elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - PCB multiple designs surcharge
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
John Fields
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:18 pm
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:25:16 -0800 (PST), linnix <me_at_linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 7, 9:28 pm, don <don> wrote:
linnix wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us
wibbled on Monday 08 February 2010 00:18
In one case, I paid and submitted files. They saw different
functional blocks and wanted to charge more. I told them to cancel
the order and they back off. Another fab's web says that they are
trying to protect jobs by charging more and forcing designers to
submit multiple orders. By killing us (designers), I don't know how
they can create more jobs for them.
So does that mean if you created one board with a snap line (where the
functional parts *could* (but needn't) be separated, they would charge more?
Sounds very subjective - and a rather prehistoric and misguided charging
approach. Reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA.
Yes, some say so explicitly, with or without snap line. Usually, I
can negotiate it out, but I am tried of dealing with such nonsense.
Am I the only one having these experiences?
By the way, I never have design issues with combined designs, except
for money issues.
No, you are not alone.
4pcb.com charges an extra $50 to step and repeat !!!
But I do all the shift, merge, step and repeat. All else being
equal. They charge $126 if I says it's 1 design, $163 if 4 designs
and $315 if 8 designs. They do exactly the same work regardless.
linnix wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us
wibbled on Monday 08 February 2010 00:18
In one case, I paid and submitted files. They saw different
functional blocks and wanted to charge more. I told them to cancel
the order and they back off. Another fab's web says that they are
trying to protect jobs by charging more and forcing designers to
submit multiple orders. By killing us (designers), I don't know how
they can create more jobs for them.
So does that mean if you created one board with a snap line (where the
functional parts *could* (but needn't) be separated, they would charge more?
Sounds very subjective - and a rather prehistoric and misguided charging
approach. Reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA.
Yes, some say so explicitly, with or without snap line. Usually, I
can negotiate it out, but I am tried of dealing with such nonsense.
Am I the only one having these experiences?
By the way, I never have design issues with combined designs, except
for money issues.
No, you are not alone.
4pcb.com charges an extra $50 to step and repeat !!!
But I do all the shift, merge, step and repeat. All else being
equal. They charge $126 if I says it's 1 design, $163 if 4 designs
and $315 if 8 designs. They do exactly the same work regardless.
Vote with your feet; there are too many board houses around for you to
have to put up with that crap.
JF
Jan Panteltje
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:15 pm
On a sunny day (Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:59:49 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<uqf0n5p6kgusok8alc5p2lmq6ke9s26e7v_at_4ax.com>:
Quote:
Nice, anything above 1GHz or so will probably remain magick to me :-)
To me, too. I haven't the nonlinear device models, the EM software
tools, or the brute intelligence to predict how some of this stuff
will behave. So a mixture of instinct, experience, and experiment will
have to do.
I simply do not have the equipment to measure that stuff.
I started with flea-market Tek gear, a 547 scope and a 1S2
TDR/sampler, about $120 total. Nowadays you can get an 11801 mainframe
and a 20 GHz TDR/sampling head for around $1500.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/1S2.jpg
To me, too. I haven't the nonlinear device models, the EM software
tools, or the brute intelligence to predict how some of this stuff
will behave. So a mixture of instinct, experience, and experiment will
have to do.
I simply do not have the equipment to measure that stuff.
I started with flea-market Tek gear, a 547 scope and a 1S2
TDR/sampler, about $120 total. Nowadays you can get an 11801 mainframe
and a 20 GHz TDR/sampling head for around $1500.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/1S2.jpg
Nice, at least they had decent knobs beack then
Knobs have evolved faster then us humans, maybe a few generations onward people
will have little forked fingers to toggle those tiny levers :-)
Quote:
The 11801 is a beast, but it works beautifully. This one is displaying
a 1 GHz square wave from the successful pin driver circuit on my
multiple-circuit board, under the Mantis. The sampling head is on an
extender cable so it can snug right up to the DUT.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/DSC01371.JPG
a 1 GHz square wave from the successful pin driver circuit on my
multiple-circuit board, under the Mantis. The sampling head is on an
extender cable so it can snug right up to the DUT.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/DSC01371.JPG
It is a nice big screen, but the edges of the waveform are rounded,
not a real square wave.
< 10GHz bandwidth?
Quote:
The test source is the SRS CG635 2GHz clock generator, a nice box with
the usual SRS quirks. It has a clever but complex way of generating a
very low jitter DDS-based clock.
Have some parts here to try a diode sampler one day,
just ordered hundreds of dollars more mondaine parts...
I've done a couple of samplers, just for fun. The Tek S2 topology (SRD
driving shorted transmission lines, 2-diode feedback sampler) works
well and isn't hard to do.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Sampler1.JPG
the usual SRS quirks. It has a clever but complex way of generating a
very low jitter DDS-based clock.
Have some parts here to try a diode sampler one day,
just ordered hundreds of dollars more mondaine parts...
I've done a couple of samplers, just for fun. The Tek S2 topology (SRD
driving shorted transmission lines, 2-diode feedback sampler) works
well and isn't hard to do.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Sampler1.JPG
Yes, you did show that before, and I did take a real good look at it.
Something like that I will probably try.
Quote:
The latest thing with ordering from conrad.nl is,
that if you manage to enter all type numbers in the browser without the site flipping or browser crashing,
then in the 'shopping card' they also include related things that you did *not*
order... makes it hard to check, had the spreadsheet next to it.
I think the idea is that you think 'oh I need that too'.
Browser crashed just after I closed the secure connection.
Why do all those sites have to have all that crap all over the screen?
Firefox under XP seems very solid to me. It's not elegant but it
works.
John
that if you manage to enter all type numbers in the browser without the site flipping or browser crashing,
then in the 'shopping card' they also include related things that you did *not*
order... makes it hard to check, had the spreadsheet next to it.
I think the idea is that you think 'oh I need that too'.
Browser crashed just after I closed the secure connection.
Why do all those sites have to have all that crap all over the screen?
Firefox under XP seems very solid to me. It's not elegant but it
works.
John
Yea, but firefox needs some gtk libs in Linux that I do not have, and did not want
to compile on my system last time I tried.
So I use Opera, it is way more stable then my last firefox.
1 Lucky Texan
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:47 pm
On Feb 8, 7:59 am, Stef <stef...@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid>
wrote:
Quote:
In comp.arch.embedded,
1 Lucky Texan <alcky...@swbell.net> wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:00 am, "Nial Stewart"
nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
"linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
Are you asking for electrical test?
They must have software that deduces a netlist from the gerbers, it
could be that multiple boards on a single panel screws this up
needing manual intervention.
You wouldn't have thought it would cost much to fix though.
Nial
ET would be the only 'reasonable' excuse for that kind of pricing.
Why? All boards are just a collection of separated nets if no components
are placed. What is different if one group of disconnected nets is in
one area of the board and another group in another area?
And if I design a board with galvanic isolation I have just such a
layout, only difference is that you may see some silk print for
optocouplers and DCDC converter 'connecting' the otherwise completely
disconnected groups of nets. Would you accept a charge for 2 designs
for this board?
--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)
If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
-- Jerry Muscha
1 Lucky Texan <alcky...@swbell.net> wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:00 am, "Nial Stewart"
nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
"linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
Are you asking for electrical test?
They must have software that deduces a netlist from the gerbers, it
could be that multiple boards on a single panel screws this up
needing manual intervention.
You wouldn't have thought it would cost much to fix though.
Nial
ET would be the only 'reasonable' excuse for that kind of pricing.
Why? All boards are just a collection of separated nets if no components
are placed. What is different if one group of disconnected nets is in
one area of the board and another group in another area?
And if I design a board with galvanic isolation I have just such a
layout, only difference is that you may see some silk print for
optocouplers and DCDC converter 'connecting' the otherwise completely
disconnected groups of nets. Would you accept a charge for 2 designs
for this board?
--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)
If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
-- Jerry Muscha
Good points.
I suppose I was thinking if seperate files/failure notices were kept
for the different sections - a small NRE/w'ever might be reasonable.
But, would the OP expect to have the entire panel rejected if a
failure were limited to a single circuit? Sems like a waste if the
other circuits can still be singulated and used.
I dunno.
linnix
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:01 pm
On Feb 8, 9:47 am, 1 Lucky Texan <alcky...@swbell.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 8, 7:59 am, Stef <stef...@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid
wrote:
In comp.arch.embedded,
1 Lucky Texan <alcky...@swbell.net> wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:00 am, "Nial Stewart"
nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
"linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
Are you asking for electrical test?
They must have software that deduces a netlist from the gerbers, it
could be that multiple boards on a single panel screws this up
needing manual intervention.
