Older 510 main table not aligned to new table extensions?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:09 am

keakap wrote:JPG is on this like white on rice, but I have to add my 2 cents:
remember that some old rails had different WALL thicknesses. This is an inherent DESIGN and/or manufacturing problem that CANNOT be fixed with shims!

He is shimming the 'tubes'(not the rails) so that the different rail id's will set at the same height. His main table has a larger id than the aux/floating tables. He shimmed the tubes so that the tube is forced to ride the high off the bottom of the rails. The aux tables set on top of the tube, but since they are 'thicker', the table tops will align. The shims are half the id difference + half the thick rail id- tube od difference.

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:41 am

cobalt60 wrote:Ed, I read your advice loud and clear

Upgrading to the 520 from what I have in-hand now would cost more than my entire SS, including the table upgrade, Magna jointer (plus cost of cleaning/sharpening the old dog), scroll saw, and other minor upgrades I've installed. Sure, god bless CraigsList or whatever, but the price isn't something I can justify right now.

Also, to address this advice a bit more critically, the 510 upgrade is still being sold right now, right? Wouldn't it make sense to solve this problem? I mean, it's one thing for a guy like me with a couple hundred bucks sunk into the system, trying to milk every ounce of accuracy. It's entirely different if you buy a full, new 510 upgrade, wouldn't you think?

By the way, I still never called SS to see if ordering replacement main table rails was an OK idea on their end. Will do next week, but for now, I'm going to get back to actual woodworking, I HOPE!

I never said it was a cheap fix

But I contend that even if got new rails all of the same thickness and diameter, you would still have to contend with the slop between the fence rails and connector tube.

Your shim idea will eliminate of compensate for that but I would think the shims will wear fairly quickly.

The one idea I have would be to have someone wield a number of nuts on the bottom side of fence rails over holes you had drilled.

Then using studs much like on a 510 use these to lock the connector tube in place. Since the tighteners will push the connector tube up and against the top inside surface of each fence tube all you have to do then is make sure that the distance from the top inside to the table surface is the same. That may require adjusting the fence rails up or down. Once the inside plane of each fence rail is exactly the same distance from the table top and the connector tube is held against that surface the table have to be aligned.

I would think drilling the fence rails and having a nut welded over each hole and threaded studs would be fairly cheap fix and permanent. And in effect would give you a 520 only with round fence rails instead of the extruded ones.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:36 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote:I never said it was a cheap fix

But I contend that even if got new rails all of the same thickness and diameter, you would still have to contend with the slop between the fence rails and connector tube.

Your shim idea will eliminate of compensate for that but I would think the shims will wear fairly quickly.

The one idea I have would be to have someone wield a number of nuts on the bottom side of fence rails over holes you had drilled.

Then using studs much like on a 510 use these to lock the connector tube in place. Since the tighteners will push the connector tube up and against the top inside surface of each fence tube all you have to do then is make sure that the distance from the top inside to the table surface is the same. That may require adjusting the fence rails up or down. Once the inside plane of each fence rail is exactly the same distance from the table top and the connector tube is held against that surface the table have to be aligned.

I would think drilling the fence rails and having a nut welded over each hole and threaded studs would be fairly cheap fix and permanent. And in effect would give you a 520 only with round fence rails instead of the extruded ones.

Uh Huh! Now about that skinny fence! . . .

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:46 am

JPG40504 wrote:Are the thumbscrews that tighten the tubes to the rail all the same size?

Does the main table rail have holes in the face to provide access to the mounting bolts?

I am trying to determine if you have a mix of two versions of 510 parts. If so, the rails are different sizes.

I am assuming the 'new' tables are newly manufactured(newer version).

JPG-- OHMIGOSH! Are you thinking what I am thinking?

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:07 am

JPG40504 wrote:Your 'knobs' or all of the 'later' variety.

... The newer ones have thinner walls!!!

If your rails also differ being all the 'later' version, it would appear there be another 'version' iteration!!!:(
...

Great Googaly Moogaly! It do look like you're right.
Is there (or was there in the 80's) any nuclear facilities in the area of Vandalia Ohio?
Like, is there a place called Mutantville?

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:23 am

cobalt60 wrote:So Ed, you're thinking this issue is not somehow "version" based, but rather just an inherit flaw in all 510 upgrades? To further clarify, does everyone with a 510 version (any era) have this problem and just "deal with it?"

That seems ... quite problematic. I mean, I guess for rough sheet goods it's not a deal-breaker (still not as safe as possible), but for fine cuts in hardwood, which is what i do most of the time, this is basically un-usable and at worst, unsafe. It strikes me as particularly odd that the issue is different tube sizes -- why not just use the same tubes??

Hope it's not brash or jerk-y to say, but at $425 I'd have to consider selling what I've got and getting individual tools. But I really don't want to - I'm loving this old SS and really just want it to work the way I believe it can

Welcome to the club. Membership appears to be quite limited. Of course that doesn't make the members any happier.
It seems-- no, it is a fact-- that there were a number of different physical versions of tubes, rails, tables, etc., ad nauseum. You just happen to be one of the rare victims of all the wrong things coming together at once, from goodness knows how many sources.
Nota bene: in my case the owner (one) (me) dealt with NO OTHER VENDOR but Shopsmith DIRECT, and still got a lethal mix.

Dusty is right, I gave up. The new tables weren't all that expensive (222 ttl) considering what they accomplished. And now as a 520 and three new aux tables my Mark V is close to "new" in function. (And I've got three old tables to play with, one of which I retained the old rails for so I can use my old fence to make a 2-fence setup for cutting large panels, captured.)

So with new tables you got less of a great deal, but still a good deal, methinks (especially since you like the SS anaway). Bite that bullet- maybe there'll be chocolate inside.

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:36 am

dusty wrote:WAIT, don't bore holes yet. The solution might be a lot simpler and already anticipated in the design. I am confident that the issue is not related to a major design deficiency by Shopsmith but rather a lack of applied procedures by we owners....

Almost hate to say it, but if he's havin the same problem I had it most definitely is a Shopsmith problem and not an owner problem.
The very Walls of the different rail tubes were a different thickness. Unless your connecting tubes are of a stepped diameter design they WILL NOT fit right no matter what the user does. Period.
BUT-- big BUT-- that's ONLY if the problem is rail tube WALL thickness, NOT diameters. Simplest thing in the world to check, but requires calipers or equivalent-- you Must be accurate.

I agree that almost any other problem may have a fix.

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:47 am

Ed in Tampa wrote:I think this problem is inherrant to all 510 and I believe that is reason the 520 was designed to replace the 510.
The problem is not different tube sizes but rather the way the connector tube in secured in the table fence tube. ...

Ed, not to be argumentative but rather to try and keep confusion to a minimum, there most definitely DOES exist a problem with tube sizes. There are tubes with differing WALL THICKNESSES. And the difference you mention. And too many others to mention here.

The point: although RARE, it may pay to be aware of the possibility and make the easy check.

Issue: there are at least 4 different versions of 510 rail tubes, not all of which play well with others. (And JPG has the proof.)

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 am

JPG40504 wrote:ical element.Previously was discussed the front to rear alignment problem Keakap had with his 'mixture' of old/new rails. The id difference was identified then, but the vertical 'issue' was not recognized at that time(or at least not discussed).

"at least not discussed"-- hit the nail on the head.
I was well aware of the vertical "element" and it in fact threw me for awhile. But that was not the problem. Wall thickness was. Because what I wanted was -- and again you "nailed it"-- CONSISTENCY.
Put simply, you should be able to align those tables together with connector tubes in total darkness, without any setup gauges, shims, pries, jigs or magic potions, and if the connector tubes don't have a consistent surface upon or against which to be pressed (ONE for all!) you will not be able to get consistency.
Here's a test of my thesis: try aligning the tables in total darkness. Turn on the lights. Dang! Not aligned.
Turn off the lights again, try again, and jiggle, push, pull, lift, twist, shake and bake all you want. Turn on the lights. Dang! Not aligned.
One more time, but this time with ALL same tubes. Lights off. Align. Lights on. AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:05 am

keakap wrote:Almost hate to say it, but if he's havin the same problem I had it most definitely is a Shopsmith problem and not an owner problem.
The very Walls of the different rail tubes were a different thickness. Unless your connecting tubes are of a stepped diameter design they WILL NOT fit right no matter what the user does. Period.
BUT-- big BUT-- that's ONLY if the problem is rail tube WALL thickness, NOT diameters. Simplest thing in the world to check, but requires calipers or equivalent-- you Must be accurate.

I agree that almost any other problem may have a fix.

I'm not sure of that. I sent cobalt60 a set of 510 rails that were expected to eliminate the potential mismatch in rail dimensions. I have not heard how this worked out but if he still has the original problem - it is not caused by differing rails.