Final Project Report:

Motorized “Hover Board”

by
Gabriele Pregadio

College of Engineering
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo
2016

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !1

Statement of Disclaimer
Since this project is a result of a class assignment, it has been graded and accepted as
fulfillment of the course requirements. Acceptance does not imply technical accuracy or
reliability. Any use of information in this report is done at the risk of the user. These risks
may include catastrophic failure of the device or infringement of patent or copyright
laws. California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo and its staff cannot be
held liable for any use or misuse of the project.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !2

Table of Contents
Final Project Report: Motorized “Hover Board” 1
Statement of Disclaimer 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 5
List of Nomenclature 6
Executive Summary 7
1. Introduction 8
1.1 RSVP Background 8
1.2 Problem Definition 9
1.3 Objectives 9
2. Background 10
3. Design Development 12
3.1 Concept Generation 12
3.1.1 Structure 12
3.1.2 Electrical 14
3.1.3 Control 15
3.2 Selection 15
4. Description of the Final Design 18
4.1 Design Details 18
4.1.1 Platform Details 19
4.1.2 Structural Details 19
4.1.3 Electrical Details 20
4.2 Cost Breakdown 22
5. Product Realization 23
5.1 Construction 23

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !3

 5.2 Recommendations for Future Manufacturing 27
5.2.1 Noise Reduction 27
5.2.2 Wheel Protection 27
5.2.3 Backwards Movement 27
6. Design Verification 28
6.1 Costume Verification 28
6.2 Testing Procedure 28
7. Conclusions and Recommendations 30
8. Acknowledgements 31
Appendix A: Vendors and Pricing 32

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !4

List of Tables
Table 1. Part Selection 18
Table 2. Actual costs for device 22
Table 3. Vendors and Pricing 33

List of Figures
Figure 1. Glide 65 Vecaro Hoverboard 10
Figure 2. Segway 11
Figure 3. Heelys 12
Figure 4. Pyramid-shaped “Box” design concept for each foot 12
Figure 5. “Box” design cut-out 13
Figure 6. Early Platform design concept 14
Figure 7. Original Platform design concept 16
Figure 8. Modified Platform design concept. This is the underside of the device. 17
Figure 9. 15”x12” Plywood Platform 19
Figure 9. Aluminum Channel 19
Figure 10. 4” Diameter Motorized Wheel 20
Figure 11. 3” Diameter Swivel Caster 20
Figure 12. Selected Switch 21
Figure 13. Channel Attachment with 90° Brackets 23
Figure 14. Channel Attachments (1) 24
Figure 15. Channel Attachments (2) 24
Figure 16. Circuit Schematic 25
Figure 17. Underside of Device 25
Figure 18. Top View 26
Figure 19. Side View 26


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !5

List of Nomenclature
Term Definition
Momentary Switch A form of push button that is only engaged when it is being
pressed.
SPST Single Pass Single Throw. The simplest switch type, “on or
off ”.
AWG American Wire Gauge. A standardized wire gauge system
used in North America.
RPM Revolutions Per Minute. A measure of the frequency of
rotation around a fixed axis per minute used to measure
rotational speed of a mechanical component.
NiMH Battery Nickel-Metal Hydride Battery. A type of rechargeable battery
usually used for small electric vehicles.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !6

Executive Summary
This document is the full report for the senior project of Cal Poly General Engineering
student Gabriele Pregadio. This report includes all project steps necessary for the
completion of the design. I was under the advisement of Professor Antonio Barata of the
Cal Poly Music Department. At the beginning of the 2016 Spring quarter, Prof. Barata
tasked me with building a concealed “hover craft” device which allowed the user to move
without using their legs. The user would be a student performing as an angel in RSVP, a
yearly student-produced performance. As the quarter went on, more information was
revealed to me, including the angel’s clothing details and the fact that I would be
performing as the angel in the performance. The device was constructed and tested
during the few rehearsals prior to the performance. It was ultimately decided by the
RSVP production crew that the device would not be used as it detracted from the angel’s
performance and was deemed unnecessary as the angel was able to move eerily and
seemingly floating as intended, solely by walking slowly and carefully thanks to the length
of the costume.


