Motorsport or Design?

[Charlie]

My opinion is simple; students get academia everywhere else they turn at university. FSAE is intended to give a practical face to their studies. Results are what practical experience is made of. In the real world, there is ZERO credit for an interesting design that doesn't work in the field (on track). The design event is great and important, but it is judged on opinion not real-world merit and is not jusitified to be the bulk of the points for that reason.

I could not disagree more with the referenced article's premise. Using examples of what students say in design to reinforce the premise is irrelevant, I've heard a little bit of everything in design. University boards were fickle 20 years ago and still are. Worried parents, well they exist no matter what and I doubt too much extracurricular project is the first worry they have. My personal experience is that some sponsors really like the 'racing' side and some don't care. If there are some that don't like the motorsport side, there is plenty else to talk about. Either way, sponsors are more about results than learning (one might say that you learn more with less), so why would the article care about sponsors?

If teams are focused more on results now instead of trying to impress judges, all I can say is IT IS ABOUT TIME! I am tired of hearing how great a concept is when it flat out doesn't work because of the details. In the real world, details and results matter (perhaps more so in motorsport than other industries) so I see this trend as overwhelmingly positive and achieving the goals of the competition.

[atm92484]

If this monster really does exist it is not entirely the students' fault. The rule book has been rewarding this for years so why wouldn't teams roll with it?

In the Carroll Smith days, it was about building a weekend autocrosser. Nobody in the real autocross world wants to pay for an all composite car nor will they be capable of repairing it using stuff in their garage. The competition "back then" recognized that and simple cars resulted. The mid-2000s cars from Cornell and Texas A&M were probably the best example of this. I didn't recognize it then but now I really admire what they did - it was good stuff.

If you want to make it not about motorsports and more about training engineers, how about reward teams that come up with simple designs and penalize teams that come up with overly complicated and expensive ones? No employer will reward something that costs 10x as much but only performs 5% better (the wannabe mini-F1 car); they'll gladly take the solution that does 95% of the task for a fraction of the cost (the 2/3 scale Formula Ford).

Everyone knows that if you want to be in the top 5, 10, whatever you need to do well in all events since this competition has gotten so competitive. However the events that are more engineering and less motorsports are worth a smaller percentage of the score. The competition contradicts what Pat says. How about this - if your car costs twice as much, it should be twice as fast?

I find it funny that he writes this then criticizes tapered wheel nuts. Why not criticizing under designed wheels instead of starting another automotive red herring?

If I ever found myself involved in FSAE again, I'd push for the car to use MIG welded ERW tubing, rod-ends in bending, a naturally aspirated 600cc engine, rubber pucks for shocks (ala F500), and tapered wheel nuts....

[Charles Kaneb]

The 2006 and 2007 Texas A&M teams had much larger budgets than A&M has now. We've less support from the oil companies, but Castrol's been generous this year. Fewer and smaller cash donations, but some donated machine time allows a couple well-placed exotic parts that give us a lot more design freedom and allow some assemblies to be simplified into one part. Thanks go to G&H Diversified, TPO Parts, Schlumberger, and MIC. We build the car we're capable of and that's a different car from the one we had in the mid-2000s.

I'd like to see the 600/4 become the "right" choice again. You don't know what you've got till it's gone. The aero rules favor lighter cars, the load sensitivity of the tires does as well, and the heavier, smaller-cylindered engine hurts you both ways on fuel mileage. The 600s are better engines in so many ways - broad powerband, low vibration, designed to last 50,000 miles spinning to 14,000+ regularly, enough power to make these cars get in the same time bracket as the A-Mods on fast SCCA courses, a stator/reg-rec that puts out enough power to allow some interesting electronics and works reliably all season.

If I had a $20,000 budget for the whole season and had to think "finish all the events, go fast enough to be top-ten at Lincoln" I'd definitely run a four. Kansas won Lincoln with a four, but the JMS12c definitely qualifies as a mini-Indycar. Mini-Indycar is a major compliment; why wouldn't employers want to hire engineers capable of successfully designing and producing a vehicle that sophisticated?

Tube frames are nice especially if you want to be able to make big changes even during the testing season. OnlineMetals.com finally came through with a good selection and source of inexpensive DOM mild steel tube in the sizes we need. It would save over half the materials cost compared to 4130. Laser-cutting is fast (inexpensive) enough that I'd do it no matter how small my budget was; at this point manually mitering and fishmouthing every tube on the frame is a "what did your last slave die of" task.

Rod ends in bending are just bad design. Seriously, it's not like a staked-in spherical bearing in a camber shoe is some deep dark Texas A&M Racing secret. You can do it. It's cheaper than going three sizes up on the rod end just so you can build it in a configuration with the worst load path available.

As for rubber-puck shocks, why not use a couple old motorcycle clutch packs and make your own friction dampers?

If I were building a low-budget car I'd be using the entire outboard assembly from an ATV so my wheels would have to match its hubs. Even so, I wouldn't use tapered lugs; a lug-centric wheel is a pain to balance and you'd have to match it up the same way every time.

[JulianH]

Do we really have to decide if it's "Motorsport" or not?

Yes, we all love Motorsport and we all know how much we can learn from FSAE. So that's about it.

FSAE is a Design competition. You got your rules and you design a product in this rule set. Everything else is a consequence from this.

One major issue why the cars are so complicated and so ridiculously expensive is, because the rules want it that way. Yes, I know that our Electric car will never be bought by someone as a weekend crosser, but we design our car to maximize points in a competition. That's our design goal. And therefore we build a lightweight (read CFRP), powerful (read crazy high performance batteries, inverters and of course motors) and "high lateral acceleration" (read wings) car.

And what is also an important factor.. FSAE is probably the only time in a life of an engineer where you can just "build what you want".. you don't have to be profitable. Therefore we use Rapid Prototyping, casted and eroded parts and so on. It's simply awesome and you don't have to pay for it.

Z,
when it comes to "Creativity". As you probably know, we are one of the teams that changes its concept most radically from year to year. (E.g. the last time we used the same motor/engine as in the year before was in 2009!) But still we are running the infamous double A-Arm suspension. Not because we copy everything but it's lightweight, it works and we can control our tires as we want to. Maybe there is a better way to go, but you can't force creativity. Sometimes it's just better to stick to the used principle.

I think FSAE promotes cars that are finished 2-3 months before the competition. This is the major issue when it comes to radical new designs. If you can't test it, it's out.

At least for us, our team changes every year to about 80-90%. So everybody has just "one shot", one car. Risking the whole season (like UWA did) is just really gutsy...


To sum up, I think the competition works in this fashion, I don't care about labels (we never experienced problems with our sponsors because we call ourselves a "Racing" team, and according to their success, neither did Global Formula "Racing", DUT "Racing", TuFast "Racing", "Renn"team Stuttgart, Ka-"Race"ing or Tu Graz "Racing"...).

[Racer-X]

FSAE is what you make it. That said motorsport and design are not conflicting sides, they are part of the learning experience. I'd say the argument is more about motorsport versus science fair.

Teams like Kansas and GFR are in it to win and do take it rather seriously, they are not only good engineers but a good race team. Their success in this completion is a result of their ability to accomplish both of these things. They have not only shown they can design a car that satisfies FSAE criteria, they also manage an effective race team. To me that's what engineering and this competition are about, solving problems and dealing with people. The more motorsport competition becomes and the less science fair it is the better, iterative design and steady improvement pays in the real world.

The level of motorsport vs. science fair really depends on the team, and the individuals that are on it. We have a good mix of people on our team and it leads to some interesting discussion. I wonder at times what would happen if two teams like Lehigh and Kansas were required to collaborate on a car and what the end result would be. Take a very "science fair" team and make them compromise with the more "motorsport" team.

[Micko..]

Wow I think there are a few posts that are a little harsh here.

I for one agree with Pat. My previous team seems to have been overrun with people more interested in fully sic race cars than they are with the engineering problem. Sponsorship has suffered, they haven’t produced a new car in years and unless something changes, the uni will lose interest and can the project.

Everyone has had a guy join the team who was more interested in race cars than engineering, they tell everyone their designs are puss because “that’s not how they do it in F1/V8’s/Indy/formula v/high school billy carts… for us, they were the perfect person to build a push bar, a battery trolley, put stickers on the trailer or a paint the floor in the workshop. They are not a problem for established teams as they are promptly and politely told to f*ck off by people who are in it for the right reasons. But new teams with a lot of this attitude don’t get far and I felt this was what Pat was angling at.

Z,
Before you blast pat about his design suggestions, keep in mind that most of the teams he advises are new/inexperienced teams who need to master/understand a basic robust design (read clone). Once they have a grip on designing and building the “clone” (and this can take years) they can progress to justify more “creative designs". If these "creative designs" are not properly justified they will be shot down and the team with be suggested to go back to cloning. I have been in the new team that has asked Pat for help with the initial design stage and was very glad that he was there to help. Do you really think that the top teams are getting their design ideas from Pat’s corner? There is so much to be learned at the clone stage… show me a new team that has successfully bypassed this stage straight to “new and creative”. and you can't say you don't have a preferred design you push for.

UWA guys… please finish the 2012 car I’m sick of the speculation… and I want to see a race between it and the 2011 car ;-)

[Canuck Racing]

I have to agree with a lot of various points here about getting back to basics, though one point seems to have been overlooked - the Business Logic Plan.

I think that if implemented properly, which will take a few years, using the target # of cars per year should have a drastic change in design (along with the possible points increase there.)
For example, a team that shows up with a carbon tub and "billet all the things" could do well in design as long as the judges realize that this is a very expensive, specialized car. On the other hand, a team that shows up with some bent sheet-metal brackets and no fancy electronics can have engineered a better design if that is what they've determined to be the target market.
I know this isn't supposed to be a marketing competition, but the current rules leave much to be open with regards to what you are actually supposed to be designing (Mini F1 car or glorified go-kart? - there's a big difference.)

[jlangholzj]

For those of you who want to "change" the competition, this should have started out as a discussion about the likes/dislikes of the competition and what you would like to see done. Not a public criticism of Pat, Claude or anyone else for that matter. Generally speaking, if you want to get something done coming at it with a negative attitude is NOT the correct approach.

Guess what, most (if not all) of these guys (as in pat, claude, Edward, Steve or any of the other judges) are successful in what they do,for a reason! Also I'm pretty sure that Micko hit the nail on the head about making sure you have the fundamentals down before going all crazy with design.

You gotta crawl before you can walk boys. I know I'd feel bad if I lead our team down a bad path that resulted in either a poor competition or an unfinished car. If we wanted to make some radical changes, we simply don't have the student body to have one team build and another research and design a car for 2-3 years out. Its just simple logistics.

If anyone's really interested in changing the competition, then I'd suggest ASKING THE JUDGES about their opinion and having a civil discussion about it and bring up any points you have, not poking a proding them with snide remarks and waiting for a response. The latter is something you do on the playground, not in profession.

[Owen Thomas]

+1 to what jlangholzj said. There's no reason something so boring as a rule set should turn to animosity. Like ever.

I would also like to throw it out there that both approaches (ie Motorsport or engineering design) can be successful, if done right. I think the very top teams recognize that while approaching the competition from an engineering design perspective will yield the best results, there is no reason to shun the "tricks of the trade" in motorsports. In fact, they are extremely advantageous, if you can justify them, and will likely save the team a massive amount of time.

I also think that the reason the experienced teams operate similarly to a motorsports team is that it is simply the most effective way to manage a project like this. They learn the processes, the logistics, etc and grow as an organization. Other teams do not retain information well, and never get to a professional level - these are the teams who are overly focused on engineering design, because they do not know anything else.

What I'm trying to say here is that Pat is correct in that the competition rewards dynamic events, which are easier to do well in using "motorsport" practices. However, Kevin is also correct in that the same goals can be achieved strictly from an engineering design approach. Changing the competition may balance the playing field for newer teams, but not for very long anyways. The strong teams will always adapt to the competition because they realize how to score points, and that will never change. In my opinion, making the dynamic events worth less will just make the competition a little less exciting and further remove it from the "real world", where the end product is really what matters.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Micko..:
I for one agree with Pat. My previous team seems to have been overrun with people more interested in fully sic race cars than they are with the engineering problem.

I don't believe you have read or at least understood the article's premise.

The premise is that students are not learning about engineering, but instead focusing on winning the competition. Quote from the article:

It has become more important to ‘win the competition’ than to learn along the way.

Every team has people that show up talking about building a F1 car or something even more complex (fully active, etc). I don't see how that is relevant the the current discussion. These students are not trying to apply motorsports strategies to win the competition, they are just the typical dreamers.

The discussion is based on whether FSAE is still achieving it's goal of engineering fundamentals or if teams are just rebuilding old cars and testing them like race teams & training drivers. A team that talks a big talk but can't find sponsors or actually build a car is not part of FSAE anyway and no rules changes are going to impact that team.