Quote Originally Posted by Neale View Post
It's a good question that gets asked from time to time. However, it ain't happened yet! I think that there's a whole bunch of reasons. A prospective builder wants a machine that's just a bit bigger/smaller/faster than the reference (my own first router was to the JGRO design, but I tweaked dimensions to suit me), some want steel, some alu, some a mix. Building facilities/tools/skills vary, which changes the approach. And anyone motivated enough to undertake a project like this and carry it to completion probably has a few ideas of their own to include. After all, there isn't even agreement on which way X and Y axes run!

However, because so many of these ideas have been described in build logs, if you have the energy to plough through a good selection of them, there are plenty of ideas just waiting to be stolen. Sorry, borrowed...
Hi Neale,

Well I have been trawling through a lot of the build logs and I am getting used to seeing some standard concepts that are based on sound engineering theory and should lead to a decent machine!

I get that everybody want's something slightly different, but I think there are some optimal sizes for the x,y,z travel that should easily scale downwards without changing specs on the important bits, although that may not be so cost effective. (1000,500,100 springs to mind).

In theory it should be possible to evolve a perfect design! (if such a thing exists...)

In the meantime, I thought that Jeremy Young's design looked reasonable, to my untrained eye. I see that Alan Doran has borrowed it too.

Jeremy has been kind enough to post the cad for it on his webpage too.

He says that having built it, there were not any major items that he would have done differently.

https://jeremyyoungdesign.com/2016/0...inal-assembly/

Maybe there's a little bit of 'pin money' to be made by kitting up parts, especially if the built machine is able to machine it's own parts!