SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2000-01-2651

Rethinking the Design Paradigm:

A Customer-Focused Approach to
Designing a Mini-Baja Vehicle
Brent Zollinger and Robert H. Todd
Brigham Young Univ.

International Off-Highway & Powerplant

Congress & Exposition
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 11-13, 2000

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Rethinking the Design Paradigm: A Customer-Focused
Approach to Designing a Mini-Baja Vehicle
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc
ABSTRACT
This paper uses a case study to demonstrate how
focusing on customer needs improves the success of
product designs in the marketplace. A sampling of
trends in modern design is presented, showcasing some
methodologies that facilitate effective design. The work
of the Brigham Young University mini-baja vehicle design
team is studied. The team used a customer-focused
design by developing the product specification directly
from customer statements, and using matrices to
evaluate the capacity of concepts to meet the
specification. Lessons learned from the design process
are considered.
INTRODUCTION
A BYU Capstone design team—composed of
mechanical and manufacturing engineers, engineering
technologists, and an industrial designer—designed a
vehicle for competition in the Mini-Baja West competition
sponsored by SAE. Mini-Baja is an intercollegiate design
competition where teams of undergraduate students
design, build, and race a "one-person, four-wheeled,
recreational vehicle [1]." The vehicles must be powered
by an unmodified 5.97 kW (8-hp) engine and have a
production cost of $2,500 or less if produced in 4,000
annual units. Vehicles are judged on sales, design,
safety, and cost; they are also raced to determine
performance capability in acceleration, hill climb,
maneuverability, and four-hour durability. To ensure the
vehicle would perform well in competition and be
completed in time, structured design methods were used
to define customer needs, create the product
specification, and make conceptual design decisions.
Detail design decisions were made using traditional
design procedures.
Design is a term that can connote a number of different
meanings. New engineers often enter industry with the
idea that design is only concerned with product function
[2]. The product realization process (also known as total
design and product design and development) is a catch
phrase that refers to a holistic view of the design
process. The term design in this paper refers to this
holistic view. Design from this point of view is a cycle of
2000-01-2651
Brent Zollinger and Robert H. Todd
Brigham Young Univ.
information processing and decision making with the
objective of meeting the needs of customers and
stakeholders throughout the entire product life cycle.
The design is successful when it achieves a balance
between factors—such as cost, performance
specifications, tooling, ecology, etc.—which best meet
the needs and wants of all the customers and
stakeholders [3]. A good design concept has a
tremendous effect on the overall success of the product.
It is estimated that more than 70% of the life cycle cost of
a product is determined by the design [4].
In 1991 the National Research Council published a
report indicating, "The overall quality of engineering
design in the United States is poor." And, "The best
engineering design practices are not widely used in U.S.
industry [4]." Engineering design in the U.S. lags behind
competitors in addressing customer needs, decreasing
lead-time, and accounting for the entire product life
cycle, including manufacturing, customer use, disposal,
and life cycle costs [5].
To stay competitive in coming years, practicing
engineers will be required to rethink their design
processes. They must become more involved in
researching the needs and wants of customers and
stakeholders (hereafter referred to as “customer needs”).
It is hoped that the case study presented here will help
practicing engineers understand the effects of focusing
their design processes around meeting customer needs,
and become familiar with some of the methodologies
that can help facilitate this objective.
THE CUSTOMER FOCUSED DESIGN
PARADIGM
A large part of industry uses an outdated design
paradigm, in which engineering designers act as problem
solvers who optimize designs to meet specifications they
have been given by others. Generally, they design inside
their knowledge base, not considering a broad spectrum
of alternatives. Frequently a mathematical model is used
to decide upon values for design parameters. It is
believed that the best possible design has been created
because it has been optimized within the mathematical
model. However, according to Pugh, over 95% of these
designs fail in the market place [6]. His research
indicates the vast majority of market failures occur
because the product specification does not accurately
reflect customer needs [6].
The new customer-focused design paradigm encourages
engineering designers to participate in market research,
and consider a broad range of concepts. They focus
efforts on identifying and meeting customer needs before
optimizing design parameters. This type of work
requires not only analysis, but also synthesis and
creativity. Design engineers work concurrently with
marketing and production specialists, continually striving
to improve designs. Continuous improvement in design
is desirable since an “optimum” design is never possible
in a dynamic marketplace.
Despite the large array of design strategies that attempt
to simplify design processes into a series of calculations,
design is still very much an intuitive and creative activity
[7]. Many design considerations require the use of
subjective judgement. Because of this, optimization
techniques may create a false sense of security, since
they often ignore or inaccurately reflect important
subjective design parameters, and may miss some
customer needs. Also, optimization requires complex
systems to be broken down into smaller components.
When the small components of design are optimized the
