1. PRESENTATION TITLE
Optimized Dynamic Outdoor/Indoor Archery System
By
Luigi Alvarado
Guillermo Waldo
Collaborator: William Purpura
Advisor: Dr. Nina Robson

2. Project Mission Statement
 To evolve an existing proof of concept prototype and come up with a design that could be
marketed for a profit. The resulting redesign must be optimized for:
• Manufacturability
• Affordability
• Transportability
• User-Friendly
• Operational Safety

3. Project Briefing
PresentFirst Team
Simulation
Algorithm
Prototype
Static
Prototype Dynamic
(Not Shipping Efficient)
Improve To make it:
Collapsible
Lightweight (Shipping)

4. Prototype A-Specs
• Two-Finger Pull-Out
• Stops Arrows
• Lightweight
• Separable
• Cost-Effective
• Durability
• Non-Penetrable
Backing
• Adjustable Height
While Adjusting Face
Angle
• Portable
• Ease-of-Use
• Quick Setup
• Ability to Connect with
other Stand Systems
• Lightweight
• Effectively Stops Stray
Arrows
• Fits Standard Size
Kevlar Curtain

5. Project Breakdown
Project Objectives
A Specs
Literature Survey
Functional Analysis
Concept Generation
Design Trades
Concept Selection
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Fabrication
Marketing
Selling
Customer Service

6. System Level Requirements
Manufacturability
Affordability
TransportabilityUser-Friendly
Operational Safety

7. Morphological Chart

8. Block Diagram/ Subsystems
Infrastructure
PVC reinforced with aluminum
PVC joints reinforced with bolts
Trust-like design
Relatively Cheap
Cheap to repair
Light-weight
Lifting
Metal Rod, Rope/cable, Motor
PVC guidelines
Simple Mechanism
Lots of power needed
expensive motor
Not as sturdy
Mobility
Dolly-Based
Mechanism within structure
Two wheels, fixed above floor
Two PVC sticks as handles
Cheap
Easy to integrate/ repair
Infrastructure
PVC reinforced with aluminum
PVC joints reinforced with bolts
Relatively Inexpensive
Attaches to other Supports
Light-weight
Lifting
Metal Rod, Rope/cable, Motor
PVC guidelines
Simple Mechanism
Motor positioned for minimal
arrow contact probability
Stability
Platform placed below target
Two wheels for transportability
Two PVC sticks as handles
Bottom cross section
Main plywood rests on two 2X4’s
Support
Rubber-swivel-heavy duty wheels
Aluminum Structure
Collapsible by hinges/slides
Joints reinforced with bolts
Lifting
Aluminum structure
Hydraulic mechanism
Collapsible by hinges/slides
Joints reinforced with bolts
Stability
Target hanger by crane
Aluminum structure
Collapsible by sliding cranks/
hinges
Guidelines of pvc
Prototype 4Prototype 5.2
Prototype 6.1

9. Concept Analysis and Selection
Requirements Minimum Target Weight Actual Pts Margin ActualPts Margin Actual Pts Margin
Prd Costs 250 135 15 145 0 105 165 0 85 500 -45 -250
Storage 48 16.84 15 6.188 30 41.81 8.3 0 39.8 24 -30 24
Weight 150 65 15 65 30 85 75 0 75 100 -30 50
Transport Flat w bumpGrass 10 FLO -20 0 GS 20 0 S 30 10
Stability 2 1 10 3 -30 -1 1.3 0 0.75 0.8 20 1.25
SetUp Time 90 60 5 90 -10 0 90 -10 0 90 -10 0
Total 70 0 0 10 0 -65 0
Manufact 50 0 5 0.5 15 49.5 2 10 48 90 -15 -40
Life Span 1 5 5 2 0 -1 5 0 -4 10 10 -9
Maintance 50 10 5 20 -10 30 10 0 40 1 15 49
Sell Price 10 100 5 150 0 -140 250 0 -240 600 15 -590
Total 20 5 10 25
Total Total 90 5 20 -40
Categories 4 Rail hanger 5.2 Tripod 6.1 Crane
Cons Cons Cons
Pros Pros Pros
Design
Finances
65
105
135 145 165 166
201
250
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
3 Pts 2 Pts Target 4 Rail 5.2
Tripod
-2 Pts -3 Pts Minimum6.1 Crane
Dollars
Production Costs
5.85 6.188 7.69 8.3
16.84 18.376
24
35
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
3 pts 4 Rail 2pts 5.2 Tripod Target -2 Pts 6.1 Crane -3 Pts Minimum
SpaceTaken(Ft^3)
Storage Volume ft^3)
54
64 65
74 75
85
100
126
150
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Weight(Lbs)
Weight Comparison ( lbs)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Static Flat Only
(Minimum)
(4 Rail)
Bumpers
(Target)
Grass
( 5.2 Tripod)
Stairs
(6.1 Crane)
Moving Criteria
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
3 Pts 2 Pts 6.1 Crane Target 5.2
Tripod
Minimum -2 Pts 4 Rail -3 Pts
Stability
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Set Up Time

10. Future Directions