Design and Stability of Recumbent Tricycle

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/308787639
DESIGN AND STABILITY OF RECUMBENT TRICYCLE
Thesis · April 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21433.57443
CITATIONS READS
0 4,857
1 author:
Sahil Jitesh
City, University of London
4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Numerical Study of the Aerodynamic Performance of a Slotted Airfoil View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sahil Jitesh on 02 October 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN AND STABILITY OF
RECUMBENT TRICYCLE
(TEAM ID: 14934)
UDP PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by:
SAHIL JITESH 110590119025
OZA ANAND M. 120593119032
MALANKIYA SANJAY D. 110590119085
In fulfilment for the award of the degree of
BECHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
G.K. BHARAD INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

G.K. BHARAD INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING,
RAJKOT
CERITIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “Design and

Stability of Recumbent Tricycle” has been carried out by
SAHIL JITESH, OZA ANAND M. and MALANKIYA
SANJAY D. under my guidance in fulfilment of the degree
of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering, of
Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad during the
academic year 2014-15
Internal Guide: Prof. Hardik H. Suchak
External Examiner Head of Department

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
[UNDERTAKING ABOUT ORIGINALITY OF WORK]
We hereby certify that we are the sole authors of this IDP/UDP project report and that neither any
part of this IDP/UDP project report nor the whole of the IDP/UDP Project report has been submitted
for a degree by other student(s) to any other University or Institution.
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the current IDP/UDP Project report does not infringe
upon anyone’s copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques,
quotations or any other material from the work of other people included in our IDP/UDP Project
report, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing
practices. Furthermore, to the extent that we have included copyrighted material that surpasses the
boundary of fair dealing within the meaning of the Indian Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012, we
certify that we have obtained a written permission from the copyright owner(s) to include such
material(s) in the current IDP/UDP Project report and have included copies of such copyright
clearances to our appendix.
We have checked the write up of the present IDP/UDP Project report using anti-plagiarism database
and it is in the allowable limit. In case of any complaints pertaining to plagiarism, we certify that
we shall be solely responsible for the same and we understand that as per norms, University can
even revoke BE degree conferred upon the student(s) submitting this IDP/UDP Project report, in
case it is found to be plagiarised.
TEAM:
Enrolment Number Name Signature

110590119025 SAHIL JITESH
120593119032 OZA ANAND M.
110590119085 MALANKIYA SANJAY D.
Date:
Name of Guide Signature of Guide

CERTIFICATE FOR COMPLETION OF ALL ACTIVITIES AT ONLINE PROJECT PORTAL
B.E. SEMESTER VIII, ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-2015
Date of certificate generation : 30 April 2015 (22:09)
This is to certify that, Sahil Jitesh . (Enrolment

Number-110590119025) working on project entitled with Design
And Stability Of Recumbent Tricycle from Mechanical
Engineering department of G. K. Bharad Institute Of
Engineering, Kasturba Dham, Rajkot had submitted following
details at online project portal.
Submitted Four Periodic Progress Reports (PPR) Completed
Business Model Canvas (Image) Uploaded
Business Model Canvas (Report) Uploaded
Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE) Completed
Final Project Report Uploaded
Plagiarism Search Report Uploaded
Name of Student : Sahil Jitesh . Name of Guide : Mr. Hardik Hiteshkumar

Suchak
Signature of Student : *Signature of Guide :
Disclaimer :
This is a computer generated copy and does not indicate that your data has been evaluated. This is the receipt
that GTU has received a copy of the data that you have uploaded and submitted as your project work.
*Guide has to sign the certificate, Only if all above activities has been Completed / Uploaded.
This is to certify that, Anand Maheshbhai Oza (Enrolment

Name of Student : Anand Maheshbhai Oza Name of Guide : Mr. Hardik Hiteshkumar
Suchak
Disclaimer :
This is to certify that, Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya (Enrolment

Name of Student : Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya Name of Guide : Mr. Hardik Hiteshkumar
Suchak
Disclaimer :
INDEX
TITLE PAGE NO.
CERTIFICATES
INDEX i
LIST OF FIGURE iv
LIST OF TABLE vi
NOMENCLATURE vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………...…01
1.1 PROBLEM SUMMARY

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT
1.3 ADVANTAGES
1.4 MATERIAL/TOOL REQUIRED
1.5 HISTORY
1.6 LITERATURE SURVAY
1.6.1 DELTA TADPOLE CONFIGURATION
1.6.2 SAFETY
1.6.3 SEAT AND SEAT ADJUSTABILITY
1.6.4 STEERING AND MANEUVERABILITY
1.6.5 CENTER OF GRAVITY POSITION
1.6.6 STEERING MECHANISM
1.6.7 TRIKE FRAME
1.6.8 VEHICAL CONTROLS
1.6.9 FRONT STEERING VS REAR STEERING
CHAPTER 2. DESIGN CONCEPTION …………………..………………………….13
2.1 FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE
i|Page
2.2 PEDAL INDUCED STEERING
2.3 CHAIN LINE
2.3.1 FWD MOVING BB CHAIN LINE
2.3.2 FWD TWIST CHAIN
2.3.3 RWD CHAIN LINE
CHAPTER 3. ADJUSTABILITY……………………………………………………18
CHAPTER 4. STEERING BEHAVIOUR…………………………………………..20
4.1 RWD UNDERSTEER BEHAVIOUR
4.2 FWD OVER STEER BEHAVIOUR
CHAPTER 5. CONFIGURATION SELECTION…………………………….…....22
5.1 BRAKING
5.1.1 DELTA RIDER
5.1.2 TADPOLE RIDER
5.2 TURNING
5.2.1 DELTA TURNING
5.2.2 TADPOLE TURNING
CHAPTER 6. IMPLIMENTATION…………..………………………………….…26
6.1 CONCEPT
6.2 STABILITY
6.3 STEERING AND TILTING
6.4 ACKERMAN STEERING
6.5 POWER TRAIN
6.6 TIE RODS
6.7 HOUSING BEARING
6.8 HANDLES
ii | P a g e
6.9 POWER TRAIN TENSION PLATE
6.10 STEERING ARM
6.11 SEAT ASSEMBLY
6.12 MAIN FRAME
6.13 HORIZONTAL FRAME
CHAPTER 7. CALCULATION…………………………………………………………..32
7.1 CALCULATION OF OPTIMAL CENTRE OF GRAVITY
7.1.1 OPTIMAL CETRE
7.1.2 CALCULATING LATERAL TIPPING POINT (FRONT VIEW)
7.1.3 CALCULATING LATERAL TIPPING POINT (SIDE VIEW)
7.2 FORCE APPLIED ON PADDLE
7.3 MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT
7.4 SQUARE SECTION OF FRAME
7.4.1 CROSS SECTION AREA
7.4.2 AREA MOMENT
7.4.3 CENTRE OF GRAVITY
7.4.4 SECTION MODULUS
7.4.5 POLAR MOMENT OF INERTIA
7.4.6 RADIUS OF GYRATION
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………...…...40
CHAPTER 9. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT………………………………………41
9.1 WEIGHT
9.2 TURNING ANGLE
9.3 BRAKING DISTANCE
REFERANCE
APPENDIX
iii | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.5.1 Stephan farffer’s hand – controlled,three wheel chair
Figure 1.5.2 Bicycle history and typology
Figure 1.5.3 Harold Jarvis long rider, patent excerpt
Figure 1.5.4 Long rider
Figure 1.5.5 Dan henry on long rider
Figure 1.5.6 Darve willson with his “avatar 2000”
Figure 1.5.7 Jack fried’s short riders
Figure 1.5.8 Ravat
Figure 1.5.9 Short Rider
Figure 1.6.10 Low Rider
Figure 1.6.5.1 Centre Of Gravity
Figure 1.6.5.2 Centre Of Gravity
Figure 2.1.1 Minimum 60:40 weight distribution
Figure 2.1.2 Loss of traction of steep grades
Figure 2.2 Effect of Trail on FWD
Figure 2.3.1 FWD moving BB chainline
Figure 2.3.2 FWD twist chain chainline
Figure 2.3.2 RWD chainline
Figure 3.1 Chain Adjustment
Figure 3.2 Seat Adjustment
Figure 3.3 Paddle Height Adjustment
Figure 4.1 RWD Understeer Behaviour
iv | P a g e
Figure 4.2 FWD Oversteer Behaviour
Figure 5.0.1 Wind Cheetah Tadpole
Figure 5.0.2 Kettweisel Delta
Figure 5.1.1 Delta Rider’s CoG
Figure 5.1.2 Tadpole Rider’s CoG
Figure 5.2.1 Delta turning vectors
Figure 5.2.2 Tadpole turning vectors
Figure 6.2.1 NX Design of Recumbent Tricycle
Figure 6.2.2 Principle of Pendulum
Figure 6.3.1 Tilting and Turning Concept
Figure 6.4.1 Ackerman Steering Schematic
Figure 6.4.2 Steering Principle
Figure 6.5 Power Train
Figure 6.7 Housing Bearing

Figure 6.9 Power Plate Tension Plate
Figure 6.10 Steering Arm
Figure 6.11 Seat Assembly
Figure 6.12 Main Frame
Figure 6.13 Horizontal Frame
Figure 7.1.1 Optimal Centre
Figure 7.1.2 Tipping Point Front View
Figure 7.1.3.1 Tipping Point Side View

Figure 7.1.3.2 Tipping Point Top View
Figure 7.1.3.3 Orthogonal View
Figure 9.2.1 Turning Angle Proposed and Actual Design
Figure 9.2.2 Possible Modification of Turning

v|Page
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1 Difference between FWS Moving BB, FWS Twist Chain and RWD
Table 8 Design Requirement Comparison
vi | P a g e
NOMENCLATURE
Im Inertia force, N
m Mass of rider, kg
a Acceleration of the tricycle
g Center of gravity, m/s
Lc Length of crank arm, mm
R Radius of crank, mm
Mc Moment about crank, Nm
F Force applied on paddle, N
T Tension in the chain
Ixx = Iyy Area Moment, cm4
Sxx = Syy Section Modulus, cm3
J Polar Moment of inertia, cm4
R Radius of gyration
vii | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to take this opportunity to bestow acknowledge on all person who have
directly or indirectly helped us in making project and to turn it up into a successful piece
of work. It was an educational phase while studying the “B.E. in Mechanical
Engineering”, working with highly devoted engineering faculties and probably remain the
most memorable experience of our life. Hence they indirectly involved in our project work.
It is a great owner for us to making project for final year of BE in “G.K. Bharad Institute
of Engineering”. With immense pleasure, we present this project titled, “Design and
Stability of Recumbent Tricycle.” Above all we would like to acknowledge, the immense
encouragement and guidance we received from internal guide Prof. Hardik H. Suchak
and external guide Aakash Mavadia and Next we would like to thank Prof. Vaibhav
Maniar head of mechanical department and other faculty member who have enabled us to
complete the project and the documentation according to prescribed standards of “G.K.
Bharad Institute of Engineering” and “Gujarat Technological University”.
We would also like to thank for encouragement and help received from our family
members, friends and colleagues.
SAHIL JITESH
OZA ANAND M.
MALANKIYA SANJAY D.
viii | P a g e
ABSTRACT
Recumbent cycles began emerging in the early 1900’s as a method of improving the rider’s
ability to transmit power ergonomically and reach higher sustained speeds. Over the course
of the last century, many different types of recumbent cycles were designed and developed
upon. Although most recumbent designs are similar to ordinary two-wheeled bicycles, they
typically have a lower centre of gravity, causing stability problems at lower speeds. If an
effort to improve the stability and control of recumbent cycles, the addition of a third wheel
became popular as a method to distribute the weight of the rider.
Initial tricycle designs used two wheels in the rear and one in the front; however, there are
inherent stability problems with this design while cornering at high speeds. Considering
the advantages of recumbent cycles for ergonomic performance, these vehicles present an
excellent mode of transportation for short to medium distance commuting. Therefore, the
cycle is an excellent means for commuters to reduce energy consumption, lower traffic
density, and maintain physical fitness.
ix | P a g e
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROBLEM SUMMARY

To overcome underlying factors that limit the performance and durability of existing
recumbent cycle. Design and construct an economically feasible recumbent cycle that is
safe and easy to operate for a variety of users.
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

The recumbent tricycle design concept was selected to mimic the motion of a traditional
bicycle while benefiting from the ergonomics and stability of a recumbent. All steering and
tilting manoeuvres are accomplished by simply leaning the tricycle into the turn. The main
advantage of this design concept over past models is the simplicity and improved stability.
1.3 ADVANTAGES
 The rider does not need to disengage from the pedals when stopped.
 The comfortable rider position reduces strain to the rider’s body.
 Recumbent trikes are very well suited for long distance touring.
 Recumbent trikes may also be more suitable for people with balance or limb
disabilities.
1.4 MATERIAL / TOOL REQUIRED
Required Machine Tools Welding machine
Radial drilling machine
Grinding machine
Lathe machine
Cutting machine
1|Page
Required Tools Hacksaw blade & hard material cutter
Hammer
Punch
Single point cutting tool & drill bits
Spanner
Wires
Handles & clamps
Measuring Instruments Measuring tape
Right angle - 90
Spirit level
Varnier caliper
Weight machine
1.5 HISTORY
A tricycle, often abbreviated to trike, is a three-wheeled vehicle, commonly human-

powered. Tricycles are used by children and adults alike for their stability versus a bicycle.
In the United States and Canada, adult-sized tricycles are used by senior adults for
recreation, shopping, and exercise. In Asia and Africa, tricycles called pedicabs are used to
transport passengers; tricycles are also used to transport freight and make deliveries.
Human-powered trikes are powered by pedals or hand cranks. Motorized trikes can be
powered by motorcycle engines, smaller automatic transmission scooter motors, or electric
motors.
A three-wheeled wheelchair was built in 1655 or 1680 by a disabled German man, Stephan
Farffler, who wanted to be able to maintain his mobility. Since he was a watch-maker, he
2|Page
was able to create a vehicle that was powered by hand cranks. In 1789, two French inventors
developed a three wheeled vehicle, powered by pedals; they called it the tricycle.
In 1818, British inventor Denis Johnson

patented his approach to designing tricycles.
In 1876, James Starley developed the
Coventry Lever Tricycle, which used two
small wheels on the right side and a large
drive wheel on the left side; power was
supplied by hand levers. In 1877, Starley
developed a new vehicle he called the
Coventry Rotary, which was "one of the first Figure 1.5.1 Stephan Farffler's hand-controlled,
rotary chain drive tricycles." three-wheeled wheelchair
Starley's inventions started a tricycling craze in Britain; by 1879, there were “twenty types
of tricycles and multi-wheel cycles ... produced in Coventry, England, and by 1884, there
were over 120 different models produced by 20 manufacturers." The first front steering
tricycle was manufactured by The Leicester Safety Tricycle Company of Leicester,
England in 1881 which was brought to the market in 1882 costing £18. They also developed
a folding tricycle at the same time. [5] [6]
Tricycles were used by riders who did not feel comfortable on the high wheelers, such as
women who wore long, flowing dresses. In the UK, upright tricycles are sometimes referred
to as "barrows". Many trike enthusiasts ("trikies") in the UK belong to the Tricycle
Association, formed in 1929.
In order to understand recumbents, I'm giving a brief history of the evolution: The
draisienne was rather a walking bicycle invented by Karl von Drais around 1817, whereas
the highweeler around 1870 didn't have a chain but direct drive, and in order to provide
decent speed the wheel had to be big and thereby the risk of falling was obvious.
3|Page
As result of increased risk a "safety" version was developed by J. K. Starley around 1885,
which is the raw model of current "ordinary" bicycle. Interestingly for a long time the
highwheeler was considered "ordinary" and the "safety" bicycle a special, even "safety"
version - this is how history changes.
Figure 1.1.2 19TH century tricycle used in Iran
Figure 1.5.2 Bicycle History and Typology
Recumbents are bicycles with another frame geometry than the established type (often
referred as Diamond Frame (DF)), and have shown to suit different features thereby:
 faster due better aerodynamics of the body posture (sitting or almost laying)
4|Page
 more ergonomic body posture
 more relaxing position good for extensive ridings and tours
 better force application on pedals due comfortable seats
 no wrist, neck or back pain anymore, for certain low- and short riders a head-support
is helpful
 more safe to ride, such as the long rider which has a low sitting respectively falling
height of 50cm or 20" only, and head-on falling nearly impossible; low-riders might
not considered more safe as visibility of those are more limited in daily commuting
in traffic
The few main disadvantages most recumbents have are:
 more expensive,
 heavier and
 harder to climb mountains fast as you can't get up and push with your full body
weight on the pedals, and also due general heavier frame
The "long rider" named due the long frame, also known as long wheel base (LWB). The
steering is relatively steady, independent whether under- or over-seat steering (USS or
OSS).
The first long riders came around 1900, as example Harold Jarvis filed patent in 1901, US
Patent #690,733. [4]
Figure 1.5.3 Harold Jarvis long rider, Figure 1.5.4 Long Rider
patent excerpt (1901)
In 1968 Dan Henry on his own long rider. The modern type was invented by David Gordon
Wilson professor at MIT in 1976, who named this type "Avatar 2000", see also his patent
"Recumbent Bicycle" #4,283,070, applied 1979 and issued 1981.
Later inspired colleagues formed a company building this type, Fomac Inc., or Dick Ryan
made the "Ryan Vanguard ", other companies adapted the same design such as Radius
5|Page
(Germany) and Fateba (Switzerland) often without crediting the original designer, David
G. Wilson.
Longriders are very suitable for long distance travels due the comfortable seat; the
resistance of the wind isn't optimal but still much better than with an ordinary bicycle frame
geometry.
Figure 1.5.6 Dave Wilson with his

Figure 1.5.5 Dan Henry on a longrider (1968)
'Avatar 2000' (~1976)
The "short rider" named due the short length between the wheels, also known as shorts
wheel base (SWB), usually the pedals are in the front of the front wheel.
Figure1.5.7 Jack Fried's shortrider, Figure 1.5.8 Ravat (1937)

patent excerpt (1946)
Figure 1.5.9 Short Rider
6|Page
The steering bar might have different heights, under- or over-seat steering (USS vs OSS),
the seat is straight and very comfortable to sit on. The steering is not very steady due to the
shortness of length between both wheel, and the angle of the steering bar.
One of the first short riders I found are from Ravat (1937) a French motorcycle company
in St. Etienne, and Jack Fried (1946) as seen on US Patent #2,482,472. The Velocar by
Charles Mochet in 1931 is between a longrider and a short rider - so this may be kept
remembered too.
The front wheel drive (FWD) seems first time implemented by Thomas D. Traylor in 1979,
and later in 1982 issued the Patent #D277, 744 which was granted 1985.
The "low-rider" due the low seat, and usually the drive is in front of the front wheel. The
steering bar is often very narrow, and the chain is very close to the front wheel, so there is
a narrow margin for steering curves. The low-riders are suitable to do speed records as
human powered vehicles (HPV), e.g. 24 hours ca. 1000km, or 1 hour 85km/h, 200m or
1000m with 130km/h, in such an application a chassis is attached to decrease air resistance
even further.
Figure 1.6.10 Low Rider
1.6 LITERATURE SURVAY

There are two categories in which tricycle is divided.
i. Human powered tricycle

ii. Motorized tricycle
Upright Tricycle Upright resembles a two-wheeled bicycle, traditionally diamond frame,

or open frame, but with either two widely spaced wheels at the back or two wheels at the
front.
Recumbent delta recumbent delta is similar to an upright, with two wheels at the back and
one at the front, but has recumbent layout in which one rider is seated in a chair like seat.
7|Page
Recumbent tadpole recumbent tadpole or reverse trike is a recumbent design with two
steered wheels at the front and one driven wheel at the back through one model has front
wheels driven while the rear wheel steers. Other designs another design is an in line three
wheeled vehicle with two steered wheel one at the front and other in middle or at the rear.
A motorized tricycle’s wheels may be arranged in either configuration: Delta or Tadpole.

Motorized freight trikes Motorised trikes are used as small freight. [1]
1.6.1 DELTA TADPOLE CONFIGURATION:

A three-wheel car is, by design, basically a triangle shape. Depending on where the
passengers sit, the location of the engine, and the placement of other critical mechanical
components, this means the car either has two wheels up front and one in the rear or two
wheels in the rear and one up front. The engine can drive the single rear wheel or the two
rear wheels, and the steering can be done either way as well.
Having one wheel up front and two in the back is known as the delta configuration. Karl
Benz's creation followed this setup, as did the Reliant Robin. The original three-wheeled
Mazda automobile, the Mazda-Go, was configured this way to allow for a pickup truck bed
in the back. The benefit to the delta setup is its inherent low cost. Most cars set up this way
have the engine driving the rear wheels and leave steering to the front one. It's relatively
easy (and inexpensive) to build a steering setup with only one wheel. [2]
1.6.2 SAFETY
The human powered vehicle is enclosed for Aerodynamic advantage and protection from
weather and collisions. Weight Distribution – The weight distribution of a trike dictates
how well it handles. The weight is distributed in the ratio of 60:40 on the rear and front
wheels respectively. This provides better acceleration while driving. Dynamic Vehicle
Weight – Lightweight chains and sprockets are selected to reduce the dynamic weight of
the vehicle. Rider is seated so as to allow his weight to be on the same vertical plane of the
vehicles centre of gravity. This ensures the stability during steep turns. [3]
1.6.3 SEAT AND SEAT ADJUSTABILITY

Rider support is handled by a carbon composite seat which was hand shaped according to
the requirements of the race team. Integrated into the seat base is a steel laded to the main
tube of the frame.
8|Page
The bracket was TIG welded for strength and punched with a series of holes to reduce
weight.
1.6.4 STEERING AND MANEUVERABILITY

Steering angles were developed using force balance techniques for each planar angle:
camber, caster and toe. Each steering angle has an advantage and a disadvantage, the
advantages with the disadvantages. We achieve the design process involved balancing this
by balancing forces and moments applied to each wheel. [4]
1.6.5 CENTER OF GRAVITY POSITION

Consider first a 4-Wheeler as seen from the rear, like here to the right. If the vehicle is in a
curve towards the left, for example, we can imagine that a centrifugal force (magenta color)
is exerted on the center of gravity (black and yellow circle) of the vehicle-occupants system,
while the vehicle's weight exerts a downward gravitational force (cyan color).
Thus, the centrifugal force (magenta) tends to roll the vehicle over towards the right, around
an imaginary point (deep blue) under the right tires, while the gravitational force (cyan)
holds the vehicle back to avoid rollover. It's as though the centrifugal force and the
gravitational force combined together into a resulting force (black) exerted on the center of
gravity to turn it around this imaginary point (deep blue). We can thus easily understand
that if the center of gravity height (red) is greater than the half-track (in green) (the half
distance between the two wheels seen from the rear), the resulting force (black) will be
aligned over the imaginary point (deep blue) and will thus roll the vehicle over in a curve.
9|Page
The ratio of the center of gravity height (red) to this half-track (green) thus plays a
crucialrole in determining the stability against rollover of a 4-Wheeler. Ideally, this center
of gravity height (red) should be low like for a sports car, in order to insure a safety margin
against rollover. In the case of 'sport-utility' 4X4s, this height is relatively larger than for
regular family cars. This explains why these vehicles have a higher rollover propensity. In
the case of 3-Wheelers, another factor comes into play: As can be seen for a 4-Wheeler, the
4-Wheeler rolls over around a line (blue) corresponding to the imaginary point (deep blue)
of the previous illustration.
Figure 1.6.5.2 Center of gravity
But in the case of a 3-Wheeler, the vehicle rather rolls over around a line (blue) going from
the unique wheel to one of the two symmetrical wheels. We can immediately see that the
green line between the center of gravity and the rollover line is thus shorter than in the case
of the 4-Wheeler, even though the center of gravity height, the length and the track of the
3-Wheeler are the same as those of the 4-Wheeler. The center of gravity height (red) is thus
proportionately greater, which reduces the safety margin against rollover in curves.
Moreover, a 3-Wheeler in a curve can also be subject to a braking or accelerating force that
will combine with the lateral centrifugal force, which may further increase chances of
rolling over of this 3-Wheeler. For example in the case of the single-front-wheel 3-Wheeler,
here above to the right, braking in a curve towards the left will increase chances of rolling
over this 3-Wheeler. So in the case of a 3-Wheeler:
The center of gravity height should be low in relation to the half-track, like for a 4-Wheeler.
But the center of gravity's position also has importance.
10 | P a g e
The farther it is from the two symmetric wheels towards the single wheel, the shorter is the
distance from the center of gravity to the rollover line, which reduces the safety margin
against rollover of the 3-Wheeler compared to the 4-Wheeler. [5]
1.6.6 STEERING MECHANISMS

Steering Mechanisms come in a few basic flavours: Over Seat Steering (OSS), Under Seat
Steering (USS) and Direct Knuckle Steering. Each of these steering systems has several
configurations and has its advantages and disadvantages.
OVER SEAT STEERING (OSS)
Pros:
• Lower weight
• Lower complexity
• Allows a narrow track wheels configuration
• Lowers overall frontal area, improved aerodynamics
Cons:
• Rider cannot use the tiller for support, requires a seat with lateral support to keep the rider
from falling out.
• Not as popular as Under Seat Steering, due to arm fatigue or lack of intuitive design.
• Fatigue level is higher than an Under-seat steering system.
UNDER SEAT STEERING (USS)
Pros:
• Intuitive control makes it easier to master
• Provides comfortable support for arms
• Gives the rider support during high G turn, precludes the use of lateral seat support.
11 | P a g e
Cons:
• Heavier weight compare to OSS
• Increases the Frontal Area making the trike less aerodynamic.
• Places the riders hands dangerously close to the wheels or ground. [6]
1.6.7 TRIKE FRAME

The trike frame has been designed keeping in view the overall safety of the drivers. It was
also kept in mind the various systems that have to be incorporated in the vehicle like
suspension system, braking system, transmission system, etc. The frame of the trike
resembles with the head of an alien. The trike has an innovative USS Steering system which
allows both the drivers to steer the vehicle. This steering system has been used in order to
give the drivers a freedom to ride the vehicle from either left side or right side. [7]
1.6.8 VEHICLE CONTROLS

A direct under seat steering interface design was selected as being the lightest, simplest
and most adaptable method of steering the trike. Design of the interface was by rider, frame,
seat, and fairing dimensions. Using an under seat stele.
Geometrically constrained ering method allows for riders to quickly enter and exit the
vehicle, sweep the handle bars under the seat, and maintain a comfortable and ergonomic
position while racing. SRAM Rocket-Shorty twist shifters and brake levers placed at the
handle bar position allowed racers to easily access the controls at all times while riding the
vehicle [8]
1.6.9 FRONT STEERING VS. REAR STEERING

One gimmick that pops up periodically is a rear steering HPV. The rear steering concept
has been applied to both Tadpole and Delta trike configurations without any staying
success. Although the virtues of rear wheel steering include a simplistic design, lighter
weight, a smaller turning radius, and an exhilarating and fun riding experience. However,
the fact that the trike drives like a forklift makes it a losing proposition every time. Since
people have a fascination with gimmicks, the rear steering trike will always have a place in
the HPV industry. [9]
12 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2 DESIGN CONCEPTION
2.1 FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE

One of the many issues to consider when designing a recumbent, is whether to make it front
or rear wheel drive (FWD or RWD). The choice is not clear cut. Each approach has its
strengths and weaknesses, and like all good design, you have to find the best solution fit
for your specific requirements.
FWD Moving FWD Twist RWD

BB Chain
Limitations Steep Grades Steep Grades -
Psi Manageable Minimal -
Chainline Simple Complex Complex
Adjustability Easier Harder Harder
Steering Behaviour Oversteer Oversteer Understeer
Table 2.1 Difference between FWS Moving BB, FWS Twist Chain and RWD
The above table attempts to compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of each
approach, however these are generalizations, and the devil, as always, is in the details.
First and foremost the significant limitation of FWD designs is their potential to loose
traction on steep grades (hills).
Figure 2.1.1 Minimum 60:40 weight distribution
13 | P a g e
On level ground, the FWD recumbent should have more weight distributed to the front
wheel than the rear. Ratios of 60:40 or higher are recommended.
Figure 2.1.2 Loss of traction of steep grades
The problem is that as the grade becomes steeper, the weight distribution changes to favour
the rear wheel. The illustration above is extreme, and most riders even on hilly terrain don't
consider FWD traction a significant issue.
If however you are planning to ride off road, the friction coefficient of gravel, mud and dry
grass is much less than tarmac, so traction will become a limiting factor. You can reduce
the impact of grade on weight distribution by keeping the seat height low and increasing
the wheelbase.
2.2 PEDAL INDUCED STEERING
One significant issue for FWD designs is the effect of trail on dynamic stability and pedal
induced steering (PSI). To illustrate this, the diagram above represents the view looking
down on a 20" front wheel that is moving forward down the page. It has a 75° pivot angle,
20mm of fork offset and is leaning 30° to the left.
14 | P a g e
As the front wheel leans, the contact patch moves to the inside of the pivot axis. This is
because the contact patch is moving around the outside wall of the tyre. This causes the
driving force (Red) to generate a turning force (Blue) around the pivot axis, but because
the application of human power using pedals is not constant, the turning force oscillates.
These oscillations will generate sympathetic harmonics at certain cadence frequencies due
to the shifting weight of the legs while peddling, and their interaction with the dynamic
tracking behaviour of caster.
Figure 2.2 Effect of Trail on FWD
On FWD twist chain designs, having a shallow pivot axis, short trail and long tiller
minimizes the impact. On FWD moving BB designs however, the turning force will interact
with the pedal force, alternating between cooperation and opposition. At some cadence
frequencies this actually eliminates PSI effects and works well, at others, particularly high
cadence it causes stability problems.
2.3 CHAIN LINE

Chainline management is the single biggest issue in recumbent design. You can come up
with a beautiful bike or trike, but if you can't transfer power efficiently form your feet to
the drive wheel(s), then you will have to revise your design.
15 | P a g e
2.3.1 FWD MOVING BB CHAINLINE
The FWD moving BB design is used by the TT, Cruz bike, Speculums, Python low racer
and Flevobike, as well as the Hipperion trike. When properly designed, pedal induced
steering can be kept to a minimum.
Figure 2.3.1 FWD moving BB chainline
This is a challenging configuration, but in the case of the Python low racer, it can produce
a very light bike. The direct, unencumbered chainline is also the most efficient, the chain
routing used in the other designs has been reported to consume over 5 watts.
2.3.2 FWD TWIST CHAIN
The FWD twist chain design has become extremely popular of late, particularly in the HPV
racing scene. This design is favoured by fully fared streamliners used in HPV speed trials
because it helps to keep the frontal profile of the faring to a minimum.
Figure 2.3.2 FWD twist chain chainline
16 | P a g e
2.3.3 RWD CHAINLINE
RWD is by far the oldest and most widely used chainline design. It is constrained by the
seat height -- make the seat high and you can have an unencumbered chainline like the
Cycloratio -- make the seat low and you have to route the chain over the front wheel and
under the seat.
Figure 2.3.3 RWD Chainline
For a tadpole trike this is less of an issue than for a bike, in that you only have to route the
chain under the seat, but the front cross member and steering tie rods can also get in the
way.
17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3 ADJUSTABLITY
One of the challenges all recumbent designs face, is making the distance from the seat the
bottom bracket adjustable. It is often undesirable to make this adjustment by moving the
seat backwards and forwards, because this may upset the ride quality and handling
characteristics.
Figure 3.1 Chain Adjustment
The rear wheel drive moving design is rather unique in this regard, the bottom bracket can
be design for adjustment without any need to modify the chain. The alternative for routed
chain lines is to have a longer chain and use an adjustable chain tensioner on the return run.
Figure 3.2 seat adjustment
18 | P a g e
Depend according to the requirement of comfort, the seat bracket or recumbent seat can be
adjustable in horizontal as well as in vertical direction. The rider can choose the right
position as per his height.
Figure 3.3 Paddle Height Adjustment
Adjustment of seat as well as the height of the paddle can be adjusted manually. Here the
rider get options as per his height and front sight. The advantage of such is to make the
trike suitable for riders with different height and shape. Additionally it fulfil the ergonomic
criteria.
19 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4 STEERING BEHAVIOUR
The angle between the direction a wheel is pointing and the path along which it actually
moves is called the slip angle. Slip occurs under power when a trike is turning. It also occurs
under braking as the tyre approaches its traction limit. Under power the weight distribution
usually moves to the rear of a vehicle, but human power being as limited as it is,
acceleration forces are rarely an issue, unless you ride a unicycle. Under breaking the
weight distribution moves to the front outside wheel.
How the steering behaves under power is dependent on the weight distribution and the
friction coefficient of the tyre and road surface. Steering behaviour becomes more
pronounced when the friction coefficient is low i.e. a verge with loose gravel while
cornering. Too much weight at the back of the tricycle causes the rear wheel to spin out
(oversteer). Too much weight at the front causes the front wheels to plough (understeer).
Neutral handling is when the weight is evenly distributed between the front and rear, but
generally slight understeer is considered safest.
4.1 RWD UNDERSTEER BEHAVIOUR
Figure 4.1 RWD understeer behaviour
RWD trikes have a tendency to understeer. This is because the drive force is pushing the
trike forward in a straight line, and the front wheels slip forward as they turn.
20 | P a g e
It is only the friction of the front wheels on the pavement, not the driving force that turns
the trike. The location of the optimal CoG also creates a weight distribution that favours
understeer.
Under the decelerating forces of braking the steering behaviour may be completely
different. It is dependent on the dynamic weight distribution, which is directly influenced
by the location of the rider CoG in relation to the front contact patches, the seat height, the
brake force distribution, and the amount of brake force applied.
4.2 FWD OVERSTEER BEHAVIOUR
Figure 4.2 FWD oversteer behaviour
FWD trikes have a tendency to oversteer. The drivetrain pulls the front of the trike around
the corner. It is only the friction of the rear wheels on the pavement that prevents the rear
of the trike from spinning out. However because the weight distribution is already biased
towards the front wheel to improve traction, these forces tend to cancel one another out.
In competitive racing, particularly on short tracks with lots of cornering, riders may prefer
the responsive feel of slight oversteer, but it carries the added risk that the rider may lose
control. Too much oversteer will make a trike unstable and dangerous.
21 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5 CONFIGURATION SELECTION
The configuration of trike is divided into two types
1. Tadpole Configuration
2. Delta Configuration
The tadpole trike has the two wheels at the front, the delta trike has the two wheels at the
rear.
Figure 5.0.1 Wind cheetah Tadpole
One of the original and best known tadpole trike designs is the Wind cheetah by Advanced
Vehicle Design. Above is a partially fared example of their Club Sport model. The Wind
cheetah uses all cast aluminium components that are bonded to aluminium tubular frame.
Figure 5.0.2 Kettweisel Delta
By contrast the Kettweisel by Hase is probably the best known delta trike design. This is a
fast, light trike, renowned for its handling.
I am simply using these proven designs to illustrate how one might go about assessing the
strengths and weaknesses of any trike design. This discussion is general and
representational. As such it should not be considered definitive. From here on the trike
configurations will simply be referred to as 'the delta' and 'the tadpole'. [14]
22 | P a g e
5.1 BRAKING
5.1.1 DELTA RIDER
Figure 5.1.1 Delta rider's CoG
The delta rider's CoG is unusually high for a trike, but it is located behind the forward
tipping axis so would be stable under a 1g braking force. Conversely, riding up an unusually
steep grade the trike could easily lift the front wheel if enough force was applied to the
pedals in a low gear. However as trade-offs go, this is unlikely to ever be a problem in real
world riding conditions, so the rearward CoG is a good idea.
5.1.2 TADPOLE RIDER

The tadpole rider's CoG is lower, but located ahead of the forward tipping axis so it would
tip forward under a 1g braking force. With modern calliper brakes, this would have a
tendency to lift the rear wheel. On a downward slope the tipping threshold would be even
less, exacerbating the problem.
Why not position the front wheels further forward? Well there are some issues with doing
this including: the cross member getting in the way of the cyclists calves, and the seat
becoming more difficult to stand up out of, because the riders feet are too far forward.
Changing the backrest angle to 30° or less will help move the rider CoG further back.
23 | P a g e
Figure 5.1.2 Tadpole rider's CoG
However having the CoG slightly forward changes the weight distribution to favour
understeer, which is a good thing. It also means the CoG can be raised slightly, making the
seat height more practical. [15]
5.2 TURNING
5.2.1 DELTA TURNING
Figure 5.2.1 Delta turning vectors
Under turning forces the delta rider's CoG is well placed. Likewise under combined turning
and braking forces the CoG is also well places.
24 | P a g e
However as we will see in this implementation the CoG is too high. The long wheel base
of the delta also decreases the twitchiness of the steering, improving high speed steering
control and precision.
Obviously the rider experiencing the inertial feedback and with quicker reflexes could
make a course correction better than I can under the simulation. Still, one must lower the
CoG to make the simulation more stable.
The rearward weight distribution also favours oversteer, meaning the trike would tend so
spin out as a result of loosing traction on loose gravel.
5.2.2 TADPOLE TURNING
Figure 5.2.2 Tadpole turning vectors
Under turning forces the tadpole rider's CoG is well placed, and combined with the low
seat, more stable than the delta. However under combined turning and braking forces there
is still the possibility of tipping forward. [1]
25 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 CONCEPT
The recumbent tricycle design concept was selected to mimic the motion of a traditional
bicycle while benefiting from the ergonomics and stability of a recumbent. All steering and
tilting manoeuvres are accomplished by simply leaning the tricycle into the turn. The main
advantage of this design concept over past models is the simplicity and improved stability.
With reference to study from above 5th Chapters, we conclude to use following design
criteria.
1. Real Wheel Drive (RWD)

2. Adjustable seat, chain and paddle shaft, and
3. Tadpole Configuration
6.2 STABILITY
The final design of the recumbent tricycle depicted in Figure 6.2.1 is an assembly model
generated in the SIEMENS NX modelling software. This model allowed the team to refine
the geometry of the turning and tilting linkages to improve turning radius and stability.
From the model, technical drawings were produced for the build report of the fabrication
process.
Figure 6.2.1 NX Design of Recumbent Tricycle
26 | P a g e
Using the analogy of a pendulum shown in Figure 6.2.2 the bend in the frame allows the
centre of gravity to be lowered with reference to the centre of rotation of the frame. By
lowering the centre of rotation, the cyclist will be always return to a vertical position.
Furthermore, the centrifugal forces imposed on the rider during cornering will apply a
moment to the frame forcing the frame to rotate to a vertical position.
Ө y
Fnx x
Fny
Fn
Figure 6.2.2 Principle of Pendulum
6.3 STEERING AND TILTING

The steering and tilting mechanisms are interconnected to the frame which rotates through
the bearing housing on the front horizontal support shown in Figure 6.3.1
Figure 6.3.1 Tilting and Turning Concept
27 | P a g e
Using tie rods connected from the frame and wheel brackets, the turning and tilting actions
are coupled into one sweeping motion of the frame. This design characteristics allows the
user to ride on the point of stability. The symmetrical top tie rods are used for turning and
bottom rods are used for tilting as the frame rotates through the bearing housing.
6.4 ACKERMAN STEERING

The design of the turning system accounts for Ackerman steering by allowing for more turn
angle on the inner front wheel during cornering. The top view schematic of the front cycle
wheels shown in 6.4.1 demonstrates how the inner wheel is positioned at a higher angle
during turning.
Figure 6.4.1 Ackerman Steering Schematic
The top view of the model in Figure 6.4.2 demonstrates how design accomplishes a tighter
turning angle. This design feature allows the tricycle to move around the centre of rotation
without scrubbing which causes wear on the surface of the tyres.
Figure 6.4.2 Steering Principle
28 | P a g e
6.5 POWER TRAIN
The power train of the cycle is provided with two chains that are routed from the
pedal/sprocket assembly to a sprocket idler at the front of the tricycle before transmitting
power to the rear sprocket. Idler wheels guide the long chain from below the frame to the
rear sprocket. Each idler is connected using a bracket connected onto the main frame
discussed further in this report.
Figure 6.5 Power Train
6.6 TIE RODS

The connecting rods are subjected to axial forces which cause the cycle to both turn and
tilt. As these rods are only subjected to axial forces, bending stress calculations were not
needed. However, a large enough force on the connecting rods could cause buckling. The
chosen diameter of the rod corresponds to the dot indicating that the rod is capable of a
20,000 N load before buckling. MS was selected for the connecting rods for extra safety
and to reduce the overall weight contribution.
29 | P a g e
6.7 HOUSING BEARING
The Housing Bearing in Figure 6.7 was drilled-out for bolting instead of welding to
facilitate the assembly and disassembly, Holes were also drilled in the pedal post to allow
adjustability for riders with different sized feet.
Figure 6.7 Housing Bearing
6.8 HANDLES
The handles were moved closer to the outside to accommodate a more anatomical position.
A plate was also welded to the handles.
6.9 POWER TRAIN TENSION PLATE

The rear tensioning plate shown in Figure 6.9 was designed to be welded at angle to the
frame. This alteration allowed the chain to route to the rear sprocket without affecting the
shifting cable, and allowing higher tensioning forces to be imparted upon the chain itself.
The middle idlers were also moved forward, and welded to the frame; this change allows
more flexibility in the design, and places the idlers closer to the center of the chain span.
Figure 6.9 Power Train Tension Plate
30 | P a g e
6.10 STEERING ARM
The steering arm is welded, and it is placed at the exact location parallel to steering bracket.
Figure 6.10 Steering Arm
6.11 SEAT ASSEMBLY

The seat was made by hand, a custom hinge was fabricated to mount the seat to the bracket.
The seat bracket was rotated to face backwards, and the hinge was bolted to both the seat
and bracket to allow a full range of motion. These modifications allow a greater range of
adjustment to suit the rider.
Figure 6.11 Seat Assembly
31 | P a g e
6.12 MAIN FRAME
The frame is constructed from square pipe rather than round piping. This allows for a lighter
frame construction while maintaining rigidity and simplicity for cutting, welding and
assembly. The selection of a square pipe frame presented problems where it rotates through
the horizontal support member of the front wheels. In order to fit the frame through the
housing bearing, a collar was designed to fit over the frame and allow fluid rotational
movement. The rear portion of the frame was constructed to deliver additional support
against bending for the rear axle. Holes were drilled in the centre portion of the frame to
allow for seat adjustability to suit a range of users. Modifications were done to connect the
support members for the seat at the rear.
Figure 6.12 Main Frame
6.13 HORIZONTAL FRAME

The horizontal frame support was constructed from square pipe MS with rounded edges as
shown in Figure 6.13 This allows for the inner steering brackets to seat firmly for
supporting the wheels.
Figure 6.13 Horizontal Frame
32 | P a g e
Anand Oza, Sahil Jitesh, Malankiya Sanjay
Team: 14934
Morpheus Trike
33 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7 CALCULATION
7.1 CALCULATION OF OPTIMAL CENTRE OF GRAVITY (COG)

After construction, the recumbent tricycle was tested according to maximum velocity,
turning radius, braking distance, mass, manoeuvrability etc.
7.1.1 OPTIMAL CENTRE

Looking down from above, if we draw a triangle between the three contact patches, and at
the midpoint of each line we draw another line to the opposite corner, then the intersection
of these three lines is the optimal point where the rider CoG should be.
Figure 7.1.1 Optimal Centre
7.1.2 CALCULATING LATERAL TIPPING POINT (FRONT VIEW):

Now looking from the front, if we take the track measurement B and we divide it in half
we get A. We use A to construct an isosceles triangle between the contact patches. This
triangle represents the tipping point for the trike. If the CoG is inside the triangle, then the
trike will skid when it loses traction while cornering, if the CoG is above it, the trike will
tip.
𝐵 = 36"
𝐵
𝐴=
2
36
𝐴=
2
𝑨 = 𝟏𝟖" Figure 7.1.2 Tipping Point Front View
34 | P a g e
7.1.3 CALCULATING LATERAL TIPPING POINT (SIDE VIEW):
Draw a similar triangle on a side view of the trike using the wheelbase measurement for B
to derive A. You can then use this side-on triangle to calculate where to place the CoG in
order to prevent the trike from tipping forward when braking -- more of a problem for
tadpole configurations.
𝐵 = 45"
𝐵
𝐴=
2
45
𝐴=
2
𝐴 = 22.5"
Figure 7.1.3.1 Tipping Point Side View
The previous two calculations would be fine if the CoG on either axis was directly between
the two wheels, but it’s not. The optimum place is 1/3 of the wheelbase length back from
the isosceles triangle's base. At this location, the triangle is only 2/3 of the track width. Now
we use this 2/3 track measurement as B to derive A which is 1/3 of the track width. We
then use A draw a vertical line up from the optimal CoG point. We then use the point at the
top of this line to create a 3 sided pyramid. This pyramid represents a 3D view of the tipping
space, inside which the rider CoG must remain for the trike to be stable. [16]
Figure 7.1.3.2 Tipping Top View Figure 7.1.3.3 Orthogonal View
35 | P a g e
7.2 FORCE APPLIED ON PADDLE
Let assume that there is no friction force exists between the parts of the tricycle and paddle
and the force is applied is constant. Additionally, assuming the rider’s weight is 120 kg
(1177 N).
All the weight is place on the seat. It was assumed that reaction force is equal to the weight.
The back shaft is assumed to be simply supported beam.
Since the resisting force of the motion of the tricycle, this also the tension in chain. Required
force applied on the paddle is found using [11] [12] [13]
Inertia Force
Im = Inertia force, N
𝑊(𝑎)
Im = Ma = (N)
𝑔
m = mass of rider, kg
784.8
Im = (5)
9.81 a = acceleration of the tricycle = 5 m/s²
Im = 400 N g = center of gravity = 9.81 m/ s²
We know that, Lc = length of crank arm = 88mm = 0.205 m
Mc = Moment about crank (Nm) R = Radius of crank = 85mm = 0.085 m
F = Force applied on paddle (N)
T = Tension in the chain = Inertia force (Im)
Force Applied on Paddle
ƩMc = 0 = FLc - TR
𝑇𝑅
F= 𝐿𝑐
400×0.085
= 0.205
F = 165.85 N
36 | P a g e
7.3 MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT
RA+RB=100N
Moment at RA
(100x.739) - 1.409RB=0
RB=52.4 N
Therefore, RA=100-52.4
RA=47.55 N
Maximum Bending Moment
60𝑃
(Mb) max = , where P=Force x Velocity
2𝜋𝑁
60 𝑋 165.85 𝑋 34.56
=
2𝜋 𝑋 100
= 547.35 N.m
37 | P a g e
7.4 SQUARE SECTION OF FRAME
B = H = 5.08 cm
b = h = 4.08 cm
L = 140.9 cm
δ = 7.85 g/cm3
7.4.1 CROSS SECTION AREA

Cross Section Area = BH – bh
=5.08(5.08) – 4.08 (4.08)
= 9.16 cm2
7.4.2 AREA MOMENT

𝐵𝐻3 𝑏ℎ3
Area moment Ixx = Iyy = −
12 12
= 55.49 – 23.09
= 32.43 cm4
7.4.3 CENTRE OF GRAVITY

𝐵
Centre of gravity X cog = 2 = 2.54 cm
𝐻
Y cog = = 2. 54 cm
2
38 | P a g e
7.4.4 SECTION MODULUS
𝐼𝑥𝑥
Section Modulus Sxx = Syy = 𝑌 𝐶𝑂𝐺
32.43
= 2.54
= 12.76 cm3
7.4.5 POLAR MOMENT OF INERTIA

Polar moment of inertia = J = Ixx + Iyy
= 32.43+32.43
= 64.86 cm4
7.4.6 RADIUS OF GYRATION

𝐽
Radius of Gyration = r = ( 𝐴 ) 0.5
64.86 0.5
=( )
9.16
= 2.66 cm
39 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS
DESIGN REQUIREMENT COMPARISON

Actual performance of the tricycle is differ from the expected, the reasons for this changes
are given below.
Design Requirement Actual Performance

Maximum Velocity N/A 40.78 km/hr
Sustained Velocity 30 km/hr 34.56 km/hr
Braking Distance N/A 9.5 m
Weight 50kg 55 kg
Turning Radius 5m 9.1 m
Cost 20,000 Rupees 14,000 Rupees
Tilt While Cornering Yes Yes
Carrying Capacity 100 kg >100 kg
Cargo Carrying
Yes Yes
Capacity
Easy To Operate Yes Yes
Adjustability Yes Yes
High Visible Yes Yes
Table 8 Design Requirement Comparison
40 | P a g e
CHAPTER 9 SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT
9.1 WEIGHT
As we have selected the MS material to construct the frame, instead of it any lighter
material were used instead, then there can be notable difference might be observed.
Magnitude of velocity is directly depend upon the weight of the tricycle.
9.2 TURNING ANGLE

Turning angle can be increased by decreasing the length of the rod from 3.75 to 2 inch
which is calculated as below and fig 9.2.1 represent current design and proposed design.
STRAIGHT WHEEL CURRENT DESIGN PRAPOSED DESIGN
Figure 9.2.1 Turning Angle Proposed and Actual Design
𝛩
3.75"
Figure 9.2.2 Possible Modification for Turning 1.1"
41 | P a g e
1⋅10
Calculation of Current Design: tan 𝛩 =
3⋅70
𝜃 = tan−1 (0.2972)
𝜃 = 16.56˚
1⋅10
Calculation of Proposed Design: tan 𝛩 = . ˚. 𝜃 = 28.8˚
2
9.3 BRAKING DISTANCE

As our cycle have only one shoe brake at rear wheel, hence it shows the high value of
braking distance. Instead of shoe brake the Disk Break were used in all the three wheel then
breaking distance will be very less.
42 | P a g e
REFERENCE
Research Paper
[1] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS AND

TECHNOLOGY DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF PNEUMATIC TRICYCLE.
[2] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN AERONAUTICAL AND

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW ON TADPOLE DESIGN – ISSUES &
CHALLENGES.
[3] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH

TECHNOLOGY DESIGN, ANALYSIS AND FABRICATION OF A HUMAN
POWERED VEHICLE J ABHILASH*, MADA RUKMINI SAI RUPA SRI
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, M.V.S.R ENGINEERING
COLLEGE, HYDERABAD, INDIA
[4] PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE TEAM

HUMAN POWERED VEHICLE DESIGN REPORT ME 493 FINAL REPORT – YEAR
2006
[5] (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN AERONAUTICAL AND

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW ON TADPOLE DESIGN – ISSUES &
CHALLENGES PALASH PATODI1 ,VINAY SAXENA2 ,YOGESH RATHORE3
[6] HELLBENT CYCLE WORKS,THE RECUMBENT TRIKE DESIGN PRIMER

WRITTEN BY RICKEY M. HORWITZ ,VERSION 8.0
[7] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENGINEERING RESEARCH, ISSN

0973-4562 VOL.7 NO.11 (2012) © RESEARCH INDIA PUBLICATIONS;
HTTP://WWW.RIPUBLICATION.COM/IJAER.HTM
[8] PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE

TEAMD’ALEMBERT’S VIKE TRIKE HUMAN POWERED VEHICLE DESIGN
REPORT ME 493 FINAL REPORT – YEAR 2006
[9] HELLBENT CYCLE WORK- THE RECUMBENT TRIKE DESIGN PRIMER
43 | P a g e
Books
[10] R.S. KHURMI, J.K. GUPTA, A TEXTBOOK OF MACHINE DESIGN (S. I.

UNITS), EURASIA PUBLISHING HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., RAM NAGAR, NEWDELHI-
110055, 2005; 509-557, 602-647, 727-758.
[11] THEORY OF MACHINES BY R.S.KHURMI
[12] PSG DESIGN DATA BOOK, PSG COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

COIMBATORE-641 004 INDIA
[13] DESIGN OF MACHINE ELEMENTS (THIRD EDITION), V.B BHANDARI, MC

GRAW HILL PUBLICATION INDIA (PVT.) LTD.
Website
[14] http://www.jetrike.com/tadpole-or-delta.html
[15] http://www.jetrike.com/why-does-tilting-matter.html
[16] http://renekmueller.com/Recumbents
[17] ASME. (2011). Human Powered Vehicle Challenge. Retrieved March 7, 2011, from
http://www.asme.org/Events/Contests/HPV/Human_Powered_Vehicle.cfm
[18] Wianecki, R. (2002, March 26). Rick Wianecki's Leaning Trike Project. Retrieved
March 6, 2011, from http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/wianecki/leaning_trike3.htm
44 | P a g e
Appendix A
Technical Drawings
(BMC)

Appendix B
Business Model Canvas
(BMC)
(BMC)

Appendix C
PLAGIARISM

www. plagiarism -detect .com
Date: 17.5.2015
Words: 7008
Plagiarised sources: 15
Plagiarised: 1%
http://www.ncpers.org/files/Conference Docs/Annual Conference/2015 PPT's/Chris Mcknett The Art and

Science of ESG Investing_5.4.2015_Final(1)(CM).pdf
plagiarised from source: >1%
1. As such it should not be considered
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Guangzhou-0086-13694242306-Fekon-three-wheel_592221941.html
1. smaller automatic transmission scooter motors, or electric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_tricycle
http://renekmueller.com/Recumbents
1. The steering bar is often very narrow, and
http://www.ijrame.com/vol2issue3/V2i318.pdf
1. force, which may further increase chances of rolling over of this
http://cll.qc.ca/Professeurs/Mecanique/ethierp/3-wheels/stabil1.htm
1. force, which may further increase chances of rolling over of this
http://www.jetrike.com/fwd-or-rwd.html
1. As the front wheel leans, the contact
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/tricycle
http://www.statestreet.com/content/dam/statestreet/documents/Articles/Asset Manager - Australia Country

Snapshot.pdf
http://www.statestreet.com/content/dam/statestreet/documents/Articles/Asset Manager - Germany Country

Snapshot.pdf

http://www.statestreet.com/content/dam/statestreet/documents/Articles/CAR/Folklore_execsummary.pdf
https://spdru.com/etfed
https://www.ssga.com/definedcontribution/us/research-and-insights/public-policy-viewpoints/index.html
https://www.ssga.com/definedcontribution/us/working-with-us/independent-fiduciary-services/index.html
http://f-squaredinvestments.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Vol-is-not-Risk-14.05.05final.pdf

Appendix D
Patent Drafting Exercise
PDE
(BMC)

GIC Patent Drafting Exercise Team ID: 14934
GTU Innovation Council

Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE)
FORM 1 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)

THE PATENTS ACT 1970 Application No:
(39 OF 1970) Filing Date:
& Amount of Fee paid:
THE PATENTS RULES, 2003 CBR No:
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PATENT
1. Applicant(s) :
ID Name Nationality Address Mobile No. Email
1 Sahil Jitesh . Indian GTU 9408086200 sahiljitesh@hotm

ail.com
2 Anand Indian GTU 8238094145 ozaanand001@g

Maheshbhai mail.com
Oza
3 Sanjay Indian GTU 7405375853 piyushmalankiya

Dhirubhai @gmail.com
Malankiya
2. Inventor(s):
Note : This is just a mock Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE) for semester 8, BE students of GTU.
These documents are not to be submitted with any patent office. Page 1 of 5
ID Name Nationality Address Mobile No. Email
1 Sahil Jitesh . Indian GTU 9408086200 sahiljitesh@hot

mail.com
2 Anand Indian GTU 8238094145 ozaanand001@

Maheshbhai Oza gmail.com
3 Sanjay Dhirubhai Indian GTU 7405375853 piyushmalankiy

Malankiya a@gmail.com
3. Title of Invention/Project:
Design And Stability Of Recumbent Tricycle
4. Address for correspondence of applicant/authorized patent agent in india
Name: Sahil Jitesh .
Address: Mechanical Engineering , G. K. Bharad Institute Of Engineering, Kasturba Dham, Rajkot ,

Gujarat Technological University.
Mobile: 9408086200
Email ID: sahiljitesh@hotmail.com
5. Priority particulars of the application(S) field in convention country
Country Application No. Filing Date Name of the Applicant Title of the Invention
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6. Particulars for filing patent co-operation treaty (pct) national phase Application
International application number International filing date as alloted by the receiving office
N/A N/A
7. Particulars for filing divisional application
Original(First) Application Number Date of filing of Original (first) application
N/A N/A
8. Particulars for filing patent of addition
Original(First) Application Number Date of filing of Original (first) application
N/A N/A
9. DECLARATIONS:
(i) Declaration by the inventor(s)
I/We, the above named inventor(s) is/are true & first inventor(s) for this invention and declare that the
applicant(s).
herein is/are my/our assignee or legal representative.
Date : 30 - April - 2015
Name Signature & Date
1 Sahil Jitesh .
2 Anand Maheshbhai
Oza
3 Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
(ii) Declaration by the applicant(s) in the convention country
I/We, the applicant (s) in the convention country declare that the applicant(s) herein is/are my/our
assignee or legal representative.applicant(s)
(iii) Declaration by the applicant(s)
I/We, the applicant(s) hereby declare(s) that:-
I am/We in possession of the above mentioned invention.
The provisional/complete specification relating to the invention is filed with this aplication.
The invention as disclosed in the spcification uses the biological material from India and the necessary
permission from the competent authority shall be submitted by me/us before the grant of patent to me/us.
There is no lawful ground of objection to the grant of the patent to me/us.
I am/we are the assignee or the legal representative of true & first inventors.
The application or each of the application,particulars of each are given in the para 5 was the first applicatin in
the convention country/countries in respect of my/our invention.
The application or each of the application,particulars of each are given in the para 5 was the first applicatin in
the convention country/countries in respect of my/our invention.
I/we claim the priority from the above mentioned applications(s) filed in the convention country/countries &
state that no application for protection in respect of invention had been made in a convention country before
that date by me/us or by any person
My/Our application in india is based on international application under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) as
mentioned in para 6
The application is divided out of my/our application(s) particulars of which are given in para 7 and pray that
this application may be treated as deemed to have been filed on ___________under section 16 of the Act.
The said invention is an improvement in or modification of the invention particulars of ehivh are given in para
8.
10. Following are the attachments with the application:
(a) Provisional specification/Complete specification
(b) Complete specification(In confirmation with the international application) / as amended before the
international Preliminary Examination Authority (IPEA),as applicable(2 copies),No.of pages.....No.of
claims.....
(c) Drawings (In confirmation with the international application)/as amended before the international
Preliminary Examination Authority(IPEA),as applicable(2 copies),No.of sheets....
(d) Priority documents
(e) Translations of priority documents/specification/international search reports
(f) Statement and undertaking on Form 3
(g) Power of Authority
(h) Declaration of inventorship on Form 5
(i) Sequence listing in electronic Form
(j) ........................................ Fees Rs.XXX in Cash /Cheque/Bank Draft bearin No.XXX Date: XXX on XXX
Bank.
I/We hereby declare that to the best of my /our knowledge, information and belief the fact and mtters stated
herein are correct and I/We request that a patent may be granted to me/us for the said invention.
Dated this 30 day of April , 2015
Name Signature & Date
1 Sahil Jitesh .
2 Anand Maheshbhai
Oza
3 Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 OF 1970)
&
THE PATENTS RULES, 2003
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION
1. Title of the project/invention :
Design And Stability Of Recumbent Tricycle
2. Applicant(s) :
Sahil Jitesh . , ( Indian )

Address :GTU
Anand Maheshbhai Oza , ( Indian )

Address :GTU
Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya , ( Indian )

Address :GTU
3. Preamble to the description :

The following specification describes the invention.
4. Description :
a. Field of Application / Project / Invention :
Automobile field of project. Its a three wheel Tadpole configuration tricycle with the recumbent
means of travel.
b. Prior Art / Background of the Invention / References :
A tricycle, often abbreviated to trike, is a three -wheeled vehicle, commonly human-powered.

Tricycles are used by children and adults alike for their stability versus a bicycle. In the United
States and Canada, adult-sized tricycles are used by senior adults for recreation, shopping, and
exercise. In Asia and Africa, tricycles called pedicabs are used to transport passengers; tricycles
are also used to transport freight and make deliveries.
c. Summary of the Invention/Project :
Recumbent Tricycle is used in order to incorporate both turning and tilting capabilities which
minimize the inertia force on the rider and that ultimately improve performance and maneuverability
of the vehicle. It is three wheel Tadpole Configuration for front steering control and maximum
stability concerning. The rider is cable of maintaining overall control of the vehicle through a simple
leaning motion which mimic a traditional bicycle.
d. Objects of the Invention/Project :
The rider does not need to disengage from the pedals when stopped. The comfortable rider
position reduces strain to the riders body. Recumbent trikes are very well suited for long distance
touring. Recumbent trikes may also be more suitable for people with balance or limb disabilities.
e. Drawing(s) :
Trike View
Isometric
Seat
Top
side
f. Description of the Invention
A tricycle, often abbreviated to trike, is a three -wheeled vehicle, commonly human-powered.

Tricycles are used by children and adults alike for their stability versus a bicycle. In the United
States and Canada, adult-sized tricycles are used by senior adults for recreation, shopping, and
exercise. In Asia and Africa, tricycles called pedicabs are used to transport passengers; tricycles
are also used to transport freight and make deliveries.
Recumbent Tricycle is used in order to incorporate both turning and tilting capabilities which
minimize the inertia force on the rider and that ultimately improve performance and maneuverability
of the vehicle. It is three wheel Tadpole Configuration for front steering control and maximum
stability concerning. The rider is cable of maintaining overall control of the vehicle through a simple
leaning motion which mimic a traditional bicycle.
g. Examples
h. Unique Features of the Project
The rider is cable of maintaining overall control of the vehicle through a simple leaning motion which
mimic a traditional bicycle.
5. Date & Signature :
Date : 30 - April - 2015
Sign and Date Sign and Date

Sahil Jitesh . Anand Maheshbhai
Oza
Sign and Date

Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
6. Abstract of the project / invention :
Recumbent cycles began emerging in the early 1900’s as a method of improving the rider’s ability to
transmit power ergonomically and reach higher sustained speeds. Over the course of the last century,
many different types of recumbent cycles were designed and developed upon. Although most recumbent
designs are similar to ordinary two-wheeled bicycles, they typically have a lower centre of gravity, causing
stability problems at lower speeds. If an effort to improve the stability and control of recumbent cycles, the
addition of a third wheel became popular as a method to distribute the weight of the rider.
Initial tricycle designs used two wheels in the rear and one in the front; however, there are inherent stability
problems with this design while cornering at high speeds. Considering the advantages of recumbent cycles
for ergonomic performance, these vehicles present an excellent mode of transportation for short to medium
distance commuting. Therefore, the cycle is an excellent means for commuters to reduce energy
consumption, lower traffic density, and maintain physical fitness.
Drawing Attachments :
Trike View
Isometric
Seat
Top
side
FORM 3
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 OF 1970)
&
THE PATENTS RULES, 2003
STATEMENT AND UNDERTAKING UNDER SECTION 8
1. Declaration :
I/We, Sahil Jitesh . ,
Anand Maheshbhai Oza ,
Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya ,
2. Name, Address and Nationality of the joint Applicant :
Sahil Jitesh . ( Indian )

Address : GTU
Anand Maheshbhai Oza ( Indian )

Address : GTU
Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya ( Indian )

Address : GTU
Here by declare:
(i) that I/We have not made any application for the same/substantially the same
invention outside India.
(ii) that the right in the application(s) has/have been assigned to,
Name of the Date of Application Status of the Date of Date of

Country Application Number Application Publication Grant
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(iii) that I/We undertake that up to the date of grant of patent by the Controller , I/We
would keep him inform in writing the details regarding corresponding application(s)
for patents filed outside India within 3 months from the date of filing of such
application.
Dated this 30 day of April , 2015.
3. Signature of Applicants :
Sign and Date Sign and Date
Sahil Jitesh . Anand Maheshbhai Oza
Sign and Date

Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
To
The Controller of Patent
The Patent Office, at Mumbai.
Appendix E
Images

Appendix F
Gantt Chart
View publication stats

Design and Stability of Recumbent Tricycle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Stability of Recumbent Tricycle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

DESIGN AND STABILITY OF RECUMBENT TRICYCLE

Thesis · April 2015

Numerical Study of the Aerodynamic Performance of a Slotted Airfoil View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

UDP PROJECT REPORT

SAHIL JITESH 110590119025

OZA ANAND M. 120593119032

MALANKIYA SANJAY D. 110590119085

In fulfilment for the award of the degree of

G.K. BHARAD INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “Design and

Internal Guide: Prof. Hardik H. Suchak

External Examiner Head of Department

Enrolment Number Name Signature

Name of Guide Signature of Guide

Date of certificate generation : 30 April 2015 (22:09)

This is to certify that, Sahil Jitesh . (Enrolment

Submitted Four Periodic Progress Reports (PPR) Completed

Business Model Canvas (Image) Uploaded

Business Model Canvas (Report) Uploaded

Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE) Completed

Final Project Report Uploaded

Plagiarism Search Report Uploaded

Name of Student : Sahil Jitesh . Name of Guide : Mr. Hardik Hiteshkumar

Signature of Student : *Signature of Guide :

Date of certificate generation : 30 April 2015 (21:52)

This is to certify that, Anand Maheshbhai Oza (Enrolment

Submitted Four Periodic Progress Reports (PPR) Completed

Business Model Canvas (Image) Uploaded

Business Model Canvas (Report) Uploaded

Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE) Completed

Final Project Report Uploaded

Plagiarism Search Report Uploaded

Signature of Student : *Signature of Guide :

Date of certificate generation : 30 April 2015 (22:13)

This is to certify that, Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya (Enrolment

Submitted Four Periodic Progress Reports (PPR) Completed

Business Model Canvas (Image) Uploaded

Business Model Canvas (Report) Uploaded

Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE) Completed

Final Project Report Uploaded

Plagiarism Search Report Uploaded

Signature of Student : *Signature of Guide :

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………...…01

1.1 PROBLEM SUMMARY

CHAPTER 2. DESIGN CONCEPTION …………………..………………………….13

2.1 FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE

2.3 CHAIN LINE

2.3.1 FWD MOVING BB CHAIN LINE

2.3.2 FWD TWIST CHAIN

2.3.3 RWD CHAIN LINE

CHAPTER 4. STEERING BEHAVIOUR…………………………………………..20

4.1 RWD UNDERSTEER BEHAVIOUR

4.2 FWD OVER STEER BEHAVIOUR

CHAPTER 5. CONFIGURATION SELECTION…………………………….…....22

5.1.1 DELTA RIDER

5.1.2 TADPOLE RIDER

5.2.1 DELTA TURNING

5.2.2 TADPOLE TURNING

6.3 STEERING AND TILTING

6.4 ACKERMAN STEERING

6.5 POWER TRAIN