Rooster's Revenge

I am preparing a post for changes I feel need to be made to automotive stamping die engineering standards.

The next revolution.

There are many things on my mind these days. Dies, at this point in my life, are more of a casual hobby than the obsession they used to be.

That said, I had a dream last night that Chris Colley and I were going to re-write die standards. The sequel to our collaborative effort that started back in 1991.

More on the topic soon …

Happy Thanksgiving to all the die guys out there!

Money is tight for everyone these days. No question.

I have all of my money invested in a business that seems to go nowhere.

My family has a food budget of $3 per person per day. It is that tight.

For two days in a row, I saw a woman at a highway offramp with a sign that read:

Traveling. Trying to get home. Anything helps.

I had a $20 in my pocket. My last twenty bucks.

I rolled the window down and asked what the story was. She was short on bus fare to travel 250 miles or so to the next state to get home.

I gave her the $20. Her eyes lit up like a Christmas tree and said, “Thank you so much! I was short $20 for bus fare. This gets me home!”

I figured it was good karma to do something nice for someone. I know the money was going toward bus fare and not booze.

Pay it forward.

Thanks to Robert Gauthier for sending this along:

I wonder if they have a Fook Yoo rewards program?

Here is a photo from my Entrepreneurial Journey talk at Lawrence Technological University last month.

LTU President Dr. Lewis Walker is on the left, I am in the center, and Prof. Don Reimer is on the right.

Note that my hair was dark brown the day I started my startup. And now is it nearly all gray.

I am reasonably satisfied with my presentation after reviewing the DVD. I will carve it up and post online soon.

I mentioned in my previous post about how our die standards completely changed the way automotive dies were designed and built. Here are 13 the rules we broke to create new ones:

1. Units: went from 75 years of inch-pound to hard metric to save 30% in component costs.
2. Casting: reduced casting by 60% by going from 3 inch walls to 45 mm.
3. Coring: simplified the design by coring up from the panel instead of away from the panel.
4. Decisions: used production volume and material thickness to drive architecture.
5. Choices: gave the engineers first, second, and last choice options for design.
6. Springs: eliminated die springs and used less expensive fiber-belted springs.
7. Fitting: fitted sculptured surface at the working areas only instead of entire panel.
8. Adapters: eliminated the use of adapters for final adjustment due to NC machining.
9. Inserts: stopped fully inserting trims and forms to cut or form on cast posts.
10. Heels: eliminated heels on die sets and used guide pins only.
11. Plates: eliminated wear plates on pads and used guide pins only.
12. Lifters: adopted the “no lifter is the best lifter” policy.
13. Manifolds: abandoned nitrogen manifolds in favor of self-contained gas springs.

Clearly, all these changes favor the die shop. The tradeoff is there is more maintenance for the production source.

From an economic standpoint, it is better to spend less capital on the front end and pay for maintenance out of stamped profit during the life of the tool.

I helped reshape and redefine automotive die standards in 1991 with five other people. We revolutionized how automotive body dies were designed and built.

The dies that were designed and built up until 1992 were over-engineered and over-built.

For the next decade, I feel the die standards were competitively adequate.

I no longer feel that way. The standards have not significantly changed in nearly two decades.

While I am flattered that my ideas stood the test of time, I believe the die standards today are outdated.

I am disappointed that the standards have not evolved. They are fundamentally the same as they were when they were published in 1992.

The goal with die standards, in my opinion, is to guide decisions.

Die standards are not intended to be a paint-by-numbers approach to engineering.

They are not a step-by-step recipe.

Die standards are not to connect-the-dots.

They are not a bible to be followed until the end of time.

The intent is guide decisions of the die engineer and provide predictability on the architecture of the tool.

Period.

The automotive industry could save 30 – 60% on their tool bill with another revolution.

The casting construction is too heavy by a factor of 2X.

There are better materials on the market, like Carmo, Caldie, and Vanadis-type tool steels for the advanced high strength steels being stamped today.

The list goes on and on.

Bottom line is the standards are old and it is costing the automakers billions.

The DVD to my recent talk at Lawrence Tech just arrived.

I will carve it up and upload here next week.

Until then …

I gave the site a new coat of paint this weekend. Hope you like it!

You will notice The Daily Reviewer badge on the right. We are in the design and manufacturing categories.

Also, I added some SMORE (Social Media whore) links on the right as well.

Enjoy!