Does Cryogenic Treatment Actually Save Money? One Customer Tested It Twice
Most evidence for a process comes from customers who adopted it and found things improved. Far rarer — and far more convincing — is a customer who adopted it, removed it, and measured what happened next.
Why this account is worth more than a testimonial
The problem with any claim about tool life is attribution. A shop changes a process and things get better, but the operator also got more experienced, the material lot changed, the machine got serviced. Something improved. Proving what improved it is another matter.
That is why the story below matters more than a favourable result would. It has the one thing a testimonial almost never has: a removal.
The process went in. Remington’s lead metallurgist brought us in to attack high machining costs, and had their tooling deep cryogenically treated.
Costs fell. The saving in tool life and labour came to roughly a million dollars. That figure was theirs, calculated and reported by them, not by us.
The process came out. The business changed hands. The metallurgist was let go as a high expense. The head of the tooling department advised the new owners that the cryogenic processor was a failed experiment and should be scrapped.
The costs came back. Within a year, tooling costs had climbed by more than a million dollars over the previous year. The same metallurgist was called back in to explain why. His first question was where the cryogenic treating machine had gone.
Read it as an experiment rather than a story and the structure is unusually clean: a baseline, an intervention, a withdrawal, and a return to baseline — each step measured by the customer’s own accounting, over a span long enough that no single variable explains it.
Nobody sets out to run that test. It is expensive and it takes years. It is also the only version of this evidence that answers the question a sceptical buyer is really asking, which is not did things get better but was it the treatment.
What we can show you, and what we cannot
This one is our account, not a document. We were not in the room for their cost accounting. The figures were reported to us by the customer at the time, and we are retelling them from our own records and recollection years later.
That is a weaker form of evidence than a letter, and we would rather draw the line ourselves than have you find it. Where we do hold the paperwork — customers who ran their own before-and-after trials and wrote to us with the counts — we have published the letters and left the dates on them. You can read those on the customer results page, and weigh them differently from this page. They are different classes of evidence and they should not be read as the same thing.
There is also a great deal we simply cannot tell you. Over four decades we have signed more non-disclosure agreements than we can count, most of them with customers who did not want competitors learning where their margin came from. Some of our best results sit permanently behind those agreements. That is the arrangement they paid for, and we keep it.
Two more accounts, told the same way
A firearms manufacturer that kept buying equipment
They machined their own receivers and were among the largest consumers of perishable tooling anywhere in their region. It was a heavy enough expense to keep the company only marginally profitable. Their chief manufacturing engineer ran trials with the process, then moved the entire tool crib onto it.
Profitability improved to the point that they bought one of our vacuum-insulated cryogenic processors outright rather than continuing to send work out. When Fabrique Nationale later acquired the company, the parent in Belgium bought a second machine for its own use in Europe.
The escalation is the signal worth reading here. A customer who buys the equipment has stopped treating the process as an experiment; a parent company that buys a second machine for another continent has audited the first one.
A county vehicle fleet, over 500 vehicles
We supplied treated brake rotors and pads across the fleet. According to the head of the fleet garage at the time, the change saved well over half a million dollars in operating overhead once materials, purchasing, labour and overtime were counted together.
Worth noting what that figure includes. The rotors themselves were the smallest line in it. The savings came from changing brakes less often across five hundred vehicles — fewer parts, fewer purchase orders, fewer hours on a lift, and less overtime to cover the work.
What to take from this
Not a number. The saving at one manufacturer tells you nothing reliable about yours, because it was a function of how much they spent on tooling in the first place, what was failing, and how much of their cost was labour rather than steel.
What it tells you is where the money actually is. In every account above, the treatment cost was a rounding error against what it displaced — and the displaced cost was rarely the part itself. It was the changeover, the regrind, the purchase order, the overtime, the line standing still. That is the arithmetic worth running on your own operation, and you can run it before you ever call us.
If the tooling spend is small and nothing is failing, this process has little to offer you and we will say so. If you are replacing the same tool on a schedule and absorbing the downtime around it, that is where it earns its keep. What you are actually buying walks through how to think about it, and the customer results page collects the letters from customers who measured it themselves.
Run the arithmetic on one tool
Pick the tool you replace most often. Add up what a year of it costs you — the tool, the changeovers, the regrinds, the downtime around each one. That number is what treatment is competing against.
Get a Quote