Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[vdonovan2000]

It's a very long story, spelled out in their Kickstarter updates and comments. Briefly: they made the prototypes on a 3d printer. A mold was made based on that prototype, but the manufactured versions did not fit as expected. Ben and co. flailed through various iterations of materials, cooling time, etc trying to get what they thought was a good fit. Each iteration took time and cost money. Finally they got some expert advice that seems to have guided them to the correct material and manufacturing process.

[dodphotography]

That's the problem with Ks... That stuff needs to be nailed, essentially the downfall of crowd sourced funding where X and Y founders have little cash. Best of luck to all those who waited, I couldn't.

[Tin Can]

I have invested in 10 KS, best funding innovation going.

No regrets.

After that, my comments would be highly political, so I am silent.

Gradually leaving this play field.

[Gadfly_1971]

The prototype units were produced using 3D printing technology. 3D printing is great for rapid prototyping and proof-of-concept but not so good when it comes to production. The plan always was to injection mold the plastic parts (body, collar, helical, etc.) but once they began talks with the manufacturing partner some design improvements/changes were made. Also there were discrepancies between what the manufacturing partner was supposed to produce and what actually came off the line (the manufacturing partner made some design changes of their own without notifying Wanderlust).

In hindsight I'm pretty sure Ben and Justin would agree that hiring some consultants prior to manufacturing might have made things a bit easier and probably would have reduced the production time frame to something more manageable (a materials specialist would've been golden I suspect).

[Corran]

7 for me (one didn't get funded though).

All have delivered or are still on track, if late. Can't wait for my Film Ferrania reward - I'll need to find something cool to shoot with the 4 rolls of film I've got coming. They are a bit behind schedule (2 months past).

Fraudulent usage of backer money is a lot different than a failed project due to technical problems or mismanagement, as Oren mentioned. I wonder where the "line" is? Glad it's not my job to decide.

[AuditorOne]

It is very glad to hear this project will finally bear fruit. I have had all my supplies since I signed on. All I will need to do now is rummage around and find the box I stored it all in.

As Randy says, I am going to retire from this field and await my camera.

Thank you so much Ben and Justin for staying the course.

[David Aimone]

I am not making a judgement about Ben and Justin here, because I'm not knowledgeable enough about this kind of design and production; and I'm sure it's not a black and white kind of thing as far as the situation and the causes of delay.

But you also have to distinguish between projects that fail because of unexpected technical challenges encountered and those that fail because the developers were in much deeper over their heads then they should have been from the very start. And just like someone said here, where do you draw the line and make that judgement?

There's got to be a better way to assess the likely success or failure of a project before people commit six figures to it. I'm beginning to feel that Kickstarter is a bit too loosey-goosey in that respect... Perhaps, like Ebay has feedback after the fact, Kickstarter could have some discussion ability during the campaign, where investors could give input. In respect to the TravelWide, perhaps someone would have made a strong case for retaining a materials expert and someone to do communications. Those ideas could then have been built into the project, and even if that required more money, it would possibly boost investor confidence and help ensure success, attracting more investors.

Or, not even during the campaign, but after, Kickstarter could have some formal method of feedback and updates tied to the possibility of further investment (or not).

Anyway, I'm glad Ben and Justin can see the light at the end of the tunnel and will be successfully ending this soon...

I think it's very important to be careful about the distinction between projects that fail because of fraud of one kind or another - which appears to be the common thread of the situations highlighted in the linked article, though the writer is careless in not making that clear - and projects that fail because of technical challenges encountered during a good-faith development effort.

[koh303]

There's got to be a better way to assess the likely success or failure of a project before people commit six figures to it. I'm beginning to feel that Kickstarter is a bit too loosey-goosey in that respect... Perhaps, like Ebay has feedback after the fact, Kickstarter could have some discussion ability during the campaign, where investors could give input. In respect to the TravelWide, perhaps someone would have made a strong case for retaining a materials expert and someone to do communications. Those ideas could then have been built into the project, and even if that required more money, it would possibly boost investor confidence and help ensure success, attracting more investors.

They were only looking for a small'ish amount to get funded. That would not warrant more stringent control, a media/materials assistant/expert.
KS is what it is because of the way its set up, and in this case no one person committed six figures. I doubt if any did more then three.

[HMG]

I think less than 5% of the people on this planet would have stuck with it like these 2 have. They deserve to succeed.

[David Aimone]

I actually agree with you, even with the history of the project. I wish them success in wrapping this up and thank them for their perseverance...

I think less than 5% of the people on this planet would have stuck with it like these 2 have. They deserve to succeed.