Tube Bender Scoring Methodology

What this measures

Compares complete setup pricing – including base machine, a middle-of-the-road 180° die, and hydraulic or power options where required – against the rest of each machine's objective feature score.

We first total up the non-price categories (capacity, bend angle, wall thickness, mandrel/S-bend capability, die ecosystem, etc.) to get a single "feature score" for each machine. That feature score is then divided by the minimum safe operating system cost and scaled into a 0–20 point range. Machines with unusually strong features-per-dollar ratios approach 20/20; weaker ratios receive proportionally fewer points.

To make this concrete, here is the actual math we use:

• Take the machine's feature score from all non-price categories (for example, 72 points out of 80 possible feature points).
• Divide by the minimum safe system cost (for example, $3,600): 72 ÷ 3600 ≈ 0.02 points per dollar.
• Compare that features-per-dollar ratio to a conservative market baseline and scale it into a 0–20 point range. Machines with unusually strong features-per-dollar ratios approach 20/20; weaker ratios receive proportionally fewer points.

If you want to see this in a live calculation, open any machine review and expand the full citation and score calculation section. You'll see every point for features divided by every dollar of cost, and the result multiplied into this 20-point category exactly as described here.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Evaluates setup complexity, ergonomics, and how much effort it takes to go from crate to first accurate bend, plus how easy the machine is to move around your shop.

The score combines a base ergonomics/operation number (brand + power-type heuristic) with a portability tier derived from the admin field:

• 0 pts – fixed base that must be bolted to the floor or bench.
• 1 pt – portable, no factory rolling option.
• 2 pts – portable with a documented rolling base/cart option.
• 3 pts – ships on a rolling base as standard.

The final Ease of Use & Setup score is the sum of the base ergonomics/operation score and the portability tier, clamped to a maximum of 11/11.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Looks at the maximum round tube outside diameter the machine is rated for with its catalog tooling.

In the future this category will also explicitly score Center Line Radius (CLR) range. Right now, CLR documentation is not consistent across all machines, so the math is OD-only even though we describe CLR in the copy. We'd rather admit that limitation than pretend we are already scoring CLR numerically.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Evaluates the maximum bend angle the machine is rated for with its published tooling, not just a one-shot partial-degree example.

Scoring tiers are explicit:

• ≥ 195° – full 9 points.
• 180–194° – 7 points.
• 120–179° – 4 points.
• < 120° – 2 points.
• No published max angle – 0 points; the product page shows this as "Not Published".

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Standardises all machines to a 1.75" OD DOM reference size and scores based on the thickest wall the manufacturer is willing to publish, plus which materials they explicitly document as compatible.

The math has two parts:

• Thickness (0–6 pts) – based on the published max wall at 1.75" OD. Thicker walls earn more points; very light walls earn fewer.
• Material coverage (0–3 pts) – mild steel, 4130 chromoly, stainless, aluminum, titanium, copper/brass/bronze, and other alloys based only on what the manufacturer actually lists.

Any machine without a published max wall for 1.75" OD DOM gets 0 points in this category. We do not infer capacity from photos or marketing language.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Scores each machine's die ecosystem based on how many real-world tube/pipe families it covers.

This is a simple checklist: 1 point per documented family up to 8:

• Round tube
• Pipe (NPS)
• Square tube
• EMT
• Metric round
• Metric square/rectangular
• Plastic / urethane / low-marring pressure dies
• Other clearly documented shapes (for example, regular production dies for rectangular tube or hex tube).

When a machine is explicitly designed around another brand's die ecosystem (for example, Pro-Tools), we only credit those shapes when the bender manufacturer clearly claims that compatibility and we can cite both their documentation and the die manufacturer's catalog. We do not silently import third-party ecosystems the manufacturer never mentions.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Lightly weighted indicator of manufacturer track record. This category is only 3 points out of 100; it nudges established brands up slightly but does not rescue a weak machine or sink a strong new entrant.

We use approximate years in business based on the manufacturer's published history and map that into a simple tiered score: long-standing brands earn a bit more, newer brands get a modest baseline.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Answers: "If I buy the base machine, how far can it grow with me?"

This category is worth 8 points total: 1 point for each documented upgrade:

• Power upgrade path (manual → hydraulic, etc.)
• Length stop / backstop system
• Rotation indexing for bend-to-bend alignment
• Built-in or securely machine-mounted angle readout
• Auto-stop for bend angle
• Thick-wall specific tooling or capacity upgrades
• Thin-wall / AL / stainless bend-quality upgrades
• Support for wiper dies

We only award points for upgrades the manufacturer actually documents for that frame. If none of the items above are published for a machine, it receives 0/8 here.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Looks at whether the platform supports mandrel bending out of the box or via manufacturer-documented, supported upgrades.

Scoring is three-tier:

• 0 points – no documented mandrel option.
• 2 points – an economy mandrel option (non-bronze mandrels such as plastic, aluminum, or steel) documented for this frame.
• 4 points – a full bronze or equivalent mandrel system, clearly documented and supported by the manufacturer.

We only award points when the manufacturer explicitly publishes a mandrel option. Third-party or DIY kits that the manufacturer does not stand behind are treated as "no mandrel option" for scoring purposes.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Binary category indicating whether the machine can produce a true S-bend: two bends in opposite directions with essentially no straight tangent between them.

For scoring, we use a strict engineering definition: the straight section between the end of the first bend and the start of the second bend must be at or below 0.125" (1/8") of tangent. Any configuration that leaves several inches of straight tube between bends – even if marketed as an "S-bend" – does not qualify.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Scores what the manufacturer claims about origin, not what we or you might discover in a factory audit. This is intentionally 5-points out of 100 so it matters, but it doesn't dominate the system.

The admin tool assigns a 0–5 tier based on published language, roughly:

• 5 pts – broad, unqualified whole-system "Made in USA"-type claim (frame, dies, hydraulics, and assembly all implied to be domestic).
• 4 pts – clear claim that frames and dies are made in the USA, with hydraulics or small hardware openly described as imported.
• 3 pts – mixed claims such as "assembled in USA from domestic and imported components" or "frame made here, dies imported".
• 2 pts – weak USA-flavored language ("engineered in USA", "designed in USA") without a clear statement about where major parts are made.
• 0 pts – clearly non-USA origin or no USA-related claim at all.

This category is disclosure-based only. It does not tell you whether a claim would satisfy the FTC's rules for an unqualified "Made in USA" statement, and we are not giving legal opinions on that.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Scores how clearly a manufacturer explains where major components come from – not which country is "better" or "worse".

Higher scores go to brands that publish concrete, component-level origin info (for example, "frame machined in US, dies from Italy, hydraulics from Japan"). Lower scores go to vague marketing language or silence.

This category is intentionally separate from the USA Manufacturing score so that transparent non-US brands can still score well here.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Binary category: can a normal buyer obtain a complete, fully functional system (frame + dies + hydraulics or lever, plus any stand required for safe use) from one primary manufacturer/storefront?

If the answer is yes, the machine gets 2 points. If the manufacturer pushes you to assemble a basic system from multiple companies, or does not clearly offer a full system, it gets 0 points.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.

What this measures

Scores the published warranty terms only – not how often a company says "yes" or "no" on the phone.

Tiers are simple:

• 0 pts – no meaningful written warranty, sold as-is, or warranty not mentioned.
• 1 pt – some warranty language present, but short, limited, or vague in duration/coverage.
• 2 pts – clear written warranty with roughly 1–2 years of coverage on the machine or major components.
• 3 pts – clear multi-year or lifetime coverage on major structural components (for example, frame lifetime warranty) spelled out in the warranty terms.

We do not score how well any warranty is honored in real life. That still comes down to your experience and what you hear from real customers.

Data sources & verification

• Manufacturer technical specs and capacity charts
• Official product manuals and documentation
• Manufacturer-published origin, warranty, and company history
• When a spec is not published, we mark it as "Not Published" in the UI and avoid estimating wherever possible.

When we have to fall back to conservative assumptions (for example, treating unknown portability as fixed), we do it in a way that does not inflate scores and explain that behavior in the score breakdown on each product page.