Report Sahil

“DESIGN AND STABILITY OF RECUMBENT TRICYCLE”
(TEAM ID: 14934)
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 Enrolment No. 110590119025 under my
guidance in fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of
Engineering in Mechanical Engineering, (8th
Semester) of
Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad during the
academic year 2014-15
Internal Guide: Prof. Hardik H. Suchak
External Examiner Head of Department

RAJKOT
CERITIFICATE
OZA ANAND M. Enrolment No. 120593119032 under my
guidance in fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of
Engineering in Mechanical Engineering, (8th
Semester) of
Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad during the

RAJKOT
CERITIFICATE
MALANKIYA SANJAY D. Enrolment No. 110590119085
under my guidance in fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor
of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering, (8th
Semester)
of Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad during the

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

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
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)
Plagiarism Search Report
Final Project Report
Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE)
Business Model Canvas (Report)
Business Model Canvas (Image)
Submitted Four Periodic Progress Reports (PPR)
Uploaded
Uploaded
Completed
Uploaded
Uploaded
Completed
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.
Name of Student :
Signature of Student :
Sahil Jitesh .
*Signature of Guide :
Name of Guide : Mr. Hardik Hiteshkumar
Suchak
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.
Disclaimer :
*Guide has to sign the certificate, Only if all above activities has been Completed / Uploaded.

i | P a g e
INDEX
TITLE PAGE NO.
CERTIFICATE
INDEX i
LIST OF FIGURE iv
LIST OF TABLE vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vii
ABSTRACT
viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………...…01
1.1 HISTORY
CHAPTER 2. FWD AND RWD ………………………………………………………..…….07
CHAPTER 3. PEDAL INDUCED STEERING ……………………………….……………09
CHAPTER 4. CHAIN LINE …………………………………………………………….…..10
4.1 FWD MOVING BB CHAINLINE
4.2 FWD TWIST CHAIN
4.3 RWD CHAINLINE
CHAPTER 5. ADJUSTABILITY …………………………………………………………...13
CHAPTER 6. STEERING BEHAVIOUR ……………………………………………….…14
6.1 RWD UNDERSTEER BEHAVIOUR
6.2 FWD OVERSTEER BEHAVIOUR
CHAPTER 7. TADPOLE OR DELTA? ………………………………………………..….16
CHAPTER 8. BRAKING …………………………………………………………...………17
8.1 DELTA RIDER
8.2 TADPOLE RIDER

ii | P a g e
TITLE PAGE NO.
CHAPTER 9. TURNING ……………………………………………………………………19
9.1 DELTA TURNING
9.2 TADPOLE TURNING
CHAPTER 10. DESIGN ………………………………………………………………..……21
10.1 CONCEPT
10.2 STABILITY
10.3 STEERING AND TILTING
10.4 ACKERMAN STEERING
10.5 POWER TRAIN
10.6 TIE RODS
10.7 HOUSING BEARING
10.8 HANDLES
10.9 POWER TRAIN TENSION PLATE
10.10 STEERING ARMS
10.11 SEAT ASSEMBLY
10.12 MAIN FRAME
10.13 HORIZONTAL FRAME
CHAPTER 11. CALCULATION ……………………………………………………………28
11.1 CALCULATION OF OPTOMAL CENTRE OF GRAVITY
11.1.1 OPTIMAL CENTRE
11.1.2 LATERAL TIPPING POINT (FRONT VIEW)
11.1.3 LATERAL TIPPING POINT (SIDE VIEW)

iii | P a g e
TITLE PAGE NO.
CHAPTER 12. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………30
12.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENT COMPARISION
12.2 WEIGHT
12.3 BRAKING DISTANCE
12.4 TURNING ANGLE
REFERANCE
APPENDIX

iv | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1.1 Stephan farffer’s hand – controlled,three wheel chair
Figure 1.1.2 19TH
century tricycle used in iran
Figure 1.1.3 Bicycle history and typology
Figure 1.1.4 Long rider
Figure 1.1.5 Short rider
Figure 1.1.6 Low rider
Figure 1.1.7 Harold Jarvis long rider, patent excerpt
Figure 1.1.8 Dan henry on long rider
Figure 1.1.9 Darve willson with his “avatar 2000”
Figure 1.1.10 Ravat short rider
Figure 1.1.11 Jack fried’s short riders
Figure 2.1 Minimum 60:40 weight distribution
Figure 2.2 Loss of traction of steep grades
Figure 3.1 Effect of Trail on FWD
Figure 4.1.1 FWD moving BB chainline
Figure 4.2.1 FWD twist chain chainline
Figure 4.3.1 RWD chainline
Figure 5.1 FWD moving BB adjustability
Figure 6.1.1 RWD understeer behaviour
Figure 6.2.1 FWD oversteer behavior
Figure 7.1 Windcheetah Tadpole
Figure 7.2 Kettweisel Delta
Figure 8.1.1 Delta rider's CoG

v | P a g e
Figure 8.2.1 Tadpole rider's CoG
Figure 9.1.1 Delta turning vectors
Figure 9.2.1 Tadpole turning vectors
Figure 9.2.2 KMX Kart
Figure 10.2.1 NX Design of Recumbent Tricycle
Figure 10.2.2 Principle of Pendulum
Figure 10.3.1 Tilting and Turning Concept
Figure 10.4.1 Ackerman Steering Schematic
Figure 10.4.2 Steering Principle
Figure 10.5.1 Power Train
Figure 10.7.1 Housing Bearing
Figure 10.9.1 Power Plate Tension Plate
Figure 10.10.1 Steering Arm
Figure 10.11.1 Seat Assembly
Figure 10.12.1 Main Frame
Figure 10.13.1 Horizontal Frame
Figure 10.1.1.1 Optimal Centre
Figure 10.1.2.1 Tipping Point Front View
Figure 10.1.3.1 Tipping Point Side View
Figure 11.1.3.2 Tipping Point Top View
Figure 11.1.3.3 Orthogonal View
Figure 12.4.1 Turning Angle Proposed and Actual Design

vi | P a g e
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1 Difference between FWS Moving BB, FWS Twist Chain and RWD
Table 12.1.1 Design Requirement Comparison

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 external guide Aakash Mavadia and Next
we would like to thank Prof. Vaibhab Maniar head of department 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.

1 | P a g e
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
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.
1.1 HISTORY
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
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
rotary chain drive tricycles."
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
Figure 1.1.1 Stephan Farffler's hand-controlled,
three-wheeled wheelchair

2 | P a g e
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.
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

3 | P a g e
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)
 more ergonomic body posture
 more relaxing position good for extensive ridings and tours
 better force application on pedals due comfortable seats
Figure 1.1.3 Bicycle History and Typology

4 | P a g e
 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
Base Types
Three main types can be defined as shown below (but there are many more):
Figure 1.1.4 Long Rider
Figure 1.1.5 Short Rider
Figure 1.1.6 Low Rider

5 | P a g e
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]
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 (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.
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. The steering bar might
Figure 1.1.7 Harold Jarvis longrider,
patent excerpt (1901)
Figure 1.1.8 Dan Henry on a longrider (1968) Figure 1.1.9 Dave Wilson with his
'Avatar 2000' (~1976)
Figure 1.1.10 Ravat (1937)

6 | P a g e
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.
Figure1.1.11 Jack Fried's
shortrider, patent excerpt (1946)

7 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2 FWD AND RWD
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
BB
FWD Twist
Chain
RWD
Limitations Steep Grades Steep Grades -
Psi Manageable Minimal -
Chainline Simple Complex Complex
Adjustability Easier Harder Harder
Steering Behaviour Overseer Overseer 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). [2]
Figure 2.1 Minimum 60:40 weight distribution

8 | 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 2.2 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.

9 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3 PEDAL INDUCED STEERING
Figure 3.1 Effect of Trail on FWD
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. 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 tire. 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.
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.

10 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4 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.
4.1 FWD MOVING BB CHAINLINE
Figure 4.1.1 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.
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.

11 | P a g e
4.2 FWD TWIST CHAIN
Figure 4.2.1 FWD twist chain chainline
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.
4.3 RWD CHAINLINE
Figure 4.3.1 RWD chainline

12 | P a g e
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.
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.

13 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5 ADJUSTABLITY
Figure 5.1 FWD moving BB adjustability
One of the challenges all recumbent designs face, is making the distance from the seat the
bottom bracket (BB-BOS) 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.
Most designs incorporate some variant of a telescopic boom. However with most
chainlines, this requires adding or removing chain links to make the adjustment, on the
theory that once fitted to the rider, the BB-BOS distance never needs to change. If however
you are planning to race in a 24 hour HPV event with a team of riders, quick changeovers
are a requirement.
The FWD moving BB 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.

14 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6 STEERING BEHAVIOR
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 breaking as the tire 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 tire 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
(overseer). 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.
6.1 RWD UNDEERSTEER BEHAVIOR
Figure 6.1.1 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. It is only the

15 | P a g e
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.
6.2 FWD OVERSTEER BEHAVIOR
Figure 6.2.1 FWD overseer behaviour
FWD trikes have a tendency to overseer. 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 overseer, but it carries the added risk that the rider may lose
control. Too much overseer will make a trike unstable and dangerous.

16 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7 TADPOLE OR DELTA?
The tadpole trike has the two wheels at the front, the delta trike has the two wheels at the
rear.
Figure 7.1 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 7.2 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. And more to the point, how to assess which
characteristics are best suited to your requirements, and on that basis, whether they should
be considered for your own designs. 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'.

17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8 BRAKING
8.1 DELTA RIDER
Figure 8.1.1 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.
8.2 TADPOLE RIDER
Figure 8.2.1 Tadpole rider's CoG

18 | P a g e
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.
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.

19 | P a g e
CHAPTER 9 TURNING
9.1 DELTA TURNING
Figure 9.1.1 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, 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.

20 | P a g e
9.2 TADPOLE TURNING
Figure 9.2.1 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.
Figure 9.2.2 KMX Kart
The KMX trike pictured above resolves the tadpole brake force issue by having smaller
front wheels, thereby lowering the rider CoG inside the forward tipping axis. Nevertheless,
as this image clearly shows, with a more upright backrest angle it is definitely possible tip
the trike and get it up on two wheels. [1]

21 | P a g e
CHAPTER 10 DESIGN
10.1 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 9 chapters, we conclude to use following design
criteria.
1. Real Wheel Drive (RWD)
2. Adjustable seat, chain and paddle shaft, and
3. Tadpole Configuration
10.2 Stability
The final design of the recumbent tricycle depicted in Figure 10.2.1 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 10.2.1 NX Design of Recumbent Tricycle

22 | P a g e
Using the analogy of a pendulum shown in Figure10.2.2, 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 10.2.2 Principle of Pendulum
10.3 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 10.3.1
Figure 10.3.1 Tilting and Turning Concept

23 | 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.
10.4 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 10.4.1 demonstrates how the inner wheel is positioned at a higher angle
during turning.
Figure 10.4.1 Ackerman Steering Schematic
The top view of the model in Figure 10.4.2 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 tires.
Figure 10.4.2 Steering Principle

24 | P a g e
10.5 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.
10.6 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.
Figure 10.5.1 Power Train

25 | P a g e
10.7 Housing Bearing
The Housing Bearing in Figure 10.7.1 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.
10.8 Handles
The handles were moved closer to the outside to accommodate a more anatomical position.
A plate was also welded to the handles.
10.9 Power Train Tension Plate
The rear tensioning plate shown in Figure 10.9.1 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 10.7.1 Housing Bearing
Figure 10.9.1 Power Plate Tension Plate

26 | P a g e
10.10 Steering Arm
The steering arm is welded, and it is placed at the exact location parallel to steering bracket.
Figure 10.10.1 Steering Arm
10.11 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 10.11.1 Seat Assembly

27 | P a g e
10.12 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.
10.13 Horizontal Frame
The horizontal frame support was constructed from square pipe MS with rounded edges as
shown in Figure 10.12.1. This allows for the inner steering brackets to seat firmly for
supporting the wheels.
Figure 10.12.1 Main Frame
Figure 10.13.1 Horizontal Frame

28 | P a g e
CHAPTER 11 CALCULATION
11.1 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.
11.1.1 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.
11.1.2 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"
𝐴 =
𝐵
2
𝐴 =
36
2
𝑨 = 𝟏𝟗" Figure 10.1.2.1 Tipping Point Front View
Figure 10.1.1.1 Optimal Centre

29 | P a g e
11.1.3 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 breaking -- more of a problem for
tadpole configurations.
𝐵 = 45"
𝐴 =
𝐵
2
𝐴 =
45
2
𝐴 = 22.5"
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. [3]
Figure 11.1.3.3 Orthogonal View
Figure 10.1.3.1 Tipping Point Side View
Figure 11.1.3.2 Tipping Top View

30 | P a g e
CHAPTER 12 CONCLUSIONS
12.1 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 5 m 9.1 m
Cost 20,000 Rupees 14,000 Rupees
Tilt While Cornering Yes Yes
Carrying Capacity 100 kg >100 kg
Cargo Carrying Capacity Yes Yes
Easy To Operate Yes Yes
Adjustability Yes Yes
High Visible Yes Yes
Life Expectancy 3 Years N/A
Table 12.1.1 Design Requirement Comparison
12.2 Weight
As we have selected the MS material to construct the frame, instead of it any lighter
material like Aluminium or Carbon Fibre were used instead, then there can be notable
difference might be observed. Magnitude of velocity is directly depend upon the weight of
the tricycle.
12.3 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 less.

31 | P a g e
Figure 12.4.2 Possible Modification for Turning
12.4 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 12.4.1 represent current design and proposed design.
STRAIGHT WHEEL CURRENT DESIGN PRAPOSED DESIGN
Calculation of Current Design: tan 𝛩 =
1⋅10
3⋅70
𝜃 = tan−1(0.2972)
𝜃 = 16.56˚
Calculation of Proposed Design: tan 𝛩 =
1⋅10
2
. ˚. 𝜃 = 28.8˚
𝛩
3.75"
1.1"
Figure 12.4.1 Turning Angle Proposed and Actual Design

32 | P a g e
REFERENCE
[1] http://www.jetrike.com/tadpole-or-delta.html
[2] http://www.jetrike.com/fwd-or-rwd.html
[3] http://www.jetrike.com/why-does-tilting-matter.html
[4] http://renekmueller.com/Recumbents
[5] http://www.clarkisit.com/riding-a-tricycle/
[6] http://www.ijfeat.org/papers/march37.pdf
[7] https://www.morpheustrike.4t.com

Appendix A
Technical Drawings
(BMC)

Appendix B
Business Model Canvas
(BMC)
(BMC)

Appendix C
PLAGIARISM

www. plagiarism -detect .com
Date: 24.4.2015
Words: 4693
Plagiarised sources: 40
Plagiarised: 11%
http://www.jetrike.com/fwd-or-rwd.html
plagiarised from source: 5%
you have to find the best solution fit for your specific1.
hilly terrain don't consider FWD traction a significant2.
trail on dynamic stability and pedal induced steering3.
using pedals is not constant, the turning force4.
is by far the oldest and most widely used chainline5.
route the chain over the front wheel and under the6.
distance from the seat the bottom bracket7.
If however you are planning to race in a 24 hour8.
event with a team of riders, quick changeovers are a9.
this regard, the bottom bracket can be10.
for adjustment without any need to modify the11.
The alternative for routed chain lines is to have a longer12.
the path along which it actually moves is called the slip13.
Slip occurs under power when a trike is14.
It also occurs under breaking as the tire approaches its traction15.
Under power the weight distribution usually moves to the rear16.
a vehicle, but human power being as limited as it is17.
The location of the optimal CoG also creates a18.
to the front contact patches, the seat height, the brake19.
The drivetrain pulls the front of the trike around the20.
to improve traction, these forces tend to cancel one another21.
http://www.jetrike.com/tadpole-or-delta.html
From here on the trike configurations will simply be referred1.
cross member getting in the way of the cyclists calves2.
out of, because the riders feet are too far3.
will help move the rider CoG further4.
However having the CoG slightly forward changes the5.
It also means the CoG can be raised slightly, making the6.
The long wheel base of the delta also decreases the twitchiness7.
Still, one must lower the CoG to make the simulation more8.
The rearward weight distribution also favors oversteer, meaning the trike9.
resolves the tadpole brake force issue by having smaller10.
angle it is definitely possible tip the trike and11.
http://www.jetrike.com/why-does-tilting-matter.html
the CoG is above it, the trike will1.
similar triangle on a side view of the2.
the CoG in order to prevent the trike from tipping forward3.
length back from the isosceles triangle's4.

We then use A draw a5.
We then use the point at the top6.
http://renekmueller.com/Recumbents
had to be big and thereby the risk of falling was1.
even ... version - this is how history2.
can't get up and push with your full body weight3.
example Harold Jarvis filed patent in 1901, US Patent4.
The modern type was invented by David Gordon Wilson5.
chain is very close to the front wheel6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricycle
or 1680 by a disabled German man1.
Britain; by 1879, there were “twenty types of tricycles and multi-wheel2.
produced in Coventry, England, and by 1884, there were over3.
models produced by 20 manufacturers." The first front steering tricycle4.
used by riders who did not feel comfortable on5.
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/116511
http://www.clarkisit.com/riding-a-tricycle/
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Tricycles
http://www.slideshare.net/JericaRaymond/raymond-j-museumcatelogue
https://trikeasylum.wordpress.com/more/wikipedia-on-tricycles/
https://triporteurs.wordpress.com/page-3-history-of-tricycles/
plagiarised from source: >1%

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/45194-can-we-pray-the-polygamy-away
alike for their stability versus a1.
http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2006/03/01/hmn_feature22.html
The front wheel drive1.
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/snwvlly/fwd.html
http://thecarguy.com/articles/drivesys.htm
https://www.facebook.com/fwdracing
http://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/what-wheel-drive.html
http://www.kbb.com/car-advice/articles/which-wheel-drive-is-best-for-you/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Front-wheel-drive_vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-wheel_drive
https://oldbike.wordpress.com/page-3-history-of-tricycles/
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur406.htm
The choice is not clear1.
http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/2012/10/the-clear-choice-for-2012/
http://slippedisc.com/2015/02/what-if-berlin-doesnt-get-its-man/

http://pathfinder.utsc.utoronto.ca/pages/projectbio.html
http://www.apsu.edu/sites/apsu.edu/files/academic-support-center/Who_and_Whom_0.pdf
http://www.successfulbusinessnews.com/technology/technology/technology/android-vs-apple-which-is-more-bu
siness-friendly
http://basef.ca/biotechnology
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Tricycle
http://www.jetrike.com/theory.html
you have to find the best solution fit for your specific1.
http://www.southrussell.com/properties.html
around the outside wall of the1.
http://community.cookinglight.com/archive/index.php/t-23129.html
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/4th/papers/Schiffman99.html
https://nagashakti.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-tuning-of-tibetan-singing-bowls/
http://www.ck12.org/physical-science/Screw-in-Physical-Science/lesson/Screw/
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Thalmor_Embassy
https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2maq3k/i_found_a_way_though_the_walls_of_the_vault_o
f/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_cavernosum_penis
http://www.ijfeat.org/papers/march37.pdf
http://crescentok.com/staff/jaskew/isr/botzo/class5.htm

Appendix D
Product Drafting Exercise
PDE
(BMC)

GIC Patent Drafting Exercise Team ID:
FORM 1
THE PATENTS ACT 1970
(39 OF 1970)
&
THE PATENTS RULES, 2003
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PATENT
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Application No:
Filing Date:
Amount of Fee paid:
CBR No:
GTU Innovation Council
Patent Drafting Exercise (PDE)
14934
1. Applicant(s) :
ID Name Nationality Address Mobile No. Email
Sahil Jitesh . GTU 9408086200 sahiljitesh@hotm
ail.com
Indian1
Anand
Maheshbhai
Oza
GTU 8238094145 ozaanand001@g
mail.com
Indian2
Sanjay
Dhirubhai
Malankiya
GTU 7405375853 piyushmalankiya
@gmail.com
Indian3
2. Inventor(s):
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.
Note :
Page 1 of 5

Mobile No. EmailAddressNationalityNameID
Sahil Jitesh . GTU 9408086200 sahiljitesh@hot
mail.com
Indian1
Anand
Maheshbhai Oza
GTU 8238094145 ozaanand001@
gmail.com
Indian2
Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
GTU 7405375853 piyushmalankiy
a@gmail.com
Indian3
3. Title of Invention/Project:
Design And Stability Of Recumbent Tricycle
4. Address for correspondence of applicant/authorized patent agent in india
Name:
Address:
Mobile:
Email ID:
Sahil Jitesh .
Mechanical Engineering , G. K. Bharad Institute Of Engineering, Kasturba Dham, Rajkot ,
Gujarat Technological University.
9408086200
sahiljitesh@hotmail.com
5. Priority particulars of the application(S) field in convention country
Name of the Applicant Title of the InventionFiling DateApplication No.Country
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/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
Note :
Page 2 of 5

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
Signature & DateName
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) hereby declare(s) that:-
(iii) Declaration by the applicant(s)
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)
Note :
Page 3 of 5

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.
(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.
10. Following are the attachments with the application:
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
Note :
Page 4 of 5

Name Signature & Date
1 Sahil Jitesh .
2 Anand Maheshbhai
Oza
3 Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
Note :
Page 5 of 5

FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 OF 1970)
&
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION
14934
1. Title of the project/invention :
Design And Stability Of Recumbent Tricycle
Sahil Jitesh . , ( Indian )
Address :GTU
Anand Maheshbhai Oza , ( Indian )
Address :GTU
Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya , ( Indian )
Address :GTU
2. Applicant(s) :
3. Preamble to the description :
The following specification describes the invention.
Note :
Page 1 of 8

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.
Note :
Page 2 of 8

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
Sahil Jitesh .
Sign and Date
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.
Note :
Page 3 of 8

Drawing Attachments :
Trike View
Note :
Page 4 of 8

Isometric
Note :
Page 5 of 8

Seat
Note :
Page 6 of 8

Top
Note :
Page 7 of 8

side
Note :
Page 8 of 8

FORM 3
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 OF 1970)
&
STATEMENT AND UNDERTAKING UNDER SECTION 8
14934
1. Declaration :
Sahil Jitesh . ,
Anand Maheshbhai Oza ,
Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya ,
I/We,
Sahil Jitesh . ( Indian )
Address : GTU
Anand Maheshbhai Oza ( Indian )
Address : GTU
Sanjay Dhirubhai Malankiya ( Indian )
Address : GTU
2. Name, Address and Nationality of the joint Applicant :
Name of the
Country
Date of
Application
Application
Number
Status of the
Application
Date of
Publication
Date of
Grant
N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A
(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,
Here by declare:
(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 :
Note :
Page 1 of 2

Sign and Date
Sahil Jitesh .
Sign and Date
Anand Maheshbhai Oza
Sign and Date
Sanjay Dhirubhai
Malankiya
To
The Controller of Patent
The Patent Office, at Mumbai.
Note :
Page 2 of 2

Appendix E
Gantt Chart

Report Sahil

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Report Sahil

Similar a Report Sahil (20)

Report Sahil