Official Baja SAE Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > Design Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What makes a good design report?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

What makes a good design report?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
jeiB View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Jul/17/2009
Location: Montreal
Status: Offline
Points: 604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jeiB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What makes a good design report?
    Posted: Feb/28/2011 at 9:46pm
Hey guys,

After 4 years on Baja, I still do not know the answer to this question. The feedback is pretty nonexistent (except in Montreal 2008, only one I can remember).

For example, we have a report from 2007 that got 49/50 in South Dakota and 45/75 in RIT. Another report got 41/50 in Illinois and 57/75 in Montreal (that was 2008). The reports were the same. So it's hard to pinpoint any good points about a design report.

So, I wanted to ask what are some of your tips and tricks that you know work for the design report.

Do the judges want:
  • more pictures?
  • more numbers?
  • more testing?
  • more comparison?
I'm guessing its a little of each and you have to find the right balance that fit on 10 pages.

Thanks guys
Jeremie B.
McGill Baja Racing
2009-2011 Captain
minibaja.mcgill.ca
Back to Top
CLReedy21 View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Nov/30/2008
Location: Marysville, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CLReedy21 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/28/2011 at 9:49pm
Short answer: it depends.

Longer answer: Write a report that is well balanced and covers everything from engineering basics all the way through advanced FEA and VD and you should be covered.
-Chris Reedy
TTU Alumni
Fourwheeler Drawer



"Quick with the hammer, slow with the brain."
Back to Top
collinskl1 View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Jan/21/2009
Location: Saginaw, MI
Status: Offline
Points: 1056
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote collinskl1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/28/2011 at 10:36pm
The judges like to see the "why's" behind your design... it isn't a sales or marketing document.  In talking with judges in the past they like to see pictures, numbers, FEA, etc. but they really thrive on validation of that analysis and testing.  You can do all the FEA in the world, but if your models aren't accurate who cares?  (yes this is hard to prove in a report rather than at the comp. when you are talking to the judge face to face) 
 
Formatting is a big one too... if it isn't easy to read or nice to look at they won't spend as much time on it. 
 
Outside of those fairly high level things, I was always in the same boat as you, wondering what they wanted. 
Kyle Collins
Lipscomb University Alumni
2x Project Manager

Nexteer Automotive
Product Engineer, Electronic Power Steering

... and the 8th simple machine: a bigger hammer.
Back to Top
tp View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master
Avatar

Joined: Mar/31/2009
Location: Corvallis, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 348
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/28/2011 at 11:08pm
Originally posted by collinskl1 collinskl1 wrote:

 Outside of those fairly high level things, I was always in the same boat as you, wondering what they wanted. 


I think a lot of that is going to depend on who is reading it.
-Tom

Oregon State BajaSAE Team Captain
Back to Top
RonGeorge View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master


Joined: Apr/17/2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RonGeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 3:45am
If I were a judge, I'd want to see safety and practicality behind designs. Nearly all machines have some potential disaster lurking in the background ready to pounce. The best protection is a large margin of safety.

The way I see it, the Design Report is not written a week before its due. It is an ongoing documentation of your work with topics like what's the engineering problem, what's your solution, what alternatives did you explore, what assumptions did you make in coming up with solutions, what potential failures did you see, did your insurance policies work? Always check up.

Learning to write technically helps. Use good engineering words and logical sentences. I have read reports from supposedly great designers that contained nothing but mambo jumbo and needless sensational publicity. Those went into my trash can.

Edited by RonGeorge - Mar/01/2011 at 3:46am
-Ron George
Systems Engineer (Cummins Turbo)
Back to Top
Rob71zilla View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master
Avatar

Joined: Feb/09/2009
Location: Utica, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 324
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rob71zilla Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 9:19am
^ Anyone can "engineer" something that has a large margin of safety and won't break...we call them farmers.  I don't think a large margin of safety is always good engineering and you would be penalized to bring this point up in a design report.
 
With that being said, my team never did very well in design.....
Robbie
Former Team Captain
SUNY Institute of Technology
Current Engineer for Remington Arms

A Redline a day keeps the carbon away.
Back to Top
RonGeorge View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master


Joined: Apr/17/2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RonGeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 11:37am
You're right. Depends what the part is and you have to use judgement. FOS of min 2.0 is necessary in general. I'm sure you wouldn't be penalized for using judgment.

But I also think doing extended static analysis misses the point and I will try to stray away from that. A lot of the parts fail by fatigue and not most of us can spend time or have the resources for fatigue analysis. Extended testing can yield that data to those who don't have the computer resources. For example, you can run the car everyday for 4 hours, for a straight month and you could get to high cycle fatigue regime in your rotating parts. I think showing that you did some kind of testing in real world conditions will always stand out in a Design Report.


-Ron George
Systems Engineer (Cummins Turbo)
Back to Top
ErikHardy View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Apr/12/2010
Location: Hood, Flint, MI
Status: Offline
Points: 939
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ErikHardy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by RonGeorge RonGeorge wrote:


The way I see it, the Design Report is not written a week before its due. It is an ongoing documentation of your work with topics like what's the engineering problem, what's your solution, what alternatives did you explore, what assumptions did you make in coming up with solutions, what potential failures did you see, did your insurance policies work? Always check up. 
 
I think this is the first time I've fully agreed with you on somethingHug 
Back to Top
tp View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master
Avatar

Joined: Mar/31/2009
Location: Corvallis, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 348
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by RonGeorge RonGeorge wrote:

Learning to write technically helps. Use good engineering words and logical sentences. I have read reports from supposedly great designers that contained nothing but mambo jumbo and needless sensational publicity. Those went into my trash can.


While you have to follow their format, but just putting some smart words on a page doesn't make for a successful report. In fact, this can sometimes make you look like more of an idiot.

That said, the biggest thing that I aim for in our design reports is not only saying why we did something but being able to justify why we did it. For example, it doesn't work to just say you designed something to have a factor of safety of 2. You have to look at the part and justify why a FOS of 2 will fly or not. Might be fine for a brake pedal, but probably won't work for a front knuckle.

Taking it a step further, for something like suspension, you have to justify why you decided to stick to the parameters you chose. Why is that going to work better than everyone elses? And how did this affect everything else? And after the suspension was fabricated, did the kinematics really turn out how they were supposed to?

I could ramble on and on, but think of a design report as the little kid that keeps asking "why?", even after you explain it to them.
-Tom

Oregon State BajaSAE Team Captain
Back to Top
jeiB View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Jul/17/2009
Location: Montreal
Status: Offline
Points: 604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jeiB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by RonGeorge RonGeorge wrote:


The way I see it, the Design Report is not written a week before its due. It is an ongoing documentation of your work with topics like what's the engineering problem.


Thats actually what I tried to implement in our team this year: DOCUMENTATION. It is hard, even for me but its definitely worth it because when it comes to writing the design report, I can just dig up my reasoning from there.

The problem that I have is why a design report can do well at one competition and sh*tty at another. You would think that if you got a good score then that means you explained your design process well but then you get a bad score at another comp.

I'm sure SAE is trying to streamline it like they did for design presentations.

That is why I'm starting relatively early to try and improve our score.

Thanks for the responses
Jeremie B.
McGill Baja Racing
2009-2011 Captain
minibaja.mcgill.ca
Back to Top
Akron 1998 to 2004 View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master
Avatar
Thread Hijack Champion

Joined: Jan/20/2011
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akron 1998 to 2004 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 7:00pm

Never got a good design report score. NEVER! You think we would have gotten lucky once in 6 years, but nope.  We just kept adding more and more to the appendixes in hopes that we covered it all.  By 2003 it resembled a dictionary. In 2004 I had enough and turned in a 20 page report with 5 pages of appendix.  Got nearly the same score.

 
We just assumed the judges hated our design or held us to a higher standard because we won too much. In 1999 our report got stolen, the team that took our report got a nearly perfect design report score the next year (We know who did it because they had the balls to brag about it to us.).  We considered it as playing with a handicap of 40 points in order to level the playing field before the dynamic events started.

 

Static judging also blows.  We would get a poor static judging of our suspension then win maneuverability.  We felt like protesting that crap and demanding they adjust our static suspension score based on our dynamic maneuverability win. 

Back to Top
RonGeorge View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master


Joined: Apr/17/2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RonGeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 7:28pm
All I can say is don't lose hope. There's a fine line between documenting and putting someone off.
I came in as a newcomer to Baja last year and wrote the design report for my team. It was 19th in South Carolina. ALWAYS, almost always run your design report by another experienced set of eyes before casting it off to SAE. The paper has to be peer reviewed by your team and your faculty advisor. If you don't trust them, take it to the writing center at your college and see what they say about it.

Edited by RonGeorge - Mar/01/2011 at 7:29pm
-Ron George
Systems Engineer (Cummins Turbo)
Back to Top
CLReedy21 View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Nov/30/2008
Location: Marysville, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CLReedy21 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 8:18pm
The biggest problem with the design report is the overall inconsistency.  Save for the section on flotation and water propulsion our 2010 reports were nearly identical between SC and Rochester.  We were 16th at SC with 68.33 and 4th at Rochester with a 71 competing with nearly the same field.

I wrote both those reports and I wrote this years report and my advice would be to cover as much as you can with the minimal amount of explanation.  Try to include details where possible but focus more on how your car works together as a total.  Explain why everything on you car was designed with the overall goal in mind and how everything works together.  Also cover all your engineering bases.  Throw in some hand calcs in an appendix and a few graphs for suspension parameters.  Use figures to convey the information wherever possible.  Don't forget a list of symbols and try to reference some meaningful publications.  Explain what goal you designed toward but gloss over the intimate details of how you got there.

When you're limited to 10 pages you should probably be spending a day just working back through the report to find instances where you can use shorter words or phrases to convey the same information that way you can cram some more in.  I know when I read a design report other than my own it usually takes me an hour to make it through the whole thing just because of the sheer information overload. 
-Chris Reedy
TTU Alumni
Fourwheeler Drawer



"Quick with the hammer, slow with the brain."
Back to Top
ehunt View Drop Down
Milling Master
Milling Master
Avatar

Joined: Nov/17/2008
Location: Cornell
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ehunt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/01/2011 at 11:56pm
Originally posted by Akron 1998 to 2004 Akron 1998 to 2004 wrote:

Static judging also blows.  We would get a poor static judging of our suspension then win maneuverability.  We felt like protesting that crap and demanding they adjust our static suspension score based on our dynamic maneuverability win. 


We felt the same way one year when we got a poor score for serviceability and then during impound we had our CVT off, checked and back on, while a team that got a better score was still trying to get the shock off to be able to take the CVT off.

One of the things we learned from that is how key presentation is, whether in the static judging or the report. Every time we get a nugget of feedback we incorporate that into the design report and our reports have been ever evolving and building on each other since starting in 2005. Having our design reports from previous years is immensely helpful in writing the next report.

Carolina: 57/75
Rochester: 72/75

Alabama: 67.6/75
Oregon: 44.1/50
Wisconsin: 67/75

It appears that we have some consistency in score and the main variation comes down to comparison to other teams. Looking at the spread there is a couple point (or fraction of points) difference between each team moving down the list. I imagine there must not be much difference between quality of reports between teams that are .27 pts apart but SAE has their system to assign points by rank so that is how it plays out. If everyone wrote stellar reports I'm not sure what would happen to the system, would there still be as much of a point spread?

Still most of the points are won out on the track.


Eric Hunt
Cornell Baja
08-09 Team Captain


Its not your aptitude but you attitude that determines your altitude.
Back to Top
RonGeorge View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master


Joined: Apr/17/2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RonGeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2011 at 4:08pm
@jeib : You're on the right track with documentation. It's also pretty vital when practicing in industry, for more purposes than just for the act of documenting. Imagine you're the chief engineer for Transocean and you're leading a team to build the Deepwater Horizon. When the sh*t hit the ceiling, and the whole world was watching a catastrophe on TV, where will you go scrambling for all the documented events that happened during the project period in order to safeguard your reputation?

Another point I have to make is that without overly filling up the references section, cite bold claims. Otherwise, it is just nonsense. An example below. The snippet is from a Design Report of School X written 2 years back.

Quote

"COMPONENT DESIGN AND STRENGTH

Solid Modeling and Analysis

The vehicle was completely modeled in SolidWorks and analyzed using CosmosWorks. A complete vehicle assembly was created in SolidWorks. This complete assembly included the chassis, suspension, steering linkages, brakes, wheels and drive train. SolidWorks was used to simulate the suspension cycling from full droop to full bump. Using this software allows us to check for component clearances, toe and camber curves, as well as Constant Velocity (CV) joint plunge.
CosmosWorks was used to execute the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) on the chassis as well as the suspension components. CosmosWorks analysis provided values of maximum stress and deflections that occur under any given loading condition. FEA was used as means to check hand calculations made on the components. It is critical that hand calculations are made because of the high error software packages are known to yield. These design techniques were used to assist in verifying the design’s strengths and make material selections. "


I'm not vouching for any software packages, or saying that the statements in bold are true or untrue. But when I read the report, I stop here, and tell myself - wow, it'd sure be nice to know where the author of the report gleaned this particular bit of information - that the rate of errors are high in FEA software. Furthermore, what gives them the right to feel that the "hand calculations" are trustworthy? In this particular report, there were no attachments with the calculations.

Bottomline, if you can't back up claims like this, don't bother wasting design report space for conjecture.


Edited by RonGeorge - Mar/02/2011 at 4:10pm
-Ron George
Systems Engineer (Cummins Turbo)
Back to Top
ErikHardy View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Apr/12/2010
Location: Hood, Flint, MI
Status: Offline
Points: 939
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ErikHardy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/02/2011 at 4:27pm
Its typically the user who makes the mistake in fea not the program. A few hand calculations should be done to compare magnitudes, not precise numbers.
Back to Top
p.lewis View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master
Avatar

Joined: Oct/05/2009
Location: Greater Detroit
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote p.lewis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/03/2011 at 1:36pm
Originally posted by ErikHardy ErikHardy wrote:

Its typically the user who makes the mistake in fea not the program. A few hand calculations should be done to compare magnitudes, not precise numbers.
 
I agree with this interpretation of the report Ron quoted. I think it is well known that "garbage in = garbage out" for all computer aided engineering situations. That's what the author was trying to say, though he should have reworded it to be more clear.
Back to Top
RonGeorge View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master


Joined: Apr/17/2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RonGeorge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Mar/07/2011 at 11:55am
If garbage in equals garbage out, who put the garbage there in the first place? Smile It could be the programmer, or it could the mainstream user who is an engineer. I think error always originates from a human being who is subject to a wide array of experiences and emotions and is pretty much the hardest machine to manage. To say that hand calculations are more accurate than a computer is missing the point. Afterall, what will the engineer do other than feeding his assumptions and conditions onto a computer for a final verification? Nvm, it was just a case for illustration.
-Ron George
Systems Engineer (Cummins Turbo)
Back to Top
jeiB View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Jul/17/2009
Location: Montreal
Status: Offline
Points: 604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jeiB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/02/2011 at 4:15pm
Well, we got a 5th place finish in design report. Thanks for the help guys, really helped Smile
Jeremie B.
McGill Baja Racing
2009-2011 Captain
minibaja.mcgill.ca
Back to Top
CLReedy21 View Drop Down
Baja Godfather
Baja Godfather
Avatar

Joined: Nov/30/2008
Location: Marysville, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CLReedy21 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/02/2011 at 10:18pm
Haha I just checked and I'm glad I didn't help more since you came in .8 points behind us!  Good job guys, you beat some real heavy hitters on the report.
-Chris Reedy
TTU Alumni
Fourwheeler Drawer



"Quick with the hammer, slow with the brain."
Back to Top
akron 2001 View Drop Down
Bolt Sorter
Bolt Sorter
Avatar

Joined: Nov/09/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote akron 2001 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/09/2011 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by Akron 1998 to 2004 Akron 1998 to 2004 wrote:

Never got a good design report score. NEVER! You think we would have gotten lucky once in 6 years, but nope.  We just kept adding more and more to the appendixes in hopes that we covered it all.  By 2003 it resembled a dictionary. In 2004 I had enough and turned in a 20 page report with 5 pages of appendix.  Got nearly the same score.

 
 
 
 
Akron scored a perfect 150 in 2001 at Midwest.
 
http://students.sae.org/competitions/bajasae/results/2001-mid.htm
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Akron 1998 to 2004 View Drop Down
Welding Master
Welding Master
Avatar
Thread Hijack Champion

Joined: Jan/20/2011
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akron 1998 to 2004 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/09/2011 at 5:57pm
Originally posted by akron 2001 akron 2001 wrote:

Originally posted by Akron 1998 to 2004 Akron 1998 to 2004 wrote:

Never got a good design report score. NEVER!  

 
Akron scored a perfect 150 in 2001 at Midwest.
 
 

Surprised its taken this long for one of you guys to comment. 

 

You’re right about the 2001 design report winning at Dayton, OH.  Of course that gift from heaven got obliterated by 36th placing in the overall Static Design presentations.  I’m sure you still have fond memories about how the design report you worked on clinched us 1st overall, lucky *$@!&*$#.  Oh wait; I wrote at least part of that awesome report, the perfect score was well deserved.  CONGRATULATIONS to all that were involved! 

 

The years of sub-par Report & Static Design scores blend together in my brain like a crap flavored smoothie but I guess I should have fact checked that before saying we NEVER……..  It’s the inconsistencies with how they are scored which I really have issue with (ok; I have many issues).  In my mind a report that got a perfect score in 2001 Dayton, OH should also get a near perfect score at the 2003 Dayton, OH competition.  But what I can only speculate was NEARLY THE EXACT SAME DESIGN REPORT got a 78% in 2003 at Dayton, OH (might have been the same judges).

 

That and 35 cents will get you a very bad cup of coffee.

Back to Top
JeremyB View Drop Down
Organizer
Organizer
Avatar
Last one standing

Joined: Oct/13/2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JeremyB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/16/2012 at 6:06pm
Meant to write something earlier, but better late than never. Although it's a lot fuzzier than it was 3 months ago.
 
I wasn't a design judge at the Auburn event, but my girlfriend was. I read the reports assigned to her and was surprised at the wide in quality of reports. I remember receiving design judging scores back in the early 2000s when I did Minibaja and it seemed like the scores were a random drawing. Seeing it from the other side, I don't think that's the case (at least not at the Auburn event).
 
The big thing they were looking for at Auburn is a set of requirements/goals and HOW you met or tried to meet those goals in your design. WHY did you chose to do what you did? A report that goes through and simply explains the various subsystems with no reasoning to why the subsystems were designed as such isn't going to get a good score.
 
Design verification is also important. If you decided on you wanted XXX ft-lb of torsional rigidity and designed the frame for XXX in an FEA program... did you test the finished product to determine if it actually met your goal? Does the stress analysis for your control arms match up?
 
If your design doesn't match your test results, it's not a problem, but you need to address why. Shrugging your shoulders isn't acceptable.
 
I saw a lot of reports with no reasoning for the WHY of the design...
 
Paraphrased example: Team Crashalot's drivetrain consists of a gaged CVT paired with a gearbox and single reduction charin drive with a total of 9:1 reduction. The 9:1 reduction was chosen as it is the best compromise between top speed and ability to climb hills.
[This is actually pretty close to one of the design reports I read]
 
Questions I have from reading this:
Why did the team choose a CVT instead of a shiftable gearbox?
Why did the team choose a Gaged CVT? (and "it's the lightest" isn't a sufficient answer)
Why the gearbox/chain combo?
Why the 9:1 reduction? (The given justification is terribly vague)
 
Some other examples of poor reporting:
 
A team claimed their body panels made from Kevlar were cheap because it was donated from the Materials lab
Report using large chunks of the rules as requirements fodder for 2 entire pages
Team that had a Factor of Safety of 0.86 on a part, but insisting it was okay because it worked last year
Claiming a machined gearbox could easily be cast for actual production vehicle run to save cost. (Making a casting isn't as easy as a simple material substitution)
Illustrations that aren't adequately explained or add to the narrative
 
Good reports use selection matrixes, test data, analysis, and engineering reasoning to make choices.
 
Some examples of good reporting:
Team found via FEA that a set of frame tubes added substantial rigidity, but increased weight. They welded those tubes into an old car (with a similar frame/setup) and tested it. Found that they couldn't feel any difference and didn't make it any faster so they didn't use the bars.
Team using selection matrix on why they chose XYZ part.
Using test data from old cars to use for new design [New car isn't always finished to verify your design intent by the time the report is due]
Team took thermal data on part XYZ and designed cooling system that showed XX% increase in power on dyno stand
Team went to motocross track and made spring/damping changes to find effects on jump attitude.
Team experimented with CVT weight/spring combos to tune for acceleration/hill climb/etc and selected a combo that was an educated compromise
 
That's all I got!


Edited by JeremyB - Jul/16/2012 at 6:08pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.