Today at the shop I started the day by calling the powder coaters. Yesterday we brought him a batch of vertical leg assemblies, but unfortunately he’s used the last of our powder and won’t get more for an indefinite amount of time. Which would be OK but all of our inventory including these assemblies have been sold, the delay unbeknownst to customers. So to ensure a reasonable delivery time we made the call to deviate from BK303 and use a more wavy textured black that will not match the pairing assemblies. The hope is that the visual contrast doesn’t detract from the simplistic and consistent aesthetic of the FlipStep. We all have cross braces to thank.

On the topic of cross braces… cross braces… cross braces… cross braces… what’s not to tell. This isn’t the first time we’ve had to redesign the cross braces. Out of the first ten FlipSteps ever sold, one customer didn't complain, but pointed out there's potential for rattle when driving with the gap created between the cross brace and step by the angle of the cross brace -- about ¼” gap. This customer highlighted an inaccuracy in our fab method and it was corrected by the next batch. After correcting and assembling the batch the issue became that the tolerance was too low and caused 6/10 steps to seize when sliding. We concluded that this issue was caused by a variety of errors, variables, and coincident design changes. In short the faults were: the addition of raptor liner (a non-slip coating, (Height less than 0.1”)*2 effect on cross brace allowance), positional inconsistency in the ⅜” holes which can have an sum effect with the ⅜” holes on the inner slide tube (seemingly on the left side), and lastly the sum warpage of two, ⅛” welds on the 11g vertical leg. Why didn’t we see the warpage before? That's another funny story about cross braces. According to spec there's only one weld on the vertical leg, but ever since we started fabricating them in house, we redesigned it to be made with a single bend, losing an initial design function of the bidirectional bend which we’d find out was a mistake. The initial design allowed the hinges of the step to hit a flat surface upon closing, with the single bend design, the hinges (being partially free moving) would jar inwards upon impact on the angular bend, causing the step to seize when closing. For this we added a tab, welded flat on the vertical leg so as to allow the hinges to impact properly. And this caused the majority of the warpage on the vertical leg (possibly because the piece that was welded on was flat and had much more surface contact than the cross brace so the tab weld retained more heat consequently warping). After this tribulation, we decided to create the original bidirectional bend in house. To do this we made a 20 ton metal stamping press with a custom die set and a pneumatic-hydraulic ram. The moral of the cross brace story is to consider all of the implications and effects of a design change, and if you don’t understand them, test them. This was an example of a failed design change where avoiding inventory costs, decreasing part cost led to many failures, financial setbacks, and possibly a negative looks from some customers who received their FlipStep later than expected. But it's not all bad, not in the slightest. Assuming we get our assemblies back from the powder coater and they work, then we managed to save an estimated $10 per unit sold by fabricating the cross braces to spec in house. In doing so we gained valuable knowledge of pneumatic-hydraulic systems and likewise we intend to update the two other pressing processes we do to further reduce physical labor, time, and inconsistency.

I then did some assembly and some exciting R&D.

Right now we pay close to $6 for our riv-nut tools included in the installation kit. Why? Because it simply works. In the past we’ve concocted elaborate assemblies to set the riv-nuts involving couplers, washers, and external-tooth-lock washers but for some reason we could never get it to work reliably. It worked 90% of the time but, which are good odd’s considering you only have to install 6 riv-nuts, but when it failed, it failed. It was a nuisance because it was almost impossible to remove if the rivnut were to slip, spin, and defile all traction if already partially set. The problem was avoidable so long as the customer applied enough pressure, which thankfully all to whom we sent a janky tool, did. We did this until a similar product was made known, and the assurance and insurance provided to us by the $6 tool was worth it. Because all it takes is one idiot with an $80k truck who's suing us for permanently installing a rivnut tool in his tailgate, and causing excessive damage to remove the thing. The whole idea behind a riv-nut tool is that a bolt would go through the tool and screw into the nut. Two wrenches are used simultaneously to hold the tool still and tighten the bolt thus setting the nut. But the key is preventing the nut from slipping, with our janky version that was the job of the external-tooth-lock washer, with the $6 G.L.H version it had teeth. The latest iteration to test uses materials already used in production; the HDPE from the adapter plate, and the traction additive we use in our non-slip coating. The piece and process is simple, a 9/16” square is cut from ½” HDPE and pressed onto a hotplate covered in sand, so it becomes ingrained in the plastic, then a center hole is drilled out. The tool gains traction on the nut by compressing the plastic into the traction additive and subsequently the nut. The tool assembly is complete and ready for use after placing a bolt with a washer through the tool and screwing on a rivnut. The form and function of the G.L.H tool was unchanged but the cost is significantly less. Additional labor savings are to be had with additive manufacturing, but considering that the processes are already simple and expeditious and we can use scrap material, there is not significant savings either way. One argument to be made for printed parts is aesthetics; it is afterall a tool the customer will feel so it may be a desirable option to make the experience better. Considering that, it is a disposable tool after all. Another alternative manufacturing process that is suitable is laser cutting. I digress.