This document is a report from Team 14 submitted to New Outdoor Experiences, LLC in response to a request for proposals. The report discusses the design of a recumbent, full suspension human powered vehicle (RFSHPV) including a design, MATLAB simulation, failure modes and effects analysis, energy/power analysis, and project proposal. The purpose is to provide an in-depth view of the design and performance before manufacturing. Safety was the primary concern in the design process to ensure safety of riders.

1. Group 14 Report 1
Team 14
1400 Townsend Dr
Houghton, MI 49931
December 12th, 2014
Dear New Outdoor Experiences, LLC:
In response to the request for proposals on September 12th, 2014, Team 14 has
prepared this report for your review.
In the report a recumbent, full suspension human powered vehicle (RFSHPV) design
and MATLAB simulation program is discussed. Also included is; a FMEA Analysis, an
Energy/Power Analysis, and a Project Proposal. The purpose of this report is to give
your company an indepth view of the design and how it will perform prior to
manufacturing.
The interest New Outdoor Experiences, LLC has in the design is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Team 14:
Michael Size
Matthew Schultz
Benjamin McKeith
Tim Spehar III
Encl. Recumbent Full Suspension Human Powered Vehicle Report

2. Group 14 Report 2
Recumbent Full Suspension Human Powered Vehicle:
Design and Simulation
by:
Team14
December 12th, 2014
Eng 1102 L03
Michigan Technological University
Houghton MI, 49931

3. Group 14 Report 3
Signatures
__________________________ __________________________
Ben McKeith Matthew Schultz
__________________________ __________________________
Tim Spehar III Michael Size

4. Group 14 Report 4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary: pg. 5
Chapter 1: Project Objectives, pg. 6
Chapter 2: Proposed Options, pg. 7
Chapter 3: Physical Concept of Vehicle, pg. 8
Chapter 4: Safety Analysis, pg. 10
Chapter 5: Human Power, pg. 12
Chapter 6: Simulation Analysis, pg. 14
Chapter 7: Conclusions, pg. 15
Appendix: pg. 17

5. Group 14 Report 5
Executive Summary
The following report contains in its entirety, the semester project over creating,
engineering and designing a three wheel recumbent off­road vehicle capable of carrying
a person of handicapped nature and their respective gear. Along with the enclosed
designs and processes used to create them, there are included detailed chapters that
summarize and go through an in depth overview of the processes used, team
performance and overall functionality of both Team 14, and the term project created
therein.

6. Group 14 Report 6
Chapter One : Project Objectives
At the beginning of the term, the class was tasked with designing,and creating
possible, well rounded design to fix a problem N.O.E. had tasked the teams with
solving. To first update current knowledge or a lack thereof it was first imperative that
research be done and investing time into the forethoughts of this project. Cannondale
seemed a promising choice with their Carbon Fiber wing/Zero­Pivot technologies and
ECS­TC active dampening system. Both of these innovative technologies created by
Cannondale were then incorporated into the design proposal sent in at a later date.
One of the many important decisions made at an early standpoint within the
design process was the need for lightweight frames, with strong bodies that also
compensated and dampened the forces applied to the bike through switchbacks,
braking, hill climbing and rocky trails among other various stressing activities. The other
next important decision was how to incorporate the recumbent style bike systems into a
what was being designed. The tricycle design with two wheels in the front and one aft
was what had succeeded overall. Added on to the design was the ability for it to be
powered via hand crank, and not by foot for handicapped persons. There would be
ample spots for gear mounts on the bike and it would also incorporate a fully
independent suspension on the entirety of the bike.

7. Group 14 Report 7
Chapter 2 : Proposed Options
Figure 2.1: Team 14’s Morph Chart
Created for the purpose of understanding all possible design options and
implementations that were required, and also possible extra features, a Morph chart
needed to be constructed. Within the above morph chart, it is clear that there were
many variations upon the design that needed to be addressed. One of the driving
factors for the proposed vehicle was to have it be three wheeled like a trike, with two in
the front and one aft. This way the rider could have maximum stability and safety while
on the trails. Accompanying this design was also the main drive system. Seeing as it
would be a three wheel recumbent system, for a handicapped person, there needed to
be a new and efficient means of powering the vehicle given that the rider was
handicapped. The design is best suited for paraplegic persons, given the nature of the
bike it would be simple for them to get situated, and power the vehicle with relative ease
and their legs would simply be held in place by the knee guards.

8. Group 14 Report 8
Chapter 3 : Physical Concept of Vehicle
Figure 3.1: Team 14’s Decision Matrix
Creating a decision matrix to logically approach the design was needed next.
Within this decision matrix there were five very important criteria that the design needed
to fulfill before being sent off for a final proposal. The design needed to be lightweight,
affordable, durable, efficient and safe. Safety held the most weight, it was deemed most
important as the vehicle would be carrying occupants of various disabilities, and their
safety is utmost within the design. Next was needing a lightweight frame. This would be
accomplished using Cannondale’s proprietary new technology of lightweight carbon
fiber arms, rear triangles and body compositions. This would create a very lightweight,
stable and very strong trike that would hold up to the rigorous activities it needed to
perform.
Within the design constraints imposed by the morph chart, needing an affordable
and durable vehicle were logically up next with holding weight. One of the reasons the
design was going to be sellable was from it’s ability to be largely produced at a semi
decent price. One of the driving factors behind this is the carbon fiber implements, the
need to introduce lightweight aluminum into the body to offset costs, yet keeping the
rigidity, strength, and durability of a competition level bike. To make this bike durable
was the next task and held as much weight as affordability as these two normally go
hand in hand. Along with needing an affordable and durable bike, the bikes durability
needed to be on par with the strongest materials possible, that fit within a certain
budget. The need for a body and components that would not fade and stress of a short
time was needed, and therefore along with Cannondales inspiration, carbon fiber body
pieces and lightweight aluminum would be needed, as theses materials are the
strongest, lightest weights, and most affordable.
Efficiency was the next goal. Needing a bike, that is three wheeled and
recumbent is by design already inefficient. So the need for a trike that would incorporate

9. Group 14 Report 9
all power inputted from the rider to translate directly to on trail driving power was crucial,
and needing a design that played into the disability concept as well, this is why the
design incorporates a hand crank, it is powered by your arms, and the chain runs along
the body to the rear tire giving you the most power output from the rider’s input.

10. Group 14 Report 10
Chapter 4 : Safety Analysis
Figure 4.1: Team 14’s RPN analysis and FMEA Table
The design team was able to come up with six different failure modes that could
potentially occur during usage of the product. Brake failure was the first to come to
mind. Brakes can fail if a cable snaps, if the cable gets stuck in position, or due to poor
maintenance. Without brakes, the rider loses their ability to control speed and could
result in crashing. Handlebars disconnecting is a second concern. This could be the
result of a loosened pivot. Without handle bars the user can no longer steer the vehicle.
If the rider is going downhill this can be potentially lethal. A suspension can give out due
to a large sudden shock to the system or a bumpy ride can jar a component loose.
Riding over rough terrain is a common occurrence while mountain biking. In sight of
this, it was placed on the failure list. Flat tires are extremely dangerous and can happen
at any moment. A flat tire can break a rim or damage other components. With a flat tire,
the vehicles’ traction control is at risk of failing as well. The next failure important to list
was a breaking a chain. A chain can break if too much stress is applied to it or if an
object gets caught in the chain as it goes over the sprocket. Although the only potential
effect is a loss of propulsion,this can make getting back to safety a problem. Lastly,
because the vehicle is powered by a hand crank, having a sleeve caught in the chain is
a potential hazard. This can break the chain, render the bike useless, and even injure
the user.
From the potential effects of a part failing, a failure severity rating is given. This is
on a scale from 1­10 in which 10 means death or severe injury may result in part failure.
A rating of 1 is given if one of the parts failing has almost no effect. The next rating
given is the probability of occurrence. It is determined by how many times the part will
fail in a year, a week, or a lifetime. The third and final rating is for the probability of

11. Group 14 Report 11
detection. Also on a 1­10 scale, a rating of 1 is issued if the part failure is immediately
and visibly detectable. A rating of 10 means that the failure happens rapidly without
warning, and no way of previous detection. The two highest RPN’s for our vehicle
where, Flat Tire with an RPN of 300, and suspension failure with an RPN of 96. To
reduce the RPN of tire failure, the first change would be to suggest the use of an NPT
(non pneumatic tire) instead of the usual tubed bike tire.

12. Group 14 Report 12
Chapter 5 : Human Power
The team received data sets based on three athletes who were tested on an
indoor rowing machine. The data sets received were chain force data and a table of
force over time applied to the chain on the rowing machine. The other respective data
set was a left grip sensor module placed on the end of the left grip of the rowing
machine. The sensor was used to measure the movement in the x, y and z directions as
a function of time. These two data sets on the three athletes were then loaded and
computed using a multitude of equations to create power outputs to measure the
respective athlete’s power efficiencies and inefficiencies.
To be able to start computing power outputs and Kcals as a function of time,
code had to be written to import all of the data sets and incorporate while loops for error
checking. For loops and if else statements were used to differentiate between which
athlete that had been selected. Unfortunately, the matrices involved between the two
data sets were of different sizes, and to compute them simultaneously required that the
force data set be compressed to match the same amount of scalars as the left grip data,
so as not to allow for too many values and many miscalculations, among other errors
within the code. After computing the velocities as a function of time, followed by the
compressed force data set, power had to be calculated next using both calculated
statements. The code required that both negative power output, due to inefficiencies in
the athlete’s form, and positive power output were taken into effect. Both were
correlated as the formulation of thing code was to calculate usable power,and analyze
how to make the athlete more efficient on the rowing machine. This power output helps
make athletes better, as they can figure out how to increase their efficiency on the
machine, thereby increasing their positive power output without having to train extra to
become stronger. An athlete with poor form would have to compete at a higher caliber
just to come close to an athlete of the same strength with almost no inefficiencies in
their form and power output.
After completing the code, and analyzing the power outputs and Kcals, it has
been determined that there are inefficiencies within each of the three athletes forms that
can be corrected to allow for greater efficiency, thereby increasing the power output and
allowing for a better athlete. Also, within the scope of inefficiencies, the examination of 4
equations that allow for power sinks within the proposed vehicle design, these forces
will not only degrade the efficiency of the vehicle, but also tire the rider out. While the
rider will have to push on with the forces at hand, there is no way to completely
eliminate friction from movement, and the power lost from the the mechanical design of
the vehicle. While Team 14 can work to improve overall efficiency within the design, the

13. Group 14 Report 13
vehicle will still only output less than what the rider puts in as the mechanical design
does not allow for 100% output, and it is impossible to achieve that.

14. Group 14 Report 14
Chapter 6 : Simulation Analysis
Throughout the course of the term, MATLAB skills have been developed to allow
for the final simulation code to be created. This code in its entirety, will run ten different
data sets about ten different bike riders including information such as the total distance
traveled, elevation, longitude, latitude and speed at consecutive intervals of time. This
code has been written, to accompany all data sets for N.O.E.’s usage and computation
of all forces, and power input required by the rider. The code has incorporated two
functions within it, one to recall all the data sets for ease of use, and one to calculate
gearing, and allow for a more responsive code in which the user can select the tempo
and then see which gear is best suited for that particular rider, and what the energy they
would expend using that gear of the total distance of the ride.
Within the code there are multiple force calculations to accompany the data sets
and functions. These force calculations take into affect, drag, bump resistance, air
resistance, friction and basic mechanical loss through operation. This will give an
accurate representation of the ability of the proposed trike design, and allow for a more
comprehensive look into the design process, and the efficiency of the trike. This code
has simplified the output and input statements to allow for a user with less than desired
MATLAB experience, and for to allow for full compatibility with all users. Along with the
easy to use inputs, there are six included graphs to accurately represent the data in
different ways including; the total distance traveled, total elevation gain, front and rear
gearing differential graphs, along with a velocity vs. position, and distance vs. rider
energy. The four output statements that are calculated, ran and outputted are total
distance, total time, total elevation gain and total power. These outputs have all been
converted into Imperial units for ease of assimilation.
Within the code there are listed instructions on how to work it, along with every
single part of the code actually does. Comments have been added to the functions to
allow for all users to comprehend the calculations that are being ran. Comments have
been added to both of the function arguments within the course vector2 update code.
Each argument has been created to quickly, and efficiently calculate all possible forces
included with riding the proposed bike’s design.

15. Group 14 Report 15
Chapter 7 : Conclusion
The project of creating, engineering, and designing a three wheel recumbent
off­road vehicle capable of carrying a person of handicapped nature was achieved.
Team 14 met this goal by following the request for proposals given by N.O.E. First,
research was done in key areas such as drag forces, human power, suspension,
ergonomics, and efficiency.Cannondale seemed a promising choice with their Carbon
Fiber wing/Zero­Pivot technologies and ECS­TC active dampening system.
Based upon the investigation and first­hand knowledge, a morphological chart
was used to find different design options, the best of these ideas were then used in the
design. One of the driving factors for the proposed vehicle was to have it be three
wheeled like a trike, with two in the front and one aft. This way the rider could have
maximum stability and safety while on the trails. A decision matrix was then utilized to
determine the best combination of features for the vehicle. The design needed to be
lightweight, affordable, durable, efficient and safe. The team felt safety was the highest
priority of them all. This would be accomplished using Cannondale’s proprietary new
technology of lightweight carbon fiber arms, rear triangles and body compositions.
The physical concept of the vehicle was made using NX­9.0. This incorporated
all of the results from the morph chart and decision matrix into the physical design. The
model was an assembly of parts shown in 3­D space to best illustrate the overall
design. A FMEA Analysis was performed on the concept vehicle design based on the
methods described by the National Society of Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) code of
ethics. The design team was able to come up with six different failure modes that could
potentially occur during usage of the product. From the potential effects of a part failing,
a failure severity rating was given. The two highest RPN’s for our vehicle where, Flat
Tire with an RPN of 300, and suspension failure with an RPN of 96. To reduce the RPN
of tire failure, the first change would be to suggest the use of an NPT (non pneumatic
tire) instead of the usual tubed bike tire.
The next step toward completion was comprised of two smaller steps. The first of
which was to develop a MATLAB program which analyzes human power based on
rowing data. The second part of this deliverable required the identification of energy
sinks in order to predict the RFSHPV’s performance and to optimize the design. Using
MATLAB, a code was written to predict the vehicle’s performance. Once the code has
been run, it outputs 6 different graphs to show, total distance traveled, total elevation
gain, front and rear gearing differential graphs, along with a velocity vs. position, and
distance vs. rider energy. Four output statements also show, total distance, total time,
total elevation gain and total power. For ease of use the code has comments throughout
to allow for a better understanding of its operation.

