Chester DB10VS to Warco WM250V comparison

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

My son’s test and measurement company needed a lathe for their workshop, so he asked me for recommendations.

I couldn’t think of a better machine for the approx. £2 – 2.5k budget than the Warco WM250V that I’ve had for 7 years now, but Warco were out of stock, so son’s business partner and I began looking at other options. Used machinery was too uncertain a prospect – many on offer would require significant journeys to view, and, despite being a centre lathe turner since 1975, there’s no reliable way for me to be certain of a good buy without hours of testing and inspection.

Eventually the Chester DB10VS came to the fore as (a) available and (b) within budget, so that was ordered, delivered and installed. There was a problem with damage to the stand, which I understand Chester rectified immediately and without issue.

Yesterday morning – 27.5.22 – I got a chance to take a look at it and talk about it with the user in the workshop.

I knew already there’s a feedshaft as well as a leadscrew, a different chuck fixing and a different motor and control, but in many other matters the main difference from the Warco is the paint job. I think there’s a commonality of bed, saddle, apron and crossslide assemblies of more than 90-odd percent.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

The headstock has a similar adjustable taper bearing spindle – I thought it was a bit tight as it felt very slightly lumpy, so I eased it very slightly – it probably just needs a few hours’ running . I did the same to my Warco soon after getting it into service and it’s very smooth-running now. The speed ranging is better than the WM250V – low is 50 – 1000 rpm, with claimed high torque, while on the Warco it’s 30 – 400 rpm. This means that for most practical purposes the drive belt on the Chester can be left set on low (as it was when I looked at it), whereas for the Warco it makes more sense to leave it on high (180 – 2200) and accept nailbitingly high screwcutting speed, with relatively low torque. Having said that, that limited torque has saved me a few broken tools and damaged workpieces on the Warco.

The 3-jaw chuck supplied runs excellently true – at least as good as my Warco, that can run to 2 or 3 tenths.

Chuck changing seems to be by slackening the nuts and rotating to line up clearance holes in a securing plate – should be easier than the Warco, which is fiddly. However I didn’t actually test it because of the compound slide issue noted below, and I saw no 4-jaw to change it to anyway, and no 4-jaw key in the toolbox. I don’t know if they supplied one.

There is a ‘stick’ quadrant inside the headstock geartrain cover, with similar or probably identical changegear axles , spacers and keyed-sleeve gear connectors. The final drive, however, is between leadscrew and feedshaft rather than directly to the leadscrew shank as on the Warco, and there’s a flip lever – not present on the Warco – to select which is to be driven. The same range of thread pitches as on the WM250V is offered in metric and imperial but the gear trains are different. The feed ranges are coarser but, as on the Warco, are detailed with specific gear train setups – which, also as on the Warco, are very different from the trains for any of the offered thread pitches.

It looks to me as if an opportunity to separate control of turning feeds from screwcutting pitches has been completely missed here. The drawback present on the Warco – in that powered turning and facing feeds are far too coarse for use when screwcutting geartrains are in place – appears to be still present on the DB10VS. I think there’s a sprung clutch that clicks if the feedshaft’s trying to drive a slide beyond travel limits, without breaking shearpins or anything else.

Saddle and crosslide worked nicely with very little backlash. An improvement over the Warco is that the 0,25mm calibrated dial for the saddle is marked in actual millimetres movement for each 10 divisions rather than just the number of 10-division sections as it is on the Warco – so the mental arithmetic load on longitudinal travel is a bit less.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Much worse is the complete absence of a zero register line for the compound slide angle. I had to spend quite a bit of time clocking back and forth with the compound along a silver steel bar and even then I was less than happy to scribe a line that would give the user a reasonably accurate indication. I hadn’t expected a problem like that, and I think it’s poor. Obviously its seriousness depends on whether accurate tapers are likely to be needed, but if they are, I reckon Chester ought to come out and fix it because it’s an important standard lathe feature. The considerable stiffness of the compound slide operation didn’t help either, even with the gibs backed off. Again, use will likely ease it for clocking the slide straight.

The workshop at my son’s office already has a CNC mill, so it’s unlikely that the Chester will ever be used for milling, as my Warco is, but the same 100mm spaced T-slots are there on the crossslide for fitting accessories like a vertical slide or rear toolpost – though I couldn’t find a baseplate like Warco’s in Chester’s accessory web pages.

I think with use it’ll probably become as good a standard lathe as my Warco is, and I hope the missing compound angle zero is a bizarre outlier.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Seems a minor point, even though I have a zero mark on my 280 I always clock it in and it does not take long. If I really need an accurate angle I clock that too rather than use the angle marks on the base.

Sounds like the Chester is a DC motor and Your Warco an inverter driven 3-phase

Edited By JasonB on 28/05/2022 19:40:14

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by JasonB on 28/05/2022 19:38:25:

Seems a minor point, even though I have a zero mark on my 280 I always clock it in and it does not take long. If I really need an accurate angle I clock that too rather than use the angle marks on the base.

Sounds like the Chester is a DC motor and Your Warco an inverter driven 3-phase

Edited By JasonB on 28/05/2022 19:40:14

I think that might be true – Chester claims 750W, Warco 1.1 kW – but it didn't make a noticeable difference to the tests I could do in the time I had. A whole horsepower ought to be quite enough for a lathe that size.

[Author]

Posts