The success of the ER system is striking In the world of Model Engineering, where all new ideas are distrusted,. ER is said to be industry's most popular clamping system, and large numbers of Model Engineers have adopted it too. Pretty good for a system invented in 1973, and despite serious competition from earlier clamping systems of high repute such as Clarkson, and the Model Engineering communities strong distrust of innovations: many of us believe all new things are bad and that quality has gone down the toilet since the good old days.
I think ER's success is due to a combination of features rather than a single obvious advantage. Maybe:
- The collets grip over a wider range than most other systems, reducing the overall cost of ownership
- ER collets can be used for work-holding and tool-holding, making ER generally useful on Lathes, Mills, Rotary Tables and Grinding Machines. This is both handy and a cost saving.
- ER chucks are relatively simple to make, therefore inexpensive. Grip is good, and more than adequate when tightened to the recommended high torque.
- Once the need to click collets into place has been spotted, ER is quick and easy to use, and it accepts plain shank and Weldon slot cutters equally well.
- In industry,
- ER is well-suited to automatic tool-changing. In production, the ER system removes metal faster than most alternatives because it wastes a shade less time doing tool changes.
- ER is symmetric about the spinning axis, making it easier to both reduce run out and balance chucks and collets for operation at very high RPM. 20,000 to 30,000rpm isn't unusual.
As far as I know, apart from buying defective or too cheap, no-one has regretted going ER. The only disadvantage I've found is the extra head-room taken up by the chuck: occasionally, it's best to plug cutters directly into the spindle with a dedicated one-size taper holder. (Can't remember the last time I did this!)
Dave