This year's competition was the best so far. We had twenty teams from schools in three states register to compete. Once again we received news coverage on all three networks and two schools had newspaper articles written about their teams.

This year also saw some of the most advanced designs yet. Several teams built vehicles that incorporated indirect drive systems and most of those held up and completed the course. Some teams went with beltdrives to reduce weight, while other teams chose the heavier, but more predictable chain drive. Both systems performed well, but neither captured first place. The main challenge with incorporating the belt drive was designing the vehicle so that enough tension stayed on the belt.

Weight bonuses played a key role in this year's event. Team “Phat Boy Racing” from North Idaho College took first place in vehicle performance with a simple and very light wheelchair design. I was a bit surprised to see this type of design finish on top, but this is the third year in a row that a wheelchair has taken home awards in vehicle performance. What they lack in speed they make up for in predictability, stability, simplicity and low weight.

Team “Phat Boy Racing”

On the other end of the scale was team “Paper Back Rider” from Portland State University. Their pulp bicycle design was a true innovation. Not only did it perform very well, it looked good too. I should point out that this vehicle was not made with paper-mâché. It was formed from dried paper pulp.

Team “Paper Back Rider”

Penalty points were another important factor in determining this year's performance winners. Teams recieved penalties for pylon hits, floor contacts, and assisted stops. With the actual race times being very close for the top few teams, the penalty points had a major effect on the final outcome.

Overall I was very pleased with this year's event and I believe that, for the most part, a good time was had by all. Each year additional schools and their faculty become involved with this event and I have been told repeatedly that this event makes an excellent tool for demonstrating real world application of engineering principles. As a practicing engineer, I believe that this offers a safe environment for students to learn the difference between concept and creation. I am going to add one of my favorite qoutes here.

In theory

Theory and practice are the same

In practice

They're not

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, Portland State University, University of Idaho, North Idaho College, Big Bend Community College, 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