Shown below in the tables are the concept screening and concept scoring tables that critique the teams concept sketches. These are important in eliminating weak designs from the concept screening and qualitatively (using a point system) rating and finding the best remaining designs from the scoring.
| Concept Screening | ||||||
| Reference | Group | Matthew | Julius Matthew | Josh | Evan | |
| Durability | 0 | + | + | 0 | – | + |
| Maintenance | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | – | 0 |
| Stability | 0 | 0 | + | – | – | – |
| Safety | 0 | 0 | + | + | + | – |
| Propeller Positions | 0 | + | + | + | 0 | 0 |
| Small and Sleak | 0 | + | + | + | 0 | 0 |
| Pros (+’s) | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cons (-‘s) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Neutral (0’s) | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Net Score | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | -2 | -1 |
| Continue? | Improve with designs | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
This concept scoring sheet (above) looked at five designs. Four individual ones and one that was collaborated on. This phase is important in determining what designs are flawed, what ones need improvement and what ones “check out” for future design considerations. Located below displays a more precise measurement of the team’s goals using a weighted score. The Group sketch proved to be better than the reference AEV but in comparison to other sketches it did not seem like a well-developed one. It featured some improvements in the heavily weighted (25%) category of “small and sleek,” and thus will developed to try and improve some of the other categories (especially stability).
| Concept Scoring | |||||||
| Reference | Group | Matthew | |||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Durability | 10% | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Maintenance | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 |
| Stability | 25% | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.75 |
| Safety | 10% | 3 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.4 |
| Propeller Positions | 15% | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.6 |
| Small and Sleak | 25% | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1 |
| Total Score | 2.35 | 2.7 | 3.65 | ||||
| Continue? | No | Develop | Yes | ||||
| Julius Matthew | Josh | Evan | |||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Durability | 10% | 3 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Maintenance | 15% | 4 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.45 |
| Stability | 25% | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.25 |
| Safety | 10% | 4 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.2 |
| Proper Propeller Positions | 15% | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.45 |
| Small and Sleak | 25% | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.75 |
| Total Score | 3.4 | 2.55 | 2.4 | ||||
| Continue? | Yes | No | No | ||||
Durability and Maintenance for all designs either scored as good or better than the reference AEV. Evan’s and Josh’s designs seemed to do about the same to the reference AEV as far as scoring is concern and so will not be developed. Matthew’s design and Julius Matthew’s design will have the most focus in future designs as these scored the highest. Propeller positions which was a low weighted category proved to be designed well for both these designs (placement and symmetry). They scored especially high in the “small and sleek” category but struggled in the stability category like the others. Going forward stability will need to be developed as this had a high weight for this scoring process. This category is important due to the high speeds the team’s MCR demands from the AEV which could cause run volatility if a stable AEV is not designed.