When installing Trimloss with a new customer, we aim for certain productivity goals
which we know are achievable:
If you think you can do better than these productivity figures, just give us a call.
The most common reason is a misunderstanding of your company’s current performance,
in which case we may be able to reveal an opportunity for much better figures in
Some sealed unit manufacturers are achieving productivity of less than 100 units
per operative per week. We aim for treble this very poor productivity, but the worst
production managers usually won’t admit how vastly inferior is their performance.
WARNING: - Switching to Trimloss optimisation, may seriously increase your profitability,
possibly leading to over indulgence which may seriously damage your health.
For an operation making only annealed sealed units, productivity should be about
350 units per man per week. When there are also Georgian and lead units in the usual
percentages, then the productivity would drop to about 290 units per man per week.
For an operation making a mixture of 50% annealed and 50% toughened units, productivity
should be about 250 units per man per week. When there are also Georgian and lead
units in the usual percentages, then the productivity would drop to about 220 units
per man per week.
For an operation making single toughened, productivity should be about 580 leaves
per man per week.
All these figures are possible only when following the complete Trimloss production
system. In comparison, we find that many glass shops using other software, cannot
achieve even half of these productivity figures.
What is also of vital importance for these productivity figures to be achievable,
is to have the right capital equipment. There can for instance be a large difference
in the cutting speeds of different tables and an even bigger difference in their
edge deletion speeds. The merits and limitations of unit lines and toughening plants
also needs carefully to be considered before inadvertently putting limits on productivity
figures. Quoted performance figures from manufacturers are in our experience, Bull
***t. Well they would say that wouldn’t they?
Misleading performance is sometimes quoted on cutting tables by quoting only maximum
cutting speeds. In reality, very few scores achieve maximum speed, but what is far
more important is cutting head acceleration and deceleration rates. We have also
witnessed instances of some cutting tables being set to run at their maximum quoted
speed, only to discover that they then lose a significant amount of accuracy. The
only practical solution in such cases is to reduce the maximum speed setting. The
only way to establish true performance is to put the same batch of work through the
different contenders and measure the timings yourself, along with the accuracy of