A growing number of stamping houses now own a laser cutting system. Others are thinking it might be time to invest in one but don’t know where to start. On the flip side, many laser shops are getting tired of losing high-volume work to those darned stamping guys down the street. Or, they might have heard about coil-fed lasers recently and are now wondering what all the buzz is about. Which camp do you fall in?
It’s a tough decision. The tipping point in either direction is most often driven by high production quantities and the need to meet a lower piece price, although raw material costs as well as the not-insignificant tooling investment are also factors. But given the industry’s increasing “I need it now” mindset, the lengthy lead time to procure progressive stamping dies (many now designed and built overseas) often overrides part cost, at least temporarily. Many shops rely on laser cutting, outsourced or otherwise, as a bridge to keep the customer happy until the tooling arrives.
James Gamache suggests that this last need is quite common. A TruLaser sales engineer for Farmington, Conn.-based TRUMPF Inc., he says it isn’t unusual to wait months or longer for delivery of a progressive stamping die, during which the customer needs parts.
“Whether it’s a laser that only cuts flat sheet or one that’s coil-fed, many companies rely on the laser during the ramp-up phase leading to full production. They’ve determined the final part design and figured out the stamping process, so why not just keep making parts on the same machine they used during prototyping?”
Big buck decisions
That could very well be a million-dollar decision in many metalworking sectors, one that Stamping Productivity touched on about a year ago in the article Tool-Free Blanking. We recently had a chance to quiz Gamache on this and other “which road to take” questions.
STP: The first question starts with a request for additional information on coil-fed lasers. Do these fast yet flexible systems have the speed necessary to compete in the automotive market?
Gamache: As I noted last year, a coil-fed laser offers many of the same benefits as a stamping press equipped with a progressive die, perhaps the most important of which is a continuous, single-direction flow. But these systems also provide continuous nesting and eliminate the need for micro-tabbing, so they have distinct advantages over a sheet-fed laser. And because stamping people are already comfortable with handling coil stock and enjoy the fact that their raw material costs are roughly 15 percent lower than sheet, we’re having many conversations with these folks. As a result, systems like our TruLaser 8000 Coil Edition are definitely gaining in popularity.
STP: I imagine shops face three basic choices during these conversations: whether to invest in a standalone laser that cuts standard-size sheets, a continuously fed laser as just discussed or the classic stamping press arrangement familiar to most of our readers. Branching off from this already complex decision tree are questions about how many storage racks to install, if they should make the leap to an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS), where to place robots and how many are needed, and ultimately, who will operate and program it all?
Gamache: Some of these questions answer themselves. For instance, coil-fed lasers are limited to blanking operations, so if your parts require any sort of bending or forming, you’ll need to move them to a press brake or stamping press afterward. And, given today’s skilled labor shortage, that usually means investing in robots to tend those machines. Once again, it often comes down to production quantity: If it’s ultra-high, like what we see in automotive or appliance manufacturing, stamping is the logical choice.
But if you’re dealing with low volumes or frequent design changes, a standalone laser system is usually the better option, even if it means bringing in additional equipment for the secondary operations.
Making the choice
STP: When I worked in the shop, we watched as part volumes progressed from onesie-twosie prototypes to sales orders in the low thousands, to then kissing the higher volume work goodbye; we just couldn’t compete on the lower margins typical of this market sector. But what you’re describing is a different kind of vertical integration, one based on production quantities rather than the ability to perform powder coating and assembly (although that’s also important). Are you seeing many shops go down this all-quantities-are-welcome path or are most staying in their wheelhouse, as we once did?
Gamache: I’ll answer that with an example from the electric vehicle (EV) industry. A laser shop making battery trays or other rapidly changing EV components not only has to adjust to ongoing design revisions, but as with any manufacturer in the automotive sector, they’ll often have the opportunity to quote quantities in the hundreds of thousands or higher.
The question then becomes whether to pursue that work by investing in a stamping press and the necessary tooling or, as you once did, let the work go to another shop. In my eyes, having both types of machines makes good business sense. If you can engage early at the prototyping stage, the laser provides the flexibility to meet this need until demand ramps up to the point where the stamping press is a necessity. The good news is that while waiting for the tooling to arrive, you can keep producing parts on the laser and maintain momentum with your customer.
Quick part changes
STP: Despite its importance to the U.S. economy, the automotive sector is still a niche market – and a tough one to break into. What advice do you give to shops that may be facing similar production ramp-up challenges, but without the resources or volume guarantees that come with automotive work? How should they approach these same kinds of decisions?
Gamache: To be frank, most of my conversations tend to revolve around automotive manufacturing. There’s a lot of interest in integrating laser cutters into those workflows – whether that means standalone laser systems, punch-laser combos or the coil-fed laser I mentioned earlier. But even in this space, and not just on the EV side, we’re constantly dealing with low-volume, high-mix challenges. Whether it’s a multi-national manufacturing corporation or the job shop across town, everyone wants the same thing: the ability to change part designs quickly and respond to their customers’ needs.
Many also want to process tough materials like high-strength, low-alloy steels without worrying about tool wear or having to redesign a stamping die because the material thickness changed. When cutting with (laser) light, those problems go away.
STP: So what I’m hearing is that flexibility is huge, and, in many cases, it outweighs even price and lead time. That said, customers are only willing to pay so much for their parts, which is why I titled this article “The tipping point.” Do you agree with that assessment? And if so, can you offer any guidance on where that tipping point actually lies?
Gamache: I’m sorry, but there are so many variables at play here that I can’t give you any kind of quantity threshold. One factor you didn’t mention that actually plays a huge role is part complexity, which often determines how many post-processes are required. And let’s not forget that not all parts come out of a stamping press finished; secondary operations can still apply.
That said, if you need to crank out a million identical washers, it’s almost certainly more cost-effective to stamp them than to laser cut them. For just about everything else, it really comes down to weighing the return on tooling investment, inventory carrying costs and a host of other variables, many of which we’ve discussed.
STP: Lastly, what advice would you give to a manufacturer considering a major capital investment. What is your perspective on where the industry is headed? How can a company begin to navigate the mind-numbing range of advanced technologies now available, whether it’s a production control system like your Oseon software or a 300-ton servo-powered stamping press.
Gamache: As you know, TRUMPF primarily works with shops that either already own or are considering a laser cutter, press brake, panel bender or even a welding system. For these customers, at least, I’m seeing a clear shift toward more technology-driven solutions, and for good reason. Increasing automation, both on the hardware and software side, makes your manufacturing processes more transparent and predictable. Quality improves, costs drop and day-to-day operations get easier.
That’s exactly the premise behind our new smart factory in Farmington as well as the one in Chicago and other locations. These facilities aren’t showrooms; they’re real-world examples of what the future of sheet metal manufacturing looks like, with full integration of Industry 4.0 and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) technologies. To me, that’s the real tipping point.
