[jid2]

Everyone has different needs. If you are building and selling product as fast as the machine can run them a faster machine is surely worth it. Without starting a massive argument I'll say that you don't know the difference until you experience it running on both. If you do simple 2D brackets with low cosmetic standards it's less important. If you run parts that often have machining on 3 or more sides you should be using a 4th axis.

For example, my main product I've been working on is 4 parts, that require 14 setups in traditional vises. On a machine with a 4th axis and a double station vise I can get all of that into a single setup and have 4 complete parts finished at the end of each cycle. Splitting those parts out to a few machines with traditional vise setups would never be faster than running on the single machine with the optimized setup. But it requires a true commercial grade 4th axis, and enough table space to hold the 4th and a double vise, and a machine with a 20 tool magazine.

[SCzEngrgGroup]

Everyone has different needs. If you are building and selling product as fast as the machine can run them a faster machine is surely worth it. Without starting a massive argument I'll say that you don't know the difference until you experience it running on both. If you do simple 2D brackets with low cosmetic standards it's less important. If you run parts that often have machining on 3 or more sides you should be using a 4th axis.

For example, my main product I've been working on is 4 parts, that require 14 setups in traditional vises. On a machine with a 4th axis and a double station vise I can get all of that into a single setup and have 4 complete parts finished at the end of each cycle. Splitting those parts out to a few machines with traditional vise setups would never be faster than running on the single machine with the optimized setup. But it requires a true commercial grade 4th axis, and enough table space to hold the 4th and a double vise, and a machine with a 20 tool magazine.

14 setups is VERY FAR from typical - like 6 sigma. In fact, I have to wonder if you aren't over-complicating things, as I can imagine extremely few parts that truly require that many setups if done efficiently. I have very few parts that need more than two setups, and more machines would increase my productivity more than a single faster machine, IF I needed to increase my productivity, which I don't.

Regards,
Ray L.

[tmarks11]

For example, my main product I've been working on is 4 parts, that require 14 setups in traditional vises. On a machine with a 4th axis and a double station vise I can get all of that into a single setup and have 4 complete parts finished at the end of each cycle.

So what you are saying is that now it takes 4 different setups to create each part. And each assembly is made up of 4 parts (each different). Since you can put all the parts on the table at the same time, you maximize cycle time between human interaction, and only have to change the overall setup 4 times.

Mind showing us a picture of the finished part and/or describing you setups (maybe in a different thread to keep the OP topic intact)? Setting up for maximizing production is always something worth learning, and other's examples can be helpful.

I have found designers/engineers without manufacturing skills sometimes draft up parts that are impossible to machine in a reasonable amount of time, and/or specific over-complicated solutions when a slight simpler design or setup can make the process go much faster.