|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: TerrorBytes 2015 Shooter Plate (Drawing)
Check your drawing settings. They look like they're on ISO. You want ANSI. Your drawing will immediately become more readable.
You have no title block tolerances. Without them, the shop has no info as to what tolerances you expect them to hold. It also doesn't matter for this part, but the first/third angle projection callout that is normally in the title box is important. Having the wrong one can completely reverse your design intent and result in the "wrong" part being made, with a non-2D part. Right now your drawing is probably using first angle, because ISO. ANSI uses third angle. In general I would dimension things with multiple copies (holes, a pattern distance, etc) as "_X" as opposed to writing "each", or "all bottom holes". On your radius/angle callouts, the quantity should precede the measurement. I wouldn't dimension all the lengths of the flats in the pockets. What I would do is pick an origin (a corner, usually, but the bearing bore in the center of the part could work too) and dimension from there to the flats. That way you have fully defined where the features are located and if desired they can figure out the flat lengths from that info. Do your best to avoid having dimensions placed on top of the part itself. It's much cleaner if you can. You don't appear to have a material listed Do you really want slip fits for your bearings? That's fine if you do, but even with title block tolerances in place you probably want to tolerance those holes directly. Our title block tolerances are +/- .005 for a three place decimal...you definitely would not be happy if you want that to be a nice sliding fit and it comes back at 1.121 or 1.131. If I were making a drawing for this, I might make 2 sheets to optimize readability. One would have dimensions for all holes/bores and the other would have dimensions for all the pockets and the exterior of the part. This isn't necessary as long as you can fit everything and still easily figure out what's going on. Your pattern of holes on the bottom doesn't appear to have a dimension locating it vertically. Your (4) 1/4" clearance holes aren't located at all. I'm having a hard time figuring out what's going on exactly with the dimensions locating the bores (because the ISO format sucks, with all the intersecting lines and stuff), but they should really also be dimensioned from a common origin and not feature to feature. There's nothing wrong with having the second view on that sheet, but you could eliminate it if you wanted to, by dimensioning the height of the plate directly and adding a note that it be made from .250 plate. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|