Turck BL67 vs Murr Cube67 - Which one?!?!

[jrupp82 0]

Hi all,

I'm new to the use of remote IO and have two different vendors that I'm very comfortable in my area, one who reps Murr, and the other Turck. To date, I have been using the Turck products exclusively, but mainly connectivity and some junction blocks & prox sensors they offer. I've been very happy with the products so far, so I would like to use the Turck stuff for those reasons. 

However, my Murr guy quoted my his Cube 67 products for the system I had laid out using the BL67 solution, and for starters, his pricing for a similar system was over 30% less than the Turck solution. There are other details to the Murr solution that would be nice, where using the block setup from the Murr stuff would be beneficial for some of my outlying IO.

Anyhow, my main question about this topic is to get some experienced feedback from any users on here. I wasn't sure if anyone had experience with the products or not, and I thought I would ask. Last thing to mention is that I would be using this on an Allen Bradley Ethernet/IP system. 

Thanks in advance!

[Michael Lloyd 85]

I wasn't aware that Allen Bradley let other vendors connect via ethernet I/P. This seems like it will be an interesting thread...

[jrupp82 0]

You mean from a remote I/O standpoint?  From my research and talking with my vendors either of these are easy Integrations.  But then again that is why I have come to the group for questions!  :)

[Michael Lloyd 85]

Yes, it might work. I've never heard of it working.

[Ken Roach 194]

You're always going to have some kind of configuration tool that you have to use to set up a modular I/O system.    Maybe it's browser-based.  Maybe it's a standalone utility.   Maybe they try to leverage a general-purpose tool.   One of the benefits of the A-B architecture is that it's all done with Logix 5000.

You won't really know long-term longevity until you run it, and you won't know real-world availability and support until you start buying.   Anyone can waltz in and say "oh, we stock everything".

We used a few of the Turck modular I/O on a machine and had to get up to speed using their Pactware FDT-based configuration tool.   Because it's a general-purpose tool with product-specific configuration files, it was a little clumsy, but we took notes and figured it out.    Eventually we migrated to B&R because they had a particular high-power AC module we needed.

I don't know how you set up Murr devices.

One of my co-workers went through a cost-optimization process for every element of his control system.   He's still using Logix 5000 for most of his control, but he has three different motion controllers and two different I/O configurators to keep up with as well.  It saved some money (we have dozens of axes of motion control) but it sure did increase complexity.

 

 

Edited 26 Apr 2016 by Ken Roach

[jrupp82 0]

Ken, you mentioned switching to B&R, what is that?  I do understand that there is a benefit with a straight A/B system, there would be no integration.  But I'm in need of a remote solution, so that's why I started looking.  I'm guessing A/B has a remote IO product line, but I'm kind of in the boat of your coworker, I'm trying to save a few bucks.  

[Ken Roach 194]

My co-worker is using B&R's "X20" remote I/O system:

http://www.br-automation.com/en-us/products/io-systems/x20-system/

They have a little standalone configuration tool that exports datatypes that you can then import into Logix 5000 and use as UDTs that match the I/O layout.     

For me, the savings has to be significant and ongoing if I'm going to go with a multi-vendor solution.   I've been burned too many times with "oh, we don't do *that* function" or "all of our modules are UL listed except the one you want" or "here's a pile of CFG files, be sure to import them every time you change the layout".

 

[jrupp82 0]

Last week I chose to use the Turck system for my IO needs.  In the end I felt like not only would they be a cleaner installation from a form factor standpoint, but I feel like they may be easier to integrate on my machine.  

I plan to provide some updates to this link so there is a bit of information on the forum on how it goes.  Maybe it can help someone else to decide and or integrate a similar system of their own.

[Michael Lloyd 85]

Quote

For me, the savings has to be significant and ongoing if I'm going to go with a multi-vendor solution.   I've been burned too many times with "oh, we don't do *that* function" or "all of our modules are UL listed except the one you want" or "here's a pile of CFG files, be sure to import them every time you change the layout".

This is why I'm glad I work for a company that lets me purchase my hardware. Engineering tells us what they want it to do (sometimes I have to help them with that too) and we select the hardware and program it. There are too many shiny little balls of poo out there that make things needlessly complex...