From: Phil Iehle (Phil@Versadyne.net)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 18:22:41 EET
MessageTodd,
Sorry for the delay in my response.
Your offer is most kind and much of your rebuttal I agree with.
Some of my points are the following, although they may ramble around a bit.
( it's been a long week ).
The effort of disseminating information on RP, how to present the
information, and the benefits of each technology, has been an ongoing
quagmire when viewed as an overall process. It is obvious that as new
technologies appear, users outside of the service providers need to be made
aware of what their latest options and potential / real benefits are.
Some form of helping guide decisions has been needed, and that need is
growing.
A simplistic view about the way most users approach the RP industry as a
whole, is that much of everyday allocation of work to different technologies
by outside designers is a seat of the pants process, or directly cost driven
with many blind spots. As with any industry, there are many who have done
their homework and use it wisely.
My point about any statistical approach is that they are often lacking the
needed numerous footnotes about the exceptions, exclusions, inclusions,
explanations, deviations, etc., about each data source and what a huge
impact, a small deviation in the test model can make, sometimes rendering an
examined system useless for the task.
This confirms your position that the amount of data to present can quickly
become very unwieldy and confusing. To boil it down to a common denominator
that covers the systems and reduces that data load also creates a tunnel
vision view of the various available processes. Again the only way around
this is lengthy explanations such as: "When evaluating systems, use this
benchmark data as an initial selection guide. Then define the application
and the types of parts used in the product development process. Evaluate the
systems with the operational and output requirements that are important to
the success of the prototyping effort. Finally, add the evaluation of two
important criteria that were not reviewed in the benchmark, material
properties and finishing time."
The need to be objective and clear in a relatively small data set precludes
the ability to examine the endless options available.
Who would want to read a 20 pound book just to get at a few small details,
albeit the importance of them?
I have to applaud any individuals attempt to tackle the task of trying to
place a common thread through so many diverse systems.
A note about my experiences from both sides of the user/supplier points of
view.
I often find that the people who are likely to use RP have the long term
view for their business. They will invest in using the technology to realize
gains further down the line.
Others (an increasing majority) who are more concerned about "what is our
bottom line" at 5:00 on Friday, will not spend the money, time, or resources
to save themselves money and effort down the line. Thus they lose money AND
market.
With business's increasing fascination with "the bottom line" and the
increasing management that lacks planning for the long haul, this makes the
task of getting RP to the front in manufacturing, R&D, and new venues a
seemingly daunting task.
I am not all gloom.. Many inspired people are finding unique and novel
applications for RP that are blossoming. I applaud them all.
Regards,
Phil Iehle
Versadyne LLC.
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Grimm [mailto:tgrimm1@insightbb.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:02 AM
To: Phil@Versadyne.net
Cc: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D Printers
Phil:
You make some very good points. I would like to address them.
"I have to agree with John on some points. A Viper is a high end RP system
and not a "3D printer". Results on the 0.006" build style without mention of
the flexibility of building at 0.002" layers and 0.003" spot are misleading.
I also believe it unfair that as a high end flexible system, that his cost
per hour takes account of the acquisition price which is of course much
higher. I quote - "3D printers are affordable and easy to use rapid
prototyping systems for personal, office or departmental use." Why not
compare the InVision printer or at least draw the line at a dollar amount.
I feel this is a case of measuring apples and oranges. "
Yes, I agree that the 0.006 in. could be misleading. But, if the report
were to document all of the build options for all of the systems, it would
have become unwieldy. I did consider including the Viper with 0.002 in./
0.003 in. build parameters, but that didn't fit the criteria of concept/form
& fit models. I also felt that the reported time for these build parameters
would have given the wrong impression to the reader. The other consideration
is that many Viper users would not consider 0.002/0.003 for dense/large
parts like the fan and trackball housing .
If the InVision would have been commercially available when the testing
began, I could have consider it. However, the system was not commercially
available until 2 1/2 months after the building and measurement phases were
complete.
"And what about build material choice?
The fact that the study is aimed at steering people to various methods by
comparison can be misleading without understanding the very real impact that
geometry, accuracy, and end use / purpose has on making the right
choice................"
Both of these statements are absolutely true. I hope that the conclusion
to the Executive Summary/Benchmark report addresses that. It states, "There
are a vast number of combinations of build parameters, prototyping
materials, part definitions and operating conditions. Testing of all
scenarios in the benchmark study is impractical and unreasonable. Therefore,
the results presented in the benchmark are best suited for the relative
positioning of the rapid prototyping systems when similar parts are
constructed with similar build parameters.
When evaluating systems, use this benchmark data as an initial selection
guide. Then define the application and the types of parts used in the
product development process. Evaluate the systems with the operational and
output requirements that are important to the success of the prototyping
effort. Finally, add the evaluation of two important criteria that were not
reviewed in the benchmark, material properties and finishing time."
"I agree that does need addressing. Lets do it right."
I agree. If you would like to discuss revisions to the benchmarking
procedures, please give me a call. My goal is to help potential users make
the right choice, and any assistance that you could offer would be
appreciated.
Regards.
T.A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.
3028 Beth Ct.
Edgewood, KY 41017
Phone: (859) 331-5340
Fax: (859) 331-5342
Cell: (859) 240-0574
Email: tgrimm@tagrimm.com
Web: www.tagrimm.com
Marketing Engineered for Sales Results (sm)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf
Of Phil Iehle
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:21 PM
To: Rp-Ml
Subject: RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D Printers
Hi List
I have to agree with John on some points. A Viper is a high end RP system
and not a "3D printer". Results on the 0.006" build style without mention of
the flexibility of building at 0.002" layers and 0.003" spot are misleading.
I also believe it unfair that as a high end flexible system, that his cost
per hour takes account of the acquisition price which is of course much
higher. I quote - "3D printers are affordable and easy to use rapid
prototyping systems for personal, office or departmental use." Why not
compare the InVision printer or at least draw the line at a dollar amount.
I feel this is a case of measuring apples and oranges.
I have to reiterate, Fine Line Prototyping is a prime example. You can't,
and wouldn't think of, getting the same type of part and quality from "low
cost" 3D printing systems. They are miles apart.
And what about build material choice?
The fact that the study is aimed at steering people to various methods by
comparison can be misleading without understanding the very real impact that
geometry, accuracy, and end use / purpose has on making the right
choice................
"I produced this benchmark study specifically for design engineers who
are trying to select the rapid prototyping system right for them,"
We are a bit of a 'not-that-well-known' and cryptic industry. I agree that
does need addressing. Lets do it right.
Phil Iehle
Versadyne LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]On
Behalf Of Neil Hopkinson
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:47 AM
To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D Printers
List,
A few years back I performed a similar sounding study for Volvo Cars as
part of our Rapid Manufacturing Consortium.
A couple of key points to make with this kind of benchmark include:
- the findings are often geometry/purpose specific
- the findings are often out of date by the time they go to print.
I have not read the report but would expect that Todd has covered the
first point, previous work by him appeared to be well balanced and fair.
The second point is very important to remember however it does not mean
there is no value in the excercise, it's just that the reader should be
aware of its limitations (ideally the author will make this clear).
The second point is in fact a credit to system/material developers -
paradoxically it is good news if the report is out of date quickly as it
(usually) means significant improvements have been made.
I look forward to watching a lively debate!
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi]On
Behalf Of John Kerr
Sent: 29 October 2003 14:20
To: tgrimm@tagrimm.com; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: Re: New Rapid Prototyping Benchmark Study Examines 3D
Printers
Dear List,
Went thru the report !
Some questions :
1. Is this site marketing site for selling reports ?
2. This report is definitly not made by any RP Veteran but some novice
individual.
3. Everybody knows that Viper is serious high end RP system not 3D
Printer. Why include it in the comparisons ? Viper accuracy same as
Dimension printer ? Ha Ha , who are they fooling ? Ask Fine Line Prototyping
or experts from 3D Systems, please wake up, or these fools will confuse the
market ! I doubt the credibility of of the publishers
Why Invison, Eden is missing my friend ?
Johnn
Todd Grimm <tgrimm@tagrimm.com> wrote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Edgewood, Ky., October 27 -- T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. today
announced the release of a new rapid prototyping benchmark study
that
examines 3D printers. This extensive study reports the performance
of
seven rapid prototyping systems in the areas of time, cost and
quality.
3D printers are affordable and easy to use rapid prototyping systems
for
personal, office or departmental use. The benchmark study finds that
five of the seven systems qualify as 3D printers, as illustrated by
the
new Rapid Prototyping Index. A ranking methodology that incorporates
13
performance measures, the index rates the systems in four
applications
areas: concept models, form and fit prototypes, functional
prototypes
and patterns.
Todd Grimm, president of T. A. Grimm & Associates and a veteran of
the
rapid prototyping industry, conducted the five month project to
assist
companies in their evaluation and selection of 3D printers. Using
independent organizations for all prototype construction and quality
measurement, the benchmark offers an unbiased comparison of the
seven
rapid prototyping systems.
"I produced this benchmark study specifically for design engineers
who
are trying to select the rapid prototyping system right for them,"
said
Grimm. "Beyond vendor supplied data, there has been little
information
to help companies discover the true performance capabilities of
rapid
prototyping devices. Without real-world, user- supplied data, this
can
lead to poor decisions when selecting a system."
The 55-page benchmark, which contains 34 charts, 5 tables and 36
images,
reports results for three prototypes that vary in size, volume and
complexity. The benchmark study discovered that there is a large
variance in prototype costs, ranging from $60.53 to $267.85. The
expense
measures include system and accessories costs, annual costs, labor
and
materials.
The report is available for purchase at
http://www.tagrimm.com/benchmark/. T. A. Grimm also offers a free
executive summary of the benchmark results at the same Web address.
About T. A. Grimm & Associates
Founded by Todd Grimm, a 13-year veteran of the rapid prototyping
industry, T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. offers consulting services
on
rapid prototyping and related technologies, including competitive
analysis, benchmarking and educational programs. The company also
offers
outsourced marketing services that include marketing plan
development,
Web optimization, copywriting and lead generation. Grimm combines
his
engineering background and technical knowledge with years of sales,
management and marketing experience to create and implement
strategic
and tactical plans. For more information, visit the T. A. Grimm &
Associates Web site at http://www.tagrimm.com.
Todd Grimm
T.A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.
3028 Beth Ct.
Edgewood, KY 41017
Phone: (859) 331-5340
Fax: (859) 331-5342
Cell: (859) 240-0574
Email: tgrimm@tagrimm.com
Web: www.tagrimm.com
Marketing Engineered for Sales Results (sm)
The New Yahoo! Search
- Now with image search!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 15:18:19 EET