Visit the forum instructions to learn how to post to the forum, enable email notifications, subscribe to a category to receive emails when there are new discussions (like a mailing list), bookmark discussions and to see other tips to get the most out of our forum!
IMPORTANT about the tractor.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    April 2011
    The following is a collection of comments from someone who is being rather brutal about the tractor design. He is obviously a bit of a jackass but some of his concerns sound like he may know some of what he is talking about. Please understand this is me quoting him, not my opinion at all. I love OSE.

    I am currently engaged in a debate about your work with the tractor. There is a guy who is upset that you were permitted to become a TED fellow, and is going after the tractor. These are his quotes, not mine. This conversation is taking place in a Facebook group called the "CF Hub". a group dedicated to renewable energy, etc. The person in question goes by "Tudor Eynon"

    "Fair enough, where can I find the sources and controlled trials on these vehicles? you can get a John Deere for a quarter of what you quote though @Graig . I think you are talking high end combines? that kind of thing. Cheap for what they can produce I think. Anyway let us see the results of the controlled trial and then we can make a sensible judgement."

    "Sorry those links are just meaningless rubbish? What is this about? The tractor with backhoe that I saw on one link, not working by the way doesn't look to me as though it could, it looks dangerously unstable too? I am really a bit puzzled here. Controlled tests are standard in this area?"

    "I will contact TED about this too; there is something very wrong here. I can't even find a link to a vid of the backhoe moving let alone digging? it won't move in my view, I am very disturbed by this frankly; you don't make claims of this nature with no evidence, period. This guy gives no indication of knowing any Physics either, despite his claims. I was linked at one point to a commercial punching machine, familiar standard gear at about 5000 USD, obviously you would need a lot of commercial gear even to make these 'Mechano' tractors."

    "No @Craig I am sorry, as it stands a few comments to TED is all I have time for really: also to be fair and honest, I am not very convinced at a broader level if I can put it that way about a lot of what one might call 'Green' stuff, I don't want to become one of those people who snipe at the margins, like the Conservatives who are always 'butting in' on certain Progressive sites... look, even the lathe, has commercial components, the motor for a start and bearings... if you want to assemble what you could buy for a few dollars extra, fair enough but really, you can get a power drill, quite a good one at Homebase for about $40 ! when I was a teenager they were a week's wages... In Cuba they mostly keep old stuff going, brilliantly and ingeniously like the Amish do in PA, BUT take the US emgargo away? They won't want to be tinkering all week with old Fordsons or whatever, show them a John Deere and their eyes will light up, well they do as we all know..."

    "I posted this on TED site too "I saw the tractor with back hoe on on of your links Marcin; it doesn't look like it could work or is stable and safe, no cage for example. I could find no film of it actually moving let alone digging, could you provide me with a link? Also you will have, as a scientist, had controlled comparisons done with other tractors and machines? How do these tractors compare? rates of breakdown, fuel economy etc.?" . I will, in the interest of fairness, say that TED deleted another comment of mine as not being in adherence to its code of use. I don't believe this guy is a Scientist of any kind actually."

    "You are joking aren't you with that link? This is some kind of joke right? The vehicle didn't move in that film, the bucket dropped a little of its own accord because there is no real hydrolic pressure; it is as well for the people using it that it didn't move, it would tip over if you filled the bucket, there are sharp square metal projections at the rear, no safety cage and 6 to nine inch metal projections from the hubs of the wheels; anybody who does that on an Industrial or Agricultural machine is an idiot. The only plans I could actually find were for a 'Lathe'. $700 it was costed at; you can get one on ebay for less than that. They were not really blueprints at all and you could get all the information on them at a public library and would have been able to do so forty years ago; it was really DIY from components anyway and; again no safety off switch, guards or proper instructions. I have now watched 8 mins of a stationary pile of junk, I have no more time to waste. @Craig, get away from these people.. don't even attempt to construct the lathe, if you can get it to work, which I doubt, you have not been told how to center and stabilize it or any of the one hundred things you need to know about a machine working at high rotary speeds, it will likely come apart and kill you."

    "Work in Progress? let me help you, the digger won't work, not today not tommorrow not ever, if you could get it into the ground the back would lift off the ground if you could get the hydrolics to work. I repeat; the lathe, if anybody was idiot enough to build it is dangerous, as are the 7 inch tubes projecting from the digger wheels... well they would be dangerous if the thing was to move, as it is they are pretty safe."
  • 33 Comments sorted by
  • To be honest, I too have some design concerns and issues with some of the goals of OSE. One of them is the stated goal of designing and building equipment that is just as good or better than commercial. That is a dream that might hurt the movement in the end. If we make it our goal to simply produce something that functions well enough to get the job done but can be self made, we would be better off I think.

    Maybe smaller goals are needed. Stage one then stage two and so on. I think we need to spend more time on good design and not worry so much about getting everything done so quickly.

    Regardless of what that negative fellow is saying, the general idea is sound and I choose to head for the light. This is open source for goodness sakes, no one is going to get rich doing this. We just want to make a difference.

    I think we can.

    The Dawg
  • constructive criticism disguised as mean words
  • I wouldn't worry about that guy.
  • If I'm not mistaken he's pointing to everything that still needs work rather than things already done such as the first Open Source CEB press "Liberator". I remember in one of the earlier videos I saw, when the backhoe was in use, the tractor split in half. It was quickly fixed and the design was modified so it would be less likely to happen again. As for the lathe, I'm not sure if it has even entered prototype I, I could be wrong though.His concerns are legit but, I think, also highly biased as he goes as far as questioning the legitimacy of OSE and Marcin. I didn't have to look very hard to find videos of the tractor and the Liberator working. Having a side by side comparison of performance of the open source designs and they're closed source counterparts would be beneficial. It would help determine which areas of the design need more work, as open source designs have the advantage of being easily modified and tweaked over closed sourced designs.

  • It seems to me as a newbie here that Dawg has it right. Surely we do not need to compete with Deere or Case to make machines which will empower and enable small-scale, ecologically sound farming?
  • Competing with Deere or Case is _exactly_ the point.
    Buying a product from a manufacturer entails paying the labor cost, materials cost, PLUS the profit.
    Profit is a perfectly reasonable and proper component of the price of a good. Otherwise, why would the manufacturer bother making his product?
    But if you can make an -equivalent- product, and save money doing it, that's money you can use for other things.
    Another part of the project is demonstrating that people can make things for themselves, without waiting for "experts" to market a good that meets their needs.
    Commercial manufacturers make goods with mass appeal... that is, they make profit on volume of sales, so have to design products that appeal to a broad range of customers.
    We can design and build EXACTLY the machine we want with the features we need but none we don't.
    And we can do it without relying on others.
    Self-reliance is a big part of what I'm trying to do. If it's not for you, go buy a Deere and keep working your day-job to pay for it. Then pay the dealership to fix it for you when it breaks.
    Me, I want to disconnect from the global economy as much as I can, to be self-reliant.
  • What you have to realize Wolfrick is a farm tractor has many decades of evolution involved in it's design. They look like they do because they work best that way. They have features that have been found to be the most useful. Now I'm not talking about those massive tractors that 400 acre farms use. I'm talking about the machines that were popular 20 or 30 years ago.

    No one is suggesting that being self reliant is a negative. I'm simply saying that trying to compete with designs that have evolved for 80 years or more is going to be a lot more challenging than your message would suggest. Why do we feel the need to compete anyways? Who's ego are we trying to stroke? Lets save ourselves the grief and simply say that we're designing job specific machines to serve the independent, small scale user.

    I too am very self reliant, to the core actually. But I don't have to go to the dealership to fix a tractor, I fix it myself. What exactly makes you think it will be any easier to fix our tractors than an old John Deer? What's going to happen when those hydraulic lines need replacing? Or the pumps and motors? What about the gasoline engine in the Power Cube? The same technology that it will take to fix or build these parts will fix a "normal" tractor. Go to a tractor "dealer" or a hydraulic "dealer", it's just perspective.

    Yes, by all means, lets show people they can build useful machines tailored to their needs. But don't try and tell them it's as good as a commercial unit.
    Now having said that, perhaps in specific ways they may be superior, that is the promise of custom designing. But in my opinion, over all they are not.

    Being a professional machinist who has built many machines and operated even more, I think we need to swallow hard and realize that there are some mechanical arenas that are too advanced to compete with, AT THIS TIME. Building a useful metal lathe and drill press being two examples off the top of my head. Don't even try and tell me that either of those two machines can be self built competitively.

    My two cents worth at the very least.

    The Dawg

  • @Dawg - you are looking at it from a developed world perspective, where your own time is worth more, and you can afford to simply buy a tool or machine you need. Part of the point of the GVCS is there are many people in the Global Village who don't have the money and can't earn enough even to buy a cheap Chinese or Indian farm tractor. So they need to be able to "bootstrap from nothing", with perhaps a donated starter kit from a generous source, and then replicating as needed locally. If a given machine or set of machines in the GVCS are productive enough to use in the developed world, where the time spent making it would be worth more, that is a bonus. What I expect is that some machines or parts of machines will not be worth doing as home production at any given labor time value. Since people value their own labor at different rates, and have different amounts of time available, there will not be a single answer that applies to everyone.
  • @Daniel - Yes I guess some of my comments are from a developed world perspective. But there are no designs so far that can be built without taking advantage of the developed world. Not one of them can be bootstrapped from nothing. If so, please explain because I don't see it.

    Besides, where is the harm in climbing on the shoulders of the people that came before us? Using technology that is readily available is an advantage. This will mean purchasing items that are not practical for us to replicate at this time.

    So if I'm correct in my assumption, then the developed world needs to be factored into the equation.

    Yes, lets build this stuff. But we need to be careful not to misrepresent. For instance, I've browsed through our attempt at building a metal cutting lathe. That thing will work no better than a $500 "7X12" Chinese lathe. In fact, the 7X12 has several features that ours does not. This is not to look badly on the folks that put a lot of effort into that project. Simply put, it's an arena that is WAY too advanced to get into at this point. I'm telling you that if it were practical on any level to self build such a thing I would have done it. But it is not.

    I'm really not trying to sound negative here, just practical. I think a little humility is in order.

    The Dawg
  • I personally feel that the process of reinventing the wheel with today's perspective and a focus on quality instead of profitability is not only an important one but one that will take time and effort to achieve.

    I saw the life-trac 1 and was worried and then saw the life trac 2 and was really impressed with how much of an improvement it was. with that kind of innovation and motivation I wouldn't be surprised if "real world" parity is achieved in a decade and then surpassed without ever having recreated the convoluted system that we have today.

    it takes time and some dick head on the internet is essentially saying "your first try didn't achieve 100% results so you're idiots".

    I don't ever want to be a part of a community where people can't be critical, but I also want it to have a purpose as opposed to just being about not changing anything and just being happy with the status quo.

    If you or anyone else is happy with the status quo, it's there waiting for you to enjoy it...others are called to try new things which may not achieve 100% success at prototype #1
  • @ The Dawg - I have heard it said that with a milling machine and a lathe you can build a milling machine and a lathe. That is probably not 100% correct since you need a motor too, but I would believe it to be mostly true for the metal parts. Those are relatively advanced machines compared to starting with dirt, wood, and iron ore. You make bricks by burning wood, then smelt some ore in a brick furnace to get iron, then make your first anvil, hammer, and files from the iron and work up from there. Even the poorest parts of the world probably don't have to go that far back to bootstrap from nothing.

    The GVCS as I see it now is one step down the do-it-yourself chain from buying complete machines. It still involves buying complex machines like the gasoline engine in the power cube, and fabricating some of the simpler parts. For people with more time and less money, doing for themselves may be a good answer. And designing for modularity and flexibility for the set of machines as a whole is a good thing. But I don't see them saying "make your own wrenches for tightening the bolts". So I agree at some level it makes more sense to buy the tool than make the tool.

    I think the way forward is to look at the time to do-it-yourself vs the value added. If it takes 100 hours to build a tractor yourself, and you save $5000 over a commercial equivalent, the time spent was worth $50 an hour. It might take the same 100 hours to make a small lathe, and you might save $100, just for argument's sake. In which case the time spent was only worth $1/hr. For me and you a buck an hour might not be worth it, for someone in a poor country it could be a good deal. But then you have to factor in whether they can get the materials and parts to build it from. Requiring a Home Depot or a Grainger Industrial Supply nearby doesn't help if you live in a poor country that doesn't have those type of stores. The GVCS type suppliers would have to package up the parts as a kit and deliver it to the poor countries, perhaps at cost via a non-profit agency.

    If the pages on the various machines in the GVCS don't already, I would add space to note down the labor time and cost savings. Also, general hand tools needed and supplies like lubricants, cause you would need those too. Then we can start sorting the machines by value added per hour, and people can decide which to make vs buy based on their situation.
  • Ok....I've had a good look at the bull dozer. There are some improvements I would like to suggest. Here's an image containing a few. There's lots more where that came from. If this is unwelcome, someone let me know and I will stop. If we are serious about making our products anywhere as good as commercial ones, we better get cracking...:)
    dozer01.jpg 196K
  • More suggestions.
    dozer02.jpg 204K
  • Great suggestons. The loader is 3/8" steel tubing. Before I proceed on any of these changes, I would like to see CAE analysis that confirms your points. Right now the loader is rated for 8,000 lb load lifting by force calculations. Do you have any suggestions how to take the Blender model and perform CAE stress analysis? If we can export into a complete CAD package, that would at least give us a feeling for allowable forces. Or do we have to redo the CAD from scratch? My back of envelope calculations indicate that the weakening is 10% at worst, or 7000 rating on the loader arms - not enough reason to move to welding. That's my guess. Who can do some CAE on this?
  • Some more
    dozer03.jpg 215K
  • @Marcin

    Keep in mind I am simply applying good general fabricating procedures here. I am not a professional engineer. I'm afraid I have no hard numbers for you. I do have extensive experience building similar structures with this sort of material. I've also operated many different machines over the years.

    Regarding the boom. We need to consider not only the bending force of a static load but the multiplied force of a moving tractor against the load. Also, loading from different directions. Typically the boom of such a machine is built to handle many times the maximum loads anticipated to give it some durability. Those two beams will be stressed more than any other part of the tractor over their lifespan. I would put much thought into them.

    As for the bolting, it seems to me that there are parts of this machine that are being welded anyway. Why not weld as much as possible then? Welding is stronger and takes less time to do that drilling all those holes. Either way I suspect your numbers are low. If your holes were in the middle of the beam then yes but they are near the edges. All I know is as a fabricator, I have been taught to never do this.

    As far as computer analysis goes, I would think the beams in question would need to be modeled again yes. But this is a very simple assembly mechanically speaking. Someone with the right training should be able to do this without a computer.

    I hope these suggestions are helpful.

    The Dawg

  • Tudor amuses me, the psychologist in the teacher in me wants to call him over during a slow stretch of recess and ask if everything is alright at home. I am interested in the source of his negative-passion.

    That said, I think he did spark a good conversation. I am amazed at the capacity of human creativity and the testimony of technological history and would love to see what became of this project if we could get a team of seniors to invest in us. (Anyone interested in taking this conversation into the nursing homes of the world?)

    I agree that we might have to have a phase breakdown. Phase one creates all of the tools to a 'best of our abilities' degree. Then phase one can both create and advance phase two. Then it moves onwards.

    By phase ten, there might have been several extreme advances (and lots of global input) and the projects could be increasingly competitive.

    I am interested in the impact of input from countries in the former USSR, people that had access to most modern technology, but tended to have to major in jury-rigging.

    I'm more of a philosopher and dreamer than technician so I have little more to offer this particular conversation than encouragement (but I am slowly self-teaching myself). You guys are doing great.
  • Here is a basic concept I'm playing around with. The vertical beams are sandwiched between the side beams making a very rigid assembly. Some triangulation has been added also. I'll add a few more ideas to this later.


    The Dawg
    concept 001.jpg 96K
    concept 001.jpg 96K
  • A few more ideas

    The Dawg
    concept 002.jpg 97K
  • Here is a very easy way to create suspension. These units use a torsion bar inside the body. They are easy to mount and come in different sizes. This one was rated for 2000 lbs. I've seen them as high as 3500 lbs.

    torsion suspension.jpg 39K
    torsion suspension.jpg 39K
  • Latest concept. Here I'm proposing that we only drive the rear wheels. If the track is redesigned a little there will be no reason to drive the front wheels. This will make suspending those wheels easier and lower the parts count. Continuing in that direction, it would be beneficial to have as big a rear wheel as is practical. The more rubber between the drive wheel and the track the better. Also, the bigger the drive wheel the faster the machine will go. This can be a good feature when you are dealing with low RPM hydraulic motors. The rear (drive) wheels are not suspended, only the front and track wheels. This would give the machine a nice stable ride.

    Once the track wheels are supporting the track the amount of traction will jump up. Supporting the track is necessary to give it long life. Without it the track will experience point loads and become stretched and damaged.



