The 20% power tests resulted in the least cost effective trial runs for both vehicles. When the dollars per inch of each design was taken into account, it showed that the Double Ended design had difficulties gathering momentum at this low power. This may have been due to either the overall mass of the Double Ended design or inadequate power being supplied for a push-pull thrust system. At 30% power, both vehicles became more efficient in terms of dollars per inch. The Double Ended design had an 83% decrease in dollars per inch, whereas the Side by Side design had a 28% decrease. The higher power resulted in both vehicles performing more efficiently. At 40% power, both vehicles saw the most efficient results for dollars per inch. At this power there was only a $9.35 difference, whereas the 20% power tests resulted in a $789.54 difference, both favoring the Side by Side design These results were not expected. There was an expectation that a lower power would result in lower energy costs when compared with distance traveled. The higher energy output resulted in a more energy efficient performance which led to a more time efficient performance as well. These exact results can be found in the graphs provided below.
The motor configuration tests also showed that the Side by Side design traveled farther than the Double Ended design in all portions of testing except the outgoing segment of the 40% power test. At this segment, the Double Ended design consumed an average of 3.5 joules more energy in order to travel 11.8 inches farther. These results led the team to believe that a mixed push-pull system was not as efficient as a strictly push or pull system. It was also shown from the results that the Side by Side design traveled farther when being pushed rather than being pulled. This trend was consistent at all different power outputs. This result was expected as a push system was assumed to be the most effective. This information also led the team to orient the AEV to be pulled towards the caboose, and pushed with the load.
Figure 1: Energy vs Distance for Doubled Ended Design at 20% Power
Figure 2: Energy vs Distance for Side by Side Design at 20% Power
Figure 3: Energy vs Distance for Doubled Ended Design at 30% Power
Figure 4: Energy vs Distance for Side by Side design at 30% Power