In the Final Test, the team was tasked with having the AEV dock with the caboose without hitting it too hard, then moving it back to the starting point. The design used for this lab can be found under Final Performance Testing Design on the Evolution of Design Page. The changes made with this design made the AEV more efficient, but this also meant that the AEV would move further than expected. This meant some further adjustments to the code needed to be made, including the implementation of a powerBrake function, which can be seen under Functions on the Code page. If the AEV went to far while if was still moving, the powerBrake function would run, which would reverse motors and run them at a certain power until the AEV stopped moving. Then it shut them off and reversed them back. This allowed us to resolve many of the inconsistencies of the new design. Unfortunately, not all of the inconsistencies were resolved, as only two out of the three official tests received a perfect accuracy score. The code for the Final Test can be found under Final_Test_224 on the Code page.
The following graph shows the power usage over time of the AEV for the three tests:
The following table displays Energy and Time for each Group in Final Performance Testing
| Energy (J) | Time (s) | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| A | 254.5 | 210.54 | 181.863 | A | 78.85 | 74.22 | 62.523 |
| B | 222.64 | 222.64 | 222.64 | B | 45.98 | 45.98 | 45.98 |
| C | 219.047 | 219.047 | 219.047 | C | 46.86 | 46.86 | 46.86 |
| D | 61 | 61 | 61 | D | 45 | 45 | 45 |
| E | 182.186 | 182.186 | 182.186 | E | 52.805 | 52.805 | 52.805 |
| F | 209.108 | 209.108 | 214.622 | F | 54 | 54 | 53.58 |
| G | 169.174 | 177.555 | 194.753 | G | 53 | 54 | 59 |
| H | 191.844 | 191.844 | 191.844 | H | 62.349 | 62.349 | 62.349 |
| I | 249.431 | 249.431 | 249.431 | I | 57.122 | 57.122 | 57.122 |
| J | 243.5 | 243.5 | 243.5 | J | 54.5 | 54.5 | 54.5 |
| K | 175.546 | 175.546 | 175.546 | K | 67.202 | 67.202 | 67.202 |
| L | 217.739 | 217.739 | 216.086 | L | 61.022 | 61.022 | 61.321 |
| M | 290.204 | 290.204 | 290.204 | M | 61.013 | 61.013 | 61.013 |
| N | 361.608 | 361.608 | 361.608 | N | 54.119 | 54.119 | 54.119 |
| O | 210.112 | 210.112 | 210.112 | O | 48.66 | 48.66 | 48.66 |
| P | 141.968 | 141.968 | 141.968 | P | 54 | 54 | 54 |
| Q | 184 | 184 | 184 | Q | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| R | 241.373 | 203.8 | 199 | R | 60.78 | 56.2 | 54.7 |
| Average | 209.55959 | Average | 55.500889 | ||||
| Median | 210.112 | Median | 54.119 | ||||
| High | 361.608 | High | 78.85 | ||||
| Low | 61 | Low | 45 |
The table below shows final, total running costs for each group in Final Performance Testing
| Run Cost | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | TOP 2 AVG | TOT COST | SCORE (100) | |
| A | $541,794 | $442,667 | $409,965 | $409,965 | $568,725 | 93.1% |
| B | $405,426 | $405,426 | $405,426 | $405,426 | $561,826 | 93.8% |
| C | $394,814 | $394,814 | $394,814 | $394,814 | $567,474 | 93.3% |
| D | $313,000 | $313,000 | $313,000 | $313,000 | $442,000 | 101.5% |
| E | $385,301 | $385,301 | $385,301 | $385,301 | $530,291 | 97.0% |
| F | $534,072 | $572,220 | $473,742 | $473,742 | $621,272 | 87.9% |
| G | $1,263,623 | $591,965 | $400,877 | $400,877 | $550,537 | 94.9% |
| H | $404,446 | $404,446 | $404,446 | $404,446 | $557,766 | 94.2% |
| I | $425,399 | $425,399 | $425,399 | $425,399 | $578,119 | 92.2% |
| J | $418,500 | $418,500 | $418,500 | $418,500 | $572,000 | 92.8% |
| K | $448,418 | $448,418 | $448,418 | $448,418 | $595,263 | 90.5% |
| L | $615,411 | $615,411 | $614,851 | $614,851 | $768,591 | 73.1% |
| M | $451,622 | $451,622 | $451,622 | $451,622 | $610,382 | 89.0% |
| N | $476,983 | $476,983 | $476,983 | $476,983 | $626,703 | 87.3% |
| O | $393,046 | $393,046 | $393,046 | $393,046 | $529,046 | 97.1% |
| P | $366,984 | $366,984 | $366,984 | $366,984 | $503,854 | 99.6% |
| Q | $382,000 | $382,000 | $382,000 | $382,000 | $539,000 | 96.1% |
| R | $449,323 | $401,200 | $396,550 | $396,550 | $542,550 | 95.7% |