-
Most engineers over the age of say,
forty, cannot recall anything like
Formula SAE while they were in
school. Early engineering design competi-
tions were more or less simple on-campus
events such as egg drops, for which the
intent was to design the most damage-resis-
tant box. Challenging? Sure. Interesting?
Maybe, but not exactly enticing to
a motorhead.
In the mid 1970s, several universities began
hosting local student design competitions
with off-road vehicles. At one of them, Fred
Stratton, from the Briggs & Stratton
Corporation (B&S), was a design judge. It
was through him and his colleagues that the
SAE/B&S connection was established. Bob
Catterson, now retired from that firm,
recalls that many B&S engineers were
active within the SAE Milwaukee Section,
particularly with student activities. With
support from both the Milwaukee Section
and B&S the first SAE Mini Baja arose. Its
success convinced SAE International to sup-
port this event at other locations through-
out North America.
The SAE Mini Baja took its name from the
famous Baja 1000 off-road race in Mexico.
The first SAE Mini Baja competitions took
place in 1976 and quickly became three
annual regional competitions. These events
established a standard format: a day of stat-
ic eventsdesign, cost, and presentation
followed by a day of individual performance
events, and capped by an endurance event
on the third and final day. The emphasis at
Mini Baja is on chassis design, as each of
the teams uses an identical 8-hp B&S
engine that cannot be modified. At every
competition, engineers from Briggs &
Stratton have participated to ensure confor-
mance to the rules.
Over the past twenty years, the SAE Mini
Baja has been successful beyond anyones
expectations. Credit for the success can be
shared by
many
people,
but special
thanks must
be given to
Briggs & Stratton
to date it has donated
well over 1000 engines
to the cause, plus
countless hours of
technical support at
all of the events.
1981200019812000Competition history
By Dean Case
1983
- UT
A19
99 -
The
Unive
rsity
of A
kron
Conceived initially as a road-racing counterpart to the
established SAE Mini Baja,the Formula SAE event has grown by a
factor of about 20 in terms of both carsand participants.
2000 - Texas A&M University
-
42
SAE Mini-IndyIn 1978, Kurt Marshek, then at theUniversity of
Houston (Texas), contactedthe SAE Educational Relations
Departmentto discuss a variant of Mini Baja. How abouta similar
competition for on-road racingvehicles? Both SAE and Briggs &
Strattonwere receptive to the idea, and planning forthe 1979 SAE
Mini-Indy began. Marshekrecalls that one of the potential sites
inves-tigated was the Texas World Speedway.Ultimately the
competition was held on thecampus of the University of Houston.
Withthe speed potential an unknown, the deci-sion was made to use
5-hp B&S engines forall competitors. Thirteen schools
entered,and eleven competed that first yearwiththe overall winner
from the University ofTexas at El Paso.
As many organizers have found, the work inbuilding a car can be
exceeded only by thatto organize the eventand there were notakers
after 1980. Having seen the potentialof the event, Mike Best,
Robert Edwards,and John Tellkamp, students at TheUniversity of
Texas at Austin, approachedDr. Ron Matthews with an ideahow
aboutanother Mini-Indy, but with some changes?Make the rules more
open; let it be asunlimited as possible. It was desired thatthis
new competition would take the cars tothe next level of
engineering. The Bajacompetition was great for chassis design,but
many students wanted to work onengines as well. The new rules would
keepengine restrictions to a bare minimum. Anyfour-stroke engine
was allowed for the firstfour years, with power limited by a 25.4
mmintake restriction.
With grass roots support from his students,Ron Matthews
contacted the SAEEducational Relations Department and setthe wheels
in motion. To differentiate thisnew event from the Mini-Indy, a new
namewas sought. To reflect better the road-racingnature of the
event and its increased engi-neering content, the Formula SAE
namewas adopted.
1981Ron Matthews remarked, That firstFormula SAE was small, but
truly nationalin participation. Six schools said they wouldattend,
but only four showed up: StevensInstitute (NJ), University of Tulsa
(OK),University of Cincinnati (OH), and TheUniversity of Texas at
Austin. The judgesalso reflected a national event, coming
fromGeneral Motors, Ford, Southwest ResearchInstitute, a variety of
oil companies,and,perhaps most notably, famous race car
dri-ver/engineer/owner Jim Hall, who flew infrom the Indy 500
specifically to serve as a judge.
The first days static judging was for BestAppearance and
Excellence inEngineering and Design Creativity. The fol-lowing two
days were spent with perfor-mance events. For scoring purposes,
equalweight was given to acceleration, maneuver-ability, and fuel
economy with a doublescore for the endurance event. The
overallwinner of the inaugural Formula SAE wasthe team from Stevens
Institute.
1981 - Jim Hall with the University of Texas atAustin entry
1981
- Un
ivers
ity o
f Tul
sa
1981 - Stevens Institute of New Jersey
19811981
mini-indymini-indy
-
43
1982 - University of Houston
1982 - Nicholls State University
1982198219
83
198
3
19841984 - University of Texas -Austin
1982To entice more schools to compete, a sec-ond category was
created for cars poweredby Briggs & Stratton engines. It was
hopedthat schools would consider entering a mod-ified Baja car to
gain experience with the competition.
A significant rules change was added for1982. The first Formula
SAE rules, pat-terned after Mini-Indy, did not require sus-pension,
and thus several of the cars weresimply large karts. From then on,
FormulaSAE would require four-wheel suspension.Even with this
change the entire rules pack-age for 1982 was only four pages.
UT Austin won the Formula class while UTArlington made an
impressive debut with1st and 2nd in the Briggs & Stratton
class.The first international entry, theUniversidad LaSalle
(Mexico), was anotherhighlight of 1982, entering a car in the
B&S class.
1983Although the separate Briggs & Strattonclass was
eliminated, two UT Arlington carsfinished 1st and 3rd with modified
8-hp B&Sengines, in large part due to fuel economy.The
powertrain variety was as follows: a 65-cm3 Kawasaki, a 250-cm3
Honda, a 250-cm3Kawasaki, a 450-cm3 Suzuki, a 600-cm3Honda, two
11-hp Briggs & Strattons, andtwo 300-cm3 Sachs Wankels.
1984The last competition hosted by UT Austindrew eight entries.
Among the notableadvances in Formula SAE technology wasthe
first-ever, all-composite vehicle, enteredby UT Austin.
The variety of powertrains during this erawas vast: Triumph
750-cm3 twin, 300-cm3Sachs Wankel, 500-cm3 Yamaha, 400-cm3Honda,
250-cm3 Honda, and a 600-cm3Honda in the winning car from
theUniversity of Houston.
It is interesting to note that the first fouryears saw
consecutive improvements inacceleration times but increasingly
poorfuel economyit was obvious that the stu-dents were willing to
sacrifice efficiency forperformance!
The rules for 1984 noted that, Because thisis an engineering
design competition andnot a test of driver skill, a
2-second-penaltywill be assessed every time a tire is lifted offthe
ground during a turn. Although allteams used pump gasoline,
diesel,methanol, and ethanol were all legal fuels.
-
44
1985After nurturing the event for four years, TheUniversity of
Texas at Austin turned it overto their colleagues/rivals across the
state inArlington. Bob Woods initiated a major rulesrewrite, and
the competition scoring wasrevised to include the static events as
a por-tion of the overall awards using a 1000 pointscale. The
scoring system mimicked theschedule refined for Mini Baja over
theyears. UT Arlington entered two cars in1985 and took first and
third places overall,with the West Virginia University in
second.
Perhaps the biggest change was the intro-duction of the cost
report. In 1984 the rulessimply stated that The total project
cost,excluding student labor, must not exceed$2000. Now, for the
first time, studentswere faced with submitting a report for
themanufacturing costs of 1000 units.
The maximum accepted value was $4500per unit.
New rules for 1985 included the addition ofthe engine
displacement cap at 610 cm3and a reduction in the intake
restriction to23 mm.
1985 saw the first entries with forced induc-tion: West Virginia
running a supercharged300-cm3 Sachs Wankel and Marquette run-ning a
turbocharged 550-cm3 Kawasaki.This was also the first year of
organizedSCCA participation with 20+ SCCA workersfrom the Texas
Region handling flaggingand scoring.
1986For the first time, Formula SAE moved outof Texas. Lawrence
Institute of Technology(now known as Lawrence
TechnologicalUniversity) hosted the event on itsSouthfield, MI
campus. This Texas-Michiganalternation would last through 1990.
Movingto Michigan brought the event into thebackyards of the Big
Three and increasedvisibility to the auto industry
immeasurably.Each of the Big Three automakers andmany suppliers
donated money to offset theexpenses of running the 1986
competition.
Event organizer Wayne Brehob noted in hisevent write-up that the
split between air-and water-cooled engines was roughly 50:50.Four
of the 15 cars used forced induction:two superchargers, two
turbochargers.
The University of Texas at Arlington won itsthird championship
in a close battle withthe rookie entry from the University
ofMaryland. It was a very rewarding win, as1986 marked the start of
prize money beingawarded. Volkswagen of America sponsoreda $1000
award to the overall first place team.
1986 - Brown University
1986 - Lawrence Tech
1986 - University of Texas at Arlington
198
519
85 1985 -
Uni
vers
ity o
f Tex
as a
t Arli
ngto
n
19861986
-
45
19881989 - Drexel University
1988
- Co
rnell
Uni
vers
ity
1989 - Cal State Northridge
1987
- Un
ivers
ity o
f Mar
yland
19891989
1987Skidpad performance reached a milestonewith the first cars
to pull in excess of 1.0 g:The University of Texas at Arlington
(1.09),and Cornell (1.04). Another milestone wasthe first
appearance of fuel injection withthe University of Maryland and UT
Arlingtonentries. It was obvious that both of theseteams had worked
out any bugs prior to thecompetition as they finished first and
sec-ond overall. The choice of powertrains wasevenly split between
the 600-cm3 KawasakiNinja and the 500-cm3 Honda Hurricanewith each
having about 40% of the field.
1988There was no sophomore slump fromCornell. The team did its
homework overthe year and won its first Formula SAEchampionship.
The big news for 1988 wasthe introduction of an official methanol
fuel(M85) class. The U.S. Department of Energy,through the Argonne
Laboratory, sponsoredadditional awards for best methanol
fuelconversion, best methanol fuel economy, aswell as best overall
methanol placement.Now, with a strong financial incentive,teams
began pursuing the methanol fueloption for their race engines. The
Universityof Maryland won $2500 in prize money forits M85 efforts
in 1988.
1989The 103F Texas sun was rough on cars, dri-vers, and
spectators at the hottest event todate. A record 36 cars from 31
schools com-peted. Event chairman Ed Bass noted, The1989
competition was the first to be jointlyhosted by an SAE Section
(South Texas)and a university (The University of Texas atSan
Antonio). It was also the first time thehost school did not
competewas thatSouthern hospitality, or evidence that theonly thing
more time consuming than build-ing a car is organizing the event?
The SanAntonio community embraced the event,with the Mayor signing
a proclamation ofFormula SAE Weekend. The local paperfailed to do
its homework, though, labelingthe front page photograph as
FormulaSigma Alpha Epsilon!
The Kawasaki 600-cm3 Ninja engine was thepowertrain of choice,
with almost 50% of thefield and three of the top four overall
finish-ersincluding the winners from UTArlingtonusing it.
New awards for 1989 included SafetyDesign, won by Cal State
Northridge, andthe Rookie of the Year award, won byWestern
Washington University. Ruleschanges for 1989 included the
eliminationof rotary engines. In the event summaryreport, concern
was expressed about thelarge number of entries which resulted ina
shortage of time in most events.
19871987
-
46
1990Although it missed out on the big prize, theCornell sucker
car was the star of 1990.The Cornell students took a page from
his-tory and reinvented Jim Halls 1970Chaparral 2J CanAm car. It
featured pow-ered ground effects and the resultant down-force was
sufficient to pull a record 1.32 gon the skidpad. Similar to many
sanctioningbodies, the SAE rules committee subse-quently banned
powered ground effects.
UT Arlingtons fifth Formula SAE champi-onship was the first to
be won by a tur-bocharged car..
1991General Motors, inspired by the great suc-cess of its GM SAE
Sunrayce competition,deserves credit for moving Formula SAEfrom a
relatively small university event to amajor automotive industry
happening.Students competing in the 1991 FormulaSAE competition
were exposed to top-levelGM corporate support of the event.
Thekickoff included opening remarks fromthen-GM President Lloyd
Ruess. BobStempel, then GM Chairman, was seenthroughout the event
as well. The staticevents were held in the GM Design dome,while the
dynamic events took place at theMilford Proving Grounds. Every
studentcompeting no doubt remembers theendurance event on Black
Lake as beingthe ultimate parking lot.
1991 saw the first significant use of wingson Formula SAE cars.
The University ofMichigan and the University of Missouri-Rolla both
ran very large wings mountedmidship above the driver. Although
bothcars were extremely fast in the dynamicevents, not everyone in
attendance felt thebenefits outweighed the penalties. And, aswith
most advances in racing, concern forspeed and safety led to
restrictions on wingsize and placement in subsequent years.
The overall winner was Virginia Tech. ToddBowland, the VT
captain, has since carved aspecial place in Formula SAE history
bygoing directly from Formula SAE to theCART IndyCar series. Chip
Ganassi Racinghad offered a special award of a weekendwith the team
to the captain of the winningteam. Todd impressed the
professionalteam enough to secure full-time employ-ment. Todd now
works as an engineer forNewman-Haas Racing along with threeother
Formula SAE grads!
1991
- Un
ivers
ity o
f Miss
ouri
- Rol
la
1991
- Ca
lifor
nia
State
Uni
vers
ity, S
anJo
se
19911991 - Western Washington University - The first use four
wheel steering in a Formula SAE car
1990
- Co
rnell
suc
ker c
ar
19901990
1991
-
471994 - Tilt Table
1993
Uni
vers
ity o
f Mar
yland
1992
Ariz
ona
State
1993 - Cornell University
1994 - University of Arizona
199
4
1993
199219921992After the success of the 1991 event, GM wasleft in a
bit of a quandary. They had raisedthe level of the event to the
point at which areturn to a university parking lot was nolonger
desirable. Luckily, Ford had beenhaving great success hiring
students withSAE design competition experience, andagreed to host
the 1992 event. A team ofrecent grads working at Ford acted as
thestaging committee with the events beingheld at various Ford
facilities in Dearborn.Ford brought in Grand Prix greats
JackieStewart and Bob Bondurant to help withdriver education.
Cornell had its second win, using a tur-bocharged Honda CBR600
engine. Thisengine would account for 40-50% of the fieldwithin
three years.
1993After GM and Ford, the natural choice forhost company was
Chrysler. Chryslers mag-nificent new Auburn Hills Technical
Centerwas the site, and Chrysler provided the stu-dents with
numerous opportunities to inter-face with its technical staff.
Chrysler VicePresident Francois Castaing and a team ofChrysler
engineers played host, while fea-tured guests included racing
legend CarrollShelby and racer/driving instructor Terry
Earwood.
The only problem for the organizers was thetemperamental
Michigan weather, as part ofSaturdays schedule was rain delayed.
Theonly problem for most of the teams was thecar from Cornell,
which won its secondstraight championship.
1994After having rotated through each of the BigThree, a major
decision for 1994 was need-ed. Would the automakers continue
thisrotation? What would be the best scenariofor the students? In
the spirit of USCAR,and the many consortium efforts of the
BigThree, a Formula SAE consortium was cre-ated for 1994. The
consortium would bestaffed by two representatives from each ofthe
automakers with one representativefrom the SAE Educational
RelationsDivision staff. The Pontiac Silverdome waschosen as a
central neutral site, andCoventry Consulting was retained for
eventmanagement.
The overall win went to the University ofMichiganAnn Arbor.
-
48 75
12
6
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MA
DISON
C
BROW
NUN
IVERSTY UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
UNIVE
RSITY O
F LEEDS
UNIVE
RSITY O
F LEEDS
-
49
8
3
2000 Formula SAE9
10
2000 Formula SAECALIF
ORNI
A STAT
E POLY UNIV.-POMONA
CALIF
ORNIA POLY
STATEUNIV-SANL
UISOB
ISPO
UNIVERSITY
OFFLORIDA
4
UNIVERSITY O
F P
ITTSB
URGH
UNIVE
RSITY OF TORONTO
-
50
1995With the teams returning to the same sitefor a second year,
1995 had a familiar feelfor many people. The growth continuedwith
84 entries and 71 actual cars at theevent. After missing out on the
top spot forthe past four years, UT Arlington finallyadded its
sixth win, and did it with a signifi-cant differencea smaller
engine. Thewinning car used a 400-cm3 Honda engineagainst the
typical 600s. UT Arlingtonslogic was that, given the intake
restriction,it could achieve almost the same power as a600 while
picking up significant advantagesin fuel economy, weight, and cost
over their rivals.
Head design judge Carroll Smith comment-ed that it was not just
a few teams makingsignificant improvementsthe entire fieldwas
increasingly competitive. The dynamicnumbers back up this
observation: the win-ning skid-pad time in 1989 would not havemade
the top 25 in 1995.
Among new specialty awards for 1995 wasthe Vehicle Recycling
Partnership Awardfor best use of recycled materials/design for
recyclabilitywon by the University of Washington.
After Saturdays track events, over 300 stu-dents and volunteers
gathered at theMotorsports Museum & Hall of Fame innearby Novi.
The students gathered to seethe new display highlighting the
SAECollegiate design series, including both aMini Baja and Formula
SAE racer.
199
519
95
1995
- Ge
orgi
a Te
ch
1995
- Pa
trick
Hea
d an
d St
uden
ts
1995 - Western Washington University
1995 - UTA
-
51
19961996 continued the evolution of the imme-diate past. The
continued use of thePontiac Silverdome as a site, and
CoventryConsulting to assist with event manage-ment, made this the
smoothest-run event todate. To put the growth of the event
intoperspective, it should be noted that over300 engineers acted as
judges and volun-teers during the three-day event.
The 1996 competition drew a record 99entries from which 76 cars
made it to thecompetition. The large volume of cars wassuch that
Fridays events were quite hecticdue to a morning rain delay.
Saturdaysendurance runs also extended beyond thenormal operating
hours. It was noted thatthings were much easier in the days
whenmore of the cars broke down early in the event!
A notable detail change was having thedesign judging finals take
place after theendurance race. The five finalists were theEcole de
technologie superieure (ETS),Cornell University, Lehigh
University,Georgia Tech, and The University of Texasat Arlington.
Carroll Smith, along with AlecPurdy, Roman Slobodynskj, Ken Sperry,
andSteve Lyman, spent about two hours care-fully examining and
comparing the creamof the crop. In addition to what theyobserved
statically, they had notes fromhaving watched two days of dynamic
trackevents. Once the numbers were crunchedand the five were
ranked, Carroll did awalkaround of each car, starting with
fifthplace. He reviewed the relative merits ofthe five cars, noting
that the level of com-petition was such that any one of these
carswould have clearly won the previous year.In the end, the team
from ETS was awardedthe perfect 150 design score, with UTA onepoint
behind.
1996
- Ge
orgi
a Te
ch
19961996
1996
- Le
high
1996 - SUNY Buffalo
1996 - Cornell
1996 - ETS
-
52
1997The more things changed, the more thingsstayed the same.
While 1997 saw the firstEuropean entry at Formula SAE, the topthree
finishers could be labeled as theusual suspects. For the fifth year
in a row,Cornell University, The University of Texasat Arlington,
and the Rochester Institute ofTechnology each finished in the top
ten -impressive consistency. What has madethese three schools so
dominant are the
same factors that makeany race team or carcompany successful -
anexcellent balance ofteamwork, engineeringtalent,
leadership,preparation, testing,financial resources,
andfacilities.
The rookies from across the pond, TheUniversity of Leeds, did a
credible job. Thefear among some teams was that with theUK being
the formula car center of the uni-verse, Leeds would have some type
of anunfair advantage. Their performance wenta long way towards
showing that engineer-ing students everywhere have the
samechallenges - balancing project work withclasswork, raising the
funds and convincingtheir school administration of the
projectworthiness. The UK lads also had the issueof air freighting
their car to the US. Theirsuccess (i.e. competing strongly) has
result-ed in SAE receiving many more inquiriesfrom other schools
beyond North America.The idea of having an overseas competitionhas
also been raised - Formula SAE hasglobal appeal.
Word of Carroll Smiths Sunday morningdebrief grew from last year
and many morestudents and faculty came prepared withvideo recorders
and took copious amountsof notes. Carroll was almost embarrassed
tonote some of the nitpicky items that the topteams were being
docked for - but this wasa necessity as they were all superb - it
wasthe details that determined the 1997 designwinner from UT
Arlington. The termsknocked our socks off and thats an ideathat Id
be happy to steal were mentionedmore than once.
An idea from the past (1991) was revived in1997, with the
winning team selecting theirmost valuable team member to receive
aspecial honor. That honor was courtesy ofFord Motorsports and was
a hosted week-end with Team Rahal, and Tom Gloy Racingat a CART
Indycar/SCCA Trans-Am raceweekend. Geoffrey Hausheer from
Cornellspent his weekend at Road America, beforemoving onto his
post college career.
1997 - University of Cincinatti
1997 - Penn States winning acceleration run
1997 - University of Missouri - Columbia
1997
-Col
arad
o St
ate
199
719
971997 - Un
ivers
ity o
f Lee
ds
1997 - Southern Illinois Rookie of the year
-
53
1998While every FSAETM event is the best oneever for those
students involved, the long-time judges and volunteers share a
similarview. Each year the competition featuresthe "usual
suspects", but the number of sus-pects continues to increase as
more schoolsdevelop the ability to be consistently fast.
The 1998 event saw Cornell once again tri-umph, this time
besting arch rival UTArlington by just under 40 points. It was
ahighly profitable year for Cornell as theywon $3000 for the
overall win, $1000 forM85 fuel economy, $1000 for safety, $500for
design, $1000 for recyclability, $750 forvalue engineering, $500
for presentation,and $350 for the use of instrumentation indesign.
In addition to the cash award cate-gories, Cornell won a three-day
drivingschool for five team members in dynamicperformance and two
sets of tires inautocross for their best year ever.
On top of all this, Cornell won the first-everSAE Foundation
Cup. Through the generos-ity of SAE members, this prestigious
trophywas established to help recognize the WorldChampions of FSAE
for their excellence inengineering design, teamwork, creativity,and
project management. SAE FoundationTrustees Donald W. Ableson and
Neil A.Schilke presented the Cup to Cornell at theAwards Banquet as
800 engineering stu-dents applauded their achievement.
Meanwhile Clemson won the rookie of theyear award, and UTA and
RIT continuedtheir top ten streaks. 1998 also saw abrand new event
- Formula Student, held inthe UK. The inaugural event,
co-sanctionedby SAE was a fantastic success. Vehiclesfrom the
University of Leeds, University ofBirmingham, and University
ofHertfordshire competed against three U.S.vehicles representing
The University ofAkron, Rochester Institute of Technology,and The
University of Texas at Arlington.Conceptual designs were also
entered byBrunel, Sheffield Hallam, SheffieldUniversity, Somerset
College of A&T, andthe University of Central England.
Despiteintermittent showers and occasional heavyrain (proving that
Formula SAE vehicles dorun in the rain), over 400 people
fromindustry and the media attended the event.
1998 - It just isnt a Formula SAE event without BobSechler,
Manager of SAE Educational Relations. No onehas figured out if this
event is keeping him young or aginghim prematurely. The smile would
indicate the former.
1998 - Bared to the bones for thetechnical inspection. Carroll
Smith,design judge extraordinare, presiding.
1998 - Instituto Tecnologico de Chihuahua#50 made its first FSAE
appearance and wasthe only competitor from Mexico.
1998 - A competitor gets a free ride on the dyno compli-ments of
Dynojet Research.
1998 - Another learning experience at FSAE.
1998 - The University of Akron #5 finished in 3rd placeoverall
and won the U.S. Department of Energy/ArgonneOutstanding Teamwork
Award.
1998 - One of the Canadian teams, McGill University #26putting
pedal to the metal in the acceleration event.
19981998
-
54
1999 Best score in skid-pad went to theUniversity of
Minnesota-Twin Cities.
1999 Kettering University, best cost score winner
1999 The William C. Mitchell Rookie Award for 1999 went to Texas
A&M University thatfinished in 14th place overall. Their car
also scored points in all ten events.
1999 The University of Leeds representingthe United Kingdom won
the UnigraphicsSolutions Best Engineering Design Award,4th place
for the Visteon Racing StaticPerformance Award, 1st place for the
TRCSafety/Crashworthi-ness Award, and 1stplace for the Altair
Engineering AnalyticalApproach to Vehicle Design Award.
1999 Milwaukee School ofEngineering won the DynojetResearch
Highest Horsepower Awardfor the naturally aspirated class.Drexel
University won the award forthe forced induction class.
1999 Even though The University of Texas at Arlington didnt
finish in the top ten, they won the acceleration eventand was in
the top four in engineering design. Dr. RobertWoods, faculty
advisor at UTA, won the first Carroll SmithMentors Cup presented by
SCCA.
1999 Getting a closer look at the rearsuspension and drivetrain
of TheUniversity of Akrons FSAE vehicle.
1999For regular attendees of Formula SAE, the1999 win by The
University of Akron shouldnot have been a surprise. Since first
enter-ing the competition the school had becomeincreasingly
competitive and followed previ-ous success in the Mini Baja and
AeroDesign competitions. Akrons win wasachieved through excellent
on-track perfor-mance (1st in endurance, 2nd in accelera-tion, 3rd
in the skid-pad, and 5th inautocross), a strong top-ten design,
andcompetitive cost and presentation scores.Basically, the Akron
team didnt give uppoints anywhere.
The University of Akron also won the ValueEngineering Award and
was the top M-85entry. They walked away with $6,000 incash, a
race-weekend for Andy Renko-theteam MVP, a three-day driving
school, two sets of Goodyear tires, and a set ofKONI shocks!
The University of Leeds, RIT, and UTAplaced 1-2-3 in design, but
both Leeds andUTA DNFd the endurance race knockingthem out of the
overall top-ten. Reliabilitywas especially critical in 1999 as
there wasbut a single endurance heat due to thealways unpredictable
Michigan weather.The competition is so tight that a singlemiscue
can derail even the best of teams.
RIT once again did everything almost per-fect, picking up yet
another overall runner-up finish. RIT made up for their
disappoint-ment by winning the Formula StudentCompetition two
months later inBirmingham, England beating UTA, Akron,and Leeds in
the process.
19991999
-
55
2000You dont have to be a seasoned veteran towin the Formula SAE
competition.Competing in only its second FSAE com-petition, Texas
A&M University won its firsttitle with an outstanding balance
of enginepower, vehicle handling and driver skill.The Aggies from
College Station outpointedrunners-up University of
Wisconsin-Madisonlargely on the strength of their autocrossand
endurance runs. In 1999, Texas A&Mwon the William C. Mitchell
Rookie Awardand turned this achievement into some-thing bigger and
better one year later atthe 2000 competition.
Rounding out the top five finishers were CalPoly Pomona,
University of Florida, andUniversity of Leeds whose fifth place
finishis the highest ever for a non-NorthAmerican school. Leeds has
competed everyyear since 1997. Two months later, Cal PolyPomona
improved their performance andwon the Formula Student competition
inthe United Kingdom. They beat theUniversity of Toronto,
RensselaerPolytechnic Institute, Georgia Tech,Rochester Institute
of Technology,Kettering University, Leeds and Universityof
Birmingham, and a host of other teamsfrom the UK and Europe.
Texas A&M continues a rich tradition ofFSAE success by
engineering schoolsfrom the Lone Star state. The University ofTexas
at El Paso won the inaugural event in1979, while the University of
Texas atAustin took the top prize in 1982. Houstonwon in 1984, and
one of the dominantschools in the history of the event is
TheUniversity of Texas at Arlington, with sixoverall titles and
four second place finishesin 22 years of competition. UTA was
per-forming strongly this year until a mechani-cal glitch took them
out of the endurancerun, relegating them to a 15th place
finish.
Wisconsin captured the cost analysis event,while Rochester
Institute of Technologywon the coveted design event. RIT
andWorcester Polytechnic tied for best presen-tation honors, while
Texas A&M swept theautocross and endurance events.
Five-timeFSAE champion Cornell Universityturned in the best
acceleration times. LikeUTA, Cornells strong performance was
neu-tralized by a breakdown in the enduranceevent. Placing sixth
through tenth in orderwere Brown University, University ofWaterloo,
University of Toronto, Universityof Pittsburgh, and Cal Poly San
Luis Obispo.
20
00
20
00
2000 The University of Texas at Arlington won the EDS
Outstanding SportsmanshipAward and finished in 15th after a
dissapointing performance in the endurance eventdue to mechanical
difficulties.
2000 The Pennsylvania State University won the Dynojet Research
Highest HorsepowerAward with their forced induction engine and
finished in 27th place overall.
2000 - The William C. Mitchell Rookie Award went toNorth
Carolina State University, they finished in 18thplace oveall by
receiving pionts in all ten events.
-
56
The future The growth in Formula SAE could be compared to the
recent growth in NASCAR yearafter year of records and expansion
with no peak in site. In less than twenty years, the com-petition
has grown by a factor of twenty. While many of the details have
changed, thepremise is still the same providing a hands-on learning
experience, promoting great acad-emia/industry interaction, all
while doing what consumes many (most?) of those participat-ing
playing with race cars. 2000 will see an expanded Formula Student
event in July withmore European teams increasingly interested in
competing. The first Formula SAE-Australasia competition at the
Ford You Yangs Proving Ground in Victoria will be held withteams
from the U.S. travelling down under to compete. The biggest
challenges for theFSAE teams now will be raising adequate travel
funds to compete around the world.
Epilogue This is a revised version of SAE Technical Paper
962509, written by Dean Case, and present-ed at the 1996 SAE
Motorsports Engineering Conference. The history of Formula
SAEshould be considered a living document. If you have stories or
photos you'd like to con-tribute, mail them to SAE Educational
Relations, Formula SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive,Warrendale, PA
15096-0001, or e-mail to [email protected]
So the questions for 2001 are Can the 2000 rookie team North
CarolinaState University win the 2001 competition?
Can RIT finally win the big prize after com-ing so close so many
times?
Will Cornell and UTA win again?
Will Akron repeat its 1999 victory?
Can Texas A&M keep the title?
Will one of the non-North American teamsfinally win?
Will the Pontiac Silverdome provide shelterfrom strong winds and
tornado warningsonce again?
Stay tuned for another exciting year andfind out the answers to
these questions plusmany more!
20
00
20
00
2000 Lawrence Technological University finished in22nd place
overall and was honored with 3rd place forthe Hoosier Racing Tire
Autocross Awards.
2000 Finishing in 34th place overall, Worcester
PolytechnicInstitute tied with Rochester Institute of Technology
for the PiResearch Best Presentation Award and was honored with
2ndplace for the Lear Corporation Best Interior Awards.
2000 Georgia Institute of Technology finished in 24th place
overall and was honored with 3rd place for the U.S.Department of
Energy through Argonne National Lab M85 Awards.