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

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

3.  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. CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS  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 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

5.  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.  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

8.  The midterm design was initially chosen and built upon to create our final design.

10. Pro-E ConceptFinal Design

11. Pro-E Concept Final Design

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

13.  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.  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. Apparatus used for angular measurements.

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

18.  From these results, data was compiled which evaluated each of the prototypes against the Polaris competition, some of which can be seen below. Initial Angle of Displacement (deg) Prototype A (w/ Rubber Core Insert) Recoil Angle (deg) Prototype A (w/o Rubber Core Insert) Recoil Angle (deg) Prototype B Recoil Angle (deg) 10511.758 201419.7518 3020.66727.7526 4031.16736.535.5 5040.8334243 6049.16748.7552 7052.8356.2559.5 8058.83362.2567.5 906468.7573.5

19.  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.  This data put Prototype A w/o rubber core within 5 degrees of Polaris competition. Polaris Spring Mount Recoil Angle(deg) 9.666 17 24.333 29.666 38 42.666 48.33 55.666 65 Prototype A (w/o Rubber Core Insert) Recoil Angle (deg) 11.75 19.75 27.75 36.5 42 48.75 56.25 62.25 68.75 Release Angle (deg) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

21.  This can be seen in this video…

22.  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.  The following recommendations give a few ideas for which cost could be saved.

24.  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.  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.  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. ?