+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: FSAE is Not a Kit Car Competition

  1. #11

    Legomaniacs?

    JT A posted the right question with his "where do you draw the line argument"

    Here is where I draw the line: whether the student designed and manufactured or bought his car part, he should be able to show the calculations and the validations that justify the choice he made.

    A few weeks ago at FSI (Formula Student India) - but this is not an Indian story only - I saw several cars with the same impact attenuator and the same suspension parts that were obviously bought, not manufactured by the teams.
    NO ONE of these students could present any engineering calculations (and of course even less validation) that could justify their choice. NO ONE of them could answer questions about the impact attenuator test report.

    How could I give to students who just bought these "beautiful" parts - but can't give any engineering arguments for their choice - a bigger score than to the students who at least did TRY to calculate, compare, measure, validate and, yes, ideally manufacture their car parts ?

    DESIGNING and building a FSAE / FS car is not playing Lego!
    Claude Rouelle
    OptimumG president
    Vehicle Dynamics & Race Car Engineering
    Training / Consulting / Simulation Software
    FS & FSAE design judge USA / Canada / UK / Germany / Spain / Italy / China / Brazil / Australia
    [url]www.optimumg.com[/u

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kannapolis, NC
    Posts
    382
    I'd have to agree with Claude, not in the "Teams should make everything they can" side (though I personally did find it more enjoyable that way at the time) but in the fact you need to be able to justify all of your decisions. At the very least you need to have the "we went with this because we decided that the resources that would be better applied elsewhere" argument.

    As aero started taking over the competition a few years ago and we didn't show up with wings I do recall getting knocked in design for not having spent money and time having someone design and get a full cost analysis of what it would take to build an aero package so we could go "we don't have the time and money to do that even though it would make the car X amount faster" at which point we'd still have gotten knocked in design for not having wings.

    Mind you we did this with an actual hand-fabbed space frame, machined hubs, and welded steel uprights and suspension. We actually did build 90% of the car though I think we did occasionally get the "why did you make this when you could have bought it?" Defending your design decisions is a huge (and getting bigger?) part of the experience.
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Stewart-Haas Racing, Kettering University, or their employees, students, administrators or sponsors.

  3. #13
    Agreed on the "not a kit car competition" comment; but as already stated where's the limit? I will share my experiences from 2013/2014 and our first ever e-car. Back then we were a team of 9 people, no EE's, so (obviously) we decided to buy an off-the-shelf motor and controller. Our BMS was also a commercial unit, adapted to our needs. In FSG that year we got flamed for "buying off the shelf parts", albeit the fact we could really justify the decision made. In FSUK, same car, same team, and we scored 12th overall in design. Then, given that experience, we tried to design our own motor for the next car. We found out that a commercial unit would be lighter, more compact, more powerful and cheaper, while also more reliable, since our resources are still fairly limited. I cannot find anything wrong with that.

    On the other hand, we have been making our own wheels for years now. It is something that (especially back in 2009) very few teams did. We thought that the time and cost involved could be offset by lower weight, designed stiffness and packaging freedom, so we did it.

    All and all, it is a matter of focus, priorities, available resources and gains. If the team can prove that they can do better by buying off the shelf anything, then let them.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post

    In fact I would argue that the only reasons to design your own parts rather than buy them are:

    You believe you can learn something by doing so. -William

    Well, I think that settles that. Isn't that why you end up in college?
    Isn't that why you joined an FSAE team?
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    I would echo the sentiments from coleasterling and Charles Kaneb.
    I work in manufacturing and the best lessons I learned from FSAE had nothing to do with making parts.
    Instead the best lessons were about Engineering Project Management.

    In fact I would argue that the only reasons to design your own parts rather than buy them are:
    1) Required by the rules.
    2) You believe you can learn something by doing so.
    3) You can achieve a competitive advantage over off the self parts.

    Otherwise you are most likely wasting your time.
    Like I said learning how to manage your time (Engineering Project Management) was the most valuable lesson; at least for me.
    Now is that?
    Because many the design exercises found in FSAE are extremely narrow in scope.
    But Project Management is a universally applicable skill and is needed by every successful engineer.

    In short I agree that a team should not be penalized for using Compoennt Off The Shelf.
    Regardless if they choose a COTS or their own design an equal analytic justification is required.

    -William
    Well said.
    Formula SAE: When you just can't get rid of a girlfriend.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Modena, Italy
    Posts
    363
    I'd happily accept a kit car if the team was able to show that they used the extra time won (from not making and remaking parts) to actually design the vehicle layout properly or even carry out a proper test procedure both of which are generally lacking in FSAE.

    Engineering isn't just cutting metal you know.

    If a team presented essentially a kit-car, but were able to show that by saving time with off the shelf parts they were able to make a couple of design-build iterations and/or actually carry out a proper testing campaign complete with detailed post processing and model validation I'd find that infinitely more commendable than a team which have spent all year cutting, welding & milling a poorly thought out car full of blind applications of various rules of thumb and expensive, heavy, badly designed machined parts.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    352
    Well said Tim

    From my experience, teams tend to go too far towards the 'engineered' solution, and spend all year designing the shit out of their pet projects, only to cobble it together at the end and generally fail.
    Jay

    UoW FSAE '07-'09

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell View Post
    I agree 100% with Claude. I would also like to add that at the last few FS competitions I have attended I have noticed a growing trend of people using off the shelf simulation software. This is just not acceptable as engineers. There is ample opportunity in this competition to develop your own coding language to write simulation software, that runs in a standalone bespoke CAD/FEA/CFD package. Once you have this up and running you should easily be able to design and simulate your suspension upright and achieve full optemisery.
    Of course, you need to write a second stand-alone analysis package to verify the results as well. Unvalidated optimisery scores very poorly in the design event.

  9. #19
    Claude, I don't really understand (ünderstand? ) why you're going on about the impact attenuator. It's in the rules, appendix T-3: Standard Impact Attenuator. It is in there because the SAE wanted to stop teams havong to construct rather sketchy drop testing mechanisms involving students climbing up ladders and dropping a 200kg block of concrete on the floor.
    Lutz Dobrowohl
    2008-2011
    Raceyard Kiel

    Now: Scruitineer, Design Judge, application engineer @Altair engineering

    Whatever you do, do it hard!

  10. #20
    To point out some success of the boys next door who people have had similar complaints about:

    http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ha...hiners-687204/

    Do your own analysis, play within the rules, cross the finish line. If the best solution is an off the shelf part, so be it.


    In terms of FSAE, it's still primarily about learning, so the argument isn't exactly 1:1. If you want to learn about carbon, get to it. If you want to learn about fancy heat treat process, go for it.
    Just remember, it's not a race.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 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