Adam Lord

Aris Perez

Brandon Stewart

Christian Gattung

Laura Stump

Riley Perszyk

Midterm Review

Presentation

The Lone Outdoorsmen

• Loading the bike onto the roof of the car

• Time consuming, and especially arduous for people who lack height or strength.

• This project seeks to develop an aid for this process to help lift and/or stabilize the bike during the loading.

Project Selection: Bike Load AssistProject Selection: Bike Load Assist

• Requirements

–Single operator

–Compatibility with different bicycles & vehicles

–Portability

• Customer Needs

–Affordable

–Cost effective

–Easy to assemble

Problem StatementProblem Statement

Problem StatementProblem Statement

• Grabbing: The device must somehow support the bike so that it can be moved around easily.

• Raising: The device must lift the bike above the height of the roof of the car.

• Transfer: The device must move the bike laterally so that it is directly overhead of the bike rack on the car roof. In this position, the bike may exert a large moment on the device and so some kind of stabilizing mechanism will probably be required.

• Lowering/Release: The device must lower the bike by a small amount so that it contacts the bike rack on the roof where it can be secured by the user. It must then release the bike and be withdrawn away from the car for disassembly.

Design Partition Design Partition -- MountingMounting

• Grabbing: Same as in the mounting process.

• Raising: The device must lift the bike by a small amount so it has clearance from the car.

• Reverse Transfer: The device must move the bike from being above the car to being above the open ground.

• Lowering/Release: The device must lower the bike back to ground level in a controlled motion. This lowering movement is a much longer distance than the lowering process performed during mounting. It may operate by a separate mechanism, but for simplicity it is preferable to use the same mechanism for both processes.

Design Partition Design Partition -- DismountingDismounting

Guidance system

Deep U-shaped ramp

bicycleramp

Side View

Rearview Close Up

Plus Minus Interesting

Very Easy

Robust

Large Size

Stability

•Installation?

•Power

Required?

This design utilizes a simple ramp to help elevate the bicycle to the roof. A guidance system also helps with stabilization while the user pushes the bicycle up the ramp.

Concept Design Concept Design -- RampRamp

A frame slides laterally off of the car and folds downward to about chest height. The bike can then be hung from it, and strapped down similar to current trunk bike loaders. The bike would be pushed upwards and would slide onto the roof rack of the car, so that the bike sits on its side on top of the car.

Plus Minus Interesting

Portable

Clearance

Bike Safety

No Power Input

Labor Intensive •Multiple

Bikes?

Concept Design Concept Design ––

Hinged Sliding PlatformHinged Sliding Platform

• Hinged Sliding

Platform Design

–Few Design Problems

–Interesting Concept

–Loading Position is

near chest level or

below

Preliminary Design SelectionPreliminary Design Selection

• Patent No.: 5,690,259

• Date: Nov. 25, 1997

• This system allows for the loading and unloading of bikes via a sliding rack system, the bicycles are loaded and unloaded from the back of the car. To reach the driving position the rack can be lifted and slid into place, then locked to ensure safety. Multiple can be equipped to roof, with rooftop transfer roof load bars, where the loading procedure is the same for each bike, even for the center bike. A foam hollow cylinder is present to protect the car and to adjust the loading position.

Patent Patent –– Modular Bike Rack SystemModular Bike Rack System

• Basic trunk loading rack

• Most follow this form

Product SearchProduct Search

• Basic hitch loading rack

• Most follow this form

Product SearchProduct Search

wProduct Baseline

Patent Baseline

Plain Roof Rack

Sliding *Platform*

10 Ease of Use 2 2 1 3

10 User Safety 3 2 1 2

9 Portability 3 3 3 3

9Equipment Safety

2 1 1 2

8 Setup Time 3 2 2 3

7 Cost To Build 2 2 3 2

7 Reliability 2 3 2 3

6 Complexity 2 1 3 2

5 Power Req. 3 3 3 3

5 Adaptability 1 2 3 3

4 Durability 2 2 3 2

3 Installation 2 1 3 1

3 Dimensions 2 2 3 3

3 Multiple Bike 1 2 2 2

202 181 191 222

Abbreviated Evaluation MatrixAbbreviated Evaluation Matrix

• Complexity/Simplicity was a strong

predictor of overall rating.

• Some designs were too intricate and

design-intensive.

• Many “obvious” or intuitive designs were

just not practical.

Selection AnalysisSelection Analysis

• Locking Mechanism

• Clearance during transfer(e.g. handlebars and pedals)

Open Questions (Input?)Open Questions (Input?)