510 versus 520

Forum for Maintenance and Repair topics. Feel free to ask questions or contribute.

Moderators: HopefulSSer, admin

User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21358
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by dusty »

Ed in Tampa wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:10 am
dusty wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:36 pm Pressing the Table Tube(s) upward(as om the 520) or or outward (as on the 510) is IMO the same with the same result. On the 510 the Table Tube is pressed against the inside of the tubular Table Rail. On the 520 the Table Tube is pressed upward against the top of the Table Rail into a mating curved extrusion. I feel that both ways are equally effective in accomplishing the intended result (positioning the Table Tube properly in the rail).

The tubes center vertically.



510 Rail and Table Tube.jpg


In both - a bent table tube could produce unintended results.
Dusty in your picture above ( which is great! Thank you) if the tightening screw comes in against the connector tube above the center line it will push the tube down, it has too! Likewise if it hits the connector tube below the center line it will push the tube up. This is the problem. When it comes up from the bottom it could push the table out but the table itself will stop it but there is nothing to stop it from moving the up and down axis. In there lies the problem. You have 6 screws at least trying to move the tube up down on the 510.
I understand what you are saying but I don't see that happening. When lateral pressure is applied to the table tube it rolls ever so slightly into the position depicted in the drawing. After all, the tube travels (from loose to secured) only about 1/16".
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

dusty wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:40 pm I feel comfortable calling all of those OD measurements 1". I can get that much deviation sitting here at my work table measuring the same Table Tube with the same set of calipers over and over again.
Dusty,

Yeah, I agree with you. They are very close, but there does seem to be some difference in the limited sample in my shop. Is this just variation or have they actually gotten thinner/cheaper with time? That is the question I was pondering. I did check my 1998 27" tubes and the wall thickness is around 0.064", whereas the 18" tube is 0.056". I am no machinist or mechanical engineer, but that seems like a significant difference to me, so perhaps newer connector tubes are thinner, cheaper and more easily warped?
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
DLB
Platinum Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:24 am
Location: Joshua Texas

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by DLB »

I often keep my M7/520 main table tied to the extension table with connector tubes to improve table tilt stability. From what I'm seeing here, I would expect less stability improvement on a 510 system.(?) This would be a big deal to me. I think I would look into the structural pipe alternative mentioned earlier in the thread. (It appears to me that the applicable difference between 'structural steel pipe' and commonly available steel tubing is that the nominal OD for the pipe is based on standard plumbing dimensions, in this case 1.05" Vs 1.00" for 3/4" pipe Vs 1" tubing.) (https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2915 ... e_Spec.pdf)

- David
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

DLB wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:29 am I often keep my M7/520 main table tied to the extension table with connector tubes to improve table tilt stability. From what I'm seeing here, I would expect less stability improvement on a 510 system.(?) This would be a big deal to me. I think I would look into the structural pipe alternative mentioned earlier in the thread. (It appears to me that the applicable difference between 'structural steel pipe' and commonly available steel tubing is that the nominal OD for the pipe is based on standard plumbing dimensions, in this case 1.05" Vs 1.00" for 3/4" pipe Vs 1" tubing.) (https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2915 ... e_Spec.pdf)

- David
David,

Thanks. IF you want to look into this more, take a look at some of the past threads on this. At the link below, I reference to some older threads on this. I am no expert, but I think some other forum members here pursued TG&P and DOM tubing for connector tube replacements. Sorry, I couldn't remember the names of these when I posted earlier in this thread. These may be preferable to the structural steel pipe, if you can get the suitable OD needed. Good luck with it if you decide to switch. I don't know how necessary this is, but this thread has been kind of eye opening for me. How big of an issue it really is, I couldn't tell you though.

viewtopic.php?p=289299#p289299
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

Scott posted his follow-up to the YT video that started off this thread. I won't spoil it other than to say he references this thread and gives a plug for his YT viewers to come and checkout this forum. I believe he takes his follow-up videos private after a week where only his YT channel members retain access, so if you want to see it don't delay.

📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21358
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by dusty »

RFGuy wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:27 am Scott posted his follow-up to the YT video that started off this thread. I won't spoil it other than to say he references this thread and gives a plug for his YT viewers to come and checkout this forum. I believe he takes his follow-up videos private after a week where only his YT channel members retain access, so if you want to see it don't delay.

Interesting followup. However, Scott has not yet taken a definitive position on 510 vs 520. Yes, there are differences between the two and those differences have varied over the years.

Is one better than the other? A matter of opinion and that opinion is most likely effected by level of experience.

I own and use both and when one seems to be more precise than the other I immediately suspect setup.

I'll be watching for the next YT on this subject.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
User avatar
Ed in Tampa
Platinum Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:45 am
Location: North Tampa Bay area Florida

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by Ed in Tampa »

My objection over the differences of the 510 and 520 is more over repeatability and which requires the operator to fiddle around the most to get that repeatability. I agree if you always do this and that to overcome certain traits within the machine you can for the most accomplish this. But when you suddenly realize you need another part just like the one you created 20 setups ago and you are in a hurry, how easy is it for you to duplicate the original configuration. This where I always seem to run into trouble, with the SS there is so many possibilities for setup I usually forget to lift here push there and the set up while acceptable is not an exact duplicate of a previous setup, add to this the human factor differences in how I read a ruler or measure against something and this it produces a part minutely different and that makes me crazy.
It is sort of like this take a machine that simply never changes and you will find slight differences between setups created by human factors like did I look straight down on the measurement or was I off to the side. Most of these differences are very small and have little to no effect on the project. Now take the same machine that can be setup many different ways depending on how you set it up. Just a slight pressure on the bottom side of the table or body pressure on the side of this, or assuming something is one way when it is not exactly one way. Then all of a sudden you have a whole new set of dynamics in the mix which added to human error can really throw thing out. For me I could never be assured when using the 510 that I could reproduce something I produced 20 setups earlier. On the 520 I can usually accomplish this. That is why I would never use a 510 again.
User avatar
chapmanruss
Platinum Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: near Portland, Oregon

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by chapmanruss »

I think it is coming down to preference for some users. It could be, like me, it is the only Table/Fence System they have used and it works for them. For others it may be the most up to date tool. It may be what they have and make do even though they may not believe it is the best choice. Cost can be a factor there. Maybe the most important consideration could be what they are comfortable with. That goes to the amount of experience they have with the particular model. Some may end up upgrading because new OEM replacement parts for older Table Systems (500, 505/510) will no longer be available, as they run out, from Shopsmith.

My first Shopsmith was a Model 520 so that Table System is what I have used the most. Because of that I didn't even bother trying to use the 505 when I bought it but instead changed it to a 520 since I already had most of the parts to do so. Besides it was missing the fence. Changing it just made sense to me since I already had extra 520 floating tables and an extra 520 fence. All that being said, it can come down to what is needed and works for a project. I have Model 10's too and can do things on them that I cannot do on a Mark V.

In his Q & A video Scott said he had the Model 510 beginning in 1987 and got used to using it before getting a 520. One comment Scott made was about setup and being able to see the angle on the trunnion better on a 510 because the fence rail is lower on the 520. Another comment was about having the Jointer running too and how that can't always work on the 510 since he doesn't use the fence on the floating tables. Having both, Scott seems to use which works best for him for the setup needed for the project.

Dusty said,
Is one better than the other? A matter of opinion and that opinion is most likely effected by level of experience.
That experience be it on a 510 or 520 will affect one's opinion.
Russ

Mark V completely upgraded to Mark 7
Mark V 520
All SPT's & 2 Power Stations
Model 10ER S/N R64000 first one I restored on bench w/ metal ends & retractable casters.
Has Speed Changer, 4E Jointer, Jig Saw with lamp, a complete set of original accessories & much more.
Model 10E's S/N's 1076 & 1077 oldest ones I have restored. Mark 2 S/N 85959 restored. Others to be restored.
edma194
Platinum Member
Posts: 1874
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by edma194 »

I think this is a matter of 510 owners wanting or needing to upgrade to a 520, not so much a question of which is better.

I acquired a used 510 in the 90s. It has done the job for me. Since then it's been upgraded to a PowerPro head which has been more important to me than a better table system. Yes, I think the 520 table system is better than the 510, so I don't think the 510 is better than the 520, it just hasn't been worth it for me to upgrade to the 520. I have a separate table saw now so the differences between the 510 and 520 are not that significant to me anymore, but a 510 owner would need to have a reason to upgrade to justify the cost, and for many there isn't any reason based on need because for most user's woodworking projects the 510 is good enough.
Ed from Rhode Island

510 PowerPro Double Tilt:Greenie PowerPro Drill Press:500 Sanding Shorty w/Belt&Strip Sanders
Super Sawsmith 2000:Scroll Saw w/Stand:Joint-Matic:Power Station:Power Stand:Bandsaw:Joiner:Jigsaw
1961 Goldie:1960 Sawsmith RAS:10ER
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

Ed in Tampa wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:52 am My objection over the differences of the 510 and 520 is more over repeatability and which requires the operator to fiddle around the most to get that repeatability.
Ed,

Thanks and I agree with you. Personal preferences are personal preferences and we all have biases, but I think your statement above captures a lot of the issues that I had with the 510 compared to the 520. A pro of the 510 fence is that it is lightweight, BUT it is also a con IMHO. Looking back on my 510 experience I would have to say that the lightness of the 510 fence is part of why I had a much more iterative experience in setting a particular rip width for example. You have this with any tablesaw and fence, but it just seems to take longer to get an accurate cut width set with the 510 fence in my experience. The fence is just too light and easily shifts when trying to set the dimension and lock it down. The 520 fence is MUCH heavier and this is a benefit in that it is less likely to move on you during this process...also makes it easier to bump in a dimension before locking it down. In my opinion, this is why I liked the 520 fence as soon as I used it, i.e. it was less iterative to get it set to a dimension and locked down. Of course the con is that the 520 fence is a beast to lift off and on by comparison so potential con for it. Not even going down the rabbit hole of table rails again as I think we have covered that sufficiently already, but of course that is another difference between the two table systems.

I'd like to hear from any 520 owners who have CHOSEN to go back to either the 510 or the 500 system. It would be interesting to see if anyone who has used the 520 for a period of time has downgraded on purpose and why. Would be interesting to compare notes with them...
Last edited by RFGuy on Sat Jan 21, 2023 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
Post Reply