[A_D_E_P_T]

Recyclability isn't really an issue, because the steel umbrella is not viable as a product. This is on account of its weight.

> Total weight of assembled umbrella: 1.71kg

The average umbrella, and the plastic one at the link, weigh roughly a quarter of that amount. There are golf umbrellas, considered extremely heavy, at ~0.9kg, e.g.: https://shedrain.com/products/vortex-vent-pro

The ultra-durable umbrella is an exercise in making a product that appears to be an umbrella out of heavy-duty materials. But it's not an umbrella that's viable as a commercial product; it wasn't designed with the average user's capabilities in mind. Most people, even trained athletes, would not be happy to lug around an umbrella that weighs nearly four pounds.

I'm sure it's possible to strike a balance, perhaps with aluminum or magnesium (expensive!) instead of steel. But the project didn't attempt it -- it went with steel to make a point. In real-life product engineering, though, every gram saved is worth celebrating.

[numpad0]

This is a beautifully done art project, but it's curious how relevant comparisons made are to reality. The handle could be easily made of tubes for massive weight reduction and potentially improved rigidity, for example.

It seems the idea is to take an existing umbrella, reproduce it faithfully in different materials, and then comparing results: like right-clicking an umbrella_object displayed on a 3D modeling tool and changing texture bitmaps. I suppose justification to that is it has to be apples to apples comparison.

But that's not how objects are manufactured in the real world: Parts are designed for specific materials and means of fabrication. Replicating existing man-made object with a manufacturing method the object was not intended to be manufactured with leads to subpar results. If I'm making something out of carbon fiber, I'd try to minimize numbers of screw holes. If it's to be made of aluminum, I'd avoid repeated stresses, but if it's to be made of steel, flexure joints becomes an option. If I'm 3D printing something, I'd try to minimize overhangs below 45 degrees. If I'm designing for injection molding, I'd avoid wide flat surfaces and abrupt changes in cross sections. If I'm milling something, I'd repeatedly check for tool clearances, try to minimize amounts removed(which may result in thicker walls), and avoid complex curves as I design it.

I'm not going to take an J-shaped umbrella grip and instruct a factory worker to EDM it out of pre-tempered glass block. Even if I managed to have it done, and if it ended up weighing as much as a steel handle, that won't tell much about viability of glass-framed umbrella in general.

[helsinkiandrew]

My James Smith & Sons Umbrella has a lightweight steel frame (apparently invented by James Smith the 2nd in 1851) - weighs about 500g and has lasted 30+ years.

https://www.james-smith.co.uk/product/umbrellas/gents-umbrel...

[TeMPOraL]

Mass is a tradeoff too, but I suppose you could shove half of the weight without compromising the durability. Would that still not be a viable product then? Something a tad heavier than standard big umbrella, much more expensive, but nearly indestructible?

I'd go for it. And yes, I'm very much the kind of user who says they'd go for durable umbrella and, at the same time, also says they use an umbrella very infrequently. Well, that's because umbrellas suck donkey balls, to borrow a phrase from the Expanse. I avoid the light ones as even a little breeze makes them flip their shape from convex to concave and eventually break struts. The heavier ones... well, they all seem to magically break within couple months, so it's always a lottery if I pick one with torn fabric or hanging strut, and then when I do, then what? Throw away the looks-fixable-but-really-too-cheeply-made-to-be-fixed one, and buy another one, fourth one this fall? The whole experience makes me avoid umbrellas except for the heaviest of rains, and it's mostly because of lack of durability.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> In real-life product engineering, though, every gram saved is worth celebrating.

I would like to point out that I'm old enough that I think I've witnessed how aluminum soda cans have become much thinner over the years. Their contents are of course under pressure and that makes them a bit sturdier; they can be stacked 10 feet high with no problem. Usually. But someone tosses a case a little too hard, packing them in a truck, the angle that the force of that jolts off a few degrees... something, and the can just explodes and makes a mess. And the economics may mean that even with that loss it's still better financially, but this seems wrong to me somehow.

If it were only disposable cans I could probably ignore it. But everyone's shaving milligrams here and there, to the point that you'll get a potato peeler at the store because the last one broke, to bring the new one home and compare it... only to find out it was stamped out of even thinner steel. It breaks next month. You can't shop around and find a better one, they're all pumped out of the same no-name factory that a forensic accountant probably couldn't track down if he had access to all of the supply chain's paperwork.

A friend and I were discussing just a few weeks ago whether or not duct tape was of vastly different quality when we were small children (late 1970s) compared to today. I of course realize that 4 yr old me might have a much more difficult time tearing off a piece of identical duct tape that 50 year old me could tear without trying... but I seem to remember even my dad having to put a little too much effort. You really did have to rip into the stuff.

When you shave these milligrams off of items, it looks like it is win/win, that you're reducing cost without reducing any quality that anyone cares about, but I think that it might be true that you're shaving little pieces off of everyone's lives. Too little for them to complain about, but the sum total of that unpleasantness must be vast. I am not inclined to celebrate it.

[A_D_E_P_T]

Ultimately, I think that it depends entirely on the type of product and how it's used.

If you take an aluminum can from 17g to 12g, that may represent some cost savings in manufacturing and transport, but the average soda drinker won't notice a difference.

But if you take an umbrella from 1700g to 1200g, that's the difference between something that's entirely unusable, to something that has practical utility -- if only barely. 500g would be much better. All else being equal the optimal weight for an umbrella is probably around 100g. Enough to know it's there, but not enough that extended use by the fifth-percentile human would be difficult or metabolically demanding.

If a human has to wear or carry it, and if there's a meaningful weight/comfort threshold associated with the product's use, every gram counts. Duct tape and aluminum cans don't fall into this category -- but, at the same time, this is why hiking and camping equipment tends to be extremely light, and why the athletic shoe companies keep researching lighter and better foams.

The problem is heightened in aerospace and automotive engineering, where fuel economy mandates tend to impose hard weight caps -- and getting a design in at well under the cap is a real engineering accomplishment. Offhand, I recall hearing that there was once a program where ~$15M dollars were spent on efforts to make a commercial airplane lighter. This resulted in about 20kg shaved off the aircraft's weight. That doesn't sound like much of a value, but the program was considered a great success.

[BlueTemplar]

Why was the handle made of stainless steel, and not, say, wood ? Looks to be a significant fraction of mass, while not being the typical part that would break ?

[hbosch]

Steel is more durable than wood.

[HideousKojima]

>while not being the typical part that would break ?

[jwagenet]

Recycleability isn’t really an issue because there isnt really a consumer pipeline for recycling metals of nonstandard shapes like cans. You certainly can’t just throw it in the recycling bin, and anything else is more friction.