Two simple rules to improve results.

[John_Burford]

Caroll Smith held design finals after endurance was completed starting in 1996. I think that changed when Jay O'Connell took over lead design judge in 2004.

[Detroitsaab]

I do not post much in here but this topic of design before/after dynamic events hit a note with me.

From my experience in design at both MIS and Lincoln for the past 6 years, I have seen good things and bad. I believe design should be after endurance for many reasons which have been commented on here as well as a few others. Yes some cars in design finals do not finish endurance, sometimes for uncontrollable reasons but I believe that is far and few compared to all the failures I have seen. I have seen teams who were in design finals fail for basic issues such as parts falling off because they weren't bolted down correctly, over heating due to not taking the hot temps in Lincoln into account, having major failures too such as suspension arm failures or engine failures. If you are a design finalist car, you should NOT be having these failures as much as I have seen.

Based on MIS and Lincoln for the past 3 years, the amount of design finalist teams that have not finished endurance is 50%. Half of what is considered the best designed cars in the entire competition aren't finishing a 22 km race? There has to be either something wrong is the way the design competition is scored, what the judges view as winning cars, or something else but I believe putting design after endurance would bring this number of design finalists that don't finish endurance way down.

It is frustrating as a competitor too to see your hard work be graded so low in design, and even still scoffed at in design review even when your car finishes higher than other team's who were considered 'the best.'


I hope to see the organization of the events change so that this can be taken into account.

[Jonny Rochester]

I propose a new rule. (It's so simple, you'll love it).

Design judges have to bring their own FSAE car to comp.

[Billzilla]

I propose a new rule. (It's so simple, you'll love it).

Design judges have to bring their own FSAE car to comp.

That would be rather interesting!

[John_Burford]

You're on. We call it Texas Autocross weekend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D5CN2wT-gk

[Z]

Jonny,

That is exactly what Geoff Pearson suggested way back in February 2013 on the "Fantasy Car" thread.

http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthrea...ll=1#post16636

Here is the gist of Geoff's thinking:

"I've always had this desire to build an "Anti-Technology Special":
- Steel spaceframe
- Swing axles F&R
- Direct acting shocks
- Pitman arm steering
- Spool
- 10" aluminium wheels
- air-cooled single cyl engine
- carbureted
- balsa bodywork (with a nice baltic pine stain)
- No aero
- No carbon
- Something made of dried kelp

Objective - build the simplest, lowest parts count, lowest process count car possible within the rules...
I reckon it would be a good challenge, cheap, easy to build, and I'd love to see how close you could get to the front with it..."
~o0o~

A few pages later Geoff added:

"Re: the intent behind the Anti-Technology Special
...
The purpose would not be to prove that the fastest / best / sexiest racecar in the world would be aircooled, have [swing-axles] and would look like a rabbit hutch on wheels. Rather, I would love to build it just to set a benchmark for everyone. Give ourselves a modest budget and arm ourselves with a modest workshop (mig welder, lathe, tool box, wood saw etc. - a slightly upmarket farm shed), and do our best to build an honest little racecar.

The rules of engagement would be something like this:
- Gather a team of, say, six competent people, each with full time jobs
- Define time limits - e.g. no one person may spend more than two hours a day, or ten hours a week total, on the project
- Define budget - e.g. investment pool of $2000 each
- Define standards of behaviour - e.g. tools down when any of the following are on the telly: Bathurst 1000, any MotoGP, Classic Restos, Blokesworld
- Define material and process boundaries - e.g. no materials or processes allowed that were not available to an engineer prior to 1948
- No calculators or computers allowed - slide rules only
- Plans to be drawn up on drawing boards, in correct third angle projection

Design, build, test and develop the car within a twelve month period, then take it to the local FSAE competition and put it up against all the university-entered, over-designed wonder-cars. I doubt it would win, but I doubt it would finish last either. A decent amount of time testing and driver training, and it would set a very useful benchmark for performance - the definitive FSAE performance baseline. Now that would be educational."
~o0o~

To summarize Geoff's goal:
Six blokes, twelve grand, working weekends only, to set a benchmark of "minimum performance" that all University Teams should be able to beat.

To which Geoff added:

"And any team that finished behind the ATS would be sentenced to six months barn construction service in their nearest Amish community - just to make sure the lesson was learnt."
~o0o~

Back when Geoff was running the show here in Oz, I am sure something like that ATS would have happened. But nowadays there are no indications from the Oz-Officials that they are interested in that sort of educational approach. In fact, just the opposite, with their "Speciality Awards".

However, if the officials here ever decide that "education" really is THE priority of FS/FSAE, then I will quite happily build such an ATS. I will build it myself, for less than six grand, and let any ex-Oz-FSAEers drive it for unlimited laps in Autocross, and one stint in each Enduro. (Hey, I want to have some fun too!)

But (!), I would insist that Geoff's last quote above be slightly altered to:
"...any team that finished behind the ATS would be sentenced to crawl the length of the track on their hands and knees - just to make sure the lesson was learnt."

This, of course, would include all teams that DNS Enduro!
~~~o0o~~~

A SMIDGE MORE SOCIAL COMMENTARY.
================================
About 3 weeks ago I provided a "Cost-Benefit" type analysis of why Design Event should be dropped from the competition. I then asked if anyone could provide a similarly rational, well-reasoned, C-B type analysis that came to the contrary conclusion, namely that Design Event should be kept. After all, I might have missed something in my reasoning?

Well, the subject quickly changed to two-stroke engines. Then there was a longish period of silence. Then the discussion restarted with talk of how DE could be altered slightly, for example by holding it after Enduro.

But NOT A SKERRICK of cold, hard, boring, rational, "logos"-tical type discussion of the merits, or otherwise, of DE.

Nothing unusual here. Just the same old decision making via pure pathos.

WHAT THE STOMACH WANTS, THE BRAIN MUST GIVE!

Jonny, I am sure you have seen a lot of this in the last 3 years. For example, when your team "decided" that it MUST switch from that slow-old-single, to your awesome new, tyre-shredding-600-four.

Ahhh, what could have been. A better "engineered" version of your 2014 car would have won last year!
~~~o0o~~~

Want better "educated" young engineers? Drop DE, and let me bring an ATS!

Z

[Jonny Rochester]

Just last week, I had to get UTAS 2014 car (brown go-kart with single, but too wide, no plenum) back on 4 wheels, because it's going to our museum. No joke.
Our 2015 car (and 2016) was a huge progression, and I wouldn't go back. UTAS 2015 had very few bells and whistles despite the 4cyl, and was basically reliable.
UTAS16 was much better again (10", good steering feel, aero, launch control) but as you would predict, some of the bells and whistles started to fall off it.
Personally I do want our 2016 car (and so does other people, see driver swap thread) with better engineering and quality so bits don't fall off.

But... I'm told that would be too easy, so UTAS this year are "tyre shredding" 2-rotors of electric power, with more than just a few bells and whistles required for basic operation.
What could possible go wrong? It should be more powerful than all the petrol cars because when I ask, I'm told "80kw".

But as Bill Heslop says "You can't stop progress".

The conundrum. I believe I can build a car that doesn't fall apart for 22km. I'm old, I've trade experience, I built too many of the parts on our FSAE cars, and I've been able to predict our own failures.
If I work to fix the little things, other students will just rest on that and work harder to introduce new unknowns. I just have to make sure the 2 parts I make for it are perfect, and walk away from
responsibility of finishing endurance.

Eventually we all get old, and we pick the best era that relates to our own capabilities and we build a historic racecar in the shed from that year. (For me it's a Group A Corolla Levin, 1985). But I
do believe we should allow current students to participate in engineering of the current day.

Perhaps finishing endurance is not what the young students want or need? Maybe the need to (be seen to) participate in the current technological push is a bigger driver?

[Rex]

You're on. We call it Texas Autocross weekend.

Well said! If you want to see the different paths that design judges, tech inspectors, and other ex-FSAE folks take with their personal FSAE cars after the competitions are long-since over, look no further than Texas Autocross Weekend. Simple non-aero cars that are well-driven, 600lb aero cars with all the electronic gadgets that are well-driven, and current year FSAE cars that are well-driven are typically all represented in the top 10 finishing positions of each course throughout the weekend. Notice a common theme?

Texas Autocross weekend proves what most of us only figure out much later in our racing enthusiast "careers"; any car can win if it's well-executed and well-driven. REIB vs sphericals, featherlight vs 600lb, 10" vs 13" wheels...all of these work fine from a car performance standpoint if you simply finish the car early then burn up a bunch of tires finding/fixing the weak points AND training your drivers.

[JulianH]

That would be rather interesting!

I think I would have some nice cars for that Granted the batteries are probably not good enough to last 22km anymore but I would bet our 2012/2013 cars would still run Top10ish in AutoX

[Charles Kaneb]

If I'm ever selected as a design judge, I can bring my Briggs kart, to sweep the courses before the FSAE cars go out, and lay down benchmark times. Its chassis is older than some of the students competing, and it has eight (8) horsepower.

If you lose to it, you will have to go to the practice track and drive it. That will teach you by experience what Claude and Z try to tell you about the virtues of a low center of gravity, light weight, and simplicity of operation.