Helping new buggy teams

[shafeeq]

I agree that it's hard enough for one team to remember how to operate it's own tech from year to year, let alone something dropped in from another team. I've said it before, but there's plenty of mundane things in buggy that everyone has to solve, that don't improve your performance, but can screw you over. Like "how do I attach a wheel? or a hatch?". It does nobody any good to have new teams learn these through trial & error, when they also have to worry about less well-defined things like "how do I steer?" What are the odds that they're going to get that right on the first try, too.

I suspect if a dozen fast guys were handed, say, a 90's Spirit buggy and a few hundred dollars of wheels, they'd make the top 10 at least. Which is better than many established teams.

It took me a long time to see the difference between mechanics and engineers and that buggy needs both of them. I got handed a bunch of buggies and a ton of design knowledge, but no day-to-day knowledge. And so Larry & I had to spend a lot of time going "is this broken? is it supposed to be this way? wtf would they do that?". That was very educational, in terms of learning about what to think about when designing a buggy, but was not the most efficient way of learning how to maintain a buggy. I'm glad the manufacturer has broken down my car's repair manual into easy-to-follow steps, because then I can be certain I'm doing things correctly. But, from what I've seen, buggy mechanics who learn from watching things done "way they've always been done" do great at regular tasks, but have a harder time when faced with a problem not seen before. Which is a killer when you need to build a new buggy.

[swiftsam]

I suggest you use your own org as an example of innovation on the decline. Your 2007 buggy, Banyon, was still rolling men's "A" in 2010 despite having 3 newer buggies in the fringe fleet.

This is definitely off-topic, but as a head mechanic that built 3 buggies without replacing Brazen as our Men's A, I've got to challenge this logic. The most reliable way to supplant your current fastest buggy is to make small incremental changes. That's the opposite of innovation. Building innovative buggies is a less predictable process that shouldn't be expected to hit the jackpot very often. Wallaby and Insite weren't better than Brazen (although they were good enough to bring home 1st and 2nd for the women) but the innovations they tested played directly into Blackjack which was then refined until Fringe had Banyan. A team that builds frequently can afford to have alternating periods of innovation and refinement since the gems last a number of years.

We could argue what the optimal ratio of innovation to optimization is, but using short term outcomes as a measure of innovation is ass-backwards.

[blue]

Going along with what Sam said... (and with a disclaimer or 3)
This is pretty much entirely based on hearsay and looking at/driving our buggies, but:

My understanding is that after Banyan was built and proved to be wicked fast, the mechanics said essentially 'thats great. now we have a chance to experiment, maybe make the whole design better' and Bristol happened. Im sure there are a lot of nuances I'm missing because I wasn't actually here at the time, but they tried a lot of very different things in Bristol. Some worked, some didn't, some kind of worked in practice (compared to great in theory) but were so hard to maintain or deal with regularly that they didn't improve the overall buggy much.

The next year, seeking largely to avoid the pitfalls eventually encountered with Bristol, they designed Bedlam. (notice how Bristol's front end is rather chipmunk-y, and Bedlam's is ridiculously extended) In general Bedlam is very like Banyan, and even handles similarly. But slight differences in wheel base and a major change in the braking means its a lot easier to deal with in many ways. Don't tell me no one has noticed how narrowly Banyan passed drops last year--for that to happen in Bedlam would require either the driver not paying attention AT ALL, or the brakes being almost entirely removed.

Even after that there were actual changes. Bedlam's windshield was a pain to form (pointy nose + I wanted to see everything...and no one told me that much screen wasn't necessary),so they took that into consideration when designing Borealis.

And as far as Banyan still being A-team in 2010: that buggy was built to go fast, not really to last. And both of those things are playing out now. One of the things I know the mechanics have been working on is making more reliable (and hopefully freakin fast too) buggies. That makes it easier to carry at least decent speed from year to year without significant rebuilding (in most cases, as far as I know). And from a driver's perspective at least, it's easier to learn to drive well when you don't feel like you have to worry about how your buggy is acting that day. I've never felt unsafe in any of the buggies I've driven, but there have definitely been times when I couldn't tell if the buggy was acting up, my line was actually wonky, or some combination of the two.

So that was really long. Sorry. If I'm super off base on anything at all, feel free to correct me. Or to yell at me for telling super secret secrets that seem obvious enough to me to not think to hide. OR for just not making sense.

~Becky Peterkin

[TommyK]

I can't agree that SDC needs to share their goodies. It's hard enough to pass on the knowledge of how to make your goodies/techniques work from year to year (did you see Pika roll last raceday?) let alone trying to also share those precious resources with other groups for the betterment of Sweepstakes. While the socialist karma would be great, it would almost punish the hard work of orgs that get it all together. SDC has done a remarkable job, on many levels. They don't just have good buggies and wheels, but they have fast, well trained pushers. They are organized and studious with the rules (propane not withstanding) to ensure the success of not just A-teams, but all teams. The reward for level of thoroughness should not be free help for other, struggling orgs.

No one is asking for their PU compound, steering diagram, tire treatment regimen or whatever extra special techniques they developed that got them from a 2:13 in '00 to 2:03 in '09. They are the fastest team on the course with a consistently large membership that is at capacity. They are the only 100% publicly funded org and their charter is to represent the dormitory community in buggy. They have the resources and knowledge that if properly directed, without impinging on their competitive edge, could easily help more CMU students get involved.

Spillover from successful orgs is a part of the history of buggy.
Here's a ASCI Diagram of free help I'm aware of from Succesful Orgs to Fledgeling/Struggling orgs. Some by charity, some by defection.

SN Early 80s => Spirit 85 (St(eve)Ing)
Spirit early 90s => Fringe 98-99 (thanks Carl)
Fringe 2000 => Sig Ep 00 (Wagstaff), Pioneers '02 (Gamp), KDR '00 (40),'02 (McCue), AEPi '06
Pika 90s => AFROTC 2010

Sharing is caring! Even Pika is contributing! Are they really bigger dicks about secrecy than Pika? I didn't think that was possible ...

[lemuroid]

Spillover from successful orgs is a part of the history of buggy.
Here's a ASCI Diagram of free help I'm aware of from Succesful Orgs to Fledgeling/Struggling orgs. Some by charity, some by defection.

SN Early 80s => Spirit 85 (St(eve)Ing)
...

I believe Steve Ng's trajectory was more of a fringe to spirit transfer than a zoo to spirit transfer. Also the year was 1986 or 1987.

While he was one of my good friends in in 86-87, and pushed for our B team, that was aboiut as close as he got to being part of our buggy program. Steve (aka stinky) was not a sigma nu or even a pledge there. As I recall, he had been active in fringe during their creative spurt in ~86 before becoming safety chair. While in that role, he was exposed to many buggy details from the entire campus. While he helped spirit to some degree, it was not the cause of their success. Spirit was impressive as they did much of their growth on their own. The jump in speed they showed on raceday when they got their hands on some treated sbd wheels was very impressive. They followed that up with a great run on pneumatics but you allready know that story.

[lemuroid]

I suggest you use your own org as an example of innovation on the decline. Your 2007 buggy, Banyon, was still rolling men's "A" in 2010 despite having 3 newer buggies in the fringe fleet.

This is definitely off-topic, but as a head mechanic that built 3 buggies without replacing Brazen as our Men's A, I've got to challenge this logic. The most reliable way to supplant your current fastest buggy is to make small incremental changes. That's the opposite of innovation. Building innovative buggies is a less predictable process that shouldn't be expected to hit the jackpot very often. Wallaby and Insite weren't better than Brazen (although they were good enough to bring home 1st and 2nd for the women) but the innovations they tested played directly into Blackjack which was then refined until Fringe had Banyan. A team that builds frequently can afford to have alternating periods of innovation and refinement since the gems last a number of years.

We could argue what the optimal ratio of innovation to optimization is, but using short term outcomes as a measure of innovation is ass-backwards.

I regret the abruptness of my statement. I should have added, " it is less confrontational when one chooses an example from within, vs. tossing a rock at at outsiders.

Anyway, I agree that there is a huge difference between taking on a risky design leap that leads to innovation vs refining a good design with incremental improvements. the Zoo's history over the past 40 years can be reviewed along those lines as follows:

Brother rat : innovative
hornet, scoprion, esp : refined versions of brother rat (winner 74, 2nd place 81)
lemur 1982 : huge innovation (first modern 3 wheeler that worked (pka had one the year before but it spun)) (winner 82)
colugo 1984 : failed innovation (2 wheeler that you never saw) then converted to a successful refinement of lemur (winner 85)
yamabachi 1985 : failed innovation but tiny and the best looking buggy I ever worked on (carbon mono body)
jerboa 1986 : refined lemur (3 years too late) but quicker
Pope jackson 1987 : failed innovation (another carbon mono body, post helmet rules, also easy on the eyes, slow as shit)
Lemur with 3 wheel steering : failed innovation
Jerboa, tiny wheels round 1: failed innovation (not all small wheels work) but loads of fun and hinted of the future
JAMA the BIG : innovation (rapid enclosed reverse trike)
Jama the little : innovation (made the jump to smaller wheel tech before anyone had ever heard of xootr, (PKA beat us to tiny wheels but we were not far behind))
KOS : innovation (successful carbon mono body (we finally got it right)), fast for over 15 years.
10, okapie, jubatis (refinements, right out of the same mold, all quick in the short term, none with the staying power of KOS)
Skua, Krait (additional refinements that may or may not have worked as well as hoped, the craftsmanship is much improved so that part is at least succesful)

One could argue that the zoo did not refine enough in 83 or 84 and thus lost a chance at 2 more victorys that could have been had with an improved version of lemur. I would agree with that, in hindsight.

One could also argue that the zoo has refined too much of late and have not taken bold design steps. I would suggest that with the tripple innovation jump of jama, jama2 and kos behind them, there was room aplenty to refine vs innovate and as fringe has proven of late, not all refinements work.

I would have to disagree with tomy's original statement. While none of the past 5 new zoo buggies have had the same leap forward as select prior zoo buggies, the majority were refinements that worked or progressed if one dsefines success as being faster than what came before (although not as durable). Without trying to be confrontational, I would suggest that Fringe is in a similar if not worse dry spell on a per buggy basis. From what Sam indicated, you have built 3 'refinements' since building the quick 2007 buggy. Given none of these has been fast enough to replace the 2007 buggy, are you progressing? Please build something amazing for 2011.

[shafeeq]

The unsaid thing with trying to promote new teams is that while there have been successful organizations that decided they wanted to start competing in buggy (with varying degrees of success), there haven't been any in the last 30 years that have managed to start an organization and enter buggy at the same time. I don't see that happening again in today's campus environment (funding, space, student time, etc.)

What do we have to do to sell buggy to an existing, but non-buggy, organization? What's in it for them? The motivation for AFROTC is clear, but how well can they do, given that buggy is, by definition, always going to be a side activity for them? Assuming that all the greek houses that are interested are already in, who does that leave? All the ASA/KSA/whatever-SA's that do build booths are probably big enough to put together buggy programs, but it's a ton of effort for what reward? And these would have to justify spending Activities Fee money to start yet another buggy team.

[TommyK]

When Fringe slows its build rate down to once every five years we can talk about a design and organizational plateau that is limiting the current members level of participation. Until then please refer to the following image to gauge the trends in performance.

[BuggyBob]

I think one way the BAA could help new teams is by offering a 'sit down' overview of buggy so new teams realize what they are getting into. Everyone I know who has started from scratch (including me at SAE in the '70's) has run into cost and time issues the first few years. The established teams have the luxury of being able to experiment with small changes to improve their times; new teams have their hands full just getting a vehicle onto the course.
I also like the idea of a brief writte overview of buggy in general that cuts through the (too voluminous?) rules and gets to the key thngs that need to be understood. IMO, this would be a good project for th BAA, since BAA has the experience and time to do it (separate from the day-to-day countless hours the racing teams have to deal with just to be in the races).

[BuggyBob]

My experience (back in the '70's) was that the lusty Tri Delta sororiity was very good at beating off opposing members. Maybe they could use a helping hand now, too.