SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2007-01-1051

An Evaluation of Formula SAE in the

Context of the UK Engineering Education:
Culture, Money and Space
Paul W. Wickenden and Richard K. Stobart
University of Sussex

2007 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 16-19, 2007

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-776-3036
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2007 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

An Evaluation of Formula SAE in the Context of the UK
Engineering Education: Culture, Money and Space
Copyright © 2007 SAE International
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the conclusions of a study into the
way the Formula SAE project works in the UK academic
sector. The motivation for the work arose during the
introduction of the project at the University of Sussex
when we needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of
the project as part of the engineering curriculum. The
traditional view of FSAE in the UK was that it proved a
valuable recruitment tool and when only a few
universities offered the project to students this was
clearly the case. However now that the project is more
widely adopted and where smaller Departments are now
supporting the project, there is a need to look more
closely at the effectiveness of the project. Identification
of the factors that make a successful entry has also
helped in an evaluation of the resource requirements.
The general conclusion from the work is that
Departments must work to extract the benefits of the
project through curriculum planning. While the project
provides an important experience, that experience often
is left to chance.
INTRODUCTION
Formula SAE (FSAE) is deeply embedded in the life of
mechanical engineering departments throughout North
America, Europe and increasingly India, Australia and
the Far East. The approach to running the project varies
substantially between Institutions and reflects both local
and national culture. The result is a rich and varied
range of solutions and the competition is a
demonstration of enthusiasm and commitment on the
part of student teams.
The educational benefits of the project are less easy to
pin down. The project should allow students to work with
the analytical and design principles that they have been
working with in their formal, taught courses. They should
be aware of the needs for planning and budgetary
management. The design process should be
underpinned by analysis and a rational selection of
materials, design and manufacturing. The winning teams
do all of these things well.
2007-01-1051
Paul W. Wickenden and Richard K. Stobart
University of Sussex
Our investigation of how FSAE works in UK Universities,
and our own experience in launching the project at the
University of Sussex, has revealed significant issues
with how teams are supported and encouraged and how
they learn.
Most groups have to fight hard for resources. Smaller
teams have to make early decisions as to how best to
raise the money they need or to focus their efforts on the
development of the car. Some Departments provide
technical staff, while others don’t. Some teams have
limited space because it has to be paid for. Others are
allocated a space that the team can make their own.
In teaching and learning, results are unclear, but it does
appear that there need to be explicit links made between
the curriculum and the design and analysis of the
features of the car.
FSAE appears to have all of the ingredients of a
worthwhile project, but its application needs to be finely
judged. Large and well resourced departments will
always be able to run a team. Smaller departments may
simply not have the money, staff and space to get the
car to the competition. It could be said that teams that
are not well resourced should not embark on a design,
but that would disenfranchise too many students.
Attention to processes and indeed everything from
raising funds and selling the benefits of the project
through to project planning and management can make
a significant difference to whether a project delivers or
not.
Methods used in the investigation of Formula SAE were
as follows. Introductions were carried out at the
beginning by e-mail, contracts were made at shows,
exhibitions and race meetings, where we were given
names or contract e-mail addresses of persons in
charge. These contracts included the academic in
charge of the Formula SAE project, together with team
members and were followed up by visits and full tours of
the facilities available. Further to the above, fifty
questionnaires were used for students and we were able
to get in touch with several former students who had
taken part in Formula SAE. This provided an insight into
how being on a Formula SAE activity had influenced
their working life.
The results were analysed using SPSS (Statistical
Product and Service Solutions) formerly Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences. It is the oldest and
most popular of the many packages of computer
programs currently available for statistical analysis.
The aim of this paper is to present our conclusions and
recommendations for making FSAE more accessible
and more robust.
EVALUATION OF FSAE
In this, the third paper in a series studying FSAE, we
present our principal conclusions and recommendations.
We have listed them as a series of key topics that are
drawn from our research results. In some cases several
topics have been drawn together to reach a broader
conclusion.
KEY FACTORS IN A SUCCESSFUL FSAE PROJECT
The role of students
Students participate in FSAE mainly because they are
interested in the idea of building a car and driving it at
the competition. They do not consider the amount of
time that will be required for such a project; they do
however think it will look ‘good’ on their Curriculum Vitae
and may help them to acquire a better position when
they leave their university.
Student Motivation
We observed that there were several factors that were
required for the success of a FSAE project. Motivation
after the initial start is one of the biggest, as is the lack of
credits to add to the students’ degree work, but many
other factors add to this. The lack of facilities, no space
to build the car and no dedicated staff on hand all add to
the problem.
Student Recruitment
Recruiting students from other departments of the
university would expand the FSAE project and students
from departments such as business management,
marketing and legal studies could make a valuable
contribution to the project.
An example of this can be found in the German
Technical high schools where business and fashion
combine with the main FSAE team. This would help turn
FSAE into a truly multi-disciplinary project.
Most of the students questioned felt that had the
University of Sussex promoted the FSAE project better
and given it more publicity internally, it might have
