Build a lathe or a robotic arm
It seems to me that the dedicated metal milling space is a lot more congested and there are a much larger number of people who have taken a stab at it in different ways. That makes me wonder if itās less likely that there are truly innovative solutions to be developed there or if it becomes just another slightly different option.
On the other hand, leaning into a small but maximally 3D printed design seems a lot more interesting, to me. A lot of organisations seem to have budget or sponsorship for consumables that they donāt have for equipment purchases. Being able to make something with minimal outlay or with the most flexible procurement possible seems like it could be very interesting and valuable.
That said, it depends on your personal goals there. If youāve got an idea that is speaking to you as something you want to work on, I think you can see that loads of people would build whatever just to give it a shot.
If you want something thatās a saleable product, something thatās mostly 3D printed inherently starts to lean towards selling smaller and smaller proportions of the overall unit or selling access to the design files. Something thatās a bit bigger/higher value may have fewer people interested but higher margin possibilities.
2 Likes
Yeah, the $2500 mark meets all the criteria for the original post, and I am confident that price would be very hard to match, let alone beat. I have a phobia of expensive projects so a more beginner focused build of some sort seems to fit the ecosystem better to me as well.
This thread has had my brain working overtime thinking about all aspects of the mpcnc for sure. Two years back Jamie had a few ideas I have yet to test but the are good enough I have not forgotten them.
4 Likes
This is the direction I would like to see the MPCNC go as well, but that would perhaps price out some of the newcomers to the hobby.
That being said, the LR4 is still an incredibly cost effective intermediate/entry level machine which could be the entry point for those on a more constrained budget.
Just my two bobs worth.
The only issue with that is the LR has metal XZ plates and linear rails. That actually adds a large cost and/or a significant hurdle for a DIY machine. The mpcnc only needs a printer, hacksaw, drill, screwdriver to make. Easy to bootstrap, reprap style
3 Likes
I see your point, and itās a good one.
Would it be a possibility then in that case to look towards an even more capable (and expensive) metal CNC in the next iteration of the LR? Keep the MPCNC as a genuine budget friendly build?
LR, once bootstrapped, can continue the forward journey if we allow a user to take it there.
Once you can machine flat aluminum plate, you can then use an LR4 to make a bunch of parts for an all-metal machine, which would be the next big step forward.
Personally, I think an entry level MPCNC should go the other direction and address the absolute entry point. If you could get an MPCNC that has a build voulme big enough to mill the plates for an LR4, plus has other tooling like laser, drag knife, maybe even as crazy as it sounds a return to having an extruder option. Big enough to mill XZ plates for LR4, maybe to print the YZ plates if you donāt have an adequate printer (unlikely), also able to do decent 3D carvings, or other smaller tools.
Maybe target up to 600mm x 600mm x 200mm in Z.
MPCNC is the entry level bootstrap machine.
LR4 is the mid-level, larger format machine.
V1 Pro is the thing you make from your LR4 out of flat aluminum (2.5D) plates.
With a metal machine set then all the big stuff opens up. Steel cutting (plasma, fiber laser, etc.) Steel milling, on and on.
2 Likes
Well that is how the LR metal plates came to be. No one wants to build a full CNC to cut parts to build another one, they just buy the parts from me instead. That makes great business sense but goes against the ethos.
Then is kinda goes into, if the LR can cut all the aluminum parts do you really want to go through all that just to be able to cut a little faster?
A all metal monster would not be an MPCNC, that would be different and hard to compete with the DMC2.
Yeah, this way is starting to sound like it makes the most sense.
That excludes the jackpot.
These are perfect for the LR I think.
An monster little machine gets you faster aluminum, and steel versus the Current MPCNC and LR. I donāt really think that is where I shine, That kind of machine is for people that chase zeros, that is very tedious and boring to troubleshoot.
I love all projects that are less than NASA tolerances, and casual makers I think. I think TNG could be a refreshed mpcnc trying to lower the barrier to entry and probably incorporate Heffeās wish list, or al least make previsions for it. For example a dust shoeā¦
A refreshed MPCNC should gain some rigidity, so if I can maintain or cut BOM costs that would be great.
This thread is making my head go in all sort of directions.
2 Likes
Sr. Heffe is quite good at causing one to think about things. 
