Design 1 (Jared): The bottle shapes on both sides are equally aerodynamic which helps with moving forward and backward. It would be made of recycled bottles to be environmentally friendly. The most difficult part will be making sure everything can fit inside, and the propellors won’t hit the sides of the bottle.
Pros: There is a low cost because the body is made from recycled plastic. The bottle shape is durable and provides safety for the passengers.
Cons: The stability is off because the bottle restricts the location of parts. To make repairs the entire body must be disassembled. Our focus is to be energy efficient and it does not appear to be any more or less efficient than the reference AEV.
Design 2 (Jessic
a): The long shape gives room for all the pieces without fear of anything touching that can not touch.The propellors have a clear path and won’t come in contact with the rest of the design. The weight is distributed fairly equally front and back and left and right. The deign is made in one direction and not equal for the other direction so we would have to make two very different codes going each way.
Pros: Overall the design is fairly average. Because of the even weight distribution it is fairly stable leading to better safety. The parts only include what is necessary, helping with cost and energy efficiency.
Cons: The design does not appear any better than the reference design for stability, cost, safety and energy efficiency. The pieces are very close and multiple parts have to be taken apart to make one change. Since the pieces overlap to reduce weight and cost of parts, it is not as durable.
Design 3 (Noah): The straight sloped surface helps with aerodynamics and the low slope minimizes drag. It is made of 3-D printed plastic pieces to meet our specific design, but adds weight. It seems difficult to put together and not cost effective.
Pros: Great stability and durability which leads to increased safety.
Cons: The 3D printed parts are heavy and require a lot of time and money to reprint for repairs. The weight contributes to the poor energy efficiency.
Design 4 (Johnna): This design is long enough to fit all of the pieces and uses a cone shaped front for aerodynamics. It is made of light weight plastic sheets to minimize the weight and cost.
Pros: It is light weight and cost efficient.
Cons: This design is only ideal for moving in one direction. It would be significantly slower moving the opposite direction, which does not make it a feasible design.
Design 5 (Test 1) The design is just long enough to fit all the pieces with out violating any of the rules for what can touch. We wanted to minimize the use of materials to be as energy efficient as possible. The motors and propellors are located close to the middle so the code going forward and backward will be fairly similar. We balanced the weight of the battery and the automatic control system for stability.
Pros: It is fairly durable which helps with the safety especially once the bottle body is added in the future (see Design 1 for reference)
Cons: Stability is still a bit off but can be developed by moving pieces around, The body piece is still longer and over all heavier than we hope – reducing energy efficiency. We would like to switch it out for a recycled material instead, changing any of the parts required removal of multiple pieces which is why we did not move it to make it more stable prior to our first test.
Design 6 (Advanced R&D)The design uses plastic recycled bottles as the body of the design. The hope is that the lightweight and durable body will be a good substitution for the plastic body pieces given. The design is equal going forward and backward, so the code will be similar for both directions. We attached everything with zip ties which is not very secure but it keeps the weight down. The weight distribution makes the AEV tilt and the arduino had to be on the outside to allow for easy access when downloading code and attaching wires which makes the AEV design look messy.
Pros: It decreases overall cost and energy usage by using lightweight materials. It will use similar code going forward and backward
Cons: It is very unstable because of poor weight distribution and everything is attached with zip ties. It is hard to reconfigure if there is a problem.
Design 7 It is made to be as aerodynamic as possible going forward and backward so the code should be fairly similar for both parts of the run. To minimize the use of materials we overlapped parts and used the same bolt locations to hold down multiple parts (e.g. battery and motors, arm and small rectangle) to reduce costs and keep weight low. However the balance is still off.
Pros: The design has an aerodynamic (vertical body), is light weight: only using the minimum to fit everything, and is using the servo for faster and more accurate braking and requires significantly less energy than power braking. It is approximately the same cost as reference AEV, slightly lower because brackets aren’t needed. It is easy to maintain.
Cons: The design is more expensive than design 6 (test 2). It is very unstable because the weight is distributed poorly. The servo is poorly attached.
Design 8 (Performance Test 1, 2, & final test) It is a combination on design 6 and 7. The only difference between design 6 and 8 is the center body piece. Instead of using a bottle it uses the material given, like design 7. The vertical body should help with aerodynamics. The weight is distributed according to the torque caused by placement and weight. The hope is to have a direct comparison between design 6 and 8 with as little difference as possible between designs.
Pros: The design is light weight (only 2gm more than design 6). The servo is being used to have a faster more accurate stop. The weight is distributed better than design 7. There is exactly 2 inches from the Arduino board and magnet.
Cons: The weight is still slightly off and it tilts on the track. The servo is attached by tape that stretches after several runs. There are major inconsistency on the runs if not started at the exact same location with the reflectance tape in the exact same starting spot.
CONCEPT SCREENING AND SCORING MATRICES
We will currently be moving forward with a combination of Design 6 (Advanced R&D) and Design 8 (Performance test 1 & 2).
