Model Up Competitors Products?

Do you model up competitor products so you can analyze them, look for
errors, physical strength, weights, design techniques, etc?

Does it help your designs?

Do you use the competitor models for comparison in any way for
technical info or sales info?

Bo

 

Look at them yes model them no
I examine what turns up at repair shops and recycling centres to see
what failed in practical use though.
Quite often fragile detailing ruins a product before it wears out.

 

Doesn't everyone?

 

When starting the design of a product for a client, I will ask for a
list of their main competitiors and what they believe are their
adv/disadv. If there are issues of Patents etc then we tread
carefully - but I really only do what is available in the budget.
That involves looking at samples and trying to judge get a in the
correct order the timeline of all the compromises made to get the
competitiors product to market. We then see if we can avoid the worst
ones and minimise our own compromises.

I had never thought of modelling the product and then FEAing it etc.
I shall have to offer it as a service and see if I can increase the
budget. Thanks for the the tip Bo - I genuinly never thought of
actually subjecting the competitiors products to such in depth testing
and then charging for it.


Jonathan

 

I have looked at competitors parts in a number of ways and wound up in
many cases finding why they didn't achieve the desired performance
(fluid flow modeling), strength, or moldability in terms of knit lines
and sink marks. Sometimes they could have solved the issues with more
careful mold design.

Bo

 

Hmm- seems like you would be able to glean a lot more data from the
actual part. Seems like a lot of effort to recreate somene elses
design intent. What kind of parts are we talking here?

 

Agreed that actual parts are necessary, or at least very very
desirable for testing.

Fluid flow through a somewhat complex assembly can reveal more easily
why flow resistance is high, in say a plastic flow regulating
assembly.

Plastic flow modeling can reveal where high stresses, warp, sink and
knit lines will be which can cause problems in the wrong places.

Design decisions which put the parting lines in the "wrong" places can
complicate tooling, function & assembly difficulties amongst many
things.

Plastic parts with functioning hinges, snaps, undercuts and such are
worth looking at in some detail to understand why they are good or
bad.

That all brings up:

Bo's Bitch: Mr. Someone wants a molded product project started, where
the tooling will be a quarter million dollars, but all they want the
"designer" to do is "copy" or "update this design".

Then when you tell/suggest "Mr. Someone" that we ought to examine the
competitors, your previous designs, do some molding, cooling and warp
analysis and Mr. Someone screams bloody murder that "You are going to
make the cost of the project go overbudget." Asking why modeling and
testing was not in the budget would be an insult, so...

Try to explain that cooling analysis ALONE, regardless of other
issues, might lead to cycle time savings that would more than pay for
the analysis and design optimization changes, and if you have a
rational manager, you do it. If it is the anonymous Mr. Someone, the
guy has no grasp of production economics.

I saw a set of 3 molds done at Baxter for an exhalation valve all done
in 16 cavities each over a decade back, for a sum of more than
$500,000. Management would not allow for hard prototype plastic,
single cavity pre-production or metal modeling and testing, because
"The GM says we don't need it."

Well, the flow resistance through the device was 2 times the maximum
allowed, and they came to me to fix it. I told them I could, but in 2
critical areas of the design I would need to enlarge the parts to
reduce flow restriction. They didn't want rational fixes, they wanted
magic that cost a few tens of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, no
actual test prototypes meant they either scrapped all three tools, or
would mostly replace at least 32 cavity sets.

That is a fine example of what can go wrong. Rapid Prototyping can
take care of part of the early testing issues fairly easily. But
finding out if you have a chance for a bubble or knit line right
across a sealing area for a diagphragm is damn near impossible to
determine accurately without modeling.

Lots of parts are so lightly loaded and non-critical it takes no
analysis, but in today's fast time to market, even if you can fix a
small mistake, you may cause the project to miss the "launch date",
which can be more expensive yet.

Bo

 

Doesn't everyone?

Doesn't everyone who posts with their real name ingnore this kind of
topic? ;>)

 

Intereting view-comment

No

 

We learn from our own mistakes and the mistakes of others.

That is the gift our forefathers gave us with both language and the
written word. Analysis can turn failures into gold.

 

Another example:

Tipped over a liquid detergent bottle. The cap immediately broke off.

Was it the wrong hinge design physicals, wrong material, wrong
processing, or something else.

If you don't know why it failed, how can you prevent your design from
doing the same thing?

It is not enough to "think" you know the reason. You need to know THE
reason.

Bo

 

The cap immediately broke off.

Ah now here you have my attention..
I relate to you a story..
About 2 years ago I decided my existing electric jug was past its use
by date.
Perhaps you call them kettles?
Anyway a trip to a local store presented me with about 12 different
choices to choose from..
Making my way along the line I eliminated quite a lot..perhaps they
were shoddy or impractical or too expensive but in the end I picked
one.
...and it was ok...until last week when I accidently hit the lid
(clumbsy imperfect creatures) ..and you guessed it...I broke the
hinge..
F***!
Right so a perfectly serviceable jug now with a stuffed lid.
Should I live with this errant octopus? replace it? or do DIY open
heart surgery on it?
On closer inspection of the bits it is apparent it is a wonder this
lid lasted as long as it did
It is just a piddling peice of plastic waiting to break but hidden
from shoppers critical eye...
There is absolutely no need for this to happen.
Sure it worked but it couldnt take a decent bump..it actually only
needed an extra sneeze of plastic but alas..no
This is why peolpe get annoyed with 'design' and why 'designers' need
to be hung ;o)

 

But he'd first have to actually have or use MasterCAM or
be able to use MasterCAM <G>.

 

No. We do tear downs of competitor products and products in related fields
that we think we might learn from, but we don't model them. We have a hard
enough time getting our own models done fast enough!

Seeing how other people design products and parts is always helpful and I'm
sure we would learn even more if we modeled up their designs, but I don't
think the added learning would be anywhere near worth the added time spent.

No. I could imagine that we might want to model and analyze some
particularly interesting design some day, but it hasn't happened yet.


Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

I agree Jerry, for the average case.

When you are faced with prior art patented solutions by Fortune 500
competitors and others, though, it suddenly becomes of paramount
importance to know everything you can about the "Prior Art".

It also becomes just as important to give the patent attorney the
exact models of what doesn't work as well as your new design and why
and what prior patents are involved.

Intellectual Property as a percentage of corporate assets has about
doubled in the last 15-20 years from my recollection of a Business
Week article in the last year, to nearly 66%. Knowing your
competition has become critical.

Bo