marking criteria 2014 v1.0

8/18/2019 Marking Criteria 2014 v1.0

1/16

F1 in Schools™ Australia Marking Criteria© – Season 2014/15


2/16


Version 1.0 – May 2014 3 | P a g e

Copyright Notice

This document, all its contents (including images, text, procedures) are copyright 2014, Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. All rights reserved.

Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. Unit 2, 3 Packard Avenue Castle Hill NSW 2154 Australia.

Phone: +61 2 9634 2144. Email: [email protected]

REA, Re-Engineering Australia, the Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Logo, and other associated logos are trademarks of Re-Engineering Australia

Foundation Ltd. All rights reserved.

F1 in Schools: F1 in Schools™, F1iS, Formula 1® in Schools, the F1 in Schools™ challenge, and the associated logos are trademarks of F1 in Schools™.

Formula 1: F1, Formula 1®, and the associated logos are trademarks of Formula 1® Licensing BV.

Reproduction

This document may only be reproduced by schools registered in the F1 in Schools™ program in Australia. Non -participating schools in Australia and

overseas must first seek permission from Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. prior to reproducing.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/16



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

MARKING CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................ 5

SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: CADET CLASS ................................................................................................ 6

SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: DEVELOPMENT CLASS ..................................................................................... 8

SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: PROFESSIONAL CLASS ................................................................................... 10

ENGINEERING SCORE CARD ..................................................................................................................... 12

PORTFOLIO & DISPLAY SCORE CARD ........................................................................................................ 13

VERBAL PRESENTATION SCORE CARD ....................................................................................................... 14

JUDGING FEEDBACK FORM ...................................................................................................................... 15

ENQUIRIES ........................................................................................................................................................16


4/16



PREAMBLE

This document provides detailed information about the Assessment Criteria Judges will use at State and National Finals

and is designed to be read in conjunction with the current Rules and Regulations.

The key performance indicators in the Score Cards are used by the judges to determine points awarded for all judging

activities.

MARKING CRITERIA

The total maximum number of marks available is 900 and will be distributed as per the following judging criteria.

Engineering: 235 marks in total consisting of:

1.

Specifications: 60 marks

2.

Form & Finish: 15 marks

3. CAD & Analysis: 85 marks

4.

Manufacturing: 45 marks

5.

Technical Merit: 30 marksPortfolio & Pit Display: 220 marks in total consisting of:

6.

Portfolio: 60 marks

7.

Marketing: 40 marks

8.

Pit Display: 40 marks

9. F1 Design Process: 80 marks

Verbal Presentation: 220 marks in total consisting of:

10.

Technique: 40 marks

11.

Composition: 30 marks

12. Subject Matter: 150 marks

Race: 225 marks in total consisting of:

13.

Grand Prix Race: 175 marks

14.

Fastest Reaction Time: 20 marks

15. Knockout Race: 30 marks


5/16



SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: CADET CLASS

For clarification on individual rules refer to the 2013/2014 Season Australian Rules & Regulations.

A points deduction against failed specifications will be applied. General tolerance +/- 0.5mm & - 0.5g.

1A: DIMENSIONAL SPECIFICATIONS PENALTY

APPLIED

PASS/FAIL

or

POINTS

DEDUCTION

RULE RULE OVERVIEW DIMENSIONS

3d OVERALL LENGTH 170 < L


6/16



SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: CADET CLASS

© 2014 Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd

3b THE F1 CAR PRODUCT – LEGAL ELEMENTS -2

3c CENTRE OF GRAVITY REMAINS BETWEEN AXLES WITH CANISTER INSERTED [0.05 TIME] -1

3i ONE COMPONENT FROM A SINGLE STANDARD REA SUPPLIED BALSA WOOD BLANK DISQUALIFIED 0

3j BALSA DEFAULT MATERIAL FOR ALL NON ROTATING PARTS DISQUALIFIED 0

3m IMPLANTS, FOREIGN OBJECTS OR VOIDS PROHIBITED [0.10 TIME] -2

4d VIRTUAL CARGO CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN ENGINEERING DRAWINGS -2

5b NOSE CONE NON-METALLIC MATERIAL NOT PRESENT BEHIND AXLE CENTRE LINE -1

6a FRONT AEROFOIL POSITIONING WITH FRONT AXLE – IN FRONT OF CENTRE LINE -1

6b FRONT AEROFOIL CONNECTION WITH NOSECONE ONLY -1

6c REAR AEROFOIL POSITIONING WITH REAR AXLE – BEHIND CENTRE LINE -1

6d REAR AEROFOIL POSITIONING WITH REAR WHEEL – ABOVE WHEEL -1

6g AEROFOILS TOP SURFACES 100% VISIBLE FROM CAR TOP - ABOVE -1

7a 4 CYLINDRICAL WHEELS [0.10 TIME] -2

7b ALL WHEELS AND FULL TRACK CONTACT – NO CAMBER (ZERO TOLERANCE) -2

7c WHEEL DIMENSIONS CONSISTENCY ACROSS TRACK CONTACT -2

7d TRACK CONTACT SURFACE OF ALL 4 WHEELS FREELY ROTATING [0.05 TIME] -1

7e 4 UNMODIFIED REA STANDARD WHEELS [0.10 TIME] -2

8a WHEEL SUPPORT SYSTEM PROJECTED CYLINDER VOLUME -2

8b 4 UNMODIFIED REA AXLE GROMMETS -2

8d BRASS DEFAULT MATERIAL FOR AXLES - NO OTHER MATERIAL PERMITTED -2

8e NO MODIFICATIONS TO WHEEL SUPPORT SYSTEM -2

9a TETHER LINE GUIDES SECURITY & LOCATION – ON CENTRE LINE -1

9d TETHER LINE GUIDES CLOSED FOR SAFETYPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9e TETHER LINE GUIDES ADEQUATE STRENGTH AND FIXINGPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9f NO TETHER LINE GUIDE ARRANGEMENTS WITH SHARP EDGESPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9g TETHER LINE GUIDES & SUPPORTS NO OTHER STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9h 2 REA STANDARD TETHER LINE GUIDES -1

9i TETHER LINE GUIDES LOCATED IN 6MM X 6MM SLOT -1

10f PAINT AND OTHER FOREIGN IN CO2 CARTRIDGE CHAMBER -1

10g CARTRIDGE INSERTION AND WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT REMOVAL OF PARTS [0.10 TIME] -2

Total Regulation Penalties

Total Specification Score(Deduct dimensional & regulation penalty total from 60 points)

/60

Total TIME Penalties

2. FORM & FINISH (A MEASURE OF MANUFACTURING QUALITY, ASSEMBLY & FINISH OF PRIMARY & BACKUP CARS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SCORE

Cars dissimilar to each other &

significant difference to design.

Poor finish.

Cars similar to each other and the design. Goodoverall finish.

Excellent symmetry for each

car and design match.

Excellent finish.

/15


7/16



SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: DEVELOPMENT CLASS For clarification on individual rules refer to the 2014/2015 Season Australian Rules & Regulations. Car 1 = Primary Race Car & Car 2 = Back-up Race Car.

Both Car 1 & Car to be scrutinised. A single points deduction against specifications will be applied if either car fails General tolerance +/- 0.5mm & - 0.5g.

1A: DIMENSIONAL SPECIFICATIONS PENALTY

APPLIED

PASS/FAIL

or

POINTS

DEDUCTION

RULE RULE OVERVIEW DIMENSIONS CAR 1 CAR 2



8/16



SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: DEVELOPMENT CLASS




3h REA SUPPLIED SINGLE STANDARD BALSA WOOD BLANK [0.05 TIME] -1



5a NOSE CONE MATERIALS – METALLIC MATERIAL PROHIBITED DISQUALIFIED 0





6d REAR AEROFOIL POSITIONING WITH REAR WHEEL- ABOVE WHEEL -1


6h FRONT AEROFOIL & SUPPORT STRUCTURE – METALLIC MATERIAL PROHIBITED DISQUALIFIED 0

6k REAR AEROFOIL MADE FROM BALSA [0.10 TIME] -2





7e 4 UNMODIFIED REA STANDARD WHEELS [0.10 TIME] -2


8b 4 UNMODIFIED REA AXLE GROMMETS -2

8c 2 STANDARD/MODIFIED AXLES OF SAME DIAMETER -2

8e NO MODIFICATIONS TO WHEEL SUPPORT SYSTEM -2

9a TETHER LINE GUIDES SECURITY & LOCATION ON CENTRE LINE -1

9d TETHER LINE GUIDES CLOSED FOR SAFETY PROHIBITED -1

9e TETHER LINE GUIDES ADEQUATE STRENGTH AND FIXING PROHIBITED -1

9f NO TETHER LINE GUIDE ARRANGEMENTS WITH SHARP EDGES PROHIBITED -1

9g TETHER LINE GUIDES & SUPPORTS NO OTHER STRUCTURAL FUNCTION PROHIBITED -1






/60


Cars dissimilar to each other &significant difference to design.

Poor finish.

Cars similar to each other and the design. Good

overall finish.

Excellent symmetry for eachcar and design match.

Excellent finish.

/15


9/16



SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: PROFESSIONAL CLASS For clarification on individual rules refer to the 2014/2015 Season Australian Rules & Regulations. Car 1 = Primary Race Car & Car 2 = Back-up Race Car.

Both Car 1 & Car to be scrutinised. A single points deduction against specifications will be applied if either car fails General tolerance +/- 0.5mm & - 0.5g.

1A: DIMENSIONAL SPECIFICATIONS PENALTYAPPLIED

PASS/FAIL

or POINTS

DEDUCTION

RULE RULE OVERVIEW DIMENSIONS CAR 1 CAR 2



10/16



SPECIFICATION SCORE CARD: PROFESSIONAL CLASS


1q REA’S NATIONAL SPONSORS’ LOGOS APPLIED (REA, DMO, F1, AUTODESK) -2

1r REA & F1 STICKERS ON OPPOSING SIDEPODS AND MIN OF 25MM L X 15MM H -2

3a WHEEL PROFILES 100% VISIBLE & UNOBSTRUCTED FROM SIDE & ABOVE [0.10 TIME] -2



3h REA SUPPLIED SINGLE STANDARD BALSA WOOD BLANK [0.05 TIME] -1



5a NOSE CONE MATERIALS – METALLIC MATERIAL PROHIBITED DISQUALIFIED 0





6d REAR AEROFOIL POSITIONING WITH REAR WHEEL- ABOVE WHEEL -1


6h FRONT AEROFOIL & SUPPORT STRUCTURE – METALLIC MATERIAL PROHIBITED DISQUALIFIED 0

6i REAR AEROFOIL & SUPPORT STRUCTURE - METALLIC MATERIAL PROHIBITED DISQUALIFIED 0

6j REAR AEROFOIL & STRUCTURE POSITIONING IN VERTICAL PROJECTED VOLUME -2






9a TETHER LINE GUIDES SECURITY & LOCATION ON CENTRE LINE -1

9d TETHER LINE GUIDES CLOSED FOR SAFETYPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9e TETHER LINE GUIDES ADEQUATE STRENGTH AND FIXINGPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9f NO TETHER LINE GUIDE ARRANGEMENTS WITH SHARP EDGESPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1

9g TETHER LINE GUIDES & SUPPORTS NO OTHER STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONPROHIBITED

FROM RACING -1






/60


Cars dissimilar to each other &significant difference to design.

Poor finish.

Cars similar to each other and the design. Goodoverall finish.

Excellent symmetry for eachcar and design match.

Excellent finish.

/15


11/16

F1 in Schools™ Australia Marking Criteria – Season 2014/15

Version 1.0 – May 2014 Page | 12

ENGINEERING SCORE CARD

Developed with McLeay Consulting Pty. Ltd. © 2014 Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd.

3.

CAD & ANALYSIS LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

3.1

Application

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Adequate Use of CAD. Final Design OnlyAppropriate use of CAD-CAM in product development stages.

Good understanding of CAM evident

Advanced use of CAD & CAM technologies throughout.

Final CAD identical to physical model produced

3.2

Drawing &

Rendering

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Basic drawing and rendering Good technical drawing & realistic rendering High detail including spec dimensions. Photorealistic render

3.3

Organisation1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Generally disorganised Satisfactory organisation of data and models Data & parts highly ordered & linked. Full CAD product assembly

3.4

Analysis1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Minimal analysis shown Good analysis. Results applied to developme nt of project Variety of advanced & relevant analysis techniques adopted

CAD & ANALYSIS TOTAL / 85

4.

MANUFACTURING LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

4.1

CAD/Product

Match

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Physical design has some similarity to final Good Match to CAD design CAD & physical design identical in every detail

4.2 Use of CNC

Machining

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Minimal evidence & understanding shown. Good use & understanding of CNCHigh level of CNC machining competence. Appropriate

complex techniques & processes used

4.3

Documentation

in Portfolio

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Few manufacturing details Some manufacturing processes & issues included Detailed assessment of all manufacturing stages, materials & issues

MANUFACTURING TOTAL / 45

5.

TECHNICAL MERIT LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

5.1

Technical

Merit

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Basic design with little technical merit Developed design with some technical merit Original & clever developed design with exc. technical merit

TECHNICAL MERIT / 30


12/16



PORTFOLIO & DISPLAY SCORE CARD

Developed with McLeay Consulting Pty. Ltd. © 2014 Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd.

6. PORTFOLIO LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

6.1

Project

Management

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Limited evidence of project

management presented.

Simple management & planning used to guide progress. A

range of project resources identified.

Comprehensive PM. A range of factors considered. E.g. Scope,

time, resources & project risks. Plan changes discussed.

6.2

Teamwork

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Limited teamwork evident. Some evidence of effective teamwork with defined roles.Highly structured team with clear roles. All members had effective

& critical contributions. Role interactions recognised.

6.3 Clarity &

Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Not easily followed. Basic presentation

standard. Minimal ICT’s used.

Clear structure & well organised. Good Use of ICT’s enhancing

presentation & providing impact.

High impact. Professional throughout. Consistent & clear

organisation. Excellent use of ICT’s to enhance presentation.

PORTFOLIO TOTAL / 60

7.

MARKETING LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

7.1

Team Identity1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Inconsistent, limited or obscure identity Effective & consistent team identity in various project components. Highly effective team identity. Brand consistently applied.

7.2

Marketing1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Limited evidence. Obscure or irrelevant. Some sponsorship & marketing activities explained. Creative & effective marketing strategies linked to sponsor

TEAM IDENTITY & MARKETING TOTAL / 40

8.

PIT DISPLAY LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

8.1

Pit Display1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Simple branding displayed. Repetition of folio elements Clear & effective brand & presentation. ICT’s used effectively. Clean & organised with high Impact. Professional. Attention to detail.

PIT DISPLAY / 40

9.

F1 DESIGN PROCESS LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

9.1

Concepts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Single or basic design concept. Good multiple design concepts linked to research. Several inspired design concepts with form & function linked.

9.2 Development1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Limited development shown. Logical design developments explained. Clearly justified developments based around research & testing.

9.3

Testing1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Little evidence of testing. Tests which are relevant & results documented Quality test method. Accurate results linked to design revisions.

9.4

Evaluation1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

No or little evaluation. Ideas or process evaluations at different stages. Excellent ongoing evaluation linked to improvement actions

DESIGN PROCESS TOTAL / 80


13/16



VERBAL PRESENTATION SCORE CARD

Developed with McLeay Consulting Pty. Ltd . © 2014 Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd..

10.

TECHNIQUE LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

10.1 Teamwork1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Minimal team participation. Good contributions from most team members. Excellent team work. All members participate freely.

10.2 Visual Aids1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Little use of aids. Some aids used effectively. Highly professional aids that improved

10.3 Connection1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Minimal connection with audience. Some audience connection at times. Audience fully engaged & excited by presentation.

10.4 Energy &

Dynamic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Forced dynamic and/or low energy. Speakers generally enthusiastic with lively delivery. Passionate with effective & appropriate levels of energy.

TECHNIQUE TOTAL / 40

11.

COMPOSITION LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

11.1 Structure1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Stated Objective / Agenda Clear Objective, Basic Agenda Compelling Objective / Clear Signposting

11.2 Concept

Ex lanation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Several concepts lacked explanation. Clear & appropriate concept explanation. Excellent concept explanation. Clearly understood.

11.3 Timing1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rushed or over time. Topics not balanced. To Time. Balanced topic depth & pace. To Time or under. Excellent topic depth.

COMPOSITION TOTAL / 30

12.

SUBJECT MATTER LOW RANGE MID RANGE HIGH RANGE Scores

12.1 Innovation1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Limited evidence of innovati on in project. Innovation/s described & justified but could have better project impact. Original & truly clever innovations with high project

12.2 Collaboration2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

Limited collaboration. Links with industry or higher education described. Collaborations justified with links to learning & project

12.3 Learning

Experiences

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

No real reflections discussed. Good explanation of learning outcomes.A range of personal, life-long learning & career skills acquired &

identified as project outcomes for a range of team members.

SUBJECT MATTER TOTAL / 150


14/16


Version 1.0 –May 2014 Page | 15

JUDGING FEEDBACK FORM

PORTFOLIO& PIT DISPLAY / VERBAL PRESENTATION / ENGINEERING (please circle)

© 2014 Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd..

Event Name:

Team: No:Three (3) things you should continue to do:

1.

2.

3.

Three (3) things that would most improve your participation:

1.

2.

3.


15/16


Version 1.0 –May 2014 Page | 16

ENQUIRIES

All enquiries regarding the Australian F1 in Schools™ Technology Challenge should be directed to:

Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd.

Mailing Address:

PO Box 136

Castle Hill

NSW 1765

In Australia call: 1300 204 478

International: +61 2 9634 2144

Facsimile: (61) 2 8079 0622

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.f1inschools.org.au

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.f1inschools.org.au/http://www.f1inschools.org.au/http://www.f1inschools.org.au/http://www.f1inschools.org.au/mailto:[email protected]


16/16

marking criteria 2014 v1.0

Documents