Shopsmith Forums

I can understand "Double-Tilt" with the PowerPro but why might I want "Double Tilt" with the older headstocks?

Do the older headstocks really provide adequate hp and rpm required to shape and rout effectively?

dusty wrote:I can understand "Double-Tilt" with the PowerPro but why might I want "Double Tilt" with the older headstocks?

Do they really provide adequate hp and rpm required to shape and rout effectively?

I have the double tilt on my powerpro machine which seemed to make perfect sense for me. The reversing feature is what makes this work for other operations. (Those other operations that require the different rotation I guess can be done on some of the older headstocks by way of a rewiring job and switch selection.)

I found the alignment of the extension tables end to end possible, something I was unable to do with the old system. This has made me think about getting a second set for my other 520.

I can not see any reasons for upgrading my 500's.

The problem with the under table routing system is the lack of a guide/insert system for the table and a fence system. Both can be built but not everyone wants to do that. I'm a bit surprise that shopsmith has not yet addressed this. I've played with this some but more work needs to be done before I can really make use of it as a router.

I have the shaper stuff but have not set up to use it on the new hardware, I'd like to do that some day soon but I have a stack of stuff on the list before that.

Ed

Frankly, unless you have a real need for a shaper, I can't see the double tilt at all. Because a decent router can get to at least 20,000, I would much rather use a router table, especially with all the adjustability you can find from a table.

Just my 2 cents

Ben

reible wrote:...

I found the alignment of the extension tables end to end possible, something I was unable to do with the old system. ...
Ed

I just ordered the update yesterday, with fingers crossed and hoping, hoping, hoping, and here is what I was hoping for above all else-- the extension table thing. You can't imagine how good it is to hear that that particular sore point will be laid to rest.

keakap wrote:I just ordered the update yesterday, with fingers crossed and hoping, hoping, hoping, and here is what I was hoping for above all else-- the extension table thing. You can't imagine how good it is to hear that that particular sore point will be laid to rest.

I too have been frustrated by the fact that I could not get the extension tables aligned so that they could be used on either end of the Mark V and still be perfectly aligned.

However, why? How often do you need both extension tables aligned to the Main Table with precision? The extension tables are used primarily for support of long stock. Precision alignment is not a requisite.

dusty wrote:I too have been frustrated by the fact that I could not get the extension tables aligned so that they could be used on either end of the Mark V and still be perfectly aligned.

However, why? How often do you need both extension tables aligned to the Main Table with precision? The extension tables are used primarily for support of long stock. Precision alignment is not a requisite.

Hi,

When I started with my 500 it had the small fixed extension tables. Even back then I wanted to be able to exchange them left to right. Not because they were used to support stock but because when you put the rip fence on it needed to be aligned just like it is when mounted on the main table.

When I upgraded to the 520 I had only one fixed extension table. The hope was that I could use it mounted to the right or left and still have the rip fence align to the blade.

The fact was that if I aligned it to the right side then when I moved it to the left end the alignment did not hold. I could get it close but not close enough. Added to that you have the tubes that need to fit to both sides another issue to deal with.

Rather then fiddling with the settings when I swapped sides I spent the money on a second table. One I aligned for the left side and one I aligned to the right. (Keep in mind even shopsmith told us that we were not going to be able to exchange sides and keep alignment).

So I had a workable solution to have rip fence alignment to either side of the blade. When I got the upgrade I wanted to see if I could get alignment so that I could exchange the two extension tables or if you think of it as having one table that fits either end and is still aligned. I was able to do so.

Now I can't say how others use their shopsmith but I quite like having the option of mounting one or both fixed tables for the added support and extended rip capacity. It's a big deal to me. If you use it just for stock support well then that is another story all together.

Ed

If the extension tables were intended for long stock support only, the rails would not be needed for fence mounting. Since they are there one should expect them to 'work'. Since they are mountable on both ends, they should work 'there'.

Yes the rails are required for 'tube' support, but that is another road.

All, yep, if it's there it should work. Period.
But,
Dusty, I have come to the same conclusion many times. Scenario: situation arises where I need left ext table, let's say for long piece support. Out band saw, in ext table (et). IMMediately obvious the table doesn't 'fit' right. (Annoying).
But just need support, so no big deal. So, start the cut, get an inch or two into it and realize there is no longer support on left 'cause the ET slopes down in back. So Oh So carefully apply pressure where needed to finish cut (while using my "other" left hand to support the cutoff). WHew! Good thing I caught it in time-- this was a FInish cut.
Now when the cuts are finished, I should just ignore the errant ET, take it off, and go on about my binness.
Yeah, right. Would you?
So in the spirit of "well I'll give it one more try" I waste three hours and a lot of four letter words trying to get the ET to work on both ends. Until--
eventually coming to the conclusion that "it aint no beeg thing, bro", I don't really use it that much, and next time I won't mess with it.
I also run thru the mental checklist for this scenario: 1) realize (again) that yes I am an idiot for having allowed myself to fall in that trap (again); 2) SS never said it would work like that anaway; 3) I really have to practice with the Craftsman Circ Saw to get better at cutting stuff that's unsafe on the SS.

I agree with everybody on this. Not used that much, never meant to work that way anyway, so can't really complain as if it's something "wrong", but if it's there it should work. And--
Halleluiah!! it works with the new upgrade!
(but shucks- what am I going to do with all that time I'll have on my hands that used to go to "workaround planning"?

;-)

[quote="keakap"]All, yep, if it's there it should work. Period.
But,
Dusty, I have come to the same conclusion many times. Scenario: situation arises where I need left ext table, let's say for long piece support. Out band saw, in ext table (et). IMMediately obvious the table doesn't 'fit' right. (Annoying).
But just need support, so no big deal. So, start the cut, get an inch or two into it and realize there is no longer support on left 'cause the ET slopes down in back. So Oh So carefully apply pressure where needed to finish cut (while using my "other" left hand to support the cutoff). WHew! Good thing I caught it in time-- this was a FInish cut.
Now when the cuts are finished, I should just ignore the errant ET, take it off, and go on about my binness.
Yeah, right. Would you?
So in the spirit of "well I'll give it one more try" I waste three hours and a lot of four letter words trying to get the ET to work on both ends. Until--
eventually coming to the conclusion that "it aint no beeg thing, bro", I don't really use it that much, and next time I won't mess with it.
I also run thru the mental checklist for this scenario: 1) realize (again) that yes I am an idiot for having allowed myself to fall in that trap (again)]
I can not think of any cause for different left/right/main table slopes other than 'twisted' way tubes. Twisted relative to the bench tubes and therefore the rest of the world. I realize this is a very tired horse but IMHO still 'valid'. Actually the twist is relative to the two spt mounts which are dependant upon the legs for support. That pesky humongous set screw is there for a reason(to align the way tubes to the rest of the hardware).

I think part of the 'lack of success' in getting ambidextrous good ext table alignment is the use of an ext table in the attempt to achieve it. The angle of the table is itself adjustable and therefore cannot be a reliable starting reference.

I am positive the starting adjustments must be alignment of the main shaft to the spt mounts. The spt mounts must be perpendicular to(front to rear and vertical) the shaft. Once that is achieved, the main/ext table can be made to coincide. Then the ext table should be 'correct' on either side.

I consider de 'elimination' of de problem by acquiring a double tilt to be de proof of de postulation.

[quote="JPG40504"]I can not think of any cause for different left/right/main table slopes other than 'twisted' way tubes. Twisted relative to the bench tubes and therefore the rest of the world. I realize this is a very tired horse but IMHO still 'valid'. Actually the twist is relative to the two spt mounts which are dependant upon the legs for support. That pesky humongous set screw is there for a reason(to align the way tubes to the rest of the hardware)...
I consider de 'elimination' of de problem by acquiring a double tilt to be de proof of de postulation.]

I had reached the same conclusion as your elimination postulation (de 'ep' prior to the actual solution verification, so you can imagine my satisfaction!
I'm convinced my Mark suffered cruel and unusual conditions in the crossing from California resulting in subtle yet significant damage to its lower extremities, making these theoretical alignments impossible. I fully expect to see these type problems disappear with the implementation of de 'dt'. If so, money well spent imho.