I have a small issue with the 9.15 version: the seatstays/seat-tube mitering templates are not the same for both sides (my design is symetric). The drive side seems OK, but the non-drive side looks as is the seatstays was placed much more outside. On the seatstay view of the design everything looks ok, it's only on the mitering pdf.
It's not a big issue as I usually use one template and then copy the 1st cut on the other one, but it's the first time I see this....
Any idea ?
If your seat stays are symmetric, then the templates should be symmetric as well, but not identical. Could you please e-mail me a copy of your BCAD file so I can investigate this?
Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. I've corrected that in BikeCAD version 9.16. All owners of BikeCAD Pro will find the new version in their Files tab as described at: bikecad.ca/downloading_bikecadpro.
I'm having the same issues with the Chainstays in 9,16 now. The seatstay mitres look fine though.
Would you mind sending me a copy of the BCAD file you're having issues with?
At first glance, it may seem like there is an error in these chain stay miter templates. After all, if the chainstays are symmetric, shouldn't the templates also be symmetric? Here is how they appear directly exported from BikeCAD Pro.
In the above example, the chain stays have been offset by 3mm below the centerline of the bottom bracket. This explains why one of the two humps on each template extends further than the other hump. However, these two templates are still not symmetric to one another. Shouldn't they be? The reason they are not symmetric to one another is due to the fact that each template is centered on the non-drive side. When you look at the drive side chain stay, the non-drive side of that stay faces the tire. When you look at the non-drive side chain stay, the non-drive side of that stay faces the outside of the bike.
If we really want these templates to be symmetric we could cut the non-drive side template in half and switch the top side with the bottom side. In other words, we could perform a 180° phase shift as I've done below.
To demonstrate that these two templates are now symmetric, I can mash them both together as you can see below.
I trust you will agree that while it might seem like there is something not right with the chain stay miter templates, the profile generated by BikeCAD Pro is actually correct.
Aaaaaaah, Light Bulb!
Thanks for taking the time to dumb it down for me. Which begs the question: What is the reasoning behind them exporting "out of phase?"
There was no special reason for choosing to export the chain stay templates in this way. In each case, the edge of the template is aligned with the drive side of the stay and is wrapped around the stay from there. If it would be more beneficial to have the edge of drive side template aligned with the drive side of that stay and to have the edge of the non-drive side template aligned with the non-drive side of that stay, I could arrange that.