FSAE World Ranking: Who is Number 1 worldwide?

That's exactly what I wanted to say.

Our task is to build race cars and take them to competitions. One part of this task is to get the money for that project.
As in the technical part, not all teams are equaly succesful in that.
I think the problem is, that people join teams, because they want to build a cool car and aren't motivated to do the organising stuff behind like raising money, setting up a schedule and stick to it...
But if these things aren't done properly, it is in my opinion impossible to be succesful.

Just out of curiosity, did I actually complain somewhere? Or did I say "Man, we work harder than other teams to get money and don't get as much?"

I'm pretty sure I just said it'd be interesting information. And you can't argue that one away.

Wesley,
maybe part of the problem is the use of the word 'Racing' in the team name?

Marketing managers are flooded with requests from racers asking for money. Unless there is a really good reason for the company to offer support, then most of these applications end up in the round file.

I think you would have more success selling the educational aspects of the event.

Cheers

Pat

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hector:
I see many teams on the top 10 list (Stuttgart, Wisconsin, Florida) that run simple steel space frames that anyone can build and don't have many "trick" systems. They build reliable, simple cars that handle well and manage to finish most of their races.

---

Having a simple car does not mean that these teams have small budgets. Don't confuse the two. Furthermore, I think it is a big mistake to leave out a discussion of the infrastructure that these teams enjoy at their respective schools. Whether it's access to good machines, testing areas, faculty support, etc, these schools may have many resources given to them that others have to pay for.

And since when does Wisconsin have a simple car? driver-adjustable ARB, neutral finder on the dash, pneumatic shifiting, the list goes on.

Just because a school have access have certain resources does not mean they just have those stuff thrown at them. I know with Toronto's case we have to work pretty hard to maintain the relationship we have with our sponsors and school, and its not like we just sit there and sponsors come to us neither. Every season we bring our car to them, show them the product of their generousity, accomodate their promotional need, and host appreciation events for them. And its the same with school working with recruitment and open house events. We don't have a small budget, but we have what we have because we had to work to get it. Having few members every year dedicated to business and managment end helps, but they are no different from the rest of the team who really gets no tangible return for their work(on their own time)other than personal satisfaction, and experiences you can put on your resume. I don't see why other teams can't do the same things we do....and I am sure the situation is the same with any other teams who enjoys what they are getting every year...

I believe more than anything else that good team management is the reason for the success of most top teams. Even though most "flashy" features are not completely necessary. I don't view these items as a result of a large budget or say we're not smart enough, but rather say that my team doesn't have enough time to do develop some of those things. That comes down to developing a system where you have a small group responsible for each subsystem. Most teams try to do this but there is a lot involved in order for it to be successful.

As for sponsorship, sponsors really like to see some kind of return on there investment. I think the best way is to let them drive the car. Our team did this over the summer with a few local sponsors which resulted in a few "whatever you guys need" responses.

I'm really jealous of how teams can afford to travel and attend multiple competitions a year. Our team participated in two competitions for the first time ever which pretty used up our whole budget. I can't even imagine how much the total cost is for an international competition. Sponsors that can give out cash donations are the hardest to find. To get that to amount around $10k (rough estimate for multiple competition costs) is just amazing to me. I'm not saying that they don't have to work hard for it. Just curious.

Quote:

---

I'm really jealous of how teams can afford to travel and attend multiple competitions a year.

---

I was always jealous of teams that could afford a working dyno. Or a scope that wasn't from the 1960's. Or books. Or thermocouples. Or any of the basic equipment needed to do testing. Or design retreats to the Alps. The worst offender by far though is them being able to drink beer while they work.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by flavorPacket:

I think it is a big mistake to leave out a discussion of the infrastructure that these teams enjoy at their respective schools. Whether it's access to good machines, testing areas, faculty support, etc, these schools may have many resources given to them that others have to pay for.

---

In my opinion, it's disrepectful to say teams have resources 'given to them'. You don't think teams worked hard to establish those relationships and maintain them?

I know during my time at Auburn, hours and hours of time and hard work was spent to begin to establish good relations with faculty and access to machinery, testing areas, etc. And lots of proposals got shot down in flames.

We never sat back and just figured it couldn't be done or that we could never compete with the schools that had this type of foundation. I would encourage anyone else who sees themselves behind the curve to establish the same attitude in the team (vs the 'woe-is-me' attitude I see too much of).

Well said pinger

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie:

In my opinion, it's disrepectful to say teams have resources 'given to them'. You don't think teams worked hard to establish those relationships and maintain them?

---

Well first off, I think I used the wrong word when I said 'given'. I didn't intend to imply that there isn't any investment there. BUT, resources you pay for and resources you don't pay for are very different. Thus, my original point remains: any discussion of a performance per dollar metric is incomplete if you don't account for these resources.

And Charlie, maintaining a relationship is a lot easier than beginning one. Any experienced FSAE member can attest to that.

In my opinion, it's disrespectful to think that teams without lots of on-campus resources aren't trying just as hard to get them just because you were able to make progress with your particular university. There is an element of luck involved. One risk management admin who's a jerk or one purchasing lady with a bad attitude can change everything.