Metric Thread Data

[Anonymous]

I would like to suggest that the team change the default metric thread tool data from the finest pitch to standard coarse pitch as the default setting. As a rule, metric coarse is used for 99% of engineering applications and is the preferred pitch unless there is a good reason to use something else. I know many of my friends in the US who don't work as much with metric become confused by this, and callout bizarre threads simply because they are in thread tables. Software that defaults to similarly bizarre default settings isn't helping them making the transition to metric! Meanwhile those of us who work in metric all the time find constantly having to specify a pitch each time a different sized thread is specified annoying, as thread pitch is not normally called out if metric coarse is being used, and defaulting to M4, M5, M8 etc would help improve flow.

This may be a small point for some, but is an irritation that can be easily fixed and I think would greatly assist those who aren't as familiar with the metric system.

[eric_strebel]

YEs, agreed, fine thread is a bit much, most metric is the coarse thread. I actually noticed this the other day when I made some metric treads in Fusion and had to do a double take when I noticed the tread count, I thought that was odd as well.

[yihua.mo]

Hi pfleming and Eric,

Firstly thank you for pointing out this usability issue. We consider to fix it as a bug.

Please help me understand the requirement more clear:

1. For example, after user select a metric thread type, and set size=1mm, now in Designation there are two available items: M1x0.2 and M1x0.25, the default selected item should be M1x0.25, right?

2. Is this requirement only for Metric thread("ANSI Metric Threads", "GB Metric Threads", "ISO Metric profile Threads", "ISO Metric Trapezoidal Threads", "Metric Forming Screw Threads") ？

Thank you!

Michael

[Anonymous]

Hi Michael, 1 mm is a TINY thread and not one too many people would use. However yes 0.25 is the standard metric coarse thread for 1 mm. All you would need to do is look at a standard metric coarse thread chart, there are thousands available on the internet, and have the defaults set as metric coarse. At the moment it seems to default to the smallest pitch. It could be just as simple as swapping things around to having it default to the coarsest pitch instead of the finest, but I haven't gone through all the threads to see if that's the case. I'd expect so however.

I have no idea what a "GB Metric Profile" is, and the only reference to it I can find searching is Autodesk documents! I suspect it could be something that has been imported from other Autodesk products. Likewise ANSI metric threads, should just be more of the same. Metric forming threads I have no idea, as I'd think they'd just be the same pitch. Indeed all of them except trapzoidal threads should all just be the same thing! With the Trapzoidal threads, there isn't really the same requirement to adhere to a default, and I don't think it matters. They aren't used terribly often when compared to conventional 60 degree M profile threads.

[yihua.mo]

Hi pfleming,

Fusion thread data is come from Autodesk Inventor. The "GB Metric Profile" is Chinese metric thread standard.

Thank you very much for the information. I will discuss this issue with our team for further action..

Michael

[Anonymous]

Ok Michael, I thought that would be the case and where the team grbbed the code from, and yes that's what I concluded was the source of the "standard". So far as I'm aware all those metric threads should be the same thread form, and you could consolidate them all in to just "Metric Threads" or similar.

If you really want to cover more thread options then consider adding the MJ series of thread. That is a different form with a rounded root for greater fatigue resistance against root cracking. Mainly used in aerospace, I'm surprised it's not in inventor. Not very common at all outside that field. Same with UNJ and UNJF, used in aerospace. Nobody would miss it if it wasn't there I don't think.

However please also consider a thread option where the thread angle (on both sides) and thread pitch can be specified. That should be an easy code to impliment. That could be fed back to Inventor also, as it should be there. The reason for this is that some trapezoidal threads are bespoke, yet not uncommon. For example I have a Swiss machine that uses a "metric" trapezoidal thread, so OD is metric, the pitch is 1.6667 mm, and the thread flanks are 45/5 degrees. You seriously couldn't make this stuff up, but that's what they use! Not at all uncommon it is the W series of "Swiss Thread". There are MANY other weird threads like this used around the place, and the ability to allow people to model them before sending to CAM would be very beneficial and could be adopted across all Autodesk products quite easily. So the dialogue options should be. "left flank angle", "right flank angle", "outside diameter", "pitch", "direction", "class". That information should be enough to model any V or modified V thread possible.

[promm]

@Anonymous,

Thank you for your idea, we have several thread on hole suggestions at the top of our most voted list.  This idea is being changed to future consideration, so that it can be evaluated during our plan to improve the hole and thread features later this year.

Regards,

Mike Prom

Internal use FUS-24735

[yoshimitsuspeed]

I completely disagree about coarse being more common overall. Maybe in the OPs application or the design standard they use but for example JIS almost entirely uses fine thread as standard. The vast majority of metric automotive hardware uses fine threads as well.
Now I don't really care if I have to select the pitch from the dropdown. If anything I think it should automatically default to the last pitch you used for that diameter but it's not like choosing the pitch takes that much time. If you were going to change things to default to a specific thread pitch though I think there should be some way to set it to what you use. Either by standard, JIS, DIN, etc or some other way that is going to help it predict which would be most common in your application.
90% of my work is in JIS and automotive applications so I use fine thread options almost exclusively.

[Anonymous]

@yoshimitsuspeed surely you're not serious! You work in a specialist field and conclude that because most of the threads YOU see are fine thread, standard metric coarse isn't more common overall. No disrespect, but that is an absurd conclusion, and akin to somebody who lives in the Sahara Desert claiming because it rarely rains there, it surely doesn't rain anywhere else, therefore houses don't need roofs!

I'm going to make an equal leap of deduction and suspect that you probably live in the US, hence don't have much exposure to metric threads beyond your work place. I can therefore assure you that metric coarse is the default standard for 99% of general engineering work, just as I suggested. Indeed it is standard convention to leave off the thread pitch in a metric callout, as it is always assumed to be metric coarse unless stated otherwise! Surely there's a message there! Given that is the convention, I see no reason this application shouldn't also follow convention.

Defaulting to a thread standard that is rarely used outside specialist industries is plain idiotic, particularly when marketed to a group of people who may not be as familiar with metric as others. It's nothing to do with the thread pitch "taking time", it's more the case that it is not following convention. The issue then becomes that somebody who designs with the application, but isn't familiar with metric, simply uses the first selection in the list. I've seen a significant number of examples of this coming out of the US.

Having said that, I thought your suggestion to default to the last used was excellent. I always feel that's the ideal situation, as it semi-customises the application to the individual's personal situation. However until then I am simply suggesting Autodesk follow metric convention and use that as the initial default.

[eric_strebel]

Just a follow up. As a product designer living in and designing in the North America, I design everything in Metric, everything! The world runs on Metric, except in the USA...much to my dismay, it's even worse here in Michigan! I build it in Metric, it goes to Europe or China to be made and its easy. If they cut the tools here in the USA, they start quoting stuff in standard and my client gets all confused, double whammy here in Michigan where they still seem to think that fractions or thousandths are normal! .....drives me bonkers!

Yes, the world uses metric coarse to build stuff!!! I can even get bolts in metric thread at the Home Depot. I would think the course is more common as it is much harder to pull out a course thread than a fine thread, fine tread does not have the gripping power in softer material, such as plastic or aluminum or soft thin steel like sheet metal.

Thank goodness the Auto industry uses metric, Well anyway its a start in the right direction. Apple even labels their cables in meters in their retail packaging now too.

Someday we may even stop teaching standard inches and fractions in school, I hope! Counting in 10's is much easier.

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify, I didn't intend this suggestion to be a discussion on what should be, or what may or may not be better. I would simply like Autodesk to follow standard engineering convention the whole world uses (except legacy industries in the US or specialist sectors). The standard is metric (coarse), unless specified otherwise, that is the assumed thread eg M8. So why on earth would Autodesk decide to default to something different!

[yoshimitsuspeed]

@Anonymous

Not sure why the big freakout lol. All I was doing was contesting your claim that 99% of engineering uses coarse which I have to assume you know is complete BS.
Now if we want to get into details JIS is the same as ISO coarse up to 8mm then diverges.

I guess I would vote that they should add a JIS thread option to the dropdown.

But even outside JIS in the automotive and powersports world fine threads are used all the time. 22 x 1 motorcycle swingarm bolts, 22 x 1.5 axle bolts etc. Even on BMWs and other non Japanese machines.  Now I'm not trying to argue that maybe coarse thread isn't the standard in your industry. I am just saying that JIS and also ISO fine are fairly common in other industries and it should not be considered uncommon.

[Anonymous]

@yoshimitsuspeed There is no "big freakout" going on. I (and others) are merely stating, correctly I might add, that metric coarse is the default standard thread to use. You continue to nit-pick select examples from the same industries in order to argue the point. Quite why I have no idea. Whether the semantics make the majority of metric threads 99%, 98%, or 97%, I have absolutely no interest. The point being that the majority of applications, by a huge majority, in general engineering (you obviously missed that point, despite me emphasising it a number of times) are metric coarse. 

Nobody is saying metric fine isn't used, all we are stating is that the standard convention is to use metric coarse unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. The transport industry has a special reason, hence why it's the generally used thread there. That is just ONE sector, and I have no idea why you keep using examples of that industry and assume that's the world of engineering. Again, I can only assume you're an American, and that is you only exposure to metric.

I have no intention to keep going back and forth on this. What I've stated is a fact and the convention, if if you wish to believe otherwise, then all the best for you in doing so. My suggestion is that Autodesk stick with convention with their products, and I don't see why there's suddenly an argument in doing so.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

So the automotive industry constitutes a fraction of a percent of the engineering industry.
Got it.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

After some research I can see how for ISO coarse is considered standard. So for actual ISO threads I wouldn't have a problem with them defaulting to coarse as long as JIS were added which it really should be.
I would still think that defaulting to the last used would be better or having another way of choosing defaults either by industry or standard or something. Because as someone who works almost solely in the automotive and powersports industry I would be very annoyed if everything defaulted to coarse thread.

[Anonymous]

@yoshimitsuspeed "After some research" You're kidding me right? In other words you have no clue about metric but think it should all be about you regardless

Got it.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Like I said many times I work almost exclusively with JIS and what is not JIS is automotive related. Had your original post said that ISO standard uses coarse thread I probably never would have posted. But you said that metric uses coarse thread standard and when I made a comment about that you insisted that all metric everywhere used this standard. Now as much as my may not like it I accept that ISO is working to become the international standard it is not yet used everywhere. I am not the one confusing one particular standard of metric with the general term metric.

[Anonymous]

@yoshimitsuspeed I made no such assertion, and that is a complete fabrication on your behalf. In fact this is what I said 

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As a rule, metric coarse is used for 99% of engineering applications and is the preferred pitch unless there is a good reason to use something else.

---

You then interjected saying "you completely disagree" (presumably based on your extensive knowledge and use of metric threads) and quoted an obscure Japanese pipe thread to support your point. Your "research" into what metric threads are later reviewed what I said was entirely correct, but not to worry, just change what I said!

This is not a discussion about metric v everything else, and by the way the only place on the planet anything other than metric threads are used in general engineering for about the last 30+ years is the US, so you can like and accept what you like, but good luck with that! I merely stated what is the convention, and that is that metric coarse is the preferred pitch, hence used most of the time. If the application calls for something different (and high vibration applications such as, wait for it, automotive and "motor sport" as you like to call it) are such applications, then something different will be used.

You clearly have no clue about what you're talking about, yet considered it perfectly acceptable to waste my and other people's time with your ignorance. This is a forum to support features and enhancements to the product, something you clearly have nothing to add to. So unless you have an apology just bursting to get out, I would kindly ask you to desist from posting, in particular from simply making up what people have said to suit your own agenda.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

JIS Is not obscure, nor is it soley a pipe thread.
JIS threads and fasteners are extremely common. Maybe not in say European industrial design but the vast majority of anything designed or made in Japan and when you think of all the stuff designed or made in Japan that is actually a pretty significant portion of electronics, auto, powersports, and commercial and industrial machinery.
I think it's pretty funny that you give me a hard time for not being well versed in ISO when you don't even know what JIS is.

[Anonymous]

I am perfectly aware of what a JIS thread is, thank you for your "research". Sorry to dent your myopic bubble in which you seem to live, but for all intents and purposes it is obscure and rarely used WHEN COMPARED TO THE MAJORITY OF THREADS USED IN THE WORLD OF ENGINEERING. I capitalised that as you seem to have this bizarre expectation that if it's not in your closeted world it does not exist, whereas if it is in your world, then that's the end of it.

Given this had degenerated in a pathetic attempt by yourself to merely try to "score points" against me, and you have absolutely nothing constructive to add to the product development I will not be commenting further on your posts. Given people like yourself can't help themselves but to have the last say on something, then knock yourself out, but please do so as you leave. Have a nice day.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

I am all about trying to learn something when there is something to be learned, and I am all about leaving a discussion when there is no more to be said.
With that said JIS is far from obscure. There is probably more JIS equipment and hardware in the US than any other. That would definitely be true in Japan.
China, Taiwan, and most other countries in Asia are well versed in JIS and produce a lot of products to JIS standards with JIS parts. 
I also suspect many of these countries likely also have their own standards that may not perfectly fit into your little bubble.
I don't know about you but I sure wouldn't send drawings to Taiwan or China calling out an M12 bolt with no other information on the hole or expected standards. Sure maybe they would get it right. But if they didn't that's on you. If you sent that same drawing to Japan it would likely be assumed it was a JIS M12 thread.

I'd be very interested to know what someone in Aus or NZ would think of it as I know in a lot of ways they are more closely tied to Japan and Asia than Europe or the US as far as products and manufacturing goes.