+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 98

Thread: Motorsport or Design?

  1. #61
    Everyone thinks they can beat a pro if they've never had to compete with one.

    There are some good drivers in FSAE, but not professional grade drivers. Unless someone can show me someone that's 'graduated' to a top level...
    -Charlie Ping

    Auburn FSAE Alum 00-04

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    721
    Did some interesting look at the data of past events over the past couple of days (including the latest from Michigan). I did this to see how the actual scoring matches the perception of the event, and how important it is.

    It appears that there is a clear pattern to design judging that is very far from the close distribution we see on the dynamic and other static events. In Germany and Michigan it is clear that a few things occur:

    - Only 9-15% of teams score above 100 points (less than 9% in 2013) These effectively form the group of teams that are selected as being potential winners. Winning outside of this group is virtually impossible.
    - Minimum scores for competing teams is around 40 points (event dependent) and maximum is 150. The actual range of points applied is only 110 and for 90% of the teams it is only 60 points.
    - If the design scores were redistributed from 0 to 100% then approximately 90% of teams are scoring 55% or less
    - Resolution of placing is very poor. For example in 2013 Michigan 29 teams scored 100 points.
    - There is no clear relationship between performance in design and the dynamic performance of the car (although there is a very rough positive relationship)
    - There is no clear relationship between performance in design and marketing of the vehicles. There is a slightly better fit for this data indicating teams that do better in marketing generally do better in design
    - There is no clear relationship between the cost of a car and its design score. If anything it appears that lower cost cars generally score less.

    The simple conclusion is that the top placings (and in most cases the order) in the comp are selected by the design judges. Beyond the top 10% the design scores are very inaccurate and it appears more of a crapshoot, but it is of little relevance as the score difference in this group is minimal. The design score only really matters to the top 10%.


    A very different picture occurs with the UK scoring (2012):

    - 24% of the teams score over 100
    - Resolution of placings is excellent, spacing as low as 1 point
    - There is a clear statistical distribution to scores
    - There is a reasonable relationship between dynamic performance and design event performance
    - Design scores range from almost 0 to almost 150 points
    - Slightly more than half the teams score higher than 75 points.

    The simple conclusion here is that the design event scores use the full available points. Teams must absolutely score well in design to place in the event, but it is a little softer at the top end. Much more interestingly design scores matter for any team and affect places throughout the whole competition.


    Looking at this a few conclusions arise:
    - In both cases the design event is incredibly important for the win (or high places)
    - The US/Germany have a more elitist scoring scheme. Only a few are selected as potential comp winners
    - The UK design event affects placings all the way down and provides much more accurate feedback for the majority of the teams.
    - It appears that the UK has the most understandable and statistically viable design scoring.
    - The UK design scores are a more accurate predictor of vehicle performance for the bulk of cars.


    The scores are very indicative of what is occuring. The results of the competition are heavily affected by design, and in the case of the US and Germany it acts as a selection process for the top teams (only the top teams). The comps do not treat this event the same and in the case of the US and Germany do not use the full point score allocated to the event, which makes it less important for most teams.



    Personally I prefer the UK scoring approach. It rewards the winners a little less, but uses the full spread of the points, and is better linked to the actual engineering outcomes of the vehicle. It also punishes poor design performers much more, which I imagine might encourage more teams to improve their design year in year out. The best designed car scored 140 points better than the worst, as compared to only 110 in the US/Germany.

    Once again I would reiterate that there is no need to increase the design score to 200 out of 1000 (unless you are in the UK). The design event is already incredibly important to a teams placings (depending on the event it is the most important event in terms of points difference).

    Additionally the full range of the design event score is not being used as it is (which is different to the dynamic events, that use the full score from best to worst). The US and German judges can make their event worth about 40% more by changing their scoring approach. This is more than the change to 200 would achieve.

    Effort should be made to make sure that design event is relevant to all teams. The UK does this well. Without doing this it is clear that by the scores 85-90% have no real reason to care about design as it has a minimal effect on their score. In the UK 100% of teams have to worry.

    Kev

  3. #63
    Kevin, I agree with your opinion and honestly have been waiting someone to raise conversation on this.

    It seems UK's approach is "how well was the car designed" opposed to Germany's "who designed the best car".

    But I do find some problems in the whole concept of design event - in my opinion it defeats fair competition when the judges get to hand pick the winners. After all human opinions are the worst metric to measure competitiveness of any kind.

    Personalities, nationalities, looks, non-professional opinions, verbal & non-verbal communication, marketing tricks, etc. will effect the outcome to some extent, and all this changes from competition to competition.

    On the other hand I must admit that design event is the part of the competition that is most useful in "real life" after FSAE: it's not about who makes the best or most reasonable product/solution - it's about who is most convincing claiming to have done it...
    "...when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr. Brown

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    468
    Charlie, was this the first time Jordan Taylor had driven an FSAE car? Looks pretty impressive. Nice work on the restoration too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWAda8qhij0

    It'd be interesting to get Randy Pobst in an FSAE car, as he was once an amateur autocrosser like the rest of us. We've got a humanities professor here that always talks about getting MR2 setup tips from Randy in the 80's. http://www.randypobst.com/inde...ography&form_years=1
    -----------------------------------
    Matt Birt
    Engine Calibration and Performance Engineer, Enovation Controls
    Former Powertrain Lead, Kettering University CSC/FSAE team
    1st place Fuel Efficiency 2013 FSAE, FSAE West, Formula North
    1st place overall 2014 Clean Snowmobile Challenge

  5. #65
    I agree that reserving 50 points for 9 teams is ultimately "unfair". especially if half of the 29 teams, barely did not make the pick.

    How to change that is an interesting discussion. I do not believe FSUK to have the best system.

    It is a fact though that driver skill is very important in the competition. especially now that so many teams have the reliability to finish endurance.

    If anything, I believe the business logic case can bring a lot of educational experience (and hopefully points). A team with limited resources should not be punished at design as much, because the design choices, given the limitations may be ingenious. That should give them points at some event (design?)

    Cost still confuses me. I find it puzzling how teams full of titanium and carbon everything cost cars at 15k or less.

    Last, adding a "real case" aspect to design (as in cost) or as a separate static event, might bring some design back and take some motorsport out.

  6. #66
    Originally posted by Tinomik:
    Cost still confuses me. I find it puzzling how teams full of titanium and carbon everything cost cars at 15k or less.
    I've often thought that FSAE should have a claimer clause to keep unobtanium in check. It would also promote manufacturability in that it would force teams to make at least two of everything.

  7. #67
    Cost still confuses me. I find it puzzling how teams full of titanium and carbon everything cost cars at 15k or less.
    The 2013 rules state they will publish all Cost Reports sometime this year. Prices like this (and lower) probably become the norm once everyone copies the best parts from the winners of the previous year.
    Austin G.
    Tech. Director of APEX Pro LLC
    Auburn University FSAE
    War Eagle Motorsports
    Chief Chassis Engineer 2013
    Vehicle Dynamics 2010-2012

  8. #68
    Originally posted by Goost:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cost still confuses me. I find it puzzling how teams full of titanium and carbon everything cost cars at 15k or less.
    The 2013 rules state they will publish all Cost Reports sometime this year. Prices like this (and lower) probably become the norm once everyone copies the best parts from the winners of the previous year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yeah, unfortunately if you car costs less than that you get red flags thrown and audited. Our car was built for $8k (less donated materials) and we were audited up to $11k on cost report (no problems with that), I have no idea how someone with full composite aero is building a car for $15k on cost report. Do people not include labor needed to build?

  9. #69
    In the Cost report every action (labour / machining / laminating..) has a fixed price. It is also for a production of 1000 cars, therefore some things are quiet cheap in Cost (e.g. casting of uprights) although it's very expensive to do it only for 4 items. Especially for Electric cars, the price range "real vs Cost Report" can get quiet large.

    I think the cars in Europe are quiet a bit more expensive than what I saw at Michigan.

    I don't know if the Cost Reports will get published "automatically". If I remember correctly the organisation "plans to do it". If so, we will see a lot of copying from the teams and everybody is trying to get the parts "as cheap as the cheapest team". I don't like that...
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

    2010-2011: Suspension
    2012: Aerodynamics
    2013: Technical Lead

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  10. #70
    Julian, some of the problem is the ambiguity in how the rules are applied at competition vs. what you see when you are preparing a report, especially "new" teams.

    In the case of rules compliance issues for the physical aspects of the cars, that is openly discussed opn this forum, and compared with pictures, etc. Does this happen with cost reports? No. You only get to use the previous year's result to compare. Increased transparency for the cost report would lead to more uniform reporting of part costs, and even discussion on the cost rules themselves.

    In my opinion, the cost report shouldn't benefit clever accounting skills, the actual cost of each team's "prototype" car, but rather through creative design of parts. Teams should be able to compare design choices apples to apples. If we compare the cars by weight, accel times, lap times, etc. Then why not try to achieve more pairity between the cost report results?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 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