Engineering Log

R&D Lab

The engineering behind the madness: problems, experiments, measurements, failures and breakthroughs.

Follow the engineering, not just the reveal.

The R&D Lab is the public record of technical problems we are actively trying to understand: dimensional accuracy, shrinkage, fit, repeatability, mechanical interfaces, materials, test methods and eventually credible load behaviour.

Each entry records the problem, what we tried, what happened and what we do next. Where an older event is reconstructed from footage, CAD or printer records, it is marked as retrospective rather than pretending the note existed at the time.

Preliminary R&D // Torsion Screening

A quick argument between infill patterns.

These were basic workshop comparisons rather than calibrated strength tests. No formal torque figures were recorded, so the observations below are qualitative and will be revisited with a controlled test method later.

R&D NOTE INFILL // GYROID vs TRIANGLE

Rotational stress exposed a weakness we did not particularly ask for.

Question. Which internal structure copes better when an enlarged printed section is subjected to twisting rather than simple compression or bending?

Basic experiment. Comparable prototype sections using gyroid and triangular infill were subjected to hand-applied rotational stress and torque as an early workshop screening exercise.

Observation. In this basic comparison, the gyroid-filled part was poor against rotational stress. The section could wind up noticeably and ultimately twisted apart as the shell and internal structure lost their ability to hold the geometry together. The triangular infill appeared to fare better, resisting the torsional deformation more convincingly before visible failure.

Next. This is not enough evidence to call a winner. A future test will use matched specimens, controlled print settings and a measured torque fixture so failure mode and peak torque can actually be compared.

STATUS // PRELIMINARY

R&D NOTE SHELL // 2 WALLS vs 3 WALLS

One extra wall looks boring right up until the part starts twisting.

Question. Does increasing the shell from two walls to three materially change how an oversized printed part behaves under the same sort of rotational handling?

Basic experiment. Two-wall and three-wall prototype sections were compared during the same informal torsional screening. The aim was simply to spot obvious changes in shell deformation and the way the infill supported the outside geometry.

Observation. The two-wall parts were naturally lighter and quicker to produce, but deformation and separation appeared sooner when the section was twisted. Three walls felt noticeably more robust in the workshop comparison, particularly alongside triangular infill. That remains a qualitative observation rather than a measured strength figure.

Next. The proper experiment will isolate wall count from infill pattern, record material mass and print time, then measure angular deformation, failure mode and applied torque. Until then, three walls plus triangular infill is simply the more promising direction from this early screening.

STATUS // MORE TESTING REQUIRED

Workshop Evidence

The bits between the glamorous renders.

Real workshop photographs from the prototyping process: print development, scale checks, mechanisms and the hardware being used to turn the 1:1 idea into physical parts. These images document the work; they are not simulated test results.

Large 3D-printed Technic-geometry frame and cylindrical components on the workshop bench — **Large-format geometry**Printed frame and interface pieces moving well beyond tabletop scale.

Batch of large printed mechanical components on a 3D printer build plate — **Print development**Batch production and the very visible reality of layer-built parts.

Digital temperature reading showing 313 degrees Celsius during workshop checking — **Process checks**A 313 °C reading captured during the workshop process.

Large grey 3D-printed Technic-style beam and cylindrical joint held for scale — **Scale becomes physical**Once the beam is in your hand, “just scale it up” starts sounding rather optimistic.

CAD view of a compact multi-link Technic-style mechanical mechanism — **Digital mechanism study**Geometry investigated before committing more plastic to the argument.

GT3 RS steering-wheel and mechanism scale-reference display — **Reference + mechanism**Small-scale geometry alongside the enlarged steering reference.

Large enclosed 3D printer in the Operation Overbuilt workshop — **More machine than ornament**Printer hardware becoming part of the production workflow.

Orange GT3 RS model beside enlarged orange 3D-printed reference components — **Model → full-scale thinking**The original orange reference beside the sort of oversized components it inspired.

Current Workshop Observations

Early findings before the proper numbers arrive.

These are qualitative workshop observations from the build process, not calibrated strength tests. They are being recorded because they help decide what deserves more controlled testing next.

Infill behaviour

Triangle infill has looked more resistant to twisting than gyroid.

In hand-applied rotational comparisons on printed parts, gyroid-filled samples tended to wind and separate sooner. Triangular infill appeared to hold its shape better under the same sort of workshop handling.

Qualitative only. No calibrated torque figures have been taken yet.

Wall count

Three walls have felt noticeably more robust than two.

Two-wall prints are lighter and faster to produce, but they have deformed or separated sooner during informal handling. Three-wall versions have felt more dependable, especially alongside triangular infill.

Observed in workshop use; not a controlled strength comparison.

Scaling behaviour

At full scale, small geometry decisions stop being small.

Large printed beams, frames and interfaces make tolerances, joint access and print orientation much more obvious than they are in the original Technic-scale reference. The build is increasingly being treated as a sequence of fit, interface and manufacturability checks rather than simple enlargement.

Documented from the ongoing 1:1 build and print workflow.

Next step Matched samples, a repeatable fixture and measured loads so these workshop impressions can be turned into comparative data.