First off, this is my Friday rant. Secondly I hope that the dimensions come through on this. I am attaching a third party print we received to build a weld fixture and machining fixture for. I am seeing this more and more often. I often wonder what people are doing in college when they are supposed to be learning at the very least a fundamental understanding of how to detail a part and how the views are related to each other.
Meh ... I've seen a lot worse ... Haha, at least it's only one view that's off.
My personal favorite now-a-days is the note that almost every complicated part we get says ... "Build per 3D model, Standard Tolerances and ISO Standards Apply", Say what?
Of course there are no prints, nor does it say on the Purchase Order what the "Standard Tolerances" are or what ISO Standard they want applied.
Edit: Watch that hole, my guess is it's actually at 1.368" ... lol
So what is actually wrong with this drawing?
Too many dimensions? Not enough?
It's in First Angle, not Third Angle... but is there anything wrong with the views?
Fair enough Sarah ... I'm so accustomed to 3rd Angle I've assumed it was wrong without seeing the title block.
Fair enough on the first angle projection, although on our prints we denote in the title block that it is 3rd or first depending on customer.
My true issue with this print and most others I receive is the notes attached "Reference 3D model" and the lack of actual dimensioning.
Dimension to build vs. relying on a model. In this case we received no model and could not get one in time to quote and start tooling the project. Is there enough information here to accomplish that? Yes if you believe the part is symmetrical and there is no variance from edge to edge of the part.
My intent on showing this wasn't this was the worst print I have seen.
This is becoming more and more common, don't fully dimension the part rely on cad data instead to get your parts made. That is great if you are an internal company unto yourself. When you send it to someone else, though your print should be legible and have the information to effectively communicate the intent of the part along with dimensioning that follows along with it.
It was my Friday rant because I had a whole week of little to no proper information prints.
The vast majority of the prints I received last week for quotes were noted see cad model.
So that is truly what my rant is for, I really had no problem with first angle other than the fact that it was not noted in the titleblock. You couldn't see that because I left it out on purpose. There is no finger pointing on my part and saying one person is better than another.
I have just noticed that this is becoming more common, and I come from an era when my prints I used to read for equipment were hand drawn assemblies on "D" & "E" sheets with the note at the bottom saying "dowel @ assembly".
-If they had added center lines it would have translated better/
- Implied symmetry, often lost in translation, often the inexperienced mark-up drawings whilst not knowing about it....
- 1st angle proj. may have been called out on the print, but you hadn't presented the TB.
This isn't that bad.
I had thought the implied symmetry was the main beef. I don't like it without a feature control frame, because it the tolerance implications are ambiguous. But I see it everywhere, so I can't get too amped up about it.
Meanwhile, this drawing from another thread busts into the top 10 with a bullet:
None of those are true angles. They are projected, unless I'm totally misreading this drawing (always a strong possibility). Those angles should not be shown in those views.
Can't be projected, there's no indication. (Not to mention the lack of bend radius...perfectly sharp?)
Timothy Taby there's just a lot of things in my drawers - we surely don't want to get caught up with the direction of the speculation, but kinda secret and victorian, like old fashion, just like the tune "me and you and a dog named boo"
Right. 3 digit angles on a sheet metal part. Because a lot of optical fixturing is done with sheet metal, these days.
You guys are lucky you actually get drawings with actual CAD data. More then a few times I have got PDF's with a blurry shape on it and told we need to quote it.
Hahahha - Thats when you wip out the dart board, hang it behind your chair and throw the dart over the shoulder..
Timothy Taby wrote:
More then a few times I have got PDF's with a blurry shape on it and told we need to quote it.
That's when you quote $100,000.00. When the quote is questioned, you reply "When you get me a better drawing I'll get you a better quote."
I had wrote a novel to reply to all of this, but I am going to keep it short and sweet. Whatever your role in design or drafting, remember someone somewhere is going to look at your "print" and have to decipher how to make it.
After years on the floor making parts, assemblies and machines I appreciate all that CAD has to offer, but you still have to look at everything and figure somebody has got to make it. Are you clear enough on your part blueprint for that to happen.
And that sadly is what my rant is about, as you can see from the other example in this thread someone had the genius idea of holding x.xxx on bends? I am guessing someone told them you are going to get more accuracy if every dimension is 3 places.*Sigh*
My rant is done, I hope to never see another bad print, but the week is just starting.
I was lucky cause I was taught the more places to the right the higher the cost.
Paul Risley wrote:
I had wrote a novel to reply to all of this, but I am going to keep it short and sweet. Whatever your role in design or drafting, remember someone somewhere is going to look at your "print" and have to decipher how to make it.
After years on the floor making parts, assemblies and machines I appreciate all that CAD has to offer, but you still have to look at everything and figure somebody has got to make it. Are you clear enough on your part blueprint for that to happen.
And that sadly is what my rant is about, as you can see from the other example in this thread someone had the genius idea of holding x.xxx on bends? I am guessing someone told them you are going to get more accuracy if every dimension is 3 places.*Sigh*
My rant is done, I hope to never see another bad print, but the week is just starting.
Can I get an "Amen"? There are too many people creating drawings that don't have a clue how to build or fabricate what they're designing. (Although no one here on the forum, I'm sure.)
I have seen designers that have never been on the shop floor, how can they design?
Ok I am going to update this one because there is an interesting problem. (HAHAHA)
We ran the first 40(test) parts and lo and behold they do not fit properly. Turns out the .28 and .265 holes are not linear. Each set per side is diagonal to each other.
Engineering groups response from customer....wait for it "Look at the model." *Sigh*.
I then had to respond that we never received the model after various e-mails to their group to get it.
So now I have the golden model that will make everything clear.
My rant is complete.(In my best emperor Palpatine voice)
