rob fish (industrial designer) zachary kirsch (mechanical engineer, pm) martin savage (mechanical...

18
P13675 Bike Helmet Mirror System

Upload: dominick-rodgers

Post on 23-Dec-2015

220 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

P13675Bike Helmet Mirror System

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

Team

Guide◦ Mr. Rick Lux

Customer◦ Dr. B. Brooks

Faculty Support◦ Dr. M. Gomes◦ Dr. M. Lam

Sponsor◦ RIT MSD Project Office

Guides, Advisor, Sponsor

Introduction and Project History Customer Needs Concept Selection Risk Assessment

Outline

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 anyhelmet.

Mission Statement

Background

Background

AdjustableOver-head system

Green ProcessDesign 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

MarketabilityInexpensive

Easy to Store

Aesthetically Pleasing

Colors

Shape

Customizable

Ergonomics

Comfortable

Light Weight

Safe to Ware

Functionality

Doesn’t Compromise Helmet Integrity

Adjustable w/o Tools

Holds Mirror Orientation

Adjustable w/o Tools

Provides Wide Viewing Angle

Detaches from Helmet

Adjustable Mirrors

Adjustable Mirrors

Clear, Correctly Oriented Image

Attaches to Multiple Types of Helmets

Durable

Minimizes Obstruction to Forward view

Affinity Diagram

Customer NeedsCustomer Needs

Team’s Evaluation

1. Safe to wear 9

2. Provides a wide angle view behind the cyclist 9

3. Holds mirror orientation as set by user 94. Minimizes obstruction to the cyclist’s forward field of vision

9

5. Attaches to a typical helmet without compromising the helmet’s integrity

9

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

Engineering SpecificationsSource Specification (Metric)

Unit of Measure

Marginal Value

Ideal Value

Comments/Status

S1 CN 13 Power required for operation Watts - 0 No power input

S2 CN 12Number of tools required for

adjustmentQuantity 1 0

S3 CN 10 Materials cost Dollars 30 20Market value projection, no

restriction on prototype beyond budget

S4 CN 2,5,11Number of helmet styles system can

attach toQuantity - 3 Minimum value

S5 CN 1,5,7 Durability - survive drop from height ft - 6Dropped with mirror system

attached to helmet

S6 CN 1,6 Weight lbs 0.775 0.175

S7 CN 1,3,7,15 Survive wind speeds mph 45 60Mirrors maintain desired

position and orientation up to these speeds.

S8 CN 1,5,11Breakaway force (if snagged on

object)lbs - 45

Based on NHTSA neck injury criteria

S9 CN 2,3 Rear image angle degrees 90 110 Based on benchmarking

S10 CN 1,4,15Projected area of main mirror in

direction of motionin2 18 8

S11 CN 16 Recyclability of materials used % - 100Exceptions: mirrors,

adhesives

S12 CN 1,5,7,11,12Mirrors and supports removable from

helmetYes/No - Yes

Interface between helmet and supports need not be

removable

S13 CN 1,4 Lateral forward viewing angle degrees - 180Does not block lateral vision when looking straight ahead

S14 CN 2,3,8,9Distance behind at which vehicles are

visableft 100 200 Based on hand calculations

S15 CN 1,3,8 Image oriented properly Yes/No - Yes

Functional Decomposition

Morphological Chart

Concept Selection

Risk Assessment

ID Risk Item Effect Cause

Likelihood

Severity

Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner

1

Improper mirror orientations and alignment.

Image may be inverted, out of focus, or the projected image may not line up with target.

 Lack of optics experience within the team

3 3 9

Research optics, determine faculty and other experts who can assist with optical design.

Martin Savage

2Improper structural design.

 System may not be structurally sound, natural frequency may pose stability issues.

Lack of vibration experience within the team

3 3 9

Research vibrations, determine faculty and other experts who can assist with structural design.

Olivia Scheibel

3

Exceeding the desired manufacturing cost.

 System will be unable to be manufactured within desired price range.

Cost of materials to build system 

3  2 6 Research lower cost alternatives for system components.

 Zachary Kirsch

4Unable to adhere to NHTSA standards

Prototype unable to be manufactured for retail

 Strict standards conflicting with stability needs

2  3  6  Be knowledgeable of applicable standards.

Henry Woltag

Risk Assessment

ID Risk Item Effect Cause

Likelihood

Severity

Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner

5Parts are ordered too late

Prototype cannot be completed in time

Item lead times not taken into consideration

2 2 4

No procrastination. Parts needed identified as early as possible. Order well in advance.

Henry Woltag

6Do not meet Customer needs

Dissatisfied customer.

Poor needs identification/ inability to achieve needs in time

2 2 4

Be sure to properly and realistically identify customer needs, not just ideal needs.

Zachary Kirsch

7Poor documentation

Disorganization, future project improvement difficult

Consistent lack of documentation updating

2 1 2

Documentation will be kept consistent through weekly checks of notes/files/ previous notes.

Henry Woltag

8 Group Dysfunction

Project does not get completed to required specifications.

Lack of Communication. Poor Compromising.

1 1 1

Consistent communication and project duty management. Expected to complete individual responsibilities.

Zachary Kirsch

Pareto Risk Analysis

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Risk Rating Cumulative Percent

Rati

ng

ScheduleSu M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S

Meet Group and GuideIdentify Team LeaderBecomer Familiar with EDGEPrepare Code of EthicsIdentify CustomerIdentify Customer NeedsIdentify Engineering SpecificationsPrepare Function DecompositionPrepare Affi nity DiagramPrepare Morphological and Pough ChartsConcept SelectionAsses Risks and MitigationSystems Design ReviewReevaluate System DesignSelect Optical SystemSelect Frame SystemPerform optical analysisPerform structural analysisPerform CFD analysisPrepare Bill of Materials Create CAD modelsDetailed Design ReviewReevaluate Detailed DesignOrder Materials

MSD-P13675: Bike Helmet Mirror System Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Schedule

Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F S Su M T W R F SMeet Group and GuideIdentify Team LeaderBecomer Familiar with EDGEPrepare Code of EthicsIdentify CustomerIdentify Customer NeedsIdentify Engineering SpecificationsPrepare Function DecompositionPrepare Affi nity DiagramPrepare Morphological and Pough ChartsConcept SelectionAsses Risks and MitigationSystems Design ReviewReevaluate System DesignSelect Optical SystemSelect Frame SystemPerform optical analysisPerform structural analysisPerform CFD analysisPrepare Bill of Materials Create CAD modelsDetailed Design ReviewReevaluate Detailed DesignOrder Materials

Week 10 Week 11MSD-P13675: Bike Helmet Mirror System Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9