Snowboard innovation
From DDL Wiki
Contents |
Executive Summary
Market Analysis
Detachable Snowboard Market
From our previous market research we concluded there is a user need for a snowboard that is easier to transport by car and plane, eliminating the need for roofracks and special snowboard luggage. There also exists a market for snowboard wall hangers, which could be eliminated by the easier storage of a detachable board.
In order to fully analyze if there is a possible market for a detachable snowboard we first looked at snowboarder demographics:
![Snowboarder Demographics [1]](/ddl/index.php/Image:SnowboardDemographics.png)
The general trend is that snowboarders tend to be young, male and rich. In the U.S. only 6% of the population make more than a 100,000$ per year [3], compared to 32,4% of snowboarders. A detachable snowboard will be more expensive than a regular board, however snowboarders being a rich demographic will be less influenced by price increases if they can be convinced of the advantages of the new design. Therfore we believe the cost increase will not deter those snowboarders interested in our product.
Furthermore we looked at the splitboard market. A splitboard is a snowboard that splits into cross-country skis, in order to let the user move outside ski slopes to get to unused powder snow. Splitboards began to appear in 1993, but did not become mainstream until 2-3 years ago with brands such as Burton and K2 beginning to produce splitboards [4]. While solving very different user needs, the dynamic difficulties experienced by the boards are similar, as they require a mechanism for keeping two the separate halves together in a way that as closely as possible mimics the dynamics of an original snowboard. Even though there have been great improvements on the quality of splitboards, they are not yet as good as regular snowboards. This would also be true for a detachable snowboard. However the splitboard market keeps growing each year [5]. We conclude from this that there exist a growing market for snowboards that solve secondary needs, while sacrificing some of the dynamic properties.
We identified our target markets to be fairly diverse. Possible buyers listed by their importance would include:
-Snowboarders looking to avoid the hassle of fixing the roofrack, lifting the board both up and down at home and at the resort, as well as detaching the roof rack. Instead two easy release clips will let them detach the snowboard and place it in the car trunk.
-Snowboarders who prefer to bring their own boards when going for an alpine vacation by airplane.
-New snowboarders who will avoid having to also buy a roofrack when buying a snowboard.
-Snowboarders who want to reduce their CO2 footprint by avoiding the roofrack, or to reduce their fuel costs.
-Students or others who have limited space in their rooms for easier storing.
Estimated Price
Next we analyzed what would be an approximate price of our detachable snowboard. New regular snowboards are sold from a minimum of 100$ and ranging all the way to 10million$ for the worlds most expensive motorized gold snowboard [6]. However in order to estimate the price of a detachable snowboard we mainly used splitboard prices. The cheapest splitboard commercially available costs 420$ and prices go up to around 800$ [7]. The reason we base our costs on a splitboard is that the cost of materials needed are approximately the same as a regular snowboard, but it requires a few extra operations to be produced. These include cutting the board and attaching the supports at the back, front and middle of the board. We approximate that the amount of extra labour to produce a detachable board will be the same as that of a splitboard. Thus the price of the detachable board will be the price of an average splitboard plus the cost of the titanium rods. Using mcmaster.com the price of the 8ft of a quarter inch diameter titanium tubes needed will be around 100$[8]. Considering an average price of 600$ for a splitboard (the price of most Burton and K2 splitboards), we were able to make a final estimate of 700$ for the detachable snowoard. However for a mass produced model, the price of the titanium tubes could be reduced and depending on the quality of the detachable snowboard the price could vary from around 600$-800$.
Estimated Production Volume
In order to estimate a production volume we begin by looking at total snowboarders:
![Snowboarder Participation [2]](/ddl/index.php/Image:SnowboardParticpation.png)
Design Documentation
House of Quality
The House of Quality shows how our product compares against its competitors. We chose the two most relevant competitors, the regular board and the splitboard that was seen in the Market Research section. We compared them across a wide range of customer requirements, ranging from performance characteristics to transportability or ease of use. These requirements are valid for both beginners and experienced users, with beginners putting more emphasis on aesthetics and cost, and experience users giving more importance to performance characteristics.
Our product fare better than the splitboard in almost all categories. Compared to a regular board, our product is a lot easier to carry and store. While it is not as maneuverable when turning, its stability at high speed will appeal to experienced users that ride faster and do smooth turns. The regular snowboard is more durable, whereas the safety of our product is almost the same as the regular board, thanks to our mechanical analysis. Our product costs more, but it eliminates the need for buying a roof rack, which also leads to a reduction in the car's fuel consumption. The reduced CO2 emissions means the environmental impact of our product over its lifetime is smaller than for a regular snowboard.
Design Analysis
DFMA
FMEA
DFE
Mechanical Analysis
Prototype Documentation
Our final prototype demonstrates our snowboards ability to split into two parts, and then to be reassembled while maintaining its structure. A list of parts used in the prototype can be found in appendix [APPREF]. Our prototype also demonstrates the quick release ability of our final design. The user can quickly open the three latches and separate the two halves of the board. They can then slide the two halves back together – inserting the rods into the loop holders – and close the three latches. There are too purposes for this prototype. One is to demonstrate the quick release mechanism. The other purpose was to verify that dynamic properties of the board could be maintained with a two part board held together with appropriately chosen rods. For this, we used an accelerometer to conduct a dynamic test on the original board and the assembled prototype. The results of this testing has already been discussed. It verifies that using rods set into the board in our final design will result in a functional snowboard. A number of key differences exist between our prototype and our final design. In our final design the snowboard is manufactured from scratch, where as in our prototype we modified an existing snowboard. Therefore the main difference is that in our final design the rods are set into the board – something we could not do in the prototype. In addition, there are eight rods in the final design as opposed to two in the prototype. These rods are significantly smaller in diameter and made of titanium. Another noticeable difference is the thickness of the center of the board in the final design. In order to house the rods, the board must become thicker in the center.
Since our rods will be set into the board, the need for the vibration clamp and loop clamp is eliminated. Instead, on the fixed end the rods are embedded in a layer of resin inside the foam core and fiberglass sections of the board. Opposite the fixed rods on the other half of the board, hollow tubes are embedded in the same way. The rods slide smoothly into the tubes when the two halves of the board come together.
The board was simply cut in half for the prototype; however, for the final design the interface between the two board halves is “z” shaped. One side of each board half is longer than the other. This type of interface ensures that no pole or edge will ever line up perfectly between the two sections of the board. Each half of the board has four of the rods embedded on its longer side. The shorter side holds the hollow tubes. Since the two halves of the board are identical, only one manufacturing setup is necessary and each individual half of the board is replaceable. The final difference between our prototype and our final design for mass-production is with regard to the latches. The latches on our prototype were store bought and intended to be attached to a surface. For our final design our latches are incorporated as a part of our board and are uniquely designed. For each latch, two pins are depressed into the board (one on each half) and used as attachment points for the latch.
In general, our prototype weighed about 11.17 pounds without the bindings. The final design will weigh less than that because the rods are smaller and the holders are removed. For reference a typical snowboard weighs about five to seven pounds. Many potential users expressed interest in trying our prototype and more were interested in trying out our final design. Some expressed concern over the weight, but most of the added mass is in the center of the board where the riders mass dominates, and the inertial moments are not affected much. Most feedback was positive.
