The AEV first accelerated from rest to 25% power for 3 seconds, went forward 0.025m and its energy consumption increased linearly over time from 0 J up to approximately 0.36 J. The AEV then traveled at a constant speed at 25% power for 1 second, went forward 0.087m, and maintaining the approximate 0.36 J energy consumption. Then, the motors were then set to 20% power for 2 seconds, went forward 0.25m, and the AEV consumed a constant 0.25 J of energy. The motors were then reversed and the AEV traveled backwards at 25% power for 2 seconds, went back 0.33m, and consuming approximately 0.38 J of energy over each time increment. After this, the AEV came to a rest.
Here it can be seen that the total energy increases over time and distance as the AEV travels. During the first 3 seconds, while the distance the AEV travels is 0 to approximately 0.025 meters, the total energy consumption increases exponentially as the AEV accelerates to 25% power. Between 3 and 4 seconds, while the distance the AEV travels is approximately 0.025 to 0.111 meters, the total energy consumption begins to increase linearly as the AEV is traveling at a constant rate at 25% power. The total energy consumption then continues to increase linearly at a slightly lesser rate as the AEV travels at 20% power from 4 to 6 seconds. Then, it begins to increase linearly at the same rate as it was between 3 and 4 seconds as the AEV travels at 25% power for 2 seconds until it finally comes to a stop at 8 seconds. At 8 seconds,when the total distance AEV travels is 0.99m, the total energy consumption plateaus at approximately 35 J.
Screening Table From Exercise 5:
Scoring Table From Exercise 5:
The team proposed 4 designs and compared them with the sample AEV. The tables show that Design 1 has no pros but various cons, including: not very aerodynamic, unbalanced weight distribution, using lots of energy/is not efficient, and is hard to make. For Design 2, the pros include having good design appeal and the cons are: not very aerodynamic, more costly, unbalanced weight distribution, using too much energy, and is hard to make. Design 3 appears to be aerodynamic, less expensive, uses less energy, and is easy to make. No cons were evident. Design 4 appears to be aerodynamic and it uses less energy, but it is more costly and has an unbalanced weight distribution. Taking these factors into consideration, the team decided to carry Design 3 and Design 4 forward in the design cycle.