Two simple rules to improve results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Rouelle

Student Formula Japan has the same procedure although less intense. Their percentage of endurance finish is the best. They sacrifice innovation for reliability. I bet the documents submission is part of their car reliability reasons.

---

Here in Japan, we have several pre-events. Pre-events consists of scrutineering and dynamic events. Attendance is not mandatory, but many teams attend 3 times a year. Once in spring, usually shortly after their shakedown test, once in early August, and once in late August. The competition is held in early September.

Recently, we also do some scrutineering seminar for teams. In the seminar, scrutineers teaches students about the scrutineering, and answer to students' questions.

We also award all the teams who completed all the static events and the dynamic events.

We might be too indulgent with the students. We might be helping them too much. But, we are not satisfied with the rate of DNS and DNF. The Japanese car industry do care about reliability ;)

Dunk,

Thanks for your considered replies. I was afraid we overwhelmed you.

Quote:

---

I don't think DE should be dropped, but changed to: Engineering Event...

---

The end result would be the same.

I will briefly restate my case for dropping Design Event (or a renamed "EE"), in case I was too subtle in previous posts.

I see DE as a massive inducement, effectively a "basketful of the juiciest carrots imagineable", that pulls the students away from building a boring, reliable car, and towards building an unnecessarily complicated high-tech marvel of modern engineering ... that cannot turn its wheels. The RMIT-C car of recent years is just one of many such examples.

It might be argued that Design Event only offers 150 points worth of carrots, against the 600+ carrots on offer from the Dynamic Events, so its "negative pulling power" is not excessive. However, the students clearly see "success in DE" as having a much greater influence on their future job prospects than "success on track". I say "clearly" because in my face-to-face discussions with students, whenever I urge them to "...simplificate, because it adds reliability!", I am most often met with sceptical looks, then "But, ... how will that go down in Design?". It seems that all design decisions must first pass the "...will it impress the DJs?" test.

Furthermore, "success in DE" requires working in a comfortable, indoor environment, in front of a CAD screen, drinking coffee or energy drinks, and eating pizza. Yes, there are many hours of this "work" to be done, but it is EASY work that most students enjoy. On the other hand, as noted many times in previous posts, "success on track" involves much TESTING. This requires much loading and unloading of trailers, changing of tyres, standing for ages in scorching-sun or freezing-rain, getting grit in eyes and grime under fingernails, and generally being completely knackered by end-of-day. In short, the "success in DE" type work is by far the easier option.

So, the "success in DE" carrots are both much tastier ($s!), and also a lot easier to reach, than the "success on track" carrots.

So the donkey naturally walks towards the DE-carrots, and away from the on-track-carrots. Water flows downhill.
~o0o~

The above is my summarised case for dropping DE from the competition.

Now, if this was a discussion about "how to build our next car", then the above arguments should be responded to in a WELL-REASONED manner, namely using "logos". It would NOT be good engineering to simply accept a pathetic (from "pathos", remember) argument to keep DE, such as, "I just like it. Call it a gut-feeling ... but, it has to stay.".

(By analogy, I note that exactly these sorts of pathetic arguments are almost always used by students to "keep the 600-four", or "keep the push/pullrods&rockers + ARBs", and so on, rather than trying to reason their way to a simpler, more reliable solution.)

So, below is a brief example of a logos-like approach to deciding this issue. (And, yes, the full logos approach is even more long-winded, boring++. Sorry!)
~~~o0o~~~

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS of DESIGN EVENT.
=====================================
COST of DE.
==========
1. Large number of officials (the DJs+) are needed for many hours. In terms of man-hours, DE probably accounts for more than any other single event.

Even in a small competition like Oz, almost 40 DJs and assistants are required for a full day. (And at 2016-Oz, almost all the DJs then spent ANOTHER ~8 hours quibbling over whether ONE team should lose ONE point because their 2016 Design Report was almost identical to their 2015 DR.)

2. DE is a distraction that interferes with the students' ability to build a car that can complete the dynamic events.

This is by far the worst "cost". This point can be debated, but if true, then it means DE is a huge impediment to the students' education. By analogy with a car's performance, DE is an anchor that is slowing down the education of the students.
~o0o~

BENEFITS of DE.
==============
1. Hmmm? ......... The DJs like it! (Why else would they spend a whole day quibbling over ONE point?)
~~~o0o~~~

In anticipation of some counter-arguments to above.

1. "But, DE gives the highly talented and experienced DJs an opportunity to give hugely beneficial advice to the students."

So, why, after ~30 years of such advice, are there still so many DNSs and DNFs?

Clearly, any such advice is NOT WORKING.

IMO, this is because the DE format is ill-suited to giving such advice. Not enough time, wrong pedagogic setting, too many cooks giving contrary advice, etc.

Furthermore, any "teaching" value that is claimed to exist in DE can be implemented, much more effectively and cheaply, elsewhere and in other ways.
EG 1. The recently out-of-work ex-DJs can educationally critique each car during scrutineering. Quicker, less "costly", more effective.
EG 2. Claude, or any other ex-DJs, can give such "design critiques" of ALL the cars, with ALL the students attending, at any convenient time during comp. Much quicker than the full day of DE, with much more coverage as all students get feedback on all cars.
~o0o~

2. "But, DE gives some DJs a great opportunity to sift through the many students, in order to find the better ones to whom they can offer jobs."

FS/FSAE is supposed to be about the EDUCATION of young engineers.

The competition, ITSELF, is NOT a "Careers Fair"!

If companies want to hire students, then they can pitch their "We Want You!" tents somewhere adjacent to the competition, but in a way that DOES NOT DISTRACT THE STUDENTS from building a car that WORKS.
~o0o~

Well-reasoned Cost-Benefit type counter-arguments for keeping DE are welcome.

Z

(PS. Again, apologies for above long-winded logos. Sooo much easier to go with those quick-and-easy gut-feelings, innit! :))

While I enjoy these dissertations from future Employed Engineer hopefuls, let me add a simple comment as a wake-up call to those still looking for an education:

There is NO WAY a manufacturing company of ANY product would host a Design Review after a production submission has been built and released for use. Design reviews are held at the minimum monthly and often weekly until ideas and concepts start to harden and flow from design GOALS.
Even the Formula Sewing Machine top management would want to review, comment, direct, criticize, fund, explore parallel Alternate Solutions, and review timing of such a deal.

This begs for a DE event to be held by FS BEFORE cars would be built and shipped. Concepts, drawings, part lists, costs, durability projections, materials, headcount, sourcing, powertrain, safety, emissions, noise, competitive assessment and a bunch of other pertinent Product Engineering 'Features' could/should be submitted for DJ-ing and when laugh track is quiet, a Team would be authorized to proceed. In my day, that's what a Faculty Advisor did. Anybody remember that for the very first ever event, it was a requirement that a car make it through the PG car wash intact ? That tidbit caught a few as I distinctly remember.

Maybe this means that the DE Review is done for the next year's cars. Maybe its done via Skype, Power-Point or papyrus or stone tablets. But, students who march into a Product Proposal meeting with Marketing execs having a 'finished' product on the table will quietly be sent out for training to make good onion rings. I've seen a few of these cats come and go.

As for testing, there are quite a few avenues for this topic: Free body diagrams, plastic models, scale models, computer multi-body models, mules, alpha and beta full size hardware. ALL intended to estimate loads and displacements of the critical parts and players in a machine. I'm reminded of the 1982 GM F-body front strut tower design review. ADAMS was used to design adequate structural integrity of this architecture. Sure, the prototypes lived through all the max pot hole events in the durability schedule. All those wonderful rainflow fatigue counts were within spec and nothing broke. But did anyone notice that the front strut mounts were dimpling the front hood and sheet metal ? Took a while, but loads AND displacement constraints must be reconciled.

One more thing, stuff you 'engineer' has to meet 'foreseeable misuse' sign-off. If your driver misses a shift or hits a cone, what does a Damage Report going to tell about what to expect and how to proceed.

Seems to me that there could be some reordering of these reviews. Let's see the design intent first, then try to build it. Have mass targets, speed and brake constraints, analysis and a Bill of Process (that's what it's called) which shows the lawyers you have been educated. If 'you' says it's too complicated or too time consuming or too much work, rework your team to be more efficient. Otherwise as far as the Industry is concerned, you are just playing in a sandbox.

Rule 1: Allow 2 stroke engines up to the same cc limitation as the the four strokes. (they are all restrictor limited anyway, right?)

Rule 2: Allow down to 6" diameter wheels.



What could possibly go wrong.

Not sure a 2 stroke engine would pass the emission test at Student Formula Japan...

I challenge you to get me and a 2 stroke powered car to Japan and we shall see about that.
Some barriers to entry are trivial.

Barriers to entry? Which barriers? To entry where? Student Formula Japan plays by the same rule as US FSAE and I can confirm that many foreign teams are very welcome and I can attest they are treated equally to any Japanese team many team are welcome.

By the way they have a public combined design review and final that is unique, run by Ono Massa, probably the most experienced engineer and best design judge I ever met, and is very useful to ALL students

2 more pics

Claude, you just said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Rouelle

Not sure a 2 stroke engine would pass the emission test at Student Formula Japan...

---

It sound like you think two strokes would struggle to qualify to enter the FS Japan competition based on their emissions output.
Sounds like a perceived barrier to me.

M Coach, Yes that is what I meant and in total honesty and ignorance (I am not an engine guy and even less a 2 stroke engine guy) I have to say I could be wrong. Just walking in the street of Indian or Vietnamese cities made me doubting the emission efficiency of 2 stroke motorcycles. But I am open to some education here. I also have to say that my post was somewhat irrelevant as FSAE rules do not allow 2 strokes engine.
In any case if any new engine type had to be allowed in FS/FSAE I think hydrogen/fuel cell should be the choice. Providing of course (back to the beginning of this thread) the car weights less than 200 Kg!