3" caster upgrade

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

Moderators: HopefulSSer, admin

User avatar
jsburger
Platinum Member
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Hooper, UT

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by jsburger »

The 3" wheel radius minus the original wheel radius? Yes, I know the geometry of the wheel hardware means that is probably not correct. So, the actual off set would be nice to know.
John & Mary Burger
Eagle's Lair Woodshop
Hooper, UT
User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21359
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by dusty »

jsburger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:05 pm
JPG wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:46 pm IIRC the early "template" had dimensional inaccuracies.
I had a discussion about this with Mike Young years ago. The original paper templates were correct. At some point they started reproducing them on an in house copy machine. That changed the size of the templet making the dimensions incorrect. The correction was the metal templet.
If SS had included dimensions this problem would have been averted.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21359
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by dusty »

JPG wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:22 pm Again, WHAT is the offset?
I consider the offset to be 1 3/4". Offset being defined as the distance from factory location of a hole to the location of that same hole after the upgrade. Offset being measured along the centerline drawn through the mounting holes (on the angle of the leg). I said 1 3/4" (aka 1 23/32 on the drawing).
Caster Template (NEW) 1.12.jpg
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
User avatar
jsburger
Platinum Member
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Hooper, UT

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by jsburger »

dusty wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:06 pm
jsburger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:05 pm
JPG wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:46 pm IIRC the early "template" had dimensional inaccuracies.
I had a discussion about this with Mike Young years ago. The original paper templates were correct. At some point they started reproducing them on an in house copy machine. That changed the size of the templet making the dimensions incorrect. The correction was the metal templet.
If SS had included dimensions this problem would have been averted.
The SS legs are a fairly organic shape so, measuring from what to where and at what angle might be a challenge for some users.
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: 3" caster upgrade

Post by JPG »

The template should be easy to measure.

On the legs, measure along the center line of the holes.
╔═══╗
╟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
User avatar
JPG
Platinum Member
Posts: 34610
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by JPG »

jsburger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:45 pm The 3" wheel radius minus the original wheel radius? Yes, I know the geometry of the wheel hardware means that is probably not correct. So, the actual off set would be nice to know.
Tis more complicated than that. More than the wheel diameter changed. The caster stem and cage and axle etc. also affect this. Maybe you just said that by referring to geometry. Also the hole's center line is skewed from vertical.
╔═══╗
╟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
User avatar
jsburger
Platinum Member
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Hooper, UT

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by jsburger »

JPG wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:21 pm
jsburger wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:45 pm The 3" wheel radius minus the original wheel radius? Yes, I know the geometry of the wheel hardware means that is probably not correct. So, the actual off set would be nice to know.
Tis more complicated than that. More than the wheel diameter changed. The caster stem and cage and axle etc. also affect this. Maybe you just said that by referring to geometry. Also the hole's center line is skewed from vertical.
Exactly
John & Mary Burger
Eagle's Lair Woodshop
Hooper, UT
User avatar
chapmanruss
Platinum Member
Posts: 3449
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: near Portland, Oregon

Re: 3" caster upgrade

Post by chapmanruss »

Dusty,

As always, a great drawing. Your drawing replicated the SS template. I wasn't sure why you were getting 1-9/16" but from your drawing I see that is the actual height change while accounting for the angle. 1-23/32" is the distance between the original holes and the new ones for the 3" casters on both the paper template and metal drill guide I have.

As for drilling the holes slightly higher, personally I would not. I don't believe you would gain any additional stability by having the wheels even higher off the ground when the Retractable Castor assembly lowers the bench legs to the ground. Doing so would result in less clearance when the bench legs are moved off the ground. When the bench legs are lowered to the ground there is just enough clearance on mine to rotate the wheels by hand.
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: 3" caster upgrade

Post by dusty »

chapmanruss wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:30 am Dusty,

As always, a great drawing. Your drawing replicated the SS template. I wasn't sure why you were getting 1-9/16" but from your drawing I see that is the actual height change while accounting for the angle. 1-23/32" is the distance between the original holes and the new ones for the 3" casters on both the paper template and metal drill guide I have.

As for drilling the holes slightly higher, personally I would not. I don't believe you would gain any additional stability by having the wheels even higher off the ground when the Retractable Castor assembly lowers the bench legs to the ground. Doing so would result in less clearance when the bench legs are moved off the ground. When the bench legs are lowered to the ground there is just enough clearance on mine to rotate the wheels by hand.
I agree wholeheartedly that when the wheels are up the machine must rest FIRMLY on the ground. Obviously, to far up voids the lift and thus the purpose of thr wheels. Strike a happy midground..
"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: 3" caster upgrade

Post by RFGuy »

dusty wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:50 pm I agree wholeheartedly that when the wheels are up the machine must rest FIRMLY on the ground. Obviously, to far up voids the lift and thus the purpose of thr wheels. Strike a happy midground..
Dusty,

Just an fyi...but the SS premium casters have quite a bit of play in them. For example when I checked mine yesterday, yes mine are firmly resting on the ground BUT there is no weight on them. I could easily push on the wheel to "cant" them inwards because the swivel mechanism allows this. I am just pointing this out that straight vertical measurements here will only get you so far because the casters when not bearing a load can deviate off of the vertical axis quite a bit. In other words, this may or may to be accounted for in your measurements/drawing. Until there is some preload on the casters, the casters have quite a bit of side-to-side play but can still be firmly on the ground, yet not bearing any of the Mark V load.
📶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