Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

Proposed Phases/Reviews:

The primary goal is for the mech leads to receive feedback and iterate as many times as possible within ~1 month. To do this, two review periods will be set.

  1. Mech-leads review

    1. At this time, the mech leads will present their initial designs in the form of a design log to receive feedback from each other.

    2. This can be done in small groups or as an entire cohort of leads; this detail can be decided with further discussion

  2. Advisor review

    1. Here, the leads present their iterated designs to the advisors, again in the form of a design log; similar to the first review just with a more rigorous reviewer.

    2. Again, this can be done in small groups (a few leads to each advisor) or as a cohort.

We are proposing three main phases anchored on two review periods.

Note that independent reviews with fellow leads throughout this entire period are encouraged! You are not limited to just the above-mentioned 2 reviews!!!

  • Phase 1: Pre-review. This is time for the designer to

    • Analyze the problem at hand

    • Come up with concept sketches

    • Perform force analysis

    • Come up with initial designs + justifications

    • Material selection + manufacturing method selection

    • Propose an initial design in the form of a design log, going through the key decisions that were made, etc.

  • Phase 2: Post-leads review

    • Based on the feedback from each other, the designer will have time to rethink their approach and patch up any problems that they may encounter.

    • This will also help with both giving and receiving feedback; a critical skill moving forward into the design of the car.

  • Phase 3: Post-advisors review

    • Based on feedback from the advisors, final design changes can be made, as well as reflecting on the approach taken throughout this process.

    • Potentially a secondary advisor review to get some kind of closure on the iteration made after the advisor review? This can be discussed in further detail

  • No labels