Gestamp design-to-value review, P28 B-pillar reinforcement

Walkthrough

Design-to-value review

P28-BP-401-L

1Part input, current step
Now
Type the part number or drop the design data sheet; the flow decodes the P28 nomenclature before it reads anything else.
Every segment is read against the design data sheet, so the review knows which programme, family and hand it is looking at.
Point at
P28-BP-401-L: programme P28, B-pillar reinforcement, body-side family 4 issue 01, left hand
2Portfolio match
The part lands on one released design in the hot-stamped portfolio and the variant strip only offers the design routes Gestamp publishes.
The envelope, the gauge and the tailored zones are the physical facts the rest of the review carries forward.
Point at
1,236 x 340 x 74 mm, 1.80 mm, monolithic, 2 soft zones + soft flanges
3Specs & drawings
The design data sheet is read field by field with a source chip on every fact; hover any chip to see the quote and its tier, TS for the synthetic programme documents.
Where a design value sits inside a published range, the range is quoted next to it instead of being silently accepted.
The scene you just watched is the ten sheets being read; every value carries its evidence mark, and the pass on D04 shows how the soft-zone windows compare with the patent, not with an opinion.
Point at
6.4 kg (assembly) against a 6.0 kg target
Developed area 5.81 kg from the station widths and the hat section at 1.80 mm (D02, D03)
Benteler practice trims 30.1 S (C, R) against 44.8 S (C) because the die pierces the holes (X04)
4Voice of the OEM
The OEM roles come from published requirements and rating guidelines, not opinion, and each carries its share of voice.
The framework weights every parameter by role share, so the top of the list is what the programme pays for.
Point at
IIHS Good above 18.0 cm, FMVSS 216a at 3.0 x weight, target 6.0 kg and EUR 18.5-21.0
IIHS side 2.0, B-pillar to seat centreline, Part mass, with bracket, Should-cost per part lead the weighting
5Performance
Each parameter is judged against the expectation set in step 4b, using the same rule for the Gestamp design and every competitor practice.
Filter the table by verdict; the gaps are what step 7 costs out.
Point at
6 meets, 4 over-deliver, 4 gaps
6Competitors
Three competitor practices are pre-selected; a fourth, the tailor-rolled route, can be added.
The side-by-side puts the Gestamp figure next to the best practice on every row.
Each head-to-head sheet ends on a pointer: the gap, the change, the cost and the mass it feeds.
Point at
6.4 kg against 5.48-5.6 kg; 44.8 s of laser against 0-42 s s
Benteler practice at 1.60 MM (R) with a patch reaches 5.60 KG (C) against 6.40 KG (S) (X01)
7Gaps
Every technical difference gets a cost band and a mass band per part, with a confidence level on each.
Two findings carry no removal action; they are listed so nobody asks why they were left out.
Every gap card links to the sheet region that supports it and to the side-by-side view against Benteler practice.
Point at
EUR 3.20-4.60 of cost-driving differences per part
8Should-cost
The should-cost is built line by line; every unit cost is marked as an estimate with its basis.
Six changes roll into a proposed cost and a proposed mass, both shown as bands against the OEM targets.
Point at
-4.60 to -3.20 EUR proposed saving per part, 6.40 kg to 5.39-5.61 kg