ME 489 Formal Design Review September 22nd, 2004 Garrett Davis Matt Moody Arnar Thors.
Transcript of ME 489 Formal Design Review September 22nd, 2004 Garrett Davis Matt Moody Arnar Thors.
ME 489 Formal Design Review
September 22nd, 2004
Garrett DavisMatt MoodyArnar Thors
Background Info
• The Great Moonbuggy Race– NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center– US Space & Rocket Center– University of Alabama
• High School Student Customers– Vinemont High School
What is GMR?
• Human-powered
• 2 passengers – female & male
• Must collapse into 4’x4’x4’ volume
• 15” from ground
• 20 ft vehicle carry
• 20 ft turning radius
Customers
• Vinemont High School• 15 high school
physics students
• Political Implications– UA Recruitment– Vinemont HS Involvement– NASA Awareness
Customer Req’ts
• Adjustable Seat• Suspension/Stability• Lightweight• Rear Steer/Front
Drive• Comfortable Seats• Colorful• Single-gear drive
• One-Steer/One-Brake• Steering Wheel Type
(Primary)• Tires – Hoss-Daddy
Side-by-Side Seating
Concept #1
• Front/Rear WB• Cam-style Steering• Rear Drive/Derailleur • Triangle cross-section
frame
Concept #2
• Front WB/Rear Swingarm• Cable/Pulley Style Steering• Rear Drive/CVT Gearing • Square cross section frame
Concept #3
• Front Swingarm/Rear WB• Rear Rack & Pinion Steering• Front Drive/Derailleur w/ rev• I-Beam, T-shape frame
Concept Evaluation
Criteria Weighting Concept #1 Concept #2 Concept #3
Weight 20% 0.4 0.2 0.6
Safety 20% 0.2 0.2 0.5
Manufacturability 15% 0.23 0.23 0.45
Ergonomics/Comfort 5% 0.15 0.1 0.05
Size 10% 0.1 0.25 0.25
Simplicity 10% 0.1 0.25 0.25
Maneuverability 10% 0.2 0.1 0.3
Gearing 10% 0.3 0.2 0.1
Total 100% 1.98 1.53 2.5
Concept #3
Concept #3 Development
• Concept deviations– Change of frame cross-section– Derailleurs ditched for single speed– Reverse undecided– Independent swingarms changed to solid
• Further Development– All aluminum frame/suspension comp.– Adjustable seating position refined– Main frame structure reinforced
Concept #3 Development
• Major Areas of Concern:– Main Frame Member– Swingarm– Front Axle Sizing– Sustainability (common replacement parts,
fatigue analysis)– Shock/Spring Choice– A-Arm Geometry/Size– Balance/CG (ride height/weight distribution)– Cost Effective Material/Parts Choice– Cost Effective Fabrication Techniques
Future Plans8/29/04 9/5/04 9/12/04 9/19/04 9/26/04 10/3/04 10/10/04 10/17/04 10/24/04 10/31/04 11/7/04
Planning Meeting
Team Organization
Concept Generation
Customer Meeting
Concept Evaluation
Design Development
Formal Design Review
Parts Gathering
Design Review #1
Construction
Design Review #2
In-House Testing
Customer Testing
Final Adjustments (Repairs)
Design Review #3
Final Presentation
Future Plans
• Construction– Group-Wide Limitations– Intentions to Build Separate from UA
Engineering Machine Shop• Student Projects Building• Access to Shelton State facilities• Access to privately owned businesses/shops
– Individual Construction Schedule
Future Plans
• Procured Parts Listing:– Major Aluminum Frame Members– Minor Suspension Members– Tires/Wheels– Rack-n-Pinion – Steering Column & Wheel– Brake Caliper– Steering Linkages– Shock/Spring Selections– Seat Material
Conclusion
• Questions?