so i’m surprised this didn’t get backlinked here, but over in one of the keyboard transplant threads i saw this: Thinkpad keyboard mod (super early stages)! - #45 by C_Scott_Ananian
and looking at the internals it seems an awful lot like it’ll be a lot easier to adjust the hinge offset on the fw16 than it was on the fw13.
of course i don’t think anyone here in this thread has gotten close to their fw16 order shipping yet, or there would be more traffic.
Yup…I’m batch 12, so very eagerly awaiting news of the next few batches so we can get an idea of, maybe, what the rate is and how long it might be for me to get my “getting ready to charge” email.
same, haunting the single digit guilds, lamenting my batch 15 placement.
That’s so awesome.
Imagine if somebody actually built a split ergonomic keyboard that has batteries and ZMK with bluetooth, so you can take it out and use it wirelessly. That’d be so damn awesome and also actually possible. In docked mode it’d lock in and be connected with some pogo pins and charge the battery.
I don’t really know what the exact restrictions are wrt positioning of the input modules, but with a 3x5 layout and a small thumb cluster each there should be a decent gap in the center of the laptop, where you could put something useful. As the hinges need to modified for extra height anyways, you may be able to fit something like a 5" (touch) display.
Yeah that’s definitely the input module of my dreams, lol
Edit: small grammar fix
my goal is to eventually commission stuff for an 18mm pitch keyboard to go into the fw16. provided i can find someone willing to do that for an approachable amount of money. (i.e. not thousands of $)
hopefully thre’s a hobbyist who will find that interesting enough to be worth some trouble
I know you wanted a full featured one, but the small (through necessity) keeb on the Pocket Reform has a pitch at least that small. Like the original Reform it uses the so-called Choc switch.
Perhaps the same switches and keycaps could be used to build a bigger form factor to fit the full size reform? I think ortholinear will probably be the way to go, because there will not be the oblong keys account for staggered rows in the traditional keyboard.
I’d love to have mechanical ULP switches in my FW16!! But only if it’s realistic and doesn’t require a massive overhaul. I’d literally throw money without second thoughts or regrets for that. I’ve spent $100-$200 for mechanical keyboards in the past without batting an eye. I love my Wooting.
I’m just hoping for an ortholinear keyboard in any form, hopefully with at least 3 thumb keys per hand. I suspect I can adapt to anything else – I have a weird enough layout that I use for laptop keyboards already!
Well this thread speculates on a deeper chassis for the Framework, so it would require a donor machine for parts or ordering the internals separately. As a small scale enthusiast-led thing it might also be cruder than the factory part.
On the other hand, if it proved popular then Framework may well choose to bring the feature in house.
Is a deeper chassis really necessary? Why not a deeper slightly thicker screen frame with the screen slightly recessed?
Fixes screen flex, and theoretically is less work.
the lid containing the screen is part of the chassis. note some of the speculation involves adjusting how the screen sits relative the input deck.
I mean, the solution being talked about requires modification to the hinges at minimum, at that point just changing the whole lid isnt really getting any deeper in work
Shimming the hinges could be very easy. If it works / is stable enough. Then you just need a 3d printed hinge cover and a bezel with a lip. Looks like we only need 0.5mm extra to fit Cherry ULP switches, if you save space with a polyimide PCB.
It is difficult to articulate why, but I find something about having to jack up the hinges to accommodate any prospect of a hand-built keyboard leaves a sour taste. This is my area of interest and makes me think the benefits of Framework to creators and customisers have been oversold.
Maybe there was a problem in expectation management here, and that Framework should have made more distinction between the - very laudable - goal of offering ease of repair and availability of spare parts, and that of being a “customisable” machine. The documentation and CAD files for the various components are unarguably a good thing, but the implication is that is so they may be (re)used in other projects, not so that makers can actually fabricate compatible parts for their FW laptops.
You can always spend a fortune on milling a custom case AFTER you got your custom keyboard working with shimmed hinges if the sour taste remains.
Why is the implication not to fabricate compatible parts?
No I understand if you don’t want to have custom parts or shims or the like. Personal choice. But part of the idea of Framework is users to be able to both repair, and customize their machine. And customization includes modifying/shimming/etc.
Now is it ideal? No. Would it have been nice if Framework added a few millimeters to leave us space for custom keyboard modules with low-profile mechanical keys? Yes.
But I don’t see why it’s a bad thing.
I dont see why one would argue for cherry ULPs when you are going to be heavily modifying the case anyways. Might as well go full MX-low-profile.
The part files are so you can … refer any of the dimensions from them to modify/create your own parts. If you are making, for instance, a taller hinge, it would make sense to start off with an unmodified hinge and increasing, for instance its length. The same can be said for the chassis.
Shimming is not the worst idea. If you can just add two machined piece of metal (and some rubber) rather than having to machine an entire new chassis, that would be a pretty significant cost saving. Though whether this is possible remains to be seen.
the goal with shimming is to limit how much ‘heavy modification’ is needed. there’s a point where you’re shifting things enough that a stable housing is going to require actual manufacture. i don’t know for sure if going up a switch class is going to be past that threshold but it’s obviously going to be closer to it than a couple of washers.
As a brief aside I postulate that the reason that the motherboards, input “deck” etc is well documented is so that creators can use these in their own projects. The presumption is they become a de-facto standard like bicycle component manufacturers have each tried to do with their own specs for bottom bracket or headset bearings. The idea is that they are accessible to third party projects - not so that you can cobble together these parts on your kitchen table.
This is demonstrated by the successful “creator led” projects in Framework Orbit. The successful ones have re-used FW parts in a different context. There are very few instances I can think of that have gone the other way and added a fundamentally new part into FW laptops, input cards notwithstanding.
Far from being a bad thing (your emphasis) I think this is a step forward. It does however come with a warning to those who think that a Framework would take home modifications better than other brands. Parts are easy to replace, sure, but those parts are not necessarily user serviceable or customisable. Providing a CAD file for something does not mean that just anyone can actually build it.
you do know a bunch of people are waiting for an actual working fw16 to test their designs in right now, right?
also why are you pushing this conspiracy stuff again? wasn’t getting one thread locked enough? i’d much rather focus on constructive avenues