Group B Advanced Energy Vehicle Joe Dannemiller, Cody Faist, Clare Fibbi, Tristan White Cody

Overview Key AEV Features Design Process Coding Strategy Initial Design Final Design Efficiency Cody

Key AEV Features Balanced Lightweight Efficient Easy to maintain Cody

Design Process Lab 01 Designs Prototyping Goals Cody’s Star Wars X-Wing Design Joe’s Equally Distributed Weight Design Clare’s Stability Design Tristan’s Servo Design Prototyping Goals Centered weight distribution Ensure design maintains stability throughout a run Creative yet sensible design Cody

Other Ideas Cody

Coding Strategy: Initial Ideas Completing mission objective R2D2 transport Checkpoint Increasing power supply with cargo Determining distance Converting inches to marks Reliance on AbsolutePosition instead of time Clare

Coding Strategy Results of initial coding Goals for final coding Inconsistency and coasting Inefficient braking Goals for final coding Implement the celerate command Less coasting Improve energy efficiency Clare

Coding Strategy: Final Results Decelerating before every checkpoint Quick breaking Reduce energy consumption Motor speed with and without R2D2 25% without cargo and 30% with cargo Longer deceleration and shorter reverse with R2D2 Momentum Reduce crashing Clare -Decelerating before each checkpoint made the vehicle easier to break while also reducing energy consumption. We were able to reduce both coasting and the high power needed to previously break. -The motorspeed with the R2D2 was slightly increased to provide the needed force for the extra weight. This let the vehicle move quickly enough to complete the scenario in the allotted time limit. -Finally, a longer deceleration command was used on the returning half of the trip. This was because if the AEV stopped too quickly, the R2D2 would still have a forward momentum and would possibly crash into the AEV. Additionally, the longer deceleration allowed for increased efficiency by being able to have a shorter reverse motorSpeed command.

Design 1 Joe

Design 1: Bill of Materials Weight: 173.92 g Cost: $159.30 No 3D printed parts Joe

Design 1: Power vs. Time Plot The power vs. time plot for Design 1 was only for the first part of the run to the gate. The team changed designs before moving further along in the coding process. Joe

Design 1: Power vs. Time Tables Joe

Final Design Pusher/puller configuration Proper alignment Center of gravity Arduino placement Velcroed battery Tristan

Final Design: Bill of Materials Weight: 167.63 g. Cost: $159.14 Less brackets Less nuts/bolts Different plastic pieces No battery spacers, tee, or battery clamp plate No 3D printed parts Tristan

Final Design: Power vs. Time Plot Less time Less power overall Less power during braking Most power with R2D2 Most trouble with R2D2 Tristan

Final Design: Power vs. Time Tables Tristan

Advantages/Disadvantages of Final Design Pusher/puller configuration Proper balance Low maintenance Less blockage Center of gravity Lightweight Consistent functionality Low cost Disadvantages: Inconsistent programality Inconsistent fin orientation Location of battery Tristan

Conclusion and Questions Joe