I haven't been back to this thread in a bit, but it seems the conversational train has taken the path of arguing for/against high value/ill-represented components and production numbers in FSAE competitions and building to the 'intent' of the rules.
The intent has been stated, is mentioned at every single competition, is on the home page, in the rules, etc: teach these kids how to learn how to run a project and how the real world works.
Aside from this, points are allocated to different categories to ensure that the students become aware that there are compromises. The students, who take it as 'this is a competition, and we can teach ourselves how to best manage our internal and external relations to produce that thing that needs to win competition as dictated by the rules'. Goes for all SAE competitions.
Between the various SAE competitions (not sure if it applies outside of this) cost and the static events have such a low impact on the overall outcome of the competition. When teams start to abandon the cost event because it's more worthwhile to make that thing do whatever it's supposed to do even better for, what some people claim is, an uncompromised solution, some people throw fits. "Hey, you're supposed to work within the intent of our rules! You're supposed to compromise your solution."
Well, if that is someone's argument, then someone needs to restructure the rules or point allocations. I recognize that on the cost report that Swiftus and his team built a car which costs almost 2.5x that of my team's car I understand that we're both working within the constraints of our own finances and product development ability with slightly different goals, but continuing for demonstration sake... 2.5x!!! That's the difference between a production Malibu and Corvette! Where does that get us with a simple subjective points analysis?
Hm...let me do the math...yep...carry the one...uh huh. I see. About 30 points out of 1000 at Michigan was the gap in cost between first in cost and first overall for cost scoring. Other competitions like FSG actually benefit a GFR style car because of the difference in scoring.
So, we've seen the demonstration of dumping all comforts of exotic materials and high dollar components including aerodynamic devices, it doesn't get you very far. However, good design coupled with good management and better materials is something I would trade the rest of the program for based on the current rule set. To continue, presentation shouldn't be that difficult to sell a top 5 car. Someone always wants to be the best, and if they can buy it, less work on them, just justify how you're going to get an Arabian prince or oil tycoon in the car, justified. (Not saying it's easy, just that there's a market).
On track performance? If you can run your car fast enough, the amount that is gapped on other competitors more than makes up for the cost deficit of ~30 points max.
Fuel efficiency? Well, if you are able to gap those who do well on fuel economy by far enough, then you can actually come out on top again. So, no deficit for building a 40hp - max hp engine/motor, sacrificing fuel efficiency for going faster. Even assuming that a GFR style car or an AMZ style car scored 0 in fuel efficiency, there were still cases where it wouldn't have mattered and they'd still be 1st.
Essentially, if you can outdrive the rest of the competition as those typically on the podium have done (top 3-5), then the rest of the competition becomes simple. compromise competition report cost and fuel efficiency to have the fastest car on the grid because that's what the current rules dictate based on points allocation. If that's not the intent, then maybe it's time to change the intent or change the point balance.
Jay, you mention the Baja car being quicker than 1/2 the field. You'd be surprised at how many parts we share between our Formula and Baja cars.![]()