Final performance test budget
| RUN 1 | RUN 2 | RUN 3 | |
| Capital Costs | $ 164,440 | $ 164,440 | $ 164,440 |
| Energy Costs | $ 219,857 | $ 325,000 | $ 377,000 |
| Time Costs | $ 157,500 | $ 157,500 | $ 168,000 |
| Accuracy Penality | 1 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! |
| R&D Costs | $ – | $ – | $ – |
| Safety Violations | $ – | $ – | $ – |
| TOTAL COST | $ 541,796.50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! |
Final performance test energy graph
The final performance test data allowed to use to show that our research supported our aev and our aev was both efficient and had enough speed to keep a fast pace through the course. Our aev successfully completed the course on the first try with no accuracy penalty. From the first performance test to the last our aev had to be adjusted throughout each test. The first test our aev only used coasting to try and conserve as much energy as possible. But it was found that the aev was very inconsistent that way and provided for numerous runs that would not do at all what was expected. After the first performance test we incorporated power breaking into the code. This helped numerously and allowed the aev to be very consistent with each run and stopped at the corect sections. The final performance test was all about trying to be the most efficient but also spend the least amount of time on the track. After several trials it was determined that the aev would use a combination of both coasting but then power breaking right before a stop zone. This allowed the aev to be both effiecent, accurate, and still ran the track at a fast time.