Element A:
Objectives:
The problem is clearly and objectively identified and defined with considerable depth, and it is well elaborated with specific detail.
The justification of the problem highlights the concerns of many primary stakeholders and is based on comprehensive, timely, and consistently credible sources;
The justification offers consistently objective detail from which multiple measurable design requirements can be determined.
Reflective Questions:
What exactly is the problem?
The drivetrain (chain system) can malfunction or totally break , which is dangerous for children. Malfunctions actually make up the highest percentage of bike related injuries. Parents need a more reliable and safe system for their children.
How do I phrase it as an objective problem statement?
Of the 318.9 million people in the United States, 103.7 million Americans ride bikes. The power to move these bikes is applied in the chain, where the motion and sprockets are controlled. Unfortunately, sprockets and chains account for 34.1% of bike related injuries and currently, the process of fixing a faulty chain or sprocket, is not permanent and frequent bikers experience chain problems multiple times.
What is the background, context or setting of the problem?
A member of our group experienced their own recurring problems with a bike chain. Others in the class felt, through preliminary research, that bike chains were a problem and we all formed a team. After additional, and much more in-depth research, the situation was made into a more specific problem. We defined years we would work with and some design constraints.
Who in fact says that this is a problem worth solving and why should anyone believe them?
We spoke over the phone with a frequent cyclist and bicycle mechanic, Ken Nowakowski. He informed us that the reasons a bicycle chain stretches, skips, falls off, or breaks, is mainly because of poor or no maintenance.
Element B:
Objectives:
Documentation of plausible prior attempts to solve the problem and/or related problems is drawn from a wide array of clearly identified and consistently credible sources.
The analysis of past and current attempts to solve the problem—including both strengths and shortcomings— is consistently clear, detailed, and supported by relevant data.
Reflective Questions:
What are all of the methods, products, or actions that are being used or have been developed to solve this problem. Exactly why doesn’t each solve the problem?
Most bikes come with a derailleur, which is used as a guidance arm for the chain, but new ones can be bought and replaced if the original breaks. This system is generally successful, but when the chain has been stretched too much or the derailleur bent or broken, it does not perform.
The chain can also be fixed by hand, but that requires stoppage in all movement, the bike has to be turned upside down, and some slightly more complex knowledge of a bike is needed. Not only that, but fixing a bike by hand can take time or resources not available while out on the road in the middle of a ride. Also, most kids are not going to know how to do this.
There are some other patents for lesser known products and solutions, and these can be found in the Element B Patent Summary Sheets.
How do we prove to others that we have done an extensive search for current solution attempts?
A simple way to prove our credibility and that we have done the proper research would be to present the information we have collected with proper sources in a formal format. Of this information there are patents, research documents, articles, and other sources, such as President, B. S. (n.d.). Bicycling: Number of participants U.S. 2014 | Statistic. Retrieved September 06, 2016, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/191204/participants-in-bicycling-in-the-us-since-2006/ . This source shows some statistics about bicycling. It tells how many people each year are involved in bicycling, which provides us with data we can use for our solution.
Who has helped us identify and state the shortcomings of solution attempts found and why should anyone believe them?
We have done all the research to previously attempted solutions and their patents ourselves, besides the information we received from Ken Nowakowski about the lack of maintenance of users bicycles.
Element C:
Objectives:
Design requirements are listed and prioritized, and they are consistently clear and detailed.
These design requirements presented are consistently objective, measurable, and they would be highly likely to lead to a tangible and viable solution to the problem identified.
There is evidence that requirements represent the needs of, and have been validated by, many if not all primary stakeholder groups.
Reflective Questions:
What are the measurable things a new design would have to accomplish (in order of importance) to be seen as a real solution?
Drivetrain system has to last at least four years, with little to no maintenance. (Requires testing)
The system cannot harm children in any way. That includes malfunctions, sharp edges, rough material and breaking in dangerous areas.
It must require no daily maintenance. (Requires testing)
The product cannot be too expensive for bike manufacturers to buy and implement into their own bikes, or for families to buy directly.
How did we determine each of these design requirements?
We determined each of these design requirements through researching the problems encountered by the consumers, such as how long the bike will last and how frequently the bike chain needs to be maintained.
We then determined the best solution to fix the problem, or at least reduce the chance that the problem will occur. What material necessary to strengthen that bike itself as well as its function.
Based on the solutions of the problem and some constraints on the bike through researching the problems. We are able to develop a design requirement for the bike for further construction.
If the product or system we develop is successful, how will I know?
It can be fitted to any bike in the age range of 4-10.
Pass rigor tests:
Ridden by children of the age range.
Survive normal weather wear and tear. Ex: will not rust if left in rain.
Have it abuse tested by a stunt cyclist.
Element D:
Objectives:
The process for generating and comparing possible design solutions was comprehensive, iterave, and consistently defensible.
A viable and well-justified design is highly likely based on the process.
The design solution ultimately chosen was well-justified and demonstrated attention to all design requirements.
The plan of action has considerable merit and would easily support repetition and testing for effectiveness by others.
Justification for each decision step taken in the selection of your final design should be clear and evident.
Can you defend the choices mad based on matrices, research, calculations, or stakeholder feedback?
Research Questions:
1. How did we brainstorm and how did we make sure all specifications and criteria were met with each design?
a. To develop solutions to make the bike safer, we all sat together with an engineering notebook. Anything we suggested was written down and then the others gave input and more changes to make to the idea. Next to the notebook, we had a list of our criteria and design specifications. Also, for each idea we came up with, we made little sketches on another page in the notebook so that we could visually talk about the idea and everybody understood how it would theoretically operate. Anything that did not seem safer was thrown out, but most other ideas were kept. After we got a decent amount of solutions, we went online and made sure there were not any other products similar to the idea that already existed. If the idea did, we made more changes to it.
2. Which solution was chosen and why?
a. After narrowing around 30 solutions down to 6 and then just 3, we decided the best solution would be the caster “RipStik” bike because it had no chain (which helped with safety), the idea would be really appealing to kids, it was something we had never seen before, and there would be minimal maintenance (there are no extra moving pieces that need oiling or cleaning)
Element E:
Objectives:
· The proposed solution is well-substantiated with STEM principles and practices applicable to all or nearly all design requirements and functional claims.
· There is substantial evidence that the application of those principles and practices by the student or a suitable alternate has been reviewed by two or more experts (qualified consultants and/or project mentors) and that those reviews provide confirmation (verification) or detail necessary to inform a corrective response.
Reflective Questions:
1. How do we know that our ideas for the bike innovations were logical and not guesswork?
a. Each idea we came up with was an innovation to a pre-existing solution or based off the movement of different objects. For example, one idea was to replace the bike chain with the bar that links the wheels of old locomotives together. For this bike, the rider would have pushed down on the bar and the bar would push out the wheels to move. Another was to keep a chain and guard like most bikes already have, but redesign what the guard covers and how. The motion of pedaling would not change at all.
2. Why is our chosen solution possible?
a. Getting forward motion from a caster wheel has already been proved by RipStik and wheeled chairs, we are just applying it to a bike. If the rider moves his or her waist like he or she would move their feet on a RipStik, they should be able to keep the bike going after pushing off. Wheels with high traction will create more friction between the ground and wheels and make the motion easier, so it will be best and easiest ridden on rough surfaces.
Element F:
Objective:
·The proposed design was carefully reviewed based on several relevant extra-functional considerations.
·A judgment about design viability based on those considerations—the capacity of the proposed solution to address the problem—is clearly realistic and well supported with credible evidence.
Reflective Questions:
1. How is our solution practical outside of the classroom setting?
a. We have thoroughly evaluated each part of the design for elements such as functionality, aesthetics, safety and ergonomics. Anything that did not comply with one of the factors was noted and improved on. In the end, we made all changes possible to the bike. Not all were kept, but we wanted the bike to comply as much as possible with each of the evaluated factors.
2. What have we done that shows the bike can be put into the hands of the target market?
a. When we were asking people within the school’s opinions, they all seemed pretty excited about the idea of the bike and how it would operate. Officer K thought it would be a hit with younger kids but also provide a good amount of safety, which is what we are after. My own brother cannot wait until we have a working prototype, and he is 10 years old.
Element G:
Objectives:
· The final prototype iteration is clearly and fully explained and is constructed with enough detail to assure that objective data on all or nearly all design requirements could be determined.
· All attributes (sub-systems) of the unique solution that can be tested or modeled mathematically are addressed.
· Well supported justification is provided for those attributes that cannot be tested or modeled mathematically and thus require expert review.
Reflective Questions:
1. Is the build procedure well thought out and will the product be able to yield testable results?
a. In our plan (can be found under the Element G tab) has split up the bike into different subsystems. We will build each subsystem one by one and put them together as we go. Our bike will not be testable if all pieces do not work together properly, so our build procedure is fairly detailed as to when each part needs to be assembled and attached. If the bike works, we will be able to test exactly how well it works, among various other things found in the Element H tab.
Element H:
Objectives:
· Through the conduct of several tests for high priority requirements that are reasonably based on instructional contexts, or through physical or mathematical modeling, the student demonstrates considerable understanding of testing procedure,
including the gathering and analysis of resultant data.
· The analysis of the effectiveness with which the design met stated goals includes a
consistently detailed explanation [and summary] of the data from each portion of the testing procedure and from expert reviews, generously supported by pictures, graphs, charts and other visuals.
· The analysis includes an overall summary of the implications of all data for
proceeding with the design and solving the problem.
Reflective Questions:
1. What did we learn from testing?
a. We learned that while the bike is successful in that it moves and nobody had any safety complaints, it may be somewhat difficult for children to use. The prototype ended up having to be made with an adult bike frame. However, many high school students seemed to have a natural talent for the bike and there was one 10 year old big enough to ride it. He was able to get the basic motion but not maintain much speed. In the end, it may be best suited as an exercise bike.
2. Why should any of our testing results be believed?
a. None of the surveys were filled out by group members or friends and there was a wide variety of people who were surveyed. Nobody needed to provide name, however they did provide age, height and weight. The other tests were quantitative and we have videos of ourselves performing the tests and getting the same results we recorded on the documents.
Element I:
Objectives:
· Documentation of project evaluation by multiple, demonstrably qualified stakeholders and field experts is presented and is synthesized in a consistently specific, detailed, and thorough way.
· Documentation is sufficient in two or more categories to yield meaningful analysis of that evaluation data.
· The synthesis of evaluations consistently addresses evaluators’ specific questions,
concerns, and opinions related to design requirements.
Reflective Questions:
1. What do the experts think of the project and testing results?
a. Our mentors were not directly involved in the testing, they were not available. However, right after the bike was finished, everybody involved in helping make
it was able to try out the bike and seemed pretty satisfied with it. They thought the idea was good and would appeal to our age range.