NOHOME
MegaDork
11/21/24 4:45 p.m.
I had no idea how far FSAE went down the product development path followed by industry. Is this specific to one team or pretty much universal for all teams?
If they do go down this rabbit hole, then I can see where participants would be sought after commodities in the graduation employment world.
In reply to NOHOME :
20 years ago it wasn't the norm! At least not for us at Missouri.
In reply to NOHOME :
UIUC was following a stage/gate design process since the early 90s. It may have been poorly executed but the process was there.
It was flattened compared to industry because you didn't have as many steps since the needs we're clearly defined. IIRC When I went we had 4 phases with 3 design reviews. Ideation, Design, production/testing, then competition. We had a review between each but the big one was the design review prior to production.
After being in industry I do wish we had involved a more rigorous DFMEA to identify where we were taking risks and having a hard rule about where they should be mitigated or avoided. We had several failures that surely would of been caught had a simple RPN been assigned to the design and construction methods being utilized.
Example: We introduced an oil leak by modifying engine covers. Had we assigned an RPN based on (Oil leak results in Failure to complete endurance and makes a top 5 dynamic car an also ran) we probably would of just modified the chassis to not put tubes where Honda had engine covers and just left them alone. But instead we thought we were smarter then Honda and didn't correctly assess the consequences of what could happen.
Mr_Asa
MegaDork
11/21/24 7:22 p.m.
NOHOME said:
I had no idea how far FSAE went down the product development path followed by industry. Is this specific to one team or pretty much universal for all teams?
With how the Design portion of the competition goes you don't necessarily need one, but it definitely helps to be able to say you did Steps 1, 2, 3, etc when you are defending your work
In reply to NOHOME :
In my experience with talking with other teams at competition, if they don't do CDR exactly, they do something very similar in their own teams fashion. FSAE has greatly evolved over the years and teams are becoming more and more familiar with industry standards.
jcc
New Reader
1/13/25 4:42 p.m.
In the early 70's as an ME student at Georgia Tech we had a strictly student annual often multi hour regulated go kart race called the Tech 200. It was a rather competitive with 20+? teams 2 day event on campus if the space was available or at a local speedway if not. I like to think it was the seedling for what became FSAE. The last year I competed, the upper classman who helped organize the event for a number of years, Steve Clark ( who later raced I believed professionally) commented on my 3rd place finishing kart;
"if we gave an award for best engineered kart, your kart would receive it".
Understand however, even if our competitiveness was maybe equal, today they are light years ahead of what we brought to the track back then.
Occasionally I bump into students on the FSAE teams, and I am much impressed, admit I'm slightly jealous and they are so lucky.
jcc
New Reader
1/14/25 9:32 p.m.
In reply to jcc :
1971 Tech 200 at Peach Bowl Speedway in Atlanta, on track, the race rules stated a financial sponsor was allowed.
Nearly every team had a single sponsor.
We had four, two being Union 76, hence the kart number, and Local Tiger Auto Parts, we were well financed.
Only team with full custom team uniforms, it sure made us look fast.
That 22 year old track became a parking lot months later.