16. Group 14 Report 16

17. Group 14 Report 17
Appendix
Team 14 Project Report Enclosures:
● Cannondale Investigation PowerPoint

18. Group 14 Report 18
● Project Proposal
Memo
Date: October 5th, 2014
To: Professor Brett Hamlin Ph.D, Eng 1102 Instructor From: Eng 1102, Section L03,
Team 14
Tim Spehar III Ben Mckeith Matthew Schultz Michael Size
Subject: G14 Design Project Deliverable 1
New Outdoor Experiences, LLC has asked for design proposals for finding a recumbent,
full suspension, self​righting, off​road capable human powered vehicle design for
handicapped use so N.O.E. can begin marketing and fabrication of this revolutionary
product. This is a design proposal to fit N.O.E.’s requests.
Background
As we began our search for an appropriate design, we first had to research what
designs we thought would be best to fit the requirements for this project. Now
determined, it is now our team’s job to develop, test, and record data that this design
produces. This memorandum provides information and evaluation of the parts of our
design. We have attached a Gantt Spreadsheet. It outlines specific dates and design
milestones that are to be met by each and every member within the team. In addition,
we have also attached a Morph Chart and Decision Matrix that we used to help
determine which design features would be used.
Proposed Vehicle
Using a decision matrix, the design that best fit N.O.E’s proposal request was left up to
the contractor's decision. Using design skills and knowledge from past research into the
field of various rear suspension technologies from many high​end companies. Using
Cannondale, the company that best fit our design criteria, the requested design
has utilized both technologies Cannondale uses on their new production mountain
bikes. Utilizing Zero​Pivot technology (Encl: Zero​Pivot Tech) the requested design will be
manufactured out of lightweight, high grade carbon fiber. The carbon fiber frame/body
will eliminate traditional bearing pivots, and replace them with flexing carbon fiber
structures. The technology helps combat against the use of different propulsion systems
than normal pedaling. The system flexes freely in one direction only, while actually
resisting side​to​side and twisting. The carbon fiber will be light and durable enough for
one rider to safely traverse tricky terrain while holding up to the rigor that is daily use.
Carbon fiber is going to help reduce weight, and allow for complicated maneuvers to be
performed without much effort on the rider’s part as they will not have to propel a large,
heavy vehicle. Another upside to using such a material is that if the bike flips while in

19. Group 14 Report 19
use on certain terrain, the vehicle will be light enough to safely flip over and resume
riding.
Cannondale also has created a new proprietary technology Enhanced Center
Stiffness ​ Torsion Control (Encl: ECS​TC), which will be incorporated into the bike’s
design as well. The bike will be completely suspended with respect to the frame. The
wheels will all move independently of each other using a thru​bearing system to relieve
stress around the rear axle of the bike, and to allow less lateral flex between the frame
and the rear tire allowing greater travel, higher stability and a heightened thrill when
riding the trails.
The decision matrix that has been created for the requested design proposal had
five criteria, the design had to lightweight, durable, efficient and most of all safe. The
criteria were given a respective weight into the design inputs and then a score was
computed based on our individually ranked designs. Safety being most important we
have decided to incorporate some sort of roll cage, or roll over protection system
(ROPS) to allow for greater downhill safety for the rider, and relieve added stress on
hard banking turns and downhill runs. As per the request, a lightweight vehicle that can
be easily returned to an upright position and/or transported will need carbon fiber flexing
structures to act in place of moving parts that can be lessened in their weight. The main
structure of the design will be a combination of lightweight, high strength steel to help
combat the weight issue, and allow for greater durability on the trails ending in a high
rate of return for investment when the design is purchased and subsequently
manufactured to the general public.
Ben’s design (Sketch 1) has a roll cage that doubles as the main safety feature
and also a cargo area on top. The roll cage is outward folding allowing for ease of
entry.The next safety feature includes a 4 point harness. Reasoning is, if the operator
decides to hit a tree head first they are not picking their teeth out of it. The main drive
system is hand powered in a rowing motion. The platform that lies just above the top bar
of the frame swivels which engages the vehicles steering mechanism. Allowing for a
greater control of the bike, since the rider does not have to pedal and steer with their
hands. Tires will be 28” to ensure necessary clearance needs. In the back of the bike
two separate Cannondale ESC­TC rear suspensions will be used with zero pivot carbon
fiber technology. The two systems will allow for a completely independent rear
suspension resulting in maximum articulation and handling.
Tim’s design (Sketch 2) utilizes a large flexing carbon fiber body, acting almost
as a skeleton luge type structure to hold the rider, and a small amount of gear they wish
to bring. The entire board​like structure is encased in a high strength, low weight roll
cage to protect the rider in the event of a rollover, and then allow for ease of uprighting.
The design is a 2x1 tricycle with two front wheels acting as the main propulsion wheels,

20. Group 14 Report 20
while also being the wheels that allow for steering ability. The bike has no handlebars,
as it is powered like a modified ERG machine to “row” the bike around the trails. The
handle for the modified drivetrain is under the bike and pulls directly on a gear that in
turn cranks the wheels. The wheels are fully suspended and offer a revolutionary bike
steering mechanism usually seen on scooters or skateboards. The bike itself is not
turned using the traditional handlebars, but by the rider shifting their weight in the
direction they want to go, the shifted weight then puts pressure on a flex axle that
revolves the wheels only a certain degree, based on the amount of weight shifted to turn
the bike in the direction of indicated travel.
Mike’s prototype (Sketch 3) begins with a recumbent seated, three wheeled,
independent suspension design. There is one wheel in front and two in back. Each rear
wheel has independent suspension using Cannondale’s Zero Pivot technology along
with their ECS​TC. This set up will allow the vehicle to travel over rough terrain without
putting strain on the frame and giving the rider a more comfortable run. The shock will
attach to the backrest giving it a solid anchor. The propulsion will be from the feet where
the crank is placed upfront behind the wheel. The chain will run along the frame to the
back where the gears will be place between the two wheels. The braking is controlled
by a pedal brake. The steering is controlled by two armbars, one on each side of the
frame, as well as the rider. The bike is designed to pitch in accordance with the riders
lean. This feature allows for tighter turning and connects the rider to the trail.
Matt’s concept (Sketch 4) is a three wheeled design, recumbent seating built into
the frame of the vehicle allows for a slim lightweight product. The rear two tires are the
drive tires with a connecting chain drive ran to the drive gear up front near the pedals.
With rear suspension the driver can maneuver rough terrain while being able to change
gear ratios whether it be steep terrain or flat ground. The highlight of this design is the
steering system used. The use of gears in the steering column makes it possible for the
driver to turn the handlebars less degrees with a higher output on the rotation of the
wheel. Using this design along with negative caster on the front tire allows for a tighter
turning radius and better performing suspension.
Closing
In short, the design being presented to New Outdoor Experiences, LLC, meets all
of the entailed criteria and exceeds in innovation and engineering for the marketing and
fabrication of the enclosed concepts. This is a proposal to fill the request sent out by
N.O.E. on designs for an innovative recumbent, full suspension, self​righting, off​road
capable human powered vehicle design for handicapped use.
Encl:
G14 Gantt Chart G14 Decision Matrix G14 Morph Chart
G14 Individual Design Sketches (4) G14 Final Concept Sketch
Cited References:

