Pacer Project Candidate name: Alex Cooke

Candidate number:3090

Centre number: 65155

Centre name: Hurstpierpoint College

Introduction

Problem: My cousin is a high performance athlete over long distance running who uses a standard running watch to record his PB times but cant physically see how fast he must run to beat his PBs and target times whilst training. He also finds it difficult to pace himself throughout a race. Solution: I am therefore going to design a device that travels around the track with him at his PBs/target times and will enable him to pace himself effectively over long distance running, to optimise his performance in competitions. The device could also be used to aid short distance runners over 100-400 metres.

Consumer purchases of sporting good in the U.S from 2002 to 2014 (in billion U.S dollars)

Most popular sporting brands 2013/14

Introduction: In this project, I have decided to design and manufacture a ‘runner’s pacer’. On this page I will identify the problem and potential solution to the problem, investigate the expanding running industry and create a moodboard to inspire me with ideas. Throughout the project I will take steps to ensure my product is designed and manufactured to the highest quality. To begin, I will gather research by interviewing and questioning my client and other high performance athletes/coaches, making product comparisons with similar products by visiting shops and speaking to manufacture’s, collecting catalogues and magazines and searching the internet. This research should supply me with data aiding me in deciding which materials I may wish to use. I will also visit a number of running tracks to look at how the device will operate around the track, visit an athletics competition to gain market research and interview a sports psychologist to study the science behind goal setting. Following on from product research, I will produce a specification, form my initial ideas, develop the idea, manufacture the prototype and finally evaluate and test the product.

The running industry:

The sports industry is escalating at an unprecedented rate. According to Sport England, running is the second most popular sport in the England (in 2013 running overtook football) with 2.2 million people participating at least once a week. Whilst the majority run purely for enjoyment and to get fit, a large proportion enter competitive running. There are just under 1,400 running clubs across the UK with 650 tartan tracks. There are also a number of young competitive athletes training within school around the UK, increasing the target market. The potential for the product is further increased with a number of disciplines making up running. On the track there are 16 running disciplines (from the 100m hurdles to the 10,000m) and racewalking also exists as an Olympic sport. On the road typical distances run are the marathon, half marathon, 10km and 5km and cross country is commonly a race over 4km. Although it may be possible to make a device for the road and cross country (such as a drone device for cross country), I have decided to focus on designing my product for all track events because there is a larger market and demand from this field. The pacer could also cater to athletes with disabilities (such as wheel chair races) and may need features added to the device for the visually impaired for example—although unfortunately there is not such a large market for particular disabilities and I will look at whether it is worth adding these features within my product research and development.

Conclusion: With a high quality product and good promotion, I am targeting school athletics depart-ments, running clubs and individuals to purchase my product. However, initially I will design a prototype for my client and with developments to that prototype, I see my product having real potential within the running industry.

Moodboard

Weeks 1-7 Weeks 8-9

(Half term)

Weeks 10-15

Nov 3-Dec 12

Weeks 16-19

(Christmas)

Weeks 20-26

Jan 5-Feb 15

Weeks 28-33

Feb 23– Mat 29

Week 27

(half term)

Research

Specification

Initial ideas

Evaluation of initial ideas

Development

Plan of manufacture

Manufacture

Proof of manufacture

Evaluation and testing

Gantt Chart Action Plan

Research includes: client interview, existing products within and outside of running, track visit, psychology behind a Pacer and competition visit

Development includes: shape, size, product features, product components, final designs, testing and materials and construction methods

Athlete Profile

Competed in the Olympic Games, World Championships, European Championships and the Commonwealth Games.

Runs 800m and 1500m

National 800m champion (2010)

Athlete Profile

Competed in the World Championships, European Championships and the Commonwealth Games.

Most recently came 7th for 10000m at Glasgow 2014.

Runs 3000m, 5000m, 10000m and the marathon.

Analysis of conversation with Sonia Samuels

All the athletes gave positive feedback and ideas. However Sonia Samuels was particularly interested in the idea and suggested that it may be beneficial if the device could adjust in speed if she was running faster than her target times. Similarly to my client, Sonia suggested that it would be best if the device travelled on the rail as ‘there is no risk of it getting in the way’ and also put forward the idea of lap splits showing on the display of the product.

Athlete Profile

Competed in the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games for 1500m.

Analysis of client interview:

The extract above shows just a small section of our conversation. My client has put forward a number of features that he thinks the device should have (such as it being portable and being able to track your times as well as acting as a Pacer) but has also revealed to me that the inside rail on the track does not always extend entirely around the track– therefore if I was to use the rail to guide the device around the track, I may need to supply a few meters of extra rail with the device.

Client Interview Contacting famous athletes:

To gain further understanding and to find out whether the ‘pacer’ really will work and be practical, I tried to contact a section of my target market who would use the product daily. They have more experience than my client and would therefore be able to provide me with more ideas and a better understanding of what they device must be able to do.

I began to contact athletes including Mo Farah and Dame Kelly Holmes through sending letters to them with my proposals for my idea and whether they thought the idea was valid. This method did not prove very effective so I decided to create a twitter account to contact them. However, this process proved more effective and I received messages back from athletes who were intrigued by my idea. Responses came from Jemma Simpson, Sonia Samuels and Lee Emanuel.

Introduction: On this page I will interview and question my client thoroughly. I will also try to contact other high performance athletes to gain more viewpoints and ideas to contribute to the design of the product. My client and other athletes have a greater knowledge than me in the world of athletics, particularly running, and by interviewing them, I should have a greater understanding of the ins and outs associated with running. I will also discuss with them various ways the product could travel around the track and special features that could be integrated into the design. Client profile:

My client is my 14 year old cousin called Ollie Sewell who lives in Cambridgeshire and represents his county and is high on the national rankings for his age group in long distance running. He began competitive running just a few years ago but in this short time he has entered countless competitions and taken part in even more training sessions. He runs in both the cross-country format and on the track over 800-5000 meters and spends the majority of his training time on the track, although he does also train on a treadmill at the gym and in the woods at his local park. He has specifically told me that there is a gap in the market for a physical device that travels around the track at PBs and target times, that can be used to help pace himself when training. Therefore he is an ideal client who has knowledge of current devices on the market and will guide me towards his favourite ideas/concepts.

Jemma Simpson

Lee Emanuel

Sonia Samuels

Conclusion: Expert opinion is invaluable and I will take the ideas from my client and Sonia and embed them into my initial ideas, compare them against other ideas from further product research and decide within the development processes whether to include them in my final design.

GPS watches range from £70 to £235 with the best products including route navigation, GPS based speed, pace and distance, real time, average and max heart rate, a calories burned count, heart rate graphs, manual and autolaps, a countdown timer, an

interval timer, and a GPS track analysis. Some of these features could be included within my design/app for a smartphone, although some will not be necessary, such as route navigation, because my device is designed just for track use. The basic stopwatches have a price tag of £8 to £30 with many having a 60 lap memory and a countdown timer.

Nutritional products for athletes have just recently hit the market and they are becoming increasingly popular to supply that extra burst of energy and to decrease recovery time. Like

having a storage space for running shoes, my device could store these products and could also hold water bottles—although this extra weight may affect the speed of the ’pacer’.

Existing products within running I have decided to make product comparisons so that I can investigate: how my product will function (how it will travel around the track and features that could be included (with features being the main emphasis on this page)) and which materials my device could have. After comparing each product I will take each feature, material type and transport method and decide which will work best with my product and try to mould the best ideas into one to form a unique initial idea. In addition, these comparisons may also inspire me with new and original ideas that could be used for my product. I began my product comparisons by visiting shops and speaking to the owners about the details of products, materials and components and which products sold the most and why. I then took photos of the products to remind myself of thier aesthetic appearance/shape for the analysis process. In addition, I searched the internet, magazines, books and catalogues inspecting sizes, materials and different functions whilst thinking about future possibilities for my product. Further resea rch included going to the Olympic Park in Melbourne and its National Sports Museum to investigate how running and its various equipment has evolved over time.

Introduction: After much research, I have not found a device that has the same concept as mine (a physical Pacer for runners) and it is therefore difficult to make comparisons between products. However, I have decided to look at some products that are used as training aids for runners and therefore have a similar objective to my product. I have also studied products that may work in a similar way to my product, even though they are not sold within the running market (next page). These include radio controlled cars, running accessories such as GPS watches, greyhound lures and moving cameras that follow athletes around the track.

Running shops:

Foot Locker

Rebel

Running Shoes

Treadmill

Accessories

GPS watches and Stopwatches

Nutrition

High quality running shoes/spikes are extremely important for two reasons: to avoid the risk of injury with shoes that have a tailored, snug fit with a cushioned sole and to improve running times with shoes that are lightweight. My device could incorporate a storage space for shoes.

Treadmills can provide a convenient method of training but they also have a number of features that I may look to integrate into my design. For example, target times, distances and calories, along with speed interval training. Some also include heart rate monitoring and MP3 connectivity.

Armbands are regularly used for running so that music from smartphone players can be played. I have thought about using smartphones on my device for the display and possibly to record the athlete as they run so that running techniques can be analysed. The phone could be wirelessly connected over Bluetooth to allow runners to listen to music whilst running.

Running track camera

Camera tracking systems are used and specifically designed for a wide range of sports, including athletics. Designs vary, but the majority of systems work by mounting a camera on a dolly which uses either rack and pinion or belt and pulley systems to drive the dolly around the track. The belt and pulley system could be used, but rack and pinion would be extremely expensive and difficult to make. However, if I were to use a track/rail method to guide my ‘Pacer’ around the track, both of these systems would not be necessary because I could use the inside rail that already exists on the track (with rotating wheels either side of the rail) which would be cheaper, simpler and more convenient for the user as extra track would not have to be layered down before use. I will investigate how the wheel on rail system could work during the development process.

The history of running and its equipment:

Melbourne’s Olympic Park

National Sports Museum

Competitive running begun 2700 years age at the first Olympic games and since then the sport has evolved quickly, with faster, world record breaking times each year.

In the last 20 years the sport has developed at a rapid pace with advancements in technology supporting athletes when training and when competing. For example, the image on the right depicts the evolution of shoes, from Shirley Strickland's (closest) at the 1948 Olympic Games, to Steve Moneghetti at the 2000 Olympics.

The other image also illustrates the use of technology to develop running with Catherine Freeman’s skin tight ‘swift suit’ used when she won an Olympic gold medal in 2000. The suit was designed to reduce the air resistance/drag that could be seen in conventional running apparel.

