how to design suspension uprights

[turtle]

OK but how do you know what is a good upright if you do not know what it is supposed to do, if you have not defined the functions and you only compare forms? Let's also be careful about the Monkey see - Monkey do approach in which many students (especially new ones) also fall "It is a good upright because it is the one of the car that won" used too often.

If the problem has not been defined, then the battle is already lost. Whether or not the end product will satisfy the requirements of the problem will not be understood, irrespective of approach. Coming up with an original design will ideally force the student to go through the exercise of defining the problem - this I can understand.

The case of monkey see monkey do is the result of an unfortunate heuristic. It is unfortunate because it undermines the entire point of the student competition: demonstrating engineering skill and creativity through challenge, a training regiment for students to develop the skills to solve ANY problem. However, this requires students to ask some very fundamental questions: What is Formula SAE? Am I supposed to struggle? Why should I participate in Formula SAE? Is this good for me? Is this good for those around me? Apply the next heuristic in avoidance of these questions until the answer is, 'the car that won has this design'.

So yes, I agree we should be careful with monkey-see monkey do. But what can we do about it? I am just a single undergrad student - I can do my best to encourage those on the team to think critically about the decisions they are making. Even that was met with an unforeseen resistance that still remains. How can we give students incentive to challenge themselves and to think critically, rather than taking the quick and easy shortcuts? It will take a driven team with an extraordinary vision to reform the competition such that it encourages and rewards students to think critically to solve problems. This will be no small feat.

Back to the upright design. How does the act of designing the upright help the student develop critical thinking skills such that it augments their engineering education? That might be a bit too much philosophy just to design an upright.

[Claude Rouelle]

Turtle

"If the problem has not been defined, then the battle is already lost." It is happening more often in FSAE / FS than you think! I am on my way to FSI (India) competition and I know many students there (but they are not the only one) who face this challenge because "form follow function" is not really part of their engineering education.

I agree this a student competition and students are even far less experienced and skilled than professionals (well... that is not always sure...) but I guess the main message I try to to convey is that critical - or lateral - thinking should be part of the creation process before any CAD or or competitors parts analysis research / benchmarking.

Worth to Google "de Bono" ....

That being said i do not think I am not too philosophical: Back to my post of January 11th with concrete design hints...