RE: Update...(Kind of)
That’s actually annoyed me a fair bit now. I just both a Spacepi x4 in prep, spending time designing some mods for the core one for the Bowden runs from the drier as well.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
I think there was a bit of a hint with the 'whats included' section split into 'by Bontech', and 'by Prusa' sections...I think Bondetch want to distance themselves from this, and also they extended the cutoff for refunds, probably knowing many would back out when they saw this.
Wow and to think a few hours ago I thought the T-shirt was the monstrosity 😂
I agree. Bondtech's own extruder and tools say: "Tweaked over many design iterations, with an eye for detail". Prusa's lid, spool holders and tool mount say: "Let's slap something on, quick, cheap!".
Thought I could tolerate the lid and not install the spool holders. But the tool mount "fence" is pushing me over the edge. Let's see when Bondtech replies to my email and what they have to say.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
I agree that this isn't the most elegant solution. The "fence" blocks even more of the limited view. I give it 2 months max and the Prusa community will have many solutions on Printables. I have a Core OONE and a Core ONE L. My initial thought was to put the INDX on the Core ONE L because more tool heads and more room but now I am not sure which one I am going to put it on.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
I give it 2 months max and the Prusa community will have many solutions on Printables.
The whole reason for this massive fence must be the required stiffness of the tool support. This looks like it needs metal, not printed plastics.
But a custom laser-cut and folded piece of metal should be able to provide the necessary stability with a slimmer profile. I can't understand how Prusa allowed the present "design" to go public.
RE:
Tommy_Prusa3D has contributed to a thread over on Reddit, where someone asked if design had changed.
It has due to rigidity problems.
Tommy's response - "Exactly that. After a ton of changes, the original design started to cause some problems. This is the best way for mega long term reliance"
Tommy also says in that thread that he will try and get some pictures on Monday, showing the first layer view.
I was going to suggest looking through the top section of the side panels but I guess that won't gain anything when there are 8 spools hanging everywhere.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Tommy's response - "Exactly that. After a ton of changes, the original design started to cause some problems. This is the best way for mega long term reliance"
Is "a ton of changes" referring to tool change cycles or to design change iterations? I struggle to imagine how many tool change cycles could actually "wear out" the original slender metal mounting strut.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Found the picture of all the parts on Bondtech's website now. Looking at this thing for docking the tools, the design must be driven by the lack of mounting points on the existing chassis, and the desire to make installation relatively easy. That's the only reason I can see for extending it all the way up to the new frame profile.
If one is willing to either drill holes into the vertical frame profiles, or e.g. replace the belt tensioner blocks by new parts with additional mounting points, it should be possible to attach a less obtrusive U profile as a tool dock.
It would be good to know how the original mounting bar (shown at FormNext and in the various promo pictures) was attached and what its deficiencies were. Has anyone come across a closeup photo?
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Ordered the 8-kit. 609 euro's (+160 founders pre sale), shipping to Netherlands
Is the fence ugly? It might be but this is a tool, not a signature oak edition, so I'd rather have this fence since it is likely to be an improvement. It's a pity visibility is even more restricted but camera's from the side might be helpful?
I definitely do not have a business case for this but I enjoyed building the Core One kit last year so much I want more of that experience. Might be famous last words, for the moment I trust Prusa, Bondtech and even more the Prusa community.
Regards, Bert
Loving the learning curve!
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Is the fence ugly? It might be but this is a tool, not a signature oak edition, so I'd rather have this fence since it is likely to be an improvement. It's a pity visibility is even more restricted but camera's from the side might be helpful?
There are the functional limitations -- visibility, and no manual access to the print area. Even a decent camera will not be good enough to let me judge first layer or adhesion issues. (Assuming there is still any LED light reaching the print...) And I need to reach in and clean the nozzle or pick a piece of dangling filament off of it all the time.
And there are the aesthetics. I thought that with the Core One Prusa had finally gotten the message that many users don't want a "contraption" on their desk or bench, but something that actually looks like a well-engineered, well-integrated piece of equipment. Looking at the whole Core One + INDX arrangement -- tank turret lid, side-mounted spools and strangely shaped fence -- they apparently no longer consider that relevant. It's a pity. I am sure it will scare off a large portion of potential Core One customers since it just does not instill confidence in the engineering.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Let's see when Bondtech replies to my email and what they have to say.
I just received a reply from Bondtech -- working Saturday mornings, I am impressed! But the message is unfortunately what I had come to expect in the meantime, after the "official" photos appeared on their website:
I am sorry if this was not what you were expecting. This is indeed the design of the Core One kit which is in the photo. This was Prusas decision to change the front in order to have higher stability in the product. If you still would like to cancel and receive a refund that is by your rights.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Im not happy about it, but I won't be cancelling my order.
