It was such a bad idea everyone but me has quit the forum. Well done, you win...... ;)
Printable View
It was such a bad idea everyone but me has quit the forum. Well done, you win...... ;)
Will,
fine. I'll bite.
1) FSAE should stay FSAE. If you want to play with stock Go-Karts; that's another racing series.
2) >80% of all teams are already struggeling to put a car together that can run 22km. Putting them wheel to wheel is prone to massive failure and big cost.
3) Driverless FSAE is just one step more as regular FSAE. In the "perfect world" (let's say 3-4-5 years down the road) we will have only driverless FSAE cars that are perfectly designed to the new challenge and not "re-modeled" regular FSAE cars.
Then the challenge stays the same as in FSAE right now, just with one more feature that is to be designed, tested and improved. The "design challenge" stays the same.
Just that we don't have to recruit the best drivers, we have to create them ourselves.
JullianH,
I do agree that it should be a totally separate event under the collegiate design series umbrella, and I should not have called it autonomous fsae.
I propose using existing platforms ( ie go-karts) specifically to reduce the scope of the event and to let team focus on their key autonomous systems.
I would argue against teams build their own platforms for an automous series.
Like you said most team struggle to complete endurance and adding autonomous systems greatly increases the challenge.
And while interdisciplinary projects are great I feel the cost of such additonal complexity out weighs the added learning opportunity.
-William
I think people underestimate how much you can engineer a driver as well....Either way, I think it's easier to find a driver who will get 95% out of the car then it is to design an autonomous system to do that same thing. Personally, I have no interest in an autonomous FSAE because part of the design challenge is that a human driver doesn't always make sense. They don't always make the right decisions. They don't feel or think through things perfectly. And just like the rest of FSAE, this is an engineering management competition first and an engineering design competition second if we're honest about it. It's good to learn how to manage the "end user" as well I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianH
Announced today via twitter (and yes, I can already hear the groans):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFcXagPXcAAoDmZ.jpg
https://twitter.com/FormulaStudent/status/889205210727559170
Unclear if it will be based on Formula Student Vehicles or not, but given the context of the announcement I would assume so.
Re the FSUK platform, I have no inside info, but I strongly suspect it will use this:
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/programmes/...treetdrone-one
Like many of the other comments I think the new class of Driverless FSAE pioneered by FSG will be hugely challenging and exciting and Monash is certainly interested in joining the fray in future years.
I also agree that it is fine to come up with new autonomous competitions but they are not a direct replacement for FSAE.
All going well, it would be great to see other major competitions around the world adopt the FSG driverless ruleset, and while they are at it their whole FS ruleset, including the EV voltage limit and the massively reduced complexity rulebook.
They clearly know what they are doing and are investing the time and effort to push this competition forward and refine what we already have.
Scott
I'm sure that I am not the only engineer that has been able to learn things by driving the car or an older car and applying that experience to their new design decisions. Being able to feel the effect of suspension geometry changes, steering ratios, etc helped me immensely to learn and understand what I was doing. Being able to drive is a huge learning aid.
The auto challenge will be very difficult imo but would certainly be an interesting venture for teams but I don't think it can/should replace 'normal' FS/FSAE.