When I was developing the Alternative pegboard mounting system for Lifetime Sheds, I evaluated various filaments. I knew the pegboard panel could potentially hold a lot of weight. I believe the rating for each anchor point is around 15 pounds, so we’re talking about 60 lb capacity. My biggest concern was the 3d printed pieces shearing because of poor layer adhesion and temperature fluctuation. To guard against this, I have increased the extrusion temperature and am using Carbon Fiber-infused Polycarbonate. I’ve had success using this material in weight-bearing applications within higher-temperature environments in the past. However, ASA has become a popular option and is much less expensive. I wanted to know if ASA with Carbon Fiber would be a good option, as I would save about 30% by using this material. I went to ChatGPT for a comparison, and this is what I learned.
ChatGPT 4o Response:
ASA (Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate) and PC (Polycarbonate) are both high-performance thermoplastics commonly used in engineering and 3D printing, but they serve different needs due to their mechanical, chemical, and environmental properties.
Since you’re printing Lifetime Shed parts and already using Polycarbonate Carbon Fiber (PCCF) successfully without warping, here’s how I’d break it down for your situation:
Key Factors for Your Decision
1. Application Strength Needs
- PCCF: Extremely strong, high heat resistance, rigid under load—ideal for load-bearing or structurally critical parts.
- ASA-CF: Still strong and rigid (more so than regular ASA), but noticeably less impact- and heat-resistant than PCCF.
Bottom line: If the part holds significant weight, resists torque, or experiences high sun exposure, PCCF is more reliable long-term.
2. Environmental Exposure
- Both ASA-CF and PCCF do well outdoors, but:
- ASA-CF shines in UV resistance—especially if you’re concerned about fading or embrittlement over time.
- PCCF can yellow or degrade under prolonged UV unless treated, but it outperforms in structural durability.
- ASA-CF shines in UV resistance—especially if you’re concerned about fading or embrittlement over time.
Bottom line: If you prioritize looks and UV durability over maximum strength, ASA-CF is great. If function matters more, PCCF is better.
3. Cost vs. Value
- ASA-CF: Significantly cheaper, easier on your bottom line—ideal if the part isn’t critically structural.
- PCCF: Worth the cost only if that performance is being used. Otherwise, it’s overkill.
Bottom line: Don’t pay for strength you don’t need.
Recommendation
Ask yourself:
- Does the part take load or force? → Stick with PCCF
- Is it more cosmetic, just holding light accessories or panels? → Switch to ASA-CF
- Are customers buying it for toughness or UV/weather durability? → ASA-CF may meet both needs, with better value
If you want to try ASA-CF, I suggest printing a test batch and stress-testing it under real conditions. If it holds up, you can reduce material costs without sacrificing reliability—especially helpful if you’re scaling up production.