Vehicle Configuration Testing

Vehicle Configuration Testing was the first of three test preformed on the AEV by group F. In this test, two variations of the AEV was created to analyze whether weight distribution effected the energy efficiency of the data. The two different designs are described and shown below.For the first configuration, an x-shaped base was used to distribute the components and motors more evenly across the AEV. It can be noted that though the Arduino is located in the back, the batter in the front of teh design equated to a more evenly distributed weight. For the second configuration, the T-shaped base was used to distribute the components and motors near the back the AEV. This made the AEV heavier in the back.

Configuration 1:

Configuration 2:


In order to perform this test, code was written to run the AEV designs. Because both of them were able to complete the track using the same commands, only one code was written. Group F  was to design a code to make the AEV go up an incline, stop at a stop sing for 7 seconds, and then proceed through the stop. All this was to be completed on the main test track. This code can be seen below.

If needed, the Function Glossary can be seen here: Glossary

Code Comment
celerate(4,0,25,4); Accelerate all motors from star 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(293); Go to position 293 marks
rotateServo(90); Rotate servo 90 degrees
goFor(8); Go for 8 seconds
rotateServo(-90); Rotate servo -90 degrees
motorSpeed(4,30); All motors at 30%
goToAbsolutePosition(386); Go to position 386 marks
brake(4); Brake all motors
rotateServo(90); Rotate servo 90 degrees

The data collected from three test runs of each base are showed below.

X-Base T-Base
Average Power


3.16 3.19
Average Distance (Meters)  5.15 5.10

Because bot designs costed the same to create, there was no money aspect taken into consideration in the process of determine the batter design. The X-base can be concluded as being the most optimal. This is because less power was required to run the same test track at the same speeds as the T-base. It can also be concluded that the T-base wasn’t able to react as quick as the X-base. The T-base was not able to speed up enough near the end of the run making the +-base go further than the T-base.

Group F decided it would be best for the weight of the AEV to be distributed across the base rather than in the back.