Human Powered Vehicle Competition

Chris Jacobs
Konrad Myca
Louis Barrios

0
Abstract
For our Senior Design Project we chose to design and build a Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) for the
ASME HPV competition. The competition will be held May 1-3 at Portland State University in Portland,
Oregon. Our goal is to create a HPV that can successfully compete in three separate areas at the
competition; these areas are speed, endurance, and design. This portion of our senior design project is
the project proposal. Over the next few pages we delve into the HPV world and show our progress from
our initial design concept to our current proposal. We begin at the basics, introducing the concept of a
HPV and the requirements that we would have to meet. Moving through the proposal we provide
insight on how we developed our four basic concepts and then how those concepts were logically and
systematically eliminated until our final concept was reached.

1
Table of Contents
Title Page....................................................................................................................................................... 0
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Context ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1. Background of Need........................................................................................................................... 6
1.2. Customer Need Statement ................................................................................................................ 7
1.3. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.1. Prior Work ................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2. Patents ...................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3.3. Codes and Standards................................................................................................................. 12
2. Problem Definition .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1. Customer Requirements .................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1. Form .......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1. Fit .............................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.2. Function .................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2. Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Constraints ....................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4. Customer Requirements Schematic ................................................................................................ 15
2.5. Test/Evaluation Plan for all Requirements and Constraints ............................................................ 15
3. Concept Development ............................................................................................................................ 15
3.1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1. Creative Strategies .................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.2. Governing Principles ................................................................................................................. 15
3.2. Synthesis and Analysis of Overall Concept ...................................................................................... 16
3.2.1. Overall Concept 1 ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2. Overall Concept 2 ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3. Overall Concept 3 ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.4. Overall Concept 4...................................................................................................................... 21
3.3. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 23
3.4. Refinements ..................................................................................................................................... 24
3.5. Selection........................................................................................................................................... 25
4. Design Specifications .............................................................................................................................. 25
4.1. Design Overview .............................................................................................................................. 25
4.1.1. Description ................................................................................................................................ 26
4.1.2. Design Schematics..................................................................................................................... 26
4.2. Functional Specifications ................................................................................................................. 27
4.3. Physical Specifications ..................................................................................................................... 27
4.4. Product QFD ..................................................................................................................................... 28
4.5. Subsystems ...................................................................................................................................... 29
4.6. Design Deliverables .......................................................................................................................... 31
5. Project Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 32
5.1. Research ........................................................................................................................................... 32
5.2. Critical Function Prototypes............................................................................................................. 32
5.3. Design............................................................................................................................................... 32

2
 5.4. Construction..................................................................................................................................... 33
5.5. Testing .............................................................................................................................................. 34
5.6. Project Deliverables ......................................................................................................................... 35
5.7. Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 35
5.8. Budget .............................................................................................................................................. 36
5.9. Personnel ......................................................................................................................................... 38
6. References .............................................................................................................................................. 38
7. Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 39
7.1. Team Member Resumes .................................................................................................................. 39

3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Long Wheelbase ............................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2:Short Wheelbase-Under Seat Steering ........................................................................................... 9
Figure 3:Delta Strike...................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4:Tadpole Trike ................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 5:Standard Three Wheel Recumbent .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 6:Recumbent Bicycle with Overhead Handlebar ............................................................................. 12
Figure 7: Recumbent Bicycle With Under Seat Steering ............................................................................. 12
Figure 8: Customer Requirements Schematic for Human Powered Vehicle .............................................. 15
Figure 9: Side View of Concept 1 ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 10: Steering top view for Concept 1 ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 11: Side view of Concept 2 ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 12: Drive Train for Concept 2 ........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Steering Top view for Concept 2 ................................................................................................ 19
Figure 14: Side View for Concept 3 ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 15: Drive train for Concept 3............................................................................................................ 20
Figure 16: Steering top view for Concept 3 ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 17: Side View for Concept 4 ............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 18: Drive Train for Concept 2 ........................................................................................................... 22
Figure 19: Steering top view for Concept 4 ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 20: Feature Schematic for HPV ........................................................................................................ 26
Figure 21: Function Schematic for HPV ...................................................................................................... 27
Figure 22: Dimensioned Sketch of HPV ...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 23: Drive Train System ..................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 24: Steering System ......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 25:: Frame System (Side View) ........................................................................................................ 30
Figure 26: Frame System (Top View) .......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 27: Gantt Chart (Semester 1) ........................................................................................................... 35
Figure 28: Gantt Chart (Semester 2) ........................................................................................................... 36
Figure 29: Personnel Diagram ..................................................................................................................... 38

4
List of Tables

Table 1: Decision Matrix for Concept Choice .............................................................................................. 24

Table 2: QFD for HPV .................................................................................................................................. 28
Table 3: Budget for HPV .............................................................................................................................. 36

5
1. Context

1.1. Background of Need

For our project we will be competing in the ASME Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) Challenge. Our
HPV will be in the Single-Rider category and must be solely powered by one person. We will be
competing and scored over four categories; design, speed, endurance, and a final project report.
Our customers consist of the ASME competition, its judges, and ourselves; since many of the
characteristics of the vehicle must be tailored to our ability to drive the vehicle. Each group
member must participate in the endurance portion of the competition, so ergonomics for each rider
in the vehicle is inherently necessary.

Our Single-Rider HPV must comply with all of the following rules which can also be found in the
ASME Human Powered Vehicle rulebook which can be found on the ASME HPV website.

Fairing
All vehicles in all classes of competition are required to have a full or partial aerodynamic
fairing. This fairing must cover 1/3 of the frontal area of the vehicle and be built such that it
clearly shows the provided number assigned to the vehicle and ASME logo. The number
and logo must be displayed on every fairing in front of the rider and must be visible from
both sides of the vehicle.

Safety
All vehicles and teams in all classes must abide by all the safety requirements.

1. Make a complete stop in a distance of 20 feet or less from a speed of 15 miles per hour
2. Travel in a straight line for 100 feet
3. Negotiate a turn within a 25-foot radius
4. Provide rollover protection for riders and stokers, equivalent to chrome-molybdenum steel
tubing with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches and a wall thickness of no less than 0.049 inches
5. Wear helmets that meet given standards
6. Wear seat belts or shoulder harnesses, in accordance to the rulebook
7. Show that all surfaces of the vehicle, both exterior and interior region of the rider(s), are
free from sharp edges and protrusions

Energy Storage
The use of energy storage devices by non-utility vehicles is prohibited. Normal operating
components involved in the drive train are specifically permitted in as much as their design
is not primarily influenced by energy storage considerations.

Design
Judges will consider both the formal written report and the oral presentation when

6
reviewing vehicle designs. There will be an emphasis on originality and the soundness of
the design. The focus will be on the new work that has been completed in the last year.

Sprint
Approximately four hours of competition will be run on a single track such that everyone
will be capable of obtaining a sprint time. The timed portion of the course is a 100 meter
straight-a-way. There will be a preceding distance of 300 to 400 meters for vehicles to gain
speed before entering the timed portion, as well as a minimum of 200 meters at the end for
the vehicles to slow down.

Endurance
Single Rider and Multi-rider vehicles will compete in grand prix style road races of
approximately 65 kilometers (40 miles). Vehicles must start the event with female rider(s)
who must complete at least 5 kilometers. No individual can compete in the vehicle for more
than 20 kilometers, and all laps by any individual must be consecutive. When the lead
vehicle crosses the finish line, each team will be allowed to finish the lap it is on to end the
competition.

This need comes from the fact that we are in a competition and can not compete without
completing the analysis and creation of our Human Powered Vehicle. The significance of the
problem comes in the fact that it will be the first time USD competes in the competition and we will
be understaffed with fewer resources; but we still want to be very competitive.

1.2. Customer Need Statement

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers is putting on a national competition for colleges to
compete against each other using their creativity and course work to build human powered
vehicles. As a customer, ASME’s need is simple; they need competitors to enter their competition
with HPV’s that not only meet the stipulations that they specify in the ASME HPV rulebook, but they
also need their competitors to bring creativity and innovation to push the limits of competition and
stimulate the minds of college students across the country. As a customer, we need to adhere to the
guidelines provided by ASME and create an HPV that is capable of competing alongside many of the
top ranked engineering programs in the country

1.3. Literature Review

1.3.1. Prior Work

The unicycle was one of the first human powered vehicles, introduced into society more
than 200 years ago. As changes were made to its design the bicycle was born, and became
the desired design. After 200 years of modifications the bicycle has evolved from a rickety
machine to increase the speed of transportation to a modern commodity that has a variety
7
of uses. The prior work done on these human powered machines has quite an impact on
our project. The ASME HPV competition requires its contestants to build a HPV that can
not only compete on a speed course, but can also, with minimal adjustments or changes
also compete in an endurance race. After minimal research, it became clear that the most
popular design resembles a recumbent bicycle. Various designs include four wheel
vehicles, as well as two and three wheel designs of various configurations. Popular two
wheel designs include the Long Wheelbase (Figure 1), and Short Wheelbase-Under Seat
Steering(Figure 2), while the popular three wheel designs include the Delta (Figure 3) and
Tadpole (Figure 4).

http://www.recumbentblog.com/recumbent-types/

Figure 1: Long Wheelbase

8
http://www.recumbentblog.com/recumbent-types/

Figure 2:Short Wheelbase-Under Seat Steering

http://www.recumbentblog.com/recumbent-types/

Figure 3:Delta Strike

9
 http://www.recumbentblog.com/recumbent-types/

Figure 4:Tadpole Trike

Over the past 10 years the HPV land speed record has been broken 9 times, all by HPV’s using the
two wheel design. The current flying 200 meter land speed record is 81 mph, set at Battle
Mountain, Nevada in October 5, 2002.

Using the prior work done to create the best modern HPV’s we can create a basic vehicle within our
time frame and budget to meet our needs.

1.3.2. Patents
We are looking at two different main HPV designs; three wheel (trikes) vs. two wheels.

Three Wheel HPV’s:

The basic components of the standard HPV can be found in the Patent entitled “Recumbent
Tricycle” (patent number 4497502, patent date February 5, 1985). This basic HPV Trike uses a
gear system to power the front tire, and uses a four bar mechanism to steer through the two rear
wheels. The main shortcoming of this design is the steering system. From our research it appears
that although effective at lower speeds the rear turning system is inclined to tipping at higher
speeds, and for us to be competitive at the ASME competition we need to be able to turn without
fear of rollover. Also, the three wheel system, while more stable when moving in a straight line,
and easier to start from standstill, has a slower top speed then a two wheel recumbent which will
be the next design discussed.

10
 Figure 5:Standard Three Wheel Recumbent

Two Wheel HPV:

The two wheel HPV is the next main design that we are considering. Found in the patent titled
“Recumbent Bicycle” (patent number 4,773,663, patent date September 27, 1988) the main design
of a two wheel recumbent can be seen. Its shortcomings are found mostly in its difficulty to start
from a standstill and to balance while riding and turning. Other then the model found in this patent
(Figure 6), which places steering mechanism at the shoulder height of the rider there are also
models the position the steering mechanism under the seat (Figure 7, patent number 4,283,070,
patent August 11, 1981), which could provide a better ergonomic design.

11
 Figure 6:Recumbent Bicycle with Overhead Handlebar

Figure 7: Recumbent Bicycle With Under Seat Steering

In all of these designs the short comings of a standard recumbent bicycle or tricycle are that they
fail to meet our aerodynamic needs and their single crank gear system will not provide sufficient
power and speed to compete with the other groups in the competition.

1.3.3. Codes and Standards

For our human powered vehicle we will have to adhere to ASME welding and safety standards
which focus on the safety of the rider by regulating wall thicknesses and roll bar specifications.

2. Problem Definition

2.1 Customer Requirements

2.1.1 Form
These are our goals and restraints that our vehicle must have in regards to appearance and construction.

1. Overall length of 6ft max

2. Overall width of 3ft max

3. Overall weight of no more than 50 lbs

4. HPV must be aerodynamic

5. HPV fairing must cover 1/3 of the front area

12
2.1.2 Fit
These are the parameters that our project must have when it must deal with its riders and the
environment.

1. Driver must have full range of leg motion

2. Driver will have sufficient seat space.

3. Driver must be able to steer accurately

4. Vehicle will have potential to be dissembled and reassembled quickly for space

Requirements

5. Area of front will be 7ft

6. Cd will be 0.6

2.1.3 Function
There are the primary actions that our project must be able to perform.

1. HPV must stop within 20 ft if going 15 miles per hour

2. HPV must be able to navigate a 25 ft radius turn

3. Driver’s must be protected incase of rollover

4. Vehicle will reach max speed of 45 mph after 600 meters and hold speed for

100 meters

5. Vehicle must be able to traverse 65 kilometers

6. Driver will be able to operate HPV

7. Driver must have unimpeded vision of the road

8. HPV must be ergonomically sound

9. HPV must have power train that converts max potential human power to

rotational speed.

10. HPV must be within provided budget

11. HPV must complete all functions without need of maintenance or outside human

Aid.

13
2.2 Assumptions
1. Funds and materials will be available when needed

2. Loma labs will be available for construction

3. Loma labs will have sufficient storage space

4. Loma labs will have all tools necessary for construction

5. ASME HPV Contest will occur

6. Group will have enough funds to complete project

7. Riders will be healthy during competition

8. Riders will have potential power output of approximately 85 Watts

2.3. Constraints
1. 8 month time window before the competition

2. Limited budget of $ 1,000

3. Limited Resources

 Based on funds
 Based on Size
 Based on Weight
 Based on Availability
4. Limited size

 Assembled
o 6 ft max by 3 ft max
 Disassembled
o 4x1x2 ft box
5. Vehicle will be built in time for competition

6. Vehicle will have multiple trial tests before competition

14
2.4 Customer Requirements Schematic

Air

Rider
Louis
Competitive

HPV
Wind
Forces

Power to
Road Forces
tires
Heat

Figure 8: Customer Requirements Schematic for Human Powered Vehicle

2.5 Test/Evaluation Plan for all Requirements and Constraints

After completion of the construction of our HPV we plan to test/evaluate all necessary
requirements and constraints by:

 Having a successful pre-test run that meets all ASME completion guidelines:
o Stopping within 20ft from a moving speed of 15 miles/hour
o Maneuvering a radius of 25 ft
o Passing all safety guidelines
 Successfully competing at the ASME HPV competition from May 1-3, 2009
o Finish speed race in 20 seconds
o Finish endurance race in 2 hours

3. Concept Development

3.1. Overview
3.1.1. Creative Strategies
During brainstorming we remained open and developed a diverse set of ideas. We broke down our designs
into interchangeable subsystems. This strategy gave us separate designs for our drive train, braking, frame and
steering which we then interchanged to create unique concepts.

3.1.2. Governing Principles

The key principles that govern the functions of our HPV designs are:

15
  Aerodynamics (wind resistance, frontal area, drag force)
 Biomechanics (Pedaling, torque)
 Vehicle Dynamics (Braking, Steering, Balance, Centrifugal forces)
 Solid Mechanics (frame stress, component stress)
 Machine Design (Drive train, gear ratios)

3.2. Synthesis and Analysis of Overall Concept

3.2.1. Overall Concept 1

Three Wheel Simplicity HPV

Our strategies to stay open minded helped us develop creative subsystems for this design. The
layout for concept 1 is based off having a solid beam go from the wheel axe to the front tire fork
(Figure 9). One of the unique subsystem designs is that the pedal system is directly attached to the
front wheel, so that no drive train is necessary.

The advantages for this concept are that it would cut cost and there would be less complexity than
other designs. Reasons for reduced complexity are that we won’t have a drive train and we
eliminate a derailleur. The negatives of this reduction in complexity are that since there is no drive
train there would be no shifting of gears so it would be tough to adjust speed or accelerate
efficiently coming out of turns and we would lack speed. Another unique subsystem is our steering
on this concept, it uses a U-shaped bar that goes under the seat and comes up to meet the riders’
hands about 12 inches from their chest. The steering is unique in that the bottom of the steering
bar it has a bar on each side attached to the back axle to give us rear steering (Figure 10). Steering
is a positive in that it would not be very difficult to construct and would not cost a great deal but the
steering would not be ideal and could be unstable. Another negative to any three wheel design is
the added rolling resistance, weight, and frontal area, plus costs for extra materials. Advantages are
that the vehicle that would spread the stress and has good overall stability to accommodate rookie
riders. Braking system is very similar to any road bike in that it will use standard brake calipers
and cables that attach on the steering bars. The aerodynamic design for this concept is small; a
partial fairing would preferred be since we won’t be able to minimize the frontal area on a three
wheel HPV.

16
 Figure 9: Side View of Concept 1

Figure 10: Steering top view for Concept 1

3.2.2. Overall Concept 2

Two Wheel Cut and Gut HPV

The creative strategy for this concept came from minimizing cost, weight and complexity. This seems to
be our most cost efficient vehicle concept because it is based on taking a modern steel road bike and
augmenting it to become an HPV (Figure 11). The first step in the process is cutting the top bar at the

17
seat stay and then cutting it again on the down tube about halfway down. These two cuts will be where
the HPV seat will sit. A steel bar is then welded from the bottom cut to the old front fork and the old
handle bar set up is weld back to the front of the frame. From there we add only have to add a front
drive train and rewire the brake cables. Our drive train design is unique and provides the ability to
switch gears which is very desirable to our design. We use the old gears from the double crank and
attach another chain to the smaller crank that goes to the front of the HPV and connects to a single
crank (Figure 12). Then a long partial fairing is attached to the horn shaped handle bars which provide
our steering (Figure 13). The positives are that it would be relatively simple, low cost and it would have a
high potential to perform well. This high potential comes from the fact that it has advantages in some
key performance factors like weight, frontal area and rolling resistance. The negatives are that it lacks
stability, and would require some difficult welds. The welding factor is also somewhat enlarged by the
fact that we have a team of novice welders.

Figure 11: Side view of Concept 2

18
 Figure 12: Drive Train for Concept 2

Figure 13: Steering Top view for Concept 2

3.2.3. Overall Concept 3

Three Wheel Tadpole HPV

Our creative strategies to keep options open also helped us come up with this three wheel design. This
design was based on a desire for strong frame that would be ergonomically sound. The layout for this
concept is one that relies on a sturdy frame and is adjustable for riders (Figure 14). The uniqueness of
this HPV design is that it actually has two wheels in the front and it is the only concept that uses a single

19
chain for its drive train (Figure 15). These concepts are very nice because they provide great stability and
will also give us the open undercarriage which makes it easy to install the drive train. Another
interesting addition to this concept is the idea of individual steering bars for each wheel which makes it
so that the HPV is easier for the rider to control and would be more forgiving on rider since it would take
more effort to turn the vehicle (Figure 16). The seat lies on the frame of the back wheel and creates a
more favorable angle for frontal area and ergonomics satisfaction. A few other positives that come in
having this vehicle design would be the spread of stress and having good overall stability to
accommodate novice riders. The aerodynamic design for the concept is going to be your basic partial
fairing since we won’t be able to minimize the frontal area on this HPV design. A few disadvantages that
come in to play on this three wheel design are the added rolling resistance, weight, and frontal area,
plus costs for extra materials.

Figure 14: Side View for Concept 3

Figure 15: Drive train for Concept 3

20
 Figure 16: Steering top view for Concept 3

3.2.4. Overall Concept 4

Two Wheel High Profile HPV

The creative strategy to build this concept came about from our constraint on weight, with the idea to
build a HPV that would be as light and reliable as possible. The back end of this HPV works much like a
bicycle and has a full 8 speed cog set which goes onto a double crank (Figure 17). Like concept 2 it uses
another chain to attach to the bottom crank and takes away the derailleur that would belong to that
crank (Figure 18). This makes switching speed very painless and would provide a more efficient ride.
From the backside fork the HPV transitions into the seat and main bar of the frame that connects to the
front fork. Our steering subsystem then connects to the undercarriage of the design and uses a four bar
set up to steer the front wheel (Figure 19). The fairing is then placed on the front side of the bike
coming right over the pedals. Advantages of this concept are that it has a low center of gravity, gives us
small frontal area, and it is light weight. Some disadvantages are that it is not the easiest to build and it
would require the most work because it will be built from the ground up. Cost would also be relatively
higher but those could be reduced by purchasing used bicycle parts.

21
 Figure 17: Side View for Concept 4

Figure 18: Drive Train for Concept 2

Figure 19: Steering top view for Concept 4

22
3.3. Evaluation

After coming up with our various designs we wanted to develop a criterion to expose the best concepts.
At first look all of our designs seem feasible and all have positives and negatives. We focused on eight
different factors of different weights: rolling resistance, aerodynamics (frontal area), ergonomics,
reliability, steering, cost, least complexity, and the weight.

3.3.1 Rolling resistance: A key factor in speed and endurance test so it was given a weight factor of 8.

Found that rolling resistance is directly proportional to the number of wheels of the HPV. This gives
Concepts 2 and 4 an advantage since they have one less wheel; they are scored accordingly.

3.3.2 Aerodynamics (frontal area): Aerodynamics is the most important factor on our performance so
we set its weight factor at 9.

We calculated the differences in frontal area and found minimal differences between both two wheel
and both three wheel concepts. The results came to be 341 square inches for the two wheel designs and
455 square inches for the three wheel designs. This is a 4/3 advantage for the two wheel and is scored
accordingly.

3.3.3 Ergonomics: Since we are essentially the only customers we felt this was important but not
necessary to optimize so it has a weight factor of 4.

This part of the evaluation was based more on how we felt the design would feel to ride on. For
example, concept 1 has the pedals in an awkwardly low position and the seat angle doesn’t seem ideal
so it was given the lowest grade. Concept 3 by contrast sits in a nice riding position and puts the steering
bars right into the riders hand without much discomfort so it received the highest score.

3.3.4 Reliability: This tests the longevity of our frame design and helps us decide how likely we are to
break any joints so this got a weight factor of 8.

The scores for this section were decided based on the difficulty of the joints and the weight distribution
along our HPV. So for this factor we looked at joint configurations that were more prone to fail and
scored the different concepts accordingly.

3.3.5 Steering: This factor is important but not as key as others In that it would hinder the rider
somewhat but is not a make or break subsystem, so it received a weight factor of 5.

For this factor we took into account front and rear steering while also considering the forgiveness of our
steering designs. For example, concept 1 was worst in our assessment because it has rear wheel
steering. Concept 3 was best for the steering because it allows for the most forgiveness which would be
very useful in the 40 mile endurance ride. Concept 2 and 4 both had good steering but turn the bike very
easily and are more prone to crashing, so they received intermediate scores.

23
 3.3.6 Cost: Cost is solely based on how much money we anticipate each concept costing and how much
materials that would be use to create the design.

Since Concept 2 is tearing down a standard steel road bike and recycling parts this design received the
best score for cost. The worst score for any concept was concept 3 because of the amount of steel that
and added parts.

3.3.7 Least Complexity: These scores were decided from anticipating part count and making an estimate
of the amount of work and difficulty that would be required to build each concept.

This part of the evaluation rewarded concept 2 for requiring less building and hurt concept 3 for having
so many parts. Concept 4 also did not score highly because of the difficulty in putting together
subsystem like its drive train and steering configuration. Concept 1 has no drive train so that helped it
but it still has a good number of parts and would require more time than concept 2.

3.3.8 Weight: The weight scores were calculated by doing a projection of weight based on amount of
material and the added weight of subsystems.

Our calculations showed that concept 1 and 3 would be the heaviest with concept 1 being 8-12% lower
in weight than concept 3. Our two wheel HPV’s scored the same since both had about a 33-36%
reduction in weight when compared to the heaviest concept.

Table 1: Decision Matrix for Concept Choice

Aerodyn
Rolling
Features / amics. Ergono Reliabil Least Overall
Resista Steering Cost Weight
Selection (frontal mics ity Complex Score
nce
Criteria: area)
Weight
9 8 4 8 5 6 6 8
Factor:
Concept 1 6 6 5 9 3 6 7 6 335
Concept 2 8 9 6 4 5 9 9 8 397
Concept 3 6 6 8 9 8 4 4 5 334
Concept 4 8 9 7 7 6 7 6 8 400

3.4. Refinements
Our concepts all seemed to do well in our evaluation portion of this section but concepts 2 and 4
definitely stood out. This was due to high scores in the performance factors like rolling resistance,
aerodynamics (frontal area) and the weight. The difference between these two concepts was very
minimal and actually came out to be within 1 % of the highest score. Both concepts 2 and 4 have a high
potential to do well in the competition but they also have significant weaknesses. Concept 2 for example
has a significant weakness when it comes to reliability which enough reason alone to disregard the
concept but it has a few huge pluses in that it is inexpensive, it is not complex and it’s light. One possible
solution is to try and reinforce all the joints so that none of the joint can fracture. This would add

24
weight, complexity and cost but would eliminate a glaring weakness. The only real issue with this
solution would be that it may produce something that was not too aesthetically pleasing. Another
significant factor is that the double chain design would not be preferred and using concept 2 we would
be committed to that drive chain design. Concept 4 doesn’t really have major weaknesses but it doesn’t
have idea steering and it is somewhat complex. A good solution for this issue would be to change the
steering subsystem to something that was better and less complex. This concept is also much more
robust than concept 2 and allows us to switch the change drive train to the single chain design we saw in
concept 3. Another issue would be the high rolling resistance on such a small front tire but since we
have room to play with on the fork that can be easily adjusted.

Key adjustment:

 Single Chain Drive train

 Resize of front fork and front wheel
 Adjust frame angle to accommodate new front fork size

3.5. Selection

Concept 2 and 4 both scored very well but because Concept 4 was a more robust design we decided that
it would be our choice. This concept allows us the flexibility to switch any and all subsystems and gives
us greater potential to succeed in the HPV ASME competition.

4. Design Specifications
4.1. Design Overview
4.1.1. Description
The overall vision for our project is to build an HPV that is a skeleton recumbent bicycle using a two
wheel design, which will decrease weight, increase speed so that we can be competitive in the speed
portion of the competition. Our seat will be composed of a material fabric placed in the rear third of the
HPV to provide rider comfort and decrease weight for the endurance race. We will be using steel stock
tubing for a variety of our HPV components; our frame will connect the front wheel to the body of the
HPV, which will be a square frame to support the rider and his seat and then two sections of tubing will
be used to connect the seat frame to the back tire. The drive train will be a single chain multi-gear
system that will allow us to obtain our top speed as well as navigate the endurance course. The system
will be powered by our rider using pedals attached to the gear system similar to a modern bicycle. An
aspect of our vehicle that was not addressed in our concept discussion but is still very important, are the
tires that we will be using. Our research to determine what tires to use indicated that our desired tires
could be interchanged regardless of HPV concept. Therefore, to ensure that we would not have to
worry about tire issues mid-race and to achieve the best performance from the tires themselves we
chose Kevlar reinforced tires as the optimum choice.

25
Our overall HPV design will consist of four separate subsystems; the drive train, the braking system, the
HPV frame and steering system. Each of these systems are incorporated into all of our designs although
their configurations change over these different designs. The aspects have the drive train have already
been reviewed in the prior paragraph. The braking system will utilize standard brake pads on both the
front and rear tire and be initiated using traditional handle brake triggers. The HPV frame will be
constructed out of steel stock as previously stated, and will be the first section constructed. Our
steering system will be composed of a four bar mechanism connected to the front wheel fork. This
system will be an undercarriage system that sits directly beneath the frame and the seat rather than the
overhead design of a traditional bicycle.

4.1.2. Design Schematics

Figure 20: Feature Schematic for HPV

26
 Figure 21: Function Schematic for HPV

4.2. Functional Specifications

 FS1: Braking system will be brake pads located on the front and rear tires.

 FS2: Undercarriage steering will allow the HPV to navigate a 25 ft radius turn

 FS3: HPV design will protect the rider

 FS4: Rider will power the HPV

 FS5: HPV will have a single chain multi-gear drive train

 FS5: HPV will have performance Kevlar reinforced tires

 FS6. HPV will travel 100 feet in a straight line

 HPV will have rear wheel drive

4.3. Physical Specifications

 PS1: Overall length of 83.6 in

 PS2: Overall Width of no more than 3 ft

 PS3: Overall Weight 50 lbs

 PS4: Fairing will cover 1/3 of the frontal area of the HPV

 PS5: Fairing will improve aerodynamics

27
  PS6: Overall Cd = 0.6

 PS7: Attain a max speed of 30 mph

Figure 22: Dimensioned Sketch of HPV

4.4. Product QFD

Table 2: QFD for HPV
Design Specifications
Functional Physical
Customer
Requirements and Priority FS1 FS3 FS2 FS4/5 FS6 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4/5
Constraints
CR1: Brake 4 5 5 3 0 0 2 0 2 0
CR1: Turns 3 2 3 5 1 3 2 2 0 1
CR3: Saftey 4 5 5 3 0 2 0 2 3 0
CR4:Endurance 5 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 2
CR5:Fairing 5 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 5
CR4:Stability 5 0 4 4 4 5 3 4 3 3

Driver
Target Values 15 ft 25 ft 600 m 100ft 6 ft 3 ft 50 lb 1/3 A
Safe
Technical Difficulty 3 1 3 4 4 2 2 3 5
Importance Rating 46 79 64 48 42 39 34 55 53

28
The most important design aspect that correlated with our customer requirements will be the safety
constraints. ASME needs to ensure the safety of the drivers, and to meet these standards we have
included it as a part of our design specifications and a top priority. Similar items of importance are
braking and turn specifications. ASME provided specific specifications that we must adhere to; i.e.
braking to a complete stop from 20 mph within 15ft as well as navigating a turn of radius 25ft. To
achieve these needs we will have to build these capabilities into our HPV design.
The hardest specification that we will have to accomplish is our speed specification. We want to reach
and maintain a top speed of 30 mph for the 100 meter speed race. A max speed requirement is not
given by the ASME guidelines, however, to be competitive in the speed race we will have to achieve at
least that speed. We will be relying on the drive train to achieve this goal. The only design specification
that we may need to neglect is the fairing system which affects the aerodynamics of the HPV. It will be
the most difficult to accomplish because of the cost of materials as well as our lack of knowledge on the
subject. Also, we do not have the tools or funding to create a fiberglass (or other comparable material)
fairing, so this aspect of the design may be cut or just simplified to a 2D form.

4.5. Subsystems
Drive Train:

Figure 23: Drive Train System

We will include a multi-gear one chain system that is attached to the back wheel to transmit power. It
will act identically to a standard bicycle.

Steering/Braking:

29
 Figure 24: Steering System
We will use a uni-axial undercarriage to provide a steering range that will allow us to maneuver a radius
of 25 ft (as required by the competition guidelines). We will use a four bar mechanism attached to the
front wheel, similar to the patents we have seen to accomplish this.
Frame:

Figure 25:: Frame System (Side View)

30
 Figure 26: Frame System (Top View)
Our HPV will be built off of a frame constructed out of stock steel tubing.

4.6. Design Deliverables

• Preliminary Design Report with associated modeling and analyses

• We will provide a report that will define our problem and proposed solution, this will
include a background and extensive analyses that will show how we chose the design
that we have.

• Full set of engineering drawings

• These will show the exact specifications of our project.

• Define all parts and systems so that the reader can understand each part and how they
work together in the final setup

• Bill of Materials

• The Bill of materials will include every item that we use in the design of our project.
This would include the length and weight of the steel for the frame, the types of tires
and pedals etc.

• Cost estimates

31
 • This will include the amount we plan on spending and will be closely associated with the
bill of materials. Everything we need will be documented according to cost. Cost
estimates according to time spent will also be included in this portion.

5. Project Plan

5.1. Research
There are four areas on which we will require more research; these are the gear system, the steering
system, the HPV’s tires and the fairing options. While we have already obtained much research on these
aspects, we still do not have enough information to create a workable design. For the gears; we need to
learn more about gear ratios to determine what types of gears we would like to use on both the
endurance and speed races. This information will be important because it will determine the overall
design of the HPV because we must account for the space our gear system will occupy. We must do
more research on our steering mechanism because while we have already committed to the
undercarriage design, we are not certain it is the best design for what we are trying to accomplish. Our
main questions revolve around its affect on the stability of the HPV and its ergonomic impacts.

We have done very little research when it comes to tires and what we want to see used on our HPV.
There are a wide variety of options for us to choose from and we must weigh all of our options. We
need to find a tire that will not use to much of our energy to overcome friction forces, but we don’t
want a tire that slips on the pavement. We need a tire that is light so that we can still have a fast
moving HPV, but one that is durable enough to handle the endurance course. These specifications are
areas that we need to still look into and analyze. Finally we need to do more research on fairings,
because we still do not really understand what they do other then make our vehicle more aerodynamic.
We do not know how or where to mount them, and we also have limited knowledge about what types
are the best for our budget and what we want to do with it. Before we can put any more thought into
the overall design these are questions that we must have answered.

5.2. Critical Function Prototypes

The critical functions that we have to analyze are the gear system, the braking system, the steering
system, and the safety of our HPV. All of these critical functions are straightforward to analyze and a
standard analyses of each will be sufficient to provide us confidence in each area.

5.3. Design
Our design process seems as though it would be unique to that of our peers. We are not creating
something that is new or has not been done. In essence or creation is a collection of ideas that
would best fit for what we are trying to accomplish. We will be using computer tools such as Pro
Engineer Wildfire but it will be used to show a 3-Dimensional layout of our design, not to give an
analysis of our design.

Our first step in the process to create a successful design was to research what design had been
previously successful. The idea behind this was to try not to develop a design that was not

32
realistically feasible. It also helped give us a general idea of the complexity of our project so that we
could more easily gauge what our HPV would cost and how long it would take to build it.

Before we could fully develop our design we had to figure out what would build and what we would
be purchasing. We figured wheel sets; braking system and our steering system would be purchased
and would be mounted onto our design. Our gear set will also be purchased but we will have to be
creative with that and create our own design with what we by so that it fits our frame design. The
frame set will take on the majority of the complexity. We also felt that it would be a good idea to
purchase the fiber glass faring since we lack the resources to be able to create our own design to
specially fit the design of our HPV.

Looking at the design of our frame we wanted to build something that would be very sturdy while
also not being too heavy so that it won’t slow us down in the endurance and speed competitions.
This issue will be our primary design trade off and will need a bit more research in order to find the
best balance for our HPV. Our biggest worry with any design would be the joints on the frame since
we would need to weld those by hand and none of us have a more than a couple hours of welding
experience. We also would need a very strong front fork, since any recumbent vehicle would put a
lot of strain on the front end of the vehicle.

Most of our subsystems interactions are made to be relatively simple so that we focus on making
sure our HPV can meet the requirements. Our brake system will be very basic and will be mounted
much like any modern bicycle, where they mount to the fork on the front end and for our back
brakes we will mount it off the frame. Our steering system is somewhat unique and will look much
like standard handle bars but it will be mounted backwards on the undercarriage of our HPV and
will steer using cables attached to the top of the front fork. Our gear system will be very creative
but doesn’t seem to be too complicated. It will attach to the back tire and look much like any normal
8 speed, double crank bicycle but the kicker is that it won’t have a front derailleur but instead on
the small crank we will attach a long chain that will go under the undercarriage and attach to our
front crank that will be rotated by the pedals.

There will be some manufacturing difficulties that may arise when we are welding the frame
together but those issues have yet to arise. Some of our objectives would be to minimize frame
weight and we would like to optimize joint strength. We would also like to maximize our gear ratio
for our gear system and as far as the estimated time to complete the design of each subsystem
please see our Gantt chart below.

5.4. Construction
We will begin the construction of our HPV with its frame. This is the main component of our design and
must be built first so that the other systems can be built off of it. We will be purchasing rectangular
steel stock and steel tubing to create the frame. There will be one main portion of the frame where the
seat frame will be attached to. The seat frame will be welded onto the main frame. The triangle frame
for the back tire will also be welded onto the main frame. For the front tire we will be bolting a fork tire
frame to the front of the main frame. A majority of the frame will be welded together with very few
bolts used to old pieces together. All of the frame will be built and welded in Loma 4. After the frame is

33
created we will be adding the gear system and wheels. The gear system and wheels will both be
purchased by vendors and we will install them. The gear system will consist of gears, chains, and
pedals, and the back wheel will be larger than the front. We will connect the pedals and wheels using
bolts, while the gear box will be welded to the main frame. After installing the wheels and gears we will
install the handlebars and brake system; these systems will also be vendor purchased. The handlebars
will be an undercarriage style that uses a four-bar mechanism to rotate the front tire. The four bar
mechanism will be created out of our rectangular stock and connected using bolts and pins to both the
handlebars and the front tire fork. The handlebars themselves will be attached to the main frame using
bolts. The brake will be attached to the handlebars similar to a bicycle design, although for HPV the
brakes will only be attached to the front tire. After adding the brake system and the steering system we
will install the seat cushion. The cushion will consist of a foam bottom and a thin material backing. The
backing will be attached between two steel tubes as a portion of the seat frame and the cushion will be
screwed into its portion of the seat frame. To protect the rider, the roll bar and safety belt will be
installed. The roll bar will be welded together out of our steel stock and placed directly over the seat to
protect the rider in case of an accident. The safety belt will be modeled after those found in the drivers
and passengers side of cars as specified by the ASME rules. Finally we will add the fairing as our last
component of the HPV. It will be screwed into the front portion of the main frame and if necessary we
will extend it over the sides of the HPV using sheet metal which will be attached with bolts and spot
welds.

5.5. Testing
To test our HPV we will have to have it completely assembled for all but one component. The only
component that can be tested without being assembled is the gear system. If it is set up properly on a
rig in one of the labs we can use a tachometer to determine if the gear translates its rotational speed to
the tires, and although this will not be extremely accurate without the weight of the rider and the
friction of the road it will give us a general idea of what will occur. To test the rest of our components
the vehicle must be assembled. To test the speed portion of our bike we will have to head out to Fiesta
Island which will provide us with a safe and isolated area that is close in proximity and has a location
that will very closely mirror the track that we will have to compete on in the competition. There is a
long stretch that will allow us to test how long it takes and how long we can hold our top speed, as well
as our stopping time from that speed. To test the steering we will be able to use the Loma parking lot.
The ASME rules state that we must be able to maneuver through a turn with a radius of 25 feet. In the
empty parking lot we will have a safe environment which will allow us to test the turn radius of our
vehicle at various speeds. To test the set braking parameters that the ASME guideless provides us, we
must return to Fiesta Island. The rules state that we must be able to stop with 20 ft if going 15 miles per
hour. By using Fiesta Island we eliminate unnecessary obstacles and have a way of gauging speed by
driving a car next to the HPV. When testing our endurance components of the HPV we just need to ride
the vehicle for extended periods of time, and the local areas provide plenty of options to do that. BY
driving for extended periods, we become more comfortable with the handling of the HPV which will help
us for the competition, and it will also provide us with instant feedback in terms of stability and
ergonomics which we otherwise might not notice until the last minute. Finally, our last and most
important test specification would be the safety factors. To test these would have to make sure that the

34
roll bar and safety harness protect the rider from dangers that would occur if there was an accident. To
do this we would place the HPV in positions that would occur during an accident and see if the rider
would either hit the ground or be harmed in some way. Examples would be to lay the HPV down on its
side or even upside down and see if the roll bar and seat belt keep the rider in place. Also, by putting
the HPV in different positions to simulate accidents, it would also provide us with more insight on how
to make our vehicle even safer.

5.6. Project Deliverables

At the end of the second semester our project deliverables will be:

 Final Design Report including test results

o We will have a design report that will show the development of our project in its
construction phases. It will name all design changes made during this time as well as
clearly demonstrate our test methods and results. It will also contain the results from the
ASME competition
 A working prototype that meets customer requirements
o We will have a prototype that will have competed in the ASME HPV competition and
will have met all of the ASME requirements.
 Analysis of any failed components
o Most failed components will have an in depth analysis, however, to conserve materials
and funding most parts will be reused, unless they are broken or excessively damaged in
the process.

5.7. Schedule

Figure 27: Gantt Chart (Semester 1)

35
 Figure 28: Gantt Chart (Semester 2)

5.8. Budget
Table 3: Budget for HPV

Part/Materials Cost Quantity Shipping/Tax Subtotal

Steel
Round steel tubing $ 6.50 8 $ .45 $ 55.64
Rectangular steel tubing $ 6.50 8 $ .45 $ 55.64
Fiberglass fairing
Recumbent bike wind $ 239.93 1 $ 23.70 $ 263.63
Frame

fairing
Wheels
20" x 1" front tire $ 24.50 1 $ 1.715 $ 31.60
26" x 1" rear tire $ 24.50 1 $ 1.715 $ 31.60
Steering
Bicycle handlebar $ 25.00 1 $ 1.75 $ 26.75
Subtotal $ 464.86
Gear System
generation

Pedals $ 30.00 2 $ 2.1 $ 64.75

Power

Gear $ 80.00 1 $ 5.6 $ 85.60

Chain $ 40.00 2 $ 2.8 $ 85.60
Crank set $ 85.00 1 $ 45.95 $ 90.95
Rear derailed $ 50.00 1 $ 3.5 $ 53.50
Subtotal $ 380.40
M

m
o

o
p

n
C

Break
c
s

s
t
.
i

36
 Brake pads $ 10.00 4 $ .7 $ 12.80
Steel cables $ 10.00 4 $ .7 $ 12.80
Seat
Seat cover $ 45.00 1 $ 3.15 $ 48.35
Bolts
Suspension bolts $ 15.00 1 set $ 1.05 $ 16.05
ASME membership $ 25.00 3 $0 $ 75.00
Competition fee $ 50.00 1 $0 $ 50.00
Subtotal $ 215.00
Travel
Travel Expenses

Option 1 : Plane tickets (Delta) $287.99 3 $ 49.01 $1011

Option 1: Shipping of the bicycle $ 32.55 1 $ 2.29 $ 34.84
Hotel Room (2nights) $69.00 $4.83 $73.83
Option 2 : Minivan (rent + gas) $350.00 1 $24.5 $374.50
Option 2 : gas (both ways) $350.00 1 Included in $350.00
Hotel Room (2nights) $69.00 1 $4.83 $73.83

Subtotal (option 1) $1124.67

Subtotal (option 2) $ 798.33
Total Option 1 $ 2184.93
Option 2 $ 1858.59

37
 5.9. Personnel

Human Powered
Vehicle

Steering/Handlebar Aerodynamic Frame Gear System

Chris Jacobs Louis Barrios Konrad Myca Louis Barrios

Breaks Steel Cable Steering fork Seat Rear triangle Roll bar

Pedals Chain Crank

Fairing

Figure 29: Personnel Diagram

6. References
 Drexel Dragon Wagon ASME HPV 2008. 14 May, 2008. Porcej.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuxqKbwyL9g
 Forbes, Robert. “Recumbent Tricycle.” Patent 4,497,502
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=nrsxAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=recumben
t+tricycle#PPA1,M1>
 Forrester, Richard. ”Recumbent Bicycles.” Patent 4,283,070
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=am0zAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=recumbe
nt+bicycles#PPA1,M1>
 Harmeyer, Jerome. “Three Wheel Recumbent Vehicle.” Patent 5,263,732.
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=QMIdAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=rec
umbent+steering>
 How to make a recumbent bicycle yourself. 11 Feb. 2006. Hanno Smits.
< http://www.wind-water.nl/rec_build_n.html>
 How far can a man travel under his own power in one day. 25 Nov. 2005. Greg Kolodziejzyk
< http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPVMain.htm>

38
  Labranche, Gerard. “Recumbent Bicycle.” Mar 4, 1997.
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=ZfwaAAAAEBAJ&dq=recumbent+road+bike>.
 McElfresh, Lloyd.” Recumbent Vehicle.” Patent 4,618,160.
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=LZAuAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=rec
umbent+steering
 Sawyer, Kevin. “Recumbent Bicycle.” Patent 4,773,663
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=m_QxAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=recumb
ent+bicycles>

 “Summary of Rules.” October 2008. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

<http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/Events/Contests/HPV/15982.pdf >.
 Wilson, David. Bicycling Science. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004
 Velomobile, human powered vehicle, recumbent bike. 19 Sept. 2006. Velomobiles .
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiv4aDolVaI>

7. Appendices

7.1. Team Member Resumes

See attached pages.

39
 Konrad Myca
2133 Alameda Ave Apt#B
Alameda, California 94501
(510)388-0987
konrad-09@sandiego.edu
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Education: University of San Diego (USD) San Diego, CA

BS/BA in mechanical engineering to be completed May, 2010 (Major GPA 3.05)

Relevant Courses:
Computer Application in ME (in progress) Dynamics
Machine Shop/CAD (Pro Engineer) Fluid Mechanics
Senior Design I (in progress) Heat Transfer (in progress)
Machine design I Applied Thermodynamics
Machine design II (in progress) Alternative Energy (in progress)
Machinery of Materials Engineering Economics

Work Experiences:
Lab Assistant: Engineering Department 2005-Present
 Used both mechanical (mill, lathe ) and electrical (oscilloscope, waveform generator) equipment
 Maintained and updated software network of lab computers
 Gained experience in installing computer software including : updating Pro Engineer and bios

Academic Projects:
Pen Design Project, Spring 08
 Design a pen schematic using SURFCAM software
 Used a CNC lathe to cut out the desired shape

Applied Thermodynamics Project, Fall 2007

Analyzed thermal efficiency of hydrogen vs. diesel engines
 Researched information regarding both engines
 Performed an ideal cold cycle analysis for both engines
 Used theoretical temperature data to identify thermal efficiencies

Machine Shop Projects, Fall 2007

Used wood and metal working machines to:
 Build guitar from blueprints
 Build a piston rod from blueprints
 Design and build a sling shot

Bridge Design Project, Fall 2006

 Designed a wooden bridge while considering cost, strength and weight
 Preformed computer analysis to identify bridges critical points
 Preformed analysis to find maximum load of bridge

Special Skills:
 AutoCAD, Pro Engineer , MATLAB, Microsoft Word, Excel, Power Point
 Basic network administration skills (e.g. adding users)
 Experience using industrial mill and lathe, table saw, band saw and various hand tools
 Fluent in Polish

Activities:
 USD men’s crew (Spring 2006- Fall 2007)

40
 LOUIS BARRIOS
louisgbarrios@prodigy.net
Permanent Address Current Address
23534 Calle Ovieda 5998 Alcala Park
Ramona, CA, 92065 San Diego, CA, 92110
(760) 315-1551 (760) 315-1551
OBJECTIVE
To obtain an design position at an Hamilton Sundstrand
EDUCATION
University of San Diego
Major: Mechanical Engineering Overall GPA: 3.27
Expected Graduation date: May 2009
RELEVANT COURSES: Mechanical Design, Heat Transfer, Manufacturing Processes, Dynamics, Fluid
Mechanics, Mechanics of Machine Design, Intro to Engineering Design, Engineering Programming (Matlab and
C++), AutoCad lab, Thermodynamics, Thermal Sciences, Statics, Mechanics, Material Science, Pro-E and
machine shop.
TECHNICAL SKILLS/TRAINING
 Proficient using Microsoft Excel, Word and PowerPoint
 Fluent in Spanish with strong interpersonal and presentation skills
 Proficient with Pro-E Wildfire, AutoCad, Surfcam, Matlab and C++ programs
WORK EXPERIENCE
Continuous Improvement Engineering Intern
Kraft Foods, Fullerton CA May 2008- August 2008
Responsibilities:
 Improved tray yield on numerous lines by introducing training manuals
 Researching problematic issues on the line to save money by isolating high problem areas.
SPORTS COORDINATOR
YMCA, San Diego CA December 2007- April 2008
Responsibilities:
 Recruiting, scheduling, and being the commissioner for soccer league.
 Managing league conflicts and scheduling.
Resident Assistant
University of San Diego, San Diego CA August 2007- Current
 Overseeing residents 24hrs, including rule enforcement to mediation.
Combustion Design and Rigs Engineering Intern
Solar Turbines Incorporated, San Diego CA June 2007-August 2007
 Redesigned fuel injectors and liners for the T-65 turbine engine combustion housing investigating
the possibility to cross lean premix parts with conventional parts.
Customer Service Associate
K-Mart, Ramona CA July 2003 – January 2004
 Directed customer services
 Oversaw electronic and athletic sales departments
ATHLETICS / LEADERSHIP
 Student athlete Cross Country runner, devoting 30 hours per week to training for NCAA Division I
program while completing a 5-year engineering curriculum in 4 years.
 Participated as a project manager in 2006 USD Engineering Truss Design competition. In this
competition, I demonstrated leadership, teamwork, and time management skills to lead my team to a
first place victory.

 Attended a Leadership Development Institute through INROADS to obtain integral information and
learn how to become a better leader in the work place.

41
 Michael Christopher Jacobs
sirhcj2005@hotmail.com

Permanent Address: Current Address:

266 Camino Largo 5998 Alcala Park
Vista, CA, 92084 San Diego, CA, 92110
(760) 917-8468 (760) 917-8468

EDUCATION
University of San Diego
Major: Mechanical Engineering Overall GPA: 3.00
Expected Graduation date: December 2009

RELEVANT COURSES Intro to Mechanics and Waves, Intro to Engineering Design, Engineering
Programming (Matlab and C++), AutoCad lab, Thermodynamics, Electricity and Magnetism, , Thermal
Sciences, Statics, Mechanics, Material Science, Pro-E and machine shop.

TECHNICAL SKILLS/TRAINING
 Proficient using Microsoft Excel, Word and PowerPoint
 Great interpersonal, public speaking, presentation skills
 Proficient with AutoCad, Matlab, C++ programs and Pro-E Wildfire

WORK EXPERIENCE
Solar Turbines May 2008 – August 2008
Engineering Assistant
Responsibilities:
 Actively complete projects given to me by my senior manager.
University of San Diego, San Diego CA September 2005 – Current
University Undergraduate Admissions Staff Member
Responsibilities:
 This is a work-study position where I help create, process incoming freshman applications as
well as field phone calls, lead group tours of the campus, help coordinate and run the universities
overnight visit program for prospective students.
City of Vista, Vista CA June 2007 – August 2007
Day Camp Counselor
Responsibilites:
 Watching over and interacting with children from ages 6-12 in a sports centered day camp
environment.
Albertsons, Vista CA June 2005 – August 2005
Courtesy Clerk/Deli Clerk June 2006 – August 2005
Responsibilities:
 Maintaining a friendly and welcoming environment while providing great service to customers.

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITES/ LEADERSHIP

 Student athlete Cross Country runner, who devotes 30 hours per week to training for a NCAA
Division I program, Team Captain from 2006-current
 President and member of the Ambassadors Club, an organization which is an extension of the
University of San Diego’s admissions office that uses volunteers to promote, present and be the face
of our university to prospective students.
 Active senior member of Sigma Phi Epsilon, a social fraternity on USD’s campus.
 Team leader for our freshman engineering design project, termed NIFTY. Was a facilitator for this
project and its written report component which required us to utilize status reports while designing
and building a Rube Goldberg machine

42
43