it up that why it is better to do it that way, instead of the way that many adapts, and the present your finding and so on to the judge such that they know you've made an educated decision instead of a blind shot in the dark. Design aspect of the competition in my view is in the presentation, not the design itself. And to present well you need to have all your "i" dotted and "t" crossed. That I think is the hardest thing for a young team to do in FSAE. As many pointed out that the craftsmanship and engineering that goes into these cars are so high now even for an inexperienced team, that you really need to be able to convey your design very well to really wow the judge....

[KevinD]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KevinD:
... i think many of you are missing the point of the competition. and i'll tell you now it is not innovation.

... a winning team will avoid the active suspension system, ... in turn for using a tried and true suspension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, so what about UWA, the winners of FSAE-A???

UWA didn't have "active" suspension, but they did have a radically different one to the "tried and true suspension". They probably didn't score many "innovation" points for their suspension (anyone know how many?), but apparently it did help a lot with their car's handling, which in turn helped them pick up a swag of dynamic points.

(Edit: Should also add that ALL the losing cars - ie. everyone but UWA - used the "tried and true" suspension. So obviously a stupid idea to put the "T&T" suspension on your car, huh? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The gist of FFDave's argument is true - the majority of H. Sapiens are terrified of change. So much so that they even criticise others for straying from the flock.

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what about UWA? that team has their shit together. they build a fantastic car, and know what they are doing. even so, look at the results of 05 detroit. cornell won the event. UWA got 12th in the autocross, which cost them 47 points. they lost the overall by 37.

i'm not going to argue the merits of building an innovative car. i just hope my comments help direct new teams in building something simple, and make sure it works before pushing the envolope with innovation.

[Nick McNaughton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FFDave:
For a car with a full aero kit (and correct me if I'm wrong) 220-225kg is quite reasonable for a car with aero. Could you expand on the car being too complex? If the car needs a team of engineers to run as you commented at the competition then I believe the winning entry would need 2 F1 teams plus a few NASA scientists thrown in for good measure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found this pretty funny, why on earth do you think that?

220kg with aero and a few new systems for a 2nd year team is more than reasonable, it's very impressive. Our second year car wasn't anywhere near that weight and had no wings, but it was our earliest finished car ever.

[Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KevinD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
The gist of FFDave's argument is true - the majority of H. Sapiens are terrified of change. So much so that they even criticise others for straying from the flock. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i'm not going to argue the merits of building an innovative car. i just hope my comments help direct new teams...[to not innovate] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I rest my case. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[Bowtie Man]

Z
I'm interested in your opinion when I ask, was it the fact that UWA had an innovative suspension (to my knowledge unseen before at FSAE) or that UWA tested the system for (i believe) 3 years before they implimented it on the car, that they were praised for what they had achieved?

I am to believe that it's not the innovation that catches the judges attention it's the implimentation, the documentation that comes from testing, and the knowledge that is portrayed by the team or members doing the innovation. If you can explain everything that is on your car and WHY it is there, there is little reason for someone to tell you different.

Luc

[Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bowtie Man:
Z
I'm interested in your opinion when I ask, was it the fact that UWA had an innovative suspension (to my knowledge unseen before at FSAE) or that UWA tested the system for (i believe) 3 years before they implimented it on the car, that they were praised for what they had achieved?

I am to believe that it's not the innovation that catches the judges attention it's the implimentation, the documentation... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Luc,

Only the FSAE-A judges can answer your above question, but I agree that it is more likely the implementation/documentation/knowledge/etc. that counts when it comes to the Design event.

UWA is a good example of an apparently well-organised and well-funded team that can do both types of development - ie. POLISHING and INNOVATING. These two are NOT mutually exclusive.

I have been looking at the Oz comps scores and will make some comments on that thread tomorrow - really have to get some work done now!!.

Z

[Eddie Martin]

I think nerves were on edge and tempers were a bit hot when the conversation took place. The intentions of the talk from the "senior official" were only in what I'm sure he saw as the best interests of the team. He was only trying to pass on some knowledge from his vast experience in motorsport and the real world of engineering to the team and it was taken in the wrong way. No names but do a bit of research into the officials resume and you will see he knows his stuff and has been there and done that.

Like any engineering product you need to be able to back up your claims about its performance in the real world, which is why the competition has dynamic events. To show that the product that you have designed does what you said it would and fulfills the requirements of the event, scoring a 1000 points.

The only team I have seen in recent years who have done some "innovative"� things is UWA and the judges and officials haven't exactly been against their car. From memory they have done pretty well in design and overall. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Mechanimal]

It would be good to note at this point that said design judge also had a problem with lap belts that are tightened by pulling down, stating almost no formula style cars use this style of belt. I have it on good authority that almost all do (FFDave can back me up on this??), in which case I get the feeling he may not quite know nearly as much as he is given credit for. Just because a CV looks good don't mean the person has any substance....

My personal feeling on what happened is that both the timing, audience and content of some comments made during scrutineering were entirely inappropriate and could be construed in a number of ways most of which are small minded (though not all).

I sincerely hope the Auckland boys get that car running and into an overseas comp as I think it needs to run to prove a point to a lot of people, failing that develop it into a working model for next years Aussie comp, because that car is gorgeous!!!

[Bryan Hagenauer]

We replaced our pull-up belts with a set of pull-down belts and absolutely without a doubt hated them. It was impossible to get them as tight as the pull-up due to the cockpit sides and leverage, and a pain to get tight at all. Those belts were immediatly swapped back to the old ones. So while I don't know what formula cars run, I know that our team will never run pull-downs.

[PatClarke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">in which case I get the feeling he may not quite know nearly as much as he is given credit for. Just because a CV looks good don't mean the person has any substance.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmmm, Macanimal, I hapen to know the gentleman in question doesnt have a CV! He doesn't need one! As Eddie suggested, you should do a little Googling. If you can't find anything, then put 'Ralt' into the search panel!
I have never heard one word from this gentleman that wasn't worth listening to, including the time he gave me a bollocking for swearing!
Pat

[Jim bob]

Thats a nice looking car. I think its visually appealing and functional. Although it does have a few sharp edges http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Storbeck]

"They probably didn't score many "innovation" points for their suspension (anyone know how many?)"

I believe Western Austrailia has more than once gotten a perfect 150 out of 150 in design, so the answer to how many points for inovation would be:

All of them.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Andy

[KevinD]

incorrect. if you have seen a score sheet you would know that few of the points are actually awarded for innovation. like i said before, it is your complete knowledge and understand of how the car was sopposed to work, and how it really does work. UWA had all of this. if you have actually been in the design comp, you would know that many of the questions the judges ask you are not even related to your car at all. they are generalized questions to test your knowledge.

[Ben Beacock]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Storbeck:
"They probably didn't score many "innovation" points for their suspension (anyone know how many?)"

I believe Western Austrailia has more than once gotten a perfect 150 out of 150 in design, so the answer to how many points for inovation would be:

All of them.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Andy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The scores on the judging sheets don't necessarily translate into the final score. I beleive it would be possible for the winner of design to have less than perfect in a category and still get the top score of 150 based on their 'ranking'.

[FFDave]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Suddenlee:
He doesn't need one! As Eddie suggested, you should do a little Googling. If you can't find anything, then put 'Ralt' into the search panel!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The person Mechanimal is refering to was not Ron Tauranac just for the record Pat http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We all have a tremendous amount of respect for Ron and would never ever think of not taking advice from him.

[Mechanimal]

Was definately not referring to Ron Tauranac, FFDave is correct I have a huge amount of respect for him and what he has achieved, he is an invaluable resource to have associated with the competition.

I do feel the competition and many of the teams are often taken overly seriously and that somewhere along the way some of the spirit of the competition in terms of creativity and as a development and learning experience has been lost. Some of this is reflected inside universities themselves where the average student is only concerned with grades, in FSAE people seem to be obsessed with winning. Although a drive for success is crucial I believe the competition serves a bigger purpose. By building the same car year after year with only minor changes may get results on the scoreboard but as a good friend of mine reminded me it is the journey that is the more important part of a destination.

Now please don't construe what I am saying as me saying it is all like I have said, (its more the vibe of the thing!!) I heard many comments amoungst teams of people saying that that they were over FSAE due to the attitudes of groups of their own teams.

[Frank "Ruska" Roeske]

Talking about inovation is nice. I would love to see more innovation in FSAE. But many Teams can´t build a standart car which complete 22 km. A very importand people in F1 said "You must finsih first!".

What i learned as student from these project was project management, time management and recourses management.

As engineer it is all about management. In industry your day looks like that: 20 percent engineering vs. 80% management.

For the kiwi´s: i love your car, what´s happend to you is real world. Suppliers didn´t deliver in time, and time is ticking away. Maybe you didn´t fo well @ the event, but for your future as person and as engineer it was a good expierence.

So before thinking about innovations,think about recourses and time. If you can finish your car in time and your innovations helpes to improve the performance, than no judge will downgrade you.

[Storbeck]

"incorrect. if you have seen a score sheet you would know that few of the points are actually awarded for innovation."

What I meant was that they got all of the points available for inovation.

I'm looking at a score sheat that says you can get up to 15 points out of 150 for inovation. Western Austrailia got all 150 points in design at FSAE 04, FSAE 05, and FSAEAUS 05. I'm assuming in order to get a perfect 150 score you would need to get all 15 "innovation" points.

[KevinD]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mechanimal:
Although a drive for success is crucial I believe the competition serves a bigger purpose. By building the same car year after year with only minor changes may get results on the scoreboard but as a good friend of mine reminded me it is the journey that is the more important part of a destination.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

amen to that!

storbeck, in that case, yes i would assume that you would need all 15 points in innovation to get a perfect 150, however i have no idea how the tallying of the points between judges goes, and i would assume someone always gets a perfect 150 (but again, i don't know for sure)

[BeaverGuy]

The score sheet doesn't determine your actual score in design. It is used to rank you according to the other teams. The team that has the best design overall will get the full points.

[Buckingham]

A quick $.02 on how to deal with a design judge who criticizes your design. Show them test data regarding the decision you made! Every decision is a compromise. You will almost always get one judge who agrees with your theory and one who doesn't. The only way to please them both is to show them data that supports your decision. Many judges will even give you a significant amount of credit if you show them data that says your decision was in fact wrong, provided you have a good founded theory as to why you made the decision in the 1st place. (They will of course expect you to make the appropriate redesign next year)

If the judge still doesn't like your idea, they may start to question your data (uncertainty, calibration, statistical significance, constants/variables, etc). If you are prepared to answer these questions, you should be able to convince even the toughest of judges that you are at least "not wrong". http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The best thing you can do after you are done talking to a judge is to cordially invite them to further your discussions back in your paddock when they have some free time. Even the most critical of judges will likely appreciate the humility it takes to ask them to tell you why they think you are wrong.

[Disco]

I have to completely agree with the comments from both Eddie and Pat.

I also find it disappointing the negative comments (from FFdave, Mechanimal and Moke), and lack of respect to the officials, design judges, scrutineers etc. Most donate their time for free and volunteer out of passion for the competition.

I was present at the last two attempts of tech inspection before the car was finally passed. On the second last occasion the car was presented in a far from "ready to race" state. The rear wing had not been bolted on correctly, the pedal tray was not bolted in, there was no inspection hole on the front roll hoop (to name a few). This in itself brings further attention to it, let along the lack of respect it showed to the process of tech inspection.

On the last occasion the tallest driver had extensive issues with the driver egress (initially at some 8 seconds). Eventually the scrutineering team(including this "senoir official") let them through thanks due to the slow response time of the time keepers finger on the start button!!

I do wish the best to the team, and hope their steep learning curve can be looked upon in a positive manner in the future, but please do not blame the the very body that make the competition possible.

Regards
Steve Price
Tech Scrutineer FSAE-A
2004-2005

[ben]

It sounds like the car was unfinished. Nothing will turn a design judge off quicker than a load of new and untried stuff that isn't ready for comp. It says you project managed badly and/or attempted something beyond your means.

Arguments about conservative judges just don't wash when UWA are praised and score the highest points total on record. The difference is that they are a well driled team with a well tested and well justified (from and engineering POV) product. It is full of novel features that are very definitely not a "standard" fsae car.

When you have all that and still get shitcanned maybe we might be more sympathetic...

Ben

[Michael Royce]

Pat Clarke, Eddie Martin and Steve Price have already coverered most of the technical items about what happened to the Auckland car at Werribee. But as the "senior official" mentioned in this thread, I would like to add a couple of comments.

Firstly, as Steve mentioned, after the scrutineer inspecting the car had to go onto "page 2" for space to write his list of items that had to be rectified, and the afore-mentioned driver egress problem, it became apparent that the team was not properly prepared for the competition. I tried to give the team some perspective based on my previous 30 Formula SAE events. Apparently a number of bystanders, including DaveFF, thought that my comments were inappropriate. Dave, I know how much work goes into one of these cars, how many long nights there are, and how grades can suffer! I also believe that the primary purpose of the competition is that it provides a very important piece of the education of our young engineers. Learning is what it is about. And as Frank R. has said, project management is extremely important in the real world, and in Formula SAE. This is where the Auckland team fell short. I admit, having sensed the reaction of a couple of the team members, I was concernd that they had misunderstood my commnets, and made a point of seeking out some of the team and the faculty advisor at the Awards Presentation on Sunday evening. I was assured by them that although the team were very disappointed, they had learned a great deal, and were planning to return in 2006 with a vengence.

With respect to the comments by "a design judge" about pull-down versus pull-up lap belts, I fully concur with him. I gave the same advise to at least one of the teams at Werribee, although I don't know whether it was to the Auckland team or not. This is based on being a scrutineer for over 30 years, covering just about everything from local Solo II, through Formula SAE, club racing, Pro Rally, FIA GT to F1. While I have pull-down belts in my own race car, it is a sedan/saloon, and my crew go in through the doors to pull laterally to tighten the belts. However, in a formula car, especially one with a high sided monocoque like Auckland has, tightening a pull-down lap belt is nigh impossible. Pull-downs do comply with the Rules, but pull-ups are much more appropriate.

Nuff said. We will see some of you in Michigan next May, some at Cal Speedway in June, and more of you at Bruntingthorpe in July.

Michael Royce.

PS.
I suspect CV is somewhere in the internet, as though anyone is interested!

[markocosic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">after the scrutineer inspecting the car had to go onto "page 2" for space to write his list of items that had to be rectified, and the afore-mentioned driver egress problem it became apparent that the team was not properly prepared for the competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I tried to give the team some perspective based on my previous 30 Formula SAE events. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Translation (a guestimate at another perspective)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its clear you've tried exceptionally hard and come up with something pretty neat, but ultimately bitten off more than you can chew - and you clearly know this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm now going to harp on about it, mentioning how I've seen it all before and generally appear to feel obliged to rub salt into your wounds. (appear to feel obliged to offer feedback as it appeared to you) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I put it to you that its pretty bloody obvious how it might not have been interpreted as intended! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I admit, having sensed the reaction of a couple of the team members, I was concernd that they had misunderstood my commnets, and made a point of seeking out some of the team and the faculty advisor at the Awards Presentation on Sunday evening. I was assured by them that although the team were very disappointed, they had learned a great deal, and were planning to return in 2006 with a vengence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were pretty polite! (some of us are less patient and would throw the attitude straight back at you) http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Watch Pat and the students (in person at least) and learn! - He'll take their design/presentation/organisation into at least as many pieces as you do, but does it in such a way as to put them into 'learning' (this man is helping me) mode rather than 'backs up' (this man is mocking everything we've done) mode. Picking an appropriate time and place (after the awards is always good; in the thick of it all going wrong is always bad...) does a lot, but so do the alternative approaches to being knowledgeable and sutbborn enough to drill it into our heads... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FFDave:
For the record i am not currently a member of the team although i wish i was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why do you come forward as if you know what happened? Every car is criticized in judging. That's how the students should be learning. Would you prefer everyone get a hug and kiss? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Auckland got points for what it did well and lost points for what it didn't. Innovation is a plus in judging and the car had some very well done stuff and it got credit for them.

The car barely missed out on design finals and had the highest score of the non-finalists for goodness sake! So how can you say the judges hated the car for it's innovation when they gave it a good overall mark? Especially if you were not there.

Anyway don't mean to be too harsh, team did a great job and did tons of work on all areas over the past year. I know tech was tough and can't comment on why because I didn't pay attention. But you lumped the judging in there and I don't see why.

[PatClarke]

Marko,
Thank you

Pat

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dhaidinger:
A quick $.02 on how to deal with a design judge who criticizes your design. Show them test data regarding the decision you made! Every decision is a compromise. You will almost always get one judge who agrees with your theory and one who doesn't. The only way to please them both is to show them data that supports your decision. Many judges will even give you a significant amount of credit if you show them data that says your decision was in fact wrong, provided you have a good founded theory as to why you made the decision in the 1st place. (They will of course expect you to make the appropriate redesign next year)

If the judge still doesn't like your idea, they may start to question your data (uncertainty, calibration, statistical significance, constants/variables, etc). If you are prepared to answer these questions, you should be able to convince even the toughest of judges that you are at least "not wrong". http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement should be required reading for all FSAE competitors! Donavan has it spot on. If you follow the above advice I would add that you have full grounds for invoking the judging moderation process should you still be dis-satisfied with your score.

Ian Murphy
Formula Student Design Judge

[Dick Golembiewski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Storbeck:
"incorrect. if you have seen a score sheet you would know that few of the points are actually awarded for innovation."

What I meant was that they got all of the points available for inovation.

I'm looking at a score sheat that says you can get up to 15 points out of 150 for inovation. Western Austrailia got all 150 points in design at FSAE 04, FSAE 05, and FSAEAUS 05. I'm assuming in order to get a perfect 150 score you would need to get all 15 "innovation" points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is incorrect. While some design groups tally points, what happens in the first round at FSAE is that those totals are used to rank the entries into one of five (as I recall) groups. The top group advances to the semi-finals, while the others in each group all get the same number of points.

This is the only way to keep things equitable given the number of entries, and the fact that there are up to 10 different groups of design judges. There are hard graders and easy graders, and using this system (Which we initiated back in 2000 or 2001 - I recall writing up the points breakdown while Carroll was announcing it at the judges' briefing) ensures that no one receives an advantage or penalty from being in a given design group. It also helps us avoid the inevitable complaints of "so-and-so received 6.5 points for innovation while we only received 6.0. Our car is much more innovative, and we think we should get 7.0! We can't break things down that finely. All we can really do is rank everyone based on our overall impressions - one of which is innovation.

In the semi-finals, the cars are again ranked by each judge attending. The cars are then broken down into groups, with the top group advancing to the design finals. (Semi-finalists all receive more points than those that didn't advance.)

In the finals, the winner receives the maximum number of points. We assign points to the remaining cars based upon our impressions. (Again, finalists receive more points than those that didn't advance.)

So while it appears as if the winner received all 15 points for innovation, that isn't necessarly so. We don't get that picky about points.

[Storbeck]

Well I guess I stand corrected.

Thanks for explaining that.

Andy

[Charlie]

The scores are normalized so the winner will always get 150 points in design. So it does not mean they got all available points.

Mr. Golembiewski is correct about the US FSAE event scoring (at least as far as I can recall), but at FSAE-A, there are not 'tiers.' Each car has it's own score.

[Z]

Pat, Dick, Charlie, any other judges/officials,

I made the comment on the FSAE-AUS thread that many cars that did well outright got very low Design scores - eg. UQld 2nd outright, 14th in Design (out of 24 cars).

Any explanation for this?

Z

[Denny Trimble]

Way back in '99, my team placed 47th in design (out of about 90 entrants), 2nd in endurance, and 5th overall.

We completely blew the design presentation. The car doesn't sell itself, or tell the judges how much its creators know. The answers a team gives when probed count as much for design points as the car they built, in my opinion.

[B.K.]

I know that story, Denny.

Not quite so far back, in 2001, Cornell was fifth in accelleration, first in skidpad, first in autocross, first in endurance. First overall. Didn't make final design.

Same deal: expected the car, and maybe our name, to sell itself. Didn't work. I think it was less an issue of not knowing the answers than not stepping up and pointing out the innovative things on the car (innovation on a Cornell car?!). The judges aren't necessarily going to ask the questions you want them to ask... you gotta make sure they see why your design is the best.

[Denny Trimble]

Yeah, I thought about it more after I posted, and it was mainly a lack of presentation skill and preparation on our part.

I've also seen teams do very well in Design one year, then the next year the team builds a very similar car, and gets nailed in design because nobody on the new team really knows why they did what they did.

[FFDave]

Thanks steve and Michael for your comments but you have completely missed the point of the post. It was not meant to be taken as a chance to have a go at the officials or volunteers, and i in no way have a lack of respect towards them and im certain that is the case for the team too. It was meant to be a debate discussing different approaches to designing a car (do you learn much from slightly optimizing last years design or is a clean slate and an ambitious project worthwhile attempting as this is meant to be a learning environment). Some of the people (magicweed, Z, Mechanimal) who posted replies got the idea and made some good points but clearly you thought I was attacking you which is not the case. Your right, the UOA car was not ready for scrutineering and i never claimed that the amount of time to get through scrutineering was longer than it needed to be. Nor am i claiming you arent allowed to express your opinions based on your experience but there is a time and a place for everything and tech simply was not the time. I dont want to get in debate about what happened as it is water under the bridge. Please lets move on and discuss what this post is actually about?.

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FFDave:
Why is it that when a team of students build a car that is against the so called "norms"� and is slightly outside the box, why is it that they are criticized by not only the scrutineers, the judges but also advisors.

What I am referring to is the reception a team received at the recent Australasian Formula SAE event in Melbourne. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dave, whether you meant it to be or not, your post was not a hypothetical 'what is the direction of FSAE,' but a direct questioning of why a particular car was recieved a certain way.

My answer is you are mistaken in how this car was recieved, and incorrect in your assumption that FSAE is dead to innovation. Especially when it comes to judging. Judges WANT innovation. They are bored with the same old thing. However it simply must be proven to be useful innovation.

[Mechanimal]

Good to see you are trying to get things back on track FFDave.

Although it may be hard for some engineers to thing in a slightly different way tey to consider this thread as follows....

The now much over discussed car was purely the catalyst (and not the only one) for people to start questioning what the rules and structure of the FSAE competition encourage in how cars are designed.

Pat and others have made very valid points about the stage the Auckland car was at during the competition and made some observations that should at the very least be considered by the team in the wash up of this year.

However can we please, please try to separate that from the issue of what the structure of the competition encourages. Very obviously the winning formula is to take last years concept modify (innovate) some small aspects of it and spit out another car on the production line for compeition, well done everybody is happy. If a team goes outside the box of what is expected of them why so much criticism (seems people line up to criticise which in the specific case being over emphasised here is soo much easier as the car didn't run, can we drop this line of argument and actually have an intelligent discussion? ) it wasn't that long ago that single cyliner cars recieved a less that rapturous recepetion?

Now feel free in all the collective wisdom to continue nit picking and finding fault with little bits of what I have said and avoid the real question. But I would much rather it that we go down a more productive path and try and canvas some real opinion on potentially a much bigger issue. ( I say potentially as one possible conclusion is that there is nothing to discuss everything is as it should be, although I somehow doubt it.)

Remember the biggest thing in life is to enjoy it as it never lasts long enough, that my friends is the Moke way! Anyone who has seen Moke Tv or the MR & Miss FSAE montage will know that is my take on things anyway....

[Storbeck]

I think the competition is good as it is, the judges and officials a better job than could ever be expected of them, and that innovation and out of the box thinking is rewarded, but only if it is justified and well executed. I also think that the structure of the competition, the dynamic events being so heavily weighted over the design comp, is a big help if the judges are wrong somehow. If a novel device truly helps, and the judges don't think it does, you have plenty of opportunity to prove them wrong.

I offer the RMIT car and Western Austrailia as proof that cars that deviate from the norm do well in design, and correctly because they are fast.

Consider the source though, I've never been involved with a car that was within sight of the design finals. I'm only going off my observations and the comments of people on this forum who's opinions I respect.

Andy Storbeck

[Dick Golembiewski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
Pat, Dick, Charlie, any other judges/officials,

I made the comment on the FSAE-AUS thread that many cars that did well outright got very low Design scores - eg. UQld 2nd outright, 14th in Design (out of 24 cars).

Any explanation for this?

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric,

I haven't been to FSAE-A (but would very much like to), and so I can't comment directly.

Occasionally we judges have disagreements re: what cars should advance. That's because we're all still, well...human.

The design judging is subjective and made up of a lot of things. In the US, we have started looking at what's wrong with cars once we get up to the semi-finals and finals as in some cases the cars are very close.

I can recall some years back when a team finished well in the endurance and consequently well overall. Most of the "usual suspects" suffered silly failures and as such DNF'd. One team came looking for "a design judge". Carroll and I went to see them. (I hadn't judged the car in the first round.) We went through a short review with them, pointed out that the car weighed over 600# (and we arbitrarily cut off those who advance to the finals at 500#), was not particularly "sanitary" (The wiring was attrocious) and that they had other things that concerned us. There was no convincing them.

When I last judged we set some sort of a new record, as one team came to complain immediately (less than 5 minutes) after the semi-finalists were announced. They complained that they should have advanced, and that they didn't understand why the previous year's winner didn't. That team had been in my design group, and I could speak to the matter. I told the team and their faculty advisor that I would be happy to come meet with them, but not that night, as we had the semi-finals to do.

The following day, I met with the team and pointed out that just because one had won the previous year was didn't mean that a team was entitled to anything. In fact that team had shown up late for their judging session, had a puddle of brake fluid under their master cylinders (despite everyone being told in the rules and at briefings - that the cars were to be "race ready"), and didn't seem to be enthusiastic about their own design.

I pointed out that their own car was pretty good, but had not distinguished itself. The team we advanced to the semi-finals had distinguished themselves, answered all questions well no matter how probing, and in our opinion had the better design. There was a clear demarkation between the car we advanced and their car - which we put in the tier below those that had advanced.

It turned out that the car we advanced also performed better. It's nice when that happens!

Hey! Sometimes we miss. Nonetheless, overall the correlation between how well a team does in design and how well it performs has gotten to be pretty good. There are always little things that can hurt a team in the performance events, which we can't catch.

- Dick

[Marshall Grice]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can recall some years back when a team finished well in the endurance and consequently well overall </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that was us in 2000, 3rd place. To add to the story, the same car went to formula student right after detroit in all but the same condition and did significantly better in design (design finals if i'm not mistaken) and took 1st overall. Can't really fault the judges though, the car itself was not that spectacular. It was really team managment and drivers that made the difference.

[Dave Cook]

This is actually what I think daveff's point was. That ˜not so spectacular' 600 pound car with ugly wiring in 2000 ended up with fast lap of the day in Detroit and in England. It wasn't because the car didn't make finals that had the team upset, it was that the design score was about 60%. I respect how much effort and experience goes into judging, but sometimes they miss. Some innovative cars are hard to judge, even by people who have driven them later and taken them apart; and some really good cars may be going through developement and changes right up to the competition. In our case the electrical system and the electric supercharger were being developed all the way up to England. These issues might be why the point system still favors dynamics so heavily even though its a design competition. While I have some officials attention, I also think they ought to give a small presentation during the awards ceremony for fast lap to acknowledge the teams that got the dynamics and performance part right but didn't get all the bugs worked out or impress the judges. Unfortunately this is a one shot event.

Dave Cook

[PatClarke]

Dave, I think you are missing a huge item here. The Design comp is just that! There is no design in simply copying. The design judges will ask the students to defend their design decisions, and if they can not successfully do so, then they will not score well in this facet of the competition.
Secondly, what is 'obvious'? Firstly, it may not be obvious to the judges, and if you dont tell them about your 'obvious' design feature, then they will not score it.
When I am judging, I always end up the discussion by asking three final questions.
1. What is the feature on the car you are most proud of?
2. What is the feature of the car that you don't like? and
3. If you could go back in time, what would you do different? (The most common response to this, for what it's worth, is "I wouldn't build a monocoque"!)
The purpose of these questions is to give the students one final chance to tell me something I should know to their benefit.
I understand the students are nervous and flustered, so I try to give them every chance to get their point across. It is amazing how many times question one has resulted in a response like "Oh, I meant to tell you about this, we did yada yada yada..." Otherwise I would never have known!
Despite rumours to the contrary, the Design Judges do not have XRay vision and a knowledge of all things automotive!
One of the reasons I like judging and mentoring is because I learn at least as much as I teach!
Cheers
Pat

[Igor]

With regards to scoring lots of dynamic points and only a few in design, I think the testing of the vehicle has a lot to do with it. A well developed and tested car with no frills will usually drive circles around fancy cars with all the gadgets but little to no testing.
It's a bit daft to go complain to the judges that you should have gotten more points because you were faster.

