Oh damn, I didn’t even notice that we have that many replies!
That’s a good question, and one I never thought about. I guess we’ll see how long we can keep this party going for?
I guess I could start a pt 2 thread if need be. xD
2 Likes
the frame design thread as over 990 posts
David Lang
2 Likes
I have never pushed out the edges on the ender so I can’t tell you how that would work. Personally I like keeping my prints down to a size I can print while I am awake. I’m probably being over cautious but I don’t like leaving a machine running while I sleep.
3 Likes
@Archie_Slate Mine will be here Tuesday!
2 Likes
@MeticulousMaynard the table in post 37, on which you based the CFM requirements, was intended for a table-mounted router which will generate dust much faster than a MaslowCNC. Feeding a board through a table-mounted router with a large 1/2" router bit is quite different when compare to the slow movement of which the Maslow is capable.
I know I am super late to the conversation, but I am reading through this thread while preparing to build a z axis upgrade for my Maslow and just wanted to add the point because I hadn’t seen it mentioned.
2 Likes
Is there anything that would prevent me from reducing the height of the z axis frame? It looks like the whole rail system could be moved closer to the sled body. My system is mounted to the wall in an eight foot wide sea-land container and space is a premium.
2 Likes
Two very good questions, @johnhooks.
While true, I think in most cases people’s CFM will be limited by hose size moreso than the dust chute. I have a 2 1/2" hose on my Maslow, which according to that post has a flow of 140 CFM.
In post 47, I do the math for the chute section and came up with a calculated flow rate of 150ish CFM. Given that the curves of the chute aren’t exactly optimized for flow, I would make an educated guess that it more realistically has a flow of around 140 CFM, which aligns pretty well with the hose size that I (and I think more than a few other people) use for the machine.
To your point though, I don’t know if trying to make a more optimized dust chute would bring that much benefit. You’re certainly right, that a router table hogging out an ogee on a board is certainly going to make more dust than our machines. I typically run a 1/4" bit on my Maslow, although I do want to play around with some 1/2" bits once I have my sled running on my machine.
If you see post 39, I redesigned the rail system to both accomodate the new, larger chute and clear the linkages/ring system. If you lower the rails currently without any other changes, they will interfere with either of those systems. You may be able to shorten some of the overall height of the spine, but keep in mind that will reduce the amount of travel you will have.
@MeticulousMaynard Thank you for the info, I misunderstood your design criteria for the chute.
I can definitely see how lowering the rails would interfere with the linkage system. Though in the Fusion 360 model, it looks like it wouldn’t interfere with the ring system, can anyone confirm this? The benefit I see in reducing the dust collection chute is to make way for a lowered rail. Plus I have a small 3D printer and the models for the current design do not fit within my print area, I could ask a friend… but I like the challenge of modeling one myself.
I am really excited to replace the Ridgid router base and appreciate all your work and activity in this thread. I’ve ordered all the parts, though some did ship from China and aren’t expected until sometime in November.
Well I’ll be damned. I had remember both systems having problems, but it looks pretty clear in the model.
Supposedly, changing the height of the spine is a relatively simple task. However, when I tried it just now, the model exploded. I’m worried that I’ve been in there too many different times, and editing a really early feature like that is tripping it up hard. It may be possible to roll through the timeline to fix the issues, but it’s going to be like untangling a knot.
It may be worth using my model as a starting point, importing some of the parts, like the router or the ring system, and customizing the setup to meet your exact needs. You could probably try narrowing and shortening my dust chute, or even printing it at a reduced scale.
I’ve been ruminating on the redesigned spindle clamps/carriage and listening to the comments here on it. I have a few thoughts on it, and how I would like to move forward with it.
The minimum bounding box that the carriage would take up and require no modification to the spine would be 200mm x 120mm x 90mm. The largest dimension, 200mm, is because of the current rail spacing. It would be fairly trivial to move the mounting holes for the rails in on the spine, but then it wouldn’t be backwards compatible with the current setup. So anyone that’s already made their setup on the current files wouldn’t be able to use the new design without having to relocate the rails. I’d like it to be more of a “bolt on” upgrade.
I could also design the carriage in a few pieces that bolt together, so that people with smaller printers wouldn’t have trouble with it.
I’ll have to think on that part more. 
I did remember that my old Davinci 1.0 had something like a 180mm cubed print volume, which was big for the time. I’ve almost forgotten already how much better my Ender is! xD
@johnhooks, what’s your printer’s build volume? Since you mention that it’s a smaller printer, that may serve as a good benchmark for the new design.
I have a Lulzbot Mini - Print Area: 152 mm x 152 mm x 158 mm (6 in x 6 in x 6.2 in)
I don’t know if that should be used as any restraint on the project, it’s pretty small. I usually use it for printing drone accessories, which are pretty small. I have ordered the new Prusa Mini which is 7in x 7in x 7in… holding out for the rumored PrusaXL rather than getting the i3 Mk3.
1 Like
I totally understand how Fusion breaks down when modifying an early edit. I am sure with enough knowledge of how parametric modeling works it wouldn’t be so bad, but I usually just push forward on a model and modifications be damned.
1 Like
I am interested in modifying the design to make spindle removal and replacement easy. I would like to experiment with different methods and a bolt pattern on the carriage to which different spindle mounts could be attached would make that easy. I have had difficulty with the Ridgid router and the collet, I haven’t found any after market collects, but the Dewalt 611 has many options for both 1/4” and 1/8” collets and nuts.
1 Like
I am planning on using the Inventable’s mount for the 611, because I don’t trust wood or 3D printed mounts… and I don’t have access to a water jet or mill like you. In my opinion it’s pretty cheap for some peace of mind.
3 Likes
Wow that looks like a nice mount. Do you have the ring system? Can you tell us if it clears?
Sure thing, I am working to simplify the Meticulous Z Axis and also ensure the Dewalt 611 mount fits within the ring. The Dewalt is a much smaller router, so it should be pretty simple. I will post updates here as I make progress.
1 Like
Well I began the process of assembly today while waiting on UPS to deliver my MetalMaslow parts. I quickly found out that I don’t have the right hardware. My bearing blocks, the screws in the bom don’t work with them, so off to ACE tomorrow to figure those out. And, I also need shorter wood screws lol. SO FAR tho, I got SOME of it done.
I really hope I’m doing this right lol. So far the only thing I’m not sure of is the leadscrew part. Mostly the nut, where the heck does that mount? And where to the threaded inserts go? The templates I downloaded didn’t have the placement of those things.
3 Likes
Also, so my personal life has been crazy getting in the way this week, sorry I haven’t gotten back to all you guys sooner. This reply’s gonna be a bit of a read.
Here goes! 
I think the 7in cubed bounding box is pretty realistic. As it is, without a printer that can do 200mm in one axis means that I’m going to have to break down the carriage into multiple parts. I’m starting to come up with an idea as to how it should all assemble, but I need to make time to actually model it up.
The biggest problem with this model is that I started it while I was still figuring out Fusion 360. If I could re-draw it over I would do several things differently that would make it actually parametrically editable. Or at least, better than it currently is.
Now that’s something that I didn’t think of. Because the Rigid is the original Maslow router, I didn’t think to research into other routers that would have off-the-shelf components that you could just buy. The Dewalt is a pretty common low-cost options for DIY routers, so it is a good route to go down.
Honestly, though, if we’re talking about changing up the router, I think that I would go in the direction of using an CNC spindle. They can be had for pretty cheaply and they’re better for this application. That and they usually come with their own clamps.
Wait, you mean this is over-engineered? I don’t know what you mean 
No, entirely kidding. I have a tendency to do that.
A lot of the choices made around the placement of the rails was to allow the sled to fit a multitude of kinematics options. When I was designing it, the ring wasn’t the only one we were seeing.
It’s would be good to alter it so that is purpose-built for the ring.
Damn, well that’s going to need to get fixed. Now that I think about it, they might be M4’s or something, since the rest of the kit is metric. I honestly can’t remember what I used now.
Yup, that’s something that’s been poorly documented as well. And as such, I forgot about that earlier.
You need some form of an angle bracket. I think @Shootquinn had a 3D printed part somewhere around here that fits it nicely. Otherwise, even one of those squarish right angle hardware brackets would work. You’ll just need to drill the holes for the lead screw and it’s mounting hardware.
I used that little bit of angle iron that’s right above the carriage in this picture. I just secured it to the back of the carriage with #8 x 5/8" wood screws.
The threaded inserts all go in the larger holes in the template. Those you should drill out and then put the inserts in. The listing says to use a 7mm drill, but something that’s close to that should work.
I’ve been wanting to put together an assembly video, but we’re still updating so fast I haven’t been able to keep up. @theHipNerd still has the best summary I’ve seen so far.
Oh! So if I’m not using the linkage kit, I really shouldn’t need the inserts? I’ll be using the ring kit, so no real need to put anything in those holes right?
