1948 Square Dial MG Rebuild - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 120
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    30,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    9511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    Not my first mistake, won't be my last. I was probably overstating when I said chips. It was more like a little gunk between the mating faces of the two plates. Would be pretty difficult to get that cleaned out completely short of removing the plates or hot dipping. I still think it looks pretty good

    I jumped outside to unplug the compressor, and took a quick picture (albeit a crappy one). Here is how the 2K epoxy looks. Tomorrow will be undercoating at the very minimum, possibly painting. I haven't read the TDS yet.

    Attachment 229440
    Nah.. leave the late Holocene deposits encapsulated as if in Amber.

    Some archaeologist 5,000 years from now will be refurbishing his newly-acquired used 10EE and write his Doctoral thesis on what we primitives et of, what lubricants and coatings we used, or what metal alloys we worked.

    Epoxy looks good. Military colour-code reminiscent, even.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Was able to get the undercoating and painting on the interior of the base completed. Turned out to be a pretty busy weekend working within the re-coating windows of the used materials. I am glad this part is over, I can shift my focus to the exterior. I will start with body work in the coming weeks. Here is a picture of the almost finished interior - I have a couple spots to touch up. It is pretty glossy as it is still wet.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails img_1175.jpg  

  3. Likes Cal Haines liked this post
  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    I am hopefully going to start on the body work on Sunday. I was wondering, for those of who have experience, did you do a filler skim coat over the complete lathe, and then block down or a use more localized application?

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    dallas,tx
    Posts
    2,558
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    595
    Likes (Received)
    481

    Default

    I just finished up a redo of a Clausing drill press and decided to use it as a test bed and memory refresher for "semi-concours " paint and bodywork. What I did was spray a base epoxy primer , then Ultra Rage filler (good bondo), over the bad and low areas, sand that and redo as needed, and then (something new for me) a good triple wet spray of Slick-Sand. It is a good product but for me it's not miracle stuff. It put a good easy sand-able thick filler coating over everything, but still required a huge amount of sanding to get everything flat and straight. And with a casting with lots of edges, shelfs and curves, a butt ton of work . Then a touch of spot putty over some minor dings I missed and a final coat of primer, no sanding then the triple wet coat of color topcoat over the primer after a 45min window . It seems to have come out pretty nice. I shot it last weekend and let everything cure up all week , so I will try a bit of compound tomorrow and see how it polishes out. If I really wanted to showboat, I would probably wet sand the topcoat with 1500, then shoot a coat of clear, but ...not this time. If I can get back into some sort of photo upload thing, I will post some pics in the General section.

  6. Likes PLC liked this post
  7. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Excellent. Thanks for the advice. That is what I was thinking about doing as well.

    This is my plan for now. I will let you all know how it goes.

    1) 2K Epoxy Primer from SPI
    2) Evercoat Rage Xtreme --> Sand
    3) Evercoat Feather Fill G2 --> Sand
    4) Spot Putty --> Sand
    5) 2K Epoxy Primer from SPI
    6) Topcoat

    BTW Daryl - Thanks for the advice on the undercoating. I am really happy with the finish.

  8. Likes daryl bane liked this post
  9. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    915
    Likes (Received)
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    I am hopefully going to start on the body work on Sunday. I was wondering, for those of who have experience, did you do a filler skim coat over the complete lathe, and then block down or a use more localized application?
    Here's what I did on my headstock: Restoring 10EE 1954 vintage

    The biggest problem that I had with the Rage was getting it mixed properly. If you put too much hardener in, it will set up too quickly. I wound up weighing out the Rage using a digital scale: 30g of Rage to one drop of hardener worked well. I had to mix up lots of small batches because the stuff hardens too quickly. I did one heavy coat, where it looked like I had covered the headstock with frosting. Then I needed four of five rounds of spot applications of Rage, as sanding revealed voids and low spots. It takes a while, at least at my skill level, to go from rough cast iron to something that's smooth and straight. I'm sure that I sanded off 98% of the Rage that I applied. But the stuff does go on nice and smooth.

    Cal

  10. Likes PLC liked this post
  11. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    Excellent. Thanks for the advice. That is what I was thinking about doing as well.

    This is my plan for now. I will let you all know how it goes.

    1) 2K Epoxy Primer from SPI
    2) Evercoat Rage Xtreme --> Sand
    3) Evercoat Feather Fill G2 --> Sand
    4) Spot Putty --> Sand
    5) 2K Epoxy Primer from SPI
    6) Topcoat

    BTW Daryl - Thanks for the advice on the undercoating. I am really happy with the finish.
    1) SPI epoxy is a perfect base primer. It's expensive and I have always had problems cleaning the gun. I use acetone and it tends to make it curdle, maybe there's something better but I've never found it. Even with the curdling issue I still use it, It's that good of a product.

    2) Rage filler is for large voids. On my lathe there was nothing that I didn't/couldn't use a product called Blaze Glaze. There's other names for this from other manufacturers. It's what's called a glazing putty. It spreads like butter and sands quick and easy and generally doesn't have bubbles/voids that you have to go back and fill.

    2a) A couple of pointers on spreading filler. Buy some plastic spreaders, they curve and follow contours. I have a spreader that looks exactly like a credit card that works awesome on small spots. What you're looking for is flexible enough to follow the contour but stiff enough to still be able to push the filler around. The better you get at spreading the filler the less you have to sand. I freaking hate to sand!

    2b) Cal's problem with judging the catalyst...... I blob the filler on a mixing board. (Mine's a piece of aluminum that I wipe the unused filler off with acetone and I've used the same piece for years). Then squirt the catalyst in a line across the blob puddle. It all depends on the air temperature that day but usually about 3/4 of the way across the blob is enough. It's really a judgement call and you'll get better the more you do it. Don't spread half hard filler it's pointless it won't stick. Work fast and finish before it starts to kick. It will get hot when it is curing wait till it's cool to even start to sand it. The harder it is (more cured) the easier it is to sand and the less it will clog.

    3) I think you'd be happier with a product called Evercoat SlickSand. It won't clog the paper as fast and it sands smoother. The Feather Fill dries kinda semi gloss and until you cut the surface will clog the paper. You can blast the paper with an air nozzle to unclog it but it's not perfect (wear glasses as the shards that come off the paper are very sharp). Feather Fill is all I ever used after Poly Primers came out until I tried the SlickSand. Now I only use the SlickSand) You can sand the primer with 320 and paint right over it there's really no reason to spray more epoxy on as a topcoat prior to the paint.

    What kind of topcoat are you thinking about using? I used and like a paint made by Kirker called Ultra-Glo (google it) it's a urethane enamel and it's extremely forgiving to spray. I've sprayed the ultra expensive PPG products and they are very finicky with application technique (I've painted a lot of show cars). I almost don't have to pay attention with the Kirker and the PPG is just the opposite. Don't let the price of the Kirker fool you into thinking it's cheap (read crummy) paint. It's a very nice paint and honestly your just painting a lathe not a 69 Camaro.


    That's a lot of typing! Keep in mind if you ask ten people what to use they will all have their favorites. It's like ice cream everyone likes a different flavor but it's all ice cream.

  12. Likes PLC liked this post
  13. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    30,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    9511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance-W View Post
    I used and like a paint made by Kirker called Ultra-Glo (google it) it's a urethane enamel and it's extremely forgiving to spray. I've sprayed the ultra expensive PPG products and they are very finicky with application technique (I've painted a lot of show cars). I almost don't have to pay attention with the Kirker and the PPG is just the opposite. Don't let the price of the Kirker fool you into thinking it's cheap (read crummy) paint. It's a very nice paint and honestly your just painting a lathe not a 69 Camaro.
    Great info, especially the surfacers, thanks! I hate to sand, too!

    Website:

    Kirker - Automotive Finishes

    I at first thought Kirker's "founded 1898" was a typo. Not so.

    Have to be doing something well to live that long in the coatings competition.

    More forgiving timing for easier use seems to be high on their list.

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Thanks for taking the time to write such thoughtful responses guys. This feedback is especially helpful to me being new to the process. I am hoping to make up for some of the lack in skill/experience with planning, sweat equity, and determination.

    Lance, I have a couple gallons Benjamin Moore Super Spec Urethane Enamel. I actually already purchased it, and painted my apron about a year ago or so. I also already bought the Feather Fill G2 after reading DaveE907's posts. I appreciate the recommendation, I will give it a go on my next project. Great job on your lathe btw. I reference your thread, as well as Cal, Daryl, r[kepler, and DaveE907 to keep me motivated.

    Here is a pic of the apron.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 20160910_225556.jpg  

  15. Likes daryl bane liked this post
  16. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    19

    Default

    The Feather Fill will work just fine the other stuff is just a bit easier to sand. I painted many cars with Feather Fill and they turned out just fine.

    When you mix the Feather Fill cut it about 10-15% with acetone and it'll lay down a lot smoother. It slows the cure time a bit but the smooth finish means less sanding. (you see my end goal? less sanding)

  17. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    30,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    9511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance-W View Post
    (you see my end goal? less sanding)
    I am really pleased to see the exchanges between folk with seriously high levels of expertise, this thread and several older ones. No limit to how fine a job can be done if one wishes to do that, and I encourage those who do so wish to go for the gold ring, not the brass one.

    But - "counterpoint" - before this becomes an obsession, the bar is raised ever-higher, "feather", wet-sand, repeat? And never reaches the end?

    Look up thread at that carriage apron.

    Benjamin-Moore Super Spec was my choice, too. No additives, no hairy toxins nor space-suits, nor "pot life" issues. And because I can brush it OR spray it. Also more easily touch-up any damage, going forward.

    I'll have sanding. Already proved out MY goal on a 10EE Tail Stock. My abrasive use will be only to knock the teats and bumps off the raw metal. 10EE castings were not all that gnarly to begin with compared to others.

    Phosphatize, prime, cure, topcoat & cure before use. Super-Spec likes a week or two of serious warmth to cross-link effectively is all. Details are on the tin or easily downloadable. Less heat than powdercoat, but similar in principle. It toughens.

    No fillers atall. No clearcoat. No clay bar, no "Blue Coral" wax jobs.

    It will be what it is. A grand old lathe. Neat enough. Easily kept clean enough.

    A 10EE is too damned fat across the ass and too damned slow of foot to march in 4th of July parades out in public view anyway. Especially if the peanut-butter crowd's reaction is:

    "Oh look at that lovely old South Bend!" I mean it's a lathe, right? Was there ever any other kind?

    Nah. "Private Stock", ruling over a corner of its own shop, a 10EE. Not meant for the eyes of rabble. The WORK it can do? Now there's the braggin' rights!



    The 2005 vintage XJ8-L in metallic mica slate is a whole 'nuther ration of eye-candy.

    So is the Lady Wife in a custom-tailored Cheong-Sam and killer heels the cost of which would buy a nice collet system, brand-new! I don't even want to KNOW what she pays annually for secure cold-storage of her mink. Cost more than either one of my first two suburban homes, that bit of fashion trim did.

    "Horses for courses"

    2 world's worth.

  18. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    915
    Likes (Received)
    504

    Default

    I'm not sure about using Acetone to thin paint or body filler. I thought that Acetone was pretty good at breaking bonds in big molecules. Best to use whatever the manufacturer recommends for a thinner.

    Cal

  19. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal Haines View Post
    I'm not sure about using Acetone to thin paint or body filler. I thought that Acetone was pretty good at breaking bonds in big molecules. Best to use whatever the manufacturer recommends for a thinner.

    Cal
    Not to thin the body filler but to clean up the board you mix it on. Wipes it right off...

    Paint should be thinned with reducer specially formulated to thin the paint your using it with, there are always published mix ratios. Look up the instructions for the paint. Buy a mix cup with the ratios on the side (3:1:1,4:1:1, etc..) Makes it very simple.

    The acetone to thin the poly primer was recommended by the manufacturer. It works. Call the tech line for the primer.

  20. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Thanks again for all the advice. I am working on getting the lathe masked for final grinding/cleaning.

    Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the machine has been rebuilt at some point in its past. I knew this when I purchased the machine because the tailstock had two plates that were installed to raise the tailstock height back to alignment. Also, there was a rebuild company that had placed a sticker on the lathe. I didn't place too much faith in the sticker alone, but the measurements I was getting during the pre-purcahse inspection and the price were too good to pass up.

    The ways are very straight, and show little signs of wear. Less than 0.0005" drop when indicating on the roller gibs bearing surface.

    After removing the saddle, I was expecting to see some sort of turcite/rulon material, however it was just well worn cast iron under there.

    I noticed when pulling the rack this weekend, that it is one piece. From my reading, it seems that they are supposed to be two pieces. There are also additional unused threaded and tapered holes that were hiding behind the rack.

    I am thinking that the new rack was made during the rebuild to account for the drop in the saddle after the ways were reground. I am thinking that the rack might have been made a little taller. Does anyone has a rack that that they can can measure to help me confirm? For that matter, if anyone has a rack that is in good condition that they would be willing to part with, please let me know.

    I have yet to find any evidence that they ELSR and/or geabox has been dropped yet, and I wonder if maybe that was not done. Provided that was the case, and provided I can find a stock rack in good condition, I would like to install the 2-piece rack gear and Moglice the saddle to bring back into alignment. I would use the bed at the master as it is in great condition.

    I still need to quantify my findings with some measurements between the apron/carriage interface and the leadscrew and feed rod, but I figured I would let everyone know where I am.

  21. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    30,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    9511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    Thanks again for all the advice. I am working on getting the lathe masked for final grinding/cleaning.

    Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the machine has been rebuilt at some point in its past. I knew this when I purchased the machine because the tailstock had two plates that were installed to raise the tailstock height back to alignment. Also, there was a rebuild company that had placed a sticker on the lathe. I didn't place too much faith in the sticker alone, but the measurements I was getting during the pre-purcahse inspection and the price were too good to pass up.

    The ways are very straight, and show little signs of wear. Less than 0.0005" drop when indicating on the roller gibs bearing surface.

    After removing the saddle, I was expecting to see some sort of turcite/rulon material, however it was just well worn cast iron under there.

    I noticed when pulling the rack this weekend, that it is one piece. From my reading, it seems that they are supposed to be two pieces. There are also additional unused threaded and tapered holes that were hiding behind the rack.

    I am thinking that the new rack was made during the rebuild to account for the drop in the saddle after the ways were reground. I am thinking that the rack might have been made a little taller. Does anyone has a rack that that they can can measure to help me confirm? For that matter, if anyone has a rack that is in good condition that they would be willing to part with, please let me know.

    I have yet to find any evidence that they ELSR and/or geabox has been dropped yet, and I wonder if maybe that was not done. Provided that was the case, and provided I can find a stock rack in good condition, I would like to install the 2-piece rack gear and Moglice the saddle to bring back into alignment.
    Why apply a plastic band-aid when there is no wound in need of a band-aid?
    I would use the bed at the master as it is in great condition.

    I still need to quantify my findings with some measurements between the apron/carriage interface and the leadscrew and feed rod, but I figured I would let everyone know where I am.
    VERY much appreciated! Thank you!

    You are saving me some work "in advance" of action, others as well, perhaps.

    Stop and re-think what you do with the information, though.

    All evidence indicates that you are correct as to what was done and how it was done on that prior rebuild, and that it was WELL thought out and professionally executed. Moreover - "efficiently executed", eg: with a minimum of waste time or motion, only the important "stuff' addressed, not the "nice to have".

    Apron and guts were almost certainly just flushed and left alone, possible exception of new clutch plates, for example.

    SOMEBODY wanted this 10EE back on the line and earning a crust sooner rather than later.

    The only part you have missed nailing-down is that with a "taller" rack as evidence, the REASON for it was - yes - that the entire apron was re-spaced relative to the now lower saddle underside INSTEAD OF f**king-up the leadscrew and power surfacing shaft or ELSR rod mountings - as Richard King has recommended on MY 10EE (No fear, not happening! Scraping skill is no substitute for common sense!)

    That would have been as easy as milling a skosh OUT OF the top of the apron to underside of saddle joining surface. Odds-are it was done on the saddle casting, not the apron casting. It was being milled to take the "rocking horse" out of the flat & vee way mates in any case. ONE same-same setup on the mill, one more surface addressed, and DONE.

    Rack stock is a commodity item, not hard to order-up whilst the other work was going-on.

    AND.. is easier to correct at the saddle casting if one over-does it.
    AND didn't need anything done to the apron at all to do it that surface. Milling the top of the open apron with all the goods as live in it would have wanted them removed before milling. My bet is they were NOT removed at all.

    HUGE saving in labour cost and time to execute the way it was done. No "magic plastic" required. A pragmatic pro did that. They had a budget and a deadline to meet.

    The other klew would be what, if anything, was done in the geartrain that conveys surfacing feed drive power - in the apron - to the cross feed - in the saddle.

    Look for that evidence, please. Might resemble ordinary wear that rendered the effective pitch line of a gear a smaller diameter to tolerate closer shaft center spacing. That "wear" might not be "wear". More likely it was a touch of rework. NO DH, no indexer needed for this, BTW. so long as no broken teeth and wear is even, a repair shop simply sprags undamaged teeth and lets the gear index ITSELF. Faster and more error-resistant that way, even IF/AS/WHEN "a few" teeth are weld-ups to be re-cut. BTDTGGTS, so did & do multiple thousands of other worker-bees.

    So, yes. it would be "nice to nail-down" by HOW MUCH it had all been moved, but.. it doesn't really matter, does it?

    Because . the WISEST course of action, since it seems that the "goodness ration" top-up of that prior rebuild does not appear to have been yet "used up"?

    - Is to leave it JF the way it is and be happy it still has a great many useful turns and loads of chips left in it.

    In short? Do NOT restore that "tall" rack back to OEM.

    Too much ELSE would have to be done to UNDO the last rebuild, and do it over a different WAY.. but for too little gain, if any gain AT ALL.

    JF use the whole package, as-had, and be glad your one had a good common-sense rebuild done to it.

    Well OK. TWO good common-sense rebuilds by now!


  22. Likes PLC liked this post
  23. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Bill, thanks for this thoughtful post. If that is indeed the case, I will just keep everything the same. I need to quantify with some measurements to verify where everything is, and then make the decision.

    The other klew would be what, if anything, was done in the geartrain that conveys surfacing feed drive power - in the apron - to the cross feed - in the saddle.
    I thought that machining the apron/saddle would change the alignment with the cross-feed gear too much and cause binding. If the cross-feed gear dimensions were changed ever so slightly, I could see that as a remedy. I will definitely have a closer look.


    It makes sense that something would have been done, given that this was rebuilt by a professional shop.

  24. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    30,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    9511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    Bill, thanks for this thoughtful post. If that is indeed the case, I will just keep everything the same. I need to quantify with some measurements to verify where everything is, and then make the decision.
    I happen to detest the very idea of "plastic" for sliding surfaces in machine-tools, never mind whom has "gotten away with it", nor for how long.

    So.. I've been looking at going the same way on mine your rebuilder had gone. We've seen it before "right here on PM". It wasn't "new" info that I had to do any real work on.

    As to the quality of your bedways?

    A "half tenth" - even if your measurements were overly kind - still has me drooling with envy here!

    Most bedway grinding shops only advertise holding a "tenth" per foot or in several feet, if they advertise at all.

    Mind, "most grind shops" also routinely BEAT that number, nearly all jobs.

    But still. Few hard guarantees of it, and you seem to have been blessed with one of them and are too much the gentleman to even GLOAT over that.

    Yet.



    Enjoy!

  25. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    915
    Likes (Received)
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    ...

    Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the machine has been rebuilt at some point in its past. I knew this when I purchased the machine because the tailstock had two plates that were installed to raise the tailstock height back to alignment. Also, there was a rebuild company that had placed a sticker on the lathe...

    After removing the saddle, I was expecting to see some sort of turcite/rulon material, however it was just well worn cast iron under there.

    I noticed when pulling the rack this weekend, that it is one piece. From my reading, it seems that they are supposed to be two pieces. There are also additional unused threaded and tapered holes that were hiding behind the rack.

    I am thinking that the new rack was made during the rebuild to account for the drop in the saddle after the ways were reground. I am thinking that the rack might have been made a little taller. Does anyone has a rack that that they can can measure to help me confirm? For that matter, if anyone has a rack that is in good condition that they would be willing to part with, please let me know.

    I have yet to find any evidence that they ELSR and/or geabox has been dropped yet, and I wonder if maybe that was not done. ...
    Probably not the case here, but worth mentioning none the less: Sometimes a quick and dirty rebuild was done by milling down the bottom of saddle, by say 0.040", to clean it up, then dropping the right support bracket for the leadscrew and feed-rod by the same amount (i.e. 0.040"). That method works because the half-nut and feed-worm only move to center (more or less) and thus the feed-rod and leadscrew only need to flex 0.020" (in this example) when the carriage is to the far left end of travel. The easiest way to tell that was done is by measuring the distance from the feed-rod to the bottom of the front way at either end.

    Cal

  26. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cotati, CA
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    That is what I was wondering as well. I remember reading a thread about a member that was in a similar situation - recently reground bed with a worn saddle. If I remember correctly there was an alignment pin hole on the tailstock bearing housing that had no longer.... well.. aligned.

    Seemed like it would be a good candidate for Moglice. I would go that route if that is how the this one was done. I can't find an evidence that the area was modified... at least at this point. I really wish I had taken more measurement before I took the lathe apart.

  27. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    30,423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    9511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PLC View Post
    That is what I was wondering as well. I remember reading a thread about a member that was in a similar situation - recently reground bed with a worn saddle. If I remember correctly there was an alignment pin hole on the tailstock bearing housing that had no longer.... well.. aligned.

    Seemed like it would be a good candidate for Moglice.
    it isn't yet a "candidate" for any build-up at all, least of all plastics that want 30 thou or so milled-out of the CI for their thickness and that of their ephemeral bond-line.

    Plastics only LOOK easier to those who can recover their costs as cash instead of hours of time as part of their fees - then move-on to their next repair job faster, so as to complete more jobs in any given year.

    They either need glues, or ARE a glue. Tedious prep is required, or they bond where they should not bond and fail to bond enduringly where they must. Were it not for their fillers, Bronze among them, they would not stay long bonded at all. The plastic carrier "vehicle" has a VERY different thermal coefficient of expansion to CI.

    Don't bother with any of that just yet. You will probably find you do not need it.

    A 10EE's carriage is longer than its own travel and ordinary CI at the underside, not hardened. The hardest surface was what left the factory as the outer "skin" of the mating flame-hardened bed ways. The ways were polished, were NOT poxed to retain oil and abrasive particles. The underside of the saddle was softer, and WAS poxed AKA "flaked" to retain abrasive particles as well as oil. Wear is accordingly highly asymmetrical.

    Typically, the flame-hardened surface of the bedways wears at one-fourth to one seventh the rate of wear of the mating carriage's softer CI's undersides.

    Having been reground, your ways have an ever-so slightly softer surface than OEM. And yet show NO wear if truly at a half-tenth deviation. Will the carriage have worn even four thou? Or only two?

    My SWAG is less than four thou of wear will be found to the saddle's underside in places that it actually MATTERS enough to result in adverse movement of the cutting tool tip as the lathe is doing its job.

    No other movement actually affects straight-turning accuracy.

    Only the highly leveraged hang-out of a boring bar can tilt even a badly worn 10EE saddle. Forces are otherwise too well-centered, too modest, or BOTH to tip it. That HEAVY bugger weren't cast of no damned styrofoam Angel turd, after all! Coupla hundred pounds of damned good Iron, steel shafting, gears, bearings, pumps, and such rather, and probably close to the entire mass of a short-bed SB nine, all-up.

    No point in cutting the saddle away for plastic just for the sake of conformity to use of plastics by the less fortunate who have SERIOUS and uncorrected wear - or the professional shortcutters that made it popular so as to minimize downtime and get more machines back on line, faster. Those parameters do not apply to a "labour of love" for non-revenue-critical use.

    Instead, adjust as the prior rebuilder has aready done.

    Just "flatten" out the rocking-horse effect in the worn CI - IF EVEN needed - then compensate for straight-down vector component change with the altered apron to saddle fit and the thicker rack. Worst-case, you shim the rack. I do not expect any such need. Your bed ways are just TOO GOOD to expect much wear took place after the last rebuild.

    You are probably "done" at the point of a minor clean-up to saddle underside, IF EVEN, just off the back of being still within gear mesh tolerances.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •