john12ax7
Well-known member
I never viewed the VPR specs as anything more than nominal dimensions. 1.5"x5.25" is the grid much like 1RU is 1.75"x19". It's up to the designer to make their own suitable fabrication drawings.
groupDIY 500 series mechanical specifications
- Thread starter ruffrecords
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Brian Roth
Well-known member
I am in sync with everyone here. API originally said they would void the warranty of their racks if third-party modules were used. Their next step was the VPR Alliance that "certified" modules (for a fee?) and API states:
"API’s chief benefit from the Alliance is the elimination of confusion as to which third party products void the API warranty and which do not."
For modules sent for their their approval, API says:
"API will review the unit for specification compliance only, with current draw and physical dimensions being top priority, and the sample will be returned as promptly as possible."
Of course, we can all ignore API voiding their rack warranty. OK with me!
Bri
"API’s chief benefit from the Alliance is the elimination of confusion as to which third party products void the API warranty and which do not."
For modules sent for their their approval, API says:
"API will review the unit for specification compliance only, with current draw and physical dimensions being top priority, and the sample will be returned as promptly as possible."
Of course, we can all ignore API voiding their rack warranty. OK with me!
Bri
MidnightArrakis
Well-known member
[Am I the only person on this forum who can create a PCB-fabrication/mechanical design fabrication document like these? - No] -- ok, then.....why do I fail to see anyone else's mechanical drawings on this forum show any proper differentiation between 2- and 3-place callouts, let alone even has a correct datum, properly shows a detailed countersunk-hole callout, goes to the extent of including both Imperial and metric dimensions and on and on? WHY??? Because I don't think anyone else on this forum even knows what the differences are or what they even mean in reality. That's why someone would respond back with just a "No".
I will put things this way.....should I have ever dimensioned any of my mechanical detail fabrication drawings in the same manner as to what is so commonly shown here on this forum, I would have been fired immediately!!! Just placing a bunch of dimensions on and around an object doesn't "make them as being correct". In the world's I have always worked within, there are industry-standard methods, protocols and techniques that are -- demanded to be used -- when creating a proper "mechanical detail fabrication drawing" and I just completely simply fail to see ANY of the drawings shown on this forum as meeting ANY of the ANSI Y14.5 standards!!!
Perhaps this GroupDIY forum should just leave the final "500-Series Mechanical Detail Fabrication Drawings" to be created by either @13engrsapper or @sahib or @Brian Roth because they're so good at performing this function already.....ya think???
/
http://mmi172wp.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/79999706/Workhorse-OS-DataSheet-v4.pdf Radial had some specifications. The width for their modules is 1.488, so not 1.5.
MidnightArrakis
Well-known member
[1.488, so not 1.5] -- That's only RADIAL Engineering's "interpretation" of the VPR Alliance's specification. Besides, their 1.488" dimension is only a -- 0.012" -- clearance tolerance, which is "razor thin"!!! Should you have your front-panels powder-coated, the powder-coating itself will consume at least half of that clearance tolerance. Besides, their mechanical detail drawings -- DON'T -- conform and/or meet any ANSI Y14.5 design/drafting standards!!! Or, are even CLOSE in doing so!!! PHOOEY ON THEM!!!.....
/
ruffrecords
Well-known member
You are clearly very skilled and experienced at mechanical design and drawing and we value your contributions. However, most of the contributors to this forum do not have your depth of skills and at the present point in the discussion little if anything is cast in concrete. We are still trying to home in on a specification and at some point it will become necessary to draw it with the precision and attention to detail that you posses. I would just ask you to be a little more patient. We will get there.
Cheers
Ian
sahib
Well-known member
API's original specification for current draw is 130mA per rail / per module. Radial has increased this to 160mA. Our modules draw about 140mA average (this is because they have a lot going on). There are independent modules that draw even more. Now the API Lunchboxes also provide 250mA per rail/per slot and I would imagine this is to allow independent modules to be used on API racks. Otherwise the format is in a completely different place now and commercially it would be unwise to limit your product.
Last edited:
MidnightArrakis
Well-known member
>> Have you seen the -- STL -- files I created for you of the TAKACHI Enclosure "CF45-28GS" side-cheeks in another thread?
/
Nobody is saying that, a little sensitive? You asked if you were the only one who could do this, I responded. "No," as I can, and I am sure there are a number of industry designers/engineers and CAD professionals from other industries with an interest in music lurking here other than us.
"Why don't I submit all the drawings?"
We are slammed, studio is in full swing so we are a man down EVERY day... and once a week or so he drags more stuff back from the studio for repair or modifications... Because some of us have other work to do, or are not retired, and are still actively working in music, or have a backlog of client projects and personal projects ahead of this??? I am sure there are a multitude of reasons others don't or can't.
Plus you seem to enjoy it and are good at it, so why interfere. Again, all I caught was you asking if you were the only one here who could. Perhaps the question should have been, "am I the only one who wants to" or "would anyone like to learn how?"
I will have limited contributions to this, not a big 500 series guy here, not enough elbow room for me. Maybe I will get infatuated someday. 99.9% of what we do here is build-wise is 2, 3, or 4U. I do not think I have ever cut/built a 1U anything, much less a 500 series. I do TOTALLY like the modular concept but I need room like a NEVE module size, and enough current for lots of tubes - or transistors - or both. Maybe I will call it the TRAMP rack (for Tony and SCAMP) and build doublewide scamp sized modules, lol.
I contribute what I can when I have time, and usually only if it is something I am going to work on, or have actually put hands on. But as a business, I can't give away the farm; plus we are busy soldering. I am lucky to have time to take a break (like now) and have my coffee as I rest between "project blocks" which are my new thing this year. If you see me as on here 24/7, it is likely because I forgot to sign out.
Back to coffee, decaf for you my friend and smile... Nobody wants to replace you or your contributions, or is trying to "outdo" you
-Tony
Last edited:
Brian Roth
Well-known member
@MidnightArrakis I am not highly skilled when it comes to mechanical design and/or drawing. That is your skill. If I seemed to claim otherwise, I apologize.
My comments in this thread relate to the decades-old presence of the API standard that became a defacto industry standard. Along the way, they decided to void their warranty if non-API modules were used in their equipment. That was followed by them NOT voiding their warranty if they "blessed" a module through their (paid?) VPR process.
Their published mechanical docs are clearly not suitable for manufacturing.
Bri
My comments in this thread relate to the decades-old presence of the API standard that became a defacto industry standard. Along the way, they decided to void their warranty if non-API modules were used in their equipment. That was followed by them NOT voiding their warranty if they "blessed" a module through their (paid?) VPR process.
Their published mechanical docs are clearly not suitable for manufacturing.
Bri
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Yes I have seen them. Thank you very much for doing that. I am now just working out if I can print my own with a nice built in logo. Unfortunately they are too big for my current 3D printer. I may have to upgrade it. Work in progress.
Cheers
Ian
MidnightArrakis
Well-known member
[Thank you very much for doing that] -- No problem!!! My pleasure!!! ..... Since you have expressed such excitement, glee and joy about your new 3D-printer and with you having made a mention about being able to 3D-print the side-cheeks of this mini-mixer, I just thought that you would get a real kick out of having something really spiffy to 3D print-out. In fact, in my creating the -- STL -- files for these side-cheeks, I found out how I am able to switch between -- STL-ASCII -- and -- STL-BINARY -- file formats. In addition, I am also able to either accept a default "tolerance" setting of 10% or change it to something else. In the case of these two -- STL -- side-cheek files, I have tightened the tolerance down to 5%. Compared to the previous -- STL -- files I have provided you with, let me know if these new files cause any hiccups, OK???
-- TALLY-HO!!! --
/
