Shopsmith Forums

Ideally the blade resides in a single plane(think the back edge against a flat surface). With the beveled wheels, that requires the cant of the upper wheel. Also ideally the blade should lay flat against the tire. The correct angles allows that.

Ever wonder why the rear guide bearing and the lower guide bearing are NOT adjustable relative to that ideal plane?

JPG wrote:Ideally the blade resides in a single plane(think the back edge against a flat surface). With the beveled wheels, that requires the cant of the upper wheel. Also ideally the blade should lay flat against the tire. The correct angles allows that.

Ever wonder why the rear guide bearing and the lower guide bearing are NOT adjustable relative to that ideal plane?

Huh???

jsburger wrote:

JPG wrote:Ideally the blade resides in a single plane(think the back edge against a flat surface). With the beveled wheels, that requires the cant of the upper wheel. Also ideally the blade should lay flat against the tire. The correct angles allows that.

Ever wonder why the rear guide bearing and the lower guide bearing are NOT adjustable relative to that ideal plane?

Huh???

Which part? Sketch it out with larger bevel angles. In order to 'work', the blade must be at right angles to the wheel bevel. Since that makes the blade back 'lean', the upper wheel must 'lean' back also. Since the upper wheel is also beveled, the upper wheel must be canted(lean) at twice the bevel angle.

BTW all this distance from the back of the tire only applies at the top of the wheel. <<<< I may need to retract that.

Doesn't the blade lay flat on (parallel to) that beveled wheel surface???

dusty wrote:Doesn't the blade lay flat on (parallel to) that beveled wheel surface???

I have not satisfied myself re my statement above. The blade lays 'flat' essentially, but on a cone shaped surface. The wheel diameter is slightly greater at the back of the blade than at the teeth.

I think the cone 'slope' is so slight that observing any appreciable difference is unlikely. Also, the tooth set may even it all out anyway. Besides it is a spongy surface

i.e. Gnat's hair thinking.

JPG wrote:

dusty wrote:Doesn't the blade lay flat on (parallel to) that beveled wheel surface???

I have not satisfied myself re my statement above. The blade lays 'flat' essentially, but on a cone shaped surface. The wheel diameter is slightly greater at the back of the blade than at the teeth.

I think the cone 'slope' is so slight that observing any appreciable difference is unlikely. Also, the tooth set may even it all out anyway. Besides it is a spongy surface

i.e. Gnat's hair thinking.

Rereading this, No, the blade does not lay on the cone shaped surface. The blade lays on the tire which, for all practical purposes, eliminates the cone shape. My tires, because they are as old and heavily used as they are. are very firm, flat and cracked.

So are mine(cracked, firm etc. and with depressions) but essentially follow the bevel.

Flat band on a cone will not position at a constant radius of the cone.

Again gnat's hair. These angles are small.

dusty wrote:

JPG wrote:

dusty wrote:My tires, because they are as old and heavily used as they are. are very firm, flat and cracked.

JPG wrote:So are mine(cracked, firm etc. and with depressions) but essentially follow the bevel.

So what kind of tires are you two going to use when ya replace them?

I have not given that any real serious thought and probably will not until replacement is eminent.

Advise is always accepted, however.

Rubber. I do not have sufficient faith in the soft, stretchy slip on kind. I am guessing slippery as well.

Opinion only - no actual exprerience.