ZEPHYR Making Bike Safety A Breeze
Summary
Zephyr, was borne out of the realization that many bike riders in urban landscapes who are always on the go disregard wearing a helmet because it is bulky and inconvenient to carry around. We have tried to innovate around how to alleviate this painful tradeoff between choosing convenience over safety.
This project is an outcome of the Analytical Product Design course at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. As this was a design analytics class, the primary goal was to focus on the process, not the final product.
Here is the link to the project website for detailed explanation Zephyr
Team
Our team of 4 is composed of diverse perspectives and expertise across a range of fields which include business, communication, mechanical engineering, and architecture
Tools
Google Suite, Qualtrics Survey, Sawtooth, Creo, Autocad, Sketchup, Ansys Granta, Miro
Role
Ideation, Design, Research, Empathy building, Storyboarding, Prototyping
Process
Our design process map explains the steps as we moved forward. There were times when we pivoted our direction and iterated a few steps when our conceptualization started to converge towards the product. Process > Product
PROBLEM DEFINITION
To design a successful product or service, it's crucial to first understand the needs of stakeholders, especially customers and end-users. This stage aims to empathize with commuters, like urban professionals and students, who face daily travel challenges. Our initial focus was on common commuters, and through this process, we aim to develop a clear problem statement.
Krystal, a common commuter says,
It's a pain to bring the helmet around when I'm on the go, and I just don't know where to put it. Sometimes I prefer not to wear it even when I am concerned about my safety" .
Krystal, a busy grad student and urban professional, often relies on her bike to manage her classes, part-time job, and errands. While many commuters forget their helmets, most cite these reasons for neglecting helmet safety:
INEFFICIENT
Helmets can feel like a hassle during travel as bikers need to secure them alongside their bikes at racks or stands, which can be time-consuming and complex.
TAG IT ALONG
Current helmet lock solutions require riders to carry an extra responsibility, adding to their transit burden.
UNRELIABLE
Current lock solutions often leave helmets unstable and not securely fixed in place, leading many bikers to opt for carrying their helmets instead.
INCONSISTENT
Current solutions lack compatibility with a variety of helmets, as they can't securely attach to helmets of different shapes and sizes.
MARKET RESEARCH
10 Guerilla and 5 Longform Interviews
Everyday commuters are constantly on the move, sometimes neglecting essentials like hydration, umbrellas, or helmets. They seek convenience without compromising safety.
64 Survey Results
70% of bike riders prioritize safety, but 30% don't always wear helmets due to issues like bulkiness, unavailability, or difficulty in carrying them.
Competitors Analysis and Benchmarking
The market is fragmented, with existing helmet lock solutions often falling short in addressing comfort, convenience, and portability issues.
Over 872,000 people in the US commute by bike everyday
Only 18% of bike riders wear a helmet
About 1 out of every 3 non-fatal bike injuries were head injuries
Quality Functional Deployment
We conduct a comparative analysis, assigning weights to stakeholder requirements and aligning them with functional specifications. This benchmarking process aids in translating requirements into actionable plans.
Stakeholder requirements
Portable | Durable | Easy to maintain | Easy to use | Novelty Cleanliness | Ergonomic design | Weather proofing | Production feasibility | Light weight | Aesthetically appealing | Biodegradable | Price | Short set up time | Adaptable to sizes | Safety |
Functional requirements
Size | Weight | Production cost | Thermal conductivity | Lifetime | Aesthetic look | Strength | Number of parts | Material | Projections |
Product Positioning Chart
Key findings
This map reveals that there are only a small number of existing manufacturers. Most of these products have a nascent presence in the market
They do not focus on consistency and convenience of locking a helmet to a bike revealing a gap in the market
Market Value Propostion
In 2021, the bike helmet market size was valued at $980.85 million, with an expected CAGR of 5.67% within the next five years as more urban centers are beginning to invest in bike sharing and micro-mobility programs.
As of currently, about 47 million people in the US ride a bike, but only about 872,000 people ride a bike to work and/or school everyday and only 18% wear a helmet.
Bicycle-related head injuries are the most severe and can endure throughout a person’s lifetime. 1 in every 3 non fatal bike accident are head injuries.
How might we make the helmet more conveniently accessible for bike riders by giving riders the ability to keep their helmet with the bike?
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
Once we identified the problem and understood it, we shifted our focus to finding solutions, with an emphasis on exploration. Our target customer segment comprises urban professionals and students aged 18-35. To guide our design process, we prioritized six key attributes. These criteria were used in QFD and Pugh Chart analyses to rate and prioritize our solutions and informed the design drivers for our prototypes.
PORTABILITY
Enables bikers to carry their helmet effortlessly, wherever they go.
SECURITY
Stationary and reliably attached to bike in a way that is not susceptible to theft
EASE OF USE
Quick, efficient, and manageable to setup with little time or hassle
COMPACTNESS
Light weight, smaller in size, and not a hassle to carry around
FEASIBILITY OF PRODUCTION
Manageable to build and test within a short period of time and limited materials
PROTECTION OF FREE WILL
Does not obstruct a bikers choice to ride with or without a helmet
CONCEPT GENERATION
The sections represents the many approaches we took to ideate new concepts that would meet our design objectives and pain points as identified above along with some representative examples of concepts we came up with.
Brainstorming
After understanding our target users and defining the problem, we brainstormed generating a wide range of ideas through sketches and lists. These ideas varied from hypothetical concepts to feasible solutions.
Mind mapping
By creating mind maps, it provided a hierarchical representation of our thoughts. This helped us connect the relevance of our thoughts to different ideas.
Sketches
Heuristic cards
Concept exploration became restrictive at times, leading to creative blockage. Heuristic cards helped us break this routine, inspiring out-of-the-box thinking and pushing for innovative ideas, allowing for maximum exploration.
Conceptualization Tree
We created a concept tree to eliminate ideas that didn't align with our problem-solving goals. Beginning with comfort, portability, and security, we identified the issues we aimed to address and listed corresponding ideas. This process helped our ideas converge, providing a clearer project direction.
Combination Table
Using the conceptualization tree, we picked ideas from various categories and combined them, leading to novel concepts. This process generated a wide range of ideas, including some that may not be practical but are intriguing to explore.
Functional Decomposition
To ensure our ideas were feasible, we applied the functional decomposition method. We divided each function into its steps, specifying inputs (force, energy, motion) and outputs (energy release). This helped eliminate ideas not viable with current technology and prompted us to consider alternative processes for certain steps.
DOWNSELECTION
During our conceptualization, our team employed systematic and structured methods to filter, prioritize, and advance ideas. We assessed pros and cons, selecting the top 10 ideas, and then used a Pugh Chart, based on prioritized attributes from our QFD, to further refine them. This process ultimately led us to our top 5 ideas.
PUGH CHART
It specifically ranks 15 attributes that we found important to our solution, weighted against each other and ranked in descending order. We then scored each concept through a ++/-- system, where concepts could receive a 1 or 2 depending on the extend they met a criteria, a -1 or -2 if the solution performs negatively against the criteria, or a 0 if our evaluation on that criteria was neutral or not applicable.
TOP CONCEPTS
01 Seat Helmet Storage - An attachment to the bike that operates as helmet storage underneath the seat
02 Retractable Strap Attachment - A retractable attachment to the helmet straps with a numerical locking mechanism
03 In helmet pop lock band - A secret pop lock within helmet with elastic/flexible lock band that extends and retracts.
04 Portable front bag - Lockable, portable bag/case that is strapped to the front of the bike.
Selected Concept - Dial Clamp Helmet Lock
How it works?
The alpha prototype works on the principle of spring lock mechanism. The D flaps expand out on the rotation of dial and grips the helmet from inside. The dial lock holds the D clamps in locked position by storing the energy in spring.
Advantages
Easy and convenient to use
Always present, regardless of use
Serves as a reminder when needed
Efficient use and assembly
Disadvantages
Requires initial manual installation
Adds weight to the bike, albeit its lightweight
Process Sketch
Alpha prototype
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT METHODS
After testing our alpha prototype and receiving feedback from peers and instructors, we received some innovative suggestions that led us to iterate on our earlier steps. These recommendations will be integrated into our next stages of product development. As we neared the final product realization, we conducted various technical analyses to refine our alpha prototype and create an efficient solution aligning with our objectives and attributes.
DESIGN DRIVERS
We began by defining key drivers for the product's bike attachment, helmet security, and user-friendliness. We also identified validation methods to ensure efficiency, following systems engineering's traceability principle.
PARAMETER ANALYSIS
FMEA -FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Our failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) guided our beta prototype design decisions in three key ways:
We replaced the clamps with steel straps, enhancing safety, reducing weight, and improving durability.
We addressed the issue of the torsion spring losing strength to secure the helmet, which could lead to loosening in lock mode.
We realized the flap mechanism had technical problems, so our proof of concept features a simplified and reliable alternative that doesn't rely on stored potential energy.
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
Through Kansei and Conjoint analysis, we gain insights to optimize form, materials, pricing, and manufacturing processes, prioritizing user-centric factors. Zephyr utilizes FE analysis for form optimization and Ansys Granta for material optimization. Pricing is refined using Conjoint analysis and competitor rates to align with user preferences.
CONJOINT ANALYSIS
To ensure alignment with user preferences and needs, we integrated stakeholder input throughout our design process. Surveys like Conjoint and Kansei informed key design choices:
Pricing: Users are price-sensitive, preferring a range of $25-$38, with $45 or more deterring purchases.
Locking mechanism: Users prioritize lock types, favoring combination locks over alternatives like key locks and dial combination locks.
Holding mechanism: Adjustable clamps, as in the alpha prototype, were the least preferred. Retractable wires lacked adequate helmet support, so we opted for metal straps with better surface contact and durability based on user feedback and empirical testing
ANSYS GRANTA ECO AUDIT REPORT
We used Ansys Granta to compare materials for various mechanism parts, with a focus on recyclability and environmental safety. Here are our material selections:
Steel Straps: Chosen for their superior security and durability, ensuring protection against theft or damage compared to alternatives like aluminum.
Base Plate: Aluminum was selected for its strength in securing the helmet and withstanding extreme weather conditions. It offers sturdiness, lightweight properties, and ease of shaping without sharp edges, surpassing other options like steel, carbon fiber, and plastic.
EMPIRICAL TESTING
To ensure the reliability of our prototype, we conducted low-fidelity experiments for each component and material. These experiments helped us identify potential failure modes and design constraints. We also experimented with different materials, sizes, and assembly approaches to optimize functionality and ease of use. Additionally, we tested component materials and helmet placement on various bikes to accommodate size variations and spacing requirements.
FE ANALYSIS
We utilized CREO Parametric FEA Simulation software to simulate the performance of the frame, hinge, and steel strap under typical helmet weight loads, ensuring structural integrity and functionality.
PROOF OF CONCEPT
EXPLODED VIEW
MANUFACTURING PLAN
The process is split into two parts: manufacturing assembly and mounting assembly.
Manufacturing Assembly: This occurs at the manufacturing unit and involves creating the base, making adjustments to accommodate other components, and attaching the straps.
Mounting Assembly: Users perform this step, which includes attaching the clamps to the bicycle frame and securing the engineered product using screws and nuts.
How it works?
Using Zephyr, the user starts by unlocking the helmet securing straps and placing the helmet on the base plate. After positioning the helmet on the bike, the user wraps the securing straps over it and clicks the helmet strap lock buckle onto the base plate. This locks and secures the helmet. To access the helmet, the user simply enters their chosen combination to release the straps from the base plate, allowing them to lift the straps and remove the helmet easily.
VALIDATION PLAN AND SAFE TESTING
Our validation plan details the essential requirements for evaluation, along with activities, resources, criteria, and a timeline for our planned tests. We've structured it into three dimensions that initially influenced our concept design: feasibility, desirability, and viability.
Feasibility: Attachability, Ease of use, Security, Reliable hold, Adaptability, Durability, Safety
Desirability: Portability, Protects free will, Convenience, Notability, Willingness to use, Aesthetically appealing
Viability: Value, Demand
BUSINESS PLAN
Based on market analysis, product positioning map and conjoint analysis, we can now determine the market value of our product. This data will eventually help us in optimizing the costs and manufacturing processes with further development in the product.
Investment costs encompass plant, equipment, setup, and in-house manufacturing machines. Operating costs include startup salaries, marketing, rent, utilities, maintenance, warranty, R&D, and loan payments.
The approximate cost to produce one unit, including materials, fabrication, assembly, manufacturing, labor, packaging, and distribution, is $25.76. We plan to sell it at $35, determined through conjoint and competitor analysis.
The Profit equation is :
$35.00 * Z > $25.76 * Z + $158,765.41 (where Z is the number of Zephyr units)
[Selling Price] x [No of Units] > [Cost Price] x [No of Units] + [Fixed Operating Costs]
We'll need to sell a minimum of 17,185 units to cover all the fixed operating costs.
Break Even Analysis Output
We'll be able to breakeven and start recovering our initial investment near the end of Year 2 Q1 of operating, which will allow us to remain profitable so long as we consistently sell above our breakeven point.
SOCIAL IMPACT
With the growing focus on green economies and reduced carbon emissions in urban areas, bike safety is crucial. Zephyr, our bike helmet locking solution, enhances convenience and security for everyday bike commuters. It offers hassle-free storage, making safety more portable and commuting more convenient. Zephyr ensures riders can store their helmets with their bikes anytime, serving as a constant safety reminder for a hassle-free ride.
Limitations
Zephyr has not undergone testing with a diverse range of individuals with varying body sizes.
It has not been tested against different weather conditions.
Takeaway
This was my first project since I began my Masters at the University of Michigan. I enjoyed working in a team with diverse backgrounds that complemented each other's skill sets.
Design is very subjective so seeking as much feedback at an early stage is beneficial to get the general reaction of users.
One can get a creative block especially when they are working with deadlines.