Shopsmith Forums

JPG wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 12:40 pm Y'ALL ARE NUTS!

ANY proposed power plant NEEDS to accommodate ALL currently existing SPTs on their mounts positioned to the prime mover.

Any thing else simply will cause a lead pellet to become embedded in to thy foot.

You are forgetting it has been re-christened a "smart" motor now (per the interview). It knows what you have connected and where now!!!

JPG wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 12:40 pm Y'ALL ARE NUTS!

ANY proposed power plant NEEDS to accommodate ALL currently existing SPTs on their mounts positioned to the prime mover.

Any thing else simply will cause a lead pellet to become embedded in to thy foot.

+1. But I agree with much of the sentiment. To interest me, an admitted fan of the PP, PP3 would address Idler shaft robustness and thermal performance. Larger, more maneuverable color touch screen with more information on it and a better user interface (Confirm functionality) - yes to all of that. But my impression of what I would expect in terms of thermal performance is that PP2 likely went the wrong way (I'd love for SS to prove me wrong on that) and it was already unacceptable IMO. My experience with the Idler shaft; also unacceptable unless SS can demonstrate significant improvement based on the new belts AND provide a useful/objective belt tensioning procedure for all versions. The Idler bearing was the best and most reliable bearing in the headstock before the 'water pump style' was changed to what we have now.

Headstock ventilation was mentioned in the interview. MAYBE that will help with the 'new' motor, as it appears they moved the position/speed pickups to within the motor enclosure, which is close to being sealed. But that is not a solution for the majority of PP owners that have the original motor unless ventilation includes both forced and filtered air.

- David

I respect everyone's opinion on this subject. However, the future of Shopsmith depends on new customers who don't care if an old style joiner connects to the headstock in exactly the same way or maybe isn't even interested in the old style joiner at all. And one way of gaining new Shopsmith customers would be a lower cost headstock. If eliminating the idler shaft reduced costs significantly the decision seems like a no brainer to me, as would be the case to keep it if it didn't lower costs.

In addition, even if the idler shaft was not available in new designs you guys in love with the lower aux spindle all have Shopsmiths now, and if you want a PowerPro with that feature you can install one in your existing headstock. This is not the kind of all or nothing decision that it's being portrayed as here.

ETA: I forgot to mention something. Scott's latest video on My Growth Rings shows the design of the X-6000 allowed the way tube assembly to be lowered which would eliminate the problem he first mentioned here about the joiner being mounted higher in order to connect to the main spindle. A new design could add a stronger support for the joiner mounted up above the end casting on tubes that would make it sturdy enough for the old style joiner and hopefully for the new wider long bed joiners Shopsmith will design.

As a final note, I certainly appreciate the hesitation to make changes like this. I'm a guy who insists on calling the SPT in question a joiner, not the new fangled idea of sticking a superfluous 't' in the name of a joinery machine. So I'm not making any suggestions simply to change things from the way they were. There have to be valid engineering and marketing reasons to do it or it would be pointless.

edma194 wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 2:52 pm I respect everyone's opinion on this subject. However, the future of Shopsmith depends on new customers who don't care if an old style joiner connects to the headstock in exactly the same way or maybe isn't even interested in the old style joiner at all.

Agree completely. The fact that many can't see past maintaining legacy with one sorely outdated SPT is why this company will keep both feet firmly planted in the past unfortunately. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either choose nostalgia and stick with the past, or embrace the future with all the features, bells & whistles it might offer.

In many ways the 10ER was/is a superior machine, and yet we now have the Mark VII, Mark V and Mark 7. Surely there were 10ER devotees who said much the same thing as those above when all of these follow-on machines were launched. When/if Shopsmith moves into the future, those same advocates for the Mark VII, Mark V and Mark 7 will still be around and still loving those woodworking machines, BUT there will be a new "kid" on the block for future owners to love.

edma194 wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 2:52 pm A new design could add a stronger support for the joiner mounted up above the end casting on tubes that would make it sturdy enough for the old style joiner and hopefully for the new wider long bed joiners Shopsmith will design.

That would require yet another redesign of the headrest, but that would resolve the need for an idler shaft, and that would also allow the machine to be moved into the drill press without removing the STPs, but it would require quite a feat of engineering to do all that plus allow for left tilt.

edma194 wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 2:52 pm new fangled idea of sticking a superfluous 't' in the name of a joinery machine.

Now you're just baiting me!

This has been a thought-provoking thread. I finally watched the interview video a day or three ago, and was impressed with Nick’s sales/marketing instincts. Unlike this dull and boring engineer, he seems to have a knack for going straight to the emotional value of a product. Which, if you’re honest (and not Spock), is probably the biggest factor in most hobbyist purchase decisions.

That said, I had to roll my eyes at the idea of penetrating the European market on the basis of a Mark’s lathe functionality. It’s fine as a spindle lathe, but pretty much unusable as a bowl lathe, absent a speed reducer or a PowerPro. And even then it’s still lame, because it’s way too lightweight and prone to mechanical resonances.

Then the jointer thing came up. Gotta agree with RFGuy that bigger is better, and pretty much essential to compete in today’s market. My first thought was that a big jointer would be way too heavy. But does a jointer need to be heavy, like a good lathe? I see no reason why, as long as the cutterhead is reasonably well balanced. Flat, yes. Rigid, yes. Sounds like a great application for some lightweight composites.

