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

BREAKING NEWS: Shopsmith, Inc. Has A New Owner

JPG

Sorta like using 'product' to produce more product.

RFGuy

BigSky wrote It is far too soon to be evaluating the wisdom of Mr Cupps acquisition. Furthermore, none of us (owners) have enough information to do that. Still furthermore, are we really using data gathered from the internet to evaluate data gathered from the internet??

Do you even understand what the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) is? Yes, it is data from the internet but it is actual data of real people and real businesses from federal government surveys. ACTUAL DATA, not whimsical musings of ANY of US here online. Time will tell about this most recent acquisition of Shopsmith, but the track record of many private equity takeovers in history kinda speak for themselves. :(

RFGuy

For anyone who feels so strongly in the turnaround prospects for Shopsmith, I urge you to contact Saint Nick and buy in. Earlier this year he opened up an equity round of up to $1M with a minimum buy-in of $10k required. New company is called Shopsmith L.P. Get in on the ground floor of this amazing opportunity! See link below for details.

https://capedge.com/filing/1980786/0001980786-23-000001/D

Ed in Tampa

woodshopnerdery wrote

Who has $6,000 to spend on a new Shopsmith? Lots of people. Yes, lots don't and thank god there are wonderful Mark V 510/520 machines out there used for very affordable prices. But many people spend $6,000 and much more on yearly vacations, boats, cabins, hunting trips, cars, horses, sports cars, pianos, decks, bathroom remodels, and so on and so on. There is a market, and there is money in the market to support increasing Mark 7 sales multiple times over.

Why would someone buy a new Mark 7 over a SawStop? Some won't, they will buy the SawStop. But many have chosen Shopsmith over the competition and will again. The Mark 5/7 offers many unique features that deliver legitimate value to the hobbyist.

I see a flaw in this thinking. When a today’s person has $6000 of disposable income to spend on wood working hobby tools they do not usually have the one thing that makes Shopsmith so attractive, lack of space!

When I was getting into wood working I had space but a limited amount of money to spend. At that time Shopsmith was my biggest bang for the buck. But that dynamic has quickly changed.

Today if I was setting up shop I would buy new and do it for a whole lot less than $6000, not I would not have the top of the line Sawstop or Unisaw but I would have tools nice and shiney that would do the job.

If I had $6000 to spend I think I probably would have the space and probably the experience to buy first class machinery. I am not saying Shopsmith is not first class, but I do not believe any of us can truthfully say a single purpose machine is superior to a shop full of standalone equipment. Would $6000 buy me a top of the line tablesaw? No but it would buy me a top of the line hobbyist tablesaw, a lathe, drill press, jointer and bandsaw. Would they serve all the function of the SS no but they would serve most if not all of the usual wood working hobbyist tasks.

In my opinion Shopsmith is far too expensive for what it is. If I am right then the new owner will have to drop the price to survive. Either that or become a much smaller operation surviving on the sell of replacement and repair parts.

Let us see.

PS I think in our economy today a very high number of people are finding it hard to impossible to even buy their own house.

RFGuy

Ed in Tampa wrote In my opinion Shopsmith is far too expensive for what it is. If I am right then the new owner will have to drop the price to survive. Either that or become a much smaller operation surviving on the sell of replacement and repair parts.

Thanks Ed. Agree with everything you said up above, but highlighting your statements here because I think they succinctly say what I took many, many paragraphs to try to say! ;)

P.S. And my SawStop comments are exactly along the lines of what you described above, i.e. if I was going to spend $6k on woodworking machines I could go as far as getting a Cadillac of a cabinet TS like a SawStop as an example, drop a router table wing on one end of it (to save shop space) and get separates for everything else. End result would be higher quality and same function as a new, out of the box Shopsmith. You could even do it more cheaply than a SawStop as you suggest.

MikeG

I'm not to sure that the current price for a Mark is that over priced. Just for comparison, I but the price I paid for a new Mark 5 in August of 1980 adjusted for inflation against the current price of a Mark 520S today. $3,800.44 in Sep. 2023 equals $1,028.55 of buying power in Aug. 1980, the price I paid. The price today for the Mark 520S Base Multi-Purpose Machine, Conventional Headstock, Workspace Package & All 5 Work Packages is $4199. Only $400 between the prices does not seem like that much, or is it? Any thoughts?

RFGuy

MikeG wrote
I'm not to sure that the current price for a Mark is that over priced. Just for comparison, I but the price I paid for a new Mark 5 in August of 1980 adjusted for inflation against the current price of a Mark 520S today. $3,800.44 in Sep. 2023 equals $1,028.55 of buying power in Aug. 1980, the price I paid. The price today for the Mark 520S Base Multi-Purpose Machine, Conventional Headstock, Workspace Package & All 5 Work Packages is $4199. Only $400 between the prices does not seem like that much, or is it? Any thoughts?

Mike,

Using inflation adjusted is definitely a good way to analyze it and we have done this before on the forum in the past with similar discussions on new Shopsmith pricing. So, you raise a good point. Unfortunately the US government chose to give away $4.9T of "free money" to individuals and businesses during the pandemic stimulus which has caused excess demand resulting in runaway inflation at the present moment. Yes, that "T" suffix is trillions of dollars and the last time the US government spent that much money on one thing was $4.1T on WWII. So, I ignore the last 3 years of inflation data. Recalculating your example to 2020 ending it would be $3248.92 in 2020 dollars assuming $1,028.55 spent in 1980. I will just ballpark it and say that the Mark V was approximately overpriced by about $1k three years ago (ignoring the hockey stick uptick in inflation due to the misguided pandemic stimulus fueled inflation - graph below). Now, the real problem IMHO is not what the inflation adjusted cost number should be, but rather what is the competition doing? Manufacturing, and design, are not static and costs always change with time. So, the question becomes can you get similar features from other tools more cheaply than a Mark 7 today? The answer to that question, in my opinion, is yes. That latter point is what Ed and I are asserting here, but I am open to anyone that can put holes in my arguments here. Also of note is that there are more choices and better values available from competing toolmakers now than what existed in 1980. I really want Shopsmith to succeed, but they have some serious headwinds...just one is the present macroeconomic environment with out of control inflation. 🙁

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html

Out of Control Inflation Last Three Years Due to Overheated Economy From Pandemic Stimulus:

edma194

Plenty of interesting and valuable comments in this thread. My own suggestion is a redesign of the product line based on the PowerPro headstock. The original headstock 3 part housing was made to hold the main spindle and quill, an auxiliary spindle, motor, mechanical variable speed control, and mounting slides and lock mechanism. The PowerPro uses the space in the headstock once taken up by many mechanical variable speed components to hold a power supply and electronic controller with an interactive display. The motor now mounts on the large aluminum casting instead of the stamped steel motor pan.

I think the headstock should be redesigned around the PowerPro components in multiple forms. One form would replace the conventional headstock. The auxiliary spindle can be eliminated reducing the parts count, and the aluminum casting can be replaced with a centralized structure instead of the large encompassing housing and the outer cover made from lighter materials in the manner of the motor pan and belt covers. This would be done to allow more configurations of the components in a powerhead with more versatility.

The same basic powerhead could be mounted on a stand like the Power Station, ready to use a variety of the traditional functions along with the SPTs, even using table system components as well. A lower cost version could be made without the quill with an option to upgrade to it later. There are lower power versions of the DVR which could be used in lower cost configurations. Another form could mount the headstock on trunnions in a cabinet to provide a tilting table saw that uses the table system as well as SPTs. A dedicated drill press version could be made, possibly with more capability like powered quill control, tapping, and milling functions. The variable speed motor could be used in a miter saw version capable of cutting wood and metal.

Any of these headstock configurations would be upgradable to others. Even when the housing changes significantly for function the expensive components of the PowerPro system would be reused. So long term compatibility of the various components takes on new meaning as it includes upgrading and functional changes that reduce costs.

In addition I believe the long term durability of the basic Shopsmith design would make it attractive in the commercial market if service contracts were available. I do think there is great potential for the future of Shopsmith, but it will take more than product and price changes. An extensive marketing campaign would be necessary to improve sales of the product as is or with modification.

RFGuy

Ed,

Thanks. All great ideas in my opinion. Shopsmith would have to get a good deal from Teknatool on the Striatech motors that are in the PP, but increased volume should help with that. I do think too much has been given up by Shopsmith over the years by bootstrapping themselves to the legacy designs. Alternative rails, alternative headstock configurations, alternative table designs, etc., etc. I think could have benefited them in the past, but also today as well. While I appreciate the Mark V and SPT designs, some of them are dated and long overdue for a refresh IMHO. Also, why I think you have to compare a Mark 7 to an original Mark V in any inflation adjusted comparison. Features don't stay the same on most products over time, but ASP's (Average Selling Price) tend to stay constant vs. time. More features and generally improved specifications tend to get added to products with time so that a newer product has more value than an older one...typically. So, had Shopsmith innovated more and come out with product refreshes and new product categories potentially then they would have fueled customer engagement/retention through upgrade cycles. Why buy a new Shopsmith SPT or even a Mark V/7 today when there is a plethora of them on the used market for significantly less money? However, if you have a new version from Shopsmith with must have features, upgraded specs, etc. then you can't buy that on the used market and a customer is forced to buy direct from the manufacturer. JMO.

P.S. Speaking of "new" designs from Shopsmith, I guess no one has any clue what the Shopsmith X-6000 design was in the pic that I posted from the Shopsmith museum (very briefly hinted at that interview Scott did)...sure would like to know more about it and why it didn't come to market.

https://forum.shopsmith.com/viewtopic.php?p=311607#p311607

edma194

RFGuy wrote P.S. Speaking of "new" designs from Shopsmith, I guess no one has any clue what the Shopsmith X-6000 design was in the pic that I posted from the Shopsmith museum (very briefly hinted at that interview Scott did)...sure would like to know more about it and why it didn't come to market.

https://forum.shopsmith.com/viewtopic.php?p=311607#p311607

I'd like to know more about it also. Other design concepts must have been considered even if they didn't make it to that level of prototyping. The original Shopsmith was a feat of engineering to make an affordable variable speed device. It was heavily dependent on the speed changing mechanism which involved a large number of parts. The PowerPro has made the headstock design much simpler while increasing power, speed range, and programmability which has barely scratched the surface of it's capabilities.

I could go on too long easily on this subject. I hadn't even mentioned the possibilities of a PowerPro module mounted on a gantry or XY mechanism as an overhead routing and milling spindle. The world of tool users includes wider needs than the traditional woodworker. Shopsmith needs to expand it's experience and knowledge base for plastics, metal, and composite materials, including the tooling for those purposes.

I mentioned the smaller motors which could reduce the cost of the machines. Different grades of machines could be made for better price positioning. This is why I think the headstock design should mount all the components on a strong, compact central frame and use lightweight covers that could be made in both heavy stamped steel or inexpensive {gasp} plastic. The plastic covers may break some day but the parts underneath will retain their value and you can always upgrade the plastic. A simple cabinet based version could provide table saw, disk sanding and other rotary tools, horizontal boring, and bowl turning capability at a lower entry price. A simpler stand based version like the Work Station might not have the table saw capability but still power a band saw, scroll saw, and other SPTs.

I would love to see the day when the Shopsmith web page opens on an array of the various of Shopsmith multi-purpose tool configurations and not just the latest version of the basic Mark V design.

I've already gone on too long and haven't even talked about the cosmetic changes that in the X-6000. Mr. Cupps talked about different colors with Scott. It also needs a standard color scheme that isn't gray on gray. Even if prices can go down some Shopsmiths will still be expensive products and need to look like it. The documentation needs to look like it belongs with expensive tools also. And while it's reasonable to charge something for hardcopies of manuals there's no reason they shouldn't be available online at no charge, or at most some basic entry fee included with a new machine purchase. And then there needs to be service available that doesn't involve expensive shipping charges and long waits. I'll just stop now or I'll go on all afternoon.

BigSky

edma194 wrote
RFGuy wrote P.S. Speaking of "new" designs from Shopsmith, I guess no one has any clue what the Shopsmith X-6000 design was in the pic that I posted from the Shopsmith museum (very briefly hinted at that interview Scott did)...sure would like to know more about it and why it didn't come to market.

https://forum.shopsmith.com/viewtopic.php?p=311607#p311607
I'd like to know more about it also. Other design concepts must have been considered even if they didn't make it to that level of prototyping. The original Shopsmith was a feat of engineering to make an affordable variable speed device. It was heavily dependent on the speed changing mechanism which involved a large number of parts. The PowerPro has made the headstock design much simpler while increasing power, speed range, and programmability which has barely scratched the surface of it's capabilities.

I could go on too long easily on this subject. I hadn't even mentioned the possibilities of a PowerPro module mounted on a gantry or XY mechanism as an overhead routing and milling spindle. The world of tool users includes wider needs than the traditional woodworker. Shopsmith needs to expand it's experience and knowledge base for plastics, metal, and composite materials, including the tooling for those purposes.

I mentioned the smaller motors which could reduce the cost of the machines. Different grades of machines could be made for better price positioning. This is why I think the headstock design should mount all the components on a strong, compact central frame and use lightweight covers that could be made in both heavy stamped steel or inexpensive {gasp} plastic. The plastic covers may break some day but the parts underneath will retain their value and you can always upgrade the plastic. A simple cabinet based version could provide table saw, disk sanding and other rotary tools, horizontal boring, and bowl turning capability at a lower entry price. A simpler stand based version like the Work Station might not have the table saw capability but still power a band saw, scroll saw, and other SPTs.

I would love to see the day when the Shopsmith web page opens on an array of the various of Shopsmith multi-purpose tool configurations and not just the latest version of the basic Mark V design.

I've already gone on too long and haven't even talked about the cosmetic changes that in the X-6000. Mr. Cupps talked about different colors with Scott. It also needs a standard color scheme that isn't gray on gray. Even if prices can go down some Shopsmiths will still be expensive products and need to look like it. The documentation needs to look like it belongs with expensive tools also. And while it's reasonable to charge something for hardcopies of manuals there's no reason they shouldn't be available online at no charge, or at most some basic entry fee included with a new machine purchase. And then there needs to be service available that doesn't involve expensive shipping charges and long waits. I'll just stop now or I'll go on all afternoon.

Just don't overlook the fact that redesign involves redesign and tooling costs as well. Those need to be recovered near the front end.

edma194

BigSky wrote

Just don't overlook the fact that redesign involves redesign and tooling costs as well. Those need to be recovered near the front end.

It's up to the new owner when those costs need to be recovered. There clearly will not be anything to recover without a significant investment though.

thedovetailjoint

edma194 wrote I think the headstock should be redesigned around the PowerPro components in multiple forms. One form would replace the conventional headstock. The auxiliary spindle can be eliminated reducing the parts count,

Ed, how would you accommodate the Jointer with such a design? In my opinion it's high enough already, so unless the machine was lowered for table sawing. Also, when the machine is running at Sawing speed the jointer is running at the proper speed for a jointer, thanks to the 1.6X speed variance between the two drive hubs. If we are voting I would vote for the continuation of a high-speed lower PTO, but it could be driven differently with a Smart Motor. Scott

edma194

thedovetailjoint wrote
edma194 wrote I think the headstock should be redesigned around the PowerPro components in multiple forms. One form would replace the conventional headstock. The auxiliary spindle can be eliminated reducing the parts count,
Ed, how would you accommodate the Jointer with such a design? In my opinion it's high enough already, so unless the machine was lowered for table sawing. Also, when the machine is running at Sawing speed the jointer is running at the proper speed for a jointer, thanks to the 1.6X speed variance between the two drive hubs. If we are voting I would vote for the continuation of a high-speed lower PTO, but it could be driven differently with a Smart Motor. Scott

Speed wouldn't matter with the PowerPro. It will be programmed with the correct speed for the joiner which could be further refined based on specific wood characteristics.

For the height, how difficult would it be to have a pair of pulleys and a belt that connects the joiner to the upper spindle on either side of the headstock? This could be an integral part of the joiner including a full housing so the belt is never exposed.

BTW: The PowerPro controller should allow you to program the type of SPTs you have mounted and on which side. For example you could set up a bandsaw on the left side of the headstock and when you select bandsaw speeds it will know the proper direction to run.

thedovetailjoint

edma194 wrote Speed wouldn't matter with the PowerPro.

When I use my Mark V for sawing and jointing I am going back and forth from the saw to the jointer, jointing between rips. I don't stop the motor between operations. Using the PowerPro as you describe would necessitate changing the speed between these two operations, or live with a slow jointer, which is one of the reasons I don't run my jointer on the Power Station.

edma194

thedovetailjoint wrote

When I use my Mark V for sawing and jointing I am going back and forth from the saw to the jointer, jointing between rips. I don't stop the motor between operations. Using the PowerPro as you describe would necessitate changing the speed between these two operations, or live with a slow jointer, which is one of the reasons I don't run my jointer on the Power Station.

First, a belt and pulley drive used to connect the joiner to the main spindle could provide the same speed differential as there is between the main and auxiliary spindles. So the joiner and saw can be run at different speeds.

Also, for the PowerPro this could be handled in software. The motor doesn't have to be stopped to change speeds. You don't need to do anymore than push a button on the control panel to change speed between operations. If the Gen 2 software doesn't allow that to be done with a single button push then Gen 3 should.

RFGuy

Wait...I thought it was a "smart" motor now? Shouldn't it know what is connected and how? :D :D :D

Be careful the monikers one ascribes to a product. :rolleyes:

HopefulSSer

edma194 wrote
thedovetailjoint wrote

When I use my Mark V for sawing and jointing I am going back and forth from the saw to the jointer, jointing between rips. I don't stop the motor between operations. Using the PowerPro as you describe would necessitate changing the speed between these two operations, or live with a slow jointer, which is one of the reasons I don't run my jointer on the Power Station.
First, a belt and pulley drive used to connect the joiner to the main spindle could provide the same speed differential as there is between the main and auxiliary spindles. So the joiner and saw can be run at different speeds.

Wouldn't that essentially be an aux shaft that adds back the parts count that had been removed?

edma194

HopefulSSer wrote Wouldn't that essentially be an aux shaft that adds back the parts count that had been removed?

Yes, some of the parts. But it's moving them out of the headstock and adding them to the joiner.

It would also eliminate the idler bearing assembly which is a weak point in the PowerPro headstock because of the high belt tension, and also being an unnecessary part.

That just assumes the headstock hasn't changed more and placed the motor spindle at the same position the auxiliary spindle had. The motor could then drive a joiner directly and maintain the same speed differential between the main and auxiliary spindles.

edma194

To recap and clarify:

I propose that the PowerPro headstock be redesigned. It currently fits the PowerPro components into the conventional headstock housing which was designed for the mechanical speed changer. A design around the actual physical and functional characteristics of the PowerPro motor and electronics could be very different. I don't think the large aluminum casting as an exostructure is necessarily the best approach for a system concentrated on a single variable speed motor component like the PowerPro, and it restricts the versatility of using the core components in different configurations. Removing the idler assembly and auxiliary spindle are just possible ways to reduce the parts count and cost of a headstock.

Scott has asked about the use of the joiner if no auxiliary spindle was available. Unlike other SPTs the height of the joiner is significant. Because operating it requires holding down the workpiece as it is moved over the cutting head raising the joiner would make it more difficult to use and I agree with Scott that should be avoided.

« Previous Page Next Page »