attracted students from other disciplines. With more
team members there would not be the feeling of such
pressure and, with other disciplines involved, new light
would be shed at weekly meetings.
Nearly all the students feel that a weekly meeting with
their supervisor or the person in charge is vital. It is also
felt that this person should have a good knowledge of
how a car should be made and must be aware of the
rules of the competition. Therefore a tutor or other
knowledgeable staff member, combined with a regular
meeting would be advantageous.
These recommendations should be part of a good
practice culture, which is running throughout the
university and would greatly assist the students to
achieve their goals. Guidelines are called for and this
would not breach the FSAE rules as they now stand.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION TO THE PROJECT
Resources allocated to the project by the University of
Sussex and other universities and institutes support the
FSAE with academic and technical staff. The University
of Sussex has only recently started a FSAE project and
has had to budget for a ‘set-up’ expense of several
thousand pounds. It must also provide a suitable place
for the students to work in, together with the right
equipment.
The experience at the University of Sussex has shown
us that without these minimum facilities the students are
unable to successfully complete the project within a
realistic time frame.
Two good examples we have seen are, firstly, at
Swansea Institute of Higher Education. The Institute
cleared a complete room, (which had been used as a
computer laboratory) and the students were given
exclusive use of it. They built a series of cupboards to
lock away all the specialist tools they had acquired for
FSAE, a rack system for materials (i.e. chassis tubing),
and set up a small area as an office. The Institute gave
them keys so they could work outside normal hours and
committed itself to not using this room for other
purposes.
The second example is at the University of Bath where
the students also have a room of their own, but have
sub-divided it so that in addition to the main area for the
FSAE team there is now a separate room with the
equipment and health and safety requirements to allow
the students to lay up fibreglass to construct the body
shell.
Not all universities can provide the same equipment and
some of the luckier ones can boast extra facilities such
as a composite department (with the facilities to produce
carbon-fibre) and an autoclave (for curing small
components). Lack of specialist facilities is not
necessarily a bad thing, though, as students will have to
think about how they can overcome a problem without
them.
Timing of the project
The suitability of FSAE to support engineering
programmes, typified by UK specifications, implies a
substantial commitment from universities and institutes
in both time and facilities. In particular there needs to be
a substantial commitment from the entire academic staff,
as opposed to the current level of only two or three in
each university or institute.
We believe that full integration of FSAE into engineering
education should be possible but more research would
be needed to establish the best way to do this. A project
semester in the final year is recommended.
For instance, the University of Bath have successfully
integrated FSAE into their semester system (which is
different from the semesters operated by other
universities), operating on these lines; in the third and
fourth years the second semester is given over entirely
to project work, thus allowing the students to concentrate
only on the project and not to worry about assignments,
revisions and exams. Students in their third year
completely evaluate the previous years’ car so that in
their fourth year they can design, make improvements,
build, test and compete in the new car at the Formula
Student competition.
The current arrangements show us that students’
priorities are a major factor in the success or failure of
the team; students are aware that final grades are very
important to their future careers, consequently they
focus on their exams rather than finish the car. For
example, in the UK the exams are usually in May and
June and the competition is early July. This focus by the
students on their exams, we believe, explains the
relatively poor performance of a large number of the UK
teams.
There are two possibilities to resolve this conflict for the
student. One is to move the competition date to the
Easter holidays and therefore the competition marks can
be incorporated into their degree marks. This may mean
however that the students might have to work on the
project through the summer holidays in the previous
academic year. This would also involve additional staff
time and associated costs.
The second solution is to move the ending of the
academic year from June until September. However this
solution raises complications for students trying to obtain
jobs, going on to further study and also delays their
graduation award ceremony. This solution also creates
additional work for the university administration, unless
all courses in all subjects are moved from June until
September, but as this would not be necessary in most
subject areas, this solution is unlikely to be favoured.
University and Department commitment
From our observations it is clear that the level of
departmental support was also a factor in the success or
failure of an individual team. On our visits to the
University of Leeds and the Swansea Institute members
from right across the department were willing to
contribute to their teams, not only technicians but also
academics if a special skill was required to solve a
specific problem.
Funding raising by students
The total cost to a university of a project like Formula
Student is typically around £8,500. This cannot be borne
solely by the universities and institutes. Sponsorship
must be found and this is one of the tasks that the
students have to undertake. It should be assigned to as
large a number of students as possible (some
universities have as many as 10 students doing this);
unfortunately it is not a task which many want to do.
Sponsorship of projects like FSAE can offer benefits,
such as closer ties with the community; an example at
the University of Sussex was a sponsorship deal with
Brighton and Hove City Council which involved the
FSAE team visiting local schools to give presentations
about the competition and the University.
One fundamental decision the team must make
concerns how to present the project. The Sussex
experience has been that a motor-sport pitch is not as
compelling to potential sponsors as an education
proposal. All sponsors need to know about the possible
promotional aspects, but motivation is of key importance.
Other funding opportunities exist related to the more
proven University process ie: teaching and learning. For
example, linking this to creative methodology has lead to
funding at the University of Sussex.
However, some teams may take a pragmatic approach
to sponsorship and only seek to involve organisations
which can give them positive help in the construction of
the car. For example they may approach Quaife
Engineering Ltd because they wish to use the
company’s transmission systems. With this type of
focussed sponsorship, though, there is always the risk
that car design could be influenced or limited by the
requirement to use only the sponsoring company’s
products.
Fund raising is some way from the professional
engineering development that FSAE is intended to
foster. However, it is a necessary part of the modern
world and most teams could not function without
additional financial support. Fund raising requires a
recognition and communication of the values that the
students themselves have internalised as their
motivation. It is therefore a valuable activity as the
students will foster important skills. As students are
deficient in this area they may need to be given
instruction on money raising techniques, because if they
were more successful in raising sponsorship it would
ease the financial burden on the universities. A guest
lecturer, specialising in this area, at the beginning of
each academic year would be able to fill the gap in this
type of learning, which would not normally be a
justifiable part of the curriculum in traditional mechanical
engineering courses.
To gain small amounts of money (which all add up) the
students can target their main shopping street, while
places like garages and motor shops may agree to give
commodities instead of cash, which can be just as
useful.
A great deal of parts can be found at breakers' yards
and if the situation is explained to the owners of these
yards, the cost if any, can be relatively small.
One of the German teams told us that they had financed
their entry and the cost of sending the whole team to
America in 2003 by producing and selling a €5 calendar,
whilst a team from the University of Birmingham –
having won sponsorship from various engineering,
manufacturing and IT companies and wishing to take the
car to Australia to race in the competition – have recently
appealed, through a Professional Engineering magazine,
for anyone willing to sponsor them.
TEAM AND ORGANISATION
A proper understanding of team dynamics and team
organisation is a vital contributor to the success of a
FSAE team.
The importance of team dynamics raises many
questions such as whether there is a natural leader
among the students. The selection is often left to chance
and in the course of the project one student may emerge
who assumes the role. Teams are often unable to
organize themselves effectively, they decide to only hold
a regular meeting once a week and these become
regular ‘talking shops’ about the aspects of the car which
prove ineffective for reaching a final specification and to
move on to the next stage of construction. It is often not
clear why one student is picked to do a certain task.
Managing project risk
As with all motor sports there are risks involved, not only
with the testing of the car but also during construction
and development.
When most universities started the FSAE project they
found that their safety policies generally prohibited
students using machine tools, welding equipment etc.
Subsequently they had to revise their rules about the
use of the workshop, power tools and the supervision
that was required before the students were allowed to
work on the project. Most of the universities required the
students to be competent with the machinery they were
using and in most cases they have to have a certificate
to say that they are.
The rules of the FSAE competition have covered all
safety aspects, from driver’s restraint systems to head
protection and crash protection, but a certain amount of
room for interpretation allows other materials than those
specified, if approved by the technical judge.
Under the section Safety and Technical Inspection in the
Rules, the Objective states:
“The objective of safety and technical inspection is to
determine if the vehicle meets the FSAE design and
safety requirements and if, considered as a whole, it
satisfies the intent of the Rules. For purposes of
interpretation and inspection the violation of the intent of
a rule is considered a violation of the rules itself”.
While students use ProEngineer for determining the
strength of the vehicle and also to help with material
selection they do not take these techniques further and
do crash test modelling. They also ignore such items as
padding for legs and many students were seen driving
cars with their elbows outside the cockpit, creating
vulnerabilities in the event of a crash. It is generally
considered best practice to keep every part of the driver
within the confines of the cockpit, as this offers the best
level of protection. This aspect of safety needs to be
looked at more carefully by the universities and
institutes.
While motor sport is regarded as dangerous there are, in
fact, no more accidents than in any other sport, but
students should be made aware of the potential dangers.
The universities and institutes have to take care to
ensure not only that competent students use equipment
such as welders but also that the actual design and
building of the car is safe. For example, there is often a
fault with the seating position, and if the students would
spend time in studying before starting to build the car
many problems and disappointments would be avoided.
Universities and institutes have to cover themselves with
regard to accidents, and the safety of students must be a
priority but there is no need to smother creativity.
TEACHING AND LEARNING.
Project management - An example in teaching and
learning
Project management typifies an important topic that at
first glance appears to be adequately covered by the
project but in fact is simply overlooked in the project
organisation. Simply exposing students to a set of
circumstances where it would be a good thing to know
abut project management is not enough, and the subject
needs to be presented and practised by the students.
Project management is a subject that needs more
attention as it is now recognised in the wider world of
engineering as a necessary skill. Projects are more
informal than ever before and management is based on
guidelines rather than procedures and policies.
It is clear from the results that given the best project
environments and encouragement, students fail to
master project management techniques. We believe that
it is vital that universities and institutes that do not
already do so, should include this subject in their
curriculum. Such inclusion would assist the students in
their priorities with regard not only to the processes and
parts needed for their car but with their documentation
