A Proposal for New Age Bands

Ahead of Phase 1 engagement our team has reviewed the enquiry, the intake form, the discovery call notes, the 2D specification drawing, and the reference images. The self-built STEP model will be reviewed on receipt by the Shield Works R&D team. The following is not the Phase 1 output. It is the position our engineering work starts from.

The single most important item in Phase 1 is how this band is constructed and from what material, because that decision governs whether the integrated eyelet survives real use. There is a genuine tension in the supplied documentation that has to be resolved before any tooling or unit cost is committed.

The 2D specification calls for natural rubber, target durometer Shore A 40 to 60, compression moulded as a single piece. Moulding is what makes a one-piece integrated eyelet possible with no hardware, which is central to the design. On the discovery call the steer was different: layered latex is more durable and recovers its shape better than a moulded band, and better than silicone, which is prone to breaking. Premium resistance bands are built from layered latex, not compression moulded, and Garrett is aware of this. Moulding can solve the loop, but carries the higher break risk exactly where the design is most vulnerable, at the junction. The layered construction that gives bands their working life does not naturally form a moulded closed loop. Reconciling those two facts, and identifying the construction and material that delivers a durable integrated eyelet, is the heart of Phase 1.

Folded into the same question is the junction geometry itself: the flare into the eyelet, the transition thickness, and whether the reinforcement runs as a single slope or a slope on both sides. This is where the three prior manufacturers expected failure, and it is where the engineering effort concentrates.

The three previous manufacturers answered a question Garrett did not need answered yet. They quoted hard tooling and predicted junction failure. The right first question is not which mould to cut, but what is the lowest-risk, lowest-cost route to a physical proof of concept that lets Garrett evaluate the design before any hard tooling is committed. Whether such a route exists for a product of this type, for example a lower-cost prototyping method ahead of a production mould, is itself a Phase 1 finding. Where it is feasible, defining that route is a core output of the engagement and the point that separates our approach from the manufacturers who simply quoted a mould and walked away.

The first prototype is a single standard resistance level. If the geometry proves out, Garrett wants to sell a pack across varying resistance levels, which normally comes from thickness, length, or both. Phase 1 scopes how a multi-resistance family scales from the chosen construction and process, so the production route supports variants from the outset rather than being reworked later.

Phase 1 is the first engineering stage of development. Its purpose is not simply to review the concept, but to answer the critical engineering questions at the point where they matter most, before tooling and production are committed.

By the conclusion of Phase 1 you will have a clear understanding of the recommended construction method, material selection, manufacturing strategy, engineering risks, indicative commercial viability, and the recommended route through the remaining development stages. The fee covers the six deliverables below, which together form the technical foundation for the Route to Market Plan (RTMP).

The Phase 1 fee covers all six deliverables in Section 4. The activities below sit outside this engagement. Where needed, they are scoped and costed within the Development Roadmap, or coordinated through approved external partners. Sequencing them this way keeps unnecessary cost out of the early stages and avoids committing to downstream tooling and production until the fundamental technical questions are resolved.