Hope you at least had pants on 
I have been WFH since 2014. My best advice is get comfortable pajama shorts. They are the best in the summer.
We are in full trial mode now. An issue was discovered that I had never even considered a possibility. Glaring mistake on my part. I am trying a possible fix now. Builds are getting dirty, but a 4’ span proves itself to be more difficult than I expected.
3 Likes
am i going to get told off for wanting a 5’ one? thats what my LR2 is and the size of my custom table… (table cost more than the LR2 as well haha, so im not changing the table 
)
1 Like
A slightly wider table isn’t a problem. Even the LR2 suffers a bit from the geometric progression of flexibility, which is one reason why the X axis needed to be the shorter one. That’s a bit more important now, is all.
Besides, solutions are coming!
3 Likes
Anyone have some time to run , Cnc race! on a LR2 In the center of your X span? I would love to see the numbers feedrates you run you get and for what length X span. If possible, I would like to see at what point dimensions or surface finish deteriorates. Total time is of no concern, just at what federate the surface finish breaks down.
Jeffeb3 has a LR1 in that thread, 4’ S span, that hit “This was 20mm/s, 90% stepover, and 12mm DOC. 1/8” single flute upcut."
Barry’s 4’ span LR2 in that thread, actually hit 50mm/s with a 1/4" endmill when things started to deteriorate.
I am trying to get a good gauge of what is possible. Turns out my LR2 was not running nearly as well as Barry’s even with a shorter X span.
5 Likes
Would it make sense to standardize some settings? Like 90% stepover and certain DOC, maybe have to or three groups of settings to try out (90% stepover&12mm DOC with 1/8", Ditto with 1/4", then repeat with 50%).
I’ll have some time to do a trial or two on Monday. I’ll go with full depth and 90% stepover with a 1/8" bit since you mentioned it above but if there are other settings that would get you better information faster, let me know.
(My printer is only somewhat dialed in; if you need a not-best case scenario on printing parts, happy to oblige)
That is probably a good idea. The race was all about free form Material Removal Rate. For this I have been doing 70% step over (probably the cause of the poor bottom surface finish). Full depth of cut. I think if we get a a few people to push the limits a bit I can get a good sense how much better this one is…or if it is better.
So lets do any endmill size 12mm DOC or as deep as you can, in MDF or particle board, 70% stepover and as fast as you can.
oh @vicious1 as soon as i get som 18mm mdf re stocked im jumping in. my 3d printer is ready and Fillament loaded to start printing the parts i broke
2 Likes
Sounds like LR3 is coming along nicely, hopefully what that issue was you ran into wasn’t too much of a headache. Any idea how close LR3 is from release?
That is hard to say. I think one version is ready but this morning we might have come up with a cool option. Not sure yet though.
3 Likes
We like options!!!
3 Likes
I really just want to see it!
4 Likes
Fair enough. Maybe in the weeks verses months range then? Just trying to figure out whether I push forward with LR2 or wait… 
1 Like
From the little bit they have shown i would wait! i am a very impatient person but they have shown some sneek peeks that show to rigidity improvements, and maybe speed since they are asking for race specs.
3 Likes
It’s been a while, but in reference to the first post talking about being able to use a full size router…
Several years ago I redesigned the router plate to accept/accommodate full size Porter Cable 690/693 routers (before I realized, this adds 6 lbs vs the Makita 701…) I also added taper/chamfer (from the 5 axis waterjet cuts) to accommodate a larger hose for dust collection. I don’t think the Nema 17’s are up to the task/torque requirements of the added weight. I could be wrong… but wasn’t willing to risk it.
The conundrum, cheap vs fast vs reliability…
Sure there are ways to improve some things, but at what costs/trade offs. Ryan really has the customer in mind, especially on the overall cost.
2 Likes
I know you cant give more tease than you already have, but dive us a hint. Is this new version going to be co2 laser friendly?
1 Like
I’ll jump in.
Any machine based anything like a Lowrider is probably not going to be a platform that you would want to use for a CO2 laser.
Anything where an axis can go off square, even if it requires.something to go wrong in order for it to happen presents a very large risk when dealing with something like a CO2 laser emplacement. Because the tube is typically mounted in a fixed location, and mirrors are used to direct the beam to the focusing head, any deviation in angle represents a place where a large amount of power can hit the mechanism or end up going in a random direction. With an independently driven motor pair, like the LR, or even the Primo, this represents a risk. If one motor becomes jammed or one side is obsteucted and skips steps, there is no way for the laser path to be guaranteed.
With the LR2 the option would be a “double decker” and you could mount the glass tube above the moving gantry, having a solid part where there was reference.to the focusing head from the tube. Not ideal, since it means moving the laser tube with the gantry, but much safer. I could say that something similar would be possible with the LR3 as it exists so far, where the laser tube moves on the Y and Z axes with the gantry, but I wouldn’t call it Friendly.
3 Likes
I’m so sorry I know it sucks. I think we are realllllly close. Just want you polish this a bit more.
8 Likes
I’ll add to this.
Moving the tube will add a LOT of moving mass. Not really something you want with a laser. The couple lasers that I’ve seen do this are using much larger motors to cover the gantry around.
1 Like