New Prototype

With the number of iterations I made on the New Fun Cage, it became clear that there were some deficiencies I wanted to address in the design - mostly around the mating mechanism. I've printed the first prototypes of a new design today, and am sharing the images and hope to have an interactive design process here - I'm really hoping I can get some feedback and constructive comments/concerns about what you see.

First, The goal of the new prototype was to try to accomplish the following

• provide a stronger mechanical mounting system
• less flexing of the joint for a more consistent ring gap
• allow for adjustable gap* (still thinking about this.. working with different rings to change the gap)
• prevent pitching on joining (a-la HT designs)
• have a definitive "fully seated" position so it's easier to know that the lock should slip in
• lower profile / less bulky
• more forgiving lock tolerances

I'll just post the pictures, and would love everyone's questions, comments, and concerns - please don't be afraid to say something. If you're concerned about posting it publicly, please message me directly. I'll respond to all questions with as as good an answer as I can provide.

The blue print is the New Fun Cage, and the pink print is the new prototype (used similar design for easier comparison)

 

With that design, it would be tough to do too much with it. That design works, but it's pretty far from what I had originally envisioned - I did want a wide, flat connector. The issue I ran into was the magic lock is "bulky" and requires 9mm of width (without wall thicknesses) because the tab folds over 2.6mm past the round part of the lock.

I also wanted it to be easily 3D printable, which, in my mind meant the locking portion of the cage needed to sit on the print bed along with the bottom ring of the cage. I threw that design constraint out the window (As the cage already needs support for printing) to try and design what I originally envisioned. I've attached the locking mechanism of the next design idea - the first ring and cage are queued up to print still. I think there are still a few tweaks left to this design for strength purposes, but the reduction in bulk is significant.

I thought I might be able to make it dual use by extending the prongs of the ring up past the cage and putting holes through it of whatever dimension was necessary, but based on your comment about the bulk already being a bit much, sticking that out isn't going to make it any less bulky. The latest design idea addresses bulk, but is unlikely to support a padlock as you've described. Could you provide measurements of the lock you have? If the lock loop is tall enough, I may be able to do something about it, as strength of the dummy magic locker wouldn't be an issue if the lock went through it. If it has an 18mm straight shaft while closed it would work with what I'm thinking...

 

I can't, but Shapeways can take any 3D printable design and make it out of metal - I'm not entirely certain how they get their prices though (volume of metal I believe). Their prices for metal aren't "chinese knock-off" cheap, but they aren't "custom MM" expensive either. As an example, to print both pieces in nickel steel, the oval ring of NFC v1 costs > $80 and the short cage costs > $70.

 

Criticism is good if it can make something better, you gotta say what you feel is worth saying, and I appreciate it.

Lol, I actually meant the thickness of the magic locker - the main cylinder is 6mm or so, and when you need it to be secure, that's a thick connection. The second design more closely resembles what I wanted to achieve, and still has some strength to it (as far as I can tell). I did this by only making it interlock on one half of the cylinder, wedging itself between the mount and the cylinder - it really cuts down on the thickness neeed.

It's good enough for me to understand the dimensions of the product and enough to know that this design could not accommodate that lock in the manner I was thinking. I'm not certain a single design could accommodate both styles of lock without serious compromise to both.

Thanks for the input, send me your preferred ring size and shape and I'll see if I can find a way to get you some files to play with.

 

Without further delay, design candidate 2 comparison with candidate 1.

(check) Changes are made to decrease bulk at the sacrifice of having to print the cage on its nose - the advantage of this is that all the supports are on portions that don't contact the body.

(almost check!)It did pinch me a tiny bit when try to get it on, so it's not perfect in that regard - it was nothing like what can happen with a HT though, it was more a reminder nip than a bite.

(check!) it slotted positively into place and the lock fit in with no question once the cage was seated

(check!)the flexing is minimal, the cage indexes against two faces of the lock body on the ring, and one internal face via the locking pin.

(no check)adjustable gap with just one piece would work, but is likely to compromise the strength of the lock. The locking peg on the cage would need two semi-circular cutouts that overlap, and if you were to put it in the larger gap position, there would be a big gap between the mating surfaces, and ruin the positive
fully seated" feature. I just don't think this design idea is worth it unless I have an epiphany on a new way to design it.

(neutral)this new design relies on the cage to set the ring gap instead of the ring. Not a huge downside, but it's trickier to create the cages with the right mount than the rings. On the plus size, you only need a handful of cage designs, but you would need three of every size ring, so there's less maintenance that way.

Keep the comments, suggestions, and conversation coming. I look forward to reading more!

P.S. check my personal gallery if you want to see this new design up close!

 

UPDATE:
After testing the strength and rigidity of the new prototype overnight, I found a crack in the locking pin (not sure if I should be proud?) which had a very negative impact on the rigidity of the piece. I had thought about putting additional material along that piece, but now I see it's necessary. V3 to come...

 

So, it's more v2.5 as it's a tweak to v2. I managed to print the cage without supports, it just took a slight bit of finish work after it came off the printer (and saved 1.5 hours).

Strengthening the mating mechanism (hopefully) to prevent cracking by turning it into an I-Beam shape and adding an extra pin mating mechanism for additional rotational support. Will give it as thorough a test as possible and see if it stands the strain.

Came up with a completely new name too as "New Fun" was derivative of the "No Fun" cage I initially patterned it off of. I'm not sharing the name just yet thought!

 

If you want to message me the specifics of what you would like to try (ring shape and size, gap, cage diameter, cage length), I will put something specific together for you on Shapeways in the next week or so.

Second file was not found, but I'll take a look at the file I do have, and I have pictures to go off of. I think a downward angle should become the new norm, I just have to try a few things.

If anyone else with or without a printer would like to volunteer, I can work to put something together for you. Folks without printers, I would use shapeways to get you the parts for whatever their printing cost is + $1-2.

 

7/15/2018 - Version 2.7

Changelog
Angled locking mechanism down 10 degrees
filleted all surfaces along the lock tower, and took out a small area of the lock tower at the very back of the ring - it's all very smooth now, and even more "stealth"
added 3mm hole through the base of the ring for cord, threading something in, or something else - use your imagination!
Chamfered edges where the two halves mate to give a little gap to prevent micro-pinches
Short cage angled down 10 degrees to match - this effectively shortens the standard short cage a slight bit, which could be fun.

pics for comparison attached (2.5 is in pink PLA, 2.7 is in clear PETG - yes, I use whatever is already loaded for prototype prints!)

Thongs911 - I'll sort out the ring based on what you mentioned and get you some STL files soon.

 

So, who wants to see something exciting? It's only been a couple days, what can be so special?

The Unicorn!
What I've come up with is a mounting system, and the first accessory to use that system is the "unicorn" (LOL) - this addon covers the lock body (and lock, which is kind of hot imho), and can use some bolts or stainless steel rod (I have bolts to work with) that go through the Unicorn into the ring and another set into the cage making it all one very rigid assembly. Rigidly mounted to your chastity cage is now a vac-u-lock style adapter for whatever Mistress (or Master, or whomever) wants you to please them with. You're still locked up, and even farther from getting out, and the only thing you'll feel is a tugging on your balls while you're providing someone else the pleasure.

Most of you have seen the strap-on chastity cage I did a while ago. That was a full cage, and required the existing cage to be removed and that put in its place. You also could get pleasure from using that strap on as it was the cage portion and directly in contact with the sensitive bits. The Unicorn does away with all of those pesky problems!

A picture should help the imagination here,,,



I've already thought of a bolt on lock-cover (as above without the vac-u-lock) to make the lock 100% inaccessible, a "permanent chastity" cover with break-off pins, an attachment point for a leash or anything else really, and a bullet vibe adapter (that will be tricky as they come in various sizes and styles).

Who's got feedback, questions, or suggestions? I know there are some wonderfully kinky minds in here, love to hear from you all!

 

If you're thrusting your hips it would It's a mount for a vac-u-lock dildo that attaches to the top of the chastity cage and allows the wearer to pleasure their Mistress/Master with intercourse without the trauma of being unlocked from their cage.

 

Update for you all today!

I think at this point, the iteration has stopped as the design has proved robust and strong enough as I'm over 110 hours locked in this design with the only time out being to swap to the new design at the 105 hour mark. At this point, it's time to focus on options and I'm testing two right now (the switch at 105 hours was for this) which snug things up quite a bit (see attached picture). A multi-diameter base ring (aka Shafthugger) and a lower guard on the cage at the back.

(FYI, I typically use a 51x46 oval ergonomic ring)
I swapped into the smaller version of the Shafthugger that I printed, which had a 31mm shaft diameter and 50x45 base ergo shape. It was very snug (too snug honestly), and I noticed it was keeping my head really engorged, and because of this I was unable to pull out the back of the new ring. It essentially acted like a half of a cock ring and was keeping the head from pulling past it. I'm sure I could have gotten out eventually, but it is not something I would enjoy trying.

The lerger version is a bit more generously sized with a 37mm shaft (may need to go down just a bit) and a 52x47 base shape. It's base shape is 1mm bigger, but it still feels more secure than the basic oval ring. I think the lack of pullout on the smaller one was simply due to it being too tight as pullout is possible with this one

The other option is the lower guard on the cage - it drops the cage ring down to within a few mm of the base ring at the back - it doesn't affect the measurement of ball gap, but it does limit the ability for them to spread around the sides, so there is in practice less room.

The offer is still open to people who would like to take part in this testing to get one set to your personalized measurements, just pay for the printing and shipping.

 

Thanks Mash - The problem is, it's only "art" if nobody is wearing it!