FSAE car with 3D-printed body

The "cost event" is completely screwed up.

Composite stuff costs far too little as it hardly includes the mold costs.

Machine time costs far too little - especially since the cost of the machine itself doesn't matter - just volumetric quantity of material removed - so you get out the 1/16" endmill as it costs the same as the 3/4".

It's heavily biased towards "build-in-house" which is cool because it gives teams good design projects and fabrication experience, but it does give an incentive to spend $1000 worth of machine time to save 4 ounces over a $99 mini-sprint part.

alfadriver wrote: So what you are saying is that you didn't read the rules. Back in 1990, the rules were pretty clear that the intention was to be able to build a small production run that would cost $6000. So budget was a significant part of the procedure. If the rules changed, that's pretty sad, but would explain a lot of the stuff that gets big attention.

1990 was a LONG time ago alfa...seeing as this is a collegiate series, that's before most college students were born!

http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/2012fsaerules.pdf

Note: There is no maximum cost. Receipts are not required for any items.

You are not measured against a maximum cost, you are measured against your competitors. Like real engineering, the competition is a balance of compromises. Sure, you may be able to get more points by reducing cost, but if that effects your performance scores, which is more important? Makes sense to me, as long as the competition caters points to favor the most important criteria, such as the recent shift towards fuel economy getting more possible points out of the total.

Unfortunately, the cost "pitch" is assuming 1000 production units...so it's totally cool to have an expensive one-off prototype on your competition car as long as you can show justification that in a production process it would have lower cost.

Bryce

In reply to Nashco:

Thanks- I must have dropped my cane when I was typing. bastard.

Well, im really glad my comment stirred up some actual discussion rather than just contemptous disdain (crap, how do i defend against his point? I know, with disdain!!) although there was at least one of those posts.

You must not have seen the Aggies, then. We've got a pretty large budget, but a lot of it goes on consumables (tires, engines, fuel) and travel. You oughta see some of our tools - a 35-year-old tire machine that I had to diagnose and improvise parts for because they haven't existed in decades, a thousand completely dull drill bits that have been sharpened so many times that they're on their last flute, completely worn-out files and hacksaw blades with an Alabaman's worth of teeth left.

That sounds pretty good to me. Honestly, my experience having recently worked with some pre-engineering high school science club students building solar electric cars, is that you SHOULD stick to crap donated tools with people who dont already work with tools for a living because there will be plenty of cases of people not knowing how to use them and ruining them in the process. I mean, if someone asked me to buy a nice set of drill bits for a random group of people and watch what happens, i think id rather throw money on a fire and watch it burn, because it's the same result and its prettier while it's happening.. lol. And 'tool adversity' is the mother of a lot of innovation. I know starting with nothing and never having the right tool in the beginning definitely made me creative in ways that still help me today.

Im also for spending more money on doing things with the car, than on just the car, although thats a policy i still havent really brought myself into compliance with. lol

The points on machine time and how the rules are worded around issues of cost are interesting. I already know a little more about FSAE now than i would have if i'd said something completely inoffensive.

Not to disrupt the discussion on FSAE rules, but this printing of a car & other goodies is getting dangerously close to the science fiction books of the 1960's.

The pattern for many things was stored in a computer and the intrepid explorer would print out what he needed for his expedition. At the end of his time on the new and presumedly dangerous world he'd recycle the old pieces for them to be reassembled as something else on the next planet.

In reply to Vigo:

I worked on a Formula SAE which got a whooping $800 dollars from from the school and we couldn't go out and ask businesses for money on our own (we had to go through some department that went out and asked for money but they were useless. The guy who ran the department was fired the year I finished school) so we had to design everything around leftover parts and any material we could find laying round the shop. On the other hand I worked with a team which had damn near unlimited funding (because our university really focused on the aerospace side of things) so we got to mess around with a lot of high dollar composites and the like. I enjoyed Formula a lot but I learned a lot more with the other team because I did have the money to make mistakes with materials and try new things.

All that work and they should have painted it to look like a shark! (I know, paint adds weight).

So the FSAE cost report is a strange thing, the costing of any process or material is based on a table of values that are used by all competitors to make it an even playing field (kinda). And no it's not necessarily accurate or reflective of actual cost but it does force you to think about the method of making each part from a cost standpoint. Carbon fiber and fiberglass are really expensive on the cost report. Carbon is $200 per kg. + $45 per m^2 for lamination and cure process cost (more for autoclave), while SLS is comparatively cheap; $3.30 per kg for material and $32 per kg for RP process). Granted given the opportunity there are about a hundred parts I'd have RP over bodywork. I would not want to have to present that in design either.