as well and indeed their other subjects. One of the main
benefits however would be that they would be
conversant with this major skill when applying for
employment after leaving university.
Project management is a subject that could be taught
from the first year not (as in most engineering courses)
only in the final year of the degree. As most FSAE
Student teams are final year students they have not had
sufficient time to fully understand this important
engineering process, which would not only assist them
with the management and construction of the car, but
would also assist them with some of their other studies.
There was a great difference between the universities
that taught project management and those that just
mentioned it or handed out a few pages on how such
management worked. Our evidence suggests that teams
that did best in the competitions had a better
understanding of project management, which showed
that they had been given better tuition in this important
area.
One of the subjects that we noted in our conversations
with the students while they filled in our questionnaires
was that many did not understand the meaning of
Critical Path Analysis or did not recognise it under this
name. When this was explained to them some students
said they had been taught this technique but they did not
recognise its value in helping them to build the car. This
was yet another sign that the students had not
internalised the importance of the planning and
monitoring process.
There was also the question of documentation. This is
not something that young engineers expect to spend
time at, although it is becoming an increasingly important
part of an engineer's work. If students from the business
side of the university could be persuaded to take part,
and credits were given for the work that they did, it would
not only make the task of building the car easier, but
there would not be such a rush for documentation at the
end.
Skills that the project requires should be learnt in a
timely way, and their application in the project monitored
and perhaps assessed. Otherwise the valuable
opportunity that the project presents is squandered in a
teaching and learning sense.
Making FSAE a cornerstone project for the Engineering
programme.
One benefit from having FSAE at the heart of the
curriculum is that there are many correlations between
the practical, real world skills it employs and the
theoretical lessons learned in the lecture theatre. By
combining the two, for all students, we believe that there
is the potential for greater understanding of, and ability
to apply successfully, engineering and project
management concepts. The result of which, in a
correctly structured and implemented system, should be
better-trained engineers. Such sentiments can only be
implemented in degree programmes if the activities of
FSAE can be tied to the learning objectives of the
degree programme. Such a link cannot simply be made
to overall programme learning objectives but rather to
the specific objectives of courses.
The UK specification and the Engineering Council
requirements can be matched very closely with the
FSAE project. The parallels are shown in the appended
table and illustrate that by laying proper emphasis on
key aspects of the project and adopting a progressive
and systematic approach, the project could support a
whole engineering programme.
What does this mean for UK universities that are active
in FSAE? To make best use of the resources, it would
be better for FSAE to be fully integrated into their
curriculum. This will mean an adjustment to the details of
the engineering curriculum with substantial benefits.
Curriculum models, like taking three years to complete
the design and details of the car, would allow processes
(such as project management), analysis and design
methods to be fully explored.
The University of Hertfordshire has based a substantial
part of its teaching in automotive engineering on the
FSAE project. The University enters several FSAE
Student cars in the annual competition and the majority
of final year projects are oriented towards FSAE. The
University uses the FSAE projects to aid recruitment and
evidence from public perception and league tables
demonstrates that the initiative is proving successful.
FSAE is in some ways too big for a final year project.
Our evidence indicated that the result is often ad-hoc
and the result of attempts to assemble and test the car
at the last minute.
Many students feel a sense of ownership about the
project, looking upon it as ‘theirs’. This sense of
ownership is, in part, built up by the fact that the car is
constructed in a separate room used only by the FSAE
team, they can work upon it when they like, they have
designed and built it, and they’ve even spent their own
money on it. (When we visited Swansea Institute of
Higher Education the students were having a ‘whip
round’ between themselves for the purchase of a
necessary component.)
This sense of ownership is good in the fact that you get
students who are really interested and prepared to
spend all the time they can working on the project, but
the down side to this is that the students get no credits to
add to their degrees. If the project were to become part
of the curriculum, though, it is possible that when some
students have finished their course they will just walk
away from the project before it may be finished.
CREATING A SUCCESS
What makes for a successful team?
In spite of the promise, it has become increasingly
obvious during the investigation that students on a FSAE
project are dissatisfied with several of its aspects. The
little help or direction received from staff in regard to how
to obtain sponsorship, and the lack of drive to obtain
more members for the team are just two areas of
dissatisfaction. Another major one is lack of academic
credits offered to students.
The factors that affect students’ commitment to the
project are mainly the lack of credits and the workload in
the building of the car, and the commitment to their
exams particularly with regard to revision after Easter,
which is just the time the car needs to be tested.
x Licensing for all the software they require
x A reasonable selection of hand tools
x A secure account system outside normal university
channels
x Some arrangements for testing facilities: engine
dynamometer, facilities to test car as a whole
x Some means of transporting the car for testing and
competitions
x A dedicated member of the technical staff.
x Broad co-operation across the whole of the
university staff, not just two or three members in
engineering.
The Sussex experience with facilities was that the team
simply didn’t function until there was a dedicated space.
A corner of the workshop would have worked if there
had been a member of the technical staff appointed to
care for the team. The dedicated space allowed the
students to take command of the situation.

Students learn a number of things from the project but

not necessarily what they expected at the outset.
Research results show that they have a good
understanding of budget control, but are lacking in the
knowledge of subjects concerned with engineering
processes especially typified by project management.

The net result is uncertainty in the team and a tendency

for the workload to fall on a sub-group within the main
project group. Exams pose a particular issue, as do
regular course work deadlines.

There is no particular conclusion, except that student

commitment is an issue that needs to be managed.

Correlating factors for a successful car

From our observations we have determined that if any of

the following are present the student team is more likely
to build a successful car. In other words, departments
that are unable to meet these requirements should
carefully evaluate their decision to enter. Ownership of
the project infrastructure we found is of vital importance:
Fig 1: Team Sussex improved facilities
x Exclusive use of a (lockable) room in which to build
Judges and the influence of the judging process on the
the car
design process
x Outside access for the car
x Separate room to make fibreglass One of the problems with the current set up of the
x Office space (Large room could be divided up) competition is what appears to be inconsistent or
x Access to room outside normal hours (either own arbitrary interpretation of the rules. Two examples that
keys or someone always available to let them in and showed up in the course of our study were:
to lock up).
x Access to welding equipment x Students being penalised for the weight of the
x Access to machine tools car, even though there was no rule stating
x A safety regime which allows them to do welding maximum weight, regardless of whether the car
and use machine tools performed well or not.
x A library of key texts that they can access
throughout the project x The rules say that if the documentation is poorly
x Computers for both design work and documentation done the team may be disqualified. In 2006
 Team Sussex attended the competition having
not done any of the documentation for the entry,
despite receiving no marks in this part of the
competition; they were allowed to participate in
all the dynamic events.
There appears to be however an acceptance, that if the
students make it to the competition with a car they will
be allowed to participate, regardless of how poorly they
do the documentation.
Judges work hard during the competition and by giving
them standardize guidelines it would help to alleviate
any disparages that may arise.
We have also observed that when the late Carroll Smith
was judging the competition there appeared to be a
more consistent approach. We attribute this to the fact
that he was judging all the FSAE competitions worldwide
and therefore was judging like for like. One solution is a
team of International Judges doing all four competitions.
If this could be arranged these problems may be greatly
alleviated
Software for design and project support
We have concluded that the majority of the students that
we have observed appear reluctant to learn new
software packages event to help the smooth running of
the project, including even Microsoft Project, which has a
similar menu-structure to Microsoft Word (both being
from the Microsoft Office family) and therefore not that
unfamiliar or difficult to learn.
A similar situation happens in the production of CAD
drawings; the students use the limited ProEngineer
rather than the more powerful AutoCAD which they have
access to. They perceive ProEngineer to be easier than
AutoCAD.
We have also observed that the students have
difficulties producing or understanding a full International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) engineering
drawing. This situation appears to arise because they do
not have the opportunity to study technical drawing at 'A'
level and teaching students technical drawing at the
university is often dropped from the curriculum to make
way for other subjects.
Books to support the project
We have discovered through our questionnaire and
talking to many students that most of the British students
have no knowledge of the standard books connected
with engineering design, such as Pugh's Total Design or
Engineering Design – A Systematic Approach by G. Pahl
& W. Beitz. This is not the case with students from
overseas.
This appears to be symptomatic of the students'
unwillingness to make full use of the resources available
to them and they seem to make very little use of library
resources, preferring to make use of the Internet as their
main learning resource.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The next steps
The competition was originally designed for
postgraduate research students who would have
covered all the skills we have talked about at
undergraduate level and would not have this problem of
subjects being taught too late for them to be of benefit in
FSAE.
Another thing about postgraduate research students in
the UK is that they do not have to attend formal classes
nor do they sit formal exams each year. This structure in
their postgraduate research studies would allow them to
devote more time to a project like FSAE, in addition to
their studies. This would be particularly noticeable at
critical times, such as just before the competition.
The competition has subsequently become an
undergraduate competition without the necessary
revision to the rules and structure for this type of student.
This can be seen by the problems we have listed
concerning the timing of subjects being taught and the
timing of the competition. If FSAE is to continue to grow
we believe that the changes we have outlined to the
university structure and year, in conjunction with the
revision of the curriculum, needs to be implemented.
We also believe that the rules of the competition need to
be revised to reflect the change from a postgraduate
research student competition to an undergraduate
competition, otherwise the competition will stagnate and
universities will move on to other opportunities to help
develop their students.
We have already seen this happening as universities
have started using Formula Ford and the Low Cost
Racing series in conjunction with FSAE as part of a
practical programme to stretch their students. Some of
the academics we spoke to have said that Formula Ford
and Low Cost Racing have offered them benefits in their
teaching programme because the specification of the car
is more rigid. This means they find out how their
students overcome problems in a very precisely defined
way. As these are race series it allows the academics to
also see how the car performance has improved over
that season’s racing. The examples we have seen use a
nominated academic as the driver, who is ideally placed
to assess the students’ progress throughout the year.
This structure also offers advantages for the regulatory
regime from the racing authorities and safety authorities’
point of view.
In the context of risk and safety, a question that needs to
be asked is: Do you require FSAE to teach practical
skills or do you want FSAE to be a lifelike engineering
exercise where the students do all the design
calculations and CAD drawings and then it is handed to
technicians for manufacture? This question has to be
answered and then followed up with the necessary
teaching and learning framework.
The latter approach could well increase the financial
costs of FSAE for universities depending upon their
internal accounting procedures. It does however deal
very effectively with the safety issues that have been
raised with students’ participation in FSAE (most UK
universities’ safety policies prohibit students using
machine tools, welding equipment etc.)
The above recommendations would require a major
revision of the rules, and the problem with this approach
is that if the students do not race the car themselves in
the competition they may not be enthusiastic about
participating in FSAE.
CONCLUSION
Drawing together all of the research results, the overall
impression is that teams tend to succeed because they
have applied a successful formula. There are substantial
blind-spots, one of which is project organisation and
management. While some universities (like
Hertfordshire) have taken steps to integrate the learning
objectives of their curriculum with the progress of FSAE,
such planning is far from common.
As it is currently implemented in the UK, FSAE has only
modest educational worth to recommend it to students,
universities or potential employers. It’s simply too hit and
miss. The occasional student may learn something quite
substantial, but there is no repeatable set of learning
outcomes or building of the “corporate knowledge”.
Stobart, published by SAE International, published
2005.
2. Engineering Design – A Systematic Approach by G.
Pahl and W. Beitz, published by Springer-Verlag
Berlin & Heidelberg Gambll & Co. K, published
1995.
3. Pugh’s Total Design by Stuart Pugh, published by
Prentice Hall, published 1991.
4. Engineering, published by Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education, published 2000.
5. The Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes,
published by the Engineering Council UK, published
2004.
6. Project-Based Learning in University Programmes:
Getting the Best out of Formula SAE by Paul W.
Wickenden and Richard K. Stobart, published by
SAE International, published 2006.
CONTACT
Prof. Richard K. Stobart
Professor of Automotive Engineering
Department of Engineering and Design
University of Sussex
Falmer
Brighton
United Kingdom
BN1 9QT

