@Eclsnowman I think the larger widths are usually gt3 or gt4. Makes like harder as increased pitch usually denotes a larger minimum pulley diameter.
@George_Salgueiro not sure about interesting but they both have their pros and cons, principally Bowden can’t handle flexible filaments like ninja flex.
Any other formats people want other than solidworks?
I use inventor which seems to take solidworks files rather well, I’m good and thanks a million for uploading the files @Eclsnowman
@Shauki I have a full set of ingentis / eustathios compatible parts at my house… don’t make me feel bad for not looking into QR first 
I forgot that you use hollow tubes, that’s great - I’ve also been looking / thinking about 4 steppers for x/y… If there is a direct drive option, I will take it! Eliminating backlash and other errors gets us closer to that “ideal” situation, the “perfect” machine…
I guess what I was trying to point out with the heavy belt / heavy rod machine I mentioned is that we are constantly trying to modify the machines to be LIGHTER… this generally means introducing weaker components…
I have recently been speaking to the developer of a VERY large and heavy-duty 3D printer (can’t say more than that unfortunately but some people may guess who I’m talking about). Picture these two scenarios:
standard ingentis build with 10mm / 8mm rods… to achieve high speeds with these “weaker” sized rods, you need to reduce weight… so we go for a bowden setup, limiting materials and introducing oozing / hysteresis problems…
IDEALLY direct drive extruder gives better EXTRUSION results… but, the added weight can introduce vibrations, loss of steps (limits speed) and other problems.
If you had 20mm rods and 16mm belts (extreme scenario), 50mm frame extrusions etc - you will have much more rigidity and guess what - the extruder DOESN’T change - it still weighs the same, so you basically increase your stability-to-“extruder weight” ratio…
They run like, 25-32mm rods, 25mm belts… MASSIVE steppers on x/y… but a standard e3d direct drive… they could have 4 or 8 of them on a carriage and you wouldn’t notice any vibration because it’s just SOOO solid…
reducing weight of the head is one direction to take…
Increasing the rigidity of the machine is the opposite direction, more expense, but you don’t have to sacrifice components…
Combining the two (using 20mm hollow aluminium for example) may be a winning combo! Haven’t done any research further than what I’m throwing out here, but you can only go so far with reducing weight before you start introducing components that are too weak / likely to fail easier…
@Jarred_Baines actually, if you are going for massive scale. V slot and rollers makes much better sense, shafts of the size you describe are much more costly than the more ubiquitous 10-16mm used in cnc. Also, with a vslot extrusion, you can buttress a long span or use a, rectangular profile. I also think synchromesh is worth considering as it is so much stronger than belts and with wider (more expensive) belts, the price difference will become less prohibitive.
Totally agree…
Their machine is drastically over-engineered and cost them a mid-range family sedan worth to build…
It just occurred to me when I saw it that you could (for instance) put 4 direct drive hot ends, a laser module and a routing head on that thing 
Downloads design and starts making some parts out of aluminium
Thanks again!!!
Sooo much easier to get dimensions of the parts now!
Oh wait…
I can get this to work in eDrawings but not in inventor at the moment (2013 format)
Are you able to save them as something 2010 or earlier @Eclsnowman ? Or STEP may work, but I know in the past solidworks models come in beautifully for me…
Bolt the ingentis / qr frame to a solid bench @Shauki? Do you think that will make all the difference? I was going to make my frame 950mm high so - if just bolting the bottom to a table will eliminate a lot of problems I will have to try it!
Worth considering the implications of an enclosure too.
Thanks for the info!
@Jarred_Baines I can do step. But solid works isn’t like AutoCAD. They don’t let you save back versions… They want planned obsolescence.
For some reason when I save out as step some of the sub-assembly are not inheriting the proper orientation from the final assembly. So components are rotated incorrectly… Anyone have a suggestion?
Does the error happen when you export from SW, or when you import it back in?
Yup. But I fixed by export as step from SW, Then import step in SW, fixed mates, then reexported. Seems fixed. There must be some under/over defined mates in my main assembly.
Files uploading now. I added alternate CAD versions in a folder. I have Sketchup, Step, Spaceclaim, and 3D PDF.
Thanks mate 
This will help a lot (big fan of the round numbers here too)
@Jarred_Baines let me know if you see any errors. I do most of my work between 10pm (after kids and wife are in bed) and 2am. I start work at 7:00am… So I am just saying I could likely use some proofing.
ha ha - yeah… I’m struggling to go to bed @ 2pm right now…
I’ll keep it in mind thanks for the heads up!
@Eclsnowman Sorry for the delay. I’ll post the pics of the thrust bearings and spring bed mounts separately. You’re correct that I didn’t include any adjustment in the spacing between the 10mm Z support rods. I guess I kind of lucked out there, and haven’t had any issues.
I did switch to a single extruder carriage in the interested of minimizing weight and maximizing build volume. In the process, I switched from bushings to linear bearings for the carriage. I’ve been pretty happy with it so far, as I don’t really have the desire to use more than one extruder. I’d be happy to host both designs as alternatives for those that do though. Again, really great work!