Team Members: Ryan Wilson Cody Woods Nate Morefield Mike Kurvach
20
Team Members: Ryan Wilson Cody Woods Nate Morefield Mike Kurvach Tri Better Triathlon Shoe
description
Tri Better Triathlon Shoe. Team Members: Ryan Wilson Cody Woods Nate Morefield Mike Kurvach. Agenda. Project Mission Background Design Objectives Concept Selection Process Concepts Comparison Schedule. Design Review Purpose. Obtain Feedback on Design Concepts - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Team Members: Ryan Wilson Cody Woods Nate Morefield Mike Kurvach
Team Members:Ryan WilsonCody Woods
Nate MorefieldMike Kurvach
Tri Better Triathlon Shoe
Agenda
Project MissionBackgroundDesign ObjectivesConcept Selection ProcessConceptsComparisonSchedule
Design Review Purpose
Obtain Feedback on Design ConceptsIdentify Design Problems
Project Mission
The purpose of this project is to design a triathlon shoe for competition by combining the advantages of a cycling shoe and a running shoe. When successful this project will reduce transition times while maintaining running and cycling performance.
Background
Triathlon-Swim, Bike, Run Sprint Distance- 750m Swim, 20k Bike, 5k Run Olympic Distance- 1.5k Swim, 40k Bike, 10k Run
Transitions: T1- Swim to Bike T2- Bike to Run
Pearl Izumi Tri Fly IV Zoot Ultra Race 3.0 Pedal Cages
Current Situation
Key Objectives in Design
Flexibility During RunningGood Power Output During CyclingSecure Attachment to Bike PedalAbility to Clip Out of Pedal with EaseProvide Float
Ultimate Goal is to reduce transition times without hurting cycling or running performance
Concept Selection Process
Concept Selection Process
Good Power Output Dur
Concept 1-Full Length Pedal-Internal Forefoot C-Clip-Heel Clip
Advantages:
-Rigid Plate Provides Stiffness only when Cycling
-Easy to clip out and Transition to Running
Disadvantages:
-Rubber Sole Hinders Float
-Forefoot Clip Components will Add Stiffness During Running
-Large Pedals Add Weight to Design
-Clipping in Requires Two Motions
-EVA Foam will Dampen Energy Transfer During Cycling
Risks:
-High Weight:Estimated Weight 330g per Shoe270g per Pedal
-Difficulty Working with Carbon Fiber
-Energy lost in cycling due to deformation
Concept 2-Removable Rigid Fork
-Pedal/Fork Interfacing Clip
Advantages:
-Ridged Insert is Removed During Run
-Compact Pedal
-Simple Clipping Concept
Disadvantages:
-Void in the Shoe After Removing Insert
-Lost Energy From EVA Foam Dampening During Cycling
-High Stress on Fork Could Cause Failure or Deformation
Risks:
-High Stress on Fork:580 MPa in Tension
-Aligning Fork and Clip Difficulty
-Biomechanical Issues During Run
-Failure to distribute pressure from foot
-Removing and inserting fork may be difficult
Concept 3-Rigid “Hinged” Plate
-Low Profile Mini Clip
Advantages:
-Hinged Plate Reduces Excess Movement While Cycling
-Hinged Plate Flexes While Running
-Pedal Engages Rigid Plate
Disadvantages:
-Lost EVA Foam Volume for Pedal Clip
-Constrained Flexibility While Running
Risks:
-Determining the Flex Points Common for All Athletes may Prove Difficult
-Maybe too Stiff for Running but too Flexible for Cycling
-Failure to distribute pressure from clip
Comparison
Schedule
System Design Weeks 4-5Resource Summary Data Base Weeks 4-5Analysis Weeks 4-8Detailed Design Weeks 4-8Detailed Design Review Week 9Order Materials Week 10
