As you may know (if you've read through some of my web pages), I have a thing for machines... specifically sexually-oriented machines. I've been making fucking machines for about eight years, and it seemed like a logical step into machines of corporal punishment. Therefore, near the beginning of 2002 I began the development effort that culminated in the Spank-O-Matic.

After fairly exhaustive research, I concluded that nothing like the machine i wanted to build had been created yet. In fact, there really weren't any motorized spankers... a few motorized whipping devices, but nothing inspirational. My earliest work focused on many, many different ways to get a spanking motion -- both over-the-top and lift-and-drop styles -- from the rotary motion of a motor.

I came up with a number of approaches in both styles, and completed quick mini prototypes of over a dozen for physical comparison. This quickly narrowed the field, as most proved either ineffective, fragile, or too complex to be practical.

My first full machine prototype was an abysmal failure, lasting less than a minute before shredding itself. No picture of that one ;). This experience was invaluable, teaching me in no uncertain terms the forces to which a spanking machine might subject itself. Each subsequent prototype has been of heavier construction that the one before.

The first prototype did prove something: this machine could be built. I took some time out of the workshop and surveyed a wide range of potential users, asking quite simply "what characteristics would be important to you in a spanking machine?" While the answers varied widely, a few key aspects emerged: portable, easy to use, durable, flexible, highly adjustable, and "mean-looking." This feedback shaped all of my subsequent development, particularly the definite choice of a lift-and-drop mechanism.

The second Spank-O-Matic prototype was considerably more robust. A few pictures of Prototype 2:

The bar I'm grasping in the top picture changes the lift height, and therefore spanking force. The moving components in this mechanism were one issue with P2. Durability of the large wooden cams was also a question. While the lift approach is very similar to that of the final Spank-O-Matic, without a target the arm would descend until stopped by the roller striking the cam... the same approach that doomed P1. Despite the heavier build, this wasn't good enough for a commercial machine.

Prototype 3 came much closer to the final Spank-O-Matic, especially in the visual department. This prototype proved out all steel construction, and marked the first build with a self-contained core and swing stand for lift adjustment. Some pictures of Prototype 3:

P3 was built around a slightly different lift mechanism, one with a lift rod between the cam and spank arm. Ironically, this central feature of P3 was the one thing Prototype 4 was designed to eliminate.

Prototype 4 turned out to be the final Spank-O-Matic, since I couldn't find anything more to improve. P3 had only one problem: binding in the lift mechanism with a full spank arm and paddle attached. I returned to the side roller approach of P2, replacing the nylon sheath with a precision ball bearing. The heavy steel crossbar in front of the spank arm pivot, introduced in P3 to stop the arm's fall when a target didn't do so, protects the roller from damage in normal operation.

With every challenge encountered, examined, and addressed, the Spank-O-Matic emerged from Sartan's Workshop as the first commercial spanking machine of modern day. I hope you have enjoyed this look at its design.