Visa resultat

Vehicle and Traffic Safety 2010, TME200

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

18 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		1		6%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		13		81%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		12%
I don"t know»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- Except for background info on filtering and such for the lab exercise, this was nothing that had been gone through but was expected to be perfect in the report. » (No, the goals are set too low)
- -» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Exept i didn´,t take any medical courses before this course, but they could have helped me through the lectures where only a chiropractor could have understand the context.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Would like the course to go more in depth on some way, alot that was presented could erfer to common knowledge or what was presented in TME120.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- i think that using lsdyna in this small amount cant fullfil the aim "explicit finite element method for crash simulations".» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

No, not at all»		1		5%
To some extent»		10		58%
Yes, definitely»		6		35%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.29

- Again, would be nice with some more in-depth.» (To some extent)
- -» (Yes, definitely)
- Yes the exam tested i i hav reached the goals, it also "tested" a lot more. In fact, the exam "tested" so much i would like to consider it rather difficult. The exam was to large considering the amount of work we had done previosly, it was also a repetition on for example active safety systems since there had already been a group work and presentation on that.» (Yes, definitely)

3. The course is inclusive: Please mention topics you would like to learn more about and topics you would like to learn less about.

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

Small extent»		6		33%
Some extent»		5		27%
Large extent»		6		33%
Great extent»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

- The lectures, unfortunately, where really boring since 50% of materials where just repetition. This happened mostly by the guest lecturers and It seemed to me that the slide presentations were not checked by the teachers because there were more than 3 slides that were being repeated in each single lecture. And obviously the lectures where in an annoyingly low level of academic competence and they where designed to be presented on a seminar for people from another field. » (Small extent)
- -» (Some extent)
- The slides were the core of learning but some kind of book would be nice as it could be some sort of base or backbone.» (Large extent)
- Since there is no litterature at all for this course, you are somewhat forces to attend all lectures. The teachers schould at least whrite a compendium until next years course.» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		1		5%
Rather badly»		3		16%
Rather well»		11		61%
Very well»		3		16%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- Especially the assignments were bad. You can not call the first assignment litterature review and the second assignment is called assignment one. Then steps in assignment one, wich should acctually be two, is called assignment two. And the information for the assignments are spread in several different folders. As you can see this is extreamly confusing and we had to spend half of our time just sorting out which assignment is which, when they should be handed in and which part belongs not what!» (Very badly)
- The lecture slides need to be handed out in advance in order to fully be alert in lectures» (Rather badly)
- -» (Rather well)
- Better organized for second half of course, active safety.» (Rather well)

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

Very poor»		1		5%
Rather poor»		3		16%
Rather good»		8		44%
Very good»		4		22%
I did not seek help»		2		11%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- As you all are at Lindholmen this its understandable. I know we can send a mail but how do you write a mail that explains something that concerns LS-dyna >> Impossible.» (Very poor)
- Lack in answering emails (Kristian) Good at answering emails (Isabelle)» (Rather poor)
- Except for a few occations, all teachers and phd where located at lindholmen. That´,s fine if the person you are trying to contact can answer their e-mail but i am still waiting for an answer on two mails i have sent, other mails where replied one or two weeks after they where sent, fantastic!» (Rather poor)
- Marco Dozza was good at answering questions on lectures and try to make us understand.» (Rather good)
- It is always more difficult than other courses since most staff is located at lindholmen. This combined with lots of guest lecturers will minimize contact with examinator.» (Rather good)

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

0%»		0		0%
25%»		4		22%
50%»		4		22%
75%»		4		22%
100%»		6		33%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- I have only attended a couple of lectures with Marco. I think that Marco is a exellent lecturer. He is pedagogical, interested and interesting and very clear. However, I didn"t attend that many lectures because I didn"t find the content of the material valuable enough to spend my time on it. Sometime the information was almost trivial. » (25%)
- I was bored by the guestlectures where alot of same imformation did came over and over again.» (25%)
- The first three weeks were almost only repetition/youtube videos» (50%)
- The 50% of unattended lectures are the ones that I chose to leave because of low quality of the lectures.» (50%)

8. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		11%
Adequate»		4		23%
High»		8		47%
Too high»		3		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- A lot of material was common sense instead of science based material.» (Low)
- The "group works" was carryed out by only a part of the group...» (High)
- The assignments and especially the lab-assignment were to much and gave to litle. When you are six people in a group and you divide the work in small parts, it ends with that nobody really knows what we are doing. » (High)
- It felt more like 2 courses where the responsible ones for passive and active safety had bad communication what the other one where doing.» (High)
- to much assignments and lab... 100 car assignment irrelevant for course, only using MATLAB...» (Too high)
- 4 hand-in assignments, one laboration, one (big) exam, two presentations. YES the workload was big! The group works where a disaster, mixing people from different countries meant that some people did nothing. For example one person who only complained about his bad english-skills and therefore didn´,t want to help etc. Background knowledge from previos courses are really low for people coming from other countries or masters programmes, example: roundabouts.» (Too high)
- The course consists of a literature review in passive safety, a correction of literature review in passive safety, Another literature review in active safety, giving feedback on another literature review in active safety, correcting the previously done literature review in active safety and above all of that a lab with simulation in a completely new software.» (Too high)

9. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		6		33%
High»		7		38%
Too high»		5		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- -» (High)
- Except from safety I did formula student and vehicle dynamics as well so..» (High)
- This course took up all the time, i didn´,t have any time left for my other course which also required a lot of work. » (Too high)
- Just because of this course I was seriously thinking of not continuing the course.» (Too high)

10. What is you general opinion about the exerimental part of the laboration?

Poor»		5		27%
Adequate»		7		38%
Good»		6		33%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- We have to do way to much by ourselves. I dont think we have the time, resources nor the interest to spend that much time to learn everything. You guys didn"t help at all you were just there. Yes, its our own responsibillity to learn but I just think we would learn much more if you could help out a litle. » (Poor)
- A higher level of equipment quality is expected. They are lots of companies that will happily sponsor Chalmers to equip a much better lab. The cable from the sensors where cut in different places and attached again which will create lots of noise on the signal.» (Poor)
- a laboratory is nice. but the presentation in the end was completly unnecessary in the way it was realized --> additional comments» (Adequate)
- I think some had more to do then others depending on what task you where given. Also during the presentation we where told that our way to analyze our data was not correct. We "should have used our engineer brain". We got our results in an easy way and I think it"s the engineering way not to overwork everything. Then you"ll never get done.» (Adequate)
- Good that you stressed the importance of preparation, keep that for next year.» (Adequate)
- -» (Good)
- The basic idea is good but there is too much focus on the report witing and getting your results as accurate as possible.» (Good)

11. What is you general opinion about the simulation part of the laboration?

Poor»		9		52%
Adequate»		5		29%
Good»		3		17%

Genomsnitt: 1.64

- Need more to be taught about fem and especially filtering» (?)
- The worst simulation guide I"ve ever seen, a lot of important information missing!!!!!» (Poor)
- Very low help on how the program worked» (Poor)
- learning new software is needed and i like it, but then it must be done in a more detailed way... just giving some data, where we can change a few parameters is not my opinion about learning software. there must be a more detailed and useful introduction....and more examples how to interprete results. and more explanation about to which extent we will use the software and what resources the software has additional.» (Poor)
- Not enough time to learn it, no enough help to learn it in the time given. Besides only one of us did the simulation. What about the other five? Well its their own responsibillity to learn but we also have work to do that needs to be done!» (Poor)
- LS Dyna was a mess to work in.» (Poor)
- Taking into consideration that the software environment was totally new for most of the students and the time allocated to learn the software while doing other assignments for the course it was expected to have a computer sessions in lab with a help of a supervisor.» (Poor)
- It´,s good to learn a new software but demanding good results from the students when the only presentation of the software was "read the (1200 pages) manual" is a joke!» (Good)
- Great to learn some simulating tool, very fun to see results. » (Good)

12. What is your general opinion about the individual literature review assignment in passive safety?

Poor»		6		35%
Adequate»		4		23%
Good»		7		41%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- Don"t really understand the point of these, is this some literature course? And reading other peoples reports and suggesting a grade, isn´,t that the teachers job?» (Poor)
- The material that could be used was scarse, Chalmers had no way of presenting the full text in all datbases, thus interesting topics had to be ruled out since not ebough sources up to date could be found» (Poor)
- it is timeconsuming and unecessary (i feel). and not a part of safety, this time could have been used better. eg learning software. » (Poor)
- The literature review itself was good but correcting another literature review is just done to make it easy for the examiner to grade them. If I am interested in any other part of passive safety I will study up myself so the reasoning behind this that it is a way to make the students to learn about some other aspect of active safety is irrelevant and incorrect.» (Poor)
- It was ok. It forces you to learn the systemquickly but I think that you are underestimating the workload that needs to be put in. Just to find the relevant articles is a huge effort, because you need to read quite a bit of every report thats close to your subject and most often you realize after a couple of pages that this report is not what you are looking for.» (Adequate)
- -» (Good)
- Very interesting, I believe that people in general didn"t take this opportunity to write about something that actually interested them.» (Good)

