Results
Official time-trial performance, control discussion, and final demonstration video
Time Trials
The time trials were used to evaluate our robot under the official final-course scoring conditions. Our goal was not only to finish the course, but also to do so with repeatable behavior across multiple runs. Performance depended on the interaction between line following, encoder-based motion control, and the transition logic used between sections of the track.
Our best official recorded time was 120.00 seconds. We also completed one faster run in 119.31 seconds, but that run was marked as unofficial. This shows that the robot was capable of completing the course consistently near the two-minute mark, although reliability across all attempts still remained a challenge.
Official Trial Results
The table below summarizes the checkpoint data recorded during our final time trials. DNF indicates that the robot did not complete the remaining course segments.
| Trial | Checkpoint 1 (s) | Checkpoint 2 (s) | Checkpoint 3 (s) | Checkpoint 4 (s) | Finish (s) | Column 7 | Column 8 | Recorded Time (s) | Official |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 29.28 | 60.01 | 85.20 | 100.10 | 120.00 | 0 | 3 | 120.00 | Yes |
| 2 | 30.00 | DNF | — | — | — | 0 | 3 | DNF | Yes |
| 3 | 30.00 | DNF | — | — | — | 0 | 3 | DNF | Yes |
| 4 | 30.00 | 61.08 | 85.16 | 100.10 | 119.31 | 0 | 3 | 119.31 | No |
Successful full course run recorded during the live time trials demonstration.
Summary of Performance
Trial 1
Trial 1 was our best official run and resulted in a final recorded time of 120.00 seconds. This run showed that the robot could complete the full track under official conditions with stable overall behavior.
Trials 2 and 3
Trials 2 and 3 both ended in DNF after reaching the first checkpoint at 30.00 seconds. These runs highlight that while the robot could achieve a complete run, its behavior was not yet fully repeatable across every attempt.
Trial 4
Trial 4 produced our fastest full-course result at 119.31 seconds, but this run was not counted as official. Even so, it confirms that our robot was capable of slightly better performance than the official score indicates.
Comparing Trial 1 and Trial 4 also shows that the robot’s successful runs were very similar through the middle part of the course. The checkpoint values at roughly 85 seconds and 100 seconds were nearly identical, which suggests that the robot followed the main path consistently once it entered the track correctly.
Control Discussion
In our motor tuning and control development, the best performance came from using Kp = 2.9, Ki = 0.1, a motor gain of K = 0.2, and a set point of 120 counts/s. These settings produced the best balance between responsiveness and stability during the final testing phase.
One major challenge in tuning the robot was that even small changes in the gains or set point could noticeably change the robot’s behavior. Slight adjustments sometimes made the response less stable or less repeatable, especially during transitions between track sections. As a result, tuning became a tradeoff between faster movement and reliable completion.
Overall, the results show that our robot was capable of finishing the course in about two minutes, but future improvement should focus on increasing reliability and consistency across repeated runs rather than only trying to reduce the final time.