JackAli0254 · 29 Sept 2025, 21:15 UTC
Ask the designer to identify the intended locating faces and the surfaces that should have clearance, using the bracket drawing's datums. Then compare the actual samples and nest against that scheme. More force may hide a seating conflict without explaining it.
25 pointsThe base face and two hole locations are the intended references. A side wall also touches one sample before its base sits down. I have asked whether that wall is supposed to locate anything.
1 pointsThat is the right specific question. Does the wall drawing show clearance, or has the design treated the bracket's outside edge as another locator? Check the actual component revision alongside it.
25 pointsKeep the rocking sample with the others. I nearly sent a supplier only our nicest-fitting parts once. Or rather, I was about to let them demonstrate that the parts which fitted still fitted.
8 pointsBracket revision E. Nest drawing also names E, but shows the side wall in contact. The component drawing doesn't use that edge as a datum. Designer is reviewing it.
23 pointsAsk inspection to check that sample's edge and base as well. The non-datum edge may still have a drawing requirement; you need to know whether the sample complies before deciding how much clearance the nest should provide.
13 pointsAnd inspect the actual nest contact, not just its nice straight line in CAD.
10 pointsBoth are being checked. Nina, the rocking sample is identified and retained, not replaced by the one which behaves. We haven't ordered the stronger clamp.
12 pointsCan the person loading it see that the base is not down? I am wondering whether the side wall hides the bad seat as well as possibly causing it.
12 pointsNo, Nadia. The wall hides that corner from the loading position. Inspection found the sample within drawing requirements, while the fitted wall matches the nest drawing. Designer is proposing clearance there.
6 pointsHave them consider a visible seating check with that change. Clearance might remove this interference, but the loader still needs to recognise a badly seated bracket for other reasons.
18 pointsAsked for that in the same revision. The designer is considering a relieved wall with a viewing opening, subject to the fixture review. Nothing machined yet.
16 pointsRevised concept received. It identifies the locators, clears the outside edge and exposes the base contact for the proposed check. Thanks, Mina and Nadia; bench comparison and loader review are still pending.
0 pointsKeep the awkward sample first in that comparison; it has earned its place.
16 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .