It was clear that the design event in 2012 was a shambles. There was a number of problems, with one design queue scores so bad that no team made the finals (including the fastest car at the competition).
As a result the whole approach to the event in Australia was changed for 2013, into a much better system. Although it remains far from perfect.
Being at the competition I got the distinct impression that the score for design for UWA was very closely linked to the drama from the year before (i.e the wheel pods). I think there were a number of people closely associated with the rules committee that were quite annoyed at UWA's reluctance to seek rules approvals. This was for both the wheel pods and the application of some of the suspension rules. Also in 2011 UWA, which was still considered one of the top Australian teams brought a second year car, took the points penalty and still finished second. This annoyed a lot of people and probably showed that a 50 point penalty is probably not enough when a top team decides to run a 2nd year car.
I will admit that I was in the camp of people annoyed with UWA taking a second year car in 2011. If other top teams decided to do the same the whole competition could turn very far from its intent as a design and build competition. I also advised UWA (as did others) to seek rules approval far ahead of the competition. At that time I was thinking they were going further than they did, and into illegal territory.
I was completely wrong in thinking they needed a rules approval. The system, once viewed, was clearly legal and quite a good approach. I think their design event score was wrapped up in the vested interests of a few involved with design. I had at least one design judge mention there score to me prior to its release with some glee. It was very clear to me that a message was intended, and a few of the judges didn't like how UWA had lost their way.
The 2012 design result needs to be viewed alongside the drama involving UWA in 2011. It was a two year argument between a few people close to the rules committee. In the end everyone lost. UWA were put off, and others were discouraged by what they saw as a multi year attack on innovation. Likewise some of the judges involved with the decision are no longer seen at FSAE-A.
A sad end to petty disputes. I think, as I believe Geoff does, that this issue should be dropped. There will be no satisfactory response from some of the judges involved (especially those no longer associated with FSAE-A), and there is little hope in repairing the damage done to the teams in a short space of time. However time can erase mountains. Well time, wind and water. At least we have the wind covered.
Kev