Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

Team DIZMA:

The Latte Yo-yo

Deliverable 4
December 13th, 2017

Lab C2: 11am-12:30pm


Daniel Weiss, Illina Yang, Zoe Bornhorst, Michelle Chen, and Ananya Nandy
Table of Contents
Introduction 2-3

Part Production Analysis


Base 4-5
Coffee Top 6-7
Coffee Foam 8-9
Cup 10-11

Assembly 12

Process Automation 13

Specification Comparison 14-15

Mass Production 17-18

Cost Analysis
Case 1 – 2.008 Materials and Processes 19-20
Case 2 – Additive Manufacturing Service 21-22
Case 3 – High Volume Manufacturing 23-24
Comparison 25-26
Crossover Point 27

Comparison with Store-Bought Yo-yo 28-29

1
SECTION 1: Introduction
The base of our yo-yo is the blue cupped part that
has a hole on one side for the set screw and spacer.
Although it might seem simple at first, all of its features
were carefully designed to improve the function and
aesthetic of the yo-yo. First, we inserted a metal shim into
the base part to give the yo-yo a weightier feel while it is
being used. While testing the functionality of the yo-yo, we
received numerous compliments on its weight. Other
important features include the steps on the inside of the
base’s rim. Each serves a different purpose. The top step is
where the coffee top and foam sits. We put the step at this
height such that the rounded edge of the coffee top would
rise slightly above the base. The bottom step seals in the
metal shim. The plastic resin molds over the metal, so that once the plastic is cooled, the metal
shim cannot be pulled out. The raised platform that molds around the nut also has a function. It is
designed to be a specific height that will enable it to support the coffee top and foam parts at
their center. This way it is difficult to deform the assembled part by compression. Even though
there were many successes in the design of this part, there still is a stub leftover from the gate on
each part. In mass production of these parts, it would be a good idea to put each part through
post-processing in order to file down the stubs.

The brown coffee top was another successful part.


The smooth surface finish of its cavity mold gives the part
a sleek, liquid appearance, making it look similar to coffee.
The outer diameter of the coffee top was designed to be, on
average, ten thousandths larger than the inner diameter of
the base part for a tight press-fit. As you will see below,
the average top actually came out twenty thousandths
larger than the average base. Although we were concerned
that the parts would no longer fit together at first, the press-
fit between the two parts turned out to be even better than
before. The assembly process might be slightly more
difficult, but the assembled yo-yo is much more robust as a
result. As a result, we are happy with this change. The holes for the white foam in the coffee top
were also a success. Their sizes are only slightly larger than the foam islands that fit through
them. This helps to make it seem like there really is foam sitting on top of the coffee. The main
issue with this part is that the mill could not fully machine that heart in the top-most island in the
core mold, so there is a small gap between the foam and top at this spot. We would have to use
an even smaller endmill to fix this.

2
The coffee foam was successful for many of the
same reasons. It fit well with the coffee top with not much
area between the foam’s islands and the top’s cavities. The
foam’s outer diameter stuck out enough such that it could
be sandwiched between the base and the coffee top. This
lip feature and the base’s raised platform keep the top of
the foam level with the top of the coffee. One thing we
would change if we had more time to experiment with the
thermoforming process would be to see if we can close the
space between the coffee top and foam even more as well
as attempt to make the corners of the foam islands as sharp
as possible.

The cup serves as a holder for the yo-yo. Its inner


diameter is large enough that the yo-yo can easily slide in
and out of it. We also implemented a step in the cup that
the yo-yo can sit on, so that the yo-yo does not fall to deep
into the cup. The large base of the cup prevents the cup
from tipping over due to minor disturbances. We think the
quality of the cup could be improved, though. Although we
used the thickest sheet available, the rim of the cup is still
too flexible. Given the materials, we would use a thicker
sheet of plastic in order to make the cup more robust.

Overall, our final yo-yo prototype turned out really


well. The assembly is compact and looks good. The metal shims we molded the base around give
the yo-yo a heavier, better feel. The art on the coffee foam fits nicely into the brown coffee top.
The tightness of the snap-fit between the coffee top and the base ensures that the yo-yo will stay
assembled. Lastly, when the yo-yo is placed in the thermoformed cup, it looks sufficiently like
an actual cup of coffee. We are very happy and proud of our finished yo-yo.

