Define the disc construction, target material, operating limits, sample test and evidence needed so suppliers quote the same product rather than visually similar alternatives.
A product photo is not enough. Record every field that changes cost, safety or grinding behavior.
Give suppliers the same workpiece and tool conditions so recommendations and samples are comparable.
Test identified samples under controlled conditions and retain one approved reference disc.
Ask for one written quotation that separates product, packaging, inspection and logistics assumptions.
Require answers tied to the exact SKU, document number and order responsibility, not a generic website claim.
Type 27 has a flat profile and suits blending and finishing at a shallow working angle, while Type 29 has a conical profile that presents the flaps at an angle for faster stock removal. The RFQ should state the profile explicitly because the two constructions grind differently even at the same diameter and grit.
Aluminum oxide covers general carbon-steel work at the lowest cost, zirconia gives longer life under heavier pressure, and ceramic suits stainless steel and heat-sensitive applications. The final choice should be confirmed by a sample test on the actual workpiece rather than by grain name alone.
Compare only quotes built on the same diameter, bore, profile, grain, grit, flap count and density, backing plate, maximum RPM and pack-out. A lower unit price often hides fewer flaps, a lighter backing or a lower rated speed, so price per disc should be checked against measured service life in the sample test.
No single number is quoted on the website as a commitment. MOQ depends on the disc construction, size, grain and private-label packaging scope and is confirmed in the dated written quotation for each SKU.
Tool brands, distributors and online sellers can submit a scoped RFQ for component sourcing, samples and packaging approval; availability and terms are confirmed in writing.