This article is from the Woodworking FAQ Collection 3, by multiple authors.
From: brucem@teklds.WR.TEK.COM (Bruce McAlary)
Date: 23 Dec 89 06:54:19 GMT
In article <12283@cbnewse.ATT.COM> parnass@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) writes:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Steve
>> What exactly is a motorized vs. non-motorized saw?
>The blade on a MOTORIZED saw attaches directly to the motor.
>A MOTOR DRIVEN table saw uses a motor and one or more belts to
>drive the blade. The blade is mounted on one end of an arbor
>and the driven pulley is mounted on the other end.
>Roger Cliffe does a good job explaining this in "Table Saw
>Techniques," Copyright 1984 by Sterling Publishing Company.
>I bought my copy at Builders' Square, and have seen it at
>Handy Andy, too.
On my "motorized" Rockwell 10" (Long since gone...), the motor was mounted
in a carridge underneath the table. To raise the blade, one rotated the
wheel on the front of the saw, which was a worm gear to rotate the motor.
The output shaft of the motor was in the center of this rotation as the
blade was raised/lowered, the blade was mounted on an arbor in which the
other end was mounted in a _single_ bearing that was pressed into the motor
housing face. There was a belt which ran from the motor shaft to the arbor.
On the arbor was a pulley which also acted as the backing plate for the
blade. This pulley and the motor shaft was "toothed", using one of those
toothed belts much like the Snears vacuums (the household type), only this
belt was approx 1/2 inch wide by 3 inches long (laid flat).
The disadvantages were:
If the motor ever burned out (1 hp), it had to be replace with
a rockwell motor of the same design. ($$)
The arbor was mounted in a single bearing pressed into the motor
face casting, and is subject to wear faster than a two bearing
The advantages were:
The motor being mounted underneath made the table saw easier to
store against a wall (I had wheels on it), and when working around
the saw as a workbench, the motor was not in the way.
This particular machine was of the same table top size as the rockwell
(delta) contractors saw, but the rip fence was a "two knob" design.
There was a knob on the front casting to lock and square the fence, then
a small thumbscrew that locked the rear of the fence to the back tube.
Even tho it had two knobs and was not as heavy as the contractors, it was
a servicable fence. The miter fence was of good quality as well.
All in all, I used the saw for seven years quite hard, and sold it when
I had the money for something bigger and better. The arbor bearing was
gitting a bit of slop, but that was really the only thing wrong with it.
I think my griz will last me several years, but I had a BUNCH of stuff to
do to it just to get it to be adequate.
Todays Delta "motorized" saw is not what the original was, it has a smaller
table and wings, a flimsey rip fence, and who knows what else. If the machine
was set up and tuned, it would be good for the occasional woodworker who
doesn't demand alot of use from his equipment. Like any tool, if it is not
setup correctly, it will not do the job, even if it is a $2000 unisaw with
all the latest expensive fences and gadgets...
The above is a real experience and not a guess or a presumption, of which
there seems to be alot of sometimes. If someone has a different account
of a "motorized" saw, then please post a detailed description of it!