You wouldn't have thought it would cost much to fix though.
Nial
ET would be the only 'reasonable' excuse for that kind of pricing.
Why? All boards are just a collection of separated nets if no components
are placed. What is different if one group of disconnected nets is in
one area of the board and another group in another area?
And if I design a board with galvanic isolation I have just such a
layout, only difference is that you may see some silk print for
optocouplers and DCDC converter 'connecting' the otherwise completely
disconnected groups of nets. Would you accept a charge for 2 designs
for this board?
--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)
If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
-- Jerry Muscha
Good points.
I suppose I was thinking if seperate files/failure notices were kept
for the different sections - a small NRE/w'ever might be reasonable.
But, would the OP expect to have the entire panel rejected if a
failure were limited to a single circuit? Sems like a waste if the
other circuits can still be singulated and used.
I dunno.
wrote:
In comp.arch.embedded,
1 Lucky Texan <alcky...@swbell.net> wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:00 am, "Nial Stewart"
nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
"linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
Are you asking for electrical test?
They must have software that deduces a netlist from the gerbers, it
could be that multiple boards on a single panel screws this up
needing manual intervention.
You wouldn't have thought it would cost much to fix though.
Nial
ET would be the only 'reasonable' excuse for that kind of pricing.
Why? All boards are just a collection of separated nets if no components
are placed. What is different if one group of disconnected nets is in
one area of the board and another group in another area?
And if I design a board with galvanic isolation I have just such a
layout, only difference is that you may see some silk print for
optocouplers and DCDC converter 'connecting' the otherwise completely
disconnected groups of nets. Would you accept a charge for 2 designs
for this board?
--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)
If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
-- Jerry Muscha
Good points.
I suppose I was thinking if seperate files/failure notices were kept
for the different sections - a small NRE/w'ever might be reasonable.
But, would the OP expect to have the entire panel rejected if a
failure were limited to a single circuit? Sems like a waste if the
other circuits can still be singulated and used.
I dunno.
In my case, there are 3 different functional units, 4 versions (using
different chips) of 1 functional unit and 2 to 5 copies of each
version. That way, we can control the inventory of different modules
with regular runs. Yes, they are fully independent, so one failure
will not affect other modules. I am not sure how PCBcart interprets
multiple designs. But I have encountered several PCB fab houses/
dealers that want to charge multiple setup costs. I usually just
negotiate it down or walk away.
Joel Koltner
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:33 pm
"linnix" <me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge?
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge?
The "legitimate" part of such a surcharge would be because PCB fab houses
often determine their prices based on "average" boards with a certain hole
density, a certain part density/number of parts, a certain board size, etc.,
and by combining designs yourself they view it as "gaming the system" because
you're purposely creating a board that's likely well outside of "average" but
you're still getting the "based on average" pricing and hence reducing their
profits.
Note that the cheaper the board house (usually indicating lower margins), the
more likely they are to start nickel and diming you for this sort of thing.
As other have mentioned, it's also possible they do it "just because they
can," looking to increase their profits with no real increase in their own
costs. How much it's this vs. the "legitimate" reason above is anyone's guess
for a given fab...
It does make sense to examine different board houses when you're caught in
this situation, of course -- obviously it's better for everyone if a board
house, through a different pricing model or better efficiency, can make money
with your particular design while still giving you a price that you find
acceptable.
---Joel
D Yuniskis
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:02 pm
Hi Joel,
Joel Koltner wrote:
Quote:
"linnix" <me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge?
The "legitimate" part of such a surcharge would be because PCB fab
houses often determine their prices based on "average" boards with a
certain hole density, a certain part density/number of parts, a certain
board size, etc., and by combining designs yourself they view it as
"gaming the system" because you're purposely creating a board that's
likely well outside of "average" but you're still getting the "based on
average" pricing and hence reducing their profits.
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd_at_s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge?
The "legitimate" part of such a surcharge would be because PCB fab
houses often determine their prices based on "average" boards with a
certain hole density, a certain part density/number of parts, a certain
board size, etc., and by combining designs yourself they view it as
"gaming the system" because you're purposely creating a board that's
likely well outside of "average" but you're still getting the "based on
average" pricing and hence reducing their profits.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. :<
Assume I have two designs (or N designs -- where N is largest number
that can coexist on a panel). How is it any different than having
*one* design with:
- the greatest hole/part density
- the least hole/part density
if both of these designs would have been "based on average pricing"?
I can see if the resulting panel had to be laid out by the vendor
(i.e., he can't step-and-repeat a *single* design). I can see if
the vendor had to panelize M different shaped boards. I can
see if the processing options for each board were different.
But, if all of the boards were the same size/shape/process;
and, if I panelized them AS IF they were a single board M times
larger than the individual boards (i.e., pretend it is one
board that is just cut in M-1 spots), then I really don't see
the justification for this.
E.g., if I place the M artworks side by side with line on the
silkscreen layer that says "cut here" and have *this* "single
board" panelized -- with it very obviously intended to be
cut after-the-fact on each of those silkscreened lines, what
claim would the vendor have to increase the price?
Now, I turn to the vendor and say: "I am going to cut these boards
on these lines after I receive them from you. What will *you*
charge me to make those cuts for me?" then I can see *some*
vendors asking for "a bit more" for this "service". But,
knowing that you have other options if his "adder" is too high:
- cut them myself
- find another house that will "cut the boards" cheaper (gratis)
and give him the whole order.
Note that this does add another processing step -- he has to
cut the panels into these "multiboards" if he wants to drill
them stacked (depends on quantity and how tight your tolerances
are) -- then cut them *again*.
Again, if there is something truly special about each individual
board...
Quote:
Note that the cheaper the board house (usually indicating lower
margins), the more likely they are to start nickel and diming you for
this sort of thing.
margins), the more likely they are to start nickel and diming you for
this sort of thing.
I would argue that they might be more likely to look at this
as a "freebie" that they can give away for relatively low cost
to win/keep your business. (?)
Joel Koltner
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:10 pm
Hi D,
"D Yuniskis" <not.going.to.be_at_seen.com> wrote in message
news:hkptft$jno$1_at_speranza.aioe.org...
Quote:
Assume I have two designs (or N designs -- where N is largest number
that can coexist on a panel). How is it any different than having
*one* design with:
- the greatest hole/part density
- the least hole/part density
if both of these designs would have been "based on average pricing"?
that can coexist on a panel). How is it any different than having
*one* design with:
- the greatest hole/part density
- the least hole/part density
if both of these designs would have been "based on average pricing"?
It's based on intent: The "average" customer they *want* (who's submitting one
design on the board) might submit a greatest hole/part density board one day,
but they're expecting he'll submit a least hole/part density board the other,
or some combination so that, over time, it averages out. The customer who's
combining designs himself, they figure, is likely to continually do so and
therefore *always* have boards that are above average in hole/part density.
I would agree that if a board house is charging you based on a very detailed
breakout of the design (number of holes, number of different hole sizes, sq.
in. of board, sq. in of copper, aspect ratio of board, etc.), there's no
longer any good reason to charge for multiple designs, but some board houses
don't have the technology to do this automatically and therefore offer more
"buffet" pricing -- particularly for prototype boards. (Advanced Circuits
does this -- you pay the same for a prototype run of 3 PCBs that are 1"x2" as
you do for 3 PCBs that are 4"x6"... and trust me, I feel a bit pinched in that
my boards do tend to almost always run towards "tiny!")
At the end of the day, it is just a slightly different business model that may
or may not be the most acceptable to any given customer. With restaurants,
buffets have a market (PCB houses where up to a certain size and number of
holes, it's all the same price, they don't care at all how many designs are on
the board), traditional restaurants have a market (PCB houses that have a very
detailed algorithm for coming up with a board price, charging "bit by bit"),
and then there's the "hybrid" buffet (often found on cruise ships!) where all
the food is free but the drinks aren't as a means of loosely coupling how much
you pay to how much you eat (PCB houses that charge per design).
Quote:
I would argue that they might be more likely to look at this
as a "freebie" that they can give away for relatively low cost
to win/keep your business. (?)
as a "freebie" that they can give away for relatively low cost
to win/keep your business. (?)
If the multiple designs are just a "step and repeat" (no different drills or
copper usage) or relatively close to it and you used a reasonable shape, I
would agree, and it's probably a successful tool. Many businesses seem to
find it more successful to discount an artificially inflated price than to
just offer a cheaper price in the first place (jewelry comes to mind...).
---Joel
Joel Koltner
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:23 pm
"linnix" <me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:79e71e9e-b14c-43b9-b265-110c8ba174df_at_y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Yes if within reasonable limit. How can you justify 30% more for 4
designs and 150% more for 8 designs? Why are design #5 to #8 so much
more expensive than design #1 to #4?
designs and 150% more for 8 designs? Why are design #5 to #8 so much
more expensive than design #1 to #4?
I would have to agree that those upcharges appear to be unjustifiable based on
any real costs and are just an attempt to grab extra profit (...that they no
doubt assume they're "losing" because you won't be coming back 8 times...).
Not a firm I'd want to do business with...
John Larkin
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:28 pm
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:23:03 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
"linnix" <me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
news:79e71e9e-b14c-43b9-b265-110c8ba174df_at_y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Yes if within reasonable limit. How can you justify 30% more for 4
designs and 150% more for 8 designs? Why are design #5 to #8 so much
more expensive than design #1 to #4?
I would have to agree that those upcharges appear to be unjustifiable based on
any real costs and are just an attempt to grab extra profit (...that they no
doubt assume they're "losing" because you won't be coming back 8 times...).
Not a firm I'd want to do business with...
news:79e71e9e-b14c-43b9-b265-110c8ba174df_at_y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Yes if within reasonable limit. How can you justify 30% more for 4
designs and 150% more for 8 designs? Why are design #5 to #8 so much
more expensive than design #1 to #4?
I would have to agree that those upcharges appear to be unjustifiable based on
any real costs and are just an attempt to grab extra profit (...that they no
doubt assume they're "losing" because you won't be coming back 8 times...).
Not a firm I'd want to do business with...
We just got a batch of boards with a bad via, the same on all the
boards. Our gerbers look fine and we paid for bare-board testing.
John
linnix
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:31 pm
On Feb 8, 1:10 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
Hi D,
"D Yuniskis" <not.going.to...@seen.com> wrote in message
news:hkptft$jno$1_at_speranza.aioe.org...
Assume I have two designs (or N designs -- where N is largest number
that can coexist on a panel). How is it any different than having
*one* design with:
- the greatest hole/part density
- the least hole/part density
if both of these designs would have been "based on average pricing"?
It's based on intent: The "average" customer they *want* (who's submitting one
design on the board) might submit a greatest hole/part density board one day,
but they're expecting he'll submit a least hole/part density board the other,
or some combination so that, over time, it averages out. The customer who's
combining designs himself, they figure, is likely to continually do so and
therefore *always* have boards that are above average in hole/part density.
I would agree that if a board house is charging you based on a very detailed
breakout of the design (number of holes, number of different hole sizes, sq.
in. of board, sq. in of copper, aspect ratio of board, etc.),
"D Yuniskis" <not.going.to...@seen.com> wrote in message
news:hkptft$jno$1_at_speranza.aioe.org...
Assume I have two designs (or N designs -- where N is largest number
that can coexist on a panel). How is it any different than having
*one* design with:
- the greatest hole/part density
- the least hole/part density
if both of these designs would have been "based on average pricing"?
It's based on intent: The "average" customer they *want* (who's submitting one
design on the board) might submit a greatest hole/part density board one day,
but they're expecting he'll submit a least hole/part density board the other,
or some combination so that, over time, it averages out. The customer who's
combining designs himself, they figure, is likely to continually do so and
therefore *always* have boards that are above average in hole/part density.
I would agree that if a board house is charging you based on a very detailed
breakout of the design (number of holes, number of different hole sizes, sq.
in. of board, sq. in of copper, aspect ratio of board, etc.),
There are no significant differences in holes per area or hole sizes,
since they are just different versions with different IC packages.
Anyway, even if they charge extra for hole density, it is still much
less than what they charge for multiple designs (a very subjective
measurement).
Quote:
there's no
longer any good reason to charge for multiple designs, but some board houses
don't have the technology to do this automatically and therefore offer more
"buffet" pricing -- particularly for prototype boards.
longer any good reason to charge for multiple designs, but some board houses
don't have the technology to do this automatically and therefore offer more
"buffet" pricing -- particularly for prototype boards.
Yes if within reasonable limit. How can you justify 30% more for 4
designs and 150% more for 8 designs? Why are design #5 to #8 so much
more expensive than design #1 to #4?
Quote:
(Advanced Circuits
does this -- you pay the same for a prototype run of 3 PCBs that are 1"x2" as
you do for 3 PCBs that are 4"x6"... and trust me, I feel a bit pinched in that
my boards do tend to almost always run towards "tiny!")
At the end of the day, it is just a slightly different business model that may
or may not be the most acceptable to any given customer. With restaurants,
buffets have a market (PCB houses where up to a certain size and number of
holes, it's all the same price, they don't care at all how many designs are on
the board), traditional restaurants have a market (PCB houses that have a very
detailed algorithm for coming up with a board price, charging "bit by bit"),
and then there's the "hybrid" buffet (often found on cruise ships!) where all
the food is free but the drinks aren't as a means of loosely coupling how much
you pay to how much you eat (PCB houses that charge per design).
I would argue that they might be more likely to look at this
as a "freebie" that they can give away for relatively low cost
to win/keep your business. (?)
If the multiple designs are just a "step and repeat" (no different drills or
copper usage) or relatively close to it and you used a reasonable shape, I
would agree, and it's probably a successful tool. Many businesses seem to
find it more successful to discount an artificially inflated price than to
just offer a cheaper price in the first place (jewelry comes to mind...).
---Joel
does this -- you pay the same for a prototype run of 3 PCBs that are 1"x2" as
you do for 3 PCBs that are 4"x6"... and trust me, I feel a bit pinched in that
my boards do tend to almost always run towards "tiny!")
At the end of the day, it is just a slightly different business model that may
or may not be the most acceptable to any given customer. With restaurants,
buffets have a market (PCB houses where up to a certain size and number of
holes, it's all the same price, they don't care at all how many designs are on
the board), traditional restaurants have a market (PCB houses that have a very
detailed algorithm for coming up with a board price, charging "bit by bit"),
and then there's the "hybrid" buffet (often found on cruise ships!) where all
the food is free but the drinks aren't as a means of loosely coupling how much
you pay to how much you eat (PCB houses that charge per design).
I would argue that they might be more likely to look at this
as a "freebie" that they can give away for relatively low cost
to win/keep your business. (?)
If the multiple designs are just a "step and repeat" (no different drills or
copper usage) or relatively close to it and you used a reasonable shape, I
would agree, and it's probably a successful tool. Many businesses seem to
find it more successful to discount an artificially inflated price than to
just offer a cheaper price in the first place (jewelry comes to mind...).
---Joel
who where
Guest
Guest
Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:33 am
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:28:09 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
We just got a batch of boards with a bad via, the same on all the
boards. Our gerbers look fine and we paid for bare-board testing.
boards. Our gerbers look fine and we paid for bare-board testing.
From?
who where
Guest
Guest
Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:50 am
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:13:01 -0800 (PST), linnix
<me_at_linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 7, 6:45 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), linnix
m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care about
number of customer designs? For identical board area and spec, 4
designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. Are
different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
Might help if you identify which ones have given you this problem, and
to what extent.
I have encountered this both in US and China, PCBcart included.
When I am prototyping I have sent multiple designs on a single file to
one fab which I no longer use, and in production I have sent
two_on_a_board to PCBcart more than once and it was treated as one
job, one startup charge.
Take PCBcart for example:
size of board: 400mmx200mm
10 pcs @ $21 each
Setup cost based on number of designs:
1 126
2 138
3 151
4 163
5 189
6 252
7 283
8 315
I am willing to pay $163, but not $315.
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), linnix
m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care about
number of customer designs? For identical board area and spec, 4
designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. Are
different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
Might help if you identify which ones have given you this problem, and
to what extent.
I have encountered this both in US and China, PCBcart included.
When I am prototyping I have sent multiple designs on a single file to
one fab which I no longer use, and in production I have sent
two_on_a_board to PCBcart more than once and it was treated as one
job, one startup charge.
Take PCBcart for example:
size of board: 400mmx200mm
10 pcs @ $21 each
Setup cost based on number of designs:
1 126
2 138
3 151
4 163
5 189
6 252
7 283
8 315
I am willing to pay $163, but not $315.
I just reviewed one past job. My notes on the PCBcart order form for
one of the files read "size is two boards same size one slot each see
Huang". The tooling cost was consistent with the area of the combined
pair of boards.
This followed an email exchange:
Quote:
About to place an order for several designs, and I have some questions
about how your system handles certain situations.
1. I have one pair of board designs that are only ever used as a pair -
they are the front and back of a small case. I have always provided my
previous supplier with one file incorporating the two designs spaced as per
his separation routing clearance of 100 thou (attached), and this has been
treated as ONE design for setup purposes.
(a). Do you treat this as ONE setup charge?
(b). You normally separate by V-groove and snap. If these were to be
ordered as a single design, should I "panelise" them adjacent with no
clearance between or just space them on the file and leave it to your
people to panelise?
about how your system handles certain situations.
1. I have one pair of board designs that are only ever used as a pair -
they are the front and back of a small case. I have always provided my
previous supplier with one file incorporating the two designs spaced as per
his separation routing clearance of 100 thou (attached), and this has been
treated as ONE design for setup purposes.
(a). Do you treat this as ONE setup charge?
(b). You normally separate by V-groove and snap. If these were to be
ordered as a single design, should I "panelise" them adjacent with no
clearance between or just space them on the file and leave it to your
people to panelise?
Response:
Quote:
Nice to receive you again.
1. a. It could be treated as one design with one tooling cost.
b. It would be better if you could panelize them such as file 255FBNEW.PCB. Do you
need us to separate front and back boards into pieces when finished, not on panel?
1. a. It could be treated as one design with one tooling cost.
b. It would be better if you could panelize them such as file 255FBNEW.PCB. Do you
need us to separate front and back boards into pieces when finished, not on panel?
And even though they V-groove_and_snap rather than rout, they accepted
the file with 100 thou separation between the two designs.
who where
Guest
Guest
Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:57 am
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:57:14 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
I was once trying to get a board house to fab a PWB that was only 1 x
0.5 inches and wanted a few dozen on a panel and several panels. They
wanted to charge me *per board* at their minimum rate even if they
didn't rout or separate the boards. Their minimum rate was $4 per!!!
Needless to say I didn't use them. IIRC, there was more than one
place that insisted on charging that way.
0.5 inches and wanted a few dozen on a panel and several panels. They
wanted to charge me *per board* at their minimum rate even if they
didn't rout or separate the boards. Their minimum rate was $4 per!!!
Needless to say I didn't use them. IIRC, there was more than one
place that insisted on charging that way.
Having just looked up recent orders for another post inthis thread, I
noticed one ex PCBcart for 100 pieces 1.2" x 0.75".
Tooling (setup) - which is a once-only charge with them unlike some
fabs - $37.80. Per board (area) cost $0.57. All up cost $94.80 or
95c each.
linnix
Guest
Guest
Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:59 am
On Feb 8, 4:50 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:13:01 -0800 (PST), linnix
m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:45 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), linnix
m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care about
number of customer designs? For identical board area and spec, 4
designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. Are
different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
Might help if you identify which ones have given you this problem, and
to what extent.
I have encountered this both in US and China, PCBcart included.
When I am prototyping I have sent multiple designs on a single file to
one fab which I no longer use, and in production I have sent
two_on_a_board to PCBcart more than once and it was treated as one
job, one startup charge.
Take PCBcart for example:
size of board: 400mmx200mm
10 pcs @ $21 each
Setup cost based on number of designs:
1 126
2 138
3 151
4 163
5 189
6 252
7 283
8 315
I am willing to pay $163, but not $315.
I just reviewed one past job. My notes on the PCBcart order form for
one of the files read "size is two boards same size one slot each see
Huang". The tooling cost was consistent with the area of the combined
pair of boards.
This followed an email exchange:
About to place an order for several designs, and I have some questions
about how your system handles certain situations.
1. I have one pair of board designs that are only ever used as a pair -
they are the front and back of a small case. I have always provided my
previous supplier with one file incorporating the two designs spaced as per
his separation routing clearance of 100 thou (attached), and this has been
treated as ONE design for setup purposes.
(a). Do you treat this as ONE setup charge?
(b). You normally separate by V-groove and snap. If these were to be
ordered as a single design, should I "panelise" them adjacent with no
clearance between or just space them on the file and leave it to your
people to panelise?
Response:
Nice to receive you again.
1. a. It could be treated as one design with one tooling cost.
b. It would be better if you could panelize them such as file 255FBNEW.PCB. Do you
need us to separate front and back boards into pieces when finished, not on panel?
And even though they V-groove_and_snap rather than rout, they accepted
the file with 100 thou separation between the two designs.
m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:45 pm, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), linnix
m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combined
in a board. They don't have to do any extra work or different
processes than single design. Why do they insist on this extra
charge? Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but this
is just unnecessary hassle.
I know this is very common in the industry, but why do they care about
number of customer designs? For identical board area and spec, 4
designs cost 30% more and 8 designs cost 100% more in setup. Are
different versions of the same board consider as different designs?
Might help if you identify which ones have given you this problem, and
to what extent.
I have encountered this both in US and China, PCBcart included.
When I am prototyping I have sent multiple designs on a single file to
one fab which I no longer use, and in production I have sent
two_on_a_board to PCBcart more than once and it was treated as one
job, one startup charge.
Take PCBcart for example:
size of board: 400mmx200mm
10 pcs @ $21 each
Setup cost based on number of designs:
1 126
2 138
3 151
4 163
5 189
6 252
7 283
8 315
I am willing to pay $163, but not $315.
I just reviewed one past job. My notes on the PCBcart order form for
one of the files read "size is two boards same size one slot each see
Huang". The tooling cost was consistent with the area of the combined
pair of boards.
This followed an email exchange:
About to place an order for several designs, and I have some questions
about how your system handles certain situations.
1. I have one pair of board designs that are only ever used as a pair -
they are the front and back of a small case. I have always provided my
previous supplier with one file incorporating the two designs spaced as per
his separation routing clearance of 100 thou (attached), and this has been
treated as ONE design for setup purposes.
(a). Do you treat this as ONE setup charge?
(b). You normally separate by V-groove and snap. If these were to be
ordered as a single design, should I "panelise" them adjacent with no
clearance between or just space them on the file and leave it to your
people to panelise?
Response:
Nice to receive you again.
1. a. It could be treated as one design with one tooling cost.
b. It would be better if you could panelize them such as file 255FBNEW.PCB. Do you
need us to separate front and back boards into pieces when finished, not on panel?
And even though they V-groove_and_snap rather than rout, they accepted
the file with 100 thou separation between the two designs.
So, what is their concept/definition of different designs? Perhaps
they should remove that from their quotation screen.
John Larkin
Guest
Guest
Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:51 am
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:15:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:59:49 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
uqf0n5p6kgusok8alc5p2lmq6ke9s26e7v_at_4ax.com>:
Nice, anything above 1GHz or so will probably remain magick to me :-)
To me, too. I haven't the nonlinear device models, the EM software
tools, or the brute intelligence to predict how some of this stuff
will behave. So a mixture of instinct, experience, and experiment will
have to do.
I simply do not have the equipment to measure that stuff.
I started with flea-market Tek gear, a 547 scope and a 1S2
TDR/sampler, about $120 total. Nowadays you can get an 11801 mainframe
and a 20 GHz TDR/sampling head for around $1500.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/1S2.jpg
Nice, at least they had decent knobs beack then
Knobs have evolved faster then us humans, maybe a few generations onward people
will have little forked fingers to toggle those tiny levers :-)
The 11801 is a beast, but it works beautifully. This one is displaying
a 1 GHz square wave from the successful pin driver circuit on my
multiple-circuit board, under the Mantis. The sampling head is on an
extender cable so it can snug right up to the DUT.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/DSC01371.JPG
It is a nice big screen, but the edges of the waveform are rounded,
not a real square wave.
10GHz bandwidth?
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
uqf0n5p6kgusok8alc5p2lmq6ke9s26e7v_at_4ax.com>:
Nice, anything above 1GHz or so will probably remain magick to me :-)
To me, too. I haven't the nonlinear device models, the EM software
tools, or the brute intelligence to predict how some of this stuff
will behave. So a mixture of instinct, experience, and experiment will
have to do.
I simply do not have the equipment to measure that stuff.
I started with flea-market Tek gear, a 547 scope and a 1S2
TDR/sampler, about $120 total. Nowadays you can get an 11801 mainframe
and a 20 GHz TDR/sampling head for around $1500.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/1S2.jpg
Nice, at least they had decent knobs beack then
Knobs have evolved faster then us humans, maybe a few generations onward people
will have little forked fingers to toggle those tiny levers :-)
The 11801 is a beast, but it works beautifully. This one is displaying
a 1 GHz square wave from the successful pin driver circuit on my
multiple-circuit board, under the Mantis. The sampling head is on an
extender cable so it can snug right up to the DUT.
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/DSC01371.JPG
It is a nice big screen, but the edges of the waveform are rounded,
not a real square wave.
10GHz bandwidth?
The scope is 20 GHz, 17 pS spec'd risetime. It's my pin driver circuit
that's slow. Here it is as a product:
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T860DS.html
The undershoot is my bad on the pcb layout. I'll fix that some day.
John
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - PCB multiple designs surcharge
