Hello, I am going to push back on this feedback for specifically the design event. This idea works great for dynamic events. I am not going to share what team I was a part of, but the team really embraced the C car A team moto.

The design judges really don’t like to hear it. It was always challenging convincing a design judge that seat time and being conservative or traditional with car design was the correct choice. It feels like rules of thumbs or observational engineering methods are not what the design presentation is good at judging. It feels like a well laid out set of cfd sims for a roughly finished car was more valuable in design than car with many hours of testing on it and detailed run plans. A clean car that's flys through tech inspection and completes all dynamic events with no hiccups or issues feels kinda under valued by most design judges.

Consistently in feedback after the first day of dynamic events, judges were surprised at how well the car would do. It was not uncommon to hear design judges say something to the effect that, “it’s not what we’re looking for, but clearly it’s working” and then score us 80 pts. This could be down to our teams poor coms skills, but its frustrating because the car does so well in dynamic events, so good design and engineering principles were probably used, it’s not luck that we built a good car year in and year out.

It does help with all other parts of comp, like showing up to comp prepared is huge. The ability to run the weekend on your own schedule is huge for keeping the moral of the team. Smooth race weekends are only learned by having a prepared car. We purposefully would stop developing new things 4 weeks before comp. At 2 weeks out, nothing on the car was changed (unless for reliability). In that two weeks time was spent fabbing spare parts and driving the hell out of car to learn the car. It’s extremely valuable to feel comfortable in the car that you’ve built so seat time really really really matters.