3
SECTION 2: Part Production Analysis
Base:

4
We were able to produce over 100 base parts. Almost all of the parts were produced
within the tolerance range of 2.300” + 0.005”, and even those parts that were outside of this
range could still be used to assemble a complete yo-yo. The standard deviation for the base
production run was 0.00195”.

We introduced a disturbance in the process parameters during the production of parts 62


through 72. We decided a good parameter change would be to reduce the cooling time from 20
sec to 10 sec. We cannot notice this change in the Shewhart X-bar chart, though. Reducing the
cooling time is supposed to increase the shrinkage, but the shim in the base prevented the part
from shrinking more. The base hardly shrinks as it is, and we already accounted for the lack of
shrinkage in our mold design. As a result, the reduction of cooling time is hardly noticeable.
Sadly, this means that we likely could have reduced the cycle time of the base part and optimized
our production run even more, but we were not able to get enough time on the injection molding
machines to find the minimum acceptable value for every parameter.

We chose our “rational subgroup” size to be four. We chose this number because
averaging the dimension of four parts gives a centralized measurement for the inner diameter,
and it still leaves us with 28 averaged production runs. Altogether, this gives us a good
representation of the inner diameter dimension the process is producing, as well as give us plenty
of data points to put in the Shewhart X-bar graph. The control limits were also set three standard
deviations above and below the measured average. This range was chosen because it enables us
to notice outlier average measurements and keep them from making it through production. Three
standard deviations also gives a sufficiently large range to account for the capabilities of the
processes we use in manufacturing the yo-yo parts. Lastly, it is possible to still assemble our yo-
yo using parts with critical dimension measurements within this range, so it is not necessary for
this range to be made narrower for assembly purposes.

The Cp and Cpk values for this production run were 0.428 and 0.278 respectively given
our specifications and measured average critical dimension. For mass production, it is
recommended that these values be 1.33 at least, so these values are pretty low. We could increase
the tolerance range for the base part to increase these values. We could also modify process
parameters and the mold to move the measured average closer to the middle of this tolerance
range.

5
Coffee Top:

6
We were able to produce over 100 coffee top parts. The final parts produced were
generally larger than the tolerance range of 2.310” - 0.005” for the diameter, averaging around
2.316". Even though they were larger than our original intended specification, all of the parts
were able to be used to assemble a complete yo-yo. The standard deviation for the coffee top
production run was 0.00120”.

We introduced a disturbance in the process parameters during the production of parts 77


through 87. We decided to reduce the cooling time from 15 seconds to 1 second, producing a
part that was 2.306, which is closer to and within our original intended specification. The
disturbance is noticeable in both all charts, shown as a dip in the middle of the first and third
graphs on the page above as well as the lower bound outliers in the second graph. Reducing the
cooling time is supposed to increase the shrinkage, as seen clearly in our example. This result
also implies that we could have decreased our cooling time (though not to 1 second, as there is
some warpage—dishing in the center of the part) slightly to bring our part closer to the range of
our original specification.

Our “rational subgroup” size is four. We chose this value because averaging the
dimension of four parts gives a centralized measurement for the inner diameter and leaves us
with 36 averaged production runs. This gives us a good representation of the inner diameter
dimension the process is producing, as well as enough data points to put in the Shewhart X-bar
graph. The control limits were set three standard deviations above and below the measured
average, a range that enables us to see outlier average measurements and keep them from making
it through production. Three standard deviations also gives a sufficiently large range to account
for the capabilities of the processes we use in manufacturing the yo-yo parts. Our parts were still
able to be assembled together and snap fit well even though the final parts were larger than
intended, and modifications can be made to adjust for these findings.

Our process capability, Cp, value was 0.696, and the Cpk was -2.135. Our Cp value is
acceptable, as it only takes into account the tolerance range and the standard deviation, and can
be improved by increasing our tolerance from -0.005 to -0.010. On the other hand, the Cpk value
takes into account the specified dimension, and since our final parts were larger than the original
intended specification, and thus is not only negative, but also almost two times the acceptable
value of 1.33. Though currently not suited for mass production, we can increase our expected
dimension to 2.320" and change the tolerance to -0.010" to increase the Cp and Cpk values to
above the recommended value of 1.33.

7
Coffee Foam:

8
We were able to produce over 100 coffee foam parts. All of the non-disturbance parts
were produced within the tolerance range of 0.200” + 0.005”. The standard deviation for the
coffee top production run was 0.00215”.

We introduced a disturbance in the process parameters during the production of parts 61


through 71. For the parameter change, we decreased the forming time from 10 sec to 4 sec. We
can see this change very clearly in the Shewhart X-bar chart as large peaks in the first and third
graphs, as well as the far right outliers in the second graph. Reducing the forming time caused
significant warping in the middle of the coffee foam, increasing the height drastically. This
result implies that our forming time was fairly accurate for an efficient production run, as
reducing the time had a large negative impact on the quality of the coffee foams.

We chose our “rational subgroup” size to be four. We chose this number because
averaging the dimension of four parts gives a centralized measurement for the height, and it still
leaves us with 27 averaged production runs. Altogether, this gives us a good representation of the
height dimension the process is producing, as well as give us plenty of data points to put in the
Shewhart X-bar graph. The control limits were also set three standard deviations above and
below the measured average. This range was chosen because it enables us to notice outlier
average measurements and keep them from making it through production. Three standard
deviations also gives a sufficiently large range to account for the capabilities of the processes we
use in manufacturing the yo-yo parts. Lastly, it is possible to still assemble our yo-yo using parts
with critical dimension measurements within this range, so it is not necessary for this range to be
made narrower for assembly purposes.

The Cp and Cpk values for this production run were 0.777 and 0.729 respectively given
our specifications and measured average critical dimension. For mass production, it is
recommended that these values be 1.33 at least, so these values are low. We could increase the
tolerance range to increase these values.

9
Cup:

10
For our coffee cups, because the plastic is quite soft, measuring the diameter of our cups
was quite difficult. This resulted in some data that might not be as accurate. This factored into
our choice for subgroups. Since we had to make fewer cups (only 50 as opposed to 100), we had
to consider that we wanted enough data points to get a meaningful chart. At the same time,
having too few samples in a subgroup could cause our measurement variability to show up
disproportionately. Therefore, we decided that a subgroup of 4 would still work for this part. The
control limits were set to be three standard deviations since that is a good way to see the process
capabilities. The cup process was relatively smooth and all of the measurements were within
specification. These measurements were supported by the fact that all of the yo-yos fit perfectly
into the cups.

For runs 31-40, we changed the heating time from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to simulate a
disturbance. This drastically changed the appearance and functionality of the cup. With the lower
heating time, our cup could no longer sit flat on the table. This meant that it would fall over if the
weight of the yo-yo was added. Also, all of the edges were more rounded and the part was less
detailed. However, the critical dimension did not really change, as seen in our chart. This is
because the heating time affects the sharpness of the features, but the only part that had a sharp
feature was the ledge. Our critical dimension was a flat side that was easily able to form anyways
due to the number of vacuum holes. By decreasing the heating time, our part still formed
correctly to our mold.

The standard deviation for the coffee top production run was 0.01411”. Our process
capability, Cp, value was 3.544, and the Cpk was 2.765. Our Cp and Cpk values are relatively high,
indicating that most of the parts are within the specifications. Because on average, we hit the
critical dimension that is desired, but there is some slight variation, the Cpk value is lower than
the Cp value. These high values indicate that we could probably go into mass production.
Furthermore, we could probably lower our tolerances on these parts and still be fine.

11
SECTION 3: Assembly
Assembly Line

Cycle Time Estimates:


1) Align and put coffee top and foam together: 5 sec
2) Snap coffee parts into base: 20 sec
3) Insert set screw and spacer into base: 15 sec
4) Loop string onto spacer and twist base parts together: 15 sec
5) Wind the string: 10 sec
6) Place yoyo in cup: 1 sec
Total assembly time for one yoyo: 66 sec

During yoyo assembly, the biggest variability in assembly times was snapping the coffee
parts into the base, due to the necessity of both keeping the coffee top and foam aligned together,
as well as holding them at the right angle before snapping them in. Winding the string also had
some variability in assembly time because the string would sometimes keep slipping when
initially winding. Since these two steps had the largest variabilities in assembly times, we would
balance the line by placing buffers after those two steps. That way, if those two steps were
taking longer than usual, the next step in line could continue assembling instead of waiting for
them to finish. We could also utilize more machines or workers to perform these steps. That way
you could produce yo-yos at these stages twice as fast. This would reduce the need for buffers
and balance out the production rate of each stage, bringing each one closer to 10 sec instead of
15 or 20 sec.

12
SECTION 4: Process Automation
Steps 3, part of step 4, 5 and 6 could be automated for high-volume assembly of our yoyo.

Step 3, inserting the set screw and spacer into the base parts, is repeatable and doesn’t require too
much judgment or complex dexterity. A Delta robot with a three-finger gripper that rotates
could be used to perform both parts of this step.

Step 4 would be much more difficult to automate because the strings tend to get tangled, and it
requires dexterity to open the loop on the end of the string and put it on the yoyo. Twisting the
base parts together also requires caution in not pinching the string, although the twisting motion
itself could be automated. A Delta robot with a vacuum suction gripper could pick up a base
part, center it with the other base part’s spacer, and rotate until the part screws into place.

Step 5, winding the string, would be more difficult to automate because the flexible nature of the
string makes it unpredictable. This step could potentially be automated if the string was clamped
so that it was pulled taut enough to be straight, but loose enough to slide through the clamp as it
winds. A Delta robot could be used with a vacuum suction gripper to hold the base part and spin
it quickly so that the string winds.

Step 6, placing the yoyo in the cup, would be easy to automate because it is just a pick-and-place
operation. A Delta robot with a vacuum suction gripper could simply grip one face of the yoyo,
and then center and lower it into the cup..

13
SECTION 5: Specification Comparison

Part Parameter Expected Value Measured Value Tolerance

Base Inner Diameter 2.300” 2.302” +0.005”

Coffee Top Outer Diameter 2.310” 2.318” -0.005”

Coffee Foam Height 0.200” 0.200” ±0.005

Cup Inner Diameter 2.55” 2.58” ±0.15”

Differences in Expected and Measured Specifications

Base: We expected a shrinkage of 3% for the base, but in actuality there was almost no
shrinkage due to the shim in our base part. We had to modify the mold before our production run
in order to account for this lack of shrinkage. As a result, the part did not shrink all the way to
2.300”. The measured dimension is still within the tolerance range, though, so we met the
specification.

Coffee Top: This was the one specification we did not meet. Although assembly still was not a
problem, this was still an unexpected outcome. We suspect that the plastic did not shrink as
much as we thought it would. At the beginning of the year, we measured other parts similar to
this one and their molds. From these measurements we found that the part would likely undergo
a 2% shrinkage in its outer diameter. It is possible that the cavities in the part prevented the
coffee top from shrinking radially, and thus, most of the shrinkage probably occurred in the
height dimension. If given the chance, we would change the specification to an expected value of
2.320” with a tolerance of -0.010”.

Coffee Foam: We were able to meet this specification because the coffee foam’s height is not
very large. This means that relative to the height dimension, the tolerance of 0.005” is large.
Also, due to the fact that the plastic sheet did not have to stretch as much, the coffee foam’s
shrinkage is extremely small and the plastic does not want to unbend as much once it has been
formed. Not to mention that all of the bends in the plastic are small and close together. This
makes these regions very stiff once formed. All of these factors help keep the manufactured
coffee foam’s height dimension within the specified range.

Cup: Meeting the specification for the cup inner diameter was a fairly easy task. We made the
tolerance for the cup inner diameter quite large. Perhaps it was too large, but we had designed
the die such that the plastic could not have a diameter of smaller than 2.55”. It was much more
likely that the plastic would unbend and make the inner diameter larger. As a result, we were
mostly concerned with the inner diameter being too large even though this really is not a concern
because we want the yo-yo to be easily placed inside and taken out of it. All in all, our large
tolerance allowed for us to easily ensure that the specification was within the thermoforming
processes capabilities.

14
New Specification Chart for Mass Production:

Part Parameter Value Tolerance

Base Inner Diameter 2.300” + 0.010”

Coffee Top Outer Diameter 2.320” - 0.010”

Coffee Foam Height 0.200” ± 0.009”

Cup Inner Diameter 2.55” ± 0.10”

Base: We kept the expected dimension as 2.300” because it works for the assembly, but because
the expected value for the coffee top’s outer diameter increased to 2.320”, we would need to
increase the tolerance to +0.010”. These specifications for the base and coffee top make sure the
two can always press-fit together as long as the critical dimension is within the range. This
change increases the Cp for the base to 0.856, but the Cpk does not change, as the average
dimension is closer to the LSL, which does not change. This may not be large enough for mass
production, but it is a significant improvement, and the Cp and Cpk could be improved even more
with slight changes to the mold.

Coffee Top: We increased the expected value of the outer diameter to 2.320”, so this way it is
closer to the measured average from our production runs. Similar to the base part, we then need
to increase the tolerance change to -0.010” from -0.005” in order to ensure the two parts can
successfully press-fit as long as they are within the specifications. This change increases our Cp
to 1.391 because we doubled the tolerance range. The Cpk only increases to 0.436 because the
measured average is close to one side of the new tolerance range. The Cp is large enough for
mass production, but the Cpk is not. This could be fixed by making changes to the mold to move
the average critical dimension away from the tolerance edge.

Coffee Foam: The coffee foam part does not need to be changed, as the measured average and
standard deviation were easily within specification. The Cp and Cpk for this process, though, was
not greater than 1.33. If we increase the tolerance range to ±0.009”, the Cp and Cpk would then
become 1.398 and 1.350, and our part would be ready for mass production.

Cup: We decreased the tolerance range to ±0.10” because it is possible that not all cups in the
old range of ±0.15” would work in the assembly. This still maintains the Cp and Cpk values above
1.33 at 2.363 and 1.584, so the cup is still ready for mass production.

15
SECTION 6: Mass Production
Additive Manufacturing Quotes – Shapeways

Base
The material we chose for the base, out of those offered by the additive manufacturing site
Shapeways, was the Blue Strong & Flexible Plastic. This meant that the process used to
manufacture the base would be Selective Laser Sintering (SLS). Other plastic materials offered
by Shapeways were HP Nylon Plastic, Frosted Detail Plastic, High Definition Acrylate, and
PLA. Using HP Nylon Plastic or PLA would mean using a Multi Jet Fusion and Filament
Deposition Modeling method respectively. These are not desirable for our base because MJF
leaves a slightly rough surface from the powder being fused together, while FDM leaves layer
lines, especially for rounded parts. We would want the base, which fits into the hand during use,
to be smooth for maximum comfort. The other materials were more expensive and given that the
base is not very detailed, would be unnecessary.

Number of Parts Cost Per Part Item Costs Additional Costs Total Cost

2 $11.47 $22.94 $4.99 (Shipping) $27.93

100 $11.47 $1147.00 $4.99 (Shipping) $1151.99

Coffee Top
We also chose the Strong & Flexible Plastic for the coffee top, this time in the orange color. One
limitation of having the yo-yos printed from an AM service is that they do not offer all the
colors. Therefore, though we designed the part to be brown, we decided that orange would be
close enough, and if needed we could spray paint the parts afterwards. We chose the material for
similar reasons as the base. In addition, the “flexible” aspect is important for this part since it
must snap into the base. There would be the possibility of the parts not fitting together with any
of the stronger plastics, as we saw when we initially prototyped our yo-yo design on the Form 2
3D printer.

Number of Parts Cost Per Part Item Costs Additional Costs Total Cost

2 $7.38 $14.76 $4.99 (Shipping) $19.75

100 $7.38 $738.00 $4.99 (Shipping) $742.99

Latte Foam
The White Strong & Flexible Plastic seemed like the best choice for the foam as well. Since the
foam has to fit into the coffee top perfectly, it seemed like it would be a good idea to 3D print
them using the same material and process (SLS). In our actual prototype yo-yo, we were able to
use different processes (thermoforming and injection molding) because the materials used in
those processes generally have more flexibility than the materials used in additive manufacturing
processes.

16
Number of Parts Cost Per Part Item Costs Additional Costs Total Cost

2 $4.89 $9.78 $4.99 (Shipping) $14.77

100 $4.89 $489.00 $4.99 (Shipping) $493.99

Cup
Once again, the White Strong & Flexible Plastic was the best choice (an SLS process). While the
other plastics would work for this part, as it does not need to be that flexible, they either do not
come in the right color and/or more expensive. PLA material would be the only other option that
came in the right color and was not more expensive (it was the same price), but in that case it
makes more sense to use the SLS process which can have a thinner layer and allow for a
smoother finish.

Number of Parts Cost Per Part Item Costs Additional Costs Total Cost

2 $11.76 $14.76 $4.99 (Shipping) $19.75

100 $11.76 $1176.00 $4.99 (Shipping) $742.99

Overall, there seems to be no difference in the cost per part in ordering higher volumes through
the Shapeways service, and you only reduce cost because the shipping cost does not change.

17
SECTION 7: Cost Analysis
In order to perform the cost analysis, we used the following Excel spreadsheet . The costs are
broken down into material, tooling, equipment, and overhead. For each of the cases, we made
some assumptions as outlined below.

Case 1 – 2.008 Materials and Processes

Assumptions:
● We assumed that the resin for 3D printing the die was $150/liter, based on the range of
prices from the Form Labs website.
● Based on the volume of each die from SolidWorks, we calculated the resin cost. Then, we
added the 3D printing time multiplied by the given overhead time to calculate the overall
tooling cost of the dies.
● Based on general estimates of mold life from online, we assumed that our molds would
last 500,000 cycles before needing replacement. This is likely to be an overestimate.
● We did not include the cost of labor (the time we spent working on the manufacturing
after design) in the overhead cost, which would have likely increased the per unit cost,
instead considering it included in the overhead.

18
19
Case 2 – Additive Manufacturing Service

Assumptions:
● We assumed that the base would be redesigned so that it had threading where the nut
would normally be, since we would not be able to 3D print with the nut embedded in.
● Since we would not be able to place the shim inside the base during production, we
decided that the shims could be glued on during post-processing/assembly, which added
an extra material.
● We set the volume limits to be 100,000 because that was when the unit cost was
obviously leveling off and there were limits to the amount of parts that could be ordered
on Shapeways.
● Due to constraints on the type of material and color available on Shapeways, we had to
choose an orange color instead of brown for the coffee top.

20
21
Case 3 – High Volume Manufacturing

Assumptions:
● We decided that for effective high volume manufacturing, we would either have to buy
machines that were capable of producing more parts in one cycle, or source the parts to a
manufacturer capable of high volume manufacturing on non-dedicated machines.
● In the end, we decided to use the outside manufacturer for the estimate.
● We assumed that all of the parts would be injection molded instead of the 2 parts being
thermoformed because the manufacturer we contacted said that our parts had features that
were too narrow to quote in such high volume (This made sense since we 3D printed the
die for thermoforming).

22
23
Comparison

Method # of Tooling Material Equipment Overhead Unit Cost


Units Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit

2.008 50 $13.89 $2.39 $9.64 $37.23 $63.15

AM Service 50 - $1.58 $59.64* $9.39 $70.61

High Volume 100000 $0.05 $1.23 $12.01* $0.66 $13.95


Manufacturing
(outsourced)
*actually manufacturing cost - also includes parts of material and overhead cost

In our 2.008 manufacturing process, the overhead cost dominates. Much of this comes
from the fact that the cost per hour of design labor is relatively high. Because of our
inexperience, we likely spent much more time on this than normal. At the same time, the per unit
overhead cost decreases with production volume - it is only at the low number of 50 that the high
cost of the design labor is visible.

In the AM process, the manufacturing cost (the cost quoted by the service) dominates.
This includes the material for 3D printing, the cost to run the printers, any post-processing costs,
and any labor involved. The other costs (assembly materials and assembly) are insignificant in
comparison, which we can see from the graph. This makes sense because the bulk of production
in this case is being done by the AM service.

Similarly, the manufacturing cost (quoted by ProtoLabs) is the dominant cost for high
volume manufacturing. This is because the contractor has to provide the material, equipment,
and labor (which are included in this separate category because they are not broken down).
Furthermore, the cost estimate provided by the manufacturer has to include some profit margin
for them. However, we can see that at a lower volume, the tooling cost is completely dominant as
the company has to create the new set of tooling for the custom parts. However, as the
production volume increases, the tooling cost is still the same and the manufacturing cost (per
part) actually decreases.

Methods 1 and 3 are difficult to compare to method 2 because of the nature of the
process. Overall, 3D printing all of the parts levels off at high production volume to a higher per
unit cost than in any of the other methods. However, we can see that it is a good prototyping
method because at low volume, the per unit cost is very similar. This is because with current 3D
printing technology, the cost per part does not change as volume increases as it does with
injection molding. In fact, the only benefit you can get from producing more through an AM
service is that they charge a flat shipping rate for however many parts you order.

Our comparisons show that the per unit cost is the lowest at a high volume. When
extending each of the processes to a high volume, we see that the leveled off unit cost is the

24
lowest for the 2.008 process. However, this is not necessarily true in reality because we cannot
assume perfect efficiency and in reality, all of us would likely be paid for the time we spent
working the machines etc. Thus, the comparison table that compares our unit costs at 50 yo-yos
for the first 2 methods and 100,000 yo-yos for the 3rd method likely shows the accurate picture
of when to choose each process for the lowest cost.

25
Crossover Point Between Case 1 and Case 2

The unit cost of the yo-yo is lower when using an additive manufacturing service (+ some
manual assembly) until about 42 units, according to the analysis. At this point, the unit cost of
the yo-yo through the additive manufacturing service levels off, while the unit cost of the yo-yo
with our processes (injection molding and thermoforming) continues to decrease. The extremely
high tooling and overhead cost involved in the current process makes the additive manufacturing
service slightly cheaper when manufacturing at a low volume. However, since we needed to
manufacture a volume greater than this crossover point, the method we used is justified.
Furthermore, due to our inexperience with mold making and general manufacturing, the tooling
costs are likely inflated, as we had to rework the molds many times.

26
SECTION 8: Comparison with Store-Bought Yo-yo
The sample yo-yo purchased from Amazon has a few differences from the ones we
created. First of all, unlike our yo-yo, which can easily be unscrewed by twisting since we used a
set screw, the sample yo-yo is tightly attached together and did not come apart even when we
pulled and twisted it. On one hand, this is beneficial because the yo-yo is likely to break.
However, because our yo-yo can unscrew, a worn string can be replaced or the string can be
changed out to suit people of different heights and preferences. Another difference is in the size
and weight of the yo-yo. Our yo-yo is slightly larger (~0.2 in) in diameter than the sample one. It
could be that the yo-yo manufacturers found the smaller size to be optimal for a younger market,
which would make ours less desirable to very young children, but more desirable to an older
crowd. Our yo-yo weighs slightly more because it contains 2 shims that are intended to increase
the weight and therefore, the performance and feel of the yo-yo. Upon comparing the ease of
using each yo-yo, we concluded that the sample yo-yo was too light, making it slightly harder to
yo-yo and not giving it the proper feeling in the hand.

Both yo-yos have some visible defects on them. The sample yo-yo looks like it is missing
a chunk of plastic from the outside.

Our yo-yo is relatively unblemished, but since we did not post-process the bases, there is
a small but noticeable bump from the gate on the side of each base. However, this would not
likely pose a problem, since the gate is visible on the sample yo-yo as well. The biggest flaw in
our part would probably be the thermoformed latte foam. Since this part is relatively soft, it
could be destroyed if poked with a sharp object such as a pencil (though it will only deform, not
fall out since it rests on a plastic part). This would only happen is someone intentionally wanted
to destroy the yo-yo.

Even using the 2.008 processes (assuming the machines can run with high efficiency),
according to the analysis, if we produce 5000 units, the yo-yo will be $12.34 each, which is
comparable to the yo-yos offered on Amazon, which range from $10-$15. However, it would not
be smart to sell them since the maximum profit margin we could get would be about 25%. Of
course, this price would be a lot lower if we were more experienced, as we would have fewer
reworked molds and less time spent on designing (since we would be more familiar with the
designing software). Using a high volume manufacturing process, the cost ends up being about
$13.89 per yo-yo. This is higher than our estimate for the current process because for the current
process, we assumed as we scaled-up, there would be perfect efficiency, making the cost
estimate an underestimate. Given that we got the high volume manufacturing estimates as a
quote from a manufacturer, they also had to include a profit margin for themselves, which would
have to be accounted for.

27
Even compared to the yo-yos sold on Amazon, the sample yo-yo we got was cheaper at
$5. This is likely because it was entirely made of plastic. We had to include some metal parts
which increased the cost. Moreover, having it entirely out of plastic probably reduced assembly
required, which would decrease both the overhead cost and equipment cost (can run it on
automatic instead of semi-automatic). This reduced cost comes at the price of the quality of the
yo-yo.

28