What's new
What's new

Schaublin 160

Martin P

Titanium
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Location
Germany in the middle towards the left
So I bought this Schaublin 160 lathe and posted about in another thread. This was really expected to be a parts machine, but as it turns out its not. So I have a very viable project now.
I start this thread to have a correct title dedicated to this machine both to show it off and to get opinions and information for making it run. This will not happen in a few weeks, so I hope to publish progress as it occurs over time.

The machine as of yesterday afternoon 5:00 p.m. after an initial but cursory cleaning
IMG_0867 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

View of the pan to show wear of paint.
IMG_0854 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

Fast feed drive
IMG_0855 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

Headstock covers off
IMG_0857 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr


Tooling cabinet
IMG_0862 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr
 
Now for the problem areas:

This is the motor that should be on the inside of the base. It is not as large as I originally thought.

IMG_0823 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

The data plate of the motor. Is it really just one speed?

fullsizeoutput_136 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr


The output shaft of the motor. That key really is supposed to be only half length.

IMG_0845 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

On that output shaft goes this stub shaft.
IMG_0846 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

Note that the keyway on the right is very worn. This is where a disc of the variator is sitting. In order to get the shaft off the motor someone must have cut it.

The 2 variator discs.
IMG_0848 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

The variator disc that is not fixed on the stub shaft is moved by this motor, which I have no good picture of.IMG_0858 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr
There must be piece missing that gets screwed in here and holds on the other side the bearing for the variator disc.

Type plate:
IMG_0861 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr

Even the original chip guard was there, and in perfect condition with perfect paint!IMG_0825 by Martin Peitz, on Flickr
 
I think... now that you have clean thread with better title - we need some input here from Milacron. And/or a deep-dive into some of his own previous threads.

IIRC, he was not all that long ago deeply into the motor and drive of his Schaublin 150, and weighing VFD possibilities, etc.

With a motor no larger than what you show, (which at first glance as to current draw figures appear to be dual VOLTAGE optionable, rather than dual RPM optionable) there COULD be great deal of commonality, 150 to 160 drive systems, overall.
 
A detail that catched my eye is how ridiculously small the tailstock bore is relatively to the huge mass of the machine.
What size is the taper ? MT3 ?

There seem to have been some deep evolutions along the 160 line.
Your machine lacks at least 4 electric push buttons that are found on later versions, including those wich allow the operator to set the spindle speed.
I wonder how are the commands on yours.

The apron layout is also pretty different, with the rapids lever on the right side on later machines...
Makes me think it could have been extremely dangerous to work in a shop with a 150 and a 160, both machines sharing exactly the same lever in the same place, but one starting the spindle and the other one the rapids... Tsk tsk tsk...

schab1.jpg
 
A detail that catched my eye is how ridiculously small the tailstock bore is relatively to the huge mass of the machine.
What size is the taper ? MT3 ?
Intentional, not "ridiculous". Might even be a # 2 MT. All but the last and latest 3 & 5 HP, 3300 Avoir or thereabouts Monarch 10EE are # 2 MT at the TS. All also have relatively small and light compound rest for their mass.

Not uncommon on heavy-for-rigid rather than heavy-for-ripit super-precision lathes that wish to REMAIN "super precision" for longer years by avoiding abuse. See the PS, under "fragile features":

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...f-its-new-you-348477-post3153066/#post3153066

Mind - I DO appreciate the FIVE MT TS taper my Cazaneuve HBX-360-BC came in the door with. Lets me do either fine work or chip-ripping. Rack & pinion operation and a clear-through bore opens up lots of possibilities as well.

:)
 
Ah yes, Monsieur Tien.
The scourge of the budget conscious machine connoisseur, who makes everyone look bad by picking up treasures for pimples, repeatedly!
And who wrote about 8 years ago "I would not drive 10 km to even look at a Schaublin 160".

But seriously, there are another 4 pushbuttons on the side where you cannot see them in the pictures.

And indeed you are right. The 160A and 160B clearly differ in almost every detail and are only conceptually brothers.
From next Monday evening I will probably be able to compare a 160 A with a 160 B side by side ....:leaving:

Tien, please find me a manual! Even a French one would do.:)
 
Sorry Martin, but I don't have any manual for the 160... Only the brochure. But it's in french, so your request may be partly satisfied at least !
Don't you already have it ?

I thought that the "A" and "B" designation for bigger Schaublin lathes had to do with semi-automatic threading capability.
It's the case for the 150.
Is it not the same for the 160 ?

As for me not driving 10km to look at a 160... Hum... I suppose you know you have to take that kind of comment with a grain (or two) of salt when it is from me... :rolleyes5:
But the 160 is definitely out of my league size wise.
 
I have the brochure for the 160B.
I presume the B designation to refer to the later 160 model, whereas the earlier model I presume to be the A model.
So I suspect this is not like on the Schaublin 120 where A, B, C refer to capabilities. I may be wrong.
Actually I have only seen the letter designation being used by RUEMEMA in advertising.
If you have a brochure for the old model that would be nice.
Maybe I should use the terms Mark I vs. Mark II. MKI, MKII. The Brits do that often for Cars.
 
The second link above will get you the same brochure as the one I have.


For the 150, the "B" refers to an optionnal equipment that allowed multiple passes automatic threading.

schaublin_verkauft_7.jpg


Below is the tailstock end of a Schaublin 150B, with the mechanism partly revealed.

Iron Tour 2015  (193).jpgIron Tour 2015  (194).jpg
 
Martin

I just got a few minutes to double-check the brochure I have and...Kapow ! It is more complete than the one of the link Thermite did provide and indeed, it describes the über-rare B version of the 160...

Next step now is to give me a valid mail adress so that I can send you the file ! ;)
 
Martin

I just got a few minutes to double-check the brochure I have and...Kapow ! The brochure I have is more complete than the one of the link Thermite did provide and indeed, it describes the über-rare B version of the 160...

Next step now is to check your Dialog5 mailbox and download the file ! ;)

I would appreciate a copy of that as well.

Reason? The Older Cazeneuve HBX 360 BC shares rather a lot of otherwise unusual features with the Schaublin 160. The 160 is said to be the progenitor of the 150 and 135, eg: the earliest for Schaublin.

- Both utilize rotation of a worm around a ballscrew (or first cousin to one) for manual longitudinal traverse rather than the classical rack and pinion.

- It "seems" (given my so-far limited sight of 160 details..) that both utilize a locked worm, powered screw for surfacing and threading - but to drive further gearing, rather than in a "fixed" 1:1 relationship as with half-nuts.

- Both enclose that unconventional screw in protective covers - the Cazeneuve's version fitted with seals as it is also the housing for circulated lube oil.

- Both have unusual mechanisms to enhance "production" / reduce risk of error during single-point threading. The HBX carries those in a "special apron" tightly crammed with rather scary-compact gearing. The Schaublin seems to have placed its comparable kit - if indeed it IS "comparable" - at TS end where it can be more robustly sized, and assuredly would be far easier to service, change any "optioning", or alter more significantly, yet.

- Both have unusual capstan TS options with similar, but not identical capability. Milacron had run a PM thread comparing that of the specific Cazeneuve now in my care with a Schaublin 150 he has (so far) kept under his own roof.

NB: I don't THINK the HBX was quite as uber/anal precise, overall as the Schaublin, but then again, either machine was likely to be-all, do-all anything most users outside a temp-controlled clean room could put to practical use, so that comparison may be largely academic as to point score.

"This could get interesting".... well... even more interesting that it is already!

:)
 
- Both utilize rotation of a worm around a ballscrew (or first cousin to one) for manual longitudinal traverse rather than the classical rack and pinion.

No. The Schaublin uses a rather "usual" ballscrew. Not so usual in fact, but the concept remains exactly the same as on any other lathe with a conventionnal screw and nut.
It is definitely not a worm gear mechanism.
The only other lathe I know of that utilizes that worm gear concept is the tiny french Crouzet.
img0.gif


- It "seems" (given my so-far limited sight of 160 details..) that both utilize a locked worm, powered screw for surfacing and threading - but to drive further gearing, rather than in a "fixed" 1:1 relationship as with half-nuts.

No. The Schaublin uses a feed rod, exactly as on any El Cheapo lathe...
IIRC, it goes a bit litke this :


  • For turning operations, the feedrod drives the ballnut while the screw remains still.
  • For threading operations, the feedbox drives the ballscrew while the ballnut remains still.
  • For londitudinal rapids, a separate electrical motor spins the screw (and you loose your reference, be it for picking a thread, or on the longitudinal dial)
  • For transverse feed, the screw is driven via the feed rod.

Not to mention the feedbox features two different stages. One for turning / surfacing feed, driven via a flat belt, and the other for threading, driven by a gear train enclosed in a small niche at the back of the feed box.

- Both enclose that unconventional screw in protective covers - the Cazeneuve's version fitted with seals as it is also the housing for circulated lube oil.

On the Schaublin, the protective cover is not sealed and there's no oilbath for the leadscrew. It's only a telescopic spring steel cover that adds protection from swarf, the screw beeing already well hidden in the bed casting.

- Both have unusual mechanisms to enhance "production" / reduce risk of error during single-point threading. The HBX carries those in a "special apron" tightly crammed with rather scary-compact gearing. The Schaublin seems to have placed its comparable kit - if indeed it IS "comparable" - at TS end where it can be more robustly sized, and assuredly would be far easier to service, change any "optioning", or alter more significantly, yet.

That is an urban legend.
In fact, the Schaublin is pretty deceiving in that regard, since it does NOT feature ANY fancy mechanism other than the ballscrew staying permanently engaged during all the threading operation...
That means you start the spindle forward for the threading pass, stop it and start it backward for the return. Of course you can take advantage of the dual speed motor to reduce the return time, but that's about as facy as it gets.
I'm talking about the "regular" versions. Not "B" machines, wich are very different and probably a bit more aimed at small production batches than pure tooroom use.

The Caze 360 is soooooo much more interesting in that department, it's a shame they made it so ugly... :rolleyes5:
You talk about scary-compact gears in the 360's apron. I have yet to read or hear something about problems in that area, while 360's are well known for their variator leaks...

PS : Martin & Thermite : copies sent
 
No. The Schaublin uses a conventionnal ballscrew.
It is definitely not a worm gear mechanism.
The only other lathe that utilizes that concept is the tiny french Crouzet.
img0.gif
LOL! Some days, yah just gotta love the French indifference to what OTHERS may do!

Cibie and Marchal paint-burner headlamps my first major advantage, long, long time ago now.

:)

The Caze 360 is soooooo much more interesting in that department, it's a shame they made it so ugly... :rolleyes5:

ROFL! Aye - it bears a more than passing resemblance to 1950's card-punch equipment used to do Accounting the hard-old way!

BTW - the HBX DOES have a conventional rack & pinion for the manual traverse - my error.

No supplementary feed shaft, though.

All the powered stuff is done through that sole multi-purpose screw and a "wholebuncha" gears, dogs, splines, sprags, springs, detents, & such in the apron.

Minds me of a misspent youth tackling repairs to Monroematic and Marchant mechanical digital calculators, soooo.. I shall hope it all works and continues to do long enough that I expire before it does!

:D
 
Does the 160 have a stop for the cross-slide for use during threading for quick return to zero? In my experience, that saves a lot of time during threading, plus helps avoid mistakes.
 
Does the 160 have a stop for the cross-slide for use during threading for quick return to zero? In my experience, that saves a lot of time during threading, plus helps avoid mistakes.

I haven't looked (yet) for U-tubes of Schaublin 160/150/135 in rapid threading ops, but soon will do.

There are several - including Cazeneuve "factory" sales videos that demo the HBX and follow-on semi-automated "Optra" models. Assisted tool retract is barely the half of it.

Europe took manual / partly manual lathes to a higher level in that regard than US practice.

"We" seem to have segued to NC, then CNC, ELSE geometric dies or the Hardinge-style "chasing" mechanism for high-volume threading throughput rather than further enhance general-purpose or toolroom manual lathe single-pointing capabilities.

The Hendy T&G threading trickery was probably our high-water mark for single-pointing in that regard.

Cazeneuve for-sure, and Schaublin "probably" added a whole 'nuther level of assisted single-point threading. The "Optra" can even pick up on damaged threads to complete "automagical" repairs to them, and with no need of writing code for its Siemens controls.

But that DOES use electronics and sensors, common castings with the earlier HBX or no.

The Schaublin 160 here, and the Cazeneuve 360 HBX were still all-manual, just more enhanced than most others.

"Antiques" by the calendar, but "high water marks", nonetheless, the both of them are, each in its own way.

Even so, "top end" makers still had to make compromises.

The HBX 360 BC, for example, is "off spec" by a skosh at the third decimal point in its Inch/Metric threading. One set of "available" (in the day, anyway) gears nails the Metric threads, puts the error into the "Whitworth" ones. A different set nails the inch threads, puts the minor error into the Metric threads last digit.

Mostly, it dasn't matter.

It will be interesting to see how - or even IF - Schaublin handled that, "inch" not being all that high on their priorities list - if on it at all.
 
Does the 160 have a stop for the cross-slide for use during threading for quick return to zero? In my experience, that saves a lot of time during threading, plus helps avoid mistakes.

Judging from the pictures, I'd say yes, and probably the same type as the one found on the 135 and 150's.
Well thought out and pretty convenient to use.
 








 
Back
Top