The Grasshopper

[invertedisdead]

It was a prototype, not a production model....

"Prototype" can mean anything. A hollow pen tube and a working vaporizer missing a sticker are both "prototypes."

The video displayed a working, functional pen. It certainly doesn't imply that the whole thing still needs to be designed!


I didn't fund this project, I have no monetary ties to it. In fact, the only reason I DIDN't fund it, is because the promotional video made it sound like it was so close to market it wouldn't matter. I figured I'll just buy it if it gets good reviews when it comes out. I understand crowd funding and the potential delays. I understand realistically evaluating completion time is probably detrimental to a donation based business. But anyone that knows anything about business knows how important speed to market is. It can cripple your business if you get it wrong.

 

[zymos]

My point, which I think has been made by others also, is that it is very different to hand build one unique item than it is to source parts and mass produce the same item.

 

[grokit]

The main issue seems to be that the parts made have not all conformed to the tolerances specified, so some of the parts had to be re-made or re-sourced and these are overseas suppliers so plenty of delays.

 

[invertedisdead]

My point, which I think has been made by others also, is that it is very different to hand build one unique item than it is to source parts and mass produce the same item.

I disagree. The Grasshopper team comes from an Aerospace background not a wooden spoon factory. They are well accustomed to working with a variety of traditional and composite materials while operating under the strictest of tolerances. I know what you mean by "hand built" but this type of device is computer designed and produced with machinery. The CAD file for the finished prototype and the production model is the exact same thing, the only difference is the supplier has a bigger, faster lathe/mill. That's it. Same materials, same everything. The manufacturer just pushes the print button.

The only purpose of "samples" is to ensure that your supplier can accurately produce your product to your desired quality of tolerance and finishing in the quantities specified. That's why choosing the right manufacturer is critical.

The main issue seems to be that the parts made have not all conformed to the tolerances specified, so some of the parts had to be re-made or re-sourced and these are overseas suppliers so plenty of delays.

Exactly, they are doing business with unreliable suppliers. Reliable suppliers do not have tolerance problems in parts. The tolerance can ONLY come from inferior machinery or inferior material. The part itself is a digital CAD drawing. It doesn't change. I assumed people from an aerospace background knew how to sort through good and bad suppliers as there are NO tolerances for that in aerospace!

 

[Starless]

But what of the claims they made, from the start, of its performance (i.e. battery life)? Kind of tough to believe when they're a year off their proposed completion date. Well, maybe not unless this wasn't combined with the fact that they clearly tried to make it look like they were very close to being ready in their launch video.

Or maybe I'm "just clearly [not] at all prepared to contribute." Thank god for the honest people in this thread. Fuck those morons who expect to get anything out of their hard earned money they contributed. The company owes nothing to them. This is crowdfunding; not an investment. Just being blunt with you guys.

 

[°k]

But what of the claims they made, from the start, of its performance (i.e. battery life)? Kind of tough to believe when they're a year off their proposed completion date. Well, maybe not unless this wasn't combined with the fact that they clearly tried to make it look like they were very close to being ready in their launch video.

Or maybe I'm "just clearly [not] at all prepared to contribute." Thank god for the honest people in this thread. Fuck those morons who expect to get anything out of their hard earned money they contributed. The company owes nothing to them. This is crowdfunding; not an investment. Just being blunt with you guys.

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or just insulting here...

 

[Starless]

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or just insulting here...

lol sarcasm. Shoulda included a '/s' at the end, there.

 

[grokit]

 

[HillaryClinton]

Sarcasm is the tastiest part of communication, sprinkle it in all of your conversations for maximum effectiveness, added benefit of ostracizing yourself from those around you which is the bee's knees.

 

[Stu]

Fuck those morons who expect to get anything out of their hard earned money they contributed.

You either need to work on your sarcasm or your manners. I can't tell which, but either way this post violates our "Be Nice" rule and will not be tolerated around here. Consider yourself warned, @Starless .

 

[Krazzykid]

The CAD file for the finished prototype and the production model is the exact same thing,

Sure they can be, but you are assuming that what you saw during the campaign was a "finished prototype" and not one of the many prototypes to come before it. Just because it may have looked like the finished product doesn't mean it was even close to it.

You are also assuming that the prototype was constructed out of the exact same material and same tolerances as the final product is going to be, this is usually not the case at all. Often times many things are changed which can cause unforeseen problems, problems that won't be known about until after the sample parts arrive.

The only purpose of "samples" is to ensure that your supplier can accurately produce your product to your desired quality of tolerance and finishing in the quantities specified. That's why choosing the right manufacturer is critical.

You are wrong. Maybe the "samples" look the same as the prototype parts, but really have many more intricate things going on inside, intricate details that couldn't be done by the designer with the tools they had available. Ever think of that?
Or perhaps materials changed and now an unforeseen problem arose with tolerances in a certain part, forcing a complete redesign. Ever consider this?

Exactly, they are doing business with unreliable suppliers. Reliable suppliers do not have tolerance problems in parts. The tolerance can ONLY come from inferior machinery or inferior material. The part itself is a digital CAD drawing. It doesn't change. I assumed people from an aerospace background knew how to sort through good and bad suppliers as there are NO tolerances for that in aerospace!

Reliable suppliers absolutely DO have tolerance problems in parts as well, remember, the supplier didn't design the part or write the CAD file. Keep in mind also, everyone here is human, and even the best of us make our fair share of mistakes.
Even though some of those machines are ran "automatically", they still need human input to do their thing. Such as loading material in, loading the CAD files, etc, etc. Each time leaving room for something to go wrong.

I don't care who the supplier is, who they are supplying to, or which top of the line machines they are using, there will always be problems that arise.

 

[Starless]

Sorry if my point didn't come across. I was attempting to satirize some of the condecendig attitudes going on in this thread. No need to discuss it further.

 

[invertedisdead]

You are wrong. Maybe the "samples" look the same as the prototype parts, but really have many more intricate things going on inside, intricate details that couldn't be done by the designer with the tools they had available. Ever think of that?
Or perhaps materials changed and now an unforeseen problem arose with tolerances in a certain part, forcing a complete redesign. Ever consider this?


Reliable suppliers absolutely DO have tolerance problems in parts as well, remember, the supplier didn't design the part or write the CAD file. Keep in mind also, everyone here is human, and even the best of us make our fair share of mistakes.
Even though some of those machines are ran "automatically", they still need human input to do their thing. Such as loading material in, loading the CAD files, etc, etc. Each time leaving room for something to go wrong.

I don't care who the supplier is, who they are supplying to, or which top of the line machines they are using, there will always be problems that arise.

Making a part isn't some mystical process. The sample part is the exact same part as your final prototype part. If you changed the material, it wouldn't be your final prototype now would it? Obviously changing materials is going to cause all kinds of tolerance issues that have to be accounted for. Nobody is going to design a part in aluminum, and then order 10,000 in ABS plastic. without checking one, but if they are changing materials, they are certainly far from a final prototype.

Of course No supplier is 100% reliable. It's not possible because it would have to assume machinery never failed. BUT high profile suppliers are in the 99.SOMETHING range, because they HAVE to.

Not sure why everyone is even giving me a hard time over it, these are just my opinions on why people are frustrated with Grasshopper. It doesn't affect me in the least, other then I still really want one.

 

[grokit]

Agreed; they only showed a functional prototype, it was far from a finished one.

 

[Krazzykid]

Making a part isn't some mystical process. The sample part is the exact same part as your final prototype part. If you changed the material, it wouldn't be your final prototype now would it? Obviously changing materials is going to cause all kinds of tolerance issues that have to be accounted for. Nobody is going to design a part in aluminum, and then order 10,000 in ABS plastic. without checking one, but if they are changing materials, they are certainly far from a final prototype.

Of course No supplier is 100% reliable. It's not possible because it would have to assume machinery never failed. BUT high profile suppliers are in the 99.SOMETHING range, because they HAVE to.

Not sure why everyone is even giving me a hard time over it, these are just my opinions on why people are frustrated with Grasshopper. It doesn't affect me in the least, other then I still really want one.

I don't know why you keep jumping to these assumptions! Who says what you saw was the final prototype and not just one of the many prototypes to come before the production model???
Once you get to the final prototype, if ONE single thing has to be changed for any reason then the process starts over and you are no longer on final prototype, right? Once you understand this then everything else that has been going on suddenly makes sense.

There are many reasons to have sample parts made from a supplier that you continually keep overlooking

Nobody is going to design a part in aluminum, and then order 10,000 in ABS plastic.

Perhaps they wouldn't order 10,000, but they certainly would order sample parts first right? Is that not what has been pointed out to you many times now yet you keep continuously ignoring?

They would order sample parts, tweak the design once they get the sample part, order more sample parts, tweak again, continue until perfect. This is exactly what has been happening.

Try designing a production unit from the ground up yourself and see just how hard it is. It is no easy task and delays happen very fast, yet people keep giving them crap as if they are somehow screwing everyone over.

Edit, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I am merely trying to point out that your assumptions that you were shown a "finished prototype", are merely that, assumptions. Every bit of evidence I can find shows me that it wasn't a "finished prototype", but merely a single stage in the prototype phase.
Regardless of what stage of prototype it was, it was still merely a prototype, meaning not finished/not ready. A prototype is merely a model to base the final design on, it is never a guarantee of what the final design will be.

The fact that we were shown a prototype means in itself that the design was not finished, so anyone's assumptions that they simply needed to manufacture parts is dead wrong.

they only showed a functional prototype, it was far from a finished one.

I'm glad someone else understands.

All grasshopper ever showed was that their idea can work, they never showed/said that it was finished or ready, in fact they left all kinds of evidence that it wasn't ready.

 

[invertedisdead]

Once you get to the final prototype, if ONE single thing has to be changed for any reason then the process starts over and you are no longer on final prototype, right? Once you understand this then everything else that has been going on suddenly makes sense.

In the last post I even said "but if they are changing materials, they are certainly far from a final prototype."

I don't know why you think I don't understand you. We are saying the same thing.

And my assumption was never that I was shown a completely finished prototype, just one farther along that it actually was. Their campaign and initial estimated date gave me the impression they still had lots of work to do, absolutely, but I guess I wrongfully assumed things like click buttons and shirt clips would have already been finished before starting a fundraising campaign. I also assumed that due to their aerospace background, and not being average Joe of Kick Starter/Indie Gogo that they would have access to the equipment to actually do this advanced prototype whereas your average person with an idea probably doesn't know how to even do a concept drawing, let alone a CAD model and mill it out.

My business teacher always talked about how critical speed to market is, so I wrongfully assumed a lot of these things would have already been done before the campaign, that way they could get the product to market as quick as possible. For example, while I've been waiting to get my hands on the Grasshopper, Indica vaporizers have not only released, but even re-released with the improved Noir version, Firefly, new Storz & Bickel Crafty/Mighty just came out, etc. If a company gets their speed to market wrong it can put them out of business before they even start.

 

[pakalolo]

In the last post I even said "but if they are changing materials, they are certainly far from a final prototype."

I don't know why you think I don't understand you. We are saying the same thing.

And my assumption was never that I was shown a completely finished prototype, just one farther along that it actually was. Their campaign and initial estimated date gave me the impression they still had lots of work to do, absolutely, but I guess I wrongfully assumed things like click buttons and shirt clips would have already been finished before starting a fundraising campaign. I also assumed that due to their aerospace background, and not being average Joe of Kick Starter/Indie Gogo that they would have access to the equipment to actually do this advanced prototype whereas your average person with an idea probably doesn't know how to even do a concept drawing, let alone a CAD model and mill it out.

My business teacher always talked about how critical speed to market is, so I wrongfully assumed a lot of these things would have already been done before the campaign, that way they could get the product to market as quick as possible. For example, while I've been waiting to get my hands on the Grasshopper, Indica vaporizers have not only released, but even re-released with the improved Noir version, Firefly, new Storz & Bickel Crafty/Mighty just came out, etc. If a company gets their speed to market wrong it can put them out of business before they even start.

I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're right, you did make a lot of really bad assumptions.

 

[biohacker]

Don't any of you use any good psychics? I think that's the only way we are going to get anywhere in this thread. I don't really get it though, They even update us every 2 weeks...personally I think that this is huge, I love a company that communicates like this. Call it excuses, delays, whatever, but let's all just enjoy the ride. When it comes to fruition, hopefully it will be everything we want it to be and more.

 

[invertedisdead]

I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're right, you did make a lot of really bad assumptions.

lol come on brother, one love.

 

[Krazzykid]

For example, while I've been waiting to get my hands on the Grasshopper, Indica vaporizers have not only released, but even re-released with the improved Noir version, Firefly, new Storz & Bickel Crafty/Mighty just came out, etc. If a company gets their speed to market wrong it can put them out of business before they even start.

I agree completely with you. Timing can be everything.

One major thing the Grasshopper has going for it is it's size. Even as compact as something like the Indica is, it has nothing on the Grasshopper. Even the expected battery life on the Grasshopper will be something like twice the run time. Add in the ease of loading due to the removable tip and all the other great features the Grasshopper has going for it.

Even if the Grasshopper ends up being 2 years late to market (I hope not), it will still have an extremely large following. The sleekness and size alone makes me want two or three of them as backups.

I just like the ideas behind the Grasshopper so much. It is small enough that I could truly carry it with me anywhere i go. I also love the fact that I would be able to pair it to a waterpiece so easily, even if an official adapter wasn't ready yet. Just put some sort of gromit or something around the mouthpiece and bam.
Also the extremely fast heat up time would allow us to turn it off between hits, conserving that battery life even more. It just excites me so much lol

 

[JCat]

I disagree. The Grasshopper team comes from an Aerospace background not a wooden spoon factory. They are well accustomed to working with a variety of traditional and composite materials while operating under the strictest of tolerances. I know what you mean by "hand built" but this type of device is computer designed and produced with machinery. The CAD file for the finished prototype and the production model is the exact same thing, the only difference is the supplier has a bigger, faster lathe/mill. That's it. Same materials, same everything. The manufacturer just pushes the print button.

The only purpose of "samples" is to ensure that your supplier can accurately produce your product to your desired quality of tolerance and finishing in the quantities specified. That's why choosing the right manufacturer is critical.



Exactly, they are doing business with unreliable suppliers. Reliable suppliers do not have tolerance problems in parts. The tolerance can ONLY come from inferior machinery or inferior material. The part itself is a digital CAD drawing. It doesn't change. I assumed people from an aerospace background knew how to sort through good and bad suppliers as there are NO tolerances for that in aerospace!

Just an FYI .. there are tolerances and ranges in aerospace engineering (ie. every shuttle ever launched into space has done so with many known software bugs ... hundreds or thousands even ... I'm sure the same would hold true for the hardware as well!)

 

[invertedisdead]

I agree completely with you. Timing can be everything.

One major thing the Grasshopper has going for it is it's size. Even as compact as something like the Indica is, it has nothing on the Grasshopper. Even the expected battery life on the Grasshopper will be something like twice the run time. Add in the ease of loading due to the removable tip and all the other great features the Grasshopper has going for it.

Even if the Grasshopper ends up being 2 years late to market (I hope not), it will still have an extremely large following. The sleekness and size alone makes me want two or three of them as backups.

That's why I haven't bought any of the others. The pen size and shape is super appealing. However, judging by how successful their campaign was I anticipate the dry herb pen market getting much more competitive within this coming year. Especially if we get a few more states on board with MMJ.

 

[Krazzykid]

That's why I haven't bought any of the others. The pen size and shape is super appealing. However, judging by how successful their campaign was I anticipate the dry herb pen market getting much more competitive within this coming year. Especially if we get a few more states on board with MMJ.

True that. I expect big changes really soon in this industry.

One thing that's for sure, no matter which way it all plays out, these are exciting times we are in.

 

[Scott A]

I agree completely with you. Timing can be everything.

One major thing the Grasshopper has going for it is it's size. Even as compact as something like the Indica is, it has nothing on the Grasshopper. Even the expected battery life on the Grasshopper will be something like twice the run time. Add in the ease of loading due to the removable tip and all the other great features the Grasshopper has going for it.

Even if the Grasshopper ends up being 2 years late to market (I hope not), it will still have an extremely large following. The sleekness and size alone makes me want two or three of them as backups.

I just like the ideas behind the Grasshopper so much. It is small enough that I could truly carry it with me anywhere i go. I also love the fact that I would be able to pair it to a waterpiece so easily, even if an official adapter wasn't ready yet. Just put some sort of gromit or something around the mouthpiece and bam.
Also the extremely fast heat up time would allow us to turn it off between hits, conserving that battery life even more. It just excites me so much lol

Stuff like the battery life seem purely speculative at this point.

 

[Caligula]

95% of this thread is speculation.