Amazing turning project, done on a Shopsmith

[jsburger]

How did he do this?

full table table saw table 2 question.jpg

They are SS extension table brackets.

http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/cata ... racket.htm

Well, ain't those special.

Thanks John, may need some of those. I use the other machines (10ER and 500) as infeed and outfeed but that is kind of cool ....

They actually work very well. Once you install the angle brackets the long set screws bear against the underside of the main table. That allows you to adjust the brackets parallel to the table surface. The set screws should not have to be adjusted after that. Just install the floating table and use the telescoping leg with a straight edge to adjust the outer end of the floating table level with the main table. Tighten all the table tube knobs and the tube set screws in the brackets and you have a VERY solid and stable assembly.

[Ed in Tampa]

Come on Al comparing a Sears zip code saw to a real saw? Major company (Orion??)
Which is now out business. How about a Ridgid 3650 table saw for around $600 which had none of those defects. My motto only buy from Sears things that do not have motors or engines. Exception appliances which seem to do well.

Oh by the way there is a fix for heeling. Besides aligning blade to fence or miter slot make sure the trunnions are in the same plane in all directions.

Who made that comparison, Ed? Not me! I said my old table saw was an example of a barely adequate one and tried to list the things that made it so. By the way, it was NOT a zip code saw and not made by Orion but IIRC by Ryobi. It cost about $500 in 1999.

I guess I missed your point. How does comparing a Shopsmith to a junk saw make a case for Shopsmith?

By the way what is IIRC and when did Ryobi start using cast iron. Sears saws were made by Emerson, which sold out. Out of it came the Ridgid saw sold through Home Depot. Sears then signed contracts with Orion who built saws for Sears know as zip code saw becaus of their part numbers. Ryobi built saws for Sears but they were knock offs of the BT3100 and or their bench saws. Sears never sold a saw made by a major saw manufacture. I consider major saw manufacture to be Delta, Powermatic, Oliver, General and the likes.

[beeg]

By the way what is IIRC

If I Recall Correctly.

[algale]

Come on Al comparing a Sears zip code saw to a real saw? Major company (Orion??)
Which is now out business. How about a Ridgid 3650 table saw for around $600 which had none of those defects. My motto only buy from Sears things that do not have motors or engines. Exception appliances which seem to do well.

Oh by the way there is a fix for heeling. Besides aligning blade to fence or miter slot make sure the trunnions are in the same plane in all directions.

Who made that comparison, Ed? Not me! I said my old table saw was an example of a barely adequate one and tried to list the things that made it so. By the way, it was NOT a zip code saw and not made by Orion but IIRC by Ryobi. It cost about $500 in 1999.

I guess I missed your point. How does comparing a Shopsmith to a junk saw make a case for Shopsmith?

By the way what is IIRC and when did Ryobi start using cast iron. Sears saws were made by Emerson, which sold out. Out of it came the Ridgid saw sold through Home Depot. Sears then signed contracts with Orion who built saws for Sears know as zip code saw becaus of their part numbers. Ryobi built saws for Sears but they were knock offs of the BT3100 and or their bench saws. Sears never sold a saw made by a major saw manufacture. I consider major saw manufacture to be Delta, Powermatic, Oliver, General and the likes.

Ed,

I'm familiar with the Sears zip code saws. This wasn't one of them. It had a cast iron main table and had a bolt-on solid (not open webbing) cast iron wing which was drilled to accept a router. Based on my description of its many shortcomings you can call it a "junk saw" if you want and in retrospect I believe I made a mistake buying it (it was my first table saw and I didn't know what I was doing). But trust me, it was advertised as the top end contractor saw Sears sold. It looked the part and was priced accordingly. Maybe it wasn't made by Ryobi, but that's my recollection (IIRC = "If I recall correctly"). It definitely wasn't Emerson, not that it particularly matters. You may not consider Ryobi a major maker of table saws based on quality in comparison to the other "major" makers you identify, but based on quantity it is clearly a "major" maker; saying it isn't because of quality is rather like saying Hyundai is not a major car manufacturer because Mercedes, Rolls Royce and Bentley make better cars.

Regardless of who made my old saw (sidenote: after disclosing its flaws, I traded it to a former Forum member in exchange for a Shopsmith belt sander), my reason for ointing out its flaws in comparison to the Shopsmith was to answer the question of what makes a saw "barely adequate" (at least in my book) and to say why I think that's an unfair description to apply to to the Shopsmith with the 520 table and fence system (which is the only Shopsmith I've used).

I've been round and round with you on the subject of the Shopsmith as a table saw on several prior threads, so by memory I know what you have said in the past. To summarize your prior complaints: (1) the Shopsmith doesn't take a power feeder, (2) you can't throw a 800 pound assembled project on the table to trim a whisker off of its backside; (3) it won't win a race with a 5 HP cabinet saw cutting through a 3 inch hard maple board; (4) you can't cut a bevel on the end of an 12 foot long board due to the need to tilt the table to make bevels; and (5) it's a PITA to readjust all the tables when you need to change depth of cut.

The last criticism aside, few people need those capabilities. There's also an argument to be made that the table saw simply isn't the right tool for some of those jobs. If you do need those capabilities in a table saw, then, obviously, the Shopsmith isn't even barely adequate; it is totally inadequate. Go buy a Unisaw.

For cutting any board or sheet goods that you or I or any other person is capable of hoisting onto it, however, the Shopsmith 520 is entirely capable of handling it, albeit (1) less conveniently because you need to take the time to set up the various extension and floating tables, and (2) less quickly because you will probably want to crank the speed down to gain torque to cut through the very thickest boards (btw, the Shopsmith has the greatest depth of cut of any of the saw brands you mention).

Once you have done those things, the Shopsmith table saw is very capable and accurate. From my personal experience I have made perfect cross cuts and rip cuts through the middles of full 4' x 8' x 3/4" sheet goods as well as perfect cross cuts and rip cuts through 8/4" thick 6" x 8' long Sapele boards (pretty hard stuff on the Janka scale). I defy you to explain to me how those cuts would have come out any better (as opposed to faster) on a bigger, more powerful, dedicated table saw built into an aircraft carrier sized table arrangement. That's why I say the Shopsmith 520 shouldn't be described as "barely adequate." I reserve that description for saws that bog down, burn or make inaccurate, rough cuts. Spend any time on the other wood working forums and you will know there are many such table saws out there.

YMMV (Your Milage May Vary).

Al

[Ed in Tampa]

Ed,

I've been round and round with you on the subject of the Shopsmith as a table saw on several prior threads, so by memory I know what you have said in the past. To summarize your prior complaints: (1) the Shopsmith doesn't take a power feeder, (2) you can't throw a 800 pound assembled project on the table to trim a whisker off of its backside; (3) it won't win a race with a 5 HP cabinet saw cutting through a 3 inch hard maple board; (4) you can't cut a bevel on the end of an 12 foot long board due to the need to tilt the table to make bevels; and (5) it's a PITA to readjust all the tables when you need to change depth of cut.

The last criticism aside, few people need those capabilities. There's also an argument to be made that the table saw simply isn't the right tool for some of those jobs. If you do need those capabilities in a table saw, then, obviously, the Shopsmith isn't even barely adequate; it is totally inadequate. Go buy a Unisaw.

For cutting any board or sheet goods that you or I or any other person is capable of hoisting onto it, however, the Shopsmith 520 is entirely capable of handling it, albeit (1) less conveniently because you need to take the time to set up the various extension and floating tables, and (2) less quickly because you will probably want to crank the speed down to gain torque to cut through the very thickest boards (btw, the Shopsmith has the greatest depth of cut of any of the saw brands you mention).



YMMV (Your Milage May Vary).

Al

First let me say I think the Shopsmith is a very adequate saw.
As to the points we have gone round and round over point 1, 2, 3, are capabilities of saws that Shopsmith is compared to price wise. And to me a saw with those capability is no comparison to a Shopsmith and possess abilities not needed by home woodworkers. When I say Shopsmith is too expensive someone invariably says have you priced a 5hp Unisaw with. Zillion foot fence?

On point 4 none of us will argue that bevel cuts on a Shopsmith is not it's best feature.
Point 5 is the nature of the beast. It can be problematic if you have to change a setup in the middle of what you already have set up. Again a serious limitation in production shop but no biggie to home shop.

As for cutting sheet stock I don't think any table saw is well suited to the job. That is why they have panel saws and lately the guided saw systems. Table saws In a sea of aux tables the size of an aircraft carrier are fewer and fewer. Frankly I would do almost anything rather than westle a 4x8 on the table saw.

My question to you was how does comparing a Shopsmith with a saw that you describe as inadequate make the Shopsmith adequate? I don't see your logic in that post.

I was not criticizing the Shopsmith in any form or fashion. I would never compare a Shopsmith to any saw I mentioned other than price

[JPG]

Kinda hard communicating with a moving target eh Al?

[algale]

First let me say I think the Shopsmith is a very adequate saw.
By algale: Hooray, Ed, we agree on something!!!!!

My question to you was how does comparing a Shopsmith with a saw that you describe as inadequate make the Shopsmith adequate? I don't see your logic in that post. By algale: Ed, that's because I never made that argument or used those words. If you will reread my posts as I wrote them, you will see that I described my old saw as "barely adequate." I never described it as "inadequate" or as "junk." Those are YOUR words. I chose my words carefully in describing my old saw because it wasn't a piece of junk. It was just an overly expensive, "barely adequate" saw. By identifying the flaws in that saw that rendered it "barely adequate," we can see if the Shopsmith shares those characteristics, which it does not. Therefore it is not fair to describe the Shopsmith as barely adequate, which is the phrase Skou used several posts ago and made me launch this entire line of argument because I disagree with him that the Shopsmith is "barely adequate." You yourself agree, above, it (the Shopsmith 520 I presume) is "very adequate." We agree. End of discussion.

I was not criticizing the Shopsmith in any form or fashion. I would never compare a Shopsmith to any saw I mentioned other than price. By algale: There you go again!

[algale]

Kinda hard communicating with a moving target eh Al?

It's what I do for a living.

[Ed in Tampa]

Kinda hard communicating with a moving target eh Al?

Moving target how so?

[Ed in Tampa]

I was not criticizing the Shopsmith in any form or fashion. I would never compare a Shopsmith to any saw I mentioned other than price. By algale: There you go again!

There I go again? How so? Again I fail to see your logic.