Results:

​

Test 5A:

The results of the strength test were successful, since the carrying capacity for the stand is at least 180 pounds. That is the same strength rating given by current bicycle repair stand manufacturers, which puts the tested stand on par with the current standard. The values determined by the test are indeed valid, as the stand holds quadruple the weight of a standard electric bicycle of today. There is no need for great accuracy to determine if it will barely hold a bicycle, since it will surely support one, and be fully rigid while working on it. 

​

Test 5B:

The clamping force test was also a success, since the force of 52 pounds was determined by external documents for recommended force when tightening a seatpost collar around a carbon fiber seatpost. Extra clamping force could potentially crack and destroy an expensive seatpost, so the 50 pound force exerted by the clamp is enough to not crush a carbon seatpost, and securley hold the bicycle in place to conduct maintenance. 

​

Validity/Representation:

The tests are valid in assessing parameters and the capabilities of the device. No specific strength of steel was necessary to support an electric bicycle. The minimum requirement would have been 45 pounds, but the stand would not have been rigid enough to keep everything firmly in place during maintenance. The overbuild strength allows for ample rigidity, with no specific value of rigidity, as it becomes very difficult for humans to perceive a difference after a certain point. The strength of the device was enough to support the weight of a bicycle, with ample rigidity for maintenance, without being too bulky or heavy. The clamping force test was also valid, despite not using overly accurate instruments to measure the values. A general force measurement was sufficient in determining the near maximum clamping force. The adjustment option on the torque limiter allows for fine tuning the force to protect the motor from over exertion, and the seatpost from too much force. Both tests revealed numbers that are within an acceptable range. Two pounds difference on the clamping force, and even 20 pounds difference on the weight capacity are negligible when considering what the device was built to accomplish. There is a wide margin of error for both tests, where 45 pounds of clamping force would have been a success, and a 150 pound weight capacity would have acceptable. There is no consequence for the amount the tests were off from their target goals.