World Solar Challenge Cruiser Scores

The chart above (click to zoom) shows scoring for Cruiser class cars arriving at Adelaide, in a modified version of my “tuning fork” style. The score is calculated as a product S = D × H × (1 / E) × 0.99l. The chart shows the components of the score on a logarithmic scale, so that multiplying and dividing score components corresponds to adding and subtracting bars. For each team, there are 6 bars (the 6th bar, in a darker colour, is the total score):

  1. The distance travelled in km (D). Teams completing the entire course score ahead of others.
  2. The weighted average number of humans (H) in the car (so that the product D×H is the number of person-kilometres). A small tick mark above the bar shows the number of seats in the car, which is the maximum possible value of H for that team.
  3. The nominal external energy usage (E) in kWh (initial battery capacity, plus metered charging along the way). This bar is negative, because we are dividing by E.
  4. The fourth place, labelled P, is reserved for the incorporation of practicality in the final score.
  5. The lateness factor (0.99l), where l is the number of minutes of late arrival, plus the number of demerit points.
  6. The total score (S). The score itself is shown over the bar. It can be seen by inspection that this bar is the sum of the others.

Well done, Eindhoven!

Update 1: I note that Sunswift’s car has been modified to have 2 seats, rather than 4.

Update 2: See here for an updated chart.


Advertisement

11 thoughts on “World Solar Challenge Cruiser Scores

    • a) The Cruiser Class is divided into 3 stages of around 1000 km each.

      b) Yes, PersonKm doubles if you are with 2 people in the car (it is the combination of my first two bars).

      c) External Kwh is initial battery capacity, plus metered charging along the way

      d) Lateness in minutes is in the pdf.

      e) What the pdf calls “efficiency,” I call “score.” Of course, practicality must still be included.

      f) An error in my diagram has been fixed.

  1. What a shame that your second bar cannot be scored by seating capacity filled rather than fractions of people. If that were the case we might have the correct winner in the class.
    Still, a great achievement though for all of the teams who completed the challenge whether on time or a little late.
    Perhaps next time.

    • Well, my rather foolish comment shows what can happen when you spend your nights watching solar car racing. I had somehow convinced myself that Violet was a 2 seat car. So, clearly EHV did use the most seating capacity also and are worthy winners.

  2. Pingback: My Personal WSC Gem Awards Part 2 | Scientific Gems

  3. Well done, Bochum! They really had the chance to win, charging only 37,26 kWh for the whole distance. Sadly, they missed the time window for Coober Pedy and had to trailer 30 km for charging. Bochum trailered their sunriser back to the point where started trailering the day before. The last stage from Coober Pedy to Adelaide has not been counted, although they finished it within the time limit. I wonder if they missed the time window in Coober Pedy by tactical mistake or technical inability?

  4. Hi Dietrich

    I’m afraid that you are not quite interpreting that correctly. The 37.26kWh was the energy they nominally used on the first stage of the journey to Tennant Creek, ie the size of their battery. That was in fact by far the biggest battery in the top 6 so with the rules as they were they only really had a chance to win if it allowed them to complete the stages and no-one else could.

    I’m not surprised though that people find it hard to decipher the dogs dinner that is the WSC scoring tables. If there is one thing that really lets this excellent event down it is the way that they handle, display and publish data. The only consistency there is the number of fundamental errors that they make.

    Interesting to see that UNSW must have also considerably increased the size of their battery.

    • Hi Nigel,
      I saw, what I wanted to see.
      Indeed, the WSC could be a lot more exciting, if the officials would invest in more transparency. Press work seems to be improved this time, transparency not. They weigh each car. However, it needs Tony’s research to create a statistic. The size of the battery should not be a secret. Penalties are still mystical as well.

      • I was particularly disappointed also that Bochum did not do better, I thought that this might be their year to win and that the larger battery was a good plan. It’s a shame that we do not really know what happened from Kulgera onwards for them.

        ASC manage to publish all of the relevant data as they go along, it really isn’t difficult. To be honest, with the amount of mistakes that WSC make in the published data it’s hard to know whether we can trust the figures to be correct.
        For instance the final Cruiser scores have been calculated using the formula for the Challenger class.

  5. Pingback: My Personal WSC Gem Awards Part 2 | Scientific Gems

  6. Pingback: World Solar Challenge Cruiser Scores Revisited | Scientific Gems

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.