result is suboptimization of those components, often at
the expense of the design as a whole system. While
optimization strategies are a key to good design, they
must be used with wisdom.
Generating revenue is the primary reason for designing
and manufacturing products. Revenue increases as the
customers’ perception of value increases. Meeting the
needs of every potential customer is difficult, since the
needs of individual customers often vary and may even
change over time. A successful product must not just
meet the needs common to most customers at the
beginning of the design process; it must have a short
lead-time and be versatile enough to meet the needs of a
variety of customers, even as those customers may
change. Remember, the term customer is not limited to
the end user, but includes all product stakeholders, such
as marketing, production, and legal departments, the
environment, and so on.
THE DESIGN PROCESS
The key to ensuring successful customer-focused design
is using an appropriate design process. There are as
many processes as there are design teams. Each
company must establish and refine a process that works
to meet their situation [4]. In all cases, product design is
most effective when done in multidisciplinary teams.
However, the development process may include any
combination of design tools and strategies, such as 3-D
modeling, DFX, QFD, life-cycle analysis, function
morphology, selection matrices, FMEA, or Taguchi
methods [2,4,8,9,10].
The design methodology used by the BYU Mini-Baja
design team focuses on satisfying customer needs. The
customer needs identified by the team are a product of
detailed market research, and must be converted into a
product specification that accurately reflects those needs
in order to ensure a successful design. Concepts are
evaluated using screening and scoring matrices, which
judge the capacity to meet those specifications. The
quality of the concepts selected with matrices is
dependent on the chosen judging criteria, and the weight
that criteria are given [3].
The design process used by the BYU team was adapted
from Ulrich and Eppinger’s concept development model,
as seen in Figure 1 [8]. The design process does not
include steps for preparing tooling and production since
only one vehicle, a prototype, would be made. The steps
most critical for ensuring a customer-focused design
were included. However, market research focused on
competition requirements rather than consumer studies
because our end market was more oriented to the SAE
Mini-Baja West competition than the retail market.
To ensure the success of a structured design
methodology, care must be taken to foster an
environment conducive to design. Providing ample time
for team communication and empowering team
members with applicable resources encourages effective
teamwork. In interdisciplinary teams, each member
should be a specialist in their field and have background
knowledge spanning other design fields [2].
Figure 1: Design process model used by BYU Mini-Baja
team. Adapted from Ulrich and Eppinger.
BYU Mini-Baja Team Design Process
Identify
Customer
Needs
Establish Analyze
Specifications Competitive
Products
Generate
Product
Concepts
Select a Preliminary
Product Analysis of
Concept Concepts
Detail Design Advanced Cost Analysis
of Concept Analysis and
Prototyping
A CASE STUDY IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:
MINI-BAJA VEHICLE
Developing skill in design is best learned through
experience. Case studies are an effective way to help
convey lessons learned through experience to students
of design. There is a danger in learning design through
case studies however, since they must be presented
sequentially when documented, giving the reader the
illusion that the design process is sequential rather than
simultaneous and iterative [9]. The case study
presented here is used to showcase an example of one nor do they try to improve it. The specification should
team's attempt to incorporate customer-focused design state constraints as broadly as possible to avoid
methodologies into the design process. premature elimination of possible concepts [10]. In our
case, many constraints were imposed by the detailed
The Brigham Young University 1999 Mini-Baja team requirements of the competition rules. The 45 product
used a customer-focused methodology to design an off- specifications the team created were classified as being
road vehicle for the SAE Mini-Baja West competition. relevant to the entire vehicle, including major sub-
Focus was placed on meeting customer needs by giving assemblies of the vehicle such as the frame,
the multidisciplinary team of engineers the responsibility suspension, powertrain, braking, and steering sub-
for performing market research. The team derived the systems. The 12-member team was divided into sub-
product specification directly from the findings of their teams that were responsible for the design of each of
research. Concept generation and selection processes these major sub-systems. Time was allotted for the sub-
were focused on meeting the criteria required by the teams to communicate their intentions with the rest of
product specification. The early stages of the design the team. This communication helped in selecting sub-
process of the Mini-Baja vehicle provide an effective system concepts that could be neatly incorporated
means of studying the impact of the customer-driven together as a total system or vehicle.
approach to design. Competition of the vehicle at the
Mini-Baja West competition provides a mechanism for
determining design strengths and weaknesses in a An abridged specification, consisting of a metric, test
controlled “marketplace.” For the team to win the procedure and ideal value range, is found in Table 2.
competition, they must understand the needs of this Each specification was taken directly from a product
artificial “marketplace” and use a design process that is attribute, which is referenced by number. It is important
appropriate for the product and its market. that specifications reflect customer needs and desires
accurately so compliance to the specification assures
market success of the product. Some specifications
DEFINING CUSTOMER NEEDS The team’s main cannot easily be defined numerically. To enable
design goal was to produce a vehicle that met all of the evaluation of such specifications, a subjective rating was
needs of the product stakeholders, especially the end used.
user, BYU’s Mini-Baja racing team. In order to identify
as many customer needs as possible, team members It is not uncommon for inexperienced designers to create
interviewed previous race participants, studied product specifications that are worded in such a way as
competition rules, and reflected on personal desires for to prematurely eliminate possible solutions and
performance. Direct statements from these sources incorrectly reflect complex design issues [10]. The
were recorded and classified into a hierarchy. These young BYU design team was no exception. Some team
customer statements were converted into statements members felt the creation of the product specification
that expressed product attributes clearly and in detail. was just a hoop to jump through, largely because they
Rankings were assigned to each product attribute to were anxious to get to the decision-making design
indicate its importance. Some of the desired attributes phase. One failure of the specification was meeting
and their importance rankings are found in Table 1. A product attribute #10, which requires the vehicle to be
significant amount of time was taken to ensure the list of stable. The specification required that the vehicle could
product attributes reflected the true needs of customers, be tilted a large angle statically on two wheels before it
and that rankings accurately reflected customer would tip over. The team exceeded the requirement
priorities. Putting together the list of product attributes given in the specification, producing a design that could
was done as a team, so the input of everyone that be tilted over 60º before tipping over, but the car still had
participated in the research was available. some instability problems because the specification did
not take into account all of the suspension characteristics
ID # Product Attribute Rank necessary for dynamic stability. A better specification
would have been to require the vehicle to complete a U-
1 The vehicle is safe 5 turn of a 10-foot radius at a specified speed without the
2 The vehicle adheres to competition rules 5 wheels leaving the ground. This specification would
3 The vehicle is fast 5 allow for more design freedom by testing all parameters
4 The vehicle accelerates quickly 5 that contribute to stability simultaneously, rather than
individually.
5 The vehicle can climb steep hills 4
6 The vehicle is reliable 4 Product attribute #4, which requires quick acceleration,
7 The vehicle is inexpensive 3 was converted to a specification inaccurately because
8 The vehicle is light weight 3 the test method timed the vehicle on pavement, not on
9 The vehicle is comfortable and fun to drive 3 dirt as would be required in the race. While the vehicle
10 The vehicle is stable 3 performed well on pavement, it did not do as well in the
off-road acceleration contest because there was not
11 The vehicle is easy to service 2 ample brake friction on the rear axle to power brake at
12 The vehicle looks good 2 the starting line, increasing times by half a second. Had
acceleration been tested off-road, the problem could
Table 1: Abridged list of vehicle attributes, indicating their have been corrected before the competition.
importance to customers by a ranking on a 1-5 scale.
Even with shortcomings in the product specification, it
was a valuable aid to help focus the design on customer
CREATING THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION A requirements. Knowing how well the design measured
major key to any successful design is generating a up against the specification indicated roughly how well
product specification that accurately reflects customer the vehicle would do in its market—the competition.
needs and desires. Unfortunately design engineers do Confidence in a product requires both that the product
not always participate in the creation of the specification,
 Ref # Metric Test Procedure Target Values
(Ideal–Acceptible)
1 Number of belts, chains, and Observation 0–0
sprockets without guards
Amount of fuel lost in rollover Turn vehicle upside down and look for dripping 0 – 2 drops
fuel.
Stiffness of roll-cage material Calculate EI product of tubing 1,500 ksi – 760 ksi
Number of driver-restraint Observe number of harness attachment points 5–4
points
Distance to stop car from top Measure distance to stop from 50 yard acceleration 15 ft – 30 ft
speed on dry pavement
2 Number of rules broken Race judges determine number of rules violated 0–0
3 Top speed Instrument vehicle with speedometer 50 mph – 30 mph
4 50 yard drag race time Time 50 yard drag race on level pavement 6 sec. – 7.5 sec
5 Climbable hill angle Drive vehicle up hills on hard-pack 35º – 22º
6 Hours of driving without Time hours driven since last design change or 50 hrs. – 5 hrs.
failure repair
7 Cost to manufacture vehicle Estimate cost based on 4,000 production units $2,300 - $2,499
following Mini-Baja guidelines for costing
8 Curb weight Weigh vehicle 350 lbs. – 450 lbs.
9 Ride smoothness rating Drivers will determine rating subjectively (1-10) 10 – 6
Size range of drivers that can Drivers of different heights will attempt to drive 4' - 6'10" –
fit into vehicle vehicle 4'8" - 6'6"
Ease of steering rating Drivers will determine rating subjectively (1-10) 10 – 5
10 Angle of tilt when vehicle is Tip vehicle with driver on two wheels and measure 60° – 40°
balanced on two wheels angle of frame with angle finder.
11 Ease of service rating Team mechanics will determine rating subjectively 10 – 4
(1-10)
12 Aesthetic allure rating Industrial designer will determine rating 10 – 4
subjectively (1-10)
Table 2: Abridged list of product specifications including: metric, test procedure, and target value range.

