|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 18, 2017 19:40:42 GMT -5
One member stated that mafell responded with a half mm as their tolerance (chippy1970). We could give them the leeway and call it +or- making it a full mm.
Other owners here are calling foul at 2mm.
Saw’s been in production for what, 8 years (more?)
I think we can be in agreement that they’ve had time to iron out the wrinkles and that this is a QC issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by reflector on Nov 18, 2017 19:43:00 GMT -5
That’s a really clever idea for the very occasional 45 cut that’s a quick easy fix I might try that the reduction of reflectors sled concept using 4 dot stickers for testing purposes doesn't address using short rails to material ratios where you need to run base off the rail to finish or start cut. I would be concerned that base would drop down off rail the height of sticker before end of cut is finished or grab edge of sticker at start of cut if saw has to be guided onto short rail. perhaps two linear lengths of self stick edge banding or just a quick build up of painter release tape would work better than 4 dot stickers when using short/maxed out rails. (?) for me personally, i'm not too comfortable losing any guide rail to base slot engagement. ----------------------------------------- more importantly though - I think it’s a little suspicious how reflector just happens to have the original factory CAD drawing of the MT55 on hand??. it’s unmistakably genuine. reflector, who are you really working for? Gasp! You've caught me. I was trying to reverse engineer the MT55cc so I could make a KSS60 using a corded brushless angle grinder and derivatives of MT55 parts plus an improvised Bosch version of the rail! I wish.
The engagement aside: I suspect for some this kind of solution would be "sufficient" in terms of reducing the offset from the rubber. Just an idea, since it doesn't involve disassemble of the saw. Test with pieces of paper and/or tape for a quick shim before committing since I assume for some just adding less than a half millimeter might be good enough. The tape thing would probably be the most field expedient method for small corrections (Perhaps keep some kind of known-as-good-thickness-shim material around instead of building it up?).
|
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 18, 2017 19:56:10 GMT -5
For sure the fact that you are by necessity pushing down on the saw to cut and in doing so assuring positive engagement with gravity assisting all the way and all the time is something that makes your technique more than valid.
I'm literally saying 'me' (only) when I say I'm not comfortable doing this for bevels, you guys cut way more than I, that's why I made that wafell thing for when I do 45º's. Not so much a lack of confidence or competence cutting, more so a lack of back up stock for errors.
|
|
|
|
Post by mafelluser on Nov 19, 2017 13:25:54 GMT -5
KSS40/36v doing a 45 bevel cut on a rail:
|
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 24, 2017 12:48:58 GMT -5
I was messing around with the parallel adjusting screw (located under allen wrench), and doing a few comparisons with / without washers:
From my original measurement notes I noticed that the back of the blade was further away from s/g than front (original factory).
I wondered if this was on purpose, if the blade once spinning or cutting was 'truer' with this cant. But now that we know the emperor has not clothes - i.e. each saw has it's own arbitrary 45/bevel offset anywhere from .5mm to 2mm - I couldn't see how that would be beneficial on any kind of saw. I also noticed that the advertised 0.1mm offset 90º score cut is more like 0.2mm, nothing you would notice but it's more realistic than thinking mafell could hold to some 3 thousandths of an inch.
Even without washers the front of saw base always has a tiny bit of slop in regards to plastic registration blocks. So you pick your poison and either push both ends towards blade or you skew base so that front pulls away (hitting blocks) and back moves towards (hitting) set screw. You salt & pepper to taste with the single back adjustment screw anyways.
It's surprising how much you need to turn the back parallel adjustment screw to get the back of blade to move +/- to s/g.
*When you have the saw flipped over and a snugged rail attached remember that when you plunge to 51mm to observe tooth distance that you need some gap 4~6 thou front/back or else you will be inadvertently trimming your s/g again since blade has moved away from guard by that much. I.e. don't adjust teeth to touch s/g at 51mm.
I have a suspicion that if some of you check your tooth gap to s/g, flipped over at 51mm, you might see a visual difference front & back.
(It seems like mafell's 162 blades cut the closest to the s/g compared to most other brands - that cut a fraction away from the guard. I thought about ordering a couple extra blade flanges, photo, and taking them to a machinist to have them slightly lathed down & marked so that favorite blades all cut to s/g @ 90º when paired to appropriate flange).
|
|
|
|
Post by chippy1970 on Nov 24, 2017 12:54:55 GMT -5
I was messing around with the parallel adjusting screw (located under allen wrench), and doing a few comparisons with / without washers: From my original measurement notes I noticed that the back of the blade was further away from s/g than front (original factory). I wondered if this was on purpose, if the blade once spinning or cutting was 'truer' with this cant. But now that we know the emperor has not clothes - i.e. each saw has it's own arbitrary 45/bevel offset anywhere from .5mm to 2mm - I couldn't see how that would be beneficial on any kind of saw. I also noticed that the advertised 0.1mm offset 90º score cut is more like 0.2mm, nothing you would notice but it's more realistic than thinking mafell could hold to some 3 thousandths of an inch. Even without washers the front of saw base always has a tiny bit of slop in regards to plastic registration blocks. So you pick your poison and either push both ends towards blade or you skew base so that front pulls away (hitting blocks) and back moves towards (hitting) set screw. You salt & pepper to taste with the single back adjustment screw anyways. It's surprising how much you need to turn the back parallel adjustment screw to get the back of blade to move +/- to s/g. *When you have the saw flipped over and a snugged rail attached remember that when you plunge to 51mm to observe tooth distance that you need some gap 4~6 thou front/back or else you will be inadvertently trimming your s/g again since blade has moved away from guard by that much. I.e. don't adjust teeth to touch s/g at 51mm. I have a suspicion that if some of you check your tooth gap to s/g, flipped over at 51mm, you might see a visual difference front & back. (It seems like mafell's 162 blades cut the closest to the s/g compared to most other brands - that cut a fraction away from the guard. I thought about ordering a couple extra blade flanges, photo, and taking them to a machinist to have them slightly lathed down & marked so that favorite blades all cut to s/g @ 90º when paired to appropriate flange). View AttachmentThe blade being further away from s/g at the rear probably is done on purpose as I know the Festool saw is the same. It stops the blade burning the edge. When I had to set my old Festool up after dropping it once, I was told to place a thin card or paper between the teeth and the s/g at the rear. |
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 24, 2017 13:05:59 GMT -5
Thanks chippy1970, it's funny but it was actually difficult to get back of blade as close as front so I left it with about .005thou/1.13mm difference.
No burning yet but now that I know I will go back and add a few thou more. Cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by reflector on Nov 25, 2017 21:38:22 GMT -5
I was messing around with the parallel adjusting screw (located under allen wrench), and doing a few comparisons with / without washers: From my original measurement notes I noticed that the back of the blade was further away from s/g than front (original factory). I wondered if this was on purpose, if the blade once spinning or cutting was 'truer' with this cant. But now that we know the emperor has not clothes - i.e. each saw has it's own arbitrary 45/bevel offset anywhere from .5mm to 2mm - I couldn't see how that would be beneficial on any kind of saw. I also noticed that the advertised 0.1mm offset 90º score cut is more like 0.2mm, nothing you would notice but it's more realistic than thinking mafell could hold to some 3 thousandths of an inch. Even without washers the front of saw base always has a tiny bit of slop in regards to plastic registration blocks. So you pick your poison and either push both ends towards blade or you skew base so that front pulls away (hitting blocks) and back moves towards (hitting) set screw. You salt & pepper to taste with the single back adjustment screw anyways. It's surprising how much you need to turn the back parallel adjustment screw to get the back of blade to move +/- to s/g. *When you have the saw flipped over and a snugged rail attached remember that when you plunge to 51mm to observe tooth distance that you need some gap 4~6 thou front/back or else you will be inadvertently trimming your s/g again since blade has moved away from guard by that much. I.e. don't adjust teeth to touch s/g at 51mm. I have a suspicion that if some of you check your tooth gap to s/g, flipped over at 51mm, you might see a visual difference front & back. (It seems like mafell's 162 blades cut the closest to the s/g compared to most other brands - that cut a fraction away from the guard. I thought about ordering a couple extra blade flanges, photo, and taking them to a machinist to have them slightly lathed down & marked so that favorite blades all cut to s/g @ 90º when paired to appropriate flange). Just a thought: How about having a flange that's intentionally machined back "significantly further" (with a pocket or some mating feature) a set of circular shims made to set the offset? You could have the shims nest inside the flange if needed. Pros: Deals with tolerances of manufacturing from blade to blade of a specific model, flexibility. Cons: Not matched to the blade, could be fragile if they're very thin, non nesting pieces. ??: Slowly crossing the threshold of becoming a wood machinist given that wood and wood products aren't exactly the most thermostable or humidistable of products all while the cut is being performed by a saw guided by a thin aluminum strip in effect instead of several tons of high precision ground and scraped cast iron. |
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 25, 2017 23:47:06 GMT -5
I think that's a good approach ... I’d also consider what would be involved with making aftermarket bevel guides to replace mafells. You would reuse the steel plates but these re-engineered bevel guides would have on the fly micro adjustment screws for both base height and parallel distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 26, 2017 13:09:27 GMT -5
Bosch blade arrives tomorrow but while I may or may not grind door I noticed that upper left and top interior blade clearance can be greatly increased by adding to bumper stop under plunge adjustment rack. Conceivably, depending on if you wish to really grind door a lot or just not open all the way for changing oversized blades you could run up to a 170+ in an MT55 by just shimming where metal hits bumper in photo. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by reflector on Nov 26, 2017 16:07:26 GMT -5
My 52T Tenryu includes a washer. You have to use it due to the plate being thinner than usual, but the washer is generally assumed to be on the outside of the blade which means no blade offset change.
|
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 26, 2017 17:54:05 GMT -5
I did not realize that. Looks like they do groove the outer flange to allow inner flange shoulder to recess some to cover a range of plate thicknesses. Of course you would have to have 'some' shoulder, but I think they could have gone further with the recess than maxing down to only 1mm. (mafell refers to both the inner & outer clamping flanges and just 'flange' so I'll call the front the outer flange).
 I'll assume that Makita blade at .99mm plate might not come with a washer then if you buy one, since I think it comes stock on their machine. |
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 26, 2017 20:11:44 GMT -5
deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by kraftt on Nov 27, 2017 19:51:41 GMT -5
If flanges aren’t exorbitant I’ll just take them and have them lathed down with a groove added in the side edge to be paint filled for id.
Maybe the Bosch track saw uses identical flange and could be sourced for less?
|
|
|
|
Post by reflector on Dec 2, 2017 18:30:04 GMT -5
Perhaps you could source the flange from a Bosch and have it machined in such a manner to accept a circular shim that rests on a reduced shoulder. That way the shim becomes the shoulder instead. You might even want to consider having the flange machined with a slightly deeper recess so you'll have thicker shim stock (= More durable shim stock) to work with.
I have heard there shops that will laser cut shim stock, but I'm unaware about minimum quantities.
|
|
