FSAE Alumni: If you could do it all over again what would you do?

[J. Vinella]

Simple yet interesting question. After a few years of thinking about what you did in Formula SAE and a few years of professional experience, what would you do now if you got to do it all over again?

[J. Vinella]

Simple yet interesting question. After a few years of thinking about what you did in Formula SAE and a few years of professional experience, what would you do now if you got to do it all over again?

[ed_pratt]

maybe i'd try a carbon spaceframe with the ktm single, and those nice sticky goodyears.

any thoughts?

Ed

[DART-CG]

I would try to invest a lot more time in taking a closer look at the design of the parts which have a direct linkage to mine.

There is no use for sleepless nights to stiffen your parts or to save some 100 gramms when the part connected to yours is hugely overdimensioned and flexible as hell.

This is something Formula SAE seperates from fully professional (and well paid) series. On the one hand you can find unbelievable nice and clever solutions in FSAE that even F1 officials are stunned to see.
But on the other hand at least 15 percent of all parts (varying from team to team) are in a diplomatic voice "not so well designed" (or in the words of Claude "F!#% Rubbish!").
And you can find them on EVERY team in FSAE, trust me.

But this problem of unbalanced designs throughout the series should not be regarded as something bad. It seems to lie in the idea of FSAE and contributes to the overall learning process of a student and the team in total.

As a new team member again I would try to take this as a chance to learn from the design flaws done by my predecessors to increase my knowledge.

[J.R.]

Didn't want to thread jack sooo...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think if I was doing a car now I'd be looking at much softer springs and much higher roll centres/instant centres/FAPS/ delete as applicable

Ben

Senior Design Engineer (Le Mans Series) - Dunlop Motorsport
Alumnus of University of Birmingham
www.ubracing.co.uk (http://www.ubracing.co.uk) and Formula Student Design Judge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to explain? I can see softer springs for more mech. grip, but why the higher rc/ic's? I don't think I know what a FAPS is ...?

[ben]

FAPS = force application points. See Mitchell's paper on force based roll centres.

Soft springs for mechanical grip, yes. Higher roll centres = faster load transfer = better transients. Also higher roll centres means roll angles can be controlled despite the soft springs without having to run big bars.

Not sayijng I'm right - I haven't run the numbers, all I'm saying is that that's a point of view I'd approach the problem from.

Ben

[exFSAE]

Better project management would be at the top of my list. Set up and stick to time-tables, hold people accountable for their work. Start design full bore in June, start fabrication in October or November, start testing in February.

From a design standpoint...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>1-piece wheels, even if they're a weight penalty
<LI>Way closer look at differential and diff tuning. Maybe an ATB again but more likely a Salisbury
<LI>Slipper clutch
<LI>Custom intake and exhaust cams would be #1 on my engine list
<LI>Much closer transient fuel map tuning with a focus on economy, setting max power rich only under limited conditions
<LI>Full tire drive and maybe even compound test. Goodyears, Hoosier, Dunlop, Avon, Michelin.
<LI>Softer suspension
<LI>Better use of DAQ. Probably less logged channels, only the essentials
<LI>Bigger wheel bearings, and in general much higher suspension installation stiffness.. even if it means a weight penalty
<LI>Still do a tube frame, but with engine not stressed at all
<LI>Heavy rearward mass distribution
[/list]

Among other things...

[Superfast Matt McCoy]

If I was on a team again, there are only three things I would absolutely insist on.

As light weight as possible.

A well designed aerodynamics package.

A lot of driver training and vehicle testing.

There is a resource trade-off. time and money are going to have to come from somewhere and most teams spend too much time on the engine already.

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Superfast Matt McCoy:
If I was on a team again, there are only three things I would absolutely insist on.

As light weight as possible.

A well designed aerodynamics package.

A lot of driver training and vehicle testing.

There is a resource trade-off. time and money are going to have to come from somewhere and most teams spend too much time on the engine already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As light as possible? why not set a stiffness target and aim for the lightest weight whilst meeting the stiffness target - almost certainly you could make it lighter but would that be a good thing.

Optimised aero? Why the average speeds are so low. Yes teams have won the comp with wings, but you don't need them to be capable of winning a comp, so they should surely be down the bottom, firmly in the nice to have (if we have a massive wind tunnel on site) but not essential category?

A lot of driver training and vehicle testing? 100%, move that to the top of your list and you'll be flying http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

exFSAE: I here you on the project management side. More DAQ is also good.

Ben

Ben

[Alan]

Knowing what I know now, I would have focused more on keeping the old cars running with proper data acquisition. Then driving the cars and really exploring the bounds of the parameters that can be changed and learning to really understand what a driver is saying. But doing so would take away resources from designing a new car every year which comes back to a project management issue.

From my own personal standpoint, I wish there was a separate FSAE where you can just purchase a car and run. You'd be free to remake or change parts as you feel needed. This type of formula would have better prepared me for the things that I've done in my career. But that's just me.

[Superfast Matt McCoy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ben:
As light as possible? why not set a stiffness target and aim for the lightest weight whilst meeting the stiffness target - almost certainly you could make it lighter but would that be a good thing.

Optimised aero? Why the average speeds are so low. Yes teams have won the comp with wings, but you don't need them to be capable of winning a comp, so they should surely be down the bottom, firmly in the nice to have (if we have a massive wind tunnel on site) but not essential category?

A lot of driver training and vehicle testing? 100%, move that to the top of your list and you'll be flying http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously I am suggesting the lightest possible design within performance goals. I was not suggesting a weedeater engine and a paper mâché bellcranks.

At the risk of throwing this into another aero vs non-aero thread: Yes, Aerodynamics is #2. Arguably below driver training, but firmly in the top 3 and waaay above things like camshafts. Every test we've done, every analysis we've run shows a well designed aero package being over a second faster on a small, FSAE style course. Over two seconds on a larger course like we saw in Detroit Autocross 2007. If you haven't done the analysis or testing, it's a bad idea to make the conclusion.

Don't argue with me and don't trust me; do the engineering. I'm just here to make suggestions.

[Wesley]

I would assume that Matt meant as light as possible while maintaining stiffness, else you could just build a chassis with the minimum number of tubes. And I know he didn't mean that.

I'm not an alum yet, but as this is my last year, I'll second the designing parts together. This year we finally started to consider our part interaction and tried to make them work well together, not just fit together.

From an engine standpoint, I'd also have liked to do some camshaft work, like was said. I'm sure there's a lot of power available there with the restrictions we face.

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ben:
FAPS = force application points. See Mitchell's paper on force based roll centres.

Soft springs for mechanical grip, yes. Higher roll centres = faster load transfer = better transients. Also higher roll centres means roll angles can be controlled despite the soft springs without having to run big bars.

Not sayijng I'm right - I haven't run the numbers, all I'm saying is that that's a point of view I'd approach the problem from.

Ben </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I used to work with someone who insisted 'there's no such thing as mechanical grip, just vertical loads on tyres'.

So why do soft cars (generally) have more grip? Reducing tyre vertical load oscillation reduces the grip loss to relaxation length effects. A good way to do that is soft springs & dampers and no anti-roll bars. If you can maintain good transient response then you ought to have a fast car.

Regards, Ian

[VFR750R]

i agree with Matt, Light with aero has a lot of merit. trying to get the biggest ratio of downforce to weight is the only way to make wings work at the slow speeds we see, and i believe it could work.

if i were to do it again....I'd design the engine package around the turbo. Boost is more important then any runner length, primary diameter, 4-1 or 4-2-1 blah blah blah. A dialed in wastegate control is important and I'd concentrate alot more on tuning then what parts were in the motor. nobody has time or money to screw with the internals on these things, so picking an engine with strong internals stock should be the goal of engine choice. between all the 4 cylinder engines rod length, gear ratio, bore/stroke ect ect doesn't mean shit.

Don't let your assumptive math fool you, there is no replacement for physical testing.

[js10coastr]

I would first ask the alumni what they would have done if they could do it all over again... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Then I probably wouldn't do it again... because I'm currently over worked and underpaid in a high stress job that requires lots of travel without much stability.

Then again I might do formula hybrid and recruit a bunch of girls.

[Welfares]

I think i'd go to the pub instead.

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wesley:
I would assume that Matt meant as light as possible while maintaining stiffness, else you could just build a chassis with the minimum number of tubes. And I know he didn't mean that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe Matt didn't, but it amazes me that most teams come into the design tent and talk about "light weight" and never link it to, or mention a stiffness target. It worries me more than anything else.

Definite risk of it turning into an aero/non aero thread but any theoretical advantage never seems to be big enough in practice for the aero to be a slam-dunk, must have item. I'm quite sure a lap sim will say it's worth having, and if you have drivers who can drive it well (i.e. carry entry speed) it might be.

Ben

[Kyle Walther]

I would take more risks in design.

Take a chance on something that might not work, but would be neat and interesting if it did. Maybe something that really has little justification, other than "Wow!, i haven't seen that before."

I would worry less about trying to win and focus more on pushing the boundaries of my knowledge and skill.

You always learn more from your failures, so go out and fail.. and if you can fail spectacularly. that way, if nothing else, you can walk away with a good story

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kyle Walther:
I would worry less about trying to win and focus more on pushing the boundaries of my knowledge and skill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That ought to be the focus of all FSAE competitors. It's an educational competition, yet some seem to prioritise competition over education...

Regards, ian

[adrial]

Prepping for the same competition ('06 at Ford Proving Grounds on a silky smooth surface) with the same knowledge about our tires... I would do the same thing.

If I were prepping for the current competition (rougher surface from what I hear) with the knowledge I have now about the tires ... I would go higher RC, softer springs and less concern for camber change.

Oh ... also I would finish the car earlier. No such thing as too early.

[D J Yates]

In my opinion, the failures of my ex-team (NRacing in general, rather than a team of individuals in any one year) are down to the way FStudent is run by the university. When i say failure, i'm not saying the whole project is/was a disaster, but for a university of Newcastle's size and position we/they have consistently underachieved. I expect that the Univeristy run the project for educational benefit and belive that they are helping students allowing them to undertake accademic projects that overlap with a recognised and respected engineering playground, but it just doesn't work. The requirements (timing and technical content) to run a successful team, design and build a good car, and succeed at competition are not the same those required to complete a good accademic projects - by all means, students should have the opportunity to get accademic credit for work they've completed, but parts and systems designed as an accedmic project is detremental to the car and the rest of the team. So, if i were to run a Formula project again, the first thing i'd do is ditch the accademic format and run the team like a business:

I'd have a single person in charge (me, of course) who'd have the final say on all aspects of the team and car, with no interfering from lecturers and accademic staff. All team members would have to make formal applications; hiring and firing would be at my discretion. Upon graduating/retiring i'd recieve applications for my position from existing team members and exceptional post-grads with prior experience only. I'd appoint two principle engineers, one for the powertrain (all aspects of engine, transmission and electric systems) and one for the chassis (everything else). All of the remaining engineers - trusted seniors and less experienced juniors - would be assigend to design tasks, under the supervision of principles, as and when required - i.e. rather than having someone disapear into a darkened room for several months to work on a particular system of the car, i'd have everyone work together assigning and re-assigning resources appropriately and when they are required. I'd ban engineers from faffing about doing the website or other non-engineering tasks and have students from other appropriate disciplins do those jobs. I'd also fire anyone who used the phrases "as light as possible", "as stiff as possible", "as strong as possible", "good handling", "fast", etc. as design targets - un-quantified specifications are useless and complete waste of time.

As a student, i wasted far to much time worrying about the fine details of the suspension design when the fundamentals were all wrong. Now that i know better, the first thing i'd do would be perform a simple vehicle dynamics study to set design limits for the major influencing parmaters of the car (mass, wheelbase, weight distribution, CofM height, yaw inertia, tractive and braking effort, drag and lift limits and etc.) based on target accelerations, critical speeds and response/stability requirements. Some of these limits might be narrow, some quite wide, some so vast they seem irrelevant, but the act of setting them and not deviating would avoid costly changes (time and money) later on. Limits for those areas of the car that are important but not as critical (roll centre heights, spring and damping rates, differential, etc.) would be set with a more extensive analysis a little later on. And so on, building up a more complex model as the design progresses and using it so set limits for the design details. Obviously, this is how you'd engineer anything and everything (refining the design and analysis as you go), but its amaizing how easy it is to forget (or just ignore) this when you're playing with racing cars.

[Charlie]

More testing, more design via test results (instead of opinions). More scientific testing instead of observational.

More reasonable timelines.

But I don't regret anything.

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D J Yates:
In my opinion, the failures of my ex-team (NRacing in general, rather than a team of individuals in any one year) are down to the way FStudent is run by the university. When i say failure, i'm not saying the whole project is/was a disaster, but for a university of Newcastle's size and position we/they have consistently underachieved. I expect that the Univeristy run the project for educational benefit and belive that they are helping students allowing them to undertake accademic projects that overlap with a recognised and respected engineering playground, but it just doesn't work. The requirements (timing and technical content) to run a successful team, design and build a good car, and succeed at competition are not the same those required to complete a good accademic projects - by all means, students should have the opportunity to get accademic credit for work they've completed, but parts and systems designed as an accedmic project is detremental to the car and the rest of the team. So, if i were to run a Formula project again, the first thing i'd do is ditch the accademic format and run the team like a business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting perspective. Would you care to expand on the support that the University academic department(s) offer the Newcastle team? Any funding? Any workshop space? Any technician or manufacturing time? Any computer time / software licence availability? The University academic side exists as an educational establishment and regulations would prohibit diverting such resources to non-educational projects. Hence the need to integrate the programme with the academic side of things, even if it isn't very 'business-like'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd have a single person in charge (me, of course) who'd have the final say on all aspects of the team and car, with no interfering from lecturers and accademic staff. All team members would have to make formal applications; hiring and firing would be at my discretion. Upon graduating/retiring i'd recieve applications for my position from existing team members and exceptional post-grads with prior experience only. I'd appoint two principle engineers, one for the powertrain (all aspects of engine, transmission and electric systems) and one for the chassis (everything else). All of the remaining engineers - trusted seniors and less experienced juniors - would be assigend to design tasks, under the supervision of principles, as and when required - i.e. rather than having someone disapear into a darkened room for several months to work on a particular system of the car, i'd have everyone work together assigning and re-assigning resources appropriately and when they are required. I'd ban engineers from faffing about doing the website or other non-engineering tasks and have students from other appropriate disciplins do those jobs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so do the University 'sports / social' departments offer any support, even something as basic as subsidised transport? They do not exist purely to educate but have 'personal development' as their goal, plus in sporting terms they contribute to the public image of the University as a successful organisation (hopefully...). But, they will also have regulations to follow such as non-descrimination rules to allow all participants equal opportunities regardless of ability or special needs. For sure such members won't be in the 'top' sports teams but they must be allowed to participate. As a judge I've been exposed to teams that follow many approaches and some FSAE teams that run on the 'sports / social' model have been very successful in terms of competition results. Those teams following the 'sports / social' approach have to act in a democratic not autocratic manner. But, in my experience this makes them very happy and enthusiastic as a team in general. Unfortunately there's no real metric to quantify how much educational benefit those teams derived, but anecdotally it seems high.

So if you don't want access to University support of either kind as mentioned above, there's no rule I'm aware of, apart from the fact that all team personnel actually are members of the University, that prevents you funding and setting up a race shop all your own and hiring and firing as you describe. You would need one University staff member on your side, that's it. Otherwise the old adage 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' applies. Thing is you might have a recruitment problem unless it's a beneficial thing for team members to be doing in their spare time. It's not like you can just pay them to be there...

Many 'real life' race teams or businesses run on the approach you've described, and I've worked at a few of them... Usually those in the trenches think of the boss as ill informed and subject to making illogical decisions. Therefore they often do their own thing anyway regardless of the boss, as that's the organisational culture that's been created. It always works in both directions and communication is therefore poor. Staff turnover is often high. Still, as I would say from the foxhole, 'it's his train-set', and there's always the paycheck at the end of the month.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd also fire anyone who used the phrases "as light as possible", "as stiff as possible", "as strong as possible", "good handling", "fast", etc. as design targets - un-quantified specifications are useless and complete waste of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, I like this idea a lot... If I could change one thing about the competition it would be to introduce a deadline maybe 6 months before competition where a team has to state it's engineering targets and specifications for the car. Then, at competition, they would be scored as to how well they achieved those targets.

As an extra twist, there would be no incentive to exceed some of them either - ballast would be added and throttle stops fitted to negate a lower weight, lower CG or higher torque advantage... Fuel economy and cost would still be available as score improvements for good engineering.

Comments?

Regards, Ian

[Buckingham]

Priorities:

1. Keep the design simple but exact
2. Durability (600 miles of testing before comp)
3. Driver training and data aq (comes with #2)
4. Testing (comes with #2)

What I would do differently:

1. Spent more time working on sponsorship ($10k sponsors exist...and they are worth it)
2. Carbon wheels
3. Put no part on the car with its only function to 'score design points' (except maybe body panels that make significant aesthetic gains).

[ben]

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

2. Durability (600 miles of testing before comp)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Followed by a fatigue failure at comp http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Ben

[Buckingham]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Followed by a fatigue failure at comp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would take a guess that the majority of FSAE failures are actually infant mortality or poor design. I would think that the likelihood of true fatigue occurring between miles 600 and 630 is pretty low.

I would definitely want enough miles on the car to pass the break-in period on the differential (assuming Torsen or similar gear-type limited slip).

[Superfast Matt McCoy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D J Yates:
So, if i were to run a Formula project again, the first thing i'd do is ditch the accademic format and run the team like a business:

I'd have a single person in charge (me, of course) who'd have the final say on all aspects of the team and car, with no interfering from lecturers and accademic staff. All team members would have to make formal applications; hiring and firing would be at my discretion. Upon graduating/retiring i'd recieve applications for my position from existing team members and exceptional post-grads with prior experience only. I'd appoint two principle engineers, one for the powertrain (all aspects of engine, transmission and electric systems) and one for the chassis (everything else). All of the remaining engineers - trusted seniors and less experienced juniors - would be assigend to design tasks, under the supervision of principles, as and when required - i.e. rather than having someone disapear into a darkened room for several months to work on a particular system of the car, i'd have everyone work together assigning and re-assigning resources appropriately and when they are required. I'd ban engineers from faffing about doing the website or other non-engineering tasks and have students from other appropriate disciplins do those jobs. I'd also fire anyone who used the phrases "as light as possible", "as stiff as possible", "as strong as possible", "good handling", "fast", etc. as design targets - un-quantified specifications are useless and complete waste of time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to argue this just in case there are any impressionable young team members out there who thought this was a good idea. This is a really awful idea, for all the reasons murpia brought up and more. A single person with final say on all aspects of the car and team smacks of too much ego; a huge detriment to any team, racing or business. If I was a new member at my first meeting and got the same impression from you there that I just got from your post, I would be moving to Formula Hybrid before the meeting was over.

As far as goals go: yes they need to be quantitative. But a)we call this a learning opportunity, not a firing opportunity, and b) When you are balancing cost, weight, time, stiffness, and other aspects of any component on the car, in a lot of cases (not all) it is good to set goals for everything while maintaining weight as your variable to minimize. In other words: "This muffler will fit within the packaging requirements, allow us to reach our horsepower goal, be no louder than 110db, and be as lightweight as possible."

"You're fired, Matt."

"Fine. I'm going to start a Hybrid team." (Matt goes to start a FH team, taking with him most of the FSAE team who are tired of having their hard work and ideas overruled by the autocratic FSAE team leader.)

[JamesWolak]

1. Wouldn't have been the team leader
2. Would have drank less often (1 and 2 go togather)
3. Would have gone to a different school

[screwdriver]

1 - Don't question as much as I did, ie place more trust in my team-mates and not worry so much. Worrying doesn't help in any way. I couldn't do most tasks anyway.

2 - Take a semester off to work on the team before writing my thesis rather than doing it in parallel. Would have been much more relaxing.

3 - Make sure people don't create a mess while working. I'd say we wasted 50% or more of our time looking for tools or parts because they've gone MIA.
Forcing people to clean up and to store the tools where they belong after they finished.
Making sure everything has it's place in the workshop and having mobile storage for everything needed when testing and at comp.
Having storage for the parts that come off the car when disassembling it.

The rest went pretty well - for my project at least. Keeping it simple, doing a lazy design, ie searching for the solution that takes the least effort and executing it properly is the best thing you can do.

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D J Yates:
In my opinion, the failures of my ex-team (NRacing in general, rather than a team of individuals in any one year) are down to the way FStudent is run by the university. When i say failure, i'm not saying the whole project is/was a disaster, but for a university of Newcastle's size and position we/they have consistently underachieved. I expect that the Univeristy run the project for educational benefit and belive that they are helping students allowing them to undertake accademic projects that overlap with a recognised and respected engineering playground, but it just doesn't work. The requirements (timing and technical content) to run a successful team, design and build a good car, and succeed at competition are not the same those required to complete a good accademic projects - by all means, students should have the opportunity to get accademic credit for work they've completed, but parts and systems designed as an accedmic project is detremental to the car and the rest of the team. So, if i were to run a Formula project again, the first thing i'd do is ditch the accademic format and run the team like a business:

I'd have a single person in charge (me, of course) who'd have the final say on all aspects of the team and car, with no interfering from lecturers and accademic staff. All team members would have to make formal applications; hiring and firing would be at my discretion. Upon graduating/retiring i'd recieve applications for my position from existing team members and exceptional post-grads with prior experience only. I'd appoint two principle engineers, one for the powertrain (all aspects of engine, transmission and electric systems) and one for the chassis (everything else). All of the remaining engineers - trusted seniors and less experienced juniors - would be assigend to design tasks, under the supervision of principles, as and when required - i.e. rather than having someone disapear into a darkened room for several months to work on a particular system of the car, i'd have everyone work together assigning and re-assigning resources appropriately and when they are required. I'd ban engineers from faffing about doing the website or other non-engineering tasks and have students from other appropriate disciplins do those jobs. I'd also fire anyone who used the phrases "as light as possible", "as stiff as possible", "as strong as possible", "good handling", "fast", etc. as design targets - un-quantified specifications are useless and complete waste of time.

As a student, i wasted far to much time worrying about the fine details of the suspension design when the fundamentals were all wrong. Now that i know better, the first thing i'd do would be perform a simple vehicle dynamics study to set design limits for the major influencing parmaters of the car (mass, wheelbase, weight distribution, CofM height, yaw inertia, tractive and braking effort, drag and lift limits and etc.) based on target accelerations, critical speeds and response/stability requirements. Some of these limits might be narrow, some quite wide, some so vast they seem irrelevant, but the act of setting them and not deviating would avoid costly changes (time and money) later on. Limits for those areas of the car that are important but not as critical (roll centre heights, spring and damping rates, differential, etc.) would be set with a more extensive analysis a little later on. And so on, building up a more complex model as the design progresses and using it so set limits for the design details. Obviously, this is how you'd engineer anything and everything (refining the design and analysis as you go), but its amaizing how easy it is to forget (or just ignore) this when you're playing with racing cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your middle paragraph demonstrates incredible ego. I don't think a team run by you would have been much fun.

I think you're right to an extent about having academic credit for all parts of the car being a poor idea. I did a project on lap time simulation precisely to avoid my degree being adversely affected by an interaction with another part of the car that could have been the case with a car related project.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'd also fire anyone who used the phrases "as light as possible", "as stiff as possible", "as strong as possible", "good handling", "fast", etc. as design targets - un-quantified specifications are useless and complete waste of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly you've missed the point about team leadership. Team leadership in FSAE is as much about being an educator as much as it is about designing a car. There will always be a few very capable individuals who know enough to do the whole car and don't think they need other students to help. Problem is 4 or 5 guys can design the car, but it always takes more to build it and race it.

Taking a dismissive attitude to other students was one of my biggest failings as a person and as a tech director on this project. The fact that you have those attitudes as a graduate is a little sad.

Ben

[js10coastr]

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

"Fine. I'm going to start a Hybrid team." (Matt goes to start a FH team, taking with him most of the FSAE team who are tired of having their hard work and ideas overruled by the autocratic FSAE team leader.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and about half a dozen girls.

[Prohet][]

If I had to do it again I would get the uni to change the way the program is run so they look to the future more instead of a year by year basis that is now scewing them over.

[D J Yates]

Ian,

the University supplies a work area for the team, some funding and a bank account. Like all other students, the FS students have 9-5 access to workstations with CAD and CAE tools, and 24hour access via a VPN (if you could find a workstation with a fast enough network connection). Like all engineering students, we were allocated an amount of technician time (can't remember how much) for accademic projects, although for the first year there was a dedicated master welder on loan from the army. Lots of the technicians like to help out in their spare time though. Diffuclty is that all of these resources are only available 9-5 and most students are stuck in lectures etc. for the majority of that time. By joining the AU we're able to get insurance for trips of campus (i.e. testing). We were also covered for vehicle hire by the departement. But the department insurance is really strict and students aren't even allowed to use basic hand tools unsupervised (and trying to get supervision relies on a technician giving up his lunch break or coming in on a weekend).

This is a lot and the team wouldn't have existed at all without it; so i'm grateful that it did. You're quite right about the need to integrate - it helps give it a purpose to those with the cheque book. But had the project timing and team format been less structured around the accademic projects of 3rd and 4th year students, i belive that both the students and university would get more out of it.

Ian, Ben and Matt,

Having re-read that middle parahraph, it doesn't read good nor properly convey what i was trying to say - no excuses.

