Less than 90 minutes with Documenting - I will say it will be under 60 minutes. Screw count 9 - This is a minimum build but I believe it will work. It’s designed to mount the work to the frame and have it flush with the outer edges for full access to the entire sheet.
2- 12 ft boards
1 - 10 ft board
1 - 8 ft board
1 sheet of wood . 3/4 inch thick
Note there are 2 side pieces and 12 screws not in place.
The top mount is deviated from the drawing slightly. The total build height 6 foot 8 inches. The full depth for stroage when folded 12 inches deep.
I have a question related to creating a temporary Maslow during the construction of the “real” Maslow. There is quite a bit of flexibility and accuracy that can be leveraged if CNC cut parts are available. The temporary Maslow was observed as being very time-consuming and difficult to construct, such that the value it provided was not worth the time spent. Recently, there have been developments in the calibration routine, the upfront availability of triangular kinematics, and an 80/60 frame design. If the calibration process takes another 60 minutes, then a calibrated, temporary Maslow would only require 120 minutes of work. Do these developments change that time/value trade off? How many people are interested in a more comprehensive frame design that can leverage CNC cut parts from a temporary Maslow?
The 80/60 is not a temporary design. It is a negative space design for permanent use. I’ll explain more about it after I cover the temporary frame method.
The temporary frame method is a bootstrap approach. It’s getting good enough to allow the machine to take on the work load. There are many different levels of wood worker, beginner, novice, hobbyist , professional. The boot strap approach is for someone that is not at the skill level to hand make the parts.
I can’t remember who it was now because it thousands of post back and months ago, how said I can cut plywood by hand na skip to the permanent sled in 20 minutes why would I let the temp frame do it. I was very inspired by that. I have a thread here and a wiki entry that detail the use of all my permanent material to improve the temp frame.
Personally I love the look of the old permanent design. I will still finish mine up. I have 2 hammers in my tool box. I don’t limit the tools i can have. It actually works better in my garage. my house was constructed somewhere between 1920 and I930 based on the Sears and Roebuck cesspool kit found in the back yard. That is why I have a garage door 6 ft tall.
Here are the draw backs of the old build method. Time, it takes time to do the first construction, calibrate, then cut new parts, then time to assemble them. For me the cost for all the materials for the original build method came out to around $170. I keep having to go back for 1 more thing I didn’t anticipate.
The trick is to maximize you time. It’s the one thing in life you can’t make more of.
The current new design effort is to skip over the bootsrtap to get people up faster. Besides it introduced 2 levels for debugging then 4 when triangular kinematics came along. This make helping people much easier.
One important point is @bar wants the new design to be able to reuse most of the parts for all the existing users to be able to adopt it.
What is a negative space design? It is my opinion that the vast majority of users will only need to go as far as 3/4 inch (29mm) sheet material. This design is based on that and to allow the router to fully enter and exit the sheet it is working on. Possible to cut 100% of a sheet. There are reasons you might not want to at this stage but this makes it possible. the old design was limited by the sled hitting the bottom rail. I consider everything in the design that is not fighting gravity consumable waist board. The entire outside bezel.
Here is an excerpt of a Private Massage:
The version shown is missing the left and right skirts. When finished it has 9 inch outer skirts allowing the router to fully enter / exit a 4x8 sheet. It’s dirt simple to build, & fast.
The total so far is 21 screws. I think it may need 3 more screws. If you want to do 1/2 inch you first mount a 1/4 inch waste board. If you want to do 1/4 inch you first mount a 1/2 inch waste board. This way the motor mounts don’t need to move.
This is a simplistic design to get you running fast with few tools, it ignores the reuse issue. There is discussion of the distance of the top rail outward. @dlang an I are working on a design together of motor brackets that would mount on the top rail Wood our Unitsrut and make things more uniform.
See here:
I believe when fully complete you can cut on the 80/60 as designed for over a year using under 25 screws. But if you look at it as a cork board approach you pin things on it to extend it’s ability.
After reviewing the thread on the new frame design I’m adding a new Design Goal. Can I go to a maker space and give the instructions to build whatever design to a 5th grader and have them build it?
Absolutely! However I’ll explain why it might be worth an extra few dollars more for buying low end plywood.
You will be using in most cases plywood, when the bit exits the workpiece and hits a different material it will have a sudden change in force and that might result in a bit braking.
Also the plywood will be a bit better if you want to work on a smaller piece like the 30 x 30 inch shown. You can take a 5 ft piece of 2x4 and screw it to the skirt at say 28 inches to temporarily attach the smaller work piece.
If you plan to mostly cut OSB then use an OSB skirt.
I was hoping to finish my build and documentation today. Last night just before goin on a date with my wife I dropped a graphic representing 50% of the layout on the build manual. The program I was using unexpectedly closed. I thought it had minimized it’s window. I couldn’t locate the program in the system tray. That is when I had a sinking feeling. I still thought they must have a recovery feature. I opened the program to fresh layout with no content. Lesson learned , saving every 30 min. I lost 2.5 days work. I’ve been able to recreate it in half a day. I however think the previous layup was better.
Here is a screen shot form the current version to get an idea what it will be like.
Ok the stars aligned today to allow me to finish the 80/60 build. I will work on finishing “the build manual” as soon as I can. Here is what the finished build looks like.
There was some concern on the 80/60 and the motor mounts. It still need to be proved out, however the top rail on the 80/60 is 3/4 inch forward of the original motor mounting. I think it will be fine.
Here is a shot of the motor mounts on my temp frame.
I had no one else around to take a picture of me. I’m just shy of 200 lbs (14.25 Stones). This is a shot of me standing on the 80/60 frame balanced on one foot while taking the picture. I had no flex where I am standing. I’m 1 foot (305 mm) off the ground hanging on 4 screws. There is a 3 inch (76 mm) gap between the ground and bottom of the board.
Yes - it should work with all of the original hardware. You would need to add a space at the bottom to tie the stretchy cord if you are not converting to the top style. Other than that it’s all good.
