Just curious how and why TTO razors developed. Was there an inherent advantage over three piece?
Why TTO?
- Thread starter Texchappy
- Start date
Much less fiddly to load the blade than with the three-piece razors, at least in my view.
A much lesser consideration might be that there are no separate components to become separated.
A much lesser consideration might be that there are no separate components to become separated.
IMHO anything that makes chores, tasks and day to day life easier and less complicated has been a strong engineering and marketing foundation. This includes everything from TTO razors, microwave ovens, automatic transmissions, etc.
Marketing, unfortunately. getting everyone to buy the new style.
- Thread starter
- #5
Hmm I drive a manual and prefer my food not to be nuked
I like hand-winding mechanical watches, bolt-action rifles and double-action revolvers, large, heavy sedans with big V8 engines, books rather than Kindles. I'm ok with three-piece safety razors but don't find them any more gratifying than the twist-to-open models.
There are certainly times when one may prefer the longer, more scenic route, and times when one desires to cut away the unnecessary background noise and get right to the chase.
Driving a manual transmission is fine. It's great when you're digging in to those switchbacks on that scenic drive.
It ain't so hot when you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving in spurts of 20 yards at a time interspersed with a minute wait for the next one.
The TTO was developed for ease, to reduce the need to handle the blade as much, and I also suspect for reducing the potential number of frankenrazors out there due to loss of a top plate or a blade plate. I take my time with lathering and using a brush and a fine instrument, I don't necessarily want to project that into actually placing the blade in the razor or in rinsing my whiskers out of it.
You may prefer a razor which happens to be a TTO or which happens to be multiple pieces, but I presume that the largest reason one likes a razor is for the shave it provides and not so much the blade loading method. The TTO is just a convenience.
Use whichever happens to part of the razor you like.
Driving a manual transmission is fine. It's great when you're digging in to those switchbacks on that scenic drive.
It ain't so hot when you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving in spurts of 20 yards at a time interspersed with a minute wait for the next one.
The TTO was developed for ease, to reduce the need to handle the blade as much, and I also suspect for reducing the potential number of frankenrazors out there due to loss of a top plate or a blade plate. I take my time with lathering and using a brush and a fine instrument, I don't necessarily want to project that into actually placing the blade in the razor or in rinsing my whiskers out of it.
You may prefer a razor which happens to be a TTO or which happens to be multiple pieces, but I presume that the largest reason one likes a razor is for the shave it provides and not so much the blade loading method. The TTO is just a convenience.
Use whichever happens to part of the razor you like.
From the point of view of Gillette management I think the TTO was all about competition. Schick promoted the injector as superior because changing blades was faster and simpler: no handling of sharp blades and no parts to unscrew, drop, or lose. The Segal razor with its flip-and-twist cap was another one-piece design. With slider packs and TTO razors, Gillette countered both.
In addition TTO razors are mechanically complex, even more so than the Segal. That might sound bad for Gillette, but as the market leader they could afford it. That forced DE and SE competitors to invest more money in their manufacturing facilities if they wanted to keep up Schick eventually developed the Krona for the DE market or look antiquated by comparison. Following up on this, Gillette would tell you that their TTO razors work best with Gillette blades.
At the same time Gillette believed in market segmentation. They kept the three-piece Tech razor as a low-end option, and even gave it away, while promoting TTO razors as a better option if you could afford one.
In addition TTO razors are mechanically complex, even more so than the Segal. That might sound bad for Gillette, but as the market leader they could afford it. That forced DE and SE competitors to invest more money in their manufacturing facilities if they wanted to keep up Schick eventually developed the Krona for the DE market or look antiquated by comparison. Following up on this, Gillette would tell you that their TTO razors work best with Gillette blades.
At the same time Gillette believed in market segmentation. They kept the three-piece Tech razor as a low-end option, and even gave it away, while promoting TTO razors as a better option if you could afford one.
I agree except I prefer Lever action rifles, and prefer TTO razors, especially the Rocket HD which is the best razor hands down.
Same applies to adjustable.
Pretty useless tools.
- Thread starter
- #11
I wasn't critizing TTO - I like the SS I was just given. Just wanted to know why Gillette went that particular direction.
I am one of those who are of the opinion that the adjustables were a "gimmick".
A way to play into the idea where the thousands and thousands of men with tough beards and sensitive skin all believe that they are different from the thousands and thousands of other men who have tough beards and sensitive skin.
Henry?
Adjustables (the Gillette ones) were just a natural progression to follow offering 3 different Superspeeds. It probably made good business sense, even though the regular SS continued to be offered as well.
But if we're going there, then dual comb razors are probably gimmicks as well.
But if we're going there, then dual comb razors are probably gimmicks as well.
Ease of operation, plus opportunity to market the latest and greatest technology.
No Rossi, a clone of the Winchester 92!
I also like the classic 19th and early 20th century Winchester lever-action rifles as well as the Savage 99. The pre-war Gillette Aristocrat is top TTO for me.
Yah ...convenience I would say was a driver for the TTO design. wind it open, drop the blade, wind it closed and away you go.
Slightly quicker I guess. Makes a good marketing tool.
Slightly quicker I guess. Makes a good marketing tool.
Slash McCoy
I freehand dog rockets
If you ever dropped a cap down a sink drain you might think, "gee, if this was a TTO, I would still have a whole razor". Having no parts to lose is a plus. TTO offers no particular advantage in the actual shave, of course. From the very first, it was all about selling new razors (and blades!) to guys who already had perfectly good razors already. To do that, they had to declare the customer's current razor, often one made by Gillette, to be obsolete. And so they had to make "improvements" which did not necessarily improve anything at all. First came the original DE with the throwaway blade. Then the New, and new blades. Slant. Tech. yadda yadda. TTO. Adjustable. There was one of the few technological advances that actually made sense. But then eventually even the fancy pants adjustables were declared obsolete. Oh, that's the old way. Here... try this Trac II. Mach III. Vibrating head. Lubricating strip. Wear indicator strop. (LOL! To tell you to change the cartridge so you buy more frequently!) Swiveling heads. What, no bluetooth connectivity? Just wait. Anyway the TTO was not invented for the shaver. It was invented for the stockholders. King C. Gillette probably didn't care a bit about his customers' faces. And P&G certainly doesn't, now. If they did, they would sell an inexpensive straight, brush, cream or soap, strop, and give away a free video on how to shave like a man. The only problem is getting the customer to go along with getting screwed. Thats why their marketing budget is so high. They have to brainwash you into believing you can't live without their latest "shaving system". Anyway, that's why they invented the TTO razor. And its only real advantage is having all the bits and pieces permanently assembled together in one neat unit.
Similar threads
