nielsk
Well-known member
As someone who made a 500 series module that was approved by API and their VPR alliance program, I can tell you they did not charge for it.
If one is designing a part that will have a finish applied to it then it is best to take the thickness of that finish into account (!).
As you can see this original 553 is 1.51" wide, I have yet to have a problem filling a console full of these!
I think a bit too much is being made of the width dimension, the spec is clear.
If you want to make it thinner, go for it. I can't see any problem reducing it by .02 (.01 each side) and that should accommodate 3rd party racks.
The VPR spec already defines all the important dimensional considerations for 500 series compatible modules.
I admire the 51x format, instead of claiming 500 compliance and doing all sorts of silly stuff that creates problems like many manufactures (who would never get VPR compliance), they created their own format and spec that introduced possibilities while being backwards compatible.
If one is designing a part that will have a finish applied to it then it is best to take the thickness of that finish into account (!).
As you can see this original 553 is 1.51" wide, I have yet to have a problem filling a console full of these!
I think a bit too much is being made of the width dimension, the spec is clear.
If you want to make it thinner, go for it. I can't see any problem reducing it by .02 (.01 each side) and that should accommodate 3rd party racks.
The VPR spec already defines all the important dimensional considerations for 500 series compatible modules.
I admire the 51x format, instead of claiming 500 compliance and doing all sorts of silly stuff that creates problems like many manufactures (who would never get VPR compliance), they created their own format and spec that introduced possibilities while being backwards compatible.
Attachments
Last edited: