RoboSub 2025 Team Handbook
  • Introduction & Table of Contents
    • Change Log
  • Section 1: Competition Overview
  • Section 2: Design Documentation
    • 2.1 Technical Design Report
    • 2.2 Team Website
    • 2.3 Team Introduction Video
    • 2.4 Design Strategy Presentation
    • 2.5 System Assessment
  • Section 3: Autonomy Challenge
    • 3.1 Mandatory Activities
    • 3.2 Task Descriptions
    • 3.3 Vehicle Operations
    • 3.4 Competition Sequence of Events
  • Section 4: Scoring & Awards
    • 4.1 Design Documentation Scoring
    • 4.2 Autonomy Challenge Scoring
    • 4.3 Awards
  • Section 5: Rules & Requirements
    • 5.1 Rules
    • 5.2 Safety Requirements
    • 5.3 Vehicle Requirements
    • 5.4 Competition Specifications
  • Section 6: How to Compete
    • 6.1 Registration
    • 6.2 Event Submissions
    • 6.3 Design Documentation Submissions
    • 6.4 Event Expectations
    • 6.5 Team Communications
    • 6.6 Data Sharing
  • Section 7: Glossary & Acronyms
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • 2.5.1 Deliverable Requirements
  • 2.5.2 Scoring Metrics
  1. Section 2: Design Documentation

2.5 System Assessment

Previous2.4 Design Strategy PresentationNextSection 3: Autonomy Challenge

Last updated 24 days ago

Judges inspect the team’s vehicle and assess technical design, technical innovation, and craftsmanship of the design. Team members should be present to answer technical questions posed by the judges during this inspection and be prepared to explain their design strategy and how decisions made impacts on the technical design, functionality, and craftsmanship.

Teams receive an assigned 15-minute slot. The assessment schedule can be found on the RoboSub webpage: .

2.5.1 Deliverable Requirements

Team members are required to be present to answer technical questions posed by subject matter expert judges during this inspection and be prepared to explain their design strategy and how decisions made impact the technical design, functionality, and craftsmanship.

2.5.2 Scoring Metrics

The system assessment is worth a total of 180 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.

Technical Design (45% of score)

Outstanding

Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are well aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles. Clear and thoughtful design choices are evident in the technical functions, key decisions, and testing regimen.

Strong

Good and knowledgeable rationale and execution of design selections made, aligning with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.

Average

Adequate explanation of technical design decisions, equipment selections, and testing regimen, mostly evident in the vehicle and subsystems.

Below Average

Rationale of technical design is briefly covered with minimal alignment with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.

Requirements Not Met

Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are not aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.

Innovation (30% of score)

Outstanding

Full system demonstrates creative and innovative solutions by applying existing technology in novel ways within the system, using existing technology in a previously unintended way, or creating new technology or products incorporated into the system.

Strong

Clear evidence of innovative approaches across multiple sub-systems. Research and testing were conducted throughout the development process.

Average

There is moderate evidence that creative and innovative solutions were incorporated into system to improve performance.

Below Average

Little evidence of creativity or innovation in design choices throughout the system.

Requirements Not Met

No technical innovation noted.

Craftsmanship (25% of score)

Outstanding

System is assembled with exquisite care and thoughtful attention to detail and aesthetics. Construction and improvisations are neatly executed to maintain high levels of functionality, durability, and adherence to the team's design philosophy. Any vehicle adornment demonstrates creativity, originality, etc.

Strong

System is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Construction and improvisations maintain acceptable levels of functionality, durability, and adherence to the team's design philosophy.

Average

System is assembled to execute acceptable levels of functionality, durability and adherence to team’s design philosophy.

Below Average

Minimal evidence that system is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Adherence to team’s design philosophy is vague and unclear.

Requirements Not Met

Evident hazards or potential hazards throughout the system. The system was assembled with minimal care and attention to detail. Little to no attention to aesthetics.

robosub.org/2025