Rear Driven Snowmobile for CSC

From Mindworks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sponsors
Team Name Skiddadle
Duration June 2019 - May 2020
Faculty Adviser
  • Steve Beyerlein PhD.
  • Dan Cordon PhD.
Mentor
  • Zach Hacker
Client
  • UICSC Team / Dan Cordon PhD.
Team Composition
  • (Su.F) Summer ‘19 - Fall ‘19
  • (F.Sp) Fall ‘19 - Spring ‘20
(Su.F) Team Members
  • Omar Ruiz
  • Saleh Alkhathami
  • Adam Thurgood
(F.Sp) Team Members
  • Brannon Hudson
  • Aref Hakami
  • Thomas Entwit

The goal of the project is to design an effective and fully functional rear driven track for the Clean Snowmobile Challenge Team. This design is to be implemented on the snowmobile for use during the 2020 SAE Clean Snowmobile Competition.

Single Axle Full Assembly-rev2.PNG
Full Assembly: without the tunnel Displayed on our final design of the Rear Driven Snowmobile.

Problem Definition[edit]

Conventional snowmobiles have tracks that are driven from the front causing the top of the tack to be pulled in tension and the bottom of the track to be pushed in compression. The portion of the track in contact with the snow, being in compression, causes losses in efficiency and decreased handling. The clean snowmobile team anticipates to see drastic improvements in the following competition events: Acceleration, handling, and endurance.

Background[edit]

Currently, there are not any rear driven snowmobiles on the market. This is mainly due to manufacturers wanting to reduce sled weight and simplify designs. Aftermarket rear driven snowmobile prototypes have been made in the past, however, their application is mainly for drag racing snowmobiles. Addition information to understand the basic knowledge needed for designing a rear system:

  • Snowmobiles have plastic “drivers” that mesh into a rubber track to move the vehicle
  • These drivers are located towards the front of the vehicle, just behind the engine
  • When turned by the engine, the drivers push the bottom of the track in compression
  • Can lead to the track bunching up, due to the track being a flexible element
  • A solution is to pull the track, by having the drivers in the rear.
  • Currently, there are no rear driven snowmobiles on the market as an OEM or aftermarket platform

  • The past CSC projects that have attempted this type of design are detailed below.

    2011-2012 Prototype System

    2011-2012 This Senior Design Project was the first attempt by the UICSC team at implementing a rear drive snowmobile skid. The design this team created involved a gear and chain system that ran down the center of the tunnel. Having the chain in this configuration meant the team had to redesign the suspension, and complete a finite element analysis. Once the system was fabricated and testing could be done, the team found that their chain would brake too often/quickly; they concluded that they were lacking a chain tensioner.


    2014-2015 During this school year another senior design team took a second crack at tackling the rear driven snowmobile. Following findings by the previous group, and adapting the built skid from the 2011 project they added a chain tensioner. However, due to part received delays the system was not completed not implemented on the sled for competition.

    Due to a change in SAE competition rules a chain and gear system would need to be fully shielded and an oil bath and lubrication system would need to be implemented. The amount of modification and weight adage to do this leads our team to explore other avenues of research.


    2015 A masters student, Matthew Kologi, looked into this design problem as a part of completing his masters degree. He performed conceptual and ideological experiments in detail to explore the theoretical efficiencies that could be gained from implementing a rear driven skid. In his analysis, he explored a drive shaft and pinion gear system. In his road load models he found that once a cruise speed is reached there is little resistance to maintain the cruise speed. Being a conceptual design exploration there isn't any information detailing how such a system would fair on snow.


    2015 Kolgi's CAD Designed System

    Deliverables[edit]

    Our team's goal is to design, fabricate, and test a rear driven snowmobile. The implementation of this system is hoped to improve competition activities where handling, fuel efficiency, and overall sled performance is necessary. The system should maintain the full functionality of a stock snowmobile. Minimal weight addition is desirable. Any designs involving the electronic transmission of power from the engine, clutch, and/or crankshaft must be submitted to the SAE competition proprietors prior to the competition for approval. Other deliverables include:

        * Two people should be able to swap out stock and designed skids with relative ease.
        * Detailed 3D model & engineering drawing package.
        * Must withstand the power (120hp), torque (100ft-lbs), and track speed (100mph) of the UICSC snowmobile
        * In-depth Engineering Analysis for the re-designed suspension system.
    

    Specifications[edit]

    SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge Requirements
    Description Value Unit
    Sound Requirement- SAE J1161 < 67 dBA
    Endurance Run 100 mi.
    Acceleration -10 sec run 500 ft.
    Weighted Acceleration 500 lbs.

    Meet sound requirements for National Parks

    Design Process[edit]

    Starting with preliminary ideas considered, the selection process and considerations, and then leading on to the final design.

    Preliminary Designs[edit]

    Picture Cost Weight Size Pros Cons
    SingleRearDriver-Capture.PNG
    SingleRearDriverCAD-Capture.PNG
    Belts
    $17-$70 ea.

    Pulleys

    $40-$118 ea.
    Belts
    <5lb

    Pulleys

    3lb-7lb
    Belts
    12in-90in X 0.5in-1.5in

    Pulleys

    Outside Diameter
    2.39in-7.13in
    Inside Diameter
    1.375in-2.187in
    Single Rear Drive
    Pros
    Easily adaptable
    Oil bath not required
    Cost-effective
    Cons
    Possible efficiency Losses
    Relocation of brake
    Moderate alteration of suspension
    DualDriver-Capture.PNG
    DualDriverCAD-Capture.PNG
    Belts
    $17-$70 ea.

    Pulleys

    $40-$118 ea.
    Belts
    <5lb

    Pulleys

    3lb-7lb
    Belts
    12in-90in X 0.5in-1.5in

    Pulleys

    Outside Diameter
    2.39in-7.13in
    Inside Diameter
    1.375in-2.187in
    Dual Drive
    Pros
    Brake relocation unnecessary
    Easily adaptable
    Oil bath not required
    Cost effective
    Cons
    Possible efficiency Losses
    Moderate alteration of suspension
    Hydrostat-PowerFlowCapture.PNG
    Hydrostat-CAD.png
    Hydraulics
    Pump 797.40$
    Motor 567.65$
    High Pressure Hose 60.00$
    Hydraulic Oil 30.00$
    Materials $
    Hardware $
    Total = $1,455

    Pump 50lb

    Motor 19lb

    Oil_________lb

    Mounting___lb

    Pump

    6.5in X 6.5in X 9.75in

    Motor

    7.25in X 6.875in X 6.5in
    Hydrostatic Motor
    Pros
    Minimal suspension modification
    Flexible power transfer
    Cons
    Size
    Price
    Weight
    Adaptability
    EPT-PowerFlowCapture.PNG
    EPT-CADCapture.PNG

    Alternator $65-$200

    Capacitance Bank-48V up to $1577.47

    Speed Controller ~$55

    Motor $249-$2092

    Wiring ~$10

    Hardware ~$10

    Total = $775-$3944

    Alternator 12lb

    Memory Bank 30lb

    Speed Controller >1lb

    Motor 3lb-15lb

    Mounting ~10lb

    Alternator

    5in X 3.5in X 3.5in

    Memory Bank

    16.5in X 7.6in X 5in

    Speed Controller

    0.5in X 0.25in X 0.125in

    Motor

    12-14in X 5in X 5in
    Electronic Power Transmission
    Pros
    Decreased sound output
    Efficiency
    Minimal suspension modification
    Cons
    Significant weight addition
    Cost of parts
    Hydro-static power transmission implemented motorcycles [1]
  • Pump [2]
  • Motor [3]
  • Dimensional Drawing [4]
  • Synchronous Belts and Pulleys
    McMaster
  • Pulleys [5]
  • Belts [6]
  • BB Man [7]
  • BB Man - Belt Drive Calculator [8]
  • AutomationDirect [9]
    Electronic Power Transference Components
  • Alternator [10]
  • Power Bank
  • Speed Controller [11]
  • Motors
  • DC/Sservo [12]
  • Induction Motor [13]
  • Selection Process[edit]

    Design Matrix Table with Waited for Importance of each Category
    DESIGN (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL
    Single Driver Belt Drive 2.0 3.6 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.0 2.1 2.1 0.7 15.8
    Dual Driver Belt Drive 1.5 2.7 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.8 16
    Hydro-static Driven 0.5 1.8 1.8 1.5 0.8 2.0 2.8 1.4 2.1 14.7
    Electronic Power Driven 1.0 0.9 2.4 1.0 0.4 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.4 12.6
    Key to the Design Decision Matrix on:
    (A) Weight: How much more weight is added compared to stock skid?
  • Importance: [5]
  • Explanation: higher score = less weight
  • (B) Cost: Does the design require more or less money?
  • Importance: [9]
  • Explanation: higher score = less expensive
  • (C) Drive Efficiency: Drive power transferred to snow without losses.
  • Importance: [6]
  • Explanation: higher score = higher efficiency
  • (D) Design Simplicity: Less addad/altered compared to stock skid.
  • Importance: [5]
  • Explanation: higher score = simpler design
  • (E) Snow Resistance: Will snow/water interfere with the design?
  • Importance: [4]
  • Explanation: higher score = less interference
  • (F) Suspension Alteration: How much will the design require alteration?
  • Importance: [5]
  • Explanation: higher score = less expensive
  • (G) Manufacturability: How easy is it to make/re-produce?
  • Importance: [7]
  • Explanation: higher score = easier to man
  • (H) Maintenance: It should be easy to maintain, and should not need maintenance often.
  • Importance: [7]
  • Explanation: higher score = easier to maintain
  • (I) Assembly: How easy is it to assemble and/or swap with stock skid?
  • Importance: [7]
  • Explanation: higher score = easier to assemble
  • Final Design[edit]

    To see the complete drawing package see additional documents

    Final CAD Model Designs by Sub-Assembly:
    Runners Forward Suspension Arm Rear Suspension Arm Belts & Brake
    Runners Forward Suspension Arm Fully Assembled Rear Suspension Arm Fully Assembled Driving Belts within Assembly
    Runners.png
    Forward Suspension Sub-Assembly-Rev2.PNG
    Rear Suspension Full Sub-Assembly.PNG
    Runners with belts.png
    [1]Runners Inside POV

    [2]Runners Outside POV

    Forward Suspension Arm Exploded View Rear Suspension Arm Exploded View Front Driving Belt, Belt Tensioner
    [1]
    Runner Modified-Inner.PNG
    [2]
    Runner Modified-Outer.PNG
    Forward Suspension Exploded Sub-Assembly-Rev2.PNG
    Rear Suspension Exploded.png
    Belt Tensioner.PNG
    [3]Runners at Mid Axle Mount location, Inside POV.

    [4]Runners at Mid Axle Mount location, Outside POV.

    Forward Suspension Shock Rear Suspension Arm Forward Belt Tensioner Exploded View
    [3]
    Runner-IntAxle-InnerSection.PNG
    [4]
    Runner-IntAxle-OuterSection.PNG
    Forward Shock.PNG
    Rear Suspension Arm.PNG
    Belt Tensioner-Exploded.PNG
    Runners Rear Axle location Outside POV Forward Suspension Arm Mounted Axis to Runners Rear Suspension Arm Lower Link Connects to the Runners Brake Exploded View
    Runner-RearAxle-OuterSection.PNG
    Forward Suspension Arm-RunnerMount.PNG
    Rear Suspension-LowerLink.PNG
    Brake-exploded.PNG
    Runners Rear Welding Plates Forward Suspension Arm Shock Mount to Runners
    Runner Weld Plates.PNG
    Forward Shock mount.PNG


    Final CAD Model Designs of Driving Axle's:
    Intermediate DriverForward Driver Forward Driver Rear Driver
    Intermediate Axle Forward Driving Axle Rear Driving Axle Exploded View
    Intermediate Axle Sub-Assembly.PNG
    Forward Driving Axle Sub-Assembly.png
    Rear Drive Exploded.png
    Intermediate Axle Exploded View Forward Driving Axle Rear Driving Axle
    Intermediate Assm Exploded.PNG
    Forward Driving Axle Sub-Assembly nonEXP.PNG
    Drive Section.png
    Intermediate Axle Forward Driving Axle Exploded View Rear Driving Axle Exploded View
    Intermediate Axle-One Side.PNG
    Forward Driving Axle Sub-Assembly-exp.PNG
    Rear Drive Exploded.png
    Intermediate Axle Mount Plate Rear Driving Axle Mount Plate Rear Driving Axle Mounted Plate
    Intermediate Axle Mount Plate.PNG
    Runner-RearAxle-Mount Plate.PNG
    Runner-RearAxle-Mounted Plate.PNG
    Single Axle Rear Drive-rev2.PNG
    Full Assembly: with the tunnel Displayed on our final design of the Rear Driven Snowmobile.

    Manufacturing In-Progress[edit]

    This is some items that will need to be finished do to the COVID-19 Pandemic, which shut the campus down preventing the team from finishing up the manufacturing.

    Components Remaining: Material Acquisitions Manufacturing Process
    [1] Front Swingarm Still Needed
    [1.1] Square Tubing ($20)
    [1.2] Angle Iron ($100)
    [1.3] Bronze Bushings ($20)

    In Team Possession

    [1.4] Steel Sheet
    [1.5] Hardware
    [1.6] Square Stock
    [1.7] Round Stock
    [1.8] Delrin Stock
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • CNC Water Jet (Completed)
  • Welding (2 hr)
  • Manual Lathe (30 min)
  • Horizontal Ban Saw (30 min)
  • Thread Tap (30 min)
  • [2] Belt Sprockets (X4) Still Needed
    [2.1] 5"x 1" Round Al. Stock ($171.56)

    In Team Possession

    [2.2] Aluminum Sheet
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • CNC Water Jet (1hr)
  • Welding (1 hr)
  • Manual Lathe (30 min)
  • Manual Mill (4 hr)
  • Vertical Ban Saw (1 hr)
  • [3] Tensioner Blocks In Team Possession
    [3.1] Steel Sheet
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • Water Jet (Completed)
  • Manual Mill (30 hr)
  • Thread Tap (30 min)
  • [4] Forward Belt Tensioner Still Needed
    [4.1] Bronze Bushings ($5)

    In Team Possession

    [4.1] Steel Plate
    [4.2] Hardware
    [4.3] Dynamic Spring
    [4.4] Delrin
    [4.5] Round Stock
    [4.6] Dowel Pin
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • Water Jet (1 hr)
  • Welding (1 hr)
  • Manual Mill (1 hr)
  • Horizontal Ban Saw (10 min)
  • Manual Lathe (2 hr)
  • [5] Finish Welding and Paint Still Needed
    [5.1] Paint Rattle Cans ($20)
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • Paint (3 hr)
  • Welding (2 hr)
  • [6] Brake Components Still Needed
    [6.1] Brake Line Fittings ($218)
  • Valves
  • Tee Flare Line Split
  • Hard Brake Line
  • Team In Possession

    [6.2] Sheet Metal
    [6.4] S.S. Braided Flexible Line
    [6.5] Brake Caliper
    [6.6] Brake Disk
    [6.7] Brake Pads
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • Welding (30 hr)
  • Vertical Ban Saw (30 min)
  • Flare Tool (15 min)
  • Assembly (1 hr)
  • [7] Front Drive Axle In Team Possession
    [7.1] Steel Precision Round Stock
    [7.2] Hardware
    [7.3] Custom Keys
    [7.4] Splined Ends
    [7.5] Drivers
    [7.6] Hubs
    [7.7] Cir-clips
    Tools (Time Remaining)
  • Horizontal Ban Saw (10 min)
  • Manual Lathe (2 hr)
  • [8] Shaft Inserts

    Validation Plan[edit]

    The focus of this design was to improve efficiency of the overall snow machine with this project trying to achieve this goal threw the implementation of a rear drive system. To validate this project is a success we must first prove that fuel economy has improved, then that handling has not been sacrificed if not improved, and lastly confirming that the durability is proven to be better if not the same. To achieve those standards we will submit our system to a series of tests. Some of these tests will show differences quickly, while some can only be proved accurate after a series of repetitive and many multiples of data sets collected. It must be understood prior to starting the validation plan that this is a three part plan. Allowing failure to show early which ultimately would mean further research and development of the system can be halted.

  • Snowmobiling is dangerous, therefore Personal Protection Equipment must be worn
  • An Experienced rider must be used to preform all tests effectively
  • Validation Overview Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Overview.pdf

    The Plan.JPG

    Justify Step[edit]

    SAE J2263 Coast Down[edit]

    This is very simple and fast test for a the beginning verification process showing a coast distance vs time. There must be an on average change in the coast down total distance vs. time to achieve that distance during the validation tests. Otherwise there is likely to be not a significant difference in the drive train efficiency. Which as we know, was the entire focus behind this project. Now this does not necessarily show a good or bad result, but if there would be no change in time vs distance during this testing procedure then it is likely to mean no change in efficiency.

    Measurements: Distance and Time
    Tools: Measuring Tape, Marker Flags, Stopwatch
    Data Collection Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Coast Down.pdf
    Procedure:
    [1] Mark a 6’ wide gate, with marker flags
    [2] Have the snowmobile configured in a drive mode
    [3] Have the snowmobile a distance away from the gate, accelerate to a constant speed of 30 mph, in the direction of the gate
    [4] When reached the gate, start recording time (from 0) and coast until vehicle stops.
    [5] End recording time at the moment the vehicle stops
    [6] Measure distance from gate to resting position of the end of the track
    [7] Record the values of distance and time for each run, along with notes of snow and weather conditions.
    [8] Repeat steps 3-7, 4 more times (5 total tests per drive mode)
    [9] Start at step 2, with the snowmobile in different drive mode, and repeat steps 3-7 until all drive modes have been tested

    What does this procedure show about the design?

  • Overall Drive Train Efficiency Comparison Metric
  • Instantaneous Fuel Economy[edit]

    The second step in the verification stage is instantaneous fuel economy testing. This gives us some early insight of the systems change in fuel economy for steady state operations. Essentially the test will have a rider going a constant pre-set speed, for a short-pre-set distance. This will then be used to check if fuel consumptions are different between the two systems. This is not to be used to assess the systems fuel economy, instantaneous fuel economy testing should only be used to justify further research into the system.

    Measurements: Fuel Flow
    Tools: Fuel Flow Measurement (Digital Reading)
    Data Collection Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Instantaneous Fuel Economy.pdf
    Procedure:
    [1] Create 2000’ straight and flat course, minimum 6 ft wide, visibly marked at the at each quarter, in the middle, and each end
    [2] Ride snowmobile at 35 mph, into course, keeping speed consistent through course
    [3] Start recording fuel flow measurement through course
    [4] Average all data recorded through the run into a single numerical metric
    [5] Turn around and go through course the opposite direction, recording as step 3
    [6] Repeat 3 times in each configuration

    What does this procedure show about the design?

  • Steady state fuel efficiency improvements
  • Major Step[edit]

    Fuel Economy Testing[edit]

    The major bit of testing takes place in this step, as it is where the most useful data comes from. This means that when preforming these tests, there needs to be an experienced rider to receive accurate results. This part in turn will take a lot of time to complete, having many miles of riding logged. The tests to be ran during this stage include fuel economy runs, while also evaluating the overall durability of the system. It is important to complete this step accurately for the critical data collected here will be the bulk of the supporting evidence. Which will be then used to make all final conclusions of the validity for the system.

    Measurements: Distance and fuel consumption
    Tools: Gas Cans, Scale
    Data Collection Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Fuel Economy.pdf
    Procedure:
    [1] Weigh gas cans, record weight measurements
    [2] Fill gas cans, recording the filled weights and fluid volumes (from pump)
    [3] Fill snowmobile gas tank to a repeatable level (such as the top of the fill spout)
    [4] Ride snowmobile at 45 mph average (or as maintainable) for a distance (recorded by odometer) of 50 miles
    [a] Consistency is key. Having varying speeds in different turns is alright, if the speed is consistent between runs in those sections. Recommend a second rider assisting in keeping consistency.
    [b] Fuel economy riding is a skill. Reducing RAVE valve high position, throwing weight in corners, avoiding the brake, and reducing high rpm while riding is something that should be practiced before collecting data.
    [5] At end of ride, stop snowmobile, turn off engine, and fill gas tank to the original level
    [6] Record weight of gasoline required to fill tank.
    [7] Repeat steps 4-6 as needed for data to reach convergence. Approximately 200 miles in each configuration

    What does this procedure show about the design?

  • Overall Fuel Efficiency
  • Durability Testing[edit]

    This is meant to be assessed in cohesion with the complete Fuel Economy Testing, but should not only be assessed during this stage. As it also includes a separate testing procedure that should only have some of the cumulative miles logged from fuel economy distance runs while others are logged during normal operating conditions of recreational snowmobile use. This is assessed by a red-yellow-green test meaning: broken, some damage but still ride-able, and fine/fully operational without damage. Recreational riding means powder and trail riding, with the intent to have "fun". Riding edges, hills, minor jumps, and other conditions that require the rider to operate from a standing position. Not intended to assess accurately if the rider "sends it" off a 10 [ft] jump, as this would be "extenuating" riding maneuvers, outside the average recreational rider.

    Measurements: If it breaks or doesn’t
    Tools: Secondary Snowmobile, Tow Rope
    Data Collection Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Durability.pdf
    Procedure:
    [1] Ride Snowmobile On/Off Trail Riding
    [2] Regular Sled Riding cumulative 500 miles
    [a] Going over some minor jumps 2 to 3 ft. air
    [b] Going up side-walls of trails
    [c] Full speed
    [3] Failure?
    [a] If minor failure occurs, persist riding
    [b] If moderate failure occurs, tow back, repair, and persist riding
    [c] If complete failure occurs, design is failed, tow back and redesign

    What does this procedure show about the design?

  • Tells us overall if our design works or doesn’t
  • Minor Step/Make Decisions[edit]

    Braking[edit]

    This is a simple metric, but a difficult test to repeat. There are many runs that are required for this test. All pre-assumed judgments must be thrown out as "bad data" for the final data reporting.

    Measurements: Distance and Time
    Tools: Measuring Tape, Marker Flags, Stopwatch
    Data Collection Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Braking.pdf
    Procedure:
    [1] Mark a 6’ wide gate, with marker flags
    [2] Have the snowmobile configured in a drive mode
    [3] Have the snowmobile a distance away from the gate, accelerate to a constant speed of 30 mph, in the direction of the gate
    [4] When reached the gate, start recording time (from 0) and apply brake until vehicle stops.
    [5] End recording time at the moment the vehicle stops
    [6] Measure distance from gate to resting position of the end of the track
    [7] Record the values of distance and time for each run, along with notes of snow and weather conditions.
    [8] Repeat steps 3-7, 4 more times(5 total tests per drive mode)
    [9] Start at step 2, with the snowmobile in different drive mode, and repeat steps 3-7 until all drive modes have been tested

    What does this procedure show about the design?

  • Overall braking perfomance when making a complete stop from a given acceleration.
  • Acceleration[edit]

    This is a difficult, skill required, repetitive test again. The value drift must be considered during data analysis. The testing surface must be prepared properly for acceleration runs. And if you have to abandon the data due to outside factors, which may occur with this test, that is completely the experienced riders judgment call.

    Measurements: Time
    Tools: Measuring Tape, Marker Flags, Stopwatch
    Data Collection Sheet: File:Validation Spreadsheet Acceleration.pdf
    Procedure:
    [1] Mark two gates, 6’ wide and 500’ apart.
    [2] Have the snowmobile configured in a drive mode
    [3] Have the snowmobile with the front of the skis at start of one gate, and in the direction of the other.
    [4] Start Accelerating at max throttle, and start recording time (from 0)
    [5] Stop recording time and stop accelerating when the snowmobile reaches the second gate.
    [6] Record the value of time for each run, along with notes of snow and weather conditions.
    [7] Repeat steps 3-6, 4 more times (5 total tests per drive mode)
    [8] Start at step 2, with the snowmobile in different drive mode, and repeat steps 3-7 until all drive modes have been tested

    What does this procedure show about the design?

  • Overall acceleration performance from a complete stop.
  • Recommendations[edit]

    Team Recommendations[edit]

    Here we give some direct team recommendations for extensive projects such as this one was:

     *The CAD models are never perfect. The poor metrology of the skid rails are still there from the previous team, and we still have them in our model.
     *Future manufacturing: use all the shop and CSC material before buying.
     *DON’T BUY FULL SHEETS FROM FACILITIES they will rip you off if it is not already stocked
     *Work together. Manage week by week, Do not stretch out deadlines. CAD is best done with everyone present.
     *Have an open schedule, this is a lot more work than the average capstone. It requires far more attention to detail. 
     *Without a ‘real’ sponsor, you must be self-driven and hold yourself accountable. You will need to secure sponsorship and other funding. Be bold and be ambitious. “Ask high and ye shall receive something reasonable”
     *Two-part teams are dangerous. Stick to a single senior year team, if possible. Otherwise one team loses design control while the other dumps their work on to you. Especially if they do not meet the pre-assigned goals and deadlines.
     *Assign a team manager. If you have a 2-part team, have one manager who is there/present for all three semesters. Loss of consistency destroys productivity of large groups.
     *Maybe a future CSC project could be a cruise control to help for testing the rear drive.
    

    Technical Recommendations[edit]

    If there was to be a redesign:

  • Find a way to have the front belt center to center length be the same length as the swingarm pivot length, so as huge a dynamic tensioner is not needed.
  • Find a way to machine the hubs as a solid piece, instead of welding
  • Find a way to clock the key and bolt circle angles, so that they are consistently made
  • Use commercial bearing retainer tech (like pillow blocks)
  • Hardware should be a separate sub-assembly in cad, so that design changes are not a hassle
  • Suspension is more relevant than the driveline, and that should be priority to investigate.
  • More to this point:
  • Do not waste time investigating drive technologies that no-one is familiar with
  • Perhaps start with a c-motion suspension or similar which would have more room
  • Team Members[edit]

    Aref cropped.png

    Aref Hakami

    Major: Mechanical Engineering
    Hometown: Khafji, Saudi Arabia
    Responsibility: Team Accountant
    Email: Haka6483@vandals.uidaho.edu
    Brannon hudson Headshot.jpg

    Brannon Hudson

    Major: Mechanical Engineering
    Hometown: Moscow, ID
    Responsibility: Mechanical Design Lead, Manufacturing Lead
    Email: Huds7360@vandals.uidaho.edu
    IMG 5223.JPG

    Thomas Entwit

    Major: Mechanical Engineering
    Hometown: Ketchikan, AK
    Responsibility: Co-Wiki Master, Team Manager
    Email: Entw3682@vandals.uidaho.edu
    Portrait.png

    Adam Thurgood

    Major: Mechanical Engineering
    Hometown: Post Falls, ID
    Responsibility: Client Contact, Recorder
    Email: Thur9470@vandals.uidaho.edu
    Omar Pic.jpg

    Omar Ruiz

    Major: Mechanical Engineering
    Hometown: Wenatchee, WA
    Responsibility: Co-Wiki Master, Manufacturer
    Email: Ruiz6304@vandals.uidaho.edu
    Picture Saleh.png

    Saleh Alkhathami

    Major: Mechanical Engineering
    Hometown: Riyadh, KSA
    Responsibility: Budget, Purchasing
    Email: Alkh2871@vandals.uidaho.edu

    Additional Documentation[edit]

    Original Project Proposal[edit]

    File:Project Proposal-Compiled.pdf

    Team Contract[edit]

    File:Final Team Contract.pdf

    Product Requirements Document[edit]

    File:Product Requirements-Skiddadle-rev3.pdf

    Team Schedule[edit]

    File:Project Schedule Su-Fall Snap4-Fa-Sp-Snap2.pdf

    Project Budget[edit]

    File:CSCRearDrive FinalBudget.pdf

    Calculation Spreadsheet[edit]

    File:Belt Sprocket Decision Worksheet.pdf

    Presentations[edit]

    Snap Shot 1: File:Skidaddle-Snapshot1.pdf
    Snap Shot 2: File:Skidaddle-Snapshot2.pdf
    Snap Shot 3: File:Skidaddle-SuFaSnapshot3-FaSpSnapshot1.pdf
    Snap Shot 4: File:Skidaddle-SuFaSnapshot4-FinalPresentation.pdf
    Mid-Design Review: File:Skidaddle-Mid-Design Review.pdf
    Engineering Release Review: File:Skidaddle-Engineering Release Review.pdf
    Spring Review Presentation: File:Spring Review Presentation update.pdf
    COVID-19 Project Update: File:COVID-19 Project Update.pdf
    Expo PowerPoint Presentation: File:Expo 2020 Rear Drive Team Skidaddle.pdf
    Expo Poster: File:Expo 2020 Poster Rear Drive Team Skiddadle.pdf

    Expo Engineering Video[edit]

    Video Script: File:Video Script Rev1.pdf

    Final Drawing Package[edit]

    File:Complete Rear Drive Drawing Package.pdf

    Final D.F.M.E.A. Analysis[edit]

    File:DFMEA-Skiddadle-Final.pdf

    Final Design Report[edit]

    Summer-Fall'19: File:Design Report-SuFa.pdf
    Fall-Spring'20: File:Design Report-Fall Spring.pdf

    Meeting Minutes[edit]

    Summer 2019: File:Summer19MeetingMinutes.pdf
    Fall 2019:File:Fall19MeetingMinutes.pdf
    Spring 2020:File:Spring20MeetingMinutes.pdf


    Exta Info/ Worksheets[edit]

    Stock Sled Parts [14]