TODAY

Today we’re talking about the LUCIA—but I like to call her the Lucinda, our version. She’s short and kind of squat, but she gets it done.

You can probably see the Lucinda was a mishmash of two big ideas. My idea was to radically shrink the original LUCIA. It’s angular, unapproachable, fixed at an un-adjustable angle, and doesn’t need the space it occupies.

Design

Why CNC and why a solid wood base? I know it goes a bit against the ethos of the project—something accessible in resource-poor areas—but the current plan relies on laser-cut parts, requiring a machine just as expensive and complicated as a CNC. Laser cutting also demands good wood of large dimensions and even thickness.

CNC might be more complex in design, but it’s on the same technological level as laser cutting and can work with almost any piece of wood. I wanted to use CNC wood to capture concave shapes in a solid base—a foundation to which other parts could be attached. From that base, I aimed to minimize dimensions, include only what’s necessary, and improve the aesthetics. I planned to use thumb screws and threaded wood inserts to allow for repeated assembly and disassembly.

That was my idea. Xavier’s idea was different. He didn’t change the dimensions, kept the concept of laser-cut flat sheets, but proposed a system of joinery that didn’t require any screws at all. So we decide to join our ideas together. Smaller, disassemble-able, with a sturdy base, an adjustable angle, and no screws required

The first step was mocking it up. So I started with the tube—the vaginal canal facsimile—which is really the largest part and controls a lot of the necessary dimensions. From that, I took the measurements of the necessary labial and cervical opening in the original Lucia and used the cervical models to size out a cervical holder. I combined all of these to make a sort of space-only model that showed the necessary size for the device itself. We didn’t want to go too far outside of that footprint.

After deciding to combine ideas with Xavier I continued in Fusion CAD. Once the labial tunnel holder was redesigned, I added the cervical plate and the labial plate on either side. That defined the total width and for the length, we added space at the back for the cervical holder, and in the front space for the legs. I incorporated Xavier’s idea of locking everything cervical a of tongue-and-groove system. All of that together gave us the shape needed for the MDF body, and and other parts.

When it came to the cervical holder itself, I thought the design in the original Lucia was overcomplicated. I just wanted something simple and quite thin, since we can’t grip higher than the embossed wording. So I made a part that does that. It also press-fits into the base, just like everything else.

Fabrication

When it came to fabrication, Xavier and I split into two teams. He handled the laser-cut parts, and I handled the CNC and ancillary stuff. For the CNC, I used the Carvera, which I’d worked with on a previous project. Cutting went fine—MDF is easy to cut. The only issue was with the bits for chamfering and curved surfaces getting switched. So we got “round” chamfers.

Which brings me to materials—both of the ones we used were horrendous. Never use them again. The cheap plywood for the laser cutting and the MDF may be easy to cut, but they’re not durable. They don’t finish well.  The edges chip or break constantly. They soak up paint like a sponge. Sure, they’re cheap—but they’re not good for much else.

POST PROCESS

Our post processing was horrible. Too much, paint, nothing fit, scuff, marks, drops, cracks…Xavier and I didn’t have much time for this project and it show. I am actually embarrassed.

RESULTS

COSTS

Looking at costs, one of the biggest is design time. In this case, because I chose a local CNC woodworking shop,  and machine time was also very expensive. If we imagined his was a mass-produced kit is a one-time cost. If you plan to make thousands, it’s negligible.

Machine time is different. We’re trying to target low-resource areas, but we also assume access to laser cutters or other high-tech equipment… Are we imagining this as a kit made and shipped out, or  an instruction set made locally? If it’s a kit made nearby, then machine costs would come down significantly with volume production. But if it’s a set of instructions for users to build on their own, then machine cost goes up for each user.

FEASIBILITY

Looking at feasibility, I run into the same uncertainty. I’m not exactly sure what environment this is meant for or what its goal is. If it’s meant to be made in a central location as a kit and then shipped out, I don’t think our concept is a good one. It uses two methods of manufacture. It requires fitting things together, which means hand sanding and a post-processing step just to make it work. From a batch-production perspective, you’d prefer a single method—laser cutting, sheet metal stamping, or something else that doesn’t require tight tolerances or post-finishing.

But if we view it instead as a kind of instruction set then I think our concept is much more interesting. Imagine someone not using these poor-quality materials, but instead hardwood they have hand, or thin plastic or sheet then  our method hash both a literal and metaphorical solid base. One that’s easy to assemble and disassemble, looks good (and I really can’t stress that enough—looks good), and is simple to learn and modify.

CLEAN