4.4 Fairing Integration Model
In our case, the rider’s back is the lowest body part in the bicycle, with his legs angled upward to the pedals. The rider sits in a seat with a back, which serves as a fixed datum relative to the frame so that he/she can exert as much force as possible at through crank and driveline. By making the front wheel the drive wheel, the bicycle no longer needs a chain to run under the rider. This allows the rider to sit at least 4 inches lower, which decreases the frontal area from their previous rear wheel drive setups. Along with aerodynamic benefits, this configuration allows for much shorter chain lengths, reducing chance for derailment in comparison to rear wheel drive setups along with weight and power loss from chain guides and tensioners.
…show more content…
The fairing is going to attach to the bicycle in two different locations, one in the front and one in the back. Because the fairing is an unknown, the front attachment point is being left to the team to design.
We did analysis behind this and agreed we could leave an 8-inch stub to build off for the attachment point. We designed the whole project in two segments, in first one we did only back side of the bicycle in which we used larger rear axle, 15 mm, while in second part we made front wheel axle including steering system and vertical column.
4.5 Frame Design:
The first choice we had to make for our frame was the material. We chose to make the whole cycle out of steel. It was the heaviest of the options, but also the material with which we were most familiar. It does everything we need it to do as far as manufacturability, the ability to bend it and weld it …show more content…
We also considered and rejected the use of carbon fiber because none of our group has experience with this process. The HPV team recommended that without previous experience we should not try if we wanted to finish by our deadline.
Another choice we had to make was tube diameter and tube wall thickness. We could have very small diameter tube with a large wall thickness or a larger diameter tube with a smaller wall thickness. After looking at some tubing and comparing it to current bicycles, we chose 1.25” diameter tubing. Then, we researched the tube bender we were going to use to make our bends. The bender manufacturer said the minimum wall thickness they recommended for this diameter tubing was
The fairing is going to attach to the bicycle in two different locations, one in the front and one in the back. Because the fairing is an unknown, the front attachment point is being left to the team to design.
We did analysis behind this and agreed we could leave an 8-inch stub to build off for the attachment point. We designed the whole project in two segments, in first one we did only back side of the bicycle in which we used larger rear axle, 15 mm, while in second part we made front wheel axle including steering system and vertical column.
4.5 Frame Design:
The first choice we had to make for our frame was the material. We chose to make the whole cycle out of steel. It was the heaviest of the options, but also the material with which we were most familiar. It does everything we need it to do as far as manufacturability, the ability to bend it and weld it …show more content…
We also considered and rejected the use of carbon fiber because none of our group has experience with this process. The HPV team recommended that without previous experience we should not try if we wanted to finish by our deadline.
Another choice we had to make was tube diameter and tube wall thickness. We could have very small diameter tube with a large wall thickness or a larger diameter tube with a smaller wall thickness. After looking at some tubing and comparing it to current bicycles, we chose 1.25” diameter tubing. Then, we researched the tube bender we were going to use to make our bends. The bender manufacturer said the minimum wall thickness they recommended for this diameter tubing was