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 bikes gears to assist the rider while
starting. The product weighs 14 lbs, will cost $87, and will return 85% of the riders
stopping energy when starting up again.

Nomenclature
D = stopping distance
wr = weight of rider
wb = weight of bicycle (plus weight of product)
g = gravitational constant
= coefficient of friction between bicycle tire and asphalt
= acceleration of bicycle during stopping
N = normal force on bicycle tire due to gravitation
vi = initial velocity of bicycle
vf = final velocity of bicycle
rt = radius of bicycle tire
Ff = force of friction on bicycle tire
w = angle of wheel traversed during stopping
= torque on bicycle tire applied by product
rg1 = radius of large gear
rg2 = radius of small gear
rc1 = large radius of cone
rc2 = small radius of cone
Lc = length of cone
a = angle of cone rotation at applied point
t = total angle of cone rotation for complete winding
x = deflection of spring
L1 = initial length of spring
L2 = final length of spring
rs = average radius of spring coil
tw = thickness of spring wire
ks = spring constant
s = material of spring
ms = mass of spring
Cs = cost of spring*
mp = mass of product*
C = cost to manufacture product*
S = selling price of product*
P = profit from sale of product*
*

- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- parameter
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- objective (min)
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- variable
- objective (min)
- objective (min)
- objective (min)
- objective (max)
- 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 customers 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 customers 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Store energy while braking mv2 = kx2

Return energy to start up kx2 = mv2
Must fit on a bicycle Ld < Lb, Rd < Amax
Light weight min(mass)
Good stopping range D = [10 ft., 100 ft.]
Good stopping force Ff = N
Inexpensive and affordable min(cost)
Profitable 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: mvi2 D/rw Ff D = 0
Ff m = 0
Ff N = 0
N mg = 0
m (wb + wr)/g = 0
D/rw ksx2 = 0
w D/rw = 0
rg1t rg2w = 0
Lc SQRT[(twt/2)2 (r1-r2)2] = 0
x r1a (r2 r1) a2/2t = 0
xmax t (r1 + r2) = 0
xmax < 3 ft.
D < 100 ft, D > 10 ft.
vi = 5 mph.
wb = 30 lbf.
wr = 180 lbf.
= 0.7
rw = 13 in.
Figure 1

rc2
rg1

rc1

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
vi
5
Rf
420.428571
Rr
462.471429
W
882.9
L
1.5
L1
1.1
f
231.2357145
u
0.5
h
1.2
D
4.865165411

Constraint Equations
m/s
N
N
N
m
m
N
m
m

Output Parameteres
rw
0.33
T
76.30778579
14.74292549

Energy
1126.147959

m
Nm
rad
J

INFO
m
a
t

90
2.569285717
1.946066164

kg
2
m/s
s

g force

0.261904762

Rf + Rr - W = 0
-Rf(L1) + Rr(L - L1) + f(h) = 0

Note: Only uses back brake to stop

0
1E-06

Figure 3: Minimize to find the Shortest Feasible Spring Length

Min feasible spring length
Input Parameters
rw
0.33 m
T
86.75221471 Nm

12.96796864 rad
Energy
1126.147959 J
Percent E return
100%
Variables
c (gear ratio)
k
ri
rf
rave
xi
xf

1.136872389
25000
#NAME?
#NAME?
#NAME?
0.046908859
0.347061881

Constraint Equations
T-k*xi*ri = 0
(equation in matlab)
E - .5 * k * (xf-xi)^2 = 0
(equation in xf)
Theta - ((xf-xi) / rave) = 0
#NAME?

N/m
m
m
m
m
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

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: )
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 = Pn

Start-Up-Costs =

Cs = (Cost of Machines: Cm) + (Cost of Facilities: Cf)

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

Cost per product:

CkF(k,x) + CtG(L,rf,ri,) + CoN

Profit for one year:

Pn [CkF(k,x) + CtG(L,rf,ri,) + CoN] n Cs S(wi)

We created an excel spreadsheet to optimize this new problem:

SOLVED
Spring length (x) m
Spring strength (k) N/m
Cone Length (L) in.
Cone Large Radius (ri) in.
Cone Small Radius (rf) in.
Cone Rotation () rad
Number of parts purchased (N)

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

0.1
5000
0.5
0.2
0.1
6
25

Spring Cost (Ck) :

Tooling Cost (Ct) :
Purchased-parts Cost (Co) :

$1.00
$0.03
$12.50

Start up Costs (Cs) :

$500,000.00
Salaries (S) : $1,000,000.00
Selling Price (P) :
number sold :

$85.00
100000

Revenue : $8,500,000.00
Cost : $2,852,500.00
Profit : $5,647,500.00

| NOMINAL
|
0.3
|
10000
|
3
|
6
|
0.1
|
4
|
25
|
|
$6.00
|
$4.58
|
$12.50
|
|
$500,000.00
| $1,000,000.00
|
|
$85.00
|
100000
|
| $8,500,000.00
| $3,807,500.00
|
| $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
450 M
300 M
120 M
70 M
40 M
140 M

China
India
USA
Japan
Brazil
Europe

Electric
1M
35,000
20,000
65,000

@Price
$300
$1,500
$750
$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 riders 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 surveys 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
-0.500

75

85

95

105

-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
-0.500

50

70

90

110

% 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

Profit

550- 600
500- 550

5000

450- 500
400- 450
350- 400

5000

300- 350

10000

250- 300
200- 250

10000

15000

15000
Spring
20000 Constant (k)

20000

2250025000
2000022500
1750020000
1500017500
1250015000
spring
10000constant
(k)
12500
7500-10000

25000

25000
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

30000
0.1

profit
0.8

Spring
Deflection (x)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

30000
0.1

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.
280-300

Produce rs Mode l

De m and Model

550- 600

260-280

500- 550

240-260
5000

450- 500

400- 450

220-240

350- 400

5000

200-220

300- 350

250- 300

180-200
10000

200- 250

10000

160-180

140-160
15000

15000

120-140

100-120
20000

80-100

25000

Spring
Cons tant (k )

20000
25000

0.8
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

Spring De fle ction (x)

0.3

0.2

30000
0.1

Spring
Constant (k)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

30000
0.1

Spring
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.
280-300

Producers Mode l

260-280

240-260
5000

220-240

200-220
10000

180-200

160-180

140-160
15000

120-140

100-120

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

Spring Deflection (x)

0.3

0.2

20000

80-100

25000

Spring
Constant (k)

30000
0.1

Figure 10:Lines of Equilibrium.

yellow: producer-demand
red: engineering performance
Overlay on Producer Model

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
Selling Price
$

100,000
87.00

Cost
Description

Quantity

Cost

Total Cost

Investment Cost
Warehouse
Patent
Technology
Tooling Costs

3000 m^2
International
Computers, CAD, CNC
CNC lathe machine

20
1
1
8

Aluminum (6"x3" round stock)

springs
sprocket
Materials
small sprocket
gears
casing
Misc.
Engineering
Business
Labor (yearly
Marketing / Sales
salaries)
Assembly
Machinist

Annual Cost
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
5
4
4
17
3

$
$
$
$

200,000
100,000
250,000
50,000

$
$
$
$

4,000,000
100,000
250,000
416,667

$
5
$
15
$
5
$
4
$
10
$
8
$
5
$
50,000
$
40,000
$
42,000
$
25,000
$
25,000
Yearly Annual Cost:

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

521,000
1,500,000
500,000
400,000
1,000,000
800,000
500,000
250,000
160,000
168,000
416,667
69,444
6,285,111

Material Cost
$

52

Price (USD)
$
$
$
$
Yearly Income

87
87
87
87

Price for one

$
62.85

Revenue
Location
The Netherlands
Italy
Germany
Spain
No. of Units Sold:

Quantity Sold
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
100,000

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

Break Even Point

Investment
Yearly Profit

$
$

(4,766,667)
2,414,889

$
$

4,766,667
0

Periods

2.16

PV Profit
Difference

Rate of Return Method

Years
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IRR

RBS
$
$
$
$

(4,766,667)
2,414,889
2,414,889
2,414,889

24.3%
3 Years

RBS
$
(4,766,667)
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
$
2,414,889
49.8%
10 Years

Total Income
$
2,175,000
$
2,175,000
$
2,175,000
$
2,175,000
$
8,700,000

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
-0.500

75

85

95

105

-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
-0.500

50

70

90

% Returned

110

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 6max 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 customers 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
Selling Price
$

100,000
87.00

Cost
Quantity

Description

Cost

Total Cost

Investment Cost
Warehouse
Patent
Technology
Tooling Costs

3000 m^2
International
Computers, CAD, CNC
CNC lathe machine

Aluminum (6"x3" round stock)

springs
sprocket
Materials
small sprocket
gears
casing
Misc.
Engineering
Business
Labor (yearly
Marketing / Sales
salaries)
Assembly
Machinist

20
1
1
8
Annual Cost
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
100000
5
4
4
17
3

$
$
$
$

200,000
100,000
250,000
50,000

$
$
$
$

4,000,000
100,000
250,000
416,667

$
5
$
15
$
5
$
4
$
10
$
8
$
5
$
50,000
$
40,000
$
42,000
$
25,000
$
25,000
Yearly Annual Cost:

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

521,000
1,500,000
500,000
400,000
1,000,000
800,000
500,000
250,000
160,000
168,000
416,667
69,444
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
The Netherlands
25,000
Italy
25,000
Germany
25,000
Spain
25,000
No. of Units Sold:
100,000

Price (USD)
$
$
$
$
Yearly Income

87
87
87
87

Total Income
$ 2,175,000
$ 2,175,000
$ 2,175,000
$ 2,175,000
$ 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.