Each design was scored and compared to the original to help guide the team to the best prototype design, while listing some pros and cons of each. The screening table compares different aspects of each design with the original, if it is worse the design gets a “-” for that section. While if the design is similar it receives a 0, and if the new design is better it gets a “+”. To count them all the plus’ are 1 point and the negative’s are minus one point. With each design having a score a decision on whether or not the design will be continued or not is made.
Concept screening table
Then for the second part of the lab, the scoring table is filled out by rating aspects of each design from 1-5. These ratings are then multiplied by the predetermined weight factor, afterwards each design is given an overall rating number from adding up all of the multiplied values. For exact results and data the tables are below the pros and cons of each design. If a better description or picture of each design is needed open the creative design thinking lab, to read the motivation and a picture of each design made.
Concept scoring table
Pros and Cons of each design
Design A (Kaylie):
PROS- The stability, durability, and safety are all pros for this design. This design could fight outside sources like weather and gravity because of the way it is shaped and the airplane like casing over it. It is also meant to be long lasting and safe for the riders moving behind the vehicle because every component of the vehicle is safe and protected which also ensures that passengers are safe because nothing will fall off onto them.
CONS- The maintenance of this AEV is a con because of the outer shell making it difficult to get to parts that would potentially need repaired. The outer shell would have to be taken apart then re sealed again each time an adjustment inside must be done.
Design B (James):
PROS- The biggest advantage this design has against the original is the efficiency, but this is not accounted for in the screening and the scoring for this lab making the original better in most cases. The one pro represented in the tables would be the maintenance, this is due to the layout being easily managed and all the major components being accessible.
CONS- However, trying to reach peak efficiency comes with some cons from implementing the rotating platforms. These cons are the stability and blockage of the AEV, because when the tables are turning the weight will shift and the propellers have a chance of hitting the base. These cons made the design unusable and better options were explored.
Design C (Owen):
PROS- Simple (meaning lightweight & “easily” repairable), aerodynamic (all parts are not protruding from the body, keeping air resistance to a minimum, the simplistic design is aesthetically pleasing (in that its design is easily to follow, not complicated)
CONS- Developing an arm for the magnet to pick up the load to maneuver around the ramp is negative to weight, time, and resources (but necessary, unless one less ramp is used, a con in itself).
Design D (Amy):
PROS- Maintenance because there is nothing covering the entire vehicle such as a shell or case covering, there is an easy access to all the parts so removing and adding will be simple if maintenance occurs. Stability because the vehicle won’t shift or sway if the proper balance of weight distribution on the vehicle is found.
CONS- Lack of minimal blockage due to the fact that since everything is out and open, some components may interfere or touch other parts of the vehicle such as the wires of the Arduino may get caught by a screw or the propellers.
Two Designs to be Carried Forward:
Design A and Design C with Design D being combined within them.