New tool design, please help prioritizing features

[Steinar]

And I suspect this is why a poll was made instead of only an open question. We are people with, in total, pretty much any set of priorities here. 

[Vidar]

The Anti-SpeSmurfpillst: Lets face it, a real screwdriver beats a MT every day and so does a knife (comfort, has the blade/blade-shape you need/want, and if the job is dirty, you might want a utility blade). So, what the Anti-SpeSmurfpillst provides is every function you normally don't need.
E.g. I need regularly a blade and a screwdriver. When I need the screwdriver, I need reach and often I have several screws and not just one, so I prefer a real screwdriver (CyberTool is ok, anything larger does not work for me).
I seem to find use for scissors, metal file, pry-tool, tap-hammer, scraper, pliers, awl etc. Those are the functions I want from a MT. I understand this might be pretty individual but imagine that every craftsman has his basic tools (dedicated tools) on his belt, so the MT should cover as many tools as possible outside of the very basic ones.

Fun concept. One might also consider it as a supplemental tool when you might need those weird extras that your normal one don't bring?

I think of multitools in terms of convenience and availability. Convenience as quickly fixes for those tasks that pop up without having to go to get normal tools. And availability as in having some way of achieving tasks even away from the normal. tools.

[Vidar]

And I suspect this is why a poll was made instead of only an open question. We are people with, in total, pretty much any set of priorities here. 

Yes, the poll does give some direction And it has a specific reason for me so I'm grateful for all the feedback

[CallsignBadger]

I’m excited to see the finished product

 

[AimlessWanderer]

I’m excited to see the finished product

 

Me too, or even just where the design is heading I have done a fair bit of tooling design myself, but VERY different types of tooling (industrial cutting tools), so I do have an appreciation and interest of the process and evolution as well as the end result.

[Vidar]

I’m excited to see the finished product

 

And I'm impatient about being able to show it.  Plenty of paper works that takes time though. (Design protection and possibly utility patents). I wish that wasn't necessary, and would have preferred a more open process with more external feedback throughout. Not protecting isn't really an option though.

Me too, or even just where the design is heading I have done a fair bit of tooling design myself, but VERY different types of tooling (industrial cutting tools), so I do have an appreciation and interest of the process and evolution as well as the end result.

It has been a long process, and not quite finished with the final version. There have been branches on the way with alternative designs that might be interesting to come back to later. There are many other tools to do before coming back to that though.

A particular challenge is that the design has to be flexible with regards to volume of production as it certainly wont start out high volume. Hence the option to manufacture at a realistic cost throughout the range of small volume to potential big volume is important. The optimal economical production processes are different for different volumes, while the design limitations incurred by manufacturing varies with choice of process. Thus being limited to designs that can be made across a range of production processes has been a challenge as that takes on all of their various limitations at once.

[Etherealicer]

The Anti-SpeSmurfpillst: Lets face it, a real screwdriver beats a MT every day and so does a knife (comfort, has the blade/blade-shape you need/want, and if the job is dirty, you might want a utility blade). So, what the Anti-SpeSmurfpillst provides is every function you normally don't need.
E.g. I need regularly a blade and a screwdriver. When I need the screwdriver, I need reach and often I have several screws and not just one, so I prefer a real screwdriver (CyberTool is ok, anything larger does not work for me).
I seem to find use for scissors, metal file, pry-tool, tap-hammer, scraper, pliers, awl etc. Those are the functions I want from a MT. I understand this might be pretty individual but imagine that every craftsman has his basic tools (dedicated tools) on his belt, so the MT should cover as many tools as possible outside of the very basic ones.

I see where you are going, and I think it's a great idea. However, as a counter-argument, if I have a little box of tools handy, e.g. screw drivers/pliers/wrenches, I don't often carry a multitool. OK, a SAK, yes, but not a full-on pliers based multitool.

I carry a multitool when I won't be carry a small tool kit. For example, when fishing or skiing. When I worked in an office, I didn't have a tool set at hand, so a multitool got packed in the briefcase. That way, I would have a few tools to problem solve with.

A couple of exceptions would be car or motorcycle trips, where I generally do have a multitool with me and a small tool kit. In those cases, though, I'm counting on the multitool to provide back-up to the tool kit and/or be faster to access than a tool kit buried under luggage or such.

So, in general, if I have a multitool with me, I may well need some things like drivers.

I suspect the idea works better for people who use a rather limited number of tools (e.g. me, I'm mostly good with a knife and a PH1, I carry the MT for the rest).

Of course it changes, but the challenge is to have an as complete tool-load, with as little redundancy, as possible.
Only knife carry: Knife + Spirit XC (the serrated blade complements the PE blade of the knife)
Knife with screwdrivers: Knife + Bit Kit* +
Outdoors: Bushcraft knife + folding saw +
In general the design of MTs starts with the blade, then continues with screwdriver... then the rest is included. I personally think it would be interesting to have a tool that forgoes those two and goes straight to the rest.

* Bit kit is pretty common as many people  encounter a variety of screws (e.g. Torx). And for me at least,  LM bits are not an option as they cannot be replaced individually, are difficult to get, and are too expensive.

[Kev D]

Voted 

Replaceable cutters on the pliers, proper pliers and scissors and locking tools.

Basically I'd like something very much like a surge but with the flat drivers replaced with a good scraper like the swisstools have and pry bar.

[Vidar]

Voted 

Thanks! 

[Vidar]

Only knife carry: Knife + Spirit XC (the serrated blade complements the PE blade of the knife)

I got a Spirit XC for exactly that reason - very nice combo. 

[GOAT Tools]

Tough to choose only 3! But I guess we all have to make priorities.

Voted

[AimlessWanderer]

It has been a long process, and not quite finished with the final version. There have been branches on the way with alternative designs that might be interesting to come back to later. There are many other tools to do before coming back to that though.

A particular challenge is that the design has to be flexible with regards to volume of production as it certainly wont start out high volume. Hence the option to manufacture at a realistic cost throughout the range of small volume to potential big volume is important. The optimal economical production processes are different for different volumes, while the design limitations incurred by manufacturing varies with choice of process. Thus being limited to designs that can be made across a range of production processes has been a challenge as that takes on all of their various limitations at once.

Absolutely, but do bear in mind that it doesn't need to be "either/or" as the high volume production can be used for the standard "affordable" range, while still offering the the lower volume production methods as a premium tool line. That way you have two bites of the cherry, and can cater to two different audiences with the same tool.

[Vidar]

It has been a long process, and not quite finished with the final version. There have been branches on the way with alternative designs that might be interesting to come back to later. There are many other tools to do before coming back to that though.

A particular challenge is that the design has to be flexible with regards to volume of production as it certainly wont start out high volume. Hence the option to manufacture at a realistic cost throughout the range of small volume to potential big volume is important. The optimal economical production processes are different for different volumes, while the design limitations incurred by manufacturing varies with choice of process. Thus being limited to designs that can be made across a range of production processes has been a challenge as that takes on all of their various limitations at once.

Absolutely, but do bear in mind that it doesn't need to be "either/or" as the high volume production can be used for the standard "affordable" range, while still offering the the lower volume production methods as a premium tool line. That way you have two bites of the cherry, and can cater to two different audiences with the same tool.

Premium or special lines will be lower volume so that makes sense. I'll be very pleased to have a line at all first though!

The main issue though is that the up front investment in tooling tends to be the inverse of later cost per unit manufactured. As in:
Low volume -> flexible and general manufacturing methods at low up front investment -> high cost per unit made.
High volume -> specialized methods, tooling and production line at high up front investment -> low cost per unit made.

There are exceptions but that is the general picture. And as a new product in a world were the established competitors have high volume production and cost structure that poses some classic dilemmas:

* Bet on that high volume sales will happen (and fairly soon): Bring in external funds to finance high volume tooling and methods from day one, and then have an equally low cost structure, funds for marketing, distribution and so on. Quite risky, and bringing in external funds usually comes with loads of strings attached. And just doing the financial dance is a major detraction and takes lots of time and focus.
* Or take the steps slower and gradually with organic growth. That does require that there is still a decent profit margin even with higher production costs, and that things actually do grow. Less risk but also much less muscles to help push growth along, and many distribution channels will be out of reach.

