Welcome to the Desktop 3D Printing Revolution, Part 3: PA 12 CF

In previous installments of this series, we explored how unfavorable economics for large materials companies and the effects of compounding have led to the rise of a thriving materials market. Now, as our story continues, it’s clear that the aftermarket for everything else is about to experience significant growth.

Ultimaker 

At Ultimaker, the focus was entirely on scaling up the company to meet the seemingly endless demand for its printers. Many tasks were left undone simply because there wasn’t enough time to balance fulfilling orders and developing the next product. Nozzles, for instance, were basic, produced by a local brass turning company. To reduce the hassle of managing nozzle sales, an artificially high price was set, allowing more time to focus on assembling and shipping printers. After all, how often would anyone need to replace a nozzle? Practically never—or so it was thought.

I recall testing ColorFabb’s filled brass filament, only to discover that it wore out my nozzle at a rate of one kilogram per nozzle. Suddenly, with the rise of filled and generally more abrasive materials, combined with countless user experiments gone awry, the demand for replacement nozzles skyrocketed.

E3D 

And that, more than anything, fueled E3D’s growth. The company thrived on the surging demand for hardened and improved aftermarket nozzles, driven by wear issues, while also expanding through partnerships with Prusa and others on the OEM side. This momentum spurred significant innovation, from ruby nozzles and Olsson blocks to Kai Parthy’s groundbreaking materials.

Later, Dyze Design pioneered high-flow nozzles that dramatically reduced build times—sometimes by over 50% for certain parts. What began as an aftermarket focused on copying existing spare parts evolved into a space where inventors created products that generated revenue while advancing the technology. Meanwhile, experiments at 3D4Makers and other innovators were on the cusp of making a market impact.

Filled Filament 

Many users experimented with brass-filled filaments before venturing into carbon fiber (CF) or glass fiber (GF) materials. Glass-filled or carbon-fiber-filled materials had long been utilized in Formula 1, where the fiber length of these fillers remains indirectly influenced by F1 regulations. The restriction on using longer carbon threads in printed F1 parts for a time steered the filled filament market towards F1 users seeking short-fiber options.

Meanwhile, Stratasys consistently offered high-quality filaments, including specialized high-performance grades of ULTEM and other advanced materials, which inspired many companies. However, Stratasys’s strategy of restricting compatible materials on its machines unintentionally fueled the filament market. Companies like 3DXTech thrived by providing non-Stratasys filaments that worked on Stratasys machines. Although this was a nuisance, Stratasys made no significant efforts to counter the trend.

This situation drove users to explore new OEMs that allowed greater material flexibility. At the same time, many players began filling PETG and other materials seemingly at random, a trend whose rationale often baffled the industry.

Polyamides 

In parallel, Taulman introduced polyamide (PA) filaments, offering users high-performance materials with broad industrial relevance. PA 12 and similar materials were already well-known in the industry for their success in powder bed fusion applications. Materials companies attempted to expand into PA grades, but hygroscopy posed a significant challenge.

At the time, filament dryers were not readily available, and users lacked knowledge on how to properly dry and maintain filaments at home or in offices. This led to widespread issues with various materials but became a particular nightmare for those experimenting with PA. As a result, the adoption of PA filaments was severely constrained.

The situation began to change when filled PA 12 and other grades emerged. Carbon fiber (CF) 10%-filled PA 12 proved to be a game-changer, transforming the material into a tough, strong, and rigid option that met a wide range of manufacturing needs. This development spurred an explosion in demand for PA 12, driving a surge in manufacturing applications. PA 12 CF and GF materials were soon being shipped to end users in container loads. And then… silence.

Between NDA & PLA 

The desktop 3D printing industry was largely defined by PLA and the ubiquity of brightly colored prints. Enthusiasts at home shared endless pictures of Yoda heads or lions with flowing manes in a rainbow of PLA options. This imagery, amplified by big polymer companies, consultants, analysts, media, and public perception, cemented the idea of 3D printing as a hobby for nerds producing plasticky trinkets.

The emergence of affordable machines like Creality and Anet’s $200 3D printers expanded the consumer market. With some tinkering and care, these printers could deliver functional results, further fueling the consumer segment. Yet, while much of the industry focused on glow-in-the-dark PLA and other novelty filaments, others quietly produced truckloads of filled and flame-retardant PA, GF 12, and similar high-performance materials.

This disconnect extended to professional desktop machines like Ultimaker, which found significant success in manufacturing applications. These achievements, however, were often shrouded by NDAs. The media narrative fixated on hobbyists printing desk toys or large aerospace firms using industrial machines. The reality—that professional-grade desktop printers were being widely adopted for manufacturing—didn’t align with the established storyline and thus remained largely overlooked.