510 versus 520

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

Moderators: HopefulSSer, admin

User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21359
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by dusty »

Ed in Tampa wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:05 am I am not a precision freak and in fact much of my work shows how little precision I seek. But I owned and used the 500, 510 and 520. To me the the 500 was the most precise but suffered from size and other restraints that both the 510 and 520 overcame. However when I got my 510 I was sickened but tge lack of precision in it. My tables would mount one way one time and another the next. Sure if I pulled pushed lifted shoved down I could get them into some sort of alignment but but to duplicate a setup was nearly impossible. I always forgot to push this shove that lift these. I worked with Shopsmith over this and they sent me two main tables, a aux table a new fence and connector tubes along with many fence tubes both for tge main table and aux tables. I will say they were very willing to work with me and over time it became obvious to me I was chasing something I could not achieve. I gave up and pushed my Shopsmith into the corner. It sat there for years unused and untouched. I kept up with Shopsmith and followed all developments but I viewed the whole thing as hopeless. If someone would have came along and made an offer I probably would have sold it.
Then one day I was at state fair and the wife wanted to see something so to waste time I walked over to the Shopsmith demo. That is where I saw the 520, after the Demo 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! My opinion give me a 500 or a 520 but if I had to have a 510 I would rather give up woodworking.
Which I nearly have being as old as I am. My days in the shop are nothing more than walking through and touching my old tools and wondering what will happen to them since the youth of today find working with their hands beneath them. Someday people are going to wake up and find there is no one to build them a house or fix a water leak. I see they are thinking about outlawing gas stoves it might be a good thing since everyone thinks digging a gas line ditch is too much work for them. Sorry for the rant.
Don't apologize. If you feel that way so be it. We all have opinions that are different than those of others.

As far as being so old that you are about to give up woodworking - how old are you? I am 83 and am now building from spare parts (for the most part) a fourth Shopsmith. One is already in the possession of a son-in-law. A second has been tagged by my oldest daughter with a third being built for a grand-son-in-law. The fourth (actually the first) will remain with me until I can no longer make saw dust safely.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
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,

I definitely share your frustrations with the 510 fence. I can't definitively say for certain what was wrong with it and what is right with the 520 fence and honestly I don't want to go back to the 510 to investigate. I just know it was a much more iterative process for me with my own Mark V 510 compared to replacing the extrusions to bring it up to a 520 (same Mark V). It was like night and day difference...like the heavens opened up when I installed the 520 rails and fence. Out of the box, the 520 table and fence system just worked much better for me and less iterations on dialing in a measurement to cut. I have only ever owned and used one Mark V (except for my Dad's before this). I am a mechanically inclined kind of person and can & have wrenched on just about everything available to me, so I always patiently went through every alignment step by step on my Mark V. Not to say that I couldn't have made an error along the way, but honestly after many years of use on the 510 before switching to the 520 table system, I would have thought that if it was user error that I would have caught my problem with the 510 when I was using it. I didn't come to this forum until after I was on my 520, but nothing I have read on this forum, in hindsight, indicates that I did anything wrong with my alignment on my 510. I agree with you that my particular Mark V 510 was difficult to setup cuts on similar to yours, but I also agree with Dusty that alignment can be a challenge on either platform and needs proper attention from any SS owner. I do wonder if perhaps some of us received 510 table systems/fences that deviated a bit more from the standard than others. In other words, could we be seeing manufacturing variation in the tables, fence and other components that caused some of us to curse our 510's but love our 500 or 520's? Your patience with Shopsmith is exemplary and Shopsmith should be thankful that you returned to them on your 520 system.

Don't even get me started on the mis-guided gov't mandates like thinking about banning natural gas appliances right now... ;)

Dusty,


Yeah, I thought about using a main table instead of floating tables and I may try this some day. Really though it is too big. Honestly I only need about a 50% larger floating table, but I have thought about making two floating tables into a single one - would need the extrusions to be one piece though. It comes into play also with sneaking up on a cut, i.e. successively smaller rip widths where you didn't place the floating table in the exact perfect spot to begin with. Yeah, you can float the table, as intended, but then you have to start all over again with measurements, i.e. it isn't a micro-adjust. IF I wasn't all in on SS (probably >$10k spent on everything new over the years), I would just switch to a good quality cabinet saw to replace it for TS operations. Perhaps one day when I have lots of free time, I will try to investigate further why I have a very slight offset between my floating tables and the aux/main table. It is very small, but that is enough to throw you off when sneaking up on a cut dimension. Hard to bump the 520 fence into place across this small perturbation. I really would like to understand it though so I appreciate your feedback and it is something I should get around to someday to understand and hopefully improve it.
📶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
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21359
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by dusty »

RFGuy wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:52 am Ed,

I definitely share your frustrations with the 510 fence. I can't definitively say for certain what was wrong with it and what is right with the 520 fence and honestly I don't want to go back to the 510 to investigate. I just know it was a much more iterative process for me with my own Mark V 510 compared to replacing the extrusions to bring it up to a 520 (same Mark V). It was like night and day difference...like the heavens opened up when I installed the 520 rails and fence. Out of the box, the 520 table and fence system just worked much better for me and less iterations on dialing in a measurement to cut. I have only ever owned and used one Mark V (except for my Dad's before this). I am a mechanically inclined kind of person and can & have wrenched on just about everything available to me, so I always patiently went through every alignment step by step on my Mark V. Not to say that I couldn't have made an error along the way, but honestly after many years of use on the 510 before switching to the 520 table system, I would have thought that if it was user error that I would have caught my problem with the 510 when I was using it. I didn't come to this forum until after I was on my 520, but nothing I have read on this forum, in hindsight, indicates that I did anything wrong with my alignment on my 510. I agree with you that my particular Mark V 510 was difficult to setup cuts on similar to yours, but I also agree with Dusty that alignment can be a challenge on either platform and needs proper attention from any SS owner. I do wonder if perhaps some of us received 510 table systems/fences that deviated a bit more from the standard than others. In other words, could we be seeing manufacturing variation in the tables, fence and other components that caused some of us to curse our 510's but love our 500 or 520's? Your patience with Shopsmith is exemplary and Shopsmith should be thankful that you returned to them on your 520 system.

Don't even get me started on the mis-guided gov't mandates like thinking about banning natural gas appliances right now... ;)

Dusty,


Yeah, I thought about using a main table instead of floating tables and I may try this some day. Really though it is too big. Honestly I only need about a 50% larger floating table, but I have thought about making two floating tables into a single one - would need the extrusions to be one piece though. It comes into play also with sneaking up on a cut, i.e. successively smaller rip widths where you didn't place the floating table in the exact perfect spot to begin with. Yeah, you can float the table, as intended, but then you have to start all over again with measurements, i.e. it isn't a micro-adjust. IF I wasn't all in on SS (probably >$10k spent on everything new over the years), I would just switch to a good quality cabinet saw to replace it for TS operations. Perhaps one day when I have lots of free time, I will try to investigate further why I have a very slight offset between my floating tables and the aux/main table. It is very small, but that is enough to throw you off when sneaking up on a cut dimension. Hard to bump the 520 fence into place across this small perturbation. I really would like to understand it though so I appreciate your feedback and it is something I should get around to someday to understand and hopefully improve it.
I feel as though I have done this study; however, I am going to take it to a new thread. Not right away but when I have had some time to "play" with the concept.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
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 »

One 'detail' missing from this thread is there are two different 510 versions. The original(mouse hole version) had thicker rails(smsaller id) so that skewing is likely smaller with them.

As I recall it, Scott said that HE always recommended to NOT use the fence on floating tables.

I found a previous thread interesting where tapped holes were added to the BOTTOM of the 510 rails so the clamping was similar to the 520. An improvement was claimed. Makes sense to me. Rail wall(clamp threads) thickness is troublesome.

Yes the 520 is unquestionalbly an improvement.
╔═══╗
╟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 »

JPG wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:29 pm One 'detail' missing from this thread is there are two different 510 versions. The original(mouse hole version) had thicker rails(smsaller id) so that skewing is likely smaller with them.

As I recall it, Scott said that HE always recommended to NOT use the fence on floating tables.

I found a previous thread interesting where tapped holes were added to the BOTTOM of the 510 rails so the clamping was similar to the 520. An improvement was claimed. Makes sense to me. Rail wall(clamp threads) thickness is troublesome.

Yes the 520 is unquestionalbly an improvement.
JPG,

Thanks. Yeah, Scott showed two different style 510 floating tables. I believe he showed the mouse hole version in his video (no big thumb wheel for tightening the connector tubes, but you can use the 5/32" wrench to spin the nut). However, the one that looked very loose in the video for the connector tubes sitting inside of it was the newer one with the thumb wheel. I wish I still had my 510 setup because I would like to check it. In Scott's video there seemed to be A LOT of play between the connector tubes and the 510 rails - more than I have ever seen. Makes me wonder if he has an undersized connector tube and if there was some variation in OD for the connector tubes over time as well. Had to go back and rewatch, but at around 7:35 in the video Scott says "As a result, Shopsmith has always advised not to put your fence on the floating table of the Model 510". So he did specifically state that Shopsmith does NOT recommend to use the fence on the floating tables which definitely took me aback when watching the video. It might have been different if he was just saying it was his opinion. I used the fence on my floating table on my 510 for years as I am sure many other SS owners have. I liked how Scott discussed that the Mark V floating tables were an evolution of how the Mark VII extension table attachment to the main table of the Mark VII, i.e. showing the product history and progression. Appreciate your feedback and insight.
📶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
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 »

One other thing that Mark mentioned was the 'difficulty' of getting the Mark VII extension/aux table adjusted to both functions. Since the mounting tube to table casting is fixed(NOT adjustable in any manner) the only adjustment possible is the attached extrusions. There is a separate extrusion for each function. I think that comment requires more thought behind it.
╔═══╗
╟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
edma194
Platinum Member
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by edma194 »

RFGuy wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:07 pm In Scott's video there seemed to be A LOT of play between the connector tubes and the 510 rails - more than I have ever seen. Makes me wonder if he has an undersized connector tube and if there was some variation in OD for the connector tubes over time as well. Had to go back and rewatch, but at around 7:35 in the video Scott says "As a result, Shopsmith has always advised not to put your fence on the floating table of the Model 510". So he did specifically state that Shopsmith does NOT recommend to use the fence on the floating tables which definitely took me aback when watching the video. It might have been different if he was just saying it was his opinion. I used the fence on my floating table on my 510 for years as I am sure many other SS owners have. I liked how Scott discussed that the Mark V floating tables were an evolution of how the Mark VII extension table attachment to the main table of the Mark VII, i.e. showing the product history and progression. Appreciate your feedback and insight.
I don't recall Shopsmith ever having a note in the manual about using a fence on a floating table. Scott worked for Shopsmith and it sounds like one of many pieces of assorted Shopsmith information told to customers in response to specific issues. Although Scott points out the floating table grooves may not be parallel to the main table the problem is that the floating table can misaligned with the main table due to play on connecting tubes. The fence works fine on a floating table if you take the time to align the table on the connecting tubes, but the fence may not align with the grooves.

I have a lot of 510 tables and connecting tubes from different years, I'm heading downstairs soon and I'll look them over for differences in the rail and connecting tube dimensions. Lately I've been thinking narrower connecting tubes would work better because trying to lock down a round tube with a bolt pushing right into the middle of the side is fraught with issues. If the bolt were pushing into the connecting tube below the center line it will force the connecting tube into the rail both horizontally and vertically.
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
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 »

edma194 wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:31 pm I don't recall Shopsmith ever having a note in the manual about using a fence on a floating table. Scott worked for Shopsmith and it sounds like one of many pieces of assorted Shopsmith information told to customers in response to specific issues. Although Scott points out the floating table grooves may not be parallel to the main table the problem is that the floating table can misaligned with the main table due to play on connecting tubes. The fence works fine on a floating table if you take the time to align the table on the connecting tubes, but the fence may not align with the grooves.

I have a lot of 510 tables and connecting tubes from different years, I'm heading downstairs soon and I'll look them over for differences in the rail and connecting tube dimensions. Lately I've been thinking narrower connecting tubes would work better because trying to lock down a round tube with a bolt pushing right into the middle of the side is fraught with issues. If the bolt were pushing into the connecting tube below the center line it will force the connecting tube into the rail both horizontally and vertically.
Ed,

Thanks. Yeah, I was less perturbed by Scott pointing out the grooves being off relative to the fence. I was aware of this already and it is more of an aesthetic than functional problem. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to 100% align the floating table with the main table or saw blade. There is enough play with the placement of the rear of the fence that either the 510 or the 520 fence can be slightly adjusted before locking it down to accommodate the level of offset I have seen in floating tables...at least in my shop. For rip cuts you measure twice, at front of blade (towards operator) and at rear of blade (away from operator). As long as the outbound measurement if equal or greater then you are good. In other words, I align my main table and aux table, but NEVER my floating tables. IF SS had a true Biesemeyer style fence then this wouldn't be possible and alignment of the fence and/or table would be necessary.

Definitely would be interesting to see what you find in your measurements on various different connector tubes, tables, etc. I really was shocked to see that much play on a 510 floating table with those connector tubes.
📶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
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 »

My cursory look at a very limited set of samples reveals the following.

Connecting tubes are 1" inch od.

All rails are 1 1/4" od.

All early table rails are about 1.020 id. tube wall thickness about .115
Later table rails are about 1.070 id tube wall thickness about .090
Thus the later version has .050 more clearance.

Now about the skewing. The early version skews about 0.15°. The later version skews about .53°.
HOWEVER the skewing is a red herring since the screw pushing the connector tube against
the interior of the outer wall will force the connector tube against both ends of the rail.

The 'issue' with the 510 is the direction the clamping screw exerts force that positions the connector tube
against the interior of the rail. It 'pushes' the connector tube against the interior of the outer wall of the
rail as described above. All is well IF the tubes remain about a common elevation of their centers.
HOWEVER the clamping screw cannot guarantee that since the connector tube can slip either up or down
from that common center. This results in table top elevation variance.

The screw from below 'fix' eliminates the elevation deviation but potentially introduces a horizontal variance
front to rear that is of minor significance. That horizontal variance can introduce a very minor elevation shift.

Where one can get into dew dew is mixing early and later tables. The id differences can exacerbate the
elevation problem between versions in a common setup. I would not think that to be a common problem
except for used parts collectors. This one IS aware of the issue.

BTW EE types should be accustomed to being shocked!
╔═══╗
╟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
edma194
Platinum Member
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by edma194 »

Measuring a couple of old and new tables gave me measurements like those from JPG above. I found some variance in a bunch of connecting tubes, from 1.00 through 1.02 possibly all due to being out of round in spots. This might be from pressure from the locking bolts or at the ends of the tubes just from being dropped on a hard floor. The old style extension table and floating table front rails I looked at didn't meet up well, the rails may not be the same stock, I have to go look at that again and see what's happening.

I have seen several floating tables where the rails were skewed vertically. I'll look closer and see how it goes off.
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
Post Reply