Yes, there is a reason for the support blocks.
They are the same blocks that locate the rail in the original position if you open up the front and back, so would they be required there at a minimum in the "extra range option". (You definitely want the 6" separation of the bearings rather than the original narrow stance, It's a big increase in stability.)
The mid span blocks are not absolutely mandatory, but they serve to create an "I beam" type structure by using the base of the machine as the lower flange of the beam and the bearing rod and aluminum flange as the upper. This multiplies the strength quite a bit at almost no cost. You could also use solid plastic bar or wood, but they would need to be planed down to exact height and not everyone has a planer. On my unit, I have tied all these blocks through the bottom shark plastic frame to a larger 3/4" wood base below. This all becomes one structure when fastened together.
Also, they could be individually shimmed if you wanted to get crazy about having the beam dead straight and level. (If you had the equipment that could measure it)
That would be more important if you took this design out to greater lengths with longer rods. Even these fully supported rods get flexy at longer lengths so they need to be tied to some kind of support structure.
The scope of the project was to eliminate as much sag and flex as possible, minimize the cost of the refit, and be able to be fabricated with the shark and other common tools. The shark is used to make the blocks and the hole templates that are used to locate the critical hole locations on the angle and bar.
Costs were: aluminum about 40.00 dollars for all 3 pieces and the bearings about 160.00, so you should be able to do this refit for under 250.00.
You can do both X and Y for about 500.00 and strengthen the Z in the process as a throw in. While not for everyone, it works well for my needs.
Hope this info helps
Bob
Pro to HD upgrades
Moderators: al wolford, sbk, Bob, Kayvon
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
Bob
What's that piece of aluminum with the twelve holes in the to center of your "Y" mod and why the notches in the white cross brace in the corners?
Warmest Regards
Bubs
What's that piece of aluminum with the twelve holes in the to center of your "Y" mod and why the notches in the white cross brace in the corners?
Warmest Regards
Bubs
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
Hello Bubs
The piece of aluminum in the upper center of the picture is is the backplate of my router mount. The multiple holes allow me to move the position of one of the bearing holders behind it. If I want maximum rigidity and can give up some z travel, I can increase the spacing between the z axis bearing blocks by choosing different positions (giving the bearing blocks greater separation and a wider stance. The aluminum router mounts fit in the horizontal slots in the plate and are held by two bolts at the end of the slots. You can't see the top of the plate in the picture so you cant see the bolts in place that are holding it to the bearing blocks behind. There are t nuts in the bearing blocks, so the whole router holder assembly can come off with 4 bolts (and no messing with loose nuts behind). The plate is cut long enough to cover the z axis rods and screw at full up travel, keeping debris off of the bearings and lead screw.
The notches in the corners are to allow the bearing carriages to travel beyond the front and back plate of the shark. You gain a couple of inches of travel that way if you leave the linear bearings as supplied at the full 37" . You can shorten the linear bearings to "stock factory" length and insert them in the holes where the original rods were. Since the new Y bearing blocks are spaced wider than the original, (for better stability and less play), you will give up a little Y travel if you use the stock bearing rod holes.. Since the bearings are fully supported all the way down their length, I opened up some clearance holes to let the carriages pass beyond the white front and back panels, giving me more travel than stock.
I hope this answers your questions.
Bob
The piece of aluminum in the upper center of the picture is is the backplate of my router mount. The multiple holes allow me to move the position of one of the bearing holders behind it. If I want maximum rigidity and can give up some z travel, I can increase the spacing between the z axis bearing blocks by choosing different positions (giving the bearing blocks greater separation and a wider stance. The aluminum router mounts fit in the horizontal slots in the plate and are held by two bolts at the end of the slots. You can't see the top of the plate in the picture so you cant see the bolts in place that are holding it to the bearing blocks behind. There are t nuts in the bearing blocks, so the whole router holder assembly can come off with 4 bolts (and no messing with loose nuts behind). The plate is cut long enough to cover the z axis rods and screw at full up travel, keeping debris off of the bearings and lead screw.
The notches in the corners are to allow the bearing carriages to travel beyond the front and back plate of the shark. You gain a couple of inches of travel that way if you leave the linear bearings as supplied at the full 37" . You can shorten the linear bearings to "stock factory" length and insert them in the holes where the original rods were. Since the new Y bearing blocks are spaced wider than the original, (for better stability and less play), you will give up a little Y travel if you use the stock bearing rod holes.. Since the bearings are fully supported all the way down their length, I opened up some clearance holes to let the carriages pass beyond the white front and back panels, giving me more travel than stock.
I hope this answers your questions.
Bob
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
Just to state be careful with the block bearings. They are designed to work with weight on them. If you place them both as shown on the top gantry you can have a knocking issue. That is why the HD had on 90 deg out of phase from the other and it corrects this issue. Nice modifications.
Tim
Tim
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
I think that is an incredibly well put together upgrade! I had a shark pro and ended up selling it because of those issues. I am now researching the shark pro plus HD. The feedback I'm reading indicates that there still are flex issues that have not been fixed. I feel that I may look elsewhere now. I just think it is pretty ridiculous that we have to put up with these issues on a piece of equipment that costs well over three thousand dollars. For that price I could get a unisaw or sawstop plus blades! I don't know I have a lot to think about...
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
I recently acquired the HD. I had the ProPlus. I don't agree with your assessment from reading the forum posts that there are 'still flex issues' with the HD. I did experience some flex in the ProPlus along the middle of the gantry (typically in the 0.02 and less range). Now, you can run into flex issues if you exceed the capability of the cutter you are using against a given material. On a machine that would cost you 3-5 x as much, you wouldn't have the flex - but you'd have burn marks in the material and you'd have a ruined bit.
I've found so far even 'less' flex with the HD. As it has a larger router, I've also found I can 'go faster', but only if I have the tooling that enables that. At some point you can only go so fast in ipm with a 1/8" ball nose, and only so deep per pass. The gantry on the HD is considerably sturdier/heavier in design, and the supporting rail design is well thought out and results in a very sturdy and rigid setup. The router transport support rails actually enhance the rigidity of the setup by design - with the supports working in different vectors of support.
Even with a 'flex' of 0.02 - I'm around 1/64". I've found this much variance in different pieces of finished lumber. There are a lot of variables in CNC machining - and like other types of woodworking, I think I'll be learning until I depart. But in my own experience thus far, and has seen in the Show Off Your Projects section, a lot of quality things can be made - whether you're a small business owner, or a hobbyist.
As I'm in the process of thinking about a second machine, I've been 'looking' at the alternatives. I'm still finding that either I go with the capabilities and value that the Shark brings, accepting that I may have to tweak it or it may not perform the task quite as quickly, or I spend 3-5x as much for that last 0.02" (or less) and a little bit of speed (in my case as I do a fair amount of somewhat complex 3D carving - so I'm not often able to use a bit larger than 1/8"). In fact, if the price difference wasn't so trivial between the HD and the ProPlus, the next machine might be a ProPlus.
I've found so far even 'less' flex with the HD. As it has a larger router, I've also found I can 'go faster', but only if I have the tooling that enables that. At some point you can only go so fast in ipm with a 1/8" ball nose, and only so deep per pass. The gantry on the HD is considerably sturdier/heavier in design, and the supporting rail design is well thought out and results in a very sturdy and rigid setup. The router transport support rails actually enhance the rigidity of the setup by design - with the supports working in different vectors of support.
Even with a 'flex' of 0.02 - I'm around 1/64". I've found this much variance in different pieces of finished lumber. There are a lot of variables in CNC machining - and like other types of woodworking, I think I'll be learning until I depart. But in my own experience thus far, and has seen in the Show Off Your Projects section, a lot of quality things can be made - whether you're a small business owner, or a hobbyist.
As I'm in the process of thinking about a second machine, I've been 'looking' at the alternatives. I'm still finding that either I go with the capabilities and value that the Shark brings, accepting that I may have to tweak it or it may not perform the task quite as quickly, or I spend 3-5x as much for that last 0.02" (or less) and a little bit of speed (in my case as I do a fair amount of somewhat complex 3D carving - so I'm not often able to use a bit larger than 1/8"). In fact, if the price difference wasn't so trivial between the HD and the ProPlus, the next machine might be a ProPlus.
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
This is a great thread, sounds like that will be my next step to a super duper extra HD Shark.
I have also decided to put some kind of dampers to the support rails so the router doesn't slam into them with a great big thump every time it reaches the end of travel. That cannot be good for precision travel.
Makes you wonder why NWA believe they are so elitist they cannot admit there are some faults in their design and listen to the users of their product.
After all,we are the ones who encounter the problems and work towards a solution.
It is OK to be a computer guru but if you are not a mechanical engineer as well, then for goodness sakes listen to those here on the forum who are.
NWA KNOWS the grub screws are continually working lose on the rails but are they prepared to listen to people and spend a few dollars use cap screws instead? Not on your Nelly they are.
It is not up to the consumer to fix a machine that costs multithousand dollars, it is up to the manufacturer............
Cheers
Wolffie
I have also decided to put some kind of dampers to the support rails so the router doesn't slam into them with a great big thump every time it reaches the end of travel. That cannot be good for precision travel.
Makes you wonder why NWA believe they are so elitist they cannot admit there are some faults in their design and listen to the users of their product.
After all,we are the ones who encounter the problems and work towards a solution.
It is OK to be a computer guru but if you are not a mechanical engineer as well, then for goodness sakes listen to those here on the forum who are.
NWA KNOWS the grub screws are continually working lose on the rails but are they prepared to listen to people and spend a few dollars use cap screws instead? Not on your Nelly they are.
It is not up to the consumer to fix a machine that costs multithousand dollars, it is up to the manufacturer............
Cheers
Wolffie
I am never going to die, I live in Paradise already
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
I agree this is a great thread, and the upgrade certainly worth the cost. I've been thinking there has to be an easier approach though, and have started ordering the few parts I'll need to accomplish my strategy. I believe by simply supporting the traveling parts instead of upgrading and supporting each bearing, 99% of the original parts can be used and only a few additions need to be done.
To start I plan to support the X-axis router box along it's left and right travel. I'll make a replacement top piece out of aluminum that extends over the back brace of the gantry. On that brace I'll mount a stiff (probably 1"x2" steel box tube) perfecly level to each end of the router mount travel. I'll mount a hard rubber bearing caster rolling with the extended top plate and riding on that beam, and the router mount then should ride the beam and stay level all across the width.
The same thing can be done underneath the table for the Y axis travel. Two casters mounted rigidly between and the bearings and near the steel guide rails can roll on the bottom panel of the base (assuming it is level and well supported) to keep the gantry at the same height as it travels forward and back along the Y axis.
I plan to take careful before and after measurements as I make these caster additions. I've found some heavy duty hard rubber industrial casters that I think will do the job, and know how to mount them stiffly in line with the direction of travel.
Yes, I know there may be some flaws in this strategy. Open to suggestions and advice. I'll post photos as I go along. Thinking I'll need a sweep in front of and behind the casters below the table to keep any chips from getting below them.
4D
To start I plan to support the X-axis router box along it's left and right travel. I'll make a replacement top piece out of aluminum that extends over the back brace of the gantry. On that brace I'll mount a stiff (probably 1"x2" steel box tube) perfecly level to each end of the router mount travel. I'll mount a hard rubber bearing caster rolling with the extended top plate and riding on that beam, and the router mount then should ride the beam and stay level all across the width.
The same thing can be done underneath the table for the Y axis travel. Two casters mounted rigidly between and the bearings and near the steel guide rails can roll on the bottom panel of the base (assuming it is level and well supported) to keep the gantry at the same height as it travels forward and back along the Y axis.
I plan to take careful before and after measurements as I make these caster additions. I've found some heavy duty hard rubber industrial casters that I think will do the job, and know how to mount them stiffly in line with the direction of travel.
Yes, I know there may be some flaws in this strategy. Open to suggestions and advice. I'll post photos as I go along. Thinking I'll need a sweep in front of and behind the casters below the table to keep any chips from getting below them.
4D
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
I raised the table 1/2" each end on an aluminium C-channel then mounted 2 square aluminium 1" tubings underneath the table with equal distance between them and the C channel that I used at the front and back. I used T-bolts to attach them in every second channel,deciding 28 bolts in each aluminium channel was a bit of an overkill, so I offset them between the 2 l length of aluminium tubing.
My table is now rock solid.
Once I get the XYZ axis problem solved I am ready to roll.
Then I will be looking into an anti-vibration pad for the machine to sit on.
Cheers
Wolffie.
My table is now rock solid.
Once I get the XYZ axis problem solved I am ready to roll.
Then I will be looking into an anti-vibration pad for the machine to sit on.
Cheers
Wolffie.
I am never going to die, I live in Paradise already
Re: Pro to HD upgrades
Hello 4d
My first attempt at bracing the y axis was very similar to your idea. I wanted to try someting that could be done quickly.
I mounted bearings to the cross beam near the gantry sides and the outer races rode on a metal bar running along side of the plastic shark base plate.
It worked somewhat, but had I issues with initial adjustment, staying clean, and getting the bar perfectly straight and level. The parts are now in my scrap bin. I knew at the time it was a quick fix, but later did the supported bearing modification which was much better.
On the Y, the supported bearing retrofit also gets rid of the weak attachments to the gantry sides and replaces them with heavy aluminum structural angle. It also gives the bearings a wider stance to help with front/back rocking of the gantry.
For the X axis, you need to restrain the movement in more than one direction as the router pushes and pulls in the x and y directions. Pushing and pulling in the y loads the bearings in opposite directions, as well as lifts up if you take the forces at the bit into account.
I’ll be interested to see what you come up with, there is always more than one way to do just about anything. It would be great if an easy elegant solution like Bob’s fourth axis appears.. I say, go for it..
My first attempt at bracing the y axis was very similar to your idea. I wanted to try someting that could be done quickly.
I mounted bearings to the cross beam near the gantry sides and the outer races rode on a metal bar running along side of the plastic shark base plate.
It worked somewhat, but had I issues with initial adjustment, staying clean, and getting the bar perfectly straight and level. The parts are now in my scrap bin. I knew at the time it was a quick fix, but later did the supported bearing modification which was much better.
On the Y, the supported bearing retrofit also gets rid of the weak attachments to the gantry sides and replaces them with heavy aluminum structural angle. It also gives the bearings a wider stance to help with front/back rocking of the gantry.
For the X axis, you need to restrain the movement in more than one direction as the router pushes and pulls in the x and y directions. Pushing and pulling in the y loads the bearings in opposite directions, as well as lifts up if you take the forces at the bit into account.
I’ll be interested to see what you come up with, there is always more than one way to do just about anything. It would be great if an easy elegant solution like Bob’s fourth axis appears.. I say, go for it..