Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering

University of North Texas, Denton, Texas

MEEN 4250
Senior Design Project Report
In Fulfillment of the Requirement for
The Degree of Bachelor of Science
In
Mechanical & Energy Engineering

Human Powered Vehicle Challenge - Team One

(HPVC-1)
Submitted by
Nicholas Croker
Jacob Bagwell
Anthony Taylor
Quintin Zipper
Andrew Wright
May 4, 2016
Faculty Advisor:
_______________________________
Doctor Cherish Qualls

This report fulfills partial requirements of MEEN 4250. The contents represent the opinions of
the authors and not the Department of Mechanical & Energy Engineering, nor any department of
the University of North Texas.

Signature Page
The following was composed by the UNT HPVC Team #1:

______________________________ ________
Nicholas Croker

Date

______________________________ ________
Jacob Bagwell

Date

______________________________ ________
Anthony Taylor

Date

______________________________ ________
Quintin Zipper

Date

______________________________ ________
Andrew Wright

Date

0|Page

Table of Contents
Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ 0
Environmental Impact Statement .................................................................................................... 3
Ethical Design Statement ................................................................................................................ 3
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................... 5
Goal Statement ............................................................................................................................ 5
Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 5
Form and Functionality ............................................................................................................... 5
Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 6
Intended Clients .......................................................................................................................... 7
Literature Review........................................................................................................................ 7
Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................. 9
Design Specifications.................................................................................................................... 10
Functional Means .......................................................................................................................... 12
Design Proposal ............................................................................................................................ 14
Main Design Features ................................................................................................................... 15
Frame ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Steering System ........................................................................................................................ 16
Wheel Design and Specification ............................................................................................... 17
Drivetrain .................................................................................................................................. 18
Brakes ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Bill of Materials and Cost Analysis .............................................................................................. 21
Project Planning ............................................................................................................................ 24
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis ................................................................................................ 25
Design Development and Testing ................................................................................................. 27
Design ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Engineering Analysis .................................................................................................................... 29
Turning ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Rollover Protection System ...................................................................................................... 30
Steering ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Frame ........................................................................................................................................ 33
1|Page

Functional Testing ........................................................................................................................ 34

Future Works ................................................................................................................................ 35
Fairing ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Steering system improvements ................................................................................................. 35
Package holder .......................................................................................................................... 35
Additional Safety Features ........................................................................................................ 36
References ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 38

2|Page

Environmental Impact Statement

During the design, construction, and testing of the human powered vehicle (HPV), the HPVC-1
team plans to minimize the use of toxic substances and harsh chemicals that may play a
detrimental or harmful role in community and environmental care. For materials that the team
cannot recycle, the team plans to dispose of in compliance with local and federal waste
management regulations.

Ethical Design Statement

The HPVC project, with consideration of the research, design, construction, testing, and waste
management fulfills the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code of Ethics for
Engineers. The designers took the health and safety of the general public, to include operators,
observers, and bystanders, as primary concerns in the design and development of the human
powered vehicle. Furthermore, the engineers of the HPVC-1 team will respect the intellectual
property of other engineers and bestow dutiful credit upon those engineers that have donned
inspiration.

3|Page

Background
All around the world people search for environmentally conscious transportation that remains
both affordable and convenient. The need for alternative transportation spawned the HPVC
(Human Powered Vehicle Challenge) in which engineering students show off their innovative
human powered designs. The ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) sponsors east
and west HPV competitions.
The competitions include speed, design, and endurance, thus the HPVC-1 team will attempt to
design a fast, innovative, and durable vehicle while maintaining the safety standards required by
the ASME (although not competing due to time constraints). The safety standards for ASME
include a roll bar, forty five degree turning radius, and stress analysis.
In order to meet the requirements suggested by ASME for the contest, the HPVC-1 team decided
on building a recumbent trike that is designed with safety and reliability as the major concerns.
The team will design the vehicle using computer-aided design programs, paper drawings, and
previous research from other models.

Figure 1 HPV Team #1 Recumbent

4|Page

Problem Statement
Goal Statement
The University of North Texas and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Human
Powered Vehicle Teams goal is to design a human powered vehicle that meets and exceeds the
safety and functional requirements to compete in the ASME HPV Competition in the spring of
2016.

Objectives

Design a frame that can accommodate one passenger and a package using a three wheel
tadpole design with a rollover protection system (RPS) and safety harness.
Design a system to carry a package with the dimensions 15x13x8.
Design a RPS that will withstand a force of 2670 Newtons applied 12 from vertical and
a force of 1330 Newtons applied at shoulder height with a maximum deflection of 2.0.
Design a braking system that can bring the HPV to a complete stop from a speed of 25
km/hr in a distance of 6.0 meters.
Design a steering system that is stable and has a minimum turning radius of 8 meters.
Design a drive train that can help the rider achieve a minimum speed of 8 km/hour.
Design a fairing to minimize aerodynamic drag.
The complete design should be affordable and usable by the general public using as many
after-market parts to increase customization potential and service life.

Form and Functionality

The basic design of our human powered vehicle will revolve around the tadpole recumbent
tricycle design. This design puts the operator in a comfortable reclined position to keep the
center of gravity low allowing for a narrower track width and wheel base and lower overall
height of the vehicle. This reduction in size also reduces the frontal area, improving aerodynamic
efficiency. These smaller dimensions also reduce the amount of material used, effectively
reducing the overall weight and cost of the HPV. The three-wheel design provides more stability
in rough terrain and low speeds over two-wheel designs and allows for reduced rolling resistance
from a typical four-wheel design. For our design the wheel base will be 45, wheel track will be
30, total length will be 85, and be 35 tall.
The vehicle will sit on two 20x1 aluminum bicycle wheels in the front and one 700cx23mm
carbon fiber bicycle wheel in the rear. The smaller wheels in the front allow for a better
aerodynamic profile, reduced weight, and more nimble steering than larger wheels. The larger
wheel in the back will maximize torque and energy transfer from the rider to the wheels. All
wheels will be equipped with 160mm disk brakes commonly found on bicycles to take advantage

5|Page

of an existing and streamlined technology. The braking system must bring the HPV to a
complete stop from a speed of 25 km/hr in a distance of 6.0 meters.
The HPV will be powered entirely by the riders own power and to take advantage of this we
will be using a traditional road bike drive train. The power will be linked to the rear wheel for the
performance and efficiency provided by rear wheel drive, and to eliminate the complexities and
push created by front wheel driving in the steering system. This will consist of:

A 35mm x 68mm threaded internal bottom bracket.

A 53T-39T front crankset with 175mm long crank arms and clip-in pedals.
An 11 speed 11T-32T rear cassette.
A chain drive with front and rear derailleur and corresponding shifters.

