Before I get into your feedback in detail, looking at it as a whole, I get the impression that having to work within the limited sizes of ellipses, and thus wheel structures, permitted by your master ellipse template may have caused you to somewhat modify your own sense of what it means to put as much time into the task as it requires of you. In past lessons - especially Lesson 6 - you've demonstrated that you are indeed capable of considerable patience and care with your work, but the manner in which you've approached your work here doesn't really follow that trend. It's not to say that you didn't work hard on this - you certainly did - but as I see it here, the limited space in which you were forced to work seems to have predisposed you to approaching each individual mark less meticulously - likely on the basis of each mark seeming far less important, far less worth the time investment that they'd have demanded were they several times larger.

Now this is obviously contrary to what we expect from students, but I do at least think I understand the logic behind why it occurred. Ultimately the takeaway from this is that you are still very much susceptible to drawing without necessarily thinking through every choice you're making. While that is ultimately the goal of everything we're doing here - to be able to rely on your subconscious and your reflexes to take care of the "how" everything should be drawn, freeing our cognitive resources up to focus on what it is we wish to draw, in order to achieve that we have to be hyper-intentional with every choice we make throughout the work we do in this course. Attempting to rely on those instincts in any capacity for our work here will undermine that pursuit.

You've demonstrated yourself to be patient and careful before, but what this reveals is that there are still factors that can undermine that focus, and so you need to be that much more aware of what it is you're doing in the moment, and to push back against the temptation to just draw what you see without thinking about the underlying forms, or putting marks down without appropriate consideration and planning as to what each mark is meant to accomplish, and how it can be best drawn to achieve that goal.

Now, getting to he specific feedback itself, and starting out with the structural aspect of the challenge, when it comes to the body of the wheel you're handling it quite well. You're using several ellipses to build out the structure and control its profile effectively, in terms of whether it gets wider through the midsection to appear more inflated and "bouncy" as a result of the curving profile, or whether it is straight across to give a more rigid, dense, and heavy appearance. When it comes to the rims/spokes, here your work varies more - the more complex it gets, the less carefully you draw each individual mark (number 20 for instance has gaps/overshoots, and the linework generally appears more scratchy as a result - ultimately smaller lines like this are more difficult to control, but ultimately it's something that simply demands a lot more time from us).

I also noticed that you tended to fill the side planes of your spoke structures, you tended to try and fill these in (either with solid black or with hatching). Generally we want to avoid hatching of this sort in this course (we only really use it when drawing primitive forms, to help clarify which side is facing the viewer when drawing through them), and we want to reserve those filled black shapes for cast shadows only, not form shading (as discussed here.

Additionally, when drawing the spokes, you frequently do so without consideration to the thickness of the structure and how that would impact the depth at which the different components of the form connect to the inner tube of the wheel. Here's what I mean - the side plane of the spoke should be connecting further back, but the way you're drawing it doesn't take that depth into consideration.

Continuing onto the textural aspect of the challenge, this is honestly an intentional trap. Being as far removed from Lesson 2 as we are, it's very common for students to forget the specifics of how we are meant to tackle texture. What is unfortunately less common is having students actually go back and review that material to refresh their memory. Some will remember that we generally try to make use of filled areas of solid black, but don't necessarily check how we use them, and others will just fixate on drawing purely from observation and figuring out how to capture what they're seeing in whatever way suits them in the moment. I think it's fair to say that you fell into the latter category.

When it comes to texture specifically - at least, how we handle it here, which is very specific to this course and what it seeks to develop in our students - we are ultimately looking at the same kind of problem that the course as a whole explores: spatial reasoning. We imply the marks we draw (you can refer to the implicit vs explicit markmaking section for more specific information on this) by drawing the shadows our textural forms cast on their surroundings, not by drawing the forms themselves (in terms of outlining them, or otherwise drawing anything about the form itself). It's the shape of the shadow itself, which is designed based on our understanding of the relationship in 3D space between the form casting it and the surface receiving it. And so, as stressed in these reminders, in this course we're never just drawing what we see. We're looking at our references, and understanding what they tell us about the forms in question, and then deciding on how to convey the relationships between them in space.

The reason we use implicit markmaking instead of explicit is fairly simple, although it's not always obvious. One might draw a wheel with full detail, drawing every last little textural element in its entirety, and have it look excellent floating in the void. But when it becomes part of an existing drawing, all of that packed detail can actually work against you by drawing the viewer's eye to it whether you want it to or not. This interferes with our ability to control composition (which is all about dictating how the viewer experiences a piece, what they look at and in which order), which while outside of the scope of this course, is still something I want to give students the tools to engage with more easily.

Explicit markmaking basically locks us into an agreement with the viewer: whatever is drawn is present, and whatever has not been drawn, is not present. And therefore to convey each textural form, we have to declare its presence explicitly. Implicit markmaking on the other hand gives us more freedom by disconnecting the marks we draw from the specifics of what is present. It relies on how, as shown in this diagram, depending on how far the form is from the light source, the angle of the light rays will hit the object at shallower angles the farther away they are, resulting in the shadow itself being projected farther. Even if we set aside considerations to where the light source is in order to keep everything consistent (something that is more broadly important, but not really relevant to what we're doing in this course), it provides us with a logical framework in which to work where the exact same textural form in different locations on an object can cast entirely different shadows, ranging from ones that are not even visible to ones that get so large they merge into one another.

It is the logical framework - meaning, some consistent set of rules that the viewer will pick up on subconsciously (because it matches some aspect of how the real world works) - that allows us to lay down hints which the viewer's brain can then use to understand how to fill in the sections we haven't drawn. Doing it purely based on what you observe in your reference will more likely feel arbitrary. Eventually your instincts will be more developed, and what you reach for when putting marks down without thinking about it will better match up with this logical framework, but it's only by applying it more intentionally - which means taking your time - that this will occur. And again, that means following the process of these textural exercises.

When it comes to those tires with shallow grooves, or really any texture consisting of holes, cracks, etc. it's very common for us to view these named things (the grooves, the cracks, etc.) as being the textural forms in question - but of course they're not forms at all. They're empty, negative space, and it's the structures that surround these empty spaces that are the actual forms for us to consider when designing the shadows they'll cast. This is demonstrated in this diagram. This doesn't always actually result in a different result at the end of the day, but (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) as these are all exercises, how we think about them and how we come to that result is just as important - if not moreso.

Now I don't generally assign revisions based on the textural stuff, since it's part of an intentional trap to provide a sharper reminder that we may have allowed certain concepts from the course to slip through the cracks, in forgetting to include them in our warmup routine (so they consider what all might fall into that category, and consciously review that material before continuing on to complete the last lesson of the course). That said, since your approach has fallen somewhat short of taking care and time with each mark on the structural side of things, I will be assigning some limited revisions to give you the opportunity of handling that better before continuing on.