This is an exciting development in the world of 3D printing for sure and will certainly cut costs and provide more productivity for auto makers as it moves into the mainstream. As this is the work of European researchers, do you think the U.S. would embrace this sort of thing, too?
I promise you that if 3D printers cost sub 200usd I would buy one and so would any one that can use the software. I just wish the price would get to that point faster. The manufacturers of these printers need to realize that selling the cartridges and printing materials will make them more money than the printers themselves. Sell the devices at cost and wait for the returns on the materials.
ervin0072002, I agree on that business model, at least for the low-end machines. But it will take time before volumes are high enough for that model to work. Meanwhile, the high-end machines, such as the one in this article, are an entirely different animal: they're more like a capital equipment purchase.
I'm amazed by this. Automakers have always used high-volume production techniques for a good reason -- the auto industry is all about high volume. That's why engineers have always been willing to put up with the two- or four- or six-week timeframe that's required to build tooling. When the tooling is completed, they can build 400 or 500 parts an hour. Thousands of parts a day. I wonder what kind of parts Daimler plans to build with this technology?
Chuck, Daimler's original intent was to replace die-casting and sand-casting of big metal components and prototypes. Apparently, the consistency of material properties between parts made with casting methods wasn't high enough. Neither is the part size: Daimler also wants to increase it, while maintaining light weight, by using this printer. That second reason is a pretty classic one in 3D printing of functional production parts.
Charles' observation was the first thing that came to mind when I read this article's headline. However, even in mass production, the casting process is quite involved, requiring multiple steps. While the lost-foam casting has reduced the time considerably, the foam patterns themselves must be manufactured first, and then the sand poured around them to create the casting mold. When all the steps are added up, I wonder what the total time to cast a part is versus using rapid prototyping.
Another side benefit may be an environmental one - the sand used in metal casting usually absorbs toxic residue and must be treated before being disposed of. I do not know what is involved in this step, but do know that here in the North and South Carolina area, a company had to pay upwards of a half a billion dollars to clean up the waste sand that it unknowingly donated for projects around this region.
I am sure this is not priced for the hobbyist market. If one of these 1000R could be set up to print constantly for smaller projects, the individuals out there who need something made, could it be cost effective? Or is it just for printing high markup items, price intangibles.
Once litigation is over, Formlab's 20 micron printer may give this a run for its money, literally.
Cabe, thanks for the input. This is definitely a high-end machine, not a competitor with Formlabs. I doubt the 1000R would be useful or cost-efficient for renting out to multiple users: it's a capital equipment purchase. Generally, owners of, say, semi fab equipment systems don't rent those out, either, even if they could be kept constantly running, and even if they were experienced EMS houses like Flextronics. However, that might be possible after a few more generations of this 3D technology, and after the system itself had been redesigned to accommodate that targeted use.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.