It seems stupid from an outsiders perspective and often from FSAE-ers as well but when you spend a lot of time learning the costing methods and where you can save money see the direct result in points at competition you realize it doesn't matter if it's real dollars or monopoly money, your knowledge and use of materials and manufacturing processes are going to directly effect your success. Not an insignificant concept that is rarely addressed in engineering curriculum but is almost mandatory in industry.

As to the real dollars, sure there are teams that operate on astonishing budgets with help from the likes of Audi, AMG, Mahle, Boeing, Red Bull, etc. and good on them. That is an awesome opportunity that anyone would be insane to turn down. For the rest of us (the majority I would say) we make do with what ever we can get free or cheap. Need a throttle plate? machine it from a $0.99 stainless pizza cutter disc! Need tires? better start selling sperm to get $1200-$1600 set of hoosiers or goodyear drys and rains. Need gas? siphon the deans Merc. And if all else fails, build a baja car :P

alfadriver wrote: At what cost? Geez, I thought that FSAE was about keeping a budget.... It's become "intro to F1 101."

The sad thing is, back when I first went to college....we built a sae baja car. We wanted to build a Fsae car to take to try and outdrive purdue, but that was close to $20-30k minimum to even get into it at that point(that is including travel, expenses, everything).....it truely has become intro to F1...

yamaha wrote:

alfadriver wrote: At what cost? Geez, I thought that FSAE was about keeping a budget.... It's become "intro to F1 101."

The sad thing is, back when I first went to college....we built a sae baja car. We wanted to build a Fsae car to take to try and outdrive purdue, but that was close to $20-30k minimum to even get into it at that point(that is including travel, expenses, everything).....it truely has become intro to F1...

I don't see why that is a bad thing...

In reply to 93EXCivic:

It is a bad thing.....our sae baja build was under $2000 when finished(4 months of cutting, bending, welding, and mating the 10hp briggs to the gator cvt) with alot of cost coming out of our pockets......because our small school didn't have all the things larger schools would, we would have had to outsource too much to have even run in FSAE.....which is why machine time should be included in cost. It would level the playing field.

yamaha wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: It is a bad thing.....our sae baja build was under $2000 when finished(4 months of cutting, bending, welding, and mating the 10hp briggs to the gator cvt) with alot of cost coming out of our pockets......because our small school didn't have all the things larger schools would, we would have had to outsource too much to have even run in FSAE.....which is why machine time should be included in cost. It would level the playing field.

Machine time is essentially costed in the cost report. Volume removed and a multiplier for the material type. If you want to make parts from titanium you are going to pay out the nose in the process multiplier for it and in material cost in the cost report. The cost of FSAE over Baja is the cost of 4 hoosiers, a little paper mache and the entrance fee. I give you the Bajamula!!! A bajamula should be able to win cost, fuel economy, and do very well in design if properly presented.

Yes FSAE is absolutely into to F1 and many other motorsports, which is totally awesome!!!!

What's interesting is that I've seen all sorts of molds and processes for building nosecones, but all of them tie up big, expensive equipment for a long time, take up over a month of a team member's time, or both.

Last year I suggested a zip-on nylon "jacket" that would weigh a lot less than a real nosecone would and be legal. Using the one-delta quality system, that picks the side of "quick" and "cheap" but not "good". Why do teams spend so much time on something so irrelevant to the car's performance?

Wow. That's pretty stupid. So they did this weird supposedly fantastic "engineering" and got 11th place?

Thrust added by the texture of the body? Come on, did a liberal arts major write their papers?

For those talking about gaining experience. Yes, engineers in the real world need to learn about rapid prototyping, but, honestly, the process is like this, "please see the attached CAD file, we need this out of XYZ in two weeks". In addition, they need real world experience. If an engineer suggested making a Camry body from rapid prototyping, they'd be fired.

This goes back to what I've said for a while. It's not sexy or glamorous. No movies or mags will rant about you, but the guy who makes two brackets into one and saves 10 cents because it can be stamped instead of welded on a Corolla is probably a better engineer than the guy in the dyno room at Ferrari.

Machine time is costed only by total volume of material removed.

A 1" endmill, removing the same amount of material as a 1/16" endmill, costs the same on the cost report. Yet one of them will take at least an order of magnitude longer than the other...

tuna55 wrote: This goes back to what I've said for a while. It's not sexy or glamorous. No movies or mags will rant about you, but the guy who makes two brackets into one and saves 10 cents because it can be stamped instead of welded on a Corolla is probably a better engineer than the guy in the dyno room at Ferrari.

If the world made sense this would be correct......depends on priorities I believe.

The first printed car. This is seriously cool stuff. Printing being additive is a very renewable process with a lot of capability for anyone to "recycle" the parts and scaffolding they don't use back to more printable material. This is the future for many manufacturing processes. Great experience for the students too!

tuna55 wrote: This goes back to what I've said for a while. It's not sexy or glamorous. No movies or mags will rant about you, but the guy who makes two brackets into one and saves 10 cents because it can be stamped instead of welded on a Corolla is probably a better engineer than the guy in the dyno room at Ferrari.

Better engineer??? Boy, that's a can of worms. Do you think the Ferrari engine guy and the Toyota bracket guy could trade jobs and continue successfully? I'd venture to guess the new engine guy would ruin a LOT of engines and probably not make any advancements, while the new bracket guy would be bored out of his mind and could still save 10 cents per bracket. I would argue both can be great engineers, the engine guy needs more advanced engineering knowledge, and the bracket guy is important to slog out thankless tasks that improve society. Something tells me your opinion is a little biased here...

Bryce

Nashco wrote: Something tells me your opinion is a little biased here... Bryce

Nope, I design piping systems and structural stuff for combined cycle gas turbine plants.

I respect your opinion, but I think you're misunderstanding. If you have no budget, no rulebook, and a fairly unlimited amount of time, you'll have a ball, but part of being a good engineer, in my mind, means paying attention to costs, cycle time, maintenance, feasibility, marketability etc. None of which concern the Ferrari engine guy. if I had to pick a job, of course I'd go be the Ferrari engine guy over the Corolla bracket guy, but I'd bet one makes for a better engineer, that's all.

tuna55 wrote:

Nashco wrote: Something tells me your opinion is a little biased here... Bryce

Nope, I design piping systems and structural stuff for combined cycle gas turbine plants. I respect your opinion, but I think you're misunderstanding. If you have no budget, no rulebook, and a fairly unlimited amount of time, you'll have a ball, but part of being a good engineer, in my mind, means paying attention to costs, cycle time, maintenance, feasibility, marketability etc. None of which concern the Ferrari engine guy. if I had to pick a job, of course I'd go be the Ferrari engine guy over the Corolla bracket guy, but I'd bet one makes for a better engineer, that's all.

I think you're oversimplifying the Ferrari-type jobs. It's EXTREMELY rare that there is no timeline, budget, design criteria, etc. that need to be adhered to for any engineering. Ferrari most certainly has timelines, whether it's for a race or a product launch. Rulebook...uh, yeah...whether it's a race rulebook (yuck...) or a production car that needs to meet emissions, warranty, OBD, etc. requirements. They also don't have unlimited budget...they are, after all, in the business of making profits (not spending money).

Whether it's a mission to Mars, or making candy for Mars, every engineer has some box they need to fit in.

Bryce

They should spend less money on bodywork and more on aero....

Thread jack! Sort of... Well, at least it is about 3D printing...

Lego 3D printer

Has anybody noticed that this school is in Belgium? Is it possible that Europe FSAE has different rules? Looks to be sponsored by the 3-D printer company to me.

wlkelley3 wrote: Has anybody noticed that this school is in Belgium? Is it possible that Europe FSAE has different rules? Looks to be sponsored by the 3-D printer company to me.

I don't believe they are separate rules because schools from Europe often come over here to compete as well.

As to the pace:

"... going from initial shell design to a fully finished 3D Printed car body in just three weeks."

Three weeks to design and manufacture is pretty darn good in anyone's book.

As to the budget....FSAE is about engineering. Engineering is about using or getting whatever resources might be available to do the job. If one team scrounges for a fiberglass fabricator and another manages to scrounge up a econo-sized 3D printer, so what? One team is more creative at scrounging. If they paid for the printer service, then they are more creative at scrounging for $$$. Very valuable skill when you go to work.