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !7

1. Introduction
I was tasked by Prof. Antonio Barata of the Cal Poly Music Department to construct a
device that would allow a person to move slowly and smoothly without performing
walking movements with their legs and/or feet. The device was to be used in MU 412
Sound Design: Composition and Production course’s student-produced performance at the end
of the Spring 2016 term.

1.1 RSVP Background

At the conclusion of the Spring term, Cal Poly’s Music Department sponsors a student-
produced performance named RSVP under the supervision and direction of Prof. Barata.
RSVP grew out of the Sound Design classes in Cal Poly’s Music Department with the
primary goals of generating a broad and engaging experience for student creators and a
lasting impression on audiences. The first RSVP concert was held in 1993. Each concert
blends acoustic performance with new and mixed media, theatre, and dance.

Spring 2016’s RSVP production was a modern ballet based on Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow’s epic poem Evangeline, a story of separation from homeland and love. The
production also encompasses the themes of the battle of good and evil, imperialist
control, and the strength and strain of religious ardor. It is set in Israel and tells a story of
a Jew (Evangeline) and a Muslim (Gabriel) falling in love shortly before being separated by
imperialist powers. The production tells the story of Evangeline’s lifelong search for
Gabriel.

One of the production’s main characters is Jibril, the great angel-herald. He moves eerily,
almost floating, very slowly across the floor. His gestures are stayed, beautiful, elegant. He
wears great angel wings and a loose, majestic costume. Three weeks into the course it was
decided that I would perform as Jibril in the performance.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !8

1.2 Problem Definition
Prof. Barata tasked me with designing a concealed device which would allow Jibril to
move slowly and eerily across the floor. Due to the angel’s long and wide costume, it
would be possible to hide it from sight beneath the loose fabric.

The most important consideration for the device is balance. It is important that the
performer will not fall off from the device. The impact of such a blunder during the
performance would not only harm the scene in which the angel is present. The entire
show’s integrity would be compromised and harshly received by the audience, potentially
as a comedic act, which would seriously damage the performance’s reputation.

1.3 Objectives
The device’s width and length could not exceed shoulder length as it could not be
concealed beneath the costume otherwise. Its height from the ground could not be more
than a few inches for the same reason. It was important for the user to have good balance
while standing on the device.

The device was to move using motorized wheels and would be able to turn using swivel
caster wheels. The batteries were to be mounted on the device underneath the device next
to the wheels and off the ground, or otherwise concealed from the audience. The device
was to be controlled via either remote control by another person or via switches by the
user.

The device must allow the user to move forward and turn in both directions all while
balancing. It is not necessary for it to go backwards. It must also be considerably quiet, as
the audience is only a few feet away from the performers and loud motor noise would give
away the “magic” of the angel’s smooth and eery movement.


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !9

2. Background
This section includes details on existing products which would allow for similar
movements by Jibril.

The device that could most accurately perform the required movements is the Vecaro
Hoverboard. It is a self balancing motorized two-wheeled balance scooter that uses
innovative gyroscopic technology. With some modifications to prevent the costume from
getting stuck under the wheels, the Hoverboard would likely accomplish the task
successfully, but the price is out of the show’s budget. The entry level model Glide 65
Vecaro Hoverboard is priced at $599, and more powerful and precise versions reach the
$799 range.

Figure 1. Glide 65 Vecaro Hoverboard

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !10

 Figure 2. Segway

Perhaps the most well-known similar product is the Segway, a popular personal
transportation device. The Segway successfully moves a person without the use of their
legs, but it would to be appropriate for the purposes of the performance due to its bulky
frame and the required use of hands for balance.

Heelys are shoes that have at least one wheel embedded in each sole, allowing the user to
walk by shifting their weight to their heels and roll across the floor. It is a simple device
which does not require a motor for movement, although it is necessary for the user to
initially move their legs to spin the wheel. This movement broke the main requirement of
the device and was therefore not considered for the design. However, it inspired a design
concept which was ultimately not selected for implementation1.


Figure 3. Heelys
1 See section 3.1.1 Structure

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !11

3. Design Development
This section details the design process of the device, including conceptual designs,
concept selection, and preliminary analysis.

3.1 Concept Generation

It was clear to me that the final product would involve motorized wheels and at least one
surface for the user to stand and balance on. The device must also be powered by
batteries due to power cables being aesthetically displeasing and a potential hazard for
other performers on stage.

