1 / 27

SVE Inc. Flag Mount Redesign

Group 4 Nick Hatcher, Andrew Taylor, Neil Barnes, Jakob Combs, Chris Cook. SVE Inc. Flag Mount Redesign. Agenda. Reason for the design Main requirements and targets Customer/Engineering Requirements Product presentation Performance demonstration Product evaluation

micol
Download Presentation

SVE Inc. Flag Mount Redesign

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Group 4 Nick Hatcher, Andrew Taylor, Neil Barnes, Jakob Combs, Chris Cook SVE Inc. Flag Mount Redesign

  2. Agenda • Reason for the design • Main requirements and targets • Customer/Engineering Requirements • Product presentation • Performance demonstration • Product evaluation • Against the engineering targets • Conclusion

  3. Reason for Redesign • Current mount used by SVE Inc. was very prone to failure out in the field • Because of this, some of the customers have become unhappy with the current design • Competitors of SVE Inc. have designs which outperform the current SVE Inc. design

  4. Translating and Weighing Requirements Customer Requirements Engineering Specifications Bolt/Nut Assembly $7 Target Price Fits ¼” Pole Angle of Displacement Number of Parts Number of Steps People Liking Mount Detaches From Pole Product Lifetime Angle of Recoil Weights 12 25 20 9 5 1 5 3 10 10 • Mounts to ATV • Minimal Cost • Fits ¼” Flag Pole • Can Withstand Flexing • Ease of Assembly • Detachable • Short Assembly Time • Pleasing Appearance • Very Durable • Safe for ATV Driver

  5. Safety and Environmental Issues • Effort was made to reduce spring recoil • Keep driver and those around him/her safe • Design included ability to reuse flag pole • The thumb screw and sleeve insert allows the driver to remove the broken end of the pole and reuse the good end until it becomes undesirable because of short length. This decreases unnecessary waste produced.

  6. Initial Design Goals • Keep costs LOW! (Under $7) • Added structural support to the design • Overcoming the failure mode of the current design • Increased weld strength • Previous spring design used small tack weld • Increased flexibility • Current design allows only 70˚ at 14 inches above fixed mounting point • Design Lifetime

  7. Flexibility of Current Design

  8. Midterm Design • The midterm design was initially chosen and built upon to create our final design.

  9. Final Design Concept

  10. Concept Comparison - Assembly Pro-E Concept Final Design

  11. Concept Comparison - Mount Pro-E Concept Final Design

  12. Product Presentation • Two prototypes were created which utilized springs of different wire diameter. Prototype A Wire Diameter: 0.135” Prototype B Wire Diameter: 0.105”

  13. Product Presentation • Although only two prototypes were created, it was decided to see what effect a rubber core insert would have on one of the prototypes. This was done as a means to effectively lower the recoil angle at a low cost.

  14. Product Presentation • Performance Demonstration • Each prototype was benchmarked against the Polaris competition mount using the same process of measuring the angle of recoil as measured after release from an initial displacement. • A large angular measuring device was constructed and used to do multiple recoil tests on the benchmark and the prototypes.

  15. Product Presentation Apparatus used for angular measurements.

  16. Product Presentation Apparatus ready for testing with Polaris flag inserted. Each prototype was tested in this manner.

  17. Product Presentation

  18. Product Presentation • From these results, data was compiled which evaluated each of the prototypes against the Polaris competition, some of which can be seen below.

  19. Evaluation • Having collected this data, product evaluation could begin as it was compared to data collected from the Polaris competition mount. • All engineering requirements were met except for the $7.00 cost requirement.

  20. Evaluation • This data put Prototype A w/o rubber core within 5 degrees of Polaris competition.

  21. Evaluation • This can be seen in this video…

  22. Evaluation • From our evaluation we concluded: • Prototype A w/o rubber core met the most customer requirements while saving cost. • Although prototype uses the 0.135” diameter wire with a spring rate of approx. 100 lbs./in., the final design will include spring provided by Lee Spring: • 0.135” wire diameter • 2.5” in length • 134.1 lbs./in. spring rate to bring recoil data closer to Polaris

  23. Recommendations • The following recommendations give a few ideas for which cost could be saved.

  24. Recommendation 1 • Use standard size bar stock (1”, 1.25”, etc.) • Currently calling for 1.125” outer diameter • Use of less precise tolerances in design • Originally called for tolerances down to 0.001”

  25. Recommendation 2 • Pre-manufactured parts could be used • McMaster-Carr and CarrLane provide off-the-shelf parts which are similar to design and could be easily implemented. • Lee Spring would provide specific spring for these parts

  26. Recommendation 3 • Other connection types could be used in design besides welding • Press-fitting • However, this would need to be tested and possibly call for high tolerance values • Replace thumb screw with glue to cut costs

  27. Questions? ?

More Related