Ok, all done and dusted. I see “Sinks” in the drop down.
My head is about to explode and my hair is on fire. But thanks to you I am one step down this long road called, SketchUp.
Tomorrow, will try some other 3DW components. Practice makes perfect …
Thanks again …
Good luck. Might want to keep a fire extinguisher handy. 
Amazing this should come up so soon after @DaveR helped me understand what I was doing wrong when creating cutting components (also a sink coincidentally).
First rule seems to be the old Irish joke about not starting from here. In short, best to make your own component from scratch because it’s much easier to make it work that way.
If you do start with a ready made component that has not been designed to be a cutting component, you need to make sure it is really clean before you can turn it into a cutting component. Purge, purge, purge.
Could not agree with you more ! But since I am just starting with SU, it seemed prudent to leave component creation to the experts, while capitalizing on their work. This allows me to learn the SU basics while creating some basic models. What I did not count on was that not all 3DW models are created correctly.
With cut components, I started with creating basic shapes (rectangles, ovals, etc.) and learned the process. I got to the point where I could reliably repeat the process with these simple shapes. I then started downloading 3DW models and applying the same process. Needless to say, almost all failed, using my process which drove me crazy.
Hopefully, with time, I will gain enough SU expertise to create my own components, but for now I am faced with reverse engineering the 3DW components as Dave demonstrated in this post. We are very fortunate that Dave and others take time to help us.
That is the problem with the system. It’s great to have the resource but it’s like food. Not all is kosher.
Absolutely. The man never sleeps.
Well, I was sleeping but Simon woke me up. 
Just kidding.
FWIW, here is another way to create your component with gluing and hole cutting properties.
Here I have a sink. It’s actually Simon’s sink from the other day. I’ve exploded the component and moved it onto the ungrouped rectangle. You could also create the model in place on the rectangle if you wish. Select only the sink geometry making sure you don’t also select the face of the rectangle that is skinning over the opening.
G to create component. Tick the box for hole cutting and select the gluing plane. The axes will change from the normal ones to the gluing plane axes automatically. It wouldn’t hurt to tick the box for Replace selection but as the sink currently in the model won’t be used, it’s not critical.
Click on Set Component Axes and place the origin and axes in a logical place. Also give the component an appropriate name while you’re here.
Press Enter of click on Create. Save the component by dragging it into your local collection in the Components panel as I’ve shown before. Done and some guy is your uncle.
Dave, works like a charm. I have added this technique to my workflow.
Out of curiosity, did this component from Simon’s post have any “internal problems” that needed to be resolved before you used the component?
No. When I got it, it was just an un-nested component. Only loose geometry. Well, it did and still does have a reversed face which I ought to fix. The other day I showed Simon how to make a hole-cutting component using this sink. Much simpler than the one you shared. Much lighter, too, without all the unneeded detail in the strainers.
Starting to realize that there are two distinct design camps, illustrative and real world accurate. Point well made about the strainers. All that work which needlessly increased poly count and produced a bloated, needlessly complex component. I have been working with [john_mcclenahan] on Kreg pocket hole components. He adds features like low poly count, insertion points, glue to any and cut opening. His attention to detail and skill are truly impressive, as are yours.
Indeed! And it’s important to keep in mind which you need for a given project. For example, here’s the model I made for a rack for my wife’s skis.
And on the flip side, a highly detailed flax wheel with all of the hardware.
Or the hardware for a Moxon-style vise.
In all cases, the models do the job they need to do.
A third one which I would like to belong to would be “Illustrative but accurate”. When you model things that are to be built, dimensional accuracy is very important, but modelling every little invisible detail of every part usually isn’t - most often something that vaguely resembles what is going to be built and has the right dimensions is quite enough. That sink is a good example. Dave’s model lacks all the zillion small roundings that the actual object would have, but together with its product code it is more than enough to get one installed in a kitchen, and when rendered, produces a suitably shiny piece of stainless steel in an image.
And he’s stuck on one at the moment! Just posted asking for help. My design may not work, in principle, as well as in practice!
But I shall get something working for you, Claire.
This is a very important point. When it comes to 3D modeling there is always this trade off between real world and illustrative. The question arises quite frequently when creating architectural models.
If I was to try and model a house completely accurately it would involve placing each piece of plywood, shingle, screw and nail. Obviously this isn’t a feasible goal nor is it necessary. In my experience it is only prudent to model as much information is necessary in order to convey the appropriate information or message.
That is kind of the mentality I’ve taken with plugins, they need to convey a realistic model but its okay to be more illustrative with certain aspects where field installation will vary from the model significantly. A good example of this is sheathing, I don’t try and model each piece of plywood or OSB separately, that is a waste of time in my opinion, however it is important to represent the wall thickness accurately so the sheathing is modeled three dimensionally so that its volume and overall area are accurately represented and can be quantified (for estimation purposes).
The decision to model certain items and to ignore others will vary depending on the size and scope of a project/model but it certainly is an interesting conversation to have.
