Shopsmith Forums

I happen to upgrade my 1976 model to a 520 based on what gathered from the shopsmith catalog. I was extremely happy with the system and found it well worth the upgrade price, I was sorry I wait so long to do so, if I had known I would have done it when it first came out.

With the having of only one machine I began to wonder what if something were to go bad? Days/weeks of down time? I thing I also really wanted a second machine anyway so I started looking for a used machine. A 510 came up, pretty much a basket case but with a matching lower price. This gave me a second headstock even if it did need a few repairs. Mind you this was before it became so common for people to own more then one machine, in fact now this is quite common.

Perhaps because of issues the previous owner had introduced, perhaps because I already had a 520 system but I was not so happy with the 510. For one thing getting the main table and a floating table or an extension table to line up so that I could use the rip fence straddling the seam would not work. Now mind you the 500 I had worked fine and main table to extension table bridging worked fine (some people have had issues, not me).

The 520 had a much more solid feel and the fence was very solid feeling plus I got the ruler so for rustic work that was handy.

I bit the bullet and upgraded the 510 to a 520. Now I have parts which I can exchange between systems and I still prefer the 520 system over what I had as a 510.

I later got a couple of 500's as I missed some of the features they provide plus I had spent so many years use that system it just felt right to have one around.

Given how I like to work and what I expect out of my systems there was no advantage to me to have or ever get another 510. If I put them in top down order it would be 520, 500, 510. I know a lot of people are happy with the 510, I'm just not one of them.

Ed

Yes! It is definitely a very personal decision. That is obvious from the above discussion.

dusty wrote:Functionally there is not much difference (if any).

These are the two versions that I know about.

[ATTACH]26785[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]26786[/ATTACH]

The ribbing on the work surface is the major visual difference. The one with less ribbing is the later model. The one that is ribbed all the way across is my preferred model.

The small rectangular protrusion at the corner has no functional value that I am aware (except maybe during the manufacturing process). I dislike it because it prevents the tables from coming together like the older tables do. Strictly personal preference.

Disregard the rails. The round rail can be used on either table. The extruded rail can be used on either table but the extruded rail makes it a 520 configuration (not what you asked about).

Hope this helps.

A third version. An early 510. Attaching screws are accessed through the holes. Also notice the different 'thumb' screws that secure the tubes to the inside of the rails. The center screw location is different from the later ones.

[ATTACH]26791[/ATTACH]

dusty wrote:Please explain: In what way was the 510 so much worse than the 500 and what did the 520 introduce to the setup that makes it so much better.

Yes my problem was just a JGP described and Reible also experienced. The thumb screws would change the alignment of the floating tables by how they were handled.

If they were simply inserted and the thumbscrew tightened they would move the tube up or down. If the tube was held up they would tend to tighten it with the tube up. If the tube was pushed down by the weight of the floating table and then tightened they would be down.

My fence rail tubes were the ones with a welded studs not the ones with hole and screw and standoff. In my effort to get things right I had about two sets of fence rails and two sets of connector tubes.

I'm almost certain someone from Shopsmith made the comment that the effect the thumbwheels had on the connector tube was the reason SS designed the 520 tightening method to come up from the bottom. So the connector tube would always be pushed against the top of the fence rail.

I still think the 510 fence was easier to adjust when make a cut. Fact I loved the 500 fence. Once set up properly it would always adjust perfectly parallel to the blade. Loved it even better than Bessmeyer fence.

Had a chance to get my hands on a 520 fence. WOW! What a difference in heft. Will I get one? Who knows...but I may.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Yes my problem was just a JGP described and Reible also experienced. The thumb screws would change the alignment of the floating tables by how they were handled.

If they were simply inserted and the thumbscrew tightened they would move the tube up or down. If the tube was held up they would tend to tighten it with the tube up. If the tube was pushed down by the weight of the floating table and then tightened they would be down.

My fence rail tubes were the ones with a welded studs not the ones with hole and screw and standoff. In my effort to get things right I had about two sets of fence rails and two sets of connector tubes.

I'm almost certain someone from Shopsmith made the comment that the effect the thumbwheels had on the connector tube was the reason SS designed the 520 tightening method to come up from the bottom. So the connector tube would always be pushed against the top of the fence rail.

I still think the 510 fence was easier to adjust when make a cut. Fact I loved the 500 fence. Once set up properly it would always adjust perfectly parallel to the blade. Loved it even better than Bessmeyer fence.

When the thumbscrews are loosened all of the way, where is the extension tube? It is laying on the bottom of the inside curvature of the table rail.

When the thumbscrews are tightened, the extension tube is pushed away and it walks up the inside of the rail until it can go no further.

If the extension tube ever gets above the horizontal center line, external forces other than the thumbscrew are causing it.

Bent extension tubes or deformities on the inside of the rails are the only things that I can see causing what you describe.

All a matter of 'degree'!

But I think the 'goof' was the newer 510 with the larger id rails.

Here is a 'new' floating table with the tube clamped. Notice the amount of clearance towards the table. It seems to be centered vertically even though the other end of the tube is dangling. There also seems to be no play at the other end of the rail due likely to the central location of the clamping screw.

[ATTACH]26815[/ATTACH]

Now for a look at older main table 'action'.

Notice the lesser amount of clearance at the table side of the rail. This is with only the closer clamping screw tight(the main table has two clamps).

[ATTACH]26816[/ATTACH]

Same but with only the far clamp tightened. Not quite 'centered' vertically, but closer and not quite centered horizontally.

[ATTACH]26817[/ATTACH]

And finally with both clamps tightened.

[ATTACH]26818[/ATTACH]

This illustrates(sorta) the incompatibility of the new/old rails. The tubes are positioned further apart(horizontally) since the overall front to rear spacing of the rail outer walls is the same. That extra gap increases the tube spacing front to rear(further apart).

Now this was all done with the tubes subject to gravity. If the tubes were secure and the table subject to gravity I expect the centering to be less concise due to the weight of the tables. However the tubes are the floaters typically with an extension table but the opposite is true with the floating tables. I do not have a way to try this in a more normal setup(mounted to a carriage etc.).

The apparent greater bottom gap in the last three pix is likely due to parallelax.

P.S. I think gravity was the reason for the 520 change. The top referencing and bottom clamping eliminated those variations. Also provided a stouter resting place for the heavier fence.

I PM'ed this to Dusty but I will post it here also
Here is what I did. I got my 510 table (router) that had 510 fence rails mounted.
I put it atop my 520 table and stuck in my 5ft connectors so approx 21 inches stuck out both end of the main table. Sort of balance the whole thing.

My fence rail OD 1 1/4 inches
ID is 1 1/16 inches

Connector tube is OD 1"
ID 7/8"

With the tubes in the table nothing tightened the end of the connector tube was 3/8 inches above my aux table

With the connector lifted up and tightened it was 1/2"
With the connector pressed down and tightened it was 7/16
All thumbscrews were tightened

I then turned the connector 180
Loose it was a shade under 1/2"
Tightened up 9/16"
tightened down 7/16"


I then did the back fence rail on the main table.
fence rail was 1 1/4" OD
1 1/16 ID

21 inch projection from table
loose connector was 3/8 above table
tightened up 3/8"
tightened down 1/4"

Turned the connector 180
Loose 1/4
tightend 5/16
tightened down shade under 1/4

I think it was about the same for the floating and aux table but I can not verify.

Let me know if anyone can make sense of this.

All I know is this equated to my floating tables either being higher or lowere than my main table. UNLESS I played around and pushed the connector tube up or down in the main table and on the floating table.

Problem was sometimes I pressed up and other things I forgot that is when things got all messed up.

I think you have a bent connector tube.

Lay it in the miter track of the main table and spin it with your fingers while watching the end of the tube. If straight it won't appear to move at all. I expect it to move in a circular pattern.

Ed in Tampa wrote:I PM'ed this to Dusty but I will post it here also
Here is what I did. I got my 510 table (router) that had 510 fence rails mounted.
I put it atop my 520 table and stuck in my 5ft connectors so approx 21 inches stuck out both end of the main table. Sort of balance the whole thing.

My fence rail OD 1 1/4 inches
ID is 1 1/16 inches

Connector tube is OD 1"
ID 7/8"

With the tubes in the table nothing tightened the end of the connector tube was 3/8 inches above my aux table

With the connector lifted up and tightened it was 1/2"
With the connector pressed down and tightened it was 7/16 pressed where?
All thumbscrews were tightened Were there two? Sequence?(near/far)

I then turned the connector 180 Rotated the tube in the rail?
Loose it was a shade under 1/2"
Tightened up 9/16"
tightened down 7/16"


I then did the back fence rail on the main table. Router????
fence rail was 1 1/4" OD
1 1/16 ID

21 inch projection from table
loose connector was 3/8 above table
tightened up 3/8"
tightened down 1/4"

Turned the connector 180
Loose 1/4
tightend 5/16
tightened down shade under 1/4

I think it was about the same for the floating and aux table but I can not verify.

Let me know if anyone can make sense of this.

All I know is this equated to my floating tables either being higher or lowere than my main table. UNLESS I played around and pushed the connector tube up or down in the main table and on the floating table.

Problem was sometimes I pressed up and other things I forgot that is when things got all messed up.

Since there are two clamping screws, the sequence will vary the result especially if introducing external force(pushing up/down).

The height being different as the tubes are rotated seems to indicate bent tubes(however slight).

What this illustrates to me is that pushing/pulling will alter the positioning of the tube in the rail vertically and maybe deflecting the tube as well..

The design needs to be free to work as intended.

Bent tubes make that intention more difficult or impossible.

Gravity effect on the floating tables most likely results in the same deviation as pulling the tube up.

I am beginning to think the cause/effect/workaround are coincident.