What i was trying to say is: There should be a single person with the authority to make a call on a particular aspect of the car design, project managment or team management, if required - i.e. if there is a dispute, or some uncertainty, the guy at the top makes the decision. Of course, this person should have the appropriate knowledge and experience, be responsible and able to listen to the team. I'm not saying they should dicate, just be able to see the big picture, guide the team and swap around the resources when required. They should also (as all people in senior positions should, IMO) be able to do, or at least understand, the jobs of those people they are responsible for and who report to them.

This is basically the same as any engineering company i've ever worked for or with or happen to know, which is why i refered to it as 'business-like'. Perpahps the term proffesionl would have been more appropriate since i'm not suggesting an FSAE team should exist to make money. Now, I can't speak for other teams having never worked with any other than Newcastle, but our format was not like this - it was more like a bunch of students working on their own little bit of the car (and that bit alone) with a couple of 4th years trying desperately to keep track of what they're doing but with no authority to make sure they're actually doing what's required to get the car finished on time. Usually, everyone would finish their projects in April, sit their exams in May and disapear for the summer, leaving only the core team members to finish the car.

When i said about putting myself in charge, it was mainly for the reason of being able to talk in the first person, which is easier and quicker than writing in the third. I'm not going to impose myself on a team and don't know how i possibly could, i would just like to have the opportunity to run the team in a manner that i think would achieve the best results for all involved (myself included).

As for "firing" people, that was meant to be a bit tounge-n-cheek but, obviously, my intent didn't come across in my writing. I was just trying to get across the importance of quantifying all aspects of a design or argument. It just frustrates me beyond belief hearing the same old unquantified arguments being batted around in meetings - we (myself included, again) made a lot of bad decissions, and often no decision at all, because we failed to back up our opinions with quantified fact.

(Almost) finally, i know i dug my own hole and embaraced myself with that first post , but i think its a bit harsh to accuse me of having an 'ego' or 'sad' attitude from that alone. All i did was demonstrate a case of speaking without thinking properly. Hopefully, i'm not digging that hole any deeper by replying.

Finally, i hope i've NOT made it sound like Newcastle are a useless bunch. They're far from useless, in fact. I enjoyed my time at Newcastle very much and learned a huge amount through doing FS, for which i'm greatful to all involved. However, i wasn't satisfied with either my own performance (i rarely am) nor what was achieved. Although i accept that was because I wanted more and had higher expectations than the majority.

[Type Q]

When I graduated, I along with other leaders, had a talk with the faculty advisor about what needed to be done differently. I also gave him the first version of what eventually became the paper SAE published.

From what I have seen. Most of the program that my teammates and I described has come to fruitition and and subsequent teams have gone far beyond even our grand ideas. The cars coming out of Michigan State now are light years ahead of what we built.

If I did another one, there would be much more thorough planning and project management. I'd also allocate some funds to buy a couple of reliable karts to do driver training and have some fun with when everyones' enthusiasm is waning.

[VFR750R]

David, i agree that for efficiency a single person must ultimately be responsible but i think it fails to address the basic human desire to have influence and to make choices.

I'd say the hardest thing about being a team leader is giving everyone a sense of responsibility for their tasks. You have to instill a sense of importance into even the most mundane jobs, so that people will do them and feel good about their place on the team. no one person can be responsible for every part on the car, so each part of the car must be assigned to someone specifically. the throttle is Johns part, the battery is steve's part ect. If its without doubt Your responsibility, you'll make sure its in working order. As a leader you must stop the chain of passing the blame.

[ben]

I think you do need a single person who has a final say in the event of a dispute. But for that person to have to have a say on every decision is just autocratic.

When I was tech director at Birmingham each subsystem had a leader and provided the respective leaders of two interacting systems agreed on what to do I left them to it.

Ben

[Chris Lane]

Not an alumni, but just shipped our first car.

1. Get the design and tech drawings out of the way early and at once (4 months or so). Get the car built about 3 months before comp and test it.

2. Hold a 'timeline meeting' early on. Set milestones in concrete and stick to them. Perform a risk and dependency assessment on each design and manufacturing task to determine critical tasks and minimum time for completion. Assign resources accordingly.

3. Use your CNC facilities efficiently. Have a queue of designs and materials so the people operating them always have more to do. Only have one or two people assigned to each machine to avoid confusion with setups and tooling. If no-one is adept at using the NC lathe and mill, send two people on a short course so they can teach their peers and next years' team. The same queue system should be used for the manual machines and welding bay also.

4. Get your teammates into the habit of making their resource needs known BEFORE they need them. Don't know how much time we wasted this year waiting on silly little bolts or parts. If at all possible, order all your bolts/nuts/washers ONCE and top up if necessary toward the end of the build.

5. CLEAN AND ORGANISED WORKSHOP! There is nothing more frustrating than wandering around the workshop looking for that small tool that you thought you saw that other guy using the other day. Keep spare/removed parts in one place and clearly labelled. Label raw materials (eg. Ally billet, steel rod etc) for their intended purpose.

6. Have a sponsorship and marketing team whose sole purpose is to bring money in, and keep sponsors involved and happy.

7. If at all possible, have an external bank account away from the uni with your emergency money in it (couple of grand). Make two senior members of the team co-signatories for any withdrawls. I've lost count of how many times ours saved us from certain destruction since purchased through the uni usually took outside of a week.

8. Understand and sensibly apply part tolerances.

9. Make each decision once and only reverse them if absolutely necessary. Umming an ahhing and the ensuing argument wastes an incredible amount of time.

10. Never underestimate the importance of team-building time, and make sure to praise your colleagues for their effort and good work. A happy team produces good work quickly.

My 2c

[Chris Allbee]

1) Care less.
2) sleep more.
3) enjoy this "college experience" everyone now raves about, but i somehow missed...

Joking aside, I'm with Kyle on this one. It is a learning experience first and foremost. I would have used it to experiment more with new design methods and manufacturing techniques, really challenged myself.

Also, I would have required a more formal approach to the design process with a paper trail of major design change points and design reviews. It would have been fantastic practice for the mountains of design reviews and (electronic) paperwork I now generate.

There is one thing that our team succeeded at about 70% of the time, and that was to remember not to take ourselves or this "race team" business to seriously. Have fun while you learn, its ok, try it....

[rollcentre]

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

Followed by a fatigue failure at comp http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Ben </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to chime in here, as I rarely do;

But preceding said testing should come adequate fatigue analysis on such mission critical components, and thus justify their entire replacement before competition. Small 10-32 end Rod ends on your pushrod-to-rockers out of plane? Replace them before competition. They will fail at the most inopportune time.

So the cars are designed to last one one season? That means if you do an entire seasons worth of testing before competition, you should be smart enough to replace the parts effected by fatigue with fresh parts to spec immediately before a competition....

[Mike Cook]

I'd tell you all, but I'm not quite alumni yet// http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Robert_USM]

I wouldn't do it!

Haha only joking. The biggest gain I can see (in lap times anyway) for us is the lack of driver training practice. I would aim to get the car done sooner (even if it means keeping thing relatively simple) to get more time in the car. More practice obviously also leads to more time for a better set up and modifications to parts that were not initially correct.

[mjdavidson]

Choose a different university.

[ccsharry]

- finished the car build at least a month earlier to provide more time for driver training and vehicle setup

- further understand the slicks characteristics

- re-configure the gear change mechanism

- re-design plenum

these factors should bring my team to a even more competitive position

[Jersey Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mjdavidson:
Choose a different university. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That bad?

Go Buffs. There were times when I thought it woulda been nice to have been part of a more "legit" program, or at a school with an actual automotive program. But I think regardless of where you go, you don't know jack coming out of undergrad compared to what you pick up in industry in your first year or two. I had a blast my 3 years on the team.

Plus, you learn how to really make due with what you got. And we didn't have much...

[Courtney Waters]

So I'm not the only one who thinks about what they'd do if they could do it all over again? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Being involved in the vehicle design/manufacturing field, I've been thinking a lot about how I'd make a truly mass-producible FSAE car. I don't think there are many out there, and while the competition points don't overly emphasize it (and certainly the glamor factor wouldn't be there) I think it would be an interesting challenge to come up with a design where they could be knocked out in say, a week, for a truly budget price, and show up at the competition with 3 identical cars or something. Document the hell out of it with real drawings (not the usual half print, half screen shot we worked from) and a real BOM. Incorporate some real project management to get the thing done in time for substantial testing, etc, etc. The real challenge, of course, would be marrying manufacturability with a design that people would still like aesthetically, and that still had decent performance.

[JamesWolak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris Allbee:
3) enjoy this "college experience" everyone now raves about, but i somehow missed...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah where the hell was i suppose to sign up for that? Guess Lawrence Tech was the wrong place.