+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 187

Thread: Reasoning your way through the FSAE design process

  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Thank you once more for the very interesting insights in your active time. For me it is quite interesting to see that most things you mention, I pretty much experienced the same way in my active time, especially during the '08 season when we had the most succesful year one could think of.
    We also had this incredible team spirit. When I joined the team in September '07, I felt welcome from the beginning. For everybody in the team the goal was clear, it was about winning competitions. That's were we had a different approach. We never really had plans for multiple years, we only tried to make sure that we don't live on the cost of the next year. That means that the next team should have a heritage they can still properly work with (workshop, sponsors, relation to uni etc.), but in general our plan was made for only that year.
    Where your text could be written about our team was the part about being focused and team oriented. It was clear for everyone that the succes of the team is more important than interests of single team members. We only followed concept approaches we were convinced they would help us to gain performance and if something didn't work as desired there were no hard feelings when the decision was made that we won't running at competition. Very often I have the impression that teams have gadgets on the car which aren't working properly (yet), but run it anyway because someone put so much effort in it.
    We also did a lot of social events together, in summer we had bbq every evening at the shop, went kart racing etc. And in the end our participation at the Aus comp were propably the best two weeks in my life.

    For me the most important thing to make workin in a team succesful and enjoyable is that in the very beginning you commit yourself to what your goals are and how the whole thing is supposed to work. If you decide that the project is about giving people the opportunity to build crazy gadgets and whatever, you won't ever win a competition. If everyone is ok with that - no problem, but this has to be clear from the beginning. If team members are following different approaches to achieve different goals, no one will reach his goal and the result will be frustration and anger within the team.
    Rennteam Uni Stuttgart
    2008: Seat and Bodywork
    2009: Team captain

    GreenTeam Uni Stuttgart
    2010: Seat and Bodywork / Lamination whore

    Formula Student Austria
    2012: Operative Team

  2. #162
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762

    Team direction, mission statements and proving a point:

    Greetings all,

    Spent a few minutes chatting with Kev Hayward yesterday at ECU. And then a few hours more. As with all my conversations with Kev, his input offers me moments of great clarity, and a variety of other moments too.

    I’ve been asked many times how to structure a Formula SAE project. I’ve seen teams which have worked well, and teams which have imploded. I get asked how to best structure teams, advice on organizational charts, how to manage conflicts, etc etc. I’ve seen teams which have excelled one year, and have crashed the next, and yet have run the same project management structure through both years.

    I have decided that the best way to unite a team, and put yourself above and beyond the petty struggles and bickering, is to engage the team by proving a point.
    - RMIT 2003-2007 – proving a point that you didn’t need a big motor to be fast
    - UWA 2003-200?- proving a point that they knew vehicle dynamics better than anyone, especially with their kinetics suspension package
    - Monash – proving a point with aero, and with understanding of human resources
    - UQ 2004-?? – proving a point that you didn’t need a diff

    I’d also look at individuals like Rob Woods and his team at Buffalo as an example of a team that seemed energized and passionate, and keen to do something different with their Briggs and Stratton car. ECU seem united with a novel approach to their project this year. I could go on, but I do.

    In my travels around the country this year, I am seeing many teams as they kick off their 2014 projects, and I’d general categorize teams into two distinct types:
    - Teams that are on a mission
    - Teams that are optimizing parts
    Now both types are energetic, enthusiastic and mostly charging into their new designs at this time of year. Some have good management structures, some are conscious of their people and are saying the right things about timelines and over-ambition and any number of things that are written on these boards.

    The former though have a vision, a point they are trying to prove. It isn’t just a lame, “we are going to be the best in the world”, let’s-make-a-vision-statement-because-Krystal-the-team’s-management-coach-says-we-need-to-make-a-vision-statement type of vision statement. It is that this team is going to bust their guts to prove that …. is….., and what’s more, everyone else is …. because they are doing …. .

    That sort of from-the-heart drive is what unites a team. You see it in whole countries at times of war. You don’t see it in teams that reckon they are going to win FSAE, and are going to do so by passionately optimizing the pedal tray and fixing last year’s understeer on turn-in and that problem we have got with the chain tensioner.

    I couldn’t do FSAE again, as I see it in most teams. I mean, it is fun, and we learn, but unless there is some driving passion, some UNITED point we wish to prove, then there is nothing but individual wants that drive the team and team politics and bickering will eventually raise their ugly head. But when I saw the ECU project yesterday, and saw the passion and the unity and the point they were proving, I came home and dragged out the pencils and started sketching ideas again.

    Some points to prove:
    That suspension doesn’t require double wishbones and 10+ points of relative motion on each corner
    That you can build a fast car with purely locally made components
    That you can make a car out of wood
    That you can design a car that you can manufacture from scratch in less than a month
    That you can design a car that you can manufacture in less than a fortnight
    That you can design a car that costs you less than $10,000
    That you can design a car with less than half the number of parts than your last one
    That you don’t need a gearbox
    Etc
    And that any of the above can finish top 10

    Teams that have a point to prove inspire me. Unless of course that point is that they can spend more money, or use more resources, or make more parts out of carbon fibre than their competitors.

    I won’t go on, because I usually do….

    Cheers all,

    Geoff
    Last edited by Big Bird; 02-25-2014 at 02:49 AM. Reason: It needed editing
    Geoff Pearson

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

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
    Spent a few minutes chatting with Kev Hayward yesterday at ECU. And then a few hours more. As with all my conversations with Kev, his input offers me moments of great clarity, and a variety of other moments too.
    So a couple of guys got together and they had a few moments. Z, am I using the couple and moment terms correctly?

    Geoff, you're basically saying that this is first and foremost a project management competition, *then* an engineering competition. I think this approach is a common element of the the more successful teams. Project management includes a clear definition of goals.
    Dr. Edward M. Kasprzak
    President: EMK Vehicle Dynamics, LLC
    Associate: Milliken Research Associates, Inc.
    Co-Director: FSAE Tire Test Consortium
    Lecturer: SAE Industrial Lecture Program
    FSAE Design Judge

  4. #164
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    The couple of moments of clarity I had were a reaction to the force of kevs arguments. When he gets up a bit of momentum, he is hard to stop. We eventually ran out of energy, so we went down to the roll centre to get some lunch.
    Geoff Pearson

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

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    Yep, Edward - I'd say that a motivated team, with a common purpose and a point to prove, will find a way to overlook all the silly niggles and ego problems that can ruin a team's chances.

    When a team just approaches this as engineering optimization, the whole thing falls apart as soon as the first compromises are encountered. Because with a "parts" based approach, the only thing a designer owns is their own part - and they are going to cling to that hard. With a team purpose, everyone owns a higher purpose, and the petty niggles are seen for the trivialities that they are.
    Geoff Pearson

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

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  6. #166
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    Greetings all,

    I have been travelling around the country a bit visiting FSAE teams, and have had some very interesting discussions about relative strengths and weaknesses of different teams. In the interests of sharing the knowledge, I thought I’d catalogue what I’d found.

    The names have been changed to protect the fictional…
    University: AAA University
    Weakness: Lack of budget
    This team used to receive quite a handy budget from the university, but funding cuts have meant that their recent budgets have been slashed to less than half what they used to be. The team members are quite despondent, as their previous successes were founded on liberal use of carbon, and they know in their hearts that without it they have no chance of winning. The drivetrain leader has resigned because he cannot implement the carbon fibre driveshafts that he had designed. Tensions high throughout the team, team members leaving. Team leader furious because no-one wants to work hard any more, the car is not running, his girlfriend is leaving him and he isn’t getting time to work on the drag reduction system he is designing.
    Request from team: If anyone knows anyone who would like to sponsor the team, please let me know and I will pass on the message.
    Team needs another $50,000 to be competitive.

    University: BBB Institute of Technology
    Strength: Low budget
    This team used to receive quite a handy budget from the university, but funding cuts have meant that their recent budgets have been slashed to less than half what they used to be. The team’s previous successes were founded on liberal use of carbon, which was cool, but which absorbed a huge amount of time, energy and money. BBB are treating the low budget as an opportunity, as it is forcing them to reassess their priorities and look for cheap, simple solutions- in keeping with the intent of the competition. A few simple simulations and calculations and they are happy that they can compensate most if not all of the performance points with points in cost and fuel economy. Team is united and eager to prove that they can do this. As it stands, they are ahead of schedule and quite calm and happy, since their simple design is quite easy to put together
    Request from team: That everyone watch out, BBB is on a mission…

    University: University of CCC
    Weakness: New team members, lack of experience
    With the coming of the new year, CCC has seen their successful senior design team of recent years of Rob C, Graeme C, Simon C and Colin C finally graduate, and the team seems a bit confused and almost “scared” at the moment. The new team is very conscious of their lack of experience, and they look overwhelmed every time they need to make a decision. They know deep in their hearts that with such a young team they have no chance of winning. They are pretty angry about it. After all, how can they compete with when their nearest rival team is DDD Uni, who has Brian D for a faculty advisor who has been in the FSAE game for years. In fact, CCC has recently complained to the organizing committee as that they know that Brian D is actively helping design and build DDD’s car, and they even secretly showed me the “smoking gun” as they have in their possession a photo of Brian D with a spanner.
    Request from team: That the Rules Committee make a rule to ban Faculty Advisors who own, or have owned spanners, or who have used spanners in a professional application.

    University: University of DDD
    Strength: New team members, lack of experience
    With the coming of the new year, DDD has seen their successful senior design team of recent years of Rob D, Graeme D, Simon D and Colin D finally graduate, and the team is eager to prove itself as a contender in the new era post Rob/Graeme/Simon/Colin. The new team is very conscious of their lack of experience, and they see it as a challenge. They know deep in their hearts that with such a young team they have the chance to plot a new direction. They are pretty buoyant about it. They have been in contact with Rob/Graeme/Simon/Colin, who are thrilled to see the new team forging ahead and plotting their own course. Rob/Graeme/Simon/Colin have some arguments and disagreements with the new guys, but they confided in me that they are really pleased to see the new guys standing up to them and having a go. Faculty Advisor at DDD, Brian D, who recently won a spanner for his services to the local engineering community, was quite animated when he told me that the team had pulled together to go on a team camp to bond and to decide the colour of the new car as a teambuilding exercise. Brian asked me about CCC University, as he invited them along to the team camp but they didn’t return his calls.
    Request from team: That Brian C, Faculty Advisor at CCC, give Brian D a call so that they might meet and chat about potential collaborations between the two teams. Brian D is interested in offering use of his new spanner to CCC, in exchange for occasional use of their 6mm Allen key

    University: EEE University College of Advanced Technical Universities
    Strength: Brilliant facilities
    EEE has just had an all new purpose built FSAE workshop completed, which is the envy of FSAE teams around the country. They have 5-axis screwdrivers, CNC ‘ed double overhead cam laser etched window latches, and a new spanner. The team has 24 hour a day access, a reward for their proactive efforts at improving OH&S procedures and responsible behaviour. They welcome uni tour groups, high school tour groups, and recently had ABBA playing at their concept design review and hard-point freeze in their workshop facility foyer auditorium. They keep it spotless, and work on the principle that good facilities enable them to build their simple, elegant car more quickly, rather than enable them to cram more into the year.
    Request from team: That we are all invited to a viewing of Eric Bana’s “Love the Beast” on Sunday the 30th February at 7:00pm. Foyer auditorium, bring pretzels

    University: FFF Institute of Advanced Technical University Technically Advanced Institutions
    Weakness: Brilliant facilities
    FFF has just had an all new purpose built FSAE workshop completed, which is the envy of FSAE teams around the country. They have 5-axis screwdrivers, CNC ‘ed double overhead cam laser etched window latches, and a new spanner. The team had 24 hour a day access, but lost it because they refused to clean up the composites lab. They aren't happy, because they wanted 7 axis screwdrivers but the uni only gave them 5 axis. They work on the principle that good facilities enable them cram more into the year than to build a simple, elegant car more quickly. Their last car looked like R2D2 mated with a Transformer. They came last, finishing just behind a plastic Aerofix model of R2D2 mating with a Transformer
    Request from team: Space to rent. High tech workshop available, brand new except for singe marks in middle of design office where previous tenants spontaneously self-combusted. Contact Brian F on F@FFF.fsae.fail.edu.com.org.au

    I’ll update you with more Australian FSAE news as it comes to hand….
    Cheers,
    Geoff
    Geoff Pearson

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

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  7. #167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward M. Kasprzak View Post
    So a couple of guys got together and they had a few moments. Z, am I using the couple and moment terms correctly?
    Edward,

    Hmmm... Well, "couples" are free vectors, so they always have the same "moment" wherever they happen to be. So, I guess, strictly speaking, a couple of guys getting together could only have the same, single moment, over and over again...?
    ~~~o0o~~~

    Originally posted by Geoff:
    Some points to prove:
    That suspension doesn’t require double wishbones and 10+ points of relative motion on each corner
    That you can build a fast car with purely locally made components
    That you can make a car out of wood
    That you can design a car that you can manufacture from scratch in less than a month
    That you can design a car that you can manufacture in less than a fortnight
    That you can design a car that costs you less than $10,000
    That you can design a car with less than half the number of parts than your last one
    That you don’t need a gearbox
    Etc
    And that any of the above can finish top 10
    Geoff,

    Much as I would love to spend a month building a simple, sub-$10k, top-ten finishing wooden car (I have in mind a nice "rosewood" finish), my current thinking is that a cruder, sheet-steel tubbed, sub-$5k car, built in a fortnight, would be a better proof-of-the-point by being a podium finisher, overall. (Both cars, of course, with singles, no gearbox, minimalist suspensions, etc.)

    Z

    (PS. Just saw your last post. I'd be building said car on the top of "windy hill". Under the tree, for shade. I think there is still some room in the shipping-container, to keep the generator out of the rain, and for storage of stuff. Not sure if all that is a "strength" or "weakness"? )
    Last edited by Z; 02-25-2014 at 07:35 PM.

  8. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    I am concerned by these couple moment talks.

    I fully agree with Geoff's post about strengths and weaknesses. One of the things he missed is in analysing your competitors strengths (and weaknesses). Where a competitor has a strength it is helpful to see where it could limit them and become a weakness. This in turn helps you to see your own shortcomings as opportunities. Of course dont just apply stereotypes to your competitors, they will be as nuanced as your own team. Don't assume that you are working harder and smarter than your competitors. The sign that you are is when you complain that X team only wins because of...

    A few examples:

    Competitor University: GGG Management institute
    Strength: Great management structure with 100 students signed on

    University GGG will likely have inertia. All 100 student members are unlikely to be contributing good ideas. It is also likely that they will find it much harder to bring the whole team towards a united goal. This means your smaller team can investigate a potentially riskier solution to the overall design problem with fewer people to convince to get them all on board.


    Competitor University: HHH Excellence University
    Strength: Has a long history of success in competition, 10 wins so far

    HHH will begin to feel attached to their legacy. It is likely that new team members will accept winning as the way it always is. If they are a big team that will add to inertia, if they are small they run the risk of losing the "key group" of people. Being at the top means there is less to prove than those still climbing. Will this competitor work as hard and as long as you are prepared too?


    Competitor University: III Sandstone University
    Strength: Best University in the country, great quality intake

    This university will likely have expectations from their university, afterall at III they get the best of the best. Will they worry about what your little team will accomplish? Maybe the students will feel that because they are intelligent and their lecturers are great that they already have great engineering knowledge. Will they be able to match your individual zeal for learning? Furthermore will the expectations of the university weigh them down?


    Competitor University: JJJ University of Engineering Economics
    Strength: Craploads of cash and great facilities

    This university will use their resources. They will be able to achieve more fromt their resources, and at times will be bound by them. No point having the laser scanner, 3d titanium printer, suites of simulation software, private spa bath unless you are going to use them, and as much as possible. Where they will do a back to back test on 23 different types of tyres, you are stuck only choosing one and getting on with it. Most likely will be the same set of tyres they are using anyway. Will they build to their resources or to just what they need?


    Competitor University: Global United front of LLL Insitute of Carbon, and MMM Institute of Awesome Driving Skills
    Strength: 2 Fantastically resourced universities working together, well managed, big team, history of success, global sponsorship network, male model driving squad, Zombie Colin Chapman as Faculty Advisor

    This fictonal team appears unbeatable. But could they compete with 10 focused years from your team all working towards a unique and superior concept? Could they be just as susceptible to failing against a well thought out and executed long term plan from a minnow?


    You should learn from what your competitors are and the actions they take. Be prepared to form your team in a way that will turn their strength into a weakness, even if it will take you years to do so. Be united in your vision, work hard, learn, manage expectations, use resources efficiently, and plan effectively and any team can rise to the top.

    The opposite picture is contentment (the enemy of winning). Not fighting for a united vision, working at an acceptable level, being content with your current knowledge and best practices, and letting things roll along as they always have.

    Lastly do you realise that there are FSAE teams that have been at this game for 30 years? Has their design and management processes been effective? If you imagined that your team was going to be around for the next 20 years is there anything you would like to set up now to make sure that in 2034 your team is unbeatable?

    Kev
    Last edited by Kevin Hayward; 02-25-2014 at 09:47 PM.

  9. #169
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    "So, I guess, strictly speaking, a couple of guys getting together could only have the same, single moment, over and over again...? "

    It seems you have heard our trackside commentary at recent events, Z?
    Geoff Pearson

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

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  10. #170
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    Good morning all,

    I figured this is the best place to put this. I just wanted to wish you all the best and bid farewell to the FSAE.com forums, and the FSAE community. I have done my best to pass on what I learnt from my time in FSAE, and hope it has been of some help to you.

    It has certainly been a rocky ride. Unfortunately things are not so great on the health front, and my Parkinsons Disease is getting worse by the day. Elsewhere on these boards there are discussions about the merit of being an imaginative engineer, and I am probably living proof that having an imagination is not really all that appreciated or valued in the automotive world. I had my purple patch, and with the aid of some fellow imaginative engineers and a tribe of practical ones we had a run from 2004 until 2007 that I will remember with pride for the rest of my days. But I've also learnt the hard way how being creative and having ideas can alienate you from your peers.

    As it stands at the moment, I'm presently engaged in a battle with the authorities to prove my sanity, after some less than kind people accused me of being paranoid. Anyone with a grounding in basic logic will see the trap that accusation really is. Once such a seed takes root, your life as a free man is effectively ruined. Pretty well anything can be said behind my back - and I either accept it, or prove my paranoia by questioning it. The trap this is has just seen me spend 9 days in a psychiatric ward, and only a loophole I found in the Mental Health Act rules saved me from being committed involuntarily. Will they come back to get me? Do you seriously believe I'd even try to answer that?

    I've had a fun and rather interesting time here. I made my mark with a team that had so little money that we had to settle for a slower simpler car that won. I thought about how that happened and found the link between racecar design and reality TV cooking shows. I've argued with my foes, agreed with friends, argued with friends and agreed with foes. Often all at the same time. I've apologized to engineers and watched them poke and prod it and wonder what a strange thing that was. And I wrote about psychology and watched it quickly sink in a sea of "I need formula for race-car - plz URGENT now".

    But it seems there are a few out there who have been taking the p-one-five-S out of me, and who would rather play word games than admit it. I can only ponder in the absence of proof and honesty. So time to move on.

    Thanks all for a fun ride. Over and out!
    Geoff Pearson

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

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 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