Case Studies Menu Bumper nut >> - Design for manufacturing - Innovative use of materials - Dev. of an established product - Competition - Spin-off consequences - Continuous development - Web links Air muscle >> - Source of product idea - World-wide recognition - Design development - Finance - Innovation Process - Low volume manufacture - Web links Mono bug clamp >> - Finding a product - Thorough design development - Design & manufacture integrated - Manufacturing process - Automation - Potential for further products - Web links Remarkable pencil >> - Environmentally friendly - Materials science - Refining manufacturing - Efficient production - Sales & marketing - Importance of aesthetics - Web links Ozone toothbrush >> - 3D models & drawing - Research to prove design - Thorough design development - Branding - Web links

Design and manufacture integrated

The spring - separate but not separate!

In the middle of the night, Ivor woke up thinking about this problem and came up with his basic design idea. He could mould a separate spring but attach it to the peg moulding at one end only, to be hinged into place. He knew that the spring part would have to come out of the mould (or 'tool') without any complications (eg without the mould having complex separate sections to it) again to keep costs down. Everything had to be as simple as possible.

This relied on specifying the right plastic to be sure that the thinned down section that formed the hinge would not break. It required a tough (G)material. And for the spring to go on doing its job, the material also had to bounce back to its original moulded form after it was squeezed down. Finding the right plastic meant meeting both these demands (see getting the right material - below).

A first model - then a drawing - then a patent

So, at two o'clock in the morning Ivor found himself playing with the established Italian plastics peg, removing its spring, cutting up an old plastics curtain rail and snap-shut food box and welding one part to the other with the heated tip of a dart (don't try this at home!) to make his first product model. It worked - well enough to prove the basic idea - with the spring section moulded outside the peg but rotating simply into place. The principle of the design was established and within a day or so he had applied for a provisional patent (G). Patenting a mechanical design principle proved to be more reliable than patenting a chemical formulation (which Ivor had previous experience of). Chemicals can be altered in one small way, perhaps with little effect, and then fall outside the patent's protection. To get his patent Ivor had to produce an accurate drawing which showed the principle of the separate-but-not-separate spring for use in a wide range of clamps, not just a clothes peg. This meant that even if the shape of the spring was later changed, it would still be covered by the patent. Also, in the patent the clothes peg is referred to as a 'clamp'. This means that other uses can be developed, perhaps as slightly different designs, and the patent will still cover them.

The name was chosen with the help of a government Business Links Adviser and they settled on 'Mono Bug Clamp'.

• Mono - because it's made in one piece

• Bug - because it looks like one

• Clamp - so it could be used for different functions.

On the clothes peg packs it is also sold under the snappier name 'Hurricane Grip' to emphasise how well it holds.

   Early peg drawing

Next >>