Initial Designs
Design 1
Designer: Sahiti Tamirisakandala
Explanation: The front of this vehicle is pointed which allows it to move with less power due to this aerodynamic feature. This would allow for the vehicle to move quickly and with less power, enabling it to move from start to the gate efficiently.
Positive Aspects: Aerodynamic design
Points For Revision: Very bulky and high mass
Design 2
Designer: Joel Robinson
Explanation: The design is laid out like an airplane. Somewhat of a cockpit is constructed around the Arduino and triangular wings are attached to the sides to make the design more aerodynamic. The goal is to let air flow around the parts more easily.
Positive Aspects: Lets air flow around the Arduino setup to increase the aerodynamics of the car
Points for revision: Sides of Arduino “cockpit” flat and not aerodynamic
Design 3
Designer: Gavin McCracken
Explanation: A front wind shield is constructed around the arduino and battery to provide better aerodynamics. The base is minimal, consisting of just a rectangular plate. The motors are attached to the wheels in order to better control the amount of movement that occurs after the motors have been shut off. The design is ultimately light-weight and fairly aerodynamic.
Positive Aspects: Compact size, light-weight, and aerodynamic
Points for revision: The details of how the wheels would connect to the motors needs to be further looked into
Design 4
Designer: Maddie Cupp
Explanation: Pointed front so it can easily slice through the air. Also, the arduino and battery are covered, which means there is less things to break through the air.
Positive Aspects: aerodynamic, everything is secure
Points for Revision: design is too bulky
Concept Screening
| Success Criteria | Sahiti’s Design | Joel’s Design | Gavin’s Design | Maddie’s Design | ||||
| Aerodynamic | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Weight | – | – | + | – | ||||
| Bulkiness | + | – | + | – | ||||
| Assembly | + | + | – | + | ||||
| Durability | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Balance | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Sum + | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | ||||
| Sum 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Sum – | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Net Score | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | ||||
| Cotinue? | Yes | Combine | Yes | Combine | ||||
Concept Scoring
| Sahiti’s Design | Joel’s Design | Gavin’s Design | Maddie’s Design | ||||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Aerodynamic | 25% | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.75 | 3 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.5 |
| Weight | 20% | 3 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.8 |
| Bulkiness | 0.1 | 4 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Assembly | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.45 |
| Durability | 0.05 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 |
| Balance | 25% | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Total Score | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 3.2 | |||||
| Continue? | Yes | Combine | Yes | Combine | |||||
Design 1 and Design 3 will be implemented into Design 5. This will be the design used for for further research and development.
Design #5
Description: Keeps the wings that we were pretty universal across our designs. Carried forward the front cone introduced with Design 1, but the decision was made to have the Arduino and battery right next to it in the front.
Pros: Keeps the wings that we all agreed on, and the cone in front introduced by Design 1. Wings and cone will improve aerodynamics, letting air flow around the Arduino and around the whole shape of the Arduino.
Cons: Possible balance problems from the battery, Arduino, and cone being in the front. Might want to look for ways to decrease weight overall.
Final Design
This design was created after the data collected from research was analyzed. This was the best possible design to allow the AEV to be the most perform the best. This design provides great efficiency due to the fact that the AEV is aerodynamic and light weight. This AEV is also very consistent with performance because the use of the Servo adds consistency to stopping distance and therefore power.
