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While I am flattered that my ideas stood the test of time, I believe the die standards today are outdated.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.
Tags: automotive, die standards
November 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Too Right!
Paint by numbers is after all a Detroit Invention (Palmer Paints 1950’s) so it is only fitting that the Former “big three” cling to the idea of one size fits all.
Facts that die standards and their zealous advocates often forget:
1) parts we make today may not have existed back then (Body sides were assemblies not stampings)
2) materials we use today were not common then
3) what they considered niche production back then is the full three year run (50-100K)
Additionally, we must always consider that whenever any standard is written it will tend to benefit the interests of the group that wrote the standards. If the Die Engineering group writes the standards it will usually favor up front engineering and initial build, if production wrote the standards it will favor production needs and/or maintainability, if accountants write them they will favor nobody.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Right on right on!
I will blog soon on the political struggle we had between the tool bill vs. production maintenance.
Since we were representing the tool bill and building “cheaper” dies, I actually got death threats from production plant managers.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] mentioned in my previous post about how our die standards completely changed the way automotive dies were designed and built. [...]
November 10th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
not to mention the guys who made their balloon payments using the Suggestion Plan max award. It never ceased to amaze me that as soon as the die was bought off, the cost savings ideas would come pouring in. Even better when they came from the same people who were troubleshooting the die to begin with would after official SOP have a very well engineered and thought up suggestion.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I find your posts to interesting especially as they relate to how the purpose of die standards are to guide the decision making process. It left me wondering are there any “requirements” into which these standards must fall or have the materials and processes advanced so much that it is time for these to even be revamped ?
December 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Thanks for reading … I am working up a post on things that I feel should change to save billions of dollars on dies.
To answer your question, I feel the materials are generally wrong for today’s stampings. The AHSS and other materials on the market today were not invented when the die standards for conventional D2, S7 and the like were specified.
The processes are about the same, however.