2014 FSAE-Australasia

[Big Bird]

I'm certainly someone who could be tarred with the "treating FSAE as an institution" brush - and have done a pretty decent job of indoctrinating students with a reasonable introduction to the "gaming the system" game. Having said so, given my present lack of employability, and my educational background and leanings, I'm happy to pitch in my 10c worth.

GTS, I agree that there is little value in making a career out of competing in FSAE. And the international rankings to me have never held much sway - a bit like comparing apples with fish to determine which is the best coffee table. It just all seems a bit contrived and irrelevant.

But I am keeping involved to some extent because I am legitimately scared for the future of this event here in Australia.

We have seen once strong university supporters of this event pass by the wayside. Teams that were the foundation of this event are not showing up. Other teams are informing me that their uni no longer supports their project in any way and they have to find all funds and resources themselves. Our event entry fee is the highest in the world, but the venues we have provided have been very second rate. Most international teams that come over here never come back. Teams that innovate feel that they are alienated. Event results are posted but very little feedback gets back to the students as to what they have done right and wrong. And as far as educational outcomes go, it seems the greatest learning comes from discussions like this between interested outsiders, and between the teams themselves - while those that are making money out of this event are very slow on the uptake to get out there and actually educate the competitors, and the unis themselves, as to what this event is all about. The alarm bells are ringing, mate. We need major overhaul. And we need it now.

I am vocal about alumni as they are the ones that are passionate about this event, know the ins and outs and pitfalls of competing, and are most likely to share their opinions around once the judging is done. GTS, I think I remember you saying that of the DJ’s there on the weekend, only 3 of them were interested in being around to offer feedback once Friday was finished??

I believe you have nailed it on the head though when you say that we need evidence that the work being presented is new work. I would be most in favour of dropping some of these hoop-jumping submissions that are now required (business logic plan??), and provide a document specifically comparing last year’s design to this years. All major components. Teams that can bring a photograph of their current car sitting next to their previous year’s car, maybe bodywork off, get bonus points. Or even better – a 25 point event called the “Proof That This Car Is Different To Last Year’s Car” event embedded into the Static Events, whereby the teams have to use their own initiative to impress us with the way they prove that the two cars are different. Video format maybe?? If we prescribe the format, then the teams will begrudge having to do it (once again, Business Logic Plan, anyone??). If we make the proof a competition in itself, then that is about the best motivator there is to get them to apply themselves.

The competitors need to be informed as to how and why they were judged as they were for each and every one of the events. Judging is useless if the reasoning isn’t explained.

I might leave that there for a while. Got to go outside to do some mowing…

Cheers all

[Big Bird]

If I may continue on a little...

In regard to industry representation, I will never argue that it is all a bad thing. I am all in favour of industry representation - especially through design judging - as it provides our students with some real insight into their future careers. Some comments though:
- there are plenty of FSAE grads out there in industry who could provide this guidance. This is not about institutionalizing and worshipping FSAE in itself. It is about having capable and interested design judges who know the FSAE event.
- We should not be focussing on automotive industry engineers only. Most engineers in Australia will never get anywhere near an automotive job. Lets see where our FSAE grads have gone, and bring them to the event so that they might offer their own stories to our students. We would do a great service to the students if we could break them out of the Ford/Holden/Toyota/Bosch mindset and open their eyes to other opportunities
- The revision to Design Event format that we proposed was intended to offer the flexibility to accommodate any number of available design judges. The more the merrier. If we have 40 judges, then by all means set them all loose. Get every one of them talking to a student. If it is a novice first year, then who cares, so be it. The intended outcome is education, so lets give every student an opportunity to talk to an industry engineer. What's the harm in that?

We need passionate people willing to share their knowledge, and every year I see dedicated alumni flying across the country to support this event. Lets engage them more with design judging jobs. Easy.

p.s. I am not shunning the industry engineers who don't have FSAE experience. I am saying that we can supplement them with FSAE alumni, that's all.

[GTS]

Sorry Z, I can't agree with you.

No team was allowed to "Present" in our design session (that's two sections), which is consistent with the intent of the event. I can't vouch for the others. A good third of entrants tried to make it a presentation, and were denied this much. There's a formal protest process that teams are encouraged to follow should they feed they've been treated unfairly.

Far from being sweet-talked or otherwise, the design judges are all engineers (you know, that profession graduating FSAE students hope to join). And thus have been engineering students. And accordingly are equipped to relate to student difficulties in communicating good design. Rather than look to the presentation inherent in the design, the judges are actually quite accommodating of differences in presentation style and proficiency. We try - and are asked to try - to look beyond the very issues you suggest, and to assist students in demonstrating what knowledge they've earned and applied throughout the project.

Your assertion is wrong, and shows some significant disregard for the capabilities of those that give up their time to judge - and why they're asked to.

It is an exceptionally NEAT AND TIDY design. But IMO most DJs interpret this as SIMPLE AND BORING. It is a sad fact of life that most H. Sapiens equate "innovation" with "complication". And DJs are simply an average selection of H. Sapiens.

Your honest opinion is wrong. All the design judges were very impressed with ECU's design, CoG height particularly. As none of the 16 of them (plus the supporting and superior case of volunteers around them) have logged on here to slag you off in an indiscriminate, unfounded manner, I'd ask that you do similarly.

Unfortunately, the ECU car is probably too good.

There is little doubt that ECU had, in some key respects, an excellent concept. You're welcome to re-read earlier posts as to why as much doesn't make for a complete car.

ECU lost points to Monash in aerodynamics. Know why?

ECU didn't lose points because the student in question had to be asked to be take his sunglasses off and actually look at the judges when they were addressing him, as per common courtesy, because we don't judge presentation. They didn't lose points because the car was being wheeled away at the scheduled time of the design event and had to be brought back, with some students actually asking if we could do the design event later. Same reason.

ECU lost points - and I'll keep this brief as it's really up to the universities involved and the SAE-A as to whether detailed feedback should be broadcast publicly - because their design wasn't as good, and because the level of knowledge and rigour applied to it wasn't as good. Period. Neither design or design process was perfect, and ECU's less so. This despite one of the Monash students stammering with nerves all the way through it to the point of having to stop, costing time - with both aero judges asking him to calm down twice - and the ECU student being considerably more comfortable. If matters truly were as you suggest, the points tally would have been the opposite, with the difference enough for ECU to have tied or won design.

Despite an impressive CG height, it'll take more - or a relative fall in the competition's standards - to win design. Because it takes more to make a great overall design. This is a function of the competition presented, not the relative slickness of the competition's presentations. The CG height different is indeed transformative in a performance context (whilst it's unique); and there are plenty of dynamic events to show of the magnitude of this effect in where it can be demonstrated ceteris paribus. As it turned out (and as those judging broadly, anecdotally predicted) it couldn't, because the design was simply not as strong (and even compromised) in other areas, despite there being much that's a good base to move forwards from. There are no doubts that a development of this car could herald a genuine performance breakthrough in the competition.

And let's stress again - the overall difference was very, very small. Ridiculously small on raw scores. Small enough that a very real problem in rescaling, as requested, was that the difference could have quite really tipped the balance in overall scores unfairly had it come down to a single point's difference, which there was a very real chance of having happen.

As for your reference case (F1 only recently went to 45/55 - as you are aware, competitive F1 cars were previously more rear-biased).

So, BIG QUESTION - If an FSAE car turned up at competition with 65%R, then would it deserve extra Design Event points for "innovation"?

A team moving to such a design would require some deep-thinking big-picture analysis. The car itself would require considerable redesign of many major parts. But other than having a shorter nose, and a somewhat rearward MRH, it would not look much different to all the other cars.

Any good design will deserve more points if the students can explain it. This is not a function of how it's presented. Design Event sees plenty of well-presented poor design, which scores poorly, and great design presented with compromised presentation skill accordingly, which scores well.

I'd encourage anyone to work on their presentation skills because they serve well in career, particularly when concepts need to be communicated across a diversity of people, skill sets, cultures, language barriers and the like. As this is a student competition, this is not what we're looking for at Design Event. We can and do decouple these two skills, they're put in different events intentionally to avoid the very problem you're suggesting.

The DJs might not even recognise that this unique R% has any significance. Maybe not even after the students repeatedly explain why this is so.

In fact, the DJs might just see in front of them an incredibly boring "brown-go-kart".

You're demonstrating an appalling and illogical attitude towards those that give up their time, not least considering that some of them were once Formula SAE students themselves that learned from the experience, went into industry, and kept on learning. Among the judges we counted at least five national and three international racing categories of experience, over 10 road vehicle development groups and more. Your assertion of what we might and might not recognise on R%... is bullshit.

I'm not sure whether you're joking, ignorant or just trying to be a dick. Clear it up for me, so I can be clearer about whether contributing to this community is worthwhile.

As I recall, young Icarus cocked it up badly. Exuberance of youth and all...

His old-man Daedalus got it right, though...

The metaphor is correct. Apply it to the last bit of your post I just quoted.

Show a little respect for those giving up time to facilitate the event, Z. This one's even dedicating time to answer you.

[GTS]

But I am keeping involved to some extent because I am legitimately scared for the future of this event here in Australia.

This is a legitimate concern. There is less money for any of this than there ever has been owing to what's happening to the industry that supported and needed it.

Things will never be the same. The competition requires a new paradigm on a number of fronts in Australia.

We have seen once strong university supporters of this event pass by the wayside. Teams that were the foundation of this event are not showing up. Other teams are informing me that their uni no longer supports their project in any way and they have to find all funds and resources themselves. Our event entry fee is the highest in the world, but the venues we have provided have been very second rate. Most international teams that come over here never come back. Teams that innovate feel that they are alienated. Event results are posted but very little feedback gets back to the students as to what they have done right and wrong. And as far as educational outcomes go, it seems the greatest learning comes from discussions like this between interested outsiders, and between the teams themselves - while those that are making money out of this event are very slow on the uptake to get out there and actually educate the competitors, and the unis themselves, as to what this event is all about. The alarm bells are ringing, mate. We need major overhaul. And we need it now.

Unless we can get a venue donated, nothing significantly will change, unfortunately.

The local industry that needed the students will never return to Australia in the same magnitude. What we write here of Formula SAE applies equally to automotive engineering qualifications - that capital is going, going, soon to be gone. I remember getting up the day GM announced a new CEO thinking 'if it happens any day, it'll happen today'. I was working for a competitor company and driving a VE on evaluation when the press pre-release came through. I stayed enough to see the last of the remaining three announce closure, I saw the purchasing department start to downsize as local suppliers fell by the wayside. Every contract not renewed cost engineers their livelihood in an industry that for many had a touch point in FSAE.

Even the paradigms involved in vehicle engineering are changing.

The competition needs a new point of relevance in Australia.

One of the most constructive things we can do for next year is couple it with a careers fair, and push to make the feedback open. These are subjects of a different thread.

I am vocal about alumni as they are the ones that are passionate about this event, know the ins and outs and pitfalls of competing, and are most likely to share their opinions around once the judging is done. GTS, I think I remember you saying that of the DJ’s there on the weekend, only 3 of them were interested in being around to offer feedback once Friday was finished??

This is true. Only 3. This said, had the review happened at 5PM on Friday, this would have been different.

I believe you have nailed it on the head though when you say that we need evidence that the work being presented is new work. I would be most in favour of dropping some of these hoop-jumping submissions that are now required (business logic plan??), and provide a document specifically comparing last year’s design to this years. All major components. Teams that can bring a photograph of their current car sitting next to their previous year’s car, maybe bodywork off, get bonus points. Or even better – a 25 point event called the “Proof That This Car Is Different To Last Year’s Car” event embedded into the Static Events, whereby the teams have to use their own initiative to impress us with the way they prove that the two cars are different. Video format maybe?? If we prescribe the format, then the teams will begrudge having to do it (once again, Business Logic Plan, anyone??). If we make the proof a competition in itself, then that is about the best motivator there is to get them to apply themselves.

Agreed. Maybe we could push this as a scaling against the DE scores.

The competitors need to be informed as to how and why they were judged as they were for each and every one of the events. Judging is useless if the reasoning isn’t explained.

This is a low-hanging fruit that should be addressed first. It's super important.

The revision to Design Event format that we proposed was intended to offer the flexibility to accommodate any number of available design judges. The more the merrier. If we have 40 judges, then by all means set them all loose. Get every one of them talking to a student. If it is a novice first year, then who cares, so be it. The intended outcome is education, so lets give every student an opportunity to talk to an industry engineer. What's the harm in that?

Nada for the harm, BB We occasionally need some money to fly them down, though... there's some great talent out there.

p.s. I am not shunning the industry engineers who don't have FSAE experience. I am saying that we can supplement them with FSAE alumni, that's all.

I agree - what was the split this year? Section D was 50/50.

[Big Bird]

There is a perfect venue on the Hume Highway near Wodonga that we can get for close to FOC. You could pay for a lot of judges accommodation with the money you saved on track hire....

[Pat Clarke]

Thank you GTS

Pat

[ChristianChalliner]

If I can add an outsiders perspective?

I cannot pretend to understand what's happening in Australia with regards to the auto industry nor will I pretend to. So if you believe the competition is losing it's relevance then I can only take your word for it and from briefly scanning the internet it does seem to be true.

That being said, I love the Aus competition and the teams which go to it. Why? because in my opinion this competition and the concepts present are some of the most diverse seen at any FSAE event, these teams go for the crazy ideas, and then they go on to prove the merits of them and that they were right to push these concepts. This is something I have not seen on the same scale at the UK competition.

Please don't misunderstand my meaning, I am not trying to slander any European, American or other team but the concepts I saw last year and have seen in previous years at the UK event have been rather derivative. If I had painted every car black then I would have had a hard time saying which University presented the car. Now I know these teams work extremely hard to produce these cars and I don't wish to take anything from them (far from it) but they are for the most part very conservative, they follow the norm rather than try to be different. I think this is rather true of the attitude most take to the competition here, in that, they fear the failure of trying something new and unproven.

This is something I am experiencing currently, I am trying to push through a major change at my University to actually make us competitive and stand out but it has been extremely difficult to do so and the concept was not received with open arms initially.

I see no such fear from the Aus teams. You only have to look to Monash, ECU, UQR, ADFA, UWA, RMIT for examples of where significant ideas (such as wings, one cylinders, beams, etc) have originated before gaining widespread acceptance.

I would hate to see the Aus competition go under and I think FSAE as a whole would suffer for it.

Christian

[GTS]

Most international teams that come over here never come back.

BB,

In what'll be my last post before Z resurfaces to explain his conduct;

This statement troubles me as a few people did mention it and were very much concerned about the 'event competitiveness' as per the world rankings. We are a long way from anywhere. It costs a significant amount of money to travel to or from Australia in an engineering project context.

Until the advent of world rankings - which I should stress are maintained by the promoters of the German event (make of this what you will) - there was a good deal more competitiveness with more overseas teams turning up to compete. Remember also that FSAE-A was one of very few events outside of FSAE, and that there was originally only one FSAE event in the US. There is much that means coming here is simply less attractive, feeding a downwards spiral which combined with external industry factors may render FSAE-A unattractive in future altogether.

The opportunity cost of travelling to events that are not the Australian event, for many, is considerably lower than for our event. We now have a unofficial world ranking scale (which some take too seriously) which does three things to the Australian event: (1) as less teams turn up (we have less universities locally and are a bloody long and expensive way away), there's a high-confidence probability that the 'competitiveness' factor of our event is lesser, (2) as just finishing the event is difficult owing to it being a student designed-and-built competition, the ranking scale favours competitors that compete more often (as does a 5% overall points shift from Design Event) - most of our teams compete once and (3) as these effects are not mutually exclusive, their effect compounds.

As stated, the unofficial World Rankings are maintained by the promoters of one particular licensed event - which also uses a unique rule set.

Now I'm rapt that there are more and more events around the world as I think it's a good vehicle to get students involved in project-based learning, however like you I'd like to see this problem addressed. There are many possibilities, from funding an invite to a 'best' team to compete (or resourcing our winners to compete overseas), a second Australian competition at midyear (yes... I did just write that), providing the best industry-based learning resources for registered entrants (think about it), convincing the SAE to adopt an official world ranking system that actually accounts for regional concerns as mentioned above, asking the SAE to consider providing funding, at an international level, for 'best of best' competitions... lots of things.

It will involve some off-the-wall thinking, but it's due.

Z,

I await your response to my earlier post.

[Big Bird]

Thanks GTS. Food for thought as always.

A second Oz comp?? Insanity!! That would never work...

[Big Bird]

Christian, thanks for your considered words. Kev and I were waxing lyrical about this diversity of concepts quite a bit last weekend. A wide variety of concepts, presented by an even wider variety of socially uncomfortable people. It's Beauty and the Geek meets the British Superbike Championship meets the Quambatook Tractor Pull. But with less tractors. And on four wheels. And a distinct lack of Beauty. Except of course Maddy. And maybe Kev.

Now where was I??

Our industry is a classic case of lack of understanding our own competitive advantage. Yes, we have innovative engineers, with the ability to both create and deliver. But then we funnel them into foreign multi-national mass-manufacturers. Using tightly managed processes to avert any risk. To mass manufacture cheap cars. On high wages.

Creative people in risk-averse companies, owned offshore, using tightly controlled process, to mass manufacture cars at a Hyundai price-point. On BMW wages. Seriously??

We have a lot to offer. We just have no belief in ourselves. And we are realizing this far too late. If at all...