Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
Running an experiment: dirty parts, made dirt cheap!
I have a small CNC machine shop here in the Boston area focused on prototyping for my own R&D purposes building on possibilities enabled by cloud-based workflow and rich APIs. I have some ideas around very-low-cost manufacturing that I would like to put to the test, and I figured the best way to do market research is to try making some real parts for someone other than myself.
(Admins, I hope this isn't considered spam but if so I understand and apologize in advance for your trouble.)
Anyway, here's the basic rules of the game:
Material: 6061
Maximum part size: 6"x4" X/Y and up to 1" deep
Cost: $25 per side for 2.5D machining, for one part, includes material and USPS flat rate shipping to a US address
Quantity: minimum 1 part, maximum 10
Tolerances: Generally better than +/- .005", but may be as bad as +/- .030"
Turn time: 7-30 days depending on demand
My basic line of thinking here is there is a use case for parts with relatively simple geometry--think a rectangular enclosure that's machined in two to six operations by clamping in a vise to mill out the basic shape, drill holes or cutouts in sides, etc.. My theory is that if I can hold certain things constant, I can bring the cost of programming, setup, and machining down very low.
To play, the part must be designed in Onshape and available publicly. Share with my username or PM me the link. I'm thinking taking up to ten or so parts for this test, but reserve the right to cry "uncle" at any time. Payment via Paypal with a 7-day money-back guarantee for up to two parts per person. Basically, I make it, if you like it, great, if not, no argument, just tell me why you're unhappy and I'll refund. (I'm limiting to two parts to avoid getting soaked or taken for a ride).
NDA, legal, etc.: Parts must be available publicly so no NDA, I guarantee they will be unsuitable for all purposes other than decorating your desk, I reserve the right to retain copies of parts/CAM/GCode/CAD for my own research purposes, and it's extremely unlikely I'll go into competition when I realize how brilliant your fuel demagnetizer or Em Drive design is. I'm an idiot offering to make first-article machined parts in the US for $25 each including material and shipping so my business acumen is clearly questionable.
Thanks for reading and apologies again if this is crossing any lines of bad forum manners.
(Admins, I hope this isn't considered spam but if so I understand and apologize in advance for your trouble.)
Anyway, here's the basic rules of the game:
Material: 6061
Maximum part size: 6"x4" X/Y and up to 1" deep
Cost: $25 per side for 2.5D machining, for one part, includes material and USPS flat rate shipping to a US address
Quantity: minimum 1 part, maximum 10
Tolerances: Generally better than +/- .005", but may be as bad as +/- .030"
Turn time: 7-30 days depending on demand
My basic line of thinking here is there is a use case for parts with relatively simple geometry--think a rectangular enclosure that's machined in two to six operations by clamping in a vise to mill out the basic shape, drill holes or cutouts in sides, etc.. My theory is that if I can hold certain things constant, I can bring the cost of programming, setup, and machining down very low.
To play, the part must be designed in Onshape and available publicly. Share with my username or PM me the link. I'm thinking taking up to ten or so parts for this test, but reserve the right to cry "uncle" at any time. Payment via Paypal with a 7-day money-back guarantee for up to two parts per person. Basically, I make it, if you like it, great, if not, no argument, just tell me why you're unhappy and I'll refund. (I'm limiting to two parts to avoid getting soaked or taken for a ride).
NDA, legal, etc.: Parts must be available publicly so no NDA, I guarantee they will be unsuitable for all purposes other than decorating your desk, I reserve the right to retain copies of parts/CAM/GCode/CAD for my own research purposes, and it's extremely unlikely I'll go into competition when I realize how brilliant your fuel demagnetizer or Em Drive design is. I'm an idiot offering to make first-article machined parts in the US for $25 each including material and shipping so my business acumen is clearly questionable.
Thanks for reading and apologies again if this is crossing any lines of bad forum manners.
3
Comments
Love your post
Linked[in]
Ok, this may be beyond what you were looking to do, but if you machine these, i am interested in a quote for 4!
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/8dc4fe36e60046e390717300/w/57584a24a71b4f49aae4541b/e/bb4eabade0ff45e18d1a2363
EDIT - Drat, just saw that you max out at 1" in Z
@philip_thomas The depth of that part makes it a bit trickier for me as it would require some extended-reach tooling and my mill (Tormach 1100) effectively maxes out at 1/2" diameter tools which get a bit... noodle-y at 4+ inch length. I'll bet it's workable but a mill that can take 1"+ tooling would be able to rough this out a lot faster. Most of my tooling maxes out around 2" deep which is where I work but I'll chew on this one a bit to see how much it would cost me to give it a try (stock alone is ~$45
@philip_thomas
$100 for that part is a darn good deal!
Edit: This is a 4" X 4" X 1" block with a 3" X 3.25" X 0.75" pocket.
Linked[in]
Obviously I cannot speak for @cwmk, however from a machining standpoint:
Here is a good rule of thumb-
Divide your depth by 3
.75 / 3= .25
That is the smallest endmill diameter @cwmk will want to use for maximum efficiency in your pocket.
He will likely rough it out with something much bigger and then switch to a smaller cutter for finishing the walls (and your corners).
1/8 in corner radius.
Also if you give @cwmk a little room to work with... like 10% over the standard fraction...then you will get better surface finish in the corners. An on size cutter will chatter as it cuts the corner because of engagement angle.
So if you went with .150in corner radius, then he can use a 1/4 endmill and it won't bark in the corners.
If you absolutely need a smaller corner radius obviously that is doable. But for max efficiency 3 x Diameter is best.
Linked[in]
great work on that logo design.
Of of course you can do smaller corner radi....I just know he is trying to make parts 'fast and cheap.
Twitter: @onshapetricks & @babart1977
Unfortunately, I can't share the file right now.
Linked[in]
With that said, the logo is a 3D part, because you have contiguous surfaces with unequal Z. I'm not necessarily allergic to more complex geometry, but the machining can take a lot longer depending on finish expectations. For really smooth surfaces like say injection molds you might do finish passes with a .005" stepover and on my machine that will take a looooong time. On the plus side, it's still 1 setup, two to make it look pretty all around.
Right now the longest thinnest tool I have is a .125" EM with a, I think .500 length of cut. It's on a 3/8 shank so I probably have a reach of about 1" if it's simply a clearance problem. So I might be able to do a little better. There's also the option of doing a light chamfer cut around the edges which could define the shape in the radiused corners a little better.
It is interesting (and perhaps revealing) that the simple parts everybody wants are turning out to be not quite as simple
I'd fooled myself into thinking that if those two fields are so easy to pick up (at least enough to be useful, if not to master) then CAM/CNC will be just the same... Not so, a bit of a steeper learning curve there, and with less developed software too, at least at the lower end of the market.
Simply put, it's Onshape's fault for making it all look too easy
Just my 2 cents worth.
Owen S.
HWM-Water Ltd
@owen_sparks: Yes, CAM vendors for the most part (MeshCAM, which I have not used, seems to be outwardly different) seem to all be very focused on power-with-complexity, and some of them are just abominations from a UX standpoint. I suspect that this is partially a result of the design:manufacture dichotomy that largely prevails in industry, and also the fact that small optimizations and tweaks can be quite valuable when making 500 or 50,000 of a thing, as opposed to one or five. Some of the need for "simpler CAM" is also probably taken up by conversational controls, some of which are becoming quite sophisticated in their own right and have the advantage of being tailored for the machine.
Shoot me an email at dylan@autotiv.com when you get a chance and let me buy you lunch
If you are looking for a cost effective manufacturing partner, please reach out to him.
This has a few small oopses* in it, so consider it a free part
* In case anyone cares, I did the profiling of the letters with a 1/16" endmill, so there are some divots between the s/h/a and p/e. A 1/32" EM would have eliminated these, but with a max RPM of 5000, even the 1/16" EM is painfully slow to use. Also, the first time I clamped the part to machine the back side (which was optional, but I wanted all 6 sides to be milled rather than sawn or raw), I accidentally caught the foot of the p in the vise, which resulted in the lump you can see. I could run a facemill over the top which would make it stand out less.