Meet the Makers of an Exotic (Partially) 3-D Printed Car (2 Videos)

Last month, in a story headlined 3D Printed Supercar Chassis Unveiled, we promised video interviews with builders Kevin and Brad "in the near future." Here they are. First, we have Kevin Czinger, Founder & CEO of Divergent Microfactories. He says the way we build cars is more important from an environmental standpoint than how we fuel them, and that the way we make cars now is a lot less efficient and a lot more expensive than it needs to be. Divergent's first demo vehicle, the Blade, is a tandem-seating 700 HP supercar its makers say does 0 - 60 in 2.5 seconds. Price? No word yet, but it's safe to assume "plenty" might be an accurate guess.

In the second video, Blade project lead Brad Balzer goes into detail about how, why, and where they use 3-D printing, and explains the modular nature of their car chassis design. He says they don't need to change many parts to go from ultra-sports car to pickup truck. He also says that while Divergent Microfactories is working on cars right now, their manufacturing system can be applied to many different industries. Indeed, their long-range goal is to help people build microfactories making many different kinds of products faster, more flexibly, and for less money than it takes to make similar manufactured items today.

Note: The transcript covers both videos and has a little 'bonus' material in it, too.

Comments

Stupid

[ArcadeMan]

He says the way we build cars is more important from an environmental standpoint than how we fuel them.

Oh, okay. So let's fix the way we build cars but at the same time let's go backwards on how we fuel them.

Why can't it be both? Because his company probably can't make electric cars.

Re:Stupid

[Roblimo]

He was involved in an electric car venture a while back and it didn't go well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So how much are they paying?

[gweilo8888]

This is at least the third separate post on this in the last eight days, all solely because they used the buzzwords "3D printing". The fact it is 3D-printed adds absolutely nothing to the project, which is no lighter or better than a regular sports car of space frame construction.

Which begs the question, what's the deal? How much is Slashdot being paid for these ads, because they're clearly not newsworthy...

Since we're recycling stories now, I'm going to recycle my last comment on the same story:

Frankly, this isn't terribly impressive. The Ariel Atom 500 will manage a 0-60 of 2.3 seconds or less from 200 *fewer* horsepower than the Blade, thanks to an even lighter weight of 1,213 pounds. And like the Blade, it has space frame construction, they just haven't wrapped some flimsy composite panels and a plexiglass windshield over it all. (But what did that add to the weight, really? I doubt it was 187 pounds, so the Atom is still lighter...)

All the Atom really lacks is the "look-at-us" headline-grabbing use of 3D printing, which doesn't seem to be bringing terribly much of an advantage to the table here. And I guess, the styling that's right out of a kid's calendar. But really, what's revolutionary here? It's certainly not the construction or performance...

Up next on Slashdot: A revolutionary new 3D-printed paperweight that holds down paper better than ever. It's going to revolutionize the paperweight industry!

Re:So how much are they paying?

[Roblimo]

Why do you insult us by insisting that we get paid for running stories about things that interest at least one Slashdot editor? If a story is a paid ad, it will say something like "AD" or "Sponsored Content."

Also, what is not newsworthy to you may be newsworthy to someone else. You also seem to be missing the point of 3-D printing in this context: that the Blade is just a proof of concept. The idea is that other items can be made with similar manufacturing techniques; not purely 3-D printing but 3-D printing combined with other fab methods.

Thank you for your input!

- Rob

Re:So how much are they paying?

[gweilo8888]

Because three stories on the exact same non-story in one week is excessive.

99.999% of Slashdot readers will never even see one of these cars in real life, and that's on the unlikely assumption it ever even makes it into production. It's a safe bet that not a single Slashdot reader will ever actually drive one, let alone buy one.

As for your other assertion, sorry, but no. This was represented in the first of three stories we saw this month as a vehicle which would be manufactured en masse using 3D printing, with a completely unrealistic production level of 10,000 cars per year. So no, the point is not that it's "just a proof of concept". And even if that was really the case, what, precisely does it bring that's new to 3D printing? As far as I can see, nothing.

This is a totally unrealistic project that's just trying to build hype by using the latest buzzword. No more, no less. Once upon a time, it wouldn't have gotten a word on a geek site worth its salt. Now it gets three fawning articles in a week. It's a bit sad, really, and hence I vented about that. There are real stories out there which are far, far more worthy than this...

Re:So how much are they paying?

[Todd Palin]

Agreed. The car has some printed frame connectors which join the carbon fiber tubes that provide the strength of the frame. The carbon fiber tubes are NOT printed. When somebody figures out how to print a whole car I will be really impressed.

There isn't anything about the drive train that is printed, so the figures about the car's performance have nothing to do with 3-D printing.

backwards?

[daninaustin]

Electric cars are still a niche market and will probably remain that way until batteries improve. http://www.science20.com/scien... I'd love to have an all electric car but they are too expensive and have limited range. Most of them are also too damn small (because the batteries still suck.)