3D Printing Will Replace Injection Molding | Interview with InventWithMe | Slant3D Podcast Ep 160

Summary of Main Points

1) Big move in metal additive: Beehive Industries expands EOS capacity

• Beehive Industries is investing $50 million to install 30 additional EOS M4 Onyx metal 3D-printing machines.
• The expansion will support production of Beehive’s Frenzy 8 engine line and is expected to come online over the next 12 months across facilities in:
  • Knoxville, Tennessee
  • Centennial, Colorado
• This is described as more than doubling Beehive’s metal additive manufacturing capacity, bringing its total EOS machine count to 50.
• Beehive is also linked to a recent $29.7M U.S. Air Force contract focused on vehicle integration, flight testing, and qualification of a propulsion platform.
• The engines are designed for swarm-class drones and other next-gen unmanned aerial systems. Beehive argues the Onyx system delivers the necessary throughput, stability, automation, and part quality.
• The host adds commentary that 3D printing has especially strong traction in rockets/jet engines because it enables complex, custom internal geometries like cooling channels, which are historically hard to manufacture.

2) Broader space investment optimism after SpaceX’s public valuation news

• The host cites SpaceX’s IPO-related news as a catalyst for increased private-space investment.
• Reported investment growth figures:
  • ~$2B in 2024
  • ~$7B in 2025
  • expectations of doubling or more afterward
• The host frames the momentum as driven by both:
  • investor enthusiasm, and
  • employees’ newfound wealth
• SpaceX’s Raptor 3 engine is mentioned as a high-profile example of 3D-printed propulsion.

3) Product/platform updates from Teleport and Portals (3D printing ecosystem)

Teleport (materials/colors + UX improvements)

• Added new OPM (outdoor performance material) colors: yellow and red, positioned as alternatives/complements to ABS/ASA.
  • The host claims OPM is chemically resistant, temperature resistant, and slightly more pliable/durable than PETG.
• Added new PLA variants:
  • “Eligu marble” PLA (speckled look with reduced visible layer lines)
  • “High Five Blue” PLA (limited edition; may be removed depending on demand)
• Added royal blue PETG.
• Added rainbow silk color options (described as multiple silk color spools).
• Quality-of-life improvements include:
  • easier color preview/hover access in UI areas (e.g., prototyper)
  • bug fixes and iterative friction-reducing improvements based on user calls
• Caution: if new colors aren’t used, some may be deprecated.

Portals (print sales marketplace + shipping)

• Portals traffic and seller adoption are described as growing.
• Key value propositions:
  • upload a file and start selling in ~30 seconds
  • automated handling of checkout, taxes, returns, and customer support (by Slant3D)
  • sellers avoid maintaining Etsy/Shopify stores and fulfill via Slant3D
  • flat-rate shipping emphasized as customer-friendly
• Example mentioned: influencer/designer Luke Edwin using portals for photography accessories without running a personal print operation.

API and adjacent businesses

• The host highlights scaling work on their API.
• Toolrace.ai: enables print-on-demand for shadow box cutouts generated from user photos (e.g., tools like scissors or calipers).
• Tangled (filament brand) updates:
  • shipping back to under 24 hours
  • auto spooling machines coming online (expected to reduce costs, support 1kg spools, and add auto vacuum sealing)
  • shipping terms: for large orders (e.g., >50 kg), shipments may go by freight pallet—slower than UPS but cheaper to keep filament price targets around ~$10/kg PLA

4) Core commentary: “3D printing will replace injection molding” (argument and rationale)

The host presents a strong thesis inspired by a Twitter debate:

• Injection molding is “dead” in the sense that 3D printing will take the majority of manufacturing—not that molding disappears entirely.

Why molding is argued to be inefficient by default

Molding is criticized due to:

1. Upfront mold cost (estimated $10k–$100k)
2. Minimum order quantities causing inventory waste (claimed 15–20% unsold/wasted parts)
3. Warehousing and logistics overhead for inventory holding
4. Waste via machining analogies (chips/scrap), though machining is framed as “closer” to 3D printing than molding in some supply-chain respects

Why 3D printing is framed as more efficient

3D printing is portrayed as more like energy + material → part, with minimal ancillary waste:

• no mold cost
• on-demand production (using a “warehouse shelves make the product” metaphor)
• digital process enabling rapid scaling from 1 to 1,000
• support material is dismissed as largely a design issue (claim: well-designed parts can be made with little/no support)

Addressing common objections

• Edge cases: not all parts/applications favor printing; molding still wins in some situations.
• Scale: the host argues large-scale additive can match molding output:
  • planned factory scale is stated as 3,000, possibly 5,000 machines
  • claimed output: 100,000+ parts per month (and potentially much more for smaller parts)
• Layer lines / anisotropy:
  • treated as manageable through design (e.g., adding width where adhesion is weaker)
  • argues “perfect isotropy” doesn’t exist even in metals/wood
• Textures:
  • argued to be easier with printing than molding because textures don’t require complex mold machining
  • textures can also serve as a premium differentiator

Philosophical claim

• The host ties the shift to broader market evolution:
  • movement toward more product variety and lower volumes/higher mix
• With personalization and fast iteration, customers pull demand rather than companies overproducing fixed SKUs.
• 3D printing supports this with:
  • rapid design iteration
  • higher success probability through smaller-run testing
  • print-on-demand platforms (Teleport/Portals) where feedback and rating cycles refine products

The host closes with an analogy: molding was historically dominant and eventually ceded ground, arguing printing will reach mainstream adoption with continued expansion.

5) Interview: Grant (InventWithMe) on product validation, patents, and scaling (“Torque Strap”)

A major second segment features an interview with Grant, focused on turning an invention into a product business (Torque Strap). Topics include marketing, timing, Amazon vs. Shopify, patents, competition, and operational lessons.

First sales and early validation

• Early sales often come from:
  • “friends and family” (including coworkers)
  • then broader social reach
• He emphasizes that inventors must push through early phases until real customers are present.

Milestone: viral TikTok drove Amazon sales

• Grant describes a breakthrough shortly after starting TikTok (during a 2021 TikTok surge):
  • a video reached ~1 million views
  • the next day generated about $4,000 in Amazon sales
• He had been selling on Shopify for about three months, but struggled with low traffic and conversion.
• At the time, Amazon felt like an “easy growth” channel.

Friction details: TikTok → Shopify → Sold out

• The discussion highlights why viral TikTok didn’t automatically translate to Shopify sales:
  • he used single call-to-action links (he doesn’t like link trees)
  • Shopify inventory sometimes showed sold out, causing lost buyers
  • some users then searched on Google and found the product on Amazon
• The host/Grant note that TikTok and Amazon aren’t naturally connected, so leaving TikTok for Amazon adds friction—yet it still worked in this rare scenario.

How his TikTok content evolved

• Early posts were overly promotional and underperformed.
• Later he shifted toward:
  • more garage/POV authentic content
  • eventually storytelling (origin of the problem and why the product exists)
• He addresses “story fatigue”:
  • tell the origin story once or occasionally
  • maintain a broader recurring theme (e.g., outdoors/DIY) so followers keep returning even when the origin story isn’t repeated

Speed of development vs perfection

• Grant contrasts his approach with inventors who take years:
  • he pursued with a “flea market” mentality
  • moved quickly in about 3–4 months
  • ordered bulk components from China and assembled final parts himself
• He stresses that rapid testing prevents “perfect idea paralysis.”

Hardest low point: rushed second model batch failure

• The biggest low point involved rushing a second iteration:
  • after moving too quickly toward a “medium” (better/best mix plan),
  • manufacturing issues occurred (slippage and buckle problems)
• Result:
  • refunds of around $4,000
  • many apology emails
  • managing a public-facing problem
• He reframes it as both a low point and a major lesson: owning mistakes and refunding quickly can strengthen brand trust.

Refund philosophy

• They discuss making refunds less adversarial:
  • automate or simplify refunds
  • focus effort on delighting the majority of customers instead of obsessing over edge-case “bad apples”
• Framed as a systems/operations choice that helps scaling and company culture.

Patents: when they matter and when they don’t

• Grant says he was patent pending during the initial public period.
• His first patent came after enough interest; the patent timeline began when the product went public.
• Patents are described as:
  • sometimes useful for formal disputes (e.g., delisting infringers via platforms)
  • less important as an idea-protection mechanism for preventing all copying
  • more valuable when dealing with larger organizations and formal distribution relationships
• A collaborator’s example is mentioned: a patent helped get competitors delisted through Amazon actions.

Competition and sustaining advantage

• Competition is treated as expected and usable as a “roadmap.”
• Moats built through:
  • real manufacturing difficulty
  • supply chain structure (multiple factories for different parts)
  • materials choices (e.g., spring steel vs weaker rubber/silicone components)
  • patents (where relevant)

Advice on marketing, pricing tests, and avoiding false conclusions

• If sales don’t happen, it doesn’t automatically mean the price is wrong.
• Tests should separate:
  • traffic quantity and quality
  • conversion rate under consistent conditions
• He warns that ads optimized for “website traffic” can produce tire-kickers instead of buyers.

Business mindset and risk

• Business risk is compared to unavoidable “normal” events.
• They emphasize not freezing over hypothetical legal threats and instead building real operations and budgets.

6) Product ecosystem tie-in: InventWithMe CTA

• Grant mentions an “inventor validation” link/tool (a score app) designed to help inventors determine readiness to pursue an invention/business—positioned as free.

Presenters / Contributors

• Gabe (host of the Slant3D podcast)
• Grant (InventWithMe; guest interviewee)
• Andy (briefly referenced during the conversation as part of the host/Grant background context)