Visa resultat

Introduction to Automotive Engineering 2008, TME120 and MPP102

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

45 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		8		17%
Around 20 hours/week»		20		44%
Around 25 hours/week»		11		24%
Around 30 hours/week»		5		11%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

- Assignments were more like a extra task without giving any further knowledge or interest to the subject.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- The assignments demand too much work. » (Around 25 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

45 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		2%
50%»		8		17%
75%»		16		35%
100%»		20		44%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

- Due to collisions» (50%)
- Mycket bra med föreläsare som kommer från industrin. kul med verkliga "upp to date" exempel som ger en stark koppling till verkligheten. forsätt med detta!» (50%)
- Most of the lectures were really introductory. Too simple on master"s program. Every time there was a possibility of something interesting it was rejected as beyond the scope of the course, but no further reading or any other way to learn extra things by self were given. » (75%)
- Maybe not all assignment classes in computer rooms, but mainly because of no questions.» (100%)
- Almost (missed 1 or 2)» (100%)
- Almost 100%, I missed one lecture hour due to wrong announcement.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		0		0%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		23		52%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		20		45%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

- But of course something you will have to find out yourself!» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- As to describe how the product development process~, we need more instruction like lecture. and it"s very hard to identify all subsystems because of time shortage and insufficient background.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- It is good that each lecture has its own goals.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

45 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		4		8%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		38		84%
No, the goals are set too high»		3		6%

Genomsnitt: 1.97

- Perhaps that"s just me but most things where basic.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- I think it is reasonable only for who has a background in engineering. But whole programs are very instructive for everybody.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- They are okey but the focus should not only be on Volvo, there are other car manufacturers in the world as well!!» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Skulle varit bättre med fler instuderingsfrågor för att veta på vilken nivå av kunskap ni kräver. MAO fler gamla tentor» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The goals seem reasonable according to the needs of the market, but according to my backround they seemed quite tough. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		24		55%
Yes, definitely»		18		41%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- Most of questions carry proper contents. But some of them are focused on a simple concept. And I think I didn"t study about value management regarding to question No. 14.» (To some extent)
- Exam questions should be based on assessing the student whether he/she can use his/her knowledge. Unfortunately, almost 50% of the questions could be done just by memorizing the course material. Instead of "What...." questions, questions like "Why do you think that using this engineering approach will cause ...." should be asked in the examination. Courses should also cover this type of discussions in a greater extent.» (To some extent)
- I gave up writing the exam, too much questions.» (To some extent)

Lectures, visits and assignments

6. What did you think of the lectures listed below?*

Matrisfråga

- Some presentations were so filled with information so it was just confusing.»
- It"s a good thought to have lecturers from the industry but in some cases it does more harm than good since they are extremely bad at pedagogy. Some people are just not ment to teach... Examples are Pål Schmidt, Mats Beckman, Bengt Jacobsson and to some extent Lars Ivarsson.»
- Many of the lectures have gone to deep instead of giving an brief understanding of the most important. Also the presentation-teqnuice have been far to bad, poor prepartion and powerpoint with to much information. »
- SOme of the guest teachers have really bad presentations. SOme have way to much information on each slide and some of them have nothing. And unfortunately some of them are so boring to listen to (even if the subject may be interesting) that u just can not stay awake. Thought there would be a higher level on the teachers on Chalmers..»
- Over all low quality on the guest lectures presentations. Bad slides and some where bad prepered.»

Automotive Vehicles - Malin Kjellberg*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		2%
OK - needed and well performed»		18		40%
Good - well needed and interesting»		18		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		7		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.7

Engine Characteristics and Design - Sven Andersson*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		2%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		18%
Good - well needed and interesting»		17		39%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		17		39%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 4.16

Powertrain and Longitudinal Control - Bengt Jacobsson*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		14		32%
OK - needed and well performed»		9		20%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		32%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		11%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.18

Braking Systems - Malin Kjellberg*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		7		15%
OK - needed and well performed»		16		36%
Good - well needed and interesting»		19		43%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		2		4%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.36

Tyres - Mats Beckman*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		6		14%
OK - needed and well performed»		16		39%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		36%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		4		9%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.41

Suspensions, components and geometry - Malin Kjellberg*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		9%
OK - needed and well performed»		10		23%
Good - well needed and interesting»		26		61%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		2		4%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.61

Supplier role in Automotive Product Development - Hans Rössle*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		5		14%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		22%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		8		22%
Did not attend/Do not know»		10

Genomsnitt: 3.71

Supplier role in Automotive Product Development - Hans Rössle*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		5		14%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		23%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		38%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		8		23%
Did not attend/Do not know»		11

