I'm holding the tooling order for an FR10 bracket-loading nest. Some milled brackets sit firmly in the bench sample, others rock until clamped. The drawing makes all five contacts look equally important. Supplier suggests a stronger clamp.
I reckon we need to understand which faces actually locate the part first. But I don't want to tell the toolmaker to remove a support that has a good reason to be there. What would you ask them to demonstrate?
Which drawing datums are meant to locate it, Bruno? Five contacts can do different jobs, so I'd ask the designer to name the locating contacts and the supporting ones before choosing a bigger clamp
Are the samples identified individually, including those that sit firmly? A comparison of two unnamed piles may make the follow-up unnecessarily difficult.
Will, drawing names base A and side B but doesn't explain the rear contact. Ella, samples are numbered; I can keep the good and awkward ones separate without losing their identities.
Ask the designer whether that rear contact conflicts with the intended location. If it does, changing its shape or role might be cheaper than more clamping hardware. I wouldn't keep every contact just because it looked helpful in CAD.
A worn seating face gave us much the same seesaw, but it wasn't obvious from above. Can the toolmaker compare the actual contacts with the drawing as well as measure the bracket samples? You could have more than one difference here.
Do not let clamp-closed become the only setup confirmation. A clamp can reach its reported position while the part is being pulled out of its intended seat. Controls needs the tooling decision first.
Farah, toolmaker found the rear contact matches the drawing, but the bracket corner varies across our identified samples. Jo, there isn't a confirmation design yet. We're reviewing the nest before writing the loading sequence.
We had one awkward sample repeatedly left out of a trial because it was called an outlier. Have quality said whether your rocking samples are within the bracket requirement?
Quality says two are within the current drawing requirement; another is still under review. The proposed contact change will be checked against the accepted awkward samples as well as the easy ones.
David, I'd be careful about simply deleting that rear contact; it may support the bracket under the intended load even if it should not decide its location, so the designer needs to explain both jobs
Agreed on keeping needed support. I meant don't preserve its present geometry without a reason. A redesigned support is still an option, not just removal or a bigger clamp.
Hassan and Oscar, no, the bracket hides it from the loading side. I've asked the designer how a bad seat would be recognised. Stronger-clamp proposal is paused while they revise the contact arrangement.
Thanks for checking the viewing position. When they propose the revision, I'd ask them to show a deliberately poor seat as well as a correct one; otherwise everyone may understand the good case and still miss the awkward one.
Maintenance and the setter will agree it with tooling, Jo. No replacement design has been tried yet. Rachel, the two accepted awkward brackets are retained for that comparison, thank you for asking about their status.