Visa resultat

Engineering of Automotive Systems 2011, TME120

Your own effort

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

42 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		9		21%
Around 20 hours/week»		11		26%
Around 25 hours/week»		15		35%
Around 30 hours/week»		6		14%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- ADD SOME HOURS OF LECTURE!!!!!! There are not enough time slots!» (At most 15 hours/week)
- less coz of other commitments» (At most 15 hours/week)
- Found it difficult to balance keeping up to date with the lecture material and assignments» (Around 30 hours/week)
- A lot of time was used working in the assigment group editing reports/ making changes et cetera.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- Bad timing of assignment 3. It is to close to the exam. If it"s possible the assignments should be posponed to an earlier date.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

42 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		3		7%
75%»		20		47%
100%»		19		45%

Genomsnitt: 4.38

- I missed few classes in the beginning because i arrived late here in gothenburg.» (50%)
- Had overlapping lectures with other courses, so could not attend more.» (50%)
- I had to be absent one week due to peak work with assignments deadlines from this and the other course I was on.» (75%)
- Some Lectures were VERY boring.» (75%)
- it was around 85-95%» (75%)
- 85-90%» (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»		3		7%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		13		31%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		25		60%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- It"s easier to understand the course goals once the courses have been achieved. Perhaps these goals are too "fuzzy" at the beginning.» (?)
- Very general goals and hard to use when studying before the exam.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- It is not always clear how much detail we are expected to know from the lectures/textbook in relation to the goals» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- We can understand well the goals only when most of the work for the exam is done, before it"s more difficult to really know what we"re supposed to learn.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- Not enough detail was specified. As an Erasmus student the teaching system was completely alien to me upon my arrival. It took some time to adjust to.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The sub-goal for every lecture is a great compliment which makes them clear.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

42 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		3		7%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		39		92%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- I really expected MORE knowledge. We only have very few hours of lecture per week. I think the content is too poor, and has to be improved. Don"t be afraid to give us calculations! It is seriously lacking. I also think that the courses on ICE are UNUSEFUL, since we parallely attend ICE course... It"s a loss of time, it is strongly redundant. First assignments of EAS and ICE are also too close. Isn"t it possible to replace the first assignment with an assignment on brake system? In the end we would know more things! » (No, the goals are set too low)
- All in all the lecture"s goals should go more in depth, more calculation and thus understanding than learning by heart.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- yes, for the basics... but almost 30-40% of the course were from the pre-requisites to secure an admission into this university.. that is , that percentage can be reduced..» (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»		13		30%
Yes, definitely»		28		66%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- It only focuses on accurate points of the lectures... and get repeated from year to year. I think it reflects how well the student studied previous exams than his/her true level of knowledge.» (To some extent)
- As earlier mentioned. The coarse is very broad and its hard to exam everything.» (To some extent)

Lectures, visits and assignments

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

Matrisfråga

- Best lectures are from Andrew Dawkes. Nice presentation, understandable and usefull. It is really nice that we have a new teacher at each lecture. But these teachers should reduce their time talking about their company. They should takl about the topic in general and maybe include their company doings in the topic. Some very important parts like tyres/brakes suspension should be more detailed for a better understanding (don"t know if this cours is made for this depth) The readings about design at volvo and environment at volvo are interesting but there is not much information in the slides/ topic. Therefore I would prefere doing more about powertrain/engine/suspension/brakes/tyres e.g. Aerodynamics was also one of the best lectures, very well presented and interesting....but the same problem, no relevant information.»
- Add some calculations! For instance, for suspension lecture. Instead of having an "overview" of suspension types, offer calculations on kinematics or forces. We"ll have a better understanding of the differences between McPherson and LSA for instance!»
- General problem with detail level. Some lecturers jumped into detail, not at all correspondig to the exam. »
- Too much information that seemed to have nothing to do with the course. Many of the lectures felt more like an advertisement for the guest lecturers companies. »
- All of the topics are really interesting and relevant. However, as is to be expected from being so many lecturers, some of them had very good presentation skills and slides, and some others did not, making an interesting topic boring or not appealing. This was mainly my criteria for answering this question, so the ones with bad qualifications are the ones that not appealed to me very well.»
- Very good that the lecturers used slides from earlier lectures which helpt the total understanding. »
- Some guest lectures were very boring»
- Most of the time, we don"t go enough is some details and maybe it coulb be better to do this than to speak about the maximum things we can in only 2 hours.»
- hard to recall everyone, i just remember that the guest lecturer from germany was awesome.» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Introduction, Automotive History - Malin Kjellberg and Sven Andersson*
42 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»		6		15%
Good - well needed and interesting»		20		52%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		6		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.65

Engine Characteristics and Design - Sven Andersson*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		20%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		28%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		19		48%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 4.2

Powertrain Systems - Jan Andersson*
42 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»		12		30%
Good - well needed and interesting»		16		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		30%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 4

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

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		4		10%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		5%
OK - needed and well performed»		13		35%
Good - well needed and interesting»		9		24%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		24%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.45

Structural Design of Vehicles - Peter Urban*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		5%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		12%
Good - well needed and interesting»		17		42%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		16		40%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 4.17

Applied Structural Design - Peter Urban*
42 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»		8		19%
Good - well needed and interesting»		18		43%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		13		31%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.02

Supplier role in Automotive Product Development - Olof Tullberg*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		7%
OK - needed and well performed»		12		30%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		33%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		10		25%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.71

Tyres - Andrew Dawkes*
42 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»		7		18%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		34%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		13		34%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.89

Suspensions, components and geometry - Gunnar Olsson*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		5%
OK - needed and well performed»		10		27%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		35%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		11		29%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.83

Vehicle Dynamics, Suspensions and SHARK - Steve Williams*
42 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		14%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		31%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		22		53%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.39

Noise, Vibration and Harshness - Patrik Andersson*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		10%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		13%
Good - well needed and interesting»		18		47%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		11		28%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.94

Materials in Vehicle Production - Pål Schmidt*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		9		25%
OK - needed and well performed»		11		30%
Good - well needed and interesting»		12		33%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		3		8%
Did not attend/Do not know»		6

Genomsnitt: 3.19

Road Vehicle Aerodynamics - Lennart Löfdahl*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		5%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		13%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		34%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		18		47%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4

Genomsnitt: 4.23

Braking Systems - Andrew Dawkes*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		2%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		5%
OK - needed and well performed»		4		11%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		41%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		14		38%
Did not attend/Do not know»		6

Genomsnitt: 4.08

Safety / Crashworthiness - Johan Davidsson*
42 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»		12		29%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		36%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		11		26%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.82

Active Safety and Vehicle Dynamics - Johan Hultén*
42 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»		14		35%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		27%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		30%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.8

Environment - Katarina Sundqvist and Lotta Styren*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		6		15%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		8		20%
OK - needed and well performed»		11		27%
Good - well needed and interesting»		9		22%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		6		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.02

Certification - Malin Kjellberg*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		4		10%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		5%
OK - needed and well performed»		13		32%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		6		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.42

Control Systems - Bo Egardt*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		3		8%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		8%
OK - needed and well performed»		10		28%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		6		17%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.45

AE Industry on a bumpy road - Fredrik Sidahl*
42 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		14%
OK - needed and well performed»		4		14%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		46%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		7		25%
Did not attend/Do not know»		14

Genomsnitt: 3.82

7. What did you think of the assignments?*

Matrisfråga

- The fully technical report should be assignment 1 because there you have enough stuff to write about. Assignment 2 is only tables showing the movement of the points.... And if it is mentioned that Assignment 1 is "only" a brief report.....why is the correction so hard? We had more trouble with ass1 (which was really good I think) than with ass2 wich was accepted by the first time (but crappy written in my oppinion). The relation between this is strange.»
- Suspension assignment should be different because the use of SHARK was not very relevant...»
- Add some calculations!!! It is FAR TOO LIGHT!! »
- I think that the assignments are "too late". They spill over to the new period (we haven"t even receivec the last one back yet for the first time..). Maybe remove the Safety assignment? Or else make them smaller and start them earlier.»
- The topics were very interesting. However, I have comments on the assistants for assignments 1 and 3. For assignment 1 I felt that they were not available at all (in one session there even had to be some other different assistants). And for assignment 3, although they were available, they seemed not prepared at all for helping with the assignment, they were confused by our questions or did not answer anything useful at all. This made this assignment extremely frustrating at the beginning. I had get help from my course partners in order to get a clear idea of what was asked. This also leads me to something else: in assignment 3 the assignment PM was really confusing and not that clear and easy to understand what is being asked. I think it can be improved a lot in terms of the redaction and there are many images that do not help at all and rather confuse.»
- still working...»
- Really bad information about what to do and how to report the work. Seemed to be no connection between information given and the correction done by the phd students.»
- The bad thing was the supervisors. Not good at all.»
- Tooo much Tasks in too less time. Supervisors are not that helpfull. Unclear goals. Big differences in the rating of the hand-in between the corrector. That is very unfair!»
- The safety assignment was not cleary written, i.e. the questions were not clear in what they were asking.»
- The question sheet for the safety assignment was badly written and very unclear, this wasted a lot of the assistants time by having to explain what was required. » (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Powertrain, design of driveline diagram*
42 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		2		4%
OK»		2		4%
Relevant and good experience»		17		40%
Very good exercise for my learning»		21		50%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.35

Suspension. optimisation of SUV characteristics*
42 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		2		4%
To some extent relevant»		5		11%
OK»		7		16%
Relevant and good experience»		13		30%
Very good exercise for my learning»		15		35%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.8

Safety, compatibility calculations and loads*
42 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		2		4%
To some extent relevant»		2		4%
OK»		10		23%
Relevant and good experience»		17		40%
Very good exercise for my learning»		11		26%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.78

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

- I had no time because of all the assignments in every lectures.»
- Johnson Control - dvpmt process : REDUNDANT WITH THE LECTURE! Requires coordination. VCC : why didn"t we meet any engineers? It was a tourist visit! We didn"t have the possibility to ask true engineering questions and to meet engineers.»
- The volvo safety center was like being in a commercial. The guide didnt really know any tech stuff. Silly since its a groupd of automotive engineers visiting! Should be someone who at least now what the cars cost...»
- The female guide at the safety center was unable to answer all the engineering related questions (which was the only questions we had).»
- Johnson Controls was really good on the production tour. The development process was rather boring and pretty much the same that was given during the previous lecture at Chalmers. Volvo cars was a really great experience. By far the best experience of the course.»
- Sadly in Johnson Controls they show us the same presentation we had in class few days earlier. It could be interesting to see a crash test in VC safety center.»

Johnson Controls - Arendal - Development process*
42 svarande

Very poor»		3		11%
Rather poor»		5		19%
OK»		8		30%
Rather good»		3		11%
Very good»		7		26%
Did not attend/Do not know»		16

Genomsnitt: 3.23

Johnson Controls - Arendal - Production tour*
42 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		3		12%
Rather good»		7		28%
Very good»		15		60%
Did not attend/Do not know»		17

Genomsnitt: 4.48

Volvo Cars Torslanda Assembly Plant*
42 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		2		6%
Rather good»		4		12%
Very good»		27		81%
Did not attend/Do not know»		9

Genomsnitt: 4.75

Volvo Cars Safety center/Environment*
42 svarande

Very poor»		1		3%
Rather poor»		3		9%
OK»		2		6%
Rather good»		8		25%
Very good»		18		56%
Did not attend/Do not know»		10

Genomsnitt: 4.21

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		4		9%
Some extent»		11		26%
Large extent»		23		54%
Great extent»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- Most of the learning from this course came from the assignments, not from the lectures. However, this might have to do with the fact that I have some little experience with the automotive industry.» (Some extent)

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

Small extent»		9		22%
Some extent»		12		30%
Large extent»		16		40%
Great extent»		3		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.32

- Book "Introduction to modern vehicle design" is useless for the course. It is outdated and the slides are attendance in the lecture is enough.....» (?)
- Didnt even open the book! Did excellent at exam anyway. Dont tell people to buy an expensive book when there is no need for it.» (Small extent)
- I dident even open the book and I know i performed at good at the exam anyway. » (Small extent)
- I didn"t really like the book. It develops too many equations for only a few pages on each topic. For such a broad book, it could be more descriptive and with fewer equations.» (Small extent)
- Mostly learned from lecture slides.» (Some extent)
- I work only with the Powerpoint presentation and nearly not a all with the book.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		1		2%
Rather badly»		8		19%
Rather well»		20		47%
Very well»		13		30%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- To little info about the assignments. » (Very badly)
- Assignments uploaded late.» (Rather badly)
- The uploading of the assignments were never in time. » (Rather badly)
- Alot of things were uploaded rather late - Assignment 2 even AFTER we were suppose to start working with it.» (Rather badly)
- Information and assignments came out very late!» (Rather badly)
- Well but it was not always updated.» (Rather well)
- Release slides on time please!» (Rather well)
- It was good from the course point of view. However, it is worth mentioning that the student portal has major working problems and it is surprising that such a prestigious university as Chalmers is not able to fix those problems in more than 3 months now.» (Rather well)
- Unfortunately, the study guidelines were posted too late. Should according to my opinion be posted the first week together with course info and schedule.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		4		9%
Rather good»		12		28%
Very good»		23		54%
I did not seek help»		3		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.59

- I have mentioned my comments about the assistants on question 7.» (Rather poor)
- It was ok. » (Rather poor) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- It was not that bad. » (Rather poor) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- I didn"t seek help during the lectures, just during the assignments» (Rather good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		2%
Rather well»		11		26%
Very well»		29		69%
I did not seek cooperation»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 3.71

- It is an excellent idea to mix swedish students with international students. It was a great help for me as a new Chalmers student.» (Rather well)
- My partners English was below par and that made it difficult to cooperate.» (Rather well)
- EXCELLENT IDEA to mix students for assignments. Suggest it to Sven, Stina and Chen!» (Very well)

14. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		3		7%
Adequate»		20		47%
High»		17		40%
Too high»		2		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Ass3 is really to short before the exam.» (High)
- The assignments consists of too many tasks. especially the assignment 3 is stupid because it is to superficial and the aim of the tasks is very unclear.» (High)
- To hand in a second version of the assignments requires more work than expected overall when we want to focus on other subjects for the exam.» (High)
- personal reasons» (Too high)

15. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		2%
Adequate»		17		41%
High»		19		46%
Too high»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- Could add some lectures!» (Adequate)
- Formula Student team member.» (High)
- again personal reasons» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

16. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		2		4%
Fair»		4		9%
Adequate»		9		21%
Good»		22		52%
Excellent»		5		11%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- Bad litterature, some very bad lectures, second assignment worthless. Just changing values until some other values were right. No real understaning.» (Poor)
- Useless lictature, unecassery information overload at the lectures (one slide was 120 pages long!). The assignments were ok if you dont count the shark assignments which did not increase my knowledge about suspensions. All i did was moving points in a computer program to get good values, no understanding at all (i got my understanding elsewhere). » (Poor)
- Interesting, but not more.» (Fair)
- Guest lecturers: EXCELLENT point. Content: too poor. Supervizors always available, EXCELLENT point. » (Adequate)
- It is a good introductory course, and for sure more rewarding for people without previous experience.» (Adequate)
- Really nice, varying and all in all good readings. But as I mentioned before, there should be more depth of the topics. Some readings were without any (real) information.» (Good)
- I give you my general impression as a student who already studied a lot of things in automotive engineering before attending this course: I really think this course is a good introduction in automotive engineering: not so deep and not so light » (Good)
- A very good course to give us who haven"t worked with cars before a chance to catch up. » (Excellent)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

19. Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor