Testing beyond what is described in Section 5 was planned but not performed. This includes obstacle climbing, brake effectiveness, and user input measurement accuracy. Obstacle climbing and brake effectiveness were not tested because of time constraints as well as the threat of the test causing damage to the current prototype. The user input measurement accuracy test was not tested because of issues with the 9DOF sensor which is described further above. The test plans for the obstacle climbing and brake effectiveness were developed and can be found in Appendix D. The user input measurement accuracy test plan would need to be further developed to be adequately tested.
Obstacle climbing would have tested the ability to overcome curbs and other inconsistencies in the road. Obstacle climbing followed the procedures of ISO 7176-10 [16]. This test would have tested Specification G8 and P8. The test plan included an increase in test obstacle size starting at 0.75 in and ending at 6 in. The results of this may have changed the spring design to a weaker spring if it was deemed too difficult to use over curbs and bumps. Preparations for this test were made including the testing procedure and apparatus being prepared.
An additional test that was planned but not performed was the brake effectiveness test. This test followed ISO 7176-3 requirements [15]. The brake effectiveness test would have determined whether Specifications G7, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, and P9 were met. The results of this test could have changed a lot about the prototype. Depending on the results the spring, and motor/transmission may have been changed. The spring may have been changed to either increase or decrease the braking capabilities of the device. Balancing the results of the obstacle climbing and braking test to consider utility and users needs may have been difficult. The motor/transmission may have been changed as a result of this test to increase or decrease the speed of the device.