View attachment 1290447
There would be a number of different ways to implement the alignment rib design into the Old Type, depending upon manufacturing methodology/operations. Here's the simplest, design wise. Adding corner alignment taps would probably require extra operations on the base plate and cap, depending on the manufacturing method.
The issue you will have with plastic 3D printing is that the processes which use materials robust enough to make the razor useable probably won’t be accurate or detailed enough. And the processes which are capable of providing the accuracy and detail, don’t use materials that are robust enough. The metal 3D printing process could do it, but the finish won’t be to expected consumer standards I wouldn’t think, and the thread action would not be very smooth. But I could be wrong.After thinking about it I would like to 3d print it. Would you send me the file for sending it to a 3d printing service?
Putting aside user technique, and personal preferences, which can ultimately be adjusted to match a razors geometry/weight/balance/etc, is there another double edge safety razor design that can compare with the minimalistic and simplistic design theory of the thin cap Gillette Old Type with regards to all of the following?
Smoothness: Blade being rigidly clamped between the cap and base plate along its entire length, as close to the blade cutting edge as possible, which minimises blade flex and allows for shaving in all grain directions with equal ease.
Efficiency: Sufficient blade exposure to easily, and without clogging, remove a number of days beard growth, without being excessively aggressive to the point of frequent blood loss involving anything less than perfect shaving form.
Manoeuvrability: The thinnest cap and base plate combination possible, which provides the easiest of access to all of the trickiest areas that have to be dealt with.
Many razors, past and present, may be able to match, or better, the thin cap Gillette Old Type in some of these areas, but can any of them do it all?
It’s only natural, and understandable, that razor companies over the years have produced designs to meet the differing personal preferences of the shaving public. But the thin cap Gillette Old Type design seems to have fallen completely off the table. Is there no room left, or interest in, possibly the “purest” of all of the double edge safety razor designs, which admittedly might require more user adjustment, but offers great versatility once mastered? The safest straight razor ever made, or is that pure hyperbole? Does anyone currently make a true representation of it?
I know that many may disagree with some of the analysis here, as I’ve read that some find this design harsh, and aggressive. But I’m speaking purely objectively about the technical aspects of the design, and the performance that should result from these.
A non-curved cap seems to me to be a pretty substantial variance from the original. What's the point then?Once I've adjusted the design to suit CNC machining, whilst still keeping everything as "minimal" as possible, this is what we end up with.
The only remaining revision that could make things easier would be a tri-planar cap, instead of a curved one.
View attachment 1291892
View attachment 1291893
View attachment 1291894
Visually yes, but dimensionally, or performance-wise, maybe not. It should make it cheaper to machine, with less finishing.A non-curved cap seems to me to be a pretty substantial variance from the original. What's the point then?
Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
I get the cheaper part, but it obviously alters blade clamping/rigidity. Guess I misunderstood the point of the project.Visually yes, but dimensionally, or performance-wise, maybe not. It should make it cheaper to machine, with less finishing.
Although I would need someone with more CNC production machining experience to confirm what is easiest and cheapest.
The project is morphing that's true. I'm now just exploring how I would need to adjust the design to make it suitable for easy CNC manufacture, rather than mass production, whilst still keeping it as close to the original in terms of design principles.I get the cheaper part, but it obviously alters blade clamping/rigidity. Guess I misunderstood the point of the project.
Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
A Gillette Adjustable blade exposure chart I found lists the blade exposure for the numbered settings as follows.
Setting 1: 0.001mm
Setting 5: 0.005mm
Setting 9: 0.009mm
So the blade exposure for a Gillette Adjustable supposedly moves in increments of 0.001mm.
I've read that a Gillette Old Type has been compared to a Gillette Adjustable on a setting of 9, but I'm not sure if this is to be trusted, given that blade gap will make a difference to the aggressiveness as well, due to the slight deformation of the skin, and face curvature, that will push more into a larger blade gap. The Old Type has zero blade gap.
It's very difficult to physically measure blade exposure of a razor head, so I'm wondering what the actual designed blade exposure dimension is for the Old Type. From what I've constructed I'm looking at somewhere between 0.003mm and 0.007mm.
The Tech is perfect. I agree.
Correct you are sir. I think we might be dealing with measurements in inches rather than millimetres. I’m so used to metric I just default to it.I don't know what you are talking about, though maybe you do.
But I do know how wide 0.001mm is. It is just barely big enough for one wavelength of light to pass through.
I do know that 0.009mm is wide enough to allow a strand of spider silk through.
I'm pretty sure that most people's whiskers are wider than a spider web, though I could be wrong. I often am. (However, if a spiderweb strand were as thick as a human's whisker, would we be able to cut it with a razor blade?)
I also know that 0.1mm = 1/10th of a millimeter.
0.01mm = 1/100th of a millimeter.
0.001 = 1/1000th of a millimeter.
What, you don't believe me? You say, that's just your opinion. I am entitled to my own facts.
Perhaps this will be helpful:
View attachment 1292036
Or maybe not. I just found it on the Web in a set of images, so I cannot attest to its veracity.
I don't mean to look like a know-it-all, but I also know that 1/1000th of a millimeter is called a "micron," aka "micrometer." (Some birdbrain with the metric standards nomenclature "If it ain't broke, let's fix it" committee came up with the brilliant idea of changing the name of a "micron" to a "micrometer." What else is called a "micrometer"? That little caliper screw thingy that measures very small distances.
If "meter" means measure, and "micro" means very small, what's the Latin or Greek word for "thingy"? According to Google Translate, thingy in Latin is thingy. However, in Greek it is σκατά, pronounced skatá, which it so happens is a primary four-letter expletive in Greek, so I don't think the Metric Standards NIIABLFI committee will go for it. (However, if you want to curse in public without repercussions, remember: skatá! Not recommended if you are actually in Greece.) "However, "thing" in Latin is "rem." So perhaps they could rename the micrometer thing, micrometerrem, to distinguish it from the unit of measurement, micrometer, that used to be called micron. Or not. I can figure out which is which, probably because I am a human. But I'm afraid this is going to confuse online search engines, which are not.
But what really puzzles me is why, if, like the original, your Gillette Old Type Mk II will have no blade gap, are you talking about blade gaps on a Gillette adjustable? I can't think of two more completely different razors.
Now, if you could make an "adjustable" that looks and shaves like an Old Type, you might be on to something. Of course, one way would be to allow the user to slide the blade from side to side to customize the blade exposure. Or you could come up with a vernier dial screw adjustment to do it with the absolute precision, down to 0.01 nanometers, that B&B members demand from a $50 razor. Just be sure to plate it in rhodium.
This would now suggest the following.
Setting 1: 0.025mm
Setting 5: 0.13mm
Setting 9: 0.23mm