To 520 or not, that is the question...

[Ed in Tampa]

I think the other Ed is not buying on principal alone, he feels it costs more then it should. He may be right but I love using mine every time I go out and turn it on. It was so enjoyable that I got a second one. Now I'm actually thinking of a third one! If one is good then two is better, what will three be?

I waited a long while on my 520 upgrade, if felt that was pretty expensive at the time, somewhere around $1000 if I remember right. I shouldn't have wait as long as I did, once I got it I knew that. This put me in a better frame of mind for the powerpro, and while I did wait a bit it was a much shorter time this go around.

Not sure how many woodworking years I have left but I want them to be enjoyable ones so I get tools that I like and that is part of my enjoyment of the hobby. Did I mention I like shiny new tools?

Ed

Ed you are right it is a matter of principal. I would love to have a Power Pro but I refuse to pay what I consider to be price gouging.

As for the delay in shipping it may be due to a problem but I believe it is more likely a requirement of Shopsmith to have orders for "x" many before they can order any.

[Ed in Tampa]

Let me remind everyone before you jump all over me, I also have a 520 and I do recognize the differences.

To me, the differences that a 520 brings are just not worth the cost differential. http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/cata ... ofence.htm

I agree that bent or damaged tubes are likely to create an alignment issue but please do not blame Shopsmith or 510 the design for that. In my opinion, bent or damaged parts should be kept out of any setup that requires close alignment. Repurpose the damaged parts or discard them all together.

Ed in Tampa posted the following: "My first impression of the 510 upgrade was the poor quality of the product. My main table was cupped about 1/2 edge to edge, the tubes were corroded, fence rails rusty and looked at it and called myself a sucker for spending that much for this junk".

I can't help but wonder who you bought this from and if you bought it from Shopsmith why did you accept it with those conditions. By the time you got it setup you should have known that it was a basket that needed to be returned. Rust and corrosion on a new unit??? No way!

Now, all of this having been said, you have never stated what version of the 510 did you have (original 510 rail system or the revised version). Did you have a mixture of original rails and revised rails. I have no experience with these but I do understand that one gets into a sticky alignment situation if one tries to mix and match table rails.

If you had read my full post you would have seen I bought it from Shopsmith, I didn't accept it as was and that Shopsmith did make the physical blemishes and table right. It took them two set of connector tubes two main tables a new fence and various fence rails. All parts were of the latest version of fence rails and connector tubes.

My connector tubes are almost perfectly straight and with the same connector tubes on my 520 I can mount all my tables on either side of my main table by first adjusting the height of the main table then using straight edge adjust aux table to same height and the slid in both connector tubes threading them through the floating tables and having everything in perfect alignment. On the 510 this was not possible!

[dusty]

I will never comprehend the problem that is being described here. With the thumb screw loose, the connector tubes lay on the bottom of the table rail. As the thumb screw is tightened, the connector tube is pushed back (not up, down or any where else); it is pushed back. How far back. Well that depends on how tight you make the thumbscrew but the maximum would be <3/32" (.094"). Is this a repeatable condition and is the error (.094") enough to present a problem?

I am sorry, Ed but I just do not see this happening and I have checked just about every time you have posted anything here on the forum about those "rails and tubes". Every time I have checked, the thumbscrew pushed the extension tube to the back of the rail. In so doing, the extension tube climbs the inside wall of the rail until it can go no further. This leaves a gap of <3/32" between the rail and tube on the side opposite the thumbscrew.

Bottom Line: I find the Mark V Model 510 to be every bit as accurate as the Mark V Model 520 (with the Pro Fence).

Dusty
With just the main table two connector tubes and a floating table can you lift up on the floating table and tighten the fence rail jack screws on both the main and floating table and have the table higher than the main table? If you can then you see the problem. If you can't then you have one in a million Shopsmith's.

With the 510 I always had to lift or push down on the floating table to have it level with the main table. On the 520 I simply have to mount it and it is perfectly level.

The leveling became more complicated when I had a main table, two floating table and an aux table in the mix with all tables on one side of the main. I was pulling up pushing down,
Checking with a straight edge and running around to the back of the maching to push up or pull down. It looked like a voodoo ritual with me dancing around the machine

Now with a 520 I set my main table to the height I want. Using a straight edge raise my aux table to the same height and then slid in connector tubes with floating tables on them and all is automatically level when I tighten the fence rail jack screws on all tables

Nope, I don't have that one in a million. When I install a floating table along side the Main Table they do not line up at the same height. I have included a couple images to document that. There is room under a straight edge that spans across the main and floating tables to insert a .013" feeler gauge.

Now, I MIGHT be able to improve upon that but why. How perfectly close to coplanar does one need for a floating table. Furthermore, if anyone gets a 520 floating table closer than that it is because they meticulously aligned the table/rail to achieve that.

LATE COMMENT: When I assemble a multi table configuration, I lay all the tables out on a work bench (face down) and insert the extension tubes through all of them. I then loosen all of the rails (front and back---510 or 520) from the tables and I then secure the rails to the tubes. After doing that, I secure the rails to the tables.

[Ed in Tampa]

Dusty you asked why I wanted the table to be perfectly level. So my fence would slide between them and so the edge of a board did not catch on them.

Anyone that ever used a tables as knows they want the side extensions to line up perfectly with the saw table. Why would someone using a Shopsmith be different?

On the my 520 the tables are level and the fence slides between them with nary a snick when it crosses a joint.

[dusty]

Dusty you asked why I wanted the table to be perfectly level. So my fence would slide between them and so the edge of a board did not catch on them.

Anyone that ever used a tables as knows they want the side extensions to line up perfectly with the saw table. Why would someone using a Shopsmith be different?

On the my 520 the tables are level and the fence slides between them with nary a snick when it crosses a joint.

Ed, the 510 rip fence slides from the floating table to the main table and back just as smoothly as does your 520. Since the rip fence rides on the rails, that smooth transition is a function of rail alignment and not of the tables.

[JPG]

A bit of specific info on the two versions of the 510 'rails'.

First the tubes are 1 " od. They slide into the table rails.

The newer version(at least the rails that I have) measure about 1 1/16" id(1.060).

The original version has thicker walls on the rail and measure about 1.020" id.

That is a 0.040" additional clearance(slop).

Because of that I do not consider the newer version to be 'an improvement'. They may be a manufacturing process improvement but not functionally.

The newer design eliminates the tapped holes in the table and replaces them with through holes. The original design had 'special?' screws, but the newer design uses common kep nuts and studs welded to the rails.

Indeed the newer rails can be caused to register to the top rather than the 'back' by biasing the tubes prior to tightening the jack screws.

Since all the main tables appear to have 4 bosses on the front/rear of the main table, the relocation of the middle screw/stud seems to be pre-meditated.(???)

I believe the later 510 version exacerbated the rail/tube functionality. Those 'lucky' enough to have a mix were caused much consternation.

How about a 0.040 step between the tables?

[reubenjames]

As you all likely saw, the 520 upgrade kits are on sale this week. While I am hesitant to give up the long-standing line of jig plans for the 510 (since it had the same mounting points as the 500), I have never been completely satisfied with the 510 system as it stands (or at least my particular system). I've purchased parts to swap out on my 510, thinking maybe I had gotten a lemon or damaged goods on some of my components, but I think it's just the nature of the beast. From all the positive reviews here, I decided to bite the bullet and give it a shot. I've been leaning on the table saw functionality a lot more lately, and it sounds like this might be a good fit for me.

Enough people on here seemed to be in my situation--not convinced that the 520 was worth it, especially after experience with the 510, and waiting to upgrade. Sounds like the majority were glad when they finally did. As always, though I did not start this thread, I appreciate the perspectives offered and how much they help make a more informed decision.

[everettdavis]

Penny pinching or not:

What I looked at, realizing you can save some more if the upgrades are on sale as they are from time to time.

$4,129.00 556187 Shopsmith Mark 7 with PowerPro and Pro-Fence Table System and all the new accessories.

or

$1,321.68 555985 Mark V Model 500 to Model 520 Upgrade (less if from 510)
$2,119.00 556176 New Power Pro Headstock
$ 389.00 556210 Mark V Double Tilt Base Upgrade
__________
$3,829.68

Your other small accessories such as, faceplates, sanding disk, blade arbors, drill chuck, casters, etc.; those are still as old as your base machine. You get all those and more with a new Mark 7.

$ 299.32 less than a new Mark 7 and you still have your old machine to use, or sell if you spend $300 more, and even the Mark 7 can be bought at Lowes where shipping to the store is free still I believe.

Everett

[Spencer]

OK, so this is my first post.
Everett has hit exactly what I am looking into. Trying to decide if buying used and saving $300 is worth accepting a SS with miles already driven and at the mercy of how the previous owner (or owner's helpers) treated the standard accessories.
My math looks like this in order to upgrade a used SS to a Mark 7 and assuming that all accessories need to be purchased new.
If upgrading a 500, than I would have about $450 to spend on a used 500.
If upgrading a 510, than I would have about $1300 to spend on a used 510.
If upgrading a 520, than I would have about $1750 to spend on a used 520.

This thread has really helped me to confirm that I would not be happy with a 510 without upgrading it.
I have also learned that while the PowerPro would be awesome, there are a lot of woodworkers that feel the old headstock is still pretty good and that I would probably be happy with a 520 for a while.

[algale]

OK, so this is my first post.
Everett has hit exactly what I am looking into. Trying to decide if buying used and saving $300 is worth accepting a SS with miles already driven and at the mercy of how the previous owner (or owner's helpers) treated the standard accessories.
My math looks like this in order to upgrade a used SS to a Mark 7 and assuming that all accessories need to be purchased new.
If upgrading a 500, than I would have about $450 to spend on a used 500.
If upgrading a 510, than I would have about $1300 to spend on a used 510.
If upgrading a 520, than I would have about $1750 to spend on a used 520.

This thread has really helped me to confirm that I would not be happy with a 510 without upgrading it.
I have also learned that while the PowerPro would be awesome, there are a lot of woodworkers that feel the old headstock is still pretty good and that I would probably be happy with a 520 for a while.

Hi Spenser, welcome to the forum! I have a 520 with the original headstock, which I purchased used at a quite reasonable (I thought) price of $850, which included the DC3300 dust collector, the band saw and all the standard accessories. It was also in very good condition. I have since seen several even better deals on 520s, including several that went in the $500 dollar range.

So, depending on your acquisition price for a 520, it definitely is possible to get a good deal on a 520 and upgrade it to Mark 7 capabilities and still spend far less than you would than if you bought a new Mark 7. But you may need to be patient for the right deal to come along. And of course if you want that "new car small" you should bite the bullet and buy the Mark 7!

Incidentally, if you got the 520 route, you may even decide the 520 has all the capabilities you want or need and "save" even more!