[Elecraft] K3 as a kit

[Alexey Kats]

Wayne,

I totally understand that the idea of making a large SMD project as a kit
would be a disaster - only handful of people would be able to finish
assembling it, plus the sheer cost of packing parts and replacing
missing/lost pieces would probably double the average real-life cost of the
kit (after all, I am still amazed that you offer replacement of missing
parts at no charge, even for shipping). And with HAMs getting older the
critical piece needed is the eyesight, and for SMD the poor eyesight is a
killer. It wouldn't had been a good idea to cut older people off their hobby
like this.

I know you are right. And I am happy that K3 exists and is a top-notch
performer. I was simply nostalgic about more involving building process.

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Wayne Burdick <n6kr at elecraft.com> wrote:

> Alexy,
>
> When we first started designing the K3, we agonized over the question of
> whether to offer a "full" kit version -- one that required a lot of
> soldering. But it quickly became apparent that this was incompatible with
> other goals for the radio. We needed to use surface-mount devices throughout
> in order to meet performance, size, and weight goals. An all through-hole
> version, or even a "half-through-hole" version, would have been twice as
> large and simply too expensive to be a successful product.
>
> Small kits using SMDs are great, and I highly recommend that anyone
> interested in surface-mount technology try their hand at building one. There
> are many SMD kit projects available from QRP clubs, etc.
>
> But a kit with many hundreds of SMDs would be a support disaster. The parts
> are easy to lose, and hard for many people to install. Fine-pitch SMD ICs
> are a challenge to install even for very experienced builders with excellent
> equipment. Aligning and testing such a kit would require a lot of lab gear.
>
> So we accepted the notion that a radio like the K3, as a kit, would require
> a higher level of integration. There was an existence proof for the utility
> of such kits: do-it-yourself PCs. Many companies offer modules that can be
> put together with a motherboard to create a computer with nearly any level
> of performance and features. There are probably hundreds of thousands of
> people who have built PCs this way, and clearly many of them enjoy doing so.
>
> The K3 kit may lack solder, but it is still a very "hands-on" experience:
>
> - there are hundreds of parts involved, including modules, controls,
> hardware, multi-part enclosure, etc.; the kit takes around 8 hours to
> complete
>
> - the K3 has built-in test equipment that the builder learns about and uses
> as they go
>
> - the builder becomes very aware of the various stages and modules needed
> to make a radio, and can delve further into the theory of operation or
> schematics if desired
>
> - modifying or updating the K3 is easier once you've been through the
> experience
>
> Up until the last minute, we worried that we might have a mutiny on our
> hands among "full-kit" devotees. But only two of them complained, at least
> publicly, so we breathed a huge sigh of relief. You now have the distinction
> of being #3 on my list of those who like the idea of building their own
> advanced radio completely from scratch, should we ever have the courage to
> explore that path :)
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Alexey Kats wrote:
>
>  Thank you, I agree, the price of basic K3 is in the same range as of
>> loaded
>> K2 (a bit more, but still comparable). The thing is I like to BUILD stuff,
>> and I always compare the cost of buying equipment against the fun of
>> building it with my own two hands.
>>
>> So, when it comes down to cost-to-performance analysis - K3 wins hands
>> down.
>> It's only when one tries to justify the "kit" form it starts making little
>> to no sense unless the only thing is saving the money part.
>>
>


-- 
Alexey Kats (neko)