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

Shopsmith Bearings

"Wild Bad Bob"

From life in general rules as a 62 year young, those old SS with the German owner/designer were over build compaired to the newer ones when cost effecintcy became a rule, like the thinner tubs for the frame and power head, IMO

Bob

skou

rbursek wroteFrom life in general rules as a 62 year young, those old SS with the German owner/designer were over build compaired to the newer ones when cost effecintcy became a rule, like the thinner tubs for the frame and power head, IMO

Bob

Bob, I think you're right. But then, I never have played with the newer stuff.

Another thing that backs up your statement, they're STILL making Mk5s and 7s with the old ERs. (I wonder if you could machine an ER with any Mark series?)

Oh, Hans designed the E, ER as well as the V and VII. (We'll overlook the MkII, since that one is a joke. It's the ME, Vista and W8 of Shopsmith.):D

steve

fitzhugh

Correction for the Franklin 3/4 motor bearings?

I have two different sizes.

The front bearing is a 6202 ZZ-10 (or 6202-10 ZZ, etc. It is a 5/8in x 35mm x 11mm)

The rear bearing is a 6202 ZZ-16 (or 16mm x 35mm x 11mm) instead of the 6203 zz listed in the first post.

So, it seems the franklin motors weren't used that much, right? It is harder to find information here on them than the others, best I can tell.

I did have a little trouble getting the rear bearing out. It is in a blind hole, though with enough space behind it to get something behind. There is a metal ring with tabs bent up in three places as a spring under there, which made it a little confusing trying to get a tool behind the bearing (didn't know it was there). In the end I ground down a washer that was otherwise too large to fit in the hole, made it narrow enough to fit and just a little too long, then left it loose on the bolt and put it in at an angle - had to tap it a bit to get in but would have been easy if I'd understood why it seemed fine without the bolt, then hard when I tried it for real - it was hitting the unknown spring. That gave me purchase on the bearing.

JPG

fitzhugh wroteCorrection for the Franklin 3/4 motor bearings?

I have two different sizes.

The front bearing is a 6202 ZZ-10 (or 6202-10 ZZ, etc. It is a 5/8in x 35mm x 11mm)

The rear bearing is a 6202 ZZ-16 (or 16mm x 35mm x 11mm) instead of the 6203 zz listed in the first post.

So, it seems the franklin motors weren't used that much, right? It is harder to find information here on them than the others, best I can tell.

I did have a little trouble getting the rear bearing out. It is in a blind hole, though with enough space behind it to get something behind. There is a metal ring with tabs bent up in three places as a spring under there, which made it a little confusing trying to get a tool behind the bearing (didn't know it was there). In the end I ground down a washer that was otherwise too large to fit in the hole, made it narrow enough to fit and just a little too long, then left it loose on the bolt and put it in at an angle - had to tap it a bit to get in but would have been easy if I'd understood why it seemed fine without the bolt, then hard when I tried it for real - it was hitting the unknown spring. That gave me purchase on the bearing.

YES

Interesting!!! The 5/8 bearing is for the output 5/8" shaft and the larger 16mm at the rear. The reverse of the Emerson motor. Also the Emerson uses a 17 mm bearing(6203) as you noted.

I believe this is the first Franklin motor bearing discussion here.

fitzhugh

Yeah, they have only been touched on here and there on the forums. Odd, maybe they decided they are awful and switched quickly? No idea here. I did turn it on and hear it run very very briefly when I brought it home. Curiosity made me. I'm glad I didn't run longer since it had a nearly severed wire (inside the pan so out of sight initially) and a very bad bearing on the sheave side.

The very first post in the thread does list the franklin, only it lists it wrong (as far as my motor, in any case).

Any way we can get that edited in case someone comes along with another one? The OP has not been around since I joined.

I'll post photos of the motor at a later date. I've ordered the bearings but reassembly is a few places down on my list right now. I'm trying to get the headstock sans motor all tuned up so I can use a dc motor instead.

I just spent the day in the shop actually USING the machines instead of working ON the machines and I have to say I can't wait to have the second headstock once again driving the planer and jointer. No having to juggle the bandsaw, jointer and planer. Had it running but I could hear the headstock bearings way too much. waiting now for last bearing order, will have replaced them all.

cadman57

Went to press my new 6202 quill bearing on today during break time at work and ........... no go.

Came to discover that standard 6202 size is 15mm ID x 35mm OD x 11mm WD of which the OD and WD are fine, but the bore at 15mm (.590) is way to small to press on to a 5/8" (.625) shaft.

The original bearing off my 1957 greenie was a NDH marked item. That bearing measured .625 ID x 1.375 OD x .346 width with metal side shields and I am positive it was original to the unit.

I had found the new quill and drive shaft bearings from http://www.qualitybearingsbeltsandchain.com I also feel strongly about getting the newer technology flexible side seals versus the steel shields because they provide a minimal seal against sawdust. The quill bearing I ordered was 6202-2RS C3 and as mentioned, it will NOT fit .......... be aware of this !!!!

You must order (no matter which seal style you choose) the 6202-5/8 size in order to get the proper ID that will fit onto the 5/8 shaft.

For my personal headstock rebuilds I am using the 99502 bearing from them that has the 5/8 ID, 1-3/8 OD, and .433 width but also has synthetic grease packing with the flexible side seals. This greenie headstock retains the original 3/4 HP motor with gilmer style drive and will always run at lower speeds because it powers a totally rebuilt MAGNA (greenie) band saw and on the headstock front end is the 12" sanding disk with greenie saw table - both running at the same time.

I would not recommend the rubber side seals for continuous high speed applications, but for typical woodworking from low to saw speed at basic amounts of time they are way better than the metal shielded bearings IMHO.

Time will tell for sure - am about to start on total rebuild of my main shopsmith, which is a 1962 goldie (1-1/8 HP) and will be redone with color matching 510 upgrades and 520 fence system. This unit will be sawing on a regular basis ........... all of my routing & shaping is done on a shopsmith stand-alone router table with pin-router arm attachment so the super higher speeds do not really apply in my case.

fitzhugh

Oh, yes, 6202 5/8 bearings. I bought the wrong one the first time.

Please double check the ones you say you are using now. I may just misunderstand what you wrote, and you may know this already, but the correct bearings are actually 6202-10-2RS (2rs for rubber sealed both sides, zz for metal shielded). Those are a combination of inch and metric: 5/8" x 35mm x 11mm. The ones you mention will be 34.925 instead of 35mm, or 1.375” vs 1.377"

I'm pretty sure that is enough to make a difference. The od is already not a press fit, just slides right in. Since they do make the correct metric bearings with 5/8 ID I would use those. I've replaced these on a genie and an 80's machine with no problem. Others with more experience will probably jump in.

I pulled the shields of the old ones to see how bad they were. It was ugly in there. The shields definitely did not keep crud out, and sawdust dried the grease as I've read it could. I used sealed replacements. I recall they were in their speed range but confirm that and whatever else I've written.

cadman57

I agree with your numbers - the part number from the vendor I spoke of, is indeed the slightly smaller OD. I measured this particular greenie quill at 1.378 and am also going to order the "-10" bearing you spoke of. Interestingly, that exact bearing is also used on the 5/8" shaft side of the old Franklin ER motors (with a different size on the other end !!).

The metal shield is exactly what the name describes ......... it shields the inner bearing, but does NOT seal it at all. There is about a .005 gap on standard brands and when manufactured, they are pressed into position. Thus, when removed they are usually ruined. However, the rubber seals can be easily removed with a seal pick, the bearing inner workings can be cleaned, lubed, and the seals replaced.

I truly believe in the woodworking environment, even with speeds up to 5,200 RPM for reasonable amounts of time, the sealed (2RS) type of bearings are the best way to go.

Your practical experience with previous replacements and also the description of interior "crud" for the metal shield style is what I had hoped to read. Thank you for sharing.

fitzhugh

I replaced the bearings in that Franklin motor, found just what you said. I added it somewhere to this thread.

I found removing the beating on the back end of the motor took some effort. It's in s blind hole. Of course I didn't have a blind hole bearing puller. There is a bit of space under the bearing. I managed to grind a washer otherwise larger that the bearing ID so it was no longer round but rather long and narrow, and just short enough to fit one end in the hole and then slip the other down in it. A thin nut under it, and I got the washer and nut threaded on a long fine bolt. Hope that makes sense.

