## 3 Results

Table 8: MAV simulation results. Although energy consumption characteristics are similar between the two solutions, an evaluation of the overall fleet energy efficiency shows the benefits of the MAV concept. While the BEB solution uses two buses with individual results similar to the modular alternative, by using two units to cover the requested transport routes, it adds to the total energy consumption, offsetting its results. In Figure 11, a visual comparison of the cumulated SoC [%] is shown, considering the best performance for the electric bus solution--centered weight distribution, with a remaining charge of approximately 42.5%. This Figure demonstrates the energy efficiency of the MAV system, which was further enhanced by its robust performance in terms of time efficiency and passenger comfort. The simplified routes of their service save travel time, enhance the productivity, and prioritizing passenger comfort. The comprehensive strategy offers the MAV as an appealing alternative for urban transport, offering not just energy efficiency but also improved travel experience and the ability to fulfil the varied needs of commuters. Figure 11: Overall State-of-Charge comparison. Figure 10: State-of-Charge comparison for each test run. These results indicate that the MAV solution is able to retain (overall) 34.2% more charge in the battery packs while performing tasks on the same routes and carrying the same number of passengers. Looking at the average electrical energy consumption, which is measured in kWh/km, the conventional bus solution is 18.6% less efficient compared to the modular alternative. Average energy consumption also takes into consideration the energy recovered while braking at request or while cruising downhill and using the engine braking to keep the travel velocity at the 20 km/h setpoint. A comparison of the results between the two solutions is shown in Figure 12.  
Figure 13 presents a detailed graphic that provides a comparative analysis of the average energy usage per passenger for the two urban mobility alternatives. The maximum passenger capacity of one MAV module is 12, while a road train of four modules will have a maximum capacity of 48 people. In the case of the BEB, the maximum considered capacity is 60 people. With the purpose of evaluating the overall energy consumption per passenger, the data clearly demonstrates a consistent benefit for the MAV solution, with an efficiency edge of about 5% per passenger compared to other mobility options. The consistent advantage emphasizes the inherent efficiency and effectiveness built into the MAV structure, highlighting its potential as a sustainable and friendly transportation choice. The simulated scenarios use a route of 14.2 km (from the airport to the most Western part of the city) and another of 10.5 km. In order to serve multiple distinct transport routes, multiple vehicles are required, regardless of their setup (BEB or MAV). The MAV system allows flexibility in resource allocation, using all four modules (in the presented case) together, while the BEB solution implies using two vehicles (in the presented case) for it to cover the two distinct travel routes. Figure 12: Average energy consumption comparison. Figure 13: Average energy consumption per passenger comparison. It is important to note that the effect of weight distribution on energy consumption varies depending on factors such as traffic conditions and the location of heavy components within the bus, such as the battery pack or electric motor. A rear weight distribution may result in higher energy consumption due to increased resistance and the need for more frequent braking and acceleration in certain traffic scenarios, such as hilly terrain or frequent stops. Furthermore, the placement of heavy components can impact the vehicle's overall balance and stability, potentially affecting its energy efficiency.