[concombrefrais]

A quick question for Tormach owners. What machine do you have and what rapid/acceleration can you get with?
Thanks in advance?

[bevinp]

Do you mean what rapid speed or do you mean acceleration?

[concombrefrais]

I mean both.

[Don Clement]

Why do you ask on this forum? Tormach.com has those answers.

[concombrefrais]

I know the advertised speed 90ipm for the 1100 and 130 for the 770.
I just want to know what speed you actually get. Can you get more? Or can you not even get the advertised speed? For example the Novakon 145 advertised 130ipm but some owner said on this forum they can get 300ipm.
Syil advertised 200ipm for their x5 but I read owners saying they have to slow it down to 100ipm to prevent losing steps.
I am wondering what are the actual numbers for the Tormach, and of course with stock drive and steppers.

[Don Clement]

I am wondering what are the actual numbers for the Tormach, and of course with stock drive and steppers.

Why do you own a Tormach? If so why don't you tell us?

[bevinp]

I thought the rapid traverse rate was 65 ipm for the 1100, so did some searching on the Tormach website. I found some confusion there.
1. The current User Manual for the 1100 Series II states "Rapid traverse X Y Z - 65 ipm".
2. A machine comparison table states for the 1100 "Maximum feed rate" is 90 ipm and confirms it with the mm/m conversion.
3. On ther 1100 Specifications webpage it states "Feed rate" 90 ipm.

Is "Rapid traverse" the same function as "Max feed rate"? I assume so.

Whatever, the 1100 "Design Whitepaper" discusses the machining time difference between a machine with rapid traverse of 65 ipm versus a machine with much higher rapid traverse. The Paper argues that the difference in times is not significant enough to warrant the expense of greater speed and power. The following is a quote from the Whitepaper.

"A 1.5 hp CNC mill with 65 IPM rapids and no tool changer is ludicrous in a production environment, where minutes per piece are crucial. However, in prototype development, where run time is a tiny fraction of setup time, those extra minutes are simply not relevant. What is extremely relevant is the substantial cost saving afforded by that design."

The Whitepaper was last updated in 2006 and obviously the Series II mill and new accessories are pushing the 1100 suitability towards longer job runs. So it is simply a case of the buyer deciding on the priorities of applications and machining time versus reliability, support and price.

Bevin

[philbur]

The Series 1 was 65 ipm. I think they have missed changing the user manual to 90 IPM when revising it for the Series 2.

Phil

I thought the rapid traverse rate was 65 ipm for the 1100, so did some searching on the Tormach website. I found some confusion there.
1. The current User Manual for the 1100 Series II states "Rapid traverse X Y Z - 65 ipm".
2. A machine comparison table states for the 1100 "Maximum feed rate" is 90 ipm and confirms it with the mm/m conversion.
3. On ther 1100 Specifications webpage it states "Feed rate" 90 ipm.

Is "Rapid traverse" the same function as "Max feed rate"? I assume so.

Whatever, the 1100 "Design Whitepaper" discusses the machining time difference between a machine with rapid traverse of 65 ipm versus a machine with much higher rapid traverse. The Paper argues that the difference in times is not significant enough to warrant the expense of greater speed and power. The following is a quote from the Whitepaper.

"A 1.5 hp CNC mill with 65 IPM rapids and no tool changer is ludicrous in a production environment, where minutes per piece are crucial. However, in prototype development, where run time is a tiny fraction of setup time, those extra minutes are simply not relevant. What is extremely relevant is the substantial cost saving afforded by that design."

The Whitepaper was last updated in 2006 and obviously the Series II mill and new accessories are pushing the 1100 suitability towards longer job runs. So it is simply a case of the buyer deciding on the priorities of applications and machining time versus reliability, support and price.

Bevin