I know we’re all drooling over the new core XY machines that are coming out, but what if we tried it ourselves?
Idea for someone with the old rails lying around doing nothing:
(of course, 4 linear rails for a random idea isn’t exactly cheap, but this could be pretty neat to have…)
Great idea! Would be fun to try this out.
CoreXY can only be obtained through a belt-type system, as you have A & B motors as opposed to X & Y motors. The picture above would still be normal XYZ system, but you could remove the splitters and make it a dual independent Y & Z system, which would eliminate tramming issues. 
I read your post a few days ago and it has only just hit me that this “mod” doesn’t even need any firmware change 
But the weight on the z-axis would be substantial but probably within limits of the capabilities (maybe less for cnc)
@brvdboss no it would most definitely need a firmware change. The old rails aren’t the same pitch as the new ones so turning it into a CoreXY would kind of defeat the purpose of CoreXY, they’re meant for speed and the pitch aside, the rails of the Snapmaker are far too heavy to be moving fast without flipping itself off the table from being top heavy. A wise man once said “ Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
I don’t see why it should.
The Z-rails remain the same. The x-rail remains the same. The y-rails move the printhead in stead of the bed.
As already mentioned, it wouldn’t be a CoreXY machine. but it would be a machine where the build plate doesn’t move. So not shaking it around and thus possibly less issues with bed adhesion/shaking your entire object around all the time.
And you are correct the problem is just moved to the axis needing to be stabilized. but still. it’s an interesting idea to entertain.
If we’re starting a quote war: “People Who Say It Cannot Be Done Should Not Interrupt Those Who Are Doing It”
@brvdboss lmao touché, I just really wanted to say the quote. As for the kinematics, one thing is being forgotten, if the bed is stationary the parameters for movement that are set in the firmware would no longer be valid
Fair enough. Although I think you could get away with it for a proof of concept. Not sure if it would make a huge difference. And tweaking parameters is not that big of a change compared to completely modifying the code base.
Either way. Don’t think I will be doing this as I don’t have spare rail lying around 
But it’s a fun idea nevertheless.
@brvdboss considering that it’s a CAN bus, modifying it extensively is not something I want to do. I’ve written firmware for printers from scratch before, not using source code like that of Marlin, but from scratch and it’s not something I wish to do ever again, it’s extremely time consuming and I have a feeling that learning the CAN bus in Marlin source code would be just as much work.
