I’m going to try it out on sendcutsend with the bending and will keep everyone updated
Dead Pedal DIY
- Thread starter Catbert
- Start date
@rsporsche i loaded this into fusion to make the bend lines, and a few questions
1. What is the rough angle at which the pedal rises relative to the floor? The lower tab is not at a 90-degree angle, and that angle determines the rise of the pedal.
2. I’m not understanding the upper tabs. The pictures posted earlier in the thread seem to show two tabs, each with a screw hole, and both appearing to be the same side, but the flattened pdf has a different configuration with the left-most side looking as I’d expect but then a longer tab and no screw hole. Can you take some pictures of the pedal from various angles and post them here?
3. For the sendcutcend I think the dimples will be hard. Was the preference for perforations like the E30 one I posted a picture of earlier, or just some crosshatching that matches the other pedals
1. What is the rough angle at which the pedal rises relative to the floor? The lower tab is not at a 90-degree angle, and that angle determines the rise of the pedal.
2. I’m not understanding the upper tabs. The pictures posted earlier in the thread seem to show two tabs, each with a screw hole, and both appearing to be the same side, but the flattened pdf has a different configuration with the left-most side looking as I’d expect but then a longer tab and no screw hole. Can you take some pictures of the pedal from various angles and post them here?
3. For the sendcutcend I think the dimples will be hard. Was the preference for perforations like the E30 one I posted a picture of earlier, or just some crosshatching that matches the other pedals
The missing screw hole is my mistake. Sorry
i just used a digital protractor to measure the angle and its 121.8 degrees or 58.2 degrees depending on which way you measure.
the hole + break lines are on the pdf ... i attached it again. the tabs are bent at 90 degrees to the vertical ... if you look at the 2d drawings in elevation you will see how it works. pics are in the early posts of this thread.
holes like the e30 one basically do nothing because they don't reach up and grab the shoe. the e30 motorsport dead pedal had rubber. the raised dimple grommets give the shoe something to grab. i guess if you had holes you could insert rubber grommets into the holes to help or with the flat plate 3d print something like the clutch + brake pedals ... i think @ScottAndrews posted something on that. it would fit the coupe nicely.
FYI - the measurements on the flat sheet are more accurate as the other one is measured on the outside after it was folded.
the hole + break lines are on the pdf ... i attached it again. the tabs are bent at 90 degrees to the vertical ... if you look at the 2d drawings in elevation you will see how it works. pics are in the early posts of this thread.
holes like the e30 one basically do nothing because they don't reach up and grab the shoe. the e30 motorsport dead pedal had rubber. the raised dimple grommets give the shoe something to grab. i guess if you had holes you could insert rubber grommets into the holes to help or with the flat plate 3d print something like the clutch + brake pedals ... i think @ScottAndrews posted something on that. it would fit the coupe nicely.
FYI - the measurements on the flat sheet are more accurate as the other one is measured on the outside after it was folded.
Thanks, that helps
I see it now and understand the part a bit more. I'll work on it this evening
Agree, simple holes likely don't do much, the thought of adding some rubber grommets is interesting...
Maybe for this first go-through I'll go with that idea, just to sort of see 1) whether this works and then 2) what modifications would make sense from that point.
Awesome! I already purchased some 1/8" aluminum skid pattern diamond plate to make my own, but I'd be interested in buying one with the right cuts and angles to simplify making one.
BTW... the dead pedal on my 330i is perfectly placed but not in line with the gas and brake pedals. Just something to keep in mind.
Ok, flattened pattern with bend lines made in fusion, need to adjust the border slightly to account for the thickness of the material when bending. Those of you who have done this type of thing thousands of times before likely find this process easy, I'm still learning so it's a bit of trial and error, learning that a V-bend on a flat piece needs some massaging when modeling the 3-d version...
on a sheet metal brake press, the dimension of the inner point of bending will be per the dimension given. the outer point is what will stretch ... so in theory it is inner dimension plus the width of the 2 bent pieces. that is assuming that you bend it exactly on the actual inner line ... and you bend exactly 90 degrees.
Yes, my plan was to take the pdf, make a dxf (done) and then model the 3d bending in fusion to confirm that the bends work as drawn, then flatten. It’s that “modeling the bends” that is slowing me down. I can do all of them except the one at the top of the pedal. If this were paper then of course the model would bend perfectly, with the thickness of 2.5mm when the sides get bent down, as one makes the bend at the top to close down that corner the parts run into one another due to the thickness and I get an error. I think I just need to create a slight notch to allow for that so that the brake press can actually do the work. I’ll get it, just slow. But worthwhile to learn I guess. New skills.
Not sure where you are running into an issue. I'd sketch the whole thing as drawn by @rsporsche, extrude it up to whatever thickness you are using, then sketch a bend line down the side to bend the side flanges down. The bend line probably needs to be on the under side (i.e. the inside of the bend) to get the proper stretch that Scott was talking about.
Do the same on the other side, and then bend down the top. If the bends behave as I suspect, then sketching the bend lines on the bottom should cause the pieces to line up. If the angled edges interfere, then the angle of the notches may be incorrect.
You can use the sheet metal command and the bend feature for this.
BTW, I am constantly amazed by the range of features in Fusion. Truly a tour de force of software design!!
Last edited:
Yes, that was the process that I was following, the issue is by the time that I extrude it to a 2.5mm thick part, making that miter corner leads to an interference error in fusion. I can bend the two side parts downwards at a 90-degree angle but then when I make the bend at the top of the pedal to close down that miter, Fusion is throwing up an error. SendCutSend also wants the bends made at centerline rather than top or bottom. I suspect that this is an easily solvable issue, I just need to figure out the solution with some online help. Alternatively, rather than having three bends for the miter (long side down, short side down, close down corner) it would be easy to make this two bends by eliminating the V-notch and just having the long side flange that is bent downwards run all the way up to the top of the pedal and then just fold the top down. That wouldn't have the full length of extra support along the short top portion of the riser but not sure whether that would matter. I'll play with it this week a bit...
Here's the Gemini answer to my problem (for Scott and anyone else geeky enough to be following along and care..):
Here's the Gemini answer to my problem (for Scott and anyone else geeky enough to be following along and care..):
Check the video I posted. In that he shows a feature for changing the fold center line from start, center or end. What is interfering in your bend? Is it the mitered tabs? Maybe just cut them back by a tiny bit. Based on the Gemini answer, you might try putting a small relief hole right at the”V” where the miters meet to avoid the three corner issue
Will do. Yes, I think it just needs some relief. Sendcutsend wants bends marked at “center” rather than inside or outside, which I agree would generally help
I tried some three corner bends in Fusion. It really doesn't like them much. Basically it requires bend reliefs (small holes or notches at the edges of the bend), and those interfere when the two bends are right next to one another (i.e meet at a point). You can do it if you separate the bend pieces a bit, but then you will not get a closed fillet where they are supposed to join.
You might try a different bend strategy as shown below. This should arrive at the same end shape, but there is no complex corner where multiple bends interfere.
Kinda works....
You might try a different bend strategy as shown below. This should arrive at the same end shape, but there is no complex corner where multiple bends interfere.
Kinda works....
Last edited:
Yes your adaptation was exactly what I was thinking, makes the parts meet in an easier fashion for Fusion. Thanks for sketching it out, I’ll try that version tonight. It looks like your version would have a small gap but that can either be welded closed or left as-is, structurally it should be more than solid enough. Making the gap completely closed I suspect will run into the same problem with interference
Here is the better version. You will need to tweak to size of the added bit on the first flange to get it the same depth as the second flange after the bend.
That would be the bend for the bottom, top part is bent down at 90 degrees which was what the V-notch was creating. I hadn’t noticed that when looking at your initial drawing. So same idea just squared off so that joint line is one flange width down the top riser portion. Fusion is quite cool…
one minor problem ... that is a 90 degree bend at that location.
I was just doing a test bend with an arbitrary angle. I wanted to explore the bending functions in Fusion, not second guess JC's project