It was harder than it needed to be because I failed to realize there is a wavy spacer under the bearing that interfered with the ground washer at some angles but not others, left me wondering why it almost fit before I ground it more and was easy too long after. Thought maybe I had my grinder running in reverse ;)

I did find that some shielded bearings had very thin rings around the outer edge of the shields, which made it possible to remove and reinstall the shields without damage. It takes a close look and a sharp needle to see and remove them. There is probably a proper tool out there. More a point of interest than useful information since these bearings are not expensive and I only saw this on older ones. Could be they make larger bearings this way to allow inspection and maintainence. The rest I just stabbed with a pick and pried off. I was just curious about the conditions underneath.

The 1983 and 1950s machines had apparently similar damage to their bearings. I found the bearings deep in the quills needed replacing. In fact, I've replaced all but the bearings in the 83 motor and one of the two control sheave buttons (be very sure you got all the peened metal holding the button bearing out of the way of the bearing first or you might crack the sheave end. Damhik. Oh, and the button is actually the center of the bearing.

jjj240

Opened up 1959 Greenie for inspection/repair.

As shown in attached, Drive Sleeve Assembly (Gilmer) used 205KDD (background).

However, it is hard to see the model for Quill (single bearing).

Could anyone confirm please?

re_SS - bearing 01.jpg

JPG

jjj240 wroteOpened up 1959 Greenie for inspection/repair.

As shown in attached, Drive Sleeve Assembly (Gilmer) used 205KDD (background).

However, it is hard to see the model for Quill (single bearing).

Could anyone confirm please?

5/8" x 35mm x 12mm <<<<<<<<< s/b 11mm

Drive sleeve = 25mm x 52mm x 15mm.

dusty

It might be worthwhile to double check the part number for a single bearing quill to verify that it is not 5/8" x35mm x 11mm (205KDD).

JPG

dusty wroteIt might be worthwhile to double check the part number for a single bearing quill to verify that it is not 5/8" x35mm x 11mm (205KDD).

Shopsmith part number 502962.

My BAD :o It s/b 11mm! mistyped!!! :(

HopefulSSer

bucksaw wrote

Industry standard numbers (Can be cross referenced to most bearing manufacturer parts by your bearing supply house)

Drive Sheave Assembly (Gilmar & Poly-V): 6205 ZZ (2 Required)

Quill - Single Bearing (Gilmar & Poly-V): 6202 ZZ 5/8"Quill - Double Bearing (Poly-V): 6002 ZZ and 6003 ZZ

Bucksaw, are you still active? Or could someone edit the original post in this thread? I made the mistake of not reading the entire thread and instead went by the numbers in the first post and fell into the 6202 vs. 6202-10 / 15mm I.D. vs. 5/8" I.D. trap. It would be nice if the original post included a warning about that and emphasized that the correct bearing is 6202-10. It's a long thread and google tends to take you to the beginning, so unless you take the time to read the whole thing you'll miss the nuance. Thanks!

JPG

First post sez ; [Quill - Single Bearing (Gilmar & Poly-V): 6202 ZZ 5/8"]

No not obvious but it IS there.

HopefulSSer

😀 that's exactly my point it's not obvious. 6202 ZZ would imply 5/8 but it's really 15mm. 6202-10 is 5/8"

JPG

A problem with specifying bearings by part #.

Using actual dimensions is less of a problem.

In this case, 5/8" x 35mm x11mm nails it!(ignoring other variables)

Different mfrs have different ways to assign part # and deviations.

HopefulSSer

Indeed. But generally one assumes that if number XYZ is stated as correct then that seems safe to believe. But in this case the correct number is XYZ-aa (where "aa" is a parameter that substantially changes the specifications of XYZ). So XYZ (by itself) isn't correct but the implication is that it is. So a heads-up wouldn't be inappropriate

JPG

I do not think the OP is around much any more.

HopefulSSer

Yes the original post is quite old. Perhaps an admin would be so kind as to add a little note, just so people don't get tripped up?

« Previous Page Next Page »