Reasoning Behind the Purse Split

We get a lot of questions and comments about the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE purse split, so I thought I would review briefly the history and rationale.

The original Draft Guidelines specified that the purse would be split 3:1 respectively between the Mainstream and Alternative Classes. This split did not reflect any judgment on our part regarding the likely relative importance of the two classes with respect to energy and transportation issues.   Some believe that Alternative Class vehicles will be more important than high-efficiency Mainstream vehicles, and that may turn out to be correct.

Regardless, the purse split did not reflect importance – it reflected engineering difficulty, in that the 100 MPGe goal is considerably harder to achieve for Mainstream class vehicles.  Indeed, we were criticized by some who argued that 100 MPGe is too hard for the Mainstream Class, and that we were in effect guaranteeing that only Alternative Class vehicles would win (thereby providing little incentive for Mainstream entrants).   Our imperfect but chosen solution was to offer a greater reward for the more-difficult challenge. 

When we decided to allow tandem-seating in the Alternative Class, we faced a similar issue – criticism that accepting both tandem- and single-seat vehicles would guarantee that a side-by-side vehicle would not win in the Alternative Class, since it’s considerably easier to build a fast, 100 MPGe vehicle that doesn’t require side-by-side seating.   Our (again, imperfect) compromise was to propose splitting the Alternative Class purse in proportion to the relative number of side-by-side vs. tandem vehicles.  We did so in the Guidelines Revision Topics document, as follows:

Tandem and single seating.  Issue: Given that this is the Alternative class, it should permit tandem seating and also single-seat vehicles.  Probable Change.  Our original concern was that tandem- and single-seat vehicles would have too much of an advantage, but we agree that they should be permitted.  Thus, the probable change is to relax constraint on number of seats to one seat and not to constrain the seating arrangement.  All vehicles must have automatic, dynamic and static stability (i.e., so that balance while moving or stopped/parked does not depend on the driver).  However, we would have two Divisions of the Alternative class – side-by-side seating vs. everything else (tandem, single).   There would be a winner in each Division with the Alternative class purse split between the Divisions in proportion to the number of vehicles in each Division (still under consideration).

Many criticized this proposed split as particularly imperfect for a variety of reasons – for one thing, teams reasonably want to know in advance what the purse will be; for another, a population-based split could result in an unreasonably low, unattractive purse. These were good points, so in the end we decided to keep things simple by reducing the ratio of the Mainsteam:Alternative purses, and dividing the Alternative Class purse equally between the winning side-by-side and tandem seating vehicles. Here’s what we said in the “What’s New” Section of the current Guidelines:

· The $10M purse will no longer be split 3:1 between the Mainstream and Alternative Classes. Instead, half of the $10M purse will be awarded to the Mainstream Class winner. The remaining $5M will be split between two winners in the Alternative Class – one vehicle with side-by-side seating, and one vehicle with tandem seating. .

There really isn’t a “right” answer – any purse allocation will seem unfair from certain viewpoints. We listened to a lot of feedback, and we think the current split is reasonable. Regardless, we believe strongly that the value of the competition is the publicity, not the purse.   And we are working hard to deliver that value. 

Comments

[Mike Keesler]

I guess that leaves all of us that can actually build a 100 mpg car to just show up with it when the competition commences. We can't win the prize, but maybe we can garner some attention with one that does everything they want and still fits the mainstream model.