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

Bandsaw Table Installation and Alignment

reible

Of course you have fixed the shopsmith main table in drill press mode to be level? Everyone of my machines were no where near level front to back when I checked them. I now most people don't do that particular alignment so it doesn't get much discussion. Just don't assume you are level, like I said that has not ever been the case on shopsmiths I have owned or set up.

By memory it is the outfeed side that turns out low, but it has been a while..........

Ed

JPG

OK I'se got my head where it doesn't belong. Fergit the relative orientation of the main table to the bandsaw table. :o

chapmanruss

JPG,

I consider it forgotten. You know a lot more about the Shopsmith tools than I do in a lot of respects so I was confused by your comment.

Ed,

My Mark 7 is aligned in drill press mode for the Main Table. It is the first alignment I do on all my Shopsmith restorations too. Your comment

By memory it is the outfeed side that turns out low, but it has been a while..........

Are you referring to the Mark's main table or the Bandsaw?

JPG

chapmanruss wrote JPG,

I consider it forgotten. You know a lot more about the Shopsmith tools than I do in a lot of respects so I was confused by your comment.

. . .

Not as confused as I. :rolleyes:

dusty

I doubt that it will happen in my life time but this sort of confusion would be less likely to occur if WE ALL would stick to the subject of a thread.

If it seems necessary to change topics - open a new thread and reference back.

The topic here was Bandsaw Table Installation and Alignment but WE ended talking about Main Table Alignment in Drill Press Mode.

Hard not to get confused - Easy to confuse someone else.

chapmanruss

Sorry Dusty,

I am guilty of meandering off topic as one thing starts to relate to another. So for those Mark table alignment comments they can continue on the new thread you started "Main Table Alignment in Drill Press Mode." That aside I hope we cleared up the use of the Mark's Main Table's use as an extra support for the Bandsaw so there is no need to explain it further here. With that we can get back to talking about the Bandsaw Table Installation and Alignment as the thread title suggests.

Later this week I hope to have time to check my other two Bandsaws and add the findings here. How the tables are mounted, what if anything is OEM or non-OEM as per the Manuals.

reible

Actually it is relevant. If you intend to use the bandsaw and the main table together they can have issues depending on how they are set up. If you want the bandsaw to work that way then you might adjust the table different then blade to table.

Like I have mentioned I don't think people normally do the drill press alignment. My original shopsmith which the only new one I have had was not setup at the factory that way and I have done 6 more machines that were used and none of them were adjusted that way. The error is small but when you want to do things right you should also include that adjustment.

Now with the main table adjusted how close is the bandsaw table to that if that is important to you? If you never use the main table or other tables outside of the one on the bandsaw this can never be an issue but if you do then it time to look at the whole picture. If nothing else you should be aware of it.

Ed

dusty

reible wrote Actually it is relevant. If you intend to use the bandsaw and the main table together they can have issues depending on how they are set up. If you want the bandsaw to work that way then you might adjust the table different then blade to table.

Like I have mentioned I don't think people normally do the drill press alignment. My original shopsmith which the only new one I have had was not setup at the factory that way and I have done 6 more machines that were used and none of them were adjusted that way. The error is small but when you want to do things right you should also include that adjustment.

Now with the main table adjusted how close is the bandsaw table to that if that is important to you? If you never use the main table or other tables outside of the one on the bandsaw this can never be an issue but if you do then it time to look at the whole picture. If nothing else you should be aware of it.

Ed

If I need to use the Main Table as an extension of the band saw table, the Main Table needs to be raised almost as far as it will go. The bottom end of the main table legs disappear upward into the carriage when the main table becomes coplanar with the band saw table.

dusty

chapmanruss wrote Sorry Dusty,

I am guilty of meandering off topic as one thing starts to relate to another. So for those Mark table alignment comments they can continue on the new thread you started "Main Table Alignment in Drill Press Mode." That aside I hope we cleared up the use of the Mark's Main Table's use as an extra support for the Bandsaw so there is no need to explain it further here. With that we can get back to talking about the Bandsaw Table Installation and Alignment as the thread title suggests.

Later this week I hope to have time to check my other two Bandsaws and add the findings here. How the tables are mounted, what if anything is OEM or non-OEM as per the Manuals.

Russ, no apology is needed. WE all seem to do this meandering thing. It is the nature of this group. It does, however, make it difficult from time to time to locate where a particular discussion occurred.

An added comment: The next time I gave a bandsaw table off, I am going a bit further and dismount the trunnions for a quick comparison. The way the trunnions mount, if they are identical, I am stumped as to how the difference is created.

chapmanruss

There are variations in the Trunnions or at least how they mount between the newer Bandsaws and the older ones. I am not sure about the Trunnions themselves but the parts used to mount them to the Bandsaw's Main Frame (back) is different. This is where one of the changes in the Main Frame assembly occurred. The earlier Bandsaws have pressed in sleeves with "V"s in the ends which has been changed to slip in sleeves with smooth ends for newer/current Main Frames. Other hardware there has changed to match. I'll try to check the actual trunnions between the 1956 and the 1998 Bandsaws when I remove the tables to check for shim washers discussed before. If the Trunnions are different at all they must be very close or at least have the same mounting spacing to allow upgrading to the aluminum table from the cast iron table without including new trunnions. I am not sure when the Main Frame assembly changed but a Bandsaw made in December 1985 had the pressed in sleeved and a February 1996 has the slip in sleeves. This is a close as I can come for this change based on Bandsaws I have seen/owned.

dusty

chapmanruss wrote
There are variations in the Trunnions or at least how they mount between the newer Bandsaws and the older ones. I am not sure about the Trunnions themselves but the parts used to mount them to the Bandsaw's Main Frame (back) is different. This is where one of the changes in the Main Frame assembly occurred. The earlier Bandsaws have pressed in sleeves with "V"s in the ends which has been changed to slip in sleeves with smooth ends for newer/current Main Frames. Other hardware there has changed to match. I'll try to check the actual trunnions between the 1956 and the 1998 Bandsaws when I remove the tables to check for shim washers discussed before. If the Trunnions are different at all they must be very close or at least have the same mounting spacing to allow upgrading to the aluminum table from the cast iron table without including new trunnions. I am not sure when the Main Frame assembly changed but a Bandsaw made in December 1985 had the pressed in sleeved and a February 1996 has the slip in sleeves. This is a close as I can come for this change based on Bandsaws I have seen/owned.

I doubt that you can tell much from this but it is the most telling of the trunnion pictures taken when I had the table off.

chapmanruss

I went through the 1956 and 1998 Bandsaws today. First the trunnions are almost the same. The only difference between them besides the 1956 trunnions not having the black coating is the tabs where they bolt to the table have around 45° cut off corners (see picture below) whereas the newer ones look like the ones in Dusty's picture above.

I had previously setup both of these Bandsaws with the blade at 90° to the table. They are going to remain that way at least for the time being. I guess I'll keep the 2006 Bandsaw with the 2° cant for now. I can always sell it later.

Thanks again Dusty for prompting to spend some time with my Bandsaws.

Bandsaw Cast Iron Table Trunnions.jpg

chapmanruss

As I have been re-reading this thread and information I have read plus things I have seen on the Bandsaw itself has me wanting to make some corrections to some of my previous statements.

garys, said

I believe there was also a change in the bandsaw itself. Didn't the earlier versions have the wheels aligned straight with each other? And, aren't the newer ones set up with the top wheel tilted a few degrees? Perhaps changes in the saw itself caused Shopsmith to suggest different setup.

paulrussell had said this,

Unless I am terribly mistaken, all Shopsmith (Magna) bandsaws have utilized the same canted upper wheel with tracking bearing.

I followed that by quoting this,

Upper Wheel angle - From Everett January 15 2016 in a forum post.

I just got off the phone with Shopsmith Customer Service and was told that the 2° Bevel was added in April 1984 to the upper wheel. Prior to that, they said they were flat like the lower wheel. That may answer some of the questions since many of us have Bandsaws from early and later production.

Now here is what I have learned since. paulrussell was correct. I already knew my 1956 Bandsaw has a canted wheel and now I know in reading the patent application for the Bandsaw this was part of the original design. The designers/engineers wanted to make a Bandsaw that was easier to setup and use. They wanted blade changes to be simpler without the need to realign pretty much everything when changing blade widths. Bandsaws at the time (1950's) required more steps to change from a 1/2" blade to a 1/8" blade for tracking. Another feature was a single lever to adjust the upper blade guide height to keep it closer to the material being cut and not needing so many separate adjustments. The following is from the 1982 Manual in the alignment section. Other manuals have it worded differently but the end result is the same.

The back of the blade should rest against the auto-track roller and the lower blade guide roller, and should be no more than 1/64” away from the upper blade guide roller.

I have to look further to find out why the blade has the slight cant to the table as we have discussed throughout this thread.

edma194

I finished some upgrade work to my bandsaw, tension gauge window, hole for the tension wrench, dust collector port, and Carter guides. I finished up by removing and cleaning the table and trunnions. It's never been shimmed and was always perpendicular to the blade, or very nearly so. I don't know how that was the case without shims. In finishing it up I got the blade absolutely perpendicular to the table with the addition of just one soda can shim on each side of the front trunnion ends. Perhaps the previous owner adjusted the backup bearings somehow, the upper wheel seems to have the slight angle. This saw is serial number 135408, don't know how old that is.

I have two older bandsaws, 113956 and 75210, someday I'll check those out. Neither has any shim washers right now.

JPG

Since the patent drawings show both wheels with a 2° cant(s/b bevel), I believe the 1984 SS quote is simply inaccurate. Perhaps someone did not read the patent drawings before 1984?

Those patent drawings also explain the blade not being perpendicular to the table. I think we can assume the table top is in line with the drive shaft.

That being so, the lower wheel 2° bevel forces the blade to slant back at that 2° angle(s/b 0.625°). Now the blade must also mate to the upper wheel bevel as well, but that requires the upper wheel to be canted. IIRC that cant angle is 4°(s/b 1.25°).

dusty

JPG wrote Since the patent drawings show both wheels with a 2° cant, I believe the 1984 SS quote is simply inaccurate. Perhaps someone did not read the patent drawings before 1984?

Those patent drawings also explain the blade not being perpendicular to the table. I think we can assume the table top is in line with the drive shaft.

That being so, the lower wheel 2° bevel forces the blade to slant back at that 2° angle. Now the blade must also mate to the upper wheel bevel as well, but that requires the upper wheel to be canted. IIRC that cant angle is 4°.

SEE ORIGINAL POST FOR CORRECTIONS

The combination of bevels and cant do cause the blade to drift back until it contacts the backup bearing(s) but I do not buy into the conclusion that the blade also tilts because of that. The blades are pretty rigid.

You read more into the patent than I do but that is OKAY. During the time I spent as an Engineer's Technician I hardly ever was in full agreement with the engineer.

edma194

dusty wrote

I doubt that you can tell much from this but it is the most telling of the trunnion pictures taken when I had the table off.

20210308_072651.jpg

Referring to that picture, those look like common washers. Were they shims supplied with the bandsaw? If I put something as thick as those on the front trunnion the blade would be angled far forward at the top. Next blade change I'll have to get in with a straight edge and check the alignment of the backup bearings to each other and see if I can compare that to the wheels. I'm also finding the explanation of the tilt to be off some how.

JPG, I'm not clear what you are describing about the lower wheel bevel. Is it the shape of the tire track that is beveled to have the blade drift toward the backup bearing?

dusty

edma194 wrote
dusty wrote

I doubt that you can tell much from this but it is the most telling of the trunnion pictures taken when I had the table off.

20210308_072651.jpg
Referring to that picture, those look like common washers. Were they shims supplied with the bandsaw? If I put something as thick as those on the front trunnion the blade would be angled far forward at the top. Next blade change I'll have to get in with a straight edge and check the alignment of the backup bearings to each other and see if I can compare that to the wheels. I'm also finding the explanation of the tilt to be off some how.

JPG, I'm not clear what you are describing about the lower wheel bevel. Is it the shape of the tire track that is beveled to have the blade drift toward the backup bearing?

What you see in that photo are common washers and I used common washers (not those) when I did the table installation. I used a combination of common washers and shims for the final table installation. Yes, the table tilt without the washers was quite significant. I DO NOT believe that my table and trunnions should be used as a reference to what ir correct. I believe mine to be atypical.

With regard to the tilt explanation...what doesn't settle well?

JPG

Both wheels are 'beveled'. The od of the wheel on the side closest to the base is greater than the od of the wheel at the open side.

The upper portion of the blade laying flat on that bevel on the lower wheel will tilt away from the open side.

edma194

dusty wrote

With regard to the tilt explanation...what doesn't settle well?

I guess I'm just missing some piece of info. The upper wheel cant should have the blade drift toward the upper back up bearing. My assumption was the lower wheel was vertical and positioned relative to the upper wheel to keep the blade in position, but I had never really tried to work that out. So it seems like the backup bearings should be offset so the blade is following the 2 degree cant from the top wheel, but then must be drifting back after passing the lower backup bearing onto the vertically aligned lower wheel. And perhaps it is only that change in angle from the cant of the blade to the vertical wheel that puts the backward pressure on the blade. Maybe that's what everyone is saying here and I just didn't pick it up.

« Previous Page Next Page »