Drawings – which way up?

[Robin KingParticipant @robinking15611]

[Robin KingParticipant @robinking15611]

As far as I'm aware – and I may well be mistaken – it has been the convention in setting out magazines that where a full page landscape format drawing is printed on the right hand page of a pair, i.e. the odd numbered page, then it is shown with the head of the drawing towards the centre of the magazine, or staple line, and this is the case with all magazines that I take. Lately I've noticed that in ME drawings are now being shown the other way round with the foot of the drawing to the staple line.

It may well be that I've become conditioned over sixty odd years to turning magazines clockwise ninety degrees to read a drawing but I find this change to turning anti clockwise decidedly irritating. Does anyone else find the same, and can anyone offer a clues as to why the change has been made?

Robin

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

It would be even more irritating if it varied within the same magazine! No convention as far as I am aware. Does not make any difference to me.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

It does vary in 4441

The Simpson & Shipton drawings are in what seems the wrong orientation but the two loco's have them in what I consider the right way round.

J

[MadMikeParticipant @madmike]

Blimey, I had never noticed any convention as described above, and Robin you find the change, if there is one, irritating. Please do not be offended but you need to spend more time at your lathe, not being irritated by drawing orientation in a magazine. Did you know some of my motorbikes have the kick start on the right, some have it on the left, some have kick start and electric, and some do not have one at all. It is not an irritant believe me, it is simply how things are. I shall now remove my tongue from its firmly inserted position in my cheek.

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

Hi Mad Mike,

You will know some bikes are down for first, up for 2,3,4. Others are up for first…

First bike I rode (MZ) was one way, the second was the other. I started in second, changed down to first and couldn't udnerstand why it wouldn't go faster than about 20 mph… (it was a CM125).

Neil

[AndyfParticipant @andyf]

You can still turn your magazine clockwise, Robin. Just go three times as far; 270° rather than 90°.

But I do know what you mean about life's petty vexations. I suspect it's my age.

Andy

[MadMikeParticipant @madmike]

Neil, I know exactly what you mean. Some of my bikes are up for up and down for down, some are up for down and down for up. Added to that I have both left foot and right foot gear changes, plus 4, 5 and 6 speed gear boxes!!!!!!!!!!!! Then some have indicators and some do not.

These are just my current bikes. I recently sold 2 Harley Davidsons and they had rocking heel and toe gear pedals.

Life is full of little irritations I find.

However i generally manage to forget these minor irritations by manufacturing parts for my bikes using my "machines" in the garage. Cutting metal is just so therapeutic.

[Mike WainwrightParticipant @mikewainwright87512]

I find it more annoying when a part is spread across 2 pages like the crankshaft in the latest issue of ME. Either alway print the drawings on the centre pages of the magazine or make sure the parts don't cross the centre line of the magazine.

The crankshaft is one of the more complicated parts and you would not want to make it wrong because you misread where the dimensions go.

mike

Edited By Mike Wainwright on 22/10/2012 08:05:48

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

The said crankshaft drawing could have been better dimensioned, as drawn, think of all those accumulated tolerances!!!!!

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

In the engineering world I worked in the drawing was always read from top to bottom and from right to left i.e.bottom of drawing at the bottom of the page or to the right. Perhaps the EEC has changed this in one of the committee findings.

Regards

Alan

[Robin KingParticipant @robinking15611]

Mad Mike,

Much as I'd like to be at the lathe or mill circumstances dictate otherwise so I'm currently confined to being a 'paper engineer' and teaching myself 3D CAD as well, so probably spend too much time pondering as a result . Talking gearboxes I remember the fun I had learning to drive my old 2CV – the gear change with it's reversed layout was an education in itself but good once you'd mastered it!

No-one's yet come up with a good explanation for the drawings changes – tho' Alan, heaven forbid the EU ever get involved!

Robin

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Alan Jackson on 22/10/2012 15:43:41:

In the engineering world I worked in the drawing was always read from top to bottom and from right to left i.e.bottom of drawing at the bottom of the page or to the right.

Me to and it becomes automatic.

Problem is, if you follow this rule with a magazine, drawings in 'landscape' format will end up with the bottom or top to the fold depending on whether they are on the left or right page.

As a practical point, I would personally prefer that such drawings be printed with their tops to the fold (bottoms to the outside) in either case because, when reading at a desk or table, I prefer not to have a page width between me and the drawing.

[Harold Hall 1Participant @haroldhall1]

I, like Robin, found the drawings placed with the bottom to the left, that is to the fold on a right hand page and to the edge on the left hand page, a little difficult to come to terms with and asked myself why?

I had been brought up with what I considered to be the most common method of dimensioning, That is, dimension running left to right with the value horizontal and dimensions running top to bottom with the value vertical, and upright if viewed from the right hand edge. This naturally lead one to turn the drawing clockwise to read the vertical dimensions if there were many of them. I did not feel that strongly about the situation now appearing in the magazine so kept quite on the matter.

However, the latest copy of MEW appeared today and I found that there are four pages displayed with their bottom edge to the left. This led me to check how the drawings had been dimension and they were all to that I had grown to expect. It then occurred to me that if drawings were placed with the bottom of the drawing to the right, then when viewing the magazine normally all the horizontal dimensions would be upside down. On balance therefore I have to accept that the method adopted is the better of the two.

Having said that, I would prefer the detail parts to be separated into individual items and printed conventionally. The alternative for any future article, realising that the drawings have almost certainly been completed for the present one, is to have the drawings for detail parts drawn on a portrait orientated page.

Harold

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Harold,

If you desire to have portrait orientated pages, how would you show say an engine crankshaft where you need both end views and a plan as will as the elevation. Page would be too narrow for such a drawing.

The problems usually arise because the drawings in magazines are reduced from other larger drawings and are not drawn especially for magazine use.

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

Posted by KWIL on 22/10/2012 19:37:26:

Harold,

If you desire to have portrait orientated pages, how would you show say an engine crankshaft where you need both end views and a plan as will as the elevation. Page would be too narrow for such a drawing.

The problems usually arise because the drawings in magazines are reduced from other larger drawings and are not drawn especially for magazine use.

KWIL

I don't think Harold suggested all drawings should be shown in portrait format, he just suggested that view for the detailed parts.

'The cause of the 'problem' you refer to, is nothing to do with them being reduced from larger drawings, but is because by and large the drawings are submitted by engineers, model engineers, hobby enthusiasts etc rather than by trained draughtsmen/women. I prefer it stays the way it is.

Ian

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

Posted by Robin King on 20/10/2012 19:39:52:

As far as I'm aware – and I may well be mistaken – it has been the convention in setting out magazines that where a full page landscape format drawing is printed on the right hand page of a pair, i.e. the odd numbered page, then it is shown with the head of the drawing towards the centre of the magazine, or staple line, and this is the case with all magazines that I take. Lately I've noticed that in ME drawings are now being shown the other way round with the foot of the drawing to the staple line.

It may well be that I've become conditioned over sixty odd years to turning magazines clockwise ninety degrees to read a drawing but I find this change to turning anti clockwise decidedly irritating. Does anyone else find the same, and can anyone offer a clues as to why the change has been made?

Robin

I don't care to know why the change was made, all I want is for it to go back to the way it was!

It does not matter whether its drawings, photographs or text, if its laid out to be viewed in landscape then the fold/staples should be at the top of the image. That means turning the page 90 degrees left (or right) to see it correctly. One big reason/advantage is that the title block or picture caption is then visible when flicking through pages when searching or browsing.

Harold. Your reference to upside down dimensions is a red herring! When the drawings is viewed as it should be (with the magazine turned 90 degrees) the up and down dimension text is at 90 degrees which is perfectly normal for that style of dimensioning.

Ian P

[Harold Hall 1Participant @haroldhall1]

As Ian says Kwil, I was not suggesting that all drawings should be drawn in portrait format but only when convenient, I would say at least 90% of the drawings I have provided have been in that form and the individual parts picked out a printed separately. The problem in this case is that the detail part drawings have been drawn landscape and published as a whole, complete with drawing border.

With regard to horizontal dimensions being upside down, I agree if one is making the parts then the drawings need studying in detail and this needs rotating the magazine and there is no problem. However, when I look at detail drawings in the magazine first time, I see the horizontal dimensions reading left to right and I can also read the vertical dimensions even without turning the page.

If though the horizontal dimensions were upside down, as they would be if the drawings in question were turned to face the other way, I would find the need to turn the page much more frequently as I would not be able to read the drawing easily with the magazine held normally.

As someone not making the item I think that may deter me from studying the project as deeply as I would normally do. I tried turning the magazine round and I found the view very off putting but of course we all cope with such things differently.

I should add though that I am not saying the draughtsman should produce the drawings differently to suit left and right pages, no way. That would be totally wrong. 

Harold

Edited By Harold Hall 1 on 22/10/2012 22:25:26

[MadMikeParticipant @madmike]

My gob is well and truly smacked. I posted a reply to the original posting with my tongue planted very firmly in my cheek.

Now I have come to realise that some on here are genuinly concerned about the orientation of a few drawings in a "Model Engineering" magazine. Are you guys serious? Really serious?

If you cannot tell the top from the bottom of the drawing then you need to go back to school and learn to read drawings. Some of you may be offended by this but as somebody who has been involved in engineering since the age of 17, nearly 50 years now, I have to say that you would never have made it through the apprentice training centre where I was trained. I know that many of you are self taught and manage to do some amazing things but really who the hell cares about the orientation of a drawing in a magazine.

My last missive on this subject. Please go and do some real "engineering" and stop being irritated by such an irrelevancy.

[AndyfParticipant @andyf]

I sometimes find it handy to make a copy of the drawing. Then it can viewed alongside the accompanying text, even if the text is overleaf. And it saves grubby fingermarks getting on the original when working.

Unfortunately, photocopies are more difficult now I'm retired. They involve a trip to the library with 10p clutched in my hand, now my flatbed scanner has given up the ghost.

Andy

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Normally we redraw drawings as portrait but where possible we don't redraw them (saves introducing errors) and they are normally landscape.

I have asked the designer and illustrator to drawings as suggested in a previous post.

regards David

[Robin KingParticipant @robinking15611]

Thank you all for your comments so far, and MM – no I don't believe it's irrelevant.

Harold and Ian P make valid points but what stands out for me is the lack of consistency as well. As an example take Alan Jackson's articles on the Stepperhead Lathe in MEW – drawing1 page 43 of the May issue and drawing 2 on page 43 of the June issue are shown in what I feel is the correct conventional orientation, but turn to today's issue, drawing 22 on page 19 is shown the t'other way round. Both drawings appear to be CAD drawn and dimensioned in the same format so I'm not sure that Harold's argument regarding dimension reading stands up. In ME 21st September issue we have the Simpson and Shipton engine drawing on page 421 shown the 'wrong' (in my view) way up yet in 5th October issue the 14XX drawing on page 493 is the 'right' way up. I don't see the logic!

Further comments invited

Robin

[AndyPParticipant @andyp13730]

I don't care which way up they are so long as they are correct !
If having them in various, less than optimum, orientations is the price I have to pay for them not being bu****ed redrawn by an 'artist' then that's fair enough. Employing somebody capable of doing the job properly seems not to be the 21st century way.

Andy

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

It never occured to me that readers wanted the drawings a particular way.

I will look at this in future magazines although 4442 has gone to print.

regards David

[PackmuleParticipant @packmule]

HI Andyf,

I cant understand why you go to the library to copy your mag drawing. Why not use the digital issue and printit out ?

Cheers

Bob

[Author]

Posts