Rivett

[akerman]

Just saw this.

 

[Milland]

Does he have another? At that price, I'll take two!

 

[zamboni2354]

Does he have another? At that price, I'll take two!

Now you can get 4 as it's half off! walk don't run!!! lol.

All pricing jokes aside, this lathe is pretty rare in general, I suppose a D spindle vs the standard L0 spindle is extra rare.

 

[maynah]

It never ceases to amaze me the crappy pictures people take. I bet the care this lathe got was as just as bad as the picture.
At least clean it up just a little and remove the trash from around it.

 

[jreiland]

I was going to make a new post for this, but this one seems appropriate. I just took delivery of this beautiful 1020S. Plan is to clean it up a bit and run it as is, and use it as reference to rebuild my other Rivett.

 

[jtaylor]

What's the serial number? - it has an early headstock (no bolt pockets)

 

[jreiland]

SN is 275. 1962 build year. What features are you referring to?

 

[zamboni2354]

I'm thinking yours is newer than mine and your other one since this doesn't have the spindle lock and I think that was something they got rid of after a few people damaged their machines with it lol.

Jeff

 

[jtaylor]

SN is 275. 1962 build year. What features are you referring to?

#275 should have been built in the year 1955, ( only 6 model 1020S built that year) which is prior to the change to the exposed bolt pockets in the headstock (lowering cost). There were also three distinctly different tailstocks over the years.

The spindle lock was removed fairly early (1952?) as some users exploded the headstock casting by pushing the spindle lock pin/handle while the heavy spindle was still rotating. I think Carl Cedarstrand worked on fixing one of the damaged headstocks.

 

[jreiland]

I have Carl's old machine as well, he did a wonderful job with the repair!
I just double checked, clearly stamped 275, 1962... see photo attached.

 

[jtaylor]

I have Carl's old machine as well, he did a wonderful job with the repair!
I just double checked, clearly stamped 275, 1962... see photo attached.

That date seems odd due to the early headstock.
Mine is S/N 381 dated 7/21/1960 which lines up pretty well with the serial number chart:

RIVETT LATHE SERIAL NUMBERS

www.deprecision.com

 

[jreiland]

That date seems odd due to the early headstock.
Mine is S/N 381 dated 7/21/1960 which lines up pretty well with the serial number chart:

RIVETT LATHE SERIAL NUMBERS

www.deprecision.com

Also interesting that the chart only goes to 1961 and my machine is dated 1962....
What gives away the fact the headstock is early?

 

[rustytool]

This is a later headstock. you can see the bolts that hold the headstock to the bed.
The early headstock bolts were located underneath the bed.
To get to them to remove the headstock you have to remove the gearbox.

 

[tailstock4]

I believe my machine is a 1961 but not sure. I’ve posted the machine’s data plate and a picture of the headstock.

As a side note, I pulled the headstock on this machine during the restoration to change the spindle bearing. When I went back with the headstock, I oiled all of the mating surfaces and carefully shaved off all the excess with a razor blade to ensure no contaminants.

When I had the headstock on, I installed all the headstock bolts and lightly torqued them. I put a .0001 indicator on the spindle both vertically and horizontally. I fully torqued each corner leaving the other corners little more than finger tight. I repeated this at all four corners before finally torqueing them down. The .0001 indicator never fluttered. I thought this was pretty impressive given other modern machines that I’ve seen where the headstock alignment could be changed with just torque differences. Not so here.

 

[jreiland]

Two very beautiful machines! I wonder if my data plate isn’t original to the machine?

 

[zamboni2354]

This is a later headstock. you can see the bolts that hold the headstock to the bed.
The early headstock bolts were located underneath the bed.
To get to them to remove the headstock you have to remove the gearbox.
View attachment 386914

Rusty,

is your's a 1020s for 1020f?

 

[zamboni2354]

I believe my machine is a 1961 but not sure. I’ve posted the machine’s data plate and a picture of the headstock.

As a side note, I pulled the headstock on this machine during the restoration to change the spindle bearing. When I went back with the headstock, I oiled all of the mating surfaces and carefully shaved off all the excess with a razor blade to ensure no contaminants.

When I had the headstock on, I installed all the headstock bolts and lightly torqued them. I put a .0001 indicator on the spindle both vertically and horizontally. I fully torqued each corner leaving the other corners little more than finger tight. I repeated this at all four corners before finally torqueing them down. The .0001 indicator never fluttered. I thought this was pretty impressive given other modern machines that I’ve seen where the headstock alignment could be changed with just torque differences. Not so here.

View attachment 386918 View attachment 386919

beautiful restoration!! do you have a write up of the restoration anywhere online?
jeff

 

[jtaylor]

I have Carl's old machine as well, he did a wonderful job with the repair!
I just double checked, clearly stamped 275, 1962... see photo attached.

Your lathe was born in 1955 and rebuilt in 1962 - look to the left of the model number and serial number and you will see "rebuilt" stamped in the tag vertically

 

[rustytool]

Rusty,

is your's a 1020s for 1020f?

That's not my lathe. Just a photo I found on the internet. I had a 1020S that I sold a few years ago.

 

[tailstock4]

beautiful restoration!! do you have a write up of the restoration anywhere online?
jeff

Thanks. I haven’t done a write-up of this machine. I have shown a few pictures of it but not a whole lot more. On a couple of occasions, I’ve mentioned that I’ve changed the spindle bearings on this machine. I’m sharing a few more details impart as I am curious if anyone else has found some of the issues I came across.

I found that Rivett uses a little smaller class 7 spindle bearings with an additional ball or two as compared to the Monarch, but they have the same contact angle. My Rivett’s spindle was original, meaning it had never been taken apart. I found that Rivett had used a set of non-matched bearings. When I had the spacers on a surface plate, I found over a .001 difference between the inner and outer spacers – the inner being smaller. My front flange bearing actually had a negative preload – meaning the internal race extended inward. This in part explains the some of the large difference in spacer heights. It also means Rivett used a custom preload which caused me a great deal more work and research.

I eventually talked to a bearing engineer, and he was able to determine the various preloads for these bearings in terms of light, medium and heavy. He converted each of these from Newtons to microns to .0001’s. This coupled with some special ground spacers I made for the surface plate and these bearings allowed me to stack the bearings and their spacers in their preloaded state and take measurements. In the end I found that the Rivett has a slightly higher preloaded spindle than the Monarch. I also found that after checking the spindle’s concentricity there was an almost unmeasurable runout, but it did cause me to slightly disagree with Rivett’s original placement of the bearing highpoint markings. This made me wonder how much attention they really gave this when they assembled it.

In the end it turned out well for me. I ended up with less than .00005 runout at the spindle nose. There are some other differences and of course a lot more to it. I just wanted to convey what I had found with the custom preload that Rivett had used on my lathe.