From DDL Wiki

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 19:57, 11 February 2012

Executive Summary

Stakeholders

We have identified four major stakeholders in the life cycle of the competitor's product: the user, the retailer, the manufacturer and the shipping company. Below is a list of the needs of each stakeholder concerning the product.

Users

The user is the main person to use the product, therefore his needs are the ones that should be first taken into consideration when redesigning the competitor's product.

Low price
Light with sufficient rigidity and flexibility
Durable
Board should have sharp edges but remain safe to carry
Adjustability and strength of bindings
Ergonomics of bindings: they should be easy to strap on and release
Appearance, branding

Retailers

The needs of the retailer are centered around making profit by selling the product, and facilitating the after-sales service.

Profitability
Appearance, branding, appeal
Easy to store: small weight and dimensions
Serviceability: standardization of parts

Manufacturers

The needs of the manufacturers are aimed at easy and cheap manufacturability.

Simple geometries
Limited number of parts
Cheap materials that are easy to work with
Cheap manufacturing processes
No toxic materials
Easy to store: small weight and dimensions

Shipping Companies

The shipping companies want an easy to carry product.

Package should be light and compact
Durable: resistance to vibrations and shock
Replacement parts must be easily shippable

Use Study

The main steps in using the product are listed below.

Travel to mountain and ski resort
Purchase ticket
Put on boots, hat, gloves
Strap front foot into binding
Take ski lift and get to the top of mountain
Strap rear foot into binding
Go down the slope: set edge, shift center of gravity and twist board to turn, traversing the fall line
Unstrap rear foot and return to step 5

Mechanical Function

Product Parts

Exploded Assembly

Bill of Materials

Table: Components of Snowboard

Part #	Part Name	Quantity	Material	Function	Manufacturing process	Weight [g]
1	Screw (1)	8	Steel	Fixes bindings to board	Thread Rolling	5
2	Washer (1)	4	Steel	Protects piece from screw	Stamping	0.75
3	Nuts (1)	4	Steel	Attach strap to binding	Hot Forging	8
5	Buckle Screw	1	Steel	Attaches buckle to strap	Thread Rolling	<1
6	Strap (1)	1	Plastic	Fixes upper part of boot to binding	Injection Molding	16
7	Plastic Piece (1)	1	Plastic			<1
8	Screw (2)	1	Steel		Thread Rolling	9
9	Screw (3)	1	Steel		Thread Rolling	4
11	Metal Ring	4	Steel	Protect plate (n°18) from screws	Stamping	1.5
12	Screw (4)	1	Steel		Thread Rolling	<1
13	Large Anchor Nut	1	Steel	Attaches foam pad (n°46) to straps (n°-)	Hot Forging	<1
14	Small Anchor Nut	1	Steel	Fixes strap (n°22)	Hot Forging	<1
15	Angle Limiter	1	Plastic	Limits angle of pad (n°24)	Injection Molding	10
16	Plastic Square	1	Plastic	Attaches angle limiter (n°15) to pad (n°24)	Injection Molding	9
17	Strap (2)	1	Plastic	Fixes lower part of boot to binding	Injection Molding	9
18	Circular Plate	1	Plastic	Allows different angles between board and binding	Injection Molding	68
19	Pad (1)	1	Foam	Softens connection between leg and binding		6
20	Washer (2)	1	Steel		Stamping	<1
21	Strap (3)	1	Plastic	Attaches buckle and fixes lower part of boot	Injection Molding	10
22	Strap (4)	1	Leather	Fixes lower part of boot	Curing	33
23	Nut (2)	1	Steel		Hot Forging	<1
24	Pad (2)	1	Plastic	Holds rear of boot	Injection Molding	133
25	Base	1	Plastic	Frame of binding	Injection Molding	276
26	Damper	1	Rubber	Dampers vibrations and shocks from board to binding		79
27	Metal Fixation (1)	1	Steel	Frame of buckle		12
28	Lever (1)	1	Plastic	Opens or closes buckle	Injection Molding	5
29	Metal Fixation (2)	1	Steel	Frame of buckle		12
30	Rivet (1)	1	Steel	Connects angle limiter (n°15) pieces		<1
31	Rivet (2)	6	Steel	Connects buckle pieces		1
32	Washer (3)	1	Steel		Stamping	<1
33	Metal Fixation (3)	1	Steel	Frame of buckle		26
34	Lever (2)	1	Aluminium	Opens or closes buckle		19
35	Plastic Piece (2)	1	Plastic	Holds buckle pieces in place	Injection Molding	4
36	Spring (1)	1	Steel	Returns lever to original position		<1
37	Rivet (3)	1	Steel	Connects buckle pieces		<1
38	Rivet (4)	1	Steel	Connects buckle pieces		<1
39	Plastic Piece (3)	1	Plastic	Holds buckle pieces in place	Injection Molding	5
40	Metal Fixation (4)	1	Steel	Frame of buckle		22
41	Lever (3)	1	Plastic	Opens or closes buckle	Injection Molding	4
42	Plastic Piece (4)	1	Plastic	Holds buckle pieces in place	Injection Molding	<1
43	Spring (2)	1	Steel	Returns lever to original position		<1
45	Board	1	Steel, Resin, Plastic	Glides on snow and cuts ice with its edges, frame of bindings		3518
46	Foam Pad	1	Foam	Softens connection between foot and strap		49
47	Plastic Retainer	1	Plastic	Fixes upper part of boot	Injection Molding	65
48	Bolt	1	Steel	Connects foam pad (n°46) to retainer (n°47)	Cold Forging	<1

Design for Manufacture and Assembly

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Design for Environment

A snowboard has very low greenhouse gas emissions in use. The only emissions associated with use are the additional emissions from transport, which we consider negligable if transported inside a vehicle, but could be significant if transported externally, as for example on the roof of a car which would add drag.

The emissions caused by the added drag can be estimated by considering a increase in fuel consumption of 5% when using a ski rack [ 1 ] . When estimating an average driving distance to snowboard as 200 miles, a car with 20 miles/gallon, 5 trips/year, a 10 year life span and an average of 3 snowboards in the rack, the amount of gas needed to compensate for the ski rack can be estimated to 8.3 gallons. Considering 8.9 kg CO2 per gallon of gas [ 2 ] the total CO2 emissions from the use of a snowboard is approximately 75 kg. For such a rough estimate it is natural to round it to the order of magnitude of 0.1t CO2.

To estimate the amount of CO2 emissions from manufacturing we used the EIO-LCA method [ 3 ] to create the table. This method gives a total of manufacturing emissions as 0.25t CO2 when considering an average price of 400$ for a snowboard.

Table [1]: CO2 emissions for 1 million $ spent in the sporting and athletic goods manufacturing sector

However the method is very unprecise in our case as snowboards only represents a small fraction of the sporting and athletic goods manufacturing sector, so the value found represents the average emissions from all sports equipment which could vary enormously from one product to another.

DFE Conclusions

The total estimated CO2 emissions from the board are thus 0.35t. The conclusions are that if a tax of 40$ per ton CO2 is implemented, the snowboard would cost 14$ more. A consumer would probably not be affected by this increase in price, however if the cost is paid by the manufacturers it would be significant as they would lose 14$ times number of boards sold. Transporting the snowboard accounts for around 30% of this CO2 cost and reducing this is what our group identifies as the main area in which the snowboards carbon footprint can be improved.

Team Roles

Saviz Mowlavi - Team Leader

Evan Walden - FMEA Lead

Philip Brown - DFMA Lead

Erik Ringvold - DFE Lead

Christopher Tomaszewski

References

           [1] http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435406
           [2] http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
           [3] http://www.eiolca.net/

@@ Line 489: / Line 489: @@
 == Design for Environment ==
-In order to asses the de
 A snowboard has very low greenhouse gas emissions in use. The only emissions associated with use are the additional emissions from transport, which we consider negligable if transported inside a vehicle, but could be significant if transported externally, as for example on the roof of a car which would add drag.

Snowboard