G0800 Bed Extension

[David C. Roseman]

That's the truth! I don't know if you saw this when I posted it before, but here are some examples of the fine art pieces I make with my lathe. I've probably saved $30 so far with the new shop, lathes, and tools. I'll bet my wife will be thrilled to hear that!

Attachment 381926

Attachment 381927

I keep dry dry hickory in the barn loft for when the inspiration hits me. You just never know when you're gonna wake up one day and suddenly need a new froe handle.

Attachment 381928

JKJ

Well done! Proving once again what I always say: A good piece of equipment pays for itself the first time it's used!

[Ted Baxter]

mine did not come with a rizer for the tailstock that is a good question for Grizzly I have not had a need for one yet so never thought about it. I assume it would not be to hard to make one if needed.

[David C. Roseman]

I am kind of with Leo on this - I use the tailstock as much as possible. The Laguna bed extension includes the extension, a riser block for the tailstock, and an extension for the toolrest that fits in the banjo. Perhaps the Grizzly provides these items, as well, but I am not getting that from the posts in this thread.

Is there a riser for the tailstock such that it can be used to support a turning when the headstock is moved to the far end of the lathe and the bed extension is being used for the toolrest?

John and Leo, I must be missing something. The Grizzly bed extension is only 20" long. If it's installed in the lower position to maximize swing capacity of the end, would there be any room left for a chuck, the workpiece and the tailstock, even if a tailstock riser were available? From the artwork it doesn't appear so to me. Well, maybe for a faceplate and a thin platter?

[John Keeton]

David, I have the Laguna 20” bed extension and have used the tailstock support on platters. I think there would be room for somewhat thicker work, as well.

[Clint Bach]

David,

you are not required to slide the headstock all the way to the end of the regular ways. You could move it back the distance of the chuck and spindle. Therefore using the full length of the extension.

clint

[David C. Roseman]

Thanks, John and Clint.

[Leo Van Der Loo]

John and Leo, I must be missing something. The Grizzly bed extension is only 20" long. If it's installed in the lower position to maximize swing capacity of the end, would there be any room left for a chuck, the workpiece and the tailstock, even if a tailstock riser were available? From the artwork it doesn't appear so to me. Well, maybe for a faceplate and a thin platter?

David you can move the headstock back just so that the workpiece/bowl just clears the ways, that would give you the maximum space between the tailstock and workpiece, that’s why I asked before what the length of the tailstock is, it would give us some idea if this extension is of any real value for turning big pieces, where tailstock support would be advisable.

Adding here also the size of the toolrest post, I personally did 25 years ago, make my toolrest post much thicker than the regular 1” size, and Oneway also makes the toolrest post thicker in there large banjo.

It is only for when going to turning extra large pieces that there is much heavier loads placed on the toolrest when reaching out to the outside of these pieces, and a thicker post is a good thing, preventing any vibration that could happen with a thinner post

[Mike Goetzke]

mine did not come with a rizer for the tailstock that is a good question for Grizzly I have not had a need for one yet so never thought about it. I assume it would not be to hard to make one if needed.

DBFF3B3D-4458-488D-B3CE-3D4259D6E19C.jpeg

Ted - see your PM I have an extra one for a PM3520B if interested. (Posted pic here because would not let me in the PM).

Mike

[John Keeton]

Mike, I believe what you have is a toolrest extension - not a riser for the tailstock.

[Mike Goetzke]

Mike, I believe what you have is a toolrest extension - not a riser for the tailstock.

sorry, you are correct, but, if the extension is used at lower level you will need this.

mike

[Roger Chandler]

Just FYI...I just had a conversation with Grizzly Tech support, and in the conversation we both went to see pics of tailstock risers that are in use by other lathe manufacturers. The information and request I made for Grizzly to provide a tailstock riser for the G0800 will be sent up the chain to decision makers.

I told them that in my opinion, this would complete the system and also is a safety thing as tailstock support is really important, especially as one turns larger pieces. The tech guy said he understood, and will send supporting comments up the chain for consideration by decision makers. Let's keep our fingers crossed! Hopefully, Shiraz or other Grizzly leaders will take this to heart.........he in particular has been so helpful in the past.

[John Keeton]

Just for what it is worth the gap in the ways of the Laguna Revo 1836 is 1.963” or 50mm. The ways are 10.95mm thick, or .431”. The tailstock riser is 7” tall. I suspect, but don’t know, that all those measurements except the height are the same for the Laguna 2436.

Personally, it would seem difficult to have one made given the need to have a lock down on it and to have sufficient mass to be stable. If modifying a riser from another Mfgr is not feasible, then I would think waiting to see what Grizzly is going to do would be wise.

[Mick Fagan]

1” toolrest post seems skinny for a large lathe like that ??

I’ve been looking for the last six months at purchasing a larger lathe, one of the things I wondered about was the suitability of 1” tool post shafts for heavy work on a heavy duty lathe.


I have access to Vicmarc lathes that use a 30mm (1.18”) tool post shaft, the difference is there compared to the 1” (25.4mm), they are just more rigid. Mind you, tool post holders on the Vicmarc lathes are also beefier. These Vicmarc lathes have swivel heads.


The most solid feeling lathe I have used is a Vicmarc 300 long bed, solid as a rock. One has the impression that the heavy duty tool post mount is part and parcel of what makes this lathe rock solid, especially when doing initial turning of off balanced material. This Vicmarc lathe doesn’t have a swivel head, it is fixed. This no doubt adds to the rigidity of the whole, which makes life a bit harder in other ways.

Mick.

[Roger Chandler]

One has the impression that the heavy duty tool post mount is part and parcel of what makes this lathe rock solid, especially when doing initial turning of off balanced material. Mick.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the mount for the toolrest is an important part of the whole of the strength of the system, and for me, this G0800 certainly passes the strength test. You should see the metal on the banjo surrounding the 1" shaft on the toolrest on the G0800! I have a Oneway banjo purchased for my G0766. [ The part number is H0082 Outboard banjo with 1.5 gap for the clamp plate.]

The pure mass of the banjo on the G0800 is a good deal more than the Oneway banjo, which is long enough to accommodate a 28" swing. The Grizz is heavier, more substantial in its casting than the Oneway, and locks down rock solid!

I have turned on both the Robust American Beauty and a Serious SL2542. The banjo on this G0800 is as heavy as any I've turned on, including these and the PM3520b.



Perhaps I can get a pic or two, and post it ....stay tuned....


IMG_G0800-1051.jpg IMG_G0800-1053.jpg IMG_G0800-1054.jpg As you can see, the mass of this banjo on the G0800 [the black one] exceeds the Oneway banjo, both around the tool post and is also longer, wider and heavier. Both my G0766 22/42 lathe and my G0800 24/48 lathe are considered in the large class of lathes commercially available on today's market. Both have 1" toolpost, and I've not had any issues with vibration on either lathe with the 1" toolrest post. That is my personal experience, and YMMV

[Roger Chandler]

I mentioned the bearings in the headstock in an earlier post on this thread...to avoid you having to go back and search for the comment, here it is...

I looked inside the headstock at the bearing that shows, and that thing looks as big[er] as a baseball in size,

I got a bit curious about that comment and decided to get the real scoop on that: a baseball is 74.68mm in diameter, and the 6209 series bearing is 85mm outside diameter . I thought it looked big! It has two 6209 series and one 6208 series, which has a diameter of 80mm, so all three are bigger than a baseball. The dynamic load is 35.1kn. Per bearing,[whatever that means in lbs.... I’m not sure?]