Mousetrap+Car+Evaluation+Reports

Post your evaluations here. Be sure to add a horizontal line between each team's submission. Click here to return to the Kinematics Main Page.

**__Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report __**

1.
 * Team: Ian Davis and Kenly Polley **
 * Name: Exterminator **

**Front view**

**picture will be added in later**

**Top view**

**picture will be added in later**

2. A) Our mouse trap car did not completely meet the criteria but the design we went for was good, just not built in an excellent method which had it not go that far. B) Our mouse trap car did not completely meet the criteria for design since the car wasn’t built sturdy enough and cannot go that far. C) The two wheeled design reduces the rolling friction and the large wheels mean fewer revolutions which means less friction on the axle. 3. A) we should have use bolts than tape to stable the wheels because the records weren’t completely stable, the car went straight but the wheels were moving as a waving motion. B) Our wiring wasn’t that good and we should’ve use something thinner than rope since that could be the reason our car didn’t move so far. C) The records we use weren’t in a perfect condition that made the car move in a waving motion; some of it was bent so we should’ve use records in better condition.

Travels up to 4 meters Reasonably constructed and sturdy design, due to the heated up styrofoam it is both a very sturdy and light material. Our mousetrap car has a length of less than 50cm, and 500g
 * Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **
 * Team Members: Mark Persic, Franklin Yuan **
 * Car Name: STYROFOAM IS HIGHLY FLAMMABLE **
 * 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: **
 * Side view **
 * Top view **
 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **
 * a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

Due to being built out of styrofoam a generally rough material that easily chipped and gave off dents in areas it did not achieve the appeal criteria to its fullest extent and might block some aerodynamic on the car’s movement Used heated up Styrofoam to make a very sturdy yet light car
 * b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **
 * c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **
 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your **
 * vehicle design below. **
 * a) ** Made the wheels more balanced on either sides to reduce moving to the sides, We could have replaced the axis with a less bent axis to keep the wheels at a more consistent roll
 * b) ** A better pulley design to help the car move forward faster and better. the current model’s does not load or release smoothly
 * c) ** The front two wheels of our mousetrap car is creating friction on the styrofoam so it’s recommended if we fix this problem by putting a thin metal plate such as aluminum to lessen the friction.

**Team Members:** Karen Ly, Natalie Phung **Car Name:** Citrus Punch


 * 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here. **




 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **
 * a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

Our car is simple, strong, and efficient, allowing it to adhere to all the criteria mentioned for design, construction and testing.

Design Construction Testing
 * Two large plastic bin lids as wheels connected by a metal rod
 * Mousetrap situated in the center of the rod and can freely swing back and forth
 * Wheels were kept stable by drilling and gluing a rod through it
 * Washers and screws were used to hold wheels in place
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">K’NEX stoppers were used to keep mousetrap in place
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Car adhered to all design parameters: was not over 500g and did not exceed 50cm in any direction
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Process of constructing the car was tidy and accurately done
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Design Principle: simple but effective.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Number of parts used to construct the car was put to a minimal; we made sure that each piece served a purpose and no unnecessary pieces were added
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Features an overall cohesive look as all pieces were specifically chosen to follow a colour scheme
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Two-wheel design is appealing because it provides no distractions to viewers due to extraneous parts or pieces, allowing the viewer to appreciate its simplistic effect, and reduces the amount of drag on the car
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Car is also sturdy with the wheels tightly screwed and the mousetrap held in place by K’NEX stoppers
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Very detailed and strived for perfection by crafting everything cleanly: excess glue was wiped off, wheels were cleaned, and the connecting rod was inserted precisely halfway
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Our car traveled over 4 meters and produced a great number of data points, marking the entire length of the ticker tape
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">There was a significant change in speed as our car data shows a clear change of velocity – acceleration.
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Our car moved in a relatively straight path and only shifted a bit to the left meters after it passed the length of the ticker tape


 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">We believe our car met all the criteria but some improvements may include changing the wheels to ones with more rounded edges so that our car’s path will not shift at all


 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Bright orange, plastic wheels that are thicker and sturdier rather than ordinary and conventional black records
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">A extremely simple two-wheel design, providing less drag
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Unbound, capable of swinging back and forth, mousetrap
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Braided fishing line to windup the mousetrap, for extra sturdiness

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;"> 1. Rounder wheels
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **
 * Although the wheels we have are sturdy, the edge is not completely round, which makes the car look more unstable and the wheels run a bit unsteadily
 * A rounder edged wheel would allow the car to stay on a straight path from beginning to end

2. Add support rods to the inner side of the wheels
 * More support for the wheel itself so that car would wobble less and travel sturdier, and in a straighter line

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;"> 3. Screws instead of the K’NEX stoppers
 * <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">The K’NEX stoppers have a possibility of popping off the round metal axle, the screws will stay in place better

Team Members: David Nguyen, Sung An Car Name: The Tank 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here.

2.Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: Our mousetrap car met the criteria by staying within the restrictions of under 500 grams and staying within the 50 cm length in any direction. The car traveled past the 4 meter mark which was the aim of the test. The overall structure was sturdy because it was put together with wood, b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for desgin, construction and testing: Our car met the criteria set for most of the requirements. However, because it was built to be sturdy, it was not meant to look nice. It looked more intimidating, That being said, it stayed within all the other criteria. c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: Our mousetrap car featured a lengthened lever arm which gave it the look of a tank. The lever arm was also sharp at the end to help in battle. It is large in size, which was part of its sturdiness and durability. Being the few made out of wood, its overall parts made it look strong.

3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. a) A lighter frame would have increased the distance traveled, so one improvement is to cut off excess weight. b) Less friction between the axles and the wooden frame would have increased the wheels' rotation and produce more distance traveled and speed. Less resistance on the moving parts could be another improvement. c) An efficient wiring system to allow the wire to wind up and release when needed would contribute to distance and save time when trying to wind up the car. The winding of the car proved to be a factor in the distance it would travel. The last improvement would be to set up a reliable wiring method.

_ Mousetrap Car Reflection John ChenAndrew Wang __ THE CONTENDER __

__ Designed and built by John Chen and Andrew Wang __

__ 1. __

__** Picture Perfect ** : Featuring a simple yet stylish bold look. __



__** Primed and Ready: ** Let the lever go and it’s off to the races! __



__** The Car in Motion: ** Whee! Look at it go! __

__ 2. __

__ a) Overall, our mousetrap car met all the criteria for design, construction and testing. Packaged in a compact 35 cm by 16 cm frame and weighing just 454g, our car travelled more than the required 4 meters. __

__ b) We feel that our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing in every way. It is under the maximum weight, shorter than the maximum length and soundly built. Prior to the evaluation, we had tested it thoroughly. __

__ c) Built sturdily and industriously, our intended design sought to showcase a minimalist, refined design. Accordingly, the mousetrap car itself follows a clean, modern construction with a cool black-on-white aesthetic. Because we studiously designed the car, we feel that its aesthetically pleasing, avant-garde composition is a **unique feature** not found in other cars. __

__ 3. __

__ Having said that, there is still room for improvement. Given all the time and money in the world, we would certainly make some changes to our car. Listed below are 3 changes we could’ve made to the design of our car in order to maximize distance: __

__ a) Increasing the lever arm length __ __ After designing and building the car, we realized that the arm of the mousetrap could be extended in order to lengthen the string and thus increase the amount of potential energy stored. This would drive the car further. __

__ b) Making the car lighter __ __ Once the car was functional, we opted not to make any significant changes to the design, for fear of breaking it and harming our perfect creation. Thus we likely could’ve trimmed some “fat” off of our car, making it lighter and thus needing less energy to move. __

__ c) Decreasing friction between the axle and styrofoam body __

__ One thing that we noticed about the operation of the car was the amount of friction between the K’Nex piece axle and the Styrofoam body, reducing the distance the car was able to travel. To mitigate this friction, we could’ve added a length of 0.5 cm diameter PVC pipe to both ends of the axle, so that the pipe fits snugly in the body, not the axle. The ends of the axle would turn inside the pipe, greatly reducing friction. __

_
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Team Member(s): Nancy Wu **
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Car Name: That Car with Gears **

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 29px;">Gear mechanism closeup Top view Main view
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car ****<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here. **

