Wild_Bill wrote:
Bill, I'd recommend asking a well-informed company representative to
confirm any published features or specs for any machine purchase.

Agreed. The main question now is cross power feed on the belt driven
lathe. If absent, it might reduce my interest.



For my hobby level use, with occassionally made-to-sell parts, the
larger machines would be overkill (disregarding base model price), and
require much more space, but also more expensive accessories.
The 900+ pounds of the bigger machines would be manageable, but I
wouldn't want to have to move one of those machines more than once, but
if I needed to make big parts for profit, the 9x20 lathe would be a poor
choice.

Individual and combined weight is a consideration. Since the largest
lathe I am considering weighs around 1000 lb, it's not too bad. In
eventually moving beyond my mill-drill, it might be more of a factor in
the decision.


I've often felt that I'd make more parts for numerous types of stuff
that interests me, if I also had a little 7x10 or 7x12" lathe to use, in
addition to my other 2 machines.
Big piles of chips are a feeling of accomplishment, but if I just need a
small piece of hardware (bushing, spacer, standoff, knurled nut etc), I
could easily acomplish those small items without much effort at all..
pull up a chair, and have a finished part in a few minutes.
While the price of these little hobby machines was hovering at less than
$400 or so for several years, I saw one last week at the local TSC store
for $500.

It is a possibility. Another crazy idea would be to buy a 3-in-1. In
addition to a lathe, it would give me the option of doing quick milling
setups to rescue something more elaborate on my mill. Depending on the
size and complexity of a part, I will sometimes square an extra block
for a "run" as a buffer against having to tear down and rebuild a setup.
If it is all vise work, I usually won't bother, but for vise or RT
vs. a table setup, it sometimes makes sense to buy some insurance.

I could be wrong, but I do not see myself owning two lathes. Keeping my
mill-drill after getting a bigger mill is a distinct possibility.



I believe most users that have the piston style Phase II QCTPs are happy
with them, although some HSM types will insist that the wedge style (or
a true Aloris) are the only ones they would use.

Many of them make a living at this, so it is understandable.


I think that $90 (for the series 100) seems almost too cheap, but
they're made well, certainly many times more reliable than the HF model
from India that I bought and tried to use.
I have both styles of the P II series 100 posts, and the fit of the
holders is very good on both of 'em.

I might start with a piston on the grounds that it beats shimming, and
replace it later if it drives me nuts. If any piston owners want to
warn me off, feel free.



If you end up getting the 12" lathe, you might want to ask some owners
of that model if a series 100, or the larger 200 series is better suited
for a machine that size.
Sometimes there are issues with the toolholders being positioned at the
bottom of the post, to get the cutting edge of larger cutting tools
positioned on the centerline of the workpiece.

Anybody? So far, I recall mostly discussion of the spindle and speed
changes.



I suspect that some folks are happy with cheap, and that a cheap tool is
better than a quality tool to some of them, even though the cheap tool
is frustrating to use.
At the other end of the spectrum are the ones that feel that the only
tool they will ever own must be capable of lasting many lifetimes.
If I were several decades younger, and was machining for my income, I
would (and did) certainly have a different opinion about tools and the
minimum level of quality and dependability, particularly when my
wages/income were dependent upon reliability of tools I purchased.

The P II RT that I have is the horizontal-only model (stand it up, and
the oil runs out),

They didn't tell me that. One more selling point for the H/V table - I
hadn't heard that, I just saw it as a something that was fairly cheap to
add and might be useful.



For multiple parts, I'd probably just use the 5C spin index.

I do not have a dividing head (other than the RT), which was another
factor in getting the HV table.

Bill

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:26:09 -0500, Bill Schwab
wrote:
snip
I think that $90 (for the series 100) seems almost too cheap, but
they're made well, certainly many times more reliable than the HF model
from India that I bought and tried to use.
I have both styles of the P II series 100 posts, and the fit of the
holders is very good on both of 'em.
snip
If you don't need the split second changes of the Aloris style,
check out
http://www.krfcompany.com/

Make your own with a lathe and a faceplate + milling attachment.
Only part that may be hard to make is the "indexing" plate that
goes under the tool post, and you can buy this, make a simpler
one with some spot drilled holes, or just not use it.


for some we made in class see
http://mcduffee-associates.us/machining/QCTH.htm



Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:26:09 -0500, Bill wrote:

snip I think that $90 (for the series 100) seems almost too cheap, but
they're made well, certainly many times more reliable than the HF model
from India that I bought and tried to use.
I have both styles of the P II series 100 posts, and the fit of the
holders is very good on both of 'em.

This gentleman
http://tools4cheap.net/
ordered some half-priced toolholders that fit my Swiss Multifix tool
post and a few complete sets which he may still have. This is the 40-
position system that's solid like Aloris but lets you rotate the bit
in 9 degree steps to whatever angle you want, making it easy to turn
and face with hand-ground HSS bits.There is a size smaller than A for
mini lathes.

Jim Wilkins

According to Bill Schwab :
Wild_Bill wrote:
Bill, I'd recommend asking a well-informed company representative to
confirm any published features or specs for any machine purchase.

Agreed. The main question now is cross power feed on the belt driven
lathe. If absent, it might reduce my interest.

I don't know about the lathe in question, but I certainly have
power cross feed (and longitudinal feed) in addition to the threading
feed from the leadscrew on my 12x24" belt driven Clausing. The
longitudinal feed reduces wear on the threading portion of the lathe.

[ ... ]

It is a possibility. Another crazy idea would be to buy a 3-in-1. In
addition to a lathe, it would give me the option of doing quick milling
setups to rescue something more elaborate on my mill.

From what I have read from those who have used the 3-in-1
machines regularly, there is no such thing as a *quick* milling setup.
The time required to block the workpiece up to a height which allows the
milling cutters to reach it is noticeable -- and it is a test of
ingenuity as well.

[ ... ]

I believe most users that have the piston style Phase II QCTPs are happy
with them, although some HSM types will insist that the wedge style (or
a true Aloris) are the only ones they would use.

Many of them make a living at this, so it is understandable.


I think that $90 (for the series 100) seems almost too cheap, but
they're made well, certainly many times more reliable than the HF model
from India that I bought and tried to use.
I have both styles of the P II series 100 posts, and the fit of the
holders is very good on both of 'em.

I might start with a piston on the grounds that it beats shimming, and
replace it later if it drives me nuts. If any piston owners want to
warn me off, feel free.

I'm not a user of a piston style toolpost -- I've got the
Phase-II wedge style -- but two significant points (other than the extra
rigidity from the way the wedge style locks up compared to the piston)
a

1) The piston style has the lever landing at two fairly large
zones separated from each other by 90 degrees when you switch
between tool holders on the turning dovetail vs the boring/facing
dovetail. This means that your expectations of when it will
lock have to be adjusted between the two tool holder locations.

2) Related, but perhaps more important -- when there is no tool
holder on the toolpost, with a piston style, the lever is free
to swing totally around the toolpost -- which has resulted in
the handle interacting with the jaws on the chuck -- producing
shrapnel as the hard plastic ball grip on the end of the lever
is shattered.

I did not know about these points when I selected the wedge
style toolpost -- but if I had, they would have reenforced my choice.



If you end up getting the 12" lathe, you might want to ask some owners
of that model if a series 100, or the larger 200 series is better suited
for a machine that size.
Sometimes there are issues with the toolholders being positioned at the
bottom of the post, to get the cutting edge of larger cutting tools
positioned on the centerline of the workpiece.

Anybody? So far, I recall mostly discussion of the spindle and speed
changes.

I selected the BXA/Series-200 size for my 12x24 Clausing. This
provides more rigidity because it will accept a 5/8" shank on the
tooling, instead of the 1/2" limit for the AXA/Series-100. (This in
addition to the greater rigidity of the larger holders to start with.)

As for whether it will fit -- the main consideration is the
height of the lathe spindle's center above the top of the compound. The
critical factor is the height of the top of the tool slot above the
bottom of the holder -- on the assumption that the holder will bottom on
the compound unless you slide the toolpost enough to the side so the
whole dovetail hangs over the side -- thus trading off rigidity again.

Good Luck,
DoN.


--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:

I don't know about the lathe in question, but I certainly have
power cross feed (and longitudinal feed) in addition to the threading
feed from the leadscrew on my 12x24" belt driven Clausing. The
longitudinal feed reduces wear on the threading portion of the lathe.

Could I trouble you to explain that? I believe you, I just don't
understand how/why.



From what I have read from those who have used the 3-in-1
machines regularly, there is no such thing as a *quick* milling setup.
The time required to block the workpiece up to a height which allows the
milling cutters to reach it is noticeable -- and it is a test of
ingenuity as well.

Noted - probably not a very good idea.



I'm not a user of a piston style toolpost -- I've got the
Phase-II wedge style -- but two significant points (other than the extra
rigidity from the way the wedge style locks up compared to the piston)
a

1) The piston style has the lever landing at two fairly large
zones separated from each other by 90 degrees when you switch
between tool holders on the turning dovetail vs the boring/facing
dovetail. This means that your expectations of when it will
lock have to be adjusted between the two tool holder locations.

2) Related, but perhaps more important -- when there is no tool
holder on the toolpost, with a piston style, the lever is free
to swing totally around the toolpost -- which has resulted in
the handle interacting with the jaws on the chuck -- producing
shrapnel as the hard plastic ball grip on the end of the lever
is shattered.

I think you just sold a wedge style post. In fairness though, is there
an argument for simply having a holder in place at all times to avoid
(2)? Or is that a problem too?



As for whether it will fit -- the main consideration is the
height of the lathe spindle's center above the top of the compound. The
critical factor is the height of the top of the tool slot above the
bottom of the holder -- on the assumption that the holder will bottom on
the compound unless you slide the toolpost enough to the side so the
whole dovetail hangs over the side -- thus trading off rigidity again.

What makes it critical? Is the idea to be able to "get under" the
center line? Naively, I would think that it would be necessary to reach
at least that high???

Thanks,

Bill

Bill Schwab wrote:

With that said, I am going to seriously reconsider the cheaper machine,
if only to be fair to my wallet.

Bill, there's a real good alternative that may not have been mentioned:

The 8x14 as sold by HF, Lathemaster and others. It is reportedly a
better, stouter machine than either the 7X or the 9X variants.
HF sells it for under $500.

But if you are good with the $900 price range I'd go ahead and get the
10x22 that grizzly sells for a little more. It's a darned nice Seig
lathe, although it does not have a QC threading gearbox.

Bill Schwab wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:

I don't know about the lathe in question, but I certainly have
power cross feed (and longitudinal feed) in addition to the threading
feed from the leadscrew on my 12x24" belt driven Clausing. The
longitudinal feed reduces wear on the threading portion of the lathe.


Could I trouble you to explain that? I believe you, I just don't
understand how/why.

High-end lathes have both a drive shaft AND a threading leadscrew. The
drive shaft is a smooth, keyed shaft (or sometimes square on older
lathes) that drives the carriage feed and crossfeed via a keyed gear
that slides on the drive shaft. Cheaper lathes have a keyway on the
threading leadscrew that drives the power crossfeed, and some also use
that drive for the carriage feed, so as to reduce wear on the threading
leadscrew.

Jon

According to Bill Schwab :
DoN. Nichols wrote:

I don't know about the lathe in question, but I certainly have
power cross feed (and longitudinal feed) in addition to the threading
feed from the leadscrew on my 12x24" belt driven Clausing. The
longitudinal feed reduces wear on the threading portion of the lathe.

Could I trouble you to explain that? I believe you, I just don't
understand how/why.

