The end of June saw the execution of North America’s biggest additive manufacturing (AM) trade show of the year, RAPID + TCT, in Los Angeles, California. I wasn’t there. I live on the other side of the planet and it was too big of a logistical challenge for me to just fly, walk around, and observe. On the other hand, I saw a lot of photos and videos and read a lot of reports and opinions. To be honest, I don’t regret my absence.
Apart from the social aspects—meeting people, talking, and generally having a good time—there was nothing groundbreaking-ly new from the technological side—nothing that I hadn’t seen in some form before—nothing that won’t be shown again in a few months at Formnext. However, I have the impression that the main motive for this trade show wasn’t technology, but the thickening atmosphere around the AM industry itself.
Problems and Proposed Solutions
Some of the key events of the conference were the lecture sessions and discussion panels, in which leading figures from the global 3D printing industry took part. Representatives from Stratasys, 3D Systems, HP, EOS, Formlabs and Nikon SLM Solutions discussed the situation in the industry. They pointed out the problems that everyone is facing: falling investments, falling company valuations, and falling revenues. From what I can tell, the panelists came up with two potential solutions:
- corporate consolidation
- increasing the adoption of 3D printing by manufacturing companies
On the one hand, optimizing ownership costs (and reducing employment as a result of a merger), and on the other hand, continuing to acquire new customers. It’s hard to disagree with these ideas. I can only applaud them. Reduce costs and increase revenues! A classic! This can’t fail! Look at Nano Dimension and Desktop Metal; they did just that!
Despite this obvious solution, in order to solve true problems, you have to look a little deeper. The problem is that 3D printing, despite all of its obvious advantages, currently does not have solutions that meet the real requirements and expectations of the manufacturing industry. Current AM technologies are still too expensive, slow, and small, which inhibits their development in mass production. It is sad to say, but modern 3D printers are basically just advanced versions of the original prototype production machines that aspire to fit mass production.
And looking at photos from the trade show, as well as browsing posts by those in the AM industry on LinkedIn on a daily basis, I think that no one either sees it or does not want to see it. Because everyone is focused on the prints themselves. “Hey, look how nicely I’ve 3D printed this!” And that’s really not what it’s all about.
Listen, No One Really Cares How It Looks
I have been going to 3D printing fairs and conferences for 11 years. I organized them myself for a large chunk of that time. And I saw all types of 3D prints made with all possible technologies. I’ve seen how beautiful they were—how accurate and precise—how well they fit together. And what’s more, I saw how their quality increased year by year. And today it doesn’t make much of an impression on me. You show me a part, point out its technological nuances, and ask me what I think about it. I politely say that what you did is cool and that’s it. Maybe sometimes I’ll take a photo that I’ll never look at. Why am I like this? Because I’ve already seen everything.
And, you know what? It’s not just me. Engineers, designers, and managers of all the largest manufacturing companies in the world have seen everything, too. They also go to the same events, conferences, and fairs that I do. And have been for maybe 11 years, maybe 5… or maybe even for 20. And, when they go to them, they’re not looking for pretty 3D prints; they’re looking for solutions to their problems.
And the problems remain the same:
- we want thousands of parts per day
- we want them big (20 cm in XYZ)
- we want them without additional work
- we want them made from polyethylene, PVC, or POM
- do you make parts from Teflon?
Oh, and we’re not looking to buy 300 machines that will do this, just a few.
Instead, 3D printing companies focus on solving problems that are inherent to the technology itself. 3D prints have layers, so they find ways to hide or eliminate them. 3D prints shrink, so they find a solution for how to avoid that. 3D prints are inaccurate, so they improve their quality. 3D prints are slow in manufacturing, so the manufacturing is sped up.
The industry is constantly improving itself. But it should be improving other industries.
VCs Already Asked for the Check Twice, and Twice the Industry has Been Bluffing
First, everything is said very nicely. Tables, graphs, reference lists, and letters of intent are presented. Excel always shows that it’s all correct. The numbers always shine green. And those beautiful 3D prints, they are proof that the truth is being told. Look at them, how good they are. It really works. Take it in your hand. Touch it and feel it. See?
Then, the products go to market and collide with reality. They still look good, but they don’t solve problems. They become a token of a potential opportunity that won’t be realized. Not the right scale, not the right performance, and, even if it can be achieved somehow, not at the right price.
We’ve talked about this many times before. In 2015, the consumer 3D printing bubble burst. Most of the stars of that scene have faded into oblivion. Now, the industrial 3D printing bubble has burst. Shapeways was the first victim. The rest are either hanging on by their fingertips or saving themselves by selling out at a steep discount.
