In the previous post it was pointed out (accurately, by @Whosa_whatsis ) that the geometry isn’t correct as the belts aren’t in-line with the pulleys.
The parts were borrowed from the previous printer (first photo), which had part designs that cascaded from a bunch of decisions…the carriage dictated the distance between the X and Y shafts, the carriage supports were symmetric and identical (one part, printed four times) and the belt routing on that printer was outside the envelope, allowing for parallel belt runs.
On the larger printer, the internal drive pulleys create an interference problem, preventing the axes from being closer to the centerline of movement…it wasn’t an issue with the previous version of the printer as the carriage supports came from…man, getting old sucks, Herculien was descended from…which printer, again?
FWIW, it’ll all get another revision. Carriage supports are intended to be flipped in one direction so that they nest more closely together…moving the inboard drive pulleys would allow that to happen…and by doing so, the belt routing would be much closer to parallel.