The vehicle will be controlled using an under-seat steering system that is a u-shaped bar
connected to the steering linkage underneath the rider. This set-up is the lightest, most
comfortable, and simplest design for controlling the HPV. The shape of the steering system
allows for ideal placement and use of the shifters and brake levers. The steering system will be
designed using the concept of Ackerman geometry to avoid pushing or skidding of the outside
wheel in a turn. Caster, camber and kingpin inclination will all be designed in order to achieve
maximum stability of the steering system at all speeds whether in a turn or going in a straight
line.
To meet the ASME HPV competition rules, a rollover protection system (RPS) will be
engineered into the frame of the vehicle. The RPS will cover the head by 2 and protect the
shoulders in the event of the vehicle rolling over, in addition to withstanding a force of 2670
Newtons applied 12 from vertical and a force of 1330 Newtons applied at shoulder height with
a maximum deflection of 2.0. Other safety features that will be included on the vehicle will be a
commercially produced 4-point safety harness, front and rear lights, brake lights, and reflectors.
The vehicle will also be able to safely carry a 15x13x8 package.
The HPV will be designed to utilize mostly aftermarket parts from the bicycle industry. With the
exception of the frame, RPS, steering, and seat, the vehicle will use aftermarket bike parts for all
repairs and replacements. This will allow for the widest range of customization, and make
maintenance accessible and cost effective.

Constraints

Make a simple and cost effective human powered vehicle that is usable and accessible to
the general public.
Maximize efficiency of the vehicle.
Design the HPV to be as light as possible while maintaining a low cost.
Meet and exceed all of the safety requirements outlined by the 2016 ASME East-West
HPVC rules.
6|Page

Intended Clients

UNT ASME HPV Team

Potential companies such as local bike stores
People looking for an efficient and low-carbon footprint vehicle to commute
People looking for a replacement for typical recreational bicycles

Literature Review
The idea of having a human powered vehicle is a design challenge that people have worked on
for several centuries, from the rickshaw and the flying machines imagined by Leonardo da Vinci
to todays modern human powered vehicles like recumbent tricycles and the human powered
aircraft MIT Daedalus. Our major focus was the design of a human powered vehicle that has the
functionality of a car. When designing this vehicle there are several engineering and design
challenges that must be overcome like power to weight ratios, cost, aerodynamics, steering
suspension, comfort, and reliability.
When designing the suspension there were two major design aspects that were looked at by our
team. One problem that must be addressed is the loss of forward momentum from the
compression of the springs due to the pedaling of the rider. This could be solved with a
suspension that could be locked while the rider has a higher cadence, using stiffer suspension, or
placing the shock absorber perpendicular to the direction of pedaling [1]. Another problem faced
in the front would be bump steer caused by the motion of the suspension over rough terrain. The
design of the rear suspension had the same complications of loss of forward momentum from the
compression of the shock absorber. The amount of compression can be altered with the many
types of geometries used today or stiffer springs [2]. Ultimately a rigid suspension system
simplifies the design of the bike, increases the overall efficiency, and eliminates all the above
mentioned problems at the sacrifice of some comfort.
The design of the steering played a direct role in our decision to go with a rigid system. Not only
was bump steer an issue, but kingpin inclination, camber, and caster all had to be redesigned
around the suspension to achieve a stable steering system and eliminate over and understeer.
Camber is the angle measured in degrees of the difference between the wheels vertical
alignment perpendicular to the surface. For our human powered vehicle design, our team will be
aiming for zero camber (wheels will be perpendicular to surface) which will optimize tire slip
angle and scrub. By doing so, the vehicle will experience less rolling resistance, have greater
traction during turns, and achieve maximum potential straight-line acceleration [3]. Though
negative camber would allow for improved grip when cornering, especially at higher speeds, this
characteristic alone was not significant enough to warrant its implementation into our HPV
design. Caster is the angle created by the steering pivot point from the front to back of the
vehicle. In order to provide a degree of self-centering for our steering system, our team will be
utilizing a positive caster angle (angle is sloping backwards toward rear of vehicle). This will not
only make the vehicle easier to drive, but it also improves directional stability. Kingpin
7|Page

Inclination is the angle measured in degrees that forms the line passing through the kingpin and
the perpendicular to the ground (viewing vehicle from the front). This inclination will help to
keep the wheel spindles pointed outward in line with the axle, which will result in easier steering,
in addition to allowing the brakes to be applied with little effect on steering [4].

Figure 3 Kingpin Inclination

Figure 2 Caster Angle

Figure 4 Ackerman Geometry

The design challenges of the drive train for our vehicle are relatively simple. We must consider
how power will be transferred from the operator to the road for maximum efficiency. The two
types of systems available for us to utilize are gearboxes or the traditional cog system that
modern bicycles use. Gearboxes can be more efficient and require less maintenance, but they are
complicated, typically more expensive, and difficult to repair when they do fail. On the other
hand, traditional cog systems might be less resilient to the environment and wear, but they are
lighter, more cost effective, and easier to repair and maintain [5]. The next challenge is whether
we use a belt or a chain to drive our system. A chain is tried and true but has known reliability
8|Page

and efficiency issues whereas a belt can be more efficient and easier to replace. The main issue
with a belt is keeping it in high enough tension to drive the system without slipping. The chain is
ultimately the most logical choice due to its lower costs, availability of parts and compatible
components, and overall efficiency without complex tensioners [6].
This brings up the next problem to tackle with the frame design of the HPV, mainly the material
the frame will be constructed with. One must consider the applications of the HPV, where and
how it will be used, and what conditions must it endure. The bike will be used in a high speed
course with obstacles like stops and turns with some rough pavement, much like a city street. For
this application we will want a material that is stiff, light, easy to manufacture, and economical.
Steel, for example 414x series steel, is cheap and rigid, but very heavy. It strength to weight ratio
is good, but not as high as composite materials like carbon fiber. Aluminum, like Al 6061-T6, is
very light, has good strength to weight ratios, easier to weld than any other aluminum, and easy
to tool compared to composites. The drawback of aluminum is that it is difficult to weld, is more
expensive than steel, and has issues with cracking due to vibration. Composites are currently
used in many biking applications already for frames and components. It is very rigid, has good
fatigue life, high strength to weight ratio, and can be formed into complex shapes. Carbon is also
naturally good at dampening vibration which helps eliminate the need for complex suspension.
The draw backs are that it is very difficult to engineer carbon fiber due to its design, cost of raw
material is high, and the cost of manufacturing carbon products is higher than most metals [7].

Benchmarking
The design of our human powered vehicle will be inspired by many of the recumbent trikes that
currently exist. We will also take safety features from both cars and bicycles and incorporate
them into the design of our bike.
Most human powered vehicles today are not designed with all around safety, usually relying on
the rider only wearing a helmet. With our design the rider will be protected by a helmet, a safety
harness, and a rollover protection system. Other safety features will include a horn, brake lights,
day and nighttime running lights, and reflectors. An example of a typical recumbent bike would
be the Terratrike Sportster which offers none of the above safety features.
Another design flaw with many of the human powered vehicles is the overall weight of the
vehicle. Many companies like ICE Tricycles and their ICE VTX tricycle claim to be engineered
to be very light, but fail to maximize the potential. In our design we will use thin wall 4130
chromoly steel. Not only does the use of steel make or design less expensive than the current
market, but it will also give an overall weight reduction to our bike even with the added safety
features. In the steering system of many trikes, like the Catrike line of tricycles, they utilize a
direct link steering system that is connected directly to the kingpins. This eliminates the
mechanical advantage provided by levers of a typical bicycle handle bar shape which we will
utilize in our under-seat steering system. This will make the overall feel and responsiveness of
the vehicle much better than current products.
9|Page

Design Specifications
Shown below are the specific criteria each teams vehicle must meet according to the ASME
HPVC rules. These specifications were the most influential on the early design of the frame and
roll bar of the vehicle.

Vehicles may have energy storage devices, but the energy can only be stored with human
power being the sole source of energy. Prior to each race, each team must demonstrate
that their storage device has no initial energy stored.
Vehicles must come to a complete stop from 25 km/hr within 6 meters.
Travel for 30 meters in a straight line at a speed of 5 to 8 km/hr.
Vehicles must be equipped with a rollover protection system. (RPS)
o The RPS system must withstand a top load of 2670 N at 12 from vertical towards
the front of vehicle.
o The RPS system must withstand a side load of 1330 N at shoulder height.
There may be no sharp edges or protrusions on the exterior or interior of the vehicle.

After the team decided who the intended client for the HPV would be, a list of requirements and
constraints could be formulated that would help determine design choices. The factors the team
decided to be the most important were: safety, practicality, performance, innovation, reliability,
and cost effectiveness. Each portion of the HPV was then designed to meet one or more of these
criteria. For instance, a safety requirement of the ASME HPVC rule book states that each vehicle
in the competition must be able to come to a complete stop from 25 km/hr in a distance of 6.0 m.
After reading this and researching braking methods for HPVs, it was determined that hydraulic
disk brakes would apply to more of the above criteria than any of the other available methods. A
typical chart used to determine which solution best fits the criteria is shown below. The
remaining portions of the HPV were analyzed using similar charts and thought processes. The
purpose of these exercises was to ensure that each part of the vehicle was in some way meeting
the criteria the team had decided were most important for the intended client, so that no specific
part could be pointed out as a detriment to the overall quality of the vehicle.

Braking Method
Safety
Practicality
Performance
Innovation
Reliability
Cost Effective
Total

Rim Brake
2
3
2
1
2
3
13

Hydraulic Disk
3
2
3
2
3
2
15

Drum Brake
3
1
2
2
3
2
13

Internal Hub
3
1
3
3
2
1
13

Table 1: Design Factor Analysis Chart for Braking Method

10 | P a g e

Each specific part of the vehicle has its own factors that play into the design decision as well. For
example, after analyzing the pros and cons of an internal gear hub versus a traditional bike
derailleur system for power transmission, the team decided that using an internal gear hub would
be beneficial to the HPV design, and it would greatly increase the overall innovation of the
vehicle. However, it has become obvious that actually obtaining an internal gear hub for a human
powered vehicle is more difficult than the team previously assumed. As a result, the decision for
the type of transmission will be decided by other factors such as the amount of money the team
can raise from sponsorships and donations.

11 | P a g e

Functional Means
A functional means chart (shown below) was developed by listing the different functions that the
vehicle was expected to accomplish and listing the means by which they could be accomplished.
The purpose of this is to visualize each of the possible means so that it may be easier to make the
most appropriate decision.
Table 2: Functional means

Function
Power

Means
Human
Energy

Captured
Energy
(Battery)

Steering wheel
Turning
Rack and
Pinion
Braking
Transmission
Rollover
Protection

Hydraulic
Disk
Internal
Gear
Hub

Under seat
Steering
Bar

Tie Rods

Tie Rods

Drum

Rim

Internal
Hub

Chain
Derailleur

Roll Bar

From the possible means seen in the chart it would then be determined which were the most
feasible to implement in the final design.

The team decided that human energy would be the sole source of power for the HPV. An
energy storage system could be used in conjunction with the human power, but it would
be less sufficient in many cases, and not worth the price or complication either way.
At first, the team had decided on a steering wheel coupled with tie rods for use in
steering, but finally opted for an under seat steering bar due to a higher level of driver
comfort and slightly simpler design.
For braking, hydraulic disk brakes were chosen to be the best solution as they are both
effective and practical in design.
The decision for which transmission to implement is still in the air. The team has decided
that the internal hub would be a great choice for the vehicle, but the cost and
unavailability of the hub has kept the team from going ahead with a choice.
12 | P a g e

Finally, the function of rollover protection will be carried out by a roll bar. This roll bar
will protect the driver if the HPV was to fall on its side or become completely inverted.

13 | P a g e

Design Proposal
The objective of this design project is to design and build a functional human powered vehicle
capable of competing in the ASME Human Powered Vehicle Challenge (HPVC). Initial
discussions amongst HPVC-1 team members were in regards to the general type of recumbent
configuration we would like to design, and for stability concerns, we strongly felt that the
tadpole trike configuration (2 wheels at the front, one at the rear) was the best option, because
not only did it have 3 wheels, but it also allowed for the rider to have a slightly lower center of
gravity, in turn making it less likely to rollover from combined turning and braking forces.
Now, regardless of the application, there are certain fundamental design criteria that our team
wanted to address when conceptualizing our human powered vehicle. These included vehicle
ergonomics, stability, and efficiency. Unfortunately, while cost can often be a hindrance to
designing and building a truly innovative product, it had to be taken into consideration at all
stages of the design process. One of the most crucial decisions associated with all of these design
aspects is material selection and cost. The understanding of how materials will behave when
subjected to their intended applications is an essential part of the engineering design process.
For the purposes of building a human powered vehicle that takes into consideration both
performance and cost, the four materials initially considered in the design of our human powered
vehicle included carbon fiber, aluminum, steel, and titanium. With minimal disputes, ideas to
incorporate carbon fiber and titanium were quickly discarded, because despite both materials
offering some rather advantageous attributes (strength, stiffness, weight, etc.), they are also
significantly more expensive than the other alternatives. Having narrowed down the options to
aluminum or steel, the team chose aluminum because it offers adequate strength and stiffness
while still being very lightweight (much lighter than steel, though more expensive).
To come up with optimal design parameters for our human powered vehicle concept, HPVC-1
team members used PVC piping to construct a rough mock-up. This enabled us to get a feel for
the actual size of the human powered vehicle, in addition to other key information, specifically
rider position angles (seating, legs), and frame dimensions.
We ultimately broke down our human powered vehicle design concept into 6 major subsystems,
all of which are essential parts of the overall project. The six major systems include the frame,
steering, wheels, drivetrain, brakes, and the fairing. Below are the major components associated
with our human powered vehicle design, and a detailed breakdown of how each system functions
to allow the design to work.

14 | P a g e

Main Design Features

Frame
The frame acts as the main support for both the rider and the other subsystems of the human
powered vehicle. The frame must accept inputs from braking and cornering forces, in addition to
static and dynamic weight forces generated during operation. It must also accept the vertical
weight of the vehicle itself.
Our team opted to use 6061-T6 aluminum tubing (round) for the frame because it offers above
average corrosion resistance, good machinability, and is excellent for welding. It also has
excellent strength and toughness.
Interfacing:
i.

Rear wheel and sprocket will attach to frame via dropouts located at the end of the chain
and seat stay.

ii.

The seat will be mounted to the spine of the frame and roll bar.

iii.

The wheels and brakes will be mounted to uprights which will interface with head tubes
mounted to the control arms.

iv.

The front drivetrain will be mounted to an adjustable boom that will interface with the
spine of the frame.

Rollover Protection System:

i.

Purpose is to protect the rider from accidents where the human powered vehicle tips or
rolls over.

ii.

The top bar must withstand a force of 2670 N pointed 12 vertical to the rear.

iii.

Shoulder bars must withstand an applied force of 1330 N applied normal to the bars.

Uprights:
i.

Will be interfaced to the frame using thrust bearings pressed into head tubes welded to
the control arms.

ii.

Will have a caster angle of 5 and a kingpin inclination of 16.

Wheel base
i.

Wheel base will be 45.

ii.

Wheel track will be 30.

iii.

Ground clearance will be 10 under load.

Frame Mock-up:
i.

A mock-up was constructed from PVC piping and used to help establish various design
parameters, specifically the frame dimensions.
15 | P a g e

Figure 5 HPV Frame Mock-up, Model, and Production

Steering System
The steering system allows the vehicle to follow the desired direction through a series of
components, and linkages.
Our team chose to incorporate a steering system that utilizes Ackerman steering geometry, where
the geometric arrangement of the linkages allows for every wheel to turn at a different angle
around a common center point. This configuration helps prevent tire scrubbing, which in turn
helps to reduce tire wear and increase efficiency.
We will also be utilizing under seat steering (USS) with a U-bar configuration because this
design will provide superior comfort for the rider, while still requiring minimal parts for
operation (thus making it the least expensive USS option). Our major concerns when building
the design are making sure that the U-bar placement does not compromise wheel track or seat
width, and that the riders hands are still far enough away from the ground during any/all
maneuvers to preclude injury. Other relevant design aspects associated with the steering system
are listed below.
Camber:
i.

The vehicle is designed to have zero camber (wheels will be perpendicular to surface).

ii.

By doing so, wheels of vehicle will experience less rolling resistance/stress, have greater
traction, and achieve maximum potential straight-line acceleration.

Caster:

16 | P a g e

i.

The vehicle will utilize a positive caster angle of approximately 5 (angle created by
steering pivot from front to back of vehicle) in order to provide a degree of self-centering
for the steering system.

ii.

This not only makes the vehicle easier to drive, but also improves directional stability.

Kingpin Inclination:
i.

Approximate kingpin inclination is 16 (angle measured in degrees that forms the line
passing through the kingpin and the perpendicular to the ground viewing vehicle from the
front).

ii.

This inclination will help keep the wheel spindles pointed outward in line with the axle,
which will result in easier steering, in addition to allowing the brakes to be applied with
minimal effect on steering.

Figure 6 Design and production of steering

Wheel Design and Specification

The wheels, in conjunction with the axles (rotation on an axle bearing) will facilitate the
movement of the rider from point A to point B. The wheels greatly reduce friction by allowing
for a rolling motion, and will rotate as a function of moment being applied to the wheel about its
axis (generated by our rider). Below are the specifications that our team has opted for in our
human powered vehicle design.
Front Wheel Hubs:
i.

A 20mm front axle size was chosen for this vehicle to provide plenty of strength for the
higher load bearing wheels.

ii.

36-hole spoke drillings were chosen because it is a common standard that is middleground between lightweight and strength.
17 | P a g e

iii.

The front hub has a 6-bolt disk brake fitting for integration with a standard stainless steel
disk brake.

iv.

The body of the hub will be made out of 6061-T6 aluminum which has the optimal
strength to weight ratio needed for this application, and the bearings inside the hubs will
utilize stainless steel for its high strength and durability.

v.

Each front wheel hub will weigh approximately 0.4lb.

Rear Wheel Hub:

i.

The rear wheel hub will have a 135mm gear axle (the axle that the gears sit on and apply
power through).

ii.

The axle that the whole assembly rotates around will be 20mm similar to the front
wheels.

iii.

This hub also utilizes the 36-hole spoke drillings, and is made of the same aluminum
alloy and stainless steel as the front hubs.

iv.

The rear hub will weigh approximately 0.6lb.

Front Wheel:
i.

A 20 rim was selected for the front wheels because they provide a good balance between
comfort, low drag, and strength.

ii.

Standard bicycle wheels will be used on both the front and rear wheels.

iii.

Both rims will be made out of aluminum alloy with stainless steel spokes.

Rear Wheel:
i.

A 36 spoke 27.5 road tire and rim was chosen for the back tire because there are much
smaller forces applied to it. The thin design of the wheel allows for smaller drag forces.

Drivetrain
The drivetrain of the human powered vehicle is comprised of the components that deliver power
to the driving wheels. Drivetrain efficiency is of extreme importance for fast starting and
powering up steep inclinations. The individual component design specifications are listed below.
Shifting and gearing:
i.

A derailleur system was chosen over an internal hub system due to its simplicity and its
theoretical higher efficiency.

ii.

The derailleur was chosen to be 11 speed because we don't expect there to be any hills
and an 11 speed derailleur system can both start the vehicle from rest easily, and allow it
to reach relatively high speeds.

18 | P a g e

iii.

The gearing range on the cassette of 11T-32T was chosen as it has the smallest jumps
with the largest range to increase shifting efficiency.

Sprocket:
i.

The forward sprocket was chosen because it was relatively simple and was only 2-3 times
larger than the sprockets on the derailleur system, in turn making it so the torque will
never be so low that it would make it difficult to start the vehicle.

Mounting:
i.

The derailleur will be mounted via standard drop out and the front crankset via an over
locknut dimension (O.L.D) mount.

Chain:
i.

The chain will be a standard bush-link chain rather than a bush-less chain because while
some weight would be saved, a significant amount of durability would be lost.

ii.

Width of the chain will be 3/32 to shave off some weight and to fit into the smaller 11
speed derailleur.

Weight:
i.

The total weight of the drive train is approximately 6.32lb

Figure 7 Drivetrain

Brakes
The function of the brakes is to allow the rider to reduce the speed of the human powered vehicle
or to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. There are several options that could work for our
design, which include brake pads on the wheels, disk brakes, and internal hub brakes, all of
which have merit.
19 | P a g e

Our team considered both disk and hub brakes, but opted for disk brakes because they offer
better stopping power. The disk brake also out performs the hub brake in wet weather since it
utilizes a hydraulic system.
Disk brakes:
i.

The brake lever connects to the steering mechanism while the disk itself connects to the
rim of the wheels. The wire will ride down the side of the steering arms along the body to
the brake on the rim of the wheel.

ii.

Main parts are made from aluminum, weighing approximately 0.87lb, and uses a small
amount of DOT brake fluid.

iii.

Diameter is 160mm and the wire length is adjustable.

Figure 8 Brakes and Wheels

20 | P a g e

Bill of Materials and Cost Analysis

System
Table
3: Bill of materials ITEM
ShimanoUltegra 6800 11 Speed Rear Mech
Shimano 105 5800 Double 11 Speed Chainset
Shimano M530 SPD Trail Clipless MTB Pedals
Shimano 105 5800 Double 11 Speed Front Mech
Shimano XT MT800 Bottom Bracket
Shimano Dura-Ace 9000 2x11 Speed Bar End Shifters
Sram XG-1150 11sp Cassette 10-42 Teeth
TerraCycle Sports Return Idler 8mm Bearing
Drivetrain
TerraCycle Idler Spacers Kit
TerraCycle Clamp-on Idler Mount 1-1/2" 3-Hole
SIS Housing Cable
SIS Cable
11 Speed Chain
2-CT #28 Clamp
ORBT 24"L 1/2"ID Flex Pipe
System Subtotal
Ritchey Comp Headset
Brand-X Spacer Pack 5 x 5mm
Steering
Diety Fantom Stem 25.4mm D, 48mm L
System Subtotal
76" L x 1.5" OD x 0.049" WT 4130 Steel Tubing
103" L x 1.0" OD x 0.059" WT 4130 Steel Tubing
140" L x 0.75" OD x 0.049" WT 4130 Steel Tubing
12" x 24" 0.063" 4130 Steel Plate
12" x 12" 0.19" 4130 Steel Plate
Structural 13" L x 1.5" OD x 0.25" WT 4130 Steel Tubing
14" L x 1.25" OD x 0.25" WT 4130 Steel Tubing
18" L x 1.0" D 4130 Steel Bar
19" L x 0.375" D 4130 Steel Bar
4' x 8' x 5mm plywood
System Subtotal
Hope Pro 2 EVO Front Hub 20mm Blue
Maxxis DTH BMX Tyre Folding Bead 1.75"
Slime Smart MTB Tube 20" S 1.5"-2.1" W
Eclat Polar Aero Wall BMX Rim 20" Blue
Mavic MTB Quick Release Skewer
Hope Hoops Pro 2 Evo - Tech XC Rear Wheel
Schwalbe City Jet Bike Tyre
Slime Smart MTB Tube 26" S 1.75"-2.125" W
Wheels/Brakes
Shimano SLX-Zee-Deore RT66 6-Bolt Disc Rotor
Shimano CX77 Mechanical Disc Brake Caliper
Sunlite Alloy Double MTN Brake Pull Lever
Brake Housing Cable
Brake Cable
Ferrules
Front Spokes/Nipples
System Subtotal
Surface Cleaner
Appearance Flat Black Rustoleum
System Subtotal
Various Fasteners
Miscellaneous
System Subtotal
SUB TOTAL
Tax (8.25%)
Total Cost of Material

USED FOR
Rear Derailleur
Crankset
Pedals
Front Derailleur
Bottom Bracket
Shifters
Rear Cassette
Chain Management
Chain Management
Chain Management
Shifter Cable Housing
Shifter Cable
Drive Chain
Chain Management
Chain Management

VENDOR
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
TerraCycle
TerraCycle
TerraCycle
Denton Bicycle Center
Denton Bicycle Center
Denton Bicycle Center
Lowe's
Lowe's

Steering Headsets
Spacers
Handlebar Stem

Chain Reaction Cycles

Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles

Spine/Main Frame
Rollbar
Chainstays/Rollbar
Gussets/Brackets
Dropouts
Head Tubes
Uprights
Axles
Tierods
Seat

OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
OnlineMetals.com
Lowe's

Front Wheel Hubs

Front Tires
Front Tubes
Front Rims
Rear QR Skewer
Rear Wheel
Rear Tire
Rear Tube
Brake Disc
Brake Caliper
Brake Lever
Brake Cable Housing
Brake Cable
Brake/Shifter Cables
Front Wheels

Chain Reaction Cycles

Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Chain Reaction Cycles
Amazon
Denton Bicycle Center
Denton Bicycle Center
Denton Bicycle Center
Denton Bicycle Center

Paint Prep
Paint

Lowe's
Lowe's

Fasteners

Lowe's/Denton Bolt

VENDOR PART
Previous
NUMBER QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST Year?
sku389647
1
$44.99
$44.99 No
sku429569
1
$94.49
$94.49 Yes
sku255745
1
$27.99
$27.99 Yes
sku419090
1
$21.49
$21.49 Yes
sku492838
1
$19.49
$19.49 Yes
sku330062
1
$82.49
$82.49 No
sku492725
1
$108.99
$108.99 Yes
N/A
2
$40.00
$80.00 No
N/A
1
$8.00
$8.00 No
N/A
3
$39.00
$117.00 No
N/A
15
$2.00
$30.00 No
N/A
2
$2.00
$4.00 No
N/A
3
$39.99
$119.97 No
N/A
3
$2.27
$6.81 No
N/A
3
$1.30
$3.90 No
$769.61
sku401415
3
$26.99
$80.97 No
sku2247
2
$4.49
$8.98 No
sku476789
1
$46.99
$46.99 No
$136.94
N/A
1
$90.44
$90.44 No
N/A
1
$75.19
$75.19 No
N/A
1
$67.60
$67.60 No
N/A
1
$28.19
$28.19 No
N/A
1
$44.66
$44.66 No
N/A
1
$41.99
$41.99 No
N/A
1
$36.26
$36.26 No
N/A
1
$22.14
$22.14 No
N/A
1
$4.75
$4.75 No
N/A
2
$15.00
$30.00 No
$441.22
sku226454
2
$79.99
$159.98 No
sku98785
2
$33.99
$67.98 No
sku481548
2
$12.49
$24.98 No
sku495148
2
$60.49
$120.98 No
sku271468
1
$12.99
$12.99 No
sku424616
1
$287.99
$287.99 No
sku520779
1
$19.99
$19.99 No
sku481542
1
$10.99
$10.99 No
sku319057
3
$13.99
$41.97 Yes
sku431481
3
$44.99
$134.97 Yes
B000AO7H16
1
$11.08
$11.08 No
N/A
15
$1.00
$15.00 No
N/A
3
$2.00
$6.00 No
N/A
8
$0.25
$2.00 No
N/A
72
$1.50
$108.00 No
$1,024.90
N/A
1
$4.68
$4.68 No
N/A
2
$5.28
$10.56 No
$15.24
N/A
1
$30.00
$30.00 No
$30.00
$2,417.91
$199.48
$2,617.39

Table 3 Bill of Materials

21 | P a g e

200 Vehicles Per Vehicle

Parts and Materials after
Bulk Discount
Cost of Labor
Machining Custom Parts
Welding
Welding Jig
Tooling
Warehousing for 800 ft2
Per Year
Total
Markup
Profit

Rate/Hour

Hours/Vehicle: 200
Vehicles

30% discount for 200 vehicles.

$366,434.26

$1,832.17

$54,000.00

$270.00

$18.00

15

$100,000.00

$500.00

$50.00

10

$72,000.00

$360.00

$45.00

$2,000.00

$10.00

$2,000.00

$10.00

$8,200.00

$41.00

$604,634.26
$725,561.11
$120,926.85

Notes

Estimated labor rate and number of hours. Other than lacing

wheels, labor was provided to us by UNT.
Estimated Machining costs. Machining provided to us by UNT.
Estimated welding costs. Welding provided to us by UNT.
Estimated cost of welding jig used in building all 200 vehicles.
Recycled wood from other projects to build our Jig.
Estimated tooling cost. Tools provided to us by UNT.
Estimated $6/sqft space and $3/sqft operations.

Markup on Labor
Markup on
Price of materials and labor per bike estimated to be
$3,023.17 and Materials 20% Purchased Parts 5% $1,602.22, while estimate cost of purchased parts is $1,420.95.
Separate markups of 20% and 5% respectively were used to
find the total markup per bike of $3,414.66.
$3,414.66
$1,922.66
$1,492.00
$391.49

Table 4 Cost Analysis

The bill of materials (BOM) and 200-vehicle cost analysis are respectively shown above. The
bill of materials is arranged so that the cost of each system may easily be determined. The
Previous Year column describes which of the components used in this HPV were taken from
the previous years vehicle. When the team acquired these parts their associated costs were not
provided, so an estimate was developed using research of comparable parts. The Wheels /
Brakes section of the BOM shows that it is by far the vehicles costliest system. This is partly
due to buying the front hubs and rims separately and having them spoked at the local bike shop.
The labor and cost for the spokes and nipples became a considerable portion of the entire system.
In the future, the team would have purchased a pre-built wheel to avoid this cost. Pre-built
wheels tend to be slightly lower in quality, but the difference in performance would be negligible
considering the amount saved.
The bill of materials was used together with research for average costs of large scale welding,
machining, tooling, and warehouse storage to formulate the 200-vehicle cost analysis. A 30%
discount on bulk part purchases was assumed not only because bulk purchases do usually come
with large discounts, but also due to instances similar to the pre-built wheels, where cheaper (but
still good quality) parts could be purchased to replace some of the more expensive ones in mass
production. The number of labor hours per vehicle was determined based on the teams hours
spent working on the vehicle, while taking into account the time saved with proper facilities and
a set process. Machine time and welding time will be very similar to those experienced by the
team because these processes do not allow for much more speed without paying a much higher
rate. A quality welding jig could be fabricated to be used in all 200 builds of the frame to save
money and time while increasing dimensional accuracy. The tooling cost was also determined
22 | P a g e

based on the frequency of replaced blades, drills, etc. that the team observed. Finally, a price for
warehousing was estimated based on an average of several actual rates found online. Making the
assumption that each vehicle would take up about 4 cubic feet disassembled, a price for
warehousing at the max capacity of 200 vehicles was calculated. A $391.49 net profit per vehicle
was estimated based on a 20% markup of materials, labor costs, and warehousing and a 5%
markup on purchased bicycle parts. This number was considered acceptable by the team and
therefore the cost analysis was concluded.

23 | P a g e

Project Planning
A Gantt chart was made so that we knew where we need to be as the project continues so that we
can finish the project by design day and therefore also be ready for the competition. It allows for
some extra time in construction because, in case we cannot get the frame fabricated for us, we
will need the time to construct it ourselves. Below is the Gantt chart.

Table 5 Gantt chart

24 | P a g e

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

Part Number, Name
or Assembly

Failure Mode

Effect of the Failure

Severity
rating (S)

Brakes

Total Failure

Inability to stop. Must replace immediately

64

General Structural Failiure

Cracking, Bending, Corrosion

Possible loss of functionality and injury depending on

location of failure.

64

Unable to shift gears or brake

48

Loss of performance/functionality.

45

No protection in the event of an accident

45

Breaking or jamming
Puncture in tire/tube due to
Wheels
wear or foreign object
Seat belt or rollover bar failure
Rollover Protection System
due to breakage
Levers

Occurrence Detectability
RPN = S x O x D Actions to mitigate risks
rating (O)
rating (D)

Flipping

Flipping

Possible damage to bike and injury

40

Brakes

Wear

Loss of performance

36

Drivetrain

Chain Derailment

Unable to provide thrust

30

Seat

Cracking, Breaking

Discomfort to loss of functionality or injury.

