Deviation from 510 to 520 table installation instructions

[reubenjames]

As I mentioned in another thread, last night I installed my 520 upgrade components on to my previously 510 system. The 510 system was, to the best of my knowledge, from 1986 and thus fell into the "older 510 system" category. I received instructions for both the older and the newer 510 to 520 upgrade, which was nice, I must say.

The older 510 system has tapped holes for mounting the rails. The instructions for the older system states to drill these holes with a 9/32" drill bit. For starters, I didn't have a 9/32" drill bit, which surprised me, as I have a fair number of bits laying around. None of my sets contained that one, they just skip right over it. But I get it, make the holes bigger and unthreaded so you have room to adjust the rail position precisely using the guides, and make any alignment adjustments in the future.

However, as I played with it a bit, I noticed that the supplied screws fit into the tapped holes just fine, and that my rails were seating right up against the guides anyway. Moreover, all of the tables / rails ended up this way--that is, the holes drilled in all the tables seemed to be a perfectly consistent distance from the top of the table, or "perfectly" enough. And, to be honest, I would expect nothing less from ShopSmith.

So I ended up skipping the hole enlarging step and just attached the rails as-is in the tapped holes (still using the washers and lock nuts, etc.). As I mentioned in the other thread, everything seemed to line up great when installed, the connecting tubes worked 10x better than they did with my 510 system, the table tops were aligned, the rip fence rode along all four tables without catching or having issues clamping down on the "seams" between two of them. My thought process was, given the above alignment being good enough for me, that leaving the tapped holes meant it was a lot less likely that these rails could go *out* of alignment. I know if you tighten them down, they should stick pretty well, but if they get knocked by something heavy or accidentally dropped or whatever regular life things happen--I could see the rails going out of alignment if you had that play in there. I feel like this way, I've eliminated that possibility.

Here is where you all (that means you, Dusty) tell me I'm wrong and why and why I need to remove all the rails and re-do things according to the letter of the law. Go!

[everettdavis]

With apologies to J.G. Wentworth, for the alteration "It's your money, use it How you Choose to!"

It is the experimentation and innovation that drives discovery.

Some who have plowed ground where you are plowing today, may well offer you insight.

Dusty has often already been where I have not yet considered going.

Everett

[dusty]

As I mentioned in another thread, last night I installed my 520 upgrade components on to my previously 510 system. The 510 system was, to the best of my knowledge, from 1986 and thus fell into the "older 510 system" category. I received instructions for both the older and the newer 510 to 520 upgrade, which was nice, I must say.

The older 510 system has tapped holes for mounting the rails. The instructions for the older system states to drill these holes with a 9/32" drill bit. For starters, I didn't have a 9/32" drill bit, which surprised me, as I have a fair number of bits laying around. None of my sets contained that one, they just skip right over it. But I get it, make the holes bigger and unthreaded so you have room to adjust the rail position precisely using the guides, and make any alignment adjustments in the future.

However, as I played with it a bit, I noticed that the supplied screws fit into the tapped holes just fine, and that my rails were seating right up against the guides anyway. Moreover, all of the tables / rails ended up this way--that is, the holes drilled in all the tables seemed to be a perfectly consistent distance from the top of the table, or "perfectly" enough. And, to be honest, I would expect nothing less from ShopSmith.

So I ended up skipping the hole enlarging step and just attached the rails as-is in the tapped holes (still using the washers and lock nuts, etc.). As I mentioned in the other thread, everything seemed to line up great when installed, the connecting tubes worked 10x better than they did with my 510 system, the table tops were aligned, the rip fence rode along all four tables without catching or having issues clamping down on the "seams" between two of them. My thought process was, given the above alignment being good enough for me, that leaving the tapped holes meant it was a lot less likely that these rails could go *out* of alignment. I know if you tighten them down, they should stick pretty well, but if they get knocked by something heavy or accidentally dropped or whatever regular life things happen--I could see the rails going out of alignment if you had that play in there. I feel like this way, I've eliminated that possibility.

Here is where you all (that means you, Dusty) tell me I'm wrong and why and why I need to remove all the rails and re-do things according to the letter of the law. Go!

If you are satisfied with the installation and the alignment, I would never tell you that you are wrong! I might indicate that I would have done it differently but that does not make me right or you wrong.

What is important is that the alignment procedures can be completed properly with the rails installed as you have them.

I incorporate many of my own procedures (approaches) for these many tasks. I feel that I do so at my own risk but that seldom ever slows me down. I rather enjoy doing things my own way (until I find that "it" can't be done that way).

I probably developed this frame of mind while working as a test engineer for a major defense contractor. My primary assignment was to determine whether or not "the product" met design specifications and if not "why". The job was fun. That is how I approach most of my shop tasks only I start off my ignoring what the experts decided and I do it "my way". That often fails, BTW. I just never talk about the failures.

Congratulations on your upgrade. I know that the new system will serve you well.

[reubenjames]

Thanks! I was being a bit facetious. I work in a city full of defense contract engineers (Rockwell Collins) yet I am not an engineer and know my limitations. Wanted to publicly air my method from last night in case anyone more mechanically minded saw any "gotchas" with what I did. If I knew what I was doing, I'd be on this forum a lot less.

[JPG]

Thanks! I was being a bit facetious. I work in a city full of defense contract engineers (Rockwell Collins) yet I am not an engineer and know my limitations. Wanted to publicly air my method from last night in case anyone more mechanically minded saw any "gotchas" with what I did. If I knew what I was doing, I'd be on this forum a lot less.

Oh my!!!! Dusty's former employer.

He was not 'an engineer' also but I doubt had many 'limitations' (other than tolerance of smart a$$ know it all ones).

I concur with you both. If it works do not question it. Trick is understanding what 'works' is.

One question(or two). Since you did indeed have an early 510(previous pix confirms that), did the new 520 rails mounting holes align with the original 510 tube rail mounting holes?(the center hole on the main table was relocated when the 510 was altered).

That would mean that there are two versions of the 520 main table rails or an 'extra' hole or I do not know how it all comes together.

A pix of the newly upgraded main table showing the middle mounting screw would confirm that.

Do the new screw threads match the old tapped holes, or are the new screws smaller?



Oh and 'engineers' can indeed learn from those that are not engineers.


Many 'engineers' need that badly!!!!





Whatca gonna do with the old 510 rails?

[reubenjames]

There is an extra hole in the 520 rails, which I didn't know what it was for until you mentioned the variation in the center holes. Also, the screws appear to match the old tapped holes--at least they did not slide in and I didn't have to force them in when I screwed them into the mounting holes--it felt like a match when screwing them in. I didn't measure the threads, though--I had an extra mounting screw from the 520 so maybe I'll do that later today and compare.

In fact, the instructions for the old 510 system specifically say to NOT enlarge the holes for the center (I think this might have to do with ribs on the casting underneath on the table which would be damaged). Because of that, there is a different mounting screw for the main table center mounting holes that don't go in as far. I'll take pics of that later, too.

[JPG]

Thank You. That all makes sense.

I think the washers and kep nuts are superflous with the older version. A bit of insurance by using them. There is not room for the kep nut on the older version(the reason it was moved?).

Now, WHY have the dual center bosses always been there???