Shopsmith Forums

reible wrote:
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 wrote: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.

Ed in Tampa wrote:

dusty wrote:
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

Ed in Tampa wrote:Dusty you asked why I wanted the table to be perfectly level. So my fence would slide between them and so the edge of a board did not catch on them.

Anyone that ever used a tables as knows they want the side extensions to line up perfectly with the saw table. Why would someone using a Shopsmith be different?

On the my 520 the tables are level and the fence slides between them with nary a snick when it crosses a joint.

Spencer wrote:OK, so this is my first post.
Everett has hit exactly what I am looking into. Trying to decide if buying used and saving $300 is worth accepting a SS with miles already driven and at the mercy of how the previous owner (or owner's helpers) treated the standard accessories.
My math looks like this in order to upgrade a used SS to a Mark 7 and assuming that all accessories need to be purchased new.
If upgrading a 500, than I would have about $450 to spend on a used 500.
If upgrading a 510, than I would have about $1300 to spend on a used 510.
If upgrading a 520, than I would have about $1750 to spend on a used 520.

This thread has really helped me to confirm that I would not be happy with a 510 without upgrading it.
I have also learned that while the PowerPro would be awesome, there are a lot of woodworkers that feel the old headstock is still pretty good and that I would probably be happy with a 520 for a while.