What's new
What's new

X axis motion is backward on a Haas CL-1

......We're long past the point of forcing fanuc et al to adhere to the correct way.......
This ^ is incorrect. It's too bad that you post incorrect statements based on your hatred of Japanese products.

It is the machine builder, not Fanuc, that determines axes configuration. Some builders using Fanuc controls provided instructions in their documentation for the user to configure the X axis to suit their preference. Pretty easily done with a few wiring and or parameter changes depending on control model and servo system model.

The system is ultimately flexible. Has to be and on a moments reflection you should be able to see this. Fanuc has no control over whether a builder chooses a RH or LH lead screw. No control over a direct coupled motor to screw or a single mesh gear drive coupling the motor to screw. So it is left to the builder to configure whether CW or CCW motor rotation causes positive axis movement.
 
This ^ is incorrect. It's too bad that you post incorrect statements based on your hatred of Japanese products.

In the beginning there were standards, Vanc. There is a rational system which MIT or Bendix or whoever did the original work laid out clearly. My dislike for japanese control builders, starting with fanuc because they were the biggest, is that in many cases they ignored these standards, which caused where we are today, all messed up. All that stuff you mentioned doesn't make any difference if you just follow the rules.

But they didn't, so at this point it's all moot, thanks pretty much to those builders whom yes, I dislike for making this mess.

So now we have people like implmex who is no dummy but thinks it matters where the operator stands. Oh well. It is what it is, too late to fix now. But at least we can know why.

The system is ultimately flexible.
No it isn't and until you get to totally weird eleven axes thingamajigs there is no need for it to be. There's an effing system that determines all this shit, thought up by the same smart people who invented NC and made it work.

It's just that a certain group of people ignored that and they became the de facto "leaders" which leads people to think this is how it is. It's a lot like effing software and the shit that gcc or mickeysoft does ... non-standard but common, hopelessly fubar but that's where we are now. That doesn't make it "right".
 
Last edited:
Well I guess I opened a big ugly can of worms after all...clearly not all agree that Haas engineered a pointless turd when they made the CL-1 the same as the TL-1 with respect to the direction that X positive points.
Funny, when I look at the Youtube videos by Mark Terryberry (Haas "Tip of the Day") he does his little dance in this one:

Look at time 2:20, right near the beginning of the video...here it is...X positive is moving away from the operator, and Haas obviously knows it perfectly well.

Yeah he talks later about how the TL series is "different"
We have an idea why that is... Haas made a deliberate choice to move the tool to the operator side of the spindle for that machine and it wasn't an unreasonable choice for that machine even though it creates the confusion Seymour and I have talked about.

But to do the same thing on the CL-1 is just stupid...I don't care if Donkey Hotey can take pride in his ability to wrap his head around lying in the chip pan with his feet sticking out the back, I don't care that you have to know to do small mental gymnastics whenever you have more than one turret, I don't care that you need to reorient yourself mentally when you look at a horizontal...it's still stupid to set up the CL-1 in the way it was set up by Haas.

What blows me away, is that I've heard all kinds of crap about how you have to program it "differently" if you re-orient X back into the common orientation and run your tools exactly the same as you would if you were running an SL20.

No you DON'T have to program it differently, and if you think about it for even a moment, you'll realize the truth of what I say.
Run your tools upside down on the back of the machine just like you do on that SL20, and all will be well.
If you cannot wrap your head around programming on the opposite side of the spindle in X negative, just don't do it...honestly, it'll be OK, and nobody's gonna die.

But on the CL-1 you CAN if you want to...it's up to you to take advantage of that ability but you don't HAVE to...you can please yourself for all I care.

Enough said...I think we'll have to agree to disagree forever on this, and I cannot change what Haas did on the machine, so I will adapt and all my trainees will learn it the CL-1 and TL-1 way, and all will hopefully be fine until some of them want to get out into the real machining world and find out they have habits to re-learn.

Hopefully nobody smashfucks a machine.

Cheers

Marcus
www.implant-mechanix.com
www.vancouverwireedm.com

Oh yeah: Emanuel, I personally know enough not to care where the operator stands...as I've said before, I think it becomes needlessly confusing for novices if X positive goes one way for some machines and the other way for others.
I can drive on the wrong side of the road on the wrong side of the car too, just like they do in England and Australia.
But when I'm driving in Australia, I need to do it continuously for at least a couple of weeks before I'm not a hazard to myself and those around me.
Beginners growing up on a TL-1 are a bit like me in Oz when they get to their first "real" lathe.

MC
 
Last edited:
Where's Cliff and Bob Drewrie when you need them :( John Carroll ! Calling John Carroll ! Red emergency telephone please ! Speaking of lost institutional knowledge, where's all those corpses that remember this stuff ? Leave sweater on the gravestone, please !
 
.......No it isn't and until you get to totally weird eleven axes thingamajigs there is no need for it to be. There's an effing system that determines all this shit, thought up by the same smart people who invented NC and made it work.......
So in your world the control builder should dictate to the machine builder what drive system, screw pitch and hand, etc they must use???? Why is that better?

For me, this entire thread is a tempest in a teacup. As I posted earlier, one needs figure out how it's configured, then program it appropriately and make parts. It's just a 2 axis lathe. Simplest chip making CNC machine there is.
 
And you would be dead wrong.
Coordinate systems are NOT rotated for exactly that reason.
Wow. I had no idea. I'm going to go hide in my bed with the covers over my head. I'll ponder the parts I somehow made tonight without exploding the casting into worthless bits. The idea that it did internal G71 with arcs and G41 cutter comp without total destruction is something I need to grasp fully before I step in front of it again.
 
Beginners growing up on a TL-1 are a bit like me in Oz when they get to their first "real" lathe.
I learned on the TL-1...with the SL20 user manual. Got told the TL-1 is rotated around. Program just like the SL. Know what? I programmed the SL20 without issues, from day one. No problems. Referred to that manual tonight. Programmed it just like the SL-20.

I'd posit that if you act this way around engineers, some of them are going to figure out that its just like the other Haas lathes. From that point on, they're going to point at you and laugh when your back is turned. Maybe you should accept that this isn't the world-ending thing you think it is?

If this is that big of a thing to get their head around, they aren't cut out for programming. It ain't for everybody. I've seen plenty of engineers who got into it because they were good at math and science and had zero talent for actual, real mechanical things.
 
So in your world the control builder should dictate to the machine builder what drive system, screw pitch and hand, etc they must use???? Why is that better?

Umm, what ? We were talking about what direction should be plus X, not how many turns per inch the ballscrew should make.

For me, this entire thread is a tempest in a teacup.
Yes. Life is now what it is, Haas is not majorly stupid for doing whatever the hell they want, everybody else does, at this point going by the standards is way past, so. As me and others have said, look at the plate on your machine or in the manual and do that.

It makes no sense now to even care but calling Haas names when the whole thing is fubar and didn't have to be, and the people making those claims don't know where and why we got here, that we can correct. There was a system. Enough people ignored that so that nowadays, no one has a leg to stand on if someone does things a different way. It's all up for grabs, like railroad gauges in the 1860's. Whoopee.
 
And as a result, you were mentally looking at the tool and spindle from the chip pan.

Novel idea.
Dumb as fuck, but novel nonetheless ...
Not really novel, Mori-Seiki did that in ... when did the SL 1-2-3 come out ? Late eighties ?

You guys and your concern over where the operator stands ... it has nothing to do with the operator. You don't even need an operator. Works with robots, too. And reverse slant beds (I think Lodge & Shipley made those), loaded from the wrong side.

It's all (supposed to be) determined by the spindle (z axis) and which way it turns for m03-m04.
 
Last edited:
Hi yet again Donkey Hotey:
You wrote:
"Maybe you should accept that this isn't the world-ending thing you think it is?"

I don't recall ever saying it's a "world-ending thing"...I said it was a stupid design decision by Haas.
You know the reasons why...I've beaten them to death here.

You also wrote:
"From that point on, they're going to point at you and laugh when your back is turned."

So far nobody's laughing and I still get asked to build all of their more complicated and miniature stuff, so I'm confident they won't come to the belief I'm an idiot any time soon.
I'm amused that you seem to have gone there pretty promptly without ever having met me, without knowing anything about my abilities, and without any provocation on my part that I can see.
Your choice...I can't fix your condescending smugness any more than I can fix Haas's design decisions on the CL-1.

Feel free to do it your way, feel free to disparage anybody who dares to have a different opinion than yours: it's really not important to me.

