Kevin’s Design
Kevin’s Design was based on an airplane, which would help with aerodynamics. The design used a rounded front which would help against wind blockage. The design also improves the safety from the base AEV because Kevin separated the battery and the turbines, which overall is a safer design. The body of Kevin’s design would need to be 3D printed.
Natalie’s Design
Natalie’s Design had the key features modeled after a monorail. The aerodynamic body was meant to minimize energy and maximize energy efficiency. The top, however was not rounded, rather square which would be a detriment when it comes to aerodynamics. Natalie’s design also separated the battery and the turbines, to make the AEV safer. The body of Natalie’s design would need to be 3D printed.
Nam’s Design
Nam’s design was based on the original design, but with increased safety. Nam also split the battery and turbine, to increase safety. Nam’s design also has the ability of having less maintenance because it is has less pieces.
Taqiyyah’s Design
Taqiyyah’s design was also based on aerodynamics. The design added a fin on the top of the AEV which would help with overall less blockage of wind and increase energy efficiency. The fin for the design would need to be 3D printed.
Concept Screen Criteria and Results
As a team, it was decided that the team’s most important design criteria was safety and minimal blockage. The decision was made since minimal blockage, leads to energy efficiency, which is the team’s MCR. The decision was made with safety based on the pitch from the original video. The AEV is meant to be used as an everyday means of transportation, therefore it should be safe and reliable. After that, as a team it was decided that maintenance and durability go together. If an AEV is durable, then it won’t need that much maintenance. Finally, it was decided that stability is the least important criteria because if the AEV is safe, it should be stable.Each design was tailored towards a weakness the team believed the reference AEV had. Three were tailored towards making the AEV aerodynamic and one was tailored specifically towards making the AEV safer. Design W used a fin at the top of the AEV to decrease blockage, as well as increase energy efficiency. Both Design X and Design Y, changed the design of the base of the AEV to make it more aerodynamic. Design X used an airplane as a reference and Design Y used a monorail. The team decided that Design X would be more aerodynamic due to its rounded base front. Design Z was concerned with safety. Design Z has the turbine, Arduino, and turbines separated to increase safety. The two concepts the team decided to use were Design X and Design Z.
Updates
After testing two design Z and X on tracks, the team decided that only use the design without the cap at the front. It is because when the one with the cap runs on track, it adds more weight and creates unbalance on the AEV. The one without the cap runs faster, easier to control and more balance.
The result below is conducted from the design Z (without cap)
