ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Road Vehicle Aerodynamics, MTF235

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-03-12 - 2012-04-07
Antal svar: 42
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 79%
Kontaktperson: Lisa Larsson»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp
Klass: Övriga
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

Your own effort

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

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

42 svarande

At most 10 hours/week» 6 14%

Around 15 hours/week» 10 23%

Around 20 hours/week» 21 50%

Around 25 hours/week» 4 9%

At least 30 hours/week» 1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Formula Student» (At most 10 hours/week)
- During the study period the amount of extra hours apart from the lectures were very few but in study week 7 it was very much with report deadline, presentation and exam on Saturday.» (Around 20 hours/week)

2. How many hours per week did you send on other courses?

42 svarande

At most 10 hours/week» 2 4%

At most 15 hours/week» 4 9%

At most 20 hours/week» 11 26%

At most 25 hours/week» 16 38%

At most 30 hours/week» 9 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- Also in the other course (Hybrid vehicles...) it was a lot of work spent in the last study weeks due to a big deadline.» (At most 25 hours/week)
- Formula Student, 50+ h. » (At most 30 hours/week)
- The first three weeks was less than 20h and the last four was more than 30h because of assignments. » (At most 30 hours/week)

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

41 svarande

0%» 0 0%

25%» 0 0%

50%» 5 12%

75%» 17 41%

100%» 19 46%

Genomsnitt: 4.34

- 90%» (?)
- Sickness and some other things hindered me from attending all courses» (75%)
- The teacher in bluff body lecture could explain more and make it clearer... Otherwise, really good all the PhD and Lennart as well!» (75%) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

4. How understandable are the course goals?

42 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals» 5 11%

The goals are difficult to understand» 0 0%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 11 26%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 26 61%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

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

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

40 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 5 12%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 34 85%

No, the goals are set too high» 1 2%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

6. How well does the course content cover the learning outcome?

39 svarande

Small extent» 0 0%

Some extent» 8 20%

Large extent» 21 53%

Great extent» 10 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- It could be more about analyzing different cfd results as where asked on the exam.» (Some extent)
- More interest in vehicle aerodynamics since the beginning.» (Some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

41 svarande

Small extent» 3 7%

Some extent» 10 24%

Large extent» 20 48%

Great extent» 8 19%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- The lectures were interesting but when looking at the slides they were mainly entirely composed of pictures which was not useful at all when revising. The book was interesting but lacked criticial information which had to be found through other sources (google) Felt underprepared for the exam questions when taking into account the lecture notes. » (Some extent)
- The Power Point printouts were sort of useless for the preperation of the exam. Some good lecture notes would be good,.» (Some extent)
- If we are suppose to be able to do the dicretisatiopn asked on the exam we need more about that beacuse this was just unfair to have as an exam question.» (Large extent)
- I think the Barnard book gave a good understanding for the basics of Road Vehicle Aerodynamic. This will help when learning more advanced stuff.» (Large extent)
- Make HUCHO book the official book. The book you suggested (Bernard) this time wasn"t that good. » (Large extent)
- Very good book.» (Great extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts, contact with supervisors etc work?

41 svarande

Very badly» 0 0%

Rather badly» 0 0%

Rather well» 15 36%

Very well» 26 63%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- The lecture notes could have been uploaded sooner after the lectures. » (Rather well)
- Good service» (Very well)

Study climate

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

42 svarande

Very poor» 0 0%

Rather poor» 2 4%

Rather good» 5 11%

Very good» 35 83%

I did not seek help» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- The course assistants/lecturers were very helpful and felt inspiring and prepared for the course.» (Very good)
- PHD students and lecturers welcomed questions» (Very good)
- Motivated PhD Students and Prof..» (Very good)

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

42 svarande

Very poorly» 0 0%

Rather poorly» 2 4%

Rather well» 12 28%

Very well» 28 66%

I did not seek cooperation» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- In the laboratory project there were problems due to language difficulties and varying level of ambition. This led to that some student in the group did most of the work since there was no time or energy to put the effort in getting the group to work properly. » (Rather poorly)

11. How was the course workload?

42 svarande

Too low» 4 9%

Low» 2 4%

Adequate» 32 76%

High» 3 7%

Too high» 1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- First part of the course was quite calm but increased through out course. The first two exercises could have been in the second and third week. Because by having all of the "late" in the course meant that the report and excersises took to much time at the last two weeks...» (High)

Summarizing questions

12. What is your general impression of the course?

41 svarande

Poor» 2 4%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 7 17%

Good» 22 53%

Excellent» 10 24%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- Racing car improving was impossible. No time to do it properly. No time enough at the wind tunnel.» (Adequate)
- My problem: Now I know what exists on a car in order to have some Aerodynamic optimizattion. BUT I dont know how to optimize one. Its nice how to stick some addition to a truck but I still dont know how to optimize the general form (the iterating process)» (Adequate)
- Good course but I had higher expectations, could be even more focus on understanding results from cfd or windtunnels.» (Good)
- There could be additional assignments. Work load is very less» (Good)
- The course and lectures were very interesting and I come away with a greater appreciation of aerodynamics but I don"t feel I"ve learned how to actually design a car appropriately regarding its aerodynamics. » (Good)
- RVAD was a fun course and not only that I can"t think of a single time when something was unclear. The administration and layout of the course was flawless. Good teachers and assistants.» (Excellent)

13. What is your impression of the lectures?

40 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 2 5%

Adequate» 8 20%

Good» 25 62%

Excellent» 5 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- 30% of the lecture are interesting facts, the rest unrelevant story telling and braging about famous friends.» (Adequate)
- To be honest. Lennarts lectures didn"t have any substance, he was just telling stories and showed pictures of old race cars.» (Adequate)
- sometimes too much talk about famous people.» (Adequate)
- Too much fancy cars.» (Adequate)
- The lecture on discretization could have be improved a bit,either by devoting 2 lectures on it or by excluding the derivation and explaining only the principle behind it.» (Good)

14. What is your impression of the guest lectures?

42 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 3 7%

Good» 33 78%

Excellent» 6 14%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- I found the course about aero aucustics really interesting» (Good)
- Tim"s lecture was awsome! Olgas lecture was really good.» (Good) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

15. What is your impression of the post processing lecture and task in ParaView?

42 svarande

Poor» 1 2%

Fair» 2 4%

Adequate» 12 28%

Good» 20 47%

Excellent» 4 9%

Did not attend the session» 3 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- Well it was ok, but after not using for 2 weeks ParaView I have forgotten how to use it.» (Adequate)
- Fieldview is much easier to work with. » (Good)
- Interesting lecture and task but not the best lecturer.» (Good)
- Could be more of these as some smaller assignments where only Paraview was used to interpret good/bad design.» (Good)

16. What is your impression of the CFD lecture?

42 svarande

Poor» 2 4%

Fair» 6 14%

Adequate» 9 21%

Good» 17 40%

Excellent» 4 9%

Did not attend the session» 4 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- It was to much focus on theory compared with the rest of the course. The dircretization of the heat transfer is/and should not be a part of the course! There are other courses where this is a part of the course. Would be better to discuss how cfd results should be interpreted» (Fair)
- Good intention with showing the theory behind but maybe it was a bit too deep?» (Fair)
- The material was interesting but I think too much time was spent on the mathematical derivation at the end. » (Adequate)

17. What is your impression of the UTM and cooling airflow lecture?

40 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 1 2%

Adequate» 6 15%

Good» 21 52%

Excellent» 10 25%

Did not attend the session» 2 5%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

18. What is your impression of the UTM exercises?

40 svarande

Poor» 1 2%

Fair» 1 2%

Adequate» 13 32%

Good» 21 52%

Excellent» 4 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- I did not attend, as I had to go when the session started.» (?)
- There was no theory in the book to understand it. There should be some literture hand out of the thoery to understand all questions. But the question that also was on the exam was excellent for understanding!» (Adequate)
- Interesting questions but the mathematical ones seem a little irrelevant since they were not tested in the exam. » (Good)

19. What is your impression of the exercises and exercise sessions?

41 svarande

Poor» 1 2%

Fair» 3 7%

Adequate» 11 26%

Good» 25 60%

Excellent» 1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Didnt really feel connected to the course...» (Poor)
- not a good solution to sit in these classrooms and try to calculate things. ML1-4 would have been better.» (Fair)
- Should be earlier in the course like week 2,3,4 and 5.» (Good)
- Unfortunately a very bad lecture room for exercise...» (Good)
- Maybe giving the exercises before the session would be better for studying them deeper.» (Good)
- More of them.» (Good)
- One stiupid thing occured. The ground flow exercice took place before the lecture and the PhD students didnt want to answer the questions and since I dont know anything before the lecture about that topic it was unneccesary complicated.» (Good)

20. How would you rate the project work?

41 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 1 2%

Adequate» 3 7%

Good» 19 46%

Excellent» 18 43%

Did not attend the sessions» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 4.31

- Interesting wind tunnel testing feedback » (Good)
- The project work was good fun, enjoyed the session in the wind tunnel even if the results did not work out as planned!» (Excellent)

21. What did you think about the project layout?

How would you rate the project layout with pre-study, wind tunnel laboration, report and presentation?

42 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 7 16%

Good» 21 50%

Excellent» 14 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- The report and pressentation should have been friday study week 6 not the day before the exam...» (Good)
- Good fun to carry out project but having the project presentation and the lab the day before the exam was less than ideal for preparation. » (Good)
- Deadline to late.» (Good)
- good, except for the date of the presentation. It was to close to the exam.» (Good)

22. Project groups

Would you prefer to have predefined project groups or do you prefer to have as we had this year, you sign up for the groups by your own?

41 svarande

Prefer predefined groups» 7 17%

Prefer to sign up on a list» 34 82%

Genomsnitt: 1.82

- It really doesn"t matter to me. Both solutions are fine.» (?)
- This brings about co-operation with a multi lingual society.» (Prefer predefined groups)
- Easier to co-ordinate with other courses. » (Prefer to sign up on a list)
- Though, pre-defined group could encourage interaction.» (Prefer to sign up on a list)
- I think choosing the group worked well. » (Prefer to sign up on a list)

23. How would you rate the wind tunnel laboratory work?

42 svarande

Poor» 1 2%

Fair» 1 2%

Adequate» 2 4%

Good» 18 42%

Excellent» 20 47%

Genomsnitt: 4.3

- 2 hours in a row are not enough. More time to think about changes is necessary.» (Fair)
- -» (Good)
- Could have given more time» (Good)

24. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Wind tunnel session. »
- Paraview, all lectures.»
- Lab works, presentations.»
- the project, lectures»
- In my opinion the course is really a fantastic one. I would suggest to keep most part»
- The project and Tim Walkers lecture»
- Wind tunnel lab, ParaView post processing, VCC wind tunnel visit»
- Inspirational lectures containing interesting history and facts about sport cars. »
- The course as it was this year»
- Lab work, Volvo wind tunnel visit and guest lecture.»
- I think the course should stay as it was this year.»
- The Projects,Exercises.»
- Guest lecture»
- Wind tunnel testing! The visit to Volvo"s wind tunnel. »
- Windtunnel experiment»
- Wind Tunnel project.»
- Everything»
- The project and paraview should be preserved»
- Wind tunnel laboratory.»
- the guest lectures.»
- wind tunnel project»
- Everything»
- -»
- The windtunnel lab.»

25. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- More in-depth explaining of the theory (e.g. Navier-Stokes). »
- Exam question policy - more fair.»
- exercise»
- 1) The excercises should be ealier in the course. 2) There should not be the heat transfer caluculations that where in the exam. 3) The project should be handed in one week ealier»
- Later examination date. It was very stressful to have presentations for 4 hours the day before the exam. »
- Work load. There could be an additional assignment.»
- nothing to add.»
- The level of the course needs to be higher. As it is now it"s just ridicules and pointless. It should be either more fluid mechanics or CFD. »
- Cant find something to fault.»
- Detailed basics of applied fluid mechanics session.»
- CFD»
- The report and presentation could maybe be at the start of the last week. The lecture notes should definitely contain more writing and information instead of just pictures. The second half of the CFD presentation should be changed. »
- There should be more calculations»
- Maybe a lecture on the basics or a handout treating this basics of fluid mechanics on the webpage.»
- Should atleast teach two-D simulation of CFD(ex- aerofoil). Not just the post processing, but everything before that. Paraview does look good, but being a master student, it seems less competitive.»
- The time between presentation and exam should be changed , presentation should be kept at least 2 days before the final exam.»
- Question 11 on the exam.»
- presentation date.»
- Have some defined basic knowledge required. If you dont have it, dont come to the lecture. Therefore get the basic theory (=bernoulli ect) out. Move more theory of CFD inside.»
- CFD classes should be improved»
- More wind tunnel time and a bit of CFD work. »
- -»
- More theory about the airflow.»

26. Additional comments

- Lennart is a wonderful professor, I wasn"t that interested in RVAD before attending the course, but he definitely made me (us?) love this field.»
- Question 11. on the exam related to theoretical calculations regarding CFD should have not been included in the exam since this material was not focal and it was not covered in the given exercises during the course. I consider this unfair.»
- Regarding the excercises if you provide us with some material (ie. formulas or support materials) that would be useful. Overall opinion it is one of the best couse in Chalmers.»
- Thanks for a great course! Learnt a lot and it was very interesting. Has really opened my eyes for RVAD.»
- Overall very good. I for one learned alot about RVAD and is pleased that the focus on the course was on the basic behaviour of the airflow and not on formulas and equations. »
- A very good course, overall.»
- This is probably the most insubstantial course I"ve ever read during my time on Chalmers.»
- Enjoyed the module, favourite so far at chalmers, so congrats to all involved»
- Very good course !!!»
- n/a»
- More time would be nice for the wind tunnel laboratory work.»
- Nice but too applied content»
- More wind tunnel time and a bit of CFD work. »
- -»
- I think it was unfair to have a question on the exam which only had been done on a lecture. There were no exercise or anything to study how to do the calculation.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från