Revised FSAE-A Results

[Charlie]

I'm sure a few of you saw this coming. But I figured I'd post the new FSAE-A results. My thanks go out to FSAE-A for correctly computing the endurance scores and revising the results.

Although some people questioned the fact that there could be two teams receiving full endurance scores despite the fact that there was a great time despairity between them, this aspect of the endurance scoring was not corrected. I'd like to say that although this would have greatly improved our finnishing position, I respect the fact that SAE-A scores in this manner and I also respect that they took the time to review the procedure. Note that this doesn't mean that I agree with it, it is simply not our decision.

We had a great competition, and I know that the fact that the results had to be recomputed might put SAE-A in a bad light. However, the fact that they took the time to recompute the scores speaks volumes. They could have just decided it was official and left it at that. We were extremely impressed by SAE-A and Mitsubishi's event. Thanks for the opportunity to compete.

New results here: (Or on SAE-A's site)

http://www.sae-a.com.au/fsae/downloads/2003_Competition_Results_Final.xls

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[Charlie]

I'm sure a few of you saw this coming. But I figured I'd post the new FSAE-A results. My thanks go out to FSAE-A for correctly computing the endurance scores and revising the results.

Although some people questioned the fact that there could be two teams receiving full endurance scores despite the fact that there was a great time despairity between them, this aspect of the endurance scoring was not corrected. I'd like to say that although this would have greatly improved our finnishing position, I respect the fact that SAE-A scores in this manner and I also respect that they took the time to review the procedure. Note that this doesn't mean that I agree with it, it is simply not our decision.

We had a great competition, and I know that the fact that the results had to be recomputed might put SAE-A in a bad light. However, the fact that they took the time to recompute the scores speaks volumes. They could have just decided it was official and left it at that. We were extremely impressed by SAE-A and Mitsubishi's event. Thanks for the opportunity to compete.

New results here: (Or on SAE-A's site)

http://www.sae-a.com.au/fsae/downloads/2003_Competition_Results_Final.xls

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[Denny Trimble]

This is very interesting. It looks like the endurance heat times are even different between the two spreadsheets (example, Auburn's endurance times: Heat 1 was 1492, now 1488. Heat 2 was 1481, now 1433!). Does this mean there was a timing error that day? In fact, almost all of the dynamic event scores have changed. I don't see any discussion or explanations on the official sites, but this seems worthy of an explanation to all the teams involved. However, I wasn't involved, so maybe I didn't get that email http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03, '04)

[Charlie]

I guess I should explain MY take, and please remember this is definitely not the official version (and I have been drinking, as finals ended today http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

There were a few minor errors in all the dynamic events. None of them really affected the results, except endurance. In the endurance event, you have a 3 minute driver change. In the scoring, there is a long lap where the driver change takes place. This lap includes driver change time, as well as entrance/exit track time. Usually, this lap is eliminated from your endurance time, and if your dirver change was excessive, a penalty is added. In the initial results, the lap was included. A 180s reduction was made to everyone's time. This resulted in severe penaltys to some times, while otheres were actually reduced because thier total on/off course time was less than 180s.

I haven't had time to completely review the new results, but this was the main error we saw in the initial results.

We are proud to have won the endurance event, as we thought we had done so (pasing GT, Wollongong, Chalmers, and more). http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although, like I said, two teams got full credit for the Endurance event, SAE-A has decided that that is correct. In hindsight, I suppose that if we wanted to be the only team with full credit for endurance, we should have won both right? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I can't argue with that, that was a misunderstanding of the intentions of the rules. They don't state explicitly that the endurance can have 2 Tmin times, and we interpreted the spirit of the rules that the fastest time would score the most points.

In any case, I am proud of all our team. We had the fastest endurance time: a huge accompishment. Now we need to work on cost, fuel economy, and driver practice in AutoX (doh!) for Detroit. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[Denny Trimble]

Here's a handy little graphic of the score changes. 50 points for many teams!

http://students.washington.edu/dennyt/fsae/fsae-a_corrections.jpg

Positive point changes and negative ranking changes indicate a certain team is better off now than before.

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03, '04)

[andrewd]

so whats the final adjusted placings???

[Denny Trimble]

Final order found by sorting the cells by Rank (from spreadsheet linked above).

http://students.washington.edu/dennyt/fsae/fsae-a_final_order.jpg

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03, '04)

[vinHonda]

I'm so confused!!! So did Auburn go from 6th to 4th? And Wollongong from 4th to 5th etc. etc. ?

The results were changed why? In FSAE A I realize there are two endurance's....which one do they count?

I should point out, any organizer that gets to the bottom of the truth, deserves praise even if they were wrong the first time. The fact that any organizer decides to fix/change/modify results because in truth they are wrong....shows true professionalism.

Anyone remember Raikonnen handing over the Brazil GP trophy to Fisichella this year??!

It should in no way taint the event. Winners are winners (in FSAE everyone wins!).

I think a lot of people were upset that we won FStudent's enduro after checking our data acq to see that the track was some significant distance longer......but how could I not check our data acq....after running out of fuel....5 corners from the end on our last lap?!

It's no glorious way to win....on a re-calculation.... but it's the truth.

Cheers!

Vinh

University of Toronto Formula SAE Racing Team
www.fsae.utoronto.ca (http://www.fsae.utoronto.ca)

[V2 - Italy]

I looked at the official results and I didn't understand the reason to have two 350 points teams. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I was really disappointed during FS03 because of the judges mistakes, but finally they fixed almost everything and the final order was clearly showed during the last day.

Now I am confused because the FSAE-AU event had a lot of problems to define the final results, and everything was fixed http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif many days after the race.

Is it so difficult to read the rules? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Daniele

Firenze Race Team V2
http://www.firenzerace.too.it
DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze

[PatClarke]

V2, you have to think about the entire situation.
Mistakes get made every now and again. Working with some people who have never done this before, and with the pressure to get the results finalised within an hour makes for a very difficult task. In Australia, it is complicated by having two runs at Enduro. I guess we could always cancel the second enduro event and give the time saved to the scorers.....But I am sure that solution would not be popular with the competitors either.
Possibly the scoring system is a little too complicated, and I am sure that will be looked at th the Consortium debrief meeting.
Meanwhile, the mistakes have been corrected, and there was no difference in the top 3 placings, so no real harm has been done.
As for going by the rules, the teams have a year, access to the rules committee etc, yet they still get it wrong. The officials have an hour after a long and exhausting event. Mistakes will happen. Live with it.
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vinHonda:
I'm so confused!!! So did Auburn go from 6th to 4th? And Wollongong from 4th to 5th etc. etc. ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vin, did you read my second post? I know it isn't official but it is a pretty accurate description of why the results were changed.

V2, according to SAE-A there have been 2 cars with 350 endurance points in the past. It isn't how I would interpret the rules but the rules are vague and final interpretation is of course up to the officials.

If endurance was scored purely by time and not referenced by heat, the top 3 would definitely change. But of course there are lots of 'ifs' http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If we hadn't had 4 off courses in the 1st heat we'd have won both enduros anyway.

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[Rallyboy990]

Does anyone have the 2001 FSAE-A results with complete event breakdowns? I only have 2002, and UOW won both endurance heats.

The last year FSAE-USA ran 2 heats, 1998, the endurance event was not scored seperately as it was in Australia. But like I said, final rules judgement is up to the organizers, unfortunately for us, fortunately for others.

[the cat]

Since the rules don't seem to matter any more, this is what we will be running at next years comp.

http://www.ada-interlock.com/Rapp/img10.jpg

We should be able to produce a spreadsheet to show it's legal.

- Anonymous

[Brent Howard]

God I wish "The Cat" aka "catamongpigeons" Aka "me" would stand behind his words.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[PatClarke]

And I will make a spreadsheet to ban trouble makers from the competition for ever!
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Matt Gignac]

If only I knew how to work spreadsheets...

[Frank]

FSAE-A 2003 addendum

"The Team's Fuel Economy and Endurance scores will be taken from the heat that yields their highest combined score"

Just in case anyone is confused.

[Charlie]

The rule is very ambigous.

The question is, how do you calculate the endurance score. There is nothing to clarify that question in the addendum, and in the normal rules, your endurance score is calculated based upon the fastest endurance time.

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[Charlie]

In regards to the 'the cat's' comments:

There is really nothing to gain from slandering SAE-A. What are you going to do, find another organization to host the event? SAE-A is the reason most Aussie teams get the opportunity to race FSAE, and the reason international teams like us get a chance to truly bring our teams worldwide.

SAE-A took the time to listen to our arguements and make a decision. I am fairly confident that the final results are sealed and won't change.

I would like to see clarification and possibly a rules change for FSAE-A 2004 (though I probably won't be there). I would like to see the endurance scores soley based on time, not circumstance. Two reasons:

1) If there are 2 endurance heats, use them to reward the quickest cars.
2) FSAE scored this way before they went to a single endurance, and it obviously fits in the spirit of the competition.

I can understand the point of view that changing conditions might mean that the winner of one endurance could not match the other endurance winner's time. However, in the wet driving section, the rules clearly state that NO corrections will be made for weather.

I can also understand that some people might say that if you can outrun everyone in one endurance, regardless of the final time, you deserve a top score. This is a pretty good arguement, but based soley on misfortune or mistakes made by other teams. Surely FSAE events are made to compare cars, not intangibles.

