Vehicle Body Style Decision Matrix (Bullet vs. Catamaran)

PUGH Matrix: +1 for a solution better than datum, 0 for a solution equivalent to datum, -1 for a solution worse than datum.

Additional Notes based on decision:

Firmware’s Input: “We’re pretty easy. The only condition is that it's aesthetically pleasing, it will make me write much better firmware” - Mitchell

Hardware's Input: “Elec systems will largely be unaffected by the decision. You'd have to be integrating the same amount of elec components either way so a bit of extra space would be nice, but not necessary by any means. A bit of extra space for lights would be great though, MSXIV was really pushing it and left pretty much no room for leeway.” - Nita

Solar Array Maximization: At least 25 combinations for a 4m^2 bullet roof surface to be covered in solar panels, therefore, equally easy to design compared to datum

Driver Egress: Bullet is narrower and therefore easier, offset catamaran is also easier because at least one path can be right beside edge of roof

Center of gravity placement: Bullet has less room internally to distribute and position the weight - worse, offset catamaran can be balanced by adding weight to both “hulls” (therefore easier to control) but may be heavier overall - better

Center of gravity distribution: Bullet CG is lower (moment of inertia is better) - better, offset catamaran CG may be heavier on one side versus other - worse

Vehicle mass: Bullet will be lighter - better, offset catamaran may be significantly heavier if CG needs to be balanced - worse

Aerodynamics: Catamaran designs have less frontal area blocking airflow, therefore bullet - worse

Cost: Catamaran needs more aero panels which would drive up cost, also require more chassis tubes, bullet - better

Time: Bullet will take less time to build (less panels), catamaran middle supports will be difficult to design, therefore bullet - better

Knowledge: Student teams have more knowledge on similar bullet design considerations (chassis and dynamics), SSDC and advisors have more knowledge on catamaran designs for solar vehicles (aerobody, battery ventilation), current mech leads has no experience in either, therefore bullet - better/

Component reusability: Aero - floor panel could be reused in a variety of ways, chassis - doesn’t have any major components that can be reused everywhere, dynamics - front suspension could be reused on offset catamaran hulls, rear suspension could be reused everywhere (narrower), steering needs to be changed regardless but core pieces can be adjusted, brakes are reusable across the board if tweaked correctly , therefore dynamics says offset - better

DFM (Aero) - Bullet has less complex features, catamaran sheet metal molds could be utilized, bullet is less difficult - better

DFM (battery) - same

DFM (chassis) - same

DFM (dynamics) - bullet is easier, less weird geometry

DFA (aero) - bullet is easier, less panels, fairings are difficult without intense planning, bullet- better

DFA (battery) - relatively similar for all

DFA (chassis): catamaran requires more weld jigs, therefore bullet - better

DFA dynamics: same

Regs Aero: same

Regs battery: ventilation may be more difficult for bullet, therfore bullet - worse

Regs chassis: 5G impact test, more tubes for catamarans, bullet - better

Regs dynamics: 4 wheel any design is equal for scrutineering

Serviceability (aero): catamaran fairings if damaged could be very difficult to service, bullet nose, therefore equal

Serviceability (battery): equal

Serviceability (chassis): equal

Serviceability (dynamics): fairings on catamaran make wheel servicing easier, wheel covers will accomplish the same on bullet, all about equal, will need to be designed.

Therefore Bullet Design has been selected based on criteria

Onboarding Going Forward (Starting Summer 2022)

In general, onboarding should take no longer than 2 weeks for all members, and perhaps in our heaviest recruiting term (fall), we can extend to 1 month to allow for design sprints to occur.

• Brand new members should be given standard procedures in terms of premade and recorded content:

  • ESMS Safety Training

  • Midsun Handbook

  • SolidWorks Onboarding Project

  • Simulation Software Training

  • Member applications?

• All members should learn on the fly:

  • Gauge a member’s experience level and assign them an appropriate task.

  • If more difficult tasks are the only ones left, partner less experience members with more experienced (core) members.

To (potentially) reduce the workload on leads:

• Training Coordinator (permanent position on the team)

• Have members train other members

One-on-Ones (Winter 2022)

Leads will have one on one conversations with members of the team, hopefully learning more about their skills, goals, commitment level to the team, and interests outside of midsun (to name a few).

Objectives for one-on-ones:

• Build relationships between members and leads

• Make it clear what the members wants out of the team

• Understand every members capabilities and interests

• Leads can generate an official roster of members

• Increased member retention

One on One approach (one lead with one member):

• Scheduled 30 min zoom calls (or in person?)

• Similar to a coffee chat, it is encouraged to have a natural conversation but a question card can be provided to leads as needed

• Document notes about each member based on their answers, this is to refer to later (goals and accountability), as well as for other leads to learn more about each member

• Date(s)?- week after timeline Mar 6 - 12

• Question sheet: W2022 Mechanical 1:1s

MSXV Timeline