This year's competition was a great success. We more than doubled the number of teams that competed last year. We got local news coverage on three major networks and the Spokesman Review wrote an article about the competition that ran on the front page of the Sunday Regional section. The number and types of awards were also increased this year to include categories for innovative design and team spirit. All the competitors learned some valuable lessons about the difference between engineering theory and practice. Several of these individuals will be returning next year to put those lessons to use.

This year we saw the first attempts at incorporating indirect drive mechanisms into vehicle design. None of these systems survived the course, but at least one had the potential to have set a course record. The belt driven tricycle built by Team Anonymous completed more than 2/3 of the course in record time before failing at the ramp.

1998 Winners: Team “Big Wheel”

Many of the teams used UHMW polyethylene for reducing friction at axles and steering columns. Although this material worked very well for this purpose, some teams committed too much of their non-paper weight to its use. The main problem becomes one of value added to performance. While the UHMWPE made turning shafts easier, it did not necessarily add to the overall vehicle performance. In all the cases this year, the riders had the strength needed to overcome friction and accelerate the vehicle to its top speed. While the rate of acceleration may be somewhat faster by use of the UHMWPE, it did not add to the top speed. So the question becomes one of, was the UHMWPE the best use of non-paper weight? Or it maybe more appropriate to ask if the weight of the UHMWPE was kept to the minimum needed to enhance the acceleration. In some vehicles this year it was not. Teams used large blocks of the stuff bored for the axle and fixed into the body of their vehicle.

On overall vehicle design the phrase keep it simple has paid off for the winning teams. We were all suprised to see a wheel-chair design take second place in the performance portion of the competition. It turned out to be a case of the tortoise and the hare. While the wheelchair was slower than most, it also had fewer penalties. Any of three teams could easily have taken second place and it was the number of penalties that decided the winner. In project presentation the glory went to the teams with flash. The first place team incorporated video footage of their build process as well as using Powerpoint and part mockups.

Team “Anonymous with their indirect drive tricycle.”

I would like to thank all the students and faculty who made this year's competition such a great one. I also want to mention all the schools that sent teams:
Eastern Washington University, Spokane Community College and Spokane Falls Community College.

If you are a student or faculty member and are looking into this competition for the first time, I hope you will consider joining us in the year 2000. For those of you who participated in our competition, I look forward to seeing you and your new designs.

Once again, thanks to all.
Sincerely
Keith Turpin