History repeats itself because no one looks at the source of the problem, but tries to improve something that is parallel to it. A 3D printer is a product with specific values and capabilities, but, at the moment, it is not a tool for mass, precise industrial manufacturing. It doesn’t solve the problem. It flows with it.
Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Companies like Merit3D are breaking records in parts production, proving that AM can be a viable replacement for injection molding. But, let me tell you a few things:
- this is just one company
- it makes a lot of small things from light-cured resin
- if it gets an order to produce 1 million parts from PET in one week, it won’t do it.
So, What Should We Do, Smart Guy?
I wrote about this in the article “The Straight Edge 3D Printing Manifesto”:
- Be true: understand who you really are and don’t try to be someone you are not and will never be
- Be different: use all of the advantages that the technology offers and go where no one else goes
- Share and spread: do it together with others; do not lock the technology away.
Maybe it’s worth it to sit down and draw everything all over again? Stop pretending that modern 3D printers are production machines, but only high-performance prototyping machines? And, to move to a higher level, you have to change a lot in terms of the very logic of how parts are manufactured?
Take fused filament fabrication technology, for example:
- Production cannot be based on filaments but on pellets, which is added automatically
- You can create your own material mixtures by combining different ingredients at the extruder level
- You can use raw plastic waste
- The printhead can change the diameter on-the-go, so depending on the geometry of the part, you can speed up or slow down the print, or make it more or less precise (see the new AN3DP nozzle below)
- Production must be continuous: For example, based on a conveyor belt (at the end of job, the belt moves on, a part falls into the basket, a new print starts automatically without the operator’s participation).
You reduce the price, you increase the speed. These are real innovations, not a photo of some smooth-walled carbon-black PA12CF30 handle. On a side note, instead of striving for perfectly smooth walls like those from CNC milling or injection molding, find a use for parts with rough edges that can only be made on a 3D printer (with fuzzy skin or a meshy effect), just as we at Greenfill3D did with our ECO Lamps.
Many improvements can be proposed for other AM methods as well. In the case of stereolithography (SLA) or polymer powder bed fusion (PBF), the range of materials, which are very limited, must certainly be expanded. The material price must also drop because, today, in most cases, 3D prints from SLA or polymer PBF lose out in price to parts manufactured using traditional manufacturing techniques. And material price is the factor. Unfortunately, customers are not always convinced by the issue of lower initial costs, shorter supply chains, or a low carbon footprint. Sometimes, yes, but sometimes only the unit price counts. And that’s the end of the game for 3D printing.
I was surprised several times when I discovered that the cost of manufacturing an injection mold is not as high as I thought. And that the time needed for its production may not be as long as it is commonly said. And that producing 1,000 parts on an injection molding machine turns out to be cheaper than on a 3D printer, with all costs taken into account.
Conclusion
So the unit price. And the speed of production. These are the key barriers. Consolidation will definitely help. Increasing the number of customers will, too. But if 3D printing is to be competitive with traditional manufacturing methods, it must be even cheaper and even faster than it is today.
Back to the drawing board. Reinvent the technology. Or come to terms with the fact that this thing is only used for prototyping or making single items.
Subscribe to Our Email Newsletter
Stay up-to-date on all the latest news from the 3D printing industry and receive information and offers from third party vendors.
You May Also Like
3DPOD 240: Mark Barfoot (AMUG), Electrochemical Polishing at Voxel Innovations
Mark Barfoot is a 3D printing veteran who began by introducing additive manufacturing to traditional firms before becoming Managing Director of the Multi-Scale Additive Manufacturing Lab at the University of...
3DPOD 239: Joe Calmese, ADDMAN President & CEO
Joe Calmese talks to us about the financing of additive manufacturing, machine prices, and utilization. He runs ADDMAN, a large, high-end service bureau that produces many critical components, including defense...
American Axle & Manufacturing Acquires GKN Powder Metallurgy and GKN Automotive for $1.44B
American Axle & Manufacturing (AAM), a publicly listed supplier of automotive driveline and drivetrain components headquartered in Detroit, has acquired Dowlais Group plc, the parent company of GKN Automotive and...
3DPOD 238: AM in the Nuclear Industry with Adam Travis, Westinghouse
Adam Travis, Global AM Program Leader at Westinghouse, is lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding 3D printing in the nuclear industry for us in this episode of the 3DPOD. He...