Project Description

Every morning in Indian cities, elderly cargo cycle workers; some in their 60s, 70s, and 80s ~ pull loads that would be illegal in formal logistics systems. In winter mornings, their hands shake from cold and strain. Their backs are permanently curved. Their breathing is labored before the day has even begun.

This is not a hidden problem. It is simply ignored.

TIRARE exists to challenge a quiet assumption: that suffering in informal systems is unavoidable, and therefore unworthy of engineering effort.

This project will build one real, working electric retrofit for a human-powered cargo cycle ; not as charity, not as a showcase, and not as a scalable product ; but as physical proof that extreme human strain persists largely because no one has bothered to design alternatives under the constraints these workers actually live with.

Most electrification solutions implicitly assume:

• stable incomes

• formal servicing

• expensive batteries

• protected infrastructure

Informal cargo transport has none of these.

Instead of optimizing performance, this prototype is intentionally designed to answer a more uncomfortable question:

Is human suffering being preserved by design neglect rather than technical impossibility?

The answer cannot come from simulations, reports, or policy papers, I did even publish some myself. It requires building something real, breaking it, fixing it, and documenting what fails when dignity is treated as a design requirement rather than an afterthought.

All results ~ including failures ~ will be published openly so others cannot claim ignorance again.

Project summary

Build and test a single ultra-low-cost electric retrofit on a real cargo cycle to demonstrate that reducing extreme physical strain is technically feasible even under informal-system constraints.

What are this project's goals? How will you achieve them?

Goals

• Build a functioning electric assist retrofit using components available in local Indian markets

• Identify what fails first ~ mechanically, electrically.

• Produce public, practical evidence of what can and cannot be done at extreme cost limits

Method

• Source motor, controller, and power components locally

• Design minimal, repairable mounting hardware

• Integrate the system onto an existing cargo cycle

• Conduct short, real-world load tests

• Document degradation, failure modes, and safety risks

This is not a performance benchmark.
It is a reality check. how will this funding be used?

The full $500 will be used exclusively for:

• electric motor and controller

• battery or power source

• mounting hardware and basic fabrication

• local transport and testing expenses

This budget is intentionally minimal and sufficient only for a Phase-0 prototype.
It does not include scaling, manufacturing, or commercialization activities.

With less than $500, the prototype cannot be built.

Use of Funds ($500)

The full amount will be used only for:

• motor and controller

• battery or power source

• mounting hardware and basic fabrication

• transport and real-world testing

This funding enables one thing only:
building the prototype at all.

Without it, the question remains unanswered

Who is on your team? What's your track record on similar projects?

This prototype is led by Anurag Mishra (founder / technical lead). Phase-0 is intentionally solo to keep iteration speed high, reduce coordination overhead, and allow fabrication and integration decisions to be made directly at the workbench level. Machining and workshop tasks will be handled through proposal to T works labs (standard for early hardware).

Track Record

Relevant background includes national-level competitive robotics, aerospace systems competitions, and rapid prototyping environments where mechanical and electrical constraints must be solved under time and resource limitations. Experience includes: World Robot Olympiad (Future Engineers – National Selection), Robotics for Good (National), International Space Settlement Design (International Qualifying Invite), and F1 in Schools (team lead). These collectively map to integration, failure analysis, reliability under load, and iterative build cycles.

Most recent precursor work includes a 96-page technical proof-of-concept for Tirare which was dismissed by me for a better reterofit design, on basis of real world implication mechanical integration, torque/gear considerations, failure modes, and repair ecosystem constraints.

What are the most likely causes and outcomes if this project fails?

Likely failure points

• component failure under sustained load

• unsafe mechanical integration

• unacceptable tradeoffs at extreme cost limits

Value even if it fails

• hard evidence of which assumptions are invalid

• concrete boundaries of low-cost electrification

• public documentation that prevents repetition

If this project fails, it still removes plausible deniability.

Funding History

$0 raised to date.
Design work is complete. Funding is required solely for physical construction and testing.

How much money have you raised in the last 12 months, and from where?

$0, we are now completed with prototyping design and are seeking 500USD to make it in real world.
This project has not received prior funding.