24

16
Unable to provide thrust
1
2
8
General failure
Wheel hub bearings becoming
10
2
5
Wheels
Loss of performance
1
worn
Severity: Assign a value to the severity of the failure, if it Occurrence: Assign a value to the likelihood of this
Detectability: Assign a value for the ability to detect when this failure occurs
were to occur.
failure occurring
Drivetrain

o 2 = Nuisance (little to no loss of performance)

o 2 = Very rare

o 2 = Seen easily

o 4 = Loss of performance (have to stop to correct)

o 4 = Rare

o 4 = Visible, if looking for it

o 6 = Minor injury (ex. Trip to Doc in the Box)

o 6 = Occasional

o 6 = Not easily visible, hidden

o 8 = Serious injury (emergency room)

o 8 = Frequent

o 8 = Detectable with equipment, such as microscope, testing, x-ray

o 10 = Death or permanent loss of abilities

o 10 = Always

o 10 = Not detectable with equipment until failure occurs (catastrophic)

Proper use,inspection, and care of

the system.
Regular inpection of at-risk areas.
Maintain seal on material to
prevent corrosion.
Handle properly and keep clean
Proper inflation, avoiding debris,
proper care
Proper care and inspections
Watch speeds when cornering
especially near slopes
Proper care and inspections
Adjust clothing to clear chain and
check chain alignment/tension
daily.
Visual inspections and general
care.
Proper care and inspections
Proper care and inspections

Table 6 FMEA

The above FMEA chart lists some of the general failure modes and effects, as well as their risk
priority numbers, and mitigating actions. Although the HPV actually experienced very few
failures during the rigorous testing it underwent, there were some minor failures and weaknesses
that were either corrected by the team before design day, or could easily be corrected in the
future.
The main failure experienced during the testing of the vehicle was a handle bar weld failure
where the vertical and horizontal bars meet (seen in the pictures below). The failure was
corrected by adding triangular gussets to help strengthen the weld at these joints.

Figure 9 Handlebar failure

Figure 10 Handlebar Failure Solution

25 | P a g e

One of the minor failures experienced during early testing was a very small turning radius and
the inability to return to a straight line after reaching the maximum turning angle. This failure
was corrected by welding a plate to the bottom of the steering column that extended the tie-rod
connections to be 90 degrees from the Ackerman steering arms. While this solution completely
corrected the aforementioned steering problems, it created a new one in reverse steering. The
team was aware of the new plate causing this problem, but decided it was worth it due to a lack
of tie-rod material to fix the steering properly, and that it would not be hard to learn the new
push-to-steer system. Another of the minor failures was some debris becoming lodged inside
on of the kingpin housings. This caused an audible grinding that was observed when turning the
wheels left and right. The kingpin had to be removed and sanded along with the inside of the
housing. The housing was then thoroughly cleaned with acetone and compressed air before being
reassembled which eliminated the problem. The last failure mode, as well as the least impactful,
was the crank boom rotation. This occurred when the operator used a great deal of force to pedal
the vehicle and the crank would slightly rotate back and forth. This problem was corrected by
drilling holes in opposite sides of the frame where the adjustable boom was housed that lined up
with the slots running the length of the boom. This correction allowed the team to insert a bolt
that kept the boom from rotating while allowing the boom to maintain its adjustability for rider
height.

26 | P a g e

Design Development and Testing

Figure 11 Design Flow Process

Design
Below is a rough model used to determine the general center of gravity for an average density
human male rider and a rough hollow tube frame design constructed from 4130 steel using ProE
Creo modeling software. By using the determined center of gravity in conjunction with standard
kinematic equations and the required braking distance (as per the ASME's guidelines), the
braking deceleration was calculated.

Figure 12 General design model

From this point, the following moment equation about the front axle,
Maxel=Fi*daxel_i

27 | P a g e

the force required from braking to tip the vehicle forward with a 250 pound rider and 50 pound
vehicle (with a safety factor of 2) was determined. The same process was then used to find the
wheel track required to prevent the recumbent from tipping during a 0.5 g turning maneuver.
This led to the conclusion that the wheel base needed to be 45 inches and the wheel track needed
to at least be 28 inches (the team opted for 30 inches).
The next step was to determine the deflection of the frame. This was achieved by using the
following cantilevered beam equation:
3
=
48

This was found to be less than 1 inch with the roll bar deflection being less than 2 inches. Using
this information, the minimum wall thickness with a safety factor of 2 was found to be 0.035
inches for the frame body. Due to welding limitations, the HPVC-1 team had to go with 0.049
inches, and 0.059 inches for the rollover protection system so that it would be sufficiently
resilient to both crushing and bending forces applied to the roll bar.

28 | P a g e

Engineering Analysis
Turning
An important consideration in the size of the vehicle is the radius of turning. If the turning radius
is too sharp, the vehicle could roll. If it is too wide, the vehicle could go completely off the road.
The turning radius is based upon the turning angle of the Ackerman steering system, the
wheelbase, and the track width. We will attempt to get as much as we can out of the Ackerman
steering system so the design focus is on the wheelbase length and the track width. The inner
turning radius, the adjusted track length, and overall turning radius can all be best seen in the
figure below.

Figure 13 Turning Radius

The figure above shows that turning radius is dependent upon track length and wheelbase length.
Wheelbase length will be further restricted when we begin testing stresses due to stopping as
there is a minimum stopping distance requirement and then from there we can find the track
length based upon a desired maximum turning radius.

29 | P a g e

Rollover Protection System

In regards to the roll bar, the HPVC-1 team performed load testing using ANSYS simulation
software (equipment accessibility limited further physical testing). This test was necessary to
verify that the roll bar could satisfactorily withstand the required 2670 N at 12 from vertical and
1330 N applied at shoulder height with a maximum deflection of 2.0. Simulation results are
illustrated below.

Figure 14 Top load deflection (inches)

Figure 15 Von Mises (ksi) stress top load 2670 N 12 degrees from vertical

30 | P a g e

Figure 4 Side load deflection (inches)

Figure 17 Von Mises (kpa) stress side load

31 | P a g e

Steering
Throughout the research and conceptualization phases of the project, frequent discussions in
regards to what type of steering system would be best suited for our recumbent design took
place. As a result of these discussions, the agreed upon design was to incorporate a simple underseat steering system with a u-bar configuration that utilized Ackerman steering geometry. In
addition to simplicity, this design also required minimal parts, thus making it a cost effective
option as well.
The construction of the steering system appeared to cause more problems than the HPVC-1 team
had initially anticipated. Several corrections were required to finally achieve a sound steering
system. These corrections entailed further machining of the steering columns to eliminate
galling, a reweld to the handlebar, and constant adjustments to the Ackerman plate in order to
achieve desirable operational characteristics.
Using ANSYS simulation software, the HPVC-1 team was able to test how steering force inputs
affect the kingpins, dropouts, and wheel axles. Simulation results are illustrated below.

Figure 18 Von Mises (ksi) normal load stress concentration

Figure 5 Von Mises (kpa) dynamic load case 2670 N force on rear axle

32 | P a g e

Frame
For the frame design, the HPVC-1 team wanted to emphasize rider comfort without
compromising safety or performance. Though the tadpole configuration does allow the rider's
center of gravity to be much closer to the ground (reducing chance to tip/flip over) and offers
greater stability at high speeds, an evaluation of how stress inputs from a rider affect the frame
integrity was still necessary.
To reassure that there were no excessive stress concentrations anywhere throughout the vehicle's
body, a final ANSYS simulation was performed on the full frame including the integrated
rollover protection system.
The expected mode of failure was high bending stress located in some part(s) of the frame. The
critical failure points were anticipated to occur in the section of the frame beneath the rider, and
the connecting sections where welds would need to be applied. Testing conditions are normal
loading with a 250 lb rider and normal braking. Note that structural weaknesses associated with
welds are not accounted for.

Figure 20 Von Mises (GPa) normal loading (top frame view)

Figure 21 Von Mises (GPa) normal loading (bottom/front frame view)

33 | P a g e

Functional Testing
Amongst the functional tests performed on our recumbent design were top speed, turning radius,
frame deflection, and braking distance (from approximately 15 miles per hour). Each team
member participated in the operational testing of the vehicle so that the resultant data analysis
would include variances based on average height and weight differences. Additional tests
performed (informal) included performance over rough terrain and post collision integrity checks
to help determine additional failure modes, which in turn allowed the HPVC-1 team to make
adjustments to the recumbent that ultimately led to a safer vehicle. The table below shows the
results of each test based on 150 pound and 200 pound rider weight.

Rider Weight
150 lb Rider 200 lb Rider
Top Speed
30 mph
25 mph
Turning Radius
10 ft
10 ft
Braking from 15 mph
7 ft
12 ft
Frame Deflection
0.25 in
0.35 in
Table 7 Testing Results

34 | P a g e

Future Works
Due to time limitations, the HPVC-1 team did not get around to constructing a fairing design.
However, design concepts were discussed and are described below.

Fairing
The primary purpose of the fairing is to reduce air drag. One of the major concerns of the fairing
design is to make sure that the gained aerodynamic efficiency and reduction in air drag
outweighs the increased weight added to the vehicle.
Our team has opted for a full, tear drop shaped fairing to be constructed from fiberglass. The
fiberglass will allow for adequate durability and ease of construction at an affordable cost, and
the tear drop shape will facilitate smooth laminar flow around the human powered vehicle, thus
allowing the rider to maintain their desired speed easier.
Fairing Specifications:
i.

The fairing should fit approximately 7 above the ground as this is the ideal ground
clearance for road aerodynamics, and will consist of an aerodynamic tear drop shape to
reduce wind drag.

ii.

To permit breathability, there will be an open top.

iii.

Tentative dimensions for the fairing will be 3 in the front reduced to 1 in the back. The
opening will be an oval at 2.5 long by 1.5wide.

iv.

The side will maintain a constant 3 height by 5 length with the 7 ground clearance.

v.

The front wheel area cuts allow the front wheels to turn while the back wheel area is

vi.

The fairing itself will weigh approximately 4 pounds per layer of fiberglass, thus roughly
12lb-16lb.

Steering system improvements

Although the HPVC-1 team constructed a fully functional steering system, there were certain
facets of the design that we would like to change if time permitted. These changes include
reevaluating the current layout of our push to steer system to not be counter-intuitive (currently
reversed), and aiming for at least a 2:1 steering response instead of our current 1:1 setup (causes
hyper-sensitive steering).

Package holder
The HPVC-1 team would still like to construct and integrate a support system into the recumbent
that allows a package with the dimensions 15"x13"x8" to be safely transported.

35 | P a g e

Additional Safety Features

Moving forward the HPVC-1 team would like to implement more safety features into the
recumbent design that include both front and rear reflectors, additional lighting, and multiple
mirrors that facilitate the rider being able to see behind the vehicle.

36 | P a g e

References
[1] Beauchamp, Warren. "Suspension Fork Designs for Front Wheel Drive Human Powered
Vehicles." Recumbents.com. Web.
<http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/fwdsusp/fwd_suspension.htm>.
[2] Edgar, Julian. Another Human Powered Vehicle! Part 10 - Rear Suspension.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&title=Another-Human-Powered-VehiclePart-10-Rear-Suspension&A=108768
[3] Edgar, Julian. Building a Human Powered Vehicle Part 5.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&title=Building-a-HumanPowered-VehiclePart-5&A=3039
[4] Pecqueure, Mark. Steering Systems. http://www.ip-zev.gr/files/teaching/T31_Steering%20systems.pdf
[5] Huang, James. 2013, Chain or Belt Drive: Which is faster?
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/chain-or-belt-drive-which-is-faster-36074/
[6] Renold Inc. 2015, Chain Information.
http://www.renold.in/Support/ChainInformationCentre/Chain_Info_Index.asp?menuID=5
0
[7] Stanek, Alex. 2004, Bicycle Frame Materials.
http://www.smartcycles.com/frame_materials.htm
[8] "6061-T6 Aluminum Tube." Order Aluminum 6061 Tube in Small Quantities at
OnlineMetals.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
[9] "Bicycle History (& Human Powered Vehicle History)." Bicycle History Timeline. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
[10]
"Carbon Fiber vs Aluminum vs Steel vs Titanium - I Love Bicycling." I Love
Bicycling. N.p., 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
[11]
"Choosing the Material." Choosing the Material. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
[12]
"Engineering Article: Telescope Structure - Steel vs. Aluminum." Engineering
Article: Telescope Structure - Steel vs. Aluminum. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
[13]
"Human Powered Vehicle Challenge (HPVC)." Engineering Competitions:
Human Powered Vehicle (HPVC). N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
[14]
"Urban and Domestic Alternatives to Fossil Fuels: Human Powered Vehicles Explore Project." Domestic Alternatives to Fossil Fuels. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.

37 | P a g e

Appendix

Figure 22Team Members

Figure 23 Frame Side Drawing

Figure 24 Frame Top Drawing

38 | P a g e

Figure 25 Upright Drawing

Figure 26 Roll bar Drawing

Figure 27 Brake Side Dropout Drawing

39 | P a g e

Figure 28 Drive Side Dropout Drawing

Figure 29 Front Brake Mount Drawing

Figure 30 Handlebar Drawing

40 | P a g e

Figure 31 Headtube Drawing

Figure 32 Rear Brake Mount Drawing

41 | P a g e

Figure 33 Tie Rod Drawing

Figure 34 Steering Column Drawing

42 | P a g e

Figure 35 Ackerman Plate Drawing

Figure 36 Top Load ANSYS Setup

43 | P a g e

Figure 37 Upright ANSYS Load Setup

Figure 38 Roll Bar Side Load ANSYS Setup

44 | P a g e