How to make the design event better.

To be honest I think this is one of the key areas where our choice of static event judges needs to be very carefully monitored. And it is one of the main reasons I push for alumni to take up judging roles in this event. It is with the informed alumni that I have the most sophisticated discussions about the merit of a particular design with respect to:
- the resources available to the team
- the goals and objectives of the team
I am not one who believes that if the team has limited resources, then it needs to go out and get more resources. Good design can occur within the confines of limited resources, just as much as poor design can be found in teams with extensive resources.
The merit of design is in delivery of functional requirements within the bounds of the resources available. Sure, there is some scope to trade/invest some resources (e.g. project time) for others (e.g. sponsorship dollars), but in the end you have to put a cap on it somewhere. And to this point in time I have had more rounded discussions with alumni on this matter than outside industry professionals.
I don't believe that a solely alumni based judging crew is the answer - we need balance and outside perspective. But an industry monoculture is just as bad as an alumni monoculture. As is an incumbent monoculture, where the existing crew assume that outsiders are less informed than they are - is less desirable again.
And before I offend anybody again - I am not taking pot shots at anyone here!

And sorry, I missed the main point I intended to make.
FSAE is great because it offers the scope to cater to the top end of town (e.g. composites training and research) right through to the lowbudget end of the scale. We DO NOT want to lose this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Bird

And sorry, I missed the main point I intended to make.
FSAE is great because it offers the scope to cater to the top end of town (e.g. composites training and research) right through to the lowbudget end of the scale. We DO NOT want to lose this.

---

We don't have to within reason (RMIT was in a similar position in 2004 - have autoclave and great aerospace project, an olympic project win, want composites in car).

The nice thing about FSAE is that you can run some stuff that's relatively more expensive within the intent of the rules, you simply need to compromise elsewhere. Pick your compromises and move forwards. It's policed poorly, though the intent of the competition was setup to very broadly decouple resource constraints from performance envelopes. We have too many entrants and alumni confusing what it cost to build a prototype with what it costs to build a production example in series.

I would prefer to expand the remit of the cost event slightly to allow teams to explain with substantiation - where they believe it appropriate - what they'd have done with more resources in prototype, and what this would have meant in performance. Designing better is free.

If a university wants, for instance, a project that runs best composites, electric motors and energy storage... it looks more like a recipe for a solar car entry.

FSAE doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, all things to all schools.

Swiftus, no issues with anything you've written. Most universities have core research and commercialisation competencies they'd like reflected in various programs. That's totally OK.

Just do it within the confines of the competition intent. Having limits to execution is not a limitation to what's developed. If AMZ wants to run a batshit EV power train, that's fine, as long as they're competing fairly on cost and design intent. There's no limitation in the rules on how many ways you can skin a cat.

Just respect what's there for parity. Show you batshit crazy electric motors can be made in series and at a cost that keeps your car viable, or show that you made compromises elsewhere or both. It's about choosing poisons/compromises/integration/etc.

FSAE shouldn't become a place where biggest spend dictates. This is different. If universities really want that, there really is solar racing and a bunch of other exercises.

Just a quick comment on the composites is expensive topic, I just got a price for work from a Chinese carbon fibre producer - US$15/m2 for 200gsm cloth, US$8 for 200gsm Uni and that is just for one roll, there are discounts for more than 2 rolls. At my old job our moulds could produce about 600 parts before they needed replacing, so the cost of moulds per part worked out to be about $10 per part.

This is an area where the competition/marking/cost is lagging behind the realities of modern manufacturing.

This is my ideas for improvements:
Design -
First up, keep it. Then release the marking schedule early. Have a Goto meeting of the judges and re-release the updated schedule afterwards. This would show the teams the areas that they will be assessed on and thus they can prepare accordingly. And teams need to prepare for the event.

It sounds like the at comp event is about right except maybe, if time allows, space out the 'appointments' to give the judges time to write up their notes. It is after the event that improvements are needed. Release the judges notes at the same time as the results. If a judge is able to spare the time they could host a short (15-30min) review, not debate, at the teams request. Those Dj's that can't hang around could offer up an email or goto time to have a review with teams at a later time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTS

Swiftus, no issues with anything you've written. Most universities have core research and commercialisation competencies they'd like reflected in various programs. That's totally OK.

Just do it within the confines of the competition intent. Having limits to execution is not a limitation to what's developed. If AMZ wants to run a batshit EV power train, that's fine, as long as they're competing fairly on cost and design intent. There's no limitation in the rules on how many ways you can skin a cat.

Just respect what's there for parity. Show you batshit crazy electric motors can be made in series and at a cost that keeps your car viable, or show that you made compromises elsewhere or both. It's about choosing poisons/compromises/integration/etc.

FSAE shouldn't become a place where biggest spend dictates. This is different. If universities really want that, there really is solar racing and a bunch of other exercises.

---

GTS,

what I meant is exactly contrary. It is NOT a big amount spent. It is none spent. It's free. But still expensive for the sponsor.
The university is as far away from FSAE as a university can be. They put a nice picture of the car on their homepage if we won or when we set the World Record, but that's it.

They don't say "Oh you have to use the expensive stuff, to make it look cool". They simply don't care at all - as long as the project is run safe and educates the students.

What my point was:
Yes, it is a prototype and all those cars probably need some tweaks for mass production.
Our motors were too expensive for selling the car - yes. But we paid 0$ for them. Getting the AMKs (argueably the best "buy option" for electric drivetrain) would have costed us a 5-figure Euro amount (and that was back in the day when the Euro was 1,5 times the Swiss Franc/Dollar...). They could be mass produced but seriously, why would you pay a significant amount of your total budget for that if you get it for free.

In my opinion, this is project managing as well and therefore part of the competition.

You are right that the students should be able to justify their choice.
Maybe we have to introduce a category: "What would you change from prototype (which is a showcase of your "company" and what you are capable of doing) to the mass product? And what would be the influence in "real" cost and "real" performance?"

In the end, there are always going to be teams going for the fastest car.. The question is, if we can make the penalty in such a Cost&Design event so harsh that "really" the best compromise is going to win.
If GFR/Zurich/Delft/Stuttgart give you 5-6 seconds on a one minute lap, you have to make up a lot of static points to beat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

The university is as far away from FSAE as a university can be.

---

Not an ideal situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

Yes, it is a prototype and all those cars probably need some tweaks for mass production.
Our motors were too expensive for selling the car - yes.

---

Then you're operating outside the spirit of the competition, and you shouldn't be using them. Teams are to build a production prototype. If you're motors are too expensive, you're using the wrong motors, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

But we paid 0$ for them. Getting the AMKs (argueably the best "buy option" for electric drivetrain) would have costed us a 5-figure Euro amount (and that was back in the day when the Euro was 1,5 times the Swiss Franc/Dollar...). They could be mass produced but seriously, why would you pay a significant amount of your total budget for that if you get it for free..

---

We're confusing production BoM costs - what teams are judged on - with project build costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

In my opinion, this is project managing as well and therefore part of the competition..

---

Teams are not assessed on internal finances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

You are right that the students should be able to justify their choice.
Maybe we have to introduce a category: "What would you change from prototype (which is a showcase of your "company" and what you are capable of doing) to the mass product? And what would be the influence in "real" cost and "real" performance?"

---

I think this would be a great approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

In the end, there are always going to be teams going for the fastest car..

---

Sure, but if this is all they're going for then they're in the wrong competition - they're going to be disappointed.

I would suggest that (at least in Australia) that none among the fastest are perfect cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

The question is, if we can make the penalty in such a Cost&Design event so harsh that "really" the best compromise is going to win.

---

That's the idea of the competition, however there's sufficient space to improve cars at less cost yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulianH

If GFR/Zurich/Delft/Stuttgart give you 5-6 seconds on a one minute lap, you have to make up a lot of static points to beat them.

---

Possibly so.

Swiftus the key words are design decisions.

Team can decide to do whatever they wish to do within the rules set. They simply decide what goes in, why, and why the consequences of their decisions are better than what they didn't decide to do. This is done from a number of perspectives: cost, performance, you name it.

If there are parts in the car that cannot be replicated on cost in a production context, you're outside the rules - simple. Had this very dilemma way back when it was my FSAE year too. Not a new problem.

Maybe we are talking the same argument.

Maybe we have to introduce a category: "What would you change from prototype (which is a showcase of your "company" and what you are capable of doing) to the mass product? And what would be the influence in "real" cost and "real" performance?"

Julian, as you know, this is partially implemented on EU competitions (or at least some of them) as part of the "real case scenario" in the cost event.

Regarding cost of e-motors, currently is per kW, but there isn't any guidelines whether this is per nominal or max values. I bet you that all e-teams cost their motors per nominal values, which for FSAE are pretty irrelevant. Moreover, with the current rule set, 4x20kW motors would cost the same with 1x80kW; this is simply not realistic. Actually the single motor team might come up more expensive due to the (needed) differential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

I think my point really is that teams shouldn't be unable to use unobtanium in their cars. They just have to defend the design choice to use unobtainium in the 3 arenas where it counts in FS, in design, in cost, and on track. If they think the losses in two of the arenas are worth the gain in the third, who are you to force them not to have that design option?

---

You're picking at two issues here. I've addressed both.

1
Teams can truly use what they want. Everything bears a compromise on something else.

2
This needs to be practically limited by the notion that the metrics we use for assessing these tradeoffs can't be a full-on pisstake.

I really don't care what students are offered by sponsors. Students could be offered cells with thirteen times the density of the best Saft can offer made from laser-sintered titanium-infused ostrich scrotum with dilithium electrodes for all I care. Read S4.1 and S4.7 very carefully. Unless sponsors plan on giving 1,000 units a year at a production price reflecting the competition intent, a team so affected is outside the spirit of the rules. There's not much else to it.

That is not 'forcing students not to have that design option', that's asking competitors to set themselves reasonable design challenges that are fair to all competitors. If students can demonstrate, working with their sponsors, that e.g. the aforementioned laser-sintered titanium-infused ostrich scrotum parts could actually be costed reasonably within the scope of the rules, great. Demonstrate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

I think the way the rules and points are formatted right now, the interpretation that unobtanium is 'against the spirit of the rules' is a fallacy. If that were the case, cost and design would be 2/3 of the competition and not the dynamic events.

---

33% doesn't make for a fallacy, Jay.

Teams without access to similar resources might think your assertion differently, particularly when the end of their year at competition ends with the rules not capturing resource differences equitably. This is an area the event can improve in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

Every part on every one of these cars could be replicated on some level of cost in a production context...

---

All the event needs to ask is that people can prove it beyond anecdotal statements. We have real issues in the EV section presently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

I think all materials and methods have their place in this world and it should be left up to the students to defend their choices.

---

Within reason, sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

A defeating part of this competition is the pre-conception of what an FSAE car should be by many of the 'alumni' of the competition (DJs and former students are all 'alumni' IMO).

---

Sorry mate, can't agree with you there. Many of us have zero preconceptions about what the car should be. Appreciably it's not replicated by everyone still on these forums, however many alumni do actually move on with life. We're more interested in students' thoughts and processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

What is the real goal of the event? I think it will be agreed that the intent is not to simply make a race car. The intent is to teach budding students lessons which cannot be learned in the classroom and often take too long or carry too many consequences to learn at an internship. Lessons of teamwork, cooperation, time management, scope control, design process and design application, hands-on manufacturing and etc. are probably the agreed upon true intents of why FSAE was founded. 'Alumni' were tired of getting green and awkward engineers out of colleges and had to waste 6 months and the fate of a minor project on getting the whippersnappers whipped into productive shape.

Can that generalized intent be counted as accurate?

---

It's best said here http://students.sae.org/cds/formulaseries/about.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

If so, then why force further constraint of the design decisions? 180 pages of rules (not counting the pages in the SES, IA, BLC, FMEAs, etc) already takes a fresh student on our team close to a month to really truly understand the limits of what is possible. Adding more will just make that process take longer.

---

Who said it's further constraint? Or any addition to the rules? Nothing of the sort, Jay. Simply suggesting students not take the piss on it, that's all.

A month of RTFM before being let loose with other people's money with so little experience on so little accountability isn't time lost, I'd argue it's quite quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiftus

A disagreement in a design decision should be made during the design event after having listened to the defense delivered by the students who created the design. If it is safe, and meets the performance objectives of the team while still maintaining a deliverable of a 'car for a weekend racer', then it is a valid design. Your judging score can be used to rank its validity.

Same goes for cost. If the team ends up with a million dollar FS car, they will be penalized in cost. Hopefully they can make up for that in added performance on track. But if they can defend the additional cost-to-performance ratio in the design event, shouldn't they maintain full credit?

---

Jay, you've said nothing here that many haven't said before.

You mentioned your team ran motors beyond the scope of the competition. This sort of stuff can hurt the competition, and we're in a place with EV particularly where cost structures don't fully capture performance differentials in components used. That's no surprise, the field is moving quickly. It it gets away from the organisers, we can end up with performance differences not able to be met readily or fairly in better design. The rules exist to provide a template for compromise; it simply needs to be fair and relevant in doing so.

In my year it was a steering rack, believe it or not.