The Shopsmith X-6000 prototype

[edma194]

But I can't envision a tilting arbor that eliminates the need for a tilting table on a multifunction machine.

What do you see as a problem with a tilting blade? It would have to allow the sanding disk and other rotary tools to be mounted and fit in the table slot, but then you could do perform all the same operations with the table remaining flat while the blade is tilted. You probably wouldn't be able to tilt both left and right but the Shopsmith is limited that way anyway. What might seem odd is that you'd rotate the saw blade to tilt but raise the table up and down to change the blade height.

[thedovetailjoint]

A tilting blade multi-purpose tool was patented years ago. Don't know if it ever came to market, but it also featured double-tilt, just like the modern Mark 7.

IMG_4556.jpg (188.63 KiB) Viewed 4444 times

[edma194]

A tilting blade multi-purpose tool was patented years ago. Don't know if it ever came to market, but it also featured double-tilt, just like the modern Mark 7.

You've mentioned this patent existed before. Somebody has probably thought of every reasonable multi-purpose machine concept and I'm sure some that are unreasonable also. This one adds one axis of rotation, machines can get busier than that. The RAS head could swivel on 2 axes and slide on a rail too.
Do you have the entire patent? Do you know if 60 or 54 is a trunnion? (looks like both numbers point to the same part)

[chapmanruss]

RFGuy,

You make a good point on my comment and I should have expressed that differently. Many Model 10E and 10ER are still working today. I have restored two dozen of them myself. With only 2 parts from the Model 10's still in use on the Mark V, Mark 7 and Mark 4 today the rest of any needed parts besides common hardware have to be found used. If the X-6000 had come out and ended up replacing the Mark V I believe by now replacement parts that are Mark V specific would have to be found on the used market just like the Model 10's. Even with the pluses the X-6000 had I am glad they chose to improve the Mark V instead. I realize there are limitations on what you can do with a Mark V/7. The recent thread on cutting doors at 45 degrees for corner shelves is an example. Because it is such a versatile tool, we sacrifice some functionality. That being said there are so many pluses it brings to the workshop you simply cannot do with stand-alone tools. There are things we can do to improve how it works for us. David's biggest complaint on his 510 is main table instability. Although I don't have a 510, mine is a 520/M7, I do use Connector Tubes between the Main Table and the Extension Table for added stability. Connector Tubes and the Adjustable Legs can be used for Drill Press operations too.

[DLB]

But I can't envision a tilting arbor that eliminates the need for a tilting table on a multifunction machine.

What do you see as a problem with a tilting blade? It would have to allow the sanding disk and other rotary tools to be mounted and fit in the table slot, but then you could do perform all the same operations with the table remaining flat while the blade is tilted. You probably wouldn't be able to tilt both left and right but the Shopsmith is limited that way anyway. What might seem odd is that you'd rotate the saw blade to tilt but raise the table up and down to change the blade height.

I don't see a problem with a tilting blade. I just don't see it eliminating the need to tilt the table for other functions. Vertical drill press, or any router or shaper function. Basically any operation where the axis of rotation is approximately normal to the plane of the table. Or another way to put it, anything I do today that requires a table tilt of more than 60 degrees or so. And in the context I said it, I don't see a tilting blade leading to a stable table. Which I'd like.

- David

[DLB]

David's biggest complaint on his 510 is main table instability. Although I don't have a 510, mine is a 520/M7, I do use Connector Tubes between the Main Table and the Extension Table for added stability. Connector Tubes and the Adjustable Legs can be used for Drill Press operations too.

Actually I only use a 520/M7 too. I've repaired a couple of 510's and they have the same feature, as you'd expect. I also use Connector Tubes etc. to greatly reduce instability. And it works great, except that setups and changeovers take much longer. I would estimate I'm using a setup with additional main table stabilization much more than 50% of the time in my shop, so I'd like more inherent stability.

- David

[edma194]

I don't see a problem with a tilting blade. I just don't see it eliminating the need to tilt the table for other functions. Vertical drill press, or any router or shaper function. Basically any operation where the axis of rotation is approximately normal to the plane of the table. Or another way to put it, anything I do today that requires a table tilt of more than 60 degrees or so. And in the context I said it, I don't see a tilting blade leading to a stable table. Which I'd like.

- David

Ok, I see what you mean. You're absolutely right about drill press mode and under table routing. As the number of purposes builds up a multi-purpose machines gets progressively more complicated. The Shopsmith 10 and 500 series found a pretty good compromise in functionality. I felt like the 500 table was very stable also, the way you mentioned earlier. I haven't had issues with table stability on the 510 but I don't use it much as a table saw which requires raising the table very high up on it's legs. And that brings us back around to the height issue again.

Table stability comes from a non-tilting table on a sturdy base. There are a number of 1-in-1 uni-purpose machines that have stable tables, but the setup and changeover time involves going back to the store with more money in hand

So what kind of table instability is giving you a problem? Do you think heavier leg posts would make a difference?

[JPG]

The larger the table, the more leverage it places on the trunion.

[RFGuy]

RFGuy,

You make a good point on my comment and I should have expressed that differently. Many Model 10E and 10ER are still working today. I have restored two dozen of them myself. With only 2 parts from the Model 10's still in use on the Mark V, Mark 7 and Mark 4 today the rest of any needed parts besides common hardware have to be found used. If the X-6000 had come out and ended up replacing the Mark V I believe by now replacement parts that are Mark V specific would have to be found on the used market just like the Model 10's. Even with the pluses the X-6000 had I am glad they chose to improve the Mark V instead. I realize there are limitations on what you can do with a Mark V/7. The recent thread on cutting doors at 45 degrees for corner shelves is an example. Because it is such a versatile tool, we sacrifice some functionality. That being said there are so many pluses it brings to the workshop you simply cannot do with stand-alone tools. There are things we can do to improve how it works for us. David's biggest complaint on his 510 is main table instability. Although I don't have a 510, mine is a 520/M7, I do use Connector Tubes between the Main Table and the Extension Table for added stability. Connector Tubes and the Adjustable Legs can be used for Drill Press operations too.

Russ,

Thanks. Yeah, I get your point now about: well what happens with the last gen when the new gen comes out? I guess that really is the question because we are all assuming it is probably a replacement. We will never know, but I wonder what might have happened if Shopsmith had launched a 2 machine solution in that timeframe. They could have maintained the Mark V and continued support and sold machines of that version (including new table systems ala 505, 510, 520, etc.). In comparison, they have multiple Mark versions for sale on the website today (Mark 4, Mark 520S Mark 7). What if they had introduced a big brother version in the Mark VI (aka X-6000) alongside the Mark V? Sure it would fracture the market of new buyers back then. Of course, they would sell the big brother for more money and they might choose to keep some new features on it rather than the Mark V, but then if they sold these to existing Mark V owners as upgrades (like today with the 520 table system and DT upgrades) perhaps all could be happy, for a fee of course. Again we will never know, but I think the assumption all of us have made is that backwards compatibility must be maintained with what came before and that ANY new offering replaces what came before. The question is does it have to? For sure I don't want to obsolete anyone's hardware or lock them out of replacement parts, but I also want the company to remain viable long into the future. Hence my musings on what could have been and also what might be for the future. Interesting discussion and I appreciate your insights here. I am thankful that the X-6000 brought some improvements to the Mark V platform. I also agree with David on table instability. In a small shop like mine, it is just a PIA to stop what I am doing on one function as I changeover to TS mode to put connector tubes in and verify alignment every time because the table isn't rock solid. It is why I do fewer and fewer crosscuts on my Mark V, opting for my miter saw or tracksaw instead. I do use my Mark V for lots of ripping though which is a bit more tolerant to these table issues. Thanks again.

[dusty]

Hey if you are going to dream, dream about a multifunction machine that has a tilting arbor.
That function alone is probably the biggest complaint about the SS.

Think about a variable height, variable speed, tilting arbor machine with total dust collection.

My biggest complaint is 510 and on main table instability. To some extent this relates to tilting table Vs. arbor, in that if the table didn't have to tilt it would likely be more stable. But I can't envision a tilting arbor that eliminates the need for a tilting table on a multifunction machine. FWIW, I don't really recall table instability on my Greenie being as objectionable, though that design has one less trunnion lock. I wish SS had fixed this while prototyping the 510 and on table system, or some time afterward.

- David

Maybe this should be the topic in a thread that you start. "The Mark Vs Table Instability".

Frankly, I don't see table stability (when locked) as an issue. Just how much does your table move say at a depth of cut of 3/4".