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 students@sae.org

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.