Genomsnitt: 3.7

Vehicle Dynamics, Suspensions and SHARK - Steve Williams*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		4%
OK - needed and well performed»		9		21%
Good - well needed and interesting»		24		57%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		7		16%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.85

Noise, Vibration and Harshness - Lars Ivarsson*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		10		25%
OK - needed and well performed»		17		43%
Good - well needed and interesting»		6		15%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		12%
Did not attend/Do not know»		6

Genomsnitt: 3.1

Design Management & process at Volvo Cars - Thomas Bergqvist*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		4		10%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		10%
OK - needed and well performed»		10		25%
Good - well needed and interesting»		16		41%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		12%
Did not attend/Do not know»		6

Genomsnitt: 3.35

Road Vehicle Aerodynamics - Lennart Löfdahl*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		7%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		20%
Good - well needed and interesting»		16		41%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		30%
Did not attend/Do not know»		6

Genomsnitt: 3.94

Active Safety and Vehicle Dynamics - Johan Hultén*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		8%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		32%
Good - well needed and interesting»		17		45%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		13%
Did not attend/Do not know»		8

Genomsnitt: 3.64

Materials in Vehicle Production - Pål Schmidt*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		2		5%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		10		26%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		31%
Good - well needed and interesting»		9		23%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		13%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.13

Safety -assignment introduction - Johan Davidsson*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		2		4%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		9%
OK - needed and well performed»		19		45%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		33%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		3		7%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.28

Safety / Crashworthiness - Yngve Håland*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		10%
OK - needed and well performed»		15		38%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		28%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		8		20%
Did not attend/Do not know»		6

Genomsnitt: 3.53

Control Systems - Bo Egardt*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		5		13%
OK - needed and well performed»		15		39%
Good - well needed and interesting»		12		31%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		6		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Vehicle Development and Certification - Nitin Patel & Edith Dahlqvist*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		4		9%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		11		26%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		28%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		30%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		2		4%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.95

Global trends in AE Industry - Svenåke Bergelie*
45 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		5		13%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		33%
Good - well needed and interesting»		10		27%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		8		22%
Did not attend/Do not know»		9

Genomsnitt: 3.52

7. What did you think of the company visits to*

- The presentation at JCI was too long. A break after half way through would have helped a lot! The presentation at the JCI production was really unnecessary and poor. Skip that! The blue train at Volvo was good. The Safety Center wasn"t really as expected. I think many, including myself, thought we were going to see the actual crash test center.»
- Maybe a visit to Volvo trucks, SKF is nice too.»
- Where was the safety center?»
- We finally didn"t went to the safety center, that was a little bite disappoiting.»
- Thought we were going to the safety test center..»
- Those visits were perfect, nothing more to say.»
- Development at Johnson was rewarding. The lecturer gave some suggestions for the future when working as an engineer, which I think was valueable. I learned much from him that I didn"t know, also he was an entertaining lecturer.»
- The cars safety center was a disappointment. We expected to see some of their safety lab.»

Johnson Controls - Arendal - Development process*
45 svarande

Very poor»		1		2%
Rather poor»		4		10%
OK»		6		15%
Rather good»		13		34%
Very good»		14		36%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.92

Johnson Controls - Arendal - Production tour*
45 svarande

Very poor»		3		7%
Rather poor»		6		15%
OK»		9		23%
Rather good»		7		18%
Very good»		13		34%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.55

Volvo Cars Torslanda Assembly Plant*
45 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		3		10%
Rather good»		8		28%
Very good»		17		60%
Did not attend/Do not know»		17

Genomsnitt: 4.5

Volvo Cars Safety center*
45 svarande

Very poor»		4		14%
Rather poor»		1		3%
OK»		3		11%
Rather good»		7		25%
Very good»		12		44%
Did not attend/Do not know»		18

Genomsnitt: 3.81

8. What did you think of the assignments?*

Matrisfråga

- The safety assignment was extremely bad. No really introduction and no help by Anna Carlsson at exercises. Also, the assumptions we were supposed to make were to extreme to get a good understanding. The assignment was really poorly made. The others were good.»
- The suspension part was to har to understand i think. Maybe its better to have one more lecture or maybe tell the student what is important to know. Specially what the different settings do for the characterisitcs. It was like a big mess of different settings. please make it clearer next year.»
- Good assignments for the understanding!»
- The first one were pretty boring but in the end u have learned a lot. In the second one it was interesting to test SHARK and see how everything changes when u moved the hardpoints, but it took way to long to get everyting inside the tolerances. Hated it in the end. The last one i dont think is irrelevant but such a boring assignment.»
- Instead of ONLY looking for the mistaken/missing parts in an assignment report, additional work on the assignment paper (which is not needed, but helps to create good report) should be evaluated!»
- Regarding the 2nd assignment, the lecture that was held before hade no introduction to SHARK. There could be a better explanation to how SHARK works, and how characteristics like camber, castor, toe are changed in SHARK, before the exersise starts.»
- The powertrain assignment requires strongly a relevent in mechanics backround. For the students coming from industrial design was rather difficult.»

Powertrain, design of driveline diagram*
45 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		2		4%
OK»		5		11%
Relevant and good experience»		23		51%
Very good exercise for my learning»		15		33%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.13

Suspension. optimisation of SUV characteristics*
45 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		12		26%
OK»		11		24%
Relevant and good experience»		17		37%
Very good exercise for my learning»		5		11%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Safety, compatibility calculations and loads*
45 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		3		6%
To some extent relevant»		6		13%
OK»		15		33%
Relevant and good experience»		15		33%
Very good exercise for my learning»		6		13%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Teaching and course administration

9. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		3		6%
Some extent»		19		42%
Large extent»		21		46%
Great extent»		2		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- Small extent only because I had already covered almost every taught automotive areas in my previous school in an "advanced" way.» (Small extent)
- Supervisors like ph.D students are very helpful.» (Large extent)

10. To what extent has the the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		6		13%
Some extent»		22		48%
Large extent»		14		31%
Great extent»		3		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.31

- Bad book. Some good slide.» (Small extent)
- Bosch Automotive Handbook is a good resource, but the main textbook is not unfortunately too useful. Translated German handbooks will be a better choice.» (Small extent)
- Introduction book was pretty poor» (Some extent)
- Didn"t read the book at all...» (Some extent)
- The book was not so good.» (Some extent)
- The book is not good. I believe better ones are available.» (Some extent)

11. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		2		4%
Rather well»		18		40%
Very well»		25		55%

Genomsnitt: 3.51

- Some problems with the assignment 2» (Rather well)
- Would have liked to have the presentations on the webpage BEFORE the lecture» (Rather well)
- This is how every lecturer should handle the course webpage.» (Very well)

Study climate

12. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		2%
Rather good»		18		40%
Very good»		22		48%
I did not seek help»		4		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- Poor because the tutors had many things to say and i usually needed to ask things that the rest of the students already knew for sure.» (Rather poor)
- The fact that the safety people are at Lindholmen is far from optimal.» (Rather good)
- Safety assignment was bad when talking about help from the teachers, also shark assignment was hard to get help» (Rather good)
- Supervisors are good.» (Very good)

13. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		2%
Rather well»		9		20%
Very well»		34		77%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- förmågan att prata och kommunicera på engelska är för dålig bland vissa elever. Jag hade problem med min "partner" eftersom hon hade dåliga engelskakunskaper...» (Rather well)

14. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		2%
Adequate»		25		55%
High»		17		37%
Too high»		2		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- It took much time. And it started at 8:00 o"clock.» (High)
- The assignments took a lot of time» (High)
- Maybe too many assigments (or they could be less time-consuming.» (Too high)

15. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		3		6%
Adequate»		18		40%
High»		20		44%
Too high»		4		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- It is high because i took many courses.» (High)
- Normal/high load with ICE and Intro to AE, but very high load combined with Formula Student» (Too high)
- Took more courses than needed» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

16. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		2		4%
Fair»		2		4%
Adequate»		16		35%
Good»		22		48%
Excellent»		3		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- I"m not sure if it is relevant to have this course. Maybe it is better to use the time for other specifics courses instead and split this course as introduction to the courses were it belongs.» (Poor)
- automotive is not equal to a car. Engine is not equal to a 4-stroke ice. I learned very little new during this course with a background of general interest to vehicles.» (Fair)
- Useful but perhaps mainly for those who haven"t worked with cars before.» (Adequate)
- Surprisengly many lecturer with bad presentation tecnique! Too much info on the slides etc.» (Adequate)
- I think this course has a good purpose to give a brief understanding about automotives but the lectures should be more like this to» (Adequate)
- Course was really good, I knew a lot of things, that was new for me.» (Good)
- Bra kurs! dock lite mycket fokus på rapportskrivning. det tar mycket tid att skriva en rapport. Jag gillar personligen att lära mig nya saker iställer för att skriva 3 rapporter på 15sidor styck!» (Good)
- Actually i would say excellent in case that i didn"t meet that many difficalties due to my backround.» (Good)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

19. Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor