+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 94

Thread: How to make the design event better.

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    How to make the design event better.

    As this topic seems to be overtaking a number of other threads I thought it would be best give it its own one.

    So how would you improve the design, and other static, events?

    Lets try and keep it civil, we are apparently grown ups.

    Go....
    Brent

    3rd world solutions for real world problems.

    UoA FSAE 2004-2008

  2. #2
    My 2c in no particular order. Can explain rationale if anyone's interested.

    DE scores released with breakdown and scores to teams at the same time.
    Run the teams through DE in sequence.
    Provide a means for non-attending members contribute
    Drop the arbitrary scaling (whether to max points or otherwise).
    Require a change itinerary from last year's car.
    An amended form for the DJ's (make commenting and transcribing easier, mail merge the car/pit/uni details - save time).
    A feedback session (preferably team-to-DJ's rather than 'town hall).
    Let the students edit their video submissions, and incorporate them in the static score (these need to be taken more seriously at both ends).
    Provide a disclaimer at events that teams+faculty can sign to have footage, results, scores and comments released under an open license.
    (On that) Beg the top three in any static event category to share their work.
    (Wishing here, however) Record design event (at least) and produce a "best of".
    (I'm going to be super contentious here) Consider adding other criteria for, or from FSAE-A in DE (the competition needs to get relevant to local industry).
    Consider a code review for the EV teams (super industry relevant, has other competition implications).
    (I'm going to be ultra mega contentious here) Allow static-only entrants.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by GTS View Post
    (I'm going to be super contentious here) Consider adding other criteria for, or from FSAE-A in DE (the competition needs to get relevant to local industry).
    Couldn't agree more, but could you please define what you mean by 'local' and 'industry'

    So far the focus in Australia has been the Victorian Automotive Industry. I would suggest that only a small minority of graduates end up there. I am still very confused as to why EA have not been included in the Australian event. They should be partners to encourage better outcomes for students. That way we can then see judges with backgrounds in mining, processing, heavy vehicles etc.

    Having to justify some of these vehicles from first principles to people in the industries that students will get jobs would be a great experience. I don't think we need every judge to have a background in vehicle dynamics to be valuable.

    Kev

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    GTS,

    I also agree with most of your points. Some comments:

    The videos should be edited. I know our students ended up putting a massive amount of time trying to get a perfect take. Much more time than would have been needed with editing for a worse end result. It was supposed to be a time efficient replacement for a design introduction. The restrictions make it very difficult to do, and the effort is not focused on delivering an introduction, but instead on the mechanics of trying to do a one take shot. However opening this up would end up with yet another big production / report. I say get rid of it altogether and assume the design report is the introduction to the design. (FSAE-A problem only)

    FSAE-A needs formal design feedback delivered timely. There is currently none. A one person design review at trophy time would be a good start.

    I wouldn't beg the top three to share. I would mandate sharing of the top three submissions for each static event. Ultimately we want to lift the bar everywhere. Protecting competitive advantages runs counter to the educational obvjectives. This can be done in Australia very easily. I have heard the complaint that this will disadvantage us compared to the world, but I think that is a weak argument to protect a couple of Oz teams at the detriment of the event goals.

    I would also like to see means for contribution of non-attending members. In Australia with 4 judging teams each after around 6 students we would have needed to bring 24 people (assuming that some do not cover multiple areas). We had about a third to a half of that ready for the design event and suffered as a regard. We had no choice as we cannot force students to cough up the $1500 required to attend, as well as being from a small university. For example we had a junior member who was involved with testing the single (having done some great work), having to answer questions on a system he had nothing to do with, because the judges didn't want to wait for the system designer to finish his current discussion. I always liked the idea of a design finals for this reason. Choose your best small group and go up against the rest. Otherwise the big local teams get a big advantage.

    Love the idea of a change itinerary or something similar. Teams are skirting very close to the minimal allowable changes and not suffering any consequences in design as a result. Photos of main systems such as chassis, uprights, wheels, intake, exhaust, engine, suspension etc that are kept each year (electronically) and compared to the new would be pretty easy to accomplish. Most teams take these sorts of photos every year with just a couple of juniors running around.

    Kev

  5. #5
    For such a contentious topic there has been little activity here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    So far the focus in Australia has been the Victorian Automotive Industry. I would suggest that only a small minority of graduates end up there.
    I think in 10 years there have only been 1 or 2 grads that have ended up in the Victorian Automotive Industry, with only maybe a doz that could be classed as working in the automotive field at all.

