Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MIT Technology Review)   What's holding back 3-D printing? I mean, you've been able to get one for the price of a good used car for 2 whole years now, start making those figurines already, losers   (technologyreview.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, computer-aided designs, MakerBot, Autodesk, additive manufacturing  
•       •       •

4952 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Apr 2013 at 8:54 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-28 09:03:31 AM  
One day we'll be able to prove that yes, we WOULD download a car.
 
2013-04-28 09:04:46 AM  
Considering how expensive 2-D ink is, some folks just can't deal with the price of 3-D ink.

/ windows 3-d print drivers, design software that doesn't need a Masters' in ME.
 
2013-04-28 09:10:09 AM  
$50 to produce a plastic apple? They have filament for $48/kg, so a plastic apple weighs more than a kg? Or is an absurd amount of filament wasted?
 
2013-04-28 09:10:11 AM  
The problem is FDM- it sucks. It's slow, the build quality blows. Fortunately, it's not the only way to build a 3D printer. Stereolithography and sintering printers are the future.
 
2013-04-28 09:10:50 AM  
For the 800th time.. people dont need 3d printers. Does nothing for them.

I have a 3d printer. I use it for prototyping. It has no other real use. Its cheaper to replace that 10 cent piece of plastic for $5 than it is to buy a $2000 machine to print it for 50 cents.

You wont be 3d printing useful things at home until we figure out nano robotic manufacturing etc.
 
2013-04-28 09:11:21 AM  

Bisu: $50 to produce a plastic apple? They have filament for $48/kg


I suppose if they did a 100% fill on the apple, they could use an entire kilogram of filament. But why would you do that? Double wall and 20% fill should be plenty. Heck, 10% fill is probably enough.
 
2013-04-28 09:12:34 AM  

dionysusaur: Considering how expensive 2-D ink is, some folks just can't deal with the price of 3-D ink.

/ windows 3-d print drivers, design software that doesn't need a Masters' in ME.


The software is really easy to use.  The problem is the cost.  SolidWorks and Inventor are great tools with a very easy learning curve....for a $5k-$10k price tag.

You're right with the cost of the materials, though.  Cost-per-part is still drastically more expensive than traditional manufacturing techniques.  This fact alone will keep 3D printing relegated to rapid-prototype development for a very long time.
 
2013-04-28 09:13:46 AM  

Bisu: $50 to produce a plastic apple? They have filament for $48/kg, so a plastic apple weighs more than a kg? Or is an absurd amount of filament wasted?




They may be factoring in things like machine and energy costs.
 
2013-04-28 09:14:17 AM  
I loathe 2D printers.  I imagine 3D will be an order of magnitude more annoying.

/can't wait to smash one to pieces.
 
2013-04-28 09:15:49 AM  

Driedsponge: Cost-per-part is still drastically more expensive than traditional manufacturing techniques.


You have to compare cost-per-part fairly, though. What's cost-per-part, using traditional manufacturing, when you only make 5 parts? Traditional manufacturing, especially with plastics, is about economies of scale. Things like 3D printers make non-scaled production economical. Yes, it's not the cheapest way to do  anything, nor will it ever be- but it's  cheap enough for many tasks.
 
2013-04-28 09:17:04 AM  

Driedsponge:

The software is really easy to use.  The problem is the cost.  SolidWorks and Inventor are great tools with a very easy learning curve....for a $5k-$10k price tag.

.




I use Google SketchUp. Its free, and far easier/faster/more user friendly.

/OK I use inventor too, but most of my stuff i rough out in sketchup
 
2013-04-28 09:30:11 AM  
Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.
 
2013-04-28 09:32:03 AM  
It is a wasteful gimick, mass production is what built our industrialized economy with scale, this is an indulgent step backward.
 
2013-04-28 09:35:16 AM  
I think stubby nailed it.  Why spend the cash to have the ability tp produce cheap plastic objects?
 
2013-04-28 09:36:48 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.


3d printing is actually great for space... it allows for you to create any shape part on the fly with very little tooling.

Not just in space either... NASA already uses fancy metal 3d printers to create a lot of their spacecraft parts... it allows them to give the parts internal structures and hollows that wouldnt be possible with any other fabrication technique.
 
2013-04-28 09:37:19 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.


Was waiting for you to come in and threadshiat.

You know, not every penny of technology funding can go to life extension. Give up, already.
 
2013-04-28 09:44:42 AM  
I've tried hard to think of something I actually want or need to make.   If I'd thought of even one thing, I'd own a makerbot right now.
 
2013-04-28 09:45:54 AM  

jack21221: Quantum Apostrophe: Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.

Was waiting for you to come in and threadshiat.

You know, not every penny of technology funding can go to life extension. Give up, already.


I'm just making fun of the overly optimistic hype there was for home 3D printing. I know people will say that there are industrial processes staffed by engineers and technicians and using million dollar machines that can also be called "3D printing".

But that's like launching Estes model rockets, which are cardboard tubes, and then saying that since the Saturn V is also a rocket, you have a space program at home.
 
2013-04-28 09:46:56 AM  
Meh, it's only a minor problem with 3D printing.  There's a much bigger one that challenges it's mass use.  Demand.

You see, one of the great draws to 3D printing is innovation.  New and exciting 1 off products.  Prototyping.  The problem is, in modern America, we're about as innovative as a turnip.  The average person has no idea how all of the things they use every day even work, much less could they imagine improving them.
 
2013-04-28 09:53:21 AM  

jack21221: Quantum Apostrophe: Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.

Was waiting for you to come in and threadshiat.

You know, not every penny of technology funding can go to life extension. Give up, already.




He doesn't actually care for life extension, or technology in general.
Never turns up in those threads.

/posts sign advising people not to feed the troll.
 
2013-04-28 10:14:41 AM  
I'm looking forward to sending my 3D junk casting to everyone I know!
 
2013-04-28 10:20:31 AM  

Arthen: It is a wasteful gimick, mass production is what built our industrialized economy with scale, this is an indulgent step backward.


Your lack of vision does not mean that a sufficiently advanced factory could employ a myriad of these and produce a large number of products at huge scales.

Not now, of course, the tech is still developing. But the costs, qualities, materials, speed, etc are all improving across the board.

A few years ago, even the crappy plastic printers were 1500 bucks. Now you can get them for 200-300 dollars.
 
2013-04-28 10:23:54 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: jack21221: Quantum Apostrophe: Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.

Was waiting for you to come in and threadshiat.

You know, not every penny of technology funding can go to life extension. Give up, already.

I'm just making fun of the overly optimistic hype there was for home 3D printing. I know people will say that there are industrial processes staffed by engineers and technicians and using million dollar machines that can also be called "3D printing".

But that's like launching Estes model rockets, which are cardboard tubes, and then saying that since the Saturn V is also a rocket, you have a space program at home.


Hype aside, 3d printing does have a promising future. But this isn't going to be a desktop printer in every-home. More likely it's going to a larger fab every couple villages or so. It'll be larger, probably about the size to fit inside one of those ISO shipping containers. Probably used to quickly manufacture spare-parts that aren't available locally but are needed ASAP. Like a part for an agricultural pump that has gone down. Maybe an obscure auto part, maybe one that isn't manufactured anymore that would typically be found in a junkyard. The difference between having three trucks and two trucks + one gradually being stripped for parts.

And it isnt just 3d printing, it could be an automated chemical lab, sort of a compounding factory in a shipping container. You load in feedstock and get out various substances. Again, a real boon for the boonies. The micro manufacturing revolution will mostly help people that live far off the beaten track. Far from the great cities and transportation networks that make this sort of thing superfluous.

So yes, it's not gonna change a lot of lives in the first world. But much like cell phones and solar power, it'll be a boon for people living in places without lots of expensive infrastructure. It is going to be revolutionary, just not for us.
 
2013-04-28 10:29:11 AM  

t3knomanser: The problem is FDM- it sucks. It's slow, the build quality blows. Fortunately, it's not the only way to build a 3D printer. Stereolithography and sintering printers are the future.


Here you go:

http://formlabs.com/
 
2013-04-28 10:31:39 AM  
I'm still in the process of getting all the bits together to make one. Not because I think I'll be able to download a car, but so that I can have the fun of building it and making it work. Then there are those times when some crappy little piece of plastic breaks on something and I have to throw the whole thing away and buy a new whatever because the crappy little plastic thing is not sold as a replacement part. Mainly though, building things and making them work is fun.
 
2013-04-28 10:32:11 AM  
No matter how many times this comes up, I always shake my head.  What's holding back 3D printing?  Easy, you can make anything you want as long as what you want is okay being made out of fragile plastic.  It's useful for some things, but until nano-assembly comes along I'm afraid that it will not be replacing mills/lathes/welders/etc.
 
2013-04-28 10:33:11 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: But that's like launching Estes model rockets, which are cardboard tubes, and then saying that since the Saturn V is also a rocket, you have a space program at home.


Quantum Apostrophe: If only information processing required very little energy and materials and we could make it so cheap and small that even poor people could have several of them, sometimes even without knowing it...



Yes, if only technology improved over time, imagine the things we could do.
=Smidge=
 
2013-04-28 10:35:03 AM  

Jarhead_h: Easy, you can make anything you want as long as what you want is okay being made out of fragile plastic


Or metal. I mean, your basic home 3D printer isn't going to do metal, but you can 3D print metal.
 
2013-04-28 10:35:26 AM  

Jarhead_h: No matter how many times this comes up, I always shake my head.  What's holding back 3D printing?  Easy, you can make anything you want as long as what you want is okay being made out of fragile plastic.  It's useful for some things, but until nano-assembly comes along I'm afraid that it will not be replacing mills/lathes/welders/etc.


In case you're not aware, there are printers that do metals, and they are reaching very high strength levels in the finished products. I believe they're looking to start using it in aviation for aluminum parts, maybe other stuff too.

To clarify, I don't think anything is holding it back. It's just taking it's time getting off the ground, finding the right uses, improving the tech, etc. If you've paid close attention, you know that the 3D printing landscape has changed dramatically over 5 years, and it will over 5 more, etc.
 
2013-04-28 10:36:03 AM  

Arthen: It is a wasteful gimick, mass production is what built our industrialized economy with scale, this is an indulgent step backward.


Uhm, no it's REALLY NOT.  Cottage industry is finally seeing a resurgence thanks to small scale cnc and the internet that made it possible.  THAT'S the future.
 
2013-04-28 10:36:41 AM  
Love the technology but a home unit is problematic for so many reasons at the moment. So I tried some of the online companies that allow you to upload your plans (e.g. Ponoko).

A small UNIQUE (x1) plastic piece (approx 3.5 square cm) for a board-game my brother is prototyping:

Materials: $0.15
Time: $0.20

Awesome! Until.....
Shipping: $14.00

If I needed a few hundred made....no problem! Otherwise, it's a bit prohibitive.

Of course I am in Canada and they're in the States so there's that. I'd love a comparable service up here in the great white North...
 
2013-04-28 10:39:19 AM  

stuhayes2010: I think stubby nailed it.  Why spend the cash to have the ability tp produce cheap plastic objects?


Because Obama is gonna take our guns.

I anticipate the sad day when kindergarteners don't know what Play-Doh is.
 
2013-04-28 10:39:32 AM  

jack21221: Quantum Apostrophe: Have you tried 3D printing in space? Everything gets magically better in space.

Was waiting for you to come in and threadshiat.

You know, not every penny of technology funding can go to life extension. Give up, already.


Except there IS some evidence that 3-D printing can be used for organ creation. there's some work being done on biological 3D printing....
 
2013-04-28 10:40:03 AM  

Vanis: Of course I am in Canada and they're in the States so there's that. I'd love a comparable service up here in the great white North...


A small item on Shapeways seems to ship to Canada for about $6.50. Not necessarily a huge improvement, but I'd really suggest ordering, like, several prototype pieces at once, if he needs them. Makes the 6 bucks seem reasonable.
 
2013-04-28 10:40:09 AM  
People who see "PC LOAD LETTER" and scream "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" will never be able to operate a 3D printer.
 
2013-04-28 10:43:09 AM  
3D printers belong in local libraries and service shops.  Send your creation to Walmart and go pick up the finished product.
 
2013-04-28 10:44:38 AM  

Smidge204: Quantum Apostrophe: But that's like launching Estes model rockets, which are cardboard tubes, and then saying that since the Saturn V is also a rocket, you have a space program at home.

Quantum Apostrophe: If only information processing required very little energy and materials and we could make it so cheap and small that even poor people could have several of them, sometimes even without knowing it...


Yes, if only technology improved over time, imagine the things we could do.
=Smidge=


Yes, 3D printing matter is JUST LIKE processing information! (The "just like" is sarcastic, thereby denoting that I think the opposite of the literal interpretation. You seem to have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm pointing it out. It's not fair otherwise.)

Do you not understand this simple concept? (That information processing requires very little energy to flip a bit)

Processing information requires VERY LITTLE energy or materials!

THAT'S WHY computers could get smaller!

And 747s DIDN'T.

What is it you don't understand?

People still fly Piper Cubs and Cessnas that are half a century old!

How many people use mid 20th century mainframe computers?

If it's physical, it has lots of limits.

If it's information processing, yes, we can make pretty pictures nowadays.

I've broken it down into simple sentences so even you have a chance to read it.

Information processing requires energy in the attojoules per bit. That's the physical limit.

We had PLENTY of room to scale DOWN. That's what most of our technological progress has been for the last 50 years. Making smaller, cheaper and less energy-intensive electrical switches.

Yet somehow, a 747 still takes the same amount of time to fly across the Atlantic as it did in 1969.

Could it be that comparing information processing to physical processes is fundamentally stupid?

And that rapid progress in flipping bits means nothing when it comes to physical processes?

I mean, the fact that you kept my quote and pop it into random places just shows you don't understand a damn thing.

=Quantum Apostrophe=
 
2013-04-28 10:50:36 AM  

macdaddy357: People who see "PC LOAD LETTER" and scream "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" will never be able to operate a 3D printer.



I think they'll probably be able to handle

*place object in scanner*
*press "copy" button*

and/or

*download file*
*send to printer*


/the litigation arising from this tech is going to require SO much popcorn
 
2013-04-28 10:54:58 AM  
3D CAD / modeling software in general has a steep learning curve for most people, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a large community of people doing stuff with it.

I don't see a need for a 3D printer in every home, but there are other business models. Not everyone has a darkroom for making paper photographic prints or a $20,000 color laser printer or a t-shirt printer, but you can go to franchised shops that DO have those, hand them a USB stick, and pick up your physical product an hour later. They seem to make money. Add a 3D scanner to rough out your model from an existing part and they'd get a lot of business.

I would have *loved* to have access to a large-format 3D printer when I was restoring vintage cars. Even just for the plastic parts, there are a lot of odd items that just can't be had for love nor money. There's an entire industry based on people scouring junkyards for obscure, one-off parts and selling them to restorers at obscene prices.

CS,B: I used to hang out at a "hacker collective" (hate the term, but that's what they called it) where members chipped in $x per month and pooled their tools and resources to make a much better shared workshop than any one person could afford themselves. When the "Green Lantern" movie was in production one member was getting cell-phone photos of the Green Lantern's ring from a friend on the production crew. So a few members made a project of it...

They modeled it from the photos, one guy had access to a CNC machine at work so he made up a ton of brass blanks, they used the shared MakerBot to make the green plastic inserts, and with a bit of hand-polishing and fitting they churned out a bunch of Green Lantern rings and sold them to collectors on eBay. They had two models, the more expensive of which had an LED in it so it glowed.

With the proceeds they each got a tidy bit of money and there was enough left over for them to purchase a much nicer 3D printer.
 
2013-04-28 10:55:47 AM  
Quantum Apostrophe:
Yes, 3D printing matter is JUST LIKE processing information! (The "just like" is sarcastic, thereby denoting that I think the opposite of the literal interpretation. You seem to have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm pointing it out. It's not fair otherwise.)

Do you not understand this simple concept? (That information processing requires very little energy to flip a bit)
Processing information requires VERY LITTLE energy or materials!
THAT'S WHY computers could get smaller!
And 747s DIDN'T.
What is it you don't understand?
People still fly Piper Cubs and Cessnas that are half a century old!
How many people use mid 20th century mainframe computers?
If it's physical, it has lots of limits.
If it's information processing, yes, we can make pretty pictures nowadays.
I've broken it down into simple sentences so even you have a chance to read it.
Information processing requires energy in the attojoules per bit. That's the physical limit.
We had PLENTY of room to scale DOWN. That's what most of our technological progress has been for the last 50 years. Making smaller, cheaper and less energy-intensive electrical switches.
Yet somehow, a 747 still takes the same amount of time to fly across the Atlantic as it did in 1969.
Could it be that comparing information processing to physical processes is fundamentally stupid?
And that rapid progress in flipping bits means nothing when it comes to physical processes?
I mean, the fact that you kept my quote and pop it into rando ...


Thats a whole lot of typing for someone who said nothing.
 
2013-04-28 10:59:32 AM  
I'll get a 3d printer when they can print things I need, like clothes and food, and so on. Also, there should be a machine that does the opposite; grinds objects into raw material that 3d printers can use as "ink."

Of course, if 3d-printers and printing was really cheap, I'd get one so I could make cheap plastic toys for my nephews / nieces.

/freecandyvanlegit.jpg
 
2013-04-28 11:02:43 AM  

Alonjar: Quantum Apostrophe:
Yes, 3D printing matter is JUST LIKE processing information! (The "just like" is sarcastic, thereby denoting that I think the opposite of the literal interpretation. You seem to have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm pointing it out. It's not fair otherwise.)

Do you not understand this simple concept? (That information processing requires very little energy to flip a bit)
Processing information requires VERY LITTLE energy or materials!
THAT'S WHY computers could get smaller!
And 747s DIDN'T.
What is it you don't understand?
People still fly Piper Cubs and Cessnas that are half a century old!
How many people use mid 20th century mainframe computers?
If it's physical, it has lots of limits.
If it's information processing, yes, we can make pretty pictures nowadays.
I've broken it down into simple sentences so even you have a chance to read it.
Information processing requires energy in the attojoules per bit. That's the physical limit.
We had PLENTY of room to scale DOWN. That's what most of our technological progress has been for the last 50 years. Making smaller, cheaper and less energy-intensive electrical switches.
Yet somehow, a 747 still takes the same amount of time to fly across the Atlantic as it did in 1969.
Could it be that comparing information processing to physical processes is fundamentally stupid?
And that rapid progress in flipping bits means nothing when it comes to physical processes?
I mean, the fact that you kept my quote and pop it into rando ...

Thats a whole lot of typing for someone who said nothing.


Yeah, I'm not really sure what he was going for there. Is this a claim that the tech surrounding physical manufacturing is not improving? And what's with the 747 thing? I mean, yeah, it takes the same amount of time to fly across the Atlantic as it did in 1969 because it's the same plane that flew across the Atlantic in 1969. Is that the point? Has he seen how far 3d printers have come since 1969?

The douche bag ranting can be amusing sometimes, but he lost me there.
 
2013-04-28 11:04:42 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Also, there should be a machine that does the opposite; grinds objects into raw material that 3d printers can use as "ink."


There actually are these, in various stages of development/quality.
 
2013-04-28 11:05:03 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: macdaddy357: People who see "PC LOAD LETTER" and scream "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" will never be able to operate a 3D printer.


I think they'll probably be able to handle

*place object in scanner*
*press "copy" button*

and/or

*download file*
*send to printer*


/the litigation arising from this tech is going to require SO much popcorn


For me it's the applications we haven't thought up yet that will be the popcorn element.

When I first started reading about people trying to make workable firearms with 3d printers it occurred to me that there were possibilities we haven't begun to consider.

I'll sell you the plans to a replica "Stoya" vagina which you can print in the privacy of your own home!

What's that? You're out of flesh-like plastics? Damn, so expensive. Well we can just check the logs....wait, why did my 13 year old daughter just print a file 12 inches long and with a girth of....

You can start writing the Fark headlines pretty easily at that point...
 
2013-04-28 11:08:37 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Smidge204: Quantum Apostrophe: But that's like launching Estes model rockets, which are cardboard tubes, and then saying that since the Saturn V is also a rocket, you have a space program at home.

Quantum Apostrophe: If only information processing required very little energy and materials and we could make it so cheap and small that even poor people could have several of them, sometimes even without knowing it...


Yes, if only technology improved over time, imagine the things we could do.
=Smidge=

Yes, 3D printing matter is JUST LIKE processing information! (The "just like" is sarcastic, thereby denoting that I think the opposite of the literal interpretation. You seem to have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm pointing it out. It's not fair otherwise.)

Do you not understand this simple concept? (That information processing requires very little energy to flip a bit)

Processing information requires VERY LITTLE energy or materials!

THAT'S WHY computers could get smaller!

And 747s DIDN'T.

What is it you don't understand?

People still fly Piper Cubs and Cessnas that are half a century old!

How many people use mid 20th century mainframe computers?

If it's physical, it has lots of limits.

If it's information processing, yes, we can make pretty pictures nowadays.

I've broken it down into simple sentences so even you have a chance to read it.

Information processing requires energy in the attojoules per bit. That's the physical limit.

We had PLENTY of room to scale DOWN. That's what most of our technological progress has been for the last 50 years. Making smaller, cheaper and less energy-intensive electrical switches.

Yet somehow, a 747 still takes the same amount of time to fly across the Atlantic as it did in 1969.

Could it be that comparing information processing to physical processes is fundamentally stupid?

And that rapid progress in flipping bits means nothing when it comes to physical processes?

I mean, the fact that you kept my quote and pop it into rando ...


Or, you know, the ability to interrogate data effectively reduces the physical processes required to accomplish a particular task. Like in genetics. We're getting better and better designer nucleases and things that used to be fanciful like targeted design are now possible.

Or chemical processes.
 
2013-04-28 11:15:23 AM  

maxheck: I would have *loved* to have access to a large-format 3D printer when I was restoring vintage cars. Even just for the plastic parts, there are a lot of odd items that just can't be had for love nor money. There's an entire industry based on people scouring junkyards for obscure, one-off parts and selling them to restorers at obscene prices.


Preach it brother!

I work on old European cars in my off time.  Because of this I own a CNC mill, CNC lathe, a 1' x 3' x 4' CNC gantry and my own damned foundry.  There's any number of parts that are simply unobtanium.  With these toys and a few others, reproductions can be created fairly quickly.

In that environment, it makes good damned sense.
 
2013-04-28 11:21:36 AM  
www.textually.org

These guys are on it...
 
2013-04-28 11:26:20 AM  

Alonjar: For the 800th time.. people dont need 3d printers. Does nothing for them.


But how else will people be able to make dildos and guns from the privacy of their own home?
 
2013-04-28 11:34:34 AM  
Let me know when a 3d printer can be used to make a 3d printer.
 
2013-04-28 11:42:03 AM  

rohar: maxheck: I would have *loved* to have access to a large-format 3D printer when I was restoring vintage cars. Even just for the plastic parts, there are a lot of odd items that just can't be had for love nor money. There's an entire industry based on people scouring junkyards for obscure, one-off parts and selling them to restorers at obscene prices.

Preach it brother!

I work on old European cars in my off time.  Because of this I own a CNC mill, CNC lathe, a 1' x 3' x 4' CNC gantry and my own damned foundry.  There's any number of parts that are simply unobtanium.  With these toys and a few others, reproductions can be created fairly quickly.

In that environment, it makes good damned sense.


And hobbyist restorers with access to 3D scanners could post models online.

Alice needs a taillight housing for her '71 Mach I Mustang... Bob in her car club has the same car... he unbolts his housing, takes it to Kinko's to scan it, and sends the model to Alice for the cost of the scan.

Heck, if I had my own scanner i'd probaby have scanned every piece I ever had off of a car.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report