Hi everyone, I'll jump right to it.

Our manufactuer in China has retured an assembly drawing to me with questions, specifically, whether they should increase the through hole diameter on one part to account for the overmold dimater on a wire bundle.

The problem is we're not asking them to overmold the wires.  We just want them fed through a grommet and have simplified the wire bundle by just showing the diameter of the grouped wires instead of the individual wires.   This was done using sweeps, but I'm posing the question here because I know routing generates wire bundles with the same appearance.  There are sleeves and and the like elsewhere in the drawing and those are called out with balloons and on a system wiring diagram.  But I guess inferring that logic isn't intuitive enough.

Ofcourse, the  language barrier is a contributing factor here.  For those that want to know what the text says:

Arrow referring to the four lines, customer requirements for non-sleeve, there is a complex beer peeling way to quote. But in this case, the red arrow indicates the 3 wires with a maximum outside diameter of 10.2mm, opened at the end of the hole and jacket line must be modified. Now want to confirm whether the mean is a complex beer crust to beam line? if yes, will change the shell holes and guarding the end of line.

(The mangling was done by the translator in Word 2010)  So, my question for the group is, how do you explain or defend the appearance.  I'm particularly interested in what IPC or ISO or ASME standards say about representing wire bundles.  If you route individual wires, how do you control them along common paths and does this approach take a lot of time?  Any other comments or observations about the wire depecctions in the drawing are welcome and appreciated.

Thanks

John Burrill