What is the plan for the new ring kits for existing users?

Check Twitter… no seriously. Check it out

1 Like

Ok,I’ll play along for a bit. Check what on twitter?

I was talking to myself,kind of. I wanted to know what ring was bing talked about and I had to dig up my twitter account to see the latest update.

So if anyone had the same question that I did, they would know to check Twitter. I did a horrible job communicating that to anyone but myself. Ha

1 Like

@Bartfriend

Welcome to our group. & It happens.

Thank you

1 Like

Let me begin by saying I think it will be a great thing having improved accuracy and simplified kinematics but I am also mindful of comparison with existing linkage options already developed.

The primary driver of the Maslow was affordability and access to CNC technology.

I am certainly on board with the ring options but there are a few questions that need asking before it is standard.

What would the cost be for the ring option ? What level of improvement does it have over the linkage kits ?? How much more clearance will it offer with respect to interference with wider router fixed bases.

If it is substantially more expensive then the linkage kits should be an option and if cheaper then it makes sense it should be standard.

One advantage of making the ring based option standard is that the quadrilateral kinematics can slowly be eliminate from the source for newer versions of the firmware.

How much more weight does this ring introduce and does this have ramification to the types of linkages currently used or the motors (more load more heat)?

Kind Regards Stuart

3 Likes

@stuartri
You make an interesting point. After looking at the other linkage options:

  • Laser Cut Wood Triangulation Kit
    (Assembly Instructions for Triangulation Linkage Kit · MaslowCNC/Mechanics Wiki · GitHub)
    Developed by @pillageTHENburn which is laser cut wood parts that make up an elegant solution. You can buy the kit for $35 on Etsy. There are multiple of smaller simple components, and that is good, but solving the problem with fewer parts often closes the gap on future possible malfunctions.

  • Laser Cut Metal Steel Pantograph
    (Metal Top Pantograph kit available)
    Developed by @dlang is laser cut metal, simplifies the pantograph concept with fewer parts and different sled mounting location. You can buy this kit for $40 from dlang directly.

  • Ring Kit
    This is the concept that I have been excited about. First of all there are no moving joints to worry about, and it arguably has the fewest parts. I personally believe that the ring kit is the simplest option, and it has my vote.

All of these concepts have been discussed in depth in the forum:

2 Likes

Thanks so much for all the hard work Bar!

1 Like

I’m not sure about ‘fewest parts’, especially once you count the bearings.

the bearings also concern me a bit as sawdust magnets.

I can’t see how it can be the cheapest. between bearings and the fact that
cutting multiple ones leaves a lot of waste metal (no ability to nest them), it
seems obviously more expensive than a laser cut linkage kit.

2 Likes

I think that would depend on the manufacturer. It may be possible for them to nest other projects within the unused space of the ring cuts, or to otherwise utilize the material. I would also imagine/hope there is some recycling going on, and that off cut costs would not be unduly passed on to a customer.

That said, this is the solution I have been most excited about as well. Having already received my kit, I am glad that I will not have to reinvent the ring solution on my own, and given the small amount of time I have to work on the Maslow these days, an option to have the ring solution shipped is great for me.

I also like that there are the linkage kit options out there too as I think part of what really makes the Maslow great is that it is not a one size fits all system, but one that can be customized to available space and usage.

Yes! The plan is to have the smaller size made in bulk and then have some larger ones made locally. What is the smallest ring which your router could fit inside? (smaller is better because it reduces lever action making it rotate more smoothly)

We won’t be able to get them until the parts come with the next batch so it won’t be until later in February. I’ll be sure to give everyone a heads up in the forums before we post them, so yes but no need to check back regularly or anything.

Here’s an old one from one of the early prototypes:

I will try to get some more video

We’ll sell them at about what the parts cost us and I’m pretty confident that will be right around the $40 price tag of the linkage kits.

I’m not sure that there will be any significant improvement over a perfectly installed linkage kit. There are two factors in installing a linkage kit correctly. First the holes have to be spaced properly and I’m not sure what effect say a 1mm error in the hole positioning would have. Second, the linkage needs risers to offset the height to balance the center of gravity. The risers need to be the right height and have very little play in them which can be tough to source.

The big advantage of the ring in my mind is that it doesn’t leave a lot of room for installation issues. The shape is defined, and it’s very easy to adjust the vertical offset by moving it up and down on the brackets.

7 Likes

Not necessarily. Definite non-twit here, no account or interest in one but I do read them from links.

3 Likes

Yes! The plan is to have the smaller size made in bulk and then have some larger ones made locally. What is the smallest ring which your router could fit inside? (smaller is better because it reduces lever action making it rotate more smoothly)

he needs about a foot of clearance (with the top mount kit I went with 13")

We’ll sell them at about what the parts cost us and I’m pretty confident that will be right around the $40 price tag of the linkage kits.

I’m not sure that there will be any significant improvement over a perfectly
installed linkage kit. There are two factors in installing a linkage kit
correctly. First the holes have to be spaced properly and I’m not sure what
effect say a 1mm error in the hole positioning would have. Second, the linkage
needs risers to offset the height to balance the center of gravity. The risers
need to be the right height and have very little play in them which can be
tough to source.

the center mount I’m adding to the top mount kit solves the hold spacing
problem, and that bar could easily be attached to any bracketry to do the height
adjustment.

If the riser is mounted wrong, it would be just like the ring being mounted
wrong.

but even if it’s offset a little, that would be ‘good enough’ to accurately cut
a new riser and sled if desired.

remember, the CG changes as the router moves in and out. I’ll bet that it moves
by an inch or more. If you cut a riser out of layers of plywood, you can make it
a reasonable height quite easily (between 1/2" and 3/4" plywood, you should be
able to get it within 1/4" of the perfect height.

2 Likes

Oww my eyes! Got anything a tad slower? I’m interested in seeing how smooth the movement around the ring is. :slight_smile:

Yes, I will film something not sped up :grin:

4 Likes

Now all you need to do is to incorporate a Z-Axis motor for the riser that is parallel’ed off the router Z-Axis motor so it moves the riser up and down proportionally with the router!

3 Likes

Thanks for that Bar and others.

As I noted I am also excited about the ring concept I just wanted some active dialog and pro’s and con’s before it was standard.

The $40 target is great as this is comparable with the linkage kits.

In terms of bigger routers I have started a thread called Sled Dimensions. I also noted what was the largest radius that could accomodate the linkage options without interference. For this we need a 2D drawing for each working router.

In the case of the Bosch GKF 1600CE the PVC base plate radius is 77mm. I am not sure what the radius of the base of the Ridgid Router is but if we had marked up dimensions then the answer would become clear.

There is also a lack of clarity around the riser height (this applies to both the linkage kits and the ring arrangement). As noted there are two things that need to be accounted for namely the Centre of gravity in the Z plan as well as having the linkages parallel to the workpiece.

I think we certainly need a 2D drawing outlining this for all options.

Kind Regards Stuart

1 Like

Thanks for that David. I am planning on using layers of plywood for the risers as my first option to get my unit close.

Kind Regards Stuart

1 Like

The riser height should only consider the center of gravity in the Z axis for
the sled.

To make the chains parallel to the workpiece should involve moving the motors in
and out (a problem for the current default design, pretty trivial for a
top-mount design)

David Lang

1 Like

David,
Were you referring to the current Default design as relating to the frame construction?

Where does the current COG lie in the Z Plane?

Stuart

Were you referring to the current Default design as relating to the frame construction?

Yes, the frame design with the nice, pretty wings attached to a piece of
plywood.

This then puts the motors on smaller pieces of plywood sticking out from the
wings.

The result is a large distance from where the chain is and where the strength of
the wood is (in all dimensions).

Where does the current COG lie in the Z Plane?

with a ridgid router, somewhere around 3-4" up from the top of the sled.