P 13675 Bike Helmet Mirror System Detailed Design

P 13675 Bike Helmet Mirror System Detailed Design Review

Team � Rob Fish (Industrial Designer) � Zachary Kirsch (Mechanical Engineer, PM) � Martin Savage (Mechanical Engineer) � Olivia Scheibel (Mechanical Engineer) � Henry Woltag (Industrial and Systems Engineer)

Guides, Advisor, Sponsor � Guide ◦ Dr. Richard Lux � Customer Proxy ◦ Dr. B. Brooks � Faculty Support ◦ Dr. M. Gomes ◦ Dr. M. Lam � Sponsor ◦ RIT MSD Project Office

Outline � Project Summary � Design Objectives � Proposed Design ◦ Optical System ◦ Support System � Bill of Materials � Test Plans � Risk Assessment � MSD II Schedule

Mission Statement Current rear view mirrors systems for bicycles are clumsy, unattractive, poor quality, too expensive, or have a small viewing range. Our solution is to create a low cost alternative that requires no power to operate, and attaches to any helmet.

Takeaways from Systems Design Review � Issues ◦ ◦ regarding geometric optics Size of mirrors Range of Adjustability Model head, neck, eye, helmet positions Create system in Solid. Works � Team should focus more on shock than vibrations � Testing ◦ Deflection analysis ◦ Drop testing

Takeaways from Systems Design Review � Concerns: ◦ Not enough analysis / data involved in concept selection ◦ Settling on Rob’s prototype vs. alternate designs ◦ Need to determine range of adjustability

Design Objectives

Optical System Concepts Based on sensitivity analysis, the 2 mirror system was determined to be advantageous to the 3 mirror system. Three mirror optical system concept. Two mirror optical system concept.

Optical System Feasibility Tests � � Conducted Using Prototype Distance a human was recognizable – 37 ft Distance a van was recognizable – 177 ft+ Distance a car was recognizable – 110 ft

Support System Attachment Dual Lock™ is a reclosable fastener made of mushroom-shaped stems that snap together. Similar to Velcro®, Dual Lock ™ will allow users to easily attach and detach the bike helmet mirror system. � “ 3 M™ Dual Lock™ Reclosable Fastener. ” Online image. 2013. 3 M. 2 Feb. 2013 <http: //www. 3 m. com/product/information/Dual-Lock. Reclosable-Fastener. html>

Support System Attachment Technical drawings of rear support bracket. Technical drawings of front support bracket.

Front Support System � � � One Solid Manufactured Piece ABS Material 3 mm diameter support legs Uses cylindrical snap-fits to constrain degrees of freedom Mylar coating on underside to create mirror surface Bracket with Attachments Standalone Bracket with Gooseneck/Attachments

Front Support System – Attachment Methods Cylindrical Snapfit – 1 degree of freedom: Cylindrical Insert with adhesive/Epoxy

Rear Support System Materials � Assumptions � Entire weight of top mirror acts as a point force on the end of two, six inch sections of “Gooseneck” Material Selection � � Each six inch section of Gooseneck needs to support 1. 44 oz. Size (O. D. ) 0. 142 -H can support 3. 2 oz at six inches “Flexible Gooseneck Tube. ” Online image. 2013. Leflexo. 14 Feb. 2013 <http: //www. leflexo. com/new_section. php? sid=204>

Gooseneck Feasibility Analysis � Assumptions � � Entire weight of top mirror acts as a point force on the end of two, six inch sections of “Gooseneck” Energy of impact is unabsorbed by body, helmet, etc. Impact Analysis for s=1 in PE (J) � FTotal (N) FOne Section (N) 0. 02 0. 001 0. 003 20. 432 6. 811 10. 216 3. 405 0. 02 0. 005 0. 010 0. 020 4. 086 2. 043 1. 022 0. 511 The gooseneck will deform 12 mm after a 1 in drop. 0. 025 0. 817 0. 409 0. 02 0. 038 (1. 5 in) 0. 536 0. 268 Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis, the optical system will still remain functional 0. 02 0. 051 0. 401 0. 200 Results � s (m)

Rear Support System Mirror Attachment The gooseneck will be secured with a metal to plastic, weatherproof adhesive. Towards Front of Helmet � Top Mirror-Gooseneck Attachment “Gooseneck”Flexible Tubing

Proposed Design – Solidworks Model

Bill of Materials Quantity Material Weight (lb) Manufacturing Cost ($) Part # Part Name 1 Front Mirror 1 Mylar 0 0. 004 2 Front Mirror Housing 1 ABS 0. 012 0. 014 3 Front Support 1 ABS 0. 013 0. 016 4 Front Support Bracket 2 ABS 0. 003 5 Top Mirror 1 Mylar 0 0. 041 6 Top Mirror Housing 1 ABS 0. 184 0. 217 7 Flexible Tube 1 Steel 0. 044 3. 317 8 Rear Support Bracket 2 ABS 0. 002 0. 003 9 Dual Lock 4 0 0. 278 10 Adhesive 0 0. 000 0. 258 3. 89 Total Approximate Sales Cost Dual Lock Beacon GM 2 OZ $15. 56

Engineering Specification Verification

Test Plan: Specification S 4 � Specification: The mirror system must be mountable to at least 3 distinctly different helmet styles � Test: Mount the system to three different helmet styles http: //bertsbikes. com/product/giro-rift-154856 -1. htm

Test Plan: Specification S 4 � How to test: ◦ Acquire three distinctly different helmets and mount the mirror system ◦ Go to the bike shop and mock mount the mirror system to three distinctly different helmets � Pass Criteria: Successfully mount to three helmets in either test � Risks and Mitigations: ◦ No foreseen risk

Test Plan: Specification S 5 � Specification: Survive drop from height of 3 feet � Test: Release helmet at 3 feet in the following impact orientations ◦ Correct, inverted, nose, back, side http: //static 6. depositphotos. com/1025312/628/i/950/depositphotos_6280277 -Helmet-on-handlebar. jpg

Test Plan: Specification S 5 � How to test: Hold the helmet at a 3 foot height above a concrete surface. Release in the required orientations. � Pass Criteria: No part failures. System operable after impact. � Risks and Mitigations: ◦ Part fails during test �All team members wear appropriate PPE while test in progress (eye protection, gloves)

Test Plan: Specification S 7 � Specification: Operate in wind speeds of 45 mph (marginal) and 60 mph (ideal) � Test: Place helmet in proper orientation within wind tunnel and subject helmet to various wind speeds 20” 30” * Helmet with mirror measures: 9”W x 8”H x 12. 5”L

Test Plan: Specification S 7 � How to test: Create a mount to secure helmet within wind tunnel. Subject helmet to speed increments of 5 mph from 0 to 60 mph � Pass Criteria: Mirror position does not deform under wind loading � Risks and Mitigations: ◦ No foreseen risk

Test Plan: Specification S 8 � Specification: Mirror mount needs to break away from helmet under a 45 lb applied load to meet NHTSA standards � Test: Measure force required to remove mirror system from helmet http: //www. transducertechniques. com/images/hfg-series-force-gauge. gif

Test Plan: Specification S 8 � How to test: Attach force gauge to the front of the mirror mount system. Apply force until the mounting system is removed from the helmet Pass Criteria: Force applied to remove the helmet does not exceed the 45 lb standard � Risks and Mitigations: ◦ The mirror system could violently rip off the helmet �All team members wear appropriate PPE while test in progress (eye protection) �

Test Plan: Specification S 9 � Specification: The rider must see a horizontal rear image encompassing 10 degrees (marginal) and 25 degrees (ideal) � Test: Measure the rear viewing angle of a team member using the system

Test Plan: Specification S 9 How to test: A team member wearing the helmet stands a measured distance from a white board. Another team member walks behind the one wearing the helmet and marks the extent of vision. This distance is measured and the angle calculated. � � Pass Criteria: The calculated angle meets or exceeds the angle specified � Risks and Mitigations: ◦ No foreseen risk

Test Plan: Specification S 14 � Specification: Vehicles behind cyclist must be visible at 130 ft (marginal) and 200 ft (ideal) � Test: Team member wearing helmet attempt to identify objects at these distances http: //turningplace. files. wordpress. com/2013/01/aaaa. jpg

Test Plan: Specification S 14 � How to test: ◦ Team member wearing helmet stands on end zone line of football field and attempts to identify another team member standing 130 and 200 ft away ◦ Team member wearing helmet stands along the edge of the road and attempts to identify a vehicle driven by another team member at 130 and 200 ft away � Pass Criteria: Person visible at given distances or car visible at given distances � Risks and Mitigation: ◦ Safety concern with team members being on the road for testing �Look into traffic control options

Likelihood Severity Importance Risk Assessment 2 3 6 Test image quality as early as possible and prepare contingencies. Olivia Scheibel Cost of materials Team will run out Exceeding the to build system 2 of funds to build designated budget. and/or number of working prototype. redesigns 2 3 6 Ensure all costs are documented before any purchasing. Zachary Kirsch Parts and materials Prototype cannot 3 do not arrive on be completed on time schedule 2 2 4 Accurately identify lead times of materials. Zachary Kirsch 4 Consistent communication among team members. Each team member will complete individual responsibilities to expected quality and on time. Zachary Kirsch ID Risk Item Effect Reflective film does not display image Reflective film is 1 unaccepatable to meet specifications Cause Does not pass rear viewing distance tests Item lead times do not match anticipated values. Lack of communication and poor Group does not compromising. 4 Group dysfunction work as efficiently Group members as possible. do not contribute equally to the project. 2 2 Action to Minimize Risk Owner

Effect Cause Aesthetics were not Final product is not Product will not be considered during 5 aesthetically marketable. design and/or pleasing manufacturing. 6 Poor documentation Improper design provided to rapid 8 prototyping machine Action to Minimize Risk Owner 2 2 4 Coordinating with Rob to ensure the design meets his product vision. 3 1 3 Update EDGE weekly with meeting minutes, notes, and other important information. Henry Woltag System is heavier or Dual Lock™ is not as 1 strong as anticipated. 3 3 Prepare contingencies. Olivia Scheibel 3 Contact professors involved with rapid prototyping and obtain information regarding necessary machine inputs. Martin Savage Disorganization of team. Follow up Inconsistent projects lack documentation. foundation. Dual Lock ™ does Redesign is 7 not support system needed. Importance Risk Item Severity ID Likelihood Risk Assessment Improper Prototype can not formatting, not be created on understanding schedule needs of rapid prototyping system 1 3 Henry Woltag

MSD II Schedule

Thank you for your time and support.