In 1996, mechanical engineering student Ben Wong recognized that UC Davis was without a Formula SAE team, while numerous other engineering schools were already competing in the FSAE student design project. Wong initiated the first official UC Davis FSAE meeting by gathering a large group of fellow engineering students who shared the common interest of automobiles and racing. Wong and fellow students secured lab space and obtained funding to purchase a Honda CBR F2 600cc motorcycle engine (which is still used in the 2000-2001 FSAE racecar!). Fueled by a strong desire to field a successful entry in the FSAE competition, Wong led the members into design and research with minimal funding and tooling. Wong, as well as fellow Mechanical Engineering major, Paul Ko, headed the 1997-1998 team with designated groups researching possible designs based on website information on actual formula style racecars and competing schools. Both Ko and Wong worked on designing and electronic solenoid shifting system. Actual prototypes of engine mounts, suspension and chassis designs were prototyped using a variety of inexpensive materials. Although no actual car was produced for the 1997-1998 competition year, a strong foundation of design requirements was built for the following year.

Ben Wong moved along in his career, while Paul Ko led the 1998-1999 FSAE team, consisting of 7 people. Construction of the first UC Davis FSAE chassis commenced, utilizing 1018 mild steel that was welded with a wire feed welder. The chassis was designed using simple load calculations and very little use of CAD software. The chassis featured a lowered driver section for a lower center of gravity, and a modular rear end which housed the differential and suspension components. A custom muffler was designed using Bond Graph modeling and built in UC Davis' machine shop facility. The muffler was designed for maximum horsepower over the power band of the Honda F2 engine, as well as acoustic analysis for to ensure it met competition noise requirements. A SDS engine management system was utilized for fuel and ignition control. The UCD FSAE team placed 78th in their first year of competition.

With a taste of what was required to be competitive in the FSAE competition, team leaders Tommy Lo and Sean Steiper, both mechanical engineering majors, led the new 1999-2000 UC Davis FSAE team. Both Steiper and Lo created a set of design and driving goals to improve reliability and drivability of the car, reduce overall vehicle weight, and finish within the top third of the field at competition. Lo and Steiper set forth a common language among team members, with everyone unifying designs of a completely new chassis with a well known 3-D CAD software package, AutoCAD 2000. Stress analysis programs were also utilized in the development of the second FSAE chassis. The new chassis and suspension arms were of TIG-welded chromoly construction. Custom fixtures were created for the chassis welding process, ultimately assisting in minimizing the tolerances among the chro-moly chassis pieces. Both chassis and pull-rod suspension units were modeled and tested for static loading, as well as dynamic simulations during turns, acceleration and braking using MATLAB. The entire design/fabrication process resulted in a chassis almost seventy pounds lighter than the previous year. The improved vehicle enabled UCD team to reach a very respectable 38th place among other schools in the competition that year.

With the intentions of raising the standard for the UCD FSAE team, John Hu led the 2000-2001 team. New and continuing members set forth to enhance the 1999-2000 chassis by refining suspension geometries & components as well as other key features. A new intake system was incorporated, as well as the incorporation of better driving comfort items like a custom-molded seat. The revised rear drive-train geometry provided a more efficient method of transferring engine power to the drive wheels. Aesthetic enhancements included an completely new carbon-fiber body shell and side-pods. The already proven chassis indeed diplayed improved drivability and performance, unfortunately the team finished 79th among the competition due to some reliability issues.

The 2001-2002 competition year was full of change. Ian Green took over leadership duties, and a number of new members joined the team to form what was the largest UCD FSAE team to date. The competition rules prohibit teams from entering the same vehicle (chassis) more than twice, so a new chassis had to be designed and fabricated. Green began suspension design in the summer of 2001 to ensure there would be time to finish the car that year. The new design featured unequal length A-arms front and rear, and pushrod suspension. A wide center section was incorporated to improve torsional stiffness of the chassis, and triangulation was optimized using stress analysis software. A gearbox was built for the rear drivetrain to allow the differential to rotate in a conventional manner (without a housing rotating with it) and to provide better lubrication, a 2.67:1 gear reduction, and inboard disc brake mounts. The team explored casting for the first time, building the patterns to have the gearbox case and suspension uprights cast. A custom intake was also designed using Bond Graph modeling in an effort to tune for low-end torque. Reliability was the theme for the year, with the reliability issues of the previous year in mind. "We won't break!" was the motto, and the team held true to it. Though the team did not have time to test the car before competition, a 31st place finish in the autocross and 23rd place finish in the endurance event proved that the car was reliable and handled quite well. The team placed 36th overall out of 125 entrants in the competition - UCD's best finish yet!

Mario Andretti said that "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough". If that is the case, the 2008 build was full speed from day one.

Our team set ambitious goals like pneumatic shifting, custom lightweight wheels, full bodywork and a carbon fiber intake manifold. Designs began in the summer of 2006 and by September the majority of the chassis had been fabricated. For the next 8 months production and design moved along side-by-side at a rapid pace. By June 2007 most of the major design work was completed and the team prepared to spend the summer building the car. Unfortunately, unforeseen changes in University policy at the end of the 2007 academic year resulted in the team losing access to our work area for most of summer. When we returned in fall we also faced dramatically reduced access. Not wanting to give up any of the projects we had spent the previous year developing, the team decided to press on with the original design despite the truncated timeline.

The next 9 months were a blur with team members milling, turning, sanding, welding and grinding what ever they could when they weren't in class or doing homework. When we had to leave the shop at night or on weekends, we often went home and worked on parts of the car in our living rooms and garages. Through sheer tenacity we managed to build the car that we wanted to build, but it came at a price. With no time left to work out the bugs we loaded the car into the trailer and headed to competition without ever hearing the motor run. Weary driving all night we arrived in Fontana, CA and after checking in we went right back to work. After struggling to start the car with our untested ECU we decided to re-wire the car with the tried and (most of the time) true Performance Electronic package from our 2006 car. Working through the night at the home of a local friend, we managed to re-wire the entire car. In the early morning hours, with a cough and a sputter the engine roared to life. We began the second day with a renewed sense of confidence, but knowing we still had our work cut out for us. Most of the day was spent doing static presentations and making the minor changes needed to pass static tech inspection, both of which went relatively smoothly. On day three we planned to finish up tech inspection and begin competing in the dynamic events. However, at the noise inspection booth our car was found to be 10dbs over the 110db limit. We spent the morning attaching a secondary muffler. On the retest the meter read 106db.

The last stage of tech inspection was the brake test. All teams are required to demonstrate that their brakes are functioning by accelerating in a straight line then locking all four wheels. Our driver made several attempts, often locking three wheels but failing to lock the fourth. On the fifth attempt under hard breaking the screech of the tires was interrupted by a loud snap. The team members on course ran to see what went wrong, only to find the left driveshaft was broken and oozing grease. With no replacement part and no time to find one, we decided that it was finally time to call in a day.