Diamond blade cost per metre: blade-only and total cutting cost
Blade-only cost per metre is the blade cost allocated to the work divided by completed cut metres. Total cutting cost per metre adds labour, equipment and the other costs within your defined cutting scope before dividing by the same completed metres. Keep the two figures separate: a cheaper blade purchase does not, by itself, establish a cheaper cutting operation.
Husqvarna's selection guide distinguishes initial price from cost per cut. The worksheet below makes that distinction measurable without assuming that a higher-priced blade will perform better.
Define what one metre includes
Use completed, accepted cut-line length at the specified depth and width. Count a finished line once even when several passes are required. Record all pass time and blade consumption in the costs. Recutting a rejected line adds cost but does not create additional accepted metres of that same line.
Compare like-for-like material, depth, width, pass requirements and quality criteria. If jobs differ, show separate cost lines rather than mixing unlike metres into a blade comparison. A job average across different cuts can help reconcile accounts, but it is not a controlled performance comparison.
Use these formulas
Blade-only cost/m = allocated blade cost ÷ accepted cut metres
Total cutting cost/m = (allocated blade cost + labour + equipment + energy + water/slurry handling + other defined cutting costs) ÷ accepted cut metres
Use one currency and one tax basis throughout. Define which taxes are recoverable under your accounting rules. If accepted output is zero, cost per metre is undefined; report incurred costs and investigate the cause instead of dividing by zero.
Separate consumption from purchasing cash
For a blade used from new to retirement entirely on the measured work, allocating its full net acquisition cost is straightforward. Include the relevant delivery charges and discounts consistently.
If blades remain serviceable at job end, charging every purchased blade in full measures purchase cash per metre, not necessarily consumed blade cost per metre. Use your accounting policy and reliable blade-use records to allocate consumption across jobs. Label any estimated allocation. Do not invent a residual value from a photograph or assume segment height falls at a constant rate.
For planning, price divided by a supportable expected life can give an estimated blade-only rate. The blade-life records guide explains how to establish that assumption. Keep expected and actual rates separate when reviewing the job.
Worked example: a completed cutting package
All figures below are hypothetical and illustrate arithmetic only. They are not Jagson prices, tests, cutting rates, blade life or performance claims. Assume the package delivered 600 m of accepted cuts to one specification. Two blades were fully consumed on this package; no blade inventory value remains to allocate elsewhere.
| Cost item | Hypothetical input | Allocated cost, currency units (CU) |
|---|---|---|
| Blades | 2 × CU 180 | 360 |
| Labour | 24 crew-hours × CU 25 per crew-hour | 600 |
| Equipment | 24 charged hours × CU 15 per hour | 360 |
| Energy | Recorded package total | 90 |
| Water and slurry handling | Recorded package total | 90 |
| Total defined cutting cost | 360 + 600 + 360 + 90 + 90 | 1,500 |
A crew-hour here means one hour of the complete cutting crew; CU 25 is the assumed cost of that whole crew, not the rate for each worker. The 24 hours include allocated setup, cutting, blade changes, waiting and cleanup. The equipment rate excludes energy, which is listed separately. This scope excludes taxes, company overhead and profit; add applicable costs to your own worksheet before using it to price a contract.
- Blade-only cost/m: CU 360 ÷ 600 m = CU 0.60/m.
- Other cutting cost/m: CU 1,140 ÷ 600 m = CU 1.90/m.
- Total cutting cost/m: CU 1,500 ÷ 600 m = CU 2.50/m.
These are costs for the stated scope, not a recommended selling price.
Find the break-even point for an alternative
Continue the same hypothetical example. Suppose an alternative's estimated allocated blade cost is CU 480 for the same 600 m package, with the same accepted cut quality. Its extra blade cost would be:
CU 480 − CU 360 = CU 120, or CU 120 ÷ 600 m = CU 0.20/m.
If every saved charged hour genuinely avoids both CU 25 of crew cost and CU 15 of equipment cost, the avoidable cost is CU 40/hour. The alternative must save CU 120 ÷ CU 40/hour = 3 charged hours to break even, assuming the other costs stay unchanged.
At 21 charged hours, the comparison would be:
CU 480 + (21 × CU 25) + (21 × CU 15) + CU 90 + CU 90 = CU 1,500, still CU 2.50/m.
This does not show that the alternative can achieve that saving. It identifies the evidence needed. A faster cut may not reduce hire charges billed by the day or wages already committed to a full shift. Use only genuinely avoidable costs in a savings claim; record scheduling or capacity benefits separately if they do not release cash on this job.
Check the worksheet before comparing suppliers
| Check | Common error to avoid |
|---|---|
| Same accepted output and cut specification | Counting passes or rework as extra completed metres |
| Consistent blade allocation | Comparing full purchase expenditure with another option's estimated consumption |
| Complete time scope | Omitting setup, blade changes, waiting or cleanup from one option |
| No double counting | Adding fuel again when it is already included in an equipment rate |
| Actual versus forecast | Presenting expected life or savings as measured results |
| Same commercial basis | Mixing currencies, tax treatments, delivery terms or overhead scopes |
Keep the source invoice, blade-use log, accepted-length record and time sheets with the calculation. For a Jagson quotation, send the job specification and quantity to Jagson; use confirmed prices and your own comparable records to complete the worksheet. Price alone cannot fill the performance columns.