Subject:
|
Re: Wheels with/without metal axle
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:43:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4889 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Niels Karsdorp wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Guy Vivan wrote:
> > >
> > > > An axle for whel must can be introduce in a Technic axle hole.
> > > > It's only possible if the diameter of axle is inferior of axlehole.
> > > > The wheel old used an axle metal don't use a corect diameter.
> > > > It's time for corect all wheel parts with a good size of axle.
> > > > And corect all elements with use an axle Ex : 7049.dat etc...
> > >
> > > Since I don't have any of these wheels, I'll take your word that these metal
> > > axles fit into technic cross-axle holes.
> > >
> > > But before we go changing existing files, can we get someone to take a caliper
> > > to one of these axles? Just so we'll have a real-world measurement to start
> > > from?
> >
> > I have measured several of these metal axles with a caliper from different kinds
> > of wheels (studded train wheel with traction teeth, studded train wheel conical
> > hub, spoked train wheel conical hub, spoked train wheel straight hub, studded
> > wheel for rubber tyre (tyre 132-old), spoked wheel for rubber tyre (tyre
> > 132-old), large studded wheel for rubber tyre (tyre 36) and large spoked wheel
> > for rubber tyre (tyre 36).
> > All axles have a 3 mm diameter. With 1 LDU = 0.4 mm this makes the radius 7.5
> > LDU.
>
> If possible, can you measure the distance diagonally across the minimum radius
> part of a cross axle? My guess is this problem has shown up because the concave
> curve at that point of the cross axles has not been modelled in the Ldraw
> primitives. It would probably add around 1.5LDU to the diameter there.
>
> What we do about it is another matter. The metal axles definitely do fit in the
> technic cross-axle holes, and that x573 part definitely looks strange with the
> cylindrical section wider than the cross-axle section.
Just a suggestion, maybe the axle primitives could be changed to include a
simple 45 degree chamfer there? This would affect quite a few parts, but I doubt
there would be many that would need changing if they use the axle primitives as
designed.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Wheels with/without metal axle
|
| (...) If possible, can you measure the distance diagonally across the minimum radius part of a cross axle? My guess is this problem has shown up because the concave curve at that point of the cross axles has not been modelled in the Ldraw (...) (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