And of course all kinds of variations in between.

[AimlessWanderer]

It has been a long process, and not quite finished with the final version. There have been branches on the way with alternative designs that might be interesting to come back to later. There are many other tools to do before coming back to that though.

A particular challenge is that the design has to be flexible with regards to volume of production as it certainly wont start out high volume. Hence the option to manufacture at a realistic cost throughout the range of small volume to potential big volume is important. The optimal economical production processes are different for different volumes, while the design limitations incurred by manufacturing varies with choice of process. Thus being limited to designs that can be made across a range of production processes has been a challenge as that takes on all of their various limitations at once.

Absolutely, but do bear in mind that it doesn't need to be "either/or" as the high volume production can be used for the standard "affordable" range, while still offering the the lower volume production methods as a premium tool line. That way you have two bites of the cherry, and can cater to two different audiences with the same tool.

Premium or special lines will be lower volume so that makes sense. I'll be very pleased to have a line at all first though!

The main issue though is that the up front investment in tooling tends to be the inverse of later cost per unit manufactured. As in:
Low volume -> flexible and general manufacturing methods at low up front investment -> high cost per unit made.
High volume -> specialized methods, tooling and production line at high up front investment -> low cost per unit made.

There are exceptions but that is the general picture. And as a new product in a world were the established competitors have high volume production and cost structure that poses some classic dilemmas:

* Bet on that high volume sales will happen (and fairly soon): Bring in external funds to finance high volume tooling and methods from day one, and then have an equally low cost structure, funds for marketing, distribution and so on. Quite risky, and bringing in external funds usually comes with loads of strings attached. And just doing the financial dance is a major detraction and takes lots of time and focus.
* Or take the steps slower and gradually with organic growth. That does require that there is still a decent profit margin even with higher production costs, and that things actually do grow. Less risk but also much less muscles to help push growth along, and many distribution channels will be out of reach.

And of course all kinds of variations in between.

As a new start up, I'd focus on the premium low quantity line, and patents for BOTH variations of the tool, should mass production lend itself to design changes. Firstly, there's lower outlay on the premium line, but secondly, there's less competition. With an established premium line, there's scope for production under license by an established manufacturing company, and protection against one of them doing that of their own accord if you already have patents in place. High volume production as a new start up seems way too risky in the current climate. There's lots of well established competition, areas of the world with scant disregard for patents and intellectual property, and the price of failure is very high. With low volume production, even if someone rips off your design, chances are it will be to pump out cheap crap, and if you can't defeat them with legal action, at least they're not directly competing with your high end premium product.

[Vidar]

Tough to choose only 3! But I guess we all have to make priorities.

Voted

Thanks

I look forward to seeing what you come with up with too

[Vidar]

As a new start up, I'd focus on the premium low quantity line, and patents for BOTH variations of the tool, should mass production lend itself to design changes. Firstly, there's lower outlay on the premium line, but secondly, there's less competition. With an established premium line, there's scope for production under license by an established manufacturing company, and protection against one of them doing that of their own accord if you already have patents in place. High volume production as a new start up seems way too risky in the current climate. There's lots of well established competition, areas of the world with scant disregard for patents and intellectual property, and the price of failure is very high. With low volume production, even if someone rips off your design, chances are it will be to pump out cheap crap, and if you can't defeat them with legal action, at least they're not directly competing with your high end premium product.

It seems we have many similar thoughts.

On the positive side, chances are that if someone does rip off the design then it is already doing well. Nobody bothers to rip off a dead horse

[GOAT Tools]

It seems we have many similar thoughts.

On the positive side, chances are that if someone does rip off the design then it is already doing well. Nobody bothers to rip off a dead horse

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” ― Oscar Wilde