To support CMM for F1 precision engineering work and other tight-tolerance contracts, ActionPlas Group (Pudsey, UK) has strengthened its inspection capacity with an LK Metrology Altera M 20.12.10 coordinate measuring machine (CMM)—a CNC (computer numerical control) bridge system designed for automated 3D measurement.

ActionPlas designs and manufactures plastic and metal components and assemblies for sectors that demand documented dimensional compliance, including automotive and motorsport (including Formula One), food and drink processing, pharmaceutical/medical, and power generation.

This investment sits within a broader £1 million improvement programme aimed at increasing metrology capability for a high-profile Formula One customer where small deviations can affect fit, function, and traceability.

TL;DR: ActionPlas installed a new bridge CMM to support Formula One manufacturing and other industries that require consistent, reportable inspection against CAD and GD&T.

Why ActionPlas Invested in a New CMM

The upgrade was driven by a shift in the type of work being quoted and awarded: more parts with tighter tolerances, more GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing) callouts, and more freeform surfaces from both machining and additive manufacturing (AM, commonly called 3D printing).

In practice, ActionPlas needed reliable pre-delivery inspection for parts such as:

Thin-wall polymer housings and covers with distortion-sensitive features
Precision bores and counterbores used for alignment and sealing
Datum-dependent patterns of holes for fasteners and locating pins
Freeform aerodynamic profiles and blended surfaces where profile tolerances matter more than a single diameter
Additively manufactured internal passages and external surfaces requiring CAD comparison

According to the company, its previous CMM could not consistently support the newer requirements—particularly when tolerances approached ~10 µm (0.010 mm) on critical features and when verification depended on stable, repeatable scanning and robust GD&T evaluation.

TL;DR: New F1-driven work introduced tighter tolerances and more GD&T/CAD comparison needs than the legacy CMM could support consistently.

What “10 µm Tolerance” Means in Day-to-Day Inspection

When customers call out ~10 µm tolerances, the measurement system must be demonstrably capable and stable—especially for form, location, and profile controls. In metrology terms, this typically means the CMM’s uncertainty and verification performance must be comfortably below the tolerance band so decisions aren’t dominated by measurement variation.

Typical F1-related inspection routines ActionPlas can now run more confidently include:

Datum structure verification (datum reference frames) to ensure subsequent positional results are meaningful
True position checks on hole patterns relative to datums A|B|C, including MMC (Maximum Material Condition) when specified
Profile of a surface on blended shapes (e.g., aero-like surfaces, fillets, and transitions) using scanning paths rather than sparse point picks
Form controls such as cylindricity on sealing bores and flatness on interface faces
Composite profile tolerances (where different tolerance zones apply to the same surface set) to protect function and assembly

For readers less familiar with GD&T, it is a standardized symbolic language used on engineering drawings to define allowable variation in geometry beyond simple size limits. A useful overview is available from NIST (US National Institute of Standards and Technology): NIST GD&T resources.

TL;DR: Tight tolerances demand a measurement system that can verify datums, position, profile, and form with low uncertainty—not just measure sizes.

Altera M 20.12.10 CMM: Working Volume and Metrology Rigor

LK Metrology supplied an Altera M 20.12.10 bridge CMM manufactured in the UK (near Derby). The measuring volume is 2,000 × 1,200 × 1,000 mm, which expands the inspection envelope beyond small parts to include fixtures, tooling plates, and multi-part assemblies.

To strengthen technical confidence, it’s important to separate “shop-floor impressions” from metrology facts. CMM performance is commonly verified to ISO 10360 (a family of standards that define acceptance and reverification tests for CMMs). A reference overview is available here: ISO 10360 (ISO overview page).

Accuracy specification note (MPE): CMM accuracy is usually expressed as MPE (Maximum Permissible Error) for length measurement, often written as E0 or similar (e.g., “(a + L/k) µm” where L is measured length). The Altera M series is typically specified with an MPE appropriate for tight-tolerance manufacturing; ActionPlas selected a configuration intended to support ~10 µm tolerance work with suitable margin when combined with controlled environment, appropriate probing strategy, and verification routines.

TL;DR: The Altera’s large measuring range and ISO-style performance framework support both small precision parts and larger fixtures/assemblies with traceable verification expectations.

Renishaw SP25M Scanning Probe: Where It Adds Value

The CMM was equipped with a Renishaw SP25M scanning probe system. A scanning probe collects continuous data along a path (rather than only discrete touch points), which is particularly useful for:

Surface profiles on blended geometry where point-to-point probing may miss local deviation
Cylindricity/roundness assessments that benefit from higher point density
Thin polymer features where low contact forces reduce the risk of deflection or marking

Renishaw publishes technical information on the SP25M system here: Renishaw SP25M scanning probe system.

TL;DR: SP25M scanning increases data density on profiles and form checks, while keeping contact forces suitable for delicate plastic and thin-wall parts.

CAMIO as CAD-Based Metrology Software for GD&T CMM Programming

ActionPlas also implemented LK CAMIO (a CAD-based metrology software platform) for offline programming, execution, and reporting. “Offline programming” means inspection routines can be built from CAD models while the CMM remains available for measurement—helping throughput when multiple jobs compete for machine time.

In advanced GD&T CMM programming, value comes from correctly modelling the drawing intent, not just measuring features. In CAMIO workflows, this typically includes:

Datum reference frame construction (e.g., establishing A as a plane, B as a bore axis, C as a slot midplane)
True position evaluation using MMC/LMC (Maximum/Least Material Condition) when specified, including datum feature modifiers
Composite tolerances (for example, composite profile controls that separate overall location from local shape)
Best-fit vs. datum-constrained alignments for CAD comparison—used deliberately depending on whether the goal is functional assembly verification or manufacturing diagnostics

For context on how CAD-driven inspection supports modern manufacturing quality systems, ASME’s GD&T standard (Y14.5) is the widely used reference (standard access is controlled), while introductory explanations are widely available through metrology education portals. You can also reference ISO GPS (Geometrical Product Specifications) concepts via ISO’s standards catalogue: ISO GPS technical committee overview.

TL;DR: CAMIO enables CAD-based inspection programming and more rigorous GD&T evaluation (datums, MMC true position, composite/profile) with consistent reporting.

Quantified Outcomes: What Changed After Installation

While exact results vary by part family, moving from an ageing CMM and mixed manual checks to a modern bridge CMM with scanning typically delivers measurable gains in cycle time, repeatability, and report quality. In similar production environments, it’s common to see:

20–40% reduction in inspection time on profile-heavy parts when switching from discrete probing to scanning paths
Fewer rechecks and less rework due to improved measurement consistency (often a 10–25% reduction in re-inspection loops where legacy results were borderline/unstable)
Higher reporting throughput for FAI (First Article Inspection) packs because routines are reusable and reports are templated

Example inspection scenario (illustrative but realistic): A polymer manifold cover, ~260 × 180 × 40 mm, with ~55 measured characteristics (datum plane, 2 sealing bores, 18-hole pattern with true position, 2 slot features, and multiple surface profiles).
Before (legacy CMM + manual gauges): ~70–90 minutes total including setup, probing, and report collation; rechecks common on profile/position features.
After (Altera + SP25M scanning + CAD-based routine): ~40–55 minutes total with automated report output; repeat runs typically require only fixturing confirmation and program recall.

Capability note (Cp/Cpk): For tight-tolerance features, ActionPlas can use CMM data to run process capability studies. Cp/Cpk (process capability indices) quantify how well a process fits within tolerance limits; improving measurement stability often helps separate true process variation from measurement noise, enabling more reliable capability decisions.

TL;DR: The practical impact is shorter inspection cycles, fewer borderline rechecks, and faster, repeatable FAI/report generation—especially on parts with profile and position controls.

Workflow Example: From CAD Receipt to Final Inspection Report

A typical day-to-day workflow for coordinate measuring machine for Formula One manufacturing work looks like this:

Receive CAD + drawing (STEP/IGES + PDF) and confirm the latest revision and critical-to-function characteristics.
Create/confirm fixturing to locate the part repeatably without deforming thin features (especially polymers).
Build offline routine in CAMIO using CAD: define alignment, datums, probing/scanning strategy, and characteristic list tied to drawing callouts.
Run verification checks (probe qualification, stylus check, and a quick health check routine if required by the quality plan).
Execute CNC inspection: touch-trigger probing for discrete features; scanning paths for profiles and form-critical bores/surfaces.
Generate report: characteristic table, GD&T results, graphical deviation plots for profiles where useful, and archive for traceability.

TL;DR: CAD-driven programming + repeatable fixturing + automated reporting turns inspection into a controlled, reusable routine rather than a one-off manual activity.

Calibration, Environment, and Ongoing Verification

For any system used in micron tolerance inspection, ongoing control matters as much as the initial specification. Good practice typically includes:

Environmental control: stable temperature (often near 20 °C) and management of drafts/heat sources to reduce thermal drift.
Scheduled calibration: periodic calibration by qualified providers and documentation aligned to the company’s quality system.
Interim verification: routine checks using calibrated artefacts (e.g., gauge blocks, spheres, or step gauges) to confirm performance between calibrations.
Probe qualification: regular stylus/probe calibration routines, especially when swapping styli or scanning modules.

These practices support traceability and help ensure that improvements in speed do not compromise measurement integrity.

TL;DR: Environmental stability, scheduled calibration, and artefact-based verification underpin trustworthy CMM results—especially for ~10 µm tolerance decisions.

Why a Bridge CMM (Not Portable Metrology) for This Application

ActionPlas evaluated handheld probing. Portable metrology can be excellent for large structures, on-machine checks, or fast go/no-go verification, but it becomes harder to justify when requirements include tight positional tolerances, datum-structured GD&T, and repeatable CNC routines.

For ActionPlas’s use case—Formula One and similarly demanding contracts—the bridge CMM route provided:

Lower operator influence through CNC-controlled motion and consistent probing paths
Stronger CAD-to-measurement correlation for profile and alignment-driven evaluations
Better repeat-run consistency for weekly FAI and batch release reporting

TL;DR: Portable tools have their place, but a CNC bridge CMM is generally the better fit when GD&T, profile evaluation, and repeatable automated reporting drive acceptance decisions.

Delivery, Installation, and Support

LK Metrology supplied the Altera M 20.12.10 from stock and delivered the system within two weeks of order placement, helping ActionPlas align the upgrade with production schedules. Support included initial measurement of sample components during training, on-site consultancy, and guidance on probing strategies and fixture design.

For readers who want broader context on coordinate metrology and CMM applications, LK Metrology’s general CMM resources are here: LK Metrology.

TL;DR: Fast availability plus training/consultancy reduced ramp-up time and helped embed best-practice inspection routines quickly.

Future Potential: Where Laser Scanning Fits (and Where It Doesn’t)

ActionPlas may add non-contact laser scanning in the future to capture dense point clouds for CAD comparison and reverse engineering—particularly useful for additively manufactured surfaces and complex external shapes.

However, laser scanning is not a universal replacement for tactile probing:

Laser scanning is ideal for high-point-density surface comparison, organic/freeform shapes, and fast deviation mapping.
Laser scanning may be less suitable for very tight tolerance features (e.g., critical bores, high-precision datums), highly reflective/transparent materials, or surfaces where finish/optical properties distort readings.
A hybrid approach is common: tactile probing for datums and tolerance-driving features; scanning for surfaces and shape diagnostics.

TL;DR: Laser scanning can accelerate surface evaluation and reverse engineering, but tight datum- and bore-driven tolerances often still favour tactile probing (or a hybrid strategy).

Conclusion + Application Checklist (When to Choose an Advanced Bridge CMM)

By implementing an LK Metrology Altera M 20.12.10 CMM with a Renishaw SP25M scanning probe and CAD-based metrology software, ActionPlas has upgraded its ability to deliver traceable, repeatable inspection for Formula One and other high-compliance sectors.

Application checklist: A bridge CMM is usually the better choice than portable metrology when you need:

Datum-structured GD&T verification (true position, profile, composite tolerances)
Repeatable CNC inspection routines for batch release and FAI
Stable measurement performance aligned to ISO 10360 expectations
Efficient profile/form evaluation via scanning paths
Consistent, professional reporting for customer or regulatory evidence

TL;DR: This CMM investment improves inspection throughput and robustness for F1-style tolerance demands, while setting up a scalable workflow for future programs and technologies.

FAQ

Q: What accuracy standard should I look for when buying a CMM for Formula One manufacturing?

A: Look for performance verified against ISO 10360 and a published MPE (Maximum Permissible Error) specification that provides comfortable margin versus your tightest tolerances. For ~10 µm tolerance work, you typically need a well-specified CMM plus controlled environment, appropriate probing strategy, and routine verification with calibrated artefacts.

Q: How long does it usually take to install and commission a bridge CMM like the Altera M?

A: Typical timelines include delivery, positioning, environmental checks, installation, calibration/acceptance testing, and initial training. Depending on site readiness (space, power, temperature control, and fixturing), commissioning can often be completed in days to a couple of weeks, with additional time to develop stable part programs for key products.

Q: What are practical cost-of-quality benefits of moving from manual checks to CMM inspection?

A: Common gains include fewer re-inspection loops, earlier detection of drift (reducing scrap/rework), faster FAI report creation, and fewer customer returns due to dimensional nonconformance. The largest savings often come from preventing a small measurement ambiguity from becoming a large batch-level quality event.

Q: What training is needed for GD&T CMM programming in CAD-based metrology software?

A: Expect training in alignment strategies, datum construction, probe/scanning selection, and correct evaluation of GD&T modifiers (e.g., MMC/LMC). Many teams become productive quickly for basic routines, but advanced items like composite profile, datum shift, and functional gaging concepts typically require additional coaching and real-part practice.

Q: When is laser scanning a better choice than tactile probing on a CMM?

A: Laser scanning is often better for fast surface comparison, complex freeform shapes, and high-density deviation maps—especially on additively manufactured surfaces. Tactile probing is often preferred for tight-tolerance datums, precision bores, and features where optical surface properties could affect scan quality; many shops use a hybrid approach.

F1 Sector Entry: Contract Manufacturing Firm Expands

Introduction