Concerning Table saw upgrades, I have a question

[Ed in Tampa]

My 510 tables never self aligned when I tightens the lock wheel.

I would constantly have to loosen the nut and lift up on the table or push down on the tube to get every fence rail in the the same relationship with the connecting tube.

[JPG]

My 510 tables never self aligned when I tightens the lock wheel.

I would constantly have to loosen the nut and lift up on the table or push down on the tube to get every fence rail in the the same relationship with the connecting tube.

I concur the 'self aligning' forces are weak compared to lifting/pushing, but with only the tubes supporting the floating tables, the weight of the table is not enough to prevent the alignment. I can see a terrible sequence of 'tweaking' that would take place as differing loads are applied to different 'parts', and sequence of tightening making results vary.

I think the second version of the 510 was a mistake that was corrected with the 520.

[Ed in Tampa]

I would say it a little different the 510 was a mistake that got corrected with 520

[JPG]

I would say it a little different the 510 was a mistake that got corrected with 520

Perhaps, Why else did they change the first version(sadly not an improvementIMHO).

The original really has less problems, but there are not very many that I see out there(e-bay,cl).

Trick is to not try to create a setup using both versions.

[dusty]

I have been in a debate (with myself) about converting a 520 Floating Table back to a 510 configuration so that I could honestly participate in this discussion. Since I have no floaters configured for the 510, I will just have to listen to what others say.

As I said earlier, I do not believe I have experienced the stated difficulties with alignment of the floaters AND I still do not believe that the locking knobs are intended to be "alignment" tools.

[dusty]

Perhaps, Why else did they change the first version(sadly not an improvementIMHO).

The original really has less problems, but there are not very many that I see out there(e-bay,cl).

Trick is to not try to create a setup using both versions.

Does the original 510 configuration really have so many "problem features" if maintained consistent with the original design OR do the problems show up only when before and after hardware gets comingled?

Can a user who has not been alerted of the "possible problems" have a chance of recognizing the hardware differences? I really do not know. I have an assortment of 510 table parts from three or four different sources but I am unable to see an deviations.

[JPG]

Does the original 510 configuration really have so many "problem features" if maintained consistent with the original design OR do the problems show up only when before and after hardware gets comingled?

Can a user who has not been alerted of the "possible problems" have a chance of recognizing the hardware differences? I really do not know. I have an assortment of 510 table parts from three or four different sources but I am unable to see an deviations.

First a reply to the previous post. The thumbscrews are not an obvious centering device, but when the end contacts the tube, it pushes the tube against the opposite side of the rail. Further movement of the screw causes the tube to ride towards the point furthest away. That point is the vertical center of the rail. Sufficient force(up or down) could cause the screw to become wedged above/below the TUBE center and cause it to not be centered to the rail.


It is the second iteration(more common) that has 'problems'. The id was increased(od kept the same) by way of a thinner rail tube. The original 510 had very little slop between the tube and the inside of the rail.

The only problem 'fixed' was the replacing of the small thumbscrews(with ss universal tool kit holes) with larger ones. with no holes. The original screws were capable of dimpling the tubes when cranked down on with the ssutk used as a lever in those holes.

The replacement of the tapped holes in the tables with through holes,and the studs and nuts replacing the original counter sunk(self aligning) mounting screws created the rail to table top alignment problem.

As far as determining the version of a used part, there are three things to look for. 1) The thumb screws 2) The nuts under the table 3) The holes in the face of the rail that provides access to the mounting screws.

I will take some pix and post them later.

[JPG]

510 early production, later production differences in tables and rails.

[ATTACH]13996[/ATTACH]

This is the most obvious difference. The holes are to allow access to the screws that attach the rails to the table front and rear. The earlier table is tapped as you will see in the next pix.

[ATTACH]13997[/ATTACH]

Notice the difference in the thumb screws that tighten the table rails to the connecting tubes. The early version(on the right) had smaller diameter thumbscrews. Notice the ss universal tool kit lever holes.

Also notice the later version has nuts securing the rails to the table. The rails have threaded studs that pass through holes in the table edge and a nut with a captive lockwasher is used.

The early version(on the right) appears smaller in the pix since it is further from the camera.

[JPG]

[attach]13998[/attach]

The two tables are adjusted to be the same height when tubes are centered to the rails.

[attach]13999[/attach] [attach]14000[/attach]

The earlier version with the tube loose(on the left) and the tube tight(on the right). The thumbscrew is pushing from the right side in the pix.



[attach]14001[/attach] [attach]14002[/attach]

The later version also loose(left) and tight(right). The thumbscrew is pushing from the left side in the pix.


Notice the greater tube to rail slop with the later version. The connecting tubes are essentially 1.00" od. The early rails have an id of about 1.025 whereas the later version has an id of about 1.062 due to the thinner rail wall thickness..