Performance Test 1 was the test that involved starting at the starting gate, then proceeding to the gate, waiting 7 seconds, then proceeding through the gate. When we first were performing this test, we would use the coasting technique to approach the first gate, and it worked. We used coasting when getting evaluated for the performance test. We noticed though that even though it used a small amount of power, it used a lot of time to coast up the hill and into the gate. We also noticed a lot of inconsistencies with the accuracy of the coasting. Even though we would succeed, it would end up in different areas within the sensors.
We then decided to alter our approach to “performance test 1” and add power braking to the code. We then also increased the motor speed of the approach up the hill. In doing this we reduced the time from approximately 12 seconds, to around 5, this time being before the wait time at the gate. We also saw the increase in power, but it was less than that of the money saved from the time. We also saw a greater increase in the accuracy of the AEV stopping position. It would always stop in a precise location that was consistent every time and this will make it easier to move on from this point to approach the next performance tests.
Overall we used performance test 1 to learn that we have the ability to utilize power braking, and manipulation of the code to ultimately optimize our AEV and make it as accurate and cost effective as possible.