

“Silo panel machine” is not one rating. Industry catalogs already split light/medium panels from heavy gauge lines (thicker strip, higher motor torque, slower forming). Inside this family the same split appears as an economic host versus heavier / arc-type / updated wall-panel variants — mixing their m/min or kW into one answer misleads capacity planning.
| Tier | Thickness / width (ref.) | Speed (ref.) | Power (ref.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | ~1200 × (2–3) mm | ~15 m/min | Main ~30 kW; hyd ~15 kW @ ~25 MPa; ~18 groups; shaft ~φ140 |
| 68×13 heavy | ~1.8–3.3 mm | ≤~10 m/min | Total ~190 kW |
| HY1250 arc | ~0.7–1.5 mm | ~3 m/min | Main servo ~11 kW; hyd ~5.5 kW; shaft ~φ105 |
| Wall-panel update | ~0.95–1.2 mm; feed ~1200 | ~2 pcs/min (len. ~2400 mm) | Main servo ~15 kW; ~10 stands |
Market “standard” pages often quote 0.8–4 mm and 15–55+ kW as generic bands — treat those as context only; lock the named tier on the proposal.
When two quotations disagree, keep both rows visible on the proposal instead of inventing a blended “standard” band for public pages.
Send the panel drawing with the tier name so speed and power answers stay on one table.
It is a named host band (speed, kW, shaft, thickness). Variants are separate configurations with their own tables — not optional stickers on the same rating.
No. Publish the tier you will build.
Often a vendor brochure label. Map it to a named row in the comparison table before quoting capacity.
See the silo process-flow entry for economic punch / cut order; keep variant flows on their own proposals.
Selection map only. Final ratings follow the confirmed proposal for the named tier. Price and lead time are out of scope.