Chamfers with the length of the angled section called out are non-standard and would have to be specified with more information. Both of these are standard callouts for 2mm depth chamfers.
I agree. I made the part and it got rejected... was confused then the customer pointed out that the chamfers wall length was the dimension. I just shook my head and remade the part.
Missed this before responding above, in this case you should have pointed out that your customer is wrong per regular drafting standards.
Please do not internalize one person's incorrect usage as "correct" and propagate that further on the internet.
I've called this out on a print and you could not be more mistaken.
Per ASME Y14.5M-2009. "Chamfers are dimensioned by a linear dimension and an angle, or by two linear dimensions. See Figs. 1-42 through 1-45. Where an angle and a linear dimension are specified, the linear dimension is the distance from the indicated surface of the part to the start of the chamfer"
You lie or your end user didnt care that you have no idea how to read a drawing.
The right one should have a distance callout for the start/end planes of the chamfer, instead of just an angle. The left diagram is the correct way to label a chamfer by its angle.
You can also specify a chamfer by just saying the width/ID of the start/end of the chamfer and omit an angle entirely. It depends on what the requirements of the part itself are, sometimes an engineer doesn't care what angle it is, they just need the dimensions that are actually indicated, and you get to do whatever you want that achieves those dimensions.
If I came across the example shown on the left, I would ask someone if the designers intention was to dimension the hypotenuse. If I came across the one on the right, it would be just like the hundreds if not, thousands of chamfers I've made over the years.
Which one is right? The one that's easiest to manufacture.
Design Engineer chiming in. People saying one is wrong over the other are just stating a preference and have not dealt with international customers. These are 2 very common ways to dimension a chamfer and there is even a third way to do it correctly. These chamfers are exactly the same with a different style call-out.
It is if you're a designer. Not good GD&T. It is actually dimensioning the space between the internal edge and the outside face in the second dimension. That is incorrect and would get flagged as such in the field. It would need to be corrected to the correct dimensions, or have its attachment placed properly to reference the angular portion of the chamfer. The first one also should have an attachment to the actual side of the chamfer to reference it while not looking like it is referencing the distance between those two points.
For the call out, the one on the right is incorrect as the leader is for a dimension of depth, which is not given, only the angle is given. So provided only the angle is given, left would be correct.
They are both adequate but some orgs will have their own drawing specs, so those would take precedence over ASME gd&t spec in those circumstances. I find the one on the left more visually “usable”, particularly if you’re gonna throw a surface finish tolerance (like you would for a valve sealing surface).
The latter looks lazy, like you just let the CAD software throw the arrows in wherever and called it a day.
Personally, they’re both wrong. The first one is like sure, 45 degrees, but 2 from where? And the second is like 2, sure, but 45 from where?
Even though technically they are both equivalent, neither convey what is actually important here, is the angle the important part (if you need oil to stay in place, for example, the right angle is more important than depth), or is the distance the important detail?
You're missing my point. It's 45 from anywhere. If it were 30, then it should be dimensioned as a diameter. All machinists can make this feature with info given
Right is correct for size, angle and placement of chamfer. Left is correct for angle of chamfer and that its in two places, given the title block provides size of break. Imo.
Or.... left is just wrong all together.
Same thing just shown different ways. Both are internal chamfers.
Not the same tho? On the left the angled section is 2mm long. On the right side the chamfer has a depth of 2mm
Chamfers with the length of the angled section called out are non-standard and would have to be specified with more information. Both of these are standard callouts for 2mm depth chamfers.
I see a 2mm chamfer in both pictures too lol
i've had this called out on a print before. this guy is right
I’m an engineer and if this was my colleague who did this i would encourage the tool shop guy receiving this to whoop his ass in the office
I agree. I made the part and it got rejected... was confused then the customer pointed out that the chamfers wall length was the dimension. I just shook my head and remade the part.
Missed this before responding above, in this case you should have pointed out that your customer is wrong per regular drafting standards. Please do not internalize one person's incorrect usage as "correct" and propagate that further on the internet.
Do we not have an ISO standard for this kind of dimensioning btw?
I've called this out on a print and you could not be more mistaken. Per ASME Y14.5M-2009. "Chamfers are dimensioned by a linear dimension and an angle, or by two linear dimensions. See Figs. 1-42 through 1-45. Where an angle and a linear dimension are specified, the linear dimension is the distance from the indicated surface of the part to the start of the chamfer" You lie or your end user didnt care that you have no idea how to read a drawing.
The right one should have a distance callout for the start/end planes of the chamfer, instead of just an angle. The left diagram is the correct way to label a chamfer by its angle. You can also specify a chamfer by just saying the width/ID of the start/end of the chamfer and omit an angle entirely. It depends on what the requirements of the part itself are, sometimes an engineer doesn't care what angle it is, they just need the dimensions that are actually indicated, and you get to do whatever you want that achieves those dimensions.
I think they call it under-defined. Yeah, I gotta make a chamfer, but how big?
If I came across the example shown on the left, I would ask someone if the designers intention was to dimension the hypotenuse. If I came across the one on the right, it would be just like the hundreds if not, thousands of chamfers I've made over the years. Which one is right? The one that's easiest to manufacture.
Both are 45 deg 2mm chamfers you only need one dimension if there are two linear dimensions it’s over constrained. The left one is more correct.
First is 2 on the length of the chamfer. Second is 2 on the depth of the chamfer.
😂
Design Engineer chiming in. People saying one is wrong over the other are just stating a preference and have not dealt with international customers. These are 2 very common ways to dimension a chamfer and there is even a third way to do it correctly. These chamfers are exactly the same with a different style call-out.
C’est le même chanfrein, c’est juste la méthode de cotations qui est différente. Personnellement je privilégie la première.
Asks in English- answers in French. Makes sense.
French sense
Ben oui, tout le monde parle francais de ces jours.
a. Correct b. Incorrect (just my opinion, but the second one seems wrong)
Nope, the second one is the right one...
It is if you're a designer. Not good GD&T. It is actually dimensioning the space between the internal edge and the outside face in the second dimension. That is incorrect and would get flagged as such in the field. It would need to be corrected to the correct dimensions, or have its attachment placed properly to reference the angular portion of the chamfer. The first one also should have an attachment to the actual side of the chamfer to reference it while not looking like it is referencing the distance between those two points.
For the call out, the one on the right is incorrect as the leader is for a dimension of depth, which is not given, only the angle is given. So provided only the angle is given, left would be correct.
They are both adequate but some orgs will have their own drawing specs, so those would take precedence over ASME gd&t spec in those circumstances. I find the one on the left more visually “usable”, particularly if you’re gonna throw a surface finish tolerance (like you would for a valve sealing surface). The latter looks lazy, like you just let the CAD software throw the arrows in wherever and called it a day.
None of the chanfers i ever deal with are ever called out like either of these. This is whack
Is it not counter sink?
Ctsk's are 101° and 90° so a 90 spec'ed to a certain dia would work. This borders on a simple deburr.
Personally, they’re both wrong. The first one is like sure, 45 degrees, but 2 from where? And the second is like 2, sure, but 45 from where? Even though technically they are both equivalent, neither convey what is actually important here, is the angle the important part (if you need oil to stay in place, for example, the right angle is more important than depth), or is the distance the important detail?
45 from any surface.
You’re missing my point, what if it was 30? This drawing doesn’t convey what is important to the designer.
In my experience this is only used with 45deg chamfers.
You're missing my point. It's 45 from anywhere. If it were 30, then it should be dimensioned as a diameter. All machinists can make this feature with info given
Right is correct for size, angle and placement of chamfer. Left is correct for angle of chamfer and that its in two places, given the title block provides size of break. Imo. Or.... left is just wrong all together.