Is 2.0 worth the price?

[dehrlich]

Sounds like there are still some bugs to work out here. Think I will hold off a bit, although I don't have any "long" bits. Are the problems limited to the long bits?

[lynnfrwd]

No. The problem is with the length of the rock chuck and how 2.004 tries to more time efficient.

[gsdsj]

No. The problem is with the length of the rock chuck and how 2.004 tries to more time efficient.

Okay, so finally someone from LHR says it's a "problem" with the Rock. So again I ponder why it was not disclosed the CT was a requirement to 2.0 or mentioned in the FAQs?
I already own 2.0 and would like to have the issue resolved. I appreciate the work around others have mentioned but it would have been nice to know before purchasing.
I would still be interested in seeing how many people are using the Rock in a poll. Greg

[fwharris]

Okay, so finally someone from LHR says it's a "problem" with the Rock. So again I ponder why it was not disclosed the CT was a requirement to 2.0 or mentioned in the FAQs?
I already own 2.0 and would like to have the issue resolved. I appreciate the work around others have mentioned but it would have been nice to know before purchasing.
I would still be interested in seeing how many people are using the Rock in a poll. Greg

My best guess on why there were not any statements about any issues with the Rock chuck was that they only tested it with the CarveTight chuck as that is their current design.

[Capt Bruce]

I'm with you on that Floyd. As I mentioned and others have noted we'll just have to work around this for now and see what may be changed to help accommodate the various chuck and bit combinations our colleagues use. Please keep adding notes and measurements here for everyones' benefit as we work through solutions. Thanks All.

[lynnfrwd]

Correct. We did not test on third party and did not know. It is designed for CT. I don't think we even have one. I believe they are easing up on it in 2.005.

[gsdsj]

Connie, thanks for your honesty and hopefully some relief in 2.005. I would be more than willing to run any tests with the Rock and working
on a Mac if you need assistance. Greg

[liquidguitars]

Had not expected these new Pain In The A** problems with the 2.004 software improvement.

Hi Bruce, LHR never gave the testers a final release version to try or any bits so sorry for the hassle we would of reported it for you and for us . I would roll back to the old firmware like I doing right now and all will work fine. You do not need to uninstall designer, just rename the new firmware file and load the old one but don't use the long bits until LHR can fix it for the guys that ordered them...

[eelamb]

If LHR makes changes to the software to accommodate the rock chuck, ALL rock users with designer 2.X need to tell them thank you.
Software written by LHR is for their machine design. They can not possibly test all variations of third party add on.
Remember the CT upgrade is still a choice.

[bergerud]

The Rock is not the problem. The problem is using CT bits with the Rock. The Rock is no different in length than the QC it was designed to replace. If you use the CT bits in the QC, you will have the same problems.

The thing is that the bit find of the past was so open that the Rock users could get away with using CT bits. The extra 1/2" bit length was ok. Now with the tightening up of the procedure, the Rock uses cannot get away with it anymore. It was sort of a mistake. (LHR likes selling CT bits to Rock users, don't you think?) The procedure was tested for the CT and the QC but the CT bit in the Rock thing was not considered. (With all of the things to consider with the deep bit change over, I am sure, the Rock with CT bits was not even on the list!)

I have been fighting this change for other reasons. I like to experiment and I do not like more restrictions. I do not like it that LG's trick of running through all the bit tests with just the carving bit will not work anymore. I do not like it that if a user has a senior moment and puts in the wrong bit in a mult bit project, he may get a stall and project abort. I do not like it if bits get damaged (chipped) by the ram into the bit plate. (I do not like it that it nearly breaks my dust cap right off the carriage!) I regard these as bigger problems than users having to initially adjust their CT bit length for the Rock.

All of these potential problems just to speed up the procedure just does not add up for me. I would rather just keep the old procedure.

I am happy that the tightening will be relaxed some. Hopefully that will effectively be a return to the old procedure.