We’re super excited about the winning design for the modular, multi-purpose utility tool we’re developing for Product 0035, and we hope you are too!
We want to take our time to make sure we get this product right, so we’ve decided to launch a second project research phase to gather more of your input. There are some things our designers want you to keep in mind as you fill out this survey.
For question 3 and 4: These questions refer to the modularity of the product. There are two different ways that the Quirky staff can see “modular” being defined. One is that the user picks which tools are in the knife, and then the knife is assembled, shipped, and stays together. The second is that the user can easily switch out the attachments in the knife after purchasing the knife. We ask how likely you’d be to purchase the product for both these implementations.
For question 5: The unit would be smaller if the tools nested, but that would constrain how modular it is. Here we ask which is more important to you: having a fully modular tool, so you can add and remove individual components as you please; having sets of tools arranged to be nested, with the freedom to add and remove individual components; or having tool sets that must be swapped in and out as sets, not as individual components.
For question 6: Assuming the user could switch out attachments, let’s think about we’d open the device. If you could take tools in and out without using a tool, that would probably be easiest, but the product might not be as robust. If you used a standard screwdriver (either a flathead to pry parts apart or a Phillips head to remove a screw), then you wouldn’t have to worry about losing the tool, but you would have to locate a screwdriver to take it apart. A third option would be to take the device apart with some sort of key, like an Allen wrench. The key could be attached to the device, so you’d always have it on you, though that might make the device bigger. Or, we could include the key in a carrying case used for the other attachments. Or, we could do something completely different! Which method do you prefer?
Click on over to share your two cents — and earn additional influence — now!
10 Comments
eoyount | 03/15/2010 4:37 PM
Where is the submit button on the influence page?
Joshua Beckstrom | 03/15/2010 5:41 PM
There wasn’t a place to talk about other options for Number 6, so here’s mine. The place where the fingers go through to hold it (I’ll call them the O-rings) would simply be two halves that snap together, allowing them to rotate around each other yet maintain a snug fit to the knife frame. The thing that keeps the O-rings from unsnapping accidentally would be a latching system that is part of each half of the O-ring that hinges around the knife frame and snaps together there. It could be very slim and not stick out from the knife very far at all. But the idea is that unless that latch is unsnapped, the O-rings can’t unsnap from each other. This also gives a handle for unsnapping the O-rings, as each latch could be pulled away from each other after they are unsnapped themselves!
2busy2blog | 03/15/2010 5:45 PM
I can’s submit my answers because there is not submit button on the page.
jess | 03/15/2010 5:55 PM
Hey guys,
Could be two things:
1. You’re not logged into your account.
2. You’re in the “product research” project and not the “second product research” project. The product research project is closed, so you wouldn’t see a submit button. The second product research project still has three days to go.
Let me know if you’re still having problems — jess@quirky.com.
2busy2blog | 03/15/2010 6:04 PM
Thanks Jess
My problem was solved when i realized i was not logged it.
Thanks,
janet | 03/15/2010 6:14 PM
@ Joshua: Thanks for the input. We’ll keep that in mind when we get further into the design. This is a more complex product than we normally do, so we’re planning on having a few design and research phases. We’re a while away from mechanism at this point, but a robust, tool free mechanism like that would be nice.
Janet (engineer @ quirky)
Brock Gillis | 03/16/2010 9:08 PM
Size Selection
If you are to put your finger through the tool (like a karambit) then the max width of the tool would be around 0.75″. But for a multi-tool you want a length of 4″ (allowing for a useful blade length). The height of the tool depends on the shape. To grasp the tool with a finger through one of the holes it would need to be slightly curved and to fit the palm of the hand. I would think between 1.5″ and 2″ would be a comfortable.
Could the table be changed to select a max thickness and a max length. This may give a better indication of size preference.
juan_gasparini | 03/18/2010 2:33 PM
Tool to lock/unlock: large coin
With the type of attachment shown in the winning design, with the two hollow screw/nut with the wide flange, it usually can be tightened well if it has a notch deep enough for a large coin, like a quarter, on the flange. Either on both sides or one of the sides has a couple of ridges matching notches on the handle side. This way, all you need is a coin to tighten it as opposed to requiring a tool.
Lars Jensen | 03/19/2010 1:43 AM
Scalloped edges for a better grip?
eric heichelbech | 03/25/2010 4:00 PM
i think by leaving it in a Swiss army knife configuration would make changing attachments difficult. make it more like a Gerber. if i’m camping it will have to be versatile and efficient. how about a removable magnesium striker to light fires. you scrap the magnesium with the knife you already have. with the flint attachment light the magnesium. Or make the knife a “building block” or lego type of attachments. slide one attachment off and slide the other on. a two or three peace knife with all attachments fully functional by themselves. two or three knifes in one. fully functional knife even if you have just one of any verity, it still remains useful.
use an umbrella type attachments style