For the final Vehicle testing, group F was focused on small optimizations on the AEV and in there code to make their vehicle more energy efficient. The AEV was to run the full track, connect to a load, then travel back to the start stopping the in the docking sation.
This is the code for Final Vehicle Testing. If needed, the Function Glossary can be seen here: Glossary
| Code | Comment |
| celerate(4,0,25,4); | Accelerate all motors from start to 25% in 4 seconds |
| motorSpeed(4,28); | All motors at 28% |
| goToAbsolutePosition(239); | Go to position 239 marks |
| brake(4); | Brake all motors |
| goToAbsolutePosition(292); | Go to position 292 marks |
| rotateServo(90); | Rotate servo 90 degrees |
| goFor(8); | Go for 8 seconds |
| rotateServo(-90); | Rotate servo -90 degrees |
| motorSpeed(4,28); | All motors at 28% |
| goToAbsolutePosition(386); | Go to position 386 marks |
| brake(4); | Brake all motors |
| goToAbsolutePosition(648); | Go to position 648 marks |
| rotateServo(90); | Rotate servo 90 degrees |
| goFor(2); | Go for 2 seconds |
| rotateServo(-90); | Rotate servo -90 degrees |
| motorSpeed(4,20); | All motors at 20% |
| goFor(0.5); | Go for 0.5 seconds |
| brake(4); | Brake all motors |
| goFor(6); | Go for 6 seconds |
| rotateServo(-90); | Rotate servo -90 degrees |
| reverse(4); | Reverse all motors |
| motorSpeed(4,40); | All motors at 40% |
| goToAbsolutePosition(430); | Go to position 430 marks |
| brake(4); | Brake all motors |
| goToAbsolutePosition(392); | Go to position 392 marks |
| rotateServo(90); | Rotate servo 90 degrees |
| goFor(8); | Go for 8 seconds |
| rotateServo(-90); | Rotate servo -90 degrees |
| motorSpeed(4,40); | All motors at 40% |
| goToAbsolutePosition(295); | Go to position 295 marks |
| brake(4); | Brake all motors |
| goToAbsolutePosition(80); | Go to position 80 marks |
| rotateServo(90); | Rotate servo 90 degrees |
Below are the results of three test runs for the final vehicle test. These results were very consistent with each-other and proved that group F’s AEV was very reliable and controlled.
| Trail 1 | Trials 2 | Average | |
| Time | 59.00 | 60.00 | 59.50 |
| Energy | 207.52 | 205.58 | 206.55 |
Because of the energy usage, group F ended up over budget by $22,000. This cost could be blamed on the AEV code itself but in the end it can be concluded that the design was not optimized to it’s best capabilities. Group F’s final AEV design can be seen below. This design is very similar to the AEV when it start testing. Some notable differences are the servo attached after brake testing, the propellers facing the forward direction after configuration testing, and the t-base after performance testing 1.
A major drawback of group f’s AEV was the fact it used too much power to complete the scenario. Looking forward the problem would be solved by taking a look at the weight, design, and form of movement the AEV has and figuring out how they can be modified to decrease the energy efficiency.