However, we believe that if the recommendations laid Tel: + 44 (0) 1273 606755
out in this paper were fully implemented, FSAE has the Fax: + 44 (0) 1273 678399
potential to grow into a world-class training project for Email: r.k.stobart@sussex.ac.uk
engineering students. With the increased mobility in the
world’s employment market, having an international
training project allows engineering graduates the
opportunity to fully realise their potential while allowing
potential employers to reasonably compare candidates
from different countries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the Department of Education at

the University of Sussex and for the particular extensive
support offered by Professor Michael Eraut.

We are also grateful to the UK FSAE teams that

welcomed us and generally shared their experience of
the project.

REFERENCES

1. Integrating Formula SAE with the Engineering

Curriculum by Paul W. Wickenden and Richard K.

FORMULA SAE OUTCOMES
The Formula Student competition
is for SAE student members.
To conceive, design, fabricate
and compete with small formula-
style racing cars.
Built with a team effort over a
period of about one year.
Vehicle Design Objectives.
Produce a prototype car for
evaluation as a production item.
Market is the non-professional
weekend autocross racer.
The car must have a very high
performance.
Must be low in cost, easy to
maintain and reliable.
The car’s marketability is
enhanced by other factors such
as aesthetics, comfort and use of
common parts.
Planning to produce 4 cars per
day for a limited production run
and the prototype vehicle should
actually cost below $25,000.
Table 1: Learning outcomes
QUALITY ASSURANCE
FOR HIGHER ENGINEERING COUNCIL UK OUTCOMES FORMULA SAE LEARNING
EDUCATION OUTCOMES
OUTCOMES
Knowledge of Knowledge and understanding. Knowledge of an understanding of
characteristics of This states that students must be able to the way:
particular materials, demonstrate their knowledge and design is effected by materials
equipment, processes or understanding of essential facts, such as the suitability of materials
products. concepts, theories and principles of their the safety aspects involved
engineering discipline together with its
underpinning science and mathematics.
Workshop and Practical Skills. The students must possess Practical skills and intellectual
laboratory skills. practical engineering skills acquired through abilities, together with workshop
work carried out in laboratories and safety.
workshops, and in the development and use
of computer software in design, analysis and
control.
Understanding use of Understanding use of technical
technical literature and literature and other information
other information sources
sources.
Understanding of Intellectual Abilities. The students must be Understanding of contexts in which
contexts in which able to demonstrate creative and innovative engineering knowledge can be
engineering knowledge ability in the synthesis of solutions and in applied (e.g. operations and
can be applied (e.g. formulating designs. management, technology
operations and development etc).
management,
technology development
etc).
Ability to work with Ability to work with technical
technical uncertainty. uncertainty.
Awareness of the nature Awareness of the nature of
of intellectual property intellectual property and contractual
and contractual issues. issues.
Understanding of Understanding of appropriate codes
appropriate codes of of practice and industry standards.
practice and industry
standards.
General transferable skills. These skills will Knowledge of marketing. Use a
include problem solving, communication and variety of research tools
working with others.
Awareness of quality Awareness of quality issues.
issues.