Older 510 main table not aligned to new table extensions?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:20 am

The stud picture Dusty posted allowed for a nut and washer both above and below the support tube bolt holes. That allows idependent adjustment of each of the 4 locations.

I would shim the inside bottom of the main table tubes(the ones with a larger id). That would will allow ANY sequence/relative positioning of the three tables.
Insertion of the tubes in the main table rails would have to be done carefully.
Perhaps a screw tapped from the bottom to space the tubes to the top of the rail would be more .permanent/durable.

Your present 'fix' requires the proper positioning of the tubes(rotate shim to the top) and the positions of the aux tables are fixed to the shimmed position.

You have not (yet) encountered the fence alignment across tube ends that the different sized rails creates. Fixing that would require shimming the outer vertical surfaces inside the rails

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:32 pm

Order the 520 upgrade and stop worrying about it.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:38 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote:Order the 520 upgrade and stop worrying about it.

i.e. Give up! Spend $ That is where it will end up!....

....Eventually

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:58 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote:Order the 520 upgrade and stop worrying about it.

That is real easy to say! Especially when you are talking about spending some one's money other than your own.

I personally believe that what he has to work with can be put together so as to be as accurate as anyone's 510. The issues as reported are not that much different than any of our machines.

Hey Ed, you upgraded to a 520. What did you do with all your old parts. Your 510 rails might be just what he needs.

:)

cobalt60 · Post by **cobalt60** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:17 pm

Just to clarify a few details:

JPG40504 wrote:The stud picture Dusty posted allowed for a nut and washer both above and below the support tube bolt holes.

Right, but the holes in my tables were not even threaded at all. So my "step 1" was still to get the holes threaded. I'll probably look into a system like dusty's eventually, too!

JPG40504 wrote: I would shim the inside bottom of the main table tubes(the ones with a larger id). That would will allow ANY sequence/relative positioning of the three tables.
Insertion of the tubes in the main table rails would have to be done carefully.

I'd love to, but I'm not sure if my current metal-tape solution would be easily applied to the inside of the tube. Maybe, though... I'll see.

Currently, the shims fixed to the extension tubes get turned to face the earth, and I slide the tube carefully into the main table. Extension tables have NO shimming currently, and they don't seem to need it, hope they won't!

JPG40504 wrote: Perhaps a screw tapped from the bottom to space the tubes to the top of the rail would be more .permanent/durable.

This is still my back-up plan

JPG40504 wrote: Your present 'fix' requires the proper positioning of the tubes(rotate shim to the top) and the positions of the aux tables are fixed to the shimmed position.

Per above, the extensions are free to move ... freely, since they have no shims. The amount of tube sticking out of the main table is, however, fixed (both length and up-down orientation!).

Ed in Tampa wrote:Order the 520 upgrade and stop worrying about it.

Ed, I read your advice loud and clear

Upgrading to the 520 from what I have in-hand now would cost more than my entire SS, including the table upgrade, Magna jointer (plus cost of cleaning/sharpening the old dog), scroll saw, and other minor upgrades I've installed. Sure, god bless CraigsList or whatever, but the price isn't something I can justify right now.

Also, to address this advice a bit more critically, the 510 upgrade is still being sold right now, right? Wouldn't it make sense to solve this problem? I mean, it's one thing for a guy like me with a couple hundred bucks sunk into the system, trying to milk every ounce of accuracy. It's entirely different if you buy a full, new 510 upgrade, wouldn't you think?

By the way, I still never called SS to see if ordering replacement main table rails was an OK idea on their end. Will do next week, but for now, I'm going to get back to actual woodworking, I HOPE!

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:40 pm

cobalt60 wrote: . . .
By the way, I still never called SS to see if ordering replacement main table rails was an OK idea on their end. Will do next week, but for now, I'm going to get back to actual woodworking, I HOPE!

AGAIN! You have the dimensions of a newer(current) main table rail, and the dimensions of the 'older'(no longer available) aux table rail. You need the newer version(current) floating/aux table rails - the short ones - the cheaper ones!!!

You need 2 '514663' for each table.! About $60 +SH

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:10 am

JPG40504 wrote:Are the thumbscrews that tighten the tubes to the rail all the same size?

Does the main table rail have holes in the face to provide access to the mounting bolts?

I am trying to determine if you have a mix of two versions of 510 parts. If so, the rails are different sizes.

I am assuming the 'new' tables are newly manufactured(newer version).

JPG-- I feel like I'm watching an old nightmare unfold...

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:20 am

pennview wrote:I just took a look at my 510 and see that the table surfaces are not on the same plane. I didn't measure the misalignment, but I guess it was about the same 2mm seen by cobalt60. I loosened the four nuts that secure the tubes to the table to see if there was sufficient slop in the assemblies to allow a fix for the misalignment, but there isn't enough. So, I'm thinking that a simple fix would be to bore the holes in the table a bit oversize so that I could raise the table by lowering where the tubes attach to the table.

JPG is on this like white on rice, but I have to add my 2 cents:
remember that some old rails had different WALL thicknesses. This is an inherent DESIGN and/or manufacturing problem that CANNOT be fixed with shims!

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:23 am

f the aux tables are fixed to the shimmed position.

You have not (yet) encountered the fence alignment across tube ends that the different sized rails creates....[/QUOTE]

Another FYI-- yes I went through all this and wound up buying new tables, BUT my old tables had more problems than I will bother to repeat. I could have gotten by without new tables if the only problems had been with the rails.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:59 am

keakap wrote:f the aux tables are fixed to the shimmed position.

You have not (yet) encountered the fence alignment across tube ends that the different sized rails creates....

Another FYI-- yes I went through all this and wound up buying new tables, BUT my old tables had more problems than I will bother to repeat. I could have gotten by without new tables if the only problems had been with the rails.[/quote]

Thought you were being too quiet during all this!