Companies develop different models of based on users need. Each model has its own disadvantages and advantages. Most features of the scooter include mirrors that offer increased awareness to the drivers, basket used to put the groceries, adjustable chairs, and adjustable steering tiller that enhance the comfort of the driver. Most people use scooters to visit clubs or shops. Others use them over the holiday because most of them are able even to visit adverse areas. We chose to redesign Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 tofacilitate stowage and removal of an unoccupied electric mobility scooter into the boot of a hatchback passenger vehicle. According to the feedback obtained and initial analysis, the existing design has numerous challenges. Many people do not like it due to its heavy weight and portability issues. It is also hard to customize it based of different designs of scooter that needs to be loaded. The current paper looks keenly into the design of an innovative system to facilitate stowage and removal of an unoccupied electric mobility scooter into the boot of a hatchback passenger vehicle.  

Ethical Issues

The safety of clients should be of primary concern. Operating the design should be made easy. Users should be testedto ascertain if there is any ergonomic effect of using the new design. The new design should be light to facilitate use by disabled people. It should also include any effect on usage including progressive or long effects caused by its operations, the access, and the charging capacity of the product. The future proofing of the design would also be considered because lifestyles keep on changing. If the new design were not suitable for use to certain users due to their environmental location or other facets, the advisers and analyzers shouldexplain the reason.


In addition, there are elder people and people with disability likely to use the new Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 design. As a result, their visual or mental capacity is not up to standard. The lifter has to be suitable for such people. The design would consider the fact that any individual can operate the lifter for long and still not be exhausted or balanced off.



The new design should be designed differently to meet the various and different requirement of people based their physical features. It should break down while on operation. The mobility professional should also encourage question discussions with the users to guide them on the best usage of the new design. This will enable them acquire the longest durability and aid the users avoid health issues.


Nonetheless, design should be the best accessories for the people who have trouble bending. The users would therefore, be advised on the best models based on personal needs.

Product Functionality (FAST) and Mechanical Loading

The new design should be simple and easy to operate. By press of a button, the design should be able to lift the scooter and place it at the boot of the car. It should also be able to offload the scooter via the same process. When the scooter is rolled on the top of the systems platform, there should be a button pressed to raise as well as lock in a particular handle or sport that has an automatic Hold-Tite arm. 


At that point, the system should be able to lift the scooter without any assistance or manual lifting. The user should only fold the seat of the scooter onto the platform. By turning the key to the on position and depressing the rocker switch to face the up position, the system should be able to load the scooter into the car. The process of unloading the scooter should also be simple. It should follow a similar technique as well as be trouble-free for the user.


The back saver should be able different designs of scooters. This includes the scooters with two three wheels, four wheels or even five wheels. It should have a 22in/56 cm and over rear wheels. The wheel should weigh 110lb/ 50 kg or less to facilitate lightweight. The design is also supposed to fit a ball mount hitch which standard.


Additional features include strong and tubular frame to enhance the structures strength and rigidity as well as offer long-term durability for the design. The feature of the back-saver should have a self-locking and a Hold-Tite Arm designed to hold and grip the scooter firmly when being transported and should not mar its finish. An optional license holder is optional. The loader should also include extra brake light for peace of mind and security.

Customer and Market Requirements (QFD)

A research conducted showed that already three consumers for the new model of Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 exist. These include kids, parents and the students in college. Every demographic requires different specification from the new product. The parents required products that are safe, durable, low cost, reliable and had stowage capacity. Kids anticipated a product that is fun, lightweight, cool and trick friendly. The students were interested in the products because it is cheap, portable, lightweight, durable and collapsible.


The new design of Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 should be marketed to the older users who will understand the improved performance and customization of the scooter. Kids and parents would probably not spend more cash on an add-on for the new design for their children because they are looking forward to purchase fun lifters. However, the older Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 users would get improved braking capacity, customization and increased durability of the new design.


The disk brakes designed in our new products address various use concerns and safety measures from all demographics and could possibly be sold to the kids and the parents although not in big volume. Utility of the disk brakes increases the reliability and safety compared to the older design of breaks installed. The research done confirmed that the products get commendable reception from students. Additionally, the new Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 are trick friendly because they did not add weight. The only concern about the design is pricing. However, an additional study on the portion of pricing will enable the company control it and ensure that the product make profits.

Product Design Specification for the New Designs

The current design should be based on Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 for its carriage capacity. The Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 has limited carriage area among other limitations. As a result, the new design should improve on some of the limitations such as inclusion of carriage space, minimization of some of the parts that are not necessary in the Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 and standardizing some components to create space for the placing the scooter. The new design also should work towards developing multifunctional parts as well as decrease some finishing and unnecessary operations. It should also work towards enhancing ease of operations for the loading and unloading.

Minimization of Some Parts

Some of the components and connections made towards the rear of the Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 should be cut to create space for the carriage area. This will reduce the weight of the new design. Otherwise, more weight will be a disadvantage to new design if it added much weight. Stakeholders prefer potable lifter for ease of operations.

Standardizing Some of the Components


Some of the extended components in Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 are not standard. Indeed, some of the parts cannot lift heavy scooter appropriately. For instance, some of the back bars should be replaced with stronger bars for stability and durability.

Multifunctional Parts

The new design should create new supporting bars for the lifting. The break system also needs changes due to the expected increase in weights of different scooters. The older Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 has braking systems that deteriorates the wheels. Most time, this lead to axle bending of the older design because of stress and weight. Therefore, the collapsing mechanism would be stuck because of environmental factors. Indeed, based on DFE standpoint, the influence of use to the environment is limited. As a result, the new design should concentrate on utility of materials that arefriendlier to the environment. The processes should also eliminate the processes for manufacturing to save energy while producing the new design of Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600.


The final design should therefore, improve on the shortcomings. The design should incorporate standard components and reduce the drawback of the rear wheel that wears away. Finally, it should minimize the use of materials that can harm the environment

Justification of the Preferred Concept


The initial design used in the Assembly & manufactureAnalysis indicated that Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 used designs that were simple. The designs could be tested easily in subassemblies. However, excess components, unstandardized components and numerous challenges in assembling. As a result, the objective of the new design of product, in regards to DFMA, should be to ensure that, the product maintain simplicity of the Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600  as well as minimize and standardize the components that could be assembled easily.


When compared to the design of the Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600, the current design of manufacturing and assembling should bemore complex and difficult because of the added components and sub assembly that involves numerous components. Indeed, the current design has added about 50 components on top of the roughly 90 parts used in Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600. More so, the parts used in the new model are small and challenging to fix in the available tight space needed. Many improvementswill however, make components standardization. The screws of the productshould be kept to a thread of 6-32 though the variation in length should not be much. This should simplify the phase of assembling.


Nevertheless, we have a feeling that the improvement made to the new scooter by the additional components and disk brakes will however, outweigh the negative effects that result from the its assembling and manufacturing.

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)

When we analyzed the Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600, we were able to establish various potential failure modes in the design. FMEA establishes the potential problem inherent in each component as well as list their impacts on the product’s design. It also offers recommended actions to control and prevent the identified failures.


From the analysis, we established that the impacts and the failure modes of the new product compares well with Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600. Through effects analysis and failure mode, it was concluded that the prudent failures of Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 are lack of lifting space andthe wheel damage caused and the poor systems of brakes. The risk of collapsing mechanism allied to the handlebars and thejam experienced in the front wheel assembly failed the earlier version of the system.


Failure of wheel caused by poor systems of braking ranked the highest because it had the highest occurrence rating. Therefore, the new design should minimize the impact caused by the brakes to the wheels. The disk brake of the new design make is possible to engage brakes without any damage caused to the wheel because the driver does not need to lock the rear wheel. The risks associated with the rear axle are also reduced because the older designs of axles will be replaced with a stronger design. The front axleswill not be modified. However, it will now bear less weight because of the availability of the rear bars and axle that will accommodate much of the weight. The failure mode allied to the collapsing handles will be retained because it is not a complex part of the product to the consumer. The latter has not been part of what was designed and have no control to change it. Nonetheless, the current design has added new but minor risks like development of the foot lever because of misuse and wear of the aluminum linkages caused by use of excess force. Therefore, a redesign was recommendedto make the parts stronger in iterations made in the future if the new design is to go forward.


The estimated impact to the environment is indicated in figure 1 from Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 during the models production phase. The estimates have ignored the emissions made during the manufacturing process of the raw material to the products because of the minor effect caused in the phase. For instance, the emissions made while assembling, stamping the steel to form different parts and while shipping are ignored. The figure has also outlined the primary parts needed in developing the new Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600. The cost indicated for the Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 also makes up the maintenance costs and utility for every component such as plastic, aluminum and steel. It has also identified the cost of amount of components bought to manufacture of Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 of certain mass and the amount of carbon dioxide produced during the production phase with its implied cost of tax.


Figure 1: Environmental Design.


papermasters essay example


As indicated above, the new design has improved greatly in regards to the DFE analysis performed on theBruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600. The material used was minimized. The materials were also environment friendly. For example, aluminum is used for the small components like the caliper and the arms rather than use the steel for the purpose of the environment. On the other hand, steel has been used for the components that need more strength. The number of material used in the back and deck were also minimized to create space for lifting. Further improvements can be enhancedthrough further reduction of parts and other secondary operations in the production phase.

Assess Material, Cost and Manufacturing Implications

The Price of the New Design Compared to Old Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600


Cost ofBruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 is $44.99 while the Price of the cost of buying ProXXBruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600is roughly $109.99. The target price of the new design is $70.With the target price of $70, the new design will almost be competing with proXXBruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600. With the current pricing, the market for the kids and parents will probably go down. This is because there are no other cheaper versions in market. The target market will therefore, shift to students who are in college. It is imperative to note that proXXBruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 improves drastically based on the quality of base Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600. It also offers smooth rolling of fourteen spoke wheels, aircraft grade aluminum and bar and tube set up that are rigid down


Table 1: The Estimated Material Cost.






Parts manufactured


Purchased parts


Total cost



The profits were analyzed by 

P = q (p − v) − f whereby 

q =Production Quantity 

p =Sale Price 

P = Profitability 

f= Fixed Cost (rent of the warehousing included

v=Variable Cost (cost of labor and material cost included).


According to the analysis made, a quantity of 100,000 produced every year would make the new venture feasible and production would indeed be valid. The target market is achievable because the number of Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 market is over 20 million units each year. Additionally, the sale price of $70 includes 23% mark up from the variable cost. The latter is modest because the wholesale and retail shares are not part of this. Transportation and advertising are also not part of the deal.  The variable cost obtained is $57. On the other hand, the cost of material obtained is $47 with labor costing $10. The assumption made is that the deck and the machine take one hour to assemble a Bruno Back-Saver – AWL 1600 to its entirety. Based on estimated warehousing rent and area needed, the fixed cost equals $100,000. Therefore, using the profit function, P = 100,000(70-57) – 100000 the profit = $1.2 million annually. Therefore, the business is feasible.