Approach to MCR

Team M’s approach to the AEV was to figure out the most efficient way to transport the people of Linden to Polaris. To start the process, team M went through the pR&D concept screening and scoring to decide what AEV design would best complete this task. To do this, each team member crafted their own design of the AEV. These designs were then compared to the original AEV design and molded together to come up with the final AEV design Team M wanted to use. The team then developed this design and came up with a shell that would supposedly keep the internals of the AEV safe and be more aerodynamic than the original AEV design. The shell that the group originally planned to use turned out to be heavier and ultimately a lot more money than the group wanted. The AEV needed to be lighter to allow for better power usage and speed when traveling on the track. Moving on from the concept sketches and AEV design to the aR&D, group M participated in two tests to determine the best way to configure the AEV. The first test that the group did was Battery Power. This test allowed the group to understand if battery power played a large role in the AEV’s efficiency when it came to power output and speed. Ultimately, the battery power had minuscule effects on the AEV. Because of this, group M did not use the battery power to change the AEV design or develop code that involved battery power. Second, group M tested the Motor Quantity. The motor quantity test allowed the group to determine if the AEV should have two or one motors and if the blades should be small or large. After the test, the group determined that the AEV design with two large motors was the best design for power efficiency and speed. The small motors did not move the AEV as well as the group wanted and one motor was not as power efficient as two motors. After these two test in the aR&D, group M moved onto the performance tests. During Performance Test 1, group M’s objective was to get the AEV to stop in between the sensors and then move through the sensors. The group tested two different designs with the same code to see which design worked best. The group ended up choosing the smaller of the two designs because of its speed and power efficiency. Group M used techniques of coasting to the gate for Performance Test 1 and ended up failing because of the inconsistency associated with coasting. After failing the performance test, the group decided to change the braking technique to power breaking. This gave the AEV consistency and group M took this technique into all performance tests following. After Performance Test 1, group M moved onto Performance Test 2. For Performance Test 2, group M had to program the AEV to complete everything from Performance Test 1 and successfully connect to the caboose at the back of the track. After using coasting techniques  During Performance Test 2, group M used the power breaking technique used in Performance Test 1 to connect to the caboose. Instead of coasting, the power breaking gave the AEV enough time to slowly connect to the caboose in a smooth manner and gave group M full points. Group M took this same technique into the codes used in the Final Performace Test. The Final Performance Test combined all of the Performance Tests and had the AEV go to the gate, go through the gate, pick up the caboose, then come back through the gate and stop. Group M’s AEV was mostly consistent and only had minor errors that the group fixed by touching the AEV. Overall, the AEV worked consistenly and used all aspects of what the group had done since the beginning of the semester.