2011 Moonbuggy Design Report

Rhode Island School of Design

DESIGN & FABRICATION

ideation

Our process began around a table in August of 2009, with a ragtag group of fifteen Industrial
Design undergraduates with wildly diverse backgrounds ranging from expert jewelers and system
designers to custom tuner garage owners and military helicopter mechanics. Even with this broad
set of backgrounds we all lacked one crucial piece of knowledge: how to build a functioning human
powered moonbuggy in twelve weeks. That is what we had signed up for, and through the guidance
of our professor Michael Beresford, we began the process the only way we knew how as designers;
through research and sketching.

For the next three weeks we covered the walls of our studios with images and diagrams
of anything we found inspirational for the moonbuggy including; cars, mountain bikes, off-road
wheelchairs, recumbent racing bikes,
andbicycles from the early 1900s. Inspired
by these ideas, we began creating concepts
that were diverse and covered a gamut
of configurations. (Fig. 1). As our focus
narrowed we began to see patterns and
questions emerge; where were passengers
positioned in these vehicles? How many
wheels should the vehicle have and where
are they placed? What were the strengths
and weaknesses of each concept? As we
Figure 1
answered these questions we arrived at the
Team meeting to dicuss concepts
fundamental design of our buggy a threewheeled, all-wheel drive vehicle, with the
riders positioned back-to-back. We favored this design for its stability (the weight was in the center
of the buggy), short wheelbase and simple chassis design (Fig. 2).
Designing the systems

Now arrived the challenging part: how to design a functioning buggy. We decided to
split up into five groups; chassis, suspension, drivetrain, ergonomics and accessories, each one
becoming an expert on a specific system. This ability to acquire an expertise in a short period of
time is actually something that is heavily focused on in our Industrial Design Education. Designing
a successful product often means deeply understanding the inner mechanisms of that product and
the environment it is used in. In addition to the sketching and research our process began with, we
introduced yet a third tool - model-making. This type of hands-on approach pushed us to really think
through the details of the systems we were designing, and also allowed us to easily communicate
them to each other. For example, solutions to a problem like chain interference in the drivetrain can
be traced more quickly with chipboard sprockets and string than with a complex CAD model.

The backbone of our build, the chassis, would be a Chromoly space frame. It would be hinged
in two places and designed in such a manner so when folded, gravity would pull the buggy to the

ground to save time and allow the drivers to focus on getting buckled in. Additionally the shape of the
frame was designed with forethought to the required volumes of the simulated batteries, electronic
controls, radio and display console so they would not interfere with the sub-systems. Attached to the
frame would be a pair of unequal length control arms to keep the front wheels camber as neutral to
the ground to avoid any lateral loads and keep good traction with the surface. A pair of air-dampened
fox shocks would suspend all the wheels of the buggy to reduce structural load and increase driver
comfort and control. Driving both ends of the moonbuggy would be an 8-speed internally geared
Shimano hub. Its integrated design protects it from the elements and helical gears allow shifting at a
stand-still which we thought would be beneficial if the buggy were to get stuck. The systems at their
most basic level had been chosen.
The next milestone in our initial design phase
was a series of full-scale drawings of the chassis
and sub-systems. This meant that not only did
we have to understand how our systems were
going to function, but also how they would
work together. Lead members of each of the
system design teams began meeting once
a week, requiring everyone to step back and
make sure that all our designs were working
without interference. We believe this kind of
teamwork was one of the biggest factors for
our success. We were able to complete our
Figure 2
drawing and finally get a glimpse of what the
One of the initial concepts leading to our final design.
final vehicle might look like.
Bringing Concept to Prototype

Although our budget of $5000 allowed for a considerable amount of outsourcing, we were
determined build the vehicle ourselves. Aside from a few precision components, the entire buggy was
fabricated by hand on old-fashioned Bridgeport milling machines and Southbend lathes. Additionally
we chose to braze weld our frame together rather than TIG weld it because we could learn the
process ourselves in a short period of time and benefit from the structural flexibility that comes with a
braze-welded frame. To do all of this, we needed detailed orthographic drawings to work from. This
is where our knowledge of CAD came in handy.

We began creating a digital model of the entire vehicle in Solid Works, down to every last
piece of hardware. This would enable us to produce orthographic drawings from which we would
produce the vehicle from, but also enable sub-systems such as: wheel travel, frame interference,
and folding capabilities to be designed in more detail. Once designs were settled, parts and materials
were ordered and it was time to build.

The build process spanned a grueling three weeks, packed with many midnight meetings
and sleepless nights. We began with construction of the frame, which by itself took half of our
build time. One of the reasons for this was the sheer number of individual pieces used. In total
there were over 70 tubes, all of which had to be fish- mouthed, sandblasted, jigged and carefully
brazed in the proper location. We created an alphanumeric naming system to keep track of all the

pieces and their locations in the chassis (front,

mid or rear). We utilized our graphic design
experience to create info graphics describing
the naming system, that allowed teammates
to pick up any orthographic and properly label
the respective part (Fig. 3). The result was a
very organized build, with very few hiccups. If
only the rest of the build had gone along so
smoothly.

Figure 3
Detail of the alphanumeric part label system set up to keep track of
parts as they were fabricated.

DETAILS MATTER

It was when we began adding all of our systems to the frame that problems began to
arise. One oversight was the difference in tolerances between CAD and the actual parts and
materials. We began to realize that parts we ordered had slightly different dimensions than what had
been previously accounted for. This resulted in changes in sub-system design outside of CAD, on
the fly without confirmation from design leads. Suddenly clearances that were meant to be inches
were now just barely separated. Our front internally-geared hub, for instance, had an unexpected
flange that interfered with the frame, requiring us to precariously mount it on the lathe and machine
it off. Slight misalignments in the rear chassis meant a Herculean effort was required to attach the
rear swing arm. Purchased sprockets that needed to be mounted to the front drive shaft broke
hundred dollar carbide drill bits, due to their hardened finish. Though these many failed details
were frustrating, they were all eventually solved. It was the two systems that we had not acquired
expertise in that really caused us issues.

In creating our teams initially, we had not included the systems of steering and latches into
our list. The result was that two crucial systems were severely underdeveloped, and had not been
designed with the whole unit in mind. Because of this afterthought we had to rush the designs to
meet our December prototype deadline. We created a steering system that, while functional, was
also uncomfortable, and lacked necessary leverage for adequate control of the buggy. Additionally,
our latches were all mismatched. Rather than having a single mechanism or system in charge of
multiple folding operations, we instead had a cable, sliding steel sleeves, and a quick release pin,
which created more problems than they solved.

Even with all these setbacks, on the night before our final critique, moments before dawn, we
took our vehicle for a test ride along the Providence Canal. We had done it. In twelve short weeks
we had brought our design from a rough sketch to a three- wheeled, fully suspended, all-wheel drive,
(partially) functioning, monster of a moonbuggy. We had a rough prototype of our vision, and now it
was time to work out the kinks and get it race-ready.

Getting it Working

When the team established the timeline in the early stages of first semester, we defined
winter-session (RISD has a tri-semester system consisting of two twelve-week semesters with a
short six-week semester between, referred to as winter-session) as being time to refine our design
to bring the moonbuggy to its full potential in time for the race. What we didnt anticipate was how
much work that would actually take. At the completion of the build, our buggy was primarily good
at one thing: rolling. We discovered the buggy had a drive-train that refused to be reliable, severe
turning issues, and collapsing suspension members.

All the sub-systems of the buggy involved complex design issues and innovative approaches
to achieve successful solutions. Due to our drivers back-to-back arrangement, and the standards
of bicycle mechanics, the rear facing driver would have to pedal backwards in order to go forwards.
We decided this would be disadvantageous and
challenged ourselves to design a way to have
the driver pedal forwards. Our solution was
simple: exploit the chains minimum flexibility and
cross it so it made a figure eight. This solution
effectively reverses the pedaling direction by
placing the tensioned chain (the one driving)
on the opposite side of the drive sprocket so
it is pulling in the opposite direction it normally
is. Once we successfully solved the issue of
pedaling direction, a new issue of tension was
created. Now that the chain crossed, it refused
to remain engaged with the sprocket through
Figure 4
The Grenades being bored out on the bridgeport.
back half of the stroke. Our solution was to
mount a chain tensioner to the underside of the
rear-boom, which would exert an downward force to keep the chain engaged with the teeth of the
outer sprocket. What started out as a simple concept on paper became much more complicated in
fabrication, but nonetheless was resolved and now reliable for the first time.

Another problem we didnt anticipate, and ironically stared directly in the face in the design
phase of the semester, was the integration of a differential in our front drivetrain. Based on our
research, we came to the false conclusion that the speeds at which we would be traveling would
make tire scrubbing irrelevant and a non-issue. Yet the buggys turning radius was larger than the
moon itself and compounding the problem further was a poor steering interface and an aggressive
mountain tire tread we had chosen. To address this issue we designed an independent differential,
one for each wheel, nicknamed the grenades due to their ferocious aesthetic (Fig. 4). Traditionally
differentials are large, heavy and involve a multitude of components. To keep things simple and light,
we designed units that were fabricated by welding a collar, to a one-way bearings from a bicycle
freewheel. This however, was a daunting task, and there was a good chance of seizing the bearing
from the high temperature from the weld, so the sprocket was left on the freewheel to be utilized as
a weld point in hope of it preserving the bearing inside. The resulting efforts were a success and we
could now approach any corner without scrubbing.


Not only that, we discovered our differential acted as simple limited slip differential. When
one of the wheels is locked in up in gravel (or a crater) the axle effectively acts as if it is solid. This
allows us to get valuable traction in these situations.
The stresses of testing

Our efforts in fixing both of these systems were such a success that we could now ride
our buggy and test it to its limits and that we did. While inspecting the chassis, sub-systems and
bolts before being shipped out, we discovered that both the lower control arms were failing at the
suspension cross-brace. The compressive forces of the weight of the chassis and rider were too
much for the .075 x .049, 4130 Chromoly steel tubing we had chosen for the control arms. We
didnt have enough stock or time to re-manufacture new control arms, so we strengthened them by
adding 1/8th 4130 chromoly steel plate reinforcements above and below the failing joint. Although
the steel plate was a temporary fix for a permanent problem, it would survive the torture to come and
we learned that backup assemblies are crucial to success.

As Industrial Designers we have a
multiplicity of tools to choose from. Often the
decision to use a certain tool, such as model
making over CAD, is based on a combination
of goals and time. For the moonbuggy, our
choices were based on personal interaction
with the materials and building models rather
than a CAD analysis. Our goal for this project
was to learn as much as possible by means
of trial runs and to that extent the team
succeeded. Even before the event we learned
not only from the control arms, but the steering
and other various systems, that testing is just
Figure 5
as important, if not more important, as the
The drivers rossing the finish line with a blown out tire on day two
design itself.

2010: The First Race

We arrived at the competition excited and anxious to prove ourselves with one primary goal
in mind: to complete the race with no mechanical failures. After seeing the giant craters we would
have to traverse, we were especially nervous to see how our project would fare. Our buggy had
arrived in one piece and, aside from a broken chain, ran surprisingly smooth, so it seemed we had
finally worked out the kinks. After our first run our feeling of success was confirmed. Not only had
we posted the third-best time of 4:27, but not a single item had broken or loosened itself during the
race- we were ecstatic! We got up early the next day ready to post an even better time. However,
down the first large hill we hit obstacle 3 too fast and our front wheels landed sideways, putting a
lateral load on the rim and blowing out the tire. Somehow our drivers were able to power through
and finish the remainder of the course. It turned out our design wasnt yet perfected. We concluded
the competition with our spirits high taking home Rookie of the Year and 3rd Place overall despite

our misfortune on day two (Fig. 5). The team had learned a great deal from participating in the
competition, but also from observing. Much of which would contribute to the redesign of this years
chassis.
Invaluable experience

The first observations we made were in the assembly and folding stage. We realized that our
implementation was painfully slow compared to the competition. While we posted a relatively quick
assembly time of 22 seconds, many of our competitors were breaking the ten-second mark. Our
lack of foresight in designing the latches had cost us valuable time, and possibly second place
(Utah posted an identical time of 4:27 on the first day, however cleared the table with a ten second
assembly time). We also had further problems in the assembly stage. Although the CAD model
showed our vehicle easily fitting into the 4x4x4 box, adjustments in the building process had made
the buggy grow just enough to make it an uncomfortably tight fit between confines of the testing
volume. With careful re-evaluation of the chassis we could definitely create room to fix this issue.

The second substantial problem was the steering sub-system. Post-race we reviewed videos
of our run around the course, and it was evident that our steering system had a mind of its own.
When the driver would enter an obstacle, the wheels would turn without input from the driver as they
traveled through the stroke of the suspension (Fig. 6). Simply put, the interface did not have enough
leverage to maintain good control of the vehicle, but more so we had failed to fully understand the
concept of bump steer, which is often the result of poor suspension geometry. Again, our last minute

Figure 6
Screencapture from 2010 helmet cam footage, highlights front wheels in almost full lock mid-obstacle due to bad steering geometry.

design had resulted in a faulty system.

The most valuable things we learned though were from our competition. The simple solutions
were the best: the winning buggies usually had the fewest moving parts and as a result were also the

lightest vehicles on the track.We also observed and experienced that the communication between
the two drivers was very important. Knowing when to initiate and stop pedaling was crucial in shaving
milliseconds off your lap time. Our first race had confirmed our suspicions and opened our eyes to
new possibilities for the next years competition.

Refinement and Beyond

In order to achieve a product level of finish for 2011, the team took the knowledge gained
from our experience in 2010, combined it with our manufacturing and design know-how and redesigned every system, with the exception of the chassis.Our driving goal this year is to transform
our initial design from prototype to product. This is really our specialty as Industrial Designers. We
take engineers inventions, and address the human factors, aesthetics, and usability. By building
off of a prototype that we engineered, we are able to deeply apply these principles. This year we
are shifting the focus from pure performance functionality, to ergonomics, ease of maintenance,
aesthetic harmony, and overall simplification. As Designers we hypothesize that by improving the
buggy in these qualitative ways, will allow the drivers to get quantitative improvements in the form of
quicker race times.
The Drivetrain

The 8-speed internally geared Shimano hubs remain on the vehicle for 2011. Their ability to shift
without pedaling input proved incredibly important last year in pulling out of obstacles when stalled.
However, an acute weak point in last years drivetrain was the differential, both in the structurally thin
axles transferring power to the wheels and in the haphazardly constructed differentials themselves.
This year we removed all fasteners from the axles and replaced them with steel spline shafts that are
suspended between differential and hub via snap-rings. This eliminated the play in the axles, but also
relieved the fear of shearing the bolt holes - undoubtedly one of the weakest points on the vehicle.

The differential also has a whole new look. Last years differentials spanned nearly 20 from
center to center; this year the same package is contained in a 6 wide closed cylinder. This protects
the bearings from the dust and dirt, but also improves on the external differentials by creating a
package in which all the components are concentric, eliminating any binding in the universal joints
and primary drive axle to the wheels that we had last year. (Fig. 7)
Overhauling the Steering

Additionally we made some changes to the front control arms. After last years lower control
arms failed under load, we increased the diameter of the tubes from 3/4 to 7/8 as well as the wall
thickness to increase overall strength. Upon disassembly of the front hubs and spindles we also
discovered that the universal joints were binding on themselves from too much steering angle. To
alleviate this hard stopping points have been integrated in the forward bell cranks of the steering
system.

The most advantageous change this year is in the steering system itself. Last years design
was plagued by inadequate caster, steering leverage, and loose tolerances. An upright forward
lever system replaces last years independent rotational steering in pursuit of improved ergonomics,

Figure 7
2010 drivetrain is above while the new 2011 drivetrain is below. The arrows show where the components were relocated to.

while simultaneously adapting to the existing steering interface (Fig. 8 & 9). This allowed us to
preserve the existing frame without structurally weakening it and also increase the leverage and
comfort for the driver to inspire more confidence on the course. Additionally issues of bump steer
have been addressed by ensuring that the control arms and track bars scribe an equal arc through
the suspension stroke. This effectively cancels any undesirable feedback in the steering. Lastly, we
replaced all fasteners on the steering sub-system with high-precision shoulder bolts to remove any
loose tolerances in the system for the most direct driver input and feedback.
comfort and Aesthetics

For 2011 the seats were revisited and modified. This years drivers anthropometrics are vastly
different from our drivers from last year. This required some serious revision in seat angle and boom
length. Suprisingly, our initial design did a pretty good job of accomidating these changes thanks
to our adjustable booms. New seat back latches were fabricated to achieve a more desirable seat
geometry in addition to a small modification to the length and height of the rear boom.

Finally we focused on some aesthetic concerns that we could not reach last year. Firstly, the
accessories are al new and constructed of carbon fiber twill to reduce weight and increase durability.
We also added vinyl labels that help opperation of the the vehicle, such as instruction label to direct
the rear driver to pedal backwards when riding on the back. This would have been helpful last year
when the rear rider forgot to pedal backward for the first 30 seconds of the race. Unifying it all is a

NASA Studio

Final Presentation

Steering and Brakes

lunar electric rover inspired paint that covers the chassis, control arms and steering components.

32 degrees

Figure 8
Rotational steering on the 2010 Chassis.

32 degrees

Figure 9
Forward lever steering on the 2011 Chassis.

Conclusion

The completed proof-of-concept is named the Meridian, after the meridian that connects
the poles of our planet earth. As we see it, our project strives to integrate both poles of problem
solving from design and engineering. Last year we came to this competition eager to prove that
artists and designers can solve similar problems to those grappled with by engineers, but by different
means. Our goal this year is to show that design thinking can solve a new group of problems to
improve performance, finding solutions for the man, rather than the machine.