 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / May 2008Chinese Dickson Toolholder
I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would have expected, I now see further problems. The toolholders do not fit to the toolpost as one would expect. There are two "Vees" on the toolpost. Some of the toolholders do not mate with the "Vee" faces. To be honest I do not expect a perfect "blued" engagement on all 4 "Vee" faces, however I do expect the toolholders to at least engage fully on the wider internal "vee" faces. The problem is seen particularly on the Part off toolholder which definately only engages on the outer part of the Vee, therefore maybe 4mm of face contact, each side. I can slide a .05mm feeler in at the wide face. I have had the parting tool bite in and seen movement on the outer faces. I feel the only option is to grind the outer Vee face of the holders to ensure location on the inner wider face. Any comments? -- Richard Email address is valid but remove burrs before sending! >I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Any comments? Talk to the vendors about it? Tim >>I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >>have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Tim I have no confidence that I would get anything better! These are Chinky or Indian made and considerably less cost than "industrial" tooling so I expect some problems. -- Richard Email address is valid but remove burrs before sending! >>>I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >>>have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Chinky or Indian made and considerably less cost than "industrial" >tooling so I expect some problems. I've had two import sets from ArcEuro , both the 200 size and I've had problems whatsoever - unlike the time I bough "repro" versions of the Dixon T1 sized toolholders from somewhere else. They never fitted properly. Charles >>>>I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >>>>have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Charles I'm guessing you missed a 'no' out that first sentance? I've also got the Model 200, and I can't really fault it. Only niggle is the bolts could be a bit better, but other than that, it just works. I now just need to build a holder for all the holders, to gain some valuable bench space for other junk. >>>I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >>>have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Chinky or Indian made and considerably less cost than "industrial" >tooling so I expect some problems. You should still expect a product which does the job, if it doesn't I would at least let the vendor know they're selling cr*p even if you expect to get nothing improved. They won't know if noone tells them. Tim >>>>I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >>>>have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Tim You are of course correct. I will mail RDG tonight. The list of problems with this QCTH follows Height adjustment screws not square, one holder changed as it was just too bad. Toolpost block not hard Adjustment nuts sloppy on the screws Thread in adjustment nuts not concentric At least one adjustment nut fouled the lock Toolholders did not sit on the inner (wider part of the Vee (todays problem) I have ground the outer part of the Vee so that a blued block witnesses on the inner wide Vee. Parted off 2 inch diameter steel with far less problems than before. -- Richard Email address is valid but remove burrs before sending! On 5 May, 17:56, Richard Edwards <poundeaterbu...@burrsblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 05 May 2008 15:31:42 +0100, Tim Leech > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Richard it would be interesting to see if you get a reasonable reply from them. In general these cheap copy tool holders do not seem to be interchangable at least not with the original Dixon toolpost. I have to say though that all of my Chronos ones fit either their own toolpost or the RDG one - perhaps luck plays a part. You seem to have been particularly unlucky in yours. With mine I have found that, as Jordan said, they can be adapted to fit an original post by thinning the section that locates over the T. That doesn't cure the bent, sloppy, non-square and cheese soft screws though!! Like the others I have nothing but praise for the import 200 series posts and must say that the Dixon type holders I bought from Myford are excellent if a "bit" more expensive. Regards Keith >>>>I originally commented that my toolholders were not as hard as I would >>>>have expected, I now see further problems. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Tim Why buy this junk in the first place? Originals often come up on ebay. Bob >Why buy this junk in the first place? Originals often come up on ebay. >Bob Yeah, but just about as often as hens teeth. Peter >>Why buy this junk in the first place? Originals often come up on ebay. >>Bob > > Yeah, but just about as often as hens teeth. > > Peter Cluck Cluck Item number: 110249536067 Unless there too big for the lathe in question!!! >>>Why buy this junk in the first place? Originals often come up on ebay. >>>Bob [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Item number: 110249536067 >Unless there too big for the lathe in question!!! They'll be S2 size, seems to be the one which comes up most often. I'm after some S3 'at the right price', they sometimes go cheaply because of less demand but not the last ones I was watching :-( Tim >>>>Why buy this junk in the first place? Originals often come up on ebay. >>>>Bob [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Tim Yep they are S2, too big for me. I need S1 size for the toolpost on my Bantam. The last ones came up around 3 months ago and ended up selling for really silly money. Does anyone know if the 'T' sizes from J&L and others will fit the original Dickson 'S' toolposts? Altenatively, anyone got any S1's they want to sell? Peter >>They'll be S2 size, seems to be the one which comes up most often. >>I'm after some S3 'at the right price', they sometimes go cheaply [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Peter So far as I know they do. The J&L ones are or were from Bison, so they should be pretty good. Tim >>>They'll be S2 size, seems to be the one which comes up most often. >>>I'm after some S3 'at the right price', they sometimes go cheaply [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Tim I am confused! What is the difference between the T series and the S series? When one looks at J&L pages 508 and 509 one sees two different (but visually the same) toolholder systems. One Type T the other not marked as type S. My RDG set seems to be based on the T0 but some dimensions do not match! In answer to >Why buy this junk in the first place? Originals often come up on ebay. >Bob When I needed the QC system nothing was available on Ebay apart from the RDG. Junk is a relative word. My toolholder set - Toolpost + 2 standard holders + 1 Vee Holder + 1 Part off tool and holder was £90+. The T0 set from J&L is £385.92 more than the lathe is worth. After a bit of work my toolholders now "fit" the toolpost. I would prefer the toolpost to be harder but there you go. I can fit remove and replace a toolholder to within .0002". I have done a lot of turning with little problems and no messing about with shims, so I am relatively happy. Re the comment that "Originals come up on Ebay", how do we know that they are originals? Thank you to everyone for the comments. Now trying to work out what to spend my £10 Ebay voucher on <G> -- Richard Email address is valid but remove burrs before sending! > I feel the only option is to grind the outer Vee face of the holders > to ensure location on the inner wider face. I also have some Eastern (I think made in India?) holders that didn't quite fit the Dickson toolpost body exactly. The thickness of the flat area around the T-slot was too great, preventing proper seating onto the Vees. Some grinding to reduce it fixed the problem. In my case, I didn't have to touch the Vee section. Jordan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.