Share the part geometry, material target, annual volume, critical tolerances and application context. SINTS can compare MIM, powder metallurgy, machining, gear manufacturing and hybrid routes before tooling is proposed.
A useful first review starts with the drawing and function. Attach files directly in the form; material, annual volume, critical dimensions and timing help us separate process fit from guesswork.
Sales checks that the request is complete, then coordinates the drawing with engineering. We may ask for missing functional information before a manufacturing route or quotation plan is recommended.
That is normal. Choose “Not sure” in the form and describe the part. The review should start from function, geometry, tolerance and volume rather than from a process label.
Most first submissions arrive without the two or three inputs that actually decide the route. These are the ones that move the answer — not because the form requires them, but because engineering cannot separate a good route from a guess without them.
| What to send | Why it changes the answer | If you do not have it yet |
|---|---|---|
| 2D drawing with datums and tolerances | Fixes the feature list engineering has to hold, and shows which dimensions cannot come out of the mould at all. | A marked-up sketch plus a STEP model opens the review; the drawing can follow. |
| STEP / STP / IGES model | Parting line, slides and gate position are decided from the solid, not from the print. | 2D-only parts can still be quoted, with a wider band on tooling cost. |
| Material grade, or the performance it must meet | Sets sintering temperature, heat treatment and the whole finishing chain behind it. | Describe the failure mode — wear, corrosion, fatigue — and engineering will propose the grade. |
| Annual volume, program life and release pattern | Tooling is amortised across the program, so volume decides the route more often than geometry does. | A first-year forecast is enough to start. |
| Mating part and its tolerance | A fit held to ±0.05 mm usually becomes a sizing or machining operation, and that decision is made here rather than in the price list. | The mating drawing answers this faster than the part drawing does. |
| Functional faces: sealing, bearing, gear mesh, thread | These faces cannot carry a parting line or an ejector mark, and that constraint shapes the tool and the gate. | Mark them on the drawing. An unmarked sealing face is the most common reason a quotation has to be reissued. |
| Load, wear, temperature and medium | Sets the density floor and decides whether hardening sits in the route at all. | Describe what happens today when the part fails. |
| Weight or envelope limit | Separates MIM from compaction before any other comparison is worth making. | Current part weight, or the target. |
| Inspection and documentation level | FAI, PPAP, material certificates and salt-spray testing are inspection hours and paperwork, both of which sit in the price. | Name the standard your customer audits against. |
| Current process and current price | Without them there is no comparison, only a number. | Can wait until after the first review. |
| Sample date and start-of-production date | Drives scheduling rather than price. Tooling alone is 25–30 days on recent programs. | The one date you cannot move. |
| Stage | What we do | What you receive | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Receipt check | Confirm the files open, the revision is current and the drawing set is complete. | A confirmation, with any missing items listed. | Same or next business day |
| Manufacturability review | Check wall sections, draft, parting, ejection, tolerance stack and shrinkage compensation. | Feature-by-feature DFM notes, including what must be answered before tooling. | Issued with the quotation |
| Route comparison | Compare MIM, compaction, machining, gear cutting and hybrid options against volume and tolerance class. | A recommended route with the reason, and what the alternatives cost you. | Issued with the quotation |
| Quotation | Price material, cycle time, tooling amortisation, finishing, inspection and packaging as separate lines. | An itemised quotation, so you can see what a drawing change would move. | Target 3–5 business days for a complete drawing set |
| Tooling | Build the mould or die and release it to trial condition. | Tooling built and released to trial. | 25–30 days as quoted on recent programs |
| T0 samples | Run first parts, measure against the drawing and the agreed datum scheme. | Samples plus a dimensional report. | 7–10 days after tooling release, as quoted on recent programs |
| First article and release | Report material, hardness and density measured in-house, then agree the inspection plan for serial production. | First-article report and the agreed inspection plan. | Before the first production order |
Timings assume a complete drawing set. An incomplete submission restarts the clock at the point where the missing input arrives — which is why the first table matters more than the form itself.
| Situation | Why the powder route loses here | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| Below a few thousand pieces a year | Tooling is amortised across the program and does not recover at that volume. | Machine it from bar or plate, and revisit if the forecast grows. |
| Every feature held to ±0.05 mm | Sintering holds roughly ±0.3–0.5% of the dimension. Making every face tighter turns the part into a machining job with extra steps in front of it. | Machine it, or narrow the drawing to the two or three faces that genuinely need that class. |
| Walls below about 0.5 mm over a large area | Cavity fill and green strength fail well before the part does. | Sheet metal, or a redesign that thickens the section. |
| An envelope in the hundreds of millimetres | Press tonnage, furnace envelope and shrinkage variation all grow with size, and tolerance follows them. | Machining or casting. |
| Internal cross-holes or long deep bores | A rigid tool cannot form them, so they are drilled afterwards and the near-net-shape saving is spent on the second operation. | Machining, or a split design reviewed again as two parts. |
| Forged grain flow called out on the drawing | Sintered material is porous by definition. There is no grain flow to specify. | Forging. |
| A delivery date inside the tooling window | No mould means no part, whatever the price says. | Machine the bridge volume, then tool the production part. |
| A plain shape in plain carbon steel | Powder routes earn their cost from geometry complexity and volume, not from simple parts in commodity alloys. | Bar stock, stamping or machining. |
These are not disqualifiers, they are the honest limits of the process. If your part sits in the last table, the first reply will say so. That is faster and cheaper for both sides than a quotation nobody can use.
The eleven inputs apply to every part. What actually stalls a review is usually one family-specific number or document that nobody sent — and the eleven items cannot be filled in without it. These are the ones that come back missing most often.
| Part family | The input that decides it | What happens without it |
|---|---|---|
| Gears and transmission | Tooth form — module, pressure angle, profile — plus the mating part, and whether the gear drives or idles. | Tooling is priced against a tooth nobody can cut, and the figure is withdrawn once the drawing is clarified. |
| Bushings and bearings | Whether the bore is sized after sintering, and the running clearance the shaft actually needs. | Sizing gets priced as an option and the first samples arrive at die tolerance, not at the clearance the shaft runs in. |
| Lock and security parts | The travel and engagement the part has to make — plus the lock body it works inside. | The shape is quoted and the function is not. The fit problem appears at sample stage, after the die exists. |
| Cutting, burr and wear parts | What the edge works against — abrasive, wet or dry, hot or cold — and whether a coating is allowed. | The alloy gets chosen for hardness while the wear mechanism was never asked about, which is how the wrong grade gets quoted. |
| Medical and instrument parts | The sterilization route, the documents the OEM needs — material certificate, lot traceability, test evidence — and whether the part is single use. | A part priced without its documentation is not the price the program ends up paying. |
| Hinges and mechanism parts | Cycle life, the load path through the pivot, and the clearance stack against the mating piece. | Strength is quoted to a tensile figure that never governs a hinge. The failure, when it comes, is fatigue at the pivot. |
| Structural brackets and housings | Pressing direction, the faces that must stay flat through sintering, and which holes may be drilled afterwards. | Flatness and hole positions get quoted as die features, then have to be machined — and the piece price moves after the die is cut. |
This does not replace the drawing. It is the part of the drawing that is usually missing. Send what you have — a marked-up PDF with two dimensions and a target volume gets a useful first answer, and the gaps are named in the reply instead of being guessed at.
Use the form above for structured RFQs, or contact a team member directly for drawing review, supplier qualification or project follow-up.
Practical answers from the drawing review, not from a brochure.
A drawing or 3D model with tolerances, the material and final condition, the annual quantity and the function of the part. Everything else — mating parts, duty cycle, inspection plan — improves the answer but does not block a first review.
Yes, and that is the purpose of the review. The table on this page lists the situations where the powder route loses — very low volume, a tolerance stack carried by one turning feature, heavy sections that need full density — together with what to do instead.
Yes. Send the agreement with the first inquiry and the review proceeds on that basis. Regulated applications should state the applicable standard and the documentation expected at the same time, so the review covers them from the start.
