Ah sorry, mixed messages, I misunderstood. I didnt realise “allthread” referred to the Z leadscrew! I was thinking that allthread was the bolts themselves vs half threaded bolts.
…and that is my situation, already have the dw26200/dw611.
Unfortunately that does mean the working space is smaller.
This is hard to compare. Since the rails are longer on the Primo but they do hang over the feet further.
So could a couple of you tell me the outside dimensions of your feet (since they are the same) and how much 660 travel you get. I can check the Primo right now. The Primo is asymmetrical where the Burly should not be.
Hi Ryan! Welcome to V1! Check out the cut calculators. That should help.
Thanks, bye.
Pffft, those things… I just guessed. I measured in furlongs, got lost in the conversion to inches so I just approximated.
On my Burly, the outside of my feet.
X 1193.8 mm
Y 904.8 mm
Travel
X 935.5
Y 647.6
A difference of
X 258.3
Y 257.2
With the 660 mounted up?
I am getting
Feet
X=614
Y=558
Empty travel
X=345 -------diff=269
Y=280.5 ----diff=277.5
660 Travel
X=336.5 — diff=277.5 —Tool costs 8.5mm
Y=272 -------diff=286-------Tool costs 8.5mm
Diff, means, the space the machine takes up, not usable do to machine geometry.
REDACTED
Thanks Andrew, you might have just made my week (If I read that right and it is not backwards (future edit…I was wrong)).
I think that’s backwards. The you’re right, feet minus travel is the unusable space, larger is worse, not better. But your numbers are showing Primo larger (worse) than Andrew’s numbers. 
Ahhh dam
I’m not fully clear on the issue here. If there’s 20mm of Y axis loss, but the entire machine is more rigid, then isn’t there a point where the machine size can be significantly increased, and have similar results to previous, even accounting for a 2cm loss in the Y?
Being aware of a change versus previous spec doesn’t make it worse. All engineering is a series of trade offs.
Yes, exactly.
Just a bummer that a slightly larger than expected machine is needed to do the same job…I know this is going to come up countless time from people upgrading and wanting to use the same rails. Easy to argue who cares about 5-10 mm…but 50mm-60mm some people will be very upset.
Just so you are up front about it if the size is that important dont upgrade till you can get tubing to make it work and the new builds will purchase for it anyway
Ultimately people need to make informed decisions. If they’re informed about benefit and downsides, they are less inclined to be disgruntled when those downsides occur.
I’d expect that as machine rigidity increases, (without increasing rail thickness) lost potential cutting area also increases. It a problem inherent in design of a rigid square.
Those who want a small rigid machine will continue to have it, those who want a large cutting surface will continue to have it. Those who don’t want to loose a specified surface area will choose not to.
Thanks, trying to keep that in the notes to put on a few of the pages.
P.S. I do believe the Primo files are done, and the testers have them. I have mounts for 3 “spindles/routers” done and hopefully 2 more to get done. Now we wait for feedback and inventory. I assume any file tweaks from here on out will be minor, if any.
DW611/DW2600 Cough Cough 
Yup that is one that is left.
Pretty sure most of us overestimate how big we need the mpcnc anyway, at least on the first build. I wouldn’t say my first one was too big, but I never cut anything the full work dimensions. Ever. Not even once.
You just need to remember the “things” because as soon as I pull into the driveway there must be a memory loss force field because as soon as I leave the car I’m like what’s in the fridge I’m starving and all memory of the “thing” that was a brilliant idea are washed away.
Memory is related to door frames. The more doors you walk through, the more things you forget.