Thoughts on Mark V Machines

[dgreen810]

I Purchased my original "Goldie" in 1966 Serial number 377151 and through the years purchased all the upgrades except the 520. I recently found a 510 with the band saw and a ton of extras for a decent price and purchased it. It is a 510 in excellent condition, no rust of any kind. The Serial number as best as I can make it, is 616608 made in 06-11-95. The sticker is faded and not in the best of condition.

My intent was to keep all the later items and sell my "Goldie". The band saw is a much later model and is in almost "New" condition, so it is a keeper. Back to the 510, I find that apparently through the years SS has let tolerances go down hill. The whole machine compared to the "Goldie" is lacking. You can feel looseness in the table especially where the adjustable tubes go up and down in the carriage. Also the band saw is loose in the mounting holes. You can not tighten it such that you can not still feel play. The band saw mounted in the "Goldie" mounting holes is firm and tight. It's like either the tubes are undersize or the holes are sloppy. I also notice the head stock and carriage move on the way bars with a couple of fingers. Moving the head stock and carriage on the way tubes of the "Goldie" takes a little effort, not much but a little. Even the casters operate weird compared to the older casters. By weird, I mean the casters on the "Goldie" are firm and the positions for raising and lowering are firmly in place while the casters on the 510 flop around to the point where you almost need to get on you knees to get the levers where you can put you foot on them.

I have gone through the SS set up to make sure everything is tight and there are no loose fasteners but you can still feel movement. I will say if I didn't have another machine to compare this 510 with, It would probably be acceptable.

In summary, I have made up my mind, and will be selling the 510.

I know there are several on this forum that have multiple machines and I would like to hear what others have found with regard to the quality as time has gone by. It seems to me that older might be better unless this machine just happens to be a little "Loosey Goosey".

Don G

[dusty]

What you describe sounds like the results of "excessive" wear and tear; though I consider my machines to be heavily used and I do not experience the same symptoms.

If you are really interested, the contributing elements can be isolated by swapping around the various pieces of hardware )carriage, tie bars, headrest, tables, etc. That is one of the benefits of having multiple Shopsmiths.

Bringing either machine back to "near new" is definitely possible and I would not expect expensive.

But...this is a personal decision that only you can make. Only you wil experience the consequences or the benefits.

Good luck with your decision.

[charlese]

I agree with Dusty! Excessive wear and tear.

Since we don't know the history of the 510 assuming it is second or third hand, my guess is it was used often without proper waxing of the mounting holes, mounting tubes, and way tubes.

Maybe a good waxing of the way tubes will give you a much better slide of headstock and carriage. Can't say waxing will improve the fit of the bandsaw

My SPTs all fit with a little slop in my 510, but this makes it easier to lift them into the base. Have had no issues after snugging down.

A good cleaning of the casters may help!

[dgreen810]

I agree with your comments with respect to abnormal wear. However this is a one owner machine and supposedly lightly used. Maybe you misunderstood my attempt to describe the comparison.

The newer machine is the one that appears to be well worn. you can give the head stock a push and it will almost go to the other end of the way tubes, the carriage likewise. This is not a bad thing, it's just that you can't seem to lock everything down good and snug after adjustments are made.

I don't have a clue what the problem is with the casters yet. Do to medical issue can't get down to remove one for inspection. I really like the setup if it wasn't for the sloppy way they operate. 4"urethane wheels. The machine really moves around smooth as glass.

Don G

[dusty]

I agree with your comments with respect to abnormal wear. However this is a one owner machine and supposedly lightly used. Maybe you misunderstood my attempt to describe the comparison.

The newer machine is the one that appears to be well worn. you can give the head stock a push and it will almost go to the other end of the way tubes, the carriage likewise. This is not a bad thing, it's just that you can't seem to lock everything down good and snug after adjustments are made.

There is only one thing that I can think of to cause the locks to not lock (as you have described). The locks are a friction devise where the tubes are one part and the wedges are the other. I would start with the carriage because it is, IMO, the easiest to work on. I would disassemble the locking mechanism so that you can inspect the locking surfaces of the wedges. I can't tell you what they will look like if they are the cause because I have never seen ones that do not lock. Mine had shiney worn areas where the wedge mates with the tubes when locked.

I don't have a clue what the problem is with the casters yet. Do to medical issue can't get down to remove one for inspection. I really like the setup if it wasn't for the sloppy way they operate. 4"urethane wheels. The machine really moves around smooth as glass.

I have to ask because these do not look like the Shopsmith wheels that I have seen. Are these from Shopsmith and if not, are you certain that the stems are the correct diameter and length (I am thinking about your description of the problem).

Don G

Ops, this may not work because I responded within the quotes of your post.

It does look as though the operating levers are much closer to the inside of the wheels than are mine. There is at least one post about that on the forum. Some folks have relocated those levers to make them easier to access.

[dgreen810]

Dusty

I don't believe the wheels and shafts are SS. However, the wheels and shafts are not the problem. The problem is the foot lever and the shaft the lever is mated to flop all over the place. When you raise and lower the foot lever with your foot instead or remaining in that position, the lever will flop back up even though the wheels will remain either up or down. Hell!, I think I just confused myself.

I know on the "Goldie" that foot lever will remain in the position either up or down when you take your foot off of it.

Don G

[dusty]

The foot lever, on mine, does not "flop around". It remains pretty much in a given position relative to the lift level that has been selected. I don't know what would make it do otherwise. I'll have to pull a caster mechanism and look to see what I think might cause your problem.

Does the foot lever move on the shaft to which it is (supposed to be) attached without the machine moving either up or down? That foot lever should be pinned solidly to the shaft.

[JPG]

SPT(bandsaw) flop. Is the lock adjusted so both ends of the locking screws are pressing against the mounting tubes without the ends of the knurled handle touching the casting? If not, only one end is clamping the tubes. To adjust the locks, loosen them until they will slip out completely. Notice the screws(they have square heads). One will have left handed threads. Run the screws in to the handle as far as they will go. Then back each out the same amount. On a later 510 that would 1 to 2(or more) full turns. The objective is for them to just slip into the slots in the end casting. Rotate the knurled handle until the screw ends just begin to enter the bore(as seen from the top of the bore). Insert the bandsaw and tighten the handle. When tight, neither end of the aluminum knurled handle should be touching the end casting and each end clear it the same amount.

The casters mechanism is unusual. The casters themselves are not OEM Shopsmith. They appear to be the newer version(retaining screw holes at the end of the camshaft). They have been remounted to the legs. I cannot tell for sure, but the cam in the second pix is in the 'first raised' position while the legs appear to be still resting on the floor. That implies the caster mechanism is mounted to the legs too high. That would allow the crankshaft and foot pedal to be 'loose' at the 'lowered position'.
When positioned to the leg properly, the first cam position should raise the SS off the floor close to 1/4". The second cam position should raise the legs close to 1/2" off the floor. At the lowered position, the legs should rest firmly on the floor. The caster wheels may rest on the floor, but there should be no weight bearing on them.

Yes some things are different on the later parts, but not to the degree described in the first post.

I am guessing the PO got casters 'elsewhere' and used SS hole mounting directions[which are suspect themselves especially the initial version]. They may be from Bill Mayo and improperly drilled.

[beeg]

They may be from Bill Mayo and improperly drilled.

I don't think you meant to imply the way I read it.

[JPG]

They may be from Bill Mayo and improperly drilled.

I don't think you meant to imply the way I read it.

I meant the PO mis-drilled them, not BM!