Author Topic: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers  (Read 17444 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rusty Miller

  • Posts: 215
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #60 on: March 17, 2017, 05:20 PM »
Thanks @Cheese and @rvieceli for the links.  May have to pick on of those up.
Rusty
Rusty Miller
I'd rather be woodworking!

Festool USA does not pre-approve the contents of this website nor endorse the application or use of any Festool product in any way other than in the manner described in the Festool Instruction Manual. To reduce the risk of serious injury and/or damage to your Festool product, always read, understand and follow all warnings and instructions in your Festool product's Instruction Manual. Although Festool strives for accuracy in the website material, the website may contain inaccuracies. Festool makes no representations about the accuracy, reliability, completeness or timeliness of the material on this website or about the results to be obtained from using the website. Festool and its affiliates cannot be responsible for improper postings or your reliance on the website's material. Your use of any material contained on this website is entirely at your own risk. The content contained on this site is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.


Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 2789
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #61 on: March 18, 2017, 10:03 AM »
Thanks @Cheese and @rvieceli for the links.  May have to pick on of those up.
Rusty

As Ron noted, on the one-piece step drill, the pilot has a very limited amount of drilling depth (because it is a pilot). The proper way to use this item is to drill the pilot hole to the depth needed and then use the step drill to give the desired amount of counterbore depth while using the original pilot hole diameter to center and guide the step drill. It will always be a 2-step process.

With the carbide counterbores, you have more options for the pilot diameter as well as the pilot diameter drilling depth. Select the counterbore diameter, select the pilot drill diameter then assemble them to attain the pilot drill depth desired and drill. It is a 1-step process.

It just depends upon the product/manufacturing requirements.




Offline tdc

  • Posts: 1
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #62 on: March 22, 2017, 09:09 PM »
Hi Ryan,

Am wondering what render engine you are using for your renders - they look wonderful.

Cheers,

Tony

2017-03-13 Production Update:
The Painful Reality of Drilling 36,856 Holes


Offline ryanjg117

  • Posts: 54
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2017, 06:12 PM »
2017-03-26 Project Update

After many long nights with the CNC, including a few marathon sessions that yielded just eight half-completed decks, I’ve decided that, reluctantly and with a lot of disappointment, I’m going to have to throw in the towel and issue refunds. Here’s why:

A poor design

Knowing what I know now, I probably would not have attempted to commercialize this project. But if I did, I certainly would have made some big design changes. First and foremost, I would not have selected 30mm Baltic birch plywood. As I’ve noted in previous updates, this material is very tough to cut and requires 3-4 passes on the CNC machine, which really increases cycle time. Had I been smarter, my design would have called for very thin materials, like 6mm Baltic birch, to form the deck uppers and lowers, with dowels serving as the risers and to add rigidity to the assembly. Thinner materials would be cut faster, in a single pass, and wouldn’t have required specialized long-cutter-length bits to perform the finishing pass, which would have saved a lot on cutter costs as well. I should note that I have been experimenting with a thinner design, which does cut faster, but requires two decks be cut, so ultimately, there isn’t a tremendous amount of overall time savings even in a thinner design.

Speaking of cycle times…

I was concerned during prototyping about the time it would take to cut the holes, and I thought that by selecting stepped drill bits and optimizations in CAM, I could reduce that time. And I could have, slightly. But with this project calling for producing about 160 decks, I should have taken a step back and really crunched the numbers. My goal was to get the machine time per deck down to 15 minutes, which still would have entailed 40 hours of CNC time. But I wasn’t able to get anywhere close to that. Realistically, to fulfill all of the orders here, I would be looking at 200-300 hours of CNC shop time. Which leads me to…

Access and shop time…

I’ve been very fortunate to have access to a nearly full-size CNC machine with vacuum table and dust collection, and even though I don’t have to pay for its use, my colleague does. Whenever the CNC is running, the rotary phase converter is on to power the vacuum system and big dust collector. After the reality of this project started to sink in and I started to think about what my friend’s next power bill might be from Seattle City Light, I cringed. It’s not fair for me to use his shop and machines for the length of time this project would have required without significantly compensating him, which leads to my last epiphany…

Costs

At the outset of this project, I didn’t have a full appreciation for the costs associated with producing this design en masse. My goal was to essentially break even here, but I didn’t do a good enough job of factoring in the cost of consumables. For example, router bits. After the Vortex 3184XP “extreme performance” compression spiral bit ($100 each) started fluttering on just the second panel, I knew this expense alone would sink the project. Based on some rough calculations and the router bit life I saw after experimenting with a number of other bits, I believe that each deck could have cost me $10-15 to produce. That’s after the $25 per deck you already paid.



I know this update won’t satisfy anyone, and I know many of you were very excited to receive your insert. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to follow through with the production here, but I did learn some valuable lessons on this journey. If you placed a pre-order through Paypal, you should receive a refund notification today.

If you’re interested in cutting the inserts on your own machine—you’ve been forewarned—I’d be happy to share the DXF files with you. Just send me a PM.

And if you happen to have any expertise in injection molding, let’s talk. :-)

Obligatory photos, since, well, it’s all I have to show for this project:







Thanks again for the support, and sorry it has to end this way.

Best regards,

Ryan
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 01:07 AM by ryanjg117 »
Festools - TS55, OF1400, ETS 150/5, Pro5 LTD, LS 130, Domino DF500, CT36 w/Boom & Dust Deputy, RipDogs, Qwas Dogs, CXS, walls of systainers, custom JumboMFT

Offline onevw

  • Posts: 47
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2017, 07:05 PM »
OK

I understand, So figure up your $ loss as of now and ma bee we can kick in enough $ to soften the financial blow of this noble attempt.

Don’t be shy and spread the loss like a business deal gone bad for I have had a few of them do that.


Rick

Offline Runhard

  • Posts: 705
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2017, 09:07 PM »
Hey Ryan,

Thank for the explanation and for all your effort in this endeavor. I wished it would have worked out but I totally understand. For what it's worth, I would have gladly paid 2x as much or even $150. Now I will have to find another use for the sys-combi 3 that I purchased.  [scratch chin]
Daniel

Offline Mantis806

  • Posts: 2
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2017, 09:29 PM »
Thank you for the update, Ryan. FWIW, I am with Runhard and onevw. I would be willing to put in more to keep the project alive. New ventures and good products are not easy, but they ARE worth it. Thank you for your efforts!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Offline pixelated

  • Posts: 49
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2017, 09:57 PM »
Disappointing news, and yes, thank you for the effort.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 734
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2017, 10:22 PM »
Have you considered gang boring machine? Drill two thinner sheets, one with 1/2, another 1/4 holes, and then sandwich them. You could stack several sheets and drill them together. Drilling cutters have different geometry and are more efficient. Hovewer, boring machines like that are not easily available. Its another level of production capacity.

Online HarveyWildes

  • Posts: 360
Re: Ryan's SYS-Stacker Router Bit Storage Insert for T-LOC Systainers
« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2017, 10:32 PM »
Bummer.  Even though I don't need to carry router bits around, I thought the idea was very creative and useful for people who do.  The interest you got was indicative of that.

This was a really interesting thread.  Thanks for sharing your experience.  Now that you have the creativity -and- experience, your chances of success the next time around have just gone up.  Good luck!

Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 2789
Well I'll be the 4th to encourage you to press forward and am willing to sweeten the pot if you can adequately get your arms around the "overall project cost".

I'm sure at this point you have purchased a lot of the raw materials (if not all of the raw materials) and the question then becomes what do you do with all that "stuff"? Returning it back to the original supplier means lost $$$ in shipping charges and in most cases, also lost $$$ in re-stocking charges.

You also appear to have many of the pieces already CNC'd so that would also be lost $$$ unless you did something with those items other than tossing them out.

Maybe there is a better way out of this dilemna...maybe you just need some time? [smile]

Offline RKA

  • Posts: 770
Ryan, it was fun to watch this process play out.  I didn't have a need for this, but I thought it was very creative and enjoyed reading the updates that came with it.  It's unfortunate that it wasn't financially viable.  I would encourage you to press on with revised pricing if you can get your arms around it (including compensation for the CNC time).  Nevertheless, I still think you deserve applause for the effort.  Well done!
-Raj

Offline Gwerner

  • Posts: 225
  • They call me George...
I'll jump in here too and say I'd be willing to pony up an additional $20 to $30 to keep this alive.

Offline onevw

  • Posts: 47
Mr Ryan

I was more talking about sending money to help up cover some of the raw material cost and not producing the product.

Just some cash ,via PayPal Gift service, from who ever feels compelled.

Rick

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 74
If you can work out what the final cost will be and then what the increase to each is, maybe we enough of us can agree to stay in but I would need to know what the final price is going to be. And make sure there is some profit in it for you. Doing this at cost is not a path to success as you found out. Your time and ingenuity have value, don't sell yourself short.

What if you reduce the thickness of each tray to 1/2" and drill through holes slightly oversize for clearance and let the end of the bit shank hang below. Holes could alternate between 1/4 and 1/2 on a 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 grid which would allow space between each bit for access without risking a cut from an adjacent sharp edge and no worries about bits banging into each other. I think if you can get around 40 to 50 bits on that first tray and the next level up about 30 more you've got more than enough room. How many of us have over 80 bits they need to drag around with them. I've got maybe 40 or 50, and that's stretching it I think.

I'm OK with you taking some time to work out changes to production and exploring ways to reduce costs. To tell you the truth I still think the hole density is too great and you could reduce the number of holes further, which will reduce machine time and consumable costs (bits). As we all know plywood it tough on cutting tools. Is there a better material to use in place of the plywood? What other materials did you consider before you choose plywood, if any that is.

That is if you are still willing to proceed.
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline ryanjg117

  • Posts: 54
I very much appreciate all of your offers to kick in more money, but material cost wasn't the only factor here -- honestly, I probably would have taken the $10-15 hit on each unit if I could have produced it quickly. It's the time commitment, and access to the CNC machine, that were major factors in my decision to abandon the project.

I'm open to exploring more efficient manufacturing methods, namely going with a plastic injection molding process for the decks, and I know there are many FOG'gers with experience in this field. I believe this would result in some higher up-front and tooling costs, but each deck could be molded quickly, and at low cost. That said, I'm a marketing guy, not a materials engineer, so I would need someone else to handle the manufacturing side. Please PM me if you'd like to chat about this. Just like all of you, I hate to let a good idea die, but sometimes we all have to acknowledge that just because something can be beautifully designed, it doesn't mean it can be efficiently manufactured. A learning experience for me, for sure.
Festools - TS55, OF1400, ETS 150/5, Pro5 LTD, LS 130, Domino DF500, CT36 w/Boom & Dust Deputy, RipDogs, Qwas Dogs, CXS, walls of systainers, custom JumboMFT