Balance/Safety(30%): A balanced AEV is important for the safety of the people that are onboard.
Cost (25%): An AEV that utilizes the least amount of parts and fits well within the budget is most desirable. The Capital Cost Should be less than the reference capital cost which was found to be 162,760$
Energy Efficiency/Weight (25%): A lightweight AEV will be easier to move and require less energy.
Lowest Air Resistance (10%): The AEV that has the smallest surface area in the front will have the least amount of air resistance
Aesthetics (10%): The AEV will be in public and must represent the company and the city of Columbus well.
Spreadsheet provides how each design compares to the reference AEV. Spreadsheet shows which designs are more favorable based on teams criteria. Team decided to not continue with “Avery’s Design” because of mediocre score and through observations in testing.
Concept Screening and Scoring:
Andrew’s Design;
Andrew’s design scored a 3.15 out of 5 on the concept scoring scale while the reference AEV scored a 3 on the scoring scale (seen above), making Andrew’s the better design, but not by much. . Andrew’s design was only better than the reference design in the category of efficiency. Andrew’s design was scored to be more efficient than the reference AVE because it was designed to be lighter using the T-shape design with the trapezoids to make it a little bit smaller than the rectangular design with the trapezoids. Andrew’s design also scored lower than the reference design in the category of aesthetics because the front looked just like a trapezoid and was not well designed. In all other categories Andrew’s design scored the same score as the reference AEV. For the cost category Andrew’s design was less than $5,000 dollars from the reference AEV. In the category of safety, although neither of them have been tested they seemed similar enough in design that they would have the same balance. In conclusion Andrew’s design was scored better than the reference AEV because it was ranked better in the category of efficiency which was our 2nd most important category making up 25% of the 5 points. Although Andrew’s design was better than the reference our group decided not to use the design because the other 2 were scored higher on our scoring scale.
Will’s design scored a 3.4 on the scoring scale compared to the reference AEV which scored a 3, making it the better vehicle. Will’s design was ranked better than the reference AEV in the categories of efficiency, air resistance, and aesthetics, and only scored lower in the category of cost. In the category of safety Will’s design scored the same as the reference vehicle because the designs seem to be similarly balanced. In the category of Efficiency will’s design was scored higher than the reference AEV because the design weighs less. Will’s design scored higher in the category of air resistance because his design was very aerodynamic with the curved front shield and the wings in the back. In the cost category Will’s design scored lower than the reference AEV because the special front windshield that is more aerodynamic will cost more money than the reference AEV. Finally the windshield design is aesthetically pleasing which is why it scored a higher score in the category than the reference AEV. Will’s design will be tested further by the group because of its high performance on the scoring scale ranking it our second best design. .
The groups design, which scored the highest out of all the designs, scored a 3.65 on the scale. The Group’s design performed better than the reference AEV in the categories of balance, cost, and aesthetics, and scored the sames as the reference AEV in all the other categories. The Group’s design scored higher in the category of safety becasue the design called for the battery being underneath the AEV in line with the ardiuno which helps better balance the AEV. The Group’s design also scored higher in the category of cost because the groups design had a lower cost because it used less expensive parts than the reference AEV such as less angle brackets. Finally the Groups design scored higher in the category of aesthetics because it had a nicer design with the batteries put underneath and the Ardiuno on top which gave more room for the wires. In the category of efficiency the group’s design scored the same as the reference design because it weighed about the same as the reference. In the category of Air resistance the group’s design scored the same as the reference AEV because it had the battery and Arduino turned sideways making it less resistant. In conclusion the Group’s design scored well in the categories of cost, safety, ad aesthetics, which mad the design the best design, and the one we plan to test.