Schedule a Meeting · Talk to a real woodworker: +1 937-890-5197 · 8:00AM – 4:30PM ET

Events Forum Live Demo

A view on alignment of the shopsmith.

algale

Very interesting point by Scott of My Growth Rings on why he never puts a fence on a left side extension table. He points out that the assembly has a ton of movement even locked. Check out the video.

dusty

algale wrote
Very interesting point by Scott of My Growth Rings on why he never puts a fence on a left side extension table. He points out that the assembly has a ton of movement even locked. Check out the video. https://youtu.be/2iQ9GiiwHo4?t=460

Yes, when the tie bar is not locked down in the proper position there is either misalignment or unwanted but preventable movement.

Sooo...

Don't operate the machine without the headrest being locked in place and properly centered (aligned). This is just another discussion about the tubes being "twisted" (someone else's words).

A long, long time ago, while working to resolve the perceived interchangeable extension table issue, I made a simple jig to help ensure that the Bench Tubes were properly positioned with respect to the Way Tubes. I guarantee that with this jig captured between the Ways and Bench Tubes at the left end of the machine - there is minimal if any movement.

JPG

algale wrote Very interesting point by Scott of My Growth Rings on why he never puts a fence on a left side extension table. He points out that the assembly has a ton of movement even locked. Check out the video.

I am amazed that he would have the tie rod clamp so loose(when clamped) that all that play was possible.

I think that was 'staged'.

dusty

After seeing this I had to check my own machines. Yes, there is a bit of movement in Scott's machine but was it locked If it was locked the lock needs to be adjusted. There should not be that much movement.

My other exception to his statements involve table to blade alignment. When the tubes are moved, as he did, everything changes position. The headstock (thus the blade) and the carriage (thus the table) move together (assuming they too are locked).

I think Scott did a disservice to the Shopsmith with this video.

DLB

dusty wrote I think Scott did a disservice to the Shopsmith with this video.

I agree his headrest latch seemed very loose, or unlocked, I also agree that there can be some repeatability error when engaging at the headrest. Scott correctly mentions that that those comments do not apply to Mark VII ('60s version) and Mark 7 (current). They also don't apply to any Mark 5/V with the Double-Tilt Base Upgrade 556210. Bottom line to me is that if you think it is a problem there is an upgrade solution.

I'd like to see Shopsmith offer a couple of DT options other than the whole thing. A single DT Base and Pivot Arm would allow elimination of the Headrest, though the machine would only tilt one way. A pair of those without the double rack main table tubes is also an option, one can reverse the main table tilt by reversing the carriage. Either of these would also work with a 500 or pre-500 and would be less expensive than the current offering.

Two cents worth, but for me there is value in the DT that has nothing to do with under table operations. Unlike Scott, I regularly use a second extension table and have the expectation that it will be well aligned every time whether I'm using a fence or just want the connector tubes aligned correctly. I have a complete DT upgrade on one machine and a pair of shop-made DT bases but no double rack main table on my shorty. I think both are significant improvements, at the cost that you must remove any SPT when going into vertical drill press mode.

- David

RFGuy

DLB wrote
dusty wrote I think Scott did a disservice to the Shopsmith with this video.
I agree his headrest latch seemed very loose, or unlocked, I also agree that there can be some repeatability error when engaging at the headrest. Scott correctly mentions that that those comments do not apply to Mark VII ('60s version) and Mark 7 (current). They also don't apply to any Mark 5/V with the Double-Tilt Base Upgrade 556210. Bottom line to me is that if you think it is a problem there is an upgrade solution.

I'd like to see Shopsmith offer a couple of DT options other than the whole thing. A single DT Base and Pivot Arm would allow elimination of the Headrest, though the machine would only tilt one way. A pair of those without the double rack main table tubes is also an option, one can reverse the main table tilt by reversing the carriage. Either of these would also work with a 500 or pre-500 and would be less expensive than the current offering.

Two cents worth, but for me there is value in the DT that has nothing to do with under table operations. Unlike Scott, I regularly use a second extension table and have the expectation that it will be well aligned every time whether I'm using a fence or just want the connector tubes aligned correctly. I have a complete DT upgrade on one machine and a pair of shop-made DT bases but no double rack main table on my shorty. I think both are significant improvements, at the cost that you must remove any SPT when going into vertical drill press mode.

- David

It did seem excessive in Scott's video, but I just took it as he was trying to make a point about how bad it "could" be.

That is an interesting thought about them offering a subset of the DT upgrade. I would be interested, if it would stiffen up everything for alignment or woodturning. Unfortunately Shopsmith wants $529 for this upgrade which seems excessive to me for just a couple of Al castings, locking pins, etc. Did they switch from Al to Au for these castings???

DLB

RFGuy wrote Did they switch from Al to Au for these castings???

The kit is gold plated for sure. New Accessory Locking Handles? Mine were good for at least another 50 years. And the old base could be modified instead of replaced, I think the only difference is a longer hinge pin with "E" clips on the outside. Easier than replacing it.

- David

thedovetailjoint

JPG wrote
algale wrote Very interesting point by Scott of My Growth Rings on why he never puts a fence on a left side extension table. He points out that the assembly has a ton of movement even locked. Check out the video.
I am amazed that he would have the tie rod clamp so loose(when clamped) that all that play was possible.

I think that was 'staged'.

I can assure you that nothing was staged in the video. I have all of my Mark V's adjusted the same way I had all of the Mark V's adjusted for years in the Dayton Academy. If you leave your SS jointer mounted, as I do, you will find that the level must be properly adjusted or you won't be able to raise the lever high enough to allow the machine to be listed into the drill press position. It could be made tighter, but then it won't lift with the jointer in place. This is a known characteristic of the Mark V, which is why we never mounted a fence on an extension table mounted on the left end. There are also similar reasons why you should not mount the fence on a floating table on the 510 but can on a floating table on the 520, but that's for another discussion. Scott (AKA: Scott from MyGrowthRings)

thedovetailjoint

dusty wrote My other exception to his statements involve table to blade alignment. When the tubes are moved, as he did, everything changes position. The headstock (thus the blade) and the carriage (thus the table) move together (assuming they too are locked).

I think Scott did a disservice to the Shopsmith with this video.

I believe you misunderstand my position, but that is likely my fault. If the way tubes are twisted and the table is alighted to the blade and then the adjustment to the headrest set screw is made, the table and blade will be slightly thrown out of alignment. It really depends upon how much adjustment is done. Scott

dusty

thedovetailjoint wrote
dusty wrote My other exception to his statements involve table to blade alignment. When the tubes are moved, as he did, everything changes position. The headstock (thus the blade) and the carriage (thus the table) move together (assuming they too are locked).

I think Scott did a disservice to the Shopsmith with this video.
I believe you misunderstand my position, but that is likely my fault. If the way tubes are twisted and the table is alighted to the blade and then the adjustment to the headrest set screw is made, the table and blade will be slightly thrown out of alignment. It really depends upon how much adjustment is done. Scott

Yes, if anything that contributes to the proper alignment is disturbed (like pulling and pushing on an unlocked tie bar) the validity of the alignment is in jeopardy. I believe you made that point well and I believe that experienced users know that.

The disservice in my mind was in demonstrating that movement when what was really being demonstrated was the function of the "big set screw". If the headrest had been properly locked that movement would not have been possible.

How many users or potential users perceive that that movement is typical. Experienced users know that when the headrest is properly adjusted and locked it is rock solid; not what was demonstrated.

DLB

Right now I think that Dusty and Scott are both talking about a 'properly adjusted headrest lever lock' but each has a different definition of what that means. Or at least that's how I'm interpreting it.

- David

dusty

algale wrote Very interesting point by Scott of My Growth Rings on why he never puts a fence on a left side extension table. He points out that the assembly has a ton of movement even locked. Check out the video.

When locked the assembly does not have a ton of movement(as demonstrated in the video). I consider it to be rock solid (when locked). Unlocked it does have movement as demonstrated in the video.

JPG

I do not understand what table to blade alignment changes with a twisting of the way tubes. The twist will result in the table top surface varying from horizontal front to rear. As Dusty pointed out the blade and table move(twist) together.

Neither do I understand the tie bar clamp being not allowed to perform it's function by leaving the adjustment sloppy so as to allow that side to side movement demonstrated in the video when it is "clamped". Nor have I experienced the lever interference with the jointer.

I do not doubt Scott's experience regarding this, but have not experienced this myself in almost 60 years. I can assure all that my Goldie clamp does clamp very tightly. Raising to vertical has never been a problem with the jointer mounted. Seems like a scenario similar to the bandsaw table clearance when raising. :D

RFGuy

JPG wrote Neither do I understand the tie bar clamp being not allowed to perform it's function by leaving the adjustment sloppy so as to allow that side to side movement demonstrated in the video when it is "clamped". Nor have I experienced the lever interference with the jointer.

I agree that the movement shown in Scott's video looked excessive to me, but having said this I see movement on my Mark V with the tie bar clamp tightened fully and clamped down. I can get the tie bar to move at least +- 1/8". It is not a lot, but it does have some play. Perhaps there has been some design or manufacturing tweaks to this part of the Mark V over the years, e.g. less movement/variation on the Goldie's, etc.?

DLB

RFGuy wrote ...I see movement on my Mark V with the tie bar clamp tightened fully and clamped down. I can get the tie bar to move at least +- 1/8". It is not a lot, but it does have some play. Perhaps there has been some design or manufacturing tweaks to this part of the Mark V over the years, e.g. less movement/variation on the Goldie's, etc.?

What is the manufacturing time frame of yours? I know they changed the Base end (again) probably late 90's or very early 2K's, when they put the setscrews on top and more accessible, plus smaller diameter hinge pin IIRC, held with an E-Clip. I'm not sure about the Headrest, but a change in the same time-frame seems plausible.

- David

RFGuy

DLB wrote What is the manufacturing time frame of yours? I know they changed the Base end (again) probably late 90's or very early 2K's, when they put the setscrews on top and more accessible, plus smaller diameter hinge pin IIRC, held with an E-Clip. I'm not sure about the Headrest, but a change in the same time-frame seems plausible.

- David

Thanks David. Manufactured on 3/23/1998

DLB

RFGuy wrote Thanks David. Manufactured on 3/23/1998

Does the Headrest have the asymmetry where the SPT lock goes as shown in this thread: https://forum.shopsmith.com/viewtopic.php?p=264538#p264538 ?That was on '04 but I have since seen it in an earlier one, '01 I think. That would appear to confirm a different casting in comparison to ~ '91. I for sure have one of those I can look at, it is no longer mounted to anything.

- David

RFGuy

DLB wrote
RFGuy wrote
Thanks David. Manufactured on 3/23/1998

Does the Headrest have the asymmetry where the SPT lock goes as shown in this thread: https://forum.shopsmith.com/viewtopic.php?p=264538#p264538 ?That was on '04 but I have since seen it in an earlier one, '01 I think. That would appear to confirm a different casting in comparison to ~ '91. I for sure have one of those I can look at, it is no longer mounted to anything.

David

David,

Thanks. It looks like I do as well. Below is a picture. I tried to measure it with my calipers, but it is awkward since the calipers don't fit between the two. I get a depth of 0.1725" on one side and 0.1550" on the other.

dusty

It seems to me as though two different locking methods are being discussed.

One secures the SPT legs in the bores while the other

secures the tie bar by pulling it toward the base casting.

Both are adjustable.

DLB

dusty wrote It seems to me as though two different locking methods are being discussed.

We weren't discussing SPT locking, just using this to identify the Headrest in question. RFGuy suggested the possibility that his Headrest tie bar lock might not perform as well as the older ones. My first thought that was that the Headrest hadn't changed in a long time, but I remembered this asymmetry which suggests to me that at a minimum a new casting was created, and that there is a visible way of identifying the newer ones. You are right, the asymmetry itself has nothing to do with locking the tie bar but can impact locking accessories. Users may need to change how they preset their SPT locks, creating a bias to offset for the asymmetry.

My thinking was (is) to see if RFGuy has this version of Headrest (now confirmed) and then see if there are any differences that might have something to do with tie bar locking.

- David

« Previous Page Next Page »