Over the years, many different ideas have been proposed to avoid having to send gear to our facility.  Unfortunately, they all suck.  Here’s why:

“3D printed replica”

Why this seems like such a great idea.
In 2009, FDM patents went into the public domain and with it came the largest hype machine ever created. 3D printers were going to change everything. Need an extra cup for a wine tasting? Print it with a 3D printer. Door handle broke? 3D print a new one. Want a custom shoe to fit your left foot? 3D printing to the rescue. With all the 3D promises the notion to “duplicate” objects is a perfectly rational idea.

Why it doesn’t work.
Aside from the high cost to yield a geometrically comparable part to the original and long production time typically measured in hours, the part itself will rarely be 100% geometrically accurate to the item at hand. Even if a part could be produced which simulated the original, it would still lack the surface friction, texture, and center of gravity of the original — all features which we take into account when making a part.

 “Download it off the web”

Why this seems like such a great idea.
If you were internet-savvy in the 90’s, you could download books with Netscape Navigator. Later on you could download music with Napster, and eventually entire films could be downloaded via legal means and some illegal. Certainly if we can download all these fine works of art, we should be able to download just about anything, right?

Why it doesn’t work.
There is a big difference between downloading intangible goods such as media and trying to download a tangible good such as an automobile component. Sometimes manufacturers will share CAD files but they are limited to simple drawings that provide a general overview of the part dimensions.  Its virtually impossible to acquire the real CAD files the manufacturer uses to create their parts as that is highly-guarded information that would ordinarily only be used for their prototyping and manufacturing purposes.   

“Arrange the original manufacture to have them lend the equipment to us”

Why this seems like such a great idea.
The customer can contact the manufacturer to send an exact duplicate of the item to our facility. They will pack it up and ship it out. Then we can use that for proper measurements. The simplicity of the process is so easy that it becomes a foregone conclusion.

Why it doesn’t work.
In reality, manufacturers are extremely busy with a variety of priorities from research and design, supply chain management, production, fulfillment and all while trying to maintain razor-thin margins. While it’s tempting to believe they have folks on standby ready to lend out items for no benefit, the truth is that most manufacturers will not operate in that capacity. Even when a rare manufacturer is able to deliver this kind of service, the priority is often shifted to last place and the lead time can become crippling.

“Provide the measurements via email”

Why this seems like such a great idea
If a ruler can tell give us a measurement, then measuring an object should be trivial.

Why it doesn’t work
Our team of professionals generally take hours to properly measure a piece of equipment. A single item may have close to 100 angles and bezier curves to achieve the safety, tolerance and quality that make our products stand out. We use a variety of measurement devices to accurately measure each contour. Calipers, angle finders, lasers, levels, and radius gauges are necessary to get proper dimensions for our standards. Even with all these tools and over a decade of experience, we are still required to test fit every component to ensure a proper fit. Minor corrections are to be expected during our prototyping process and testing the component along with the foam is critical to the process.

“Find a rental company to supply the equipment”

Why this seems like such a great idea.
Rental houses are literally in the business to supply equipment on a daily basis.

Why it doesn’t work.
Rental houses are for-profit businesses and will generally associate a cost with borrowing their gear.  There can also be a risk of error, as a rental house may not be aware of the exact components that are needed for the project, or the slight variations that may exist between different versions of the same equipment.  There’s no way to know for sure whether we’ve received the correct equipment.

“3D laser scanning”

 

“Photo measurements”

 

Why this seems like such a great idea.

A photo says 1000 words. A random set of photos will be taken from different angles along with a tape measure and accurate measurements can be pulled from this data set.  

 

Why it doesn’t work.

There are many obvious issues with trying to pull dimensions from a photo taken with a DSLR or phone camera.  Lens distortion and slight angle deviations yield large variations in the accuracy of this approach.  Aside from pixel limitations and overall limited information that comes with using this method, unless your measuring device is on the same exact plane as the dimension you are trying to measure, then there’s an inherent discrepancy in the measurement. Also, keep in mind that most are using a tape measure which has a maximum accurate of only 1/16-inch, while we are taking measurements in an environment that demands a 1/1000-inch tolerance. 

 

“Tracing using chalk and a large sheet of cardboard”

 

Why this seems like such a great idea.

When I was a child I put a piece of tracing paper over an image of Wolverine.  With minimal skill and a pencil, I was able to make a perfect replica of Wolverine.  The same idea should work when when trying to make a physical object.

 

Why it doesn’t work.

On a zoomed-out view, the trace looks perfect.  Upon closeup, the width of the tracing line isn’t so perfect.  Do we use the inside of the line?  The outside?  center?  What about when we know a line should be straight but appears jagged?  At best, this method would produce a rough approximation of the object.  The tracing would also lack any 3D information, which may be necessary depending on the object.  It is true that there are templates and stencils that can be used for product design and manufacturing.  Ironically, those same templates were typically made on a CNC machine, and in rare instances, they are made by hand by a craftsman with a lifetime of woodworking experience.  The amount of work involved in creating such an accurate template would be difficult to justify for a single one-off project.

 

 

 

“Sending another foam insert that is close enough”

 

Why this seems like such a great idea.

If it worked in the past then it should work in the future. Copy the measurements exactly as they were made and it should just work perfectly.

 

Why it doesn’t work.

A “copy of a copy” is rarely like the original.  Often, we see the foam insert from another manufacturer lacks correct measurements to begin with. In some instances, the foam itself has started to stretch and degrade, so we can’t be sure what we should be copying.  Should we copy the stretched foam, or guess as to what the original foam would have looked like?  As part of our culture of Kaizen, we would also want to improve on a previous design, and we would lack the ability to do that without more knowledge of the physical object. Another consideration is that different materials require different engineering calculations.  Some foams are optimal for impact while others are good for glide and aesthetic.  A combination of foams is often used to get the best of both worlds. Unless the previous foam insert and the new foam insert are using the same foam, same adhesives, and same construction techniques, there’s no guarantee that they would preform the same.

 

 

In summary, all these methods will work if you force them.  Historically, they have all proven to deliver poor results.  If they actually worked, we would use them and actively promote them.