Older 510 main table not aligned to new table extensions?

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:20 am

Ed in Tampa wrote:Order the 520 upgrade and stop worrying about it.

Ed-- Halleluiah!
Your descriptions of the vertical "element", perfectly valid imho, and very helpful in painting the overall picture, notwithstanding, the problem here-- proven by post #30-- is tube incompatibility, and I absolutely concur with your recommendation.

(In case anyone wonders-- yes, I did finally have to replace all my defective aux tables, but for different reasons. The 520 upgrade essentially fixed the rail tube incompat problem, and was a wonderful improvement regardless.)

(Another "oh, btw"-- yes, I can set up my tables in the dark.)

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:35 am

cobalt60 wrote:...
By the way, I still never called SS to see if ordering replacement main table rails was an OK idea on their end. ...

A Caution: The folks at Shopsmith Service/Support are the best in the world, bar none, I am convinced. However, that doesn't mean 'perfect'. If they are not aware of an inconsistency. And if they are once, doesn't mean they will remember it if it comes up once every two years or so.
There are some people on this forum who still think there is no inconsistency in tube thicknesses, and/or if there is that it causes problems. This is also true of the people at SS-- SOMEtimes. This is not a criticism but merely an observation, and certainly not a finger of blame or accusation per se.

I suggest asking for a comparison before you pay for the parts and pay for the Postage. Give them your specific rail tube measurements, particularly wall thickness, and ask that they measure theirs and compare. This is a very difficult problem to see, and perhaps even more difficult to perceive.
I thought I had a quite clear understanding, via both e-mail and voice, and yet got a mixed bag of stuff. And I blame no one. It is almost inconceivable that this can happen.
But...

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:38 am

JPG40504 wrote:...
You need 2 '514663' for each table.! About $60 +SH

You're a braver man than I, jpGunga din! My mind still reels at the "Nightmare of the Rails", and I'm afraid to recommend anything so specific.

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:54 am

dusty wrote: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.

Yes it's a crap-shoot. But I qualified: "if he's havin the same problem I had"

Basically, given the fact that the O.D. was the same and the wall thickness was different, alignment of as-is equipment by using one same quadrant as a contact pressure point is absolutely impossible. That was my specific problem.

Regardless, I heartily commend your offering the rails for troubleshooting porpoises (at least!), and hope a resolution is soon. Dang nasty problem, this one!
Aloha kakou!

BTW-- I just deleted a bunch of messages. I had not checked to see if the thread was old, and how old. Turns out I was rambling on with repetitive blather. Sorry bout that.

cobalt60 · Post by **cobalt60** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:14 pm

Thanks again for your donation to this experimental cause, dusty!

With those sent, I have all the confidence I need to execute the idea I had for the existing tubes. You can probably guess, based on this thread, where I'm going -- it involves a metal drill bit, small tap, tiny set screws... and irreparable damage to the main table's tubes.

Also, I'll post some preview pics that should help show WHY I'm so obsessed with cross-table flatness. Hopefully these mods, add-ons, and re-engineering projects will be much more fun than my nearly-OCD whining about millimeters of table height

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:06 am

cobalt60 wrote:2) I'm not willing to give up on the quest for reasonably even-height tables. I was thinking along the lines of the wedge or shim idea mentioned here. Wandering around the hardware store, I found some tape made of metal... seems promising.

[ATTACH]11563[/ATTACH]

I figured I'd just wrap until the OD is fattened up enough to be snug in the main table. Problem is, there's some metal imperfections inside the tube, around the edge of the thumbscrew hole. This was TOO snug, and ended up tearing up and jamming the metal tape.

Plan B: more like the wedge idea, I figure the shim only needs to be in the direction of the problem.

[ATTACH]11564[/ATTACH]

So here's a bunch of very thin, sticky metal shims, right?

[ATTACH]11565[/ATTACH]

After a few, I start test fitting it every couple strips. It takes 10 for a pretty good fit, 12 for snug.

Needs some fine tuning, but I don't see any immediate problems with this. Tables are all level without fiddling with the thumbscrews. Loose or tight, the z-axis needs no by-hand adjustment. I don't like the idea of the thumbscrews maintaining the z-axis position -- they're clearly not made for that, and I can't imagine them being good at it.

[ATTACH]11566[/ATTACH]

Well, it's close, at least, and I think I can get it perfect with this method. Other than the pipe now having an artificial top and bottom, and the less rugged surface of the tape, does anyone see any problems with this plan?

Thanks again for the help and encouragement everyone!

I was just wondering if the replacement rails did anything to improve your alignment dilemma.

wannabewoodworker · Post by **wannabewoodworker** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:36 am

I just read through this whole thread and had not read the old Keakap thread but it is mind boggling to me that Shopsmith would market something so inherently in-precise (sp). I mean most of the Shopsmith is relatively precise to a point and this whole thing is truly unacceptable and I agree with Cobalt it should not be like this. I mean this is a basic thing that should align for proper cutting. Why would they build the table system with differing ID diameters of tubing??? That to me just makes no sense? It would seem to me that all of the table tubes should be the same ID and then the connector tubing should be a couple thousandths smaller to allow sliding through the table tubes. My other thought would be even if you do get the tables aligned perfectly won't you still have OD problems with the tubes and wouldn't that cause problems with fence alignment? I sure hope you can figure out something to make it all work properly but from what I have read it sounds pretty futile and I know all about spending extra money to make something work that should work without spending extra money it is aggravating to a fault.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:34 am

wannabewoodworker wrote:I just read through this whole thread and had not read the old Keakap thread but it is mind boggling to me that Shopsmith would market something so inherently in-precise (sp). I mean most of the Shopsmith is relatively precise to a point and this whole thing is truly unacceptable and I agree with Cobalt it should not be like this. I mean this is a basic thing that should align for proper cutting. Why would they build the table system with differing ID diameters of tubing??? That to me just makes no sense? It would seem to me that all of the table tubes should be the same ID and then the connector tubing should be a couple thousandths smaller to allow sliding through the table tubes. My other thought would be even if you do get the tables aligned perfectly won't you still have OD problems with the tubes and wouldn't that cause problems with fence alignment? I sure hope you can figure out something to make it all work properly but from what I have read it sounds pretty futile and I know all about spending extra money to make something work that should work without spending extra money it is aggravating to a fault.

Without hands on and without documentation it is very difficult to draw any precise conclusions about what has or might have happened to create this problem. Keakap experienced a situation that seems to have been very similar.

When passing judgement, we must remember that the equipment being discussed is of mixed vintage and likely a mixture of manufacturers as well. There is no guarantee that these items were ever manufactured to the same specifications.

With regard to fence alignment - proper alignment only requires that the outside surfaces of the tubes be in the same plane (across the infeed edge) from left to right.

The fence is adjusted with respect to that plane to make it parallel to the blade. Diameter of the tubes will cause no problem. Being able to lock down the rip fence may be an issue. But since the lock is adjustable, I doubt that will become a problem.

I use a mixture of connector tubes and have no problem at all. The mixture involves standard Shopsmith tubes intermixed with a few pieces of hardware store EMT. The EMT has a slightly smaller OD than the extension tubes.

I standby these statements for both a 510 and a 520 configuration.

In my opinion, the extension tubes are used to provide stability by tying the tables together. They are not used as a reference point for alignment. You can accomplish proper alignment without even installing the extension tubes (floating tables excepted).

I don't do alignments this way for the sake of expedience but it can be done.

robinson46176 · Post by **robinson46176** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:50 am

I solved "ALL" of my Shopsmith tablesaw mode problems with the installation of part # TS-3650.

Most people here know how much of an SS fan I am and I can't even imagine my shop without my little flock of Shopsmiths and their amazing flexibility but I am in an ongoing love affair with that TS-3650 (not too impressed with some of the later models I have seen at home depot though).

I should mention that the SS in tablesaw mode is still a far better table saw than any of the other tablesaws (except the TS-3650) I have now or had in the past and pretty much all of the lower end saws I see selling now.
If I were quite limited on space I think a good SS, a good compound miter saw and a good electric hand saw (what many universally call a Skilsaw) would suffice nicely along with some SS SPT's.

About this extension table alignment thing... When I bought my 510 new I did it like any such tool. I put it together, actually following the instructions, and carefully aligned it. As is my practice if something didn't suit me I did what ever it took to make it come out right. I learned as a youth on the farm and as a lifetime farmer / mechanic / machinist / learn every trade I could person that you should never expect a manufactured item to come out of the box perfect. We put up a number of grain bins over the years and I still have the special wrench that came with the first one. It had a wrench on one end and a long tapered rod on the other. That rod is usually referred to a a jiffeling bar (sp?) and is used to make two mismatched holes line up pretty much by force. For decades I have assembled all manner of stuff with a tapered reamer close at hand as well as a good inventory of drill bits in fraction, number and letter sizes. If something doesn't line up properly I figure that is my fault for not "making" it line up properly.

My 510 BTW, did not require much alignment and only needed very minor tweaking.
My 510 floating extension table set up including the support legs have been gathering dust for many years, I simply have no interest in using them. I will keep them and may well use them (unmodified) as an out-feed extension for my TS-3650 leaving them sat up in that use on a basically permanent basis. While I don't really mind the SS mode changes generally I just find that whole floating extension table system too "puttery" for my taste.

Here is a link to one of the more useful tapered reamers. "Every" shop should have at least one. I have a number of them. It can also be had with a screwdriver type handle which can be handy but can lack leverage. Some have a square drive above the tee handle.
http://www.toolup.com/empire-level_27770_t-handled-tapered-reamer.aspx?gclid=CNvg-v-RoagCFUiK4AodXlwTHQ

One last love affair comment...

I was super impressed when I put my TS-3650 together. Absolutely everything fit perfectly... I never had to push / pull anything into alignment to put a bolt in. It all just fit together like you usually wish for but seldom get. I was also impressed with the fact that all sheet metal had rounded corners. I could not make you believe how much I have bled on stuff over the years because the makers did not care enough about me (us) to deburr things, especially farm machinery (engineers all think farmers have leather skin).
While I did check everything nothing needed tweaking before using. When is the last time you bought a machine like that?

OK, I will quit now...

wannabewoodworker · Post by **wannabewoodworker** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:53 pm

I think I saw a TS-3650 for sale recently on CL. Should I look at this saw as you seem pretty pleased with it? I have the older Delta Super 10 that I have cleaned up and it cuts great but the rip fence definitely leaves a lot to be desired as do many of the cheaper saws out there. The fence is the most important feature on any tablesaw as I see it. Power would probably be second. I was looking at the parts for one of the newer Porter Cable saws i saw at the big box store. I went to the Porter Cable parts web site and looked up all the parts for the fence on that saw as it seemed to be very sturdy and precise. I priced all the parts out for that fence and it was $133.00 for the fence system on that saw. So I was thinking of maybe purchasing all the parts for that fence system and installing it on my old Delta. As far as I can see it mounts to the table and extensions the same way but I will probably call them just to be sure it will retrofit to my saw before I actually buy it.