Nick, Have to disagree there. They were originally designed for toolholding, more specifically Drills / reamers. I use them for a lot of workholding as do many others and they are great , but workholding is not what they were designed for. There are far better collets than ER for workholding. even as a milling chuck they are far from the best , they are super at taking axial loads, but not at their strongest with Radial loads. I like them but am not blind to their shortcomings.
DRAKE are exported all over the world and different industries with quality first. Our belief is to provide our customers with more and better high value-added products. Let's create a better future together.
cheers
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:45:09
Neil, thats exactly the point I made. They are at their best when dealing with Axial loads [what they were designed for ] Guhring did a series of tests on the new "Diver " end mill and used various clamping methods and out of the 3 [Hydraulic , Shrink fit and ER] the ER was the least satisfactory. Of course they are fine for what we use them for but that doesn't take away from the fact that they were originally designed for Tool holding. and specifically,Drills and reamers. [axial loads ].
cheers.
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:45:48
Posted by Raymond Anderson on 04/09/ 18:31:49:Nick, Have to disagree there. They were originally designed for toolholding, more specifically Drills / reamers. I use them for a lot of workholding as do many others and they are great , but workholding is not what they were designed for. There are far better collets than ER for workholding. even as a milling chuck they are far from the best , they are super at taking axial loads, but not at their strongest with Radial loads. I like them but am not blind to their shortcomings.
cheers
Sorry Raymond but how do you work out that a collet tightened up onto work one side and two tapers the other side cannot accept radial loads ?
Surely the limitation will be the collet holder or machine bearings and as Neil has pointed out milling loads in the axial plane are far higher.
I do so hope this is not one of those urban legends that gets repeated over and over with no fact.
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:46:07
John, I didn't work anything out. I can only go by the Guhring tests [ unless the world class company that is Guhring got it wrong ] The video on you tube provided the evidence. So its not a case of "no fact " .Just type in Guhring Diver end mill into you tube and its in one of the videos by Guhring. And I did not say that they couldn't accept Radial loads, only that the system is not at is strongest with such loads. And it is a fact that the ER system is bettered by hydraulic or shrink fit. Any heavy milling with end mills that iv'e seen are all shrink fit or Hydraulic.
I'm certainly not knocking them as I use them a lot I think they are great I know a lot of cnc lathes with live tooling use them but for rigidity ,hydraulic or shrink fit is better. and before anyone starts I know we as hobbyists dont need to bother about such things. I'm only reiterating the fact that A] They were designed first and foremost as Toolholders and B] They are at their best Drilling / Reaming.
cheers.
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:46:34
Found the video on you tube, It is called "Guhring Diver Tool smash". In it the guy from Guhring mentions that the ER system is at its best when the loads are Axial, not so good at Radial forces. Which is what I said. We as hobbyists don't need to consider such things There are better end mill holding systems than ER ,and there are FAR better workholding collet systems than ER . They are great for our needs, very versatile,I like them.
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:47:03
None that would cover the range of each ER collet., but for a specific Ø then some of the "C " Series or The B42 series all these are available in round hex and square [ and depending on which size ] can cater for larger Ø's than the ER system which max's out at 34 mm Ø also the mentioned series can all be bought as Blanks There are also a range from Micro centric [ I think thats the name ] that are also available in Round , Square and Hex I've yet to see an ER in square or Hex. I think the ER system is the jack of all trades but is the best at only one thing and that is Drilling / Reaming.for which it was originally designed for. But like I said I like them and use them a lot and i'm certainly not knocking them.
cheers
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:48:04
Are you interested in learning more about CNC Collet Chuck Price? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!
Posted by Nick Hulme on 04/09/ 18:10:30: Posted by Nigel Bennett on 01/09/ 17:28:23:ER collets really are for cutting tools only
Utter Tosh, they are for holding nominally round items, tool or stock makes no difference!
I have a Myford Super7 headstock with native ER40 and it's a joy to use – 1m lengths of 30mm bar? – no problemo!
– Nick
Edited By JasonB on 05/09/ 12:44:46
Taking part of a statement out of context and calling it "tosh" isn't really helpful. ER collets were designed for toolholding, and workholding is only a by-product that happens to suit our needs. If you read back in EIM in , you will find that I described how to make an ER32 collet for the Myford lathe, so I can hardly be accused of preaching Thou Shalt Not Use ER collets for other purposes!
Thanks Jason for moving this to it's own thread. I have e-mailed Rego Fix Re, the ER collet system and what it's primary purpose was. as soon as I hear back it will be posted in this thread.
John, You say that the ER collets are used in a production environment for Workholding ?? Thats where they are even LESS suited . [ Production workholding ] although, I will happily eat humble pie if i'm proved wrong.
cheers.
Tony, nobody said anything about a company SPECIFYING how a part was held., this debate is purely about the pros / cons of the ER system. I happen to think there is NO WAY a Production company would be using them for workholding and others say they do. There is no mention from anyone about any firm specifying how a part is held and . as you say, why would they ? that is left to the firm making the part [s]
cheers.
OH MY !!!, I made a mistake and the video is NOT by Guhring. but to get back to the jist of the debate, the lad does say what I already said, the ER is NOT at it's best with Radial loads. because it was originally designed for Axial loads. The high performance chuck is I think similar to the ones made by Schunk. and also Albrecht. There is another video about the HPC which I will try to locate to get the title. it also touches on the Schunk shrink fit and the Albrecht hydraulic
cheers.
I know that this discussion is mainly about the ER collet system, and its uses. There seem to be its detractors here.
With a suitable lathe, if ER collets don't appeal, then the Burnerd Multisize system is a good alternative (says he who uses both systems, with the Multisize collets used solely for workholding).
Read what tony Griffiths has to say about them (bottom of page): http://www.lathes.co.uk/clausing/page5.html
Dave
The Emerald Isle
Ok some Herbert saying it’s not good for radial loads but where is the proof ? Most modern VMC can put that much radial load on they can swipe vises off beds and snap 20mm cutters like carrots but the collet cannot handle a radial load. ?
Sorry I need to see proof from a respected source first.
Milling which is what they were designed for handles more radial load than axial
In Stock for Same Day Shipping
For more CNC Power Chuckinformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.