Shopsmith Forums

Hi all, I'm a fairly new SS owner, and I'll try to summarize my full story without dragging along too much. I'd love any help or input anyone can provide!


I started with a hand-me-down model 500. As I got to know the SS better, I began to covet the newer tables. Eventually, someone here in town upgraded their 510, and sold me JUST his main table assembly.


Once installed and aligned, I'm loving the 510 table and fence, miter slots, etc., but I was still looking "over the fence" at the extension table options. So finally, after much pining, I took delivery of the 510 Extension Table Upgrade (item #555137). All that just leads to my problem:

The connector tubes fit snugly into the extension tables, but there's lots of wiggle room in the main table (enough to jiggle around in any direction just a bit). Once it's all set up, the extension tables actually sit about 1-2mm lower than the main table. This is true for both tables equally, and true on either side of the main table. The offset amount seems similar to the amount of "play" that the new extension tube has inside the main table tube.


So... how can I adjust this? It somehow seems like I can't. Did I do something wrong along the upgrade path, such that my main table is just barely not compatible with the newer extensions?


Looking for any input at all, and please let me know if I can answer any questions, or even post some photos. Thanks!

Are the thumbscrews that tighten the tubes to the rail all the same size?

Does the main table rail have holes in the face to provide access to the mounting bolts?

I am trying to determine if you have a mix of two versions of 510 parts. If so, the rails are different sizes.

I am assuming the 'new' tables are newly manufactured(newer version).

Thanks for helping! Based on your questions, I took a few pictures just so I'm clear.

JPG40504 wrote:Are the thumbscrews that tighten the tubes to the rail all the same size?

I think so, yes. Let me know if it would help for me to actually measure them.

JPG40504 wrote: Does the main table rail have holes in the face to provide access to the mounting bolts?

Per main table rail, there are six mounting bolts (only can be unscrewed from under the table) and 4 thumb-tightened bolts that clamp the extension bars.

JPG40504 wrote:I am assuming the 'new' tables are newly manufactured(newer version).

The box for the extension pieces has model #555137, and they do seem fairly new. Certainly cleaner and shinier than my main table.

One thing you may notice in the pics is that the ribbing in the aluminum is slightly different -- very minor but you can really see the difference in the last picture. Not sure if that means anything at all.


Photos attached, but let me know if I can focus on anything in particular.

[ATTACH]11495[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH]11496[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH]11497[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH]11498[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH]11499[/ATTACH]

cobalt60 wrote:...........

The connector tubes fit snugly into the extension tables, but there's lots of wiggle room in the main table (enough to jiggle around in any direction just a bit). Once it's all set up, the extension tables actually sit about 1-2mm lower than the main table. This is true for both tables equally, and true on either side of the main table. The offset amount seems similar to the amount of "play" that the new extension tube has inside the main table tube.

So... how can I adjust this? It somehow seems like I can't. Did I do something wrong along the upgrade path, such that my main table is just barely not compatible with the newer extensions?

I believe you are saying that the tubes on the extension tables have a different ID than do the tubes on the main table. That may well be true but I do not believe that is either the cause or the solution to your problem.

Your tables, at least in these photos, appear to be aligned to one another.

The extension tubes only serve to pull the tables together into a stable mass. The knurled knobs need not be screwed down tight to do this]I use a piece of EMT as a substitute for an extension tube and it works fine even though it is a bit smaller OD than real extension tube.[/SIZE]

If you have an alignment problem, caused by mixing and matching vintage 510 tables, I believe the only solution (short of eliminating the vintage differences) would be to drill the holes in the extension tables larger so that there is some alignment capability.

But not yet.

I need to better understand your problem. In the photos, it appears that the outer surfaces of the various tubes are not all aligned with one another. Is this the alignment issue that you are having OR do you have difficulties keeping the rip fence aligned (parallel to) to the blade depending on where the fence is located (main table or extension table).

One more comment. The only spacers that are normally used between the tables and the rails are the contoured ones. There should be no need to use flat washers there. IOn a couple of your photos there appears to be a washer.

A search of postings by keakap will highlight what sounds to be a very similar problem. He gave up the battle and bought new tables.

dusty wrote:I believe you are saying that the tubes on the extension tables have a different ID than do the tubes on the main table. That may well be true but I do not believe that is either the cause or the solution to your problem.

Your tables, at least in these photos, appear to be aligned to one another.

It's possible that my wording is overly vague -- as a non-expert I'm trying hard to only present the problem, and not draw any amateur conclusions of my own.

Yes, the tables seem perfectly aligned in the horizontal plane (x and y axes), which is great! In the ceiling-to-floor direction (z plane), the floating tables sit 2mm lower, which is too far off for these to be useful. This is true with the knurled knobs tight or loose - same offset either way -- only difference is that with the knobs loose, I can "jiggle" the extension bar within the main table tube.

NOT A CONCLUSION: it seems like the amount of "jiggle" is approximately the same as the table offset distance (2mm).

dusty wrote: If you have an alignment problem, caused by mixing and matching vintage 510 tables, I believe the only solution (short of eliminating the vintage differences) would be to drill the holes in the extension tables larger so that there is some alignment capability.

But not yet.

Ooof... not yet indeed. I may bow out of the race when it comes to metalwork. Not sure why -- I can scrape away at ebony and cocobolo all day but even a drill bit into soft aluminum makes me feel like I should be "asking an expert" for help.

dusty wrote: I need to better understand your problem. In the photos, it appears that the outer surfaces of the various tubes are not all aligned with one another. Is this the alignment issue that you are having OR do you have difficulties keeping the rip fence aligned (parallel to) to the blade depending on where the fence is located (main table or extension table).

One more comment. The only spacers that are normally used between the tables and the rails are the contoured ones. There should be no need to use flat washers there. IOn a couple of your photos there appears to be a washer.

Good question, I have not even tried putting the fence on the new tables. I have no reason to assume it won't work, but I'll try and take pics as soon as I can.


Correct that BOTH the outer surfaces of the tubes AND the table tops are offset by a small amount. The extension tube slides into both just fine, it's just looser in the main table. In the pics, if I grab the floating table and jiggle, it can move up and down a little bit (thumbscrews loose). Floating tables have a more "snug" fit on the extension tube.


I'll check on the washer question, but I don't think there's anything but the funny-shaped contoured washers -- flat and star-shaped are only used on the inside of each table attachment (I'll double check tonight, but it doesn't seem like that would cause a vertical shift)

dusty wrote:He gave up the battle and bought new tables.

I'd obviously love to avoid that at all costs.



One more note: I do NOT have a proper "extension table," meaning one with downward mounting tubes. My main table is 510, but my extension table with downward tubes is still 500 style. I'm NOT trying to use it or anything, so this should be an unrelated note, but just calling it out for the "full story," in case it's relevant somehow.

Thanks again!

Your 'knobs' or all of the 'later' variety.

Are the id of all rails the same?

The older ones were larger than the newer ones(od the same but wall thickness different IIRC). edit! The newer ones have thinner walls!!!

If your rails also differ being all the 'later' version, it would appear there be another 'version' iteration!!!:(

Up to now I thought the rail dimensions varied simultaneously with the knob and mounting change.

This would lead me to believe you have the thinner walled tubes on the main table, and older thicker walled tubes on the extension tables. Why would still be a mystery.

It would explain the 'extra slop', but not a height difference.

How to insert pictures into your posts.

Thanks ddvann79, I edited for ease of viewing!


JPG40504, I'll go measure diameters and thicknesses at lunch today, if I can. From what I can tell, however, the main table is built exactly like this:

http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/part ... ew_510.htm

And so the only issue is that the inside diameters of the floating tables is smaller (right?) than the main table. This causes the "jiggle" when the tubes are not tightly secured in place. Also, it MAYBE causes the offset, since gravity pulls the extension tube/table to the bottom of the larger-inner-diameter main table tube (slightly lower bottom-point).

All that said, should I just place an order for part number 141 from the link above? Does SS have a reasonable return policy if this somehow doesn't turn out well?

Cobal60
What you are seeing is exactly the reason I hated the 510 upgrade.

On the 520 upgrade the knobs that tighten the connector tubes into the table tubes push the connector tube up from the bottom. Therefore all tables are referenced off the top of the their fence tube.

On the 510 the knurled knobs come in from the side. If you remember to lift up the connector tube before you tighten it you will over come much of your problem. However in use the connector tube usually shift down and the tables are mismatched.

Frankly I thought the 510 upgrade should have been recalled and replaced with 520 for this reason.

I literally hated my 510 over this problem. My tables were always sitting at different heights in reference with each other, it was maddening. I boycotted Shopsmith until I saw the 520 which overcame this problem. I ordered the upgrade and my tables now live in the same plane.

The problem is slop in the fence tubes with the connector tube and way the table tighteners work. Problem solved on 520

Sorry there isn't a better solution.

So Ed, you're thinking this issue is not somehow "version" based, but rather just an inherit flaw in all 510 upgrades? To further clarify, does everyone with a 510 version (any era) have this problem and just "deal with it?"

That seems ... quite problematic. I mean, I guess for rough sheet goods it's not a deal-breaker (still not as safe as possible), but for fine cuts in hardwood, which is what i do most of the time, this is basically un-usable and at worst, unsafe. It strikes me as particularly odd that the issue is different tube sizes -- why not just use the same tubes??


Hope it's not brash or jerk-y to say, but at $425 I'd have to consider selling what I've got and getting individual tools. But I really don't want to - I'm loving this old SS and really just want it to work the way I believe it can