2014 FSAE-Australasia

[Jonny Rochester]

One reason I would be interested in how the judges judged design, is that Monash won again with the same car. In my small mind, I did not expect Monash could win with the exact same design, but I was wrong. Maybe any of the top 15 teams could have won design with the cars they had, with the result determined by how smart the team are at answering questions during judging. It would be interesting to hear those answers, not that I'm expecting we would or should. I maybe showing my ignorance, not sure. I know Monash have simulators to predict competition results, and they target that, and have the resources to micro-manage the comp complete with leaders stationed around the place complete with radios and ear pieces.

But, if we design a car for the weekend autocrosser, should it take 30 people to look after? A good design should be a bit more robust that that surely. A good design would be a turn-key car that can be managed at at event with only 1 or 2 people. But dynamics are after design in the comp, and I'm not suggesting it be changed. Just something to think about.

[Rex Chan]

Hi Jonny,

It's been a while since I was really into FSAE and how the comp works, so this may be out of date:

The stated aim of FSAE is to design something for the weekend autox-er, but as student engineers, if the aim is to win comp, then we'll do everything within the rules to win. Of course, every teams goals are different.

I've heard the simple weekend track car vs. high techy min-F1 thing a lot. I think a high-tech car *would* be easy for 1 person to run on a typical autox weekend. It's just that we aim to win/drive really fast. And for that, you need more people. Race series of all levels have teams behind them at race weekends, do they not? It's just that autox-ing seems to be a more individual effort (hill-climbs in Australia).

Regarding design, I think one just needs to understand why the car designed the way it was. Being able to justify/explain why something was done.

Further, I'm sure most teams will tell you how/why they designed almsot any bit on their car, if they have the time. It's how I learnt most of the stuff I know about FSAE

[GTS]

One reason I would be interested in how the judges judged design, is that Monash won again with the same car. In my small mind, I did not expect Monash could win with the exact same design, but I was wrong.

There were small differences however you've a valid point - it's very difficult to police too. To be fair to Monash, they weren't the only team appearing with barely-evolutionary to damn-near-identical designs to prior year/s. Maybe the other judges could chime in, in aero at least the presentation was significantly different to the year prior. Not so the car, however the students involved were considerably richer for the experience, which is the ultimate intent. By the tenant of the rules it flew a little close to the wire in execution. That's just my little realm however, and the scores weren't consistent.

How to police it? Should we? I kinda like BB's innovation prize.

A good design would be a turn-key car that can be managed at at event with only 1 or 2 people. But dynamics are after design in the comp, and I'm not suggesting it be changed. Just something to think about.

That's the intent. I'd be keen to see the Design Event occupy a higher proportion of overall score.

[GTS]

I've heard the simple weekend track car vs. high techy min-F1 thing a lot.

Just to be clear - there's very little mini-F1 about a Formula SAE car (at least none at FSAE-A). The competition's rationale is very different, the resources (esp. skill sets involved) are very different, the project aims are very different. Optional wings, four wheels and independent suspension do not an F1 synonym make.

Consider that to develop a competition bicycle in a student team environment would be a very complicated and contested space. Formula SAE throws students a considerably more complex project by way of lending a scope very likely to exceed any resource budget, and it does so very deliberately. A team then needs to make choices in a very deliberate manner. It's a competition of project management and delivery in a group environment.

It is also, very strictly, not a race event. Formula SAE cars do not race, and the competition is not a race.

I wouldn't be a rush to learn from other teams to that degree. Observe, understand, apply logic and critique. The last bits are the most important. There is too much to copy that's poorly done or poorly understood by its creators, and that's OK, so long as monkey-see-monkey-do attitudes aren't employed. This is a key problem the design judges were cringing over. We need to incentivise original thought; there used to be more of it. There's plenty on the top cars that's less-than-not-ideal, just as there was last year, the year before that, etc. If not for a sharp forthcoming change in rules (I can only speak for aero to this end), we'd see it on next year's cars just because it's on the top car this year. That's not science nor smart.

We need to incentivise original thought.

(\\rant over)

[Pete Marsh]

You've touched a raw nerve here Jonny!

I won't hijack this thread (much), perhaps this issue should have it's own, but if you want to know why it is the way it is, just look at the treatment UWAM '12 got! The first car to present a new and genuinely innovative suspension design in recent history, shunned as troublemakers and cheaters by people I used to respect! That is what you get if you stray too far from THEIR idea of an FSAE car.

Many schools and teams strive to win the event, and the recipe that is REWARDED consistently at all the events is long term iterative development with strong and consistent (and skilled) faculty guidance. This is what is required to win in FSAE, simple reality. It is so very true FSAE is a primarily project management competition, but the amount and autonomy of the management being done by students (that turn over each year) varies widely throughout the competition teams.

I am perhaps uniquely qualified to comment on this issue, as I have been with the team through the highs of a World Cup win, to the lows of abject failure, and both types of team structure and philosophy.

I can assure you, going your own way, trying to justify everything on design merit rather than accepted practice, is MUCH harder, but also MUCH more educational. It does not produce points or trophies (or cars) as efficiently.

I'll ask the question of the community, is there a correlation between the successful teams and their cohort career outcomes? Is the quality of student intake and teaching really that much better? Are we rewarding the behaviour that is the desired "ideal"?
I'm not "having a go" at anyone here, just asking the question. At my school, the education is MUCH worse than it once was, and there is little doubt in my mind this has (adversely) affected the teams performance. But is it a competition between students, or schools? It seems to me less than 5% of teams have the structure and resources required to win a comp. What of the members of the other 95%, is their work somehow inferior?

IMO, the comp still achieves great things, but there is little or no connection between educational outcomes and points and trophies for the individual student. In fact I suspect the opposite is the case, that there is more opportunity for the individual to learn and develop in a lesser team. (ie. not World Champ seeking).

I don't think this really matters, as long as you know a lack of trophies does not equate to personal, or educational, failure. Plenty of teams have never won a trophy, but I'm sure they have produced some great engineers.

Pete

[JulianH]

I'd like to see an innovation bonus, outside of the Design Event. Up to 50 points bonus available for a genuinely innovative design, to be awarded at judges discretion at end of weekend. Maybe up to 25 available for second most innovative. If they are to be awarded, they are announced at final presentation, but locked in before start of Sunday's track activities (so judges can't fudge results at end of weekend - not saying that they would)

I like the idea, but don't think we should further introduce a "subjective part" into the scoring.
Some designs are really interessting but it's not certain if they are "good". Just being innovative for "innovative reason" is not the way to go in my opinion.

One good example: The inner wheels of Delft this year (one of the most innovative features (besides their tires) that I have seen in Europe 2014). I have no idea about gearboxes and so on, so for me it was an awesome idea, they promoted it really good during design judging and a lot of judges (at least at FSA where I was on the dark side) agreed and gave them "innovation points". A couple of others thought it was a good idea but had some flaws and a "standard" design (like Stuttgart or Zurich) would have been the better choice. So what now? Give them the 50 points? Or give them to Stuttgart because they made the right call not to make such a design?

I would like to see a special award for something like that. Make 3-4 categories and give a trophy to the team with "Best Use of Brown Go-Kart methods", give an award for "Most innovative weight reduction without using CFRP" or "Best Bang for the Buck". That's a nice goal for a team that is probably not competing for Overall Victory in my mind.

In Germany/Austria, the "big stack bullies" (Delft, Zurich, Zwickau, Stuttgart, GFR) "grab" all the special awards for most innovative powertrains (of course), best lightweight concept (of course), and so on. Most special awards correlate with "overall performance" which (sadly) correlates strongly with money, resources and so on. I think that could be changed.

[GTS]

I'll ask the question of the community, is there a correlation between the successful teams and their cohort career outcomes? Is the quality of student intake and teaching really that much better? Are we rewarding the behaviour that is the desired "ideal"?
Pete

No! I've never employed anyone from a winning team. That's not to say that there aren't great graduates on winning teams, just that winning itself does not aid careers.

At my school, the education is MUCH worse than it once was, and there is little doubt in my mind this has (adversely) affected the teams performance. But is it a competition between students, or schools? It seems to me less than 5% of teams have the structure and resources required to win a comp. What of the members of the other 95%, is their work somehow inferior?
Pete

Oh, you missed a phenomenal discussion after design event...

[Big Bird]

Good morning,
How appropriate Pete chimed in overnight. The UWA suspension interpretation of a couple of years ago was exactly the case I was thinking of when I proposed an innovation bonus.
I cannot remember the judge's reasoning, and I don't think it was ever released publically. But there was a team who genuinely had a go at something innovative, and for their efforts they received a design score of three points. Out of 150. Now to me that sends a message that if you want to be truly innovative, then you need to prepare to sacrifice all for your cause.
I can speak from personal experience too, having been through all this with our early single cylinder cars at RMIT.
I understand that an extra "subjective" points allocation can make some uncomfortable. But the present judging criteria has to tick so many categorical boxes (powertrain, brakes, chassis, innovation, aesthetics, blah, blah etc etc) that innovation just gets swamped. And who wants to risk losing all (a la UWA) for the sake of getting maybe one or two marks difference in Design?

[Big Bird]

And don't get me started on quality of education. Now there is a red rag to a bull...

[Big Bird]

Or the state of Australian engineering.
Same angry bull. Now two red rags...