Thank you, I will check this out.
I don’t see that as an issue. Buy cheap consumer equipment for commercial work-loads, and expect to replace it on a regular basis. That might be just as economic as paying for commercial/industrial kit.
I hold Snapmaker fully responsible.
This should have been corrected prior to beta testing. They should have the same hardware in their environment as we do. FWIW, my 5 year old questioned why it wasn’t sitting right.
I will not recommend this cover to anyone who hasn’t purchased it yet.
I love DIY more than most but I diy’d my first cover. This had great promise and the functionality sounded great but I can’t call this a functional finished product.
Hopefully this is redesigned and a new version sent to all who ordered. I will gladly send mine back once I receive the new version. I hope the original supporters/backers don’t get left with the Alpha product.
BTW for those who haven’t received theirs yet, I was backer 1571.
If anyone finds the address of this file, I’d appreciate it. Thanks in advance!
We’ll see if Snapmaker changes our BETA versions!
Response from Snapmaker following my support ticket:
“…We also appreciate that you designed and shared your own model. Our team also plans to offer a compatible model. If necessary, you can print it and install it under the cylindrical feet to improve the fit with the silicone pads and allow the feet to sit better in their respective slots.”
So, waiting for the file for testing!
I also received a response from them with that same info. Also in my response from Snapmaker they wrote.
“Regarding the issue you mentioned with the Top Cover not staying engaged with the four silicone pads, the Top Cover was designed with a surrounding edge structure that provides the main positioning and restraint. The cylindrical posts on the bottom mainly serve as auxiliary locating features rather than the primary securing or limiting structure.”
To which I called bs and noted how the "surrounding edge structure does not go low enough to provide restraint since the foam was increased in size from 3-5mm.
Does anyone know if I’m correct in assuming the original design had no foam seal or did the actual original design include the 3mm?
I’d rather not remove the foam seal as it is a nice to have. But may end up having to as this has gone too far for them to fix what’s already being sent out, or I’ll print adapter for the posts I guess.
The pre-release version had the foam seal, the only changes they’ve mentioned have been an increase from 3mm to 5mm thickness. You can see this problem already existed then too but was slightly less prominent.
The way it fits better without the foam suggests it was designed before that decision but there’s no way to know for sure. My original U1 had bad panel gaps on the top, that foam would’ve been needed there.
I kind of doubt they will do much beyond release their version of higher screw covers that make the case connect - beyond adjusting foam, they didn’t list any major changes to the mold itself after feedback beyond the addition of an extra cable hole. The way the original feedback blogpost was handled isn’t inspiring. Like the issue I mentioned of the cable clips catching on the casing was known, listed and unfixed during feedback. I’m interested to see what they end up doing in the end
These kinds of posts blow my mind… Snapmaker is 100% solely responsible… They’ve had almost a year to get this right. I’m not sure what kind of favor you expect to gain by being an apologist, but this kind of rhetoric helps nobody. Let Snapmaker hold themselves accountable and make it right.
Yea, that’s the point… The “seal” is not very good. I bet my lunch that a thermal test with and without the “seal” is negligible at best.
Thank you! Exactly! The top cover is just plain over-engineered, and people want to over-engineer it further by 3D printing parts just to make it fit decently.
My printer without the foam does not rattle at all. The silicone pads on each corner ensure that.
@Zoe_M Is it just another plug to replace the original silicone plug similar to the one MAGNAC has designed or is it a different solution?
Where are you posting it and when will it be available?
As I have not seen one yet, my comments are hypothetical.
Thanks for your honest feedback and further discussion. I completely understand the frustration.
I want to clarify the silicone mount issue mentioned here:
the mounting posts underneath the Top Cover may not remain fully seated in the silicone pads after installation. This is within the normal range of assembly tolerances and does not affect the installation, sealing performance, or normal use of the Top Cover.
This is mainly due to the design of the mounting posts and the thickness of the seal foam. The Top Cover is primarily supported by its outer shell and seal foam, while the thicker foam helps ensure proper sealing and accommodate variations in the printer’s top surface. Its spring-back force may cause the mounting posts to lift slightly after installation.
But we agree with you on the experience: A cover that feels loose isn’t a great user experience. Even if it works. That’s not the standard we want to deliver.
Updated(2026.10.8):
Please check post #181 for the latest information.
I’ll also keep updating progress and next steps for this matter in the following topic.
U1 Top Cover Seating: Update and Improvement Plan
Best regards,
Thanks to Zoe for this clarification from the Snapmaker team. We didn’t expect anything less from you. At least this clarifies things, which is a positive step. Thank you. 
I appreciate that reply and straightforward response from you Zoe. Was any kind of thermal testing ever even done or did some engineer just say “Lets make the foam thicker!!” and then QC didn’t have time to look at the last minute revision?
Its kinda funny… I work in robotics and our engineers do the same thing… They over-engineer the product based off some rare or “potential” event. So now the top cover doesn’t fit right because somebody “might” put it flat on a table and cause a post to break.
Update:
Thank you all for sharing your feedback. We agree with you on the experience: A cover that feels loose isn’t a great user experience. Even if it works. That’s not the standard we want to deliver.
In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our technical support if you have any other concerns or requests. They will assess your specific situation and offer corresponding solutions.
Updated(2026.10.8):
Please check post #181 for the latest information.
I’ll also keep updating progress and next steps for this matter in the following topic.
U1 Top Cover Seating: Update and Improvement Plan
Best regards,
Excellent! Thanks to Snapmaker! Printing with TPU 95A or PLA?
Thanks Zoe. Printed (another printer was free - the U1 is currently busy) and installed (while the U1 was printing - probably not recommended!).
Works fine. Used B*mbu TPU for AMS and there’s enough flex in it to do the job.
First impression of the J1S with Polymaker TPU 95A: excellent!!! Thanks to Zoe and Snapmaker.
Not at all! Well, judging by the shape of the new caps, I think they will be delivered with the hood, and there will no longer be a cap on the machine during future deliveries. That’s how I see it unfolding. Snapmaker will have to confirm or deny! Anyway, thanks to them for listening to users’ concerns about this issue.
Thanks for the feedback. We agree that a cover that feels loose isn’t a great user experience. Even if it works. That’s not the standard we want to deliver.
In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our technical support if you have any other concerns or requests. They will assess your specific situation and offer corresponding solutions.
Best regards.