ISEP

30-05-2012
Powering the Future with Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles
PORTUGUESE FINAL REPORT
Engineering a specification for a Zero Emissions Single-seater Vehicle
Manuel Vilaa | Pedro Pinto
Contedo
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 History .......................................................................................................................... 4 Premises of Work ...................................................................................................... 7 Report........................................................................................................................... 8 Design....................................................................................................................... 8 Tadpole Trike Variations ........................................................................................ 9 Suspension ............................................................................................................. 11 Basic Trike Frame Design ....................................................................................... 12 Weight Distribution............................................................................................... 12 Center of Gravity.................................................................................................. 12 Wheelbase........................................................................................................... 13 Wheel Track ........................................................................................................ 14 Frame Design ...................................................................................................... 15 Steering Geometry............................................................................................... 16 Trike Steering Geometry ......................................................................................... 16 Caster Angle........................................................................................................ 16 Camber................................................................................................................ 17 Toe-In .................................................................................................................. 17 Ackerman Steering Compensation ...................................................................... 17 Kingpin Inclination (Center Point Steering)............................................................. 0 Kingpin to Wheel Axle Orientation ....................................................................... 19 Steering Mechanisms and Linkage Systems ........................................................... 20 Under Seat Steering-USS.................................................................................... 20 Steering Linkage Systems and How They Work...................................................... 20 Single Tie Rod and Drag Link System ................................................................. 20 Dual Drag Link System ........................................................................................ 21
Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
Crossed Dual Drag Link....................................................................................... 22 Wheel Size .............................................................................................................. 23 Brake Systems ........................................................................................................ 24 Plug-in design for battery charging .......................................................................... 26 Battery ................................................................................................................. 26 Hub Motor.............................................................................................................. 0 Regenerative Braking.............................................................................................. 27 Human Drive-Train .................................................................................................. 28 Calculations ................................................................................................................ 29 Costs....................................................................................................................... 31 Drawings ................................................................................................................. 32 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 34
Image 1 1896 Recumbent.......................................................................................... 0 Image 2 1933 Recumbent.......................................................................................... 0 Image 3 - ...................................................................................................................... 0 Image 4......................................................................................................................... 6 Image 5......................................................................................................................... 0 Image 6 Ride on countryside ..................................................................................... 0 Image 7 - Sidewinder Procruiser ...................................................................................... 0 Image 8 - Bergwerk Bikes GMBH ................................................................................. 0 Image 9 Front suspension Cad detail......................................................................... 0 Image 10 Front Suspension detail.............................................................................. 0 Image 11 Rear Damper ............................................................................................. 0 Image 12 Center of Gravity ........................................................................................ 0 Image 13 Medium/Short wheelbase........................................................................... 0 Image 14 Long Wheelbase ........................................................................................ 0 Image 15 Aluminum Tube used for chassis ............................................................. 15 Image 16 Cruciform Frame ......................................................................................... 0 Image 17 - Caster ......................................................................................................... 0 Image 18 - Camber....................................................................................................... 0 Image 19 Toe In......................................................................................................... 0 Image 20 Kingpin Inclination ...................................................................................... 0 Image 21 - Single Tie Rod and Drag Link System......................................................... 0 Image 22 - Dual Drag Link System ............................................................................... 0 Image 23- Crossed Duel Drag Link ............................................................................. 22 Image 24 Low resistance tires ................................................................................... 0 Image 25 Hydraulic Brake System ............................................................................. 0 Image 26 Brake Leaver.............................................................................................. 0 Image 27 Brake Calipers and pad.............................................................................. 0 Image 28 Disc Brake.................................................................................................. 0 Image 29 - LiFePO4 Battery ......................................................................................... 0 Image 30 Hub Motor .................................................................................................. 0 Image 31 - Controler ..................................................................................................... 0 Image 32 Mechanical Drive Train............................................................................... 0
Summary
This report tell us the beginning of a project that creates a recumbent tricycle with an electric motor with an assist of a battery that can help the domestic civil person do their day-by-day work without sacrificing the planet and bother the traffic, and so creating a new genre of tricycles with better autonomy and comfort for us all. Thus this project is named ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle).
History
We tend to think of recumbent bikes as a "new" type of bike, but as Solomon observed "there is no new thing under the sun." The recumbent has been around, in one form or another, since before the turn of the 20th century. These pictures show that many features of "modern" recumbent design have been around quite a while too! A recumbent bicycle is a bicycle that places the rider in a laid-back reclining position. Most recumbent riders choose this type of design
Image 1 1896 Recumbent
for ergonomic reasons; the rider's weight is distributed comfortably over a larger area, supported by back and buttocks. On a traditional upright bicycle, the body weight rests entirely on a small portion of the sitting bones, the feet, and the hands. Most recumbent models also have an aerodynamic advantage; the reclined, legsforward position of the riders body presents a smaller frontal profile. A recumbent holds the world speed record for a bicycle, and they were banned from racing under the UCI in 1934[1], and now race under the banner of the Human Powered Vehicle Association (HPVA). Recumbents are available in a wide range of configurations, including: long to short wheelbase; large, small, or a mix of wheel sizes; over seat, under seat, or no-hands steering; and rear wheel or front wheel drive. A variant with three wheels is a recumbent tricycle.
In 1933 Francis Faure, a Frenchman, rode a recumbent 28 miles (45 km) in an hour, a new record. In 1934 the UCI (Union Cyclist International) outlawed recumbent bicycles, and has not relented to this day. In 1938 Francois Faure rode the recumbent
streamliner "velocar" 50.5 km/hour, another new record. Francesco Moser surpassed this mark on a wedgie. Moser rode 51.1 km/hour, but not till 1984, 46 years later!
Image 2 1933 Recumbent
Windshield for cyclists with the aid of which Berthet has beaten some indoor records.
There is a wedgie in that fairing. Berthet saw the advantage of aerodynamics long before he raced recumbents. The UCI wouldn't allow either.
These are modern racing recumbents with fairings. They are all record holders. They show that aerodynamics is still the name of the game for top speeds.
A well-known trike manufacturer, ICE, has made their first newborn in 1986. The original Trice had three 20" wheels, 1988 saw the introduction of 16" on the front, easier leg length adjustment and many other refinements
Nowadays even though we have only a few manufacturers, we have some versatility in types of models.
The conventional two frontier
Image 3 -
A two-seater
Image 4
The long-wheel for long range journeys
Powering the Future With Zero Emission andImage Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 5 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
Premises of Work
Primarily we researched in the market the different recumbent bikes out there, to see the people choices and what would be the perfect choice for our project. The two-front wheeler is the model most used, due to its better accuracy in driving and better placement of motor in one wheel. the opposite model, two-rear wheeler seemed more complicate to accomplish and did not gave us much confidence in a better result.
We've drawn some sketches in the early stages of our Pre-IP presentation to make sure how we would the bike to be like. Then we researched the different variations of this kind of model to see which fit our purposes. The typical bigger rear wheel its the most significant choice, because it gives more comfort, stability and supports better the hub motor, thus approaching the requisites of the ZEV project.
What concerned us the most was the suspension because it had to be fitted in the drivetrain to be simple and effective. It reduced our suspensions choices but it was doable so we went through with it. A small spring but stiff enough to absorb the most aggressive bumps in the road. Later on, in Bradford, it was showed a suspensionless trike, which amazed us because we though suspension was essential. It was told to us that for city driving the suspensionless trike was comfort enough, if we put in there some bigger profile tires to make the suspension's job.
The chassis was predetermined that a single tube with length variation was flawless because its, once again, simple, nice and can fit to any weight of anyone in general purposes. The only parts that go outbound the chassis tube are the suspension and the drive train. Everything else is attached to the single tube chassis. Of course to achieve that it has to be machined to a curve state to accommodate all the parts in the bike: seat, drivetrain, suspensions and battery.
When we went home after discussing this journey with our teacher he gave us the opportunity to continue the work, and possibly make our own recumbent trike. We hope to achieve that in a way that we can put into work everything we've learned in the IP and its going to be biased from the bike in Bradford Uni. Maybe we can work together to help each other and achieve our purpose: build a HPV with ZE.
Report
Design
Before elaborating on the design overview, it is appropriate to offer some reasons why we prefer the two wheels front, commonly referred to as the 'Tadpole' configuration. The most common tricycle design is the single wheel in front, two-wheel at back configuration referred to as the 'Delta' configuration.
Although a well-designed Delta trike has many merits such as reduced cost, and complexity, it does not have the handling characteristics of a Tadpole design. In layman terms, a Tadpole trike front-end exhibits less acceleration (less G forces) than the rear end when turning. This allows the trike to negotiate corners at great speed and stability.
On the other hand, a Delta trike exhibits the opposite condition; where the vehicles front-end exhibits a higher degree of momentary acceleration in comparison to the rear. This condition results in over-steering and can compromise the handling performance of the vehicle.
Image 6 Ride on countryside
Although the overall handling characteristics are dependent on the actual design of the vehicle, the Tadpole design comes out as the winner as for handling.
As for stopping, again the Tadpole has the major advantage. During braking, a vehicle weight displacement and force goes forward. This is why on all vehicles the major braking is performed on the front wheel(s). On a delta, only a single wheel exists. As result, stopping with two front wheels is more effective than a single wheel.
A tadpole configuration uses the same steering geometry design principles as an automobile.
Geometry considerations such as Caster, Camber, and Toe-End exist for this trike design just as they do on an automobile. In contrast, a Delta design uses geometry similar to that of a bicycle. Tadpole Trike Variations Although a small niche market, recumbent tadpole trikes come in a plethora of configurations. In this section we will show a short list of features and technologies that describe the some types of tadpole trikes. One gimmick that pops up periodically is a rear steering HPV. The rear steering concept has been applied to both Tadpole and Delta trike configurations without any staying success. Although the virtues of rear wheel steering include a simplistic design, lighter weight, a smaller turning radius, and an exhilarating and fun riding experience. However, the fact that the trike drives like a forklift makes it a losing proposition every time.
Image 7 - Sidewinder Procruiser
Lean Steering
Image 8 - Bergwerk Bikes GMBH
A lean steering trike is a three wheeled vehicle that steers by virtue of leaning the rider's body into the desired direction of the turn. Although several variations exist, the most notable
implementation is where the seat moves in relation to the frame causing the vehicle wheels to turn or alter the wheel geometry. A stationary horn or tiller is fixed to the frame (this can also be a U-bar) allowing the rider to lean the seat left or right (the seat is linked to a steering mechanism), hence steering the vehicle. Since the rider leans into the direction of the turn, the center of gravity is optimized producing a trike with excellent low speed handling. The concept is similar to steering a bicycle with one obvious exception: the leaning is linear to the steering and not by the G forces applied.
Consequently, the steering in this implementation is not optimized for higher speeds. Lately, there have been other implementations of the lean steer trike that allow the front wheels to lean into the direction of the turn. Not only does this enhance the handling characteristics of the trike, it also relieves the wheels from side-loading allowing larger diameter wheels. As with most emerging technology this concept is relatively new, requiring future improvements to make it practical. The main premise of a trike is to provide a stable platform that does not require balancing. Although lean steering has the potential of optimized handling at lower speeds, it does require equilibrium to master.
Suspension
A recumbent trike uses smaller wheels than a standard bike. The problem with smaller wheels is that they provide a harsher ride than larger diameter wheels.
The first compact, foldable bikes solved this problem by using a compressed rubber elastomer as a shock absorber. Thanks to the ever evolving technologies of the mountain bike, we now have shock absorbers that rival those in automobiles.
A well designed suspension system can offer a featherbed ride regardless of the conditions of the road. Up until recently, most implementations have been limited to rear suspension, as it was extremely easy to implement, and it doesnt pose any restrictions to handling or steering geometry. With easy-to-route chain management systems, and the cranks being so far forward from the swing arm, it's obvious to see that rear suspension can be easily adapted to a tadpole configured compromise. recumbent trike with little
Image 9 Front suspension Cad detail
Image 10 and Front Suspension detail Powering the Future With Zero Emission Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
However,
the
virtue
of
rear
suspension system is refutable, as the rear wheel delivers less than 1/3 of the total shock felt by the rider. Secondly, the swing arm designs currently
employed on these trikes are all more susceptible to side-loading forces than conventional triangulated rear ends.
Front suspension is more effective in reducing shock than rear suspension.
Image 11 Rear Damper
After all, 60% of all the shock is produced by the front wheels.
Considering that we chose rear and front independent suspension for comfort and dynamic behavior. The front suspension will be Double Arm which allows each wheel to move in a wider range but still not having too much influence in the Steering Geometry which is very complex. In the rear we will have a simpler spring damper suspension since this doesnt need to support so much shock as previously stated before.
Basic Trike Frame Design

