Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

cbliss' louvre

19 REPLIES 19
Reply
Message 1 of 20
Anonymous
285 Views, 19 Replies

cbliss' louvre

Charles or Anyone that knows,

Is the louver from your site a Standard "press"?

I always assumed that it was a common punch. Specifically , are the ends
really nice and "filleted" as the punch shows? Are there standard sizes or
will tooling most likely be necessary based on the sizes that I choose?

Keith Bradford, debating others in the office.
19 REPLIES 19
Message 2 of 20
rllthomas
in reply to: Anonymous

You pretty much need to get a tooling list from your supplier. One thing I think companies SHOULD do is establish a standard tooling list for sheet metal suppliers. If someone wants to do business with you they WILL have those tools. Now it is your job to TRY and design around those tools so your parts are portable. Your purchasing department can move the parts to whomever has the most capacity and get the best price.



I say this because we always design to our suppliers tooling then the supplier gets busy with someone bigger than us and raises their prices so we as an annoyance go away. Purchasing then gets a good quote from someone else but wants us to modify the parts to meet the other shops tooling. It is a vicious circle.
Message 3 of 20
dan_mayers
in reply to: Anonymous

This is very true. Whereever possible, try and use the vendor's features to save on the cost. If you have a standard set of company specified tooling, then (depending on the size of the order) shops will often build the tooling to make your feature. The costs I have been quoted have ranged from $100-$500 depending on the complexity. For a lot of runs it is cheaper to have the vendor make a tool than it will be for your engineering organization to rev the part to fit the vendor's tooling.

Dan Mayers
Message 4 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Yes, that is exactly what is happening with this
case.  I am trying to design it with the most "common" punch.  We will
be sending the quote to billions and billions of potential suppliers and
the very scenario you mentioned will happen....."We have XXX size or if you
change this or that we can...."  I was trying to minimize that
situation.

 

You are exactly right about getting their standard
list, but most of them are probably ticked about bidding all the time and never
getting any business (different topic).

 

I have beautifully milled part that only cost $700
each...now I wonder why we need it punched....

 

Keith

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
You
pretty much need to get a tooling list from your supplier. One thing I think
companies SHOULD do is establish a standard tooling list for sheet metal
suppliers. If someone wants to do business with you they WILL have those
tools. Now it is your job to TRY and design around those tools so your parts
are portable. Your purchasing department can move the parts to whomever has
the most capacity and get the best price.


I say this because we always design to our suppliers tooling then the
supplier gets busy with someone bigger than us and raises their prices so we
as an annoyance go away. Purchasing then gets a good quote from someone else
but wants us to modify the parts to meet the other shops tooling. It is a
vicious circle.

Message 5 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

It sounds like you are flexible on the way the louver ends up? In that case I will often
just specify some parameters... i.e. length, width min and max. and/ or add a note that
deviations are possible, but to check first.

--
Kent
Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"Keith Bradford" wrote in message
news:E00900817AA769DA86D9839EC840FA6E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Yes, that is exactly what is happening with this case. I am trying to design it with
the most "common" punch. We will be sending the quote to billions and billions of
potential suppliers and the very scenario you mentioned will happen....."We have XXX size
or if you change this or that we can...." I was trying to minimize that situation.
Message 6 of 20
rllthomas
in reply to: Anonymous

Punch tools are rarely over 500 bucks. Drawing operations that take multiple hits (like a knuckle hinge) can become much more expensive.
Message 7 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

The louvre was designed to look good. I didn't have book, an example or
any spec's of any kind. I made it up, however, by changing the
parameters, you should be able to get something close to what you are
looking for.

Keith Bradford wrote:

>Charles or Anyone that knows,
>
>Is the louver from your site a Standard "press"?
>
>I always assumed that it was a common punch. Specifically , are the ends
>really nice and "filleted" as the punch shows? Are there standard sizes or
>will tooling most likely be necessary based on the sizes that I choose?
>
>Keith Bradford, debating others in the office.
>
>
>
>
Message 8 of 20
Alex123
in reply to: Anonymous

Louver tools are very expensive for puncing machines. I buy them from Wilson Tool. 2" long to 4.5" long are approximately $2000. This is why you try to use what the sheet metal shop has. I am one of those shops.
Message 9 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Thanks everyone. I have the confirmation that I was looking to receive.


Keith


"Keith Bradford" wrote in
message news:A68F3BAF99EE97E65A35DE36ADBCF503@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Charles or Anyone that knows,
>
> Is the louver from your site a Standard "press"?
>
> I always assumed that it was a common punch. Specifically , are the ends
> really nice and "filleted" as the punch shows? Are there standard sizes
or
> will tooling most likely be necessary based on the sizes that I choose?
>
> Keith Bradford, debating others in the office.
>
>
Message 10 of 20
EABell
in reply to: Anonymous

"We will be sending the quote to billions and billions of potential suppliers...."

Keith

I told you a million times to not exaggerate!

Message 11 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

True...true....and 72.3% of all statistics are made
up.


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"We
will be sending the quote to billions and billions of potential suppliers...."

Keith

I told you a million times to not exaggerate!

Message 12 of 20
rllthomas
in reply to: Anonymous

One semi-related item.... countersink punch tools. We've gone round and round with suppliers needing these humongous thru holes. Turns out Wilson tooling for c'sinks is very good and Amada tooling is very bad. If your suppliers are wanting thru holes as big as maybe .168 for a #4 screw they are using Amada tooling. Don't put up with this, have them buy Wilson.
Message 13 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Our supplier uses Amada and has no trouble with countersunk holes the size I specify.

--
Kent
Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"rllthomas" wrote in message news:f17f488.10@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> One semi-related item.... countersink punch tools. We've gone round and round with
suppliers needing these humongous thru holes. Turns out Wilson tooling for c'sinks is very
good and Amada tooling is very bad. If your suppliers are wanting thru holes as big as
maybe .168 for a #4 screw they are using Amada tooling. Don't put up with this, have them
buy Wilson.
Message 14 of 20
rllthomas
in reply to: Anonymous

So they can punch a .230 dia x 82 deg. c'sink with a thru hole of .141 dia in 16 GA? Not a single supplier of ours using Amada tooling can do that. All of our suppliers using Wilson tooling can do that.



Are you sure they are punching the holes?
Message 15 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hey Gentlemen, 

 

How about directly sending me your contacts. 
Maybe they'll get to be one of the billion+ bidders.

 

Keith


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
So
they can punch a .230 dia x 82 deg. c'sink with a thru hole of .141 dia in 16
GA? Not a single supplier of ours using Amada tooling can do that. All of our
suppliers using Wilson tooling can do that.


Are you sure they are punching the holes?

Message 16 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Actually now that I look (oops) my standard for a #4 is .166 .22 but that is my choice.
I do that in order to maintain a standard across thicknesses . I often use 20 GA and
your punch size wouldn't work there.

So I guess I don't know if my supplier could go with that size, since I never call it out.
8^)

Any more on this and we need to take it to another forum though, we are way off topic.

--
Kent
Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"rllthomas" wrote in message news:f17f488.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> So they can punch a .230 dia x 82 deg. c'sink with a thru hole of .141 dia in 16 GA? Not
a single supplier of ours using Amada tooling can do that. All of our suppliers using
Wilson tooling can do that.
>
>
> Are you sure they are punching the holes?
>
Message 17 of 20
rllthomas
in reply to: Anonymous

No cuz I'm bringing it back in line. It irritates the heck out of me when I do a hole not, custom format it they way I want etc. then notice that because I'm in the habit of making the hole depth = Thickness IV puts a depth in the hole note. So I switch back to the model, redefine the feature to be thru and go back to find my hole note is all hosed up. It is now a different kind of hole (depth -vs- thru) so it is a different standard or template or whatever in IV. I guess I should just edit my hole note in the dwg instead of the part model. sigh
Message 18 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

That bugs the -you know what- out of me
too!


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
No
cuz I'm bringing it back in line. It irritates the heck out of me when I do a
hole not, custom format it they way I want etc. then notice that because I'm
in the habit of making the hole depth = Thickness IV puts a depth in the hole
note. So I switch back to the model, redefine the feature to be thru and go
back to find my hole note is all hosed up. It is now a different kind of hole
(depth -vs- thru) so it is a different standard or template or whatever in IV.
I guess I should just edit my hole note in the dwg instead of the part model.
sigh
Message 19 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I have edited my hole note templates and removed the depth from all the holenote
callouts.

--
Kent
Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"rllthomas" wrote in message news:f17f488.15@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> No cuz I'm bringing it back in line. It irritates the heck out of me when I do a hole
not, custom format it they way I want etc. then notice that because I'm in the habit of
making the hole depth = Thickness IV puts a depth in the hole note.
Message 20 of 20
rllthomas
in reply to: Anonymous

Stop planning ahead, you make the rest of us look bad - LOL.



Actually it must be kind of nice to be able to make any change you want. With more people you have to vote an everything, all concur on the defaults and blah blah blah.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report