P 13675 Bike Helmet Mirror System Team Rob

P 13675 Bike Helmet Mirror System

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 ◦ Mr. Rick Lux � Customer ◦ Dr. B. Brooks � Faculty Support ◦ Dr. M. Gomes ◦ Dr. M. Lam � Sponsor ◦ RIT MSD Project Office

Outline � Introduction and Project History � Customer Needs � Concept Selection � Risk Assessment

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.

Background

Background Over-head system Adjustable

Affinity Diagram Marketability Functionality Inexpensive Adjustable w/o Tools Easy to Store Aesthetically Pleasing Colors Holds Mirror Orientation Ergonomics Customizable Provides Wide Viewing Angle Light Weight Adjustable w/o Tools Comfortable Shape Detaches from Helmet Safe to Ware Adjustable Mirrors Doesn’t Compromise Helmet Integrity Adjustable Mirrors Green Process Clear, Correctly Oriented Image Design For Disassembly Recyclability No Power Input Env. Friendly Materials Environmental Considerations Fog / Rain Resistant Withstand Elements Ability to block out Sun Doesn't Increase Wind Resistance Attaches to Multiple Types of Helmets Durable Minimizes Obstruction to Forward view

Customer Needs 1. Safe to wear 2. Provides a wide angle view behind the cyclist Team’s Evaluation 9 9 3. Holds mirror orientation as set by user 4. Minimizes obstruction to the cyclist’s forward field of vision 5. Attaches to a typical helmet without compromising the helmet’s integrity 6. Is lightweight and comfortable to wear 9 7. Is durable 9 8. Provides a clear, correctly oriented image 9 9. Is adjustable to provide optimal view for the rider 9 10. Is inexpensive ($10 -20) for the consumer 3 11. Detaches from the helmet 3 12. Can be adjusted without the use of tools 3 13. Requires no power input 3 14. Is aesthetically pleasing 3 15. Refrains from significantly increasing wind resistance 1 16. Is fabricated in an environmentally friendly way 1 9 9 9

Engineering Specifications Source Specification (Metric) S 1 CN 13 Power required for operation Watts - 0 S 2 CN 12 Number of tools required for adjustment Quantity 1 0 S 3 CN 10 Materials cost Dollars 30 20 S 4 CN 2, 5, 11 Number of helmet styles system can attach to Market value projection, no restriction on prototype beyond budget Quantity - 3 Minimum value S 5 CN 1, 5, 7 Durability - survive drop from height ft - 6 Dropped with mirror system attached to helmet S 6 CN 1, 6 Weight lbs 0. 775 0. 175 S 7 CN 1, 3, 7, 15 Survive wind speeds mph 45 60 S 8 CN 1, 5, 11 Breakaway force (if snagged on object) lbs - 45 S 9 CN 2, 3 Rear image angle degrees 90 110 S 10 CN 1, 4, 15 Projected area of main mirror in direction of motion in 2 18 8 S 11 CN 16 Recyclability of materials used % - 100 S 12 CN 1, 5, 7, 11, 12 Mirrors and supports removable from helmet Yes/No - Yes S 13 CN 1, 4 Lateral forward viewing angle degrees - 180 S 14 CN 2, 3, 8, 9 Distance behind at which vehicles are visable ft 100 200 S 15 CN 1, 3, 8 Image oriented properly Yes/No - Yes Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value Comments/Status No power input Mirrors maintain desired position and orientation up to these speeds. Based on NHTSA neck injury criteria Based on benchmarking Exceptions: mirrors, adhesives Interface between helmet and supports need not be removable Does not block lateral vision when looking straight ahead Based on hand calculations

Functional Decomposition

Morphological Chart

Concept Selection

1 Improper mirror orientations and alignment. Effect Image may be inverted, out of focus, or the projected image may not line up with target. 2 System may not be structurally sound, Improper natural frequency structural design. may pose stability issues. 3 Exceeding the desired manufacturing cost. System will be unable to be manufactured within desired price range. 4 Unable to adhere to NHTSA standards Prototype unable to be manufactured for retail Cause Lack of optics experience within the team Lack of vibration experience within the team Cost of materials to build system Strict standards conflicting with stability needs 3 3 Importance Risk Item Severity ID Likelihood Risk Assessment Action to Minimize Risk Owner 9 Research optics, determine faculty and other experts who can assist with optical design. Martin Savage 9 Research vibrations, determine faculty and other experts who can assist with structural design. Olivia Scheibel Zachary Kirsch 3 2 6 Research lower cost alternatives for system components. 2 3 6 Be knowledgeable of applicable standards. Henry Woltag

5 Parts are ordered too late 6 7 Effect Cause Prototype cannot be completed in time Item lead times not taken into consideration Do not meet Customer needs Dissatisfied customer. Poor needs identification/ inability to achieve needs in time Poor documentation Disorganization, future project improvement difficult Consistent lack of documentation updating Importance Risk Item Severity ID Likelihood Risk Assessment 2 2 4 2 2 Project does not get Lack of completed to Communication. 8 Group Dysfunction 1 required Poor Compromising. specifications. 2 1 1 Action to Minimize Risk No procrastination. Parts needed identified as early as possible. Order well in advance. Owner Henry Woltag 4 Be sure to properly and realistically identify customer needs, not just ideal needs. Zachary Kirsch 2 Documentation will be kept consistent through weekly checks of notes/files/ previous notes. Henry Woltag 1 Consistent communication and project duty management. Expected to complete individual responsibilities. Zachary Kirsch

le ab Un D n n io nc t fu ys at io ed s ne en t m cu do up ro G or Po la te s rd st. co to o er to m us t. C g an da st re d de or H TS A N ar e to tu rin ac ig n. es ra ld nm en t. al ig tu ru c st an d m an uf tm ee no s Pa rt e er ad h d si re de er Im pr op ns nt at io or ie o D to e th or irr m in g ed ce Ex er op pr Im Rating Pareto Risk Analysis 40 100% 35 90% 30 80% 70% 25 60% 20 50% 15 40% 10 30% 20% 5 10% 0 0% Risk Rating Cumulative Percent

Schedule

Schedule