__Answer__: The Car with Gears meets all criteria including the parameters for design, construction, and testing. In terms of //performance//, it travels more than four meters. It is neatly //constructed//, thus providing a clear, straightforward idea of how it functions. The car is simple, yet it is evident that a significant amount effort was exerted in planning the design and in its construction. It adheres strictly to all design //parameters//; it weighs less than 500 grams including all parts, and it is shorter than 50 centimeters in all directions.<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> In terms of //testing,// it has a large number of data points so that graphs can be well-made. It shows a significant change in speed from start to finish, and in analyzing the ticks, it is clear that there is smooth changes in speed and acceleration. It travels on a straight path, so there is minimal error in taking ticker tape data. Taking into account all these facts, it is clear that the mousetrap car meets all criteria for design, construction, and testing. __**<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Answer **__**<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">: ** I believe that although there is always room for improvement in the design, construction, and testing of my car, it is clear that it meets all the set criteria for design, construction, and testing. As mentioned above, it travels more than the required distance, strictly adheres to all design parameters, displays effort and time in its construction, and produces very reasonable data. __Answer:__ A distinct characteristic of this mousetrap car is that it uses gears instead of a pull string to create motion. A large gear is connected to the wire that runs through spring (the one that ultimately bends to become the hammer). There is a smaller gear that comes in direct contact with the large gear. The small gear is directly attached to the wheel axle. When the hammer snaps forward, the large gear turns with the same speed. The small axle receives energy with close to no loss because it comes in direct contact with the large gear. With pull strings, there are high possibilities of loss in energy because it depends on how tightly or loosely the string was wrapped around the axle. A carefully chosen portion of the large gear’s __#|teeth__ are cut off to allow the small gear to turn freely after the hammer (and thus the large gear as well) have finished turning approximately 180 degrees. The speed and force that is harnessed from the spring results in a considerable amount of wheel rotations because of direct energy transfer from one gear to the next. Another unique feature of the car is that the mousetrap board itself acts as the base for all parts. This minimizes mass and weight. The linearity and flow of the board and extended wires in the front and back contribute to an aero dynamic design.
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">2. ****<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car ****<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">: **
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">a) Ways the car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">b) Ways the car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing. **
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">c) Unique features of the mousetrap car: **


 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">3. ****<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design ****<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">a) ** There can be a reduction in the car’s mass and weight. The holding bar and catch can be removed, as they do not contribute to the car’s motion. Holes or parts of the wheels and gears can be carved out. Certain materials are rough or roughly cut, so sanding them can improve aerodynamic qualities and reduce weight. Using wires of less density for the front and back extensions would also reduce the car’s overall mass and weight.
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">b) ** I could have also tried using a compound gear set instead of this normal one. A compound gear consists of multiple gears attached on top of one another. The larger gear would still be turned the same way as explained previously, but the smaller gear that is attached to it would be able to complete more rotations than the larger gear would, using the same amount of energy. This could have increased the efficiency of the car and maximized the energy harnessed from the mousetrap spring.
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">c) ** The overall alignment of the gears and wheels are considerably well done, but there can be improvements to that as well. The gears can be adjusted to be perfectly parallel, reducing friction and in turn, energy loss. The front grey wheel can also be kept in place using thick washers. This would limit the wheel’s side to side movement, decreasing friction, energy loss, and promoting a smoother, straighter motion. The main wheels (yellow) can be aligned to be more parallel to each other. This would contribute to the car’s overall straight movement and efficiency.

=**Mousetrap Car Evaluation Report**=
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Team Members: Carter Richmond, Morgan Scott **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">** Car Name: The Record Breaker **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">** 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Top View ** <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Front View **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">** 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Our mousetrap car meets both the __#|weight and__ dimension design criteria, its largest dimension being 30 cm and its weight being 400 grams. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Our car went significantly farther then the 4 meters required and went in a relatively straight line so as not to foul the tickertape.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Our car did not break any of the requirements, however, some of the construction was impresice and it did not look nice.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The two wheeled design reduces rolling friction, the small chassis reduces weight and the large wheels mean fewer revolutions and therefore less friction on the axle.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">** 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three. ** ** improvements to your vehicle design below **. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1. In construction, our wheels were very poorly mounted. They were not parallel, and if they had been, it could have gone much further. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. Our wheels were attached by washers and glue, which greatly increased the weight. If we had used less glue and a lighter fastener, our car would have gone farther. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3. Out chassis was too light. If we had fully tightened the sting we would have spun the chassis around the axle. A small weight at the bottom of our chassis would have fixed this


