was born a new star ... YYF onestar bi-material! (last update)


#1

the shells have been lightened and they were made and assembled the carbon steel rings from 5.31 gr. each. The axis system is changed, two brass blind nuts and an axis.
The rings have been inserted for mechanical intrusion having an increase in diameter of the rings with respect to their housing in 0.4 mm.
The shells have been bead blasting before assembly of the rings


#2

More pics


#3

You put the whole yoyo into the lathe when you are turning the cup? That’s a pretty cool project! How does it play?


#4

When you have made shell and you have to change something inside the cup, how can you grasp the shell with the spindle? the only way is to take the inside cup of the other shell.

The yo-yo plays very well, has good rotation times and clearly its 70 gr. feel (and everyone may not like it, I particularly love yoyo close to this weight and this is motive why I did so).
at the level of vibrations, are reduced compared to those few that had to be new, are perceptible only to the contact, not the view.
When I started I did not know where I could get (often nowhere, the critical phases are many because it does not take much when you do not have the project or a section in hand, to break the shells, such as removing too much material and make them very weak or breaking them) … it took more than five hours of work, but with a little ‘of calm, a lot of attention and a little’ luck … the result has really exceeded expectations.


#5

That’s pretty cool! And could I make a suggestion? Use arbors when turning the inside of the cup. Not my picture, but I use the exact same things. They provide more rigidity than just grasping the other half of the yoyo. Also, is that a boring bar you are using? If so, what brand is it? I’ve been looking to pick up some higher quality cutting tools.


#6

thanks for the advice (en are always welcome!), however, I am fully aware that that is a way not too “orthodox” to work and the risks involved. If I had to work the aluminum I would not have done it that way but with the plastic I know I can do it safely for the shells, both when I have to work close to the center of gravity (as in this case) both in the riskiest situation, when I have to work on the rim … but my YYJ “mini” Classic is proof that you can still do without any problem … you just have to be very careful and know what you should do (depth of advance, the workpiece speed, etc. .)

I use almost exclusively of Proxxon tools, specifically the kit with code 24555, here it is in the picture, the instrument with which to increase the diameter of the hole is the first at the top, while the tool wherewith I work the façade of the ring is that lower. … are very good tools and good quality, very durable and therefore … also very expensive (I think the kit costs around 130-150$)


#7

another shot and new hubs…


(InvaderDust) #8

Good work man! very cool!


#9

thanks: :wink:


#10

Hi, I was thinking more about what you suggested to me, please You can better explain what you mean?
I do not know if I have misunderstood, the suggestion is to use these bars (arbors) and shaping her face with shape of the bearing seat and response system, screw the shell on it and grab the arbor with the spindle?
If so you are sure that in any case the shell (for example aluminum) it may be machined on its rim or in the outer parts? I think that the vibrations that would be created will prevent this and you risk damaging the shell or its thread.
But maybe I’ve misunderstood your suggested, I do not know.


#11

Arbors are essentially a “negative” of the bearing seat. The arbor touches the bottom of the bearing seat, and also touches the outer wall near the response area, they can be annoying, as you may need to machine a different arbor for different yoyos or companies, as not all bearing seats are made the same. The easiest arbor to make is one for Duncan yoyos. Here is mine on a FH2, arbors secure the yoyo so well, there were absolutely no chatter marks on this cut. The other image is an arbor Luke Vader made for a Difeyo, as you can see, the cuts are very clean as well. His arbors just have a through hole drilled through them and he uses a large threaded rod that goes through the lathe to hold the yoyo. I prefer to just tap the arbor, since my 3 jaw chuck is a pain to remove, you’re best bet is probably to do so as well. The arbors increase rigidity while cutting greatly, and allows the half to spin true on the lathe. I hope this helps! And I am looking forward to seeing what you do with this information!


#12

thank you so much! It has been very clear and comprehensive.
I guessed the right thing.
But the problem is that to have a functional arbor must be an exact negative of the part of the yo-yo with which goes into contact, so that the contact between the two parts (arbor and shell) is total and the same parts behave as a single solid part of the machining forces… to do this there is need to work the arbor with a cnc machine, because often there are curved profiles with a manual lathe like mine are impossible to produce (and in any case also to have a cnc machine, to create a “negative” perfect, you must have accurate data of the “positive”).
Then for yoyo which have a through hole as (many platic yoyo) it is easier and more secure, while aluminum shell with a simple threaded hole it’s getting very delicate, because all the strength that opposes the tool to the part movement that is cutting affects the aluminum shell of the thread, that since the material is very delicate (because it is true that the shell rests totally on the arbor, but what makes them integral is the pressure exerted by the threaded rod (steel) screwed into the axis hole of the shell (aluminum).

Thank you so much for the information, very interesting anyway … it’s still a good thoughtful inspiration to know the experiences of others.


#13

Nice! I want to learn to make a yoyo someday


#14

I was not entirely convinced … the weight was very dysfunctional and so there was still to be done … The distinguishing features of Onestar were few but here we are!


#15

What kind of lathe do you have? :slight_smile: what kind would you recommend? :slight_smile:


#16

I have two lathes benchtop.
the largest has a working area of ​​500 mm and a height of 100 mm work, is a Ceriani David 202, a manual lathe with two-speed automatic advance and is not able to execute threads (for what should be chosen the top model on david 203). The Ceriani is a small highly specialized Italian company, produces only this lathe model (in four versions) since 1972 and I think we can say with confidence that for this product is the company a world leader, not surprisingly to customers in every mainland exports to Europe and beyond in the United States and Asia.
They are very sturdy and objects, made with care and attention of professionals than once … my lathe and was assembled in March of 1987 … and as you see them is still working!
Clearly you pay for quality… my lathe currently list costs about 3,700, the top of the range David 203 Vario over 5,000

http://www.cerianimu.com/en/products/parallel-lathe/david-202

The little one is a Proxxon PD 230E, German brand that produces quality objects (but we are not at the levels of Ceriani, the Proxxon has a setting and a purely industrial structure unlike Ceriani which is very traditional and niche) is a lathe a working area of ​​230 mm and a working height of 50 mm.
The peculiar characteristics of this object are its extreme portability (it weighs only 11 kg !, you move it with one hand … the Ceriani no! It weighs 95 kg) and the fact that beyond a range for each speed range ( moving the belt transmission between the various pulleys), thanks to an electronic potentiometer is possible to set an infinite number of sub-speed.
By contrast, its small sized and lightweight, making it useful only for very small objects work and presents considerably delicate parts (example the turret of the tailstock that is made of alloy and totally hollow.) and not have the fast displacement of the main carriage and this results in a lot of waste of time …

http://www.proxxon.com/us/micromot/34004.php


#17

Very cool. You could call it a “jamfactory 2 star” if you want to put pay homage to yoyojams pioneering work with bi material yoyos and yoyofactorys work with inexpensive, yet high performance yoyos🙂 How does it play in comparison to the regular onestar? Like a protostar perhaps?


#18

Between today and tomorrow, I will try to make a video and I’ll do the picture with my EOS700D … so at least you can see it in a better way (when I work use only the phone, because oil with which lathes are always covered and their hands dirty) .
How to play? plays discreetly but nothing more, the protostar or yoyo like (eg Magicyoyo D5, fantastic!) definitely play better, it the weight of the rings is placed in a better position and more functionally, here is a bit too inside, close to the center of gravity and not by a huge advantage.
Compared to the original Onestar plays a little better, but nothing shocking, considering all the work done (but Aesthetically speaking, however I think I’ve got a really beautiful yoyo!). I would say that basically does not worth it … but it was not the goal I set myself prefix and at the end I managed to have no one but two successes.
The first is that you have not got a worse object to the original and this is not a thing at all obvious!
The second, the most important, was to confront various critical stages of the process, have them run at their best and have been successful in all of them.
these stages were:

  • Lightening the weight of the cups: when working on objects that you do not know the project, sections, thicknesses is always very delicate going to remove material, it takes little to exaggerate and broken the piece … there are tools to measure the thickness, I a micrometer hundredths but not always the most get to where you need to measure.
  • Creation of the Rings: here the problem was not so much create two identical rings with each other and of the same weight but realize them with a tolerance such as to allow the exact placement of the housing shell, not too excessive as to prevent the correct entry or vice versa to prevent the correct anchor. The problem is that the do not ability to tests… you have only one possibility, only “right first time” or otherwise you have to redo the rings (if too small) or you have to throw away the shell if too large because trying to insert the rings cut and drag them under the plastic
  • Inclusion of the Rings: admitted he guessed the right measures the sida has not ended because forcibly insert rings in the shells is not a simple operation … at least put them straight! in this case the first ring came perfectly, I almost amazed at so easily … but the difficulty which saved me the first has presented me with interest the second … entered wrong three times and only the fourth we managed to insert it properly; I sweated cold for a few minutes and the frustration of seeing the whole job (4-5 hours) thrown away is not pleasant (something already happened many times)

With all this sermon I want to explain and reason about absolute and total difference of approach to work you have using the manual lathe than the CNC lathe.
With manual lathe is not designed before the piece on the computer, already knowing when I will get weight, that thicknesses I have, etc.
with manual lathe critical phases will not run in the “virtual world” and then we start with the real work with almost total security of the result … that is why it probably I has appeared often argumentative, because sometimes I read things that do not the slightest sense, written by people who are considered the Masters, Gurus … but that’s another story that has nothing to do with this. :stuck_out_tongue:

P.S. yoyojam is realy Master in this world!

P.S.2 in the video of Ceriani, which I imagine you will not understand, being Italian, the owner of the company (with which you can directly talk if the phone, he always answers!) explains the different models available (David 201 with manual advance, David 202 Automatic with automatic advance in 2-speed, David 203 with gearbox Semi-Norton with automatic advance to 4 speed and ability to thread and David 203 Vario some as 203 Semi-Norton but with the inverter and a much greater range of speeds), explains that totalemente parts are made in two Italian smelters (larger parts and structural in Gavardo, the smallest in Cellatica) and in the end it makes you see a cut of the material with the advance that their thicknesses, under normal conditions they do not even with a lathe to 20-25 quintals, and all without vibration or problems.