|
Written by Webmaster
|
|
Sunday, 11 June 2006 |
|
ChallengeX 2006 is over, and it was a very successful year for our hybrid Buckeyes. The OSU team fielded one of only six functioning hybrid vehicles at the competition, and was recognized for various accomplishments, including:
Outreach: 3rd place
Technical report: 2nd place (behind Virginia Tech)
Trailer tow: 1st place (shared with three other teams that also had a perfect run: Tennessee, Va. Tech and Wisconsin)
The Mathworks 'Crossover to Model Based Design' Award: 1st place
(The Mathworks has issued a special press release for this award).
Best Realization of Vehicle Technical Specifications: 2nd place (behind Mississippi State)
Read more about the competition here.
In the overall competition, Tennessee finished 6th with 577 points (out of 1000); Penn State was 5th 676; OSU finished in 4th place with 771 points. 3rd place was Mississippi State with 853 points. 2nd place was Wisconsin with 888 points and 1st was Virginia Tech with 902 points.
For the record, Akron finished 11th with 458 points, and Michigan was last with 63 points. In fact , Michigan did not qualify to compete at the GM Desert Proving Ground, as they did not pass basic technical inspection in April/May. UC Davis and Akron were also on probation, but managed to pass the pre-inspection just before shipping the vehicle.
Why did we not fare better? Lack of calibration time on the vehicle. Fuel economy and emissions were sub-par, and the low scoring in these two events was enough to relegate us to fourth place.
What went right? Just about everything else. Consider the following close finishes:
The composite technical reports score (two reports, fall and spring at 40 and 70 points, respectively) was only 0.9 points behind Va. Tech. OSU scored a perfect 70/70 in the spring technical report (ask me for a copy if you are interested, it is good!)... And why are we not giving these students course credit for their work??
The Vehicle Handling time (on an autocross course) was tens of milliseconds behind Va. Tech (we came in 2nd by a “nose” ).
The AVL Drive Quality event (aimed at assessing vehicle driveability) had us 0.9 points (out of 65) behind Mississippi State (we came in 2nd).
The Vehicle Overview, an oral presentation to a group of 15 judges from industry, saw us in second place (59 points) behind Wisconsin (65 points).
The team received many compliments for the design and fit and finish of the vehicle. We were the only team to have preserved all of the cargo and passenger space in the vehicle, in spite of extensive modifications. Everyone else had reduced the cargo space, and in some cases lost some passenger seating.
Among the judges were six directors and executive directors from GM, and Vice President Dan Hancock (former CEO of the Fiat-GM Powertrain JV) attended the last day of judging and the awards ceremony. I heard many positive comments about Ohio State.
What next? Well, we have one year to prepare for the final year of ChallengeX. The team is already planning, and really only needs to make minor modifications and a lot of fine tuning to turn this year’s “mule” into next year’s prototype. |
(0.4 %)