Print with multiple locations of a single feature...now what?
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Staten Island NewYork USA
    Posts
    3,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    885
    Likes (Received)
    1493

    Default Print with multiple locations of a single feature...now what?

    So we made a batch of parts, checked, verified sizes to print..all seemed great till customer receives.

    Seems one feature is in the wrong location...they give me the location they are coming up with and BAM its the numbers we have.

    I say so whats the problem and they reference another view with a different callout for same feature. Hmm...we never really looked at that callout as we made and verified from the other view and it's callouts.

    Parts not going to work, can't be reworked...their simple solution is for us to remake on our coin as we should have caught the mistake and part is not usable.

    My thought, we made to print. Yes, we missed picking up on their prints mistake...but locations given in the second view where coming off another point..so numbers were not going to match, so no Red Flag went up.


    So whats the norm in this kind of thing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,040
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    826
    Likes (Received)
    2667

    Default

    There is no question in my mind that if the part is made to the drawing, but the drawing is incorrect in any manner, that it's on them, not you. However, getting them to admit to this, and to pay as they should is the question. Have you dealt with them before, and have you previously had a good relationship with them? Might be worth being flexible, might not - your call.

    If the amount being contested is within your areas small claims court system, you might have recourse there if they refuse to pay. If greater, then a lawyer may have to be involved.

    As always, IANAL - check things out further, perhaps there's other directions you can go.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hatch, NM Chile capital of the WORLD
    Posts
    8,149
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    10758
    Likes (Received)
    8903

    Default

    Is this a good customer? Is this an honest mistake? If so I'd split the cost of the new parts with them, they
    buy the material..

    Is this a shady customer??? If you put the feature in the other location, would they have also tried not
    to pay you?

    In reality, if they were a good customer, they would try and wheel and deal with you and offer up something.
    "Can we knock off %30 since you've already got it programmed and fixtured and its still fresh in your mind?"
    type of thing...

    NORM?? For the few times I've had that happen (something similar, bad print) usually redo 'em at a
    discount.... For a GOOD customer... Same for when they lose the parts off the turnip truck on the
    way to shipping. Sometimes they can go up the chain and get some of the money back from their customer
    if the print came from elsewhere.

  4. Likes digger doug, Larry Dickman liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    2,202
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I've been lucky with this. Customers admitted they fucked up.

    dscf0050.jpg
    48 inch diameter part. Rectangular pockets on wrong side of part. Fixed that, returned to customer for first article. Sent mold back to us. Two "o" rings in the wrong places. Made more money off the fixes than from the original mold.

    Right now dealing with some parts where a dimension is called out with note to make it to "final assembly" dimension. Only problem is that the "rough" numbers are smaller than the final assembly numbers. Made one part before we noticed the discrepancy. "Make another and bill us."

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    West Unity, Ohio
    Posts
    22,679
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3152
    Likes (Received)
    6146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SIM View Post
    So we made a batch of parts, checked, verified sizes to print..all seemed great till customer receives.

    Seems one feature is in the wrong location...they give me the location they are coming up with and BAM its the numbers we have.

    I say so whats the problem and they reference another view with a different callout for same feature. Hmm...we never really looked at that callout as we made and verified from the other view and it's callouts.

    Parts not going to work, can't be reworked...their simple solution is for us to remake on our coin as we should have caught the mistake and part is not usable.

    My thought, we made to print. Yes, we missed picking up on their prints mistake...but locations given in the second view where coming off another point..so numbers were not going to match, so no Red Flag went up.


    So whats the norm in this kind of thing.


    For it to be right here, and wrong there, is this like a tol stack-up issue, and if everything was on nom it would have been OK, but one of the options is way loose, and you only saw the loose side of the double jeopardy call-out?


    I'm sure that you are more venting than expecting advise, and certainly we can't offer up much real advise w/o seeing the print - and I doubt that you are going to doo that.

    So all we can doo is offer up our empathy on your good word.

    LOL!


    ---------------------

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox

  7. Likes Bobw, yardbird liked this post
  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Temecula, Ca
    Posts
    1,728
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    764
    Likes (Received)
    2318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alphonso View Post
    I've been lucky with this. Customers admitted they fucked up.
    Where in the hell did you find one of those?

    This is an issue that's pissing me off more and more everyday. But, unless you want to tell the customer to go to hell, and loose their business, you just have to grin and bear it.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    583
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    807
    Likes (Received)
    332

    Default

    If it's a good customer or one that has good potential we will either split the cost or eat it. If it's a PITA customer, we tell them to f off. PITA customers or new customers are material cost up front and remainder when they pick up the parts. So there's no issue getting paid.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Staten Island NewYork USA
    Posts
    3,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    885
    Likes (Received)
    1493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox View Post
    For it to be right here, and wrong there, is this like a tol stack-up issue, and if everything was on nom it would have been OK, but one of the options is way loose, and you only saw the loose side of the double jeopardy call-out?


    I'm sure that you are more venting than expecting advise, and certainly we can't offer up much real advise w/o seeing the print - and I doubt that you are going to doo that.

    So all we can doo is offer up our empathy on your good word.

    LOL!


    ---------------------

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox

    No stack up...just different locations for the feature. One incremental from a point the other was from datum point. Running the job we needed a location for feature...found what we needed on print and never considered looking further. Would anyone?


    But alas...I think your right in that I was venting. I didn't really know that when I posted.

    Thanks Dr. Ox!


    Its a new day, we'll see how this pans out today.

  11. Likes Ox liked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,040
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    826
    Likes (Received)
    2667

    Default

    Let us know how it works out for you.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    157
    Likes (Received)
    600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SIM View Post
    ...One incremental from a point the other was from datum point. Running the job we needed a location for feature...found what we needed on print and never considered looking further. Would anyone?
    The datum should control, the incremental should be a ref unless specified otherwise as in a basic callout.

    I am not being critical- One thing I am always hammering on is that quality is about process, not people. This strikes me as a process failure. On a new part, I always do a full first article, even if the customer does not require it. What I do is make a copy of the drawing, and write down the actual dimension on the drawing. I make sure every dimension is marked up. If the customer requires a FAIR, I just transfer the actual dims to my FAIR form.

    You might have caught the drawing error had you done that.

    The other thing is, the person programming and making the part should not be the one buying off the first part. Make the part, check it, then get another set of eyes. DO NOT tell the person checking what you find in your inspection. You want a completely fresh look- if you tell someone what you see, they may just confirm your error.

    Hope it works out and the customer acknowledges their error, and you also take steps to avoid a repeat experience. Nothing sucks more than having to make something twice.

  14. Likes digger doug, Derek Smalls, roysol liked this post
  15. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    283
    Likes (Received)
    204

    Default

    I'd say you got lucky with a good customer. But as both a machinist and an owner, I believe that every last thing on that print is my responsibility.We do print ( and model ) review before it hits the shop.If there is something weird , even if we think it is a simple mistake in drafting, we get clarification. This isn't something we started with, this was a result of several mistakes that cost time and money. The customers we contact are usually grateful that we took the time and effort, and it has saved a lot of heartache along the way.

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California, Ventura county
    Posts
    1,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    178
    Likes (Received)
    517

    Default

    obviously it was drawn by a lawyer

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    9,228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1068
    Likes (Received)
    3021

    Default

    The advantage of working off of a 3d model: you can always check the model, plus, nobody has to 'reason out' what any dimension should be. That's why I model practically everything, because I've seen too many instances of numbers on a sketch contributing towards a total misconception of what the part actually looks like.

    I'd place the blame on the guy who released the print.

  18. Likes Larry Dickman, digger doug liked this post
  19. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    6,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    241
    Likes (Received)
    4936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SIM View Post
    .....

    Parts not going to work, can't be reworked....
    Well that's not good so unsure.

    One often encounters double dimensioned features on very complex parts.
    So if this moves then that tolerance is no longer valid type thing. Call it tolerance stack or whatever.
    There was a print callout dimension not checked? Is not every number on a print to be verified somewhere in your process?
    Draw right or wrong can some numbers just be ignored?
    Does your process have a check off sheet for every single number on the customer print?
    Yes this miss is painful and you want to blame the customer for good reason.
    But there were numbers posted. I can and do emphasize but can not sympathize.

    Why did you not check the callout number? Assumed it would fall in?
    Sorry if this is a bit rough but have seen way too many things go bad on double dimension features. Every number on the print must fit and sometimes that +/-.005 becomes tenths due to your processing.

    You failed a section of the print and the part will not work. Piss and moan all day about how it was drawn, you missed a number listed on the print. Am I wrong here?
    Should there not be a okay check on every dimension no matter how frivolous?
    Simple sheet of paper with every number on the print and a X or O from operators or inspection?

    Lord knows I have been bitten by this bug and kicked myself in the ass more than once, hence empathy in spades.
    If you eat it or fight it is a question that only you can deal with.
    Be aware that you can win the battle and loose the war.
    Opposite side is that maybe you can show the customer a lacking in their staffing or work and look like a hero.

    If I get it not not a QC check pass or fail, more that the parts will not work in their intended usage.
    Your output is in fact "scrap" and a total waste of time, machines, people and materials?
    Bob

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    9,228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1068
    Likes (Received)
    3021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    Well that's not good so unsure.

    One often encounters double dimensioned features on very complex parts.
    So if this moves then that tolerance is no longer valid type thing. Call it tolerance stack or whatever.
    There was a print callout dimension not checked? Is not every number on a print to be verified somewhere in your process?
    Draw right or wrong can some numbers just be ignored?
    Does your process have a check off sheet for every single number on the customer print?
    Yes this miss is painful and you want to blame the customer for good reason.
    But there were numbers posted. I can and do emphasize but can not sympathize.

    Why did you not check the callout number? Assumed it would fall in?
    Sorry if this is a bit rough but have seen way too many things go bad on double dimension features. Every number on the print must fit and sometimes that +/-.005 becomes tenths due to your processing.

    You failed a section of the print and the part will not work. Piss and moan all day about how it was drawn, you missed a number listed on the print. Am I wrong here?
    Should there not be a okay check on every dimension no matter how frivolous?
    Simple sheet of paper with every number on the print and a X or O from operators or inspection?

    Lord knows I have been bitten by this bug and kicked myself in the ass more than once, hence empathy in spades.
    If you eat it or fight it is a question that only you can deal with.
    Be aware that you can win the battle and loose the war.
    Opposite side is that maybe you can show the customer a lacking in their staffing or work and look like a hero.

    If I get it not not a QC check pass or fail, more that the parts will not work in their intended usage.
    Your output is in fact "scrap" and a total waste of time, machines, people and materials?
    Bob
    Strongly disagree with you. Bob. Do you go over every dimension on every drawing for free? Some asshat scribbles in an incorrect dimension somewhere in 100 entries, and you're supposed to find it?

    I have the option in my CAD to automatically dimension a certain feature, or I can input a dimension manually. It is absolutely incumbent on me to do the latter with extreme caution, and if I fuck up, then I fucked it up, no one else.

  21. Likes Larry Dickman liked this post
  22. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Staten Island NewYork USA
    Posts
    3,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    885
    Likes (Received)
    1493

    Default

    I am going to over simplify...

    2nd op programed at machine, we need to place a 1.000 through hole at X1.000 Y1.000 from origin.

    No question remains in my head as maybe I need to dive in a little deeper to get more info or have a backup way to verify.
    I did not even consider looking for more info, it was a straight simple program with simple way to verify location.

    Yes, had I made sure each and every detail was checked off and verified on the print I would have found the discrepancy.

    On complex parts done offline I do go over every dimension after I load into CAM. I do this not to verify the print is correct but to make sure I input all values correctly.
    I make sure I am right as I know I will eat my mistakes.

    Being told I have to eat someone else's mistakes rubs me wrong. Come about it a little less demanding and I'll willingly take a loss to keep a customer happy.

    They pushed, I pushed back a little, mostly biting my tongue...waiting on an outcome.

  23. Likes digger doug, Ox liked this post
  24. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    3,087
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1363
    Likes (Received)
    1594

    Default

    I don't have an answer, but I was taught that each dimension should appear ONLY ONCE on a set of drawings. My take-away from this discussion is that if something is dimensioned in two different vies, it should set off alarm bells in my head.

    Dennis

  25. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Coventry RI
    Posts
    902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    932
    Likes (Received)
    695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modelman View Post
    I don't have an answer, but I was taught that each dimension should appear ONLY ONCE on a set of drawings. My take-away from this discussion is that if something is dimensioned in two different vies, it should set off alarm bells in my head.

    Dennis
    This is the absolute truth of the situation. If a print is not drawn correctly, no attempt should be made to make the part until the issue is sorted out. By accepting the print and taking on the job, you acknowledge that you have the needed info to make the part correctly.
    Like Bob said above, I do empathize, the OP did not create the problem, but by not catching the improperly dimensioned drawing, he DID inherit it. Saying you didn't look at the print closely enough doesn't really hold water.
    Kinda like if you buy a piece of property without a clear title. It's not your fault there is a lien on it, but it is your problem! You should have checked better.

  26. Likes 77ironhead liked this post
  27. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    West Unity, Ohio
    Posts
    22,679
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3152
    Likes (Received)
    6146

    Default

    OK, so some of us can empathize with you.
    Others? .. well ... I guess shit doesn't just happen in their world...

    Life must be good on the other side.


    ----------------

    OK - so you're a loser...
    Ox

  28. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    WAPELLO, IA USA
    Posts
    6,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    1809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SIM View Post
    I am going to over simplify...
    They pushed, I pushed back a little, mostly biting my tongue...waiting on an outcome.
    Either way, ask for a revised print with the fock up ficked. They should have no recourse or reason NOT to. If they are ISO this should be a major deal that the print allowed it at all. I have no wisdom.... all you can do is plead your case... see if it flies or dies.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •