Much has been said with regards to table saws and tuning.

This past weekend, I installed a machined pulley and link belt kit from
Hartville Tool http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/10885 on a Delta
Contractor Saw. I'm not associated with the company or product, wanted
to offer them a shameless plug.

While the saw has always been OK; how good can this kit be and can it
really make a differnece?

I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
highly recommend this kit.

Of course YMMV, but I think you'll be pleased!

Darwin

"DAC" wrote in message
oups.com...
Snip

I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
highly recommend this kit.

Were the old pullies equal in size to each other and are the new pullies
equal in size to each other?

DAC wrote:

....
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) ...

Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...

(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)

Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?

"Leon" wrote in message
. com...

"DAC" wrote in message
oups.com...
Snip

I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
highly recommend this kit.

Were the old pullies equal in size to each other and are the new pullies
equal in size to each other?



Made me look. I have 2.5 on the arbor, 3.0 on the motor as original - 1.2
* 3450 = 4140

His at 2.25 and 2.5 respectively = 1.1 * 3450 = 3833

Sounds like the "additional rpms" might be illusory.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
DAC wrote:

...
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) ...

Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...

(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)

Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?

I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

Made me look. I have 2.5 on the arbor, 3.0 on the motor as original -
1.2
* 3450 = 4140

His at 2.25 and 2.5 respectively = 1.1 * 3450 = 3833

Sounds like the "additional rpms" might be illusory.

Yeah I was wondering myself as IIRC both TS's that I have had, had same
diameter pulleys.

Leon wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
DAC wrote:

...
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) ...

Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...

(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)

Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?

I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.

Sorry, yeah, I accidently deleted the pi by an inadvertent edit to fix
another typo...

The possible concern was addressed in the other post where the sizes are
given...

In that regard a 1.2/1.1 ~10% rpm increase from a somewhat slow initial
speed may well be noticeable...

"Leon" wrote in message
. com...

I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 =
linear feet per second.


CRAP. Should be

((RPM/60) x (diameter in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.

or

((RPM/60) x (2 x Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.

you gotta add pi in there. :~)

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Sorry, yeah, I accidently deleted the pi by an inadvertent edit to fix
another typo...

The possible concern was addressed in the other post where the sizes are
given...


LOL... I corrected you wrong also. See my next comment. ;~)

Were the old pullies equal in size to each other and are the new
pullies
equal in size to each other?

I didn't actually measure them, I was recalling my discussion with the
sales person when I purchased it at a recent WW show. I'll go home and
measure this evening and post a follow up tomorrow.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

In that regard a 1.2/1.1 ~10% rpm increase from a somewhat slow initial
speed may well be noticeable...

Uh, read the post. His are the 1.1/1 , original to at least my 34-410 are
1.2/1.

Blades are normally rated for an RPM, their diameter being known to the
manufacturer beforehand.

Did the same thing to my Craftsman contractor's TS a while back - I don't
know about all this fuzzy math stuff, but it just seemed to cut so much
better. I also put a Freud blade on it, which also seemed to improve
performance. Cuts were smoother with no bogging down.

I'm putting a link belt on my Delta DP - I'm also going to put them on my
jointer and my bandsaw -

Nick B

"DAC" wrote in message
oups.com...
Much has been said with regards to table saws and tuning.

This past weekend, I installed a machined pulley and link belt kit from
Hartville Tool http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/10885 on a Delta
Contractor Saw. I'm not associated with the company or product, wanted
to offer them a shameless plug.

While the saw has always been OK; how good can this kit be and can it
really make a differnece?

I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
highly recommend this kit.

Of course YMMV, but I think you'll be pleased!

Darwin

Leon wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

DAC wrote:

...

blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) ...

Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...

(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)

Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?


I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.


If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the
circumference. The latter is Pi x D(iameter), not
Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared
which is for area of a circle.

In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
Leon wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

DAC wrote:

...

blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) ...

Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...

(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)

Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?


I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.


If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the
circumference. The latter is Pi x D(iameter), not
Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared
which is for area of a circle.

No, you're not wrong. Specifically, the calculation is
(rpm / 60) * (diameter in inches) * 3.14 / 12 = linear feet/sec.

But why does anyone care? I've *never* seen a saw blade marked "max tip speed
xxx linear feet/sec", but I *have* seen *plenty* of blades marked "max RPM
xxx".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the circumference. The latter is Pi x
D(iameter), not Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared which
is for area of a circle.

Yes, And I caught that and corrected that also.

DAC wrote:
Much has been said with regards to table saws and tuning.


I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform
at
it's best-ever.

The best source for link belts I have found is HF. It's on line. They
don't carry it in the local store. Cast/machined/balanced pulleys are
available at any good bearing supply store. Make your own tune up kit
- do the math first to get the best pulley sizes.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


But why does anyone care? I've *never* seen a saw blade marked "max tip
speed
xxx linear feet/sec", but I *have* seen *plenty* of blades marked "max RPM
xxx".

Because in the end, the tip speed is the ultimate limiting factor. Simply
staying at or under the rpm indicated on the blade simplifies making sure
the tip speed is not too high.









--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Leon wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the circumference. The latter is Pi x
D(iameter), not Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared which
is for area of a circle.


Yes, And I caught that and corrected that also.


Yep, noticed that right after I sent the comment.
Sorry.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...


But why does anyone care? I've *never* seen a saw blade marked "max tip
speed
xxx linear feet/sec", but I *have* seen *plenty* of blades marked "max RPM
xxx".

Because in the end, the tip speed is the ultimate limiting factor. Simply
staying at or under the rpm indicated on the blade simplifies making sure
the tip speed is not too high.

Yes, I *know* the tip speed is the limiting factor. But since blades are
labelled to indicate max rpm, *not* max tip speed, what's the point in knowing
the tip speed?









--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...

Yes, I *know* the tip speed is the limiting factor. But since blades are
labelled to indicate max rpm, *not* max tip speed, what's the point in
knowing
the tip speed?

To be more knowledgeable. ;~)

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
news:xPzTd.75342


Yep, noticed that right after I sent the comment. Sorry.


No need to be sorry, you did what I did. LOL