3.1.1 Structure
One design concept involved two separate motorized devices, one for each foot. This
design was inspired by Heelys2. Each device would be similar to a box, with the electrical
components (battery, motor, wiring) inside. A wheel would be embedded on the underside
of the pyramid-shaped “box”, and the user would rest their feet on the top, with the
forefoot poking past the front of the device, resting on the floor while standing still. The
devices would be separate, with each motor and battery having its own circuit (left and
right feet independent of each other). Each device would be controlled via a momentary
switch in the user’s hand, with wiring up each leg and arm, concealed by the costume.

Figure 4. Pyramid-shaped “Box” design concept for each foot

2 See section 2.1 Existing Products

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !12

 Figure 5. “Box” design cut-out

The primary advantage of this design is that it allowed the user to change directions
easily and intuitively by lifting their heel (which is attached to the device) and pivoting
with their forefoot. With practice, the user turn smoothly and be barely noticeable in the
loose costume. Balancing issues may arise as the user would be The design would also
allow the user to correct their posture easily and quickly in case they were losing balance
simply by placing their forefoot down and turning the switches off. However, it was
unclear whether there was enough room in the “box” to store the battery and motor.
There was also a concern during movement when the forefoot is lifted from the ground,
as the pressure exerted by the heel of the foot on the device could be too great to bear,
and catastrophic failure may result.

A simpler design concept was also considered. The design incorporated all of the
components into one structure, requiring the performer to stand on one platform with
both feet. The platform would be attached to two motorized wheels on its underside and
one caster wheel to allow for turns. All electrical components including wiring would be
attached to the underside of the platform, next to the wheels.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !13

 Figure 6. Early Platform design concept

3.1.2 Electrical
It was important to determine whether each motor would have its own circuit (and
battery), or whether one circuit would include both motors and one or more batteries
would power the motors.

With two separate circuits, each motor would require its own battery to run, allowing for
the user to control each motor independently. This simplifies turning, as it would require
the controller of the device to simply close one circuit and short the other. However, two
batteries would be required as opposed to one. This further increases the weight of the
device and the load supported by the wheels, as well as the total cost of the device.

Having one circuit for the device restricts it to one component, eliminating a previous
structural concept3. Having one battery as opposed to two would reduce the total weight
and cost of the device. The motors would be configured in parallel with each other in
order to retain the voltage output of the battery. Controlling the device would also be
more complicated, especially when turning.

3 See section 3.1.1 Structure, “Box” design concept

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !14

3.1.3 Control
The most straightforward and simple solution to control the device was via toggle
switches. Controlling two separate circuits would involve two SPST switches, one for each
circuit. Turning would involve turning one switch on while leaving the other off. The
other option is having an assistant control the device remotely.

Switches controlled by the user would give them complete control of the device. The
benefit of this is that it gives the performer a degree of freedom and correction in case
they unintentionally move to a wrong location on the stage. The downside is that it gives
the performer an additional thing to think about on top of their scripted gestures and
locations based on lighting and timing of the music. This further complicates things for
the user and divides their attention further, likely resulting in suboptimal theatrical
performance.

A remote-controlled device would allow the performer to further focus their attention on
the hand gestures. However, it would cause complications with balancing by the user.
Giving control of the device to a different person means the performer may move
unexpectedly, without having their feet set and body weight balanced appropriately for
the transmitted movement. Another issue is that the assistant controlling the device would
need a good view of the stage. It is important that the stage managers for the production
are out of of the audience’s sight. Additionally, seeing the assistant remote controlling the
device with a controller would “ruin the magic” of the angel’s eery movement and detract
from the show.

3.2 Selection
As previously stated, the most important aspect of the design is the balancing. The “Box”
design concept would allow the user to correct their balancing issues, but it is desirable to
eliminate those issues altogether. For this reason, the Platform design concept was chosen
and altered by introducing a second swivel caster wheel for easier balancing. Both motors
are to have their own circuits and powered by two separate batteries which would be
attached to the underside of the platform.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !15

 Figure 7. Original Platform design concept

Early in the design process, it was not clear whether the angel’s hands were bare and used
for theatrical gestures and motions. Therefore, the idea of controlling the device via
switches in the angel’s hands was acceptable. Later in the design process, it was revealed
to me that the angel would in fact need to utilize its hands. This rendered the hand-
controlled switch idea unacceptable and a separate way of controlling the device was
required. The remote-controlled idea was also discarded as it would increase the cost of
the device and it was decided that the benefits of giving full control to the user as opposed
to an assistant outweighed the drawbacks. Two momentary SPST switches were selected
to control each of the two motors.