    GTS in reply to your comments on the UWA apology thread and design feedback - I don't think every team would want to question every design judge, well some would but most would only be after a few clarifications. Some options could be limit the number of "requests" or scale it so top teams get less time than lower scoring teams. The idea being that the middle to bottom guys would benefit more from the feedback.

    I hear you on the extra time requirements placed on the judges. Maybe those that can't stay 2 days could do a limited number Friday night or make more detailed notes and skype/email later. It might not be perfect to start with but it would be a start towards improvement and the process could then be re-assessed for the next year. I think it would be key to stress to the teams that and review would be a review of the scoring not a review of their designs and not a debate on the scoring. If a team doesn't want to respect the "rules" it's review over and worst case a return to no reviews.

    I always used to laugh at the teams that would cover their cars up and close their pit doors so no one could see there "secrets". Top 3 should do a high level design presentation cover off their goals, team management, design processes etc rather than full on here are our numbers, laminate, drawings. If we were worried about copycat cars now then full disclosure would make matters much worse and they wouldn't learn a thing. There are some cases where a team might have commercially sensitive information, so maybe an exemption from disclosure could be sought before hand.
    Brent

    3rd world solutions for real world problems.

    UoA FSAE 2004-2008

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    Couldn't agree more, but could you please define what you mean by 'local' and 'industry'
    Excellent point. The auto industry is much like a car on a brick life support system; there, but not gathering speed anytime soon. I'd actually consider a bit of a reflection exercise here to understand exactly where grads are going from the program, and frankly to understand where else university investment dollars are headed for project-based learnings with any touchpoints in automotive (I know of a few that aren't FSAE).

    I'd personally love to see FSAE combined with a careers fair down here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    The videos should be edited. I know our students ended up putting a massive amount of time trying to get a perfect take. Much more time than would have been needed with editing for a worse end result. It was supposed to be a time efficient replacement for a design introduction. The restrictions make it very difficult to do, and the effort is not focused on delivering an introduction, but instead on the mechanics of trying to do a one take shot. However opening this up would end up with yet another big production / report. I say get rid of it altogether and assume the design report is the introduction to the design. (FSAE-A problem only)
    This be The Truth. All videos bar one looked like Engineers Being Made To Play Nice For Camera. Excruciating viewing. The one that wasn't broke rules and did multiple takes. Even showed and explained car bits - very useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    FSAE-A needs formal design feedback delivered timely. There is currently none. A one person design review at trophy time would be a good start.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    I wouldn't beg the top three to share. I would mandate sharing of the top three submissions for each static event. Ultimately we want to lift the bar everywhere. Protecting competitive advantages runs counter to the educational obvjectives. This can be done in Australia very easily.
    Agreed. Of interest - are there any information sharing licenses that you're aware of that'd let this happen if signed to? I know UniMelb has a department that (in part) deals with this sort of stuff, but it's not currently affiliated with FSAE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    I would also like to see means for contribution of non-attending members. In Australia with 4 judging teams each after around 6 students we would have needed to bring 24 people (assuming that some do not cover multiple areas). We had about a third to a half of that ready for the design event and suffered as a regard. We had no choice as we cannot force students to cough up the $1500 required to attend, as well as being from a small university. For example we had a junior member who was involved with testing the single (having done some great work), having to answer questions on a system he had nothing to do with, because the judges didn't want to wait for the system designer to finish his current discussion. I always liked the idea of a design finals for this reason. Choose your best small group and go up against the rest. Otherwise the big local teams get a big advantage.
    If we could have the SAE-A approach my day job about this, we might even have solutions... this is something that absolutely has to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    Love the idea of a change itinerary or something similar. Teams are skirting very close to the minimal allowable changes and not suffering any consequences in design as a result. Photos of main systems such as chassis, uprights, wheels, intake, exhaust, engine, suspension etc that are kept each year (electronically) and compared to the new would be pretty easy to accomplish. Most teams take these sorts of photos every year with just a couple of juniors running around.
    Agreed. It's FSAE! Fortune should favour the brave

    Quote Originally Posted by Moke View Post
    I think in 10 years there have only been 1 or 2 grads that have ended up in the Victorian Automotive Industry, with only maybe a doz that could be classed as working in the automotive field at all.
    I'd make three but I was over 10 years ago as a grad and it took more than 10 years to get me into local automotive industry... in a corporate role no less

    Quote Originally Posted by Moke View Post
    I don't think every team would want to question every design judge, well some would but most would only be after a few clarifications. Some options could be limit the number of "requests" or scale it so top teams get less time than lower scoring teams. The idea being that the middle to bottom guys would benefit more from the feedback.

