Typical opposite end callout 1

[jeff97070]

Hi,

Just for a refresher I wanted to ask the correct way to callout Typical opposite end in a drawing. In this case a very simple one I have a round bar with the same chamfer on each end. I could make a detail of one end and have it say 2X Detail-A or make two details.

What's everyone thoughts.

Thank you,

Jeff

 

[ewh]

One detail, 2X

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[pmarc]

If the part is so simple as you describe, I am with ewh.
If however the part contaied more than just two chamfers (e.g. in a multiple stepped shaft), I would probably dimension each of the ends separately. Not so much work, lot of clarity added.

 

[ewh]

Agreed

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[ewh]

If it is a simple 45° chamfer, I wouldn't use a detail, but simply call it out with a leader (including 2X, of course).

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[CheckerHater]

If your part really is that simple, nobody will hurt if your detail view will say BOTH ENDS.
Just stay away from TYP

 

[saf12]

Checker- why not use TYP? (45 DEG Chamfer TYP)
I have called out chamfers many different ways. Just wondering; why not use TYP?

 

[saf12]

[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=307951[/url]

[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=122913[/url]

 

[ewh]

AVOID TYP

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[Gilmiril]

TYP is vague; it's less vague if you include the number of places to which it applies, but the accepted method now is simply use 2X (or whatever number). This current method is shorter, so there's really no need for TYP. Let it die.

 

[CheckerHater]

Typical (TYP) goes back to the times of 1966 standard, possibly earlier.
It has been replaced in the following standards: 1973 specified 4 HOLES, 4 PLACES OR 4 HOLES EQ SP, and in 1982 / 1994 replaced again by using a number followed by an “X”, as in 4X for 4 places. HOLES EQ SP (equally spaced) are no longer used as well.
If there are numerous elements not worth counting, standard recommends to create a general note such as “UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL NTERNAL RADII ARE 5mm.”

I have called out chamfers many different ways.

So did I. I also used to put “NUTS AND BOLTS AS NEEDED” in the BOM and dimension certain holes to the edge instead of center because it was “company standard”. But I come to this forum to learn and discuss correct standard-compliant ways to do things, so here you go: I share my knowledge about "typical"

 

[saf12]

Thanks.
you are right, it has been company standard.
Now, I am in a position to change the standards; so a good argument is nice to have. I have been going through ANSI standards in order to Implement new standards. Just saying "Because that's ANSI.", hasn't been as effective as I thought.
I need to change habit not just documents.
Thank you.