From DDL Wiki

Client Comments on Report

We received your report. Your summary suggests that weight reduction and functional improvements are the two primary areas you have identified for improvement. What do you mean by "functional improvement"? Your findings that the primary failure modes are material wear and spring fatigue are interesting.

Detailed comments follow

• We appreciate the clear and well written overview
• You mention that the industry standard prevents alternative boot designs. Is it possible to design a boot with two configurations - one that meets the standard and one that is better for walking?
• Your descriptions of product use are nice. How/where does the user typically carry the device while skiing?
• Please include product function descriptions to explain how the product works mechanically.
• Please label the components from your BOM in your assembly picture. Any overall findings from the BOM?
• Parts 1-2 list "adhesives". Are there multiple parts here? How is the truss structure molded?
• Please be sure any subassemblies in the BOM are labeled as such
• Interesting thoughts in the DFMA - the line balancing rationale for including two rotating hooks is interesting. If the plates on the bottom of the ski boot are secured without screws, why are the screws needed?
• Your LCA concludes that EOL dominates production based on $1M activity in each of the sectors, but $1M worth of equipment will not produce $1M worth of waste management at EOL. Please reconsider. Also, please comment on how representative the categories you identified are.
• Good findings on FMEA. What scale are you using? What do you mean by "use hydraulic/piston system instead of springs"?
• Your modeling and analysis results look quite interesting, but you do not document enough about how your model works for us to understand the assumptions behind it, so we can't know how to interpret the results. Did you build the model from scratch, or is it built on models from another source? What are the basic kinematic and kinesiological assumptions that generate the results you report? Why don't you plot GRF directly? Please explain the even step / tilted step cases and your contact width assumptions.
• Nice explanation of your wear tests.

We are looking forward to seeing your market research findings and new ideas in the next report.

Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis

The mechanical analysis is interesting and well-performed. The comparison of curves in the normalized height graph is nicely presented. The durability test shows the team’s additional effort, which is and useful and appreciated. My few comments:

• The Matlab analysis begins with very little information. Please state your assumptions clearly and explain how you carry out the simulation.
• There should be many ergonomic settings in your analysis. Please explain them clearly. If any reference is used, please indicate them in your analysis.
• A picture should be included in the beginning of step simulation to indicate the location of hip point, hip flex angle, knee flex angle, and ankle flex angle in the three-bar linkage representation. That will be a great help for a client reading this report.
• The GRF equation seems not correct because force should be calculated from mass and acceleration (d²y/dt²), not velocity (dy/dt). Please verify it.