Throughout the Advanced Research and Development Labs, Team B searched for ways to improve the efficiency of the AEV. In particular, the group searched for ways in which the mass, the power output, and the travel time of the vehicle could be reduced. Two key areas were studied throughout these labs; these included the design of the battery holder as long as the braking methods used to stop the vehicle. To analyze the battery holder design, Team B first brainstormed ideas that could be used for a potential battery holder design. These ideas included the sample battery holder used in the Preliminary R&D Labs, as well as attaching the battery through the use of both zip-ties and rubber bands. All though the latter two battery holder designs were very simple, they proved to be more effective than the sample battery holder. A concept scoring matrix was made during this process to help visualize the benefits each design had over the other.
From the above chart, it was determined that the rubber band design proved to be the most effective design out of the proposed ideas. To improve the stability of the rubber band battery holder, more rubber bands were used that had a smaller diameter to increase the tension in the rubber bands along with the force pushing the battery against the vehicle.
Through the Advanced R&D Labs, Team B also studied the braking methods that could potentially be used to stop the vehicle. These included the standard brake function, using a combination of the brake and reverse commands, and using the reverse command for one second to stop the vehicle. Team B tested these braking methods with the goal of determining which method resulted in the smallest amount of power output while also reducing the run-time of the AEV. Through the data collected, Team B decided to use the combination of the reverse and brake commands as it resulted in a smaller power output than using the reverse command for one second. Although the power output for this method, was greater than that of the standard brake command, the run-time was reduced enough to the point that Team B felt this method was more viable.
Team B also researched ways in which the AEV could be made more cost efficient. In order to accomplish this goal, the motor speed was tested to determine how that affected the time and energy costs of the vehicle. The cost of the vehicle was calculated using the cost equation given through the MCR. In the experiment, the capital costs of the vehicle was not considered as that would remain constant throughout all trial runs. Through the experiment, it was found that as the motor speed increased, both the time and energy costs of the vehicle also decreased. This trend continued up until the motors reached 50% power, where there was an increase in the time cost from the motors at 45% speed. However, the decrease in the time cost was significant enough to the point where this increase in the motors still made the vehicle more profitable.
The research performed throughout the Advanced R&D Labs makes Team B’s AEV more marketable as the findings of these experiments will allow for adjustments to be made that will reduce the power output and run-time of the vehicle. With a simple battery holder design with low mass, less power will be required of the motors to accelerate the AEV forward. Furthermore, the chosen braking system will reduce the run-time of the AEV while also reducing the power output significantly. By running the motors at high speeds, the cost of the vehicle will be reduced as the vehicle will require both less time and energy to complete a full run. These adjustments will greatly decrease the cost required for the AEV to complete the mission statement, thus allowing it to be more competitive on the market.