3 ms·
The article unfortunately doesn't mention how the new method saves paint. I think the traditional electrostatic method has low losses already. I've been in the
by weinzierl 5y ago
The article unfortunately doesn't mention how the new method saves paint. I think the traditional electrostatic method has low losses already.
I've been in the BMW paint shop in their Munich plant two times. What I remember is paint going to the vehicle body - and only to the vehicle body. There is no mess at all, the room stays super clean and it has to, because subsequent cars are painted in different colors. There is no extra clean-up when changing colors. It would be interesting to know how the new Inkjet method stacks up against this.
One area where I see an advantage is metallic paint. From what I understand, metallic paint isn't applied electrostatically and the losses are higher there.
- kumarvvr 5y agoWhen using stencils, a good amount of paint is wasted on the stencil cover. By precise painting, paint is saved. But, I guess the major saving is reduction in cost of labour to produce stencils, fix them in place, remove them and do corrections.
- jpgvm 5y agoThe main money saving yes but there are other savings at play which probably have fairly minimal $ cost but still matter. Like the cost of running the compressed air system, extra clean room filtration etc. Reduction or elimination of these ancillary systems probably also factor into power savings. All in all, just because it might not be cheaper doesn't mean that it's not net positive in other areas.
- karamanolev 5y agoWithout any in-depth knowledge into painting - my understanding from the article is that this is mostly about two-tone (or more) painting. When you use a masking tape, you overspray and some of it goes onto the tape. If it's an intricate pattern, there's a lost of masking going on. With this method, you reduce/remove the need for masking and spraying over the tape, therefore reducing paint waste.