Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Default tool size limits maximum bed size to 290 in Y #4

Closed
Poofjunior opened this issue Nov 1, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed

Default tool size limits maximum bed size to 290 in Y #4

Poofjunior opened this issue Nov 1, 2019 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
hardware_bug Something is wrong with the hardware design

Comments

@Poofjunior
Copy link
Collaborator

Poofjunior commented Nov 1, 2019

This picture says it all.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/627988602269335568/639674827103273000/IMG_0850.jpeg?width=893&height=670

Essentially, the default tool's thickness limits the print area in the y direction to about 290mm in a multitool printing setup.

@Poofjunior Poofjunior added the hardware_bug Something is wrong with the hardware design label Nov 1, 2019
@Poofjunior Poofjunior self-assigned this Nov 1, 2019
@Poofjunior Poofjunior changed the title Default tool Limits maximum bed size to 290 in Y Default tool size limits maximum bed size to 290 in Y Nov 1, 2019
@DanalEstes
Copy link

I believe this can be resolved by making the right and left rail of the upper frame longer, thus moving out the "upper front" rail that carries the tools, moving it in the Y direction. It looks like we need about 15 to 20 more mm. Relocate the front R/L pulley assemblies by the same amount. That implies longer belts. I don't believe any other part of the printer would have to change, in a "retrofit" situation. Not even the linear slides.

@solhuebner
Copy link

solhuebner commented Feb 9, 2020

@Poofjunior As this was implemented in 2.0, can this issue be closed?

@Poofjunior
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
hardware_bug Something is wrong with the hardware design
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants