Design Event FSAE-A

[Eddie Martin]

I have to say the design event at FSAE-A this year was a great success and a huge improvement. Congrats to the officials and volunteers involved in the process.

I have to agree with Storbeck, every student needs to be judged completely independently of their "resume" and the teams performance. The potenial employers really need to question the student hard about their time in fsae. I have seen people from Wollongong with "members of the championship winning team" plastered on their resumes and they weren't even on the team at the time or just stopped by the workshop once or twice. You can have idiots in succuessful teams and geniuses in not very successful teams. It has to be on a case by case basis.

This is an engineering competition where you have to demonsrate your product. Its about design, sales, cost and very importantly performance. Thats why you have a points set up like you do. You can practice the design, cost, sales, acceleration, skid pan and fuel economy event at your home base as many times as you like (500 points) and set up a similar course for the auto and enduro to practice (another 500 points). Assuming your car is the best and fastest at the competition but you have well trained and low talent drivers the most you are going to lose is 2 seconds a lap in enduro and maybe 3 seconds a lap in autox. This adds up to about a 100 points lost total, so i can't see how a well organised and disiplined team with an awesome car (barring big human errors at the competition) could end up scoring less then 800 points (assuming small errors across other events) or pretty much a podium finish.

I think you could walk up and down the pit lane and take detailed photos of the top 10 cars. Then without any understanding just blindly copy their designs and just build something to a really high standard (build qualitywise). Get it running really early and then get the thing reliable by just making something that breaks heavier and doesn't lighter etc. Get yourself a good driver or two and just guess some set up changes. With 5 months or so of this i think you could get it going very fast. It would turn up at the competition and look really impressive from a distance (good build quality) and be very fast but would do really poorly in design because the students wouldn't understand anything about. The reverse would also be true if you had a really well designed and understood car that only had limited testing (1 month) and a less organised team. It would do really well in design but not so well in the dynamic events. That is why you have a spread of points, too demonstrate all aspects of an engineering project.

My comments about luck, were that all systems and parts are made by humans. Any failure, whether it was poorly designed, built, installed, maintained or driven, is the fault of a human and hence there is no luck only good prepation. Thats not to say you need to play the blame game, students make mistakes and its a great learning experience, as long as they were giving 100%. Whether a part or system is complex/simple or cheap/expensive it is still a human's creation.

[Frank]

Personally, i think there's a few things happening in design judging that are not necessarily the best, but they are understandable

1 If you see very similar designs 15 times, you'll prefer the car with some "innovation"

2 Judges get all mushy when a team "makes a significant improvement"

3 Judges like "trick stuff" even if the cars gets away from the overall concept of the competition (not trying to start a %^$#fight, but IMO UWA is getting away from the concept)

4 "Bling" helps, when it should not

5 There are few judges who have built a similar car, and understand the design adequately.

6 There's simply not enough time for a judge to inspect the car. You really need a peaceful, quite, ordered environment to inspect a car.

7 IMO design judging should be conducted AFTER the enduro, but i realise this is nearly impossible

8 The definition of "prototype" is different to some judges. For example, we use rapid prototyping parts a fair bit, some judges love that, some think it's crap.

8 (cont) Another example.. Judges asks "what's this ugly so and so part here, why is it like that", team responds "We couldn't be arsed. This works. The engineering effort to make it look like a showroom Honda product was too much for us." Some judges don't mind, some get really shirty.

9 IMO Judges don't have enough appreciation cars that have been driven many miles and inspected (with appropriate inspection methods). IMO Green cars shouldn't even be allowed to run at the comp, let alone considered for design finals.

Finally, I must add that I'm not sore about our design marks. We didn't deserve any better. Why? Here's why. UQ had:

1 No design boards (it was because of a stupid shipping mistake)
2 No prepared introductory speech
3 Little reference to the overall concept of the competition
4 No backup data, design folder
5 Only one person in the judging tent (Mark Fenning) actually designed anything on the car, and he designed 1/3 of the car, I designed the other 1/3, and 1/4 was carried over design from previous cars, and 1/12 was designed by the "rest of the team"

i didn't go beacuse im sick of it, and because last time i went to design judging a judge made a wisecrack about my age. I had been kicked out of scruitineering already, and didn't feel like destroying our hopes of any points by telling muppet judges where to go. Some of them need this (but most are good).

[Ben Inkster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Engineers, generally, are not very articulate. Being a smooth talker or a good showman doesn't really have any connection with engineering design ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Z,
I feel as though your comment is only partially true. You are right when you say "engineers are not smooth talkers" but this is only when they are talking to members of the opposite sex. But when it comes to discussing a system/design they have researched, designed, built, lived and breathed for the last year, 2 years or whatever, an engineer should understand it well enough to discuss with design judge. A judge should be able to probe the engineers knowledge of the system and be given a valid answer with some sort of evidence beyond their own personal opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> DESIGN - 100pts.
Split 50pts from an exam type test of the students knowledge of general design (eg. "Which spaceframe structure - A, B, C... - is stiffer under the shown loadings"), and racecar specific stuff (eg. "Calc. RMD of this car"), and 50pts from Design judges appraisal of design details of the car (done while students are in exam).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you cannot be serious about this? Engineering a race car is not like ordering a sub at subway or a choose your own adventure novell, you don't tick the box on spaceframe B, suspension F, engine G, and then build it. Rather, there are infinite solutions to design race car, and the engineers role is to sort through these solutions and find the best one (with respect to any variable you believe has an effect e.g lap times, ease of manufacture, weight etc). The purpose of the design event is to explain to the judges why your solution is better than any other possible solutions, and the consequence of this is that you require a very good understanding of your vehicle/system/design in its intended application. IMO using an exam style design event would only act to stifle creativity, reduce knowledge depth, encourage inadequate physical testing and reduce overall vehicle quality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3 Judges like "trick stuff" even if the cars gets away from the overall concept of the competition (not trying to start a %^$#fight, but IMO UWA is getting away from the concept)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frank,
What is the concept of the competition? everyone has their own and UWA's might be different to yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
4 "Bling" helps, when it should not
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree in part, but I do believe that a well finished car is often misunderstood to be "bling". A well finished car usually communicates to the judges that the team has had enough time to design and give thought to even the smallest components and still make it to the competition. If a car has "Bling" with no explainable function then I think the judges would tear you apart.

-Ben

[Z]

Matt, Ben,

My above proposed restructuring of FSAE points was just a "suggested alternative" to get people thinking about what is good about current FSAE, and what might be improved. Can't improve anything without first thinking about it.

I would see the Design event going something like this:

Students do their "marketing" presentation in front of appropriate judges. Then Design judges come in and students do their "technical" presentation. This is equivalent to "introductory speech" in current Design event, but points are included in the Presentation event (in my scheme) because that is what it is. Having just heard the student's spiel, which should include all the "neat" features on the car, the judges then do their detail appraisal of the car (=50pts of Design).

Meanwhile the students sit their exam, which is intended to be an objective test of their knowledge (= the other 50pts of Design). Whether this is a verbal, written, or multiple choice exam is open. I gave the written/multiple choice examples because I think they are the most objective. And with a "hard copy" of the answers there is no chance for arguments like "But I didn't say that, you misunderstood me...". Also fairer if all students (at any one event) have to answer exactly the same questions.

I gave the example of "Which spaceframe structure is stiffer...?" (and this can be any sort of spaceframe - bridge, crane, etc.), because a large proportion of FSAE frames I have seen are very badly laid out! Despite (or because of???) all the CAD/FEA/etc., many students seem to have no feeling for where the structural members should go to best carry the loads. Endless waffle about how the frame was "optimized" doesn't make a piss poor frame any better. (No offense intended ).

Finally, I have known a few excellent design engineers who I am sure would do very poorly in a "presentation" type test of their abilities. These guys fall roughly into two types: There is the shy, introverted type who will just sit there quietly, meekly offering a "Yeah, I guess so..." whenever the judge tries to drag an answer out of him. At the other end of the spectrum, there is the more confident guy who will not be bothered spelling out every little detail when giving answers, and will thus come across as an arrogant arsehole - "Why? Well, because the transformation matrix is non-diagonal. Obvious, isn't it!". (The quiet guy was thinking the same thing, just wasn't sure how to say it.)

Both these guys might do brilliant design, but get poorly marked. On the other hand, some charming dimwit who has learnt to "talk the talk" might get top marks - nothing like jargon to make you look smart!

Z

[Dick Golembiewski]

Eric (Z):

Here in the states, the presentation event is separate from the design judging.

Further, as judges we do look the cars over. It is not just a Q&A session. Because the first round only gives us approximately 25 minutes with each team, we have to do a lot. I often tell teams I'm judging that I am not being rude if I'm not looking directly at them while they are telling me about their design. Rather, I'm trying to have a look at the car as well.

I might add that one of the purposes of the SAE student vehicle design competitions (written or unwritten) is to give students the opportunity to perform many of the functions they might be called upon to undertake when employed, and learning how to sell one's design is one of them. To think that we judges can be blinded by "biodegradeable styrene" is incorrect. We see through that stuff. Still, if a team isn't enthusiastic about their own design, it sends a subliminal message.

- Dick

[Z]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dick Golembiewski:
...To think that we judges can be blinded by "biodegradeable styrene" is incorrect. We see through that stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I reckon it takes at least a month, working alongside someone on a daily basis, to figure out if they actually know their stuff, or are just good at talking the talk. Or, alternatively, are too quiet to talk about it. 25 minutes is not enough.

Bernie Ecclestone is reported to have said that, when he owned Brabham, he "found Gordon Murray in a broom cupboard". Murray was/is one of the best racecar designers ever, but was, presumably, rather quiet about promoting his talents.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...Still, if a team isn't enthusiastic about their own design, it sends a subliminal message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good designers are never happy about the finished product - time/money constraints, etc. They always figure they can do better next time! If they don't, then they're not good designers!

Z

[Mike Claffey]

I think the exam style design event is a really badly thought out idea. If you had this "exam" it could mean setting aside some poor sods that have to study a whole bunch of stuff instead of working on their vehicle. Then they would come to the competition, sit the exam, get maximum points - I get the feeling all the larger teams would do something like this.. Because it would almost be a free 50 points - and all the smaller teams would suffer, because their core members would not have time for this. We draw our members from oil / gas / mining background – about 5% actually have any racing experience.

I think the event should have a larger focus on design – 300 points, ongoing visits from judges all weekend, so on, because at the centre of this it is an engineering competition to test university student's ability to design and build a race car, then race it. Most of our team comes in at the start of the year with absolutely no knowledge of vehicles, and they go through the year picking it all up. We don't have much of a racing culture over in WA - and I think by reducing design, and turning this into a more of a racing competition will just move the focus away from innovation and different vehicle concepts (which usually result in a longer designing, smaller test phase – to just pumping out an update of last years car in July and then trying to lure the quickest race driver into doing some course at your uni, so you have a chance of winning the comp.)

IMO the competition is too sensitive to having the right driver. We have drivers within a second of each other, whereas some teams have a driver who is 5 or so seconds faster than the rest.

I think the competition is good how it stands, and we don't need to go redesigning the wheel on how it runs, because the Vast Majority of teams thought it was run well and was excellent event. The only thing that stands out in my mind for improvement is to replace the odd few judges who do not work in the racing field with ones who do. On the other hand perhaps having to sell to people who are at a ˜lower level' (used loosely) of vehicle knowledge shows how well the target audience will receive the car?.. I don't know. There are judges who don't like our ideas, and judges that do. I'm sure it's the same for all.

Z, you seem to have a strong opinion against the way the event runs. I didn't meet you at it, were you even there? I've always run by the opinion, don't knock it until you have tried it. I think you might feel differently after a few comps.

I'm not about to bash anyone's design ideas or concepts on this board, what's the point? But I have to say I can't wait to see the NZ car compete on the track, the combination of fat tyres, fat torque and fat wings looked like a gearbox destroying combination (especially with that r6 box.) What they produce next year I expect to be awesome.


Disclaimer: anything I say is just my opinion, and I'm not trying to incite people by this post

Mike C
BAM! UWAM

[Charlie]

Sorry I have not replied to this thread but I have been flat out at work!

I appreciate all the replies. I think it is a good discussion to have. I especially appreciate your comments Frank, as UQ was a big question in my mind. I am sorry you chose to sit out design as from what I've heard it was much improved. I have great respect for what you've done and congrats on a great overall finish. Also, I encourage you to think about volunteering to judge. FSAE alums know better than anyone how this process works and in my opinon make the best judges. I think the process is good but it relies on good people to make it work. You can help be a part of making a process you think is wrong better.

Z I think some of your ideas are intriquing. I don't think FSAE scoring is perfect, especially considering the cost event so I think new ideas are good to consider. However this is just about design so I won't waiver too much.

I think the design event is very good. The thing it has to have, as I mentioned, is competent judges. Since they are all volunteers this can be tough. But I disagree that it takes 'at least a month' to see if someone is a competent designer. If this is true there is no hope. I certainly would vehemently disagree that a written exam can find these designers better than questioning from a competent judge. If this is true then the best designers all have 4.0 GPAs!

Sure I've heard the story that Gordon Murray was "found in a broom cupboard". Let me ask you this, did Bernie work with him in a broom cupboard for a month before he brought him out? If not how did he know he was any good?

Should we encourage students to do well in communication skills (essential for reaching thier potential) or should we find every possible way for them to avoid getting better at communication? No. I think even if it isn't a perfect system if you emphasize that students must be able to communicate properly to succeed that is a very good thing!!! Like I said I had a hell of a time in my first design review but it was a real eye-opener and the experience I had in those events made me a much better person and engineer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
a large proportion of FSAE frames I have seen are very badly laid out! Despite (or because of???) all the CAD/FEA/etc., many students seem to have no feeling for where the structural members should go to best carry the loads. Endless waffle about how the frame was "optimized" doesn't make a piss poor frame any better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just stated what a design judge does. He uses his experience to see if something like a frame is properly designed. You admit that you think you can do that from this statement. Then he quizzes a student about what he sees wrong. If the judge sees enough wrong no amount of fast talking from the student will convince him. If its marginal perhaps sufficient explanation can be given. But talking is only maybe 5% of the issue here. Therefore the design is the final deciding factor and not the talking. Of course like I said this is only possible with judges that know thier area and have confidence in it. Not always the case. But the system is not what's flawed. Just needs good people.

Basically what I want to emphasize is this: Design is NOT NOT NOT about presentation first. I've been a competitor that made only a half hearted attempt at design boards but a whole-hearted attempt at succeeding in the event and we made semi-finals in US two years in a row. I have now been a judge and accepted teams into finals that had just simple graphs and notebooks as backup.

Obviously Z I don't dismiss your opinion as I've listened and been courteous this long. But in the end you say the design event is a sham which awards showmanship and pretty displays. And having been a close part of the event I say that is JUST NOT TRUE. And I honestly don't beleive you have enough connection with the event to understand that. On the surface yes there are teams with nice stuff. But if you arranged teams in order of presentation quality the design results would be much, much different.

[Dick Golembiewski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charlie:
Sorry I have not replied to this thread but I have been flat out at work!

I appreciate all the replies. I think it is a good discussion to have. I especially appreciate your comments Frank, as UQ was a big question in my mind. I am sorry you chose to sit out design as from what I've heard it was much improved. I have great respect for what you've done and congrats on a great overall finish. Also, I encourage you to think about volunteering to judge. FSAE alums know better than anyone how this process works and in my opinon make the best judges. I think the process is good but it relies on good people to make it work. You can help be a part of making a process you think is wrong better.

Z I think some of your ideas are intriquing. I don't think FSAE scoring is perfect, especially considering the cost event so I think new ideas are good to consider. However this is just about design so I won't waiver too much.

I think the design event is very good. The thing it has to have, as I mentioned, is competent judges. Since they are all volunteers this can be tough. But I disagree that it takes 'at least a month' to see if someone is a competent designer. If this is true there is no hope. I certainly would vehemently disagree that a written exam can find these designers better than questioning from a competent judge. If this is true then the best designers all have 4.0 GPAs!

Sure I've heard the story that Gordon Murray was "found in a broom cupboard". Let me ask you this, did Bernie work with him in a broom cupboard for a month before he brought him out? If not how did he know he was any good?

Should we encourage students to do well in communication skills (essential for reaching thier potential) or should we find every possible way for them to avoid getting better at communication? No. I think even if it isn't a perfect system if you emphasize that students must be able to communicate properly to succeed that is a very good thing!!! Like I said I had a hell of a time in my first design review but it was a real eye-opener and the experience I had in those events made me a much better person and engineer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
a large proportion of FSAE frames I have seen are very badly laid out! Despite (or because of???) all the CAD/FEA/etc., many students seem to have no feeling for where the structural members should go to best carry the loads. Endless waffle about how the frame was "optimized" doesn't make a piss poor frame any better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just stated what a design judge does. He uses his experience to see if something like a frame is properly designed. You admit that you think you can do that from this statement. Then he quizzes a student about what he sees wrong. If the judge sees enough wrong no amount of fast talking from the student will convince him. If its marginal perhaps sufficient explanation can be given. But talking is only maybe 5% of the issue here. Therefore the design is the final deciding factor and not the talking. Of course like I said this is only possible with judges that know thier area and have confidence in it. Not always the case. But the system is not what's flawed. Just needs good people.

Basically what I want to emphasize is this: Design is NOT NOT NOT about presentation first. I've been a competitor that made only a half hearted attempt at design boards but a whole-hearted attempt at succeeding in the event and we made semi-finals in US two years in a row. I have now been a judge and accepted teams into finals that had just simple graphs and notebooks as backup.

Obviously Z I don't dismiss your opinion as I've listened and been courteous this long. But in the end you say the design event is a sham which awards showmanship and pretty displays. And having been a close part of the event I say that is JUST NOT TRUE. And I honestly don't beleive you have enough connection with the event to understand that. On the surface yes there are teams with nice stuff. But if you arranged teams in order of presentation quality the design results would be much, much different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put Charlie. You're one of the thousands who have benefitted from the educational experience these competitions provide. (As am I - 'lo those many years ago!)

[Chris Boyden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Should we encourage students to do well in communication skills (essential for reaching thier potential) or should we find every possible way for them to avoid getting better at communication? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, alot of engineers are quiet people...but they can definitely benefit from being articulate and well spoken. Having to stand up and defend a design with the spoken word is something that has to be done everyday.
I know that I have trouble with it.

When the boss asks, "hows it going?", "why did you do it this way?"....etc....if you can't answer basic questions without stepping on your tongue every time you speak, than the boss might walk away saying, "Man, that guy doesn't know his shit", even if he/she does.
Then you get pulled from projects and talked about behind your back for no good reason.
It's really good to be able to communicate complex technical stuff in such a way that makes it easy to understand.