In the end, I think this is what needs to be remembered. If the points are given for speed, people need to design for speed. If points are given for finishing, people will build tanks that are slow. That's not going to help industry, which was the original idea of this competition, right?
Points for finishing less than the full event? Why? If you want points for finishing, finish the entire endurance. It took us 3 tries this year to finish endurance. Were we upset at the competition for not giving us points we did not earn? No. We accepted it, went back to the test track, and figured out our reliability issues, and then finished the full event. It's a whole lot sweeter if you earn the points, rather than someone dropping the bar so you can get over it, IMO.
1. If anything is going to change in the Presentation event, it needs to be more continuity between judging groups. We won Presentation in Canada, and up against similar teams that finished top 5 (Kettering, for 1), we were nowhere to be found in Lincoln, and we had a better presentation, and more legitimate numbers. The judging feedback? Things weren't lined up in our presentation. Nothing to do with the content of the presentation, and 1 of the judges walked in after lunch late, halfway through the presentation.
2. If anything is going to change in the cost report, IMO, it needs to be how composites are costed. Costing a final component based on weight is a really good way to drive up costs to the teams and provide highly unrealistic cost numbers. I know of 1 purpose built weekend autocross car that is a monocoque (and even then, it is folded aluminum, not carbon fiber), and I found a post at 1 point where the guy that designed and built the car said he wouldn't do it again if given the chance. So why are carbon monocoques not being given the cost penalty that they should have, when the 1 guy that actually runs a tub car in the SCCA says he would never do it again? I do not doubt there is going to be a performance gain (I have not personally done any points based analysis, as the idea of a tub was far beyond my team's capabilities) by going from a spaceframe to a tub, and there is likely a significant cost penalty. But (I have not seen a tub team's cost report, even though they were supposed to be publicized) I do not see that happening, based on the final cost of vehicles using lots of structural carbon. To me, that does not make sense.
-Matt