505511 1 1/4" arbor question

[meathook]

I have three 505511 1 1/4" blade arbors I want to sell. The original packaging states they are for use on the Mark V and Mark VII, but on the SS site it clearly states it wil NOT work on the Mark VII (or 510)

As far as the spindle is concerned what is the diference in the Mark V and Mark VII?

Also, why would it not work on the 510? Does this mean it won't work on the 520 as well?

Thanks for any help!

[dusty]

I have three 505511 1 1/4" blade arbors I want to sell. The original packaging states they are for use on the Mark V and Mark VII, but on the SS site it clearly states it wil NOT work on the Mark VII (or 510)

As far as the spindle is concerned what is the diference in the Mark V and Mark VII?

Also, why would it not work on the 510? Does this mean it won't work on the 520 as well?

Thanks for any help!

I don't know why it will not work but the site clearly states it is for use on a 500 ONLY. It is not for use on the 505/510/520 or Mark 7.

http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/cata ... arbors.htm

[robinson46176]

I'm pretty sure that it only will not work with the guards on those models. The quill stub is identical on all of them. I do know that the 510 uses a longer arbor as does the 520. Since I have never seen a Mark VII guard in person I suppose it might be longer as well but I don't think so. I also "suspect" that if you had an older Mark V guard mounted it "might" work with them but that would depend on guard clearance under the table.
Using one may be fine in a straight cut but might have an interference problem with the table tilted.
I'll try to remember to look at my original Mark VII today to see how it clears with a saw blade mounted. I have never used it as a saw.
It is possible too that the splitter/anti-kickback/upper guard will not interchange.
Also are they saying that it will not work on the Mark VII or the Mark 7.
I sure wish they had used a different ID instead of 7.
Several farm tractors reused model designations now and then. Drives the parts guys nuts...


.

[pennview]

All of the arbors fit the Shopsmith spindle as we know, but it's basically an issue of the arbor and saw blade fitting inside the lower saw guard that determines which arbor one uses, as Farmer said. The width of the saw table plays a part in this as well.

When I got my 500 in 1980, Shopsmith included a pattern for a "spacer" that you attached between the lower saw guard housing and that flat metal plate on the right side of the guard. This was the all metal lower saw guard. As I recall, you added the spacer so that you could use the lower guard with the stacked dado set, as the dado wouldn't fit without the spacer. I expect that with this spacer in place I could use the lower guard with a 510/520 arbor on a 500, but I've not verified this.

[wa2crk]

The "not for use on the Mk7" may pertain to the new version of the MK7 and not the original. The shafts on the saw blade arbor are different lengths from the 500 to the 510/520 series. You can use a 500 arbor on the 510/520 series but you have to extend the quill to keep the blade cantered in the table opening. Blade positioning will not be automatic.
Bill V

[JPG]

A couple of points not mentioned(And some worth repeating).

The Mark5, Mark V 500 use the same short saw blade arbor.

I am sure the older Mark VII did so also.

We discussed the M5/MVII saw blade guards last week and concluded they were the same(or essentially so). No hands on comparisons were made.

The Mark V 505, 510, 520 all require a longer arbor which increases the blade to quill spacing(positions the blade further out).

As already stated, the shorter M5/V 500 arbors will not work with the 505, 510 520 blade guard.l

I do not think the table width per se is the reason, but blade guard mounting(relative to the table) is also a factor. The quill cannot get as close to the blade slot. If it could, there would have been no reason to change the arbors - the longer carriage spacer could have have been made even longer).

FWIW the 12" sanding discs have different length arbors as well.

Any arbor(that includes third party stuff) can be used without the blade guards. The quill can be used to position the blade(unguarded) to the blade slot.

Farmer: Yes I think there was a mis-use of Mark VII that was referencing the new Mark 7. I need not tell you Magna American was not stationary on that designation either!:D

P.S. Twould be less ambiguous if we refer to the new Mark 7 and the older Mark VII as M7 or Mark 7 and Mark VII or MVII respectively.

[pennview]

JPG, if the tables on the 500 and 505/510/520 were the same width, would we need two different size saw blade arbors, regardless of which lower saw guard was in use?

[JPG]

JPG, if the tables on the 500 and 505/510/520 were the same width, would we need two different size saw blade arbors, regardless of which lower saw guard was in use?

I am guilty of speaking while making an incorrect assumption. I assumed since the tables were different sizes, that part of that difference was due to the blade slot being further from the left edge of the table.

Tain't true!:o Both are 7" from left table edge to the blade slot center.

I have taken a few measurements with some interesting results.

I have not taken any measurements with a 505-520 carriage.

The following was measured.

M5/500 End of quill shaft to left edge of table approx. 6 5/8".

MV/510 End of quill shaft to left edge of table approx 6 1/4"(table in M5/500 carriage but not very accurate since only one post and rack on opposite side of posts.

So the trunion mounting post to the left table of the table varies by 3/8". However measured along a line on top of the headstock. the M5/500 was 7/16" further from the quill.

The arbor lengths vary by 7/16".

In order to align with a blade, the 505-520 table posts would need to be 7/8" further to the right.

The M5/500 positions the table posts 5 9/32" from the headstock quill feed center.

All post measurement were to the nearest side, not the center.


Now the carriage stop spacer is 1" longer than the M5/500.

If the table post to quill shaft distance were to be 3/32" less(5 3/16)", that would explain Dusty's 3/32" 'overshoot'.

However these 'measurements' were not done to that degree of accuracy, but are as accurate as possible with the hardware and scales at hand.


I be curious at the post to quill distance with a 505-20 table in a 505-20 carriage positioned with the stop sleeve.

P.S. All this leads me to conclude that the extra arbor length was to accommodate the blade guard. That extra length increased the spacer length further than the carriage/table differences by themselves.