Hi.
I’m really interested in buying the beamspring but I saw a comment on chryosrans tear down video that mentions that the reason why the original switches feel so great is because of the height and making them shorter would change the keyfeel. I would upload a screenshot but the website keeps telling me that I dont have permission to upload anything so I will quote the comment below.
“Making them shorter is a really stupid idea given that the smoothness of the mechanism directly depends on the tangent of the down-force applied by the finger against the outer wall, and that increases super-linearly and then super-exponentially as the switch height is shortened. He’s literally killing the most important part of the switch.”
Can you confirm if this is true or not considering the commenter didn’t provide a source?
Thanks.
These kinds of discussions always seem like a lost cause to me– when you’re pressing keys on the original boards, you’re feeling characteristics of not only the original manufacturing specs, but you’re also feeling years of use as well. Old boards that have hundreds of thousands of key presses over decades are not going to feel the same as that EXACT same board did when it was new!
The fact that it’s 2023 and we have NEW boards being made is nothing short of a miracle. I’d say to anyone interested in these should just go for it, experience it. Years from now these boards will be spoken of in the same way. 🙂
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
Sorry I can’t notice much of a real-world difference in smoothness to try to prove their point. I have some thoughts below but in summary, the travel, force, and smoothness were designed to match the originals as closely as possible. I am pressing both original and new modules next to each other, one right after the other.
The surface area of the parts of the beam barrel part B that contact the outer wall are 96% identical between the old and new. The two parts making contact are primarily the cylindrical part that actually contacts the outer wall towards the top of the beam module, and to a far lesser degree the “legs.”
Even though the original beam barrel part B (the white color part) is taller, it does not contact any more area of the beam barrel part A. The depth of the cylinder of part A is the same between old and new. Towards the bottom of the module, the original has longer “legs” but the vast majority of the length is tapered off, so it is not actively contacting the walls of the module part A (the black color part of the module). The originals have about 2mm more of non-tapered legs height, but the surface area reduction of the legs is far smaller than that of the unchanged area of the cylindrical hole of part A that contacts part B. 4.45mm radius, 8.9mm part A cylinder height = 249mm lateral surface area for both old and new. Surface area of original legs contacting part A: 5.3×2.2mmx2 legs=23.32 square mm compared to the new parts 3.0×2.2×2 legs=13.2mm. 249+23.32=272.32 square mm surface area making contact for the originals and 249+13.2mm=262.2 square mm for the new modules. The new modules have about 96% of the surface area of the originals by my calculations.
My understanding is that the difference between the modules is effectively parts that do not interface with each other while the module is pressed. The key module is shorter because the large metal part that goes inside the module is no longer required since the module was updated to use MX type keys.
The commenter made some additional comments to hypothesize that the overall height between the top of the key and the location of the beam metal part attached to part B affects the smoothness but I have found that to be incorrect through my direct real-world testing of new and old modules.
I recommend going with Round 2 if you are most particular with the modules, as the tolerances and materials are being improved as detailed in the forum thread.
However, if you are worried about the beam project being a precise reproduction (it is not, as I have mentioned many times on the forums; this is different from the F project which was a repro of the exact design), I would suggest purchasing an original IBM one at about double the price. Prices of the originals have come down a lot since the new beam spring project launch – some were selling for $2000 not too long ago. For example the sound and snappiness will never be the same and some folks will be able to notice a difference. For the full experience, go with the full original.