After reading the context, we are to undertake brief development of a R/C car that has to complete 3 separate tasks.
Be able to complete a predesign track in a certain time.
Be able to move an object to a predetermined location
Be able to partake in combat with another car.
Basic design characteristics will work best such as speed, strength, agility
To be able to move an object to a location, certain design aspects will be able to be fully incorporated such as agility but not so much speed. We will need to find the best possible way to move this object but doesn’t compromise the other two objectives. We feel that this will be the hardest to fully accommodate due the possible precision needed pending on the object in question.
The speed factor comes into focus here in the speed test; a predesign circuit will need to be negotiated in under a certain time. The design will need to be able to overcome obstacles stated by the context.
The combat phase of this project we see the design taking on other vehicles with the intention of disabling them or prohibiting their movement to a zone. We cannot cause large amounts of damage instead it will be a highly skilled based test on weather then can out drive the other opponent some sort of basic tool design to disable the other car(s)

Any materials can be used, which we are to source ourselves. This means that we can expand our design to fully suit our design ideas. The prototype needs to be finished by the second half of term three. There may be further restrictions as the project evolves.

The issues we are to take into consideration contest of:
Be able to complete a predesign track in a certain time.
Be able to move an object to a predetermined location.
Be able to partake in combat with another car.

We need to design a prototype that will be able to complete these set tasks due to the issue given by the context. If we are able to solve these issues by satisfying the developed brief, then this will make the design fit for purpose. By making a product fit for purpose that hereby makes the design a success in the view of the brief.

Can we use a different R/C car than the one provided?
We have been in discussion with the design team and together we have come to a conclusion that the possibility of using another car has arose due to one of the members being in possession of a supposedly better car. After discussion including pros/cons of each car, the purposed car was much lower and faster, as well as having greater steering motor. All so the owner of the purposed car built it. The team decided that this was a great advantage over our competitors due to him knowing the car “inside and out” and how it works exactly. The opportunity later on in the design process could be vital as it will allow the design team to excel in the physical prototyping. Team member Lars was undecided on completely out ruling the other car. After more in-depth discussion referring to the design process and the crucial combat section of the context at the end, we decided to use both cars but design the original car as a test dummy/ functional modelling. Stake holder response
After carrying out research with the design group we then took this problem to the competition organizer. They were happy to have another type of R/C car present during the competition. In conclusion, the design group was informed of the ability to use another car as hoped by the team Where and what surface will the tasks be tested on?
One of the ideas from the SWAT analysis was to develop a system where the car had duel wheels for each 4 sets of wheels. After another discussion with the design team, they wanted to know where the event was to be held to get an idea on what type of tyres they would need to equip for the best traction to suite the fast and tight sections of the race track test. Stake holder response
The event will be held at a netball court. This means for our design team that they will need to equip