Shopsmith Forums

jjj240 wrote:Opened up 1959 Greenie for inspection/repair.
As shown in attached, Drive Sleeve Assembly (Gilmer) used 205KDD (background).
However, it is hard to see the model for Quill (single bearing).
Could anyone confirm please?

5/8" x 35mm x 12mm <<<<<<<<< s/b 11mm

Drive sleeve = 25mm x 52mm x 15mm.

It might be worthwhile to double check the part number for a single bearing quill to verify that it is not 5/8" x35mm x 11mm (205KDD).

dusty wrote:It might be worthwhile to double check the part number for a single bearing quill to verify that it is not 5/8" x35mm x 11mm (205KDD).

Shopsmith part number 502962.

My BAD It s/b 11mm! mistyped!!!

bucksaw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:12 pm
Industry standard numbers (Can be cross referenced to most bearing manufacturer parts by your bearing supply house)

• Drive Sheave Assembly (Gilmar & Poly-V): 6205 ZZ (2 Required)
• Quill - Single Bearing (Gilmar & Poly-V): 6202 ZZ 5/8"Quill - Double Bearing (Poly-V): 6002 ZZ and 6003 ZZ

Bucksaw, are you still active? Or could someone edit the original post in this thread? I made the mistake of not reading the entire thread and instead went by the numbers in the first post and fell into the 6202 vs. 6202-10 / 15mm I.D. vs. 5/8" I.D. trap. It would be nice if the original post included a warning about that and emphasized that the correct bearing is 6202-10. It's a long thread and google tends to take you to the beginning, so unless you take the time to read the whole thing you'll miss the nuance. Thanks!

First post sez ; [Quill - Single Bearing (Gilmar & Poly-V): 6202 ZZ 5/8"]

No not obvious but it IS there.

that's exactly my point it's not obvious. 6202 ZZ would imply 5/8 but it's really 15mm. 6202-10 is 5/8"

A problem with specifying bearings by part #.

Using actual dimensions is less of a problem.

In this case, 5/8" x 35mm x11mm nails it!(ignoring other variables)

Different mfrs have different ways to assign part # and deviations.

Indeed. But generally one assumes that if number XYZ is stated as correct then that seems safe to believe. But in this case the correct number is XYZ-aa (where "aa" is a parameter that substantially changes the specifications of XYZ). So XYZ (by itself) isn't correct but the implication is that it is. So a heads-up wouldn't be inappropriate

I do not think the OP is around much any more.

Yes the original post is quite old. Perhaps an admin would be so kind as to add a little note, just so people don't get tripped up?