Concerning Table saw upgrades, I have a question

[paulmcohen]

Dusty
My ideal machine would be a 520 with a 510 fence.

Ed do you not use the T-Slots? I use them for almost every cut (for hold-downs) plus it is impossible to move the 520 fence no matter how much you push on it. Lastly I use the rip fence ruler for most of my cuts at least to get close.

[dusty]

I did not realize that the holes into which the rail studs are inserted were large enough to allow that much movement. It is possible that someone drilled out those holes in an effort to make the rails adjustable. In my opinion, that would have been a big mistake.

I absolutely cannot understand your preference for the 510 fence over the 520. The 520 is a dream to assemble, align and to use. The 510, again in my opinion, is quite adequate but is certainly not better than the 520.

I have both and I use then both regularly so it is not like I might have forgotten what one of them was like.

[JPG]

Dusty
On my machine what you call an assembly procedure in the first paragraph produced as much as 1/4" difference in table heights for me. When using two floaters and considering the main table and aux table I had at least 8 assembly procedure points that had to be checked and double checked to insure they were all the same. If i messed up and got the side tightening shaft below the center line of the connecting tube and bumped the machine it could drop to above the center line droping the table surface 1/16 - 1/8 inch.

With the 520 I don't have to do any of this once the fence rail is set to the table with the SS supplied guage which is done once on installation. All I have to do is slide the connector tube into my main fence rail, slide on the aux table and install the aux table and I know every table top will be at exactly the same height and in the same plane.

I would never never never never never own another 510. I would upgrade it in a New York minute. Incidentally I actually liked the 510 fence better than the 520 but to me they both do what I ask of them.

My ideal machine would be a 520 with a 510 fence.

Adjusting rails to the table. Hmmmm The original 510 had tapped holes in the table, tight fitting screws with counter sink heads. Adjustment not possible!

My 510 is still scattered(parts here, there, everywhere) so I do not know if it was better than the later version. I suspect the second version provided the incentive for the 20. I do think the knurled thumbscrews were a necessary change(the small ones with the holes for the 5/32" universal tool kit created dimpling of the tubes.

Being used to the 500 fence, I perceive the 520 as being too big/heavy(sorta like the table/trunion being MUCH heavier than the 500). Jigs mount quite nicely with the two screw holes(like the jointer fence). T-slots are nice, but c-clamps work also!

[dusty]

Ed do you not use the T-Slots? I use them for almost every cut (for hold-downs) plus it is impossible to move the 520 fence no matter how much you push on it. Lastly I use the rip fence ruler for most of my cuts at least to get close.

Pictures and product names please. I am interested in the accessories you have found (or made) that fit in the t-track. Hold downs are of particular interest.

[charlese]

In all of the above disparities regarding likes and dis-likes - There is at least one of them that leaves me wondering.

Why is there concern over alignment of floating tables? They can be slightly canted or a little off from perfectly level with the saw table, and that has never posed a problem for me in sawing or giving me any other concern. Their function has only been to provide support to a larger workpiece. There has never been enough "mis-level" to affect the relation between the saw blade and the saw table.

If this mis-alignment concern is over proper alignment of the rip fence, when it is used on a floating table - this can be easily be dismissed by method of attachment to extension tubes. If when attaching a 510 floating table to the tubes- the front tube must be connected first. The back rail only needs to be snugged. (In fact, only the front rail needs to be connected in many cases.) This will align the front rail of the floater to the front rail of the saw table and the rip fence will run true. I have one floating table where when attached to the front extension tube the rip fence is not parallel to the sawdust relief slots on the table top, but the fence is parallel to the saw blade.

[paulmcohen]

This fits on the 520 with the adapter
http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/catalog/swd_auxiliaryfencekit.htm

521107
Fence Straddler

555808
Flip-Up Rip Fence Stop -- Model 520 OnlyPrice $44.09

52170802
Extra Stop -- Model 520 OnlyPrice $14.27

I also have my own auxillary fences using to T-connect attached it the side of the fence.
http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/catalog/np_jigsfixturesD.htm

[JPG]

[quote="charlese"]In all of the above disparities regarding likes and dis-likes - There is at least one of them that leaves me wondering.

Why is there concern over alignment of floating tables? They can be slightly canted or a little off from perfectly level with the saw table, and that has never posed a problem for me in sawing or giving me any other concern. Their function has only been to provide support to a larger workpiece. There has never been enough "mis-level" to affect the relation between the saw blade and the saw table.

