510 versus 520

Forum for Maintenance and Repair topics. Feel free to ask questions or contribute.

Moderators: HopefulSSer, admin

RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

JPG wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:03 pm BTW EE types should be accustomed to being shocked!
Touché :D :D :D
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
User avatar
Ed in Tampa
Platinum Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:45 am
Location: North Tampa Bay area Florida

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by Ed in Tampa »

DLB wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:33 am
Ed in Tampa wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:05 am ...I talked to the salesman and played with the machine and I found all the flaws of the 510 were addressed and corrected by the 520. I ordered my upgrade. It is excellent even the build quality had 100 percent improvement!
...
Just for clarity, you upgraded the 'bad' 510 into the 'good' 520? As opposed to replaced? And used a 510 to 520 kit as opposed to a 500 to 520 kit? Just looking to understand what differences were in play between your two experiences.

- David
Well to be totally correct. I upgraded my model 500 to the 510, which in my opinion was an experiment gone bad. After many attempts to correct the 510 I gave up. Then the the 520 came out so I replaced most if not all the 510 pieces with 520 upgrades. The only parts still on my machine from the original 510 upgrade is the carriage with the hand wheel instead of the lever and of course the upgraded collets and blade guards. None of my tables are original 510 tables nor are the fence rails, connector tubes, mounts, fence, or even hardware including the trunnions and main support tubes. All parts that I replaced in my opinion were inferior to Shopsmith model 500 quality and all the new 520 replacement parts were superior to the 510 parts I received from Shopsmith. I still maintain the model 500 was superior quality to either the 510 or 520 but did not have the capabilities of either.
I am of the opinion I should have never upgraded my 500, I should have kept it as it was an excellent machine and instead I should have purchased a stationary table saw. I would have saved myself tons of money. And I believe I would have a far superior setup today.

Today if I was going to get a machine it would be the 520 no exception. I would never advise anyone to buy a 510 for any reason. To me they should not exist. It is my opinion a 510 owner will never know how great a machine a Shopsmith is until they owned and used a 500 or 520.
I do not know anything about the Mark 7 so I can not say it is good or bad but I do know it is outrageously expensive.
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

Ed in Tampa wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:54 am Well to be totally correct. I upgraded my model 500 to the 510, which in my opinion was an experiment gone bad. After many attempts to correct the 510 I gave up. Then the the 520 came out so I replaced most if not all the 510 pieces with 520 upgrades. The only parts still on my machine from the original 510 upgrade is the carriage with the hand wheel instead of the lever and of course the upgraded collets and blade guards. None of my tables are original 510 tables nor are the fence rails, connector tubes, mounts, fence, or even hardware including the trunnions and main support tubes. All parts that I replaced in my opinion were inferior to Shopsmith model 500 quality and all the new 520 replacement parts were superior to the 510 parts I received from Shopsmith. I still maintain the model 500 was superior quality to either the 510 or 520 but did not have the capabilities of either.
I am of the opinion I should have never upgraded my 500, I should have kept it as it was an excellent machine and instead I should have purchased a stationary table saw. I would have saved myself tons of money. And I believe I would have a far superior setup today.

Today if I was going to get a machine it would be the 520 no exception. I would never advise anyone to buy a 510 for any reason. To me they should not exist. It is my opinion a 510 owner will never know how great a machine a Shopsmith is until they owned and used a 500 or 520.
I do not know anything about the Mark 7 so I can not say it is good or bad but I do know it is outrageously expensive.
Ed,

Thanks for the additional detail and explanation as it helps me to better understand. Sounds like the build quality on the 500 was superior, like the Model 10, compared to the newer machines. It seems like our experiences are similar, except I started on the 510, so didn't have the opportunity to experience the 500. On your last statement, I will give my feedback based on what I have seen. I am not trying to knock Shopsmith here, but just reporting my observations. Another forum member that is local to me reached out about a year ago and I went over to give him some help on getting started with his Mark 7. In comparison to my Mark V (purchased 1998), the fit & finish of components like the tables, as an example, wasn't as good as mine IMHO. It is a subtle detail, but then I am VERY observant. I can't say that this quality change is uniform across the board with other new machines, but was the case for his. However, the reported thinner waytubes reported here recently, as well as the well documented YT video of Tom's new Mark 7 issues certainly would give me pause on purchasing a new machine. Minus the PowerPro, the overall impression that I was left with was that the newer machine is cheaper in quality compared to the older ones. It was also interesting to see what accessories that I had assumed were standard for me, are no longer included in the base purchase which was also eye opening...
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
User avatar
chapmanruss
Platinum Member
Posts: 3449
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: near Portland, Oregon

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by chapmanruss »

In watching Scott's video and what I have read in the posts so far, I have made some observations and have come up with some questions. First, I have not used the 510/505 table system even though I own a 2006 505 I purchased used. That was changed to a 520 shortly after I purchased it since I already had extra 520 parts and at the time already had four 520 Floating Tables. That's enough history so now my observations. I measured the ID of the Fence Rail Tubes from the 2006 505 and they are 1-1/16" ID. I measured Connector Tubes which are 1" OD. That gives a 1/16" of play in the 510/505 Table System. Those results are similar to JPG's. Now my questions. Although not ideal pushing from the side shouldn't the Connector Tube be pushed evenly against the side of the Fence Rail Tube when tightened? In doing so shouldn't the Tables align if the Fence Rail Tubes are properly positioned on the Tables and parallel to the Tabletop? How much "play" is in the mounting of the Fence Rail Tubes to the Table itself for the 510? I know there is a little "play" when installing the 520 Fence Rail Extrusions on the Table, so Shopsmith includes the Special Set-Up and Alignment Gauge with that fence system.

In Scott's video he shows the difference in level between the 510 Extension Table and the 510 Floating Table. If he had the same set up using 520 Tables, could he have some deviation in level between the tables? Is it possible that difference in level is due to flex in the Connector Tubes rather than Table's Fence Rail Tubes? Or could it be the alignment of the Fence Rail Tubes not being quite parallel to the Tabletop.

Since the Fence Rail Tubes are the same for both the infeed and outfeed ends of the Tables does it make a difference which way the Floating Table are positioned? In other words, is there a true infeed and outfeed end for the Floating Tables for the 510 system that should be followed? The holes for the mounting studs used for the Extension Table would indicate which end is which.
Russ

Mark V completely upgraded to Mark 7
Mark V 520
All SPT's & 2 Power Stations
Model 10ER S/N R64000 first one I restored on bench w/ metal ends & retractable casters.
Has Speed Changer, 4E Jointer, Jig Saw with lamp, a complete set of original accessories & much more.
Model 10E's S/N's 1076 & 1077 oldest ones I have restored. Mark 2 S/N 85959 restored. Others to be restored.
edma194
Platinum Member
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by edma194 »

chapmanruss wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:48 pm Since the Fence Rail Tubes are the same for both the infeed and outfeed ends of the Tables does it make a difference which way the Floating Table are positioned? In other words, is there a true infeed and outfeed end for the Floating Tables for the 510 system that should be followed? The holes for the mounting studs used for the Extension Table would indicate which end is which.
It shouldn't make any difference, but it might with a particular table. I noted that some rails are misaligned. I'm leaning toward that mostly happening ex post facto-ry. Getting a floating table parallel to the main table for using the fence is something I've rarely had to deal with but it's entirely possible to do, you just need to spend a little more time getting it right. I can see that extra time annoying people if they make frequent configuration changes and the 520 is the solution for those people. I had 2 floating tables originally, many more now, but it has always been a delicate dance to get all the tables level and more tables just adds minor variances that get worse over distance. Mostly I add extra tables for support or workspace so alignment is not critical.
Ed from Rhode Island

510 PowerPro Double Tilt:Greenie PowerPro Drill Press:500 Sanding Shorty w/Belt&Strip Sanders
Super Sawsmith 2000:Scroll Saw w/Stand:Joint-Matic:Power Station:Power Stand:Bandsaw:Joiner:Jigsaw
1961 Goldie:1960 Sawsmith RAS:10ER
User avatar
jsburger
Platinum Member
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Hooper, UT

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by jsburger »

chapmanruss wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:48 pm In watching Scott's video and what I have read in the posts so far, I have made some observations and have come up with some questions. First, I have not used the 510/505 table system even though I own a 2006 505 I purchased used. That was changed to a 520 shortly after I purchased it since I already had extra 520 parts and at the time already had four 520 Floating Tables. That's enough history so now my observations. I measured the ID of the Fence Rail Tubes from the 2006 505 and they are 1-1/16" ID. I measured Connector Tubes which are 1" OD. That gives a 1/16" of play in the 510/505 Table System. Those results are similar to JPG's. Now my questions. Although not ideal pushing from the side shouldn't the Connector Tube be pushed evenly against the side of the Fence Rail Tube when tightened? In doing so shouldn't the Tables align if the Fence Rail Tubes are properly positioned on the Tables and parallel to the Tabletop? How much "play" is in the mounting of the Fence Rail Tubes to the Table itself for the 510? I know there is a little "play" when installing the 520 Fence Rail Extrusions on the Table, so Shopsmith includes the Special Set-Up and Alignment Gauge with that fence system.

In Scott's video he shows the difference in level between the 510 Extension Table and the 510 Floating Table. If he had the same set up using 520 Tables, could he have some deviation in level between the tables? Is it possible that difference in level is due to flex in the Connector Tubes rather than Table's Fence Rail Tubes? Or could it be the alignment of the Fence Rail Tubes not being quite parallel to the Tabletop.

Since the Fence Rail Tubes are the same for both the infeed and outfeed ends of the Tables does it make a difference which way the Floating Table are positioned? In other words, is there a true infeed and outfeed end for the Floating Tables for the 510 system that should be followed? The holes for the mounting studs used for the Extension Table would indicate which end is which.
The extension table posts are mounted off center. However, there are 6 holes not 4. On the extension table the 4 used holes are taped and the other 2 are not. On floating tables none of the holes are taped. So, which way is which?
John & Mary Burger
Eagle's Lair Woodshop
Hooper, UT
User avatar
JPG
Platinum Member
Posts: 34610
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by JPG »

"The extension table posts are mounted off center. However, there are 6 holes not 4. On the extension table the 4 used holes are taped and the other 2 are not. On floating tables none of the holes are taped. So, which way is which?"

The hole bosses are closer to the rear end. This allows greater distance for the front end from the quill shaft(saw blade).

As for the mirror image hole pattern I simply do not know why other than possibly an abandoned intent to make left right aux tables.

BTW an 'extension' table existed only for the model 110 and Mark 5/V 500. ;) It extended the miter slot towards the front.
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝

Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10
E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
DLB
Platinum Member
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:24 am
Location: Joshua Texas

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by DLB »

I re-watched the video after the some of this discussion. I believe it invites more experimentation and discussion. I'm a 520 fan, but not opposed to the 510. IIRC, Scott has stated a preference for the 510 in other videos.

1) Does SS really recommend against using a rip fence on a floating table on a 510? Not in a manual, as far as I know. Not in a Sawdust Session that I viewed. And while the 520 was prominent in those, the 510 was both in production and in common use among viewers.

2) I didn't feel that Scott proved that point. He measured the fence true on a 520 floater and said he could not reliably do that on a 510. I'd rather see it doesn't work well on a 510. (Within a reasonable tolerance.)

3) Scott demonstrated 'sag' (may or may not have been sag) on a 510. But did not demonstrate a lack of sag on 520. I would expect the 520 to sag, though perhaps not as much. In either case, this is what the adjustable legs are for.

4) When Scott demonstrated the 510 floater having side-to-side play on the tubes, the locks were loose. I don't think that correlates with a problem with rip fence accuracy/repeatability with the locks tight.

A factor that I personally think is important is the 520 extrusion alignment jig. It is used to ensure the extrusion is parallel to the table surface and at a fixed and consistent distance from the table surface. IIUC there is no 510 equivalent. I can't see how there is not an equivalent need. I also think the average user will tighten the locks tighter on the 520 because the lock knob is simply more accessible to the human hand compared to the newer style 510 locks.

- David
User avatar
JPG
Platinum Member
Posts: 34610
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by JPG »

1 - 4 agreed!
The newer(studs and drilled hole in the tables) created a potential for vertical tweeking.

The early version had tapped holes in the table. The curved surface of the rail tubes does not lend itself to vertical tweeking either.

I said 'potential' above since there has been no evidence nor instruction from SS. That said, I think it may be possible using Dusty's all tables connected while laying on a flat surface procedure then tightening the mounting kepnuts.

Now as for those locking 'knobs' on the 510, I think the later version was changed to larger thumbwheel rather than small with SS toolkit holes due to gorilla technique that caused damage to connecting tubes.
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝

Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10
E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by RFGuy »

Keep in mind Scott is a YT'er. He may have perhaps dropped this little nugget about NOT putting a fence on the 510 floating tables to drive discussion on his YT channel. Remember more views, more comments yields more algorithm engagement (and ultimately more AdSense income). He may have started this little controversy just to get people talking. ;) My Dad got his 510 from a SS brick & mortar store and I went with him. In all those years of using his, then mine, as well as attending product demonstrations, talking to SS store employees, etc., I am telling you I have seen multiple SS personnel use the fence on the 510 floating tables. Not once did anyone discourage this. IF this really was true as Scott indicates, it may have been during a specific time period at SS or region specific with instructors or something, because it didn't seem to be the case for me and my Dad in that time period. Every SS instructor or demonstrator has their own opinions and views. I was just taken aback that Scott presented this as gospel from SS in his video, rather than presenting it as his opinion. It will be interesting to see what feedback he has on his next video and where the YT comments take him. Definitely an interesting discussion overall and I am not knocking Scott here, but I am just surprised that according to SS, via Scott, I used the 510 wrong all those years... :confused:
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
Post Reply