CONCEPTUALIZATION & PROTOTYPING

DOWNSELECTION - PART 2

As mentioned above, we used a Pugh Chart to evaluate our concepts against matrix criteria related to our required attributes, which is how we arrived at our Top 5 ideas. Our Pugh Chart specifically ranks 15 attributes that we found important to our solution, weighted against each other and ordered in descending order. We then scored each concept through a ++/-- system, where concepts could receive a 1 or 2 depending on the extend they met a criteria, a -1 or -2 if the solution performed negatively against the criteria, or a 0 if our evaluation on that criteria was neutral or not applicable.
Additionally, we employed further discussion and testing of these ideas to validate whether they met our highest weighted criteria, despite scoring well in our overall Pugh Chart. For example, there may have been some ideas that scored well across a number of attributes and therefore ranked high in our list (Novelty, Cleanliness, Cost of Maintenance, etc.) , but potentially may have missed the mark in one of our attributes that carried heavier weight (Security, Assembly Time, etc.). We did this both through a discussion of tradeoffs (pros/cons) and more objectively by asking questions that brought standardized focused to our main requirements (categorized into desirability, viability, and feasibility) but with an increased spread for scoring concepts. In this case we used a rating system of 1-9 across a number of statements/questions related to our requirements, (where 1 is weakly agree, 3 is moderately agree, 6 is agree, and 9 is extremely agree). Based on the highest score, supplemented by discussion, we selected Concept 2 as the best solution. See below for more details.

Downselection - Pugh Chart

DESIRABILITY

Does it improve portability?
Does it keep the helmet secure?
Is it easy to use and/or assemble?
Is this something commuters can use consistently and conveniently?

VIABILITY

Does the solution seem unique and novel?
Is the solution better than alternatives?
Does the solution obstruct a bike rider's free will to choose or not choose to wear a helmet?
Is the solution applicable across contexts, such as with different bike and helmet sizes?

FEASIBILITY

Is producing this concept feasible within the time and resource constraints that we have?
Will the cost of production be relatively low?
Are the mechanics behind our solution technically feasible?

SELECTED CONCEPT - DIAL CLAMP HELMET LOCK

WHAT IS IT?
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED CONCEPT
The Dial Clam Helmet Lock operates via a torsional spring mechanism that allows a helmet to be attached to the bike's frame using D- Flaps and cycle clamp. The dial mechanical spring lock helps in locking the helmet in the position. How this would this would essentially work is that a biker would first need to install the lock on the middle frame of their bike for consistent use. We envision this installation being either manually done or completed by a bike shop providing these parts, since the device will need to be bolted onto the frame or use another form of semi-permanent, stabilized adherence.

Once installed, a bike ride is able to place their helmet on top of two curved "D-shaped" clamps (D-Flaps), that in their default position, remain closed, similar to a "butterfly hair clip." For additional stabilization and security, the bike rider can also clip the helmet straps together through openings afforded by the D-Flaps. Once the helmet is in place, the bike rider can then turn the dial knob located at the bottom of the device to release the clamps and lock them in the expanded position. As the D-Flaps open inside of the helmet, they hook onto the interior and provide enough force to stabilize and secure the helmet in place. Finally, positioned on the device is a locking mechanism that ensures the helmet is secure enough in this position so that it is not susceptible to theft.

This concept affords our user the ability to "click and snap" their helmet onto their bike at any moment and any time, regardless of whether they need to lock up their bike on a bike stand or rack. This means that our concept offers our users the convenience to always keep their helmet on their bike in order to overcome their own forgetfulness, provides easy access to use the helmet when they would like, and protects the free choice of the user to ride with the helmet on their head or stationary on the bike for short, slow trips where helmet safety is less of a concern. We purposely positioned this device to be installed in the middle frame of the bike to ensure that it does not distract or obstruct the biker's view or ability to ride. Additionally, we noticed prominently that this was a location that bikers had installed other accessories, like a water bottle holder.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WHY WE CHOSE IT?
EVALUATION OF SELECTED CHOICE

Represented in our Pugh Chart as Concept 2, this solution ranked the highest out of all of our ideas. Additionally, when we double checked how this concept was rated and took into consideration other dimensions that were important to our team while modeling and prototyping our concepts, this solutions consistently ranked high on our priority attributes such as Portability, Security, and many others relative to our other ideas.

Specifically, our solution affords the highest portability for a biker because it allows them to always keep their helmet on the bike no matter where they are traveling. In terms of security, our solution stabilizes the helmet in more than one way and is more protective of theft situations than existing alternatives that have been proven to be ineffective against theft situations (e.g., cutting of bike locks, removal of bike wheel, etc.). Additionally, placement onto the middle bike frame still allows the user to ride comfortably without obstruction or coercion to wear their helmet (i.e., better than keeping the helmet attached to the wheel, fixed on top of the seat, or hung on the handlebars). Because our concept was inspired by a water bottle holder and we tested the placement of the helmet on the bike frame, we also recognize that the size of the solution will be compact enough that it does not burden the user, especially because they will no longer need to carry the additional bulky weight of a helmet with them knowing they can leave their helmet on the bike. Also, while ease of assembly still needs to be tests, our observation of setup for other solutions provides evidence of a lengthier process from alternatives (i.e., taking a cord lock and looping it into a helmet, bike, and rack in a complicated manner versus just simply clipping the helmet onto the bike and turning a dial). Lastly, based on the type of materials and mechanical processes that we hypothesize will be involved in the creation of this solution, we determined this solution as one that can be feasibly produced.

Even when benchmarking our concepts in more detail based on pros and cons, we recognize that there were many more benefits to our solution, and that the cons to our solution were mostly negligible inferred by user behaviors we studied and/or tolerable due to the offset of benefits. For example, while we recognize that the solution will require initial manual installation, we know that bike riders have already installed other accessories in this manner. This applies similarly to concerns of adding addition weight to the bike. The benefits, regardless is that the helmet will always be readily available and convenient for the biker to access and will always remain present on the bike regardless of use, serving as a good reminder to the biker of safety when its most needed.

Report abuse