Download CDR Presentation

R.I.T. 175th Anniversary
Chopper Senior Design Team
(Project Number 05912)
Diverse Team Members
•
•
•
•
•
Advisors
– Dr. James Taylor (ISE Associate Professor)
– John Bonzo (Brinkman Lab Facilities Manager)
Mechanical Engineering
– Jonathan Howard
– Alexandra (Alli) Collier
– Lee Gagne
Industrial Engineering
– Jeremy Rank
– John Johnson
– Anthony Rounding
Electrical Engineering
– Curtis Vana
Industrial Design
– Scott Janis
– Devin Connolly
– Tim Houck
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Needs Assessment
Concept Development
Feasibility Assessment
Specifications
Analysis and Synthesis
175th Anniversary Chopper Project
Description / Desired Outcomes
• Convert stock 883 Harley-Davidson Sportster into
custom chopper prototype
• Create customization kit for aftermarket sales
– Conversion components must be bolt on
– No significant modifications can be made to the frame
Stakeholders
• Rochester Institute of Technology
• Senior Design Team
• Santa Cruz Harley-Davidson
– Primary stakeholder for conversion kit
• Conversion Kit Customers
– Approximately 500 Sportsters are manufactured daily
Needs Assessment
• Team researched chopper motorcycles
• Talk with Mike James and Bob Davis of
Santa Cruz Harley-Davidson
Needs Assessment
• Team developed a list of order qualifiers:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Rear end of the bike shall change
Front end of the bike shall change
Sheet metal on the bike shall change
Electronics on the bike shall change
Ride height shall change
Paint on the bike shall change
Seat on the bike shall change
Custom parts must be bolt on
Bike must be operable
Concept Development
• System changes to meet order qualifiers:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fuel Tank
Handlebars / Controls
Ride Height
Wheel Design
Tire
Drive System
–
–
–
–
–
–
Wheel Hubs
Headlight
Electrical
Exhaust
Seat
Conversion Kit
Feasibility Analysis
– Methods Used
• Pros & Cons
• Pugh’s Method
• Weighted Concept Evaluation
• Expert input / discussion
Electronics Specifications
• Increase Lighting
– Hurt Motorcycle Accident Study
• ½ of all motorcycle accidents
involve a motor vehicle
(automobile) violating the
motorcycle right-of-way
• Failure to recognize and detect
motorcycles in traffic was the
predominating cause of motorcycle
accident
– Freedman and Ketron Lighting
Study
• Found that the adding lights to the
motorcycles rear and sides
improved conspicuity
Electronics Specifications
Accent Lighting System General Layout
User Interface
RPM signal
Digital
Control
Unit
LED Driver
Accent Lighting( LEDs)
•System Schematic
•Cost Analysis
12VDC
Battery
Triple Clamp Specifications
• Design Constraints
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Safety
Machinability
7 Degree Rake Angle
Forks
Steering stem
Mid-Glide front end
Handlebars
Style
Top Triple Clamp Analysis
Top Triple Clamp with 7G
Horizontal Impact Loading
Max Stress 29,000 psi
Top Triple Clamp
with 3G Vertical Impact
Loading
Max Stress 9,300 psi
Lower Triple Clamp Analysis
Lower Triple Clamp with 7G
Horizontal Impact Loading
Max Stress 37,000 psi
Lower Triple Clamp
with 3G Vertical Impact
Loading
Max Stress 9,000 psi
Front Wheel Specifications
• Design Constraints
–
–
–
–
Safety
Manufacturability
Style
New Front End Design
Rear Wheel
Front Wheel Concepts
• Preliminary Design Issues
– Manufacturability
– Safety
Front Wheel Analysis
• Impact Load
• Torsion Test
3,500 lb Load
Max Stress
20,071 psi
6 G Load
Max Stress 8,123 psi
Front Hub Analysis
• Impact Load
• Torsion Test
3,500 lb Load
Max Stress
8,100 psi
6 G Load
Max Stress 2,264 psi
Kit Contents
Custom Parts Designed and Manufactured
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Front Wheel
Front Hub
