Enhancement Request - CAMAX style insert holes

[splitn2]

I use CAMAX inserts and I'm sure a few others do too. I'll measure up a sample and put the dimensions here. It would be great to have the flange cut set up for a non-dished flange , if that makes sense!? cheers, Rich

[mikemag]

Great idea. Post up a dimension, and a couple of pics of them from different angles so I'm sure what I'm dealing with. Should be an easy addition.

[splitn2]

haha love it when you say easy Mike, easy if you know how !!!! what you are doing is so clever it blows my mind, I am so looking forward to using this g-code for my board profiling and cutting and drilling!

[splitn2]

Insert dimensions measured with basic chinese digital calipers to the nearest 0.05mm.....

I suggest allow these dimensions to be altered in machine-defs so allowance can be made by some builders who might want to add extra reinforcement around the inserts, but use this basic shape of a stepped flange and barrel to define the insert with user inputted dimensions, these will be good defaults though.

flange , flat to flat = 16.85mm
flange , main diameter = 19.35mm
flange, thickness = 1.6mm
main thread barrel, diameter = 9.85mm

[RegMeasures]

I've just started having a look at the code which creates the shape of the insert hole (mostly in shapes.cpp) to think about how the shape could be made more user definable. This could address this issue, as well as allowing other insert shapes as well... My priority is to make inserts with a flat, rather than bowl shaped flange.

At the moment MonkeyCam allows input of insert rim depth, insert rim diameter and insert hole diameter which is great. However, MonkeyCam has a hard coded curved 'bowl' as described here.

It shouldn't be too hard to change this but it will need more inputs somewhere...? One option could be to add a insert-shape keyword where you could choose "bowl" or "flat"? Also we could maybe move the insert rim depth, insert rim diameter and insert hole diameter settings into the binding-def.json file rather than the machine-def.json as they relate to the binding, rather than the machine. I.e. you may want to use different inserts for ski and snowboard bindings but make both skis and snowboards on the same machine?

Thoughts anyone?

[mikemag]

There are so few kinds of inserts I think it'd be fine to actually add an insert shape parameter like you suggest, and have a valid value be CAMAX ;) Then you could get the flat bottom of the hole, and the flat sides.

On moving those parameters, that'd be fine. I often thought I'd make a materials-def.json file where you'd describe all the materials you use, like base material width and thickness, same for your core blank, insert dimensions, and even fiberglass width and required margins, etc. but I just never got around to it and left the few I was using in the machine def. The idea was not only would it describe the parameters of materials required for proper machining (the only ones that exist in the machine def now), but also the parameters we'd need to validate that your materials are in fact big enough to support the given board design. That way it would shout at you if you were about to use a core blank that was too thin, or start on a core for a board that you don't have base material or glass to actually build correctly.

Obviously adding a full-on materials def is much more work than your suggestion. Feel free to leave the parameters where they are, or move them to the binding def, or to go nuts on a materials def addition.

[splitn2]

sounds great !!! around the "insert rim diameter" lets leave some room for glass to wrap from the core bottom up around and over the insert rim and flange , same as we do for the insert rebate, a few mm wider 2-3mm I suggest. awesome work guys!