G0766 - Banjo upgrade experiment

[Roger Chandler]

Well with all the talk about the banjo on the 0766, I decided to do an experiment. :D Now the stock banjo works fine for most bowl turning , and it is just if one wants to turn a long cylinder that is as big as the 22" diameter swing that the stock banjo is a little short in the distance from the center

I talked to the folks at Oneway about the 0766 and which banjo would be right for it. Interesting! The banjo for the 20" amd 24" Oneway's have a too tall post supports cast into them to be usable on the G0766.......they are just too tall.

However, the one they make for the 16" lathe was designed for use with their outboard bed extension, and will allow for a 24" diameter piece, which would be 12" away from the center line of the lathe, and is for a 1" post and you can get the clamp plate for 1.5" gap between the ways. The post support is shorter than the ones on the 20 and 24" banjos, so that should work. The part number is H0082.

I ordered one to try it out, and if for some reason it does not work, I can send it back for a full refund. I will report back once I get it in and set up on my G0766, and let you know if this aftermarket option takes this 0766 up towards an ideal level.

Back at the beginning when I first ordered the 0766, I had been thinking about upgrading the banjo. I had watched a video of Bob Hamilton, where he used a oneway banjo on his Nova DVR, and had taken note of the extra length he could get on that, so it has been in my mind for a good while....even back when I had my 0698.........I think this will be a great addition to the 0766 arsenal.

Stay tuned for an update on this........it will likely be the end of next week before it arrives.

[Roger Chandler]

Optimization - I look at upgrading my lathe like this............. When I bought my pickup truck some years ago, I did not think back then about pulling a trailer. Since I got that truck I have now acquired two trailers and use them quite regularly, so that fact has necessitated that I upgrade my truck for that purpose. I put on a class IV trailer hitch back some years ago and also had a heavy duty clutch installed as well.....one that is optimal for towing and hauling heavy loads.

I think that it would have been wrong of me to buy a truck that had none of those features on it, and then expect that they should have had them installed, unless I paid for a towing package........which on my next truck will be one of the items that I will make sure is on the vehicle and of course will pay for that feature.

Adding accessories to suit our uses and purposes is a fairly standard thing with anything........including wood working equipment. On my former table saw, I made several upgrades to make it a better performing machine, and when I got my present table saw, I went for a premium Biesmeyer fence system, etc......all that adds to the cost.

Adding an accessory to optimize my lathe is in the same category in my thinking...........If I wanted many possible accessories included, then I would have to pay for those, so thankfully, they are available as aftermarket options, and I can tweak my lathe and optimize it for those purposes that suit my uses as I go along!

If I had wanted all the bells and whistles of a top of the line truck back then, I would have had to pay more than I did to get all those accessories.........the same holds true with our lathes......I believe I got a really good lathe with the basics as far a a package for far less $$$ than the higher end lathes out there.......and for those very substantial savings, I will be glad to add a little tweak here and there to optimize it, and customize it to my own liking!

Your $0.02?

[James Conrad]

Well, I was thinking about getting a second banjo anyway... I have a couple of Oneway inside and oustide rests arriving today, why not tack on a banjo. This is not a matter of needing an accessory, their specs brag 22" of swing, one would expect being able to turn objects within that spec. This is another mistake on Grizzly, 3 inches shy of the mark.

[Roger Chandler]

Well, I was thinking about getting a second banjo anyway... I have a couple of Oneway inside and oustide rests arriving today, why not tack on a banjo. This is not a matter of needing an accessory, their specs brag 22" of swing, one would expect being able to turn objects within that spec. This is another mistake on Grizzly, 3 inches shy of the mark.


It will turn a 21.5" bowl blank with current banjo and toolrest. To make a 21.5" cylinder for a hollow form, then you are right that the banjo is short for that.

I agree that the engineering on these specs was lacking on the part of the manufacturer! They basically took the frame and bed of the g0733 and added a bigger headstock and tailstock with more swing, which is fine in and of itself, as the bed is plenty stout for that, but they did not refine the ergonomics and should have made a new banjo that was about 4" longer than the one they put on this lathe, which is again the same as on the G0733.

I guess with the substantial value we got, there was a trade off of $$$ and engineering. I still think Grizzly should go back and re-do these issues and going forward change those things to make this a solid home run, even if they have to raise the price a couple hundred dollars........then their reputation might not suffer! Value is important, but so is the engineering specs to make this lathe optimal in its configuration!

I am not trying to contradict my statement in the former post above, but the ideal would be to issue these with a correctly machined tool rest and a longer banjo and have that included in the price, even if it is an extra hundred or two!

[Mark Greenbaum]

What about making a banjo offset? Like this:
317054

[Roger Chandler]

What about making a banjo offset? Like this:
317054
That might have possibilities, Mark......one would just have to try one and see if too much vibration was introduced, but it looks like one with the correct diameter post might be a viable option.

[Belton Garvin]

Robust already makes an offset like the one above. Thought about getting it when I ordered my tools rests but couldn't come up with a good reason...Tool Rest Dog Leg - $64 http://www.turnrobust.com/product/tool-rest-dog-leg/

[Mark Greenbaum]

That might have possibilities, Mark......one would just have to try one and see if too much vibration was introduced, but it looks like one with the correct diameter post might be a viable option.
This was just a quick 3D CAD sketch - 25mm post x 5" long, with a tube to receive the same - gussets may help, but I'd have to wait and see what kind if interferences there would be.

[James Conrad]

Robust already makes an offset like the one above. Thought about getting it when I ordered my tools rests but couldn't come up with a good reason...Tool Rest Dog Leg - $64 http://www.turnrobust.com/product/tool-rest-dog-leg/

I figured someone had made something like that. Unfortunately, with the stock tool rest, it will make the height issue worse.

[Mark Greenbaum]

I figured someone had made something like that. Unfortunately, with the stock tool rest, it will make the height issue worse.
The outboard tube could go under the plate, and then it would be 1/2" higher, or the plate can have a Z-bend to allow a drop down.

[Belton Garvin]

With the Robust rests I purchased, the added height won't be a problem at all. Of all the Tool Rests I've used, I really like the configuration of the Robust rests the best. I have both the low profile (6") and the comfort rest (15")

[hu lowery]

What about making a banjo offset? Like this:
317054


As has already been mentioned, the part to hold the tool rest would have to go down, not upwards. Still not something that hard to make if someone didn't like the Robust adapter. Something like this with the socket to hold the toolpost going down instead of up was one of the things I considered making. I also considered a heavy plate on the lathe bed that would have to drop down also to hang the banjo off of.

My concern is that we are re-engineering the lathe, making major changes in the loads that can be put on it. Most personal modifications to a lathe are like a vacuum chuck or hollowing system, they don't increase the load on the lathe. With the longer banjo or adapters we are putting sideboards on our pick-up truck to stay with Roger's analogy. Just because I put sideboards on my pick-up doesn't make it able to haul six yards of gravel! Is the 766 able to haul six yards of gravel and the banjo just an oversight? My time in design engineering says that such a gross oversight is very unlikely but not impossible.

If it is only an oversight I sure wish Grizzly would make us aware of that. I really liked my 766. However I intended to turn some twenty inch diameter pieces on it. Those required some pretty massive blanks and I wasn't sure the Grizzly was up to the task.

Hu

[Roger Chandler]

As has already been mentioned, the part to hold the tool rest would have to go down, not upwards. Still not something that hard to make if someone didn't like the Robust adapter. Something like this with the socket to hold the toolpost going down instead of up was one of the things I considered making. I also considered a heavy plate on the lathe bed that would have to drop down also to hang the banjo off of.

My concern is that we are re-engineering the lathe, making major changes in the loads that can be put on it. Most personal modifications to a lathe are like a vacuum chuck or hollowing system, they don't increase the load on the lathe. With the longer banjo or adapters we are putting sideboards on our pick-up truck to stay with Roger's analogy. Just because I put sideboards on my pick-up doesn't make it able to haul six yards of gravel! Is the 766 able to haul six yards of gravel and the banjo just an oversight? My time in design engineering says that such a gross oversight is very unlikely but not impossible.

If it is only an oversight I sure wish Grizzly would make us aware of that. I really liked my 766. However I intended to turn some twenty inch diameter pieces on it. Those required some pretty massive blanks and I wasn't sure the Grizzly was up to the task.

Hu

As far as load goes, on my former G0698 I turned some pretty good sized log sections..........a couple of them were at least 17" diameter and about 14 inches tall........a pretty good sized piece of timber. That lathe handled it, and this 0766 should handle a piece that is 20" without problems. That being said, I do think we need the blanks to be in balance as much as possible to avoid any unnecessary forces being put on the unit.............

Not disputing your concerns, Hu......each of us has to do what we feel is appropriate and safe. My truck analogy notwithstanding, I got the V-8 motor and had the basis for hauling built into the truck, but just needed to add a couple of upgrades to make it a solid hauler..........

