In the Concept Screening and Scoring portion of the Preliminary R&D labs, the team used the concepts of concept screening and concept scoring in order to analyze the team’s AEV designs to decide which designs should be carried forward. These concepts entail comparing the AEV designs to a reference AEV and each other based on certain designated categories. The first step for the team was to come up with these categories so that the AEV designs could be analyzed. The first category was balance. The team agreed that balance is one of the most important factors of the AEV because it must stay on the track the entire time in order to complete the desired task. Forward/Backward Efficiency was also decided upon, as the AEV must be efficient going in both directions to be able to pick up the caboose and bring it back to the starting position. Weight was decided upon because the importance of conserving energy while completing the objective was noted by all team members. Safety and Durability were the last two categories that the team decided upon, as it was agreed that the AEV must be put together strongly and well enough in order to maintain its appearance and be safe for all nearby spectators. Once these categories were all set, for the concept screening portion of the lab the team went through each sample AEV and rated the sample on how well it compared to the reference AEV. A score of +,-, or 0 was recorded. For the concept scoring portion of the lab, weighted scores were calculated and analyzed based on preferences that were specified by the team.
With these charts filled up, the team proceeded to test the built sample AEV on the classroom track. The AEV balanced very well, as it performed the designated code with no problems and remained stable on the track throughout the run. This test as well as the team’s concept screening and scoring charts allowed decisions to be made about which AEV designs would be carried forward. Based on the information gathered, it was decided that Design 1 and Design 2 would be pursued. These two designs had the two largest weighted scores, a 3.8 and 3 respectively. Design 1 and Design 2 scored highly in the balance and weight categories, both of which were heavily weighted. Design 1 was overall the best design, as it also scored very high in forward/backward efficiency due to the propellor placement. The team will continue to use this lab and these charts as guidance for future designs and projects.