Front Axle
Rear Wheel
Rear Hub
Rear Axle
Triple Clamps
– Top and Bottom
Steering Stem Shaft
Steering Stops
Modified Purchased Front
Sprocket
Modified Purchased Rear
Sprocket
Tank Mounts
Seat Mounts
Seat Pan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ignition / Key Casing
Converted To Hydraulic
Clutch
Exhaust
Paint Scheme and
Implementation
– Gas Tank
– Rear Fender
– Oil Cover
– Electronics Cover
– Frame
Engraved Designs On The
Air Intake and Engine Casing
Cutting Fender Struts and
Remanufacturing Chrome
Covers
Brake Light
LED Lighting System
Kit Contents
Aftermarket Parts Purchased and Implemented
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11inch Eye-To-Eye Shocks
Inverted Forks
Handlebars
Front and Rear Tires
Chain
Air Intake Filter
Chrome Engine Covers
Single Rider Seat
Chrome Swing Arm
Headlight
Slave Cylinder
Lessons Learned
• Always have a predetermined contingency
– In the feasibility analysis, we only decided upon the
optimal solution
• Fender attachment
• Critical path – reconstructing the critical path to make difficult
tasks non-sequential
Questions
Shoulder Moment Reduction
• Original design
M (shoulder) = (18.62N*.170m) + (10.78N*.480m)
M (shoulder) = 8.34 Nm
• New Design
M (shoulder) = (18.62N*.120m) + (10.78N*.340m)
M (shoulder) = 5.89 Nm
• Moment Reduction – 29%
Back
Algorithm
Begin
Check State
of
Comparator
Interrupt
Flag
Peak Check
Is Peak?
Increment
Counter
Have 45 peaks
been counted?
Toggle Output
Reset Counter
General outline of lighting control algorithm
•Comparator state check
•Increment
•Toggle Output
Back
Lighting Control System
•Power conditioning circuit
•Signal conditioning circuit
•Processing
U1
IN
OUT
3
1
COMMON
Power Conditioning Circuit
12Vdc
5Vdc
2
Pin8
Pin6
UA7805/TEMP
Motorcy cle Battery
12Vdc
C1
1n
R4
18k
C2
1n
R5
22k
PIC12F675
Pin3
Pin1
0
Signal Conditioning Circuit
D2
D1N4004
R1
10k
Crank Position Sensor
C3
1n
D1
D1N4004
R2
1k
R3
1k
0
PVDZ172N
LED (Accent Lighting) Load
LED
Back
Cost Analysis
Final
Parts
Final
Parts
UA7805C
UA7805C
PIC12F67
PIC12F6
5
75
PVDZ172N
PVDZ172N
PCB
PCB
Terminals
Terminals
Manufactu
Manufact
rerurer
Texas
Texas
Instruments
Instruments
Microchip
Microchip
International
International
Rectifier
Rectifier
Radio Shack Radio
Radio
Shack
Radio
Shack
Shack
Function
Function
Voltage
Voltage
Regulator
Regulator
Signal
Processor
SolidState
State
Solid
Relay
Relay
Terminals
Terminals
Enclosure
Enclosure
Quantity
Quantity
22
2
22
8 (2
setssets
of of
8 (2
4) 4)
2
Price
Price
perper
.52
.52
2.15
2.15
8.50
8.50
2.29
2.29
3.993.99
Price for
Price for 2
2 sets
sets
1.04
1.04
4.3
4.3
17
17
4.58
4.58
7.98
7.98
Total
Total
Project
Project
Price
Price
Project
Project
Enclosure
Enclosure
Pugh’s Method Comparison
2
$34.90
$34.90
Back
Digital Control Unit
Device Comparison
DIGITAL CONTROLLER
COMPARISON
Manufacturer
Memory Size (FLASH)
RAM
EEPROM
NVDS
VDD
Operating Voltage
I/O Lines
UART
Serial Lines
A/D
CLK Speed
Power Dissipation
Price
Algorithm
PIC-12F629
Microchip
1024Kx14 words FLASH
64bytes
128bytes
Z8F011AHH020EC
Zilog
1K
256bytes
CY8C22113-24PI
Cypress
2K
256bytes
16bytes
6.5V
2V - 5.5V
6
yes
4
20MHz
800mW
1.68
2.7-3.6
17
1
no
3
20MHz
24MHz
3.18
2.50
6
Back
Rear Wheel and Hub
Back
Handlebar Control Concepts
– Clean up controls – sleeker look
– Hide control cables within handlebar
– Change handlebar shape / geometry
• Biomechanics
– Use twist-grip clutch
– Suicide Shift
– Custom foot controls
Back
Ride Height Concepts
–
–
–
–
Lower ride height – rear end
Shorten shocks
Rigid Hard-tail design
Redesign rear suspension geometry
Back
Wheel Design Concepts
– Three claw design
• 3-dimensional
• 2-dimensional
– Solid Wheel Design
• Spoke Appearance
– Incorporate tiger image into design
– Fabricate wheels in-house (Brinkman Lab)
– Outsource wheel fabrication
Back
Tire Concepts
– Increase rear tire width
• Size Range – 180mm – 220mm
– Change front tire to match new rear tire
– Find similar front & rear tire pattern
Back
Drive System Concepts
– Switch from belt to chain drive
– Switch to narrower belt
– Use current belt
• Drive extension / spacer to accommodate new rear tire
• Widen swing arm
– Replace existing drive covers
• Chrome
• Powder coat
• Aftermarket color
Back
Conversion Kit Concepts
–
–
–
–
Fabricate all components of kit
Purchase all components (aftermarket)
Combination of purchase / fabrication
Final Kit delivery
• All components – 1 set
• Documentation
– “Bolt on” components
Back
Wheel Hub Concepts
– Design hubs to fit custom wheel
– Purchase aftermarket hubs
• Requires wheel design to conform
Back
Headlight Concepts
–
–
–
–
In-house custom fabrication
Purchase aftermarket headlight
Remove headlight from design
Reuse stock headlight
Back
Exhaust Concepts
–
–
–
–
–
–
Left exit exhaust
Converging exhaust pipes (two into one)
Shortened straight pipes
Street sweeper pipes
Purchase aftermarket pipes
Fabricate exhaust in-house
Back
Seat Concepts
– Replace stock two-up seat
– Single seat
• Fabricate in-house
• Purchase aftermarket
– Redesigned two-up seat
• Fabricate in-house
• Purchase aftermarket
– Sissy bar
• Fabricate in-house
• Purchase aftermarket
– Incorporate Logo into seat design
• RIT 175th anniversary
• Sponsor Logo
Back
Electrical Feasibility
– Pugh’s Method
GENERAL SYSTEM
COMPARISON
Digital Controller-LED Driver
Design Complexity
3
Sufficient Equipment
5
Cost of Total Materials
3
Availability of Components
5
Versatility of Design
5
Power Efficiency
5
Mean Score
4.33
Digital Controller
3
5
4
5
3
4
4
Analog Circuit
2
5
2
5
1
3
3
Back
Electrical Concepts
–
–
–
–
–
–
Integrate rear lights into rear fender
Develop proximity sensors
Develop variable intensity lighting
Accent lighting for engine
Custom turn signals
Ignition
• Access code
• Toggle switch
Back
Electrical Feasibility
– Variable intensity lighting
• Pro:
– Safety (increase visibility)
– Aesthetically pleasing
• Con:
– Not visible during the daytime
– Proximity sensor system
• Pro:
– Safety (visibility)
• Con:
– Cost
– Time required to implement
– Resources (people)
Back
Fuel Tank Feasibility
• Custom designed tank
• Cons:
• Team lacks expertise in metalworking
• Cost to outsource fabrication of in-house design ~
$2000 per tank
• Pros:
• Radical one of a kind
• Does not compromise the Industrial Designer’s
design
• Commercially available tank
• Cons:
• Compromises the Industrial Designer’s design
• Not a radical design
• Pros:
• Cost: ~$600 per tank
Back
Fuel Tank Feasibility
• Weighted concepts
Attributes
1
2
3
4
1. Price
X
2. Uniqueness
X
X
3. Design concept
X
X
X
4. Ease of manufacture
X
X
X
X
5. Fullfills project goals
X
X
X
X
0
0
0.5
5
X
2
5
TOTAL
Weights
3
0
3
0.27
0.5
0
0.5
0.05
0
0.5
0.5
0.05
0
2
2
0.18
0
5
5
11
0.45
1
Back
Fuel Tank Feasibility
• Pugh’s method
Evaluate each additional concept against
the baseline, score each attribute as: 1 =
much worse than baseline concept 2 =
Purchase
worse than baseline 3 = same as baseline Custom Tank
4 = better than baseline 5= much better
than baseline
Fabricate
Tank
Purchase
Aftermarket
Tank
Sufficient Student Skills
Sufficient Shop Equipment
Economic Feasibility
Cost of Materials
Cost of Purchased Components
Schedule Feasibility
Task Time
End user satisfaction
Technology Feasibility
Meets intermediate milestones
Meets PDR requirements
Meets CDR requirements
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
Mean Score
3
2.67
3.33
0.9
0.8
1
Normalized Score
Back
Handlebars Feasibility
• Custom built handlebars
• Cons:
• No member of the team has experience designing
handlebars
• Pros:
• Conceal controls
• Change look of bike from dirt bike to a chopper
• Purchase handlebars
• Cons:
• Cost: ~ $3000 per set
• Pros:
• Built by manufacturers with experience
• Conceal controls
• Changes look of bike from dirt bike to chopper
Back
Ride Height Feasibility
• Remove shocks
• Cons:
• Turns bike into rigid, decreasing the ride ability of
the bike
• Pros:
• Gives bike a sleeker look by removing the shocks
• Shorten shocks
• Cons:
• May result in possible problems with concerning
clearance, ground clearance and handling
• Cost of new shocks $281 per set
• Pros:
• Gives the bike a squatter stance
• As compared to the rigid, the bike is easier to ride
(comfort)
Back
Wheel Design Feasibility
– 3D design
• Cons:
– Requires adding material to the wheel blank
– Safety concerns (excess weight)
– Machinability
• Pros:
– Radical custom look
– 2D design
• Cons:
– Not as custom
• Pros:
– Machinable
– Safer
Back
Tire Feasibility
– Width over 190mm
• Cons:
– Rear wheel in excess of 190mm will result in a redesign of the
XL swing arm
• Pros:
– Will give bike the massive back wheel look of a chopper
– Width equal to or less then 190mm
• Cons:
– Rear wheel may appear to be stock
• Pros:
– 190mm is a proven good look on an XL
– No swing arm of drive redesign is needed
Back
Drive System Design
Feasibility
– Pugh’s method
Evaluate each additional concept against
the baseline, score each attribute as: 1 =
much worse than baseline concept 2 =
worse than baseline 3 = same as baseline 4
= better than baseline 5= much better than
baseline
Sufficient Student Skills
Sufficient Shop Equipment
Economic Feasibility
Cost of Materials
Cost of Purchased Components
Schedule Feasibility
Task Time
End user satisfaction
Technology Feasibility
Meets intermediate milestones
Meets PDR requirements
Meets CDR requirements
Mean Score
Normalized Score
Existing belt drive Smaller belt drive Chain drive
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
3
2
5
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
2.58
3.67
0.82
0.70
1
Back
Exhaust Design Feasibility
– Right hand exhaust
• Cons:
– Looks like the majority of bikes on the market
• Pros:
– XL 883C is built with and for right hand exhaust
– Proper flow of exhaust
– Left hand exhaust
• Cons:
– Proper flow of exhaust may be difficult to obtain on XL
– XL 883C is not built for left hand exhaust
• Pros:
– Left hand exhaust is not norm, creating custom and radical look
Back
Fuel Tank Concepts
• Custom designed tank
– Incorporate RIT Tiger into tank
• Custom fabricate
• Custom paint
• Commercially available tank
Back
Fuel Tank
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pros and Cons
• Pugh’s Method
• Weighted Concept Evaluation
– Specifications
• Purchase aftermarket tank
Handlebars / Controls
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pros and Cons
– Specifications
• Have custom handlebars with integrated controls
manufactured
Ride Height
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pros and Cons
– Specifications
• Lower ride height by 1”
Wheel Design
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pros and Cons
– Specifications
• 2-dimensional design
• In-house fabrication
Tires
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pros and Cons
– Specifications
• 190mm rear tire
• Purchase front tire with matching
tread pattern
Drive System Design
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pugh’s Method
– Specifications
• Chain drive
Electrical Design
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pro & Con
• Pugh’s Method
– Specifications
• Accent lighting - safety
• Blinking frequency dependant
on RPM
Exhaust Design
– Feasibility Methods Used
• Pros and Cons
– Specifications
• Right Exit Exhaust