 * Team Members: Louise Feng & Emily Albert **
 * Car Name: Em-Dawg-and-L-Fizzle-Mobile **


 * 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here: **



a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing:
 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car **

After quite a few tries, our car traveled just over 4 m. We left it undecorated and met both the dimension and the weight specifications. Our ticker tape trial produced a large number of data points for a good graph, and during that specific trial, it traveled straight enough to avoid fouling the ticker tape.

b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing:

Our car was neither nice looking, nor sturdy, and its path was not straight. It also took us 3 or 4 attempts before achieving a successful, 4-meter ride. It did not show significant change in speed from beginning to end, nor did it show smoothly changing speed and acceleration.

c) Unique features of our mousetrap car:

It was two wheeled and very simple, which allowed for a lighter weight, and thus, faster car. The wheels were made of records. Their size, strength, and lightweight worked very well. The mousetrap was suspended from the axel and was completely mobile, with a weight attached for added balanced. We used rope instead of string to avoid issues with attachment and breaking.


 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three ** **improvements to your vehicle design below**.

One improvement we could make to our vehicle design is sturdier wheel-axel connection. Another thing we could do is attach the mousetrap closer to the axel and extend the snapping piece on the mousetrap with some sort of rod. And lastly, we could have stretched balloons over the wheels for more traction.


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **


 * Team Members: **Andrea Vucetic & Jade de Belle
 * Car Name: **The Squeaker


 * 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: **




 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **

Our mousetrap car met the criteria for design because it weighed less than 500g and was not longer than 50cm in any direction. The car was cleanly built, simple, and had an aesthetically appealing design, but was not decorated. When it came to testing, our car travelled over 4 meters, which was the criteria for performance under testing.
 * a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

Our mousetrap car did not meet the criteria for construction in some aspects. The Squeaker was not very sturdy, and after a number of tests, the wheels began to slant after we released the trap, and the car would not travel straight. By attempting to fix this, we wore down the balloons that held the wheels in place, making it harder to steer. The car could not move very far when we attached the ticker tape to it because it was being pulled back by it, so we had to re-do the testing. Aside from these two slight problems the mouse trap car met the rest of the criteria.
 * b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

The Squeaker had balloons wrapped around the tires (CDs) to provide traction and make the car drive smoothly when the trap was released. We used a minimal amount of materials on our car, making it light, so when the car began moving, it accelerated very fast and went fairly far.
 * c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **


 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **


 * a) **The wheels were attached to the car by balloons. We wrapped balloons around the pen (the axle), and then slipped the CDs over the balloons. We could improve our vehicle by permanently attaching the wheels to the car with hot glue or duct tape rather than balloons that could unravel and cause the wheels to tilt to the side.


 * b) **We could have improved our car by giving it shorter axles and larger wheels. Our axles were fairly long which might have contributed to resistance and lack of strength when the car was attached to the ticker tape because the wheels were farther away from the car. If the car had larger wheels there would be a larger circumference allowing for a greater total distance travelled.


 * c)** We could have added a firing mechanism to the car that would unravel the string in a consistent manner. Our car would have had more control over its speed rather than just shooting forward in a quick burst of speed.


 * Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **


 * Team Members: Megan Irwin & Jamie Bloch **
 * Car Name: Zoboomafoo **


 * 1. Our team’s Mousetrap Car: **

A few ways our design met the criteria are that it does not weigh more than 500g and is no longer than 50cm, it travelled in a straight line, it was not highly decorated, and it was sturdy. The wheels were taped for traction, which was applied evenly, and looked reasonably nice for a mousetrap car. A few ways our design did not meet the criteria are that it could not quite reach the 400m mark, even after many trials. Our ticker tape data was not far spread out on the tape due to designing the mousetrap car for distance over power, so the car could reach 400m. Our wheels and axels were connected directly to the mousetrap using screws; there was no extra piece of material in the middle for a body, making the mousetrap car lighter, and ultimately leading to the mousetrap car running smoothly. We used tape on the axels to hold the CD wheels in place, with tape on the outer edge of the CDs to create traction.
 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Mousetrap Car **
 * a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **
 * b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **
 * c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **

**a)** Real, large toy car wheels with grip for traction: if the wheels had more traction the grip would help the mousetrap car travel the distance. The larger wheels would also make the mousetrap car roll farther due to less rotations of the wheels. **b)** Attach a stronger, tighter string to assist with pulling back the mousetrap and helping make the wheels roll more, resulting in the mousetrap car travelling a farther distance. **c)** Add some weight onto the mousetrap car: if the car weighs more, the weight helps the car to accelerate; if the car is too light, when the mousetrap snaps back the car will just jump and not travel much distance, but if there is too much weight the car will accelerate more slowly than intended.
 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below: **


 * Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **
 * Team Members: ** Jenani Anantharajah & Fei Ma
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Car Name: **Razzle-Dazzle-Sparkle


 * 1. ** ** Our Team's Mousetrap Car: **



<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Some ways our car met the criteria was that it was able to travel more than the minimum four meters. It also has a neat and simple design which makes it appealing to the eye and is pretty sturdy which helped with its performance. Furthermore, it does not weigh more than 500g and is not longer than 50cm, as specified in the parameters of the rubric.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing:** For the most part our mousetrap car did meet the criteria for design, construction, and testing. It did give us some troubles when we had to collect the ticker-tape data because the car barely moved a meter at some times. This is because we chose distance over power when designing the car in order for it to reach the minimum distance requirement. Therefore, some adjustments had to be made in order for the ticker tape to function. We did end up collecting almost a meter and a half of data but some improvements to the design could perhaps help the car perform better with the ticker-tape attached to it as well.

Some of the many unique features of our car include the light and thin board for the body which reduced resistance and enabled the mousetrap car to run smoothly. In addition, the balloons on the outer edge of the wheels also helped the car travel smoothly during its tests by preventing the slippery edge of the CDs from slipping. Also, we used double-sided foam tape combined with glue gun to wedge the wheels in place and prevent any movement, which was quite effective.
 * c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below.**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**a)** Bigger wheels/actual toy car wheels: the bigger wheels would guarantee the mousetrap car a further distance because of the greater circumference. If we had used actual toy car wheels the car would also definitely travel far because toy car wheels are meant to roll around and are designed with good grip and the ability to travel the distance.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**b)** Make the wheels more firmly attached to the axles: this would reduce the clumsiness of the wheels and enhance its performance. We would also be sure that our car will go straight if the wheels are firmly attached in place.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**c)** Make measurements in general more exact: while we built our mousetrap car we did not really pay close attention to the measurements we took (whether it was drilling in the screws or attaching the axles). Although we were being close to approximate, if we had had exact measurements for every part of our car then that could have slightly increased the performance of our mousetrap car.


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Team Members: Cissy Yao, Alex Anagnostopolous **


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Car Name: The Cheap Meep Jeep! **

//<span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Top View //

//<span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Side View //




 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">a) ** **<span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

Our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing in many ways. It passed the criteria for performance since it moved much more than 4 metres, even when burdened with the ticker tape; it went in a straight line that did not foul the ticker tape (although the machine occasionally stopped putting dots on our tape, it was caused by the carbon paper flying off and not by our car); and produced a large number of data points that showed a significant change in velocity and acceleration. It met the design criteria in various ways: it has a clean, streamlined design (that was not decorated), was reasonably nice-looking, and quite sturdy. Also, it met the design parameters in that it was far lighter than 500g, and was not longer than 50 cm.


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

Although I think our car met all the requirements reasonably well, we could have done better on being neater with the design. Some of the parts were taped on, which looked a bit messy (which could affect meeting the construction parameters)—we should have been neater in attaching the K’nex axle to the record wheels. Also, when we received our car’s data, it showed an erratic pattern of velocity and acceleration: sometimes it would jump up to a high velocity, then slow down quickly after, which means that it does not accelerate smoothly. This could have been caused by our record wheels, which may have had small dents in them that would alter the results of our data; or since the plastic records slipped across the floor, they may have caused these discrepancies. We could fix this by being more careful when handling the record wheels, or attaching some sort of grip to the circumference of the records so they would not slip.


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **

Our car is unique in that it only has two wheels but works like a three-wheeled car. Our large record wheels were attached to a strip of wood with the mousetrap attached to it. At the opposite end of the strip of wood, we attached an eye screw. The eye screw functioned like a third wheel, allowing our car to remain balanced, yet did not have the weight of a full wheel which would have slowed our car down more. Also, we used K’nex as a stabilizer for the record wheels so that the wheels would not wobble as the car was moving, something that we did not see other groups do. We did this by attaching a K’nex frame to the axle and taping the frame to the wheels.


 * <span style="font-family: Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **
 * add grip to our records: as stated above, our wheels did not have much grip upon the smooth hardwood floor of the school, causing them to slip and slide, causing our velocity and acceleration to be erratic. What we could do to solve this problem would be to add a “balloon tire” around the record. This would add traction to our wheels, solving the problem.
 * reduce its size: we found that the body of the car was quite redundant and it dragging/rolling along the ground caused friction, slowing down the car. If we removed that part of the car, leaving only the mousetrap and its attachments, it would reduce the weight and friction, causing it to go faster!
 * use less K’nex: we went over the top with the K’nex attachments, we wanted to make sure our wheels were attached and secured as best as they could be. We have realized it was unnecessary though. We did not need to put this much K’nex to secure our wheels and axels, it would have worked fine with half that amount. If we reduced the amount used, we could have significantly reduced its weight, allowing our car to go faster and farther.


 * Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **


 * Team Members: ** Stela Emiri and Jennifer Rice


 * Car Name: ** The Tuiz


 * Our Team's Mousetrap Car: **

// Top View //

// Side View //


 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **

Our car stayed within the parameters noted on the rubric. It is not longer than 50 cm in any direction, it weighs less than 500g, and it is only powered by a mousetrap. Our car is sturdy and we tried to have a clean looking design. As for testing, out car travelled in a straight line, so it did not foul the ticker tape and it surpassed the 4-meter mark.
 * a) **** Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

After solving our car’s issue with length and weight, for the most part it met all the design criteria. The main issue our final product had been its lack of movement during testing with the ticker tape attached. Although our car moved steadily without the ticker tape, when it was attached our car barely moved a meter. This issue caused some of our data to be a bit obscured and hard to manage and translate in to graphs that truly represented the movements of our car.
 * b) **** Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

Some unique features of our mousetrap car include our lightweight car body built out of corkboard, our balloon gripped double cd wheels and our wheel axle holders constructed out of an old marshmallow gun.
 * c) **** Unique features of our mousetrap car: **


 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **


 * // Shorter axles: // our car had unnecessarily long wheel axles that contributed to extra weight and perhaps more resistance to movement. Having shorter axles may have helped our car move both faster and further, with and without the ticker tape.


 * // Smoother wheels: // 2 of the 4 wheels on our car were slightly misshapen due to excess hot glue that was hard to remove. This caused some wobbling movements and therefore more resistance to the force of the mousetrap trying to move the car forward. As well, one of our wheels was slightly crooked which affected the distance our car could travel.


 * // A less bulky design: // our car overall was bigger than necessary, which might have caused drag and resistance. If we had made the body shorter and thinner along with the axels this might have helped our car travel farther. As well, a shorter body would mean that we could have a longer arm and string to propel our car further forward.


 * Team Members:** Frank Jiang, Aaron Tan, Michael Bahng (Team name: The Mighty Tofu)
 * Car Name:** Vector X
 * 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here:**

__** PRIMARY VIEW **__

__** TOP VIEW **__

__** SIDE VIEW **__



a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing:
 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car**
 * Answer:** The Vector X (VX) meets all //design// criteria by adhering to all parameters as required by the rubric, as well as providing aesthetics that appeal to various demographics. The fact that the car functions properly, can consistently travel over four meters, and is sturdy in composition suggests that the car meets all //construction// criteria as stated in the project rubric. In terms of //testing// criteria, the mousetrap car succeeded in travelling straight, thereby preventing a fouling of the ticker tape. The good condition of the ticker tape data is evidence of minimal skidding and minimal inconsistency with the observed travel of the car. Considering these facts, there is little reason to doubt that the VX has met all criteria completely.

b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing:
 * Answer:** The team believes that the mousetrap car meets all criteria for //design//, //construction//, and //testing// as required by the course. As already stated, the design of the car has adhered to weight (500 gram limit), length (50cm limit), and aesthetic criteria while also providing sufficient functionality (4+ meters travelled). The construction of the car is notably sturdy for the material it is made from, and adheres to the energy source requirement (energy can only come from mousetrap). One might claim that testing did not provide a desired amount of data (15+); however the team agrees that this shortcoming was due to human error rather than an error of the car. The ticker tape data created was sufficient for project use.

c) Unique features of our mousetrap car:
 * Answer:** //Unique Features:// The most immediate distinction of the Vector X is that it is completely built with Lego pieces (with the exception of the mousetrap and string). Although this may be deemed childish in certain aspects, this design drastically increases the car’s versatility and reusability. The whole construction is built upon Lego attachment, avoiding the use of adhesives and other such substances for composition. Thus, the current design is in no way permanent: each Lego piece can be easily removed and re-attached as necessary. This versatility also extends to the mousetrap: because the mousetrap is only being held down by a single Lego rod, it can be replaced if it breaks or wears out.


 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three.** **improvements to your vehicle design below**.


 * Answer I:** To increase the distance covered per revolution, we would replace our mousetrap car’s current wheels with wheels of longer diameter. Ideally, the replacements for the two back wheels would be two times bigger; the front replacement would be 1.5 times bigger.


 * Answer II:** In exchange of some aesthetics for functionality, we would optimize the number of parts composing the mousetrap car. By reducing the number of redundant parts, the amount of weight and drag to the car is proportionally reduced as well.


 * Answer III:** If possible, the original Lego axle would be replaced with a metallic axle and ball bearing assembly. The purpose is to decrease the friction between the axle and the chassis, thereby increasing energy efficiency and allowing the car function for a longer distance.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Wound Up
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Unwound

 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car **


 * a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

NastroCintaSzalag, NCS meets and surpasses all design criteria. NCS consistently travels over 4 meters. NCS also adheres to the weight and size limit, being well under the 500 gram weight limit and not surpassing 50cm in any direction. The car is sufficiently sturdy, as it completed all tests, without any damage and parts are well secured to chassis. The minimalistic design of the car improves performance, while also stays aesthetically pleasing. Lastly, the energy used to propel the car was solely derived from energy stored in the mousetrap.


 * b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

As stated earlier, NCS sufficiently meets all design and construction criteria. Ticker tape data points were limited, however that can be attributed to the exceptionality of the car’s performance in testing and not a failure in testing. The car’s construction fit criteria, and managed all tests in a timely manner.


 * c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **

The most stunning aspect of NCS is its size. The minimalistic approach of its team has led to a very small, light car. As a result, NastroCintaSzalag has exceptional speed and acceleration. Also, thanks to its minimalistic design, damage can be easily identified and fixed whenever it occurs. NastroCintaSzalag also uses easily accessible household supplies including tape, a mousetrap, and Lego pieces, making it easily reproducible. Our firing mechanism, a pencil, also doubles as a lance. As the string unravels, the lance points in the direction the mousetrap is headed and becomes a lethal weapons system.


 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three. Improvements to your vehicle design below. **

To maximize distance covered by the car, the firing arm could be increased in length and the length of string would be increased. That way the energy stored would dissipate over a longer period of time, resulting in a longer travel distance and lower speed.

To improve speed and endurance, smoother axles and wheels could be applied so that the car loses less energy to friction. Records or CDs could be used to improve energy efficiency.

To increase stability and sturdiness, the adhesive of choice could change from tape to superglue. However, this would drastically increase construction time and reduce part reusability and replacement as the glue would be more difficult to remove.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Team Members: **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Dylan Scanlan, Jonah Eisen


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Car Name: **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Musical Mousetrap Car

//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Top View // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">

//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Side View // <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">a) ** **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Our car met all the requirements on the rubric. It is shorter than 50 cm any direction and weighs less than 500g. It is only powered by a mousetrap. The car is quite large, with two large record wheels and two smaller CD wheels. It goes in a straight line and travelled more than 4 meters during testing with the ticker tape. The body is very sturdy and could be rewound without damage. The car is completely made of lego, with the exception of the mousetrap, string and wheels, making it very strong and durable.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">According to the rubric, our car met all the criteria. However there was room for improvement. Some of the ticker tape data was skewed, especially the first time interval, but this can likely be attributed to human error.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The string that connected the back axle to the mouse trap was not fixed to the back axle, allowing the string to slide off near the end of the power phase of the car. This ensured that the car would be able to carry its momentum for as great a displacement as possible. Additionally, we used large back wheels to achieve a greater displacement so that each revolution of the back wheels could carry the car further.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times','serif'; font-size: 16px;">3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">A less flexible back axle- if the mousetrap were wound back too much, it would put strain on the axle and bend it back. When the back axle bends too much, the car travels in a wavy pattern, rather than straight.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">A less fragile car- our car, being built primarily out of LEGO was very fragile, particularly where the front wheels connected to the main body of the car.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">A car with less mass- while within the limit, our car had a relatively large mass, causing it to accelerate more slowly than would be ideal.


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report: **


 * Team Members: Costa Georgiou, David Tang **


 * Car Name: The LP Mobile **


 * 1. Our Team's Mousetrap Car: **


 * 2. Self-Evaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car: **

<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 14px;">The LP Mobile met all criteria listed under design, construction and testing. Our car did not breach the 50x50x50 cm dimension maximum given and did not weigh over 500 grams. The LP Mobile was sturdy, cleanly built and looked nice. It travelled further than the minimal 4 metres. Our car followed a straight path which allowed the ticker tape to accumulate a sufficient amount of data point in an accurate manner. This data translated into noticeable and smooth changes in the speed ad acceleration of the car.
 * a) Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 14px;">We believe that the LP Mobile did in fact meet all laid-out requirements and criteria for design, construction and testing. Explanations for meeting these requirements are explained in the answer given above.
 * b) Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing: **

<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 14px;">The LP Mobile sported two records as wheels. The lengthy radius of the wheels means fewer revolutions per metre compared to smaller wheels and therefore less friction between the wheels and the axle. Having only two wheels also minimized friction. The mousetrap was just connected onto the axle which eliminated any weight that would have been required for a chassis to hold up the trap.
 * c) Unique features of our mousetrap car: **


 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below. **


 * a) ** In order to set-up our car, we had to thread a string connected to the trap through a hole in the axis and then wind it up around it. However, the axis was hollow and it was an unnecessarily difficult task to get the string in one hole of the axis and out the other. This could be fixed if the axis was not hollow or there were some sort of guides within the axis to make it easier.


 * b) ** We could have provided our wheels with more traction as the car seems to have a difficult time accelerating at the beginning. This could be accomplished by stretching balloons over the wheels.


 * c) ** The LP Mobile’s axis is overly long and could be shortened to reduce weight.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/img0474by.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/img0455ko.jpg/
 * Mousetrap Car Self/Team Evaluation Report:**
 * Team Members:** Frank Wang, Sebastian Thomson-Jagoe
 * Car Name:** Drag Racer
 * 1) **Our Team's Mousetrap Car: Paste the best two or three photos of your completed car here.**

We did not take two pictures of the finished car, but I included some assorted parts so you can get a better sense of where our car came from. Our mousetrap car met the criteria for design because it weighed less than 500g and was not longer than 50cm. The car looked like a drag racer and was built very simply, with no parts that were unneeded. It was fairly sturdy but we could have improved on this if we’d had one more screw. Our car was able to travel slightly more than four meters, on the 4th or 5th try. But nonetheless it went over 4 meters! Our car may not have technically met the criteria because it took us a few tries to get it to travel the required distance, but we think it counts just fine. The middle was a bit sagging but with only one small screw we could have secured the main joist. Even better would have been to make the entire base out of one piece to make it completely sturdy. Our car was very good looking, and it had a mix of wood and kinects. Our car had a suspension-bridgesque stabilizer piece for added support in the back. The most important feature, we thought, was the bearing on the front wheel, which was a from a well-oiled roller-skate wheel. This had a very little friction and helped the car travel the distance it needed.
 * 2. Self-Evdaluation of our Team's Mousetrap Car:**
 * 1) **Ways our car met the criteria for design, construction and testing:**
 * 1) **Ways our car did not meet the criteria for design, construction and testing:**
 * 1) **Unique features of our mousetrap car:**
 * 3. Improvements to our Mousetrap Car Design. List and briefly explain three improvements to your vehicle design below.**
 * a)** We could have made the base out of one rod of wood to strengthen the car and fix the front wheel being off-kilter.
 * b)** A larger spindle on the back wheels to allow for more string, and thus more speed would have helped our car.
 * c)** Stronger rope for the wheel mechanism would have been desirable, but not crucial to the design. If we had been planning to use the car often, maybe over 20 times, then we would have needed a rope that could withstand the strain.