A few weeks into the quarter, it was also decided that I would be the one performing as
Jibril in the show. This further solidified the selection of the switches over the remote-
control, as I would clearly be the one with the most control of the device seeing as I
would build it.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !16

 Figure 8. Modified Platform design concept. This is the underside of the device.

It was decided that in order to control the device in a concealed way, the switches will be
placed on the platform itself and controlled with the toes. It is extremely important that
the toe barely move in order to activate the corresponding switch and motor so that
balance is not lost during control. The height of the exposed switch should not exceed
half an inch.


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !17

4. Description of the Final Design
This section explains in detail the chosen design concept, including geometry, material
and component selection, and cost analysis.

4.1 Design Details

This section describes each component’s geometry and material selection. The design
consists of a platform for the user to stand on with two switches near the toes to control
movement. Attached to the underside of the platform are the batteries, motors, wheels,
and all necessary wiring.

The selected parts are detailed in Table 1 below. Further explanations and reasoning is
explained in the subsequent sections.

Table 1. Part Selection

Component Selection
Platform 23/32”x15”x12” Plywood
Motors 437 RPM HD Precision Planetary Gear Motor
Motorized Wheels 4” Diameter Heavy Duty Wheel
Casters 3” Diameter Swivel Plate Caster
Batteries 3700 mAh 12V NiMH Battery Pack
Switches Single-Pole Momentary Contact Push-Button
Switch

The device components are broken down and detailed in three categories: platform,
structural, and electrical.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !18

4.1.1 Platform Details
Seeing as the device would use
four wheels in total, it made sense
for the platform to be
rectangular. The chosen
dimensions were 15”x12”. The
15” width allowed for
comfortable feet placement on
the platform, with the user
placing their heels together and
pointing their feet slightly
outward. The 12” length allowed
for more room on the underside
of the platform for electrical and
other structural components.

Figure 9. 15”x12” Plywood Platform

As for the material, simple plywood was selected due to its high strength and resistance to
cracking and bending. Its light weight was also a positive factor as it helped exert a lower
load on the wheels. A 23/32” plywood height was selected.

4.1.2 Structural Details

The motor and motorized wheels were attached to the
underside of the platform by connecting them with an
aluminum channel. This channel ran alongside the width
of the platform. It was connected to 90° brackets and
attaching those to the underside of the plywood with
wood screws. Figure 9. Aluminum Channel

The total height of the device had to be considered. It should be kept as low as possible
due to costume concerns. Increasing the height would make it more difficult to conceal
the device using the angelic cloth costume. 4” diameter wheels were selected for the

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !19

motorized wheels. 3” diameter swivel casters were selected. The casters were directly
attached to the underside of the platform by screwing the attached metal plate to the
plywood.

Figure 10. 4” Diameter Motorized Wheel Figure 11. 3” Diameter Swivel Caster

4.1.3 Electrical Details

Appropriate motor selection depended on the intended speed of the device and the load
the motorized wheels would bear. An appropriate velocity for the angel would be walking
speed. This speed was approximated to be 5 mph. RPM requirement with 4” diameter
wheels was calculated as follows:

A 437 RPM brush motor was selected with a maximum torque of 305.5 oz-in at a rated
voltage of 12 VDC.

The selected motor’s rated voltage was 12VDC, so a battery capable of producing 12V
was required. The scenes in which Jibril appeared did not require him to move too often,
so a 3700 mAh battery pack was selected as the motor did not have to run for too long. A
NiMH type battery was deemed to be appropriate for the device seeing as the motor did

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !20

not require a high amp load. The battery is rechargeable with a universal smart charger,
which was ideal seeing as the show was to be performed on two separate occasions. Two
of these batteries were purchased, one for each motor.

As stated earlier, the switches’ height had to be considered

due to it being controlled by the toes. Small SPST
momentary switcher were selected, mountable on half-inch
holes which were to be drilled into the plywood platform.
The switches were default off, momentary on in order for
the user to press down with their toes in order to move
forward. Two of these switches were purchased, one for
each circuit. Figure 12. Selected Switch

The electrical components were connected with 14 AWG wires taped on the underside of
the platform. The wiring formed two circuits, one for each motor (left and right).

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !21

4.2 Cost Breakdown
This section presents the costs of the device. The data is outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Actual costs for device

Part Cost ($)

Plywood Platform 29.98
Motors 79.98
Batteries 107.92
Other electrical components 22.50
Other structural components 133.95

Device Total 374.33

Refer to Appendix B: Vendors and Pricing for detailed cost breakdown.


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !22

5. Product Realization
This section outlines the manufacturing process and recommendations for future
manufacturing of the design.

5.1 Construction
Once the plywood was acquired, the 15”x12” platform was created using a table saw. The
edges were sanded in order to prevent wood splinters, as the device was to be picked up
from its sides and moved during blackout scenes in the production. In order to find the
best placement of the switches, I stood on the platform with my feet slightly pointed
outwards. I marked the location of my big toes on the platform. A rotary tool was used to
drill a half inch hole through the wood on the marked locations. The switches were then
fitted through the holes, with the button poking out of the surface and the terminals on
the underside of the platform. The switches were then attached to the platform with
super glue.

The channel was attached by connecting it with three 90° brackets which were then
screwed onto the underside of the platform on the opposite edge of the casters. The
casters were attached to the device by screwing the attached metal plate onto the
underside of the platform, half an inch from the edges.

Figure 13. Channel Attachment with 90° Brackets

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !23

The motors were attached to the channel with clamping mounts, which were then
screwed into the channel. The motor’s shaft was connected to a 1/4” shaft with a coupler.
The 1/4” shaft was attached to the channel with two pillow block bearings. The shaft was
finally connected to the heavy duty wheel with a clamping hub. Figures 14 and 15 below
help visualize this process.

Figure 14. Channel Attachments (1)

Figure 15. Channel Attachments (2)

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !24

The batteries were attached to the underside of the platform with duct tape. Wire was
soldered onto the terminals of the motors and switches, and bullet connectors were used
to connect it to the batteries. The wire was then taped onto the platform in order to
prevent it from dragging along the floor and potentially getting stuck under a wheel.
Figures 16 and 17 below help visualize the circuitry.

Figure 16. Circuit Schematic

Figure 17. Underside of Device

Figures 18 and 19 on the following page show the completed device.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !25

 Figure 18. Top View

Figure 19. Side View

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !26

5.2 Recommendations for Future Manufacturing
The following section recommends design changes in order to improve the device.

5.2.1 Noise Reduction

The device was designed to be hidden from sight by covering it with the loose fabric of
the angel’s costume. This provided a small amount of noise reduction to the motors while
the device is moving. In order to further suppress the sound of the operating motors, I
recommend adding other means of sound insulation to the device.

5.2.2 Wheel Protection

During testing, the wheels collected any dust and small materials on the ground. This
prevented the device from working to its full potential. The casters were more reluctant to
swivel due to debris and random dust they collected. I suggest adding some way to easily
brush off these inconveniences when not in use, or some way to prevent the dirt from
becoming attached to the wheels.

5.2.3 Backwards Movement

It was not necessary for the purposes of the production for the device to move backwards.
However, in the case that is desired, one could design more elaborate circuitry to make it
happen. Using the remote-control idea4 would alleviate some pressure on the performer
by giving them less things to think about while performing.


4 See section 3.1.3 Control

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !27

6. Design Verification
Following construction of the device, verification of the design was required to determine
its performance and whether or not it met the requirements.

6.1 Costume Verification

It was necessary for the device to be concealed beneath the costume. I met with Kate
Hepworth, who designed Jibril’s costume. I showed her the device and informed her of
the required length and width of the costume in order to conceal the device. Ms.
Hepworth attached a slightly flexible metal ring to the end of the costume which was
wide enough to cover the entire device. During testing of the device, it was found that the
costume was too short. If the device would have made it through testing, I would have
contacted Ms. Hepworth again to increase the length of the costume for it to fully conceal
the device.

6.2 Testing Procedure

Testing occurred during the production’s rehearsal days shortly preceding the first
performance. The device was brought to rehearsal in the pavilion of the Cal Poly
Performing Arts Center, where the performance was to take place.

I was to appear in five scenes in the show. The first introduced Jibril to the audience and
required me to move in a circle two times around the stage before finally coming to the
center. The second scene saw Jibril walking off to the side of the stage, then coming back
to the center. The scene ended in a blackout, where I would pick up the device and place
it in another location on stage where the third scene took place. I was not to move at all
during this scene. The fourth scene saw me entering from the side and slowly make my
way to the center. This scene also ended in a blackout, where I would pick up the device
and quickly walk off stage. In the final scene, I would make my way slowly to the center
of the stage and the show would end with me moving in a tight circle near the center.

The device performed worse than expected. With a little practice, I was able to move
smoothly for a short while after the device had been inactive. However, the device started

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !28

to perform poorly after that period. The right motor would frequently stall, which left me
immobile for the remainder of the scene. I was able to turn right by just using the left
motor, which was not enough to move me to the necessary location. I noticed that the
right motor would heat up quickly compared to the left motor. The device would work
again after a period of inactivity to let it cool down, before once again stalling after
continued use.

It was difficult for me to concentrate on both the movement of the device and my scripted
gestures and spots based on musical cues. This led to decreased performance, which was
noticeable by the stage managers and ultimately led to the decision that the device would
not be used in the show.

The device was fairly quiet during movement, but it would have been noticeable to any
attentive audience member sitting in the closest row to the stage. Jibril’s movement was
close to the edge of the stage, near some audience members on a few occasions.


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !29

7. Conclusions and Recommendations
This project was assigned to me by Prof. Antonio Barata of the Cal Poly Music
Department. He wished for a device to smoothly and eerily allow one to move without
using their legs. The device was to be used by a myself performing as an angel in RSVP, a
yearly student-produced production led and overseen by Dr. Barata.

The project began with exploring ideas for the design inspired by similar devices in the
market. Ultimately, a rectangular platform with two motor-powered wheels and two
casters was chosen. Parts were purchased and connected, and the device was built and
tested.

During testing, it was found that the device did not perform as well as expected. A motor
would frequently stall and cause me to become immobile or move in a jittery fashion,
which was not desired. The project was eventually chosen to not be included in the show,
and I would go on to successfully perform in the show without the need of a device.
Recommendations for the product can be found in Section 5.2 Recommendations for
Future Manufacturing.


FINAL PROJECT REPORT !30

8. Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank the following people for their support and encouragement throughout the
quarter:

Dr. Antonio Barata of the Cal Poly Music Department for his leadership and support.

Dr. James Widmann of the Cal Poly General Engineering Department for his help and
support.

Ms. Kate Hepworth for her cooperativeness and creation of Jibril’s costume.

The entire 2016 RSVP crew.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !31

Appendix A: Vendors and Pricing
Table 3. Vendors and Pricing

Part Vendor Amount Cost ($)

Plywood Home Depot 1 29.98
437 RPM HD Precision Planetary Gear Motor ServoCity 2 79.98
4” Heavy Duty Wheel ServoCity 2 13.98
3 in. Teal Swivel Plate Caster Home Depot 2 24.96
0.770” Clamping Hub ServoCity 2 15.98
1/4” - 6mm Bore HD Shaft Coupler ServoCity 2 25.98
32mm Clamping Motor Mount ServoCity 2 13.98
1/4" Bore Pillow Block ServoCity 4 23.96
1/4" Precision D-Shafting ServoCity 2 4.38
15” Aluminum Channel ServoCity 1 11.99
90° Single Angle Channel Bracket ServoCity 3 4.77
90° Dual Side Mount D ServoCity 3 20.97
3700 mAh 12V Battery Pack Trail Tech 2 107.92
Single-Pole Momentary Contact Push-Button Switch Home Depot 2 9.98
50’ 14 Gauge Red Primary Remote Wire Audiopipe 1 8.95
50pcs Premium Silver 14-16 Gauge Male-Female Genetic LA 1 3.57
Solderless Crimp Bullet Plug Connectors

Device Total 374.33

FINAL PROJECT REPORT !32