Original rip fence update my design.

[JPG]

Everything Ed just said.

We are concerned / curious when you describe a working design as defective, ...... Your characterization of the older fence design was starting to sound like what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery", implying that something was inferior simply because it was older.

I didn't say it was defective, I said it was clunky, if it wasn't, why was it redesigned not once but twice, 510 -520, TO MAKE IT BETTER, I thought it didn't work well, after using newer designs. Now I find out that every set screw but 2 on my unit is wrong, I didn't change them, it came that way. My intent, to make it better, I have stated that all along, and it does work better.

Ok your 'Mark 5' fence from SS Inc. had two offset screw threads. As I 'discovered very recently' the Mark VII also has two.

I hazard a guess that the Mark 5 dies became unusable and the Mark VII dies were usable. Hence the SS Inc. Mark 5 version has the two holes.

As for the hubs, the idler shaft and ALL SPT hubs should have cup ends. The upper shaft hub should have oval I think.(mzaybe not!)

There is nothing wrong with 'deviating' from 'oem' stuff as long as it is recognized as such. FWIW I think the MS has been confused at times and the wrong ones get installed.

Yes there are two versions of a Mark 5 fence and one of them became the '500' fence.

As for 'fence redesigns' they were a part of a much greater redesign that included the tables which required fence changes.

Watch your logic! It fails scrutiny.

[jjbuzard]

Everything Ed just said.



Wrong by what standard? Is it wrong or just different than what you are being told it should be.

Wrong by what I am told on this thread that they should be, especially the fence, the 2 set screws are cup point, that is what they have always been, I sure didn't change them out.

I will check this list out and see how many are wrong by THIS list.

I use this piece of equipment, it is not a show piece, it is a working tool, so if I can make my job easier, I am going to change somethings, it is like you go to a car show and some guy that has a trailer queen says his is better because his tail lights are New Old Stock and yours are after market, who really cares unless you want a 100 point car. Same here, make it work is my motto.

[jjbuzard]

Everything Ed just said.



Yes there are two versions of a Mark 5 fence and one of them became the '500' fence.

As for 'fence redesigns' they were a part of a much greater redesign that included the tables which required fence changes.

Watch your logic! It fails scrutiny.

But if this version was so great why redesign it, I said I was looking at the undated version fence for my SS, than I thought why not try this UPGRADE (in my opinion) and I tried it and it solved all the problems as I saw them and saved $100 plus and am happy with the results. So then what do I get a bunch of grief over doing it and nobody but me has actually used it like this, I say it solves my problem, and if you don't like it, too bad, I do.

My logic does not fail scrunity, those who question my results is whose logic fails.Some posters here looked at what I did and said I think I will try that, then they can make an INFORMED decision.

[JPG]

Yes there are two versions of a Mark 5 fence and one of them became the '500' fence.

As for 'fence redesigns' they were a part of a much greater redesign that included the tables which required fence changes.

Watch your logic! It fails scrutiny.

But if this version was so great why redesign it, I said I was looking at the undated version fence for my SS, than I thought why not try this UPGRADE (in my opinion) and I tried it and it solved all the problems as I saw them and saved $100 plus and am happy with the results. So then what do I get a bunch of grief over doing it and nobody but me has actually used it like this, I say it solves my problem, and if you don't like it, too bad, I do.

My logic does not fail scrunity, those who question my results is whose logic fails.Some posters here looked at what I did and said I think I will try that, then they can make an INFORMED decision.

Why do you continue to miss 'the point'? We got yours. You have repeated it. And we have said, tis your choice and you need not attempt to justify it. There is more to 'logic' than I want, I believe, therefore I am right.

You did draw correct conclusions and took action based on what you knew at the time. Nothing wrong with that. Now that you have been exposed to what should have been, you should at least understand it rather than continue your biased defense. I fear you are not accepting what should be. You are insistent that since yours came with the cup screws that that is what they all should be. Now you are the only with a scarred front rail. Apply logic to that. Yes it is not conclusive, but highly likely that those screws were mistakenly put there by the mother ship and created your situation.

Call CS and ask them. You may be due a new rail. That slick stuff will slide better on a new rail.

Oval set screws are used where scarring of the surface tightened against is undesirable. You have proved cup points are undesirable bearing against the rail.

Finally the 'updated' 500 fence allowed the addition of a t-slot on the top. Since that extrusion used was the same as the 510, the base needed to be changed to connect to the 500 rail. It was not updated because of a shortcoming in the original design. It was done to add a new function.

[dusty]

Only trying to make it better and easier to work with.

If, in your opinion, you have done that then the entire process has been a success.

I deleted what was here because it was not applicable to a 500 table.

[jjbuzard]

The front rail is not Scarred badly, very little in fact, see attached photo, I believe the problem was a combination of factors, it wouldn't release I believe because of a weak, in my opinion, spring nearest the locking knob, replacing it with a stronger spring helped there even if JPG thinks I was wrong in doing it, Maybe if I had removed the paint on the bevel portion of the fence, it might have made release easier, I don't know, but once clamped it liked to stay that way. IMPORTANT for those planning to TRY this modification, my UHMW strip is 1/8" thick, NOT a tape type strip. I saw something I didn't like and made a change that I am very happy with.
Thank you Dusty for saying what you did in your FIRST sentence.

[dusty]

The front rail is not Scarred badly, very little in fact, see attached photo, I believe the problem was a combination of factors, it wouldn't release I believe because of a weak, in my opinion, spring nearest the locking knob, replacing it with a stronger spring helped there even if JPG thinks I was wrong in doing it, Maybe if I had removed the paint on the bevel portion of the fence, it might have made release easier, I don't know, but once clamped it liked to stay that way. IMPORTANT for those planning to TRY this modification, my UHMW strip is 1/8" thick, NOT a tape type strip. I saw something I didn't like and made a change that I am very happy with.
Thank you Dusty for saying what you did in your FIRST sentence.

Every one on this forum harbors opinions/ideas that other members of the forum will disagree with. That should not stop any of us from expressing those thoughts. Remember, anyone who disagrees has the option to "go their own way". The narcissist will likely disagree but that is okay too. There is room here for everyone.

[JPG]

The front rail is not Scarred badly, very little in fact, see attached photo, I believe the problem was a combination of factors, it wouldn't release I believe because of a weak, in my opinion, spring nearest the locking knob, replacing it with a stronger spring helped there even if JPG thinks I was wrong in doing it, Maybe if I had removed the paint on the bevel portion of the fence, it might have made release easier, I don't know, but once clamped it liked to stay that way. IMPORTANT for those planning to TRY this modification, my UHMW strip is 1/8" thick, NOT a tape type strip. I saw something I didn't like and made a change that I am very happy with.
Thank you Dusty for saying what you did in your FIRST sentence.

Every one on this forum harbors opinions/ideas that other members of the forum will disagree with. That should not stop any of us from expressing those thoughts. Remember, anyone who disagrees has the option to "go their own way". The narcissist will likely disagree but that is okay too. There is room here for everyone.

Dusty was not the first to say the same thing in this thread.

The rail looks much better than I imagined.

Paint on the bevel of the base?

Stronger spring ok as long as it is still weaker than the rear one.(affects clamping sequence)

[jjbuzard]

The rail looks much better than I imagined.

Paint on the bevel of the base?

The beveled portion of the "Rip Fence Base" is painted, the portion that comes in contact with the raw aluminum beveled portion of the front rail, this is that bumpy factory paint, not painted later,removal of that would make a cleaner surface for clamping. (I am going to remove it just to cover all bases) As far as the spring is concerned the "Fence Clamp" nearest the "Lock Knob" sometimes would not release, but would have to be wiggled loose, with the stronger spring, it releases every time. I had oiled it, etc, bit it continued to be problematic, not now.

[JPG]

The rail looks much better than I imagined.

Paint on the bevel of the base?

The beveled portion of the "Rip Fence Base" is painted, the portion that comes in contact with the raw aluminum beveled portion of the front rail, this is that bumpy factory paint, not painted later,removal of that would make a cleaner surface for clamping. (I am going to remove it just to cover all bases) As far as the spring is concerned the "Fence Clamp" nearest the "Lock Knob" sometimes would not release, but would have to be wiggled loose, with the stronger spring, it releases every time. I had oiled it, etc, bit it continued to be problematic, not now.

It would appear the set screws were not the only 'quality assurance' issues with your fence. No wonder you were frustrated.

I am curious if the knob and rod and sleeve and pivoting clamp move freely.

I am wondering if you are in the habit of pushing the knob(as I presume you do with the 'other' fences). That would interfere with the spring releasing the clamp. 'Pulling' on the handle as it is loosened is a more typical way of using this fence as it pulls the 'bevels' apart.

Aside from all the nay saying re going against the design intention, I do applaud your attempt to overcome your frustration. I also would have assumed that the MS made it correct initially(at least until I learned otherwise).

If we caused you duress, that was not the intention.