Weight Distribution The weight distribution is the ratio of the horizontal weight displaced between the forward and aft wheels. It dictates how a trike handles and how stable it will be. The more weight on the forward wheels, the better the cornering and less over-steer. However, too much weight on the front wheel causes the rear wheel to be too light. This can lead to rear wheel wash-out during hard cornering or cause the trike to endover during braking. Too much weight on the rear of the trike causes it to capsize even during mild handling as the single wheel has the majority of weight. A trike with 70/30weight distribution is optimum. Center of Gravity If weight distribution is the ratio of horizontal weight, than Center of Gravity is the ratio of top to bottom vertical weight. Center of gravity is as crucial as weight distribution for
optimum trike handling characteristics. However, unlike weight distribution, the center of gravity has no handling or stability compromises when its ratio is lowered.
If all the weight is placed well below the axle, the trike is going to have excellent handling regardless of weight distribution. Obviously, a low slung vehicle does have several visibility, practicality. For practical reasons most road worthy trikes will have most of the weight above axles. disadvantages safety, including and
comfort
Image 12 Center of Gravity
Wheelbase In regards to a recumbent trike, the length of the wheelbase influences the steering, stability, weight distribution and overall comfort. The wheelbase is the length between the rear wheel axle and front wheel(s) axle. Short Wheelbase (under 1m) Pros: Cons: Riders position has more effect on overall weight distribution Reclining of seat position is limited due to rear wheel clearance Creates a tighter turning radius Faster and sportier handling Smaller, more compact frame (stiffer and lighter)
Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Image 13 Medium/Short Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 wheelbase Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
Long Wheelbase (over 1m) Pros: Cons: Longer frame lends to higher weight and flexing Larger turn radius
Riders position has less effect on weight distribution than SWB Seat has more clearance for reclining, even with a larger diameter rear wheel
Image 14 Long Wheelbase
So what is a happy medium? If we took a wheelbase consensus of all the production trikes on the market, they would average between 96.5cm to 103cm. This variation takes into account wheel sizes that can vary from 20 inch to 700c.
Wheel Track The wheel track is the width between the two front wheels. The wider the wheel track the less susceptible the vehicle is to capsizing during cornering. However, if too wide, the vehicle becomes impractical on most bike lanes. An 82 cm wheel track offers excellent handling and is practical for all bike roads too. Several manufacturers have released compact trikes that have reduced wheel tracks under 74 cm. The overall widths of these trikes allow them to pass through a standard 82 cm doorway. Other trikes have a negative camber that allows a wider wheel track but the overall width is compact enough to fit through a door way.
Another consideration for wheel track width is the front wheel diameter, as the turn radius is dependent on the lock to lock travel of the steering system. Larger diameter wheel will interfere with the riders legs while turning, thus limiting the lock to lock travel of the steering and ultimately dictating the turning radius. This also applies to basic ergonomics; as the wheel track decreases, so does the space and comfort in the trike. Frame Design The last element in basic trike technology is the frame design. There are several issues here that affect efficiency and handling. The most important issues of the frame are weight and rigidity. Along with rigidity comes stability, as any frame or wheel flex is always undesirable especially at high speed. Beyond these basic requirements are other elements that should be equally noted. Reliability, cost, ergonomic and convenience are but a few requirements that we must consider. However, these considerations go beyond the scope of performance.
Image 15 Aluminum Tube used for chassis
For excellent performance and reliability a 3-dimensional space frame is an excellent choice. These types of frames all have triangulated chain stays that use the seat as part of the structural frame. The result is a frame that has reduced flexing which enhances stability and reliability. Even better is a frame that also includes web-gusset to reinforce the bottom bracket boom and cross-members. This type of frame reduces the effects of pedal steering caused by uneven cadence and boom flex.
Although stiffer, these 3-D frames are not necessarily lighter since they require more frame components and have several weld joints.
The lightest and least expensive trike designs use a standard cruciform frame that does not include seat stay support or an integrated seat. Although the least rigid and reliable, these trike are also the easiest to design and build.
Image 16 Cruciform Frame
Steering Geometry The quality of the steering system and steering geometry also dictates the performance of the trike. In the next chapter we will discuss this topic.
Trike Steering Geometry

A recumbent trike is only as good as the steering, as it behaves similar to an automobile. As similar to an auto, the steering system is inherently complicated, as more than a single geometry is used to define it. In this section, I'll discuss the fine art of steering geometry. Caster Angle The first geometry is the caster angle. This angle is the kingpin plane
relationship to the wheel contacting the road (contact patch). As the drawing illustrates, the kingpin points down in front of the tire's contact patch. Since the steering system rotates on the Kingpin plane, the relationship between the
Image 17 - Caster
contact patch and the kingpin forces the wheels to point inward as weight is
placed on the wheels. Increase the kingpin angle, and more force is applied to bring the wheel inward. The resulting effect forces the steering system to return back to a neutral (or straight) position. Normal caster values for recumbents are 12. As a footnote, a standard automobile uses a 4-5 caster and a race car or go-cart gets much steeper. Camber The next geometry is the camber angle of the front wheels. If the wheels are at exact right angles to the ground (90 degrees) or the distance between the top of both wheels equals the distance between the bottom of both wheels, the camber is
Image 18 - Camber
said to be neutral. If the distance between the top of both wheels is shorter than the bottom, the camber is said to be negative. And, if the distance between the top of both wheels is longer than the bottom, the camber is said to be positive. Normally, a negative or neutral camber is desirable. Toe-In The Toe relationship is somewhat similar to Camber, but at a 90from the axis of the kingpin (longitudinal axis). Positive Toe or Toe-In refers to the front wheels pointing inward towards each other at the forward end and away from each other at the rear. This inward relationship is relatively very small. With most vehicles a Toe-In relationship is a desirable trait in that it provides greater straight line stability at the cost of efficiency and sluggishness on cornering response. In practice, a recumbent trike requires little if any ToeIn. A Toe-In of no more than 0.1" is sufficient. Ackerman Steering Compensation The Ackerman steering compensation provides a way for a vehicle to turn without the front wheels scrubbing. In layman's terms, this means that when the vehicle is steered in either direction, the inside wheel shall always turn sharper than the outside wheel. Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
Image 19 Toe In
Let's look at this with an example: A X trike can turn around a 4.5m circle. This means that the outer tire is pointing at a particular angle that follows the 4.5m circle. However, the inside wheel, which tracks 82cm closer to the inside, must turn at a sharper angle so that it can follow a 62cm circle. Obviously, if both wheels turned at the exact angle, they would scrub when the vehicle turns. Not only would this wear out the tires, it would also cause the vehicle to drastically slow-down when turning. There is some consideration concerning Ackerman that must be understood. First, perfect Ackerman does not mean always yield the best performance. Secondly, the accuracy of the Ackerman compensation is dependent on the type of steering system used on the trike design.
As mentioned, perfect Ackerman steering compensation does not guaranty the best performance. In some cases it is desirable to reduce the Ackerman during large radius turns as it makes the steering less sensitive and less prone to over-steering. This AntiAckerman actually prevents over-steering at high speeds. An Anti-Ackerman is actually a partially compensated Ackerman implementation and allows a small amount of scrubbing when turning a large radius, but it follows the full compensation during smaller radius turns. The exaggerated result is a vehicle that slows down in the corners, but allows the trike to sustain faster speeds without steering instability. Kingpin Inclination (Center Point Steering) The inclination of the Kingpin allows the steering axis to turn precisely on the center patch of tire contacting the pavement (hence the name Center Point Steering). This imaginary intersection is commonly referred to as the Scrub Patch. Because the steering axis rotates directly over (and front of) the contacted patch of tire, the steering is less affected by defects in the road, hence reducing 'bump steering' and allowing the full effects of the caster to work. Another byproduct of kingpin inclination and Caster allows the camber to change in relationship to the wheel steering angle. This compensation allows the wheels to lean into the corner in which they are turning. Ultimately, this dynamic orientation modifies the wheel geometry
Image 20 Kingpin Inclination
resulting in slightly enhanced handling. The kingpin inclination is at a 90- degree plane in relationship to the caster angle. Kingpin to Wheel Axle Orientation The placement of the wheel axle, in relationship to the kingpin, drastically affects the steering. If the wheel axles are placed in front (lead) of the kingpin axles, the 'caster effect' is defeated making the steering unpredictable and extremely unstable. However, if the wheel axles trail too far behind the kingpin, the steering may be influenced by road shock and brake steering. Again, this occurrence is referred to as bump steering and brake pull. Ultimately, the wheel axle and kingpin should intersect or be within 0.5 inches trailing.
Steering Mechanisms and Linkage Systems

Under Seat Steering-USS The steering mechanism for Under Seat Steering is a U-bar configuration or dual lever design. The dual lever design is best suited for ultimate comfort, while the U-bar gives the vehicle a sportier and lighter feel. Additionally, the U-bar system tends to be simpler and cheaper as it requires fewer parts for operation. However, the expensive, duallever system offers superior linearity and better flexibility for adjustment. Pros: Intuitive control makes it easier to master Provides comfortable support for arms Gives the rider support during high G turn, precludes the use of lateral seat support.
Cons: Increases the Frontal Area making the trike less aerodynamic. Places the riders hands dangerously close to the wheels or ground Requires ample room for U bar clearance that may compromise wheel track or seat width.
Steering Linkage Systems and How They Work

Single Tie Rod and Drag Link System This type of steering system was common on early automobiles and eventually found its way to farm tractors. A knuckle-to-knuckle Drag Link provides continuity between the wheels, while the Tie Rod provides linkage to a Bell Crank (Pitman Arm).
The best attribute is that the main linkage consists of only two rod-end bearings. This allows the steering to remain relatively tight. Although this system uses more parts than the other two steering systems, it provides superior flexibility for adjustment and provides adequate Ackerman compensation.
However, the system weighs slightly more than the other two systems mentioned. Misalignment of the Bell Crank orientation (caused by the Tie Rod deviating from 90) Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
causes a slight non-linearity throughout the steering range. This is compensated by applying Ackerman to the steering knuckle control rod that links it to the Bellcrank. This design also offers good Ackerman compensation.
Image 21 - Single Tie Rod and Drag Link System
Dual Drag Link System This system offers lower weight, fewer parts than the Single Idler Arm system and is optimized for Over Seat Steering, as the Bell Crank is mounted almost at the kingpin plane. The major advantage to this system is that it provides near perfect Ackerman compensation. This design was used on the Volkswagen Bug over 50 years ago. The Bell Crank orientation and length must remain constant to maintain proper Ackerman. Adapting a USS steering system requires a U-bar mounted aft of the king pins.
Image 22 - Dual Drag Link System
Unfortunately, the steering linkage becomes increasingly complicated as a second Pitman Arm (Bell Crank) and Tie Rod are required (refer to the drawing below). The Bell Crank length (from arm pivot to axle) must equal the Steering Knuckle Lever length (measured from the arm pivot to kingpin axle). Deviations to this relationship can diminish the Ackerman compensation.
Crossed Dual Drag Link The Crossed Duel Drag Link is optimized for a USS (U-bar system), as the Bell Crank (Pitman arm) is placed behind the steering Kingpins.
Image 23- Crossed Duel Drag Link
The science of maintaining a linear rod linkage system requires the application of the Right Angle Rule. The Right Angle Rule requires that both rod ends maintain a 90 angle to each linked lever arm when the wheels are in a neutral, forward position. Not only does this practice insure that both rods maintain a linear arc throughout the full range of motion, it also insures the stability of the linkage. As the rod ends approach an angle close to 0 or 180 in relationship to either of the lever arms, the linkage rod loses its ability to hold and control the arm. The Right Angle approach guarantees the steering linkage force is optimized throughout the 90 arc of steering travel. This principal is applied to the Crossed Dual Drag Link steering configuration shown above. To achieve the 90-angle relationship with the above example, the two drag link rods require separate mounts on the Pitman Arm. To prevent tire scrubbing during turning, these mounting locations are angled back further on the Pitman Arm to provide the necessary Ackerman compensation.
Wheel Size
Tadpole-designed trikes come in a wide variety of wheel size configurations. If the center of gravity were not an issue, we would be bold to mention that wheel size has little effect on handling (provided the rear wheel stays are sturdy enough). Chiefly, wheel size affects efficiency, weight, ergonomics, and quality of ride. Smaller wheels in front allow sharper turn radius, as the larger wheels tended interfere with the rider.
Image 24 Low resistance tires
Since the rear tire is under less side loading, we think to use 26-inch wheels that offer excellent rolling resistance and made the ride significantly smoother than a rear 20-inch BMX wheel. The chief advantage of a small rear wheel is that it offers better reliability and lighter weight than a large wheel. The reliability aspect of a smaller wheel system is that they tend to take side loading better than larger wheels. The lighter weight virtue is obvious, as a smaller wheel is lighter than a larger diameter wheel and the wheel stays are smaller, too.
It should be pointed out that both front and rear tire size selections have much different requirements. On the Front wheels, the size is restricted to maintain a smaller tract, Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
tighter turn radius and aerodynamics. On the Rear wheel, the size may be restricted to maintain rear end stiffness, but needs to be large enough for adequate gear/inch range. The chief advantage of larger wheels is that they provide better Roll-Over resistance and offer a stable, more comfortable ride. Additionally, a large rear wheel does not require special gearing (such as an oversized chain ring and extra chain). However, this case applies to the rear wheel only.
Our is using a 26 inch rear wheel, as it allows an excellent high gear inch range, provides a softer ride and has superior roll over qualities that give it an overall performance edge over a 20 rear wheel. For the front we prefer to use 20 inch as these have average roll-over resistance, adequate leg clearance, and good aerodynamics.
Brake Systems
Basically, three types of braking systems can be employed in trikes: Drum, Disc, and Caliper but for our project we will only consider the Disc ones.
The major advantage of a Disc Brake is that they provide excellent and reliable braking and are optimized for Tadpole trike designs. The disc brake action is proportional and provides smooth braking even during the harshest weather conditions. Disc brakes are smaller, stronger, and quieter.
Image 25 Hydraulic Brake System
Hydraulic brake systems use a piston at the hand lever called the "master' piston. The piston pushes brake fluid through sealed brake tubing to another set of pistons at the caliper called the "slave" pistons. The slave pistons push the pads to the rotor. Because the hydraulic fluid does not compress or flex, hydraulic systems are considered higher performance than mechanical systems. The amount of force developed by the Master piston depends on the pistons displacement. The direct force that can be applied by a hydraulic system is enormous.
Our choice is:
Ergonomic shift arc follows natural hand movement with inward shift stroke distance reduced for rapid and precise gear changes.
Brake lever pivots have been positioned to increase power and improve ergonomics when riding on the hoods.
Image 26 Brake Leaver
Oversized 22mm ceramic pistons, with ceramic brake pads optimized for heat insulation, lightweight and stiffness.
Image 27 Brake Calipers and pad
Disc Brake Rotor 170 mm CenterLock The lock ring mounting system enhances precision and rigidity while improving braking efficiency. The Center Lock system makes an easy rotor installation possible with a spline mount and lock ring.
Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Image 28 Disc Brake Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
Plug-in design for battery charging

Battery
Large
and
safe
LiFePO4
cells inside 10AH. Compact in size and light in weight. BMS manages to each cell for high reliability. Extra long cycle life - 5 times life of Lead Acid and 2 times of NiMH or short circuit
Extremely safe: no explosion, no fire under collision, over charged
Image 29 - LiFePO4 Battery
Hub Motor Seamless integration Without gears Using wasted space in the rim No maintenance Weather proof Regenerative braking and cruise control 60mm thin hub for common bike frames Support disc-brake and 10-speed sprocket Power Rating: 1000W
Voltage: 48V
Image 30 Hub Motor
Image With 31 - Controler Powering the Future Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
Regenerative Braking
If we want to achieve maximum efficiency we should think also to apply Regenerative Braking into our Trike. Regenerative Braking uses the energy that normally is dissipated as heat in mechanical brakes. With regeneration we transform the kinetic energy back into chemical energy that recharges the battery. We thought about several ways to do this seamless integration into normal brake system. So we end up with this system that we will explain further in detail. If there is no actuation by the user in the brake leaver the system, the trike in this case will be free rolling (only with air drag and bearings friction). When the user starts to do
some force in the leaver, the displacement will start to actuate the master piston, but instead of applying this force to the mechanical brakes we will first actuate a resistor Powering the Future With Zero Emission and Human Powered Vehicles Bradford, UK, 2012 Project code: 2011-1-GR1-ERA10-06828 Manuel Vilaa Pedro Pinto
that is connected to the electronic controller. The controller will then send a signal to the hub motor so it can start behaving as a generator. No kind of energy is free, so as soon as the hub motor/generator starts convert energy the trike will slow down, or if we going downhill, we can maintain speed not causing the mechanical brakes to fade by excess of heat. When we want full braking power both systems will actuate because the oil will flow to disc pistons and at the same time the hub motor is converting energy. This is a simple principle that allows not only regenerative braking but also increases security because we have 2 different kind of braking systems completely independent.
Human Drive-Train
Obviously the first premise of this project was a human power vehicle, so we need the human drive train. Although the trike can be used entirely electric, if we have a malfunction on the electrical system or we just want to have fun we can use the pedals. We should use at front a 3 gears system that allows three different type of situations, and at back we should use a 8 gear system that offers the user a wider range of choices and of course ride comfort. All together we have 24 different gears. All the power will be transmitted from front to back with a chain.
Note: The red arrows represent protected chain guidance from

Image 32 Mechanical Drive Train
front to back
Calculations
We need to do some calculations to make sure the building of this trike is made within a secure margin of success and, of course, in safety.
First of all we need to know the known forces in the trike.
With an estimate weight of 1471.5 N (P) and a coefficient of friction () of 0.8 and g = 9.81 m/s^2 we have: Maximum deceleration: a = * g = 0.8 * 9.81 = 7.84 Total braking force: F = m*a = 1471.5 N Maximum braking energy:
E = 0.5 * 150 * 13.88^2 Braking forces per axle:
, where v = 13.88 m/s = 50km/h
Fr= c * N = (0.8*1471.5)/2 = 588.4 N
Braking forces per wheel: (Front) Fr= (588* 0.8)/2 = 235.36 N
(Rear) Braking torque:
Fr= (588* 0.8)=471.72 N
Tbraking = Ftyre*rtyre = 19404 N
Disc forces per wheel: (Front) Fdisc * 0.085 = 235.36 * 0.33 => Fdisc = 913.751 N
(Rear)
Fdisc * 0.085 = 470* 0.33 => Fdisc = 1827.5 N
Disc dimensions: = 170mm = 0.085 m radius
Actuating forces per wheel:
(Front)
Fdisc = Tbraking * /pad => = 1827.5 Tbraking * 0.8/2 = 4568.75 N
(Rear) Caliper piston diameter:
913.751 *Tbraking * 0.8/2 = 2284.38 N
Tbraking = p * A, with A = (* D^2)/4
(Front)
45468.75 = 68* 10^5 *A => A = 0.0006782 m^2
(Rear)
913.751 = 68* 10^5 *A => A = 0.000336 m^2
Master cylinder diameter:
D = (4*A/)^ = 0.029251m^2
Costs
Drawings
Conclusion
First of all we would like to notice the amazing opportunity that European students had to make such a difference in the world. It changed the way we think and want to improve our life as engineers. It's ideas such as these that make the world spin in joy.
The project in a nutshell it had a positive outcome. We've learned all the basics about automotive vehicles, zero emission alternatives and, more precisely, about how to build an HPV in the safest and effective way possible. Every part of the basics was tremendously accurate and essential so that from that we could build a HPV by putting everything together.
Working as a group has taught us how to circle around a problem and also to solve it just by separating the problem by simple parts and solve it in a group. Also it reinforced our trust in every one in a group, because without trust, there is no group. Separating them and making international groups is a good way to give a chance on our social skills and put our knowledge together, making our ideas a better job by exposing them to others and listen to their ideas too.
Of course there were some minor issues. The time was our enemy and the project was too long to be accomplished in just two weeks. The final report should be made within the IP time because it would give us the chance to create a final project with the ideas that we started to expose as international groups. Nevertheless we can accomplish anything just by trying to make a difference in this matter. We think we've made a decent job, even though the time was, also, our enemy, as university has his own problems for us. We hope next year our fellow students can create the bike, finally, because thats what everyone wanted in the first place. I hope we started an idea that can change the world in driving purposes and, essentially, pollution-wise.

ISEP

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ISEP

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

30-05-2012

PORTUGUESE FINAL REPORT

Engineering a specification for a Zero Emissions Single-seater Vehicle

Manuel Vilaa | Pedro Pinto

The conventional two frontier

The long-wheel for long range journeys

Image 6 Ride on countryside

Front suspension is more effective in reducing shock than rear suspension.

Image 11 Rear Damper

Basic Trike Frame Design

Image 12 Center of Gravity

Image 14 Long Wheelbase

Image 15 Aluminum Tube used for chassis

Image 16 Cruciform Frame

Trike Steering Geometry

Steering Mechanisms and Linkage Systems

Steering Linkage Systems and How They Work

Image 21 - Single Tie Rod and Drag Link System

Image 22 - Dual Drag Link System

Image 23- Crossed Duel Drag Link

Image 24 Low resistance tires

Our choice is:

Image 26 Brake Leaver

Image 27 Brake Calipers and pad

Plug-in design for battery charging

Extremely safe: no explosion, no fire under collision, over charged

Image 29 - LiFePO4 Battery

Note: The red arrows represent protected chain guidance from

First of all we need to know the known forces in the trike.

E = 0.5 * 150 * 13.88^2 Braking forces per axle:

, where v = 13.88 m/s = 50km/h

Fr= c * N = (0.8*1471.5)/2 = 588.4 N

Braking forces per wheel: (Front) Fr= (588* 0.8)/2 = 235.36 N

(Rear) Braking torque:

Fr= (588* 0.8)=471.72 N

Tbraking = Ftyre*rtyre = 19404 N

Fdisc * 0.085 = 470* 0.33 => Fdisc = 1827.5 N

Disc dimensions: = 170mm = 0.085 m radius

Actuating forces per wheel:

Fdisc = Tbraking * /pad => = 1827.5 Tbraking * 0.8/2 = 4568.75 N

(Rear) Caliper piston diameter:

913.751 *Tbraking * 0.8/2 = 2284.38 N

Tbraking = p * A, with A = (* D^2)/4

45468.75 = 68* 10^5 *A => A = 0.0006782 m^2

913.751 = 68* 10^5 *A => A = 0.000336 m^2

Master cylinder diameter:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

913.751 Tbraking 0.8/2 = 2284.38 N