Same here, I think. I think the biggest thing that would improve stability of these lathes would be if they designed them with more splayed out legs with a bigger footprint front to back. I think the bed, headstock and tailstock can handle the load, but the footprint could be bigger front to back ............sort of like what is on the Robust American Beauty.

[Dok Yager]

Roger a silly question here. Would the banjo from the 698 work on the 766 and is it shorter?

[Roger Chandler]

Roger a silly question here. Would the banjo from the 698 work on the 766 and is it shorter?

The banjos on both lathes are identical in size and shape................so they are interchangeable, but do not change anything by changing them out! ;)

[Joe Bradshaw]

I have been following this thread with interest. I have no intentions of buying a 766(I already have six lathes), but it did seem be a good bang for the buck. Anyway, I checked below center on my toolrests and out from center on my banjos. Here are the measurements; Oneway 1224 below center 7/8", out from center 7 1/2". Robust Liberty using a Oneway banjo below center 1", out from center 14". Oneway 2436 below center 1 3/4", out from center 14". All toolrests were Robust low profile rests. I disagree with Roger in that one should not have put the toolrest in awkward positions. Grizzly does need to step up and fix these problems.
Joe

[Dick Strauss]

Hopefully our friend Papa Grizzly is monitoring this thread and will order the changes to be made ASAP. It is easier to fix the issue now with replacement banjos for only a few dozen units sold rather than waiting.

Please don't try to use anything like the offset rest extensions from the Delta 1400 series of lathes. They were designed to be used on outboard turnings but have way too much bounce on anything other than light cuts to be safe. I have one that I tried to use a few times. Needless to say it was not a pleasant experience.

[Roger Chandler]

I have been following this thread with interest. I have no intentions of buying a 766(I already have six lathes), but it did seem be a good bang for the buck. Anyway, I checked below center on my toolrests and out from center on my banjos. Here are the measurements; Oneway 1224 below center 7/8", out from center 7 1/2". Robust Liberty using a Oneway banjo below center 1", out from center 14". Oneway 2436 below center 1 3/4", out from center 14". All toolrests were Robust low profile rests. I disagree with Roger in that one should not have put the toolrest in awkward positions. Grizzly does need to step up and fix these problems.
Joe

Thanks for the measurements below the centerline, Joe.........just goes to show again that The manufacturer got either the machining wrong, or they did not get the ergonomics right for this large a lathe, as the other brands from the same manufacturer [PM especially] were well below centerline.

I Think Grizzly tech people need to swallow a bit of pride here and listen to their end users, and see the things we have plainly shown to be fact here in these threads. I wonder if the lawyers are driving the dynamics of denial here? I have no way of knowing that, but clearly, the pics on the toolrest fix thread are clear evidence that the rests sit too high, and your post is just another confirmation of the same evidence! I think 7/8" below the centerline is the sweet spot!

As to awkward positiions on the toolrest: I think you must have mis-read what I meant, or I did not explain it correctly....I referred to the same techique I have seen Mike Mahoney use on his videos The tenon shaped on the bottom, and the bottom shaped with the toolrest at an angle is standard practice on bowl bottoms, and does not require a banjo that extends farther than the one that comes with the 0766.........just if making large diameter cylinder for a hollowform. I do agree that the banjo should have been designed for this size lathe instead of taking the same one the 0733 uses, when this lathe has 4" more swing.

[Randy Red Bemont]

Hopefully our friend Papa Grizzly is monitoring this thread and will order the changes to be made ASAP. It is easier to fix the issue now with replacement banjos for only a few dozen units sold rather than waiting.


I agree. Now is the time to fix the issue.

Red

[John Keeton]

The banjo and toolrest are the two things between your tool and the wood. If they are inadequate, or positioned incorrectly, then safety could become an issue. Grizzly used the same banjo on the G0698 (marketed as an 18/47 lathe), and the G0733 (marketed as a "heavy duty" 18/47 lathe, and now the G0766, and even larger and presumably more heavy duty lathe than the other models. That, and the toolrest issues, the leg stance, and the other issues that have been mentioned, would seem to indicate a lack of purpose oriented engineering behind this lathe. To put it simply, a collection of acceptably large or appropriate components bolted together, simply do not, in and of themselves, produce a product well suited for the use for which it was intended.

As I stated a month ago, "It is yet too early to tell whether the 0766 lathe will deliver as hoped. Four of my stationary tools are Grizzly - bandsaw, tablesaw, jointer, and planer. I bought those tools after the particular models had been on the market for a while and reviews showed them to be acceptable for my level of use. I knew they were essentially "composite copies" of other machines, that the mass of the machines was sufficient for my hobby use, but that they lacked the refinement and purpose oriented engineering one might want for a professional level machine. However, the price vs. benefit was attractive and I have not regretted those purchases.

...a woodturner seems to form an intimate bond with a lathe, and with the initial comments on this lathe, it seems that in this new model, Grizzly has not "corrected" simple engineering issues that occurred in prior models.

...In the end, I suspect this lathe will be widely accepted. It provides a large swing - attractive to some folks, and sufficient power, all at a very attractive price. The mass distribution, the quality of castings, the basic design engineering all reflect a machine intended for a market niche. I don't expect this lathe to offer serious competition for any of the top end lathes for those reasons. So long as folks understand what they are getting, it should perform acceptably for most.

I am happy with my Jet 1642, and do not have a need to exceed the 16" swing capacity of the Jet. If, at some point, I want/need a larger lathe, it will not be the Grizzly 0766. I would spend the money and buy a machine designed on which I would expect to spend hours on end forming a close, intimate relationship."

I certainly do not wish a bad outcome for anyone, and am hopeful that the new owners of this lathe get all the issues corrected and are ultimately happy with it. But, there are no free lunches, and one should not expect more value from this lathe than the money spent. While the folks at Grizzly do not appear to be turners, nor appear to have bothered to consult with any turners in the design process, the company is not ignorant of the cost of production and the market for which this lathe was produced. You will get the swing you were after, but with obvious sacrifices and if that fulfills your need, then you made a good purchase.

[Roger Chandler]

Well said, John! I suspect that Grizzly will do nothing to change anything after hearing their response to the toolrest. I would be surprised if they changed the banjo to a longer one........but IMHO, they would be wise to do so!

From what I now have experienced with turning on numerous makes, this lathe has great potential, and the big things that matter the most, they got right........the ergonomics of toolrest position and length of banjo to accommodate the 22" swing......well, they just look like what you said.....basically pick off the shelf parts and bolt them on. Purpose oriented engineering on those two components was left on the drawing room floor!

Your statements back then and now, were wise.........those who are looking for a perfected lathe at this price will be disappointed, but those who see the potential and are willing to tweak things to raise the level of performance to where it should be, well they will still have a great value and what appears to be at this point in time, being a new unit, a fine performing lathe.

My thinking is this......why invest all that they did in bringing the new model to market, and only go 95% of the way......with all that investment, why not go 100% in and make it a total success.........it would engender good will towards their company, and have a long list of totally satisfied customers, not partially discontented!

Good to hear from you, by the way.......hope things are well in your neck of Ky.!

[Dane Riley]

I talked to the folks at Oneway about the 0766 and which banjo would be right for it. Interesting! The banjo for the 20" amd 24" Oneway's have a too tall post supports cast into them to be usable on the G0766.......they are just too tall.
.

Pardon my late reply. but swing is swing. How can a banjo for a 20" lathe be too tall for a 22" lathe? If its just the tool rest, wouldn't you be better off with a Robust rest and a 20" banjo?

[Roger Chandler]

Pardon my late reply. but swing is swing. How can a banjo for a 20" lathe be too tall for a 22" lathe? If its just the tool rest, wouldn't you be better off with a Robust rest and a 20" banjo?
Oneway 20 & 24" rests have too tall post supports [the vertical part of the banjo] and would put rests above the center. The one for their 16 inch bed extension has a shorter vertical cast but has a lateral size that will accommodate a 24" piece.

This is an experiment I am trying, after consultation with Oneway tech guys, who say it should work well. Ths only thing is to try it and see if the rests I have and this banjo combination get me to the sweet spot on the height.......If they don't, then I can send it back for a refund.

I did not spec out the Robust banjo, but will check it out.

[Dane Riley]

I seem to be stuck on an admittedly academic point. But one cannot understand while missing something. How can a 20" banjo be too tall for a 22" lathe? Other than the tool rest minimum height, what else is there?

[Thom Sturgill]

I seem to be stuck on an admittedly academic point. But one cannot understand while missing something. How can a 20" banjo be too tall for a 22" lathe? Other than the tool rest minimum height, what else is there?

Just reasoning here, but - If they are considering the banjo to be used with the Grizzly tool rest then the height of the rest from the stop to the top edge is too great to be used with that banjo. IF you also used their rest or possibly a Robust rest, it would probably be fine, although it might be too low.

[Roger Chandler]

I looked on the Robust website and did not see banjos listed as an accessory one could ourchase seperately........maybe I missed something?

[David Walser]

Optimization - I look at upgrading my lathe like this............. When I bought my pickup truck some years ago, I did not think back then about pulling a trailer. Since I got that truck I have now acquired two trailers and use them quite regularly, so that fact has necessitated that I upgrade my truck for that purpose. I put on a class IV trailer hitch back some years ago and also had a heavy duty clutch installed as well.....one that is optimal for towing and hauling heavy loads.

I think that it would have been wrong of me to buy a truck that had none of those features on it, and then expect that they should have had them installed, unless I paid for a towing package........which on my next truck will be one of the items that I will make sure is on the vehicle and of course will pay for that feature.

...

Roger -- For your analogy to be apt, people would need to be slamming the Grizzly lathe because it didn't come equipped with a vacuum generator for vacuum chucking. No one should expect a truck to come equipped with a towing package (or a lathe to have a vacuum generator) unless the truck is marketed as being tow ready. Sticking with your pickup truck analogy, suppose you bought a brand new 3/4 ton pickup and learned that the suspension bottomed out with less than 1/2 ton of hay in the bed. Sure, you could pay to have heavier duty springs and shocks installed, but you'd have every right to be upset that, as delivered, your 3/4 ton truck could not haul a 3/4 ton load. Similarly, if your new truck's transmission was geared so high that you couldn't haul a 1/2 ton load up a modest incline without getting a running start, you'd have every right to complain -- no matter how nice the rest of the truck was. The fact you could fix these two issues by changing the differential and the suspension wouldn't change the fact GM sold you a 3/4 ton truck equipped with 1/2 ton suspension and gearing.

Grizzly is selling a lathe claiming it has a large swing (which it does) while including a banjo/tool rest combination that cannot support that swing. That's wrong and no amount of possible work arounds by the buyer absolves Grizzly of this error.

Note: I'm not saying the lathe isn't a decent buy. I'm quibbling with your analogy which implies that any problems are with buyers expecting more from a lathe than they should. If they were complaining of a lack of a vacuum generator and a complete set of turning tools, I'd agree with you. They aren't. They are expecting the lathe to do what Grizzly claims that it would -- nothing more.

[Roger Chandler]

David, after reconsideration of my post you referenced, and the points you make here.....I almost will turn 180 degrees and say I probably did not make my intended point very well, with that particular post. My only caveat is that in their catalog, Grizzly did put a pic of this 0766 model they were selling. That pic had the banjo on it from the 0733 18/47 (tel:0733 18/47) lathe. That pic was indeed a visual representation of what they were selling this unit as.

Most people would not likely pick up on that, not being familiar with the various Grizzly models. I know in the past they had used the same design rest on the 0733, and 0698 models, but I did not know if this was a longer version of that same style, until mine arrived and I got it set up in my shop.

Now they met the 22" swing with the size of the lathe and spindle height off the bed, but then put a smaller banjo on it, which I can only surmise was a cost cutting measure, as fabrication of a new size would have manufacturing costs with it.

What I did not say very well was that the major components of this lathe [motor/inverter, frame/size , spindle, weight ] meet the capacity,] and I was not willing to go thru weeks or months of them looking into the matter before they decided to fix or not fix the banjo or rest......a decision for my own convienience. Owners do have the ability to address this with aftermarket upgrades to optimize it for maximum capacity.

I agree with your 3/4 ton-1/2 ton analogy on the truck......yep, the suspension components here are indeed under sized! The right thing to do [in my opinion] is to re-issue a properly sized banjo for a 22" swing lathe. We cannot change the past, but they would do well to tell the factory to make longer banjos to meet the 22" swing. That would generate good customer relations, and eliminate a sore spot, that is correctable! I would get in line for mine!

It is like we have a legitimate gripe, and they have a legitimate point as to the swing issue.......it is not all one side or the other. Both sides have valid points, but bottom line is that the manufacturer/Grizzly only went 75% on this swing issue, and that is where I agree with you.......it should have been 100% a 22" swing that was shipped out to customers.

[David C. Roseman]

I seem to be stuck on an admittedly academic point. But one cannot understand while missing something. How can a 20" banjo be too tall for a 22" lathe? Other than the tool rest minimum height, what else is there?

I think you're right, Dane. As Thom speculates, I'm betting the confusion has to be over the assumption made by the Oneway tech as to which/whose tool rest would be used with their 20" banjo.

Except in the case of gap-bed lathes, inboard "swing capacity" is by definition measured as 2X the distance from the top of the ways to the center of the spindle. So Oneway's 20" lathe requires a banjo that places the top of the rest no higher than 9" or 9-1/8" above the ways when paired with the Oneway OEM tool rest, if the goal is to end up 1" or 7/8" below spindle center. I can't figure how their 20" banjo could be too tall for the G0766, certainly if the same rest is used that Oneway ships with its 20" lathe, or the Robust Low Profile rest with the long post. Maybe not with the stock rest that ships with the G0766, but as someone who has several of those for my G0733 (cut to various lengths), that's a very inexpensive though serviceable item best reserved for spindle and certain bowl work anyway.

The interesting question for me would be whether the various Robust long post Comfort Rests would also work on Oneway's 20" lathe at the desired height, and therefore necessarily on the G0766. I just happen to prefer the Comfort Rests because of the larger support surface for my hand. I suspect Oneway tech support could answer that with a quick phone call or email.

[Robert Henrickson]

The interesting question for me would be whether the various Robust long post Comfort Rests would also work on Oneway's 20" lathe at the desired height, and therefore necessarily on the G0766. I just happen to prefer the Comfort Rests because of the larger support surface for my hand. I suspect Oneway tech support could answer that with a quick phone call or email.

"Only the Low Profile style rests or the 9” J-rest will fit the Oneway 20” lathes" according to the Robust tool rest page. But why worry about how Robust rests fit on a 20" Oneway if the matter actually being discusssed (I think!) is how a Oneway banjo would work on a *22"* swing Grizzly. That combination would presumably provide an additional inch of height on a Grizzly. This discussion seems to have moved to fitting an aftermarket rest to a brand of lathe other than what was the initial topic.

[David C. Roseman]

"Only the Low Profile style rests or the 9” J-rest will fit the Oneway 20” lathes" according to the Robust tool rest page. But why worry about how Robust rests fit on a 20" Oneway if the matter actually being discusssed (I think!) is how a Oneway banjo would work on a *22"* swing Grizzly. That combination would presumably provide an additional inch of height on a Grizzly. This discussion seems to have moved to fitting an aftermarket rest to a brand of lathe other than what was the initial topic.

Thanks, Robert! Now that you mention it, I remember seeing that notice on the Robust site. Actually, I think the discussion is right on point, as Roger's thread is on upgrading the G0766 with a Oneway banjo, and he was advised that the Oneway 20" banjo would be too tall. The question of which of the banjos will work on the G0766 implicates which tool rests could/could not be used with it. By going with the banjo for Oneway's 16" lathe rather than their 20", Roger might be missing out on some even greater capacity.

[Roger Chandler]

I think you're right, Dane. As Thom speculates, I'm betting the confusion has to be over the assumption made by the Oneway tech as to which/whose tool rest would be used with their 20" banjo.

Except in the case of gap-bed lathes, inboard "swing capacity" is by definition measured as 2X the distance from the top of the ways to the center of the spindle. So Oneway's 20" lathe requires a banjo that places the top of the rest no higher than 9" or 9-1/8" above the ways when paired with the Oneway OEM tool rest, if the goal is to end up 1" or 7/8" below spindle center. I can't figure how their 20" banjo could be too tall for the G0766, certainly if the same rest is used that Oneway ships with its 20" lathe, or the Robust Low Profile rest with the long post. Maybe not with the stock rest that ships with the G0766, but as someone who has several of those for my G0733 (cut to various lengths), that's a very inexpensive though serviceable item best reserved for spindle and certain bowl work anyway.

The interesting question for me would be whether the various Robust long post Comfort Rests would also work on Oneway's 20" lathe at the desired height, and therefore necessarily on the G0766. I just happen to prefer the Comfort Rests because of the larger support surface for my hand. I suspect Oneway tech support could answer that with a quick phone call or email.

I think it has to do with the length of the tool rest post.........the long posts I got on my Robust rests would have made them too high with the 20 or 24" banjo from oneway, but the one I listed in the post will travel the distance away from center to also cover as much as a 24" swing.........at least that is what the Oneway rep said. I will verify when it gets here in a few days, and if it does not work, I will let everyone know and also send it back for a refund.

[Roger Chandler]

See my update with the new banjo here:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?233247-Banjo-Nirvana-G0766