Lathe on a bench............Questions

[Richard Jones]

Didn't want to hijack Bruce's thread below, so I'll ask here:

I am contemplating acquiring a 1642 and bolting it directly to my bench, which in turn, is bolted to the wall and to the floor, very sturdy, no vibrations. Am wondering if Jet would consider selling me the lathe without the legs, as I'd have no need for them. Don't need the "elbow room" at the rear of the bench, as the headstock can swivel to remove that problem from the equation for doing bowls. I am headed back to the Greensboro WoodCraft tomorrow to do some more "checkin'"...........

Am I missing any down sides here?

Thanks for the help.

Richard (glad that the Vicadin has kicked in on this tooth implant) Jones

PS woo hoo!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jim Bell]

I've tried both ways. My advice is to get the stand and use it.
Jim

[Bruce Shiverdecker]

For one that large, I, too, suggest going for the cast legs!

Bruce

[Jim Becker]

The cast iron legs from the manufacturer do more than support the lathe...they add mass and vibration dampening. I think that long term, you'll be much happier with the lathe on it's designed leg system.

The 1642's headstock slides on the ways, but does not swivel. It's very similar to the PM 3520 with a few inches less in swing. Trust me, there will be things you want to turn that you will want or need access from behind the lathe toward the tailstock end at least. Cleanup is also easier with the legs and the machine "free standing".

[Lloyd Frisbee]

Lathe on a bench! I thought it was a new Samuel L. Jackson movie! Whew! Actually I have one of my lathes on a bench that has wheels. The bench is weighed down with logs that have bowls and other turned objects hidden inside them waiting to come out.

[Myrel Willeford]

I bolted a delta 46-700 to well built cabinet attempted to turn an out of balance blank about 8” it shook the cabinets so much they started to come apart and stuff on the walls were falling. I would not do it if you like the cabinets and want to turn bowls.

[Richard Jones]

The cast iron legs from the manufacturer do more than support the lathe...they add mass and vibration dampening. I think that long term, you'll be much happier with the lathe on it's designed leg system.

The 1642's headstock slides on the ways, but does not swivel. It's very similar to the PM 3520 with a few inches less in swing. Trust me, there will be things you want to turn that you will want or need access from behind the lathe toward the tailstock end at least. Cleanup is also easier with the legs and the machine "free standing".

I believe the 1642VS headstock does swivel...............

Thanks to all.

Rich

[Mike Vickery]

I believe the 1642VS headstock does swivel...............

Thanks to all.

Rich

The Jet 1642's headstock does not swivel. The Jet 1442 has a swivel head. If you are talking about the Delta I have no idea.

[Wes Bischel]

If you have a family, don't bolt it to the wall - everyone in the house will know when it's on. DAMHIKT:rolleyes: The vibration will transmit through the walls.

Wes

[Jim Becker]

I believe the 1642VS headstock does swivel...............

I downloaded the manual before I made my statement and found no reference to swiveling the headstock...only sliding it down the ways. I've also turned on my friend Russ's 1642VS and don't recall any way to make it go round and round...well...you know what I mean! :o

[Richard Jones]

http://www.wmhtoolgroup.com/shop/index.cfm?navPage=4&iid=11715

http://www.wmhtoolgroup.com/shop/index.cfm?navPage=4&iid=11716


Maybe this is a new feature......................

[Richard Jones]

OK, OK, you win, I quit............. :D

In reading the literature on the 1642, references to the 1442 with the swiveling headstock are included. Some creative advertising that seems strange to me............... :confused:

Well, if it doesn't swivel, I guess I'll keep looking.

Wonder if the 1442 is beefy enough for me........

Bummer.............

Thanks for the info, guys...............

Rich

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Try the DVR 3000 (or new DVR XP, or the soon to be released Nova 3000) it is a great lathe and has a swivel head :D

Cheers!

[Jim Becker]

Yes, I caught that text, too, Rich, which is why I downloaded the manual to confirm.

Go with the 1642. It's a far more capable machine than the 1442; has "real" variable speed (VFD rather than a reeves drive), a lot more weight, more capacity, etc. I recommend you also go with the 2hp version if you can. Yes, it requires 240v, but it has the power necessary to turn the larger stuff with ease.

[Richard Jones]

Jim,

Thanks, I may still look at it. Sure wish they would offer it with a swiveling headstock.

No problem with the 2HP or the 220, I like both and have both on my BS.

Am headed out to Woodcraft this afternoon with my dad, will "peruse" the goodies for all!!!

Thanks again.

Rich

[Scott Donley]

Yes, I caught that text, too, Rich, which is why I downloaded the manual to confirm.

Go with the 1642. It's a far more capable machine than the 1442; has "real" variable speed (VFD rather than a reeves drive), a lot more weight, more capacity, etc. I recommend you also go with the 2hp version if you can. Yes, it requires 240v, but it has the power necessary to turn the larger stuff with ease.Jim, only 30-pound difference, the 1442 weight in the specs are without the legs. I will admit the VFD would be nice, but the swivel head on the 1442 is also nice :D

[Jim Becker]

The 1442 also has a much faster "slow" speed which can be an issue when it comes to safely turning larger items. I've never been very fond of the swivel head feature as it's one more thing that can get knocked out of alignment and not always easy to get exactly back on center for turning between centers. The sliding headstock that the 1642 (and the PM 3520) have lets you get in close without having the bed in the way, but generally will stay aligned much better. (I can swivel the ways on my Stubby...but I never do. I like to know things are dead on)

This is personal preference thing, however...