LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
We're targeting having the kits available in 4 weeks. We are putting finishing touches on the easms and BOMs right now, and should be able to post those this week for you guys to check out and comment on.
Best regards,
Ahren
| | |
Ahren
Thanks for the info. 5" will work good. I am all for the intergrated unit. Can't wait until these are available.
Thanks
Sam
We're targeting having the kits available in 4 weeks. We are putting finishing touches on the easms and BOMs right now, and should be able to post those this week for you guys to check out and comment on.
Best regards,
Ahren
I'd like to see a longer version available. I had PM'd Ahren over the weekend about my idea. My design calls for the bed to be level with or slightly higher than the rails to allow easy loading/unloading of parts.
Hah! That's the exact opposite of what I was thinking.Originally Posted by bobmagnuson
While the risers really look stiff, I don't understand why they are preferred over dropping the bed, and tying the gantry directly to the Y carriages (like the FLA design). No matter how stiff they are, they can't be as stiff as no riser at all. Dropping the bed doesn't seem to have much of a downside other than requiring the legs to be a bit longer and having extra mounting holes for it.
I'm not seeing how loading gets easier with raising the bed. Lowering it seems to me to make it easier.
My line of thinking is...
Using the standard design, the bed is recessed between the rails, you can only load the machine from the ends. I'm planning on a 5x10 machine, and having to reach over those rails and down into the center of the table seems like a long reach even to me and I'm 6'4".
If you look at machines like Camaster, ShopSabre or even that little K2 CNC machine in the ad at the top of the forum, while the mechanics of those machines are different than the typical DIY machine, they offer user the ability to load/unload the machine from any side. Either with a vacuum lift or by hand.
If I could figure out a way to utilize the CNC RP components and CRS into a similar design where the 'moving parts' are located under the table, it would be even better in my opinion, at least for what I would use the machine for.
Bed height is a function of wherever you put it. Having the rails above the bed means that you effectively block off two sides, or create extra structure over which you have to lift materials. Not a big deal with foam blocks, but this can be an issue with 0.75" 4x8 sheets. That being said, you can load sheet goods from the end with the raised rails, but that may not fit people's shop layout.
For me, the raised rails created a problem that my CNC table will also need to double as a work surface. It's not ideal, but my garage is small and my need is great.
Hi Ahren,
do you have any intention to post your drawings in anything else then easms?
Thanks,
Felix
This looks great, I'm defiantly going to be looking at the full kits when they come out, but I also want one of those risers for a current project! Can't wait till they are available!
I'm so glad my build was delayed so that I can use these risers. Was going to use the gantry interface plate, but had some serious questions about them. These risers answer them completely. Thank you, nice work.
Re: raised gantry/lowered bed. Of course both work for different applications.
For me the smaller footprint and saved frame material make the raised gantry approach better. My current design uses both approaches, that might change.
Also eagerly awaiting the drawings or BOM or whatever for the vertical axis assembly that will work with the large (3060) riser.
Pre-orders? Count me in.
Hi all,
Glad you guys are psyched for the risers. As an update on the plans, we have the easms done, but they seem to be really slow and heavy -- they work acceptably on my two workstations, but I'm guessing those without CAD level graphics cards are going to be cursing my name trying to rotate them and look at things. I believe the culprit is the arrays of McMaster Carr fasteners with all of the threading on them. We'll need to update them, but I may go ahead and post a rev A just so curious minds can delve in. I haven't posted plans here before -- mods, is there a good place for this other than as attachments in a forum post?
We do plan on posting these in another format at some point (likely 3D pdf and some 2D pdf exploded view drawings), but the easm's will be first, as these are a direct export from Solidworks, where the assembly is already built.
Pre-orders will be coming soon too, but in limited quantities -- probably no more than 10 machines worth to start. We pride ourselves on fast shipping and responsiveness to customer inquiries, so we definitely don't want to disappoint people by making them wait a long time once they've plunked down their hard-earned cash. I'll post in this thread when pre-orders are available, and it will be first come, first served.
More this weekend. We should have some video of this baby in action...
Ahren
CNCRouterParts
I already have a lowered bed (FLA-300), but I'm always interested to learn more. How does raising the gantry make the footprint smaller? The only thing I can see is that the carriage limits the footprint on the lowered bed, because the carriage on the Z hits the carriage on the Y, whereas on the riser, the Z rail is the limit. So you save the difference between the carriage width and the rail width/2. Was that what you meant?
On Y (depth), it doesn't seem to make any difference at all.
I also don't quite understand "saved frame material". Often, lowered bed designs have full length 8020 feet, and 8020 cross beams to support the bed, but you could use the short legs and wooden or welded steel frame just as well. The couple inches of width difference above is a small savings (4" of X frame maybe?). Against that you have to pay for the risers. Was that what you meant or am I missing something?
On a lowered bed table, the router is not able to go as far "left and right" due to the frame rail being a restriction. With the risers, there isn't as much of a restriction. As a result, the machine probably is about 6-8" narrower.
To answer your question Ahren:
If the forum won't host, I suggest something like Dropbox. They give you 2 GB of free space and allow you to host public files. I'm not sure if they have a bandwidth restriction though. Otherwise, hosting it on your webspace seems most logical. Most sites are "unlimited" bandwidth at this point.
I'd also get rid of the threads on all the hardware except maybe the lead screw for the Z axis. There is no reason to show threads. Everyone knows what a bolt is.
Posting Permissions
| | |
