Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
I looked at the drawing wrong.? The wheel side is different, the drawing show space for a double row bearing. Mine is sized for a single row bearing,
21mm width.? The drawing matches mine bearing housing for the other end.? I am now certain that the bearings get tightened with the nuts on each end and the positing of the assembly is set by the recess for the front bearing.
?
I will ask about parts diagrams.? When I called the first time and asked for a manual or any docs they said they had none.? The do have a parts book
because they were able to look up the part number for a foot brake pedal that’s broken.
?
OWWM has all the docs I’ve been able to find. Also someone is selling on ebay printouts of the docs that are free on OWWM.
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]>
On Behalf Of David Kumm
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FOG] Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
?
Joe, that rear bearing looks to have a spacer on the inner ring to trap the bearing.? I wonder if the bearing changed or on earlier versions a bearing with an extended inner ring was used.? Those
types of bearings became hard to source so Tanny might have decided to add a spacer rather than change their castings to accept a different thickness bearing.? totally just guessing here but I don't see many bearings just floating on a spindle.? Dave
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size,
steel shields.? Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure
the space for the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty
sure alignment would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
The front bearing locates the spindle assembly and the rear bearing floats in the bore, pretty simple to see from the print, even if his has a single wide bearing in the front rather than double.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 13, 2021, at 2:23 PM, David Kumm < davekumm@...> wrote:
Joe, that rear bearing looks to have a spacer on the inner ring to trap the bearing.? I wonder if the bearing changed or on earlier versions a bearing with an extended inner ring was used.? Those types of bearings became hard to source so Tanny might have decided to add a spacer rather than change their castings to accept a different thickness bearing.? totally just guessing here but I don't see many bearings just floating on a spindle.? Dave
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size, steel shields.? Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure the space for the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty sure alignment would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
Joe, that rear bearing looks to have a spacer on the inner ring to trap the bearing.? I wonder if the bearing changed or on earlier versions a bearing with an extended inner ring was used.? Those types of bearings became hard to source so Tanny might have decided
to add a spacer rather than change their castings to accept a different thickness bearing.? totally just guessing here but I don't see many bearings just floating on a spindle.? Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size, steel shields.?
Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure the space for
the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty sure alignment
would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
Have you contacted Tannewitz with the serial # ?? They may have a drawing that matches your machine.? I've got lots of machines where the diagrams don't match.? I know Oliver still has drawings to match serial # so I would think Tannewitz may.? owwm.com publication
reprints might have something too.? Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I went out to measure the space for bearings in the housing and mine does not match the drawing.? My bearing housing has room for a single row bearing on the wheel side.?
With the plate installed it will be a perfect fit as far as I’m able to measure with a caliper.? The rear bearing housing has no specific edge to hold the bearing. So it looks like each bearing tights on the shaft with their respective nuts and the position
of the shaft/wheel is determined by the recess for that front bearing.? The rear bearing can float in the housing but it tight to the shaft.
?
?
The pictures shows two deep groove bearings rather than angular contact so there is no preload.? The purpose of the split nuts is to capture the inner race of the bearing.? If there were spacers, the nut would press
the bearings against the spacer which should be a loose fit on the spindle.? Dave
Both ends are threaded.? The wheels side is a threaded bushing, reverse threads.? The rear bearing is held on by a thin nut that split with a set screw to lock it in place.
When I disassembled I assumed I would need to adjust the load on the bearings.? But as I look at the parts and the drawing it looks like each bearing seats (I agree with you on the rear). There are also two spacers, shown on the drawing.? Oddly they are a
slop fit on the shaft and not at all precision looking. Is it possible this was machined with tight enough tolerances for the bearing seats in the housing and the shaft?? The nuts on both ends were tight. I had to used a cheaper pipe on the spanner wrench
to loosen that end and an impact wrench on the nut on the other end.
?
?
Joe, I'm not sure the rear bearing should float either.? Looks like there may be a nut of some sort that tightens on the spindle and holds the inner ring.? I have machines with a threaded spanner ring with a set screw
to secure the bearing.? hard to tell from the diagram.? Are there threads?
The double row looks to be correct if you can verify the width.? A double will provide a much higher radial load which is what you want when tensioning the wheel.? I would not expect the bearing to be able to move
as a single row one would unless there is a wide alternative to the standard size.? The rpm is low so the double makes sense.? Dave
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size, steel shields.? Now
I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure the space for the
front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty sure alignment would
not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
I went out to measure the space for bearings in the housing and mine does not match the drawing.? My bearing housing has room for a single row bearing
on the wheel side.? With the plate installed it will be a perfect fit as far as I’m able to measure with a caliper.? The rear bearing housing has no specific edge to hold the bearing. So it looks like each bearing tights on the shaft with their respective
nuts and the position of the shaft/wheel is determined by the recess for that front bearing.? The rear bearing can float in the housing but it tight to the shaft.
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]>
On Behalf Of David Kumm
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FOG] Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
?
The pictures shows two deep groove bearings rather than angular contact so there is no preload.? The purpose of the split nuts is to capture the inner race of the bearing.? If there were spacers,
the nut would press the bearings against the spacer which should be a loose fit on the spindle.? Dave
Both ends are threaded.? The wheels side is a threaded bushing, reverse threads.? The rear bearing is held on by a thin nut that split with a set screw
to lock it in place. When I disassembled I assumed I would need to adjust the load on the bearings.? But as I look at the parts and the drawing it looks like each bearing seats (I agree with you on the rear). There are also two spacers, shown on the drawing.?
Oddly they are a slop fit on the shaft and not at all precision looking. Is it possible this was machined with tight enough tolerances for the bearing seats in the housing and the shaft?? The nuts on both ends were tight. I had to used a cheaper pipe on the
spanner wrench to loosen that end and an impact wrench on the nut on the other end.
?
?
Joe, I'm not sure the rear bearing should float either.? Looks like there may be a nut of some sort that tightens on the spindle and holds the inner ring.? I have machines with a threaded spanner
ring with a set screw to secure the bearing.? hard to tell from the diagram.? Are there threads?
The double row looks to be correct if you can verify the width.? A double will provide a much higher radial load which is what you want when tensioning the wheel.? I would not expect the bearing
to be able to move as a single row one would unless there is a wide alternative to the standard size.? The rpm is low so the double makes sense.? Dave
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size,
steel shields.? Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure
the space for the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty
sure alignment would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
The pictures shows two deep groove bearings rather than angular contact so there is no preload.? The purpose of the split nuts is to capture the inner race of the bearing.? If there were spacers, the nut would press the bearings against the spacer which should
be a loose fit on the spindle.? Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Both ends are threaded.? The wheels side is a threaded bushing, reverse threads.? The rear bearing is held on by a thin nut that split with a set screw to lock it in place.
When I disassembled I assumed I would need to adjust the load on the bearings.? But as I look at the parts and the drawing it looks like each bearing seats (I agree with you on the rear). There are also two spacers, shown on the drawing.? Oddly they are a
slop fit on the shaft and not at all precision looking. Is it possible this was machined with tight enough tolerances for the bearing seats in the housing and the shaft?? The nuts on both ends were tight. I had to used a cheaper pipe on the spanner wrench
to loosen that end and an impact wrench on the nut on the other end.
?
?
Joe, I'm not sure the rear bearing should float either.? Looks like there may be a nut of some sort that tightens on the spindle and holds the inner ring.? I have machines with a threaded spanner ring with a set screw
to secure the bearing.? hard to tell from the diagram.? Are there threads?
The double row looks to be correct if you can verify the width.? A double will provide a much higher radial load which is what you want when tensioning the wheel.? I would not expect the bearing to be able to move
as a single row one would unless there is a wide alternative to the standard size.? The rpm is low so the double makes sense.? Dave
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size, steel shields.? Now
I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure the space for the
front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty sure alignment would
not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
Both ends are threaded.? The wheels side is a threaded bushing, reverse threads.? The rear bearing is held on by a thin nut that split with a set screw
to lock it in place. When I disassembled I assumed I would need to adjust the load on the bearings.? But as I look at the parts and the drawing it looks like each bearing seats (I agree with you on the rear). There are also two spacers, shown on the drawing.?
Oddly they are a slop fit on the shaft and not at all precision looking. Is it possible this was machined with tight enough tolerances for the bearing seats in the housing and the shaft?? The nuts on both ends were tight. I had to used a cheaper pipe on the
spanner wrench to loosen that end and an impact wrench on the nut on the other end.
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]>
On Behalf Of David Kumm
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FOG] Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
?
Joe, I'm not sure the rear bearing should float either.? Looks like there may be a nut of some sort that tightens on the spindle and holds the inner ring.? I have machines with a threaded spanner
ring with a set screw to secure the bearing.? hard to tell from the diagram.? Are there threads?
The double row looks to be correct if you can verify the width.? A double will provide a much higher radial load which is what you want when tensioning the wheel.? I would not expect the bearing
to be able to move as a single row one would unless there is a wide alternative to the standard size.? The rpm is low so the double makes sense.? Dave
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size,
steel shields.? Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure
the space for the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty
sure alignment would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
Joe, I'm not sure the rear bearing should float either.? Looks like there may be a nut of some sort that tightens on the spindle and holds the inner ring.? I have machines with a threaded spanner ring with a set screw to secure the bearing.? hard to tell from
the diagram.? Are there threads?
The double row looks to be correct if you can verify the width.? A double will provide a much higher radial load which is what you want when tensioning the wheel.? I would not expect the bearing to be able to move as a single row one would unless there is a
wide alternative to the standard size.? The rpm is low so the double makes sense.? Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size, steel shields.?
Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure the space for
the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty sure alignment
would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Tannewitz Bandsaw Upper Bearing Question
Another question on my rebuild project.? The saw was built with open cage bearings and large grease reservoirs.? Upon the advice of some on FOG I went with sealed bearings.? The bearings I removed front and rear were the same, same size, steel shields.? Now I found a parts diagram from Tannewitz and they show a double row bearing for the wheel side which makes sense.? Also it looks like the double row bearing would seat in position and the rear bearing floats in the housing.? I will measure the space for the front bearing to ensure its sized for a standard bearing width.? ?It looks like a past owner put the wrong bearing in the front.? Any reason not to use a double row bearing?? Based on the quality of the machining from Tannewitz I am pretty sure alignment would not be an issue.? Also with the smaller single row bearing on both sides it looks like the upper wheel / shaft / bearing assembly could move back and forth.? the bearings are a press fit but still seems odd.? Pic attached from the manual.
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
Love all the information and suggestions.? I think the A3-41 is about the top of what I am willing to spend.? still have more tools on my list to buy...I suppose I always will.
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
I speak with annotated photos here. ?
I am not a fan of flip-up table style jointers, especially when the tables are wider than 12". ?I’ve owned three now, all 20” width, and they are complex to align, and the cam-elevation system that replaced the parallelogram system in the mid-2000’s has proven to be less reliable in maintaining alignment. ?If I were buying a jointer today, I would strongly consider the Felder AD951L or the Plan 51L since neither of these jointers have flip-up tables. ?All the other jointers in the Felder line-up have flip-up tables - even the smaller stand alone jointers. ?I would also be looking seriously at the SCM equipment, specifically the Nova f 410 or 520: ??
David Best
https://www.instagram.com/davidpbest/
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
Carbide is offered by Tersa and those who use them feel they are worth the heavy price.? I think Joe Calhoon runs two carbide with two blanks and feels the two knife head gives him the best compromise.? Two knife heads used to be common on euro machines with
large diameter heads running at 5000-6000 rpm.? The attack angle and tip speed were such that the finish was supposedly very good.? My Bauerle is in transit and has a two knife head so I will have some experience in the future.? Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Aren’t carbide knives offers by Tersa?
D
On Jan 13, 2021, at 2:20 PM, Mark Kessler <mkessler10@...> wrote:
?I believe all the hammer j/p’s are the same build, ad941 is where the 4 post planer table begins, it is spring assist not too bad of a lift. I don’t think I would not get a 16” just because you heard it was harder to adjust, like Brian said
once its set it pretty much sticks unless a big move then maybe a readjust is in order.
Helical has been great, couldn’t imagine going back to straight knife on a j/p combo, if separates then helical on planer, tersa on jointer. If I had a wide belt and separates then maybe tersa on planer as well. Wouldn’t worry about the time spent turning
the carbides on the helical, you won’t be doing it that often.?
I had a 12” mm j/p for 30 years in addition to my scm 63b, glad I went to the 16” AND power drive, power drive has the ability to change your life! Of course you would need to jump to the ad741...
On Jan 13, 2021, at 2:03 PM, imranindiana via groups.io <imranindiana@...> wrote:
?
D Kilen,
This is going to be a generic response but you may find some information useful.
I am not sure if more problems reported on 41 (if that is true) necessarily means that it has more problems. It could be due to the fact that there are many more 41s sold compared to 31.
I have dual51 so cannot give you direct feed but in general the higher model usually has improvement in design, not sure if this is applicable here. This improved design could mean that 41 is more adjustable or easier to adjust. I would look
into this.
One criticism of 41 (i think it was AD941 but not certain and not sure if it is still true with latest model) was the lack of spring assist in lifting the tables. I am 5’8” 60 yrs of age and 160# and I have no difficulty in lifting dual51 tables.
This is something that a user does a lot so perhaps you can look into that.
Another major diff could be that 31 planer table has a single post vs 4 posts on 41. That is big on my list.
I would recommend checking both machines out. If you are not near a showroom check them out by locating a 31 & a 41 owner near you. Many of us here are perfectly willing to show machines, granted we have to be careful due to covid.
Good luck,
Imran
On Jan 13, 2021, at 1:27 PM, dkilen@... wrote:
?Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and
maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
Aren’t carbide knives offers by Tersa?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 13, 2021, at 2:20 PM, Mark Kessler <mkessler10@...> wrote:
? I believe all the hammer j/p’s are the same build, ad941 is where the 4 post planer table begins, it is spring assist not too bad of a lift. I don’t think I would not get a 16” just because you heard it was harder to adjust, like Brian said once its set it pretty much sticks unless a big move then maybe a readjust is in order.
Helical has been great, couldn’t imagine going back to straight knife on a j/p combo, if separates then helical on planer, tersa on jointer. If I had a wide belt and separates then maybe tersa on planer as well. Wouldn’t worry about the time spent turning the carbides on the helical, you won’t be doing it that often.?
I had a 12” mm j/p for 30 years in addition to my scm 63b, glad I went to the 16” AND power drive, power drive has the ability to change your life! Of course you would need to jump to the ad741... On Jan 13, 2021, at 2:03 PM, imranindiana via groups.io <imranindiana@...> wrote:
? D Kilen,
This is going to be a generic response but you may find some information useful.
I am not sure if more problems reported on 41 (if that is true) necessarily means that it has more problems. It could be due to the fact that there are many more 41s sold compared to 31.
I have dual51 so cannot give you direct feed but in general the higher model usually has improvement in design, not sure if this is applicable here. This improved design could mean that 41 is more adjustable or easier to adjust. I would look into this.
One criticism of 41 (i think it was AD941 but not certain and not sure if it is still true with latest model) was the lack of spring assist in lifting the tables. I am 5’8” 60 yrs of age and 160# and I have no difficulty in lifting dual51 tables. This is something that a user does a lot so perhaps you can look into that.
Another major diff could be that 31 planer table has a single post vs 4 posts on 41. That is big on my list.
I would recommend checking both machines out. If you are not near a showroom check them out by locating a 31 & a 41 owner near you. Many of us here are perfectly willing to show machines, granted we have to be careful due to covid.
Good luck,
Imran
On Jan 13, 2021, at 1:27 PM, dkilen@... wrote:
?Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
I believe all the hammer j/p’s are the same build, ad941 is where the 4 post planer table begins, it is spring assist not too bad of a lift. I don’t think I would not get a 16” just because you heard it was harder to adjust, like Brian said once its set it pretty much sticks unless a big move then maybe a readjust is in order.
Helical has been great, couldn’t imagine going back to straight knife on a j/p combo, if separates then helical on planer, tersa on jointer. If I had a wide belt and separates then maybe tersa on planer as well. Wouldn’t worry about the time spent turning the carbides on the helical, you won’t be doing it that often.?
I had a 12” mm j/p for 30 years in addition to my scm 63b, glad I went to the 16” AND power drive, power drive has the ability to change your life! Of course you would need to jump to the ad741...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 13, 2021, at 2:03 PM, imranindiana via groups.io <imranindiana@...> wrote:
? D Kilen,
This is going to be a generic response but you may find some information useful.
I am not sure if more problems reported on 41 (if that is true) necessarily means that it has more problems. It could be due to the fact that there are many more 41s sold compared to 31.
I have dual51 so cannot give you direct feed but in general the higher model usually has improvement in design, not sure if this is applicable here. This improved design could mean that 41 is more adjustable or easier to adjust. I would look into this.
One criticism of 41 (i think it was AD941 but not certain and not sure if it is still true with latest model) was the lack of spring assist in lifting the tables. I am 5’8” 60 yrs of age and 160# and I have no difficulty in lifting dual51 tables. This is something that a user does a lot so perhaps you can look into that.
Another major diff could be that 31 planer table has a single post vs 4 posts on 41. That is big on my list.
I would recommend checking both machines out. If you are not near a showroom check them out by locating a 31 & a 41 owner near you. Many of us here are perfectly willing to show machines, granted we have to be careful due to covid.
Good luck,
Imran
On Jan 13, 2021, at 1:27 PM, dkilen@... wrote:
?Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: Felder High Speed Router Spindle 424-111
I have it for my F-3 and I can only use the larger router bits. I wish they made a 3/4 spindle for the machine because there is a lot of tooling and it is cheaper. I should have not spent the money for the router spindle and had a custom made 3/4 in a machine shop. I still use my Incra router table and fence all the time.
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
D Kilen,
This is going to be a generic response but you may find some information useful.
I am not sure if more problems reported on 41 (if that is true) necessarily means that it has more problems. It could be due to the fact that there are many more 41s sold compared to 31.
I have dual51 so cannot give you direct feed but in general the higher model usually has improvement in design, not sure if this is applicable here. This improved design could mean that 41 is more adjustable or easier to adjust. I would look into this.
One criticism of 41 (i think it was AD941 but not certain and not sure if it is still true with latest model) was the lack of spring assist in lifting the tables. I am 5’8” 60 yrs of age and 160# and I have no difficulty in lifting dual51 tables. This is something that a user does a lot so perhaps you can look into that.
Another major diff could be that 31 planer table has a single post vs 4 posts on 41. That is big on my list.
I would recommend checking both machines out. If you are not near a showroom check them out by locating a 31 & a 41 owner near you. Many of us here are perfectly willing to show machines, granted we have to be careful due to covid.
Good luck,
Imran
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 13, 2021, at 1:27 PM, dkilen@... wrote: ?Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
I have a 16" General 880 jointer. It was the last straight knife head in the shop, and that was just unacceptable. Swapped it for the Byrd and have been happy ever since. I often run into 16" not being wide enough as I do a lot of slab work. My lumber supplier friend bought a brand new 20" SCM Le Invincible?jointer he doesn't really need last year. I'm drooling just thinking about it. I can't really justify $15k for a 4" wider jointer though...Even my 24" planer is too narrow sometimes. Good rule of thumb is to get as wide as you can afford and fit in the shop.
Jason Jason Holtz
J. Holtz Furniture
3307 Snelling Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55406
612 432-2765 -- Jason J. Holtz Furniture 3307 Snelling Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55406
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
I’ve had the Felder AD741 for 20 years now, adjusted a couple times over the years, mainly from moving it shop to shop, but no issues.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: 12" or 16" Jointer /Planer
Stan,
good info and thanks!? It seems there is a trend with the bigger beds on the 41 it is trickier to get them co-planer.? I have heard from several people that the 12" is a piece of cake but even though they love the capacity of the 41 some have had problems and maybe even had to pay to have a tech come in.? I would love to hear some details from owners of both sizes.? thanks again
|
Re: Hammer C-31 Planer Issue - Motor Triping
I’m getting a bit confused over here in the UK..sequence of emails seems to be haywire.
Annu…if there is a short on your motor then I would expect your breaker to cut-out and/or the thermal overload on the C3-031 to kick in. ?Can we have a recap please ? ?Slow and methodical is the preferred option !
For this test, uncouple the planer/thicknesser motor.
My understanding is that now : 1) Disconnect power to the C3-31. Put the machine table saw mode. ?Apply power to the C3-31 but do not try the On button on the C3-31. ?All is quiet. ?OK ? ?If so go to (2). If not, report back.
2) Hit the On button, the table saw starts up. ?Hit stop and it comes to a halt - within the time that you’d expect it to. ?No unexpected noises etc. No unexpected behaviour. ?OK ? ?If so go to (3). If not, report back.
3) Disconnect power to the C3-31. Put the machine in shaper mode. Apply power to the C3-31 but do not try the On button on the C3-31. ?All is quiet. ?OK ? ?If so go to (4). If not, report back.
4) Hit the On button, the shaper starts up. ?Hit stop and it comes to a halt - within the time that you’d expect it to. ?No unexpected noises etc. No unexpected behaviour. ?OK ??
5) Disconnect power to the C3-31. RECONNECT the planer/thicknesser plug. ? Leave the machine in shaper mode. Apply power to the C3-31 but do not try the On button on the C3-31. ?All is quiet. ?OK ??
Let’s see how the above pans out before going any further.
Roger
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Roger/Imran,?
I made some progress.? So far, i have replaced the brake board and the two CAPS.? I relized i made one mistake.? On the bottom of the electrical box, there are a total of 4 connectors.? There is one for the shaper motor, one for the table saw motor, one for the planer motor, and one that has two wires comming off that go into the general area of the planer/thicknesser.? I'm not sure what those wires are for, but one of them must be for the safety switch on the planer/thicknessor.? When i was doing my different scenarios earlier, i did not have that 4th connector plugged in.? Since that planer safety switch was disconnected, the table saw and shaper did not start up.? So I unplugged the planer motor, and plugged in the other three connectors.? The table saw and shaper now startup without issue.? So the questions i need to figure out are:??
When everything is plugged in like its supposed to be and I turn on the circut breaker
1.? When the machine is table saw or shaper mode, why is the ebrake on the planner activating?
2.? When machine is in planer mode, why is it making a racket going back and forth and surging?? The racket is because the the rollers for thicknesser, which are chain driven, are also surging.
So now, i have 2/4 functions working....I'm getting the bad feeling that there is a electrical short on the planer motor.? I'm still holding out hope that Felder tells me its something simple still.?
Has anyone changed out a motor on a C-31?
-Annu
|
Joe Jensen
David P. Best
imran
Jason Holtz