Multus U3000 vs. CTX Beta 1250 TC
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1217
    Likes (Received)
    1308

    Default Multus U3000 vs. CTX Beta 1250 TC

    We are looking at installing one of these two machines in the very near future.

    Immediately, you would think that the Okuma is likely a much heavier duty machine, however on paper they are almost identical. Practically the same weight, almost identical work envelope, almost identical motor ratings etc.

    Cost is going to end up within spitting distance of each other when optioned equivalently.

    One big difference is the Okuma uses a roller gear B, while the DMG is a direct torque motor.

    I know that there are a couple of very happy Multus users (looking at you Rob, Edster) on here. Not heard of many CTX TC guys.

    Having spoken to both reps I suspect that we will have superior support from DMG here, but I have no prior experience with either.

    We will be purchasing for flexibility with complex parts, not cycle times. Mostly aluminium, but occasional Ti and Stainless and really we work with everything from plastics to superalloys. Accordingly, not specing a lower turret or bar package, may or may not get a subspindle as the one we have is underutilised.

    There are a good few things that come standard (or are cheap options) on the DMG that are somewhat expensive options on the Okuma, like better coolant/swarf system, linear scales, what appears to be more advanced thermal management. Okuma has a much larger tool magazine as standard, and the upgraded magazine is quite expensive on the DMG. However, like I said, when it's apples to apples, price is pretty close.

    I have a fondness for Gildemeister, as I used to have an old one and it was hands down the best lathe I ever ran for accuracy and finish. I am assured that the CTX is made in the Gildemeister plant in Bielefield. I don't know where the Okuma is made.

    Lead time is looking similar on both.

    Okuma and Celos controls are both new to me, so no preference.

    Can you guys think of anything I've overlooked?

    TIA, Gregor

  2. Likes cameraman liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3231
    Likes (Received)
    717

    Default

    At least on Pm forum and beyond... Seems the NTX is more "Popular" in the USA versus the CTX lines / CTX Beta.

    My local DMG Mori dealers try to brush anything CTX under the carpet as they used to sell Mori's before the merger and tend to push NTX much much more.


    I know in Europe the CTX / Gildermeister machines are regarded well...

    Quote Originally Posted by gregormarwick View Post

    <snip>

    I have a fondness for Gildemeister, as I used to have an old one and it was hands down the best lathe I ever ran for accuracy and finish. I am assured that the CTX is made in the Gildemeister plant in Bielefield. I don't know where the Okuma is made.

    <snip>

    Can you guys think of anything I've overlooked?

    TIA, Gregor
    I have the impression that Gildemeister may have gone through a weak period (in past for lathes) and hence in the USA "Peeps" are given to talking trash about them or whether it's just a cold bias for Japanese "Iron" / Older Mori's ?

    With The DMG Mori and the remaining independent dealers (in the USA) I think their usual support channels favor Mori -ish hardware than CTX (being forced to reach to Germany for support. ) + other issues; i.e. aim to sell (in their eyes) a more expensive yet potentially more reliable / less hassle machine... (Even though the NTXs take time to completely sort out it seems but they DO get sorted out (eventually)).


    As you say key difference is the Direct Drive B axis versus mechanical. Seems the OKUMA machine would take more of pounding than the CTX but that may not be deciding factor or issue.

    __________________________________________________ _____________________________________


    Just curious as to why MAZAK was not for consideration ?.. In the UK kinda had the impression they look after their customers pretty well.

    Also curious what CAD CAM system will you / are you fixin to use with this / these beasties ?

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1217
    Likes (Received)
    1308

    Default

    I asked the DMG rep the question about NT/NTX vs CTX and he said that it basically comes down to control choice. Both have the celos front end, but DMG is Siemens, and Mori is Fanuc or Mits.

    From a practical perspective, the working area of the ntx is more cramped than the same tier ctx. Cost is similar.

    I am not going to tempt fate by making outrageous claims of never crashing anything, but bumps and crashes are very rare here. I'm not sure that kind of resilience is a huge factor for me. I have used that rationale on previous machine purchases and I don't think it has done me any favours to be honest.

    The roller gear vs the torque motor, seems that the torque motor would fare better in a crash no? No mechanical interface to get damaged, the brake would presumably slip and that would be that?

    As far as Mazak go, no, not really interested. They do not have a stellar reputation for looking after their smaller customers around here, and every time I've had them on my shortlist in the past they've been miserable to deal with.

    Cam; probably Featurecam. Not set in stone, but it's what I know best. It will be an upgrade/repurchase in any case.

  5. Likes cameraman liked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3231
    Likes (Received)
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregormarwick View Post
    I asked the DMG rep the question about NT/NTX vs CTX and he said that it basically comes down to control choice. Both have the celos front end, but DMG is Siemens, and Mori is Fanuc or Mits.

    From a practical perspective, the working area of the ntx is more cramped than the same tier ctx. Cost is similar.

    I am not going to tempt fate by making outrageous claims of never crashing anything, but bumps and crashes are very rare here. I'm not sure that kind of resilience is a huge factor for me. I have used that rationale on previous machine purchases and I don't think it has done me any favours to be honest.

    The roller gear vs the torque motor, seems that the torque motor would fare better in a crash no? No mechanical interface to get damaged, the brake would presumably slip and that would be that?

    As far as Mazak go, no, not really interested. They do not have a stellar reputation for looking after their smaller customers around here, and every time I've had them on my shortlist in the past they've been miserable to deal with.

    Cam; probably Featurecam. Not set in stone, but it's what I know best. It will be an upgrade/repurchase in any case.
    Sounds good / pretty sweet !


    On my researches on the B axis mill turn thing (especially with some of the MAZAk B axis mill turns) there seemed to be a "Paradoxical" situation between tool length and how close you can get the milling head to the lathe chuck / soft jaws / whatever fixturing. (Seems the CTX beta has done a good job with that (design wise / design improvements) , and also the milling head is short, so when tilted 90 degrees "sideways" for face and profile milling etc. , the milling head doesn't take up much room... So you don't loose a ton of Z travel / space and need a machine that approaches 60" between centers versus 40" meaning that the machine is proportionately more rigid and is not quite so dependent on the quality of its foundation/install. ).

    In other words the broad flat face of the B axis mill head can interfere with the jaws of the turning spindle and (sheet metal surrounding the turning spindle as well)… so hence a longer milling tool would be required (for proportionately smaller diameter work pieces)... But then that means surface finish and accuracy (using long tools) may not be what you want but also more critically the bending moment of the tool (long tool) might (under ambitious cutting conditions) trash the spindle bearings in the B axis head (depends what you are up too ). In the case of an Integrex "Like" layout with larger diameter chucks some folks have had to make their own "step" down chucks that stick out more (smaller diameter for smaller diameter work pieces) so that a shorter tool can be brought closer to the work and the jaws (without smacking into a wide milling head). So that has some compromises too.

    Again seems that the CTX beta has designed around such problems quite well ?


    Didn't catch what your distance between centers would be and do you need a steady rest ? Or some movable platform that is more manual in nature that you can build to for supporting longer work pieces ? Sometimes the fully integrated (whizz bang cnc) Steady rest can be obstructive to the tail stock reach for certain work piece lengths, there can be a "dead " zone between short work piece lengths and longer work piece lengths that you still need supported in cut and twin spindle (counter spindle) is not necessarily right for that either (depending on workpiece geometry/ features to be turned and milled in fewer set-ups.).


    I guess what I'm trying to say maybe plan out in CAD or by similar means the work holding, your workpieces / parts and tooling you would most like to use to check that you can physically get to everything in the way you want to. Maybe do a sanity check for a continuum of part sizes (all lengths and diameters ) to double check any "Dead" zones or weak / awkward cutting conditions that knacker the tolerances and surface finishes you might be going for..

    I'm not sure on exact geometry of the U3000 head whether its' (proportionately) more narrow and the spindle bearings tolerate greater tool bending moment. Or whether the B axis mill head is quite long and takes up a lot of Z room / space / travel when tilted 90 degrees ?

    The CTX Beta seems like a really nice machine and agree (at least on paper) the thermal control seems a bit more "physical" than compensatory with just heat sensors throughout but on the other hand the Direct drive motors do generate a lot of heat and hence HAVE to be actively / substantially cooled and regulated. But the CTX beta doesn't seem to have extensive through casting cooling , but with the "Magnascales" and on board thermal control with heat sensors throughout (including the scales) should do a good job throughout the day ? Would the end result be better than an Okuma U3000 (couldn't say)…


    I think Direct drive versus Roller gear cam, that; the latter just requires beefier housings and bearings , six of one half a dozen of the other (perhaps), but sounds in general the CTX would be a more "Elegant" solution. The in-brochure tolerances, accuracies and repeatability's don't seem too shabby either/ actually pretty damn solid/ good.

    Get them to make some critical test parts for yah...
    Last edited by cameraman; 03-12-2019 at 05:58 PM.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    vacaville ca
    Posts
    397
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    48
    Likes (Received)
    95

    Default

    What brakes the B on the ctx? Is it hirth coupled or disc/caliper?

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3231
    Likes (Received)
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcasanova View Post
    What brakes the B on the ctx? Is it hirth coupled or disc/caliper?
    Not 100% sure as it's continuous positioning and sim 5 axis...

    something like disc/ caliper. But seems to have (inductive) electronic power recovery for active braking also.

    The Mazak Integrex J series kinda sucks for that as the B axis head only tilts in 5 degree increments but uses some kind of Hirth like coupling (I believe), the repeatability is consequently very accurate but not much help if you are building stuff designed by Physicists with non 5 degree increments of compound angles. (center angle of a tetrahedron is approx. 109.47 dgrees... Not so easy to squeeze out of a continuous C axis and 5 degree increment B axis head .)

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1170
    Likes (Received)
    2398

    Default

    I really have no input. Everyone knows my preference, but it's just that. My experience with the NTX was brief. It's design is not Slant bed which feels weird to me. X is Vertical and Y is obviously Perp to that. The enclosure is high, but very similar square space. It just feels strange.

    B motion on the Okuma is VERY fast fast. The toolchange is not as fast as I would like, but it's because it's Capto. Meaning 2 seconds. Capto toolholders aren't the cheapest thing since Rice and Beans dinner.

    Sorry, i just don't have a very comprehensive comparison. Okuma has always been designed for us, the Machine Operators. In every respect, through and through OSP stands head and shoulders above the rest. Little details like a previous offset registry, or graphic simulation built in, or Absolute coordinate system, or more memory, or a logical basic ability to run the Machine and a whole godamned plethora of techy shit for nerds to explore.

    R

    ADD> Fanuc is designed for guys who sit in offices and make parts from a distance (Pro. Programmers) and they really need to know their shit. Newb and Fanuc don't mix well IMNSHO . That is my best explanation of Fanuc logic. They have never been friendly to the regular, dumb guy (Me), that NEEDS to make parts right fucking now. I say that whilst biting my tongue. The Celos that I ran, is 10 now, but it was clunky and ignorant. I believe it was wired by Mits. OTOH OSP has always been very friendly, to the the User, standing in front of the Machine.

    Gregor, when you choose, don't forget the sub. In a regular CNC Lathe, even one with Y it can be under used. But with this Machine....I mean it's at minimum every other job. Granted I quote for it, but even if I didn't I think I would have kicked myself, if I hadn't got it. There is so much you can do with a B-Axis Lathe, that you don't want to leave out something that later is too much of a bitch to add on, because you figure out you can use it. You have to gear toward it though. Ox is really the one that knows how to really utilize the sub.

  10. Likes cameraman, Jashley73, mkd, gregormarwick liked this post
  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3231
    Likes (Received)
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by litlerob1 View Post
    I really have no input. Everyone knows my preference, but it's just that. My experience with the NTX was brief. It's design is not Slant bed which feels weird to me. X is Horizontal and Y is obviously Perp to that. The enclosure is high, but very similar square space. It just feels strange.

    B motion on the Okuma is VERY fast fast. The toolchange is not as fast as I would like, but it's because it's Capto. Meaning 2 seconds. Capto toolholders aren't the cheapest thing since Rice and Beans dinner.

    Sorry, i just don't have a very comprehensive comparison. Okuma has always been designed for us, the Machine Operators. In every respect, through and through OSP stands head and shoulders above the rest. Little details like a previous offset registry, or graphic simulation built in, or Absolute coordinate system, or more memory, or a logical basic ability to run the Machine and a whole godamned plethora of techy shit for nerds to explore.

    R

    ADD> Fanuc is designed for guys who sit in offices and make parts from a distance (Pro. Programmers) and they really need to know their shit. Newb and Fanuc don't mix well IMNSHO . That is my best explanation of Fanuc logic. They have never been friendly to the regular, dumb guy (Me), that NEEDS to make parts right fucking now. I say that whilst biting my tongue. The Celos that I ran, is 10 now, but it was clunky and ignorant. I believe it was wired by Mits. OTOH OSP has always been very friendly, to the the User, standing in front of the Machine.

    Gregor, when you choose, don't forget the sub. In a regular CNC Lathe, even one with Y it can be under used. But with this Machine....I mean it's at minimum every other job. Granted I quote for it, but even if I didn't I think I would have kicked myself, if I hadn't got it. There is so much you can do with a B-Axis Lathe, that you don't want to leave out something that later is too much of a bitch to add on, because you figure out you can use it. You have to gear toward it though. Ox is really the one that knows how to really utilize the sub.
    That's a good point about graphics simulation / collision avoidance... The Celos Siemens combination seems to point to having 3d graphics but not sure how good or detailed the collision avoidance of that aspect is... I usually get pointed to Heidenhain for that (not offered on the CTX) … It used to be with Fanuc the collision avoidance (for 5 axis) was very crude bounding boxes, has that improved any or does the CELOS control bring extra something to all that ?

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1170
    Likes (Received)
    2398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    That's a good point about graphics simulation / collision avoidance... The Celos Siemens combination seems to point to having 3d graphics but not sure how good or detailed the collision avoidance of that aspect is... I usually get pointed to Heidenhain for that (not offered on the CTX) … It used to be with Fanuc the collision avoidance (for 5 axis) was very crude bounding boxes, has that improved any or does the CELOS control bring extra something to all that ?
    No idea, didn't even try to look for it, or ask about it.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Montco, PA
    Posts
    542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    46
    Likes (Received)
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregormarwick View Post
    We are looking at installing one of these two machines in the very near future.

    Immediately, you would think that the Okuma is likely a much heavier duty machine, however on paper they are almost identical. Practically the same weight, almost identical work envelope, almost identical motor ratings etc.

    Cost is going to end up within spitting distance of each other when optioned equivalently.

    One big difference is the Okuma uses a roller gear B, while the DMG is a direct torque motor.

    I know that there are a couple of very happy Multus users (looking at you Rob, Edster) on here. Not heard of many CTX TC guys.

    Having spoken to both reps I suspect that we will have superior support from DMG here, but I have no prior experience with either.

    We will be purchasing for flexibility with complex parts, not cycle times. Mostly aluminium, but occasional Ti and Stainless and really we work with everything from plastics to superalloys. Accordingly, not specing a lower turret or bar package, may or may not get a subspindle as the one we have is underutilised.

    There are a good few things that come standard (or are cheap options) on the DMG that are somewhat expensive options on the Okuma, like better coolant/swarf system, linear scales, what appears to be more advanced thermal management. Okuma has a much larger tool magazine as standard, and the upgraded magazine is quite expensive on the DMG. However, like I said, when it's apples to apples, price is pretty close.

    I have a fondness for Gildemeister, as I used to have an old one and it was hands down the best lathe I ever ran for accuracy and finish. I am assured that the CTX is made in the Gildemeister plant in Bielefield. I don't know where the Okuma is made.

    Lead time is looking similar on both.

    Okuma and Celos controls are both new to me, so no preference.

    Can you guys think of anything I've overlooked?

    TIA, Gregor
    We have 19 DMG machines

    About the same in Okuma

    My days of buying DMGs are over forever. The terrible service, constant need for service, cost of service and complexity of the machines are a serious financial drain on us.

    The ready/steady as she goes Okuma machines with great performance is the only way Ill go in the future.

  14. Likes Jashley73, mkd liked this post
  15. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    I spent a few months running the CTX Beta, no experience with Okuma at all so can't give much of a comparison there.

    The one I ran had the subspindle, no lower turret, chucks on both ends. Was an extremely accurate machine, felt like moving up to a Lambo from a Corolla. Likewise, very high-maintenance machines.

