Visa resultat

Engineering of Automotive Systems 2010, TME120

Your own effort

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

32 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		3		9%
Around 20 hours/week»		12		37%
Around 25 hours/week»		12		37%
Around 30 hours/week»		4		12%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- The work was more intense in the end of the course than in the beginning.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- Most time for preparing exam :)» (Around 20 hours/week)
- The assignments kept you really busy.» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

32 svarande

0%»		1		3%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		2		6%
75%»		14		43%
100%»		15		46%

Genomsnitt: 4.31

- Problably not 100% but more than 75%» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		2		6%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		10		31%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		20		62%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- The goals after each lecture was very good to have.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The learning goals put up for each lecture was great for studying for the exam.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- The goals are clear but the lectures only give an overview. I really like the guest lectures, but they are sometimes repeating eacht other and sometimes require too much previous knowledge. It would be better to prepare the lectures more in advance and let the guest teachers know what exactly was mentioned before and what not. It is a big subject and it is sad that some things are not deep enough in my opinion. you could easily make two courses out of this one.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

30 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		3		10%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		27		90%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- A good basic course. Since the field of knowledge is quite broad, the depth was reasonable.» (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»		8		25%
Yes, definitely»		20		64%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

- The question in the exam were not very deep.but i see that it is not possible to have deeper questions and as well not to learn for them. so as i said before, i would like to have it more focused on all these topics.» (To some extent)
- The exam was to big, the fastest writer took the highest grade on the exam.» (Yes, definitely)

Lectures, visits and assignments

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

Matrisfråga

- Lennart Löfdahls lecture on RVAD was the best lecture of my life!»
- Overall well planned course with many great guest lecturers, especially Steve Williams, Andrew Dawkes and Peter Urban. Be aware that the safety guys in the end don"t talk about the same stuff, once you"ve had the intro to safety it doesn"t need to be repeated the first 15min of every lecture. This goes for the Dynamics lectures as well, repetition is important but its easy to be bored. »
- The last lecture could have been interesting, but due to exam in the other course the next day, I skipped it since it wasn"t going to be on the exam.»

Introduction, Automotive History - Malin Kjellberg and Sven Andersson*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		9		31%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		48%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		17%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.79

Engine Characteristics and Design - Sven Andersson*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		6		19%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		45%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		11		35%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.16

Powertrain Systems - Jan Andersson*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		10		33%
Good - well needed and interesting»		16		53%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		2		6%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.6

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

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		41%
Good - well needed and interesting»		10		34%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		17%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.62

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

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		13		43%
Good - well needed and interesting»		10		33%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		7		23%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.8

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

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		13		43%
Good - well needed and interesting»		7		23%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		10		33%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.9

Tyres - Andrew Dawkes*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		10		32%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		35%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		29%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.9

Braking Systems - Andrew Dawkes*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		26%
Good - well needed and interesting»		10		33%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		10		33%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.93

Materials in Vehicle Production - Pål Schmidt*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		42%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		46%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		2		7%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.57

Suspensions, components and geometry - Gunnar Olsson*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		26%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		50%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		16%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.76

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

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		3		10%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		15		51%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 4.41

Road Vehicle Aerodynamics - Lennart Löfdahl*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		4		14%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		44%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 4.29

Structural Design of Vehicles - Peter Urban*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		3		10%
Good - well needed and interesting»		18		62%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		8		27%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 4.17

Applied Structural Design - Peter Urban*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		4		14%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		50%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		32%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 4.1

Noise, Vibration and Harshness - Wolfgang Kropp*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		10%
OK - needed and well performed»		11		37%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		4		13%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.55

Safety / Crashworthiness - Johan Davidsson*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		9		31%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		44%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		6		20%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.82

Active Safety and Vehicle Dynamics - Johan Hultén*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		4%
OK - needed and well performed»		7		28%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		52%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		4		16%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.8

Safety - Yngve Håland*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		7%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		29%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		48%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		4		14%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.7

Control Systems - Bo Egardt*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		20%
OK - needed and well performed»		6		30%
Good - well needed and interesting»		8		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		2		10%
Did not attend/Do not know»		12

Genomsnitt: 3.4

Global trends in AE Industry - Svenåke Bergelie*
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		6%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		25%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		31%
Good - well needed and interesting»		3		18%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		3		18%
Did not attend/Do not know»		16

Genomsnitt: 3.18

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

- It was very interesting to see the facilities. The only thing that was not good enough was the level of the information from the guide, it was not made for engineers. More for the regular american visitor.»
- Volvo Assembly plant tour was more for tourists not for engineering students. Safety Center: It was said that a crashtest would be conducted in 15 min. Why weren"t we able to wait? That would have been the most interesting part.»
- Great trip to Volvo! The tour from Lotta was interesting, and so was the Brand experience center but it could have been aimed towards students some more, not american soccer moms. »
- It was a shame not to see the crash test.»
- It was very fun and interesting to hear the chief designer of johnson control. The production tour wasn"t that interesting, it was hard to hear what he was saying and I have seen this kind of production before.»
- Would have liked more time at the Volvo Cars Brand Experience Center and less "salesman" information. »

Johnson Controls - Arendal - Development process presentation*
32 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		7		29%
Rather good»		10		41%
Very good»		7		29%
Did not attend/Do not know»		8

Genomsnitt: 4

Johnson Controls - Arendal - Production tour*
32 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		5		20%
Rather good»		11		45%
Very good»		8		33%
Did not attend/Do not know»		8

Genomsnitt: 4.12

Volvo Cars Torslanda Assembly Plant*
32 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		3%
OK»		3		11%
Rather good»		11		40%
Very good»		12		44%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 4.25

Volvo Cars Brand Experience Center*
32 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		3%
OK»		4		14%
Rather good»		9		33%
Very good»		13		48%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 4.25

Volvo Cars Safety Center presentation - Lotta Jacobsson*
32 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		4		14%
Rather good»		10		37%
Very good»		13		48%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 4.33

8. What did you think of the assignments?*

Matrisfråga

- In assignment 1, most of the time was just needed to convert the engine load diagram and bsfc isolines on the paper to the same diagram in MATLAB, which is an unnecessary time consuming effort (with respect to assignment goals) and due to the fact that not all the points can be transferred to MATLAB the result is not that fulfilling. And also the diagram on paper was not properly scaled. The distance between axis ticks was different on the same axis! If the pure data was given it would be better. It would be even better if there was engine load data from some real cars to make the overall assignment results more realistic and interesting. Assignment 3: The instructions were totally unclear and misleading. The help from supervisors was unfortunately not enough. Some of the assumptions made in the instruction to simplify the task have made the task contrary to fact. The learning from this assignment was very low!»
- 1st assignment: Good but a lot of time spent to convert the paper diagram into some digital form, maybe a digital graph would save time to focus on the important parts. 3rd assignment: Given SW6, due in exam week. Way too late because we had to study for the other exam on saturday. We had already done 4 assignments including the ICE course and this was just too much. The tasks were so simplified it was hard to understand them although they were simple. Didn"t learn much relevant stuff. 2nd assignment: Hasn"t even been corrected yet! »
- Powertrain: It is absolutely a waste of time to sit and measure in a power diagram which also was the same for each vehicle. There must have been some data obtained to make the copy of the diagram which should have been provided. Otherwise, good knowledge. Suspension: The best assignment when it comes to the assistants, reaching assignment goals and relevance. Great! Safety: The assignments need to be made earlier, a hand in during the exam week is not acceptable and though the teaching staff has no control over the exam dates this should be looked at in the beginning to maybe be able to adjust schedule from study week 1. The assistance in the safety assignment was due to this (among other reasons) not useful and therefore this assignment has caused many people (probably the assistants as well) many problems after the course. The assignment information and goal for safety should be looked at. »
- The Suspension assignment is stupid, because to find the right values, we have to "play" more or less with the keyboard but of course we known were to "play".»
- The last one I didn"t really get a grip of. First I overdid it in trying to understand the mechanisms before it got to me that I was really just looking at a spring and mass system. Though to some extent relevant in giving preknowledge for the lab in the safety course I"m attending now.»
- Suspension is interesteing butt the given task didn"t give any more knowledge than the lecture slides, it only took alot of time.»
- The knowledgement about the subjets where wero low when the assignments started, but only slightly higher when they where finially approved. Which means that the whole assignment-work was based on guessing. More information prior to the assignments are required, as well as more guidance during the work-process, especially since we where introduced to a brand new software!»

Powertrain, design of driveline diagram*
32 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		2		6%
OK»		4		12%
Relevant and good experience»		10		32%
Very good exercise for my learning»		15		48%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.22

Suspension. optimisation of SUV characteristics*
32 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		8		26%
OK»		6		20%
Relevant and good experience»		11		36%
Very good exercise for my learning»		5		16%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.43

Safety, compatibility calculations and loads*
32 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		3		9%
To some extent relevant»		7		22%
OK»		7		22%
Relevant and good experience»		11		35%
Very good exercise for my learning»		3		9%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.12

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		7		21%
Large extent»		22		68%
Great extent»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- The course is maybe to basic.» (Some extent)
- Especially NVH, Suspension and dynamics.» (Large extent)
- It"s difficult to know what to remember when you are presented with a lot of slides. The course guidelines could perhaps be emphasized more. Also, if we were able to print out the notes and go through them before the lecture would help in memorizing and understanding what is said.» (Large extent)
- There where no teaching in classical meaning. Guest lectures are not education, they are information.» (Large extent)
- Overall good lectures with some really good ones: Steve Williams, Lennart Löfdahl, Gunnar Olsson and Peter Urban.» (Great extent)

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

Small extent»		4		12%
Some extent»		13		40%
Large extent»		14		43%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.37

- The book structure is good but because so many persons have contributed to write different chapters, some parts are weak and some strong. For example: I can not understand why the nomenclature in chapter for brake systems is chosen to be like this. It is totally misleading and far from mechanical engineering nomenclature conventions. And this makes the chapter hard to read and easy to get bored of.» (Small extent)
- Did not use the course literature, did well anyway.» (Small extent)
- The book was not available until many weeks into the studyperiod..Did not buy it.» (Some extent)
- Most of the slides only have pictures and comparing with the book sometimes they aren"t clearly.» (Some extent)
- Mainly used for the exam studying. But reading plan should be out at the start or before the beginning of the course. I missed the book especially for the first assignment.» (Some extent)
- Didn"t use the book» (Some extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		3		9%
Rather well»		22		68%
Very well»		7		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

- Could have been more old exams available and a bit more up to date when » (Rather well)
- Very engaged examiner, although less i last week. Reading instructions should be handed out MUCH earlier next year and the webpage updated also in the last week, great in w1-6! » (Rather well)
- Except some slides that only have access the day before the exam.» (Rather well)
- Lecture notes came out a little late, and the material was largely not accessible during the exam week (though not because of course administration). » (Rather well)
- The new web page for downloading handouts are the worst page i´,,ve seen from such a big organisation as chalmers. Otherwise no complaints.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		1		3%
Rather poor»		3		9%
Rather good»		8		25%
Very good»		19		59%
I did not seek help»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- More exercises would have been prefered since that is the best oppurtunity to learn things. » (Rather good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		3		9%
Rather well»		6		19%
Very well»		22		70%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- Dividing us into random pairs are risky, but it mostly works out well. Too bad for those who are paired up whit a student that has´,,nt got enough experience to solve the tasks.» (Very well)

14. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		22		68%
High»		7		21%
Too high»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Some time consuming work with the assignments that should have felt more meaningful and not a waste of time (powertrain and safety).» (Adequate)
- But too high in the ending of the course.» (Adequate)
- You are not supposed to spend hours correcting you report several weeks after the course has ended, so the correction has to be done faster. The Assignments provided a quite OK workload but should also have resulted in a smaller exam. » (High)
- Assignments take time! 3 assignments was too much.» (Too high)

15. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		14		43%
High»		15		46%
Too high»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- The 3rd assignment did not allow for adequate exam preparation.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

16. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		5		15%
Adequate»		4		12%
Good»		22		68%
Excellent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.59

- Too many different topics. Not enough depth into any topic. » (Fair)
- Gives a good overview of the car and all parts whitout giving any deeper knowledge about anything.» (Adequate)
- The course gives a quite good overview about automotive engineering but goes sometimes to deep into detail. » (Good)
- The course is a great introduction to the automotive engineering program but there are some problems. The assignments are quite time consuming. I think that everyone would have benefited from attending all lectures instead of missing quite a few. The course content is very important for further studies and the lecturers were great, make people attend by having a total limit of 90% mandatory with attendance check. After each lecture engage students in discussions and use the days with guest lecturers as seminars. It is very hard to make an exam of this course which is not deep but very wide so I think assignments and mandatory attendance of (maybe increased) lecture time/seminars would be better than a traditional written exam. » (Good)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

19. Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor