Alumni Involvement vs. The Rules: How much is too much?

[Elmo Zoneball]

(Inspired by a comment by another poster, from another thread, where it was off-topic):

What is an "appropriate" level of alumni involvement in buggy?

AFAIK, the only rule that appertains is the one that says buggies must be designed, built, and raced by undergraduates of CMU.

Beyond that, it appears that when it comes to outside "advice" the sky is the limit.

Additionally, the rule clearly was not intended to prohibit buying COTS wheels, bearings, epoxy resins & carbon fiber cloth, and fasteners to used in construction of buggies, nor does it prohibit outside machine shop/welding fabrication, either purchased or donated. Thus, alumni can clearly do such things and remain within the rules.

Design advice would also appear to be within the rules -- if the undergrads can hire a machine shop to fab some spindles, they can just as well pay some engineer to nerd out a steering design, and they'd be within the rules. So, arguably, an alumnus can advise them in a similar manner.

If we all agree on the foregoing, the question boils down to this: what is "over the line" as far as alumni involvement? At what point does alumni involvement become "inappropriate"?

Is there a consensus on this, or do we all have our own nuanced interpretation?

[shafeeq]

The rules for pushers and drivers are clear - there is no way their roles could be filled by alumni without it being obvious and obviously illegal, which leaves us with the mechanics.

To me, the tasks of the mechanics are the science, to figure out how to go fast, the engineering, to design something fast, the manufacturing, to build what was designed, and the operation, to get what was built to the start line on raceday.

Having alumni involved in just the science is ok, because anything they know or learn has to be passed on to the students in order to get used in the race.

The usual way to learn about buggy engineering is to look at your older buggies. If your alumni have learned something since their student days, I don't see why they shouldn't tell you by dropping a set of plans in your lap. It's your choice whether you just build it (or clone a previous buggy) or whether you learn from it and incorporate the ideas in your own design.

If you outsource the manufacturing, students either have to do the engineering to fit around COTS parts, or to come up with the plans for the machine shop or welder. The cost means that (as far as I know) no team can outsource more a small fraction of the work, and as long as it is for a specialty that no student could reasonably perform (welding, high-precision machining) I don't have a problem with it.

Since we expect pushers & drivers to be students, I expect student mechanics to handle getting their buggy on the course for freerolls and raceday. Alumni can provide advice, but shouldn't be the brains of the operation or an extra pair of hands. Obviously, a restarting team needs someone to show them what they need to do, but the team shouldn't need help the next year. I'm willing to overlook the unfair advantage because a restarting team is unlikely to be competitive, and so I'd rather they just be safer while not changing the outcome of the race. If the team is competitive, then the advantage is affecting the race, and over the line.

[Elmo Zoneball]

The rules for pushers and drivers are clear - there is no way their roles could be filled by alumni without it being obvious and obviously illegal, which leaves us with the mechanics.

To me, the tasks of the mechanics are the science, to figure out how to go fast, the engineering, to design something fast, the manufacturing, to build what was designed, and the operation, to get what was built to the start line on raceday.

Having alumni involved in just the science is ok, because anything they know or learn has to be passed on to the students in order to get used in the race.

The usual way to learn about buggy engineering is to look at your older buggies. If your alumni have learned something since their student days, I don't see why they shouldn't tell you by dropping a set of plans in your lap. It's your choice whether you just build it (or clone a previous buggy) or whether you learn from it and incorporate the ideas in your own design.

If you outsource the manufacturing, students either have to do the engineering to fit around COTS parts, or to come up with the plans for the machine shop or welder. The cost means that (as far as I know) no team can outsource more a small fraction of the work, and as long as it is for a specialty that no student could reasonably perform (welding, high-precision machining) I don't have a problem with it.

Since we expect pushers & drivers to be students, I expect student mechanics to handle getting their buggy on the course for freerolls and raceday. Alumni can provide advice, but shouldn't be the brains of the operation or an extra pair of hands. Obviously, a restarting team needs someone to show them what they need to do, but the team shouldn't need help the next year. I'm willing to overlook the unfair advantage because a restarting team is unlikely to be competitive, and so I'd rather they just be safer while not changing the outcome of the race. If the team is competitive, then the advantage is affecting the race, and over the line.

We are on the same page for the most part.

Still, there is a gray area when it comes to "alumni advice" -- the odd sketch or two with some narrative, "this is one way to address the problem" seems reasonable, but dropping a complete set of dimensioned drawings for the entire buggy stem to stern, including a bill of materials and vendors contact info, into the lap of the undergrads does seem to be, ahhhh.... stretching the word "appropriate" close to the breaking point.

One real world example I heard about (but have no independent confirmation) was an org from the 1960s that shall remain nameless whose major chassis elements, including pneumatic braking system, were reportedly designed AND fabbed by the alumni.

And I think there's a video of it on this very website....

;-)

Another no-no I think would be alumni in the truck on race day. I have no problem with them wandering up the garage any other day of the year as long as they aren't wrenching and slapping composites around, but race day should be arms length separation.


Now, that's what I would call "inappropriate" alumni help.

[hvincent]

I am under the impression that anyone not on your roster is not allowed in your truck on raceday, so I think that does a pretty easy job of keeping alumni out of the trucks.

My interpretation of the spirit of the rule in general is that alumni can advise until they're blue in the face, but shouldn't take any action that requires them to do something hands-on.

[TommyK]

Alumni involvement can also be too much if it stifles creativity and innovation. By being a perceived source of credible solutions the old guard can become a crutch. Additionally, if there is institutional pressure to copy a proven winner, critical details can get lost over time and inspiration can be overlooked in favor of conservatism.

Witness Spirit, same basic design since '88 ...

I think being a resource for Alumni input, especially for new orgs, should be an integral part of BAA's mission. Knowing how to free them from the crutch of 'experience' is just as important, i.e. make sure they know how much of buggy 'knowledge' was stuff made up on the spot and didn't come out of a top-secret buggy bible. Making stuff up on your own is one of the most valuable lessons anyone can take from buggy.