Igor

[JNizzle]

As a member of the Auckland team and after reading this thread I would like to say thanks for all the support we have received. After the comp it is nice to come away with some vindication for trying something different.

I was present when Michael Royce expressed his feelings, I believe they were poignant but after very little sleep and frayed nerves they hit a sore point. We have taken on board what Michael said, and many others have echoed, for 2006.

As mentioned we obviously were far from finishing the car while passing through scrutineering, a fact that disappointed a team that had been working almost 24 hours for 3 weeks, not to mention the massive effort put in throughout the year. But presenting an unfinished car was in no way intended to offend anybody; if something wasn't done it was because we didn't have time. We have been questioned on our motives to taking an unfinished and untested car to the competition. I firmly believe that the experience for a young (in FSAE time) team was very important for future years and I know none of the team regrets the decision to go.

Our interpretation of FSAE is as a learning tool; therefore although the car didn't run we have succeeded. I know the team cannot wait to get the car running and competitive for Formula Student.

I personally love this car (although did hate it for a while) and I am proud the influential players this year have decided to try something different. I also know this team will not waiver from the ideal of pushing boundaries in the future.

We are all looking forward to developing an evolution of this car to take to FSAE-A 06 to silence some critics....

If anyone is interested in seeing the build of the car and some photos from the car I will be putting up a few tonight so check it out at:

http://www.fsae.co.nz (hit the home key in the top left for a proper updated version)

[Dick Golembiewski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave Cook:
This is actually what I think daveff's point was. That ˜not so spectacular' 600 pound car with ugly wiring in 2000 ended up with fast lap of the day in Detroit and in England. It wasn't because the car didn't make finals that had the team upset, it was that the design score was about 60%. I respect how much effort and experience goes into judging, but sometimes they miss. Some innovative cars are hard to judge, even by people who have driven them later and taken them apart; and some really good cars may be going through developement and changes right up to the competition. In our case the electrical system and the electric supercharger were being developed all the way up to England. These issues might be why the point system still favors dynamics so heavily even though its a design competition. While I have some officials attention, I also think they ought to give a small presentation during the awards ceremony for fast lap to acknowledge the teams that got the dynamics and performance part right but didn't get all the bugs worked out or impress the judges. Unfortunately this is a one shot event.

Dave Cook </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't judge the car in the first round, so I can't speak to that particular situation.

There was one item on that car we were impressed with.
In general, when a team doesn't score well in the first round, there are usually a number of things involved: lack of knowledge, or more specifically the inability to communicate that knowledge is a big one. We keep saying that the cars are supposed to be "race ready" when they are presented at design, and yet many aren't. We understand that some teams are still finishing their cars, but that is there problem. The competition guidelines are the same for everyone, and it is up to the team to manage the project. That is one of the intangibles one learns.

[Marshall Grice]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can't really fault the judges though, the car itself was not that spectacular </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry, i misspoke. i meant to say the design wasn't spectacular. the car itself was pretty damn solid.

[HenningO]

IMO, innovation doesn't really have to be a brand new chassis concept, neither does it have to be insane electronics. Looking at a certain subsystem, there's always room for improvement, thinking outside the box type of thing. We are looking at using peltier-elements instead of an ordinary IC. Will it work, we don't know, but we'll have a great time finding out!

[Sam Zimmerman]

I haven't posted here for a while, but here is my 2 cents worth.

Innovation can be as simple as analyzing an old problem a new way. You don't need an outlandish chassis design to be innovative, just analyze it from a different perspective. A friend of mine did a genetic optimization algorithm something or other to analyze a FSAE chassis. It was fascinating to hear him talk about it. If I were a power train judge, I would get sick of hearing Helmholtz, blah, blah, organ pipe, blah, blah, WAVE, blah, blah, X" runner, blah, blah all day long. Take a fresh approach at really understanding the acoustics or apply a relatively new CFD approach you read about in a research journal. Get out from in front of ADAMS, WAVE, and COSMOS and read do some innovative (if not always perfect) research and analysis on a familiar problem. Trust me; the judges will enjoy talking to you when you show that you approached the same problem they have seen over and over from a different perspective, even if your design looks like half the field's (intake, chassis, suspension, or widget) design on the surface.