21. Group 14 Report 21
Cannondale ECS​TC Cannondale Zero Pivot Tech
Team 14 Rear Suspension Research Presentation One​Off Titanium Inc.
● NX Model

22. Group 14 Report 22
● FMEA Analysis
Memo
Date: October 30th, 2014
To: Professor Brett Hamlin Ph.D, Eng 1102 Instructor From: Eng 1102, Section L03,
Team 14
Tim Spehar III Ben Mckeith Matthew Schultz Michael Size
Subject: FMEA Analysis Memo
Introduction
Contained within this discussion is a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Team
14 did on their bike design to help with the design process and innovate the already
effective design with fresh, new and bright ideas to help ensure rider safety and comfort
on the trails. The following discussion if for N.O.E.’s reference as to Team 14’s changes
and in depth look into the safety and security of the proposed, and modeled design.
FMEA Discussion Failure Modes:
Our team was able to come up with six different failure modes that could
potentially occur during usage of our product. Brake failure was the first to come to
mind. Brakes can fail if a cable snaps, if the cable gets stuck in position, or due to poor
maintenance. Without brakes, the rider loses their ability to control speed and could
result in crashing.
Handlebars disconnecting is another concern for our team. This could be the
result of a loosened pivot. Without handle bars the user can no longer steer the vehicle.
If the rider is going downhill this can be potentially lethal. Riding over rough terrain is a
common occurrence while mountain biking. In sight of this we placed suspension failure
on our list. A suspension can give out due to a large sudden shock to the system or a
bumpy ride can jar a component loose. Flat tires are extremely dangerous and can
happen at any moment. A flat can break a rim or damage other components. With a flat
tire, the vehicles’ traction control is at risk of failing as well. Our team felt it important to
list breaking a chain as a failure. A chain can break if too much stress is applied to it or
if an object gets caught in the chain as it goes over the sprocket. Although the only
potential effect is a loss of propulsion, this can make getting back to safety a problem.
Lastly, because our vehicle is powered by a hand crank, having a sleeve caught in the
chain is a potential hazard. This can break the chain, render the bike useless, and even
injure the user.
Justifications:
Brake failures severity rating was an 8, because without brakes the operator is at
risk for serious injury or death. Whether it be driving off a cliff face, smashing into a tree,
or rolling out into traffic. Since bike brakes don’t fail often the occurrence rating was 1.

23. Group 14 Report 23
Brake failure is a sudden event so with no clues that its going to happen, that is why it
received a detection rating of 10. Handlebars disconnecting results in loss of control of
the vehicle. The disconnection of handlebars was given a severity rating of 8 because
this may result in serious injury or death, from forcefully striking an object. The likelihood
of handlebars coming off is slim, therefore the occurrence rating is 1. Detection is
possible with the loosening of the steering column nut, resulting in some play in the
handlebars. This is why the detection rating was 4.
Suspension failure received a severity rating of 3. This was because it is not
likely that an injury will result, and added stress to the vehicle. A rating of 4 was given
for the occurrence. Since there is many moving parts in the suspension there is some
chance it may fail. Detection of suspension failure was given an 8, because when a
suspension component falls off it will be a sudden event. If the shock wears out it will be
gradual.The severity rating of a flat tire was 6. Since a flat tire probably will not result in
a serious injury. Also the rim may be damaged, along with other components.
Occurrence of a flat can happen ever so often since the vehicle will occasionally be
driven over sharp objects. So the occurrence rating was given a 5. Detection is a 10
since it is a sudden event, that cannot be detected.
Getting one's sleeve caught in chain was given a severity rating of 2. The rating
was concluded since injury is not likely to result. The occurrence rating is a 3 , as long
as the operator isn’t wearing a baggy long sleeve shirt it wont happen. Detection was
given a 3 since it is fairly easy to tell if a piece of clothing is caught in the chain.
The severity rating of a broken chain was assigned 3. This is because the operator just
looses means of propulsion, but can still maintain control of the bike. Occurrence
received a rating of 3. This is because its not highly likely that something will get
jammed in the sprocket to snap the chain. The detection rating was assigned a 7. Due
to it not being easily, visually detectable.
Correction of High RPNs:
The two highest RPN’s for our vehicle where, Flat Tire with an RPN of 300, and
suspension failure with an RPN of 96. To reduce the RPN of tire failure, the first change
would be to suggest the use of an NPT (non pneumatic tire) instead of the usual tubed
bike tire. A NPT uses a honeycomb design incorporated in the tire, it uses compressed
polyurethane plastics which allows it to flex and rebound. This would completely
eliminate the chance of a flat tire, but not completely eliminate the possibility of tire
related failure. An NPT also has ride dampening characteristics which would assist if not
back up our second highest RPN suspension failure. Suspension failure would cause
the users ride to be less comfortable, cause steering and control to be more erratic, and
cause more strain on structural components of the vehicle. We feel that in using an NPT
along with a coil on the shock would reduce our two highest RPN’s.

24. Group 14 Report 24
Conclusions
Team 14 utilized this Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to correct any possible failure
issues, with innovative safety measures while looking at the distinct problems facing a
rider that the proposed design can cause if there were to be an error on either the
operator’s end, or poor design/maintenance with the trike. This FMEA allowed Team 14
to delve into the proposed design, and innovate safety features to put onto the bike
including a chain guard, and even warning labels for the operators safety and lawsuit
safety for Team 14. The enclosed attachments include the RPN FMEA calculation
tables, including an updated RPN table to take into account the new safety features and
how they interact within the design.
Encl: NPT picture FMEA Spreadsheet:
Table 1: RPN FMEA
Table 2: Updated RPN FMEA
● Energy/Power Analysis
Memo
Date: November 7th, 2014
To: Professor Brett Hamlin Ph.D, Eng 1102 Instructor From: Eng 1102, Section L03,
Team 14
Tim Spehar III Ben Mckeith Matthew Schultz Michael Size
Subject: MATLAB Power Analysis Introduction
A code was developed to find, and analyze three athletes based on sets of data.
These data sets were used to create a large access program, that then computed
negative power outputs, positive power outputs and the overall sustainable power
outputs from each respective athlete. This data is also to be used in the proposed
vehicle design, while also searching and examining certain forces that will cause energy
and power sinks within the efficiency of the proposed vehicle design.
Discussion of Code
Over the course of the past few weeks Team 14 has received data sets, based
on three athletes who were tested on an indoor rowing machine. The data sets received
were chain force data, a respective table of force over time applied to the chain on the
rowing machine. The other respective data set was left grip, a sensor nodule was
placed on the end of the left grip of the rowing machine, to measure the movement in
the x, y and z directions as a function of time. These two data sets on the three athletes
were then loaded and computed using a multitude of equations to create power outputs
to measure the respective athlete’s power efficiencies and inefficiencies.

25. Group 14 Report 25
To be able to start computing our power outputs, and Kcals as a function of time
code had to be written to import all of the data sets, and incorporate while loops for error
checking, for loops and if else statements to differentiate between which athlete that
had been selected. Their respective data and the multitude of equations that went along
with computing the values that were desired. Unfortunately, the matrices involved
between the two data sets were of different sizes, and to compute them simultaneously
required that we compress our force data to match the same amount of scalars as the
left grip dat, so as not to allow for too many values and many miscalculations, among
other errors within the code. After computing our velocities as a function of time, then
followed by our compressed force, power had to be calculated next using both the
calculated statements. The code required that both negative power output, due to
inefficiencies in the athlete’s form, and positive power output were taken into effect.
Both were correlated as the formulation of thing code was to calculate usable power,
and analyze how to make the athlete more efficient on the rowing machine. This power
output helps make athletes better, as they can figure out how to increase their efficiency
on the machine, thereby increasing their positive power output without having to train
extra to become stronger. An athlete with poor form would have to compete at a higher
caliber just to come close to an athlete of the same strength with almost no
inefficiencies in their form and power output.
Energy and Power sinks in Proposed Vehicle Design
Drag Force: The drag force is by definition the force component in the direction of the
flow velocity. The equation is comprised of (½) the mass density( ) of the fluid,
multiplied by the square of the velocity ( ) of the object in motion, multiplied by the drag
coefficient ( ), multiplied by ( ) the reference area. [NASA]
Rolling Resistance: The wheels of the trike are made of a deformable material, which
means the energy of deformation of the rubber on the tire is greater than the energy of
recovery. The rubber compound in a tire exhibits hysteresis. As the tire revolves under
the weight of the trike, it experiences repeated cycles of deformation and recovery. it
dissipates the hysteresis energy loss as heat. Hysteresis is the main cause of energy
loss associated with rolling resistance and is attributed to the viscoelastic characteristics
of the rubber. [National Academy of Sciences]
, is the rolling resistance force.
, coefficient of rolling friction.
, is the force perpendicular to the surface on which the wheel is rolling.
Mechanical loss due to component friction:
● ME = PE+KE

26. Group 14 Report 26
Mechanical energy = Potential energy + Kinetic energy
● Efficiency = Power Input / Power Output.
These two equations summarize the potential energy loss and efficiency of an
interacting mechanism with another. The total energy is comprised of the potential plus
the kinetic. The overall efficiency is equated by the power input divided by the power
output. These equations can be used on different mechanisms on the bike for example,
the hand crank or chain and sprocket. [RoyMech]
Conclusions
After completing the code, and analyzing the power outputs and Kcals, it has
been determined that there are inefficiencies within each of the three athletes forms,
that can be corrected to allow for greater efficiency and thereby increasing the power
output, and allowing for a better athlete. Also, within the scope of inefficiencies, Team
14 has examined 4 equations that allow for power sinks within the proposed vehicle
design, these forces will not only degrade the efficiency of the vehicle, but also tire the
rider out. While the rider will have to push on with the forces at hand, there is no way to
completely eliminate friction from movement, and the power lost from the the
mechanical design of the vehicle. While Team 14 can work to improve overall efficiency
within the design, there is only damage mitigation as the vehicle will still only output less
than what the rider puts in as the mechanical design does not allow for 100% output,
and it is impossible to achieve that.
References/ Works Cited:
[NASA]: "The Drag Equation." The Drag Equation. NASA, Glen Research Center, n.d.
Web. 05 Nov. 2014. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k​12/airplane/drageq.html>.
[National Academy of Sciences]: "Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy:
Informing Consumers, Improving Performance ​​ Special Report 286. National Academy
of Sciences, Transportation Research Board, 2006". Retrieved 2007​08​11.
[RoyMech]: "Gears​ Gear Efficiency." Gears​ Gear Efficiency. RoyMech, n.d. Web. 06
Nov. 2014. <http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Drive/Gear_Efficiency.html>.
● MATLAB Simulation
function[findx,rindx]=cadcalc(Vel_n,cad_trg)
r_gear = [11 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 34];
f_gear = [48 34 24];

27. Group 14 Report 27
for i=1:length(Vel_n)
temp_diff=1000;
w_rpm=Vel_n(i)/(29*pi*0.0254/60);
for j=1:3
for k=1:9
c_rpm=r_gear(k)/f_gear(j)*w_rpm;
cad_dif=abs(c_rpm­cad_trg);
if cad_dif<temp_diff
findx(i)= j;
rindx(i)= k;
temp_diff= cad_dif;
end
end
end
end
function [lat,lon,elev,dist,hr,vel]=course_vectorupdate(a)
%This function sends back latitude, longitude, elevation and distance
%Format [lat,lon,elev,dist,hr,vel]=course_vector(a)
%Input: 'a' must be an integer from 1­9
%Output: lat ­ vector, lon ­ vector, elev ­ vector, dist ­ vector
%This was written by Brett Hamlin, Nov 16, 2009. Update March 26, 2014
if a==1
AAA=load('b2013_07_26_0925.dat');
elseif a==2
AAA=load('b2013_07_26_1027.dat');
elseif a==3
AAA=load('b2013_07_31_1310.dat');
elseif a==4
AAA=load('b2013_08_01_1417.dat');
elseif a==5
AAA=load('b2013_08_01_1539.dat');
elseif a==6
AAA=load('b2013_08_02_0926.dat');
elseif a==7

28. Group 14 Report 28
AAA=load('b2013_08_23_0930.dat');
elseif a==8
AAA=load('b2013_08_23_1028.dat');
elseif a==9
AAA=load('b2013_08_23_1312.dat');
elseif a==10
AAA=load('b2013_10_10_1530.dat');
end
elev=AAA(:,3);
dist=AAA(:,4);
lat=AAA(:,1);
lon=AAA(:,2);
hr=AAA(:,5);
vel=AAA(:,6);
end
%User chooses a data file of data taken from 10 different athletes. Data
%for longitude, lattitude, elevation, distance, heart rate and velocity,
%was taken at every second. The program then determines the change in
%veolcity and distance. From there it calculates aceleration. After that
%the total distance traveled and the total elevation gain are found, so
%that the slope angle may be calculated. The slope angle is then used to
%calculate some different types of forces. The program then calculates
%power and calories being burned. From calculations and gearing information
%brought into from the gearing function.
%11 December 2014
%Ben McKeith, Tim Sephar, Michael supersize, Matt Schultz
clc
clear
%call for the user to choose the data set
a=input('This program has been written to run, and simulate vehicle andn rider
performance, this data was collected for 10 differentn athletes. Choose a data set to
use (1­10): ');

29. Group 14 Report 29
%function for reading the data file is called and brings in the data
[ Longitude, Latitude, Elevation, Distance, Heart_Rate,
Velocity]=course_vectorupdate(a);
%for loop used to determine the change in velocity and time between every
%two data points. Aceeleration is then calculated.
for i=2: length(Distance)
Va(i)=(Velocity(i)+Velocity(i­1))/2;
D_Dis(i)=Distance(i)­Distance(i­1);
if Va(i)<=0
Va(i)=.1;
end
dt(i)=D_Dis(i)/Va(i);
if dt(i)<=0
dt(i)=.1;
end
acceleration(i)=Va(i)/dt(i);
end
%for loop determines overall elevation and distance gain
ele_gain=0;
total_distance=0;
for i=2: length(Elevation)
ele_gain = ele_gain + (Elevation(i)­Elevation(i­1));
total_distance = total_distance + (Distance(i)­Distance(i­1));
end
%calculation for the slope of elevation vs distance
slope_angle= atan(ele_gain/(total_distance/2));
gravity = 9.81;
%calculations to change from meters to miles
am_tot_dist=total_distance/1609.34;
am_tot_ele_gain=ele_gain/1609.34;
%if statements assign a mass to the rider that was initially choosen by
%the user
rider_designation=a;
if rider_designation==1

30. Group 14 Report 30
mass=74.071634;
elseif rider_designation==2
mass=74.479867;
elseif rider_designation==3
mass=77.1107;
elseif rider_designation==4
mass=157.0/2.2;
elseif rider_designation==5
mass=162.4/2.2;
elseif rider_designation==6
mass=168.4/2.2;
elseif rider_designation==7
mass=170.8/2.2;
elseif rider_designation==8
mass=172.4/2.2;
elseif rider_designation==9
mass=162.4/2.2;
else rider_designation==10
mass=181.6/2.2;
end
%calculates the average friction of the bike from going down hill
f_slope= mass*gravity*sin(slope_angle);
%constants for calculating air resistance
C_d= .82;
C_r=.75;
p= 1.256;
A= 35;
%air resitance calculation
f_air=(.5)*p*A*C_d*power(Va,2);
%rolling friction calculation
f_roll=C_r*mass*gravity*cos(slope_angle);
%for loop used to calculate bump friction
P_b=100;
for i=1: length(Va)
if Va(i)<=0

31. Group 14 Report 31
Va(i)=.1;
end
f_bump=P_b./Va;
end
%total force
f_power= (mass* acceleration) + f_air + f_slope + f_roll + f_bump;
%for loop to get power
for i=1: length(Va)
if Va(i)<=0
Va(i)=.1;
end
p_rider = f_power * Va(i);
end
%takes power for each instance and gets a total positive power
pos_p_rider = 0;
pos_p_rider_count=0;
for i=1: length(p_rider)
if p_rider(i) >= 0
pos_p_rider = pos_p_rider + p_rider(i);
pos_p_rider_count = pos_p_rider_count +1;
end
end
%average power
ave_p_rider = pos_p_rider / pos_p_rider_count;
VPR=1000000;
bike_mass=29.20;
conversion_factor=2.2;
mass_total=mass+(bike_mass/conversion_factor);
tot_time=0;
while VPR > ave_p_rider;
for i=2: length(Distance);
DT(i)=dt(i)*1.02;
if D_Dis==0

32. Group 14 Report 32
Vel_n=0;
else Vel_n(i)=D_Dis(i)/DT(i);
end
if Vel_n==0
Acc_n=0;
else Acc_n(i)=Vel_n(i)/DT(i);
tot_time=tot_time+DT(i);
end
f_slope_n(i)= mass_total*gravity*sin(slope_angle);
for i=1: length(Vel_n);
if Vel_n(i)<=0;
Vel_n(i)=.1;
end
f_bump_n(i)=P_b./Vel_n(i);
f_air_n(i)=(.5)*p*A*C_d*power(Vel_n(i),2);
f_roll_n(i)=C_r*mass_total*gravity*cos(slope_angle);
tot_force= (mass_total* Acc_n(i)) + f_air_n(i) + f_slope_n(i) + f_roll_n(i) +
f_bump_n(i);
w_rpm(i) = Vel_n(i)/(29*pi*0.0254/60);
end
end
pos_p_rider = 0;
pos_p_rider_count=0;
for i=1: length(p_rider)
if p_rider(i) >= 0
pos_p_rider = pos_p_rider + p_rider(i);
pos_p_rider_count = pos_p_rider_count +1;
end
end
VPR = pos_p_rider / pos_p_rider_count;
total_cals=VPR*tot_time/1000/4.18;
total_time_hours=tot_time/60/60;
end
%gearing function call
cad_trg=input('Enter preferred cadence target in rpm *40­80*: ');

33. Group 14 Report 33
[fronti,reari]=cadcalc(Vel_n,cad_trg);
cals=(VPR*DT/1000/4.18);
%outputs
fprintf('Total Distance: %3.2f milesn',am_tot_dist)
fprintf('Total Time: %3.2f hoursn',total_time_hours)
fprintf('Total Elevation Gain: %3.6f milesn',am_tot_ele_gain)
fprintf('Total Power: %3.2f calsn',total_cals)
%3d course plot
figure(1)
plot3(Longitude,Latitude,Elevation)
title('3D Plot Map')
xlabel('Longitude')
ylabel('Latitude')
zlabel('Elevation')
%Distance vs elevation plot
figure(2)
plot(Distance,Elevation)
title('Distance vs. Elevation')
xlabel('Distance')
ylabel('Elevation')
%velocity at each global position
figure(3)
plot3(Vel_n,Longitude,Latitude)
title('Velocity vs. Positional Change')
xlabel('Velocity')
ylabel('Longitude')
zlabel('Latitude')
%calories burned at each distance
figure(4)
plot(Distance,cals)
title('Distance vs. Rider Energy')
xlabel('Distance')
ylabel('Calories')

34. Group 14 Report 34
%rear gearing plot
figure(5)
plot(Distance,reari)
title('Rear Gearing vs. Distance')
xlabel('Distance')
ylabel('Rear Gearing')
%front gearing plot
figure(6)
plot(Distance,fronti)
title('Front Gearing vs. Distance')
xlabel('Distance')
ylabel('Front Gearing')