AACA Parts Reproduction Offer

[Matt Harwood]

6 minutes ago, Steve Moskowitz said:

Guys be cynical if you want, I guess I cannot blame you but this was in fact a legitimate attempt at doing something good.  It fell through as  it became too difficult to replicate the parts as they planned.  They are not giving up ion trying to do something.  There is a very famous person who you all would recognize behind this effort.  Proves once again that no attempt at a good deed goes unpunished. 

 

Where's the good deed being punished? Where's this well-known guy stepping up and telling everyone, "Hey, sorry, I wanted to do this but we made a mistake. Here's what we're actually capable of doing." Wouldn't that be better than asking for projects then rejecting them all because they're too challenging and then ghosting us? They should have started with their capabilities and then found a project that matched them, rather than asking for help and then vanishing when we gave it. There's a huge amount of information and willingness to be involved, all at no cost, on the part of the members but this seems like vaporware and promises without much effort or muscle behind it. Everyone's excited about 3D printing and the ramifications for antique cars, and if there's someone stepping up to do limited runs of parts that's great. Are these the guys? All signs point to no.

 

What if I told everyone here I'd sell their collector cars for free. Then when too many cars showed up and I realized I wouldn't make any money and all my money-making cars would be displaced by the freebies, I said, "Sorry, I can't do it. I had good intentions, but there's too much work and too little money in it for me. Here's a Harwood Motors pen for your troubles. Come get your car." You guys would eviscerate me for that kind of stunt. Nobody would call it a good deed.

 

And while I don't think anyone cares about a free key chain, I do think that if you fumble the ball in the end zone then promise to make it up to the team, well, you'd better come through or else the team isn't going to think very highly of you next week when you need some protection on the field.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Matt, all I can say is you have your viewpoint and I have mine.  I am not worried about protection and not sure even what that comment meant.  Hopefully at this advanced age I can still stand up for myself!

 

The facts are that this was a failed attempt and they are working on finding a better alternative to serving the hobby at a low cost.  That was the primary long term idea behind the project and the benefactor who was willing to underwrite it.  Personally, I would have like to see it handled differently that it was but the key chain was produced with their technology and something they did not have to do for hundreds of people.  They are in earnest but people seem to want to jump gun and not give these folks the chance.  So be it... 

 

I still will not deter me in trying to find benefits for our members soI still have hope that something very good will come out of this project.  

[Matt Harwood]

It was a football analogy not a threat, don't worry. Players who screw up and don't make it right with the team may find themselves unprotected at an inopportune moment. Then they don't screw up like that again.

 

I don't want to sound like I'm not grateful for your efforts, Steve. I also don't want it to sound like people trying to help the hobby in this way aren't welcome.

 

What I am saying is that if you're going to embark on a project like this, it makes more sense to start from what you CAN do rather than asking for projects and then admitting you can't do any of it. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of people gave you parts, photos, and detailed drawings--they spent time on this, too. Some of these guys did some very detailed schematics.

It doesn't matter, it's not a big deal. It's simply courteous to treat people like you respect their time and knowledge, even if you plan to give them something for free--and doubly important if you ultimately can't give them anything.

[3makes]

Has anyone received one of these "OOPS, I'm sorry" key chains? 

[60FlatTop]

On 9/13/2019 at 10:25 AM, Steve Moskowitz said:

did not have the data necessary for them to easily accomplish the task.  Apparently they were looking for very specific data that would allow them to reproduce the parts easily. 

 

Using the word "easily" twice and so close together is a big red flag. I am surely a cynic, but I still keep trying new things, even got a couple of patents. But nothing is easy. Any project is an integration of concept and details. For the future, be careful at meetings. There is a tendency to glorify the concept and ostracize the details. The cynics notice that. They also notice throwing out the details keeps the promoters awake.

 

To paraphrase old Orson "When it's time, they will whine".

 

Bernie

[Restorer32]

I guess I'm a cynic as well. Any time something has to be kept secret I wonder "Why?".  But they tried apparently so for that I am grateful.  Had it worked out we would have been singing a different tune.  I suspect they underestimated the difficulty of producing needed parts and over estimated the demand for said parts.

[jeff_a]

Steve,

Thank you for trying, even if it didn't work out. I never did sign up for it, but there is a lot of promise in the technology you're talking about. I am involved with Peerless, a company that hasn't been making cars for quite awhile, despite their lingering effect on the American auto design. Occasionally, I hear from someone wanting a spare engine, a head, a ring gear, etc. Generally one has to search for old stock or dismantled stock. Wouldn't it be great if someone could pass their hand over (scan with Computer Controlled Machining device) one of these things and get a couple of duplicates for a hundred dollars? In 40 years it will probably be a reality. O.K., so a new head for a a DV-32 will be more than that. "Computer, make me a Model J Duesenberg block" , same deal.

 

I know people in Australia and Africa that each need a new head for a Continental 18C six. One approached a foundry and was given an estimate of $8,000, and he couldn't see that as an option. Maybe that's the going rate for precision casting & custom fabrication of something like that...and if he had ordered 100 the price would've gone down to $800 per/unit. The problem there is that only about 20 cars of the model these gentlemen own exist, so a run of 100 is unrealistic. They own 1929 Peerless Model Six-81 cars. I used to work in a foundry, and if someone waltzed in with a part to duplicate, we would have had the pattern maker build a wood pattern, create 2 mold halves, and we would have poured one. Probably would have been pricey, but we were doing runs of 100 to 500 parts of that size at a time for Cessna and John Deere, where the unit cost was probably on the order of 50 bucks. I worked in production, not accounting, so have no idea.

 

Jeff

Edited October 16, 2019 by jeff_a (see edit history)

[Steve Moskowitz]

Jeff, this is my last reply to all this.  The secrecy was due to the benefactor not wanting to make his name known nor what he was attempting to do in the long run, as it would potentially had an effect on his future plans.  A little complicated but his heart was in the right place.  Sometimes you proceed with a project having the best intentions and it takes a turn.  Yes, they underestimated the level of detail members would have on certain parts.  There were several cooks in the store, the benefactor, the company making the parts and the company that was hired to put the process together.  Once they started putting together the dinner they ran into problems.

 

Still, they are continuing to find solutions as the goal is to help hobbyists get the parts they need and at the quality is expected by everyone.

 

By the end of the year I  expect we will have a new website, probably temporary until we can build what we really want BUT this same group has already put together a cool new feature for us with over 1500 stories and photos that will soon be operational.  It is done but I do not want to start it until the new website is up.  People will be able to put their own stories and pictures up and the pages will be searchable.  This project was made free to the club and our members. 

 

In the end, sorry to have disappointed people but nothing ventured nothing gained and  as an undersized ex-halfback i will continue to try to push the ball over the goal line! 

 

 

[31plymouth]

 Ok,

 So we know who won't be reproducing parts.  Any suggestions on getting a small part reproduced that might be beneficial to many Chrysler product owners (1928-1934).  I was trying to see if they could reproduce the "winged" part of the radiator cap(cap to radiator filler) used by many of the Chrysler Corp products.  It's unique size and shape locked the wing onto the bottom of the cap so the it wouldn't unscrew. The "wing" was held in place by 2 little tabs that prevented it from moving ( another screw held it in place).  I have an original NOS repair kit from a DeSoto and it fits my 31 plymouth and 33 Plymouth caps. I have seen other Chrysler caps for sale on ebay that all have a badly disintegrated "wing" I thought this part was simple enough to reproduce and would have benefited many.

Pictures attached.

 

[Oldsfan]

On 10/16/2019 at 12:51 PM, 3makes said:

Has anyone received one of these "OOPS, I'm sorry" key chains? 

 

Mine arrived the other day in a plain brown envelope. No paperwork. From somewhere in Texas.

[1912Staver]

Your rad. cap part looks like a very simple stamping.  The die to make that is quite simple as these things go. You could even water jet cut the blank and put the shape in the part with a very simple press die pair.  

As far as I am concerned the best use so far for 3 D printing is still casting patterns.  Parts themselves are possible as the rocket nozzle demonstrates but to achieve the required metallurgy I am not sure there is any cost saving over 

a conventionally  produced part. Always open to correction but as I see it 3 D printing is still a less than perfect art.

 

Greg in Canada

[Terry Harper]

On 10/16/2019 at 2:33 PM, jeff_a said:

"...there is a lot of promise in the technology you're talking about. I am involved with Peerless, a company that hasn't been making cars for quite awhile, despite their lingering effect on the American auto design. Occasionally, I hear from someone wanting a spare engine, a head, a ring gear, etc. Generally one has to search for old stock or dismantled stock. Wouldn't it be great if someone could pass their hand over (scan with Computer Controlled Machining device) one of these things and get a couple of duplicates for a hundred dollars? In 40 years it will probably be a reality."

 

Jeff

 

We are in fact getting close! The technology is developing and improving by leaps and bounds. Its sort of like hand held calculators. I remember when they came on the market one of the first and best that everyone wanted was from Texas Instruments and was pricey. Now they are dirt cheap. In time rapid prototyping and manufacturing technology will progress to a similar point. At the moment, I would love to have a high end 3D scanner for my classroom but $50,000.00 + for a FARO scanner is simply not an option.

 

But we are getting there. A case in point. Last week one of my students used period photographs and a few known measurements to reverse engineer a radiator cap for the 1928 Lombard

tractor at the Maine Forest & Logging Museum. Using Solidworks he modeled the parts in 3D and generated the shop drawings. He then printed out a mock-up using one of our 3D printer (our first 3D printer cost close to 10,000.00 the newest one cost less that $1,000.00) 

 

After a test fit to ensure all was well, on Monday they were sent down to the Advanced Manufacturing Center to be 3D printed in metal. Once we have the parts in hand we will do some light machining and finishing and off the finished part goes to the museum. The alternative was of course fabricating a set of patterns (we could 3D print those too) and having the pieces cast. Even in the foundry industry there has been great strides with 3D printed sand molds and cores.

 

However, if we reflect on the state and affordability of this technology now as opposed to five or ten years ago its amazing but.... it will never be pennies on the dollar. 3D models created by even the best scanner still need to be manipulated to remove imperfections, someone experienced with CAD & mechanical design needs to spend time developing the files and verifying tolerances, fit etc. All of which take time and time is money. If your scanning a used or damaged part this becomes doubly important.  For the average person in the old car hobby its usually not the scanning and 3D printing that racks-up the cost but the CAD work and design if they do not have those specific skills and knowledge to do the work themselves - the actual scanning and printing is relatively affordable.

 

Then there are machine processes that still have to be performed. Turning true, facing, grinding, polishing etc. that a 3D printer simply cannot replicate or within the tolerance capabilities of the 3D printing process. In reality working with a 3D printed part is akin to working with a casting in regards to interfacing with other components. Then there are the material properties to consider - porosity, 

machinability, ability to heat treat, wear resistance etc.

 

Again this is not to throw a wet blanket on the concept. I have worked with and experienced the benefits and they are many! But its not the be-all to end-all. Its a tool to use in conjunction

with a whole plethora or methods and processes - some old, some new.

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Terry Harper (see edit history)

[Frank DuVal]

3 hours ago, Terry Harper said:

I remember when they came on the market one of the first and best that everyone wanted was from Texas Instruments and was pricey.

 

Nope, Hewlett Packard! 👍  TI got their start by making cheaper calculators than HP, so they sold lots more.😁   Just like Betamax was superior to VHS, but VHS sold cheaper (and cheaper rights to manufacturers of VCRs) therefore became top dog and Betamax went away.😯