I fully get what you're saying, but for me my C1 is primarily a tool that that I use heavily now for my small business....and I need tool changing capabilities asap.
When you mentioned 'bait and switch' earlier, I thought that was a bit hyperbolic...the more I think about it now, the more I think that statement was on point.
I mean, look at this video from SMRRF 2026, just 3 weeks ago:
I refuse to believe that the steel fence wasn't already designed and tested then...yet for (now obvious) reasons, they were still showcasing the other 3d printed version that we've seen so much of since form next.
I think what they've done is sneaky, I keep looping back to how the dev kit won't use this, and I'm confident there will be other community created alternatives to the rigidity/reliabilty issue.
RE:
When you mentioned 'bait and switch' earlier, I thought that was a bit hyperbolic...the more I think about it now, the more I think that statement was on point.
I mean, look at this video from SMRRF 2026, just 3 weeks ago:I refuse to believe that the steel fence wasn't already designed and tested then...yet for (now obvious) reasons, they were still showcasing the other 3d printed version that we've seen so much of since form next.
Yes. As mentioned, you can even make out the diagonal fence struts in Prusa's update videos from several weeks ago, once you know what to look for. But they made sure to keep the door closed and only film it at an angle, for reasons.
I'm confident there will be other community created alternatives to the rigidity/reliabilty issue.
Yes, as mentioned a few posts above, I am sure a rigid but less obtrusive solution is possible, if one is willing to accept a more invasive installation procedure.
Still, even for the mounting concept Prusa chose, I am stunned by the detailed design decisions. What were they thinking when they put those diagonal fence struts in?! They will do very little for bending stability in the center. Adding a little outward fold on the upper edge of the main traverse would give better stiffness and at least keep that upper area obstruction-free.
And don't get me started about the aesthetics of all those fiddly and completely unnecessary 45° bits and cuts. Looks like some junior engineer's "my first day with CAD software and a laser cutter".
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Im not happy about it, but I won't be cancelling my order.
I fully get what you're saying, but for me my C1 is primarily a tool that that I use heavily now for my small business....and I need tool changing capabilities asap.
I am still dithering. A Bambu H2D would do all I need -- two materials at once, even faster changeover than INDX, larger build volume, available and known to be working now. But it's another expensive toy, and my reservations against Bambu as a company do still apply.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Posted by: @jurgen-7
There are the functional limitations -- visibility, and no manual access to the print area. Even a decent camera will not be good enough to let me judge first layer or adhesion issues. (Assuming there is still any LED light reaching the print...) And I need to reach in and clean the nozzle or pick a piece of dangling filament off of it all the time.
Completely agree, particularly around the nozzle cleaning or stray filament. I have found myself tinkering inside the core one so much I ended up modding the lid to put a hinge on it. With this new set up access is completely restricted and I can’t see any elegant way to hinge that turret with my space. On the led light, I’m wondering if part of the reason for this is to raise the tools slightly and obstruct the led less. With that in mind, basic belt tuning. With the new tuning wizard, does it even work now? How can you see it easily if the light is unobstructed. If it doesn’t, basic plucking with a tuner will require some form of disassembly now, even if it’s just removing the turret.
I understand the argument that it’s a tool, however accessibility for basic maintenance and use in a 3d printer is a very big requirement for that tool to be functional. If you see a print issue now you’ll have to take the turret off and negotiate the spaghetti of teflon tubing mid print. Or pause the print, let the bed lower and then deal with print artefacts
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Posted by: @jurgen-7
There are the functional limitations -- visibility, and no manual access to the print area. Even a decent camera will not be good enough to let me judge first layer or adhesion issues. (Assuming there is still any LED light reaching the print...) And I need to reach in and clean the nozzle or pick a piece of dangling filament off of it all the time.
Completely agree, particularly around the nozzle cleaning or stray filament. I have found myself tinkering inside the core one so much I ended up modding the lid to put a hinge on it. With this new set up access is completely restricted and I can’t see any elegant way to hinge that turret with my space. On the led light, I’m wondering if part of the reason for this is to raise the tools slightly and obstruct the led less. With that in mind, basic belt tuning. With the new tuning wizard, does it even work now? How can you see it easily if the light is unobstructed. If it doesn’t, basic plucking with a tuner will require some form of disassembly now, even if it’s just removing the turret.
I understand the argument that it’s a tool, however accessibility for basic maintenance and use in a 3d printer is a very big requirement for that tool to be functional. If you see a print issue now you’ll have to take the turret off and negotiate the spaghetti of teflon tubing mid print. Or pause the print, let the bed lower and then deal with print artefacts
For maintenance it should be fine. 4(6 for LED-profile?) screws to get the part out of the way and the top lid seems to be hinged with quick releases on the top-front.
Found the picture of all the parts on Bondtech's website now. Looking at this thing for docking the tools, the design must be driven by the lack of mounting points on the existing chassis, and the desire to make installation relatively easy. That's the only reason I can see for extending it all the way up to the new frame profile.
If one is willing to either drill holes into the vertical frame profiles, or e.g. replace the belt tensioner blocks by new parts with additional mounting points, it should be possible to attach a less obtrusive U profile as a tool dock.
It would be good to know how the original mounting bar (shown at FormNext and in the various promo pictures) was attached and what its deficiencies were. Has anyone come across a closeup photo?
100% agree.
I think INDX on C1 is a compromise. The printer was surely not designed with INDX in mind and Prusa does its best to make it work. Unfortunately this comes with a few sacrifices in terms of visibility/accessibility.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
In other news, it looks like the bed will be lifted by a few millimeters: We get a new (presumably taller) bed-spacer-rear and a shorter bed-stop-rear (the upper guide for the rear lead screw). And those two banana-shaped spacers look like they go under the bed-mount-right and -left to jack up the front of the bed.
Has there been any discussion on Discord whether this implies a reduced Z print range? I can actually get 273 mm out of my Core One now, and am using that in a project that's dear to my heart (a 1:6 mini replica of an arcade cabinet).
RE:
In other news, it looks like the bed will be lifted by a few millimeters: We get a new (presumably taller) bed-spacer-rear and a shorter bed-stop-rear (the upper guide for the rear lead screw). And those two banana-shaped spacers look like they go under the bed-mount-right and -left to jack up the front of the bed.
Has there been any discussion on Discord whether this implies a reduced Z print range? I can actually get 273 mm out of my Core One now, and am using that in a project that's dear to my heart (a 1:6 mini replica of an arcade cabinet).
This was confirmed by Gustav on Discord this morning:
"Confirmed print volume on Core1 with INDX 248 x 205 x 270, product page will be updated."
Whether this means you'll lose the extra few mm you had previously gained, I don't know.
Also please do a thread on your mini arcade cabinet when you feel its ready to share...I'm a nostalgic soul and ive been looking at doing something similar 👍
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Tommy's response - "Exactly that. After a ton of changes, the original design started to cause some problems. This is the best way for mega long term reliance"
Is "a ton of changes" referring to tool change cycles or to design change iterations? I struggle to imagine how many tool change cycles could actually "wear out" the original slender metal mounting strut.
Comparing pictures of the initial core one versus the voron integration of the tool heads. The core one tool head holders are smaller and just seam to wrap around the bar. Because the Vorons and other reprap printers will have extruded aluminium bars, the holders look beefier and will have better anchoring points due to the nature of the extruded aluminium. I think it makes sense that after 100s of tool changes on the core one, if it’s only wrapping around the holder will start to loosen over time. You already mentioned this decision is clearly a choice to make the install easier, rather than the best engineering or design choice. Target is for those that don’t want to dismantle the frame. However I’d much prefer a redesigned front bar and would happily disassemble and install one, As would many on this forum I’d imagine. Appeal to the masses when it comes to build but alienate the masses due to shit design choices. I think either way they’ll reduce sales of these units
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Comparing pictures of the initial core one versus the voron integration of the tool heads. The core one tool head holders are smaller and just seam to wrap around the bar. Because the Vorons and other reprap printers will have extruded aluminium bars, the holders look beefier and will have better anchoring points due to the nature of the extruded aluminium. I think it makes sense that after 100s of tool changes on the core one, if it’s only wrapping around the holder will start to loosen over time. You already mentioned this decision is clearly a choice to make the install easier, rather than the best engineering or design choice. Target is for those that don’t want to dismantle the frame. However I’d much prefer a redesigned front bar and would happily disassemble and install one, As would many on this forum I’d imagine. Appeal to the masses when it comes to build but alienate the masses due to shit design choices. I think either way they’ll reduce sales of these units
Agree, there is probably need for a stiff (torsion-free) structure running across the width of the enclosure. But a plain strip of sheet metal should do, as tall as required to accommodate the two mounting points for the tool docks, maybe with a folded edge for extra stability. I like the idea of designing new mounting blocks for the belt tensioners which provide attachment points for this.
I can't for the life of me understand what benefit the diagonal struts are meant to bring. And even less why everything needs to look so ugly -- laser-cutting a clean shape would not cost them a penny more.
I guess yesterday's INDX go-live came just too late for a Friday after-work party at the Bambu Lab headquarters. But their management will have a merry weekend.