Rack and pinion

Belt and pulley

Introduction:

Existing products outside of running

Model shops:

The Sussex Model Centre

RC cars

As a form of primary research, I visited and contacted a number of model shops, including the Sussex Model Centre in Worthing, asking experts their thoughts for how my product could function (which will be mentioned in the development process) and also enquiring about RC cars. RC cars are highly relevant for my product because it is likely that in the development, I decide to use a similar system to power the Pacer around the track (such as a motor, esc, battery and wheels). I therefore looked at a number of model cars, comparing the maximum speeds they could travel at and the specific components they used. Some were also designed for off road whilst some were for on road. My design may need to be in-between this bracket if I decide I want the device to travel on the ground with four wheels (rather than on a rail or like a drone in the air, for example) as the track, particularly a grass track, will feature bumps and mud, but will be much smoother than the route an off road RC car will have to cope with. Therefore, during development, I may decide to buy wheels that are designed for both on road and off road purposes.

Because an RC car may be very similar to my Pacer in the way that it works, I began some initial research into the RC cars even further studying exactly how they work, and the image to the right gave me my first initial insight—although these are just the first steps in understanding them and much more research will be carried out within the development process.

Although the above image seems to suggest simplicity in the way it works, from further research I realised that getting my device to work in the exact way my client and I desire would be a much tougher test and I will need to leave a lot of research time for this (such as finding a motor that will be compatible with the battery and getting the pacer to travel at the exact target times). There are also more differences than I initially thought between an RC car and my Pacer with the pacer requiring a huge amount of programming so that It can change speed at a set time without a radio controlled handheld device and the receiver on-board an RC car. Moreover, the RC cars that travel at the speed I would like my pacer to travel at (10m/s) are extremely expensive and the initial idea of dismantling an RC car to find components that all work together for my pacer may no longer be applicable.

Greyhound lures

£99 £199 RC car component parts RC car magazine

Line Tracking Sensor system

Lego Mindstorms Doodle track Cars

The Doodle Track Car is a children's toy that uses ‘optical sensors that read a bold black line drawn on a white background’. Similarly Lego Mindstorms are purposely designed for kids to learn how to programme, and it is possible to build a line sensored device such as the one above that follows a black line. Unfortunately the device will not travel at fast enough speeds for my pacer and it is therefore not possible to use the Mindstorm parts for my pacer. However, sensors can be bought cheaply for around $6-$20 as shown in the image below but the accuracy of the sensors at high speeds is questionable, even with expensive and advanced line tracking devices featured at the ‘Robotic Games’ in Singapore.

Fast Line Following Robot from the ‘Robotic Games’

How my sensors could work

Rail Guiding system

Also used by running track cameras, greyhound lures use a rail to guide the original ‘rabbit’ but now foam bone around the track. The lure is pre-set at a speed (using a rheostat) just faster than the maximum speed of the greyhounds so in contrast to my product, the lure does not determine the pace the dogs run at.

Conclusion: By investigating products within and outside of running, I have been inspired with a number of options for the way the device could travel around the track and this will set a foundation for my initial ideas. Moreover, I have been exposed to many features the pacer could incorporate to provide maximum benefits to the user (such as speed/distance graphs used on GPS watches). Finally, I have begun research into how the pacer will work, depending upon the navigating system which sets me up for the development process.

Further research (secondary)

There are many other products outside of running which are worthwhile studying because of the similarities they may have with my product. The previous RC car research was greatly related to the idea of a pacer that has 4 wheels. However, whilst an RC car uses a handheld control system to navigate it in the desired direction, my device should ideally not use this method as there will be inaccuracies in the line it takes around the track, thus slowing or speeding the pacer, making for unreliable targets. In addition, it would mean that someone else beside the runner would have to control it so that the runner always has to rely upon someone else during their training. These problems could be eradicated by programming the car to travel around the track by itself when switched on. This could either be done setting the car to complete the desired distance and programming it to turn to the correct degree at a set distance autonomously (which would be possible it the car starts in exactly the correct position as all 400m tracks are the same dimensions), by programming it to follow the white lines along the track using sensors (which can be done and is done on products such as Lego Mindstorms and Doodle Track Cars) or by using a rail to guide it around the track (which may prove to be the best option when evaluating my initial ideas) because it eliminates more external problems such as bumps on the track and different track surfaces that may speed or slow the Pacer’s finishing time—greyhound lures and running track cameras (researched on previous page) use this system).

By illuminateing the track with infrared light, the sensor follows the white line because it will reflect more radiation that a red tartan track/green grass. However it does not follow the line directly (shown below) which could further cause inaccurate target times.

Both the sensors detect the line. Hence the robot moves forward.

The right sensor detects the line. Hence the robot moves right.

The left sensor detects the line. Hence the robot moves left

Athletics track visit

Whilst at Tonbridge, I investigated the dimensions and details regarding the inside rail of the track (also known as the kerb) because, after product research and speaking to Sonia Samuels (a 10,000m runner at the 2014 Commonwealth Games), there was good evidence suggesting that using the rail would be an ideal way of guiding the Pacer around the track.

The kerb is used primarily to ensure that runners stay inside the inner lane, although kerbs are also rarely used for the outside lane. During athletics meetings, as pointed

out by my client, small sections of the kerb are removed to allow Javelin throwers to have a run up. Therefore, when using my device, if I were to use the kerb to guide my device around the track, the parts of the kerb removed from the track will need to be replaced—which may add some inconvenience.

Although some kerbs (very few) incorporate a drainage system within them (rather than draining water to the side of the kerb with the kerb slightly lifted off the ground to allow water to pass through, which is done at Tonbridge), this will not affect the device as all kerbs are set at a regulation size of 5cm in width and height (as shown in the above image) and are made from aluminium or PVC.

Introduction: The Tonbridge School athletics track was used by the Australian Athletics team in the run up to the London 2012 Olympics, and was also used by two time Olympic Gold Medallist Dame Kelly Holmes. As shown in the pictures, it is a state of the art tartan track, similar to those used around the country and globe by high performance athletes. It is therefore an ideal site to visit, where I could take measurements and investigate the running track to look at the potential methods of mobility for my device.

I also examined the grass athletics track at Hurstpierpoint College and spoke to the athletics team and staff studying how grass tracks vary to tartan tracks and how my product may need to adapt to a track which is not completely flat, and a track without an inside rail.

Tonbridge Athletics Track

The inside rail

The running lanes

Dimensions and angles of a running track

Hurstpierpoint Grass Track

A running track generally has 8 running lanes although smaller tracks can have 6, whilst larger track have up to 10 lanes. The 400m track comprises two parallel straights at 84.39m long and two semi-circular bends at a length of 114.67m each, with a radius of 36.50m, making the inside line of the track 398.12m in total (36.5m x 2 x π + 84.39m x 2). Therefore, if I were to use the inside edge/kerb of the track, the device would not need to travel the full 400m.This is because the running line of the athlete in the inner lane is considered to be 0.30m from the inner kerb, increasing the length of the track to the full 400m. The outside lanes obviously have a longer distance with, for example, the 2nd lane being 407.04m in length. Consequently, a stagger is required and if the user of my device wanted to practise running on an outside bend (sometimes mandatory for races of up to 400m), the Pacer should begin at the correct staggered starting position and will need to be programmed differently for each lane— this is of course assuming that I will not use the inside kerb method but the line tracking method, or other methods suggested in previous research, to transport the device around the track.

A grass track as opposed to a tartan track may prove to provide difficulties with my device, and the Pacer may just have to be specified to tartan tracks. This is principally because grass tracks do not have a kerb on the inside lane, but just have a 5cm white line, so the method of using the kerb to guide the product around the track would not be possible. On the other hand, a kerb could be bought by the athletics department for the grass track at a price of £1750 (with 170m of straight aluminium kerbing and 230m curved—to a radius of 36.5m) so that the product could be used, but this extra price may not fit within the school’s budget. In addition, if I were to use the line tracking system on the grass track, there would be difficulties with setting the speed of the Pacer as on the track there would be greater friction with the grass than a tartan track and the bumps within the track may slow it down, hence not providing accurate target times. In contrast, the line tracking system would be more convenient for those using grass tracks because they would not need to buy in the rail.

As indicated in the research of existing products, the Pacer may travel around the track through following the white lines on the running lanes. Like the kerb, the lines are 5cm wide and the device could either lock onto the line and travel directly over a line or travel between two lines in a lane (lanes are 1.25m wide so the device should be no wider than this).

Drainage Kerb Removed Kerb

5cm

Conclusion: By visiting athletics tracks and studying various movement methods for the pacer, I have realised a number of limitations it may have depending upon the transport method chosen (such as a grass track not having an inside kerb to guide the pacer around the track). However there are also many benefits associated with each method (such as all kerbs coming in a set size making my Pacer universal to all kerbs) and the advantages and disadvantages must be weighted up when evaluating my initial ideas.

Introduction:

Further athlete interviews

Speaking to the athletes at the Sainsbury’s Games gave me another source of opinion regarding ideas for my Pacer, particularly when I spoke to 800m Wheelchair racer Labrooy Dillon, who was representing England at the games. He suggested that the product would be equally beneficial for

wheelchair racers where it is still vitally important to pace yourself throughout a race. However, he indicated that the device may need to be adapted for those in wheelchairs, so that the display is on his eyelevel and so that it is high enough for him to access whilst he is in his wheelchair.

This was something that I had not thought about in great detail and it has revealed to me that the product may need some adjustments so that those of all disabilities can use it. For example, when setting the time, visually

impaired athletes will need to have a voice calling out the different target times for the athlete to set.

Technology used during competition

Whilst at the games, I also looked at the technology used, including: lap counters; PhotoFinish timers; WindSpeed counters and scoreboards. All

these products were located to the side of the track and my design could include these features, showing exact lap and finish times, windspeed (which can effect the speed and timing of sprint races) and further features mentioned on previous pages, on the display. An electric gun sound, possibly powered by a smartphone, could be added to the device to simulate the start of a race for the athlete.

Integrating all of these features, and others (such a calorie counter) onto a display would be best done by creating an app and using a smartphone for the display. Most smartphones also incorporate a camera which can be used to film the running technique of the athlete as they run behind the Pacer, and could also be used to gain accurate timings using photo finish. A photo finish app already exists (image on right) on the app store called SprintTimer that ‘employs the same

techniques as the timing equipment used at the Olympics’. This app could be used on my device, or a similar concept could be coded into an app specifically designed for my product with the features mentioned above also included. I will investigate the potential for an app and a smartphone in the development stage of my project, studying the tilt and dimensions of the smartphone on the product.

Sainsbury’s Games Athletics The sports psychology behind targets and competition visit

Introduction: When we set goals, we seem to have an extra desire to achieve these goals. To gain knowledge of the scientific reasons behind this theory I interviewed Jack Emmerson (a sports psychologist) to see whether this perceived extra ambition really exists and whether target setting will improve results for my client. In addition, to get an insight into a competitive running environment, I travelled to Manchester to watch the Sainsbury’s 2014 School Games. Elite young athletes competed at the regional athletics centre, representing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I also had the chance to talk to some of the athletes about my idea, inspect the track and study the technology used during the competition.

Sport’s Psychologist Interview

When speaking to Mr Emmerson, he gave me a list of reasons why my product will encourage athletes to run faster over long and short distances. The underlying reason is motivation and other factors listed will supply the athlete with this extra motivation.

Intrinsic motivation: This involves running because of personal satisfaction. It is rewarding and enjoyable in its own right. In this case, the athlete will chase the pacesetter because he/she enjoys the challenge.

Extrinsic motivation: This is slightly different from intrinsic motivation. It is where the runner chases the device in order to earn a reward or avoid punishment. This does not relate so much to my device although, if I were to make an app, I could programme it to encourage extrinsic motivation by telling the runner that if they achieve a certain time, they will reach a new level and avoid press ups as a punishment.

SMART goal setting: My device is in essence a SMART goal setter. SMART stands for Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. Therefore, by setting these ’smart’ goals, my client will be motivated to achieve is target times.

Feedback: Providing relevant feedback (terminal and continuous) will also motivate my client further. My product has the potential to do this. Continuous feedback is when the feedback comes during the race. This could be done through showing the runner the time he has left to complete the race on the display, or maybe by the coach instructing the runner with encouragement (either on the display or through audio output). Terminal feedback could occur at the end of the race where my device shows statistics and graphs that could be analysed by the athlete or coach so that they can find areas to improve on before the next competition.

Mr Emmerson

Conclusion: I will now transfer what I have learnt from sports psychology into my product to ensure the athlete receives maximum motivation. Going to the Sainsbury’s Games has also supplied me with ideas for features that the product could include.

Analysis of interview: This interview has made me confident that if my product is built to a high quality and achieves its function, it will inspire athletes to run faster and achieve their full potential. Moreover, Mr Emmerson was particularly interested in the idea, saying that it had huge potential and he saw it also being used in other forms of racing such as swimming and rowing.

Introduction:

Specification Introduction: On this page I will produce a list of different needs that my product must meet. My client interview; investigation of inspiring, existing products within and out of running; site and competition visit, along with speaking to elite athletes/coaches about product features and the psychology behind the device, will all enable me to produce a set of specific requirements for my design. I will then use my specification throughout the design process making sure that my product meets each requirement.

Despite the focus being on the ease of use and practicality of the device, it is crucial to design a product that will be pleasing to the eye and also to incorporate an aesthetic style that is specific to my client’s taste and that of other high performance athletes. The design will therefore have to be generic in style catering towards a large target market of male and female athletes. However, the design will have a modern style with the majority of athletes being young and appreciating a contemporary, eye-catching appearance (although it must still be modest with a sleek, simple and not too bulky design).

£16.39 £399.50

£350 £41.89

I am designing my product specifically for my Client and my cousin called Ollie Sewell. He is aged 14 and competes in national competitions, training 4 times per week at his local running track. Whilst training on the track he uses a standard running watch to record his lap times as he tries to beat his PBs. However, he feels that there is scope for a new training aid on the market, that pushes him further and, similar to a running partner (who are not always available and does not run at a consistent challenging pace), provides him with a physical motivation to try and beat. Although my device is a prototype targeted specifically at my client, there is also a large target market with 2 million people ‘running at least 30 minutes a day to keep fit’ according to the BBC. A large proportion of this market may not be competitive runners and may not be willing to invest in such a specialised product. However, running as a sport is growing rapidly (increase of 75,000 in last 6 months in UK) and there seems to be great possibilities, as I aim for athletes and running clubs to take an interest in my Pacer.

Taking into consideration similar products that are sold within and outside the running market I must decide a retail price that is competitive but affordable. Whilst standard running watches are sold for under £20, the most advanced GPS watches are sold for over £400. Similar products such as greyhound lures and RC cars vary in price with the majority of lures costing between £300-£400, the most affordable RC cars costing below £30, with expensive cars costing £300 because of the extra speed, control and stability they have. I consider that my device will incorporate all of the features found within the best running watches, and be able to travel at speeds of the fastest RC cars. Therefore, I believe that a competitive and reasonable price will be in the region of £150-200. Meanwhile, it is vital that I meet my budget which will be £50 and consequently a price tag of £150-200 will produce a large product margin.

The product is a device that travels on the inside lane or rail of a running track so my client can physically see how fast he must run to beat his PBs and target times, and can also be used to help my client pace himself so that he can achieve PBs and accomplish his targets in distance running.

Depending on the choice of product, I will really aim for the effect on the environment to be minimal. The main energy consumption will be through manufacture and I will try to source my materials from local sources to reduce Co2 emissions through transport. I will try to use materials that can be recycled and integrate maintenance possibilities within the design to increase the life span of the product. In addition, I will try to reduce the amount of material lost through wastage, through methods such as tessellation.

The Pacer will function in an outdoor environment, either on a grass or tartan track so must be able to cope with the elements. It will also be stored in my client’s garage which has a lot of space to hold the device – although it must not be impractical in size or shape for storage and take up too much room. In addition, many athletics clubs and athletes looking to buy my product may not have much storage space for the product, so the smaller the design, the more practical the device is for the buyer. The product must be able to fit into the minimum size of car boots so that it can be transported to and from the track. It must also be portable and possible to carry so that my client can walk from his house to the running track. It will incorporate either a handle, a strap or a bag will be used to allow the device to be carried comfortably. The average boot dimensions of a car are 94x86x76cm, so I will make sure that my design is smaller than these dimensions or, I could design it so that it can fold up/be compactible, making it easier to store and possible to transport in the car or by carrying it.

Safety is fundamentally important and to avoid injuries the product must not have any sharp edges that could be of danger to the user, particularly younger children using the device. It is also very important that the product is structurally safe and has a strong, secure frame so that heavy parts do not fall off the product and endanger the user and those around the device. I have also considered providing storage within the device for accessories such as watches and running shoes. Therefore, parts being stored must be safely secured so that they do not fall out when the Pacer is being used or is being carried. Equally, It must be easy to handle and not be too heavy so that it could cause back injuries to those carrying it. Moreover, when the product is travelling around the track, it must not be a tripping hazard and should either travel well ahead of the athlete so that it does not get in the way, or travel at a safe distance (1.5-2m—the average running stride for males) from the user on the inside rail or the lane outside of which the user is running.

A sustainable design

Aesthetics

Environment (location) and Size

Target Market

Cost

Safety

Function

Materials My design will incorporate a variety of materials, particularly polymers such as Acrylic and HIPS. I may also go on to research materials such as carbon fibre and textiles as another option. The advantage of carbon fibre is that it is very light, it is durable and it is strong. Materials and construction methods must take into consideration future methods of batch production. For example, jigs could be used to ensure the frame parts are all cut to the correct length and a further jig could be used to hold materials together for when they are joined—saving time and money.

The deadline for completion of the project is Easter 2015 but I will aim to complete it earlier than that so that I can have time to make slight changes to the project before it is submitted.

Time

Conclusion: Now that I have a list of the specific requirements for my design, I will begin to create some initial ideas for my Pacer, evaluating them against my specification points.

Introduction:

Line Tracking Pacer

Pulley Pacer

Kerb/Rail Pacer

Flag Pacer

Initial Ideas Introduction: Now that I have completed my product research, I have a

greater understanding of features that the device must have and the

methods by which the device could travel around the track (such as on

the inside rail). I have taken these suggestions and applied them to my

initial ideas. Moreover, by looking at similar products to mine, but

outside the running market, I was inspired to take some of the ideas and

transfer them to running Pacer ideas (such as the Doodle Tracking toy

car to the Line Tracking Pacer).

Line Tracking Pacer

Conclusion: Despite all of my initial ideas varying dramatically in design, they all seem to

meet the main function of the required product. Therefore, to come to a conclusion of which

design to develop, I will evaluate my initial ideas against my specification to see which idea best

meets the requests of my client, but is also most profitable and environmentally friendly. I will

most likely pick just one idea to develop, but I may look to combine ideas to build the best

possible product.

Air Pushing Pacer

Drone/Hovercraft Pacer

Lighting/Sound Pacer

Initial Ideas

Air Pushing Pacer

Line Tracking Pacer Flag Pacer Lighting/Sound Pacer Drone/Hovercraft Pacer Pulley Pacer Air Pushing Pacer Kerb/Rail Pacer

A modern eye-catching appearance but also simple (practical), sleek and not too bulky.

Though technical in operation, the design is simple and contemporary. However, developments can certain-ly be made in terms of shape and colour (purple is not a generic colour catering to all).

The flag idea is certainly a unique idea that would be eye-catching. The flag stands must remain small to ensure they are not too ‘bulky’.

The lights/speakers could be devel-oped further for a more interesting, aesthetically appealing design—although whether this is necessary is questionable.

Drones come in a wide variety of shapes and aesthetics vary widely. My drone therefore has many possi-bilities for development and the use of a drone, independent of its style, will surely attract attention.

As with all designs, the device acting as the Pacer and also holding im-portant features (such as an iPad display) has wide scope for changes to its shape to make it visually im-pressive. I have also looked at upcy-cling a watering hose and reel so paint may have to be applied to the pulley.

The circular design is interesting and stands out more compared to rec-tangular design in other pacemakers. A floating design is also very different and eye-catching.

A simple generic design that caters towards a wide market of runners around the world. Developments to the aesthetics could be made but this may not be necessary for this prod-uct.

A device that is a physical target and provides motivation to athlete to run faster, but can also be used to help the athlete pace him/herself over long distances.

The product achieves both of the necessary functions, acting as a both a physical motivation (an imperative function according to a sports psy-chologist I spoke to) and a long dis-tance pacemaker. In contrast, the accuracy of even the best sensors, when the device is travelling at high speeds, is the greatest issue as it may not act as a reliable pacer.

Satisfies both objectives but not as well as the previous one because the flags are based on an interval sys-tem, rather a continuous Pacer that is easier to track/chase. It would also be very difficult and time consuming to accurately set up the flags at the same interval even if spacers are provided or the flags are connected by wires.

Again, this is based on an interval system so is not as useful as other Pacer designs. It would also be very difficult and time consuming to accu-rately set up the lights/speakers at the same interval even if spacers are provided or the flags are connected by wires.

