+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Personal apology to UWA regarding 2012 FSAE-A Design Event

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    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

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    You are defending the indefensible.
    And you're entitled to your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    The whole point of this thread, stated several times by different posters, and yet again very clearly by Geoff a few posts up, is that the Design Judging process in 2012 FAILED. The DJs cocked-up badly. The DJs were DERELICT IN THEIR DUTIES, which is to encourage students to one day become better Engineers. (<- The whole point of this competition!)
    The DJ's suty is primarily to evaluate. You seem stuck on it being to 'educate'. I can't help you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    Yet your tone from the beginning has been that it was the UWA students who failed.
    The competition exists to evaluate delivery of a project. It wasn't delivered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    Even without evidence you have suggested that they failed to submit documents on time...
    No, I've simply asked if they did,

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    ...failed to seek clarification on unspecified Rules...
    The precent for testing compliance of a new design is clear, and by the team's own admission they'd admitted some difficulty here previously,

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    ...failed to follow the correct protocols for formal protests...
    A formal protest was not lodged - quite different to a protocol not being followed correctly,

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    Meanwhile you have NOT made the slightest admission that ANY DJs did anything unnacceptable.
    To date that's correct. I'm one for assuming any party is innocent before being proven guilty, and for substantiating any accusation fully before accepting it. There exists the possibility in rules that with deductions, a very low score could be realised. There's also provision for discretionary rescaling and numerous other means of providing constructive support beyond the evaluation provided in Design Event, some of which was actually put into action in 2014.

    (I'm repeating myself here, however) I personally think the concept of the car was fantastic. Before finger-pointing and blanket apologies, I'm simply asking for appropriate context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    In 2012 the UWA students did what many people who have tried to "push the envelope" have done, and that is that they over-reached. The next year, in 2013, they regrouped and were back on the podiums.
    Which is correctly laudable, something I can personally speak of having been one of the judges. In my area at least the student concerned was among the most impressive I've met, despite some critical flaws in the design. Even more impressive - he was a third year student.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    But in 2012 some DJs did their utmost to discourage those UWA students from ever attending another FSAE-A comp. Perhaps from even being Engineers.
    You're as ever consistent with the sensationalist bullshit, completely blind to your contribution to creating the very dynamic we're trying to avoid between officials and students.

    As you'd have to be an idiot to volunteer to turn up to an event with the explicit intention of contributing to it's demise, most have better things to do with their time. I'd suggest you find a more appropriate and productive context for your observations, Z. Read this any way you will, I hope part of which is to infer that there's certainly space for idiocy all around.

    Any engineer that doesn't learn from failure enough to be discouraged from their profession... is a fool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    So, if you want to earn any respect as an FSAE Official, then show the students that you genuinely want to fix the problems that were clearly broken in 2012, and can break again at any time.
    Despite your suggestions of respect or otherwise, I do just fine.

    There are many issues to improve with the competition and less combative ways of fixing them. I've posted some suggestions above. I tend to start with the notion of us all being fortunate enough to provide for - from all perspectives - a volunteer-run event with significant learning value.

    You might earn a little more respect in being a little less combative yourself, Z.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    Specifically, exactly why was UWA-12's Design only awarded 3 points out of 200?
    As mentioned previously, I won't answer this as I'm not responsible. The project was eligible for zero as students should be aware. I personally would have argued for more than 3 on what I know, which is incomplete, which is why questions have been asked: were there late submissions, how was the presentation in other areas of the event, was there a protest, etc. The brilliant if at-the-time incomplete and unproven vehicle dynamic system implementation does not make a complete car.

    I'm yet to see anyone that was directly involved answer what the entry should have received. I won't openly speculate this either, as I was not directly involved.

    There are key learnings to take forwards, however not all are on the organisers' side. Blanket apologies without context do not help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    (PS: And let's not pretend that "formal protests", conducted behind closed doors, and officiated by those who are being protested against, are worth squat.)
    Yours is advice students can take at their own peril. Formal protest procedures exist in most competitive events for these very reasons. Your us-them approach of advocating pessimism before an inevitable fall is... about as productive as it sounds.
    Last edited by GTS; 01-04-2015 at 09:30 PM. Reason: Spelling...

  3. #23

    A now for a more constructive response...

    Quote Originally Posted by luxsosis View Post
    I'm fairly sure the explicit rule you're referring to says the team should receive zero in the case of an unfinished vehicle?

    If we'd got a zero score that would've been fair enough, there's a rule there that says so. If we'd gotten 120, 90, 60 points, that'd would've been OK because the car wasn't finished, and there's plenty of precedent for unfinished cars that didn't compete in dynamics doing very well in design event (precedent is what a large part of our legal system uses).
    Precedent is what our legal system may look to for relevance in context, though it's far from a definitive, and the OP lacks context.

    As mentioned I'd prefer to amend the competition in future to allow static-only entrants. Gets rid of the ambiguity around it, with relevance to a changing industry it kills a few birds with the one stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxsosis View Post
    A score of 3 appeared to much of the team as a considered, deliberate message that we were being punished for not toeing the line and building a standard car that complies with the preconceived notions.
    As difficult as it is, I'd view them as three points, and wouldn't take anything lying down - neither should you.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxsosis View Post
    This is coming off the back of 2011, when we brought the "wheel pods". These did not violate any rule, and actually passed tech. We were informed during the Cost event that they were illegal, and had to be modified in an arbitrary way to be made legal.
    Not that it matters, however I was (as were others) especially surprised that with a more radical change in 2012 a legality clarification wasn't sought in advance. (And I loved the wheel pods).

    luxosis, the smoking gun I'm looking for is that the diminishing score was in any way linked to questionable legality or lack of understanding about the car. Plenty of anecdote abounds. If anyone really viewed it as such, then A9.3 was designed explicitly for such reasons. I've personal thoughts around this which aren't for sharing (you're welcome to chat offline) though they're really not important if all recourse available to you was not actually used. Not using any of the recourse available effectively means the results were accepted. Accepting the result at event (where something could have been done about it) and then having it linger on a forum two years on (where nothing can be done about it) isn't smart.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxsosis View Post
    Can you provide any more information as to who this greater group of people is? The rules (Australian Addendum specifically) says that "key officials" are to be approached. I don't believe there would be many officials, if any, on a protest committee that weren't involved in the original decision and thus don't have a conflict of interest.
    A little context here for those missing it - this is a volunteer-run competition by people that broadly have your best interests at heart - which is why they volunteer. An incredible amount of time and sacrifice goes into running a FSAE project; even more just to turn up. The intent is to see it rewarded fairly in a way that all competitors are equally respected.

    This said, this isn't the FIA and there's neither time nor monetary resources to take the matter offline or out-of-event. In future there may be, not today. A protest is discussed by all judges. From experience (not 2012), there's plenty of space for discord among them.

    I'd happily work towards means to effect this (suggestion above and in another thread) though such sentiments are for a future-facing discussion, which is taking place elsewhere. Please join in. Use your experiences productively.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxsosis View Post
    Also, risking a score of -22 for an unknown gain seems like a bit of a risk.
    Turning up to competition and relying on precedent against what competitive rules you agree to by competing... is a risk. In a 'what's productive' context, I think rule changes should start here. I personally don't think the event should be so rigorous towards teams taking on board projects so significant as to be a high risk of non-completion in their first year; my reasons for as much come from my experiences however - I'd start with not every student or faculty thinks their FSAE investment about necessarily being a car that finishes, and I personally don't think it has to be. I think the rules encourage a lot of problems that touch on DE and end up elsewhere too. Part of a different discussion. I hope you join it.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxsosis View Post
    What does it infer?

    Has any other team in the history of FSAE received a single digit design score? I wasn't able to find one with some brief research over several comps.

    The purpose of the design event, as I understand it, is to test the design of the car and the knowledge of team against said design. So as Pete said, was the 2012 UWA presentation one of the worst designed cars, and least knowledgeable group of students, in the history of FSAE? I find that hard to believe.
    I don't try to believe anything without context. There are unanswered questions. We can drop it or get to the bottom of it. I believe the score should have been different, but I am neither in a position to offer comment to that end of make useful changes. I can help teams cross t's and dot i's to ensure what can reasonably be done from an entrant's end is covered, and we can pass on event suggestions for the future.

    As Kev suggests, much has changed, and it will get better. Hopefully with your and others' assistance. Which can be done moving forwards.

    I can't stress it enough - I'd beg students moving forwards to please, please, please, use the protest procedure if you believe you've been unfairly slighted. Be familiar with it. It's a year's worth of your best work - if you really believe in it, if you can back that up and if your work falls into one of the very few cases coming off second-best in an unfair manner - fight for it if you have to. The organizing body actually encourages you to.
    Last edited by GTS; 01-04-2015 at 09:37 PM. Reason: Spelling...

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    Thank you all for your contributions again. Some useful feedback is being generated here, and my intention is to summarize the constructive feedback into a submission which I will forward to the FSAE-A Consortium. There are good people on the FSAE-A Consortium who will welcome the opportunity to improve the event. Thus, constructive discussion is useful and necessary for the ongoing health of the event. It is a shame that the standard “discussion” tactic for most engineers is to take a side and defend at all costs. Thus, many of the discussions on these boards get heated, and constructive ideas get lost as we take sides and defend our own position at all costs.

    Z and GTS, I’ve said this on another thread and I will repeat it here. You are fighting on the same team. I know you both, and I respect you both greatly for the ideas you have to improve this competition. You are both passionate about the value of this competition, you both recognize that today’s engineers need opportunities like this to become work-ready graduates in a university system that is becoming increasingly irrelevant and dysfunctional. You are both original thinkers and bloody good engineers. It is great that you are energizing each other to think harder about how to improve this event. I STRONGLY suggest that it is now time for the two of you get together for a beer. I will facilitate this if necessary. I will keep pouring beers down your throats until each of you have looked each other in the eye and uttered the following phrases at least once:
    “Hey, that is a good idea”
    “I agree”
    The Australasian FSAE comp needs the both of you. It would be a bloody good day if you guys could put your differences behind you and work together for the benefit of all. And I extend that to all members of the Australasian FSAE community. It is time to put the personal differences and divisiveness behind us and start collaborating towards building a better event.

    Regarding comments about going over a two-year old event:
    - No we cannot change the past. But we can learn from it.
    - This issue is still raw and unresolved, as evidenced by the way it is regularly quoted both on these forum boards and in general conversation
    - I have regularly heard the UWA 2012 example quoted as a reason for teams to not try anything adventurous or innovative in their designs.

    Regarding comments about judges being volunteers – yes, I agree that they deserve to be treated with respect. Yes, I agree theirs is a difficult job. But I also believe they are not beyond questioning or accountability. The fact is, there are literally thousands of stakeholders in the FSAE community – university technical, administrative and academic staff; cash and in-kind sponsors; event volunteers; competitors and their partners (?!), family and friends, etc etc. Our event is dependant on a huge amount of goodwill across a wide range of stakeholders. An issue such as this one erodes goodwill and undermines the integrity of the event.

    I recognize my own inaction at the time has contributed to this issue being left unresolved, and I am willing to stand here and say that, given my position at the time and my FSAE experience I was probably the most qualified official to recognize and attempt to resolve the situation. I didn’t. I apologize for this.

    In response to comments about who this apology is directed to – it is to the FSAE-A community. As a whole. Aspects of it are directed specifically to the UWA team, naturally enough.

    To those who are offended that I am taking this action – if taking responsibility for an issue, and attempting to resolve it transparently and then learn from it is somehow offensive, then I guess I have to apologize for that too. I have done this because I am concerned at the damage that this instance has caused within the Australasian FSAE community.

    Now in regard to the issue itself, I’ll put my point as simply as I can.

    This competition is about inspiring creative and innovative engineering. That is one of the central tenets of FSAE – and in fact creativity is mentioned twice in the opening clause of the FSAE rulebook.

    One of the most creative, legal entries in Australasian FSAE history, received the lowest non-zero score in the Design Event that I could find, by a significant margin. The car was unfinished, and there are questions as to some report submission dates that I cannot answer at this point in time. But given that I have seen unfinished cars presented by teams of lesser design knowledge than the UWA team score 60+ in Design, then the UWA result is worthy of enquiry.

    Enquiry may find that there were errors in the implementation of the rules, or that the rules are not serving the intent of the comp, or both, or neither. As engineers we should be able to question such things without censure or reprisal. We should also be able to accept facts, ideas for solutions and resolutions without same. Our event should be transparent and fair, and respectful for all stakeholders.

    My concerns:
    - That we are not encouraging creative engineering, as evidenced by my own observations of the aftermath of this incident
    - That in this instance, the team did not seek a rules clarification, and did not feel comfortable seeking a rules clarification
    - That when, having seen the UWA design in July 2012, I took it on my own initiative to seek a rules clarification from the Rules Committee prior to the event, my request was ignored on the basis that it did not come from an entered team.
    - That rather than recognize that rules are there to serve the intent of the comp, we are sending a message that the intent of the comp (in this case, creative and innovative design) is superceded by the rulebook. I’ve seen many arguments here about how this entry should have been scored by the rules – but no-one seems to want to discuss how the rules themselves might be failing us.
    - That in this instance, the team did not protest, and did not feel comfortable lodging a protest
    - That we all have to be so bloody adversarial about this. Chill, everyone. Can’t we discuss stuff without everyone getting their knickers in a knot?

    Cheers all,

    Geoff
    Geoff Pearson

    RMIT FSAE 02-04
    Monash FSAE 05
    RMIT FSAE 06-07

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    Geoff,

    Ahhh... I was just about to submit a rather long post, but now I should perhaps start again...

    The gist of my message is this.

    "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."
    ~~~o0o~~~

    "GTS" is the only currently serving Official that is posting here.

    Unfortunately, in his comments I see an "Us vs Them" attitude that, IMO, does NOT bode well for future students. Especially for any students thinking "C&I". (So, contrary to what you said Geoff, this puts GTS and I on opposite "teams". I prefer to support the students.) I also see very little to suggest that future UWA-11&12 type events will be actively avoided. In fact, many of GTS's suggested changes ring strong alarm bells that there will be much more of this in the future.

    For example, in my just written draft I had,
    "(GTS ...)
    * You want DE to be worth more points, as in 2012.
    * You want to give the DJs a greater SUBJECTIVE influence on the whole competition, by allowing "Static only" cars that cannot be evaluated objectively, say, by a stop-watch."

    ~~~o0o~~~

    Any Engineering competition that has a large subjective content, coming from a small number of unaccountable Officials, with no "Openness and Transparency", will always end badly.

    I am, and always will be, "adversarial" to this approach. My view is that the students should be given an objectively clear set of Rules, and their "engineering" should then be judged in an objectively clear way, say, with a stop-watch. Simple as that.

    (Sadly, the IRC's work on the 2015 Rules Changes is another example of this sort of downhill slide. The majority of the problems there stem from the IRC's complete lack of O&T in their work. I foresee much "bad History, doomed to be repeated" in 2015...)
    ~~~o0o~~~

    Anyway, I reckon the only way these problems can be truly solved is with much more O&T. (Mega-sunshine surely does solve those mould problems in the bathroom...)

    So, the last bit of my just drafted post was this.

    "(GTS ...)
    It seems that you have exchanged PMs with Pat Clarke since this topic was again raised. Pat was one of the Officials at the centre of the UWA-11&12 incidents. So,

    * Can you urge Pat to post his versions of those events here?

    * If not, then can you give your version of the events, as you understand them from any PM's you have recently exchanged with Pat or other Officials?

    * If neither of the above, then can you explain WHY THE COVER-UP???"


    Z
    Last edited by Z; 01-05-2015 at 10:28 PM.

  6. #26
    Z, Geoff says play nice and I quite like Geoff, so let's play nice.

    I can't post anything private and this isn't the forum to post my private thoughts either. You can swap beer credits for the latter at best. 2012 is not mine to comment. I'll happily talk UWA aero in 2013. I'd suggest eliciting anyone to chat anywhere involves having a welcoming forum to do so. Just as birds don't nest on boiling hydrochloric acid, individuals won't spend valuable time in a forum where a few dedicate unabated resources to slagging them off openly. As I'm neither busy sledging judges to and fro nor involved directly in this, the invite is better served coming from elsewhere. There is no cover-up here; in addition to being legitimately not privy to the information you seek, I simply am not in a place to comment.

    What I can do is encourage students to do all they can to be ready for competition and to compete fairly. Bring a car meeting competitive rules - this included (at the time) completion. Roll learnings into project management - if organizers have had a beef with your less-radical last attempt to be ingenious, get the next one checked. If there's a protest process, use it. This is common sense and covers all bases. Common sense extends to there being space for idiocy in all roles, whilst acknowledging that the majority of the individuals running the event are doing it because they want to see students do well.

    The competition is one of project delivery - it's not a competition to build a 'quickest car', which is why much of the judging will remain qualitative. I hope you one day accept this. If you want a stopwatch competition, take up motorsport. This isn't it. No qualitative process is perfect. You advocate abandoning it and I strongly disagree - I'm for making it better. You suggest it's not at all open and subjective - whilst not perfect (and many of us work to improve it), it's far from as you suggest: I can understand your not being familiar with the rulebook and competition document; you are simply not a competitor, how you enjoy the competition is up to you. Consider that the best part of 200 students yearly turn up not having read it either: we cannot make open what people do not seek to see.

    Far from ending badly, the last two years (new format) have been pretty good. There's always space for improvement.

    If it was a competition to build a 'quickest car', we'd likely not have seen UWA attempt - in a single year - the design revolution we're discussing here. With development it could be very quick. Not likely with student resources in a single year, though. FSAE deliberately asks more than is possible in a year of student resources, and forces smart choices. If the best entrants were from teams against a stopwatch, then many of FSAE's best graduates - who've gone onto great, great things - would have missed much from their involvement in the competition. Many particularly challenging and creative developments wouldn't have happened at all.

    Geoff, I too am concerned that the team did not seek to exhaust any avenues to avoid or amend what happened. Not feeling comfortable doesn't quite cut it; there's a significant resource spend on the line here. Having seen faculty supervisors (who cannot, by rules, get involved) protest at 120dB+ on scaling differences between 'high' and 'perfect' you might appreciate that that not a peep, not a whimper at three points on two hundred is a bit hard to swallow. I'm directing thoughts on this at students as it's actually up to students to protest if it's appropriate - not Faculty.

    I'm similarly concerned that the competition's rules still don't transparently welcome the unfinished bold strides with open arms. This is, I believe, a significant gap.

    Static-only entrants should be welcomed before universities start requesting them. The competition needs to change and reflect the world around it. There is less money, less demand and less need in Australia for FSAE. There are and will be less resources to commit to it in future. By rules, UWA was eligible for zero in 2012. I'd prefer that this avenue strictly not exist. If UWA had a legitimately all-round kick-ass design in 2012 (no evidence to this yet), I'd have preferred the team go home kings of as much, with every bit of support and endorsed justification to come back with a running development of same in the next year.

    The challenge, as ever, is to find balance.

    Z, far from there being a small number, the process now is quite large. There are over 16 judging officials. Far from unaccountability, there is some - if it's used.

    The OP (sorry Geoff) came off as terribly one-sided. That's not quite the truth either. There are lessons on both sides, and without awareness of both, either on their own suffers. Having a bitch about three points without context of what could have been better delivered and tested... is about as useful as standing by three points without investigating what allowed as much and being open about the findings. Standing alone on either side just leaves with adversarial, vested arguments.

    Geoff, from time to time I hear UWA cited as an excuse too. I remind those I meet that they've some fairly short and shallow memories in FSAE if they want to indulge, solely, in that much in setting bounds to their potential. FSAE, FSAE-A in particular, has been a very, very rich space for creativity be it welcomed, critiqued, chided, suffering pre-detonation, unfinished, compromised, succeeding gloriously or any combination thereof. I remind them that life can't kick them as hard as they'll kick themselves, I remind them of what's possible and I encourage them to go touch the sky.

    There are those that remain fixated on what they can't do. It'd take more than erasing UWA 2012 to move them.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GTS View Post
    Geoff, I too am concerned that the team did not seek to exhaust any avenues to avoid or amend what happened. Not feeling comfortable doesn't quite cut it; there's a significant resource spend on the line here. Having seen faculty supervisors (who cannot, by rules, get involved) protest at 120dB+ on scaling differences between 'high' and 'perfect' you might appreciate that that not a peep, not a whimper at three points on two hundred is a bit hard to swallow. I'm directing thoughts on this at students as it's actually up to students to protest if it's appropriate - not Faculty.
    GTS, right or wrong there didn't seem to be much point at the time. We weren't competing for places, the actual point score wasn't particularly important. The team was already defeated having missed the deadline, this was a "kicked when your down" moment.

    Also, it's not a protest against receiving a B- when you think you deserved an A. It's more akin to protesting the teacher after she's sent you to the naughty corner because you pointed out an error she made. As Kev said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    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.
    Kev

  8. #28
    luxsosis, I'm not suggesting that a protest should have been around points for the sake of points either.

    I wasn't a judge but I was there. Read A9.3 carefully.
    Last edited by GTS; 01-06-2015 at 04:12 AM.

  9. #29
    their "engineering" should then be judged in an objectively clear way, say, with a stop-watch.
    They are, 675 out of 1000 points or 67.5% are judged solely by the stop watch + 40 points from cost that is for lowest cost. But that is a discussion for the design thread as it is off topic for this one.

    This is probably going to sound harsh -

    I think if people are letting this define all that they got or will get out of their FSAE experience, then with the power of hindsight, I can say you are going to have a bad time the rest of your life. You will work on projects to have them scraped by a bean counter, have credit given to others for your work, have your lunch cut by back room deals and finally give your all to grow a company from a two man band to 30 staff over 7 years to never receive the shares in the company you were promised to ultimately not even getting a handshake from the owners the day you leave. If you let this define you and not grow from the experiences then you might as well just give up and stay home.

    Yes, FSAE is your life at the time, hell we used to have beds at the workshop where I slept 5-6 nights a week for over 6 months. Yes, it hurts when you don't get the results you believe you should. But take it as the learning experience it is meant to be, so it might not have be a positive one but I'd hope you learnt something during the year if not the weekend.

    You might not have been given the points in design but you did conceptualize, design, build, ultimately race a very unique design. Your peers and employers will be more interested in the before comp results than the at comp results.
    Brent

    3rd world solutions for real world problems.

    UoA FSAE 2004-2008

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    GTS,

    ... this isn't the forum to post my private thoughts ...
    Huh???

    Are you saying that all your posts above are NOT, in fact, your true thoughts?

    And, by implication, are you suggesting that you have a HIDDEN AGENDA, that will never be revealed to the students or general public?

    What ever happened to good old-fashioned straight-talking, and honesty?
    ~o0o~

    There is no cover-up here; in addition to being legitimately not privy to the information you seek, I simply am not in a place to comment.
    So WHY ALL THE WORDS???

    Honestly, Blind Freddy can see that this is a cover-up. That is why it has festered for so long. That is why Geoff had to take the bold step of offering his own personal apology for the mistakes of others.

    But the Officials who were responsible for this injustice have been doing their best to bury it over the last two years. Mostly by ignoring it, but occasionally with red-herrings such as "it was just the standard penalties for late document submissions", etc.

    And you, GTS, are aiding and abetting them in this cover-up by repeating these, so far unsubstantiated, allegations. And by doing NOTHING to reveal what actually happened, such as making public the relevant documents. Or are those documents covered by some "SAE-A Official Secrets Act"?
    ~o0o~

    In all your words above, I see the meaningless middle-management double-speak that is designed to do nothing more than provide a ready-made cover-up for future cock-ups, or possibly gross injustices. For example;

    The competition is one of project delivery - it's not a competition to build a 'quickest car', which is why much of the judging will remain qualitative.
    What does that mean? How are future students supposed to interpret that? And where in the Rules does it say "The competition is one of project delivery, NOT about building a quick car..."? Or can Officials now unilaterally redefine the meaning of the whole competition, on a whim?

    More specifically, how can a Team that brings the objectively "quickest car" to the competition be said to have NOT "delivered on the project"? Or, worse yet, might some future Team be able to bring a "slow car" to comp and still win DE, possibly then worth 1000/1000 points, because you "qualitatively" judged them to have the best "project delivery", while the "quickest car" might only get 3/1000 points?

    GTS, for the benefit of the students you can either clarify this issue of what exactly "project delivery" means in your opinion (you have mentioned it several times now), and how you would score it in DE, or you can keep it as part of your hidden agenda. Your choice.

    But I, for one, have seen enough to NOT TRUST YOU one iota.
    ~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~

    Brent,

    ... 675 out of 1000 points or 67.5% are judged solely by the stop watch...
    ... But that is a discussion for the design thread ...
    Yes, I want to post some more on your other thread soon. But I am now trying to put together some detailed design advice for yet another thread, that will hopefully be of some educational use for some other students. Sadly, it seems that more work is required to "stop the rot", than to "improve the education"...

    And yes, 675/1000 points are judged by the stop-watch, which I like. But it is now a historical fact that a Team can lose 197 points in DE, with no explanation coming from the DJs as to exactly why those points where lost. And the obvious conclusion here is that the Team lost those 197 points because they brought a C&I car.

    So, if a Team wants to win the comp outright, and if they try to do this with a C&I car, then they MUST aim to out-score ALL the other Teams by ~200 points in the stop-watch judged Dynamic Events. That is, they must push everyone else back to <480 Dynamic points. Clearly a big ask, and a big DISCOURAGEMENT from "pushing the envelope".

    Welcome to "The Boring New World"...

    Or put another way, why bother studying Engineering?

    Much more to say ... but later...
    ~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~

    Pat Clarke,

    Are you ever going to show some back-bone on this issue?

    As I understand it, you were at, or very close to, the centre of it. You know all the little details.

    Either make public why UWA only received 3/200 points, or make it clear that you want to keep this issue festering forever.

    Z
    Last edited by Z; 01-06-2015 at 08:57 PM. Reason: more emphasis...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts