We run three RTE lines at 110–130 ppm, and the mix of legacy checkweighers is inflating spare parts inventory and complicating calibration schedules. Has anyone moved to a single IP69K platform that reliably holds +/- 1 g at those speeds, allows sub-5 minute belt swaps, and won’t become the bottleneck or expose us to 12+ week parts lead times?
We standardized on Mettler‑Toledo C35 Washdown (IP69K) and wrote into the RFQ: ‘tool‑less belt swap <5 min with gloves’ plus a 72‑hour parts SLA; it’s holding ±1 g on 180–350 g packs at 120 ppm with good infeed timing, though very light SKUs needed a short timing screw to calm bounce. As a second option, Anritsu SSV‑h washdown hit similar numbers in our demo — have both run your worst SKU and put lead times in writing so you’re not waiting longer than the cheese ages; @SamirR https://www.mt.com/us/en/home/products/Product-Inspection/Checkweighing/HI-SPEED-C35.html.
At 110–130 ppm, we’ve had better stability with EMFR load cells — Wipotec‑OCS HC‑M‑WD hits ±1 g and the belt cassette swap is under 3 minutes. Building on @nina_baker66’s RFQ idea, add “5 min with gloves” plus a vendor‑managed spares bin on site and a 72‑hour SLA with penalties, which killed our 12+ week surprises. If you’re mixing 180–350 g, spec two pre‑tensioned belt sizes and a drop‑in reject to keep it from becoming the bottleneck.
, the 12+ week parts thing bit us too; we fixed it by writing a vendor‑managed spares kit into the award (two belt cassettes per lane + one load cell on‑site) with a penalty‑backed 5‑day replenish, and then made the demo prove ±1 g at 120 ppm after washdown. For a reference point, the CW3 RUN‑WET handled “sub‑5 minute belt swaps” in our wet test: https://www.loma.com/en/products/checkweighing/cw3-run-wet-washdown-checkweigher — want the RFQ clause we used?
For your 6 a.m. client, burpees usually win; test 60s each and compare HR, @ssimmons84 
.
Make it contractual: FAT proves ‘±1 g @ 130 ppm’ and sub‑5‑minute swap… @nina_baker66 use PackML/OPC‑UA?
We standardized on EMFR load cells with a sealed cassette conveyor; at 110–120 ppm we hold “±1 g” post‑CIP with sub‑4‑minute swaps and no temp drift on an IP69K frame. The win was spec’ing one load‑cell SKU across all widths, oversizing capacity about 2x, and adding an air knife before the scale to keep water off the belt. @elena_cook72 did you tie reject‑confirm and auto‑zero to PackML states so zero/check happen during starve/idle instead of stealing runtime?