Question: Why would a market leader, with a decent product, LIE?
Answer: Maybe because their marketing department is out of control and doesn’t care.
Background
Let’s back up a minute. We purchased multiple 5′ x 10′ Siegmund Imperial Series welding tables. They cost about $10,000 each, and according to Siegmund’s website, in addition to being super flat, they also claim to use a crazy impressive blend of steel!
But What is “Professional Extreme 8.7”?
Based on the hardness claims, as well as the fact they mention “through hardened tool steel”, the common steels that might be in that range would include 1045 (280-320), 4140 (280-320), 4340 (300-340), 5160 (280-340), D2 (300-340), and S7 (300-340). These hardness numbers are all post heat-treatment. But it’s none of those…
It seems to me that whenever someone makes up their own name for a base material, they’re trying to hide something. If whatever they’re using is so fantastic, why not tell us exactly what it is so we can all agree that it’s fantastic?
Anyway, I mentioned this to a friend and he said, “just analyze it!” So I took a plasma torch and cut off a piece of the table from one of the ribs and sent it to a lab.
Imagine my surprise when, about a week later, I got a call from my buddy and the first thing he said was, “You’re not going to believe this.”
The chemical analysis of that sample, cut right out of the Siegmund table, came back as a close match for AISI 1018 low carbon steel. But to their marketing department, I guess Professional Extreme 8.7 sounded so much better!
Here is the exact analysis we were given:
“As a low alloy steel the results for that material are not looking like anything very special:
- 0.12% carbon is low and not really heat treatable much.
- 0.6% Mn
- Low P and low S
- Cr 0.14
- Cu <0.05
- Si < 0.015
- Ni< 0.05
This is barely in the range of 1018 carbon steel.“
So, what in the heck is going on? ALL over their website and all across the internet they’re claiming they use material that’s WILDLY stronger than the actual piece I cut from one of their tables. So I can only come up with a few plausible explanations:
- They are flat out lying. This is the worst kind of deceit, and a pure money grab because they thought they would never get caught? I mean who would do a chemical analysis, right?
- They outsourced the manufacturing to someone who is taking shortcuts, again in a money grab, and Siegmund isn’t checking.
- They’re using different materials in their table construction, such as mild steel for the ribs, and something else for the surface. However that would still compromise the integrity compared to hardened tool steel throughout, and they certainly aren’t stating that anywhere.
I suppose it could be something else, but I’m at a loss for what it might be. Feel free to drop a comment if you have a theory…
Bottom Line
It just doesn’t sit well with me that a major company won’t be transparent about the allegedly premium material they use, and instead makes up fancy sounding names.
It bothers me even more than an analysis of the material cut from one of the tables was absolutely nothing like what it was claimed to be.
Worse yet, when I read through their website I find many other claims being made that simply don’t seem to be accurate or factual in any way. Here’s an example:
“… plasma nitration is always profitable! The clamping force of the bolt is substantially increased. At the same time the loadability of the table is increased by approx. 20-30%.”
– https://www.siegmund.com/en-us/Materials-in-comparison,3573.php
I mean this is clearly BS. “Loadability of the Table is Increased by approx. 20-30%”: Increasing the load-bearing capacity of a table by 20-30% through plasma nitriding seems implausible without structural modifications. Surface hardening can improve wear resistance but doesn’t substantially enhance the inherent load-bearing capacity of structural components.
The problem is, when you catch a company in the middle of such a huge lie, it’s usually because there are a ton of much smaller ones all over the place. And unfortunately this seems very much like the case when it comes to a number of Siegmund’s claims.