13. What is your general opinion about the group assignment with the active safety literature and market survey?

Poor»		5		27%
Adequate»		7		38%
Good»		6		33%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- See #12» (Poor)
- The literature review of active safety systems was really bad. I don"t understand why we had 6 people in passive safety lab and 5 people in this group work. The reasoning that this was intentionally chosen to be an odd number too enhance group dynamics is totally unacceptable since it took many of students a lot of time to form new groups. It is just wrong. The idea of providing feedback is good but not in such a high amount of workload. It just seems unnecessary.» (Poor)
- this group work is adequat, but i feel that most people who are interessted in cars already know most of the systems. more details about different systems of different manufacturers would be interessting. i dont want to know that those systems exist ( i already do) i want to know, in which advanteges/ disadvanteges small differences result. and more about actuall sensoring and data processing.» (Adequate)
- time consuming» (Adequate)
- The level of the presentations from groups were astonishing low and should not have been accepted if this course should have a reputation of being serious. Otherwise ok assignment, maybe explain the background and reason for having it more in the beginning since some students were quite negative too it.» (Adequate)
- -» (Good)
- Good idea, pretty well exacuted. But we schould have started earlier in the course to do a better job. Johan Davidssons judgement (of each student) on the presentation was hard, unpleasant and nasty. Especielly since he himself have the bad characteristics he complained about others having.» (Good)
- Difficult to find time when formula student was done in paralell for some of the group members» (Good)

14. Were the laborations relevant for the course?

Not at all»		3		16%
Partly»		6		33%
Satisfactorily»		5		27%
Very Relevant»		4		22%

Genomsnitt: 2.55

- Just to the concept of frontal crush in subject of body structure part of the course.» (Partly)
- -» (Very Relevant)

15. Where the review assignments relevant for the course?

Not at all»		1		5%
Partly»		10		55%
Satisfactorily»		5		27%
Very Relevant»		2		11%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

- The assignment where we had to review another persons assignment was bad, skip the whole thing. And when are we supposed to get that review of our own text (as promised)?» (Partly)
- It felt like sometimes it was more focusing on us writing good reportes then having us understand the system which I feel is wrong.» (Partly)
- -» (Very Relevant)

16. How did you like the demo with the XC60 city safety? Any suggestion for next year?

17. Is there any background knowledge/information which was taken for granted even if you were not familiar with it? If so, can you show some examples?

18. Please comment the teachers involved in the course! Do you suggest any particular change? More or less of any of the teachers?

19. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		6		33%
Fair»		4		22%
Adequate»		4		22%
Good»		4		22%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- It gives a view of what exists but in some way it needs to be improved. No wiki! The quality of the wikis done were too low, what should be in it easn"t clear enough.» (Poor)
- my interesstr in the (active) safty track at chalmers was quite big when i started here, but it was totally gone after visiting this course. i am sorry for being so rude. the topic is interessint but you really need to improve your educational skills (excluding karin, she is a good presenter i feel)» (Poor)
- I should say that this was the most boring and at the same time the most time consuming course I have ever taken in my studies before.» (Poor)
- Did not fulfill my expectations, although I have learned a lot of new safety systems at different manufacturers.» (Fair)
- The assignments made the course into a statistics course, literature course and FEM course. Relevant?» (Fair)
- I think you need to do some big changes to make this course interesting. I"m sorry I don"t have any suggestions right now.» (Fair)
- It is a good course, but the structure i bad and the workload is to high. Some people also se safety as a boring subject and more has to be done to wake them up during the lectures.» (Good)

20. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The crash laboration with improoved simulation practice (more teaching)»
- passive safety laberatory»
- N/A»
- PS: FEM introduction AS: Videos»
- the sructure lecture by the volvo guy was very good and the lab was a good experience!»
- The laboration and the passive safety review but not the wiki, the topics already exist on the normal wiki»
- ls dyna analysis + crash lab»
- Marco»
- better colaboration between passive and active»
- The lab but it should be definitely improved.»

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- More deep and less width!»
- better communication between the two teachers,no double topics.. not two assignments parallel»
- Need to improve the content of the course, I attended most of the lectures and I got a 4, same for students who never attended to class. It doesn’,t make sense. »
- -»
- Less assignments»
- less repeatin in the beginning of the courses! Because every lecture was read by somebody else, they all repeated the basis safety stuff in the first hour!»
- The first three weeks, less youtube more serious teaching»
- a lot, you find in in my other comments.»
- work load: lab work report (including ls dyna analysis) + passive safety literature review + active safety literature review. i think it was a little bit much for just one course. this is because two different aspects of safety ( passive + active) are summed up in one course i may think?»
- The 100 car task. »
- -Make it feel more like One course. -Skip the "Field Operational Test Exercise using 100Car data"! I did not learn anything else then how to use matlab in another way.»
- Most of the course. The course is like a basic course and it is not suitable to a higher education student. It is not for a masters level because of low academic and professional outcome.»
- The level of seriousness and expectations from staff should be set clearly in the beginning, otherwise no one will attend class and no one will make an effort in the assignments. Too much repetition from Automotive Engineering systems, and too much overlapping slides and lectures within passive safety part.»

22. Additional comments?