No, it wouldn’t. The Cnc4newbie 5" to 6" unit has two places on the router mount plate so you can choose either 5"'s of drop or 6"'s of drop simply by moving the plate up or down to the desired set of mounting holes.
Plus, it also has mounting holes on the back plate so you can move the whole assembly up or down.
I just did a fit check with the DWP611. Please see the attached photos. With a 2mm ball end mill (1/8" shank) in a pretty typical stick-out (about 1/2" in the collet) the bottom of the end mill was about 10mm or so above the bed. A 1/2" (12.7mm) parallel is shown for reference. Keep in mind the bed on my machine is 1/4" aluminum instead of the 1/2" nominal (measured 13.5mm with caliper) MDF in the normal kit.
Fair point. I normally run my DeWalt with it rotated as I had pictured, so that the controls are on the left and are visible from in front of the machine - but that means it can’t bottom out in the mount. It’s on my to-do list to someday take my spindle mount to a machine shop and rabbet the middle of the top edge to give the router enough clearance to bottom out over a much larger range of rotation.
I rotated it and bottomed it out and do in fact get a good amount lower as a result.
Here it is next to a piece of roughly 3/4" stock; I notched the stock and measured and it’s about 15.5mm from the wasteboard.
I’m not a veteran machinist so anyone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I always run with the minimum stick-out unless I have a specific need to go longer due to material geometry - i.e. I insert the bit until the smooth part of the shank is just about fully inserted, with the base of the flutes just a bit below the collet. Just mentioning it since your photo seems to show several mm more stickout than that, and i’m not certain if my concern is fully founded.
[quote=“KyleKronyak, post:297, topic:36179”]the bottom of the end mill was about 10mm or so above the bed. A 1/2" (12.7mm) parallel is shown for reference. Keep in mind the bed on my machine is 1/4" aluminum instead of the 1/2" nominal (measured 13.5mm with caliper) MDF in the normal kit.
[/quote]I’m not sure about the other sizes and/or the older model of the X-Carve, but for the 1000mm model, according to the drawing 30300-03 in the x-carve grabcad repository, the stock wasteboard is 3/4" nominal thickness, which is the same as my (custom) wasteboard.
Also Kyle, is the Z unit you tested the DWP611 on above representative of the first batch of production units (such as mine) regarding the spindle mount holes? (i.e. the spindle mount is sitting 3mm high relative to the faceplate of the Z carriage)
So running the numbers a little bit more, if mine is bottoming out with this bit at 15.5mm, then someone with stock-height Y rails and a 3/4" wasteboard should theoretically be able to get down to about 3mm from the surface with the same bit/stickout. That gets it into a better ballpark, where you could use cheap 1/4" MDF as a backer board and be able to cut the material to full depth. Really tiny, short bits would still need a little more help.
In my case I guess with the router bottomed out, I will be able to use 3/4" MDF as a backer, which is still reasonably cheap.
I like the plate, that’s what I had in mind.
Yes, I made new Y rail end plates that raise them (and thus the gantry) by 1/2". I agree that this Z design won’t get me there without changing one or more things. I’m considering my options:
- I can go back to stock Y rail height
- I can work on machining an adapter plate like the one you drew up
- I could chuck the stock spindle mount in a vertical mill and shave down the top of the clamp - taking it down to just above the top clamping screw would be simplest but wouldn’t get me quite all the way there; if I forfeit that hole and drill/tap a new one lower down, I could go more than low enough to reach my wasteboard.
So far I kind of like option #3 because there are other modifications I would already like to make to my spindle clamp while I’m at it anyway, and it doesn’t have the same compromises as #1 (less max Z working height) and #2 (more overhang due to spacing the spindle further from the X carriage)
Of course, someday I’ll upgrade to a VFD spindle and this will be a moot point, but I’m not ready to take the plunge on that just yet.
@EvanDudzik I am going to make a series of mounting plates which allow for overlap of the lower mounting bracket. Part of my original design philosophy was to have the spindle anchored firmly to the carriage frame for maximum rigidity. It should be possible to make a drop-in replacement plate with more than adequate support though. I will send these to existing customers at no cost.
I am thinking a 30mm negative Z offset should allow plenty of headroom for this? Let me know what you think!
@KyleKronyak - have you received the prototype of the suckit yet? I wonder if this offset mounting plate will interfere. That might change the calculus.
@RichWood I haven’t received one yet. The only issue I could imagine would be if it doesn’t extend low enough, but that would be an issue regardless of the style of axis assembly used.
@PhilJohnson this is possible but would be quite expensive – I did look into those types of rails and bearings for my design early on but considered them impractical. If you are going this route it probably makes sense to greatly increase the rigidity of the rest of the machine. At some point it may make more sense to simply design a whole new machine.
Did you buy a zplunge or are you here to market your own potential project and make snide and condescending comments? How about keeping a good decorum and being constructive?
There is no reason for this thread to go off the rails. Kyle has made a few comments sure, but he’s also righting mistakes at his expense. As someone who has invested in good faith, what more could we ask for?
I don’t really see how Phil is making snide comments?
I have not and will not be buying a Zplunge, but I read the thread out of interest, and I’m assuming Phil (and anyone else that isn’t a current or future customer) does too.
Also “righting mistakes at his expense” is the only thing any business should be doing, regardless if it’s a massive company or a one man band
@PhilJohnson I did say he made a few comments. He’s also doing what we’d all expect him to do to remedy the situation and right the mistakes.
Phil, I completely agree, and I hope he does comment on this so we can move on and forward.
Are the rails coated or protected at all or just raw steel? Unprotected steel will corrode even when exposed to just plain shipping environments (humidity, altitude, temperature, etc). Bob lives in Hawaii, a hot and humid place that also adds salinity to the humidity. If the steel is unprotected, normal shipping can cause this. That’s why usually you have black oxide coated parts or stainless parts.
Corrosion is a beast that has to be considered when designing any product.
The rods are coated with a thin layer of synthetic PTFE grease (specifically this one) The rods on my machine showed no sign of corrosion even with no additional application of grease after assembly and the use of water-based mist coolant during machining.
I did perform deliberate destructive testing on sample rods to gauge the level of corrosion. A completely de-greased rod left in tap water had some very light surface rust but aside from light discoloration was completely smooth after being wiped off. I did not see any corrosion on the test rod treated with protective grease during my test.
As per the forum admins’ request I have been avoiding publicly posting anything related to individual transactions on this thread. It would only be right that I posted the harassment and threats that I previously received but I will forego that for now. I expect this post and the previous troll posts to be deleted by the admins in due time. For now since they don’t seem to be available, I will address this issue.
@PhilJohnson I do not at the moment.
I will give a certain member the benefit of the doubt and refund his shipping, even though the cost for me to replace the damaged parts will exceed the cost of the shipping fee. I ask that anyone who has created posts with personal attacks please remove them. If you have any feedback or requests regarding this design, please feel free to post it. If you want to brag about how great of an engineer you are and how your $300 product is going to be so much better than my < $150 product, please create your own thread.
I like that idea! I’ll give some thought to the specific offset that would be optimal, but offhand 30mm sounds like it would get me into a very good ballpark even with my slightly raised rails
At the risk of getting sucked into the rather heated discussion, I’m just going to offer my own experience as another data point. Not trying to challenge anyone else’s experience or opinions, just saying…As one of the recipients of a unit from the first batch, I’ve been in (private) contact with Kyle since the day it arrived and he’s been cooperative every step of the way and taking every reasonable step to make everything right.
Assuming the suckit fits, and rigidity is maintained, having both a higher option for max z clearance, and an offset plate option has some advantages.
As has been my experience as well.
The difference is they weren’t threatening to commit chargeback fraud if the replacement didn’t get there fast enough for their preference. Since you can’t seem to stop trolling I’m going to post the conversation and let people judge for themselves.
I have highlighted what I interpreted as threats to commit chargeback fraud.