Autosport International 2014
Discussion
I'm currently in the product development process for a motorsport jack and hoping to put together a small focus group at the Autosport Show this year. Essentially, this will entail an informal discussion and an evaluation technique to look at a few concepts which are currently being developed. I'm looking to do this on Saturday (11th) at 12noon and the process should only last about an hour.
If you're willing to help out in any respect that would be greatly appreciated. Please comment below or drop myself a DM and I'll get in touch with more details.
S. Burr
If you're willing to help out in any respect that would be greatly appreciated. Please comment below or drop myself a DM and I'll get in touch with more details.
S. Burr
Zulu 10 said:
Aren’t you the person who only joined Pistonheads and posted on the subject of new jack concepts a couple of months ago?
If I remember correctly, when offered some constructive help by professional engineers you deleted your original post, without having the courtesy to explain why, or to engage in any conversation on the matter.
Now you re-appear and have the temerity to expect PHers to commit a tenth of their time at the Show (to which they have to part with their hard earned to enter) in order to provide you with advice, and you don’t have the decency to offer them so much as a pie’n’pint for their trouble….
Give me a microsecond to think about which stand I shan’t be visiting on Saturday lunchtime!
I had no case in removing the original post, that was entirely down to the mods as it opposed forum rules (of which I'm fully appreciative of). Unfortunately, the post was removed before I even had a chance to see said feedback, so this is news to me. I would have been more than happy to have discussed said constructive help. If I remember correctly, when offered some constructive help by professional engineers you deleted your original post, without having the courtesy to explain why, or to engage in any conversation on the matter.
Now you re-appear and have the temerity to expect PHers to commit a tenth of their time at the Show (to which they have to part with their hard earned to enter) in order to provide you with advice, and you don’t have the decency to offer them so much as a pie’n’pint for their trouble….
Give me a microsecond to think about which stand I shan’t be visiting on Saturday lunchtime!
I appreciate that what I'm asking is a big ask, and that asking for help in such a manner is optimistic (or lack of sight on my part). I do appreciate that people spend their hard earned money to attend the show and it's not cheap either (I myself am paying to enter). So, definitely the least I could offer would be a "pie’n’pint".
S. Burr
I seem to remember it was just a case of linking to a survey.
Thanks for the suggestions, so essentially something along the lines of developing user requirements to see what the user actually needs/wants and working from there? Using those to compare products/ideas of products to? Rather than, as you say, just jumping straight in?
Appreciate the help.
S. Burr
Thanks for the suggestions, so essentially something along the lines of developing user requirements to see what the user actually needs/wants and working from there? Using those to compare products/ideas of products to? Rather than, as you say, just jumping straight in?
Appreciate the help.
S. Burr
Zulu 10 said:
Absolutely right, and here are a few to start you off while I eat my breakfast. (comments in brackets are for clarification – not part of the requirements)
The user requires a vehicle lifting device.
The user requires a device with a lifting capacity of XX tons
The user requires a device with a compressed (i.e. lowered) height of no greater than YY mm.
The user requires a device with an extended height of at least ZZ mm.
The user requires a device which can be operated by a single adult person.
The user requires a device which can be carried by a single adult person.
The user requires a device which can move between fully compressed and fully elevated positions, under maximum load, in a time of no greater than AA seconds.
The user requires a device which can move between fully elevated and fully compressed positions, under 10% of maximum load, in a time of no greater than AA seconds. (Have you ever had to climb on a lift to get it to lower because it’s too slow doing it under its own pathetic spring pressure?)
The user requires a device which makes positive engagement with the subject vehicle. (i.e. uses a spigot or some such to ensure non slip)
The user requires a device which provides a flat pad of no less than tbd mm2 to make contact with the subject vehicle.
The user requires a device which can be fitted with a range of interchangeable widgets to engage with subject vehicles made by different manufacturers.
The user requires a device which can be used on smooth concrete surfaces.
The user requires a device which can be used on gravel surfaces. (This will require more work to define but you get the idea)
The user requires a device which requires no external power source other than the human operator.
The user requires that the device be operable using gloved hands. (There's a standard defintion of this somewhere, but it's not my field - there are probably other ergonomic considerations that ought to be captured)
The user requires a devices which has environmental protection in accordance with MIL-STD-810-E Sections tbd (I’m not an expert on this, but there’s a useful corrosion protection section).
The user requires a device which is compliant with extant EU Health and Safety legislation.
The user requires that the manufacturer of the device shall a provide a user handbook written in English.
The user requires that the manufacturer of the device shall a provide a maintenance handbook written in English.
Other heading you might want to think about are Training, Logistics (spares) etc
These really ought to be prioritised using a simple Key, Mandatory, Desirable, Handy scheme, which enables you to sift different concepts.
Note that a non compliance with any Key or Mandatory requirement means automatic disqualification.
Some pedant will probably come along later and accuse me of interchanging system requirements and user requirements, but for your purposes a single requirements list will probably be adequate, so I make no apology for bast@rdising the requirements principles.
If you want to carry on with this and get other inputs then you might want to cut'n'paste this posting into a new thread in the club motorsport section with a request for people to add to the requirements things that they think are essential, handy etc
wow !The user requires a vehicle lifting device.
The user requires a device with a lifting capacity of XX tons
The user requires a device with a compressed (i.e. lowered) height of no greater than YY mm.
The user requires a device with an extended height of at least ZZ mm.
The user requires a device which can be operated by a single adult person.
The user requires a device which can be carried by a single adult person.
The user requires a device which can move between fully compressed and fully elevated positions, under maximum load, in a time of no greater than AA seconds.
The user requires a device which can move between fully elevated and fully compressed positions, under 10% of maximum load, in a time of no greater than AA seconds. (Have you ever had to climb on a lift to get it to lower because it’s too slow doing it under its own pathetic spring pressure?)
The user requires a device which makes positive engagement with the subject vehicle. (i.e. uses a spigot or some such to ensure non slip)
The user requires a device which provides a flat pad of no less than tbd mm2 to make contact with the subject vehicle.
The user requires a device which can be fitted with a range of interchangeable widgets to engage with subject vehicles made by different manufacturers.
The user requires a device which can be used on smooth concrete surfaces.
The user requires a device which can be used on gravel surfaces. (This will require more work to define but you get the idea)
The user requires a device which requires no external power source other than the human operator.
The user requires that the device be operable using gloved hands. (There's a standard defintion of this somewhere, but it's not my field - there are probably other ergonomic considerations that ought to be captured)
The user requires a devices which has environmental protection in accordance with MIL-STD-810-E Sections tbd (I’m not an expert on this, but there’s a useful corrosion protection section).
The user requires a device which is compliant with extant EU Health and Safety legislation.
The user requires that the manufacturer of the device shall a provide a user handbook written in English.
The user requires that the manufacturer of the device shall a provide a maintenance handbook written in English.
Other heading you might want to think about are Training, Logistics (spares) etc
These really ought to be prioritised using a simple Key, Mandatory, Desirable, Handy scheme, which enables you to sift different concepts.
Note that a non compliance with any Key or Mandatory requirement means automatic disqualification.
Some pedant will probably come along later and accuse me of interchanging system requirements and user requirements, but for your purposes a single requirements list will probably be adequate, so I make no apology for bast@rdising the requirements principles.
If you want to carry on with this and get other inputs then you might want to cut'n'paste this posting into a new thread in the club motorsport section with a request for people to add to the requirements things that they think are essential, handy etc
post of the year and we're only four days in
Zulu 10 said:
andrew said:
wow !
post of the year and we're only four days in
You're too kind Sir, but requirements writing has been part of my job for ten years so I ought to be moderately proficient at it by now. It doesn't always find favour with potential suppliers though: "You want it to meet that lot....Gulp"post of the year and we're only four days in
Zulu 10 said:
Might I suggest that Stu answers this and then request the Mods to put the whole thing in whichever is the appropriate place, leaving only his original posting here?
This is indeed looking at the professional market, so I'll request that the mods move it as you suggested.Looking further at your list above again it's interesting to note that it's working on a similar basis to a specification document I have been producing with aspects from performance, testing, saftey, documentation etc.
Again, thanks for all the suggestions and discussions.
S. Burr
Gassing Station | Events & Meetings | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff