SVE Inc. Flag Mount Redesign

1
SVE Inc. Flag Mount Redesign

• Group 4
• Nick Hatcher, Andrew Taylor, Neil Barnes, Jakob
  Combs, Chris Cook

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

• Engineering
• Specifications

• Customer
• Requirements

Weights

• 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

• 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

12 25 20 9 5 1 5 3 10 10
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?

• ?