Joseph,
I'm sure that those dates are the year that the machine was
manufactured/commissioned. Why the discrepancy? Perceived value. It's
called supply and demand!
The perception in the RP community is that a Cubital is just NOT a
machine that is easy to run, fast or economical (w/few exceptions). The
material choice is limited to one. There are too many moving parts
which may affect reliability. The build envelope is fixed size
(although I have heard that there have been changes), so that if you
build only a small part (say a 15mm cube) you still use wax for the full
envelope. Each layer takes about 90 seconds no matter the part size in
X & Y. There is only one place that I know that makes money using it
(TMD in Ohio, USA). Hence, lower return on investment and lower
perceived value. One can buy any number of used Cubitals in the US for
well under US$90k.
If you have the good fortune to be able to pack the build envelope full
every time you run the machine, then it is great. The machine does
build very, very nice parts.
The DTM is at least the 2500 model (check the prices for the 2000), more
robust materials, less waste & lower consumables cost, etc. Higher
perceived value, hence the price difference.
Regards,
> Dan Davis
> Division Head, RP&M
> Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Berhad (PROTON)
Hicom Industrial Estate
Batu 3 PO Box 7100
Shah Alam, Selangor D. E.
40918 MALAYSIA
> +60 3 515-3906 direct line
> +60 3 515-2380 direct fax
> +60 12 277-5770 hand phone
>
>
>
> ----------
> From: Innomation Systems & Technologies Pte
> Ltd[SMTP:istpl@singnet.com.sg]
> Sent: Thursday, 16 April, 1998 16:44
> To: RPMAIL
> Subject: Re: SGC....maybe listed price...residue value
>
> hi list,
>
> i am just puzzling on the two systems' base offers :-
>
> > lot 215-Cubital model SGC 5600,(1997) $27,000
> ~~~
> #######
> > lot 216-DTM model 2500 (1996) $140,000
> ~~~
> #######
>
> if both systems are formerly listed items....and assume these two $
> are
> residue values and the years in brackets are decommission dates...how
> can a
> terrible expensive system decommissioned in 1997 has a lower residue
> value
> than another terrible expensive system that is decommissioned in
> 1996...or
> have i misunderstand that the year in brackets means the year of
> acquisition.
> even if it is the year of acquisition....it cannot be still that
> cheaper(SGC) than DTM???
>
> curiously,
> joseph sim
>
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:45:19 EEST