Anda di halaman 1dari 27

RBS

Regenerative Braking System


(for Bicycles)

ME 599-2003-02

by:
Michael Resciniti
Adi Peshkess
Peter Leonard

Date:
12/15/2003

Abstract
When riding a bicycle, a great amount of kinetic energy is lost when braking, making
start up fairly strenuous. The goal of our project was to develop a product that stores the
energy which is normally lost during braking, and reuses it to help propel the rider when
starting. This was accomplished with a spring and cone system whose parameters were
optimized based on engineering, consumer preference, and manufacturing models. The
resulting product is one which is practical and potentially very profitable in the market
place. A spring (of tension 22,100 N/m) is stretched (at most 37cm) by a wire which
wraps around a cone (of 15 cm large diameter and 2 cm small diameter), while braking.
A clutch is then released and the cone drives the bike’s gears to assist the rider while
starting. The product weighs 14 lbs, will cost $87, and will return 85% of the rider’s
stopping energy when starting up again.
Nomenclature
D = stopping distance - parameter
wr = weight of rider - parameter
wb = weight of bicycle (plus weight of product) - parameter
g = gravitational constant - parameter
µ = coefficient of friction between bicycle tire and asphalt - parameter
α = acceleration of bicycle during stopping - parameter
N = normal force on bicycle tire due to gravitation - parameter
vi = initial velocity of bicycle - parameter
vf = final velocity of bicycle - parameter
rt = radius of bicycle tire - parameter
Ff = force of friction on bicycle tire - parameter
θw = angle of wheel traversed during stopping - parameter
τ = torque on bicycle tire applied by product - variable
rg1 = radius of large gear - variable
rg2 = radius of small gear - variable
rc1 = large radius of “cone” - variable
rc2 = small radius of “cone” - variable
Lc = length of “cone” - variable
θa = angle of “cone” rotation at applied point - variable
θt = total angle of “cone” rotation for complete winding - variable
x = deflection of spring - objective (min)
L1 = initial length of spring - variable
L2 = final length of spring - variable
rs = average radius of spring coil - variable
tw = thickness of spring wire - variable
ks = spring constant - variable
Πs = material of spring - variable
ms = mass of spring - variable
Cs = cost of spring* - objective (min)
mp = mass of product* - objective (min)
C = cost to manufacture product* - objective (min)
S = selling price of product* - objective (max)
P = profit from sale of product* - objective (max)
*
for later optimization of cost and weight. For the purposes of this proposal, we are only
attempting to minimize the necessary length of the spring deflection (x)
1.1 The Product Design Problem
Bicycles have been the heart of human transportation since the dawn of its creation.
Many advances have been made to make the bike more desirable and friendly for the
millions of users throughout the world. In many countries throughout Western Europe, a
very large number of professionals use bicycles to commute to work in their business
suits with their briefcases. It is our goal to design a device that can make their commute
an easily traveled one. The Regenerative Braking System (RBS) is a device that can do
so by reducing the overall energy the day to day business commuter is required to use.

1.2 Product Development Process


Many decisions need to be made in order to produce the most desirable and affordable
product to make the highest profit and most unique device. The flow chart in figure 1
shows how our product fits into the product development process. There are three
distinct phases: the Concept Phase, the Design Phase, and the Production Phase. During
the Concept Phase, we defined the problem of losing energy while braking on a bicycle.
We then conceptualized different ways of using that energy with different regenerative
braking systems. Through research and customer surveys, we entered the Design Phase
knowing consumer preferences. We generated designs based on known preferences,
constraints, and parameters. We then made a CAD drawing of our design. We analyzed
our model from the viewpoint of the consumer and manufacturer and did a profit analysis
of the optimal designs. After reviewing our results, we hypothesized how we would enter
the Production Phase. Because this product would be produced in bulk, we took into
account the price of machinery, storage, labor, etc. After all of these costs were
accounted for, we analyzed potential profit again to make sure we would still make
money. Initial results indicate that we would eventually make a profit if this product
were actually placed in the market.

(Insert flow chart)

1.3 Design Requirements


There are many requirements that need to be met to produce a product that is both
feasible and optimal. There are also some constraints, both geometric and engineering
that also need to be satisfied. The following list describes these requirements and
constraints:

1. Store energy while braking


This is the main requirement and the overall objective of the device and must be
suitable to meet the customer’s needs.
2. Return energy to start up
Once the energy is stored in the device, it is necessary to have a simple way to
release this energy back to the user in a positive way. This can be accomplished
with an innovative gear system.

3. Must fit on a bicycle


This is one of the most difficult constraints to achieve and most important because
we are dealing with such confined spacing. The objective is to fit the length of
the spring on the longest part of the bicycle, which is slightly less than a meter.

4. Light weight
The importance of having a light weight design is driven by the customer’s desire
to have a bicycle that is more maneuverable and more portable. This is also a
direct trade off with how much energy can be stored in the spring.

5. Good stopping range


The stopping range is important because this product needs to be usable in real
life situations. This component can be optimized to have the shortest stopping
distance using dynamic analysis.

6. Good stopping force


The force required to stop is dependent on the stopping range and the comfort
levels of the rider. It is also related to the possible spring features.

7. Inexpensive and affordable


This product must be able to make a profit and be desirable. The driving force for
the price can be directly related to the spring size as shown later in the paper.

8. Safe to user and environmentally friendly


Safety is always a very important aspect when ever there is a consumer product.
This requirement will be addressed after the initial design is created.

9. Profitable
Profit is usually the main motivation for the start of any company, therefore this is
one of the parameters that will be optimized.

10. Reliable
It is important to have a product that is reliable and this requirement will affect
the long term business image and needs to be maintained in high regards.

11. Manufacturability
In order to make anything profitable, it needs to be manufacturability, hence the
important of having a product that can be made easily and cheaply.

12. Aesthetically pleasing


This is not a requirement that needs to be taken heavily, but the design should
always have nice look about it, because looks will persuade the buyer.

13. Modular
Having a device that can be adapted to existing bicycles is essential to sell the
greatest number of units. This also can reduce other types of manufacturing costs.

14. Should not hinder normal riding


To have a successful accessory for a bicycle, the ride should not feel a noticeable
change in the biking performance or in the normal riding motion. A device that
impedes the normal biking experience would be considered undesirable.

15. Controlled release


The energy that is released back to the user must be done in a safe and
manageable fashion. This can be a consideration after the prototype is completed.

The main requirements that are used in the analytical model were reduced to price,
weight and capacity (percent of the energy returned). All of the previous design
requirements were used in the engineering model to describe the reduced requirements.

Some of our design decisions are quantifiable, while others are not. The ones that are and
their associated equations are as follows:

2. Engineering Design Model


2.1 Design Requirements in terms of Design Variables
The following describes the requirements that were met in section 1.3 and relates them in
terms with the design variables, so they can be calculated inside of the optimization
model.

1. Store energy while braking Æ ½mv2 = ½ kx2


2. Return energy to start up Æ ½ kx2 = ½ mv2
3. Must fit on a bicycle Ld < Lb, Rd < Amax
4. Light weight Æ min(mass)
5. Good stopping range Æ D = [10 ft., 100 ft.]
6. Good stopping force Æ Ff = µN
7. Inexpensive and affordable Æ min(cost)
8. Profitable Æ min(cost)

From this list, #1, 2, 3, 5, 6 are quantifiable using engineering analysis. They can be
analyzed with equations from physics, dynamics, kinematics, and geometry.
Requirements #4, 7, 8 must be done through mathematical iteration and cost analysis.
2.2 Objective and Constraint Functions
The complete design optimization model in negative null form is as follows:

Objective: min x

Subject to: ½·m·vi2 – τ·D/rw – Ff ·D = 0


Ff – α·m = 0
Ff – µ·N = 0
N – m·g = 0
m – (wb + wr)/g = 0
τ·D/rw – ½·ks·x2 = 0
θw – D/rw = 0
rg1·θt – rg2·θw = 0
Lc – SQRT[(tw·θt/2π)2 – (r1-r2)2] = 0
x – r1·θa – (r2 – r1) ·θa2/2θt = 0
xmax – ½·θt· (r1 + r2) = 0

xmax < 3 ft.


D < 100 ft, D > 10 ft.
vi = 5 mph.
wb = 30 lbf.
wr = 180 lbf.
µ = 0.7
rw = 13 in.
Figure 1

rc2

rc1 rg1

Lc
rg2

Attached
to tire
2.3 Optimization Model and Solutions
Two steps were done in order to complete the design optimization model. The first thing
that needed to be done is to find what the optimal stopping distance must be before we
can determine what the shortest spring length should be. This device is only using the
rear brake to slow the bike to a stop. As the bike begins to slow, the weight is transferred
to the front tire, therefore the normal force on the rear tire is reduced, producing less
stopping force than. The excel model in figure 2 shows the maximum stopping force and
therefore the minimal stopping distance. This force is then extracted from the model and
inputted into the optimization model for the minimal spring length. Now knowing the
maximum stopping force, we can calculate the stopping torque and use the solver to find
the minimal spring length as shown in figure 3.

Figure2: Optimize to find the Minimal Stopping Distance


Finds the Minimal Allowable Stopping Distance (in Meters)

Variables and
Constants Constraint Equations
vi 5 m/s Rf + Rr - W = 0 0
Rf 420.428571 N -Rf(L1) + Rr(L - L1) + f(h) = 0 1E-06
Rr 462.471429 N
W 882.9 N
L 1.5 m Note: Only uses back brake to stop
L1 1.1 m
f 231.2357145 N
u 0.5
h 1.2 m
D 4.865165411 m

Output Parameteres
rw 0.33 m
T 76.30778579 Nm
θ 14.74292549 rad
Energy 1126.147959 J

INFO
m 90 kg
2
a 2.569285717 m/s
t 1.946066164 s

g force 0.261904762 g
Figure 3: Minimize to find the Shortest Feasible Spring Length
Min feasible spring length

Input Parameters Constraint Equations


rw 0.33 m T-k*xi*ri = 0 (equation in matlab)
T 86.75221471 Nm E - .5 * k * (xf-xi)^2 = 0 (equation in xf)
θ 12.96796864 rad Theta - ((xf-xi) / rave) = 0 #NAME?
Energy 1126.147959 J
Percent E return 100%

Variables
c (gear ratio) 1.136872389
k 25000 N/m
ri #NAME? m
rf #NAME? m
rave #NAME? m
xi 0.046908859 m
xf 0.347061881 m

2.4 Interpretation of Results


The solver found that the minimum spring compression length is 0.35 meters, and by
using a common rule of total spring length is 1.5 times the compression length the total
spring length is 0.52 meters or almost 21 inches. The spring constant was chosen to be in
a reasonable range of 25000 N/M, but the spring length seems to converge around the
same optimal length as k goes higher. The only active constraint that is present is the
final radius of the cone. This active constraint is expected because the smaller the final
radius is the less the spring will be compressed and with the number of times the wheels
rotate.

3 Our Product in the marketplace.


3.1 Benchmarking
There are no other products exactly like the RBS currently in the marketplace.
However, there are several products available to consumers which make bicycle
transportation easier. One product is an electric bike which uses pedaling to store energy
in the batteries of the bicycle, and then to re-use this energy from the batteries (via an
electric motor) to assist when riding a bicycle uphill.1 Another vehicle which uses
regenerative braking is a two-wheeled electric scooter which uses the braking system to
recharge the batteries. However, this stores energy as electrical rather than mechanical

1
http://www.electricvehiclesnw.com/main/regen.htm
energy.2 However, we have come across no product currently on the market for a purely
mechanical regenerative braking system (RBS)

3.2 Patent Search


One patent of note was found during our patent search was Patent #4,744,577.
This is a patent for a mechanical RBS for a bicycle, using an elastic band as the energy
storage device. This appears to be a device that is integrated with the bicycle, and not
able to be added to any bicycle bought separate from the device. However, it does not
appear to be currently marketed, as the patent was established in 1988 and no device of
this sort has been seen since.

3.3 Maximizing Profit


In order to determine how well our product will perform in the market, we must
reformulate our objective. Our new objective function will be the maximization of the
profit returned from the sales of the RBS. Our costs will be determined by the materials
and parts we use in the device. We can keep this low by minimizing/maximizing the
following variables:
MAX(profit) = MAX(revenue – cost)

MIN(spring strength: k)
MIN(spring length: x)
MIN(cost per spring: Ck)
MIN(cone length: L)
MAX(difference of cone radii: rf-ri)
MAX(angle of cone rotation: θ)
MIN(# of parts purchased: N)
MIN(cost of parts purchased: Co)
MAX(selling price: P)
MIN(start-up costs: Cs)
MIN(tooling costs: Ct)
MAX(# units sold per year: n)
MIN(# workers: w)
MIN(salaries: S(wi))
MAX(# years in service: Y)

Revenue per year = R = P·n

Start-Up-Costs = Cs = (Cost of Machines: Cm) + (Cost of Facilities: Cf)

2
http://www.electricstar.org/motorboard.html
Cost per product: Ck·F(k,x) + Ct·G(L,rf,ri,θ) + Co·N

Profit for one year: P·n – [Ck·F(k,x) + Ct·G(L,rf,ri,θ) + Co·N] ·n – Cs – ΣS(wi)

We created an excel spreadsheet to optimize this new problem:

SOLVED | NOMINAL
Spring length (x) m : 0.1 | 0.3
Spring strength (k) N/m : 5000 | 10000
Cone Length (L) in. : 0.5 | 3
Cone Large Radius (ri) in. : 0.2 | 6
Cone Small Radius (rf) in. : 0.1 | 0.1
Cone Rotation (θ) rad : 6 | 4
Number of parts purchased (N) : 25 | 25
|
Spring Cost (Ck) : $1.00 | $6.00
Tooling Cost (Ct) : $0.03 | $4.58
Purchased-parts Cost (Co) : $12.50 | $12.50
|
Start up Costs (Cs) : $500,000.00 | $500,000.00
Salaries (S) : $1,000,000.00 | $1,000,000.00
|
Selling Price (P) : $85.00 | $85.00
number sold : 100000 | 100000
|
Revenue : $8,500,000.00 | $8,500,000.00
Cost : $2,852,500.00 | $3,807,500.00
|
Profit : $5,647,500.00 | $4,692,500.00

4 Model Extension: Marketing


4.1 Market size
The size of the market can not be found by looking up previous data, because the
Regenerative Braking System (RBS) is a new product and no data exists yet. The
research found consists of: how many bikes are in the world today, how many bikes are
purchased in a year, and how many “electric assisted” bicycles are purchased in a year all
in different countries. The “electric assisted” bicycles is the most similar to the RBS
because they can both be added-on to a bicycle and they both serve similar purposes.
The major difference between these products would be price, in which the RBS would be
much cheaper.

It is estimated that 1.5 billion people own and use a bicycle world wide and 100 – 120
million bicycles are produced every year. (data taken 11/3/2003) The break down of the
countries is as follows:
Standard Electric @Price
China 450 M 1M $300
India 300 M - -
USA 120 M 35,000 $1,500
Japan 70 M 20,000 $750
Brazil 40 M - -
Europe 140 M 65,000 $1,000

From this information we can make some approximation of supply and demand. If the
RBS is sold near 100$, then we can find the corresponding data. An example would look
like this:

China
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400

Therefore, the market in China would be $50 for the bike plus $100 for the RBS would
yield a market near 250 million.

Using this approximant method we find that the market is:

China: 250 M
USA: 110 M
Japan: 60 M
Europe: 120 M

If we approximate the rest by 50%, then the total market yields:

710 Million!

This is an extremely large number, so if it was only 1% of this, then profit margins can
still be incredible.

4.2 Utility
The utility is derived from the characteristics that were prescribed: price, capacity, and
weight. The surveys are used to find this utility in terms of the Beta values. The
following are the Beta values:
Price: -0.0529
Capacity: 0.0512
Weight: -0.2164

These values show that the consumer cares about the weight the most, then price and
capacity. What this is saying is that people want a product that will give back some
energy that is really light and somewhat cheap.

4.3 Logit Model


A survey was devised in an orthogonal fashion in order to do a conjoint analysis. This
survey had 3 product characteristics at 3, 3, and 2 levels. These characteristics consisted
of price, capacity and weight. Price is obviously how much the unit will cost and the two
levels were $75 to $100. The reason it was only varied between two levels because price
is very predictable and does not need as much detail. Capacity is defined as the percent
of energy returned to the user after braking is completed. This had three levels, 50%,
75% and nearly 100%. Another characteristic thought to have impact on whether or not a
customer will buy the product is weight. Weight is how much the total system added to
the bicycle. This had three levels, 5 lbs, 10 lbs and 15 lbs. Weight was thought to be
very important because the trend of bicycles has been going toward lighter, but most
importantly is the trade off between a light system and pricing and capacity. All of the
factors have the greatest affect on the spring size, so the model can be reduced to
focusing on their relationship to the spring. The survey also included some addition
personal information. The rider’s sex, weight, normal riding speed, and riding reason for
riding were asked. This information as used to determine trends or correlations between
groups of people. It was also used to reconfirm some boundary conditions previously
calculated. Interestingly enough, the persons’ average riding speed was 12.93 mph,
which is almost exactly what was used in the engineering model. Also nearly 100% of
the survey’s population used a bicycle for recreation or commuter purposes, which means
that they would all be included in the market.

The data was collected, the maximum likelihood formula was applied and the betas were
calculated. The results were discussed under the utility section. The spline interpolation
was applied to find the continuous functions. As shown in figures 4, 5, and 6, these
results can be approximated as linear.
Beta vs w eight

2.500

2.000
y = -0.2164x + 3.2475
1.500 Weight

1.000 Linear (Weight)

0.500

0.000
5 10 15
lbs

Figure 4: Utility vs. Weight


Beta vs Price

0.000
75 85 95 105
-0.500

-1.000
Price
-1.500
Linear (Price)
-2.000

-2.500
y = -0.0529x + 2.7567
-3.000
$

Figure 5: Utility vs. Price


Beta vs Capacity

2.500
y = 0.0512x - 2.7563
2.000

1.500
Speed
1.000
Linear (Speed)
0.500

0.000
50 70 90 110
-0.500
% Returned

Figure 6: Utility vs. Capacity


5 ANALYTICAL TARGET CASCADING
We have so far discussed how to optimize the RBS from three points of view:
engineering, manufacturing, and customer. The engineer attempted to minimize the
amount of spring deflection (x) for a given value of spring stiffness constant (k) based on
a minimum stopping distance (D), which was derived from a physical description of the
system. The manufacturer considered the effect of k and x on three design characteristics:
cost to manufacture, weight of the product, and the capacity of the product to return
energy to the rider. The customers were presented with surveys and asked for their
preferences of characteristics for the product based on the weight, capacity, and retail
price of the product.
Dem and Model
550- 600
500- 550
Profit
450- 500
5000 22500-
400- 450 25000
350- 400 20000-
5000 300- 350 22500
250- 300 10000 17500-
200- 250 20000
10000 15000-
17500
15000 12500-
15000 15000
spring
Spring 10000-
constant
12500 (k)
20000 Constant (k) 20000 7500-10000

25000
25000
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
profit 30000
Spring 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Deflection (x)
spring deflection (x)

Figure 7: Demand Model Figure 8: Profit Model


We were able to model our profit by multiplying 40% of the selling price P by the
demand q, which was based on our demand model from Assignment 3. There is little
deviation, however, between the profile of the demand model and that of the profit
model, as can be seen in figures 7 and 8. The only major difference in the profiles is near
the region of high k and low x, which lies in an undesirable range (price is too high while
the capacity is too low).
We then compare the demand model to the manufacturing model, in figure 9.
Produce rs Mode l 280-300
De m and Model
550- 600
260-280
500- 550
240-260 450- 500
400- 450
5000 220-240 350- 400

200-220
5000 300- 350
250- 300
180-200 200- 250
10000 10000
160-180
140-160
15000 15000
120-140
Spring
100-120
Constant (k)
20000
20000 80-100

25000
Spring
25000
Cons tant (k )
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Spring
Spring De fle ction (x) Deflection (x)

Figure 9: Producer Model (next to Demand Model for comparison)


We can then use iteration to find a balance point between these two models. Our
targets at the top level are to keep the spring length and spring constant in a balance for
our stopping distance from our engineering model. We then pass that target to the
Producer model, and then the Demand model.
First, we start on the engineering curve and choose a point from the curve to start
our iterations. We decide to use the point on the curve that yields the highest profit. From
there we follow the gradient of the Producer Model, which leads us to the high point of
the Producer model. Then we follow the gradient of the Demand model at that point until
we hit a boundary. From this point on the Demand model, we follow the gradient of the
Producer model until we hit a boundary again. This continues until our iteration moves
between two points only. The following sequence is what occurs:
Model Gradient start (x,k) finish (x,k)
Producer (0.3, 30000) (0.1,30000)
Demand (0.1, 30000) (0.35, 5000)
Producer (0.35, 5000) (0,1, 5000)
Demand (0,1, 5000) (0.8,15000)
Producer (0.8,15000) (0.6, 5000)
Demand (0.6,5000) (0.8, 25000)
Producer (0,8, 25000) (0.55, 5000)
Demand (0.55, 5000) (0.8, 25000)
So our two models find equilibrium along the line between the points (0.8 m,
25000 N/m) and (0.55 m, 5000 N/m), as shown by the yellow line in Figure 10. Now we
can return to the engineering model (marked by the red line in Figure 10), which
indicates the optimal curve fit of k to x for our best stopping distance of approximately 5
meters. These two lines meet when x is approximately 0.58 meters and k is 7500 N/m.
These values yield a suggested selling price of $63.88, a capacity of 70% of speed
returned, and a weight of 11.26 lb. While the capacity and weight are nicely within our
pareto boundaries, the price (as will be shows in our business plan) will need to be raised
significantly in order to make a profit.

Producers Mode l 280-300


260-280
Figure 10:Lines of Equilibrium.
240-260

5000 220-240
yellow: producer-demand
200-220 red: engineering performance
180-200
10000
160-180
Overlay on Producer Model
140-160
15000 120-140
100-120

20000 80-100

Spring
25000
Constant (k)

30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Spring Deflection (x)
Comparing this solution with that found only by optimizing the profit in EXCEL,
we see the following:
EXCEL SOLVER for Profit Analytical Target Cascading
spring deflection (x) 0.37 m 0.58 m
spring stiffness (k) 30,000 N/m 7,500 N/m
Price ($) $99.31 $63.88
Weight (lb.) 16.32 lb. 11.26 lb.
Capacity (% of 1800J) 114% 70%
Profit $32,086,000 $21,118,000
So, the excel solver seems to have created a more profitable outcome. However,
the selling price was determined by increasing the manufacturing cost-per-part by 60%.
Therefore, we can increase our profit by raising the selling price, and our demand curve
indicates that our profit will actually increase almost 30% by an increase to a selling price
of approximately $85 if we increase the capacity to approximately 85%. We can do this
by setting x to 0.37m and k to 22,100 N/m, and this also yields a weight of only 14 lb.
This appears to be the true optimum of our system.

6 Conclusion
The overall goal was to design the Regenerative Braking System while keeping the
engineering, producer and customer models in check. The key design decision was based
on the spring length and the spring constant. The reason why this feature was used more
than all of the other features are because the other features would not have as much effect
on the complete system. By changing the size and spring constant, desirable price,
weight and capacity can be realized.

We used a survey to find out how the price, weight and capacity were scaled. Much was
learned on how to and not to conduct a survey. A preliminary survey should have been
conducted to determine a realistic value of variables. Also many of choices were not
close enough together to get a reasonable cut off value. Therefore the data that was
produced using conjoint analysis was most likely not as accurate as it could have been.

There are some limitations to our model. For the sake of simplicity, the spring was
modeled with the length and the spring constant rather than wire thickness, stress, strain
and all the other complex analysis that would make the solver take too long to process.
By getting a rough idea of what the ranges can be, simple experimentation can be done to
prove or disprove this assumption.

Future work would consist of a redesign of the spring model to see exactly how much
data we may be missing with the assumption that we made with how price, weight and
capacity vary with spring length and spring constant. Despite all the assumptions, we
still have realized that this product can be very marketable and that the demand is
extremely large which means this is a viable design that will yield a high return on an
investment.
References

Papalambros, P.Y., and D.J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design. 2nd Ed.
Cambridge University Press, New Your, NY, 2000.

Russel, Alastair. “The Changing World of Mobility.” MS Powerpoint Presentation.


http://www.airstreamgroup.com/tech/downloads.php

http://www.electricvehiclesnw.com/main/regen.htm

http://www.electricstar.org/motorboard.html

http://www.hondurasembassy.se/bicycles.pdf

http://www.uspto.gov/
Appendix A
Data
Number Made 100,000
Selling Price $ 87.00

Cost
Description Quantity Cost Total Cost
Investment Cost
Warehouse 3000 m^2 20 $ 200,000 $ 4,000,000
Patent International 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Technology Computers, CAD, CNC 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Tooling Costs CNC lathe machine 8 $ 50,000 $ 416,667
Annual Cost
Aluminum (6"x3" round stock) 100000 $ 5 $ 521,000
springs 100000 $ 15 $ 1,500,000
sprocket 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Materials small sprocket 100000 $ 4 $ 400,000
gears 100000 $ 10 $ 1,000,000
casing 100000 $ 8 $ 800,000
Misc. 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Engineering 5 $ 50,000 $ 250,000
Business 4 $ 40,000 $ 160,000
Labor (yearly
Marketing / Sales 4 $ 42,000 $ 168,000
salaries)
Assembly 17 $ 25,000 $ 416,667
Machinist 3 $ 25,000 $ 69,444
Yearly Annual Cost: $ 6,285,111

Material Cost Price for one


$ 52 $ 62.85

Revenue
Location Quantity Sold Price (USD) Total Income
The Netherlands 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Italy 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Germany 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Spain 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
No. of Units Sold: 100,000 Yearly Income $ 8,700,000

Profit
=Total Yearly Income - Total Yearly Cost
Yearly Profit: $ 2,414,889

Break Even Point


Investment $ (4,766,667)
Yearly Profit $ 2,414,889
Periods 2.16
PV Profit $ 4,766,667
Difference $ 0

Rate of Return Method


Years RBS RBS
0 $ (4,766,667) $ (4,766,667)
1 $ 2,414,889 $ 2,414,889
2 $ 2,414,889 $ 2,414,889
3 $ 2,414,889 $ 2,414,889
4 $ 2,414,889
5 $ 2,414,889
6 $ 2,414,889
7 $ 2,414,889
8 $ 2,414,889
9 $ 2,414,889
10 $ 2,414,889
IRR 24.3% 49.8%
3 Years 10 Years
Appendix X
Business Plan Outline
1. Company Vision ........................................................................................................... 21
2. Market Analysis ............................................................................................................ 21
2.1 Overall Market ........................................................................................................ 21
2.2 Target Market.......................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Customer Desires .................................................................................................... 21
3. Competitive Analysis.................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Industry Overview .................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Primary Competitors............................................................................................... 23
4. Product Breakdown....................................................................................................... 23
4.1 RBS Optimal Design............................................................................................... 23
4.2 Competitive Analysis of Product ............................................................................ 24
5. Financial Analysis......................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Estimated Costs....................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Projected Revinue ................................................................................................... 26
5.3 Profit ....................................................................................................................... 26
1. Company Vision
Millions of people throughout the world use a bicycle as a main means of transportation
and our goal is to make sure they all have an effortless ride using the Regenerative
Braking System (RBS). The plan is to develop an affordable, energy saving device that
is extremely desirable by the day to day biking commuter. This goal will be met by
combining a team of highly skilled engineers, market researchers and business specialists
and we will yield an extremely profitable product for millions of needy customers.

2. Market Analysis
2.1 Overall Market
The projected market size for the RBS is on the order of 700 million people. This
number was estimated by the number of people throughout the world who would possibly
pay over one hundred dollars for a power assisted biking system. Due to market
penetration, this number will be reduced significantly to a value of 100,000 units.

2.2 Target Market


The main focus area for this product will be mostly Western Europe due to their great
number of biking commuters and high average annual income [1]. It is important to
target not only the consumer that will use the product, but also the consumer that will be
able to afford the product in the early stages of development. This is to maximize the
profit before competition can change the demand curve. 100,000 units will be made
every year for three years to introduce the product into the market. After this proving
stage, the number of production will be increased or decreased accordingly.

2.3 Customer Desires


In order to determine what features the customers desired the most, a survey was given to
a small group of mechanical engineering students from the University of Michigan. Even
though this is not the ideal group of consumers, their trends were valued and scaled
accordingly. The features consisted of price, capacity, and weight. After this survey was
collected, a conjoint study was preformed to determine how these features would be
weighted. The following data shows the results of this study. Note, this study is limited
to the survey size and the range of values.

Figures X1-X3 below show these trends.


Figure X1: Weight vs. Utility
Beta vs w eight

2.500

2.000
y = -0.2164x + 3.2475
1.500 Weight

1.000 Linear (Weight)

0.500

0.000
5 10 15
lbs

Figure X: Price vs. Utility


Beta vs Price

0.000
75 85 95 105
-0.500

-1.000
Price
-1.500
Linear (Price)
-2.000

-2.500
y = -0.0529x + 2.7567
-3.000
$

Figure X: Capacity vs. Utility


Beta vs Capacity

2.500
y = 0.0512x - 2.7563
2.000

1.500
Speed
1.000
Linear (Speed)
0.500

0.000
50 70 90 110
-0.500
% Returned
3. Competitive Analysis
3.1 Industry Overview
Despite the trends of modern technology with the automobile, the biking industry is still
thriving, meaning that bicycles will be with us for a long time to come. The Airstream
group of Canada has show that the growth rates of normal bicycles are 10% per year and
surprisingly the growth rate of electric bicycles are 25% per year [2]. This is a very
promising statistic and shows that people are leaning towards a more environmentally
friendly and healthier lifestyle, which ensures a stable market place for the RBS.

3.2 Primary Competitors


Due to the nature of this product, there is nothing on the market right now that has similar
capabilities and attributes with in the price range that the RBS can be offered. Therefore
the RBS can be modeled as a monopolistic product.

4. Product Breakdown
4.1 RBS Optimal Design
The finalized design of the RBS consists of a 25” long compression spring that has a
spring constant of 30K N-m that is attached to a 6”max DIA cone via 1/8” wire. The
cone is inline with a set of 1” beveled gears. There is a shaft that connects through two of
the gears using a clutch that can be engaged when the brakes are being applied. The gear
near the sprocket has a free wheel bearing, which allows the bike to both brake and
accelerate, using a compact gear train. The sprocket, which is aligned with the free
bearing gear, connects to the back sprocket that is mounted on the tire. See Figure 4 for a
detailed model.
Figure 4: Schematic of RBS

Cone
Compression
Spring

Ratchet

Sprocket

Clutch
To
Back
Tire Freewheel

The majority of the focus of this design is optimizing the spring to meet the needs of the
consumer and the producer. Also all other values are so discrete or cannot change and
the only flexibility that can be made to the RBS that has any significant value are the
spring length and the spring constant. These parameters were optimized to find the
spring that can yield the highest profit and yet meet the customer’s needs.

Table 1: Characteristics of the RBS


Total Spring Length 18 inches
Spring Constant 30K N-m
Percent Regenerated ~100%
Weight 17 lbs
Selling Price $87

4.2 Competitive Analysis of Product


The unique concept of our product is the compactness, adaptability and regenerative
capability. This allows us to reach a very wide and varied market while meeting the
convenience of regenerative braking. We feel that the RBS will thrive in a Western
European market due to the lack of immediate competition and the versatility of the
product.
5. Financial Analysis Overview
In this section, we plan to show that not only will the RBS be a good investment, but we
will show that the return rate can be extremely rewarding. The quantity of RBSs that will
be manufactured is on the order of 100,000 units, with a selling price of $87. Assume
that all units are sold in each of the years that they are produced; the break even point is
only slightly over 2 years, with an initial investment of 4 million dollars. The rate of
return for the investors will be 24.3% over a 3 year period and 49.8% over a 10 year
period. See appendix A for full financial analysis.

5.1 Estimated Costs


The cost for this total project has many different aspects and must include all facets of
cost. Figure 5 shows this expense breakdown:

Figure 5: Investment and Annual Costs


Data
Number Made 100,000
Selling Price $ 87.00

Cost
Description Quantity Cost Total Cost
Investment Cost
Warehouse 3000 m^2 20 $ 200,000 $ 4,000,000
Patent International 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Technology Computers, CAD, CNC 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Tooling Costs CNC lathe machine 8 $ 50,000 $ 416,667
Annual Cost
Aluminum (6"x3" round stock) 100000 $ 5 $ 521,000
springs 100000 $ 15 $ 1,500,000
sprocket 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Materials small sprocket 100000 $ 4 $ 400,000
gears 100000 $ 10 $ 1,000,000
casing 100000 $ 8 $ 800,000
Misc. 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Engineering 5 $ 50,000 $ 250,000
Business 4 $ 40,000 $ 160,000
Labor (yearly
Marketing / Sales 4 $ 42,000 $ 168,000
salaries)
Assembly 17 $ 25,000 $ 416,667
Machinist 3 $ 25,000 $ 69,444
Yearly Annual Cost: $ 6,285,111

Mostly all parts of the product are outsourced except for the cone. The cone is
manufactured in house on CNC lathes and operated by machinists. Once those parts are
produced, the assemblers put them together. The total number of workers were
determined by a function of how many units could be produced in a year and how many
units are actually made in a year. Some assumptions made were, one machinist can work
three CNC lathe machines at once and each of those machines could produce one cone
every 20 minutes. The same types of assumptions were made for the assemblers ending
with an end result as shown above.

5.2 Projected Revenue


The target consumers are located in Western Europe and are broken up by the following
countries [3]. These countries have been researched to have a very large biking
commuter population and would be a very good test market to introduce our new product.
Given a three year period we can calculate a safe investment plan and a fast break even
point. Also another major assumption is that all the units are sold, but this is a fairly safe
assumption because of the limited number produced for the given size of each of the
markets. The following chart shows the simplified revenue breakdown, Figure 6.

Figure 6: Yearly Revenue in Western Europe


Revenue
Location Quantity Sold Price (USD) Total Income
The Netherlands 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Italy 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Germany 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Spain 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
No. of Units Sold: 100,000 Yearly Income $ 8,700,000

5.3 Profit
The yearly profit of the RBS is total yearly revenue – the total yearly profit. Again
assuming that all products are sold every year, the net profit for our product will be
$2,414,889. Our product has quite a large mark-up, but with our estimations and before
competition is introduced, $25 mark-up is not too dangerous. After market penetration,
the quantity sold will most likely increase dramatically and other markets will be reached.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai