Ed, it should be obvious to anyone who's worked through these 45 pages that your purpose from the start was to entertain us with the hidden engineering in these cars. That you ended up with a marketable vehicle in the end can only be an unexpected benefit for you.
Anyone could have attacked each problem from the start with the most efficient solution, but what would your audience have learned from that about the angst of how real-world engineering gets done?
It was just brilliant of you to always start with what seemed like an obvious approach, so that you could show us the error of such thinking. I love how you always concealed the 'right' answer until the third or fourth iteration. I can't tell you how much I learned from that.
Another master stroke was saving that whole debacle of the front beam until the very end. Just when we thought you were done, you threw us a classic cliff hanger.
Anyway, please keep up this great explanatory journalism.