|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
First draft of the drawing for the side plate of our off-season shooter robot. Comments on its readability or completeness are very welcome.
This is our first CADed design that will be going out for manufacturing so any help is appreciated!
11-15-2015 06:37 PM
Cory
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.
11-15-2015 06:59 PM
Madison
The dimensions are a mess.
I'd recommend trying to move dimensions outside the border of the part whenever you can. Just doing that will make it far more readable.
If you're sending this to a sponsor / vendor, consider whether you really need accuracy to the thousandth on ALL of those dimensions. (You don't.)
Since you're dimensioning to witnesses, you should show the witness marks to make that clear.
11-15-2015 07:31 PM
Monochron|
If you're sending this to a sponsor / vendor, consider whether you really need accuracy to the thousandth on ALL of those dimensions. (You don't.)
|
| Since you're dimensioning to witnesses, you should show the witness marks to make that clear. |
11-15-2015 08:56 PM
Madison
|
Though I was able to lookup what "dimensioning to witness" means I don't know what it means to show witness marks.
|
11-15-2015 11:07 PM
asid61How are you planning on machining this? You may not need to dimension a significant portion of it if a sponsor is just lasering the thing anyway and has tolerance numbers for you.
We sometimes skip drawings for things sent to the local community college to CNC or to a sheet metal shop.
11-15-2015 11:43 PM
cxcadWould ordinate dimensions be good for this part? I usually use the ordinate system for my parts.
11-16-2015 12:23 AM
Monochron|
How are you planning on machining this? You may not need to dimension a significant portion of it if a sponsor is just lasering the thing anyway and has tolerance numbers for you.
|
11-16-2015 12:31 AM
asid61|
The sponsor is using a manual mill with DRO. We're getting fancy, but not quite that fancy.
I took a second pass and addressed as many comments as I could, uploaded here. Hopefully it is a lot more readable and missing less important info ![]() |
11-16-2015 12:45 AM
Cory
|
The sponsor is using a manual mill with DRO. We're getting fancy, but not quite that fancy.
I took a second pass and addressed as many comments as I could, uploaded here. Hopefully it is a lot more readable and missing less important info ![]() |
11-16-2015 01:14 AM
Monochron|
Have you shown the sponsor the general idea of whaf you want done? Or will this drawing be the first time they've seen it? The amount of work required to make all the external radii and non orthogonal cuts makes this part virtually impossible to make without expending a MASSIVE amount of time.
|
11-16-2015 01:41 AM
EricH
|
Those have to be curved to a precise radius. Here is the drawing for the spine. Is making something like that on a manual mill out of the question?
|