1 Like
That was kinda my point aboveā¦ The LR4 seems like the best combination of cost/assembly complexity/capability that Iāve seen anywhere in a large format sense. At the moment there seems to be a real predisposition towards building it in 4āx8ā config with a trim router or at most a small spindle. I think that pushing the envelope and leading the way with a few other configurations could prove to widen the appeal quite significantly, whether thatās trying to shrink it to limit gantry flex and then seeing if you can reliably do steel (i.e. cut steel reliably from a toolpressure standpoint as in an alternative to a plasma, not āmillingā steel as in cutting to thousandthās tolerance or doing machinist level work) , or whether to work on some āyellow-ish brick roadā mods like plasma/fiber laser/whatever that photonics thing is/EDM/DIY waterjet etc.
All of those things are āeasilyā (as in, not impossible) within reach of anyone here wanting to DIY it, of course, but from watching it all I think itās clear that 99% of people arenāt modding their machines hard, theyāre either building to āspecā or maybe at a stretch adding some basic mods that are well proven/common within the community. Even if itās not an official/supported thing, having even a blog post showing the machine off in that configuration as well as talking about what it takes to get it working (extra SSRs, remote triggering, feedback from torch height control modules, whatever) would help.
I think thatās probably the most logical approach for going ābeyondā the LR4.
For something below the LR4, making it the cheapest, easiest to source, as much printed as possible thing and then setting the goal to be a machine that can make the LR4 plates seems like a great target. Even the 600x600 mentioned above seems insane, to me.
1 Like
I like the entry level / low cost approach for the MPCNC. For someone getting started ~$800 is a lot more than ~$450. Not to mention the tools needed to assemble. MPCNC was the first machine I made years ago. I was still in school, lived in an apartment, etc. LR would have been out of reach.
2 Likes
Iāll toss in that something that fills the same niche as the seemingly abandoned handibot would be a nice, fun, portable build.
Below is a rough chart, with incomplete and bad data. Even so, hopefully this is good enough to convey my observationsā¦ A crowded field of fixed sized machines in the $ price range.
Am curious what features and quantifiable significant factors people considered when deciding between a V1E MPCNC and alternatives? Things like community support, shared .stls, feed-rates, MRR, but what else(s) ?
Personally like that MPCNC Primo, MPCNC LR4 (and MaslowCNC to some extent) are not fixed size or fixed materials, we can build to the size and material budget that makes sense for our initial needs/wants. The awesome flexibility, lets us slowly dip into these belt/emt based projects on a relatively limited budget, see how it goes, potentially diving in incrementally deeper if/when our interest, time and budget allow.
However, that awesome flexibility came with a bunch of upfront time consuming decisions needing to be made. Time burned, and the analysis paralysis experienced will vary depending on how deep people zoom into the details and options. Today, for LR4, I see many builds being 1/4 sheet or full sheet. Am wondering if this topic ends up with an additional even smaller common Light build that fits entirely on a common 2ā x 4ā desk. Maybe a few clear paths to onboard could be help minimize time to decide and build, e.g. Light, Regular, Proā¦
So, I personally like the idea of a single platform that, if possible, has a really cheap entry point, but can be significantly upgraded incrementally if/when needed/wanted.
For example, previously shared Printable XZ Plates for LowRider 4, practically begged people to not download or use, but some are anyway (because shipping, taxesā¦). Is there a cheaper linear rail alternative (e.g. vertical 150mm 2020 extrusion, belt, high+low idlers with printed mounts, printed carriage block that grips belt ends similar to mp3dp v5) thatās good enough for the minimally viable entry level LR4, something that helps people take their first step into a platform that can be used with a CNC Router, or Laser, or Pen, or Engraver, or Drag knife, or whateverā¦ Can the $$ parts of the LR4 motion have a cheaper option thatās good enough for some scenarios available at a point that matches what people want to invest day 1.
LR4 docs continue to be updated. Cool mods and premium builds by the community are starting to surface, am hoping to see many more interesting builds. Consider a MacGyver contest to see who can innovate to create the cheapest LR4 build that can still cut plywood. Personally feel like LR4ās multi-dimensional journey is just beginningā¦
Consider a LR4 Yellow Brick Road that has multiple 3 on-ramps (e.g. Light, Regular and Pro), and multiple optional stops that can take people close to AVID CNC, or better, on a fraction of the budget.
Again, Iāve never built/used a MPCNC Primo (so Iām ignorant to itās benefits over LR4). Currently, Iād sooner build a smaller LR4 than a Primo.
5 Likes
If you donāt have to care about the money, sure, the LR4 wins every category in my book. The linear rails and aluminium plates make it more expensive though. The Primo uses a few rails, belt, printed parts, a few bolts, five motors and a board. Thatās basically it.
2 Likes
Sure, butā¦
44 bearingsā¦ Vs 14 on the lowrider.
Just throwing this out there:
If you wanted to cut cost on the lowrider, then make a āLowrider ELā (entry level). If you made a printed mod plate to replace the xz plates that bolts to the linear rail channel on the yz plate, then the gantry could be bolted in place solid with an mpcnc style z axis on a redesigned core. It then becomes a 4 motor setup and could be upgradeable by swapping the core and adding the linear rails aluminum xz plates, one z motor, one lead screw, and one shaft coupler because one will already be on the single z axis.
Adds (~$15)
- Two custom adapter plates (printed)
- Modified mpcnc / lowrider core (printed)
- 12 bearings
- 2 short emt tubes ( could be 1" like gantry tubes)
- Bolts
Removes (~$90-$110)
- One motor ($12)
- One 150 mm lead screw and nut ($5)
- 4 printed z parts
- One 8mm to 5 mm shaft coupler ($5)
- 2 Aluminum XZ plates ($35 or a headache)
- 4 150 mm linear rails ($40-60)
The part i had the greatest challenge with on my mpcnc was the core bearing mounts. They would crack and then the core would be sloppy and rock and get the death wobble in certain circumstances. Also all the wires moved so the x or y rails would sometimes lose one motor and bind or the z motor would skip. A std wire harness mount solution like cable chains or pool noodles or wire loom and tape measure or whatever would likely go a long way to help this.
Lowrider eliminates these issues and the only issue it creates (for me) is the gantry races to the bottom on the x min side after the z screws were lubed. Dull bits cause the gantry to pop wheelies, but that could be argued that it isnt a machine problem, but a tooling error.
Just some observations and ideas.
4 Likes
If you ever wanted to know what it is like in my head most of the waking hoursā¦itās this thread plus a bunch of random sketches on things just in case it is a great idea (LR3-4 beam).
7 Likes
I am so glad to see this. I had typed something similar, but then decided I didnāt have time to properly research it. I āfeelā like the hallmark innovation is the Z-motion system of the LR4. But I run smack into the cost of the linear rails when trying to consider it as an entry point.
One of the pain points that I see for people starting their V1 journey is building their Primo too big. I did it. I feel at home because I see others that have done it, and some that assured me they have ācut theirs down.ā I donāt even think limiting the size in the calculator would keep people from planning a Primo thatās too big.
So - back to a question about something Iād like to see in the MPCNC TNG. I guess Iād add a sustainability angle. Iāve been trying to be more thoughtful in what I print, and what filaments I use. Unless I feel there is a design requirement (like heat tolerance) Iāve really been using PLA as my primary material. From the standpoint of my journey with V1 machines, it would be great if there were common parts between the Primo and the LR4. I wonder if some of the larger parts could have smaller parts that adapted it to the individual machine. It might increase small part (screws, nuts, etc) count but those are reusable. I look at my poor Primo laying in its coffin storage box and think that I should probably try to find a place to recycle all that plastic.
I think this is really interesting from a sustainability angle. Potentially, the YZ plates could be designed as cross compatible. Potentially, there could be bolt on pieces that adapt for a Primo, but are removed and replaced with the linear rails for a LR. For the initial versions any conversion would require a new core, but the reuse of the mid-span braces (maybe new end braces), the YZ plates, Y clips, etc. could be a step in this direction.
Again, the machine would have a practical limit in size in the X direction, but might be interesting at an entry level.
Iām fully willing to accept that I may be way off base as to how many people āconvertā a Primo to a LR in their journey. I also recognize that my concerns over sustainability may be irrelevant to many. Just putting a thought out there.
2 Likes
I can use more conduit instead, it will probably just add to the footprint.
The conversion idea is neat. That could be a thing for sure. If there was just one machine though, that idea is not needed.
2 Likes