STLinjunear
Mechanical
- Jun 10, 2011
- 1
I did search the Forums and FAQs but did not find a definitive answer for my question.
I work for a small engineering consulting firm that does highly specialized part design work for manufacturers and other engineering design firms, primarily in the automotive and related industries.
My most recent prior CAD experience was with an Aerospace parts manufacturer, where the common practice when producing identical, but mirror image (true left-hand, right-hand versions), part designs was to assign one base part number followed by -1 or -2 (for LH, RH versions), and produce one drawing of usually the LH part (-1) and specifiying the RH part as -2. Part numbers on orders would then reflect the complete number including the dash number. This is fairly common in the tooling industry as well.
This works well in SolidWorks (and other CAD systems I am sure) when using configurations to produce separate, but linked, CAD model files for CNC, STL, RP, etc. production. We are working with another engineering firm (the client) on design of some of his parts which fit into others he is designing to produce an engine. In a recent design review meeting, the client balked at our use of the dash numbers, even though the numbers are for our internal use only, and he reassigns new numbers to the completed designs.
I personally prefer the use of the dash numbers for easier file maintenance by using only a single part file containing mirror image configurations (named with complete part-dash number) and a single associated 2D drawing file. In deference to the client, I am maintaining fully dimensioned drawings of both versions, but as separate drawing sheets within the same drawing file.
While the client was pushing this, suggesting we maintain separate but linked files, and doing away with the dash numbers, my boss, not wanting to offend/disagree with the client, agreed we would look into what was the automotive industy standard practice.
So which is it? Dash numbers (RH-LH configurations) or not for mirror image parts in the automotive industry? Also, is it "legal" ("kosher", QA-blessed ,etc.) to have a "drawing number" (the base filename number) which is different (without dashes) than the actual "part number", which would be the drawing number with the addition of the respective dash number. I know this works in aerospace, but is it used in automotive? Are there any standards that call this out?
Similarly, what is the soundness of using tabulated drawings (again, single CAD file) with dash number designating part variations (with or w/o holes, holes sizes, locations, dimensional differences, etc.). I know that we did that a lot in the tooling industry, especially with part size variations. However, does automotive industry frown on this practice, or is it perfectly acceptable? As above, are there any standards that call this out?
I work for a small engineering consulting firm that does highly specialized part design work for manufacturers and other engineering design firms, primarily in the automotive and related industries.
My most recent prior CAD experience was with an Aerospace parts manufacturer, where the common practice when producing identical, but mirror image (true left-hand, right-hand versions), part designs was to assign one base part number followed by -1 or -2 (for LH, RH versions), and produce one drawing of usually the LH part (-1) and specifiying the RH part as -2. Part numbers on orders would then reflect the complete number including the dash number. This is fairly common in the tooling industry as well.
This works well in SolidWorks (and other CAD systems I am sure) when using configurations to produce separate, but linked, CAD model files for CNC, STL, RP, etc. production. We are working with another engineering firm (the client) on design of some of his parts which fit into others he is designing to produce an engine. In a recent design review meeting, the client balked at our use of the dash numbers, even though the numbers are for our internal use only, and he reassigns new numbers to the completed designs.
I personally prefer the use of the dash numbers for easier file maintenance by using only a single part file containing mirror image configurations (named with complete part-dash number) and a single associated 2D drawing file. In deference to the client, I am maintaining fully dimensioned drawings of both versions, but as separate drawing sheets within the same drawing file.
While the client was pushing this, suggesting we maintain separate but linked files, and doing away with the dash numbers, my boss, not wanting to offend/disagree with the client, agreed we would look into what was the automotive industy standard practice.
So which is it? Dash numbers (RH-LH configurations) or not for mirror image parts in the automotive industry? Also, is it "legal" ("kosher", QA-blessed ,etc.) to have a "drawing number" (the base filename number) which is different (without dashes) than the actual "part number", which would be the drawing number with the addition of the respective dash number. I know this works in aerospace, but is it used in automotive? Are there any standards that call this out?
Similarly, what is the soundness of using tabulated drawings (again, single CAD file) with dash number designating part variations (with or w/o holes, holes sizes, locations, dimensional differences, etc.). I know that we did that a lot in the tooling industry, especially with part size variations. However, does automotive industry frown on this practice, or is it perfectly acceptable? As above, are there any standards that call this out?