The comment re "legacy" devotees resonates here. I absolutely think that that is a reason for SS's continued 'limited' success with 50 yr old stuff.

A parallel comes to mind. Early on in the "PC" operating systems(DOS) backward compatibility was a mantra through several version iterations.

Than along came GUI operating systems and that philosophy disappeared and was replaced by marketing mantra that meant ever time a new version of the operating system(windows) required(usually) recreation of drivers for interfacing with hardware connected(printer...)to the computer. Yes they were often required to be updated with DOS, BUT, those drivers were internal to the OS and did not require hardware vendors to create them(nor did that allow them to go off and do their individually unique things.(non-standardization!!!).

We all know how wonderful that current scenario is.(OS 'updates" make hardware unusable with no vendor support of the 'devices').

Surely there is some middle ground to be discovered. A/B adapters for the model 10 to use SPT's is an example. These things often are not utopian solutions, but do provide at least a path.

I agree there is a need for an improved joiner(longer,wider,lighter,shellix), but not at the expense of shutting out that venerable small cousin of advanced age.

Coming events will prove to be interesting, but I hope not controversial.

JPG wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 12:13 am The comment re "legacy" devotees resonates here. I absolutely think that that is a reason for SS's continued 'limited' success with 50 yr old stuff.

Yeah, it just gets back to my earlier question on this thread which is in 2024, who are Shopsmith customers? Either existing or target customers? Many on this thread assume that business will continue as it always has and that Shopsmith is serving existing customers ONLY who already own Shopsmith. So, all of them want to have support for every legacy SPT, etc. So, naturally you have some who want to migrate from Mark V -> PP2/3. Some want a new SPT or accessory. Some, want to replace their entire rig or buy another one and therefore want a Mark 7 (or 12 according to Saint Nick). Some just want replacement parts for ALL existing hardware for the next 100 years. BUT...what about new customers? Those who have never heard of or owned a Shopsmith before? We had started discussing on this thread how Shopsmith could possibly achieve 25X sales growth (promised on interview), something I would argue is only achievable in a non-manufacturing business, i.e. software business. Very hard to 25X sales on an established business in hardware - you know manufacturing/producing actual stuff. This is where Ed's posts came in and his comments resonated with me in this regard as we started to have a "What IF?" discussion on new Shopsmith products. Of course, emotion again came into the thread with follow-up posts because many existing Shopsmith owners assume Shopsmith will never change and MUST support ALL legacy hardware until the end of time. This is really the crux of Shopsmith's future, i.e. who are their target customers in 2024 and whether they will roll out a product roadmap that fits them or not. Hence the 4" jointer being an outlier, and non-competitive, in the 2023 marketplace discussion. I hope everyone can agree that Shopsmith's product has never been perfect. IF it was then we would still have the Model 10ER being produced 70 years later, and there never would have been a need for a Mark VII, Mark V (500 or 510 or 520), Mark 7, etc. We would all still being driving Model T Fords and still talking on Bell's box telephone rather than an iPhone.

EVERYONE on this forum loves their Shopsmith equipment, which means there are emotions involved. I am asking those willing to take the leap, to set aside emotion for a moment and consider what, if any, changes Shopsmith should make in 2024 to make a better product to capture more of the market? This discussion can't be new, because all of the 10ER owners likely felt left behind when the Mark II was introduced. Similarly for Mark II owners when the Mark V (500) was introduced. Similarly for Mark V (500) owners when the Mark VII was introduced. Similarly for Mark VII owners when the Mark V (510) was introduced. Wait, what? We went backwards in Mark numbers, how does that happen? Similarly for Mark V (510) owners when the Mark V (520) was introduced. Similarly for Mark V (all) owners when the Mark 7 was introduced. Spelling all of this out to make a point so that maybe it resonates with someone here. Who are Shopsmith customers in 2024??? What is the correct product roadmap to serve them? Answer those million $ questions and Shopsmith might have a chance at 2.5X sales, but I still call BS on the 25X dream. At some point, Shopsmith will need to break legacy support again, as they have in the past, to introduce something new IMHO. What made Shopsmith "limited" successful over the last 50 years, might NOT be the business plan that keeps them successful, or perhaps thriving, for the next 50 years.

@RFGuy: you forgot the stand-alone table saw they had -- the SawSmith 2000, wasn't it? Kind of an under-table radial arm saw and with a tilting arbor. That was innovative but I don't think the market ate it up.

I wish I knew enough of the facts to intelligently participate in this thread but I don't SO...... I'll participate any how.

What is the current production quantity? What is "X". Without knowing that how can one challenge the wisdom of 25X??

Does Shopsmith have plans NOW to withdrawn support for the existing legacy machines? I seriously doubt that.

What are Mr. Cupps real objectives for Shopsmith in the long term? I doubt that any one of us has the incite required to answer that question thus most of what is said here is pure supposition.

What I do know is that I must re-evaluate my present ability to support my legacy machines. What parts might I be needing in the next couple years? I also know that I do not need and will never own any Shopsmith newer than my 520 and the current gang of SPT (including the 4" jointer). I just have not had the need to joint a beam!!