    The transition to the Siemens control, coming from a Fanuc background, took a bit to get used to but now I wish it was an option on more machines. Didnt make much use of the Celos apps, but the 840 control is very powerful. The structure programming seems very German- way more complex than it really needs to be, at least for our uses. However, almost all of our programming was done at the control using the Siemens/custom DMG cycles. The cycle calls all pop up a semi-conversational screen making program edits on the fly very simple. The only time we used a CAM system for programming was for surfacing type toolpaths, 3- or 5-axis.

    Don't recall much of the details of the mechanics under the hood, but if youve got any other specific questions about dealing with the front end of the machine I'd be happy to answer.

    Sent from my LG-M150 using Tapatalk

  16. Likes cameraman, pcasanova liked this post
  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    2,982
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6962
    Likes (Received)
    2525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by litlerob1 View Post
    Sorry, i just don't have a very comprehensive comparison. Okuma has always been designed for us, the Machine Operators. In every respect, through and through OSP stands head and shoulders above the rest. Little details like a previous offset registry, or graphic simulation built in, or Absolute coordinate system, or more memory, or a logical basic ability to run the Machine and a whole godamned plethora of techy shit for nerds to explore.

    R

    ADD> Fanuc is designed for guys who sit in offices and make parts from a distance (Pro. Programmers) and they really need to know their shit. Newb and Fanuc don't mix well IMNSHO . That is my best explanation of Fanuc logic. They have never been friendly to the regular, dumb guy (Me), that NEEDS to make parts right fucking now. I say that whilst biting my tongue. The Celos that I ran, is 10 now, but it was clunky and ignorant. I believe it was wired by Mits. OTOH OSP has always been very friendly, to the the User, standing in front of the Machine.
    No input about B-axis machines, but man, you just pounded that nail on the head with a 10-pound sledge!

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3231
    Likes (Received)
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Auto View Post
    We have 19 DMG machines

    About the same in Okuma

    My days of buying DMGs are over forever. The terrible service, constant need for service, cost of service and complexity of the machines are a serious financial drain on us.

    The ready/steady as she goes Okuma machines with great performance is the only way Ill go in the future.
    I have to agree , that I have cold feet with DMG Mori in terms of service and the basic ability to bridge gaps (at least in the USA) on some of their lines... Others OK.

    The USA is complicated and is practically the size of a continent, yet it seems in some pockets of Europe that DMG go pretty well/ well supported able to bridge certain application issues especially on the CAD/CAM side ---> machine X.

    Gregor is in Scotland so maybe DMG goes well there (or seems to indicate they do) ?

    Odd that Bielefield Germany is not far from the UK, further for your average Scottish resident (perhaps) than your average Londoner.

    It's like 450 miles from the center of London... At least if there's any serious grief you can physically drive there …

    https://www.bing.com/maps?q=bielefel...ance&FORM=AWRE

    (Not sure what connecting flights would make sense but flight time is not awful... ).

  19. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1170
    Likes (Received)
    2398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
    No input about B-axis machines, but man, you just pounded that nail on the head with a 10-pound sledge!
    Thing is, I can't even say that it's bad logic, it just is. I understand why they're designed that way, on a purely corporate level it's only logical. In fact Fanuc was key in development of early CAD/CAM programs like Catia.

    R

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    710
    Likes (Received)
    451

    Default

    no comparison with the CTX/ntx stuff but for me I'd go Okuma without hesitation.
    Just from my experience playing with a (now) 19 year old MacTurn. Brand familiarity matters for resale value.
    Not super thrilled with how they combined a curvic coupling /brake only for 90 increments and it's .001 deg indexing capability. It's just odd... but if it index straight at BA=0 everything just works.
    BTW it's cool to see Okuma come full circle back to real Y axis like my old one. ha!

  21. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    710
    Likes (Received)
    451

    Default

    also..
    double check on linear scales for Okuma. My old-ass machine has linear scale on X plus temperature probes in the casting that work.

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1217
    Likes (Received)
    1308

    Default

    Thanks for all the responses.

    I knew going in that the overwhelming majority would be in favour of Okuma. My biggest fear is based in the fact that we are in a very different place geographically from all of you. DMG have an overnight parts service from Germany to the UK, and somewhere between 100-200 (I forget the exact number) service guys on staff in the UK. That's a lot of manpower for a country this size. Okuma are on the other side of the planet, and are represented by a single dealership with an unknown service force. Okuma were very responsive to us during previous enquiries but their local representative has changed since then and I'm not really getting the same sense of urgency from the new guy. DMG were here in person two days after first contact.

    DMG (as in DMG - there are plenty of Mori's around) and Okuma both are pretty thin on the ground in Scotland. Mazak dominate in the bigger shops that buy new machines frequently, but I don't want to deal with them for reasons already explained.

    PCasanova/Cameraman, the B on the CTX claims to have 6000Nm of holding torque but does not elaborate on the method. I would have to assume hydraulic disc or expansion sleeve.

    Rob, there are loads of really nice features on the Okuma control, no doubt about it. I have gone through the brochure with a fine tooth comb. The previous offset table you mentioned is something I haven't heard of before, but that sounds like a ridiculously useful feature. I think ultimately however, the OSP and the Celos have more or less feature parity, maybe not operator convenience parity. I am unclear on, for example, the degree of machine simulation present on the Celos control, and whether it compares well to the OSP. But, I can/will do that offline anyway...

    Rob, regarding the subspindle. As I hinted at, we have a Y axis lathe with a sub, and the sub spends most of it's time either parked out of the way, or with a live centre fitted. I am quoting machines with a sub for now, I guess the tailstock option is a fallback for if the purse strings are tightened.

    avto, can you elaborate on what was very high maintenance about it?

    mkd, I shop we work with occasionally has a big MacTurn, they bought it used a few years ago and as I recall it took them some time to get it operational for whatever reason. But it is a beast. re. the scales, 100% they are an option on the Multus and standard on the CTX, however, like I said apples to apples, cost is similar enough to not be a deciding factor.

  23. Likes cameraman liked this post
  24. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1170
    Likes (Received)
    2398

    Default

    Just need to look at the sub differently. Don't think of it like a second, smaller Chuck, think of it for what it is-5 Axis, Zero point workholding.

    R

  25. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    We have few different types of CTX Beta 1250:s on the floor.

    One that is branded Graziano was our first one, bought used. with hsk63 taper and subspindle. Without going into too much detail, it's good & fast for light/very light work but that's about it. Not a robust machine.

    Two were bought as new ones 12-18months ago that are identical what you are looking for, with HSK63 taper tc, subspindle & turret, these seem to be very robust machines and accurate, but like someone mentioned earlier, they've both had some quirks about a lot of different things, covers, hydraulic hoses, tool change hatch, chucks, hydraulic oil turning milky etc. Nothing major, but lot of small things that you don't expect on brand new machines.

    I don't have personal experience about any Okumas so i can't compare.

    I'm bit biased towards siemens control since we originally had old doosan millturn machines with fanuc control. Someone here mentioned "structure programming", it is somewhat hard to learn, but you are not forced to use it. But i've gone as far to use it on normal lathe with just turning tools.


    840D Control +/-

    + Can name tools with letters, no silly numbers (Not sure if this has been changed on newer fanuc controls / or if mits has this ability)
    + Parametric programming, no more silly #501, can use _B_AXIS_ANGLE etc
    + "Structure programming", better with more tools / more complex the parts get (Roughly, again biased)

    - Siemens in general can be bit hard to learn

  26. Likes cameraman, gregormarwick liked this post
  27. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1217
    Likes (Received)
    1308

    Default

    JJM, thank you, that's good information.

    You are not the first to mention the problems with Graziano machines. Like I said, I asked specifically where this machine is built and was assured that it's built at the Gildemeister plant in Germany.

    We met with DMG last week as I mentioned and I was impressed with the rep's knowledge of the machine and understanding of the things I want to do with it. I came away from that meeting feeling pretty good about it.

    Okuma are visiting on Monday, but I already have a bad taste in my mouth as when I told the rep that we were also in talks with DMG his first response was to make claims about how the Okuma is better in ways that really don't appear to be true. Claims like "the Okuma is more rigid because it has a column that travels in Z and Y, while the DMG has a column and a ram", which is obviously incorrect to anyone who'd spent 2 minutes looking, and "the okuma is heavier" which it isn't by any significant amount.

    The Okuma may very well be the better machine, but I really don't get the impression that this guy knows why it is, if it is. I dislike salesman bullshit. We will see.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •