Competition Regulations

Little or no detail, little or no annotation. No table of contents. No regulation compliance shown.

Basic views included. Some dimensions included but insufficient annotations. Insufficient regulation compliance shown. A basic table of contents.

Multiple views, first- or third-angle orthographic projection matching the final car, unrendered isometric view or similar. Some parts/materials represented. Some regulation compliance shown (e.g. T4.2 virtual cargo identification). Good table of contents.

First- or third-angle orthographic projection matching the final car plus unrendered isometric view. Additional views for sufficient detail. Parts list/bill of materials. Excellent regulation compliance shown. Complete and ordered table of contents.

Poor quality renders. Insufficient views.

Multiple views. Some inconsistencies matching the final car.

Multiple views. Good match to the final car. Good render technique.

Multiple views. Perfect match to the final car including branding. Realistic environment and lighting. High-end render technique.

Poor finish and assembly. No justification for intended quality/finish documented on the final page of the engineering drawings.

Reasonable finish with some inconsistencies. Reasonable assembly. Some justification documented.

Good overall intended finish, good quality and assembly with attention to detail. Well documented justification.

Exceptional intended quality, assembly and finish on all components — the two cars are identical. Comprehensively documented justification.

Monotonous presentation, lack of visual aids, minimal audience interaction. Poor delivery technique.

Limited team dynamics, some visual aids. Limited delivery technique and audience interaction.

Good team dynamics, effective visual aids. Good delivery and audience interaction.

Excellent engagement, captivating and highly interactive delivery, strong audience connection. Exceptional dynamics and impactful visual aids.

Single team member taking the lead.

Minimal team participation.

Good contributions from most team members.

Excellent teamwork — all members participate effectively.

Irrelevant or outdated content, lack of depth, poor relevance. Unclear explanations.

Partially relevant content, some depth, needs improvement in quality/explanations.

Relevant content, good depth, reasonably high-quality info with articulate explanations.

Highly relevant content, profound depth, exceptional-quality info with articulate explanations.

Severe time issues — rushing or excessive time (<8 or >12 minutes). Incoherent structure, unclear message, disorganized.

Time issues evident — rushing or excessive time (<9 or >11 minutes). Partially clear structure, some coherence.

Good flow and time management, minimal rushing/excess. Clear structure, coherent flow, organized content.

Excellent time management, never exceeds the limit. Crystal-clear structure and message, highly organized, excellent attention to detail.

Little project innovation presented, no justifications.

Average innovations described but not justified.

Good innovations described, justified and connected to competition elements.

Excellent innovations related to competition elements, or other project aspects, with high positive impact.

None or little collaboration with industry/higher education mentioned.

Some collaboration with industry/higher education mentioned.

Good description of collaboration with industry and higher education.

Excellent justification of collaborations with industry/higher education, with links to learning and project outcomes.

No or limited real reflections discussed.

Basic explanation of some learning outcomes for some team members.

Good explanation of some learning outcomes for all team members.

A range of personal, life-long learning and career skills identified as project outcomes for all team members.