Every time you cut threads, you are doing it by the halfnuts
clamping around the leadscrew to drive the carriage at a precise speed
related to that of the spindle by a set of gears. This results in wear
in the half nuts and the leadscrew.

A *good* lathe does not use the threads and half nuts for
longitudinal feed when not cutting threads. Instead, there is a keyway
(groove) along the length of the leadscrew, and a collar around it with
a key which rides in that groove. The collar is mounted in bearings
which allow it to rotate with the leadscrew -- but with no wear on the
faces of the acme threads of the leadscrew. The outside of the collar
is a worm gear, mating to another gear in the apron. This gear serves
to turn either the handwheel or the cross-feed crank to move the
carriage and/or the tool relative to the workpiece. It also has the
advantage of being a speed reducing gear, so you get a finer feed than
you do using the leadscrew and half-nuts.

Note that wear on the leadscrew tends to accumulate in the
region where the carriage spends most of its time, but when you are
cutting threads, you may be using the whole length of the bed. Thus the
localized wear causes errors in the feed for threading -- the pitch
changes somewhat as you move from the unworn region into the worn
region.

[ ... ]

I'm not a user of a piston style toolpost -- I've got the
Phase-II wedge style -- but two significant points (other than the extra
rigidity from the way the wedge style locks up compared to the piston)
a

1) The piston style has the lever landing at two fairly large
zones separated from each other by 90 degrees when you switch
between tool holders on the turning dovetail vs the boring/facing
dovetail. This means that your expectations of when it will
lock have to be adjusted between the two tool holder locations.

2) Related, but perhaps more important -- when there is no tool
holder on the toolpost, with a piston style, the lever is free
to swing totally around the toolpost -- which has resulted in
the handle interacting with the jaws on the chuck -- producing
shrapnel as the hard plastic ball grip on the end of the lever
is shattered.

I think you just sold a wedge style post. In fairness though, is there
an argument for simply having a holder in place at all times to avoid
(2)? Or is that a problem too?

Well ... you *have* to remove one tool holder to place another
with a different tool on the toolpost. And it is while turning to put
the first on a shelf or cart and pick up the replacement that you *may*
hit the lever. You have to be only in a fairly narrow range to give
that a chance of the ball handle hitting the chuck jaws -- but you know
Murphy's law. :-)

And even when switching from one holder on the turning dovetail
to a different one on the boring/facing dovetail you have to lift the
one off after loosening before you can drop the other in place with a
piston toolpost because of the 90 degree change in the lock-up position
of the lever from one to the other. You have to lift the tool holer off
to be able to swing the lever enough to allow the replacement tool
holder to go into place.

Now -- you probably could drill and tap the toolpost to install
stops to keep the lever from going too far -- but I have not yet seen
one so adapted.

As for whether it will fit -- the main consideration is the
height of the lathe spindle's center above the top of the compound. The
critical factor is the height of the top of the tool slot above the
bottom of the holder -- on the assumption that the holder will bottom on
the compound unless you slide the toolpost enough to the side so the
whole dovetail hangs over the side -- thus trading off rigidity again.

What makes it critical? Is the idea to be able to "get under" the
center line? Naively, I would think that it would be necessary to reach
at least that high???

You need to be able to get the tool's edge to precisely at or
*slightly* below the axis center for outside turning, or precisely at or
*slightly* above for inside turning. In any case -- you do need to be
able to get the edge down to there. Normally, there is something like a
32nd of an inch between the top of the largest tool shank and the top of
the slot, so making sure that the top edge of the slot can come down to
the center height of the spindle is sufficient to allow adjustment of the
worst-case tool which *should* be in that holder. And -- when you are
given an insert tool which is too big for the slot, you remove material
from the underside of the shank, not the top, to bring the cutting edge
of the insert close to the top of the slot again. (Of course, when
using smaller tools, you have more room to play with -- but you want to
make sure that the biggest tool which will fit is in place you can
adjust the height properly.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---