1. 2010 H UMAN P OWERED V EHICLE Final Presentation June 4 th, 2010 P ORTLAND S TATE U NIVERSITY Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science Mechanical and Materials Engineering Department 2010 P SU -H PV R ACE T EAM M ATT B RADLEY C HRIS H INOJOSA C AM L ONG J ESSE M CCORMACK B ON U NG T AD B AMFORD L UAREN S HUMAKER P SU F ACULTY A DVISORS D EREK T RETHEWAY, PhD F ARYAR E TESAMI, PhD

2. Motivation Promote human transportation Attract the attention of local community Win the ASME HPVC Make a vehicle that is… –suited for everyday commuting –intuitive –one handed control –comfortable –aerodynamic –safe to ride in traffic

3. Design Process Critiquing previous PSU entries –Riding of previous prototypes –HPV enthusiasts’ opinions –Interviewing past teams Top Level Considerations –2 or 3-wheeled Brainstorming designs –3-D modeling –Decision matrices Vike Trike II Vike Trike I

4. Design Process (cont.) Analysis –CFD modeling of fairing shapes –FEA models of frame Testing –Material testing –Frame stiffness –Roll bar integrity

5. Manufacturing Modular and adjustable frame jig Custom components in-house –+20 parts on Prototrak CNC Fairing –Formed mold –CF lay-up –Pressure cured

6. Optimization Adjustable steering angles Reinforced steering mechanism Brake levers coupled

7. Key Design Features One-handed controls Internally geared hub Simple chain routing

8. Key Design Features Adjustable foam seat Custom utility rack Full fenders Head/tail lights

9. Results ASME HPVC 2010 Second Place Overall First Place in the Speed Endurance Event Second Place in the Women's Drag Race Second Place in the Men's Drag Race Third Place in the Utility Endurance Event Third Place in the Design Event Team members and six trophies around the winning vehicle 50+ riding hours with no mechanical failures!

10. Questions?

11. Lessons Learned Stiffen fairing mold Design for manufacture The benefits of modular design Prototype vs. production model

12. Priorities: High =  Medium =  Low =  PriorityRequirementCustomerMetricTargetTarget BasisVerification Performance  Top speedSelfft/s>51.3Numerical ModelPhysical testing  Avg AccelerationSelfft/s^2>0.855Numerical ModelPhysical testing  Drag race TimeSelfs<60Competition researchDrag Race  Weight (total)Selflbs<40AccelerationPhysical testing  AerodynamicsSelfCd<0.1ResearchWind tunnel  Turning RadiusASMEft<252010 HPVC rulesPhysical testing  Steering AccuracyASMEdegrees/100 ft02010 HPVC rulesPhysical testing  Frame StiffnessSelfin<0.5EfficiencyDesign Analysis  BrakingASMEft, stopping from 15mph<202010 HPVC rulesPhysical testing  Crash RecoverySelfs<15Competition researchPhysical testing  Drive Train Geo.Selfdegrees<25EfficiencyDesign Analysis Safety  Visibility (horizontal)ASMEdegrees>1802010 HPVC rulesDesign analysis  RPS top load*ASMEPSI/in<Yield/<22010 HPVC rulesDesign analysis  RPS side load*ASMEPSI/in<Yield/<12010 HPVC rulesDesign analysis  Free from sharp edgesASMEPass/failpass2010 HPVC rulesPhysical testing  Restraint HarnessASMEpass/failpass2010 HPVC rulesPhysical testing  Frame StrengthSelfFOS>1.5Student EngineersDesign analysis  Visibility (vertical)ASMEdegrees>602010 HPVC rulesDesign analysis  Seat Rail Slide RestraintSelflbs>750Safety/PerformancePhysical testing  Steering LimitersSelfPass/failpassControllabilityPhysical testing PDS

13. Cost  Budget LimitationsSelfdollar<3113PSU available dollarsAccounting  Market CostsSelfdollar<3500Market Research Ergonomics  Entry and ExitSelfs<20CompetitionPhysical Testing  VentilationSelfcfm Rider preferenceDesign analysis  Rider PositionSelfdegrees135+/-5EfficiencyPhysical Testing  Rider Comfort (padding)Selfin>1Rider preferencePhysical Testing Documents  PDSPSU ME Deptdeadline8-FebClass syllabusSubmittal  Progress ReportPSU ME Deptdeadline8-MarClass syllabusSubmittal  Final ReportPSU ME Deptdeadlinejune ?Class syllabusSubmittal  2010 HPVC ReportASMEdeadline19-Mar2010 HPVC rulesSubmittal Materials  StructureSelfyes/noyesEase of useDesign analysis  Drive trainSelfyes/noyesEase of useDesign analysis  AestheticsSelfpoints10CompetitionJudges Maintenance  ReliabilitySelfchain drops0CompetitionPhysical testing  Life in ServiceSelfyears1HPV MarketDesign analysis  Tool RequirementsSelfcommon bike tool sizes100%Ease of useMarket requirements  Replacement ComponentsSelfBike parts, percentage100%Commercial MarketRetail PDS

14. Gantt Chart