PCB multiple designs surcharge

On Feb 8, 7:59=A0am, 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=A0am, "Nial Stewart"
> ><nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >> > Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combine=
d
> >> > in a board. =A0They don't have to do any extra work or different
> >> > processes than single design. =A0Why do they insist on this extra
> >> > charge? =A0Some of them will waive the fee after negotiation, but th=
is
> >> > 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 =A0 =A0(remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to repl=
y by mail)
>
> If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- 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.

On Feb 8, 9:47=A0am, 1 Lucky Texan <alcky...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:59=A0am, 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=A0am, "Nial Stewart"
> > ><nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> "linnix" <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.co=
m...
>
> > >> > Some PCB fab houses charge extra for having multiple designs combi=
ned
> > >> > in a board. =A0They don't have to do any extra work or different
> > >> > processes than single design. =A0Why do they insist on this extra
> > >> > charge? =A0Some 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 component=
s
> > 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 =A0 =A0(remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to re=
ply by mail)
>
> > If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top?
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- 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.

On a sunny day (Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:59:49 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<uqf0n5p6kgusok8alc5p2lmq6ke9s26e7v@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 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

Yes, you did show that before, and I did take a real good look at it.
Something like that I will probably try.


>>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

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.

"linnix" <me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message 
news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd@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.

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

Hi Joel,

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "linnix" <me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message 
> news:ba62882b-0f49-46ff-a9d3-af11ca0d2cbd@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...

> 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.

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.  (?)

Hi D,

"D Yuniskis" <not.going.to.be@seen.com> wrote in message 
news:hkptft$jno$1@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'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).

> 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

On Feb 8, 1:10=A0pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi D,
>
> "D Yuniskis" <not.going.to...@seen.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hkptft$jno$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> > Assume I have two designs (or N designs -- where N is largest number
> > that can coexist on a panel). =A0How 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 submittin=
g 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 ot=
her,
> or some combination so that, over time, it averages out. =A0The customer =
who's
> combining designs himself, they figure, is likely to continually do so an=
d
> therefore *always* have boards that are above average in hole/part densit=
y.
>
> I would agree that if a board house is charging you based on a very detai=
led
> 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).

> there's no
> longer any good reason to charge for multiple designs, but some board hou=
ses
> don't have the technology to do this automatically and therefore offer mo=
re
> "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?

> =A0(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 tha=
t may
> or may not be the most acceptable to any given customer. =A0With restaura=
nts,
> buffets have a market (PCB houses where up to a certain size and number o=
f
> holes, it's all the same price, they don't care at all how many designs a=
re 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. =A0(?)
>
> 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. =A0Many businesses seem=
 to
> find it more successful to discount an artificially inflated price than t=
o
> just offer a cheaper price in the first place (jewelry comes to mind...).
>
> ---Joel

"linnix" <me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message 
news:79e71e9e-b14c-43b9-b265-110c8ba174df@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... :-)

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:23:03 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"linnix" <me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote in message 
>news:79e71e9e-b14c-43b9-b265-110c8ba174df@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

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:28:09 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>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.

From?