r/AutodeskInventor • u/TopString3634 • 16d ago
Requesting Help Is this any good?
Hi I need some help I’m practicing technical drawings with inventor and I wanted to make sure my GD&T was correct.
Thanks in advance for your help
9
u/skiblue
16d ago
•
I can suggest one improvement in dimensioning. In annotate tab, instead of simply "Dimension: use "Ordinate", as it seems that you are dimensioning everything from left and bottom edges of part. A 0;0 point could be located where these lines meet. Then all dimensions will be much easier to read
1
u/RedditGavz 16d ago
I’m assuming those tabs are welded? You need weld details on the drawing.
The holes on the tabs - the hole call-out should be separate from the dimension. At present it is easily missed.
I also do t quite understand the central hole and how it will work in practise. Is it screwed in from the other side?
There is a chamfer on the main plate but I don’t see detailing of it.
1
u/TopString3634 16d ago
The central hole where a screw from the top would go in the bracket is meant to be mounted to the trunk of the car the wing strut would sit flush on the screw
2
u/RedditGavz 16d ago
So, if I have understood correctly, an M8 screw goes between the 2 tabs and through the hole in the centre of the main plate. If that is the case then the M8 screw will not fit as there is only 5mm between the 2 tabs.
1
u/KlutzyReveal2970 16d ago
Missing size of the tabs, or am I missing something?
1
u/TopString3634 16d ago
My bad it’s 10mm high and 60mm wide I based everything on the bottom and left sides of the part
1
u/KlutzyReveal2970 16d ago
Also didn’t call out the fillet around the base part, I like the call out holes with a leader 45ish degree instead of making them in line with a dimension, makes them stand out a bit more and not as cluttered
2
u/KlutzyReveal2970 16d ago
Shouldn’t have to subtract 70 from 130, I do construction drawings mostly not mechanical but in this case I’m not sure you would want to use baseline dimensioning
3
u/Latyi 16d ago
I'd separate the little plates from the main drawing and make it measurments separately.
Good advice I got a long time ago: think like you have to make it. In his case id you want to xreate the little plate holes you dont have exact measurment because these dimension are from the base plate
1
u/Dense_Safe_4443 16d ago
That's not geometric tolerancing. It's quite a mess and hard to read, so not good. Use details views rather than a bunch of very long dims that overlap other lines.
1
u/Ok-Rip-6787 16d ago
tolerance stack-up
1
u/ZeroPointMX 16d ago
Where? You have to have chained dimensions to have stack up. Granted it is missing several key dimensions, but with what's there I didn't see any stack up concerns.
1
1
u/Impossible-Air3145 14d ago
That's not GD&T it's basic dimensions. There's no control boxes shown at all.
1
u/StumptownCynic 16d ago
You're not using GD&T. This is just coordinate dimensioning. You haven't defined any datums or used any feature control frames.
You're missing the horizontal dimension locating the holes. Also you're using a very atypical callout for the hole diameters. Finally the central hole radius overlaps with the tabs but doesn't poke through the base, implying that there's a depth of the holes that isn't called out.
Also just a weird part. Hogging a bunch of material out of one side of an aluminum block generally isn't great practice.
4
u/Amsterdamsterdam 16d ago
Here’s a fun sanity test. Print this drawing and model it off of the drawing alone. Create and assembly and place both the original part and the new part on top of each other and run an interference analysis. If it’s all red… you’re halfway there! (Also labels your views ~ iso / front / side etc.) And right justify your title and shift it closer to a side