I know it's come up, but what would u like to see in the LRv3

I’ll start by saying I have build several of Ryan’s machines… I believe my plasma redesign is far superior for what I need to the original, although really it’s a mix between v1 and v2. Been very reliable now and I use it for production and close to making a full time living with it. I would really like v3 to use harder to source parts that are far superior. Ie 3x6 aluminum tube for the gantry, with a single z drive. I think, at leaste on the lowrider end. There is a viable cheap, easy to source option. How about designing a more “real” machine. Then if ur entry well the v2 LR is there and if u have done all that and hungry for something more well… I dont think I am by any means the only member here that has turned this hobby into a living.dont get me wrong. These machines r awesome. And I’d still like to see 3d printed parts and skate bearings. But the structural material, though harder to source could make the difference between a hobby and a “proper” machine… not at all a criticism… I know for myself I have planned to do a total over hall of my machines but I have done enough that they work well enough to not bother. I’d love to see a mid range machine released by Ryan. All my mods r just fixing what turned out to be weak points for what I do. What I’m trying to say is I hope the LRv3 leans way more towards a real machine. Scrap the round tube and the entire gantry lifting with z and go to something more substantial… even if the y trucks have to b formed and run on a spec tube. There r enough members here, especially me that could help supply all those parts I am sure. Again. This forum and v1 machines definitely put this free hand fabricatior into a whole different ballgame


Now that I just opened up my material book, 3x4x.188 tube is just under 3lb per foot, so like 10bucks per ft cad… a 6 ft chuck, 18lbs and it very easy to source in North America… again I feel like I’m being disrespectful but I believe there is a large amount of ppl that follow v1 machines now that would love to see this!


Part of me agrees, but part of me thinks Ryan has found a niche in the market that he’s doing quite well in.

I know that the machines here started me down a rabbit hole that has since progressed into other machines. I also know that I almost pulled the trigger on a torn down Saber 404 that needed a lot of work because of the knowledge I’ve gained working on the machines I’ve built on this site.

I think it’d be awesome for Ryan to come up with a more traditional non-printed design, but I also think that that part of the industry is already over-run with designs and machines. One look through the open-builds forum will show you dozens of designs in that scope.


I agree, and I’m sure he is, but miner improvements for so much qork… the lr2 is a very capable machine in my opinion… but for alot of ppl I think there is alot to be desired. I have read countless post of ppl starting with a v1 machine get a good thing going, then buy a more reputable cnc, then there r gone from the community. Still something to b proud of but post hobbiest, unless a dedicated tinkered, they move on. I honestly think I am one of the few that stuck with the overall design and have done alot alot with it. I only post the neat things I do but my machine sees an incredible amount of hours just parts cutting. It has produced hundreds on thousands of dollars in revenue. With out where I first started ill b it, prob never would have happend ( and I started begging Ryan for a parts kit for the mpcnc when it was brand new) having said that I think the community here is huge and the professional end should not b ignored. Again in no way am I trying to take away from these machines.


The biggest change I’d like to see would be a way to get a bit more z cutting area. Ideally a standard bit should be able to cut 3/4 material without having to be held in by the tip or risking a fire from touching.

Anything that could improve bit visibility would be a plus too.

Beyond that I’m pretty happy.

1 Like

The old saying “bang for the buck” is really where V1 stuff shines, IMO. We saw a lot of improvements in the MPCNC from that first machine darkside built, and the primo. The primo costs a little more than the original, but not a huge amount. The bang / buck is going up.

I am not a professional CNC operator. So my interest is a little different. I want to see a machine that is inexpensive enough I can justify the price for the experience, not the business it can provide. I can’t justify buying an avid CNC for the fun of it. It just doesn’t make sense. I need something I can build, and if I only get a handful of projects and a few dozen hours of fun, it will be worth it. I’ve managed to get a lot more than that out it, so money and time well spent.

I don’t think we are completely conflicting though. You could afford a $10k machine with the business it would bring in. But would that really be worth 10 LR3s? Or even 2xLR3s and a box of ready to go replacement parts along with a lot of tools and materials? Having good value makes good business too.

That said, the LR is meant to handle larger pieces and is “allowed” to have more parts, which are harder to source, and costs more than the MPCNC. That is how the two fit together in the V1 shop.

We all want to see more rigidity, more speed, more capability. But I want Ryan to do what he has always done, which is to do it in a balanced way. Price and speciality of parts are both barriers to ownership. We need him to find the best path to get better results with the same or some more. I will not try to tie his hands to a particular design type or materials. And at some point, there has to be a compromise and a set point for where to settle the difference.

I like the idea of a smaller Z gantry (or at least one with smaller amount of mass moving up/down). But after suggesting that to Ryan, I want him to make the consider the design factors and create something that finds the best performance without waste.

I suspect that means the update I would love is not the same one you are hoping for. But the two aren’t in conflict. They are neighboring interests. It would be really interesting to see how much more we could get for a machine that approached $2500 or so. I am sure we would learn a lot trying to build a machine like that. It would be interesting to see how it would stack up against some of the larger competitors. I just couldn’t justify it here in my garage.


Couldn’t agree more. When I tell some of my woodworking friends what it can do and what it costs there’s always a pause and then a, “really?” One guy ordered a 3D printer that day!

I don’t know what I’d want for a LR3. But maybe something like official DLC. Like, “You built it. It works. Now here are some mods to make it even better.” Things you could print. Things you could cut. Guess you could argue that already exists on Thingiverse. But it’d be cool to have a “official” or approved list of those mods and addons. For someone like me who doesn’t understand half the stuff you guys are talking about!

Just spitballing. Love the LR2 for what it is. Wouldn’t change a bit thing.


One of the features of Ryan’s creations is that they slip under the discretionary spending limits for many of us.

My wife doesn’t blink when I spend $500, $50 a paycheck for a hobby. If I told her I was dropping $5k+ she’d expect it to print money.

As I see it Ryan’s stuff hits a sweet spot of $5000 performance for under $1000. A zone perfect for hobbyists and startups. It punches well above its price point for most jobs. Some might outgrow it but that’s ok too.

Once you start marketing towards more commercial grade machines the business model gets a lot more complicated and expectations grow exponentially.


Ooooooweeeeee. Ya’ll are reading my mind!

First and foremost, DarXidE, your opinion holds a lot of weight with me. After finding out who you were, I really began to wonder if I would be doing this without you getting me to see that first jumbled kit. Because of that, I am confident you are of the same mindset as me, but one step ahead, maybe :wink:.

The new full sheet machine is and has been on my mind. I have a stack of sketches to the right of my mouse pad of potential designs. I was honestly walking through Home Depot today thinking, it might be time to start the LR3 wishlist thread. Beat me to it.

Sadly, the Zen docs and New printer docs need to get more complete, and started. I wish there was a way to hire these tasks out. They need to get done before a new machine get started though. Just dumping parts on thingiverse makes for a horrible user experince.

The Holidays are a horrible time to try to carve out time to concentrate and focus on prototyping…but I really want to.

So as for the actual V3…

Probably, might throw in a linear rail or two, they are dirt cheap now. If I can protect them.

I feel like these are two separate statements…Like the opposite to how I prefer to do things. :grin:

I always wonder about this myself, might be able work in some optional fancy parts, kinda like the DOM vs EMT in the Primo. I prefer to keep it on budget.

Maybe let me touch on that for a second. I want a new table saw. Why…I hardly use one, but when I do the hand me down I have performs poorly. I understand how to use it and what it should do but $600-$800 is not the kind of money I can spend on a “once and a while tool”. I would surely use it more but that is still hard to swallow for “play” money. That is the cost range we are already in for the base CNC’s now. Going much higher would surely knock out a significant portion of potential new “test the waters” types of people. No one wants to build the previous version when there is a new, fancy one available.

Now on the flip side, I do make money with my CNC, like a ton of you do. Some of you all are making fantastic money, and I understand performance and time = money. You are willing to pay for it. I am willing to consider fancy parts, but they would really really have to do something spectacular…because I am pretty good at making commodity parts perform like fancy ones.

Why this? I actually think this is a key design feature of the lowrider. Probably the only reason I did not just try to make a bigger mpcnc. I think the rigidity increasing as you get deeper sets the LR apart for all other machines.

WorldWide is a different story, US and canada are maybe 50% or less of my sales.

I love this…and of course kinda hate it. To jump from a sub $800 machine to a $10k plus machine, well that is amazing when folks do that. I am not really interested in making $10k machines but I am very interested to try to make people only make the jump when they need $50k+ capabilities :crazy_face:.

Bingo…I have a plan along these lines and I hope I can make it happen.


Yikes that was a long one.


To be fair… I only jumped to it because it was readily available at a price I couldn’t pass up (free to use for cost of storing). I was very much still considering replacing my MPCNC with a LR2.

1 Like

That’s why they call it work… The less fun things have to get done so you can do more of the fun things.

What you need is a technical writer, preferably one who is also a builder or tinkerer. You can hire out these services, but it takes time, because the writer needs to have a basic understanding of the process.

This kind of resonates with me. I can name 3 or 4 places that I could buy/build a $1,200 CNC off the top of my head, some of which I’ve known about well before the MPCNC was even an option. I don’t have one of those, because the initial price tag was too high. Now, I’ve probably spent that budget plus on a Primo and a LowRider, (Maybe not the wisest, but it’s been fun.) The point being that I would probably not have started with a higher initial price point.

All that is not to say that I wouldn’t be happy to see a foray into the range of more capable machines, but more as a third option, and not as a replacement for the Low Rider. This is probably more than is reasonable to ask of a one-man company though. Presently there are 4 machines going, which is plenty of rabbits to chase.

It’s true that people won’t start the “old” model if there’s a newer one. I wouldn’t start a Burly build now unless I’d already invested time and money into the pieces and hardware before the Primo was released. (Though since I tend to go through the actual build process fairly quickly – even when I intend to take my time – that’s not a likely scenario for me.)

I do have to admit to looking at several of the LR upgrade threads and taking some notes. The aluminum tube XZ pieces have definitely got my attention, for example, and the people who have upgraded to linear rails as a replacement for the skate wheels too. I did opt to build pretty close to as-designed, (though I did put the Primo-style belt tensioners in place) so that I could evaluate which upgrades I really wanted.

Now, for wish list:

Linear ways for Y axis. I’ve been sketching up something that has steel tube on the underside of the table, drilled and tapped for rigid mounting at regular intervals to preserve rigidity over long spans, though there are of course linear rails that are already designed to do this job. What I was doing would be less expensive, but more work. One of the design parameters that I was operating with would be that one rail would have a little bit of “float” to it, so that in the event that they are not absolutely parallel over the whole length of the table, the machine path would only truely depend on one of the rails.

I’m thinking of a fairly different spindle mount. More or less, invert the 611 plate assembly so that it rides above the X rails, instead of under them. This would allow better visual access to the cutting area, but cause some problems with dust collection. I am finding that visual access is more important to me than I thought that it would be. I spend a lot of set-up time squatting down with my eyes at table level and a flashlight at 60° to the tool so that I can see where I’m setting my work zero. My knees hate it.


I have another path for this only because drilling steel tubes is brutal.

I have another idea for this as well.

I really wish I could go into some detail, I just feel weird spilling all my ideas that I have been refining since the last release. Once I get some design time in maybe I will share some, but these days I think it is in my best interest to keep some things close to the vest. In the end I think there are a bunch of obvious choices and no trade secrets or anything but put it all together and I hope it makes a solid design.


No problem! All good! I remember that you had some similar ideas to mine for the new Zen table, too, which I find kind of flattering. Means maybe my ideas aren’t so hare-brained after all.

Yeah, drilling round tube is brutal. one hole isn’t too bad, but when you need multiple on the same plane, it gets ugly, unless you use a good jig. My “proof of concept” for this was to build the jig first, which is in development. I originally wanted to use the drill press, but that’s not something that everyone has access to, so I’m trying to make a regular drill version, which unsurprisingly is difficult…


Honestly this is my feeling about the LR2. I never would have made it, or considered a CNC for that matter, had the cost been in the $750+ category. But because it was so much more versatile by leaps and bounds compared to consumer CNCs at that price point I couldn’t help myself. And because it runs Marlin on an LCD just like my cheapo Ender 3 it was one less thing I had to learn.

One thing I was thinking about was a “LR Mini”. Something that is even cheaper (maybe) and is easy to setup and remove from any table. So it’d be like a tool in your toolbox. Something you could bring to a jobsite. I’m sure there’s a real world application for something like that. Sure that’s not an upgrade to the LR2 but it could be the an evolution to the LR format.


There are several options for end mills flute lengths longer than 3/4", like the Amana Tool 46125.

1 Like

For long stuff like that, I stick with quarter inch all the way. Makes you want to cry when you hear it go “Ping!”


I don’t know how to quote previous posts like all u guys. But what I want to say to Ryan is about the entire gantry lifting up and down thing. U r right, make sense that it should b more ridged in the lower position with a design like this, however I find the x tubes pivot on the z screws. I have read many posts on tramming the gantry. I also have a lowrider set up as a 4x8 router I almost exclusively use for facing wood slabs. I use a 1 or 1.25" facing bit and run it hard. U can’t see the xy mains tip as they go from y positive to y negative.
I honestly think a hard mounted x, on lower y skates would b superior… there is a reason all commercial machines are like that I think. Funny story to add. About 3 years ago I brought my first mpcnc to the best tradesman I know, where I started building aluminum boats. Set it up on a chunk of plate and cut some basic aluminum shapes while drinking beer. 3 days later he called me and said guess what, I just ordered a 5x10 cnc from some place in the states… 18k usd. Ur reach goes far beyond ppl that have built your machines!


Also I take great pride in what u say about me. Bit really it’s the other way around. Without the option to build a low cost cnc (mpcnc) I would have never taken the plunge…I also never would have touched CAD. I totally respect that end. And I understand y cost being universal is such a huge part of your designs. But also, u have several designs that work, and work well. Want a low cost easy to source machine? Well there is the LRv2 I just feel maybe the LRv3 or really if u have a fixed gantry and such, would b a completely different design and would deserve a different name… rather then putting all that time in to make a machine that is very much the same, even though slightly better. Again I am only tradesmen and these forums r the only I ever talk in. I honestly don’t mean to b rude in any way!


I have so many tools, and a good table saw, for some1 who needs it I am sure in indispensable. I think what makes a good tablesaw is a large runoff table… the room required in huge. I have a good 18inch vertical bandsaw I use for similar things… but again it lacks the runoff table. But way more versatile… infact I just used it to split my 1.25 tube in half for bumpers on my jetboat project!