I plan on logging out of here at the end of the year (wasting too much time here). But before I go, some last comments regarding this thread:
PRESENTATION EVENT - I certainly agree with the many comments above that good engineers should be able to persausively argue their points of view.
Good engineers need many skills. For example they should be able to make good cost assessments of their designs. This is what the Cost event is for (supposedly). Accordingly, it is scored under "Cost Event".
Similarly, and as I have explained in several of the above posts, the students presentation skills should also be assessed. But that should be scored under "Presentation Event", because THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
For obvious reasons engineers like to think of themselves, foremostly, as good designers. At the moment the Design event rewards the good BS "presenters" by calling them good "designers". What next? Assess the students' golf swing, and their ability to lose graciously to the CEO on the golf course (because these are both important talents to develop in the corporate environment) and include these also in their Design scores???
Keep "Design Event" for design.
DESIGN EVENT - When I first came to this site, some nine months ago, I commented that I thought the "standard car" design was too complicated and fundamentally flawed in some aspects, and that better, simpler designs were possible.
To summarise very briefly;
Mainly because of the use of the four cylinder road bike engine, the standard car has poor mass distribution. The CG is too high for the desirable narrow track - due to upright engine with deep sump - resulting in lifting of inside wheels in corners. The CG is too far forward in the desirable short wheelbase - due to chain-drive, forward leaning cylinders - resulting in rear wheel spin out of slow corners. And the yaw inertia is too large - again because of engine shape pushing driver forward - resulting in less agility through slaloms, etc.
Furthermore, many aspects of the car are unnecessarily complicated - for example, the "pushrod and rocker" type suspensions that place the coilovers as high as possible, giving high CG, extra mass, flex, stiction, and cost.
I have argued these and other points, IMO quite rationally and persuasively, for these last nine months - ie. a lot longer than would be possible during a 20 minute Design assessment. There has been very little in the way of rational counter-arguments, either from the students or the judges. (Arguments such as "rockers give a better motion ratio for lighter springs and better damper control, and allow for rising rates, etc.", are, as I have pointed out quantitatively, nonsense. This is an example of "talking the talk" - ie. giving the "standard" expected answer, even when it is wrong.)
Instead of rational, technical arguments in support of the standard car, a great many of the responses have been along the lines of "I'm not going to go into specifics, but, Z, you've never been to FSAE, so you don't know what you are talking about...". Or as you put it, Charlie, in the earlier Design Event thread, "as an experienced FSAE'er I VEHEMENTLY disagree...", again, with no technical justification for your stance.
The end result of all this is that the Design event is encouraging FSAE to become a self-perpetuating system that turns out fundamentally flawed cars of the "standard" design.
Proof? The Design judges DO NOT penalize the poor design aspects of the standard car. This is most likely because the Design judges are ex-FSAE'ers who built just such cars themselves. Instead, bizarrely, they give well detailed versions of the standard but flawed car, supported by the standard but incorrect arguments noted above, high marks!
And much worse yet, the judges actively encourage new students to build these flawed standard cars!!! (There are many examples of these sorts of "judge's design recommendations" here and on other sites.) This can not be good for the development of future engineers.
I stand by the comment that I made on that first post nine months ago. Namely, if you want to do well overall in FSAE, then build a car that wins Endurance, and DON'T try to impress the Design judges.
Merry Xmas!
Z
 |
|
|
Reply With Quote