    I hear you on the extra time requirements placed on the judges. Maybe those that can't stay 2 days could do a limited number Friday night or make more detailed notes and skype/email later. It might not be perfect to start with but it would be a start towards improvement and the process could then be re-assessed for the next year. I think it would be key to stress to the teams that and review would be a review of the scoring not a review of their designs and not a debate on the scoring. If a team doesn't want to respect the "rules" it's review over and worst case a return to no reviews.
    Agreed - we can't end up running DE twice over in terms of timing, but an extra four hours for one judge from each area (8 total) could well work.

    If we couple this with a disclosed scoring breakdown prior, then those wanting to protest, can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moke View Post
    I always used to laugh at the teams that would cover their cars up and close their pit doors so no one could see there "secrets". Top 3 should do a high level design presentation cover off their goals, team management, design processes etc rather than full on here are our numbers, laminate, drawings. If we were worried about copycat cars now then full disclosure would make matters much worse and they wouldn't learn a thing. There are some cases where a team might have commercially sensitive information, so maybe an exemption from disclosure could be sought before hand.
    (Contentious suggestions number... whatever)

    How about the top three get to present their design in front of the entire competition and judging panel, and are marked competitively as a result, with the marks presented openly at the time?

  7. #7
    How about the top three get to present their design in front of the entire competition and judging panel, and are marked competitively as a result, with the marks presented openly at the time?
    Isn't this how the business presentation event is done? I know it is here in the States.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by MCoach View Post
    Isn't this how the business presentation event is done? I know it is here in the States.
    I think at Michigan the top 3 business presentations will present to a crowd, but their placing is decided before they ever get on the stage. At FSG and FSA the top 3 get up and are scored against each other for the podiums.
    Jay Swift
    Combustion Powertrain
    Global Formula Racing 2013-2014

  9. #9
    Contribute, people, for the Aus competition has a potentially shorter future than many realise...

  10. #10
    I believe the main improvement for this event lies in the judges/organisers hands. SAE-A has the potential and people to hold the best DE in the world.

    In order of importance:
    Every judge goes on a 2 day training camp ~1 month before the event. At this camp the intentions of the event, the expectations of the judges and teams are clearly laid out and explained. 1 day is dedicated to going through every teams design report as a group. Ideally this weekend would be run by someone who is truly interested in improving the educational value of the competition.

    Judge sourcing needs to be reviewed. While I don't doubt the ability of the judges some do not seem to understand the point/challenges of FSAE. There are many interested and dedicated alumni around - the SAE-A needs to put effort into finding them and giving them design judge priority. An example of this is a VD judge reviewing our mechanically mode separated beam axle car (which required explaining, even though it was explained in the design report AND video) and the only question I recall was "how do you adjust camber?"

    Judges need to bring annotated design reports with them to the event. They should note questions they plan to ask, including topics potentially overlooked in the report. Once an answer is received (or not) they need to move on to the next topic. 15 minutes is not enough to try and think of questions on the spot. Things that are explained in the design report should not need to be explained again and again, this is a waste of time.

    The judges need to be on time. If they start late, they need to finish late. Penalising teams because the event is not running to schedule is poor, this is a project management competition - what is going on SAE-A?

    Teams should be able to allocate weighting to design event sections with justification. If a team believes investing engineering effort into elaborate engine tuning is a waste of time and can justify why, they should be able to reduce the weighting on their engine/driveline scoring. Obviously a minimum weighting would need to apply. Maybe 25 points for all four sections and an extra 50 that teams can allocate - but they must justify it.

    Getting to crazy ideas now; potentially have a "peer review" section where each team is allocated a number (3 or 4?) of teams that they must go and question and give a peer score to. Don't release the information until the day, for example: at 12pm a volunteer comes and collects 2 team members from team A. They take them for 15 minutes each to team B, C and D. This idea needs development but I just wanted to put it out there.

    Finally feedback for the event needs to be released with the points. There is a 1 hour protest period (although whether this rule would be enforced is questionable) and yet no feedback til weeks later? how is a team meant to lodge a formal protest when they do not even know where they lost points? On the topic of feedback it needs to be clearer. Comments like "long pushrod" when nobody on our team was asked anything about pushrods suggests that the judges are just having a glance and finding a way to give everyone 70-85% much like a disinterested tutor/lecturer marking boring reports.
    UQ Racing

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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