Throughout this project, the main focus for the group was minimizing the energy that the AEV consumed while also minimizing the cost. In order to simultaneously achieve these goals, a direct drive wheel was created and attached to a custom arm that supported the motor. This new design only required one motor to propel the vehicle forward rather than the two motors necessary for wind propulsion. During the advanced research and design process, the battery consumption test found that the voltage provided by the battery did not decrease significantly between trials. This may have been affected if the propulsion method was used because the propellers lose energy while generating wind, but because all power was directly allocated to moving the wheel, the consumption remained low and did not affect the battery voltage. The direct drive also allowed the vehicle to move quickly and consistently at 20% power, which also cut down on energy consumption throughout the run. The wheel’s friction also provided a stopping mechanism without reversing the wheel or using a servo to stop the AEV. During the final performance test, the AEV consumed 48.79 joules of energy over the course of 38.5 seconds, and the final cost was $436,535. In comparison to the class averages, the vehicle performed 13 seconds faster while consuming 80% less energy and spending over $152,000 less on the vehicle. The direct drive AEV design had the fastest time, cheapest cost, and lowest energy consumption for the class as a whole, and the consistency between trials as well as a new brake function in the code allowed the vehicle to optimize performance over several test runs. While the energy efficiency and cost were the main focus of the design, the AEV as a whole is incredibly minimalistic in terms of pieces and components with the exception of the wheel. The base is the smallest plastic rectangle provided, and the battery, arduino, and reflectance wheel are the only other portions of the body design besides the new arm and drive wheel. The simplicity of the production allows for easy replication of the design on a larger scale because of the small number of components, and even the custom parts are not difficult or expensive to construct. Finally, the direct drive design provides a safer method of transportation than the original propeller propulsion method. When watching other group’s designs run in class, several propellers flew off the motors and onto the ground mid run, causing the vehicle to become off balance and lose half of its propulsion force immediately. The propeller vehicles also tended to be inconsistent in terms of distance travelled, and these inconsistencies caused several of the designs to crash into the gates or into the caboose. Since the direct drive wheel design does not have any loose parts, there is nothing that can fall off and cause the movement of the AEV to alter. The direct drive wheel also had all energy going directly into the wheel rather than losing some of the energy provided by the motor to the surroundings, so this additional consistency in the amount of power going into the vehicle resulted in zero crashes at both the gate and the caboose. Several other designs in the class received fines ranging from $10,000-$45,000 for safety violations according to the final performance test spreadsheet, while the direct drive wheel had $0 fined for safety violations as it never crashed or flew off the track. Since this vehicle is meant for human transportation, the improved consistency and additional safety measures on the direct drive AEV prove to be incredibly beneficial when compared to the runs by similar AEVs powered by wind propulsion.