University of Colorado, Boulder

MCEN 3025
Component Design
Due April 28th, 2022

Final Design Report

Team 55 - Le Tour De Boulder

Andrew Helmsen
Carlos Yosten
Cole Sheyka
Jacob Bivens
Ibrahim Alrayes
Nate Olson
 2

Introduction and Background 3

Purpose of the Project 3
Summary of Project Objectives 3
Motivation Behind Design 3
Design 4
Conceptual Designs 4
Selected Design 5
Design Iteration 6
Component Analysis - Critical Components 8
Critical Components 8
Failure Analysis 8
Constraints Discussion 9
Fabrication 10
Description of Fabrication 10
Parts Detail (Standard and Custom) (need part CAD drawings) 10
Testing and Results 12
Testing Plan and Motivation 12
Results and Analysis 13
Design Iteration after Testing 13
Design Changes 13
Bill of Materials 13
Project Timeline 14
References 14
Appendix 15
 3

I. Introduction and Background

Purpose of the Project

This project consists of the design and construction of a drill powered vehicle that can be
driven around Kittredge Pond by a single person with each vehicle judged based on functionality,
aesthetics, safety, and performance to determine a winner. Teams will be responsible for applying
the material covered in lectures, working with resources outside of class, and general problem
solving as the need arises. As such, the purpose of this project is to provide the participating
teams with an opportunity for both the learning and application of valuable skills such as project
management and teamwork in an engineering environment.

Summary of Project Objectives

The drill powered vehicle must perform in a hill climb, in which equally weighted
vehicles race to complete a lap of the loop around Kittredge Pond, an endurance challenge, in
which teams compete to make the most laps around Kittredge Pond given 30 minutes, and a
maneuverability course which entails a shorter racecourse involving tight turns and other
obstacles. Our team, Le Tour de Boulder, will compete in the endurance challenge, focusing
design decisions around this course.
One loop of the endurance racecourse covers 1,100ft of horizontal distance and a total of
24ft of vertical distance. This results in a hill grade of 2.18%. This course is shown in figure A of
the appendix.
The drill and battery are given and must not be physically altered, and vehicle actuation
must only be accomplished through the use of the drill's power. Additionally, a driver must steer
the vehicle while riding on it for the duration of the course. The overall weight of this vehicle
must be less than 50lbs and cost less than $200 in new parts. The frame of the vehicle will utilize
scavenged bicycle parts as well as custom fabricated and machined pieces, utilizing a maximum
of half a bike frame to accomplish this goal.

Motivation Behind Design

The design is motivated by simplicity and efficiency in order to best perform in the
endurance challenge. With the course elevation in mind, our group settled on a gear ratio to
target maximum efficiency with the drill's torque output. We decided to have an 11 tooth gear
drive a 46 tooth gear, giving us a gear ratio of 4.18:1, the closest we could get to a target gear
ratio of 4.2:1 based on an analysis of course elevation and tested stall torque on our drill,
expanded on below in the Selected Design section .
The frame is a simple bent steel tube which will attach to a large front fork and small
back fork, utilizing a scooter design for minimal ground contact. A large front fork is optimal to
house a larger front wheel, which will allow us to better take advantage of our efficiency-targeted
gear ratio by providing more distance coverage per revolution of the wheel. Additionally, a
scooter design allows for a lower center of gravity on the vehicle, which will lead to increased
stability when driving. Finally, the simplicity of our design should lead to a lighter vehicle than if
we took heavier inspiration from a bicycle.
 4

II. Design

Conceptual Designs
Our original design was a drill-powered skateboard. After spending multiple weeks trying
to figure out a design that might work for our project with minimal success, we decided to talk to
Greg Potts in the machine shop for advice. He pointed out that it would be extremely difficult to
fit a sufficient gear ratio underneath a skateboard deck. He also showed us his personal
drill-powered vehicle, highlighting important considerations he had while building. Our
takeaways were that we should design something with a large front wheel (around 26 inches) and
a small rear wheel (around 9 inches) - plus we want a gear ratio of around four, in theory with a
10 tooth sprocket driving a 40 tooth sprocket. With our end goal being to build the most efficient
vehicle, we decided to pivot towards a scooter design. In the spirit of our past efforts, we kept the
skateboard deck in our second iteration.
The main benefit of our skateboard design was its low center of gravity, making it highly
maneuverable. We compounded on this in our new design by maintaining a fairly low center of
mass while also implementing a more rider-friendly turning control system. Our scooter design
has the user stand on a skateboard deck while controlling the speed and brakes at the left and
right hand side of the handle bars, respectively, similar to a motorcycle. We used a 26 inch front
tire, and an 11 inch rear tire. Also, our gear ratio came out to be about 4.2 since we used an 11
tooth sprocket to drive a 46 tooth sprocket. In its entirety, our design is a front-wheel-drive, big
wheel, drill-powered scooter.

Figures 1 & 2, top left & top right: original

skateboard design.

Figures 3 & 4, bottom left & bottom right: selected drill

powered scooter design
 5

Selected Design
Our current design possesses a small rear wheel which is connected by pipe framing to a
head tube containing our front fork. This framing is flat on the back in order to hold a skateboard
deck used as a platform, and curves up to meet our head tube. The larger front wheel allows us to
reach our target torque, while also having a small rear end with a unique style and increased
maneuverability.
The frame of our vehicle is made of 1.25 inch outer-diameter, 1 inch inner diameter mild
steel. Being that the frame will start as a straight piece of steel pipe, we bent this into an
ergonomic shape to compensate for other components that were welded to the frame, as well as
providing a comfortable shape for our user to stand on and operate. The frame was welded to the
head tube which houses the front fork, the rear fork (which is a front fork from a small child’s
bike), and the posts which support the skateboard deck. The length of these four pieces are
dependent on the width of the skateboard deck we end up using. After welding these pieces to
four points on the frame, holes were drilled through the deck and the steel to firmly mate the
deck to the frame with a nut and bolt connection.
Our front fork has the geometry needed to slow down our vehicle with a typical
friction-brake system. The drill plate cannot attach directly to the head tube because the rider has
to turn the handlebars to steer the vehicle; this is why no direct headtube-drill plate attachment is
used and rather securing the drill plate to the front fork. We realized that the base plate is
relatively large, so we drilled holes above and below where the head tube would be in relation to
the drill plate. On the bottom of the drill plate, we used a nut and bolt connection to mate the drill
plate to a hole below the headtube on the front fork which was originally an attachment point for
front bike brakes. Above the head tube there is limited space on the handlebars, so a U-bolt
connection was used, securing the drill plate by fitting the U-bolt around the central tube of the
handlebars and through two holes in the drill plate. This is shown in figure B and figure C in the
appendix.
Being that our vehicle is front-wheel drive, naturally most of our mechanical components
are positioned on or near the handle bars. We decided to use brake cables to slow the vehicle
down and to speed it up. The brakes are the same as a typical front-brake system on any bike that
has front brakes, though not to interfere with the chain, only one half of the front brakes were
used. The user pulls a lever, which pulls the brake wire, which pulls on a brake pad which
clamps down on the rim and uses friction to slow the bike down. For speed, the user pulls a
different lever, which pulls a brake cable that has been carefully fastened to the drill’s trigger.
Once the trigger has been pulled, the drill activates and drives a shaft, which transmits torque to
the 11 tooth sprocket, which in turn transmits torque to a 46 tooth sprocket which has been
rigidly attached to the front wheel. The decision to use this gear ratio is based on targeting the
drill's efficient torque, math shown in figure D and figure E in the appendix.
The 46 tooth sprocket is fastened to a circular hub which has holes drilled into it to
receive a nut and bolt connection shown below in figure 7, within the Parts Detail (Standard and
Custom) section. At first, we were thinking about welding the sprocket to the hub, but we
quickly learned that doing so would result in warping, which is not ideal for a rotating
component. After connection, the hub is rigidly attached to the sprocket, and this assembly is
fastened to an existing freewheel hub which once housed a bicycle cassette. We had to consider
using a hub because our 46 tooth sprocket does not have the same inner diameter as the outer
 6

diameter to the freewheel hub. A tooth pattern will have to be determined and stamped out by
Greg or Chase in the Idea Forge, this tooth pattern is what shape the freewheel hub is so that our
hub-chainring assembly can fit over it. A hose clamp was tightened on the other side of the hub
to keep it in place against the front wheel. This front wheel used to be the rear wheel to a bicycle,
which is why it already had a freewheel and a previously attached cassette.
To trigger the drill from a riding position easily, we required a drill actuator - a cable
which stretches to the drill and constricts to trigger it. This is a block with a contour cut out for
the drill handle, creating a bracket that wraps around the rear of the handle and allows the cable
to pass through it and over the trigger. This bracket has two holes in it - one for the cable sleeve,
and one for the cable itself; the cable used is a salvaged bike brake cable.

Figure 5: Scooter Assembly (Exploded View)

Design Iteration
We encountered issues with gear ratios using the original skateboard, “Boosted Board”
idea where our needed sprocket size was too large for even the largest longboard wheels (about
2.5 in diameter). At a 5 degree incline, the small wheels of the skateboard-based initial revision
pushed our target torque out of reach and meant a very large gear ratio would have to be present
in our design. We had to pivot to a more scooter-like design with a 26” diameter front wheel and
11” back wheel to help that problem.
The ride height would have also been too low to fit many of our necessary components -
including the drill - under the board. The nature of the way the trucks move as the board turns
 7

also posed an issue when designing a chaining/meshing method for our gear ratio, since the drill
plate would have to be mounted directly to the rear truck to avoid creating an angle between our
meshed gears. This is resolved in the scooter design since the driven front wheel and drill plate
corotate with the front fork
With the first prototype of the drill actuator (which allows the rider to pull the trigger of
the drill using a modified bicycle brake) we had issues with expansion of the PLA filament near
the holes and the fit with the drill, but making the assumption that it typically expands around
1/32” increased diameter to account for the expansion. The second iteration also has a more
accurate interface with the ergonomics of the drill handle.
To improve our handling, maneuverability, and stability, we decided to implement new
bicycle style steering. Tilting the board to control steering with an increased amount of weight on
the back truck can be unfamiliar even to seasoned skateboarders, so bike-style steering may
provide more stability in the end. Two wheels also provide less points of contact, and thus serve
to reduce frictional forces in our wheel bearings.
With the new frame design, we needed a way to secure our riding platform to the pipe
frame. The two most plausible options were bolting the riding deck to cross bars to prevent
rotation or bolting tight collars to the board which secure it to the frame’s flat portion. We chose
the former; welding four cross bars to the frame which the skate deck would be secured onto
with bolts. (Note: we never got to a point where we modeled our first "skateboard" iteration in
CAD).
Once manufacturing began, an issue with the front fork quickly arose in which it was too
narrow to fit the bicycle wheel we wanted to use. The width of the wheel was due to the
freewheel that was part of the wheel assembly, and we ended up manufacturing additional fork
extensions which widened the front fork. We cut off the slots at the end of the original fork, then
sandblasted the paint from the ends to allow for cleaner welds, then welded our front fork
extensions shown and described more in the Fabrication Issues section in figure 9.
Another issue that arose was around tensioning the chain. We ended up drilling slots into
the pillow blocks which secured our drive shaft in order to help with this process, but simply
pulling on the front wheel lower on the slots on the fork extensions worked as well, this is seen
in figure 10 of the Fabrication Issues section.
 8

Figure 6: Scooter Assembly.

III. Component Analysis - Critical Components

Critical Components
The two critical components to our project are the drill shaft which transmits torque to
the front 26" wheel, and the frame which attached the board deck, front fork, and back fork. The
shaft needed to fit into the mouth of our drill, as well as support the torque load required to move
our vehicle and rider. If this piece were to fail, the gear train fails and our vehicle won't move.
We used a ½" cylindrical shaft, eliminating the need for keys or any stress concentrations. The
frame is a simple bent tube, but it needs to not bend excessively under the weight of a rider, as
well as the moments from the support reactions at the wheels.

Failure Analysis
Analytically, failure analysis for the shaft is accomplished through a basic fatigue
analysis, and a worst case scenario for direct shear failure, hitting the stall torque of our drill of
about 250 in-lbs.
Equations used for static analysis are:
∑𝐹 = 0

∑𝑀𝑂 = 0

Equations used for shear analysis are below, where F is the inner distance of the shaft.

𝑇ρ
τ = 𝐽

4
𝐽 = 0. 12𝐹

The frame can also be analyzed statically by considering a person’s weight with the skate
deck as a point load, and the two wheels as supports.
Equations used for analyzing the frame are:

∑𝐹 = 0

∑𝑀𝑂 = 0

Using the equations for the shear analysis, we found that in a worst-case approximation
using the stall torque of the drill, the shaft experiences a shear of 10.185 ksi (work in appendix,
 9

figure F). We are using 1018 steel, which can handle up to 80 ksi of load. This gives a factor of
safety for our drill shaft in this scenario of N = 5.3.
The equation used for fatigue analysis is below, where d is the shaft diameter, 𝐾𝑓, 𝐾𝑓𝑚,
and 𝐾𝑓𝑠𝑚 are stress concentration factors, 𝑆𝑒 and 𝑆𝑢𝑡 are the fatigue strength and ultimate tensile
strength respectively, 𝑀𝑎 and 𝑀𝑚 are the amplitude and mean of the bending moments acting on
the shaft, 𝑇𝑎 and 𝑇𝑚 are the amplitude and mean of the torque loads on the shaft, and N is the
factor of safety.

1/3
2 2 2 2
⎡ 32𝑁 ⎡ 3
(𝐾𝑓𝑀𝑎) + 4 (𝐾𝑓𝑠𝑇𝑎)
3
(𝐾𝑓𝑚𝑀𝑚) + 4 (𝐾𝑓𝑠𝑚𝑇𝑚) ⎤⎤
𝑑 = ⎢ π ⎢ + ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ 𝑆𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑡 ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎣ ⎦⎦

For simplification, stress concentration factors are assumed to be one, as we did not key
the shaft, and instead used a sprocket with two set screws to hold itself in place. The torque is
also simplified since we are assuming a constant applied torque equal to ¼ of the drill's stall
torque. This torque (62.5 lb-in) is approximately the torque at which the drill performs most
efficiently. The calculation is shown in the appendix figure G and figure H, and results in a factor
of safety of N = 1.196, if we assume the diameter of the shaft to be d = ½".
The frame of the vehicle was mainly analyzed using SolidWorks, setting the front wheel
and back wheel as pivot points, having a weight on the frame equal to that of a potential rider,
and creating moments about these pivots which induce bending on the frame. The results of this
analysis are shown in appendix figure I. A deflection analysis of the frame was also conducted
and resulted in a max deflection of 0.2 in, written-work shown in appendix figure J.

Constraints Discussion
A constraint that affected the shaft design was that the drill was not to be modified in any
way, this led to the decision to make the driven end of the shaft hexagonal as then the drill could
latch onto the piece. The shaft has to be able to support the load of the vehicle and rider through
a 4.2:1 gear ratio, using an 11 tooth bicycle sprocket on the shaft, and a 46 tooth bicycle
chainring on the front wheel. This gear ratio is specifically meant to target an efficient torque on
the drill motor of 62.5lb-in.
One of the constraints that affected our design was the curvature of the frame. We were
aiming to have a curved end of the frame with radius that is roughly 8 inches, but the Idea forge
machines can’t bend steel to that radius. The cost of going with the 8 inches would exceed the
budget of the entire project because it requires making a new mold for the machines. Thus, we
tweaked our design and made the end of the frame less curved to make it easier and cost
effective for manufacturing at the Idea Forge. Additionally, the whole of the vehicle needing to
be less than 50lb was a motivating factor in frame simplification.
 10

IV. Fabrication

Description of Fabrication
We required a 6’ piece of mild steel pipe for our frame. Since we purchased an 8’ pipe,
we were able to cut off excess steel and use that to support our skateboard. This was done by
machining 4 pieces of pipe with thru holes in them in such a way that they could be welded to
the frame of our vehicle. The head tube was also welded to the frame. The front fork required a
slight extension in width to fit our front axle, so two steel coupons with slots were welded to the
frame such that the axle would fit during assembly. The drill plate was rigidly attached to the
front fork (avoiding contact with the head tube so we could steer) using a single U-bolt and the
available thru hole in the front fork. We used the break cables from another bike to control the
breaks and activate the drill motor. To attach the rear fork to the frame, we used three sets of nuts
and bolts.
Additionally, our vehicle required two separate parts to be waterjet cut. The first of these
was a hub that would fit to the freehub of our front wheel that we could also mount a sprocket to.
This part was a 130mm diameter circular plate with an inner bolt circle. The bolt circle had a
diameter of 110mm with five equally spaced 1cm bolt holes along it. The final part was
machined from a sheet of 3/16” thick aluminum and can be seen in figure 7, below in the Parts
Detail (Standard and Custom) section. The second of our waterjet parts was our drill plate.
Because our vehicle was front wheel drive, this part needed to be able to turn with our
handlebars and front fork in order to maintain drive chain alignment. This meant that we could
not attach the drill plate to the frame as it was static relative to the vehicle, forcing an irregular
shape that partially hung to the side of the front wheel. Like the sprocket hub mentioned above,
our drill plate was machined from a sheet of 3/16” thick aluminum. It can be seen in greater
detail in figure B and figure C in the appendix.

Parts Detail (Standard and Custom)

Modified Front Fork Extender:
The front fork was originally too narrow for the bicycle wheel we wanted to use. This
was an issue due to needing the freewheel component of the bicycle wheel itself. After taking off
the cassette from the freewheel, and stamping out a freewheel tooth pattern so the 46-tooth
chainring and hub could fit over it, the front fork was shown to be slightly too narrow to
accommodate what once was the back wheel to a bicycle. To solve this problem, we waterjet-cut
⅜" steel plates with a slot pattern identical to the original front fork wheel housing slots and
welded them to the exterior of the front fork, after cutting the original ones off and sandblasting
away the paint coat. The CAD drawing can be seen on figure K in the appendix.

Drill Actuator:
Due to the fact that the drill plate is free to move with respect to the rider, we needed a
way to remotely actuate the drill and provide power to our driving gear. The most effective
solution that we were able to generate is a repurposed bike brake which constricts around the
 11

drill handle and trigger. To execute this design, we created a bracket which was designed to mesh
with the drill handle accurately - the design included a hole on each side, one with a stepped
diameter as a stopper to accommodate the cable housing. The cable housing was also glued to
the PLA printed drill actuator. A cable crimp was used to prevent movement on the other end
after adjusting the length. This allowed the cable to be secure and tight without triggering the
drill, such that when the brake cable is pulled, it constricts around the trigger enough to activate
it reliably. The design did not add any cost to our project, as the brake cable was salvaged and
the PLA filament and 3D printing access were free. Subsequent versions included a cut out
portion for the crimp and more accurate molding to the handle. The CAD drawing can be seen on
figure L in the appendix.

Chainring Hub:
The chainring hub was cut using a water jet. The inner
diameter of the hub was modified to fit snugly on the
cassette hub. Holes were mated with the 46t sprocket’s
holes such that a nut and bolt connection would keep them
together. This connection allows for the front wheel to spin
without breaking our drill motor.The CAD drawing can be
seen on figure M in the appendix.

Figure 7: Chainring hub

Frame:
The frame consists of three manufactured parts; the
head-tube, four cross braces, and the frame. These
components are shown individually in the appendix figures
7-11. These components were welded together to form the
frame. The CAD drawings can be seen in figures N-Q in
the appendix.

Figure 8: Frame with crossbars and headtube

Drill Plate:
The drill plate CAD drawing file can be viewed in detail in figure R in the appendix.

Back Fork:
Three thru holes were drilled into the back fork to align with the thru holes in the frame.
This allowed for easy connection using 3 sets of nuts and bolts. The CAD drawing can be seen
on figure S and figure T in the appendix.
 12

Pillow Blocks:
The pillow blocks were necessary for our design since they hold the shaft in place and
make it able to rotate freely at the same time. We measured the distance between the drill chuck
and plate, and based on that we centered the bearings. The fabrication process included cutting
the necessary material from ½” x 2” steel stock using a bandsaw, drilling a hole for the bearings
using a mill, and drilling threaded holes at the bottom of the pillow blocks to attach it to the drill
plate. The CAD drawing file can be seen in figure U in the appendix.

Fabrication Issues
When welding the coupons to the front fork, too much heat was applied and the fork
melted before keeping the bond on one side. To fix this issue, we applied a generous amount of
cold weld at the zones where the fork had melted on this side of the fork.
The drill plate also extended in such a way that the chain would rub excessively with the
drill plate. We cut out material to release tension and attached plastic tubing to mitigate this
problem.

Figure 9 & 10: Front fork extender weldment (left) and Shaft assembly (right)

V. Testing and Results

Testing Plan and Motivation

Testing is an essential step of designing a product. It allows for identifying errors at early
stages to prevent catastrophic failures later on. Also, testing a product allows designers to
remove redundancy and improve efficiency of the final product. We did some testing to confirm
our analytical calculations and plan to do some future testing to certify that the vehicle meets our
plan, as well as to ensure safety of the vehicle.
 13

We calculated the needed torque to make the vehicle move and it was about 62.5 lb-in
from the drill; using the Drill Torque Tester in the Idea Forge we found that the drill can provide
that our drill can supply 250 lb-in of torque.
For frame testing, measured its deflection by applying a load and using a ruler. Since we
have the material properties for 1018 steel, using E and Hooke’s law, we can calculate the
stresses that will affect the frame and from that we can find the factor of safety.
For testing the shaft, we measured its deflection since it will have two supports that come
from the pillow blocks to hold it in place. We applied a load on its center and measured how
much it deflects, then we used Hooke’s Law to calculate the stresses present on the shaft.

Results and Analysis

We used the universal bending tester machine at the ITLL to measure the deformation of
the shaft. We set the machine up to the 3 point flexure tester (figure V of appendix) to
approximate the setup of the actual shaft since it is supported by 2 pillow blocks and a chain.
When applying a load of 341.22 lb, we get a deflection of 0.008in. Since the stress in a 3 point
3
bending stress is 𝜎 = 8𝐹𝑔/𝜋𝑑 where F is the load, g is the separation between the 2 rollers, d is
the diameter of the shaft. Applying this equation to the data we get a stress on the shaft that is
31.35 ksi, and this very far away from the yield strength of 1566 carbon steel which is 75 ksi and
it is actually an extreme case since the maximum weight of the rider and the bike is 220 lb.
Also, we applied a 140lb force on the frame to measure the deformation, we found that it
deflects by 0.001” in the middle and less than that everywhere. Using Hooke’s law s 𝜎 = E * ε
since the E for our frame is 29700 ksi we get a stress of 29.7 ksi whereas the yield strength of it
is 80 ksi. This gives us a safety factor that is around 2, which is safe enough for the vehicle to be
driven by an average person.

VI. Design Iteration after Testing

Design Changes
Our initial analysis gave us a brief idea of how safe and feasible our design is. Based on
that, we began the fabrication process and completed the design. After testing our vehicle, we
found that the chain was rubbing against our drill plate, causing excess friction and efficiency
loss.
 14

Figure 11: Fully assembled drill-powered scooter

VII. Bill of Materials

Our design was made under the constraint of costing less than 200$. Therefore we had to
utilize what’s given to us, and recycle old parts from other vehicles to save as much as possible
from the budget. We finished the project with a cost of around 190$ with a possibility of making
it cost less if a 2nd iteration was planned. This table lists every cost in detail.

Material List Quantity Vendor Cost $

Frame Tubing 1 Onlinemetals.com 65
Front fork 1 Salvaged 0
Back fork 1 Salvaged 0
Handle bar 1 Salvaged 0
Brake mechanism 1 Idea Forge 0
Front Tire 1 Salvaged 0
Back Tire 1 Amazon 16
Drill mount 1 Manufactured 0
Pillow Blocks 2 Manufactured 0
Head Tube 1 Manufactured 0
Drill Actuator 1 Manufactured 1
Skateboard Deck 1 Salvaged 0
Brackets 6 HomeDepot 5
Hardware N/A HomeDepot 15
Bearings 2 McMaster-Carr 19
Shaft 1 McMaster-Carr 10
 15

Drill 1 Idea Forge 0

11 tooth sprocket 1 MCMaster-Carr 17
Chain 1 Trek 20
Logistics/Shipping N/A N/A 25
Total Cost: 193

VIII. Project Timeline

We kept a GANTT Chart as our project timeline, images of which are available at the end
of the appendix as figures W through G2.

IX. References
Norton, Robert L. Machine Design: An Integrated Approach. Prentice Hall, 2014.
 16

X. Appendix

Figure A: Endurance challenge racecourse

Figures B & C: Drill plate to front fork attachment

 17

Figures D & E: Mathematic work for gear ratio determination

Figure F: Static Torque Analysis for Drill Shaft Failure at Stall Torque
 18

Figures G & H: Fatigue analysis for drill shaft

 19

Figure I: Frame buckling analysis (Solidworks)

Figure J: Frame Deflection analysis (written)

 20

Figure K: Fork extender with slot for front wheel axle

Figure L: Drill Actuator

 21

Figure M: Chainring Hub

Figure N: Frame Bending OP

Figure O: Frame Coping OP

 22

Figure P: Frame Hole OP

Figure Q: Brace for Frame 4X

 23

Figure R: Drill Plate

Figure S: Head Tube

 24

Figure T: Back Fork Hole OP

Figure U: Pillow Block

 25

Figure V: 3 Point flexure testing

 26

(Below) Figures W-G2: GANTT chart

27
28