New posts

Thanks for visiting The Penturners Forum today.

There are many features and resources that currently you are unable to see or access, either because you're not yet registered, or if you're already registered, because you're not logged in.

To gain full access to the forum, please log in or register now. Registration is completely free, it only takes a few seconds, and you can join our well established community of like-minded pen makers.

Reply to thread

Message

The wheel analogy isn't appropriate as car wheels are determined by the performance and characteristics of the vehicle, not just cosmetics.
You've missed the idea. A set of bushes in 1mm increments (say 9>16) that fit directly on a standard mandrel and a second set of inserts for the more limited tube range (9/11/12). Those figures would cover most kits currently available.

Would it really be too onerous on designers to conform to part sizes in integers (1mm increments) ?
Do PSI really need to make their pens so subtly different that the bush diameter varies by just .3mm ? Would anyone notice if they used common sizes ? no.
On invisible tubes why do we need some having an internal diameter of 8.76mm and another at 9.22mm ? Just daft.
Why ? it would only be a case of conforming to some specific dimensions. It may lead to a greater diversity if it opened 'pick and mix' options and people would be more ready to try different kits if it didn't have to involve buying yet another set of bushes that might only get used once.

It won't happen, but it could and be a benefit to everyone.

<blockquote data-quote="APH" data-source="post: 306656" data-attributes="member: 1766">The wheel analogy isn&#039;t appropriate as car wheels are determined by the performance and characteristics of the vehicle, not just cosmetics.You&#039;ve missed the idea. A set of bushes in 1mm increments (say 9&gt;16) that fit directly on a standard mandrel and a second set of inserts for the more limited tube range (9/11/12). Those figures would cover most kits currently available.Would it really be too onerous on designers to conform to part sizes in integers (1mm increments) ?Do PSI really need to make their pens so subtly different that the bush diameter varies by just .3mm ? Would anyone notice if they used common sizes ? no.On invisible tubes why do we need some having an internal diameter of 8.76mm and another at 9.22mm ? Just daft.Why ? it would only be a case of conforming to some specific dimensions. It may lead to a greater diversity if it opened &#039;pick and mix&#039; options and people would be more ready to try different kits if it didn&#039;t have to involve buying yet another set of bushes that might only get used once.It won&#039;t happen, but it could and be a benefit to everyone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="APH, post: 306656, member: 1766"] The wheel analogy isn't appropriate as car wheels are determined by the performance and characteristics of the vehicle, not just cosmetics. You've missed the idea. A set of bushes in 1mm increments (say 9>16) that fit directly on a standard mandrel and a second set of inserts for the more limited tube range (9/11/12). Those figures would cover most kits currently available. Would it really be too onerous on designers to conform to part sizes in integers (1mm increments) ? Do PSI really need to make their pens so subtly different that the bush diameter varies by just .3mm ? Would anyone notice if they used common sizes ? no. On invisible tubes why do we need some having an internal diameter of 8.76mm and another at 9.22mm ? Just daft. Why ? it would only be a case of conforming to some specific dimensions. It may lead to a greater diversity if it opened 'pick and mix' options and people would be more ready to try different kits if it didn't [I]have[/I] to involve buying yet another set of bushes that might only get used once. It won't happen, but it could and be a benefit to everyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification