Shopsmith Forums

RFGuy wrote:Thanks Steve. Yeah, the pivots look nice and I didn't even think about the overhead advantage for this compared to a Mark V. So, the dust collector didn't have a separate motor, but siphoned power from the headstock? The base looks to me to be made out of heavy gauge plate steel that has been welded. Am I correct, or is it cast or etc? Sorry for all of the questions, but there are only a very few pics of these online and the pics aren't very high resolution.

FWIW, I love it so far. I have mounted all of the spts (belt sander, bandsaw, jointer etc) with no problems and everything lines up and works. I just turned a plate from 3/4 pine glue up and the 700 rpm low end is a little faster that I like to start out at.

The base is a tank. It reminds me of the way the 10's are made.

Very solid, quiet (which suprises me), and powerful. It seems to rip 2 3/4 and 3" thick stock easier than the mark V 500, but of course doesn't compare to the Powerpro (the POS).

I love the tilt process. Best SS to date of that experience.

I will be doing one of my solid wood raised panel cabinet doors exclusively in the next few days, that will test the under table and over table shaping because I do both for that. I have to make a couple of jigs first, but I will report back.

The real worry, and justifiable hesitation in getting one is the lack of parts. My attitude, is that every item on all Shopsmiths (except the PP electronics) can be made. It wouldn't be cheap, but you can repair them. I had a lot of experience in that (making parts) in my childhood.

So, so far, I am very impressed with the design and build. Someone (cough cough) should start building these things again.

JMH 2 cents.

RFGuy wrote:The base looks to me to be made out of heavy gauge plate steel that has been welded. Am I correct, or is it cast or etc?

The base is light sheet steel with some seam welding, but meant to be assembled by the customer onsite. So it's lighter than it looks in terms of mass, and mostly joined with sheet screws.

RFGuy wrote:So, the dust collector didn't have a separate motor, but siphoned power from the headstock?

Right, it's mounted on the axial shaft of the motor. It was an ambitious idea, but as I understand it the big engineering problem is that the dust-collection fan has to work both forward and reverse. This compromises its efficiency, further cutting into horsepower at the tool. There is also no convenient way to take the blower offline and work without it.

I'd be very interested to hear any counter-narratives on this.

StevenAyres wrote:

RFGuy wrote:So, the dust collector didn't have a separate motor, but siphoned power from the headstock?

Right, it's mounted on the axial shaft of the motor. It was an ambitious idea, but as I understand it the big engineering problem is that the dust-collection fan has to work both forward and reverse. This compromises its efficiency, further cutting into horsepower at the tool. There is also no convenient way to take the blower offline and work without it.

I'd be very interested to hear any counter-narratives on this.

I have already taken the dust collector fan and ducting off already. Too much noise for the amount of air flow you get. When removed there is a small motor shaft that really isn't in the way. I will build a protective housing around it, but that probably isn't necessary. It really is amazing how quiet the headstock is (with the blower removed). I assume the case (being different) may have something to do with it, but is is quiet. The Powerpro is quieter, but not significantly.

rjent wrote:It really is amazing how quiet the headstock is (with the blower removed).

I'm very glad you mentioned this. I've been concerned that my Mark 5 is noisier than it should be, because the VII is so much quieter. I wonder why -- there doesn't seem to be enough engineering difference in the headstocks to account for it.

StevenAyres wrote:

RFGuy wrote:So, the dust collector didn't have a separate motor, but siphoned power from the headstock?

Right, it's mounted on the axial shaft of the motor. It was an ambitious idea, but as I understand it the big engineering problem is that the dust-collection fan has to work both forward and reverse. This compromises its efficiency, further cutting into horsepower at the tool. There is also no convenient way to take the blower offline and work without it.

I'd be very interested to hear any counter-narratives on this.

Interesting...so, I assume they did just a radial, straight blade impeller for the dust collector then. This would allow for forward and backward rotation and be very robust for any wood chips that make it into the fan, but not very efficient. I wonder what size impeller it is and what the housing looks like. If you never intended to run the motor both forwards and backwards, it could be possible to swap out the impeller for another one. A backward curved impeller could greatly increase the efficiency of it. Even better would be an airfoil impeller, but near impossible to buy one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (it would only safest sitting behind a cyclone though to minimize wood chip impacts).

FWIW, the impeller closely resembles the DC3300 impeller.

I think the 'straight' blades has to do with the possibility of large debris.

A couple more differences come to mind:

The tables are 21" deep, 3" bigger than those on the Mark 5.

The power switch is keyed, and you have to turn the key to switch between forward and reverse. And of course baby can't turn it on if you've taken out the key. Pretty nice key, too!

JPG wrote:FWIW, the impeller closely resembles the DC3300 impeller.

I think the 'straight' blades has to do with the possibility of large debris.

Been awhile since I took my DC3300 apart, but from what I remember it was a forward curved impeller design. The curve is so slight though that it is closer to a straight radial blade design though, so I guess you probably wouldn't see much difference in dust collector performance between forward and reverse speeds with the Mark VII. At least that is my speculation. I contemplated re-designing my DC3300 in the past. I think the impeller was only like 9.5" or 10" diameter. I had a spare motor (free and more HP) that I could use, so I thought about purchasing a larger backward curved impeller, but it would have required building a new blower housing for it. In the end, I decided it was more trouble than it was worth for me.

Also, it seems like the Mark VII was at least a few inches taller than a Mark V. Is this the case? For those of us that are taller, that would certainly be welcome, particularly for lathe work.

The older Mk7 is kind of a mystery to me in that it seemed SS was actually on a better track with it. It was definitely a step up from the MK 5 design. Where did it fit with the SS corporate timeline ? Do we know how many were made ?
Paul