For readers of the board not familiar with what happened in the enduro or not sure what we are talking about, here is a time/score breakdown of the two endurance events from FSAE-A.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Auburn University 1441.7 350.0
Georgia Tech 1469.0 327.7
Queensland 1526.5 350.0
University of NSW 1545.7 335.2
RIT 1550.8 265.6
Wollongong 1582.4 243.3
Chalmers University 1596.3 297.5
University of Adelaide 1625.9 276.6
</pre>
Basically this scoring method takes the control out of your hands. Your score is totally dependent on what other cars are doing. A fast time is not enough.

I know I am biased (A fixed Tmin would put us 2nd overall) so I'd like to see some discussion about this from people uninvolved. Not to change FSAE-A results this year, but hopefully to change procedure.

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[Frank]

We, at UQ, were chatting about this again last night.

It seems that the uni's that don't understand the rules typically....

Send the slower drivers in the first heat, analyse the car, change the set-up a bit, and then send the quicker drivers out into the second heat with the intention to win.

The reality is that you need fast drivers and good fuel economy (and of coarse need to finish) in both events to "Shut the others out"�.

Some teams send the fast drivers out in the first heat, in an attempt to win the event (aka UQ). Did you not notice how devastated Wollongong were after their DNF in the first heat? I think this was because their fast drivers were in the first heat also.

I KNOW that our car was....

A Slower than Auburns
B Not as well driven as Auburns was

And I KNOW that our drivers weren't as skilled / experienced as Auburns.

Yet, the rules are the rules, they were the same last year too, and if you didn't understand them, that's your problem.

IMO, the way the rules are, makes the event focus even more on reliability than the US event.

Regardless of the final results, I must say that the whole event was a nail-biter, and IMO was a great showcase of University engineering. WELL DONE TO EVERYONE, even the also-rans who probably learn more than anyone.

Frank

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/
http://mechcam2.mech.uq.edu.au

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/Frank/train.jpg

[This message was edited by Frank on December 19, 2003 at 10:26 PM.]

[Charlie]

I echo your thoughts about the event Frank. We had a great time competing and as a whole, we left feeling great about our car's competitiveness.

Like I said I know I will be biased in this arguement, and so will anyone from UQ (possibly all FSAE-A competitors, one way or another). I realize our interpretation of the rules was different than SAE-A's and a close look at the 2002 rules would have made it clear.

I am not disputing SAE-A's ruling, because they are the final say. I am just saying that I think it is a poor judgement of a vehicle and should be changed for the future.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank:
I KNOW that our car was....

A Slower than Aurburns
B Not as well driven as Auburns was

And I KNOW that our drivers weren't as skilled / experienced as Auburns.

Yet, the rules are the rules, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This underscores my point. If our car was indeed faster and better driven, should there be equal scoring? As far as I can see, the only real arguement you've made is because 'the rules are the rules.' I agree, but I think the rules shoudl be changed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IMO, the way the rules are, makes the event focus even more on reliability than the US event.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think it is possible to have 2 endurance events and focus more on reliability than the US event. If this were the US event, there would be 7 cars with endurance scores, and a new winner. So I'd have to disagree with you on that point.

Anyway, I don't want to get into any arguements, and I don't have any hard feelings. I'd really like to see some unbiased opinions.

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[V2 - Italy]

I think that the rules should be so clear to prevent from any trouble.

I don't understand the reason to have two enduro winners, and although every FSAE team is a winner, we'd like to know who is the overall winner, especially the enduro winner,in order to see which is the quickest and more reliable car (and lucky too http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif).

I agree with you Charlie, the score must be based on time, in order to have an indisputable result.

_________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charlie:

I would like to see clarification and possibly a rules change for FSAE-A 2004. I would like to see the endurance scores soley based on time, not circumstance.

Basically this scoring method takes the control out of your hands. Your score is totally dependent on what other cars are doing. A fast time is not enough.
_________________________________

Daniele

Firenze Race Team V2
http://www.firenzerace.too.it
DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze

[PatClarke]

I think the answer is easy. In future, let's just have one enduro!
That way you eliminate the differences in times between weather and track conditions, between teams getting held up by slower cars, between clean and dirty tracks.
You eliminate the opportunity to set the car up with one set of drivers so a fast time can be set by the others.
And in the event of it raining in the enduro, you eliminate the opportunity to get another run, possibly in dry conditions, for those teams disadvantaged.
You eliminate the opportunity to give some of the people who worked on the cars a drive, and eliminate the chance for their friends and family to watch them.
You reduce the costs on the teams in wear and tear on tyres and engines, and let the officials get home to a cold beer a couple of hours earlier.
Yep, the more I think about it, the more I think the best way to stop all those disillusioned students, especially those who have never been to the event, or who may have been, but are too "shy" to identify themselves lest someone thke umbrage at their smartass posts, from being disillusioned!
Of course, the silent majority, those hardworking students who are prepared to work all year to contest the event whilst complying with the rules without complaint may feel disadvantaged.
But that doesn't matter, they are the "silent" majority and so won't say anything. After all its the squeaky hinge that gets the oil.
Yep, all in all, I reckon we should halve the track time the students get in Australia by going to a single Enduro!
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Frank]

In my opinion, there is a problem with simply taking the fastest time from the two enduros. (it seems people are suggesting this method be used)

The problem is that you effectively render one event (most likely the first) a "warm-up"� event. It becomes an opportunity to test the car's reliability and set it up for the second event. A failed enduro attempt becomes insignificant.

I have a solution that is a compromise. Score each event as per the FSAE rules (USA rules), and take the average score of both events. I call it my "average enduro method"�.

This solution gives results that demand the winning team to finish BOTH enduros with competitive times.

I have calculated the results for the 2003 FSAE-A competition using both methods described above. The results are interesting to say the least.

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/Frank/proposed_average_enduro_results.pdf

Frank

[This message was edited by Frank on December 20, 2003 at 10:40 AM.]

[andrewd]

how bout you all cut you winging

ive learned to agree with it, so you can too

so the positions might affect sponsorship for the following year, who cares; this helps build customer relations! and widens your horizons

leave the rules as they are, and TRY TO REMEBER THIS:


"its about LEARNING" its not F1

[PatClarke]

Thank you Dboi!
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Eddie Martin]

I know most of the Australian venues aren't big enough, but a road and track style shootout in the afternoon would be cool, give people a chance to drive their cars more and give the officials more time to finish the scoring.
You could also get a quick road car, Ferrari 360 http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, to do the same course. This would give the general public an idea of how fast these cars are?

My two cents

Eddie Martin
UOW Racing '01 '02 '03 ˜04

[V2 - Italy]

Suddenlee,your solution is easy but it's not the best; if something goes wrong it's better to solve the problem rather than eliminate that thing.
In the FSAE-A there were two enduro events, great chance to every team to run at least one of them; please don't change it.
In my opinion there is only one thing to do: find a better solution to connect time to points.

The Frank solution, "average enduro method", could be really good. It sounds like the SBK World Championship rules: one circuit, two races, two ranks, then the sum of the two points. In order to maintain the 400 maximum value, an average was added.

What do you think?

Daniele

Firenze Race Team V2
http://www.firenzerace.too.it
DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze

[Frank]

yeah Pat, what'dya reckon?

it'd make it a "true enduro" series

we could even run "reverse order" in one race

but this might make for dangerous traffic situations

regards

Frank

[Charlie]

Interesting idea Frank, but I think the rules need to stay as simple as possible. I also like haveing 2 endurance races, as it gives the teams with the best cars the best chance of proving so.

But anyway, I've talked enough about all this nonsense, and it really isn't up to me. We've got plenty of work to do for 2004. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[andrewd]

frank you know your not going to change their decision and if you do; then good for you http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

just leave it alone.... and instead of wasting your own time, think back on what you've learnt between the start and finish

i know ive learnt heaps; from knowing little (and it was little) about cars, to knowing a fair bit about engines and alot about exhausts!

i think i WON

[Sam]

My brain hurts.... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sam Graham
Engine Group Leader 2003
UQ Racing

[gug]

its an interesting idea Frank, but i think i would like to still have some chance of winning if our car looses just one bolt in one enduro.

and dont worry about dboi, im still interested in what you have to say!

- the problem with the world is stupidity. i'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety lables off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

[inamo]

Ok, I took part in the 2001 FSAE-A event and had a huge amount of fun - it was an experience I will remember for the rest of my life. I was part of the Leeds team who won the endurance event after scoring the fastest time in the morning session - track conditions were good throughout the day. We did discover in the morning that we needed to change spring rates and the car was definitely better set up in the afternoon session - but we had our back up drivers for then. But hey in the end it didn't matter.

I guess the fact is that as with all racing it is up to the teams to read the rules and devise a strategy for sucess. I think the 2 enduro format is a great idea - more running time and fun for everyone and an 2nd chance for the teams who are hit by bad luck and technical problems in the first heat.

Certainly in the UK last year it would have been much appreciated by our 2nd year team who were taken out of the enduro by a blocked fuel pump filter. So be glad you have 2 chances.

As to the scoring I don't think there's a problem with basing it on just one round, though it looks like that was changed last year - I'm not familiar with the rules. That would assume similar track conditions. If however it rains or whatever maybe a standard deduction could be made to each lap based on the difference between the quickest lap in the dry and the quickest one in the wet?

Anyway I'm sure that Pat and his team are doing their best to make the competition as fair as possible for you all and I've rambled on enough (can you tell I'm missing being involved with FSAE already!! Graduated last summer)

Good luck with the new season