Team Members: Guide: Customer:
Madeline Hoppy Dr. Richard Lux Dr. Jeremy Haefner
Michael Kurvach
Nate Morefield
Ryan Wilson
Cody Woods
Tri Better Triathlon Shoe
Project Review
Purpose
The purpose of this Project Review is to:
Access the final status of design
Confirm satisfaction of customer needs and design specifications
Review the budget and schedule
Project Mission Statement
The goal of this project was to develop a shoe and pedal
system for triathletes which reduces cycling to running
transition time during competition without compromising
cycling or running speed.
Customer Needs Critical Needs
• Flexibility while running
• Lets the triathlete transition faster
• Shoes can be left on the pedal when not in use
• Easy clip out
• Good power output
• Long pedal life
• Secure attachment to pedals
Non-Critical Needs
• Easy clip in
• Comfortable
• Float and Adjustability in the Pedal
Concept Summary
Adjustable Coupling
Allows Bike Shop to make necessary custom adjustments
Full Length Rigid Pedal
Allows the shoe to remain flexible for the run but stiff for good
energy transfer during cycling
Forefoot and Heel Clip System
Design Summary: Coupling
Machined from aluminum
Easily attached to spindle
Allows rotational adjustments
to be made to the pedal
Design Summary: Pedal
Made from carbon fiber to reduce the weight of the system
Provides rigidity for cycling power transfer
Allows forward/backward adjustments
Interfaces with coupling, front clip, and rear clip
Design Summary: Front Clip
(Geometry)
Uses geometry of a mounted aluminum clip to interface with
the shoe
Shoe contains an imbedded Delrin washer to distribute the
clip pressure and allow for ease of clipping in/out
Design Summary: Heel Clip
Clip interfaces on to an imbedded Delrin rail
Press directly on rail to clip in and twist to release
Hold ankle to the rigid pedal
Testing Results Description Units Actual Marginal Ideal Performance
Flex Force N 40 <=45 <=30 Marginal
Transition Time Saved s 8 >=0 >=10 Marginal
Shoe Mounted on Bike? Y/N Yes Yes Yes Ideal
% Clip out % 100 >=75 >=95 Ideal
Power Output % 0 0 Ideal
Factor of Safety 8 >=3 >=5 Ideal
Rider able to unclip while riding Y/N No No No Ideal
% Clip in % 100 >=50 >=95 Ideal
% Willing to reuse % 100 >=50 >=80 Ideal
Float deg 20 >=0 >=15 Ideal
Clearance mm >1 >=1 Ideal
Adjustment mm 8 >=5 >=10 Marginal
Rotational Adjustmet (shims) deg 10 >=0 >=5 Ideal
Shoe Weight g 253 <=370 <=200 Marginal
Shoe/Pedal Weight g 670 <=700 <=500 Marginal
Budget Items Vendor Purchaser Cost
Breather Joann Fabrics Ryan 11.39
Barge Cement CMS Ryan 9.46
Epoxy Aeromarine Ryan 50.00
Balsa Wood Fibre Glast Ryan 54.90
Sole Material De La Torre Ryan 27.00
Pedals Berts Bikes Ryan 17.27
Board, Peel Ply, Caulk etc Home Depot Ryan 54.14
Carbon Fiber Soller Composites Cody 90.82
Aluminum Speedymetals Mike 61.80
Plastic, Ball bearings McMaster Carr Nate 41.14
Plastic Sheet Curbell Plastics 30.00
Actual Sub Total 442.92
Budget 500.00
Surplus 57.08
Initial Projected Cost (08FEB13 ) 584.93
Schedule Comparison Task Anticipated Completion Actual Completion
Coupling Complete Week 4 Week 3
Carbon Fiber Pedal Complete Week 4 Week 5
Front Clip Complete Week 3 Week 4
Rear Clip Complete Week 2 Week 3
Build EVA Sole Week 4 Week 5
Redesign of Front Clip --- Week 7-8
Testing Week 7 Week 8-9 Documentation and Final Presentation Week 10 Week 10
Objective Project Evaluation
Successful development of concept
Successful construction of prototype
Meet overall schedule and major deadlines
Completed project under budget
Further refining still needed on certain elements
Future Work
More iterations with Front Clip Deformation method to fine
tune the design
Determining a reasonable manufacturing process
Redesign of a lighter coupling
More product testing
Marketing