Thanks, Pubudu. Since the cars haven't been mass produced yet and they're still working on a viable prototype for that, I don't think these costs or volumes have been determined yet (or at least they have not been revealed). But stay tuned for more news on this as the project carries on.
Elizabeth, this was a very interesting article. You noted Redeye would be building a factory for their mass production.
I would hazard to guess most readers realize 3D printing is a relatively slow process (vector pen-plotters come to mind). Is it Redeye's contention that, while the 3D printing process is slow by itself, when making a complete car body 3D printing it is as fast or faster than traditional discrete component + fasteners assembly?
To put it better, is the time and labor it takes to 3D-print a complete car body in one go the same or less than machining all the individual parts and then assembling them with fasteners and adhesives?
If that is the case, then Redeye's eliminating a substantial portion of the assembly line at Ford, GM, and Chrysler. One wonders how the labor unions will react to this use of 3D printing?
Well to my understanding, TJ, Red Eye already has these digital production facilities in several countries. I didn't go into detail with them, but I suppose one could do that for a whole other story about how this will work once an Urbee is ready for that process. I do think you're right, this will completely change the game for mass production, but I guess it remains to be seen exactly how and how much it will change. But you raise some really good and important questions.
Sorry to be the repeating naysayer here on 3D printing. There is no way the process described or anything like it can be used in a cost effective way for mass production. In truth, the printer would wear out after only a few cars, but before that the bank account will be empty from purchasing overly expensive raw materials and post processing (sanding, finishing, etc.).
I doubt the panels produced will be approved for passenger car use as exterior body panels in the US, if they are light and thin enough to compete with existing technologies. I've made and used FDM parts; this is just a disconnect for a signifcant production structural part.
Sorry, but this looks like an interesting car, lots of forward thinking ideas, but it won't make it commercially as described.
This seems like another of those inevitable intersections of technologies, like 3D printing & robotics, or 3D printing & self-assembly. As Elizabeth points out, the Urbee project has not been moved into commercialization. OTOH, similar methods and processes are used all the time in race cars. When Kor says "Stratasys 3D printers can print two different materials at the same time," he's most likely referring to the Objet Connex printer's unique ability to blend multiple materials during operation, which is also being used in Skylar Tibbits' revolutionary 3D printing & self-assembly project, which we covered here http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=260118
There is a conceptual error in your assumptions that lead to an excessively negative outlook. Instead of looking at how 3D printing is challenged to replace current high volume manufacturing (with a lot of very good points) instead take a look at new, created markets and market access that the technology creates. For anyone who has used 3D printing in one's workflow, it's a no-brainer that it saves time and money on prototype turns. Even if the parts aren't production quality (like some prototypes I made), they test function much faster than more traditional prototyping technologies. So as an augmentation technology, it's pretty obvious that 3D printing is a value adder.
It's sweet spot for production isn't really high volume. it's really twofold: first is that for small to medium batches, 3D can be cost effective when tooling costs are high, as there aren't enough units to pay off custom tooling. Effectively this means products that wouldn't make it to market in the past because they couldn't hit the sweet spot of cost vs volume will now have an economically viable way to market. We have observational evidence of this market creation as well.
Another market created is what I would call "customized volume". This is, in effect, a reduction in scale of a dynamic assembly line. When cars are produced, they are all optioned somewhat differently. It takes a huge logistical endevor to make that all work. With 3D printing, one can have every part be customized, with no additional tooling cost. In the case of molded parts, one can rarely justify a single mold for a single part. With 3D printing, just tell it to print, and it costs about the same to make as the "stock" version. The implications here are without bounds in how it will impact huge swaths of product classes.
But all these pale in comparison to the real "big play" in 3D printing, and this is digital replication. Just like mp3s changed the face of music, and digital replication of text, pictures and video have permanently altered all those market spaces, the combination of laser scanning and 3D printing allow for digital replication of shape and form. While the tech isn't yet able to replicate function (the laser scanner can measure components on a PCB, but it can't tell what the chips actually do!), digital shape replication will have huge impact on physical IP.
These are just impacts that we know are there, or are certain are coming. What we don't know is coming we can't really comment on. But back to volume production: How much speed of manufacturing degradation can one toleration when one eliminates a massive amount of custom tooling costs as well as elimination of die changeout times and the like? I'd grant that TODAY the math is pretty obvious and all the housing on the gazillion of USB sticks (for example) will continue to be done by molding. But I'd also assert that if your part run count is just one, 3D is already ahead! The question isn't will 3D show up in volume, but rather how will the crossover point vary over time (I'd guess that the number will increase, and do that quickly).
Back to this car. Will it make it? I honesty don't know. Is the model proposed for manufacturing a viable one that 3D printing enables? For sure! Maybe this product won't be the economic win, maybe it will. But I'd bet anything that this model for dev/production will be a winner for a huge number of new and existing companies to bring products to market. We're just watching the very first salvos in what will be a very long war as digital replication makes it to the production of physical objects.
Thanks for your perspective. I understand how this might be true; however, Red Eye seems to think they have the facility for high-volume, quality 3D printing. So perhaps this idea could really work and be commercially viable. I suppose only time will tell!
The reason it will be available in two years is that it TAKES two years for the machine to print one of them. The 3D machines I've witnessed are VERY slow. Seems to me that is the reason that injection moulding was invented to produce something in seconds instead of the hours it would take to machine every one.
If it takes a long time to print, it could indicate involvement by the federal government.
I have to wonder if it takes the plastics longer to cure when they are part of such a larger printer. I have been impressed how well the smaller units work. I would not be surprised if there is a difference.
With erupting concern over police brutality, law enforcement agencies are turning to body-worn cameras to collect evidence and protect police and suspects. But how do they work? And are they even really effective?
A half century ago, cars were still built by people, not robots. Even on some of the country’s longest assembly lines, human workers installed windows, doors, hoods, engines, windshields, and batteries, with no robotic aid.
DuPont's Hytrel elastomer long used in automotive applications has been used to improve the way marine mooring lines are connected to things like fish farms, oil & gas installations, buoys, and wave energy devices. The new bellow design of the Dynamic Tethers wave protection system acts like a shock absorber, reducing peak loads as much as 70%.
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.