Performance Test 1

For the first performance test, the AEV had to reach the gate at the top of the track, trigger the gate sensor, and proceed through the gate after waiting 7 seconds.

The team approached this performance test with the goal of determining which one of the two AEV designs, 45-degree-winged or flat, was the better of the two. To accomplish this, the team performed the test with each design and analyzed the data collected by the Arduino for each respective run.

Both AEV designs passed the performance test with almost the same controlling code, which is available here. However, the flat-winged AEV had to run its motors a further distance before breaking in order to reach the gate. To find out why this was, the group analyzed the data collected during both runs. Below are the graphs of the Power versus Distance, Power versus Time, and Speed versus Time for both AEVs.

Distance Traveled versus Power Consumed for each AEV

Time Elapsed versus Power Consumed for each AEV

Time Elapsed versus Speed of each AEV

Comparing the graphs for the Distance versus Power and the Time versus Power yielded that the power consumption disparity between the two designs was minimal. So, the decision for which design to carry forward would not be based on the power consumption. However, when calculations were performed on the data of Speed versus Time, it was discovered that the Flat AEV had a slightly faster average velocity before the gate, and also stopped quicker than the 45-degree AEV with the same braking power applied. The Flat AEV traveled at an average velocity of 0.784 m/s, while the 45-degree AEV traveled at an average velocity of 0.776 m/s. The Flat AEV required 1.02 seconds to brake completely, while the 45-degree AEV required 1.2 seconds to brake completely. Thus, the flat-winged AEV was chosen as the design to move forward with because of its advantage over the 45-degree AEV when comparing its ability to be controlled and manipulated with the code.