Craftsman table saw questions....
Alan Muller
casually. Recently, thanks to this group, I've been learning more
about it.
It had a ten inch blade on it when I got it so I continued to use that
size. But, I see that Sears considers it to be an 8" saw. The ten
inch blades seem to fit everywhere except for fouling the splitter
when fully raised. So my question is: any non-obvious reason not to
use nine or ten inch blades on this saw?
Question #2: blades wobble noticeably. It appears to me that the
blade hub or flange is a steel or iron part pinned to a 5/8" arbor. I
suppose I can take things apart and true the flange in a lathe. Is
this an common problem with these saws and is this the correct
solution?
There is a 2 1/2 inch iron pulley on the arbor and a 4 1/4" iron
pulley (good taperlock pulley) on the motor. Would you advise a
red-tab type belt for this saw?
The motor mount seems cheesy--the motor pulls a bit out of alignment
when it's weight is tensioning the belt. Is this worth making an
issue of, in the sense of influencing the performance of the saw?
Thanks very much in advance.
Alan Muller
bridger
>Some time ago I picked up a saw model 113.22401, which I've been using
>casually.
table saws should never be taken casually... ; )
> Recently, thanks to this group, I've been learning more
>about it.
>
>It had a ten inch blade on it when I got it so I continued to use that
>size. But, I see that Sears considers it to be an 8" saw. The ten
>inch blades seem to fit everywhere except for fouling the splitter
>when fully raised. So my question is: any non-obvious reason not to
>use nine or ten inch blades on this saw?
motor horsepower?
>
>Question #2: blades wobble noticeably. It appears to me that the
>blade hub or flange is a steel or iron part pinned to a 5/8" arbor. I
>suppose I can take things apart and true the flange in a lathe. Is
>this an common problem with these saws and is this the correct
>solution?
Keith? any progress report on your flange tune up project?
>
>There is a 2 1/2 inch iron pulley on the arbor and a 4 1/4" iron
>pulley (good taperlock pulley) on the motor. Would you advise a
>red-tab type belt for this saw?
those belts get good reviews....
>
>The motor mount seems cheesy--the motor pulls a bit out of alignment
>when it's weight is tensioning the belt. Is this worth making an
>issue of, in the sense of influencing the performance of the saw?
this is a common problem with contractor style saws. short of some
heavy duty re-engineering and machine work AFAIK you're SOL... I know
of no quick fixes...
Kent
> It had a ten inch blade on it when I got it so I continued to use that
> size. But, I see that Sears considers it to be an 8" saw. The ten
> inch blades seem to fit everywhere except for fouling the splitter
> when fully raised. So my question is: any non-obvious reason not to
> use nine or ten inch blades on this saw?
A 10" blade instead of 8" means 25% greater blade RPM. I can't predict
the implications of this change, but I never like to overspeed
machinery. You'll also have 25% less blade torque, which means more
stalling. Finally, the only reason to go up to a 10" blade is to
increase the depth of cut... and this saw was really not built to cut
3" material. It really boils down to the question of how much you want
to push the saw beyond it's intended capabilities.
> Question #2: blades wobble noticeably. It appears to me that the
> blade hub or flange is a steel or iron part pinned to a 5/8" arbor. I
> suppose I can take things apart and true the flange in a lathe. Is
> this an common problem with these saws and is this the correct
> solution?
Check for a bent arbor shaft first.
> The motor mount seems cheesy--the motor pulls a bit out of alignment
> when it's weight is tensioning the belt. Is this worth making an
> issue of, in the sense of influencing the performance of the saw?
The more important issue is whether the blade is pulling out of
alignment under belt tension.
<<<___ Bob ___>>>
>
>
> A 10" blade instead of 8" means 25% greater blade RPM. I can't predict
> the implications of this change, but I never like to overspeed
> machinery. You'll also have 25% less blade torque, which means more
> stalling. Finally, the only reason to go up to a 10" blade is to
> increase the depth of cut... and this saw was really not built to cut
> 3" material. It really boils down to the question of how much you want
> to push the saw beyond it's intended capabilities.
Gotta disagree with you on this one .. .. .. blade diameter has nothing at all to do with rpm's .. .. ..
--
<<<__ Bob __>>>
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is
weird and people take prozac to make it normal.
Unisaw A100
>Keith? any progress report on your flange tune up project?
Sorry. Too swamped with the Keeter Kitchen Y2K Plus II
remodel.
UA100
Unisaw A100
>A 10" blade instead of 8" means 25% greater blade RPM.
Rim speed change, yes. RPM change, no.
UA100
The Davenports
> > A 10" blade instead of 8" means 25% greater blade RPM. I can't predict
> > the implications of this change, but I never like to overspeed
> > machinery. You'll also have 25% less blade torque, which means more
> > stalling. Finally, the only reason to go up to a 10" blade is to
> > increase the depth of cut... and this saw was really not built to cut
> > 3" material. It really boils down to the question of how much you want
> > to push the saw beyond it's intended capabilities.
>
> Gotta disagree with you on this one .. .. .. blade diameter has nothing at
all to do with rpm's .. .. ..
Phrased badly...I'm thinking that what he meant was 25% increase in CUTTING
speed, not RPM.
Now if he was to reduce the motor pulley by 25%, he'd be able to use the 10"
blades and maintain the correct cutting speed and use the more readily
available.
Mike
Kent
> Kent wrote:
> >A 10" blade instead of 8" means 25% greater blade RPM.
>
> Rim speed change, yes. RPM change, no.
Big duh for me. I meant speed at the cutting edge, not RPM.