    The Dawg
    concept 003.jpg 59K
    concept 004.jpg 99K
  • OK here's and example of a much lower pivot for the loader. There's several good reasons why this is better than a high one. In this case, the cylinder would go above instead of below.



    It's starting to look like something....:) Keep in mind this is straight out of my head. I had no dimensions to go by, so the look might not be quite right in the end. I'm just trying to illustrate general ideas here.

    The Dawg
    concept 005.jpg 84K
    concept 006.jpg 96K
  • Looks like you are re-inventing the Caterpillar 279C Compact Track Loader ( ) as far as overall layout. Their version has the pivot for the front loader moved towards the back, which gives more lift range from the longer arm, and shorter hoses for the hydraulics. It will not hurt to look at their specifications to get things like tread load per square foot at the ground and total horsepower required. I would assume they know what they are doing when designing such machines.
  • Very good information Daniel.

    Notice that it's a very small "bulldozer" and it weighs almost 10,000 lbs. If I remember correctly our tractor/bulldozer, as it is now, weighs 3000 lbs. When you have a full bucket of dirt high in the air you need lots of ballast to stabilize the machine. Otherwise, you could tip over while traversing rough or uneven terrain. Also, you need weight to create the traction needed to push dirt and tow heavy loads.

    It may be useful at some point to cast some concrete weights that are made to fit low in the frame. These could be added till it felt "right".

    It also looks like they are using an 80 HP motor. I Suspect 50 HP at about 6000 lbs would be entry level for this sort of machine.

    As for the pivot being way to the back, yes there is an advantage to doing that for sure. But look at the size of that boom! It's bloody massive. The longer the arms are the beefier they need to be. Not only that but I'm tying to avoid having moving parts near the operator. Notice the commercial machine has a front exit only. I would rather exit from the side I think.

    The Dawg
  • I had an idea, which may not be terribly good, but that an attachment could be used for the lifetrac which would mount on the rear or even directly underneath the tractor and consist of a large steel plate with small spikes in it, which would dig into the earth to provide high traction.

    Then have a single hydraulic piston or other mechanism to push the plate downwards and backwards, producing a great deal of traction. Repeat. Hypothetically it would not be slow, the power the engine can supply is still the limiting factor. Dunno if it would be cost effective though but thought I'd throw it out there. Could give area-contact while eliminating the wear of the sliding surfaces of the caterpillar tracks. Maybe 2 such units with long flat plates, one on either side, could be used as a form of locomotion by a future lifetrack design.

    For weight maybe large water tanks could make sense (maybe anti corrosion additive to the water or actually coating the inside with epoxy or normal paint as is done with food cans maybe adequate). Indeed, a large spiked or textured drum filled with water used as a wheel could provide a large amount of traction without burdening the suspension system or other components of the tractor, reducing it's cost.

    If the wheels of the lifetrack were made of such drums, you could fill/empty them depending on how much traction you needed. They'd have to be pretty big to store in the range of 10,000 lbs though I guess. 2000 lbs per cubic meter. They could also last a long time. I remember seeing steel wheels on antique tractors before they had vulcanized rubber. Th obvious problem is that it would damage the asphalt of a road unless maybe the spikes could be removed or something, and therefore be illegal to transport by road.

    Still, the concept of an extremely heavy wheel might still be sensible if the ground contact area could be made adequate easily. Maybe either 4 very long rollers that extend underneath the tractor as well as to the side. Or maybe more than 4 such rollers, but then you need more motors or linkages ... hm. Roller chains last fairly well and can support huge loads but could get stuff tangled in them unless the drivetrain was enclosed. 4 55 gallon drums on either side for 8 total, maybe clad with old tires to prevent punctures, would be 3500 lbs weight without any burden on the suspension. If they were filled with clay instead could be even higher, density of clay or sand, with the voids filled with water, could be substantially more than that, the obvious problem being abrasion of the inside of the drum.... unless the fill was concrete or similar, also avoids the puncture problem.

  • Hmmm....interesting idea. I wonder what would happen to the stopping distance of the tractor? All that rotational energy isn't going to want to stop once it gets going. I will take a lot of energy to get it rolling also. Control would be an issue I think. Also, the more unsprung weight you have the more radical the ride becomes. The wheels would end up throwing the frame around like a leaf in the wind. Normally the goal is a stable, smooth ride for the operator.

    Also, the suspension would still be between the massive wheels and the load being moved or carried. So the stress on it would be no better. In fact, it could be much worse if for instance the terrain was such that one wheel wanted to go further than the suspension was designed for. Normally, that wheel would just hang off the suspension in mid air till touching down again.

    I think the track would be superior in this case. The idea isn't a lot of weight over 4 point loads, it's a high distributed weight with very little pressure per square inch. Wheels of any sort are more likely to get stuck.

    It would be beneficial to have the ability to remove weight when you don't need it. If you're going to push some dirt around then add more weight. If you're simply making holes in the ground with an auger attachment then remove some.

    What do you think?

    Thanks for the ideas. This is how we're going to come up with the best combination of features.


    The Dawg
  • It's not so much the size, as the general layout I was pointing at. Commercial equipment makers like Caterpillar and Deere usually make them in various sizes for different needs. For the OSE Lifetrac, the question is what is the right size? I have not seen an analysis of that yet. There are a couple thousand wiki pages, so maybe I just have not seen it yet. For farm tasks, it needs to be large enough to finish the jobs in the time required, or you will need multiple units.

    As far as weights, obviously you don't want to be picking up more than the machine weighs, or it will tip over. Assuming you have a rear hitch for implements, I suggest just having a frame you can add steel plates, water tanks, dirt, or concrete blocks to for added weight. Then have that hook to your rear hitch when needed.
  • There are some people that have commented in this and other threads that you cannot do better than what industry has already done. Well, actually you don't exactly need to. I would just remind everyone that you can copy designs for a john deere tractor from the 1980s if you like, a komatsu, a catapillar, etc. The patents have all run out. So we would not need to reimplement the wheel, actually you can just copy the wheel. Simplify some of the build, and make that public knowledge.

    That alone would accomplish a vast majority of the goal wouldn't it?

  • @robert135, I like the way you think on that one. Most small farmers prefer the old tools over the new ones anyways. Where do we find this information though?
  • This is totally off the top of my head.

    How about getting a parts list for the older tractors. Recreate the designs in Solidworks, Inventor, or other programs, if they are not already readily accessible. You know the materials, or those can be looked into, and many parts of the main overall designs (basic look, feel) can be copied just by looking at a picture. Once those geometries have been copied, they can be analysed to determine why they have been made that particular way, then changed as neccessary.

    The john deere parts catalog online already has drawings available of their parts, unfortunately no materials, or dimensions. But, I guess they couldn't make it THAT easy.

    Worst case senario, you can buy an old tractor, tear it down to parts. 3d scan in those parts into solidworks or inventor... and whalla. Most of the job is done for you.

    Actually, you could probably do that with every single one of the items you want to build. Find an old one, one that the patent has worn out on, tear it down, scan it, build documentation on its build, and how to build it. Create the 3d model. Then redesign from there.

    Your redesign would probably be fairly limited. And parts will probably be available for purchase from the original manufacturer as well as able to be made by anyone else. I guess you could call this the GENERICS version of these designs (like in Generic Drugs).

    The cost of copying these designs would become predictable. The time to do it would also be estimatable rather than open ended. And, the final product would be something that already worked, so you have limited chance of utter failure.
  • @ Robert135 - Well, I think at some point, WAY down the road, that would be a great exercise. Till then, I think we need to get the general concept of the design while keeping the build process as straight forward as possible. At this point, we have very little precision equipment at our disposal. So reproducing 3 dimensional castings is not even on the radar.

    Have a look at the core values and selection process. I think you will see what I mean.

    Much can be learned from these old machines. Once we design and build the fab shop tools, the many cards in our deck will allow us to explore more sophisticated designs.

    The Dawg
  • @Dawg - I agree, at this point you can look at a commercial machine to see what functions the parts do, and the overall proportions and power requirements. But then substitute things like square tubing for custom forgings to make it easier to fabricate and use more repetitive parts. Later on, when you have a better fabrication shop, you can start doing more optimized parts. I think eventually we will have several designs for the various machines: a simple one that can be built with minimal shop equipment, then more complex designs that make use of a better equipped shop. The trick is designing things modular enough to swap out parts from one design to the next, so you don't have to completely redesign each version from scratch. For now just doing the simple design is plenty to keep us all busy.
  • I work in engineering developing new products and our preferred strategy is to reuse as much of an old design as is possible, not only for cost savings but also to improve reliability. I think the same strategy should be the foundation of our approach, and is honestly the optimal implementation of open source design.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion