Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What is the current price of the full ISO GPS set? 1
- Thread starter 3DDave
- Start date
-
1
- #3
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,247
This link: + some mouse clicking + a calculator should give you an answer.
Typically, the next question that is asked after the one you asked is: "Is the investment in all of the standards needed?". My answer is: "No, but even if you define a limited pool of documents that seem to be the most important/valuable from your point of view, you then need to be prepared for paying extra each time next revisions are rolled up, which for many of these standards happen much more frequently than in the case of related ASME standards (of course assuming you would want to stay up to date). Being able to effectively manage the revisions of single documents in the context of the entire pool is a separate topic and a huge challenge in itself."
Typically, the next question that is asked after the one you asked is: "Is the investment in all of the standards needed?". My answer is: "No, but even if you define a limited pool of documents that seem to be the most important/valuable from your point of view, you then need to be prepared for paying extra each time next revisions are rolled up, which for many of these standards happen much more frequently than in the case of related ASME standards (of course assuming you would want to stay up to date). Being able to effectively manage the revisions of single documents in the context of the entire pool is a separate topic and a huge challenge in itself."
- Thread starter
- #4
These are the ones I've got listed as essentials. Prices are in USD based off the CHF price listed on ISO's website.
ISO 1101 - Geometrical tolerancing - Tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out - $250
ISO 2692 - Geometrical tolerancing - MMR, LMR and RPR - $225
ISO 5458 - Geometrical tolerancing - Pattern and combined geometrical specification - $200
ISO 5459 - Geometrical tolerancing - Datums and datum systems - $250
ISO 8015 - Fundamentals - Concepts, principles and rules - $72
ISO 10579 - Dimensioning and tolerancing - Non-rigid parts - $48
ISO 14405-1 - Dimensional tolerancing - Part 1: Linear sizes - $225
ISO 14405-3 - Dimensional tolerancing - Part 3: Angular sizes - $150
ISO 21920-1 - Surface texture: Profile - Part 1: Indication of surface texture - $200
ISO 22081 - Geometrical tolerancing - General geometrical specifications and general size specifications - $110
Total: $1730USD
You could certainly argue more to put on that list. I typically get them from evs.ee where the price is usually <1/5 the price of ISO so a set from there may be $350USD.
Ryan.
ISO 1101 - Geometrical tolerancing - Tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out - $250
ISO 2692 - Geometrical tolerancing - MMR, LMR and RPR - $225
ISO 5458 - Geometrical tolerancing - Pattern and combined geometrical specification - $200
ISO 5459 - Geometrical tolerancing - Datums and datum systems - $250
ISO 8015 - Fundamentals - Concepts, principles and rules - $72
ISO 10579 - Dimensioning and tolerancing - Non-rigid parts - $48
ISO 14405-1 - Dimensional tolerancing - Part 1: Linear sizes - $225
ISO 14405-3 - Dimensional tolerancing - Part 3: Angular sizes - $150
ISO 21920-1 - Surface texture: Profile - Part 1: Indication of surface texture - $200
ISO 22081 - Geometrical tolerancing - General geometrical specifications and general size specifications - $110
Total: $1730USD
You could certainly argue more to put on that list. I typically get them from evs.ee where the price is usually <1/5 the price of ISO so a set from there may be $350USD.
Ryan.
- Thread starter
- #6
If only I could read Estonian. How do they discount so much?
Still that's a rather large expense, though Y14.5 doesn't include surface texture so knock $200 off of that.
I am reminded though of people who say things like "Sure, it costs $1500 each for the headlamp assemblies, but it is critical safety equipment, so it's worth it."
I can see why Y14.5 is so popular. It's not as good, but it's cheap.
Still that's a rather large expense, though Y14.5 doesn't include surface texture so knock $200 off of that.
I am reminded though of people who say things like "Sure, it costs $1500 each for the headlamp assemblies, but it is critical safety equipment, so it's worth it."
I can see why Y14.5 is so popular. It's not as good, but it's cheap.
Not sure how evs gets away with selling them so cheap (evs.ee/en is in english). A great book on ISO GPS is "Technical Drawing for Product Design by Stefano Tornincasa". It covers pretty much all of the standards I mentioned to a functional level and also how the standards differ from ASME.
Ryan.
Ryan.
You could pass Ryan's list to the ANSI store and ask for a quote on subscription access. Might be cheaper, but probably not.
ISO standards are very annoying in the way that each one refers to others for information necessary to gain a full understanding.
ISO standards are very annoying in the way that each one refers to others for information necessary to gain a full understanding.
![[bugeyed]](/data/assets/smilies/bugeyed.gif "[bugeyed] [bugeyed]")
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,247
Garland23,
I get your point. My comment was of general nature, not to criticize you.
I myself used to think that ASME was definitely a much better system than ISO, but this has changed after I had a chance to study and work with the ISO GPS system. Today I would say ASME is much more user friendly than ISO (at least on surface), but at the price of being less complete and more ambiguous when it comes to details. For some folks these cons do not matter much (and that's fine), but for some they are seen as very serious obstacles, hence paying thousands of dollars for a collection of ISO standards is an investment worth making.
I get your point. My comment was of general nature, not to criticize you.
I myself used to think that ASME was definitely a much better system than ISO, but this has changed after I had a chance to study and work with the ISO GPS system. Today I would say ASME is much more user friendly than ISO (at least on surface), but at the price of being less complete and more ambiguous when it comes to details. For some folks these cons do not matter much (and that's fine), but for some they are seen as very serious obstacles, hence paying thousands of dollars for a collection of ISO standards is an investment worth making.
- Thread starter
- #13
A reasonable price for the contents of the ISO GPS is around $100. More comprehensive references for more complex technical languages are less than that, sometimes free, but they don't have language developers that sell language lessons.
The ISO C++ language specification, 1853 pages is $250, by way of example. This is a language that powers most computing in the world.
The Adobe Postscript standard was made free. 912 pages. It's the basis for generating PDFs, a standard for exchange of documents by thousands of times people than ISO GPS or Y14.5.
I've mentioned before that an estimate of nearly $1M in volunteer labor to create a revision to Y14.5, but it doesn't come out as if $1M was put into creating the revisions; the authors see nothing of the cover price, unless they sell training classes.
I think that $1M put towards an open source version of a Monte Carlo Y14.5 interactive graphical interpreter would be a far better spend. Compilers and interpreters are key to software development because they can be examined for conformance to the standard and a fix to a compiler or interpreter is a fix for all its users. They also feed back to the standard because the creators of the interpreter or compiler has to find clear direction. When the standard is ambiguous the software simply cannot comply.
First, they enforce syntax rules. Second, anyone using it could get answers about whatever some callout or reference means (without tripping over arbitrary vocabulary) instead of trying to find an expert who has read fragments of information scattered across a various chapters that are put together with the skill required to create a ransom note from magazine clippings. Third, everyone has a single source of evaluation to see if what the expected result is what they want instead of reading in their individual experience. Note the lack of discussion over adding numbers on a calculator or spreadsheet?
I don't understand why major manufacturers don't fund that effort instead of a rather ineffectual standard revision system. Making such a tool freely available would cut their costs in both design, acceptance, and subcontracting.
The ISO C++ language specification, 1853 pages is $250, by way of example. This is a language that powers most computing in the world.
The Adobe Postscript standard was made free. 912 pages. It's the basis for generating PDFs, a standard for exchange of documents by thousands of times people than ISO GPS or Y14.5.
I've mentioned before that an estimate of nearly $1M in volunteer labor to create a revision to Y14.5, but it doesn't come out as if $1M was put into creating the revisions; the authors see nothing of the cover price, unless they sell training classes.
I think that $1M put towards an open source version of a Monte Carlo Y14.5 interactive graphical interpreter would be a far better spend. Compilers and interpreters are key to software development because they can be examined for conformance to the standard and a fix to a compiler or interpreter is a fix for all its users. They also feed back to the standard because the creators of the interpreter or compiler has to find clear direction. When the standard is ambiguous the software simply cannot comply.
First, they enforce syntax rules. Second, anyone using it could get answers about whatever some callout or reference means (without tripping over arbitrary vocabulary) instead of trying to find an expert who has read fragments of information scattered across a various chapters that are put together with the skill required to create a ransom note from magazine clippings. Third, everyone has a single source of evaluation to see if what the expected result is what they want instead of reading in their individual experience. Note the lack of discussion over adding numbers on a calculator or spreadsheet?
I don't understand why major manufacturers don't fund that effort instead of a rather ineffectual standard revision system. Making such a tool freely available would cut their costs in both design, acceptance, and subcontracting.
3DDave said:
Because of the huge gaps between:
The level of management that makes those funding decisions.
The level of management that decides "just use the standard".
The few workers with sufficient understanding of the standard and it's limits and ambiguities.
The majority of workers (engineers, designers, drafters, machinists and fabricators) trying to "just use the standard" without knowledge and training.
- Thread starter
- #17
"each standard is independent of the others."
I doubt very much that ignorance of all but one standard would allow accurate application of that standard in any useful way. They are all tied together to make a cohesive GPS standard. I do admire the word play required to make that connection, particularly given the coordination needed to make that cohesive standard.
They divided a single single document to sell chapters one at a time. It's a smart way to shake down their user base, one that is generally captive to the ISO standards, much the way ASME and ANSI have tied up the US market.
BS 8888 is worse. More expensive ($464) than Y14.5 ($230) and not as widely used.
I see that IHS sells the entire Y14 series for $1900, but that includes all the drafting and gauging as well. 1812 pages.
I doubt very much that ignorance of all but one standard would allow accurate application of that standard in any useful way. They are all tied together to make a cohesive GPS standard. I do admire the word play required to make that connection, particularly given the coordination needed to make that cohesive standard.
They divided a single single document to sell chapters one at a time. It's a smart way to shake down their user base, one that is generally captive to the ISO standards, much the way ASME and ANSI have tied up the US market.
BS 8888 is worse. More expensive ($464) than Y14.5 ($230) and not as widely used.
I see that IHS sells the entire Y14 series for $1900, but that includes all the drafting and gauging as well. 1812 pages.
Burunduk
Mechanical
- May 2, 2019
- 2,574
My comment about the independency principle was tongue in cheek. Of course the GPS standards are not really independent, and the principle is about something else. But they are not the outstandingly well-coordinated, consistent, or jointed either.
- Thread starter
- #19
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question