3D Printing Unicorns, Part 2: Carbon

When a privately held startup hits $1 billion in value, it magically transforms from an ugly mare into a beautiful unicorn (or so the legend goes). In the 3D printing space, there are three such creatures and we’ll be profiling each one. This time, we’ll be taking a look at Carbon.

Carbon’s CLIP Technology

Though the company was founded in 2013 (originally named Carbon3D), Carbon broke news and brains in 2015, when co-founder and CEO Joseph DeSimone gave a TED talk showcasing a prototype for the firm’s ultra-quick Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) technology. What was so brain-breaking about CLIP at the time was the fact that it was claimed that it could fabricate complete layer less objects in less than 10 minutes, 25 to 100 times the speed of other technologies on the market. 

CLIP is now considered a form of continuous DLP 3D printing. The way it works is that a UV LED projector is cast through an oxygen permeable membrane onto photopolymer resin. Between the item being printed and the window is what Carbon calls a “dead zone” that consists of uncured resin. While light passes through the dead zone and cures the part, resin flows beneath into the dead zone to maintain the “continuous liquid interface”. 

Unlike CLIP, with its continuous liquid interface, traditional DLP features the use of a mechanism to cleave printed parts from the print bed with each layer. Instead of spending time slicing the layer from the print bed, CLIP technology just keeps on going, allowing for seamless prints. 

The speed is just the most obvious advantage of CLIP. The layerless nature of the process means isotopic parts, something previously virtually unseen in polymer 3D printing, typically hindered by weakness along the z-axis. Due to the unique chemistries developed in-house by Carbon, additional heat treatment in a forced-circulation oven applied to their 3D-printed parts activates engineer-grade strength. As a result, these parts are not just strong all around, but match the physical characteristics mass manufacturers are looking for in some end use components. 

CLIP was brought to market with the M1 3D printer (build volume 144 x 81 x 330mm, resolution 75μm), which also introduced Carbon’s novel pricing scheme. Rather than purchase printers and materials, customers subscribe to them. With the M1, this meant $40,000 per year with a minimum three-year term got clients the printer, materials, software and support. Installation and training was $10,000. And an initial accessory pack was $12,000. Discounts were applied to the purchase of multiple systems.

From left to right: the Smart Part Washer, the M2 and the M1.

After the M1 came the M2, which offered twice the build volume of its predecessor, as well as a Smart Part Washer, an automated method for cleaning parts after printing. With the new machines, DeSimone also explained that Carbon was developing modular technology that would make it possible to upgrade, attach, or automate systems.  

The subsequent L1 3D printer, released just this past February, now serves as Carbon’s production-level machine, with ten-times the build volume of the M1 and five times that of the M2. Now, the M2 is billed as more of a prototyping or small-batch printing machine. Carbon advertises the fact that customers can now prototype using the exact same technology with which they will manufacture, providing a streamlined pathway from design to production. 

A row of L1 3D printers.

Along with the printers, Carbon has released a number of materials that range from high-temperature resistant and stiff cyanate ester to flexible polyurethane to a range of FDA-compliant dental materials. Also, somewhere around 2017, Carbon began differentiating between its 3D printing process (CLIP) and the hardware that enables that process, referred to as Digital Light Synthesis (DLS). 

Since Carbon’s launch, numerous other companies have unveiled their own form of continuous DLP 3D printing, some boasting benefits and speeds above and beyond CLIP. Prodways, Carima, and EnvisionTEC all demonstrated forms of continuous DLP. A Chicago-based startup called Azul 3D has designed a 3D printing system that prints even bigger and faster than CLIP.

What many challengers don’t have are the names that Carbon has brought on board in the form of partners, investors and members of the executive team. The firm’s four fundraising rounds between 2014 and 2017 have included Google Ventures, GE, Adidas, BMW and Johnson & Johnson. Craig Carlson from Tesla joined the company to lead its engineering team in 2014. Carbon’s board of directors includes former Ford CEO Alan Mulally and former DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman. 

Adidas’s Futurecraft Speedfactory

The partnership that seemed to catch some of the most headlines was that with Adidas, who, in 2017, announced that it would use Carbon’s DLS to create “Speedfactories” as a means of re-shoring European manufacturing. The effort was designed to replace the thousands of low-wage workers performing manual labor in Asia with a combination of Carbon 3D printers and other robots run by just 160 local Adidas employees. The goal was to produce, by mid-2017, 500,000 shoes with 3D-printed midsoles per year. 

As we’ve recently learned, however, an aspect of the Speedfactory initiative has ended, specifically shoes with Boost midsoles. Joris pointed out that $43 per 3D-printed midsole was a hefty price for a company dependent on cheap goods for maximum profits. He also exhibited concern for the longevity of the materials used for 3D-printed midsoles. Adidas has said that it will continue the use of Carbon technology for the production of midsoles and even plans to scale up in total. 

The outlook for 3D-printed midsoles may not be as bleak as Joris initially speculated, or at least not on the surface, but it really is worth considering how much 3D printing will ultimately contribute to the re-shoring of jobs in the Global North while humanity simultaneously strives to repair our ecosystem. Can we continue to invent and implement new technologies for the production of wasteful consumer goods made from petroleum-based plastics if we want to reduce fossil fuel use and prevent ecological collapse? While we attempt to answer (or ignore) that question, our blissful unicorns can continue galloping forward onto new valuations. 

Since fundraising efforts began in 2014, Carbon has raised a total of $682 million, with its latest Series E funding round in June of this year bringing in $260 million. The company is now valued at nearly $2.4 billion. That’s more than two whole unicorns! 

The post 3D Printing Unicorns, Part 2: Carbon appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

China: Case for the Mass Customization of 3D Printed Martial Arts Shoes

In ‘Exploration and Analysis Based on Mass Customization Design and Production of Martial Arts Shoes,’ Wuhan University of Science and Technology researchers Peng Hong and Xia Xinqiao explore the dynamics not of mass production, but mass customization—putting the 3D printing spin on manufacturing, and a very interesting one at that as they go further to explain that while mass is usually associated with large amounts of items being made that all look exactly the same, and customization refers to unique and small productions (sometimes just one item), putting the two together could offer a novel ‘combination of two contradictory phenomena.’

True, most consumers hear the word ‘customized’ and think ‘expensive.’ Individuals shopping today though will keep searching for that item with the perfect fit, color, and functionality—whereas as mass customization could save everyone a lot of time and effort and offer great profit to the right manufacturers.

“Mass customized production could bring the maximum profit, make the products achieve single-digit differentiated production, so as to improve the product value, acquire data of consumers’ need, enhance the users experience and better build the brand reputation,” state the authors.

In the US, 25 percent of customers shopping online seek customized shoes. The authors realize the potential for continued customization via 3D printing, and for this study, they explored martial arts shoes as an example, beginning with a look at Puma’s efforts.

Puma has long been a proponent of allowing consumers to enjoy customizations, beginning with different colors and different shoelaces, but obviously that’s not too game changing. They went on in 2010 to create ‘Creative Factory,’ allowing customers to customize shoes at the storefront, choosing materials.

“However, these customized shoes are too small in scope with too little choice,” state the authors.

Along came Adidas though, with a huge emphasis on customization and the integration of 3D printing into their shoes—from 3D printed athletic shoes produced at scale and lace locks, to 4D shoes launched last year.

In terms of the best product and usability, the research team recognizes that martial arts shoes must protect the ankles and skin of the wearer, while also being lightweight and flexible to accommodate the wide range of movement required in what can be a very high-performance sport.

The authors discuss the challenges of mass customization as follows:

  • Limited materials and molds for customizing shapes
  • Difficulty in making large quantities
  • Serious problems with exchanges of one-of-a-kind products

In overcoming current obstacles to manufacturing customized martial arts shoes, the researchers suggest use of a small foot scanner (by China’s Foot Technology Company) that could be installed in stores to measure feet and then upload data to a cloud database. The customized shoes would then be made in a factory.

“Customized shoes not only are precise on size, but also introduce concept of health to make the soles accurately correspond to the wearer’s foot acupoints as massage function. The realization of massage function helps people know that customized shoes is not only shown in the surface, such as size replacement and material, but also shown in the customized function, which is more important in consumers’ minds,” state the researchers.

Using Adidas’ model for Future Craft 4D sneakers, they realize the potential for better speed, affordability, and quality in product, pointing out that it only takes 20 minutes to make a pair of Future Craft shoes. And with the accompaniment of robotics, turnaround could be exponentially faster—and even more accurate.

“The demand of the professional martial arts shoe from martial arts enthusiasts is getting bigger and bigger; 3D foot scanning patterns uploaded from users can [be] produced massively and also meet the needs of customized martial arts shoes which will be welcomed by the vast number of martial arts practitioners and [also] for sports shoes enterprises to provide a way as reference,” concluded the researchers.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘Exploration and Analysis Based on Mass Customization Design and Production of Martial Arts Shoes’]

3D Printing Jobs Update: Roboze, Link3D, Carbon, BASF, BEEVERYCREATIVE

The 3D printing industry has seen several career shifts and new job opportunities over the past few months. Carbon, Link3D, Roboze, and BASF 3D Printing Solutions have all hired personnel recently, and there are a number of new opportunities cropping up from companies including BEEVERYCREATIVE, Assembrix, 3Dexter and Simplify3D If you’re searching for your next move […]

Lot of One: Will Warehouses Sit Empty as 3D Printing Customization Kills Mass Manufacturing?

John Jordan, of Penn State University, understands the vast implications of 3D printing technology on the world and industrial production. Manufacturing as we know it, along with how we create more complex geometries and present them, is being, and will be further disrupted by a technology allowing for innovations to be created faster, better, and more affordably—but also in ways we never expected before. Jordan focuses on the changes we will see in organizational design, concerning decisions in volume of production at the managerial level and which parts will be 3D printed, how options in customization will continue to grow, and what level of education will be required for businesses and their employees adopting new practices in the digital age.

John Jordan (Photo credit: Penn State University)

Jordan is careful to evaluate 3D printing and its relative impact realistically, understanding there is no guarantee that it will ‘force a shift,’ or even begin to replace conventional mass production as we know it. He understands that humans, in their most basic forms of creating and manufacturing, have three choices: add, mold, or subtract. 3D printing and additive manufacturing have come along and offered us new choices for on-demand, on-site production—and often in remote locations; great examples of this are developing countries, military installations, and the oil and gas industry.

Opportunities are vast in customization, and Jordan points to examples in the hearing aid and orthodontic markets. The sudden availability of technology for producing complex geometries that can be created through 3D modeling and refined as needed, quickly and affordably, offers extensive latitude also—and not only to businesses but to anyone who is designing and engineering parts, pieces, or prototypes.

In his research, Jordan looks to industry automotive leaders like Mercedes and Porsche, both of which are making use of 3D printing in polymers and metal, as well as fabricating parts that have become obsolete and would be very difficult to order or find today.

“Moving the locus and scale of production in turn affects the size and activities of the purchasing organization, the inventory management function, and of course factories,” states Jordan. “Previously impossible repairs (such as rebuilding broken teeth on a large, complex, and/or obsolete gear) can become feasible. Forecasts may need to become much more granular, responsive, and localized to reflect smaller production facilities closer to end demand.”

3D printed engine by Porsche (photo: Formlabs)

Most consumers get excited about customizations. Just as 3D printing is allowing the medical field to become ‘patient-specific’ and allowing for a higher quality of life for patients, within the consumer realm, this means that shoes and a variety of different size-reliant purchases could feasibly in the future be tailor made every time. Undeniably, however, manufacturers and retailers—as well as buyers—are deeply entrenched in conventional processes, and Jordan predicts that ‘the supply chain will need to be reconceived and reconfigured, with significant organizational implications.’ He also states that currently the ‘defining capabilities’ of 3D printing are not being used to their potential, which many will concur with, and possibly consider it a vast understatement as well.

Jordan again brings forth the example of the hearing aid industry:

“To design a mass customization process from scratch, the key is to begin with unique units of demand: what is it that is being customized and to what parameters? The hearing aid market is instructive in this regard: local audiologists measure the customer’s hearing loss and ear dimensions, then feed this data into the process,” states Jordan. “In the absence of a steady stream of such customized orders, the ‘mass’ in mass customization fails to materialize at economically attractive levels. Where else can customizable goods find willing buyers, who can be served by fitters and configurators with access to 3D printing capacity in some shape or form?”

When business owners do realize that 3D printing is a possibility, and they begin expanding on the benefits, ‘processes are redefined.’ It is somewhat staggering to consider that with such extreme customization available, rather than lots of tens or hundreds or thousands, lots could commonly be reduced to just one.

Jordan envisions an ‘additive-native organization’ as one that will ‘give way to agile generalists,’ featuring products ‘closer to end customers’ and warehouses that will become quite empty due to consumers beginning to rely on items made specifically to their size and taste.

As an added boon for businesses and profitability levels, he also sees overall available capital increasing too as conventional and expensive methods such as tooling may not be necessary, and materials can be much cheaper, depending on the textile or metal.

“Finally, the capital investment in additive manufacturing equipment is highly adaptable: it is a thing that can make many different things. In contrast, stampers, molds, and dies are tightly constrained and difficult or impossible to adapt as market conditions change. Thus, the finance and accounting organization will face new parameters, potentially related to flexibility as well as cost,” states Jordan.

“These internal measures will eventually be judged by outside investors and analysts. Eventually, equity markets will expect new performance targets, so earnings guidance will evolve, putting pressure on traditional financial analysis and reporting.”

The availability of so many new materials is bringing 3D printing further into the fold also, and Jordan points to 3D printing in running shoes, with companies like Adidas and Carbon working together, as well as on the larger scale in aerospace with GE developing 3D printed aircraft engine nozzles.

GE’s forays are notable and vast in the 3D printing and additive manufacturing, but in the case of an innovation like the nozzles, GE demonstrates a long list of benefits from savings in cost, development time, and more, to include fuel expense. The elements of design involved are deemed inexpensive by Jordan, but financially, the ‘learning curve of parts consolidation’ would have to be navigated and in studying this project, Jordan makes the astute observation that if we look at 3D printing in the mass manufacturing mindset, there will be obstacles.

GE is 3D printing massive nozzles for aircraft engines. (Photo: GE Reports)

“Rather, with an expanded range of possibilities, existing assumptions will need to be tested. For example, in the realm of decentralization, 3D printing should not be assumed to drive most production from centralized facilities out to the periphery, but neither can centralization continue to be taken as the default. In short, each of the four domains [discussed] represents a set of decisions that organizational designers and managers will now need to address with conscious deliberation rather than previously constrained assumptions. The interrelationships among these domains of change—and others that will emerge—remain to be discovered,” states Jordan.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source: ‘Additive manufacturing (“3D printing”) and the future of organizational design: some early notes from the field’]

3D Printing Industry News Sliced: Carbon, BigRep, Protolabs and more

This edition of the 3D Printing Industry News digest Sliced sees NUI Galway awarded with €425,000; 3D printing foray into the limelight of the Oscars; funding for SafKan’s medical headphones and remote control car racing in schools. Here we cover the latest advancements and updates from the likes of AlphaSTAR, BigRep, Carbon and Protolabs. There […]

3D Printing Industry Review of the Year January 2018

And it’s a Happy New Year! In January 2018 the 3D printing industry got off to a flying start. To learn more about what to expect from the next 12 months, we gathered the insights of over 30 additive manufacturing experts, including insights from CES 2018, and a look back to the patents granted in […]

MOREL and INITIAL launch 3D printed glasses for the mass market

MOREL, a French eyewear brand, and INITIAL, a Seynod-based 3D printing service bureau, has launched 3D printed glasses for the consumer market. Founded in 1880 in the Jura region of France, MOREL is a winner of multiple fashion and eyewear design awards, such as the V Award, an eyewear competition, and the Japan Eyewear Award. […]