2014 FSAE-Australasia

[GTS]

Z (I'll start here).

Take your earlier Kipling quote regards words, knaves and fools and apply it to what you've quoted of mine.

There are two events. Design and Presentation. Complete different purposes and yes, there is some degree of interrelation, no more than needing to accelerate out of a corner doesn't obliterate the need for an acceleration event.

We are asked, as judges, to do our best to extract relevant information from students in design. Our job is easier if it can be presented well, and at the other end its difficult if the students concerned are mute or intent on presenting something other than their design (which actually happened twice this event). Either way, we do the job.

The remarks on presentation are made as they affect team culture. Monash certain occupied the top end. At the other we had teams that really didn't give a rat's about the event, and guess what, it showed in the integrity of their design. The clock ticks on 15 minutes all the same. If we get a team looking like junkyard dogs and talking smack that can explain a 100% design, that's what they'll get. Yet to happen.

On design ownership, if a team puts a year of work into a design and when it comes time to bear it to scrutiny has someone present it that doesn't own it, doesn't understand it as well, isn't passionate about it - which ironically happens usually because teams believe it's better to have someone 'who presents well' do the design event - then guess what, we can't award points just because it looks awesome if the person trying to tell us why doesn't have a legitimate clue about it (twice at this and last year's event in my section). We will fumble through language barriers in addition to all shades of social awkward to search for understanding.

The best Design Event aero presentation last year scored 10%. The worst tied for top place.

The DJs are all human. It is a fact that half of them are of below average resistance to sweet-talking spin-doctoring. (Think about it, it is a statistical fact.) The end result is that the Design Event is the second most influenced by subjective bias in the whole competition. I am fine with 100/1000 points being awarded to the Team with the best ability to peddle bulldust, ie. "Presentation Event". That is good education for the realities of the real world.

Design judges are professionals from an industry that prides itself on an ability to assess much in an impartial, scientific manner.

Your statistics are unfounded shit. That's a technical term. Don't teach anytime soon.

But I do not want to see ~300/1000 points handed out for purely subjective reasons. This could happen if Design scoring was pushed up to, say, 200 points, not forgetting that Cost has a fair degree of subjectivity in it as well.

Design Event should be about the design of the car itself.

Well guess what, you're in complete luck. Design Event is about the design of the car itself. Your hysteria about what you think the design judges are or aren't, there's a lower noise floor in the static events than the dynamic events. If a great design is going to shine anywhere, these are easy points.

Regarding the DJ's ability to judge the students' "knowledge".

Earlier (page 7) I wrote,
(Some emphasis added.)

This was blindingly obvious to me when I first saw these cars in 2002. I was harping on about it on these Forums back in 2005, as per the link back on page 12. I have continued to push this point over the last few years.

This single issue of R% is the most overwhelming factor in improving the performance of these cars. It is a trivially simple thing to explain theoretically. Small boys with no education at all can understand it practically.

But how many Design Judges have discussed this issue with the students over the last ~30 years of FS/FSAE?

It appears the answer must be "NOT many!", given that so few Teams have gone down this path.

Pat has posted here since I asked this question, but NO SPECIFIC REPLY to "R%?". I doubt Claude will give a specific reply, since he won't even post his thoughts on "DASDs?".

It follows that there is very little FUNDAMENTAL education happening here.

Wow. Where to start.

I'm sorry that you believe R% is the only "most overwhelming factor in improving the performance of these cars" you see. There are, in fact, many.

Appreciably it'll come as a complete shock to you, however the 15 minutes allocated per team is to judge the design. Not:

To educate students,
To interfere in a faculty's educational program or principles,
To cater for the wide gamut of student levels within any given FSAE team,
To understand a university's drivers for competing in the competition and how this affects educational goals,
To gauge the quality of the student(s) concerned,
To make decisions on the best means of delivering relevant knowledge,
To devise and deliver a means of testing the understanding of such knowledge,
To devise a feedback program in learning to ensure the knowledge was applied and further learned from in a correct manner...

...or the myriad other things that constitute the professional delivery of education... which you seem to have little concept of, and have confused for what design judges actually do in the Design Event.

Those wanting a formal education pay for it and receive it in a learning institution. To participate in FSAE, competitors must be linked to one. Many universities internationally use FSAE as a project-based learning vehicle, and some have even in part devised degree programs around it in part. Design judges and the design event exist to competitively evaluate the net work of educational processes and programs at a variety of learning institutions as applied in a project-based learning environment. The event does not exist to replace formal education: it is a complement. Sure, some universities make a better fist of closing that loop better than others, and have greater success accordingly, and have used that success to drive further uptake of their degree programs.

What the hell do you reasonably expect, in as complex an engineering system as a car, a third-hand individual to impart in fifteen minutes?

If a small boy can understand it, the problem is not the complexity or obscurity of the knowledge. If you've posted it here ad nauseum, the problem isn't a paucity of the knowledge.

At the other end - I don't make any attempt to compress many years of experience in my field into some sort of a quarter-hour knowledge enema. Teams that have sought out my advice do so over many sessions and many hours each, which starts a journey. One uni asked for an hour after their dynamic events and got it. Those involved left with more questions despite more understanding. I don't give fish because it's a crap way to teach anything.

What journey student teams take to trade of many complex factors to design a car - starting with what information is considered, how it is considered, where any why choices and compromises are made - is their own learning experience. It doesn't end at the end of competition.

If you want to see a formula where lessons passed on year-on-year are absorbed cumulatively in the endless pursuit of competitive performance, go watch F1. That's not what Formula SAE is for. Students are free to absorb or ignore information from any source and do with it what they will. They're allowed to make highly original breakthroughs and mistakes in equal measure. We judge how and why it comes together.

GTS, I have read and re-read your post addressing this question of "R%?". Again, I CANNOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC ANSWER! The most I can find is,

Paraphrased, that is,
"You are students, so you have to explain everything.
But we are DJs, so we are very clever, so WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING!"

I am not seeing good Education in that attitude.

We provide feedback as a starting point. There is much that can be done around the immediacy and the transparency of that feedback, though that feedback is not and will never be a set of definitive answers able to be used in a formulaic context. If we gave all the answers, it'd not be a student competition set in a learning environment. Deal with it.

The most a student will get out of me is a suggestion, if I'm asked for suggestions outside of the design event to this end, to consider where any why CoG should be. That there might be better answer than what a team might currently run. Do I know more? Can I formulate a process to give a specific answer? Sure. Couldn't I pass that onto the student in question? Only if I'd completely missed the point of the competition.

It takes a particular kind of agenda to take such a comment and interpret it as you have. Your attitude - promoting some sort of combative relationship with industry seniors - is not something I'd suggest students seek to emulate.

[GTS]

Now please, can we shake hands and make up? Move on? It pains me no end to see people of the same opinion tearing each other to shreds to win a battle within your own team. With the dwindling fortunes of Australian industry slowly pulling the curtains on us all, we need to fight together, not with each other.

BB, no problem getting on with anyone - I'll go toe to toe with anyone and have a beer later too. Want to discuss R% to the death or whatever the transient effect of the moon's pull has on a car, no problem. I'll pitch in.

That kind of relationship involves respect, however, and I won't accept an open display promoting a lack of it. Particularly for a competition that solely exists to better prepare graduates for industry life, and is run by industry volunteers believing that the best use of their time one sunny Friday of the year is to contribute to and invest in the continuance of the next best generation in their own profession.

No one here should accept unfounded criticism of the intent, professionalism or capability of these people. Beyond being flat-out wrong and suggesting a wholly illogical disconnect with students in the competition and what industry professionals they become, it (more critically) promotes values quite contrary to what the competition's about.

Can you imagine if these values were adopted by students wholesale? We'd wind up lacking volunteers to run the event. I certainly wouldn't attend.

[Moke]

Z; While I appreciate and respect that you like to shit stir and challenge the status quo, your attacks on the creditably and personalities of the volunteers is way out of line. They give up their time at their own expense to help out at each event and without them there would be no comp and therefore no one for you to talk at on these forums. Next year it will cost me about $500 in flights, $150 rental car, $300 accommodation, $500 food and other expenses and a week pay to volunteer, for what? Someone to attack my integrity? Why should I bother when it will cost me nearly $3000? Because I give a shit about the quality of new engineers. As the old rugby saying goes: Play the ball not the man.

I don't know if you have sat in on a Biz prez, but it is very different to design. It is like comparing a investment plan to a product's technical data sheet, one covers the commercial/accounting side with little focus on the products and the other is product focused with very little on the commercial side.

-------~~~~~~~~~~~-------

With the power of age, hindsight and beer I have come to an epiphany, which may well be somewhat controversial;

The competition weekend is not important and the results ultimately irrelevant.

What is important and relevant is the 51 weeks leading up to that one weekend. That is when the design and innovation is done, that is when little baby engineers learn what they need to become useful members of the world. A team might not do so well at comp but I would argue that they have learnt no less that the team that wins, maybe even more. Their design might not ever win design but they now skills needed to make that design work. The comp is a show and tell with some back patting validation. Of course if you had told me this back then I would have told you that you're out of your freaking mind.

Focusing on the automotive industry will end this competition. It would interesting to see the percent of grads that go into automotive is, I would pick less than a third and of that even less into racing. Which leaves 2/3rds going in other directions - Hell, I'm Operations Manager at a nanofibre R&D and production company. It is these other industries that need to be engaged. FSAE is an engineering comp where the product happens to be a race car. The skills learnt are transferable to other products and that needs to be made known.

[Z]

GTS and Moke,

This competition is, without a shadow of doubt, supposed to be about Educating young Engineers. Other than the stopwatch as the ultimate "Judge", the DJs in the Design Event currently have the largest influence on this Education, within the competition itself.

Example. A student on another thread has just asked what sort of differential he should buy. Pat Clarke, a long time DJ, has just now advised the student that regardless of what diff he buys, he will have to "defend his choice to the Design Judges", or words to that effect.

In the above, I see a clear signal from a DJ that the student should aim to please the DJs first, and the stopwatch second. That is, the subjective DJs put themselves above the objective stopwatch in the role of "Educators". (And yes, I know the merit of this attitude has been discussed many times before...)

And what is the end result of ~30 years of students aiming to please DJs first, and the stopwatch second?

The average performance of the cars has barely budged. The bell-curve is wider, but its centre isn't moving. There is VERY LITTLE EDUCATION happening here, at least as far as the stopwatch judges it.

Young Engineers being taught to please their subjective "industry seniors" first, and the objective stopwatch second, is NOT GOOD for society in general.
~o0o~

And BTW, GTS, I am considerably your "senior". But I am used to youngsters showing very little respect for their elders these days...
~o0o~

More Xmas shopping... and then family comes a-knocking... Uuugghhh!

Then..., assuming no one else bothers, I will spell out why MORE R% can give such a large performance improvement.

Z

(PS 1. Has anyone considered that this comp would run just fine with NO DJs at all? Could save yourself $3k, Moke.)

(PS 2. To sum-up all of above, the DJs are, for the most part, preventing progress.)

[GTS]

Ha. Still combative I see, and wrong on so many counts.

Education isn't about a stopwatch.

BB, you know where I am right now. Those that seek me may find me through you, or others.

[Z]

... wrong on so many counts.

Education isn't about a stopwatch.

GTS,

Details?

Z

[Moke]

Z;
I don't rate myself enough to judge design, I probably could, but someone needs to put cones back, put cars on fire out, sweep the track, scrutineer the cars, hold the noise meter, keep track of times, tilt test cars, fuel the cars, drink beer with friends made at FSAE, etc. Sure teams could donate members which would be fine for the big guys but for the smaller teams it would be a killer. There are more than the doz or so design judges volunteering their time.

Also might I suggest doing your shopping online, it saves a lot of time and is often cheaper.

[ahill3207]

Just my 2 cents, but asking students to justify and explain their decisions, and giving scores for their ability to do that, should not be considered a bad thing. I work for a large company in the automotive industry, and if I show up in my senior supervisor's office to ask for help, funding, or whatever is needed for a decision I've made that needs his support, I better be damn sure I can explain the issue and my reasoning for the decision, and explain it well and concisely. If I can explain it well, he knows I've done my homework and is much more likely to give me the help I need. It's not about "pleasing" the design judges, it's about being able to explain your design decisions and rationale to someone who has not been there to learn the ins and outs of your vehicle the entire time it was designed and built. The better you can explain your design, the better you understand it.

[Z]

Just had an idea while wrapping presents.

In the spirit of "simplificate, and add more lightness", I have been contemplating just how necessary are the DJs. Certainly, quite a few Teams have now found that P/PR&Rs are utterly useless, and have tossed them. So maybe the same can be done with the DJs, for the betterment of all? (*)

Let's assume that the intent of the Design Event is to encourage the students to bring cars each year that are better designed than last year's.

I would say that the most objective way to judge whether a car is '"better designed" is via the stopwatch. Specifically, in the Acceleration and Skid-Pad Events, which are very consistent tests of performance, especially if held at the same venue each year. Also possible in AutoX, if the same track is used, or if some sort of time scaling can be done to account for track changes (eg. via a spec test car driven by the Stig...).

So, devise a little formula that takes the Team's times in these events, in both this and last year's comps, and produces a score from 0 to 100. (Take 100 as enough points for this "Better Design Event". Give first year Teams default "last year times".)

* If big improvement in times, say, dropping one or more seconds (?), then Team scores the maximum 100 points.

* If NO DIFFERENCE in times, namely no improvement, then 50 points. Typically, this is what the top, but stagnating, Teams would get.

* If much slower times, say, slower by one or more seconds, then 0 points, because this is clearly a Team that was once good, but now gets marked down because no knowledge transfer...

The main advantage of this system is that it gives a very real 50 point encouragement to build a better car. No need to convince your "Boss" that it is better, with all that fancy sales-talk mumbo-jumbo. You just PROVE that it is better, with a stopwatch!

Then, finally, maybe, ... some progress for society in general.
~o0o~

(*) And just think, all those 16 hard-working, volunteer DJs could take the day off, and enjoy themselves at home wrapping Xmas presents. And no hassles about giving written feedback to all the Teams. Err..., except 15 of the Oz DJs haven't bothered with that here...

Z

[Tim.Wright]

Anyone who's ever done any real testing can tell you that trusting laptime alone is a far too simplified way of assessing vehicle performance as a whole.

Unless you think driver skill and weather conditions are legitimate parts of a vehicle's design...