FEATURED CASE STUDY / MANUFACTURING & TOOLING
Multicam tool fork: redesigning a part that kept breaking
The original part kept breaking. I rebuilt its geometry in Fusion, changed the material to TPU, and put the printed replacement to work in the machine it was made for.
The problem
Brittle original tool forks, recurring breakage, and a reported replacement price of $45–$65 each.
My response
Reverse-engineer the curved geometry, make targeted adjustments, and print a TPU replacement on my Voron V0.2.
The reported result
Firm retention after a 90-day trial, survival of the impacts described in my report, and a stated $35 replacement cost.
Historical project figures from my September 15, 2023 report. They are not current prices or a fully burdened cost study.
Professional notes
From a maintenance problem to an implemented component
This project brings together an observed workplace problem, nontrivial geometric reconstruction, a change in material behavior, additive manufacturing, and a field trial. The photographs and videos connect the replacement part to its actual machine application.
The original September 2023 account describes a 90-day trial and a $35 replacement versus an original $45–$65 price range. The source is my contemporaneous report, not an independent cost or reliability audit.
Why I made it
The fork holds a tool in the Multicam rack, so a replacement had to fit the holder and survive regular use. The original ABS forks kept breaking, and replacements were listed at $45 to $65 each. I decided to model the part myself and try a material with more flex.
Rebuilding the shape in Fusion
The original fork did not give me many easy square edges to measure from. I worked through the curved opening, mounting points, relieved areas, and changing outside shape until the model matched the part I needed to replace.
Why I switched to TPU
The original forks were ABS and kept breaking. I printed the replacement in TPU because I wanted some flex instead of another brittle part. The print used 15% infill and a 0.2 mm layer height on my Voron V0.2.
The 90-day update
After 90 days in the tool rack, the TPU fork was still working and the flex was doing what I hoped it would. I do not have machine-cycle counts or a formal life test, so that update is an observation from actual use.
The saved versions
I saved three versions in the repository: ToolFork_v1.3mf, ToolFork_v2.3mf, and ToolFork_v2_add4mm.3mf. They are revisions of the same tool-fork project, including the later 4 mm variation.
From broken part to working replacement
The original ABS forks in the Multicam rack kept breaking, and replacements were listed at $45 to $65 each. I measured the awkward shape, rebuilt it in Fusion, printed it in TPU on my Voron V0.2, and installed it in the machine. TPU gave the fork the flex I was looking for instead of repeating the brittle material. After 90 days it was still working, and I later made the dimensioned drawing and saved the different file revisions.
Credits & project records
Original machine/component: Multicam. Reverse engineering, adjustments, printing, and the project account: Michael Pytlowany. Printer platform: Voron. This is an adaptation of an existing part, not authorship of the original machine.
The four photographs and two videos accompany the same September 15, 2023 Jerky_FPV post. The silent website copies retain the original video sequence without background audio. The native drawing is ToolFork Drawing v4, issued October 4, 2023.
Price, retention, impact survival, and trial duration are reported in the original first-person account. The post also offers an environmental explanation for deterioration; no controlled materials investigation is supplied, and that explanation is not treated here as an established mechanism.
The original caption says "7 parameters." That wording is not silently converted to a verified wall/perimeter count. Material grade, full slicer profile, test protocol, and machine-specific safety validation are not provided as part of this case study.
FROM THE ORIGINAL PROJECT POST
From printer bed to tool rack.
Two views of the same project: making the replacement and seeing the machine use it.
PART DETAILS