Shopsmith Forums

Dusty, maybe I missed it but can you post the part number for the casters you ordered?

JPG wrote:John, it is the position of the caster/piston when bearing a load that counts. I am not sure your pix were in that condition.

Oh I completely agree that without 'top swivel bearings', bearing on the caster frame/(whatever that step is) is undesirable. What I consider undesirable with the Mark 5/V casters is the size of the gap.

An additional deviation of the MVII is the pistons slide in a stamped part rather that bored holes(sloppy fit).

Well, here is a picture of the same castors on the machine with weight on them. The gap looks the same to me.

dusty wrote:

jsburger wrote:

JPG wrote:John, it is the position of the caster/piston when bearing a load that counts. I am not sure your pix were in that condition.

Oh I completely agree that without 'top swivel bearings', bearing on the caster frame/(whatever that step is) is undesirable. What I consider undesirable with the Mark 5/V casters is the size of the gap.

An additional deviation of the MVII is the pistons slide in a stamped part rather that bored holes(sloppy fit).

OK but, I am not sure how I could get them in all the same without trying without them being bottomed out. Those pictures were taken in Sep 2015.

I will take pictures tomorrow of those castors mounted on the machine with weight on them. Then we shall see.

I agree that if the gap is "excessive" then there could be a problem. I do not consider a 1/8" gap excessive. How much of a gap do you consider excessive without touching?

Please, when you do this photo op include a Shopsmith Caster Assembly other than the one shown previously.

The gap on mine is 3/16".
Caster Stem Gap 2.18.18.jpg

OK, here you go Dusty. I have 7 sets of castors in use in the shop. The 7 machines include a power stand (band saw), a Power Station and a Pro Planer. I checked one wheel on all 7 machines with weight on it. I used Ed's method of set up blocks. They were all virtually the same. On two machines a 3/16" block just went in. On the other 5 machines a 3/16" block would not go in but not by much. I think that is at the very top end of exposure.

The wheel in the picture is on my full sized machine that I bought in 1994. The castors on the power stand and Pro Planer were bought new by me in the late '90s'. The other 4 sets are of unknown vintage. 3 sets came from eBay and the set on the Power Station came with it. It was bought here locally.

Thank you, John. I appreciate the extra effort. If all of my casters looked like this I would be one happy camper. But, they don't.

The gap that we have been talking about seems to be pretty universal. The gap shown here is 3/64" larger than what I measure. This is of no concern.

It does seem that there have been some changes made at sometime over that 70 year period though; however, I am now a believer that the failed casters are most likely a result of damage created while rolling the machines around. You would not experience that since your floors are smooth like an ice rink.

I put old casters back on the Pro Planer and rolled it around the shop today. It the machine hits an expansion joint straight on (both wheels at a time) it produces quit a jolt. It surprised me when it happened because I was checking for it but I suspect that in the past I just backed up and hit again.

There is no doubt now, Shopsmith 2" Casters do bottom out in the plunger before the gap closes.

Dusty:

John's previous picture(s) was of a model 10 caster set. Definitely a 'different design', but it is the original generation.

This thread has included three version of the casters 10/5/V and VII.

The point re the different versions was to illustrate that they have changed.

Apparently even the M10 casters vary.

JPG wrote:Dusty:

John's previous picture(s) was of a model 10 caster set. Definitely a 'different design', but it is the original generation.

This thread has included three version of the casters 10/5/V and VII.

The point re the different versions was to illustrate that they have changed.

Apparently even the M10 casters vary.

Yes, they have changed. Looking at the pictures (comparing the 10E with the Mark V) it is very clear that the current Mark V casters are not as stout as were the old casters. No wonder no one reports fatigued casters.

I made a recommendation to Shopsmith engineering; maybe I should have suggested that they just go find a different vendor and build to Magna specs.

dusty wrote:

JPG wrote:Dusty:

John's previous picture(s) was of a model 10 caster set. Definitely a 'different design', but it is the original generation.

This thread has included three version of the casters 10/5/V and VII.

The point re the different versions was to illustrate that they have changed.

Apparently even the M10 casters vary.

Yes, they have changed. Looking at the pictures (comparing the 10E with the Mark V) it is very clear that the current Mark V casters are not as stout as were the old casters. No wonder no one reports fatigued casters.

I made a recommendation to Shopsmith engineering; maybe I should have suggested that they just go find a different vendor and build to Magna specs.

I don't think the piston is a problem with the MK 5/V castors. It is the castor itself. 10ER no bearings but the wheel yoke material is thicker and the wheel and the axle is steel on steel. The MK 5/V castor no bearings but the wheel yoke is thinner and the axle is steel on plastic.

Like most things today, "They don't make them like they used to".

John's Caster photo does look better, and he has really nice flat floors with no major craters and joints, and yet using his photo, the caster exhibits some deformity, albeit less.

I rotated the photo to illustrate with plumb lines from the stem and stem housing on his, which are not bent. Examine the caster and the yoke in reference to those lines though.

Everett

I don't think trying to take a photo and then messing with it gives you much but a VERY vague idea of what the real world is like. My old 35mm camera came with a f-stop and distance to attempt to get a flat view, and did pretty well but now with new cameras this is not even thought about unless you are a professional working in that area.

If we wanted see that angle if there is one we need a square next to the leg and then take a photo straight on to see if the leg is actually slightly bent or not as compared to the small square.

Ed

everettdavis wrote:John's Caster photo does look better, and he has really nice flat floors with no major craters and joints, and yet using his photo, the caster exhibits some deformity, albeit less.

I rotated the photo to illustrate with plumb lines from the stem and stem housing on his, which are not bent. Examine the caster and the yoke in reference to those lines though.

Everett
Johns Caster Example.png

Yup! Notice the left 'side' is near straight on, but the right 'side' is no where near straight on.


i.e. I agree with ED.