meets the specification and that the specification
accurately describes customer needs. Since the
shortcomings in the specification were relatively minor,
they did not prevent the design from being successful.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Conceptual design was
divided into sub-systems: frame, suspension, powertrain,
braking, and steering. This division of responsibility
highlighted the importance of communication between
the designers of the different systems. The decisions of
one sub-team affected the decisions of another.
Constant communication was required so complete
vehicle concepts didn’t optimize one system at the
expense of others. For instance, tests performed by the
powertrain designers showed that using a differential
with a small housing would increase track speed, but the
rear suspension concept that was chosen by other
designers would put too much stress on the small
differential housing selected. This problem required the
suspension and powertrain designers to work together to
come up with a solution that would allow for synergy
between the two systems. Working together the
designers found that a trailing arm suspension design
could be set up so that one of the rear wheels would
unload around turns, allowing it to spin freely. This
discovery allowed a low-cost solid axle to be used in
place of the differential without eliminating the benefits
the differential would have provided. Through this
lesson, the team learned that unnecessary divisions in
design responsibility are undesirable because they
require more iterations to ensure a successful composite
design.
Designers used screening and scoring matrices to
ensure that a range of concepts was considered and that
the chosen concept was the best alternative. Screening
matrices ranked a large number of concepts, judging
each to be better than, equal, or worse than a
benchmark concept when evaluated against a series of
selection criteria (see Table 3). Scoring matrices were
used to further compare the concepts that faired well in
screening. For scoring, concepts were assigned a
numerical rating for each of the weighted criteria, as
shown in Table 4. The outcome of these matrices is
highly dependant on the criteria used to evaluate them,
and the weight assigned to each criterion. Appropriate
criteria were determined by considering customer needs
as stated in the list of attributes and the product
specification. A benefit of scoring matrices is that they
discourage designers from jumping to a solution
unnecessarily. Young engineers, especially, have a
tendency jump to complicated or “high-tech” solutions
[11].
 Frame Concept Screening Matrix
A B C D E F

New Concept

(Benchmark)
New Concept

New Concept

New Concept
Last Year’s

Last Year’s
Variant of

Model

Model
1

4
Selection Criteria
Conforms to rules 0 0 0 0 0 0
Easy to exit 0 0 - - 0 0
Fit all team members + + + + + 0
Aesthetically pleasing 0 + - - - 0
Comfortable to drive + + 0 0 0 0
Manufacturability 0 + - - - 0
Weight 0 + - 0 - 0
Sum +'s 2 5 1 1 1 0
Sum 0's 5 2 2 3 3 7
Sum -'s 0 0 4 3 3 0
Net Score 2 5 -3 -2 -2 0
Rank 2 1 6 4 4 3

Table 3: Screening matrix used to narrow field of concepts. Concepts were compared against a benchmark (F). Concepts in
bold were considered further in the scoring matrix.

Frame Concept Scoring Matrix

F A B
Last Year’s Model Variant of Last Year’s New Concept 1
(Benchmark) Model

Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score

Selection Criteria (%)
Conforms to rules 20 3 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.6
Easy to exit 10 3 0.3 4 0.4 4 0.4
Fit all team members 10 3 0.3 4 0.4 5 0.5
Aesthetically pleasing 15 3 0.45 5 0.75 5 0.75
Comfortable to drive 10 3 0.3 4 0.4 4 0.4
Manufacturability 15 3 0.45 4 0.6 5 0.75
Weight 20 3 0.6 5 1.0 5 1.0
Total Score 3 4.15 4.4
Rank 3 2 1
Continue? No Backup Choice Develop

Table 4: Scoring matrix used to decide upon primary and secondary concepts.

aesthetic appeal of the concept drawing and also found

The concept selection process for the frame/roll-cage
resulted in a very successful design. The original
concept drawing, drawn by the industrial design
specialist on the team, can be seen in Figure 2.
Manufacturing engineers were excited about the
that the frame could be made more easily than other
concepts. The final frame design uses relatively large
diameter tubing: 1.5-inch diameter, .035-inch wall
thickness, 4130 alloy steel. The tubing is much lighter
and stiffer than other options, making it difficult to bend in
 Figure 2: Frame concept drawn by industrial design
student Josh Thurber. This concept is referred to in
matrices as “New Concept 1.”

small radii. This obstacle was overcome by using tubes

bent in large 130-inch, and 70-inch radii. The large radii
can be bent easily on a three-point roller bender before
cutting to length. This solution not only eliminates the
need for local bends; it provides aesthetic appeal,
provides more room for the driver and powertrain
components, and lightens and strengthens the frame by
eliminating several welded joints.

Upon examination of the selection matrices in Tables 3

and 4, one important criterion appears to be absent—
rollover protection. The main function of the frame/roll-
cage assembly is to protect the driver in the event of a
rollover, so it would be natural to include it as a primary
judging criterion. However, rollover protection is included
in the "conforms to rules" criterion. Safety rules for the
Mini-Baja competition specify minimum strength and
stiffness requirements for the tubing used, and also
indicate the location and number of certain tube
members [1]. While these safety rules all but guarantee
safety for the race participants, they do eliminate a large
range of alternate concepts that would provide ample
rollover protection.
Conceptual design of the powertrain differed greatly from
that of the frame. Many concepts were studied, and
most of them had previously been used in the
competition by other teams. Research and analysis was
performed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
each design. The screening and scoring matrices
enabled the designs to be evaluated according to the
criteria that were established by customer needs
research. The concept that was selected consists of a
continuously variable transmission (CVT) driving the rear
wheels through a gearbox transmission and a chain
reduction. The gearbox transmission adds two speed
ranges and a reverse gear to the CVT, which
automatically adjusts its gear ratio depending on engine
rpm and torque resistance of the gearbox input shaft.
This concept was determined to be the least risky choice
because the shift-on-the-fly gearbox transmission
increased the gear range to exceed customer needs for
top-speed and also hill-climbing performance. The
second gear range was a critical factor in allowing the
vehicle to place in the top three in the hill-climb event of
the competition. The chain reduction was required to get
the overall gear range low enough for the 5.97 kW (8-hp)
engine, and to allow for gear range adjustably through a
change in rear tire diameter choice.
Since the power-source is limited by the competition
rules, the rest of the powertrain must manage the limited
power to achieve the desired specifications.
Mathematical models and benchmarking were used to
Figure 3: Shaded Pro/Engineer model depicting the
layout of powertrain components.
determine appropriate gear-ratio ranges. Powertrain
concepts were created in conjunction with suspension,
frame, and braking to take advantage of any
opportunities for function integration. For instance, the
drive axle incorporates an inboard disk brake and acts as
a suspension member in the trailing-arm rear
suspension. A single, non-telescoping, universal joint on
each side of the axle allows it to move with the
suspension. Axial motion of the rear axle is prevented by
mounted bearings, placed directly inboard of each U-
joint, which transfer thrust loads to the frame. Figure 3
shows a shaded Pro/Engineer CAD model of the
powertrain components.
DETAIL DESIGN During the conceptual design stage
the design team amassed a list of hundreds of detail
design questions that had to be answered. By this stage,
the major components and concepts had already been
finalized. Remaining questions included such details as,
“What bearings should be used on the front wheels?”
“What diameter should the steering wheel be?” and “How
should the throttle connect to the pedal?” The market
success of products greatly depends on the quality of
detail design [12]. The vehicle excelled in some areas
due to good detail design, but poor detail design in other
areas prevented the vehicle from winning the
competition. A major factor in the quality of the detail
design is the design methods used. Some detail design
work required standard engineering analysis techniques,
some required good intuition and judgement, and some
required critical concept selection.

