Jump to content

Re-engineering the Shift Spring


Scud

Recommended Posts

Scud.. I'm a Luddite and can't figure out a way to turn this drawing into a PDF. I'll take a picture with my fone and send it to you.  :huh2:

 

You should be able to export your CAD drawing, if not a PDF then at least a DXF. If ya'll need any help with file conversions just holler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Scud.. I'm a Luddite and can't figure out a way to turn this drawing into a PDF. I'll take a picture with my fone and send it to you.  :huh2:

 

You should be able to export your CAD drawing, if not a PDF then at least a DXF. If ya'll need any help with file conversions just holler.

 

Oh, sure, it'll export a DXF file, but unless a guy has a cad system that will read it, what's the point? Am I missing something? (not unexpected) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Scud.. I'm a Luddite and can't figure out a way to turn this drawing into a PDF. I'll take a picture with my fone and send it to you.  :huh2:

 

You should be able to export your CAD drawing, if not a PDF then at least a DXF. If ya'll need any help with file conversions just holler.

 

Oh, sure, it'll export a DXF file, but unless a guy has a cad system that will read it, what's the point? Am I missing something? (not unexpected) 

 

 

Because it's easy to go from DXF to PDF. Well, for someone like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that it's not in metric.  :ninja:

Well I grew up with both systems as well as a career working on Boeing and Airbus jets so I'm comfortable in both. For bearing clearances and such I tend to think in imperial but for everything else its metric. Larger dimensions  ( I mean over about 0.040") are a pain in the arse in Imperial. 65mm is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than 2 and 9/16" for mine.

Ciao

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US missed a great opportunity to go all metric in the 1970s. It's a far better system and easier to work with. Feet, fractional inches, quarts, tablespoons, miles, dozens, pounds, Fahrenheit temperatures... I'd gladly get rid of all of it (especially ounces, where we stupidly use the same word for weight and volume). Just make everything base-ten.

 

End of rant.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US missed a great opportunity to go all metric in the 1970s. It's a far better system and easier to work with. Feet, fractional inches, quarts, tablespoons, miles, dozens, pounds, Fahrenheit temperatures... I'd gladly get rid of all of it (especially ounces, where we stupidly use the same word for weight and volume). Just make everything base-ten.

 

End of rant.

I remember those days in grade school, and it made so much sense. We should've just made the transition then.

 

FWIW, it's nearly impossible to find an all metric tape measure in the states...I've been searching for more than 20 years.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My old LeBlonde lathe won't even cut those sissy metric threads.  :)  

I agree, though, that metric is a better system. However..it's a different language. All my measuring tools are 'Merican. Worse yet, I *think* in inches. Classes of fit, tolerances, etc. are all in thousandths of an inch. I learned this stuff as a kid, and I'm not about to change now. When thinking press fit, I think, ".002".. not .051mm for instance.

That's probably why we never changed in the 70s, when we were "supposed" to. Blueprints started coming into the shop in metric, but they were weird metric dimensions because the old farts that drew them just converted inch dimensions to metric.

At one time in the 70s, fasteners on GM cars were a mix of metric and inch.  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...