If this mis-alignment concern is over proper alignment of the rip fence, when it is used on a floating table - this can be easily be dismissed by method of attachment to extension tubes. If when attaching a 510 floating table to the tubes- the front tube must be connected first. The back rail only needs to be snugged. (In fact, only the front rail needs to be connected in many cases.) This will align the front rail of the floater to the front rail of the saw table and the rip fence will run true. I have one floating table where when attached to the front extension tube the rip fence is not parallel to the sawdust relief slots on the table top, but the fence is parallel to the saw blade.[/quote]


Which means the rail is not perpendicular to the relief slots! I agree - so what!;)

I believe all the consternation is regarding table top height alignment.

[Ed in Tampa]

Ed do you not use the T-Slots? I use them for almost every cut (for hold-downs) plus it is impossible to move the 520 fence no matter how much you push on it. Lastly I use the rip fence ruler for most of my cuts at least to get close.

I rarely if ever use the T-slot in the fence. Most of my jigs stradle the fence. or are bolted to it.

The reason I like the 510 fence is I have absolutely no problem aligning parallel to my blade. If I moved it I turned the tightening wing nut and instantly the fence was in perfect alignment.

On the 520 I constantly catch my fence locked down out of parallel. I know everyone tells me it is technique but I evidently don't have the technique because I fight this every time I move the fence.

[Ed in Tampa]

In all of the above disparities regarding likes and dis-likes - There is at least one of them that leaves me wondering.

Why is there concern over alignment of floating tables? They can be slightly canted or a little off from perfectly level with the saw table, and that has never posed a problem for me in sawing or giving me any other concern. Their function has only been to provide support to a larger workpiece. There has never been enough "mis-level" to affect the relation between the saw blade and the saw table.

If this mis-alignment concern is over proper alignment of the rip fence, when it is used on a floating table - this can be easily be dismissed by method of attachment to extension tubes. If when attaching a 510 floating table to the tubes- the front tube must be connected first. The back rail only needs to be snugged. (In fact, only the front rail needs to be connected in many cases.) This will align the front rail of the floater to the front rail of the saw table and the rip fence will run true. I have one floating table where when attached to the front extension tube the rip fence is not parallel to the sawdust relief slots on the table top, but the fence is parallel to the saw blade.

Chuck I don't like my table tops to be be in different planes with one higher than the other. First if you slide anything on the table top it will hang or catch when it come to the joint. Doing things like biscuits or dowel joints the difference in height can be transferred into the joint. If the difference isn't caught and you cut with one end of you board can be 1/4 inch higher than the end against the blade. This will cause the cut to be on a bevel which is not good if you are edge joining the boards. Also any hole drilled in the wood that spans the seam between the main table and aux can be 1/4 inch higher at one end. When you drill a hole it was be done on a slight angle.

Those things make me crazy.


The problem is the slop in the connector tube and fence rail. All my connector tubes when pushed into the fence rail could move up or down in the fence rail.

On the 510 you locked the connector in the fence rail by tightening the knurled wheel which drove a stud against the connector tube. It contacted the connector tube almost mid line on the tube. If the tube was lifted up and kurled wheel tighten the table was setting with the connector tube at the very top of the fence rail. If the tube was pushed down and the knurled with tighten then connector tube was pushed to bottom of the fence rail. On my machine this differnce was about 1/8 inch. Now combine two tables one where the connector tube is at the bottom of the fence rail and the other where the connector tube is at the top and you have a difference of almost 1/4 which will effect any cut or hole drilled if the wood spans the table seam.

I was forever trying to level the tables tightening and untightening the knurled locking wheel. It seemed with every height change I had to adjust the connector tubes within the fence rails over and over to get it right.

I finally stopped using my SS. I didn't start using it again until I saw the 520 at Lowes on demo and saw the problem had been corrected. That was enough for to pay the ridiculous upgrade charge and move up to the 520.

I hate the 510 so much I would never own another.

[JPG]

Having both versions of the 510 rails, I observe the following:

With both versions, when the screw clamp is tightened the connector tube is pushed towards the center outside of the rail. Thus they tend to be self aligning to that height center.

The newer version has larger id rails(thinner rail wall thickness) which greatly increases the 'slop' of the tubes inside the rail. This increases the potential for upsy downsy action as Ed has described. However the self aligning still tries to take place.

Both versions are clamped by a single lock screw in the center of the rail.

The newer version with more 'slop' can tilt(up on one side, down on the opposite side) by pivoting about that locking screw much more than the older(smaller id) rail. Yes it can be as much as 1/4" with the newer sloppier version.

The newer version is attached by studs welded to the rails that fit into drilled holes in the table front and rear. There is considerable slop in those holes(1/32 or more) and can be another source of both height differences and canting.

These observations were done without any other external force applied.

I believe that having newer style rails necessitates a height adjustment as Dusty has already described so as to eliminate(hopefully) the variation between all tables(main/aux/floating).

This adjustment is I observe also necessary on the 520(I like Dusty's method better than the ss gauge approach. Gotta have a very flat workbench top though!;)