2015 FSAE Michigan

[mmw2753]

JT - our design event philosophy was to present those bulleted ideas before the judges even had the opportunity to ask random pop quiz questions. That way, the judges had seen the overview of our team's design process already, knew the basics of our design, and then their questions could be more focused on the actual car.

[Mbirt]

JT - our design event philosophy was to present those bulleted ideas before the judges even had the opportunity to ask random pop quiz questions. That way, the judges had seen the overview of our team's design process already, knew the basics of our design, and then their questions could be more focused on the actual car.

This. An unfortunate problem for the hardcore engineering students who agonize the engineering details of the car is that they're not natural talkers/presenters. You have to be cognizant of the psychology involved in milking the most points out of the design judge. To avoid heading down the rabbit hole of answering the judge's inappropriate premeditated questions, just keep talking about how your design fits the overall goal of the car and the awesomely logical and efficient processes that allowed you to arrive at that design. It's unfortunate that I can assign design judging points directly to the presenters' ability to talk, but it's at least 20 until you reach the semifinals threshold.

[jd74914]

This. An unfortunate problem for the hardcore engineering students who agonize the engineering details of the car is that they're not natural talkers/presenters. You have to be cognizant of the psychology involved in milking the most points out of the design judge. To avoid heading down the rabbit hole of answering the judge's inappropriate premeditated questions, just keep talking about how your design fits the overall goal of the car and the awesomely logical and efficient processes that allowed you to arrive at that design. It's unfortunate that I can assign design judging points directly to the presenters' ability to talk, but it's at least 20 until you reach the semifinals threshold.

I don't know if unfortunate is the correct word. Teaching people to emphasize their points and redirect (or properly introduce) is a valuable life skill. I've been in dozens of meetings where a proper introduction and theme serve to help prevent derailment. Without really emphasizing your points the reviewers are really a wild card; to minimize this risk you really need to well present your case. This is not only applicable to formula but engineering life in general.

[Mitchell]

JT - our design event philosophy was to present those bulleted ideas before the judges even had the opportunity to ask random pop quiz questions. That way, the judges had seen the overview of our team's design process already, knew the basics of our design, and then their questions could be more focused on the actual car.

Is that not the point of the Design report? or is it generally accepted now that the majority of judges don't even read them.

[Pennyman]

Plenty of documentation is publicly available online explaining the design event and scoring guidelines on the SAE website and FSAEOnline. Not sure how many teams really use those documents to prepare though.

[JT A.]

Plenty of documentation is publicly available online explaining the design event and scoring guidelines on the SAE website and FSAEOnline. Not sure how many teams really use those documents to prepare though.

The point I'm trying to make is that a significant portion of the judges need to review those guidelines of how the design event is supposed judged.

For example the design scoring sheet says that each category (suspension, chassis, powertrain, etc) is judged with the following emphasis

Design- 25%
Build- 25%
Validation/refinement- 25%
Understanding -25%

My experience at FSAE Lincoln design events is that their emphasis is more like 75% validation/refinement, 10% design, 5% build, and 10% understanding.

And the judges that ask nothing but "RCVD pop quiz" questions I guess could loosely be considered as testing your "understanding", but they ask nothing about your design & analysis methods, or validation/refinement. So how are they determining your score in those areas?

And yes the obvious solution to a judge who asks bad questions is to try to steer the conversation back to the points you really want to get across. In my experience that works to some degree, but I've also seen judges respond with indifference or even outright frustration that you aren't letting them ask their questions.

[Pennyman]

This is only my perspective, but I believe that some of the component/system design and build aspects can be inferred from the first impression of the car as it sits in the design bay. The fit and finish of the vehicle, the mass and how components are sized, and the packaging can tell you a lot. But looking at the vehicle in person doesn’t lend itself well to how much testing/validation has been done (unless it’s clearly showing wear). This could be why some judges lean on validation. I have a few other theories about this, but I won’t get into them here. Of course some questions are necessary to properly gauge student knowledge as well.

I was the rookie judge for the Kansas team in Michigan last week. If you were there, I’d like to hear more about your specific experience, especially if you were dissatisfied in some way. Send me a PM and we can continue this.

[JT A.]

I left school last year so I'm no longer with the team, my participation was from 2011-2014. So I have no idea how their design went, other than they made finals. I would still be interested in getting some feedback from you though

I completely disagree that you can just eyeball the overall build quality and make assumptions about how well the car was designed. That leaves so much room for subjectivity and is fundamentally flawed. A design judge can look at your suspension linkages and determine if they are properly sized for the loads, but how does he know you arrived at that design by proper engineering, rather than simply by looking at other team's cars and copying their sizes for tubing, rod ends, fasteners, etc? Or by copying the same sizes that your team used the year before? Doesn't it make much more sense to ASK the team to show their load cases and calculations, and how they prioritized between weight, stiffness, and ultimate strength? Sorry for the rant, but that topic is sort of a sore spot for me, because there were times when my team was scored lower & kept out of design finals because of these types of criticisms that really "blindsided" us. We felt that if they had brought it up in design we had a chance to defend our choices, it would have turned out differently.

[Pennyman]

If judging was based on the eyeballing the build quality of the car, then questioning wouldn’t be necessary. I would hope student designers bring up all of their design considerations during the questioning period. Those considerations should follow some semblance of “proper engineering” as you call it, and should include testing/validation if it's available. The judge is there to evaluate what is said with the car as a visual aid. But I believe balance and time management is important too, and the team should consider what is the best use of their time. If they spend 30 minutes discussing shape optimization of their rockers, this probably isn’t the best use of time. Therefore all areas cannot be covered (some might have to be inferred from the car) otherwise the design event would take all week to complete.

Despite how it sounds, I think you and I are in agreement. Unfortunately the design event isn't long enough to cover everything, and quality of the car is not the final say.

[JT A.]

I also think we are more or less in agreement.

I guess I just think the judges should share a little more of the responsibility to steer the discussion in the right direction and make sure the important topics get covered (they are the experts right?). Most of them already do a good job of this. I only remember 2 or 3 that were particularly "bad" in that respect. Unfortunately, it was these judges who were also the most stubborn about not letting the students get the discussion back on track. If you did try to emphasize your goals, or go into any detail about your design methods or validation, they would cut you off and keep asking what I consider "shallow" questions. Basically their attitude came off as "Screw your overall system goals, I want to know what your scrub radius is. And don't bother telling me why you chose that value, because I need to get on to KPI, ride frequency, and roll center migration. Don't explain any of those either. Tell me what happens when you have positive caster and you turn the wheel to the right". I'll make it clear that this was the small minority of design judges, but there are enough of them (2-3 out of 9 competitions that I went to) that I think it is a problem.

Yes the students should know to get their main points across, highlight the best examples of design work that they did, etc. The good judges already let you do this and it isn't an issue. Its the few judges that don't that are a problem.