Using GPS navigation, or by setting a route for the drone to follow at different speeds during a race, it will achieve the target of acting as a pace setter for the athlete. On the other hand, it would be very complex to make in the time given and may be an overly extravagant form of pacing an athlete when simpler sys-tems could carry out the same func-tion

The design does act as a physical target but its biggest fault is that the maximum distance it will work is over 400m so it is not applicable to 800m runners for example. A limita-tion with this and the line tracking Pacer is that the speed the devices travel at may vary from grass to tartan track because of the extra friction/mud on grass tracks.

Like all continuous devices that are easier to track and chase in a race, this Pacer accomplishes its purpose. However, an air system may not be very accurate in setting target times and extensive tests would have to be carried out in development to ensure the system works.

The design certainly fits my clients and other athletes requests and it achieves the purpose/function it must carry out. However, a problem is that on most tracks the kerb does not go all the way around the track (for javelin) so small sections of kerb-ing may need to be provided if the club no longer has the detached kerb. Grass tacks also have no kerbing.

To aim for a sustainable device, with minimal negative impacts on the environment.

It will be powered using an electrical battery and motor so electrical ener-gy will be consumed. Measures will be taken to ensure minimal waste in production.

It will be powered using an electrical energy so electricity will be con-sumed. Measures will be taken to ensure minimal waste in production.

It will be powered using an electrical energy so electricity will be con-sumed. Measures will be taken to ensure minimal waste in production.

It will be powered using an electrical battery and motor so electrical ener-gy will be consumed. Measures will be taken to ensure minimal waste in production.

It will be powered using an electrical battery and motor so electrical ener-gy will be consumed. Measures will be taken to ensure minimal waste in production.

It will be powered using an electrical energy for high air pressure levels. Therefore, huge amounts of electri-cal energy will be consumed.

It will be powered using an electrical battery and motor so electrical ener-gy will be consumed. Measures will be taken to ensure minimal waste in production.

A portable design that can fit into the boot of a car (average dimen-sions are 94x86x76 cm) but can be carried to and from the track—s specific request from my client who cycles to his running club.

Although exact dimensions for the device have not been decided, the design is small in size so that it can fit into a car. To make it easy to carry, a bag or handle may be a necessary feature.

Taking an interval between the flags of 5m, there will need to be 80 flags around the whole track. A complex carrying device will have to be made and it is further impractical because the flags will have to be accurately laid out before each use.

Again, like the flags, the interval sys-tem is flawed in that it is not as port-able and it takes time to set up the system for use.

During development, I intend for the device to be more compact in design than the above image portrays so that it is transportable and portable. I may also need to make it collapsible if the drone is too large to be effi-ciently stored.

Both the reel and the device holding the iPad will be made small and port-able. The reel and device being pulled could have a separation sys-tem to make the product easier to store.

The pacesetting device itself is cer-tainly small enough to be carried and to fit in a car. I would try to use the current kerb on the track, instead of making a long kerb that would be difficult to transport. Although, drill-ing holes into current kerbs may not be accepted by athletics clubs.

The design is very small, just larger than an iPad, and can easily be car-ried. Also it does not require other features such as a reel for the ‘Pulley Pacer’ which maximises the ease of use for the product.

To avoid injuries the product must not have any sharp edges, be struc-turally safe, not be a tripping haz-ard and have good electrical insula-tion.

The Ipad, sensors and torches will need to be well protected and insu-lated to prevent the chance of elec-tric shock in wet weather. However, the torch does mitigate the likeli-hood of a tripping hazard in dark conditions

The design has the potential to have sharp edges and the flag base could be developed to be circular to pre-vent any risks. The base must also be small enough to not get in the way of runners passing the flags.

The key health and safety issue here it whether the equipment is well insulated and can cope in the out-door elements.

The greatest danger to the user is that the device loses control in strong weather conditions and falls on the athlete or those surrounding the device. In development, measures must be taken to ensure this can’t happen.

The system would be fairly heavy so a wheelie device may have to be made to prevent back injuries when it is carried. The rope connecting the real and pulley will have to be care-fully positioned to prevent tripping hazards.

The greatest danger may arise if the kerb breaks under pressure from the fluid and parts fly into the user. If I were to develop this idea, extensive tests will have to be made to prevent the likelihood of this happening.

Guided around the track by the kerb, the product could cause some danger as a tripping hazard as it does, like most designs, extend into the 1st lane slightly. The product must therefore not be made too wide to get in the way of the runner.

Evaluation of initial ideas Introduction: Comparing my initial ideas against my specification, I will investigate which ideas meet the specific requirement for the pacemaker and therefore which idea best fulfils my clients needs. It is difficult to estimate manufacturing costs because I have not yet decided the ideal product components (such as motor type). But, basic (online) estimates indicate that all products will cost below my budget of £50, even with the most expensive components.

Conclusion: The main emphasis on the evaluation section was to decide which system would best motivate runners and be most appropriate i n the circumstances—my specification points. Research (such as speaking to sports psychologists) has suggested that that continuous systems would be the best motivators so this immediately excludes the flag and lighting pacers. All of the continuous devices could be legitimately manufactured, but I have decided that the kerb system would be the most appropriate, practical and realistic.

Introduction: By comparing all of my initial ideas to the revised specification, I decided that the Pacer should be fixed to the inside kerb as this would be the most practical and accurate design but also be the most suitable design for manufacture in the given timescale and budget of the task. I will now begin the development processes exploring and selecting features the product will incorporate, the shape of the device, how the Pacer will work, the size and the most appropriate materials and the construction methods.

The relationship between the athlete and the Pacer is vitally important because the ease of use but also aspects such as safety will be down to the ergonomics of the design (size is also important when providing a well ergonomically designed product but this will be investigated on the next page). Moreover, whilst taking into consideration the ergonomics of the Pacer, designing a Pacer that is original and eye-catching in its shape is equally important to attract the attention of the target market.

I began to sketch out possible shapes for my design and I realised that the simplicity of my original initial idea was what made the product so attractive. I have therefore built a ‘simple’, but ‘eye-catching’ design in CAD, with few changes made to my initial idea, to show the shape the chassis will take. Changes are that instead of having 4 wheels, I have decided to use 2 horizontal rotating wheels, with 2 small vertical wheels holding the Pacer up and above the rail, as this will allow the device to turn corners without it knocking into the rail and slowing it down. I have also decided that the shape will be curved at the front to make it more streamlined and more aesthetically interesting (rather than a square shape used in the initial idea). The CAD model also includes the features that I have decided to include. The reasoning for the inclusion of these features is shown in the table opposite.

Shapes (ergonomics)

Product Features Development: Shape (ergonomics) and Product Features

When examining the existing products within and outside of running I came across a number of possible features my design could include. Other product research has also inspired me with new ideas and I will now decide which features will be most appropriate for my design.

Product Feature Yes/No Why?

Increase in speed of Pacer if ahead of your target.

Although suggested by Samuels, this feature would defeat the purpose of the Pacer to finish at a set target time. Running faster than the Pacer will boost confi-dence and the athlete will take pride in beating their target

Shoe, nutrition, and water bottle storage.

Storage/extra weight will slow down my pacer making set tim-ings inaccurate. Around a 400m track storage would serve no purpose as products can just be left at the side of the track

Wind speed counter Although wind speed does effect a race slightly, athlete interviews have not listed this as a necessary feature

Compatible with disabled athletes

Disabled athletes make up a large proportion of my target market and it must therefore be possible for those in wheel-chairs to mount the pacer to the rail for example. The app must also have speech recognition and audio response for the visu-ally impaired.

Iphone display

Iphone front camera video recorder

Product features

Initial thoughts for the shape of the chassis

Product Feature (included if I were to make an app)

Yes/No Why?

Display showing times, speed and calories burnt during race

Informative data providing moti-vation during a race. Lap splits could be shown so runner can study at which point they slow down during the race.

Display showing times, speed and calorie compari-son graphs after race

To track and analyse data after a race to see where improvements can be made. For example, a lap split graph would show the run-ner where they tend to slow down in a race.

Average speed calculated before race

Gives indication of how fast ath-lete must run to beat their target

Calorie counter wristband connected to app

Calories burnt is often an im-portant measure for athletes

Heart rate monitor wrist-band connected to app

Allows you or coach to deter-mine the appropriate exercise intensities and durations

Wireless (Bluetooth) MP3 connectivity

So the athlete can listen to mu-sic/get continuous feedback (for motivation) from the coach via the smartphone on the pacer

Levels and challenges To provide extrinsic motivation

Electric gun starter To simulate the start of a race

Photofinish Timer An accurate means of detecting the finishing time and lap time.

Smartphone video recorder Allows coach and athlete to ass-es running technique

The Initial Idea

Shape of the design

The design is shaped in its curved streamlined form for both aerodynamics and for an interesting aesthetic purpose. Moreover, the chassis extends just over the wheels, and no further so that it is not too wide and does not get in the way of the runner. The wheels will be ergonomically designed using a clipping system so the user knows when the pacer is securely attached to the rail and the curved chassis allows the user to carry the device with comfort in the palm of the hand.

Conclusion: I am confident that the shape is ideal for the Pacers function and aesthetic appearance and I am now clear on which product features will be used (for this prototype and if I were to develop the product further) and which will be discarded. I am now in a position to decide

product components, sizes, materials and finally manufacturing techniques

Display Front screen video camera Photofinish Timer

Development: Product components Introduction: Although extra features and an eye-catching shape/design will improve my product and attract more customers, the primary function is for it to act as an accurate and consistent Pacer. The device must be intuitive and simple to enter the desired times for the Pacer to travel around a track. I will now study the components I will need to purchase to allow the product to travel at the desired speed and how the components will be connected/where they will be located on the chassis.

Initial thoughts

With so many options available for powering the Pacer around the track, I have spent a lot of time researching for the best option for my project. Having very little experience in electronics, I found it difficult to know where to start. Should I begin by working out the weight of the pacer so that I know how powerful my motor must be (but then the motor I chose dictates the other components needed and the overall weight) or should I begin by deciding which motor to buy and hope it will be powerful enough? With little knowledge in this field I decided to enlist ‘expert’ opinions from Douglas Brion and Andrew Lea. Douglas being a friend and enthusiast of electronics and robots and Mr Lea being a computer/electronic engineer. Both suggested very similar ideas in terms of programming the device to travel at set speeds and both made it clear that the manufacturing pro-cess would require a lot of prototyping and iteration. I have also received a number of thoughts for how the product could ‘work’ throughout the project, particularly within my product research of RC cars where I visited and contacted shop owners (such as from the Sussex Model Centre) and posted questions on ‘Instructables’, where I received some in-depth and helpful responses.

What motor?

To work out the specific components required for my Pacer, Douglas suggested that I begin by roughly working out the amount of RPM my motor would need. The steps taken to do this are listed below:

1. To decide the size of the wheels as they will dictate the amount of revolutions required for the device to travel all the way around the track. Based upon my research on the sizes page, I have decided to use wheels that are 66mm in diameter (1:10 of full size car) as they are not too large to get in the way of a passing runner but they are large enough to provide a satisfactory distance per revolution. In step 2 I have shown how I have found out the distance the device will travel per revolution.

2. Circumference = 2πr

Circumference = 2xπx0.033m = 0.207m per revolution

3. To work out the number of revolutions the 66mm wheels need to make to go all the way around the 400m so that I can later work out how many revolutions per second the wheels need to make.

Kerb length ÷ Distance of 1 revolution = Number of revolutions around whole track

398.12m ÷ 0.207= 1920

4. To work out the maximum speed the device must be able to travel. The world record for the mens 400m is 43.18 seconds so I will aim for the device to be able to travel around 400m in 40 seconds so that the pacer can be used by the fastest athletes as times begin to get quicker. This means that the device will need to travel at 10m/s .

Douglas Brion

5. To work out how many revolutions per second the the wheels will need to make.

No. of revolutions for whole track ÷ Fastest time = No. of revolutions per second

1920 ÷ 40 secs = 48

6. To work out the required number of revolutions from seconds to minutes, and hence which motor should be bought.

No. of revolutions per second x No. of seconds in a minute = No. of RPM

48 x 60 secs = 2880 RPM

Analysis

I now know that my motor must be able to achieve around 3000RPM (possibly lower if I am to using gearing) and this is a good start in deciding which motor I should buy. However, there are still many different motors that supply 3000RPM and I will now compare the different types of motors looking at their pros and cons and more importantly, their ratings.

Motor Type Advantages Disadvantages

DC Brush Motors Simple to control

Excellent torque at low RPM

Inexpensive and mass produced

Brushes can wear out over time

Brush arcing can generate electromagnetic noise

Usually limited in speed due to brush heating

Brushless Motors Reliable

High speed

Efficient

Mass produced and easy to find

Difficult to control without specialized control-ler

Requires low starting loads

Typically require specialized gearboxes in drive

Stepper Motors Excellent position accuracy

High holding torque

High reliability

Most steppers come in standard sizes

Small step distance limits top speed

It’s possible to “skip” steps with high loads

Draws maximum current constantly

Ratings: All motors will have values for input and output power and depending upon the brand and type of motor chosen, these rating will differ. Unfortunately, more powerful motors are more expensive, will take up more battery power and are usually heavy so will increase the pacers load.

So how do I know which motor to buy?

Going back to my initial thoughts, I asked the question of whether to calculate the load requirements to decide the exact power I need the motor to require or to just buy a motor and ‘hope it will be powerful enough’. I have come to the conclusion that, with the advice of Douglas and Mr Lea, I should buy a brushless motor (achieves highest speeds) that has an RPM of around 3000 and begin by buying a motor that is not particularly powerful/fairly cheap and test it to see

whether it can cope with the load. If it can’t, I will sell the motor and buy a more expensive/powerful motor. This is the process of trial and error that was advised by both ‘expert’ opinions. In addition, I will buy a motor that comes with gearing/cogs to increase or decrease the RPM if necessary.

Development: Product components

Other components

Now that I have decided the size of the wheels and know the minimum RPM/type of motor I need to work the Pacer, I will investigate other components that will be required. There are a few options for buying the other parts, which include:

Getting hold of an old RC car/similar product that has the required motor ratings and upcycling it so that I can be sure that all the parts work together. The problem is in trying to find a second hand RC car that fits my requirements and even if I were to buy a new RC car, this would be very expensive and only a few of the parts within the car would be needed making this concept extremely unsustainable and therefore not complying with my specification. It would also mean that if I were to develop the product/mass produce on a commercial scale, there would not be enough second hand RC cars to supply me with all the components.

Buying a combo set with the suggested motor ratings, such as the one below which has a number of advantages including the certainty that all the parts will work with each other and the possibility of connecting the ESC (electronic speed controller) to the Smart Phone that is on the pacer so the user can enter the time they want the pacer to finish using the app rather than using a dial or programme box.

Individually buying each part so that I can be sure that each component does exactly what it needs to do.

The ideal solution seems to be to buy the combo set. However, it is fairly expensive compared to the final option and the phone programming method does not allow me to do as much as an Arduino would. For example, speeding the pacer up in the last 100m of a race. Therefore, I have decided to go with the last option which may be more time-consuming but will produce a higher quality and more affordable Pacer. I may have to employ some trial and error methods, as suggested by the ’experts’ if parts do not correspond with each other and I may even decide to trial out the combo set, but I will begin, as with the motor, by buying the cheapest components (but also components that are easiest to ’work’ and which are recommended by both Douglas and Mr Lea) to begin with.

Recommended components

Mr Lea recommended that programming an Arduino and attaching it to a motor shield would be the best way to control the speed of the device. To power all component parts, I will use a standard 9 volt battery which is widely accessible and easy to replace when the battery runs out. Because I am only using 1 motor to turn both wheels, a band may be needed to connect the spinning wheel to the wheel that is not attached to the motor. Alternatively, the outside wheel could just be powered, and a band would not have to be used. This will mean that a differential will not be required to ensure the inside wheel slows down when it travels around the curve. In addition, I will buy a servo to allow the smartphone on the device to turn for photofinish, an LCD display for the runner to know which target time they have selected (a smartphone display would be used if I were to develop the prototype and make an app instead) and wiring to connect the electronics together (although components should come with wiring) . Most components also come with fittings such as screws to attach the components to the chassis and other fittings that are not supplied will be available for use in the workshop, such as the necessary equipment needed to construct the phone holder.

Component layout

Now that I have decided which components I will use, I can work out the size my Pacer can be and where the components will be laid out on the device. Ideally, the Pacer must be as small as possible so that it is more portable and does not weigh too much so that an overly powerful motor needs to be bought. Therefore, I will try and cluster the components close together to reduce the size of the device. The model below illustrates the component layout and I will decide the final size dimensions in the Sizes page (next page).

I have also made a CAD model of it to show the layout more clearly, in a 3D perspective. All the components will be connected with wires that are not shown in the model and the chassis will not be translucent but is only shown in the model like this so that the parts can be seen.

CAD Model

Arduino and Motor Shield

Battery

Servo

Front/Back Wheel

Potentiometer

Motor and Gearing

Conclusion: Both product component pages have provided me with a way to express my reasoning, in a logical order, behind choosing specific components. I now have a clear understanding of components I need and I will buy them online looking for a combination of the best and cheapest products that meet my component specifications.

Introduction: A well ergonomically designed product is not only down to the shape, but also to the size. The size of the device will be based upon anthropometric measurements to ensure the device is ergonomically designed, but also based upon measurements from component parts and track sizes to allow all components to fit on the device and to make sure the device functions within its environment. Size of the kerb

Size of smartphones

Maximum distance the Pacer can extend into the 1st lane Development: Sizes (ergonomics and anthropometrics)

As discussed when deciding which components I will need to buy, the size of the wheel will dictate the speed of the device. With a motor of 3000rpm 66mm diameter wheels, the device will be able to travel at the maximum speed required of 10m/s. The thickness of the

wheel is also crucial as a thicker wheel will produce more friction, but also make the device more stable. The maximum height can be no larger than 5cm because the height of the kerb is 5cm and I have therefore decided that the wheels will be 3cm with a 1cm gap between the top and bottom of the rail so that the wheels are central to the rail.

Size of the wheels

Distance between the Pacer and runner

5cm

Attaching the wheels to the kerb

As investigated in the track visit research page, all kerbs are 5 cm wide so the wheels must be able to securely lock to the kerb at this distance. However, to ensure that they lock tightly a mechanism must be used to allow the user to put the device on and take it off the rail with ease (an important ergonomic feature). I could use a clamp system, but I have decided that springs will be the best option because they also provide suspension for the device when it turns corners and travels at high speeds along the rail. The spring will only be attached to one wheel, the outside/non powered wheel, as the inside wheel will already be fastened tight to the rail because of the forces applied and the outside wheel will require extra suspension when travelling further distances around the track.

Loose spring

Tight spring

3cm

10cm

The chassis of the pacer must be able to fit all of the components but it must also not be too wide so that it gets in the way of the runner if they surpass their target time. The runner will naturally try and take the tightest line possible in the lane to reduce the distance they have to run. The shape of my design is widest at the rear as I have tried to adopt a streamlined shape as specified in the Shape page. This also means that when the runner is approaching the Pacer, they will clearly be able to see the widest part of the Pacer and be able to negotiate themselves around it. I may use black and yellow danger colours on the back edge of the pacer to make the device clearly visible to warn the runners not to get too close to the Pacer as they overtake it. Based upon measurements of components and wheels, the minimum width of the Pacer can be 188mm, so it will therefore be this size.

However fast or slow the runner is going will determine the distance between the runner and the Pacer. Ideally, if they are running to the correct speed,

they will not be too far away from the Pacer so the display (with their timings) will be clearly visible. The larger the screen on the phone, the easier it will be to see the timings on the screen. I wanted to give the potential buyer an idea of how far away they will be able to see the display so I therefore conducted a test as shown in the 2 images above on the right, to see the maximum and minimum distances the display could be seen by my class. The greatest distance was 13m and the smallest was 8m (using an iPhone 4s display). This gives me a good idea of eyesight differences among my users and I will be able to advise the buyer of the average distance away from the screen from which they can see the display. However, the test could have been improved if I had taken results from a greater number of people (rather than just 8 people in my class) from different age ranges so the eyesight distances gave a more representative result. Size of the components

Component sizes will be the main dictator for the dimensions of the bodywork. The component layout has been shown on the previous page and by measuring each component I can work out the minimum width and height of the final design. The final size may be slightly larger than the minimum for other reasons listed on this page.

As I plan to have a smartphone mounted to the chassis, I will need to decide how the phone will sit on the Pacer. The phone will be used for the display, an app showing results, to video the athlete’s running technique and find the accurate lap times using photofinish (a servo will be used to spin the phone at the finish line). Smartphones come in a range of sizes as shown on the image to the left. I will therefore have to use a clamp mechanism to accommodate the smallest and largest phones.

Ideal size for carrying the device The curvature in the Pacer is ideal for carrying the Pacer in the palm of the hand. The 5th percentile hand length for women is 159mm whilst the 95th percentile for men is 209mm. Therefore the smallest width of the Pacer must be no greater than 159mm and should ideally be smaller to make carrying the Pacer easier. This means that the design will accommodate the smallest hand sizes within the target

market (but not outside the 5th-95th percentile as the extremities are not possible to design for).

Anthropometrics of the hand

Conclusion: The sizes for my final design have been calculated based upon the findings above, with the size of the components making the main difference. The size of the final design, however, is slightly larger than the minimum size when components are tightly packed together because of other factors listed on this page (such as to fit the wheels onto the design, increasing the width at the back of the chassis). I will now present a representation of the dimensions on the Final Design page (next page) in the form of a 3rd angle orthographic projection.

Scale drawing

Arduino and motor shield

9V Battery

Servo

Side wheels Front and back wheels Motor attached to gearing

The motor is the highest component so this dictates the height of the Pacer’s ’bodywork’ (left).

Development: Final Design Introduction: On this page I will present my final design, which has been produced based upon a number of earlier decisions made within the development section. I have included Isometric, 3rd angle orthographic and CAD designs for a number of different purposes which will be highlighted below.

Conclusion: Presenting my final designs using these techniques has allowed me to gain a clear representation of the design and measurements for the manufacturing process.

This technique has allowed me to get an understanding of the measurements for the Pacer from different angles. Measurements were decided on the Sizes page and making the CAD to scale greatly benefited me when drawing the projection. I will now be able to order my materials based upon these measurements. In addition, whilst making the product, the various angles (plan, side and front view) will benefit me greatly because I will constantly be manufacturing from these main angles.

I produced this working drawing using grid squares that helped me to get measurements and angles correct and, after that, I traced over my construction in black fine liner to produce this drawing In a neater fashion. Construction lines were made to help me draw the next view and so that each view would have the same dimensions.

3rd angle orthographic projection

For my CAD design, I used ‘Google SketchUp’ to produce a virtual 3-D image of the Pacer. The great benefit was that I could make changes as my design progressed to resolve problems (such as changes in dimensions). I was also able to see how it would look on a track/its environment before manufacture by importing a track and I could further import components such as the Arduino to get a visual idea of the component layout/how components would connect together. Moreover, it allowed me to rotate the design to view it at various angles so that I could get a clear understanding of its 3-D representation, whilst I was also able to apply different finishes and ask my client his preferred colours and textures. For these reasons, I included various CAD models throughout the development process, although the finished product is shown here.

Plan View

I decided to present my final design as an isometric projection because it gives a 3D representation of the product. The advantages are that it has aided me to draw the product to scale showing three faces at once. Therefore, I can get a good perspective of how I would like the Pacer to be built.

Scale1:4

Isometric drawing

Scale1:4

CAD Models

188mm Front View

50mm 50mm

0mm 78mm

280mm Side View

90mm

78mm 6mm 6mm

3mm

0m

m 0

mm

0mm

54mm

82mm

88mm

Development: Testing and Materials Materials testing and comparisons

Listed in the table below are a number of possible materials that could be used for the chassis of my product. Materials vary greatly in their properties and I will make a decisions on the appropriate material from this table. All will have disadvantages but I will have to compromise, looking for the material with the most advantages and least disadvantages for my product.

Material Disadvantages Advantages

HIPS

Scratches easily

Can crack/fracture under high stress levels

Often weaker joint (using adhesive) than the welding of metals

Can be laser cut and vacuum formed

Comes in range of colours/self finished

Resistant to most acids/weather conditions

Tough and durable

Lightweight

Electrical insulator making for ideal protection from the components

Aluminium Difficult to join (must have TIG welder to weld)

Can be water stained easily and oxidise

High strength (483MPa)

Lightweight (1/3rd weight of steel)

Resistant to corrosion/durable/polishes well

Cheaper than steel

Mild Steel

Tough and high tensile strength (410MPa)

Easily joined– welded and brazed

General purpose material that has many uses

Poor resistance to corrosion (important for de-vice that functions outdoors)

Much heavier than carbon fibre and aluminium

Quite expensive

Wood (will analyse spe-

cific timbers if I find good general properties)

Dimensions unstable as water can cause it to shrink, warp, decay and rot

Strength also decreases in wet conditions

Splits can occur when material dries

Can contain defects such as knots

Can be laser cut

Environmentally friendly when grown from sus-tainable forests because it is renewable

Electrical insulator

Generally high strength due to low density

Carbon Fibre

High tensile strength (3600MPa)

Corrosion resistant

Fatigue resistant

High strength to weight ratio

Brittle

Difficult to join and mould (image below). Alt-hough you can buy carbon fibre tubes and use an adhesive to join tubes together.

Very expensive in large quantities

Analysis of materials: Carbon fibre, Aluminium and HIPS stand out the most for me because of the vital property of them all having a high strength to weight ratio, whilst Steel and Wood are too heavy and susceptible to wet weather. However, I have decided to go with HIPS because it has an attractive finish and can be vacuum formed and laser cut— a manufacturing techniques that will prove to be useful when shaping the chassis casing. It also has disadvantages that can be managed (such as not putting the plastic under stress by having a design that fits well and allows for flexibility). Furthermore, I may use acrylic

for the base (doesn't need to be vacuum formed) which is a similar polymer that is hardwearing, shatter resistant and will provide the extra strength compared to HIPS.

Front wheel Side wheel

Lego Mindstorm motor, connected to the programming box spins inside wheel Side wheel

Back wheel

Results were encouraging although there were some specific problems that I must focus on during manufacture. These include: 1. Distributing the weight evenly to ensure a stable design. 2. Fastening both side wheels tightly to the rail to ensure the wheels make contact with the rail when spinning throughout the race and do not ‘bounce off’, reducing the distance the pacer travels. 3. To have a wheel that is wide and also is not rounded to ensure a greater surface area makes contact with the rail. The importance of the wide wheel was evident in testing when the 2.5cm wheels meant the Pacer travelled more quickly, with more grip than the 1.5cm wheels (images on right/below)

Distance between wheels is just below 5cm so that Pacer attaches tightly to the 5cm rail

Above, I tested the motor and gearing to gain an understanding of how fast the wheels will spin with the gears and motor I have.

Conclusion: To fix these problems found within testing and to show how I will ensure

the wheels are tightly fixed to the rail, for example, I have set out diagrams and descriptions of the manufacturing techniques on the next page. The page will also show, how my materials will be formed, cut to size and my Plan of Production.

To ensure the Pacer has an even weight distribution a corner weight system used on SKYRC products could be bought.

Introduction: On this page I have presented my findings when carrying out tests on a basic prototype of my product and my reasoning for which material I will use for the main body of the chassis and for component ‘holders’ (their design and how they will be made are shown on the next page).

Testing

As one of the final stages before manufacture, I decided to make a prototype of my Pacer using Lego Mindstorm (a product analysed within my Existing Products research). The purpose of the Mindstorm tests was not to see how the electrical components would work (although basic programming did give me an insight into programming the Pacer) but to see whether my design would definitely work mechanically. For example, I was worried about the Pacer travelling straight and not deviating its line on the rail.

Inside wheel spins, turn-ing the out-side wheels and front/back wheels

Chassis bottom made to similar shape as final design

2.5 cm wheel

1.5 cm wheel

Constructing methods Joining the wheels to the chassis

Constructing the smartphone holder

As opposed to the outside wheel, the inside wheel will not move and it will be firmly fixed to the chassis using nuts and bolts. The holder for the motor and gearing will be cut using a laser cutter, with holes in place on both the holder and chassis for the bolt to go through. It will be line bent (acrylic is a thermosoftening polymer so it can be reshaped) and in contrast to the diagram above, I will try and make the bends at right angles to reduce the amount of material used up. It will also prevent the holder from extending over the curved base and hence, not allowing the casing to fit onto the base. Similarly, the servo holder will be made in exactly the same way. The front and back wheels will attach to the chassis using a nut and bolt system that runs through the axle with the lower part of the wheel sticking out under the chassis through a hole that will be laser cut within it. The nut and bolt will be locked in place by two acrylic holders that will be laser cut and stuck to the base using Solvent Cement. Finally, the outside wheel (which is crucial to the product because it will determine how tightly the Pacer it attached to the rail) will employ a spring system to enable the Pacer to be put on and taken off the rail. The spring will be attached to another acrylic holder and the end the horizontal part of a 90° aluminium (high strength to weight ration compared to steel) tube and the wheel will spin freely on the vertical part of the tube.

Inside wheel

Front/back wheels Outside wheel

Plan of Production

Introduction: Now that I have completed my final design, tested a basic prototype and decided the shape, size, product components and materials I will use, I am almost ready to begin production. But first I will need to decide the exact manufacturing methods I will use, where some initial thoughts have been changed due to recent testing. Moreover, on this page a plan of production will be made to set out the steps I must take during manufacture. This will really benefit me whilst I am making as I can be certain that I have completed every stage whilst making and it will give me a good perspective of the time I have left to complete the project and the steps I have left.

Development: Construction Methods and Plan of Production Step 1: Draw the chassis shape and hole positions on 2D design, using the scale drawing.

Step 2: Print the chassis on the laser cutter.

Step 3: Draw and print out the component holders on the laser cutter.

Step 4: Line bend the component holders (for the inside wheel attached to the motor, the front/back wheels, Arduino/motor shield and battery) and attach them to the components and chassis using appropriately sized nuts and bolts. Allow for unanticipated extra time due to problems that may arise such as the holders not being bent exactly 90°.

Step 5: Program and solder the Arduino.

Step 6: Pipe bend the aluminium tube for the outside wheel axle, weld the spring to the axle and glue the other end of the spring to the acrylic block. Attach the wheel to the axle and use Solvent Cement to glue the acrylic block to the chassis.

Step 7: Print the mould on the laser cutter. Keep printing and gluing the moulds together until the layers build up to the desired height of the chassis.

Step 8: Vacuum form the mould, trim off excess material and laser cut a circle at the back of the casing for the smartphone holder, and laser cut holes in the casing for the on/off switch Pacer speed/time control system.

Step 9: Attach the servo to its holder made at step 3 and 5. Then cut out a circle in the casing, which lies directly above the servo, and attach the servo to the circle (the holder must be bent to the correct height so that circle is in line with the rest of the casing). Then construct the smartphone holder and attach it to the circle.

Step 10: Join the chassis to the casing using the bolt method below.

Step 11: Finally test the Arduino programming, making sure that the motor travels to the inputted time and speed.

Joining the chassis to the casing The bodywork will consist of the chassis base and the casing that goes over the base. The casing, as highlighted on the previous page, will be made from HIPS so that it can be vacuum formed (image on the left portrays

this process). The base will be made from acrylic because it is slightly harder wearing than HIPS, and will be laser cut. Laser cutting the base may prove to be a meticulous process as holes will have to be drawn up and cut out precisely to allow the components and component holders (using nuts and bolts) to line up in position. I will also use the laser cutter to cut a circular hole for the smartphone holder, where the circle will attach to the servo that is resting on the base and where the smartphone holder will be attached on top. I will now present how the smartphone holder will be constructed.

Constructing the bodywork

This is a complex system that will take time to construct and the initial circle cut from the HIPS may have to be replaced with a slightly smaller circle to reduce friction. Solvent Cement will be used to join the circle to the holder.

From the 2 options above, I have decided to use the nut and bolt design. Despite the first design looking more practical (as it is a quick clipping system) for attaching and removing the casing, during testing (tests shown on right) I realised that the acrylic was not flexible enough to fit into small holes and when the size of the holes were increased the joint was too ‘wobbly’. Though it may take longer to remove and attach the nut, it does provide a strong joint.

Joining other components to the chassis

Holes will be laser cut in the chassis for nuts and bolts to attach to the Arduino (has pre-cut holes) and for using Solvent Cement to attach a battery holder to the chassis.

Conclusion: Following the steps on this page I can begin manufacture and my next page will be Proof of Manufacture.

Proof of Manufacture

Introduction: Following details of the sizes, materials and construction methods from my development of ideas, I was able to construct the Pacer so that it met the requirements of the specification. In addition, to ensure that the Pacer is made to a high quality and consistency in the time I have available, I followed my plan of manufacture making sure that I completed each stage of the design. Moreover, risk assessments and quality control checks were carried out throughout the process and some adaptations to the original idea were made as I realised steps I could make which would produce a higher quality product.

The steps listed on this page are from my Plan of Manufacture and although I stuck almost precisely to it, there are stages such as Step 6 where a change to the original idea was made.

Step 1: Draw the chassis shape and hole positions on 2D design, using the scale drawing

Step 3: Draw and print out the component holders on the laser cutter

The scale drawings and 3rd angle orthographic drawings were extremely useful when drawing out the measurements. However, as shown in the picture on the right, to be 100% sure that components were positioned correctly on the base and hence, holes were cut in the in perfect position I checked measurements with the actual component rather than the dimensions provided by a website which I used for the scale drawing. Here, I am working out the distance the hole for the inside wheel must be from the edge of the base. The other images show the step by

step formation of the drawing where I used the line, circular, curve and measurement tools to ensure that the laser cutter would cut the base to the same size and shape as set out in my final drawings.

Step 2: Print the chassis on the laser cutter

Once drawn up in 2D design, I simply chose my material, placed it in the laser cutter machine, auto focused it to ensure the laser could cut through the 3mm acrylic and set the speed and power to that specified on a table provided. However, the process was not this simple as I soon realised that given the 5° draft angle on the vacuum formed top casing, the motor was too close to the edge and would not fit into the casing. Therefore, I increased the width of the base on 2D design and printed another base.

The laser cutter was ideal for the process in ensuring that all parts were cut to the exact same size. This was very important as I found that if one component was out of place or the wrong size, then many other parts of the design would be affected. Component parts included the front and back wheel axle holder (shown left), components that were stuck to the top casing to hold the nuts and bolts which held the base to the casing, the motor holder, the servo holder, the smartphone holder, the LCD holder, the remote control holder and the ’landing gear’ wheel holders (not part of original design but added to provide support to prevent tipping).

During production, it was evident that line bending to right angles was not the issue as a routed (to prevent indent in acrylic) jig along side a T-square (the check it was 90°-quality control) could be used to ensure an accurate bend. However, the main problem was ensuring that the sides were exactly the same height so that the holders did not

sit at an angle. In a number of cases, such as the motor holder, the holders had to be remade.

Also pictured on the right are drills used to: increase the axle hole to allow the axle to fit; and to cut out a hole for a nut and bolt to connect the holders to the pre-cut holes in the base. A blow torch was also used to lower

a gear on the motor. Safety precautions were taken through this stage, such as wearing safety

goggles when drilling and using heat proof gloves when handling the blow torch and line bending components to prevent the risk of burns.

Step 4: Line bend the component holders and attach them to the components and chassis using appropriately sized nuts and

bolts. Allow for unanticipated extra time due to problems that may arise such as the holders not being bent exactly 90°

Step 5: Program the Arduino

Heating one s ide of the motor holder

Bending the side using a jig

Marking out bending line on other side

Hegner saw used to allow all 4 sides of remote holder to be bent

Remote in holder

Hole drilled for infrared emitter

Ideally I would have done this step much later in the project so that I could focus on the building the design first and getting an understanding of the weight and size of the design so that, for example, I could accommodate a heavier design by increasing the RPM of the motor. However, the basic programming could be started here and realised that this would be a good time to start programming outside of workshop time. I learnt to program the Arduino by researching similar projects and by finding similar coding examples on the internet. Code was written to control the motor, the servo and LCD/remote control (an example of some of the code written can be seen on the right). I also began soldering components such as the LCD and servo to the Arduino outside of lesson time, increasing the amount of time I had in the workshop. Once the design was built, I made slight changes to the code, as I will detail further in step 11. Step 6: Pipe bend the aluminium tube for the outside wheel axle, weld the spring to the axle and glue the other end of the spring

to the acrylic block. Attach the wheel to the axle and use Solvent Cement to glue the acrylic block to the chassis.

As suggested in the introduction, this step changed considerably from my initial plan of manufacture. This is because I realised it would be extremely difficult to pipe bend the aluminium to exactly 90°. Therefore, I used a simpler and, on reflection, a higher quality method by which a long bolt and nuts with washers would hold the outside wheel in place and by simply loosening the nut,

the outside wheel could move out and in and by tightening the nut, the wheel can be held firmly in position, against the rail

Proof of Manufacture

Layers glued using PVA. Before clamping, I check the mould will be tall enough for the tallest component (motor).

Layers clamped to ensure sides line up.

Precise 5 degree draft angel cut using tilting table on band saw.

Sides smoothed down by sanding. A draft angle was also made on the semi-circular front by hand sanding, as band saw did not provide a consistent circular cut. The sanding process proved to be the most time consuming step in step 7.

Step 8: Vacuum form the mould, trim off excess material and laser cut a circle at the back of the casing for the smartphone holder, and laser cut holes in the casing for the on/off switch Pacer speed/time control system

MDF of equal size and thick-ness, cut to width and height of pacer, reducing material waste.

Using the same outline for the base on 2D design, lay-ers are cut using the laser.

MDF mould place in machine, HIPS clamped in place and heater pulled into position

Heater softens HIPS and is removed. Lever then raises the mould and the Pacer shape is formed in the HIPS. Vacuum is then turned on and HIPS form fully around the mould.

Mould easily removed from HIPS due to draft angle and a Gerbil cutter is used to remove unwanted excess HIPS.

Step 10: Join the chassis to the casing using the bolt method.

Wet and dry paper is used to smooth down the edges.

Step 7: Print the mould on the laser cutter. Keep printing and gluing the moulds together until the layers build up to the desired

height of the chassis

To attach the servo to its holder, I drilled a 3mm hole to two of the sides on the servo and used nuts and bolts to attach it to pre -laser cut holes on the holder. Moreover, to ensure that the circle was cut precisely in the centre of the vacuum formed casing, I cut out an MDF slot to the same size of the casing and simply pressed print again. This was also done for the cut out for the remote control and for the LCD. Finally, I used Solvent Cement to attach the circle to the servo and to make sure that the servo sat in the centre of the circle I used the compass technique shown as an image on the right.

There was another change during production from my plan of construction methods at this stage, this time for the smartphone holder. I wanted the smartphone holder to be adjustable so that it could hold various sized phones and like the adjustable outside wheel, I originally planned for it to use a spring mechanism, but instead I decided to use a nut and bolt system where the nut is loosened to put the holder to the desirable size and tightened in that position. This method proved far simpler to design, although possibly less practical for the user (I will evaluate this further in testing). The images to the right show how it works.

Step 9: Attach the servo to the holder made at step 3 and 5. Then cut out a circle in the casing, which lies

directly above the servo, and attach the servo to the circle (the holder must be bent to the correct height so that

circle is in line with the rest of the casing). Then construct the smartphone holder and attach it to the circle.

The ability to separate the base from the casing is important so that the battery can be replaced and if electrical problems occur, the device can be fixed. I used the nut and bolt method portrayed in my plan of manufacture. Although during production, I realised that ease of use would be increased if instead the screw was on the outside and the bolt lay on the inside as it is easier to tighten, a more secure joint will be maintained this way. I therefore cut out a semi-circular 5mm piece of acrylic (with a hole for the screw to pass through) and stuck it to a filed-down nut. This was done so that when I used Solvent Cement to glue the nut to the casing, the surface area would be increased, providing a stronger joint. The nut also had to be filed down because the hole I made on the base for the screw to pass through was too close to the edge (I will evaluate this further in the next pages). The most time-consuming part of this method was aligning the nuts with the holes on the base. To do this I used a spare piece of semi-circular acrylic, attached a thin layer of Blu-Tac to it, and lined it up at a mirror angle to the hole on the base, on the opposite side of the casing. I was then able to remove the base and attach the nut/acrylic piece opposite this spare piece using adhesive. The spare piece with Blu-Tac was then removed and used to align another hole and nut. Finally, I attached the base, with its components on, to the casing by screwing the bolts in place. This was a quick and simple process, providing ease of use to the user, although I did find that the motor and its holder were slightly too tall to provide a neat fit. Therefore, a dremel was used to reduce the height, not damaging the motor or its holder.

Dremel reducing height of motor.

Nut/acrylic joint

Screwing the bolts in place/aligning the nut to the hole on the base.

Step 11: Finally test the Arduino programming, making sure that the motor travels to the inputted time and speed.

This was a successful final step and the motor consistently responded to the code, varying the RPM for the given time the motor spun and for the given distances (100m-3000m). Now that the programming is successful, in the testing/evaluation pages I will see what speed the Pacer travels around the track given that the RPM at this testing stage was not affected by external factors such as torque and weight. It is therefore likely, as suggested in step 6, that I will need to make changes to the code, increasing the RPM so it travels to the inputted distance and time.

Conclusion: Despite problems throughout the process, manufacture proved to be successful as modifications were often made to the plan of manufacture so that the problems could be eradicated and so that the device looks very similar to the final drawings within development.

The main issue that I have learnt is the importance of planning because I found in this project that if a slight mistake was made in one part of the design, it would affect the rest of the design considerably.

Filing the nut

Strengths of the design Weaknesses of the design Possible modifications found after testing/suggested by Ollie

Simplicity of design: it is an intuitive design with the left and right arrow on the remote changing the target time and the up and down arrow changing the distance the device will travel, in 100m intervals. The central button enters these variables, the Pacer can simply be turned off using the on/off button above and the LCD screen shows the user the details they are inputting. Despite this, as suggested within development, the smartphone would be used to display these details if I were to make an app.

If I were to repeat and develop the project to solve the issue on the left, I would devise a clamping system to tighten the Pacer to the rail. This would prove to be much more convenient for the user and less fiddly, improving the ease of use and reduce the time wasted by the user.

Aesthetically pleasing: Ollie specifically said he liked the ‘slick, streamlined and curvature design’ and that it naturally fitted into its surroundings. The fact that it was small meant that it did not look out of place, did not get in the way of runners and meant that it was portable.

There were some imperfections in regard to the designs appearance with, for example, scratches and glue markings. The wheel attached to the motor was also not exactly perpendicular because the motor holder sides were not bent perfectly to 90°. This resulted in the wheel oscillating slightly when in contact with the rail.

A scratch-resistant polymer could be used and when applying adhesive I will be more careful. To ensure the holders are bent to exactly 90° I would use a 2 part former rather than a 1 part former to provide ideal results.

Universal smartphone holder: the design for the holder was altered during manufacture as I designed a simpler and more secure system. It allowed for a range of smartphones to be used to display the lap time during the run, video the athletes’ running technique and twist at the finishing line for a photofinish.

Despite holding a number of smartphones, the diameter of the circle is not large enough to fit the new iPhone, for example.

Moreover, I did not take into account the depth of the smartphone and although the iPhone 4s and iPhone 5s fitted perfectly, thinner devices such as an iPod touch tended to wobble slightly.

Similarly to the outside wheel nut and bolt adjustment system, a nut and bolt system is also not ideal here as a spanner or screw driver are often need ensure the holder is tightly fixed to the casing. In addition, although the holder can be taken off for storage, it is inconvenient and time consuming.

There is also an issue with the smartphone and other electronic parts exposed being damaged by rain.

This problem would simply be eradicated by cutting a larger circle on the laser cutter.

A small clamping system may again prove useful for the smartphone holder to alter the depth and width to allow all devices to fit in it and to improve the ease of use when assembling the smartphone in position. It would also be ideal for the clamping system to be collapsible to make the device easier to carry and store.

To prevent damage to electronic parts during rainy conditions, all gaps must be concealed and a waterproof casing could be added to cover the smartphone, remote and LED (same idea as used by GoPro ‘s waterproof casing system).

Runs well, is stable (an important requirement specified in the Lego Mindstorm prototype) on the track and has a consistent RPM when the wheel is attached to axle/motor: using the remote the speed of the motor could be adjusted and reliably changed for the distance and finishing time inputted

As suggested by the ‘expert opinions’ within testing, choosing the correct motor is only really possible through the process of trial and error. Within development I also noted that I would start by buying a cheap brushless motor with an RPM of 3000. These specifications were correct and a 3000 RPM motor would allow for the top speed of 10m/s to be achieved. A brushless motor also meant that the speed could be precisely changed by altering the current supplied to the motor using the Arduino. However, the motor was not powerful enough so there was not enough torque, meaning that the Pacer travelled slower than intended and, at slow speeds, it did not even move from its starting position.

A more powerful brushless motor with higher torque but to the same 3000RPM must be used.

Introduction: To evaluate my design I will test the product against the specification, gather client feedback and analyse comments from others, including other athletes and members of my class.

Client Feedback

Feedback from my design was taken from my client and athletes of his and other age groups to get a wide range of views and thoughts on the design as they will be my target market.

When my client (Ollie Sewell—my cousin and a County runner) was handed the Pacer to test he instantly said that he liked the simplicity in the design and that it could support his iPhone, his iPod and his coach’s smartphone because of the universal holder. Further explanations of the strengths but also weaknesses are listed below when, after his initial examination, I asked him a few questions on what he thought of the design and how it could be improved to prevent the weakness he mentioned. With these modification, Ollie said that he thought the Pacer had a lot of commercial potential and that he would regularly use it.

Evaluation and Testing

The design, however, was not completely simple. Setting it up on the rail proved difficult as to tighten it to the rail, you had to twist the nut on the underside of the base by lying down—and a firmly positioned nut was not always the result.

Analysis from other athletes and my class: Questioning a range of other runners, I was pleased with their response and a number said that they would buy the product. They mentioned that they liked that it was black which is a colour that would appeal to all genders and age groups. I was also pleased that it was ergonomically viable for all, with for example, a range of finger sizes being able to press the input buttons. However, some did

suggest that the ‘landing gear’ supporting wheels were not required as the device did not tip and this would improve practical simplicity and would reduce materials and manufacture costs.

Evaluation and Testing

Specification point

Viability and Modifications

Aesthetically pleasing

The aesthetic aim was a ‘contemporary, eye-catching appearance ‘ that would appeal to all athletes and was ’simple and not too bulky in design’. I think I achieved this through a black design that appeals to all ages and genders. The balance between a ‘modest’ but ‘sleek’ design was also met through an interesting, but not over the top, streamlined shape. If I were to take this idea further it could be personalised by the client so that they decide aspects such as its colour. I could also develop the shape so that the casing is rounded rather than flat, possibly making it more visually appealing. Further comments (from my client and others) on aesthetics can be found on the previous page.

Affordable My budget for the project was £50 and I was very close to this amount. Therefore, the product will be sold at what, in comparison the similar products, I believe is a ‘competitive and reasonable price’ (£150-£200). This is of course as long as the vital modifications are made such as using a more powerful motor with higher torque.

Sustainable The product uses polymer materials that can be recycled for further use. Individual parts for the design will also be possible to buy if problems occur with the LCD, for example. This increases the life span of the product, reducing wastage. I also tried to reduce the wastage of material although this could have been improved, with for example, a lot of excess material in vacuum

Size The device is small (300mmx220mm) enough to carry in one hand and is very light. Therefore, a ‘handle, strap or bag’ as suggested in my specification is not required. It is also very easy to store and fit in a car boot although to reduce space taken up in storage the smartphone holder could be collapsible/flip down to reduce the height of the Pacer.

Safety The product has rounded edges so does not have any ‘sharp edges’ that could endanger the user. The product is also small and fixed securely to the rail so that it does not become a tripping hazard. However, the greatest worry is how well insulated electronic parts are, especially in wet conditions. Improvements, such as a wet weather case, are therefore vital.

Function The product has been designed so that ‘my client can physically see how fast they must run to beat their PBs and target times’ and also to help my client ‘pace himself’. However, as found with testing, there is the anticipated (according to ‘expert opinions’ within development, choosing the correct motor is a process of trial and error) problem of the motor not having enough torque despite it being able to achieve the desired RPM. Therefore, with small adjustments a more powerful motor can be bought to allow the motor to reach the desired top speeds. I can then test the motor, seeing what speeds it travels at to a given RPM and slightly alter my code (a step suggested in step 11 of my Proof of Manufacture page) so that it achieves its function. Moreover, to increase ease of use a number of changes could be made within manufacturing. For example, as highlighted in Proof of Manufacture, the holes in the base for the bolts to pass through and attach to the casing are too close to the edge

Appropriate for target market

Although my device is a prototype targeted specifically at my client, there is also a large target market of runners and clubs and the product must cater for all. As suggested in the aesthetics section, I have achieved this through colour and shape. However, I have also done it keeping the design simple and intuitive for those who are less technologically aware (such as the elderly). One problem however is that the elderly may not have a smartphone device required and therefore I may have to develop my own system within the product that can video and display running times. On the other hand, the elderly are not a large section of my target market and unfortunately, using a smartphone/app would be the simplest option, so the elderly may have to be sacrificed.

Meet deadline As noted in my specification and Gantt chart action plan, the deadline is Easter 2015 and I managed to complete the project within weeks of this deadline giving me enough time to test and evaluate my product.

Testing against specification Finally, I will test the design against the specification. This will allow me to find any areas where I think the design could be improved further. I will then be able to combine possible modi-fication ideas found when the design does not meet the specification point and from suggestions from my client (and others athletes) to decide all the modifications I would make were I to design the Pacer again, so that it is made to a higher quality. I will also investigate if the Pacer is commercially viable and how it could be changed to make it more commercially viable.

Commercial viability

The concept of a Pacer does seem commercially viable, with my client and other runners (including Commonwealth Games runner Sonia Samuels) showing great interest in the product. With further development, and by addressing the issues found within testing and evaluation from my client, other athletes and myself (comparing it to the specification), I think the product has great promise, especially because it is a unique idea that hasn’t been brought to the market yet. If I were to take the idea further, I may look to patent it so that my idea is not taken by other sporting brands. On the other hand, I could take it to brands such as Adidas and see if they would be prepared to invest in the product. I have also had a number of ideas for the product name if I were to develop it further, such as ‘Pacemate’. There are also possibilities to expand and produce a product not just within running but in other sports that involve racing, such as swimming.

Furthermore, the Pacer certainly has the possibility to be sold to a mass market with all the batch production techniques that could be used, including the laser cutter and pre-prepared jigs and moulds used throughout the project (such as for the casing produced through vacuum forming and laser cutting). Using these techniques as well as buying materials in larger bulks will reduce time and reduce the cost of manufacture. The product can then be sold even lower than my target for this prototype (£150-200) making it more affordable for the club and professional runner, and therefore more commercially viable.

Conclusion: Overall, the prototype has been a success despite issues found within testing. There are a number of strengths to the design and the problems found, with little adjustment, could be modified to produce a high quality product that is commercially viable. My client and I are particularly pleased with the simplicity of the design and ease of use for such a complex system and as suggested in development, if I were to take this idea further, an app will be produced enabling other features (such as an electric gun starter and photofinish) that will aid the runner further and take away the need for the LED screen, and possibly the remote, further increasing the ease of use. For grass running tracks at clubs and schools, I may look to include railing with my product so that It can be used by a larger market. On the other hand, I could spend time studying other methods, such as the line tracking system within my initial ideas. Further development of this product however would require a huge investment of money and time and like any unique idea, the pros and cons must be weighed up thoroughly to decide whether development is a gamble worth taking.

As suggested in the athletics tack visit during product research, I found that during testing a kerb had been removed to allow jave-lin throwers a run up. However, the kerb could simply be re-placed to allow the Pacer to trav-el around the whole track.

Final product