Group 28 - Tippmann 98 Custom Paintball Marker

From GICL Wiki
Revision as of 15:29, 14 December 2012 by MAE 277 2012 - Group 28 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search



2012 Group 28 Stock Image.jpeg


Group Members

Kyle Erway
Alexander Harris
Gino Nadela
Matthew Tolentino

Executive Summary

This project focused on an in-depth analysis of the Tippmann 98 Custom Paintball Marker, a relatively cheap paintball marker (for the time it was still in production). Our group dissected and analyzed the several aspects of the product in order to understand how the product's final design came to be.
The several aspects include:

  • Functionality
  • Aesthetics
  • Manufacturing Processes
  • Assembly/Construction
  • Global, Societal, Environmental, and Economic factors (GSEE factors)

Gate 1 - Our primary inspection of our project revealed that the product is composed of around 20-30 components that rely on mechanical or energy transferring interactions, no electricity is required. Most of these interactions within marker casing, which holds most of the components, and the rest, occur while being mounted to the marker casing. The design of the gun was likely to continue reputation of Tippmann 98, being a paintball marker made of very common material while being constructed in a very straightforward, efficient manner; the marker’s components look as though they are easy to maintain and disassemble if necessary.

Gate 2 - The dissection process was completed in ten relatively simple steps, and yielded approximately thirty different parts/components. While completing this dissection, the innards of the marker casing were visible and the component subsystems were clearly visible. These sub-systems helped the group understand how the product performed its function in much more detail, as the sub-system interactions were simple relative to other similar product; while the interactions are not a simple as normal mechanism, they represent a fairly basic/standard form of interaction in this line of products. Just from inspection, the group could identify how each interaction lead to reactions among the components.

Gate 3 - A further analysis into the parts/components provided a better insight of how every interaction had significance in performing the overall function of the product. Each component was thoroughly analyzed to determine how complex it was, what its contribution to the product was, and how it was manufactured. Of these products we analyzed several main components even further, since to truly grasp how they contributed to firing paintballs. This analysis led to the conclusion that many of the components were probably designed to make the product a cheap, simple product that relied on durability and ease of disassembly to ensure it continued the reputation the Tippmann Model 98 had.

Gate 4 - The reassembly of the product was not too difficult either, and gave a good idea of where things in the product could be changed to yield an improvement in performance or user interaction. With a better understanding of how each component interacted with each other, the group proposed a few design revisions to the product at the system level. These improvements presented an increase in functionality of the product and could actually be viewed as a customization of the product. This product was designed to be customized easily, thus system-level changes may actually be interpreted as customizations. While the company could make these changes while manufacturing the product, allowing the user to customize it themselves will be more cost efficient and appeal to a much wider range of customers.

Project Gates

These project gates provide a basic layout for how the group should manage the product management and product archaeology tasks. The first four gates will test our group's organization, communication, and analytic skills, while the last gate will culminate the entire project into a technical report and short oral presentation.

Gate 1: Preparation and Initial Assessment

For the first gate, the group must evaluate the skills and traits of each member and assign a proper role for certain responsibilities. Alongside assigning roles, the group needs to outline the workload required for the entire project in some format. Lastly, the group must do thorough analysis of the product with restriction from actual dissection.

Gate 1

Gate 2: Dissection

The second gate provides a performance review of the group and an overview of the disassembly of the product. The review discusses how well the group managed to accomplish what was required for the previous gate and the continuation of work towards Gate 2. The overview of the disassembly process will be a detailed outlining of the complete dissection of the product.

Gate 2

Gate 3: Evaluation

The third gate is mainly an analysis of the product’s components and the interactions between these components. The group also reviews how well they have continued to work together and how to continue working together properly for the following gate. Along with a product analysis, several components will be modeled in 3D using Autodesk Inventor, and a component interaction will be analyzed in depth.

Gate 3

Gate 4: Explanation

Gate 4