Cheers

Marcus
www.implant-mechanix.com
www.vancouverwireedm.com
 
Ahhh, okay, now I'm a big bad bully. You've endlessly trashed Haas for this design and a couple of people on this thread have jumped down the throat of anyone explaining why it is the way it is. For someone who puts two links in every signature on every post, you seem self-assured that maybe I didn't click them and wonder where the disconnect is. I'm still puzzled.

How would you propose they do the tool datum plane on your proposed backward version of the CL-1? On a slant bed lathe, the tool datum (bottom) is the top of the pocket. That's the one that has to be exactly some distance from tool centerline, so all your tools fit.

On a flat turret like the CL-1, that plane is the bottom, as it needs to be. How would this work in your version of the machine? Turn the turret upside down and load it from the chip tray? Or run the spindle backwards? What kinds of programming stupidity would running it backwards create?

Ever do manual work on a flat-mounted tool plane, from behind the part centerline? At least on a slant bed, you're able to look straight in at the work, even if backside tool visibility isn't the greatest. On a flat X-axis machine like this, you aren't seeing anything without dangerously leaning over the part and work holding. No thanks.

In addition to all of this, they offer live tooling and C-axis as options on the CL-1. Putting the turret behind the centerline means the live tooling option has to go away or has to move to the operator side. You want C-axis, live tooling and a tool turret in a compact machine? This is how it ends up looking.

It's still not clear why you or your management bought a compact chucker in the first place or why you're worried about gang tooling it. It's a pretty cool little machine, given the price point and features it gives in a compact footprint. Seems like you'd have been happier with their old Mini Lathe. From what I remember, it wasn't very popular either. Come to think of it, I'm not sure how this is different than the old OL-1 Office Lathe either: another short-lived gang-tooled chucker.


haas-mini-lathe-3.jpghaas-mini-lathe-4.jpg
 

Attachments

  • haas-mini-lathe.jpg
    haas-mini-lathe.jpg
    137 KB · Views: 3
  • haas-mini-lathe-1.jpg
    haas-mini-lathe-1.jpg
    126 KB · Views: 3
Seems like you'd have been happier with their old Mini Lathe. From what I remember, it wasn't very popular either. Come to think of it, I'm not sure how this is different than the old OL-1 Office Lathe either: another short-lived gang-tooled chucker.

Just so you know, that Minilathe - until very recently - was the most productive machine in my shop with an ROI of under 8 months from purchasing brand-new.
And no, it isn't the ass-backwards design employed on the TL or the CL.
And no, it isn't short lived because popularity, rather due to typical shortsightedness of Haas marketing.
 
Just so you know, that Minilathe - until very recently - was the most productive machine in my shop with an ROI of under 8 months from purchasing brand-new.
And no, it isn't the ass-backwards design employed on the TL or the CL.
And no, it isn't short lived because popularity, rather due to typical shortsightedness of Haas marketing.

It's good to hear that it was so productive. I agree that it was a nice package and I asked a few people at the Haas booth why it went away. I was told it was sales. Did you have the bar feeder with it? Seems like it would crank out small parts in a hurry.

From the discussion, the Office Lathe is what Implex probably needed: gang tooled, 6K spindle, no turret in the way. Still programmed from the operator side but otherwise suited to small parts.
 
From the discussion, the Office Lathe is what Implex probably needed: gang tooled, 6K spindle, no turret in the way. Still programmed from the operator side but otherwise suited to small parts.

That OL is a piece of junk.
Who designs a CNC lathe with airplane doors?
The collet closer is an air operated kludge of a 100 year old Hardinge design, has no place to be on an automated machine.
(perhaps I am thinking about the CL tho... looked at one a few years ago and ruled it out for various reasons, those two among them )

How come only until very recently ? Get something better ?
Yupp, Takamaz.
The Mini was accurate as hell ( no turret, only slides to worry about ), but this thing is every bit as accurate, and substantially more rigid.
That latter is/was actually the only achilles heel of the Minilathe.
If you look at the construction, the actual loading of the slide happens 8" from the last truck (support), the entire cutting force is cantilevered out into oblivion.
 
Hi again Donkey Hotey:
You obviously have not looked at the layout I am going to use for the tooling on the turret...I showed it in post #10.
The turret does not go behind the workpiece nor does it go in front of the workpiece.
It stays on the right hand side of the workpiece and only the bars ever travel behind or in front of the workpiece.

The datum plane you're so fussed about is irrelevant...the height from the top of the turret to the spindle centerline is 1/2 inch, and the ECI tooling blocks for holding boring bars in a chucker that I can buy from Artco are 1/2" center height too.
I can get the tool tips exactly on center simply by rotating the bars a bit...and when I mean "a bit" I'm talking a couple of thou.
It doesn't matter if the inserts are facing up or facing down... the inserts can still be on centerline.
These are not stick tools where it does matter...they are boring bars.

So I can use the live tools without issue....with bars there's lots of room, both to swing them with the turret and to get them out of the way when the live tools run.
Look at post #10 and you'll see how it works.

I run LH bars for external turning, like every other gang chucker does too...I've done it for decades and so have a bazillion other shops.
I run upside down tooling on the backside and I run right side up tooling in reverse on the backside on my manual lathe frequently, and I've done so for forty years.
It all works and none of it is complicated.
I can see just fine.

None of this is rocket science...an upside down LH bar on a gang chucker for external turning on the backside of the workpiece is common as dirt.
There is no upside down turret.
You don't need to turn anything "backwards" (I assume you mean turning in M04 with a RH bar on the backside?)

You know what...after all this drama, I'm just going to do it, and it'll work just fine.

And I'm gonna sign off in my customary way with links to both my websites.
There is no disconnect...I know what I'm doing.

Cheers

Marcus
www.implant-mechanix.com
www.vancouverwireedm.com

Cheers

Marcus
 
Hi again Donkey Hotey:
You obviously have not looked at the layout I am going to use for the tooling on the turret...I showed it in post #10.
The turret does not go behind the workpiece nor does it go in front of the workpiece.
It stays on the right hand side of the workpiece and only the bars ever travel behind or in front of the workpiece.

The datum plane you're so fussed about is irrelevant...the height from the top of the turret to the spindle centerline is 1/2 inch, and the ECI tooling blocks for holding boring bars in a chucker that I can buy from Artco are 1/2" center height too.
I can get the tool tips exactly on center simply by rotating the bars a bit...and when I mean "a bit" I'm talking a couple of thou.
It doesn't matter if the inserts are facing up or facing down... the inserts can still be on centerline.
These are not stick tools where it does matter...they are boring bars.

So I can use the live tools without issue....with bars there's lots of room, both to swing them with the turret and to get them out of the way when the live tools run.
Look at post #10 and you'll see how it works.

I run LH bars for external turning, like every other gang chucker does too...I've done it for decades and so have a bazillion other shops.
I run upside down tooling on the backside and I run right side up tooling in reverse on the backside on my manual lathe frequently, and I've done so for forty years.
It all works and none of it is complicated.
I can see just fine.

None of this is rocket science...an upside down LH bar on a gang chucker for external turning on the backside of the workpiece is common as dirt.
There is no upside down turret.
You don't need to turn anything "backwards" (I assume you mean turning in M04 with a RH bar on the backside?)

You know what...after all this drama, I'm just going to do it, and it'll work just fine.

And I'm gonna sign off in my customary way with links to both my websites.
There is no disconnect...I know what I'm doing.

Cheers

Marcus
www.implant-mechanix.com
www.vancouverwireedm.com

Cheers

Marcus
A flustered Marcus in the wild...a rarely seen animal.

I was gonna mess around buy you seem to have your hands full 😀
 
Hi again Donkey Hotey:
You obviously have not looked at the layout I am going to use for the tooling on the turret...I showed it in post #10.
<words words words>

Yep, saw that post. It was the only reason I was reading the thread. I refer to that as hybrid gang tooling. You're putting multiple tools on a turret at each position. Got it.

This is one of the turrets they sold for the TL. I have one:

TL Turret.jpg

Same idea. I would be in exactly the same programming situation as you, except mine only has four positions.

You still have this super narrow version of how you want to use this specific machine, that was not in the intended use of the design. They intended you to use up to eight tools, one on each station. Sure, do more with less. Got it. Cool.

It's not a design deficiency when you toss 20 sacks of concrete in the trunk of your car, then berate the manufacturer for not giving it good enough wheels, tires or brakes to handle the extra ton of weight. "It fits in the trunk! What moron designed this thing? I need to haul concrete home to do my yard! Home improvement is within the use of a family car. I don't see why they used these stupid low load capacity tires and springs!"
 








 
Back
Top