Figure 4: Photo of finished vehicle prototype.
Pro/Engineer, a solid-modeling software package, was
used extensively in both the conceptual and detail design
stages. The software allowed for various design
iterations to occur quickly. It also was used to work out
assembly details and clearances. One of the main
benefits of virtual design is facilitation of communication
between designers. The creation of the solid model
occurred before construction began, facilitating
simultaneous design of the separate sub-systems.
Designers of the separate sub-systems worked out
assembly and interface issues early, resulting in less
time lost due to useless iterations. CAD models were
used for the design of major detail, and were not used for
less-significant details.
When deciding what bearings should be used on the
front wheels, standard engineering analysis techniques
were used. Loads that would be imposed on the
bearings were calculated and the desired life to failure
was decided. Bearings were then selected using the
selection procedures recommended by the bearing
manufacturer. Selecting the bearings was a traditional
engineering problem, and the bearings performed well,
as predicted.
The design of the steering wheel did not require any
engineering calculations, rather it was an exercise of
intuitive judgement. Since the wheel would be rotated
over 180° to either side, a traditional circular style was
chosen, as opposed to a butterfly or ¾ circle. Two
diameters were readily available: 25 cm (10 in.) and 36
cm (14 in.). The 25 cm diameter steering wheel was
chosen to allow more room for drivers to enter and exit
the vehicle. It was also judged that the car was easy
enough to steer that a larger lever-arm was
unnecessary. Even though using intuitive judgement as
a design tool involves some risk, it can never be avoided
in any design task. Risk can be reduced when a larger
sampling of people are used to give subjective input, and
when multiple prototypes are constructed for testing. In
this case, two alternatives where considered as well as
the opinion of most of the potential drivers. As a result,
the steering wheel performed very well, and was
comfortable for all of the drivers.
Designing the link between the engine throttle and the
accelerator pedal required generating and implementing
a concept. The novice designers felt this linkage was a
detail, and left its design to intuitive judgement, a detail
design method. In theory this concept should have been
decided following the procedure described previously in
the Conceptual Design section. A bicycle brake cable
was used as the link because that was the first
reasonable concept the designers thought of. No
analysis was done on the cable because the designers
were not familiar with applicable analysis techniques,
and judged that the cable would be under similar
stresses as on a bicycle. The design failure occurred
when the cable attachment points were decided upon at
the last minute. The attachment point at the pedal
consisted of a bolt and washer. The washer was
modified with a groove for the cable to seat in. When the
bolt was tightened, the washer pressed the cable against
the pedal to secure it. This attachment point was located
at the bottom of the pedal to allow concealment of the
cable assembly. Since the pivot of the pedal was located
towards the bottom, the cable was pulled along an arc
with a 5 cm (2 in.) radius when the pedal was actuated.
This radius proved to be too small, forcing the cable to
bend at the bolt from 0º to 90º along the throw of the
pedal. This bending caused a fatigue action that caused
the cable to fail after only 20 hours of service.
Unfortunately, the failure occurred in the beginning of the
durability competition.
The failure of the throttle cable took the vehicle out of
th
contention for first place, and the vehicle finished 12 out
of 72 registered entrants. Previous toth the durability
portion of the race, the vehicle was 5 overall, and
before the failure, it was on track to win the overall event.
These results are remarkable considering none of the
design team had participated in the Mini-Baja
competition in previous years. The vehicle performed
well in the hill-climb and maneuverability competitions,
but perhaps the most significant indicator of the design
quality is the number of complements received. The
general consensus of those who drove the vehicle is that
it is comfortable, easy to control, capable on various
terrain, and attractive (See Figure 4).
The lessons that were learned from this failure should be
noted. First, all conceptual design is important, and
should be carried out using conceptual design strategies.
These strategies require that a range of concepts be
considered and compared with criteria identified by
market research. Second, if design or analysis
techniques do not exist, research and testing is required
to identify failure modes and how to guard against them.
Third, design concepts should always be reviewed to
prevent poor designs from being implemented.
Reducing product development time is often at odds with
improving the quality of detail design. Achieving both
requires more time be taken initially to ensure that
customer needs are understood by all involved in the
design. Designers who take the time to understand
customer needs will be able to screen out poor concepts
more quickly, and will not waste time developing product
attributes that do not add value to the customer. The
detail design phase requires designers to know when
intuitive judgement can be used. Testing of a full-scale
prototype can provide information on every detail,
eliminating the need for individual prototypes for each
detail. However, each component of a full-product
prototype must be evaluated individually to determine
how close to failure it will come during testing, since
testing a full-product to failure will not reveal components
that are near failure. Product development time is
reduced when steps are integrated and decisions are
made carefully so that numerous iterations are not
required. Just as with production processes, making
sure things are done right the first time reduces waste in
the design process.
CONCLUSION
The product realization process for various products and
design teams differs greatly, as it should. Improvements
to this process must be made on a case by case basis.
Some principles apply to all processes, and can be used
to help identify areas in which to make improvements for
each case. One such principle is making sure
engineering designers understand the needs and wants
of all product customers and stakeholders. This often
requires engineers to become involved with marketing
and manufacturing activities. Tools, such as concept
selection matrices and customer-focused specifications,
help engineers incorporate the needs of their customers
in their designs. And while subjective decisions will
never be eliminated from design work, a better
understanding of customer needs will always improve the
quality of such judgements, producing designs with
greater market success.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to the 1999 Brigham Young University Senior
Mini-Baja Team and Coaches: Robert Todd, Chris
Jones, Andrew Woodings, McKay Asay, Geoff Carlson,
David Comstock, Rogelio Flores, Brett Hassell, Ryan
Hubbard, Scott Johnson, Barry Lewis, Benjamin Pack,
Kevin Paulson, Josh Thurber, and Brent Zollinger.
REFERENCES
1. Society of Automotive Engineers. 1999 Mini Baja® West.
USA. 1998.
2. Clausing D. Total Quality Development: A Step-by-Step
Guide to World-Class Concurrent Engineering. New York:
ASME Press; 1994.
3. Pugh S. Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design:
The Living Legacy of Stuart Pugh. Clausing D, Andrade R,
editors. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley; 1996.
4. National Research Council. Improving Engineering
Design: Designing for Competitive Advantage.
Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1991.
5. Kirk S J, Dell'Isola A. Life-cycle Costing for Design
Professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
6. Hollins B, Pugh S. Successful Product Design: What to do
and When. London: Butterworths; 1990.
7. Cross N. The Common Core of Design. In: Qualifications,
Education and Training Division of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, editor. Fourth International
Conference on the Education and Training of Engineering
Designers. London: Mechanical Engineering Publications;
1985.
8. Ulrich K T, Eppinger S D. Product Design and
Development. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
9. Magrab E B. Integrated Product and Process Design and
Development: The Product Realization Process. New
York: CRC Press; 1997.
10. Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering Design: A Systematic
Approach. Wallace K, editor & translator. London: The
Design Council; 1988.
11. Todd R, Sorensen C, Magleby, S. Designing a Senior
Capstone Course to Satisfy Industrial Needs. J Engr
Education. ASEE. 1993;82:92-1003.
12. Wallace K. A Systematic Approach to Engineering
Design. In: Oakley M, editor. Design Management: A
Handbook of Issues and Methods. UK: Basil Blackwell
Ltd; 1990. p 206-218.