Winning or Learning

[Frank]

Hi All,

Thaught I'd start a new thread concerning the philosophy of the competition.

I've called it "winning or learning".

Basically I'm interested in your opinion about what's important in FSAE (for you).

Are you happy with your team's performance?
Do you think coming near last, and learning heaps of stuff, beats being the "wheel polishing guy" in a winning team....???

Personally, I come from an "average" Australian team (I reccon an average aussie team would probly run about 20th-40th in the US comp)

I've given heaps of time to the project (and failed a few subjects because of it) and I'll never regret a thing!

About the only reason I wish we came better placed would be to help with the aquisition of funding and sponsors, so we could buy heaps of expensive parts.

But to be honest, we're from a fairly generous school.

I really think that being cash strapped, or well funded, winning, or coming near stone last would not have had a significant effect on what i've learnt.

In fact I think that being from a team with relatively few "hardcore" guys meant doing a lot off stuff, which I think is the most valuable experience.

What's your thaughts....

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Frank]

Hi All,

Thaught I'd start a new thread concerning the philosophy of the competition.

I've called it "winning or learning".

Basically I'm interested in your opinion about what's important in FSAE (for you).

Are you happy with your team's performance?
Do you think coming near last, and learning heaps of stuff, beats being the "wheel polishing guy" in a winning team....???

Personally, I come from an "average" Australian team (I reccon an average aussie team would probly run about 20th-40th in the US comp)

I've given heaps of time to the project (and failed a few subjects because of it) and I'll never regret a thing!

About the only reason I wish we came better placed would be to help with the aquisition of funding and sponsors, so we could buy heaps of expensive parts.

But to be honest, we're from a fairly generous school.

I really think that being cash strapped, or well funded, winning, or coming near stone last would not have had a significant effect on what i've learnt.

In fact I think that being from a team with relatively few "hardcore" guys meant doing a lot off stuff, which I think is the most valuable experience.

What's your thaughts....

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[tommy]

winning, and learning so i can win more in the future.

[Charlie]

I think, in the end, if I don't win then I would use that as an excuse, definitely. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

[Richard Lewis]

I'd like to try both. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I "only" get to partake in 2 FSAE events, since last year was our schools first entry. We learned so much last year as a team, but one neat aspect was that we had about 10 hardcore members, and most were very good with the theory behind each and every component. (ie: our brake guy knew about suspension, engines, etc)

Since this is my last event, I want to do as well as we can. I am going to keep learning, but perhaps the focus has shifted a bit towards results for me.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca

[V2 - Italy]

We are a rookie team, but we started Formula Student project in 2000, last year we joined Formula Student in Class 3.
I think that this "work" is the only one to learn about motorsport.
Obviously you have more experience in FSAE, so the victory is more attractive.
Anyway I think that if you don't study/learn enough, you can't win.

Firenze Race Team V2

http://www.firenzerace.too.it

DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze

[Michael Jones]

Balancing results and learning is important. We have both a concern for winning (indeed, an overall strategic focus on it) but we won't simply forsake all learning to do so. If we did, we'd be preparing for short-term victory and long-term obsolesence

It's similar to how sports teams often stock up on free agents and veterans to win a year's championship, only to find they've mortgaged their future for the next five. It's a strategy, but not necessarily a good one in the long run.

OUr team does learn, does experiment, does innovate - but many of those innovations are long term efforts. Some of our more complex efforts take about four or five years to get through, some simply wait for the right people with the right motivation to really get done properly.

What we don't do is commit to putting something on the car that's not ready for prime time just yet. Learning happens in the wings and integrated when the time comes and the entire system is ready to accept it.

It frustrates some who want immediate gratification, but in the end I think it's a solid strategy for both short- and long-term research and development. If it means some people's work may be implemented two or three years after they're gone, so be it. Winning and learning are more imoprtant than individual ego.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[gug]

gotta admit, i would prefer to run a crazy car with less reliability than a reliable car with no innovation. i know im in the minority here, but my priorities are definetly learning and experience. winning on the track a lesser priority, and i wouldnt mind a bit if scored zero in the whole costing and presentation events. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif i dislike management and executives, guess im just a grease monkey...

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

[Michael Jones]

Sure enough, if either the grease monkeys or the bureaucrats ran the world, the world would be wholly dysfunctional. Balance is key, which I think is the underlying thrust of the competition - most evident in the integration of cost and presentation events, but implicit also in the privileging of performance and reliability in endurance especially.

Radical innovation is all nice and fine, and should be encouraged in measured doses...but I still think you learn more when that innovation can be benchmarked aganist a particular barometer of success. Some of our more interesting R&D efforts have actually shown to be detrimental to performance. Others show up as no significant difference, which begs the questions why it should be run in the first place.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Dave Riley]

Luckily the way we are set up we can go for both... I guess our uni is different from a lot of other schools in that our course includes two small semester long projects in 3rd year and the usual full year honours project in final year... so everyone who is involved in the car team must actually do some research, experimental, theoretical work to get a decent mark. We have about 20 3rd years and about 20 final years actually studying research projects on the car.

In this way we get third years looking ahead to winning in the future, and final years looking to winning in the present.

Of course, it is the guys who are prepared to sacrifice their marks to work on the car who really help us do well... although funnily enough last year (2nd in FSAE-A) it was the guys who worked hardest on the car who learnt the most and got the best marks...

Wish we were coming to Pontiac... we'll be there next year!

Project Manager
UWA Motorsport 03

[woollymoof]

We are at a stage at the moment where we have to make decisions on what we really want, or where the balance is. I know personally I want to learn rather than win. Winning is nice for credit with sponsors and employers but if you don't know squat, people will soon figure it out.

If we choose to learn some of the big projects that are running through our head at the moment will get a chance but possibly won't do too well. People go away for a year of work experience half way through 3rd year. Trying to get people to commit to the team for a 3,4 or even 2 year run is very difficult because you always have to hand the flame over.

We'll keep battling, but learning definatly, it'll pay off in the long run.

[Michael Jones]

Given that I write about learning organizations and all, I think it's safe to say that it's really not an either/or proposition. A constantly learning organization - which we all have to be with our turnover (50% per year here, if you include the one year M.Eng folk) will be successful if it spreads the learning broadly and makes a concerted effort to sustain it in all possible realms (from collecting and maintaining formal reports to encouraging tacit and implicit knowledge sharing and experimentation.)

It's actually more a question of evolutionary change vs. revolutionary change that was suggested here to begin this thread -- to what extent to you sacrifice the possibility of winning to be radically innovative, damn the consequences? You need a bit of both, but we're very much in the camp of defining requirements to maximize point gain. This necessarily sidelines ambitious R&D efforts until they're ready for prime time, which frustrates some who are in the hardcore innovation camp.

Radical innovation without results may be a noble ethical position, but so was communism, I figure. Innovation for the sake of it can become innovation for the hell of it in a hurry.

That noted, if all you do is make incremental improvements, you risk being leapfrogged by the next competitor that successfully makes a radical change.

Left to their own devices, organizations tend to go through cycles of change accordingly -- sometimes being radical, sometimes incrementally improving things, sometimes staying put, sometimes delving into chaos. Third generation knowledge management suggests that managing this requires knowing where you are, where you're likely to go next, and maximizing the return on where you're at at any given point (even chaos has its positive elements - can be a catalyst for change and refocusing...) Snowdon (2002) establishes this cyclic motion in his Cynefin model, which is a powerful metaphor if perhaps not yet fully empiricially validated.

Uh...wait, I'm not writing my dissertation here, am I.

I'm talking to engineers, and I've confused everyone.

Shit.

Sorry.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Marc Jaxa-Rozen]

That's actually pretty damn interesting, but then again I'm no engineer either http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Kevin Hall]

Your idea of winning to please sponsors is all well and good, but if you can pull that off "without learning anything" then I guess you knew it all already. There is no winning by fluke out there. If you don't take the time to design a car properly, it'll show. If you don't know your shit, the judges will know.

Yes, innovation is a way of learning, but simply understanding some of the very basic principles, and going from there will be a learning experience enough for a couple years. Your fellow second years probably have some great ideas (in their opinion), but give them a couple more years of learning, and they'll realize that just being there.

Strive to make a fast car. You'll have a lot of fun with it. Implement as many innovative ideas as possible on old cars. That way you don't ruin your competition car. All the fancy gizmos usually leave a team frustrated after they fail due to lack of testing.

The KISS principle (Keep Inferiorating Stupid Subordinates, oh wait, thats not it) will always finish the race. If it finishes the race rather well, you'll have learned something valuable in general. Not every auto manufacturer out there is pushing Ferrari technology for two reasons. Time and money.

Anyways, my point was you can't be a bunch of halfwits, and pull a win. This isn't the lottery.

Good luck http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kevin Hall
University of Saskatchewan
Engine Guy in Need of Help

[gug]

okay, this winning vs learning discussion has some interesting points. the one i would like to focus on is the getting-a-job post f-sae part. what do you guys think different types of employers are looking for? considering someone like kia for example, they would want engineers who work to a high quality finish, and can design for low cost. therefor they would look firstly to teams with a very refined car with a good costing report.
now consider an employer like lotus or the above-mentioned ferrari. their "scouts" would be out looking for innovative engineers, who can design "outside the square", and would obviously look more towards the innovative teams first.
my point? innovative teams might go towards somewhere more like ferrari or lotus, and be given an open-checkbook for design and production. reliable engineers could go to a korean style manufacturer, where the beancounter is looking so hard over your shoulder his dicks in your ass.

although, to introduce some balance into my argument, i dont think ferrari's or kia's "scouts" will be sitting trackside, with an in depth understanding of our cars, or a knowledge of whats innovative in them. or that coming from a team who's car fell apart at the line would count for more than coming from cornell.

N.B. this is all my personal opinion, and i am in no way an employer or even a member of a top team (yet http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), so do call me an idiot or back me up if you want, debates are good!

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

[Michael Jones]

cost is but one issue - event the more innovative companies out there aren't going to slam on random shit because they have a hackeneyed idea or two. Indeed, they'll probably refuse - they'll do it right, since the Lotuses and Ferraris of the world are half based in technological sophistication but equally based in their attention to detail and its effect on brand integrity. Random systems failures due to ill thought out innovation will tarnish the brand of these companies more than it will DaimlerChrysler, since more is expected of them in the first place.

Now, the difference between Kia and Lotus is still notable - but it's that Lotus will spend the money on developing the innovation properly (and pass that on to the consumer, which is why I and a few other billion people don't have one) and Kia will wait until that innovation is not only solid but replicatable for dirt-ass cheap.

Of course, the same extends to all big manufacturers. As a matter of scale and market size, they'll go middle of the road or lower by definition. Kia's just aiming well low on the cost front, but it's not like any of the American or Japansee Big Three have the freedom to do much better.

A better balance between cost, performance and engineering quality is probably Factory Five or Ultima Motorsports, but that's a totally different market altogether.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Jones:
cost is but one issue - event the more innovative companies out there aren't going to slam on random shit because they have a hackeneyed idea or two. Indeed, they'll probably refuse - they'll do it right, since the Lotuses and Ferraris of the world are half based in technological sophistication but equally based in their attention to detail and its effect on brand integrity. Random systems failures due to ill thought out innovation will tarnish the brand of these companies more than it will DaimlerChrysler or Nissan, since more is expected of them in the first place. The big companies avoid recall for cost reasons more than anything - making minor/major adjustments to 100sK of cars in the field is a major undertaking.

Now, the difference between Kia and Lotus is still notable - but it's that Lotus will spend the money on developing the innovation properly (and pass that cost on to the consumer, which is why I and a few other billion people don't have one) and Kia will wait until that innovation is not only solid but replicatable for dirt-ass cheap.

Of course, the same extends to all big manufacturers. As a matter of scale and market size, they'll go middle of the road or lower by definition. Kia's just aiming well low on the cost front, but it's not like any of the American or Japansee Big Three have the freedom to do much better in most of their lines.

A better balance between cost, performance and engineering quality is probably Factory Five or Ultima Motorsports, but that's a totally different market altogether.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Michael Jones]

Random UBB error above...disregard, I am.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[inamo]

The learning is maybe most important... but the winning makes the blood, sweat and tears seem worth it...... in the short term anyway ;-) this year has been big on learning hoping that things will all be in place for FS though.

[imajerk]

I've said it before – I'll say it again. You want to win... so you learn. Why do people want nice cars and houses and boats and be recognised – because they want to be winners. To do that you have to learn... to win. Engineering isn't about technology – it's about people!

[clausen]

I think I'm for winning.

A big part of FSAE for me is to make my resume more appealing to potential race team employers. I think that they'd be most impressed if I played a significant part in the engineering of a winning FSAE car. Its more important to a touring car engineer that I have an in depth understanding of chassis dynamics and know what to do to manipulate it rather than come up with some interesting but unreliable 4wd system or soemthing (I am in no way predicting whats going to happen with our carhttp://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Regards

Paul Clausen
Uni of Adelaide