Introducing Total Weight into the competition score?

[murpia]

A private discussion has prompted me to ask the following:

'The engineering disciplines required to set a weight target and to meet it are vital skills. I can't conceive of designing a racecar without setting a weight target and analysing and managing the design to achieve it. It's my personal opinion but weight should form an actual part of the competition score, kind of like the cost event.

'What should happen is teams should declare a running weight when they submit their competition entry. Then they are scored against a minimum weight (analagous to the maximum cost). Finally, they lose points if they weigh in heavier than their declaration (say 5 points per kg). Will get the teams much more focussed on a good design process. Safety should not be compromised because we already have adequate structural regulations and the minimum weight score can be made sensible enough (say 140kg). Teams can go as light as they dare given the stiffness and reliability tradeoffs.'

What do you all think?

Regards, Ian

[murpia]

A private discussion has prompted me to ask the following:

'The engineering disciplines required to set a weight target and to meet it are vital skills. I can't conceive of designing a racecar without setting a weight target and analysing and managing the design to achieve it. It's my personal opinion but weight should form an actual part of the competition score, kind of like the cost event.

'What should happen is teams should declare a running weight when they submit their competition entry. Then they are scored against a minimum weight (analagous to the maximum cost). Finally, they lose points if they weigh in heavier than their declaration (say 5 points per kg). Will get the teams much more focussed on a good design process. Safety should not be compromised because we already have adequate structural regulations and the minimum weight score can be made sensible enough (say 140kg). Teams can go as light as they dare given the stiffness and reliability tradeoffs.'

What do you all think?

Regards, Ian

[Igor]

I think this will give an unfair points advantage to the teams that chose the 1 cylinder light car philosophy. The 1 cylinder and 4 cylinder cars seem to be somewhat balanced now on the track, giving teams a choice to implement their own philosophy. Giving more points to the 1 cylinder cars just based on weight will only force teams into the 1 cylinder option for no good reason.
Imagine the complaints if the track is opened up a bit within the rules and the 4 cylinders kick ass with their power advantage.

Igor

[Pete M]

I don't see the point really. Why select one vehicle parameter to pick on? Why not dyno all the cars and give points based on raw area under the power curve? Just as irrelevant on its own to the performance of the car as weight. Scoring power to weight ratio would be slightly more valid, but i'd still argue against it (even though we'd score pretty high).

I personally think the best car is the one that is quickest in the dynamic events. The less BS metrics in SAE the better.

[John Valerio]

Igor has a good point, plus the 1 cyls already get the fuel economy advantage, so I dont think an absolute weight score would be a good idea.

I would, however, support a score based on how far off the teams are from their estimated weight (on the heavier OR lighter side) to be submitted with the design report. Submission that early would make it so the teams that can't afford good scales (i.e. most of us) won't be at that much of a disadvantage and just have to be more diligent with keeping track of weight.

Pete, dynamic events are a bad way to judge the cars' merits. Just look at the extreme range of driving talents we have, from nation kart champs to the math nerd who's just quicker than his team mates. The only way to judge the cars equally would be to have a pro racer (fsae stig?) drive them all and then compare lap times...

I think weight should be more of a part of comp, we are after all the only open wheel class that doesn't have a minimum weight.

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

This is already done by every team, its just not scored and shouldnt be.

Everyone wasnt to make the lightest car possible but still make it reliable. Neither of these happen in many cases.

My vote is no. For those of us that are comfortable with a 4 cylinder with 13" wheels, why compete against a single with 8" solely on weight.

Look at the top 10 teams and count how many run singles and 10" wheels.....see where I am going.

[mtg]

Hell no. The weight of your car is already posted on the nose when you go through design, so one could argue that points are affected by your weight.

But, if weight was a scored event, it would take away a lot of the coolness of FSAE- which is a 300 lb single cylinder and a 450 lb four cyliner winged car both battling it out for the win. Everybody wanting to win would have to go down the tiny car path. I'm not saying that's a bad path, but the competitions would not be as good if all the cars starting looking more similar.

[BeaverGuy]

While I see how you have tried to balance it, by making the teams declare their design weight when they register months in advance and then grading against that. HOwever, that just gives the teams an incentive to set their weight goal higher than they otherwise would. And in reality these are prototypes, prototypes almost never reach their weight goals in the real world. While a team that has minimal turnover could realistically hit their weight goal using previous desisns and effectively making the current car "production ready"; many teams have complete turn over every year and each car would be a new prototype.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mtg:
Hell no. The weight of your car is already posted on the nose when you go through design, so one could argue that points are affected by your weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not in England

And Pete M, the issue with the dynamic events is that the cars are all driven by different people.

[murpia]

To clarify, the reason I suggest scoring competition weight vs. declared design target is to attempt to improve the design process of many of the teams.

I have now judged too many teams who don't have a coherent design process, don't set proper design targets and don't put in place management systems to stick to those targets. I am coming at this from the competition objective to train better engineers. The cost report, while almost universally hated by those who express their opinion on it, does have this objective in mind and does contribute to the competition score.

Simply scoring competition weight vs. declared design target opens up the tactic of declaring a heavy car just to get you through easily. Therefore actual weight will also need to be scored to ensure teams make a proper effort.

The cost report costs engines by their performance per cc. Something similar could be done for weight, so the lower power singles need to be proportionally lighter to score the same.

Perhaps declaring and scoring power to weight ratio might be sufficient? But then all the cars need to be dynoed too.

And just so you all know, I have no rule-making power beyond the ability to email those who do for Formula Student UK...

Regards, Ian

[TG]

Ian,

why don't you suggest to the judging committees of both the manufacturing/cost judging and the design judging to put a little more emphasis on DFM and systems engineering? This is something that is already done to certain degrees (I'm speaking from just seeing how this is done at FSAE in Michigan) included in the metrics, but it could possibly have more emphasis as you suggest. These are the areas I think something like a SEMP belong, but like some of those above in the thread, I am against using weight or other specific metrics for directly scoring the cars, the performance of the vehicle should be the outcome of reducing weight, increasing power, better suspension geometry, etc.

[Mike Sadie]

Ian,

I agree with the concept, but I don't think it is very fair to implement. Lets say that you planned on building some B.A. carbon fiber wheels. Later down the line during production, a sponsor falls through and you end up having to run 10 lb per wheel Kodiaks. I've seen this stuff happen countless times, and I don't think the team should take a hit for it.

[VFR750R]

Close to the stupidiest idea ever. Let weight be a determinate on the track, just like all the racing series that 'design for weight'.

A minimum weight isn't as bad of an idea. At least that IS what real racecar designers have to deal with. But what would you set it at. All it would do is screw the teams with 1 cylinder cars because they would be effected the most regardless of the actual value, or...like F1 you build the lightest car anyhow and then put 50, 100, 150 lbs or whatever in front of the drivers butt. Maybe a 300lb car would go faster with 50lbs of lead 2" off the ground.

[ad]

I thought the cars were already judged by weight,

- isnt it an unwritten law that any car over 500 pounds does not get into semis and finals???

I do agree that it would be mainly biased towards singles and could lead everyone depending on the number of points to be gained (obviously all are precious) to go down the single route.

I also agree with Pete, regardless of how good your drivers are with making your car look shit hot, his underlying arguement was that singiling one parameter out of a system is pretty useless!

[Pete M]

I personally think the point of the dynamic events is to tell which teams are good at designing a car on paper and which are good at managing the entire project. Sometimes it comes down to a choice of whether you spend that extra two months designing or spend it training drivers. Or whether you invest manpower in keeping older cars driving so you can train throughout the year.

I think this is a good thing. Engineering is about more than calculations and CAD programs. A good car with no one who can drive it worth a damn is worthless. Similar story with testing and tuning.

I'm against anything that turns this comp into more of a paper frenzy than it already is. In fact, i'd really like to see a sister comp with the exact same vehicle rules as Formula SAE but consisting entirely autocross and endurance.

[GSXR05K]

The suggested competition practically exists. FSAE class at SCCA Nationals, Topeka KS, in September. Your car must comply to SAE rules.

[Pete Marsh]

I don't like the weight idea and i think the goals of Ian's idea are best acomplished during the design event. The judges should be able to tell pretty well if the car was designed and built to a plan or if it is just a colection of parts. I have certainly been asked questions in design I think were for that purpose.
I do however suport John's idea of a 'pro driver' for the top cars and have previously approched the FSAE-A on this in the past. The idea was for a 'name driver' to drive the design finalists cars after autocross and have input to the design event in regard to ergo and dynamics and even power train. (no on site dyno in Aus). The idea was rejected by the consortium. I for one would like to hear a pro drivers opinion of my car and would greatly value any feedback, and perhaps with some bias, I reckon UWAM cars would do very well in such an assesment.
Pete.

[Mike Sadie]

At the FSAE West competition in 2006, we were told by a judge that any non-aero car over 470 lbs would not be allowed into design semi's after that year. I haven't seen any information opposing this so if someone is was an exception, feel free to chime in. I also don't know what comps this applied to.

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
I don't like the weight idea and i think the goals of Ian's idea are best acomplished during the design event. The judges should be able to tell pretty well if the car was designed and built to a plan or if it is just a colection of parts. I have certainly been asked questions in design I think were for that purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes we can tell at the judging stage how well the design process was conducted, as could any of you in the same situation. The problem is that by then it's too late for anything to be done about the mistakes. Unless the team members carry on into the next year (and many don't as they graduate) then they have denied themselves the experience of a good design process.

My objective for this discussion is to come up with a suggestion that really ensures that good principles are followed by all teams from the start of the competition. The weight score / weight vs. target idea is one, which seems to be disapproved by the majority here (fair enough).

I'm still in favour however. I wouldn't propose to allocate more than say 50 points to it, and we would still need to decide if those 50 were extra or removed from other elements. As VFR says, the minimum weight limits in other forms of motorsport require that engineers really think through the implications of adding 'features' to their cars (aero, turbos, whatever). And the good FSAE teams already do this too. In fact I think that adding the weight score would likely not affect competition results within the top ten or so cars. But, I am concerned with influencing the majority of teams within the middle of the 'bell curve' to do a better job of design.

Adding more formal recognition of good design process to the design judging scoring is of course a good idea. But if you read the rules and the score sheets, it should already be obvious that this is required for good points and yet still I see many teams that don't pay attention. Any other suggestions how to improve this?

Regards, Ian

[js10coastr]

Ian,

I think you've touched on a bigger issue. I don't agree with the "Total Weight" as being directly scored by meeting your design target. However I greatly understand your concern with the design process.

Being an alum now it's much easier to see how a team should be run. One of the biggest things is the design event. There seems to be a large MIS-understanding that designing shit (or stuff) gets you points, that trying to impress the judges of your engineering muscle is what wins you that event.

There needs to be a way to communicate to the current students that you DESIGN FOR THE COMPETITION NOT FOR THE JUDGES... and then convince the judges that you understand the problems, and can justify all of your decisions.

I don't have a lot of experience under the design tent, but maybe a larger focus by the judges on the design process than on part design would produce these results.

[Superfast Matt McCoy]

I don't know about the minimum weight idea. Think of all the wheels you've seen coming off cars on course, then imagine 80lbs of ballast skipping across the track at 40 MPH.

[BStoney]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by js10coastr:
Being an alum now it's much easier to see how a team should be run. One of the biggest things is the design event. There seems to be a large MIS-understanding that designing shit (or stuff) gets you points, that trying to impress the judges of your engineering muscle is what wins you that event.

There needs to be a way to communicate to the current students that you DESIGN FOR THE COMPETITION NOT FOR THE JUDGES... and then convince the judges that you understand the problems, and can justify all of your decisions.

I don't have a lot of experience under the design tent, but maybe a larger focus by the judges on the design process than on part design would produce these results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with you completely... We finished 3rd in Design this year at Formula Student UK with a very simple car by comparison to those decked out with trick electronics, turbos, lots of titanium, carbon, etc etc etc... Yes those things will score you design points, if and only if, you understand why you are doing what you are doing. That is really the foundation of everything for the design event and the competition as a whole. We brought a car into the design tent that we understood well and could justify just about all of the decisions we made with solid engineering judgment grounded in analysis and validation/testing...Also, you must know your weaknesses at the same time and know how to present them in a way that is not negative about your car, but instead highlights that you made trade-offs and compromises to achieve your end goal. And in the end, we feel that is what got us the place we did in Design.

So especially for new teams...practice the KISS philosophy and get your car running so you have the data and validation to bring to the table in Design.

[BeaverGuy]

If your goal is to encourage a better design methodology then you need to evaluate the design process. The only way I can think to do that would be to lengthen the design report and make it worth some quantity of the design points like it is in the Baja competitions.

[Sam Zimmerman]

This would be a horrible addition to the competition, here's a few reasons why.

- Teams who didn't get off their asses and finish their cars the previous year have a huge advantage towards hitting their projected weight when they get to submit an entry that is 90% complete.

- All teams can add 30 pounds to their car's estimated weight, add ballast for weigh in, and remove the ballast for competition

- Using the lowest weight as a basis for scoring assumes that the lightest weight car is the best. If I can make a case, through analysis and testing, that the wings on my car adds enough performance to more than offset their weight, why should I be penalized in any way? Hell, if I can show the analysis and test results that show that adding 300 pounds of ballast heat my tires quickly, reduce my cg height, lets me distribute my weight perfectly, and takes 0.5 seconds off my autocross time I should be rewarded, not penalized.

Other than that I don't really have any strong feelings on the matter.

[Pete M]

Sam sums up my opinion perfectly. Weight is not the goal of an SAE car, being fast is the goal of an SAE car. If we can show that adding several pounds of turbo to our car makes it quicker, why should we be penalised vs a team that doesn't have one? We already get penalised in fuel economy due to all the extra weight we have to lug around and all the judges see the weight in design. That's the way it should be, the judges know the weight and we justify it in design. Cold mechanical formulae have no place in it. And neither should arbitrary cut off points, imho.

And before someone says that cost is like that, a cold formula that doesn't take into account the performance of the car, well, at the end of the day someone is supposed to buy it, so low cost is important. The same just doesn't apply to weight. I'm not going to buy a slower car simply because it's lighter, whereas i might if it were cheaper.

[VFR750R]

Pete and Sam, couldn't have said it better.

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sam Zimmerman:
- Teams who didn't get off their asses and finish their cars the previous year have a huge advantage towards hitting their projected weight when they get to submit an entry that is 90% complete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is no different to saying that more experienced teams who've been competing many years, with good communication between current and past team members, have an advantage. Of course they do, experience always counts in every aspect of competition. If you think adding weight points is controversial, imagine proposing that teams cannot use the benefit of experience!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sam Zimmerman:
- All teams can add 30 pounds to their car's estimated weight, add ballast for weigh in, and remove the ballast for competition </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, that's not allowed in the rules, is it? Article 3.7.3 B would apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sam Zimmerman:
- Using the lowest weight as a basis for scoring assumes that the lightest weight car is the best. If I can make a case, through analysis and testing, that the wings on my car adds enough performance to more than offset their weight, why should I be penalized in any way? Hell, if I can show the analysis and test results that show that adding 300 pounds of ballast heat my tires quickly, reduce my cg height, lets me distribute my weight perfectly, and takes 0.5 seconds off my autocross time I should be rewarded, not penalized. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For sure if you conduct that kind of analysis and present it properly to the judges, your design score improvement should offset your weight score loss (this would need to be factored into the scoring system). This is my whole point, to encourage that kind of analysis more in teams that currently don't do it despite it being a key part of the design event.

Regards, Ian

[Sam Zimmerman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:

This is no different to saying that more experienced teams who've been competing many years, with good communication between current and past team members, have an advantage. Of course they do, experience always counts in every aspect of competition. If you think adding weight points is controversial, imagine proposing that teams cannot use the benefit of experience!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a huge difference there. One has the advantage because they have created it by being smart, keep good records, and passing down their knowledge. The other has an advantage because they didn't get their car done the previous year.

Taking that a step further, the team that passes down their knowledge generally has an advantage over teams that don't in every event. Teams that are coming with the previous year's car generally does not have an advantage in any event. Generally they don't have a good design, a good process, or a good carryover of knowledge. I have seen many second-year cars that are worse than most teams' one-year cars because the same symptoms that caused the second-year cars to not get done in the first place are still festering the next year. With this new rule, the teams that didn't get their cars done the previous year would finally have an advantage in one event and that is wrong. (How's that for a confusing paragraph?)

As for adding and removing ballast being against the rules, so is adding heavier batteries, fans, more fluid, etc. after weigh in. Teams still do it, though. Teams get away with it. Teams will do it again next competition. The rule book is full of rules that are not enforced as it would be impossible for the intrepid volunteers to enforce all the rules for all the teams. If they did enforce all the rules the competition would be about preparing a prototype autocross car to sell to a weekend autocrosser, but that's another beef. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif