1. MB1 Advisory Committee Review April 27, 2006

2. Jake Adkins – Frame and Suspension Ya-Chi Chou – Accessories/Seats Adam Dean – Power Train Jay Mansheim – Power Train Saptarshi Mitra – Budget/Accessories Eric Rodgers – Frame and Suspension

5. Race Day Results  3 rd Place Time of 5:08  Design Competition Winners For best solving the problem of navigating the lunar surface  Most Improved Time First run7:21 Second Run5:08

6. Aug SeptOctNovDec 12345678910111213141516171819 Concept Design xxxxxxxxxxx Concept Drawings xxxxxxx Final Concept Agreement x Component Research xxxxxxxxxx x x Drawings xxxxxxxxxxxx x xxx Stress Analysis xxxxxx x Component Acquisition xxxxx xx x x Component Fabrication xxxx x x x Testing Clean up Install Instrumentation Instrumentation Testing Buggy Testing

7. JanFebMarApr 20212223242526272829303132333435 Concept Design Concept Drawings Final Concept Agreement Component Research x x xx Drawings x x x x xx x x xx x x Stress Analysis Component Acquisition x x x x xx x xx x x x x Component Fabrication x xx xx x x x x xx xx x x x Testing x x Clean up x Install Instrumentation Instrumentation Testing Buggy Testing x x

8. Budget

9. SourceAmount ($) MB One Members600 PSU200 Electronic Systems Grant0 Caterpillar1600 Snorkel InternationalPaint VanBecelaere Machine WorksSteel Total2400 Funding TEAM

10. Expense Report

11. Grand Total

12. Design Conditions  Complies with all rules set forth to compete in the NASA competition in Huntsville, Alabama on April 13-14, 2007.  Weight: 80 lbs (192 lbs actual)  Top Speed of 20 mph  Able to handle 17” obstructions on various types of terrain TEAM

13. Design Conditions  Reliable for a minimum of 10 miles  Braking from 20 mph to 0 mph in 20 feet TEAM

14. Safety Factor  General 2  Critical Weight 1.5  High Dynamic loading (suspension) 4+ JM

15. Frame and Suspension

16. ER Frame (orthoscopic)

17. ER Frame (top view)

20. WaterJet files drawn in AutoCad

21. Shear and Moment Diagrams ER

22. OPERATION WORK INSTRUCTION Part Number Part Description 101 Frame Beam, Front Created by: ER Checked by:AD Date:11/26/2006Date:11/26/2006 Material:1020 HRSFM:120 Operation # Operation Descript ion Machine Used Tooling/Fixtu re Tolerance Speeds, Feeds 1 Cut Material Horizontal Bandsaw +/-.030 2Mill SlotsBridgeport V-blocks, 3/8" End Mill+/-.003 1222 RPM

23. ER/JA

25. ER

26. Frame Hinge Assembly JA

27. Drive Train

28. Design Considerations  Both riders power one output  Chain tension constant during setup  Differential  Differential Placement/Drive shafts  Usable 7 speed gear range  Quality Components/adjustment  Wheels/tires AD/JM

29. ER/JM Original Chain Path

30. JM/ER Original Chain Path

31. Modified Chain Path

34. Target Gear Ratios  High gear ratio of 2.2:1  Low gear ratio of.8:1  Have a useable range of gears spaced in between to have a total of 7 speeds AD

35. Gearing Options  Option 1 56/22/34-11/39 Max Speed 13.8 mph @ 80 rpm Max torque 324 ft lbs @ 350 lbs input  Option 2 56/16/34-11/39 Max Speed 18.9 mph @ 80 rpm Max torque 238 ft lbs @ 350 lbs input

36. AD

37. Simulated Items  Manufactured out of plastic  Vinyl - ABS/PVC Alloy (Density: 0.6 g/cm ³ )  Console, Battery box, TV box, Fender, some simulated items will use this material SM/Y-CC

38. Problems Encountered

39. Failure to fit in 4x4x4 box  Best solution would be to be a total redesign.  Corrective Action: installed a hinge on the front pedal tower.

40. Rear Upper Air bag support brackets  MEA (mental element analysis) failed.  Corrective Action: adding cross- sectional area to failed area

41. Rear A-arms  Rear A-arms were bent after testing on obstacles.  Corrective Action: added gussets to high stress points on rear lower A- arms.

42. Driveshaft pin connection  Pins were sheared multiple times on rear inboard Universal Joints  Corrective Action: Welded it  Jammed an Allen wrench into it and broke it off

43. Chain breaking  Chain was catching on sprocket mounting bolts.  Corrective Action: countersunk bolt heads

44. Back of rear seat  Rear seat back broke  Corrective Action: welded it.

45. Fenders  Fender mounts failed when bent three times  Corrective Action: Redesign of fender mounts. Problem was fixed for the race by simply removing the fenders.

46. Things we would have done different.  More emphasis on handlebars and rider ergonomics.  Try to stick closer to manufacturing timeline.  Limit weight

47. Questions? PITT THUNDER