Original Team Design
This design combines ideas from the individual designs described below. One goal of our team was to decrease the aerodynamics of the vehicle by decreasing the amount of surface area that would face air resistance during movement. To do this, the base was turned vertically and the thinnest dimension of the base is facing the movement of the vehicle. Additionally, a base that is large enough to fit only the propellers, Arduino, and battery is used to ensure there is not additional mass on the vehicle. By decreasing the air resistance and mass of the vehicle, less power would be used to move the vehicle. Additionally, smaller wheels would be used because it would decrease the inertia, and thus the amount of force needed to stop and start the vehicle [1]. However, this design does not account for the caboose so the propellers need moved. Furthermore, the base may be too long to fit through the gate. This can be fixed by keeping the base flesh with the arm, but turning it to a horizontal orientation.
Smart City Columbus Pros: Energy efficient and cost effective (from decreased materials), aerodynamic (vertical base)
Smart City Columbus Cons: Safety of passengers due to base not being enclosed
Larenz’s Design
The focus of this AEV design was to reduce the size of the AEV and to make the device more aerodynamic in nature. Compared to the sample AEV the device is lighter, more aerodynamic and a small angle is added to the wings to emulate airplanes, leading to less lift and more speed.
Smart City Columbus Pros:
Smart City Columbus Cons:
Tara’s Design
This design focused largely on minimizing the amount of material used in order to decrease the mass of the vehicle. By only using the minimum materials, such as a small base and no additional features, the structure is relatively lightweight, thus requiring less energy to move. The base was made to be much thinner (3 in wide) to minimize the air resistance in the direction of travel. Putting the propellers vertically beneath the base would elongate the structure. This idea uses the concept of a long pendulum having more stability than a small pendulum, which would easily move back and forth quickly. Smaller wheels were used to decrease the power needed to start/stop the vehicle.
Smart City Columbus Pros: Cost effective with reduced materials, aerodynamic features (elongated base, smaller wheels) decrease power necessary
Smart City Columbus Cons: Safety may be a concern due to the base not being enclosed, small size will not hold many riders
Brittany’s Design
This design centers upon the importance of aerodynamics and a decrease in mass in comparison to the sample AEV. The goal of the design was to create a fully functional AEV with the smallest dimensions possible in order to decrease the mass of the AEV allowing for it to travel with the least amount of resistance and friction applied from the wheels interacting with the track. The edges are rounded thus allowing the AEV to incur the least amount of air resistance. One major downfall of this design is the number of specially designed pieces required to create this design.
Smart City Columbus Pros: Highly aerodynamic and efficient which will decrease the amount of power and energy needed
Smart City Columbus Cons: Safety of the passengers due to a small outer shell and it can only hold a limited number of passengers.
Allan’s Design
The design above focuses on improving the aerodynamics and the efficiency of the AEV by taking on designs from airplanes. It has a wide wing on the back, right behind the propellers to increase the air flow underneath it and it has a body around all of the internal parts in order to reduce air resistance and drag. It is nine inches long, six inches wide, and six inches high. This design is heavier than the current design but it has a reduced air resistance and increased aerodynamics.
Smart City Columbus Pros: Increases safety of the passengers due to a bigger enclosure.
Smart City Columbus Cons: The bigger design will be heavier which leads to decrease efficiency