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

[Dave H. (CO)]

Ok, I'm curious now. I have a recently purchased 510 that I have yet to use since the headstock is messed up and I'm currently rebuilding another one to go on it. Why the dislike for the 510? I expect to rarely use it as a table saw, mainly because I don't like the small table on my Mark 5, and don't like the multiple height adjustments required for getting the blade height that I want. I have a stand alone table saw and even though I have tried to use the Shopsmith table saw more, I always find myself going back to the stand alone. It seems to me the 510 and 520 upgrades are mainly geared to make the table saw attachment better-when else do you guys use the larger table setups?

[woodmeister]

I have had two 520s and found them to be awesome in being sturdy and well belt. I have just purchased another one but I would not upgrade because the weight and alignment of the tables and tubes are more work than it is worth for me. A 510 is good for me but to each his own.
I love SS in every form lol

[Ed in Tampa]

First I don't cut sheet stock (4x8 sheets) on table saws. Not worth the effort.
I never had a problem with the size of 500 table when I used the table extender.
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.

Shopsmith to their credit did replace the flawed parts but in some cases it took two tries.

After the upgrade I could never get the tables level with each other without a lot of messing around. Lift this one up and push that one down. It became almost a ritual. The fence was a beast to align but in my opinion after it is aligned it is superior to the 520 fence.

The flaw with the 510 was how the connector tubes are held tight in the fence rails. The tightened comes in from the side and depending where it contacts the connector tube determines whether it will force the table/tube up or down. This really effects the floating tables.

The 520 tightens from the bottom so the table is always pulled down on the connector tube. Hence it always predictable how to level up to the other tables.

Ps all upgrade parts for the 520 upgrade were grade A perfect. The quality you expect from Shopsmithand their prices.

As to the power pro upgrade while I can afford it, I can't justify the cost. It might be called penny pinching but this same reasoning is what now allows me to accumulate the cash that I could buy it. And I will if the price is ever right.

[Sazerac81]

I just want to say there is nothing wrong with Penny pinching!

Sounds like a majority have been quite happy with the upgrade and that a lot of people have been quite happy with their 510s.

The powerpro headstock is an inevitable purchase for me most likely. It has so many wonderful features and I do love gadgets and woodworking and the powerpro headstock falls squarely in-line with both realms!

The wait on those things is crazy though. I've heard that people who ordered 3 months ago haven't received them yet which indicates a few things. There is definitely demand for the unit and that supply is constrained and hopefully that Shopsmith is doing the proper amount of QA testing on them prior to send out to customers. I'd expect no less for a unit costing (at the lowest amount) 16 benjamins!

Cheers,
John

[reible]

We have heard there is some "problem" so if true that might be holding things from being made/shipping.

As for the 3 months, I waited that long on the last one I purchased and so far as I know they were not having any "problems" then, just a long lag time.

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

[dusty]

First I don't cut sheet stock (4x8 sheets) on table saws. Not worth the effort.
I never had a problem with the size of 500 table when I used the table extender.
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.

Shopsmith to their credit did replace the flawed parts but in some cases it took two tries.

After the upgrade I could never get the tables level with each other without a lot of messing around. Lift this one up and push that one down. It became almost a ritual. The fence was a beast to align but in my opinion after it is aligned it is superior to the 520 fence.

The flaw with the 510 was how the connector tubes are held tight in the fence rails. The tightened comes in from the side and depending where it contacts the connector tube determines whether it will force the table/tube up or down. This really effects the floating tables.

The 520 tightens from the bottom so the table is always pulled down on the connector tube. Hence it always predictable how to level up to the other tables.

Ps all upgrade parts for the 520 upgrade were grade A perfect. The quality you expect from Shopsmithand their prices.

As to the power pro upgrade while I can afford it, I can't justify the cost. It might be called penny pinching but this same reasoning is what now allows me to accumulate the cash that I could buy it. And I will if the price is ever right.

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).

[reible]

Dusty you make a good point. I think, and I never proved it nor can I now because I have no 510 hardware in operation but you are not always assured that the tube is centered to the back tube. In the real world you have forces like very slightly bent tubes, tables not at the same height, slightly off alignment all exerting forces against which the screw has to over come to center the rail in the back. From my experience I have to say I think this happened a lot. Thus while in theory the first version of these 510 rails did not account for alignment issues a second design did better but then it was still not perfect. Hence the next version with is the 520 that used shapes to direct the tube and a screw forcing it up into the alignment. It still is not perfect because things like bent tubes can and do mess you up but for smaller issues they have been fixed.

I will have to say that I got my 510 used so perhaps a factory fresh unit would have been better. I was never able to get the alignment of the rip fence across then main table to extension table as good as I expected. Now it can be said I'm picky that way but still if I'm not happy there are likely others who are not as well. I think others have also upgraded to the 520 for much the same reasons.

It may not be needed if you are happy with how things are, it is not needed if you just mount SPT's, and it certainly saves you some money to not upgrade. My machine is my only table saw and this is where I was having issues with it so again if you never use it as a table saw then the 510 rip fence and rail system might be fine.

Ed

[tomsalwasser]

As to the power pro upgrade while I can afford it, I can't justify the cost.

I can't justify the cost either, nor can I afford it But a PP is on my list, just pretty far down towards the bottom.

If I had that kind of change laying around I would first get a big bandsaw, then an an 8" jointer, then more festool.

[Ed in Tampa]

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

[dusty]

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.