Kate Bachman
Contributing Editor

Calculating Lifecycle Costs

Many of you are heading to FABTECH this month to discover and explore the new, improved and enduring technologies exhibited on the trade-show floor. Presses. Automation. Coil processing. Cutting machinery, welding equipment, material handling and so on. Some will be quite new; most will feature incremental upgrades. Booth discussions will focus on the equipment’s features and benefits.

Another purchasing consideration emerges: the cost and ease of rebuild and repair when machinery requires it.

Recently, the purchasing decision- maker of a large stamping manufacturer, and a MetalForming reader, posed the question of which type of press is less costly to rebuild when the press needs an upgrade. He commented on maintenance costs as presses age, and contends that one press type has longer lead times for replacement parts, necessitating the need to stock critical spare components, and is more expensive to upgrade.

It struck me as a little unusual to hear a metal former considering the cost of rebuilding a press when it becomes obsolete in deciding on which type of machine to purchase. It reflects a forward-looking, long-term perspective in acknowledging that a press will eventually require significant maintenance.

It’s a throwback to some vehicle owners’ preferences to buy classic vehicles because they think they’re easier to maintain. “I used to be able to fix my car. Now I can’t even change my own oil,” is the weekend mechanic’s complaint about modern vehicles. 

Planning For Collisions

The annual Great Designs in Steel conference, that fantastic showcase of innovations in vehicle design and build hosted by the American Iron and Steel Institute, offers at least one session each year on the feasibility of collision repairs. The session fully acknowledges the reality that collisions will occur, and explores how to improve the repairability of certain vehicles and their assemblies by design.

Modularity, common parts and universal component sizes reign among these designs.

It’s interesting to me that this year’s session on this topic was conducted by newcomer automaker Rivian. In true lifecycle-management fashion, the rookie automaker designed in the ease of repairability in its new model. 

Rivian highlighted its conversion of the floor structure from aluminum-intensive to steel to commonize the materials. Not only did the conversion bring a significant cost decrease, it eased repairability. 

“Dissimilar metals are very difficult to manage in a collision environment,” stated Rivian presenter Dan Black during the conference presentation. The company prioritized on manufacturing efficiency, which rendered greater repairability.