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 »

Pressing the Table Tube(s) upward(as om the 520) or or outward (as on the 510) is IMO the same with the same result. On the 510 the Table Tube is pressed against the inside of the tubular Table Rail. On the 520 the Table Tube is pressed upward against the top of the Table Rail into a mating curved extrusion. I feel that both ways are equally effective in accomplishing the intended result (positioning the Table Tube properly in the rail).

The tubes center vertically.


510 Rail and Table Tube.jpg
510 Rail and Table Tube.jpg (76.36 KiB) Viewed 831 times

In both - a bent table tube could produce unintended results.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
edma194
Platinum Member
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by edma194 »

I have 3 types of tables. The oldest are gray with small knurled knobs, and a thin interface material attached to the side of the table that a spacer butts against. Not attached very well either, maybe glued on?. Next are the gray tables with larger knurled knobs and similar thin interface material. The newest tables are black, with a thicker interface, possibly cast in, I haven't taken one out for dissection yet. I'm not sure if the interface material is meant to square up the side or needed to protect the table material from the spacer for some reason. The one rail I removed so far reveals the spacers aren't perfectly formed, possibly cut a little crooked from stock. I wonder if they would grind them to hold the mounting bolt at the right angle. I'll take a apart one of each type of table and take some pictures. Very small alignment problems with those rails will magnify as more tables are attached.

The knurled knob had very little travel distance so it wouldn't lock in a much smaller connecting tube. The point of contact is flat, if it could extend further in with a beveled point it could put both horizontal and vertical pressure on the connecting tube for better alignment. But it won't be any better than the rail alignment.
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 »

JPG wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:25 pm "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.
OOPS Got to think in two dimensions not one, However, I don't think anyone including SS has said 510 floating tables need/should be installed in only one direction.

Yes, I have always wondered about the mirrored hole patterns. I have two aux tables and have considered taping the other set of holes and moving the tubes over for a left and right set. a few more inches of support. Then again connector tubes and a floating table outboard gives even more support.
John & Mary Burger
Eagle's Lair Woodshop
Hooper, UT
edma194
Platinum Member
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: 510 versus 520

Post by edma194 »

edma194 wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:01 pm I have 3 types of tables. The oldest are gray with small knurled knobs, and a thin interface material attached to the side of the table that a spacer butts against. Not attached very well either, maybe glued on?.
Ok, there's no interface material. It's just the casting that's been ground and polished. That process leaves a burr that extends out to the sides enough to stick a finger nail under and it will even bend in some places. The intent was clearly to provide a clean flat surface for spacers to butt against on the flat side but as I mentioned those spacers may not be regularly shaped.

Here's an old gray table disassembled. The casting is tapped for the rail mounting screws but a lock nut could still be added on the inside of the table. The rail is different from the others, it has a shiny exterior coating and something corrosion resistant inside.

old gray disassembled.jpg
old gray disassembled.jpg (68.71 KiB) Viewed 814 times

Here is a newer gray table disassembled. The knurled knob is larger and the bolts are welded(?) to the rail which is then attached with a lock nut inside. The rail has a dull finish but inside and out.
new gray disassembled.jpg
new gray disassembled.jpg (101.27 KiB) Viewed 814 times

This pic shows the ground mounting surface on an old gray table. It seems to be the same for all versions except the oldest ones have threaded holes. You can see a little bit of the burr on this one.

new gray side.jpg
new gray side.jpg (59.35 KiB) Viewed 814 times

This is a newer black table. It has had minimal use but you can see that the spacer were mounted off center on that ground portion of the casting. I have to take it apart but I assume the holes were not drilled in the right place. The rails on the black table have a shiny coating on the exterior, but the interior appears to corrode easily. The rail is also skewed away from the table side, the rail is further away from the table on the left side. You can also see the concave side of the spacer does not mate well with the rail. Different tubing was used for the rails on each of the 3 types of table so it's not surprising to see dimensional differences in them.

new black misaligned.jpg
new black misaligned.jpg (84.63 KiB) Viewed 814 times
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 »

Well, this horse is still alive, :) so I did a quick survey in my shop, out of curiosity. So, I have

Original (1998 mark V purchase) 27" connector tube - 1.005" OD

5' connector tube from a couple of years ago - 0.999" OD

18" connector tube from a couple of years ago (extension table brackets) - 0.996" OD

Pretty close to nominal 1" OD, but perhaps they have gotten thinner/cheaper over the years. :(

An interesting YT comment on the YT video that started off this thread was made by someone who claims they had good results in purchasing "structural steel pipe" from Lowes and they claimed it had a nice snug fit in the 510 rails unlike the SS connector tubes. They even had to file some of the internal 510 rail weld seam in order to get them to insert fully. I don't know the "actual" OD in practice of structural steel pipe (3/4" pipe is 1.05" OD right?), but boy that has to be a heavy connector tube to use. For anyone that is using a 510 and might be concerned by this issue, perhaps swapping to an aftermarket solution like this or turned, ground & polished bar stock would be a solution. Definitely a few threads of forum members using this as an alternative in the past here.
📶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 »

I think Scott over emphasized the sag problem, to me the biggest problem was pushing the thin end of a screw stud into a circular tube. If you hit the tube head ( exact axis of curve) on you had one height, if you hit the tube below arc of the tube it lifted the tube and you had another height. If you hit the tube on top of the arc you pushed the tube down and you had a third height. This of course was compounded because you had four places to cock the tube on the main table and two places to do so on the aux tables. This problem was resolved by the way they connected the fence tubes and connector tubes on the 520. Push up and into a extrude curve that fit the connector tube. To me the 510 was a cheap and dirty way to add versatility to the 500. The 520 to me was an engineered method that showed Shopsmith once again cared about their machines performance.
Also yes overall quality of Shopsmith is coming down. My 500 table was built to perfection with the table being dead nuts flat. I have not seen a 510 or 520 table that equals that. I have personally check every 510 or 520 table I can and never found one that I would call flat. I went through all the tables Bill Mayo at his place and Doctor Dave (at his school) had plus every demo table I saw and when they had the store almost every table that went through the store.
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 »

dusty wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:36 pm Pressing the Table Tube(s) upward(as om the 520) or or outward (as on the 510) is IMO the same with the same result. On the 510 the Table Tube is pressed against the inside of the tubular Table Rail. On the 520 the Table Tube is pressed upward against the top of the Table Rail into a mating curved extrusion. I feel that both ways are equally effective in accomplishing the intended result (positioning the Table Tube properly in the rail).

The tubes center vertically.



510 Rail and Table Tube.jpg


In both - a bent table tube could produce unintended results.
Dusty in your picture above ( which is great! Thank you) if the tightening screw comes in against the connector tube above the center line it will push the tube down, it has too! Likewise if it hits the connector tube below the center line it will push the tube up. This is the problem. When it comes up from the bottom it could push the table out but the table itself will stop it but there is nothing to stop it from moving the up and down axis. In there lies the problem. You have 6 screws at least trying to move the tube up down on the 510.
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 think you've nailed it. Now I am wondering how much of my issues with 510 fence persnickety-ness was caused by using the 510 fence on a floating table. It has been too many years, so I can't remember how often I used the fence on a floating table versus the main table versus the aux table. The majority of my rip cuts would have likely been on the main table alone, but even if only 10% or 20% of them involved using the 510 fence on a floating table it could explain why I have such a low opinion of the 510 fence looking back on it. For sure, for me, the 520 table rails & fence is a definite improvement. Given Scott's video and this thread, I believe I understand a bit more the "why" now. Thanks for pointing this out.
📶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 »

Wow, a lot of discussion since my post yesterday.

Dusty,

Another great drawing showing relationship of the sizes of the Fence Rail Tube and the Connector Tube. That 1/16 of an inch, as I measured it, really looks like a lot of space.

Ed,

Thanks for the pictures comparing the original, older (after original) and newer Fence Rail Tubes.

Yesterday I said,
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.
I do understand the holes for mounting the Extension Table Legs. I simply wondered if there is any possible reason to consider a need to place a specific end on a 510 Floating Table as the infeed end. I really don't believe there is, but I have been wrong before.

After reading the posts since mine yesterday and even those before I see there are some definite opinions on the table systems. As I said I have not used the 510/505 Table/Fence System. All of this better helps me understand the Shopsmith tools and I thank all of you who have contributed to that.

To compare with what RFGuy found I measured more of my Connector Tubes. My oldest ones are 27" from 2001 and measured 1-1/128" (my digital calipers only measures in fractions or mm). I have 27", an 18" and 5' Connector Tubes from 2022 and older (10 years or less) 5' and an 18" Connector Tubes that all measure 1" OD.
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.
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: Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:05 am Well, this horse is still alive, :) so I did a quick survey in my shop, out of curiosity. So, I have

Original (1998 mark V purchase) 27" connector tube - 1.005" OD

5' connector tube from a couple of years ago - 0.999" OD

18" connector tube from a couple of years ago (extension table brackets) - 0.996" OD

Pretty close to nominal 1" OD, but perhaps they have gotten thinner/cheaper over the years. :(

An interesting YT comment on the YT video that started off this thread was made by someone who claims they had good results in purchasing "structural steel pipe" from Lowes and they claimed it had a nice snug fit in the 510 rails unlike the SS connector tubes. They even had to file some of the internal 510 rail weld seam in order to get them to insert fully. I don't know the "actual" OD in practice of structural steel pipe (3/4" pipe is 1.05" OD right?), but boy that has to be a heavy connector tube to use. For anyone that is using a 510 and might be concerned by this issue, perhaps swapping to an aftermarket solution like this or turned, ground & polished bar stock would be a solution. Definitely a few threads of forum members using this as an alternative in the past here.
I feel comfortable calling all of those OD measurements 1". I can get that much deviation sitting here at my work table measuring the same Table Tube with the same set of calipers over and over again.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
Post Reply