Comparing lathes now, with lathes then.

[RevStewParticipant @revstew]

Hi All.

As the Chinese Mini-Lathe seems to be todays cheaper machine of choice for the model engineer, how does it compare with the machines our forefathers owned? I'm thinking as an example of perhaps the round bed Drummond, or something of that ilk, that Mr Average used in the 30's or 40's. Is it a lot better than they were? If those chaps lived now would they be impressed with a Mini Lathe? And could we share a joke that Myfords are still out of reach to the proletariat?

Stew.

Edited By RevStew on 13/08/2018 17:11:50

[RevStewParticipant @revstew]

[Bob StevensonParticipant @bobstevenson13909]

It's like most things,…it's 'swings and roundabouts'….modern Chinese lathes come complete with motor attached (not always in a good design) and the older machines were often bought separately with power train at the behest of the new owner.

 

The main area where moder Chinese lathes are definately less appealing is in the tool post……..most/many older British machines had a robust carriage well equipped with 'T' channels so that items could be mounted for boring on axis and also plenty of room to mount a verticle slide, as few amateur machinist were ever likely to own a milling machine. However, this facility is almost always missing on Chinese lathes, probably becasue the makers also make mills. In this respect modern lathes are MUCH less versatile, in my view anyway!

 

Against this must be set the fact that Chinese lathes invariably have large thru clearance on the spindle allowing much larger stock to pass thru for macining and this is a very handy feature as mos tof the older machines had 'peashooter' bore on their spindles…..the legendary Myford famously were forced to make a big bore model of their super 7 for this reason.

 

Having said all that, I'm a great fan of the Chinese Mini-Lathe,…It's a completely self-contained machine that can live anywhere and be easily moved about and can tackle a large range of work for not much money.    I had one for about 10 years and it was able to live in my conservatory where it got me back into serious making by always being 'there' ready to go………late nights bent over that little lathe with classic FM and a mug of tea got me into much good work and launched me on my first clock building exploit…..I doubt that would have happened with a larger, older lathe………..

Edited By Bob Stevenson on 13/08/2018 18:03:51

Edited By Bob Stevenson on 13/08/2018 18:18:24

[larry phelan 1Participant @larryphelan1]

A number of good points there Bob,

I, for one do not like any machine with the motor built in. There is a lot to be said for a separate motor,since if it packs up,no big deal. I agree that the tool posts could/should be better. I t would also be nice to be able to mount work on the crossslide for boring,alas,no slots provided.

When it comes to the spindle bore,Chinese machines win,hands down,no doubt about that.

On that point,I was looking at a Russian lathe offered by a supplier based in Malta,which offered a 2" bore,and could be delivered to an Irish port for 10000 Euros ! Not too much wrong with that.

So,I would say that the older lathes were "Of their time",the market was different,but times have changed,and as you say,mills have come along.

And yes,I think Myfords are still out of reach for most people starting out. Perhaps that,s the way they want it,they have an image to protect. Had I set my sights on a Myford lathe,I doubt if I would ever have got started,like many others.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

How does it compare? Well a mini-lathe appearing in 1939 would have deeply shocked engineers and scientists alike. It's because a mini-lathe contains technology well beyond their state of the art, not just how it was made but beyond their scientific understanding as well. By the standards of 1939 a mini-lathe is science fiction.

Mechanically they'd be less impressed. The mini-lathe is a capable utilitarian design with a low finish. Nonetheless, in 1939 a lathe with a built-in motor, and speed control, and ball bearings, and a good range of accessories, especially for the cost would have instantly bankrupted existing suppliers.

Don't forget when comparing prices that the average Joe back then had far less disposable income, and that hobby lathes didn't come fitted with motors at a time when motors were relatively very expensive.

I don't think the hobby has ever been more affordable. Not only can you buy new Chinese, there are also many affordable second-hand machines on the market too. Not surplus because they're worn-out, surplus because CNC made them redundant while they were still in good working order. Today the average Joe could own a machine that was totally beyond any amateur budget when new.

Icing on the cake, you have a hundred years worth of back-copy magazines for reference. The internet also makes it much easier to buy materials unless they are useful to the ill-disposed; if I need Carbon Fibre or Titanium I can order it online.

What's much less available is cheap scrap metal, castings and making 'foreigners' at work.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2018 18:44:19

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I must have an unusual chinese lathe as mine has slotted cross slide as do most of the others in the same companies range and the same as all the similar ones painted in different colours from other sellers. I Often mount big items on that which won't fit the mill.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Bob Stevenson on 13/08/2018 17:59:59:

…

most/many older British machines had a robust carriage well equipped with 'T' channels so that items could be mounted for boring on axis and also plenty of room to mount a verticle slide, as few amateur machinist were ever likely to own a milling machine. However, this facility is almost always missing on Chinese lathes, probably becasue the makers also make mills. In this respect modern lathes are MUCH less versatile, in my view anyway!

 

I really don't think so. My original intention to buy a mill to go with my WM250V recedes endlessly into the future every time I find a way to do each milling/jig boring job that comes up on the vertical slide. I'd say I have the thing mounted about 40% of the time.

I think there are very many technical products from cameras to cars – and including massmarket machine tools – that are very much more capable, versatile and durable than the products of the past. Cars, as an obvious example, will typically last for more than twice the mileage of 50 years ago.

Edited By Mick B1 on 13/08/2018 20:24:28

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Posted by Bob Stevenson on 13/08/2018 17:59:59:

robust carriage well equipped with 'T' channels

Note he said carriage not cross slide. I think that did not apply to hobby lathes like Drummond, Myford, generally sub 5in centre height. It was the small industrial lathes but >5in used in garages and small pro workshops that had that facility.

[Bob StevensonParticipant @bobstevenson13909]

OK, I'm wrong about that!………

On the other hand, I still own a treadle lathe made between the wars which is roughly the same aprox size as a Mini-lathe….it has a (for it's size) massive carriage with 'T' slots running in two directions. I'm not aware of ANY modern/Chinese lathe of comparable size which is thus equipped. I seem to recall that the 'round bed' Drummond mentioned by RevStew also has a large well channeled carriage, way beyond ANY modern lathe in it's size……..

…………….My lathe is rare having been made by RSB. It is interesting to compare with a Mini-Lathe having same centre height/bed length but only 5/16 inch thru the headstock and MT1 in both headstock and tailstock….also bronze/brass bearings compared to the ball races or tapered rollers of modern lathes. Something else is the large flat pulley cone for leather belt drive which (according to my grandfather) gave a smoothness to the finish of turning due to flywheel action.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Myfords are not that expensive if you stick with a used ML7, which will do just about everything a much more expensive Super 7 will do. I can't quite work out why the Super 7 prices have gone so high, cult status stuff I guess.

Drummond M Types are available at a fraction of Myford prices and are a good useable lathe if you can find one in good condition. Certainly will do anything a mini lathe will do, plus a bit more.

Limitations on spindle through-size are overcome by using a fixed steady. Easy peasy.

And Boxfords and other South Bend clones are also cheaper than Myfords, and a better lathe to boot. Bigger, more sturdy and much better built.

The big fly in the ointment is that buying a 40- to 70-year-old lathe is fraught with all the same dangers as buying a 40- to 70-year-old used car. You had better know what you are looking at or you can end up with a real lemon.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

My SC4 510 has t-slots on the topslide and cross slide. Any questions?

I did make my own t-slotted cross-slide for my mini-lathe.

Neil

[Nick WheelerParticipant @nickwheeler]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2018 18:43:26:

How does it compare? Well a mini-lathe appearing in 1939 would have deeply shocked engineers and scientists alike. It's because a mini-lathe contains technology well beyond their state of the art, not just how it was made but beyond their scientific understanding as well. By the standards of 1939 a mini-lathe is science fiction.

Mechanically they'd be less impressed. The mini-lathe is a capable utilitarian design with a low finish. Nonetheless, in 1939 a lathe with a built-in motor, and speed control, and ball bearings, and a good range of accessories, especially for the cost would have instantly bankrupted existing suppliers.

Would a mini-lathe have shocked them? The only 'science fiction' in it is the electronic controller. The actual users of the thing would have taken a look around it and realised that the only part that differed from the 50 year-old machinery they were using is that you twiddle a knob to change the spindle speed rather than move a belt/gears. It's about time that thinking was applied to the rest of the machine: I'm amazed that I can't buy a small lathe that has binned the cumbersome and expensive change gears and associated mechanisms with stepper motor and basic controller. That would give infinitely variable feeds and every thread pitch in one simple, cheap installation.

It's not as if there weren't utilitarian small machines then, which compared to the bigger machines in the same way a mini-lathe does today.

There are other issues, but I think they depend on how you work: I've never needed or even wanted T-slots on the cross slide and would happily trade them for a bigger spindle bore, or power cross feed. That's why I sold the mini-lathe after 12 years use(and for about half what I'd spent on it so it was a pretty good buy), as a bigger machine dramatically increased my productivity. And that's still a bench-top machine; I don't have room for the Harrison sized machine I would have preferred as making metal parts from larger pieces is just work.

I'd never used a lathe before I bought one, and looked at several used ones. As a mechanic damaged, abused or just worn out machinery is obvious, and everyone I could afford was at least one of those. Learning on such a machine is a terrible idea, so I bought a new mini-lathe for less than half the price of the cheapest Myford that I'd looked at.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Well for a start tool steel would have been plain carbon in most instances so the higher speeds on modern lathes would be superfluous (an not only that not required). HSS tooling was coming into industry in the 30's to 40's as far as I am aware but I wouldn't have thought that much of it got as far as home workshops.

regards Martin

[Perko7Participant @perko7]

Owning both a 1920's era 'small' lathe (a 3-1/2" x 14"(90×350) Ideal of 1929) and a 2016 Sieg C6 (250×550) the comparison is interesting.

The 1929 lathe has 3-speed flat belt drive from a single speed non-reversing motor plus back gear, a powered lead screw suitable for screw-cutting with change gears and tumbler reverse plus a handwheel for manual operation, lever clamp for tailstock, slotted cross slide and top slide, gap bed, Morse tapers in tailstock (MT1) and spindle nose (MT1), and hollow spindle, about 7mm.

The new lathe has three-speed vee-belt drive plus the provision of a three-step idler which the belt can be run over to provide 6 speeds with a single speed reversing motor but no back gear, powered lead screw with change gears but no tumbler reverse and no manual handwheel, no lever clamp for tailstock, no slots on cross slide or top slide, no gap bed, larger Morse tapers in tailstock (MT2) and spindle (MT3) and a 20mm spindle bore.

The speed range of the new lathe is more restricted with a range of 125rpm to 2000rpm while the old lathe has a speed range of 25rpm to 1000rpm.

The old lathe is much more versatile and i can do lots of different things with it, but it has limits on accuracy (mainly through wear), efficiency (no dials on handwheels, no 4-way toolpost for example), robustness (90 year old cast iron) and metal removal rates (tension limit on flat belts driving plain headstock bearings), so for the majority of straight-forward turning tasks i use the C6.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

There never will be an "Ideal" lathe, or machine, capable of doing every job.

When younger, I hankered after a ML7 but could not afford one until becoming an empty nester; and then a used one.

Think of the work that has been produced on simple lathes, such as a Zyto, or a Gamages, let alone the Myford ML2s and 4s, and their contemporaries.

Fantastic work has been done a ML7s with their accessories, but the 2MT Headstock was a limitation for my wishes (not necessarily needs!). The T slotted Cross Slide was a boon. (A Four Way Toolpost, Resettable Dials and a longer Cross Slide were soon added)

It was replaced some 15 years ago, by a larger far eastern product, costing less than a quarter of the latest version of the Myford ML7, with Norton box, but without powered cross feed. The Four Way Chuck, Faceplate, and Steadies were not additional purchases, but came as part of the package. The larger lathe has a 5MT Headstock, hardened bedways, separate power shaft for the Norton box, and could cut Imperial or Metric threads without need for additional gears, (which cannot be said of all the current offerings!).

By paying extra, to bring the cost upto a quarter of the price of the latest Myford 7 Series, it came fitted with VFD speed control. This cost 6 of the OEM 12 speeds, but the VFD provided an almost infinite variety in each range.

Such a machine was beyond anything that I could have dreamed of, or coveted, in my early adulthood.

Similarly, the new round column Mill Drill (RF 25) that came not too long after the ML7 , over the past thirty years has been superceded by machines with features that I would like, (for convenience rather than absolute need) but can manage without. (Have done so, so far; so cannot justify the expense; or the hassle of selling the RF25)

All of this would have been Utopia for M E readers in the mid 40s, when treadle operated lathes were not unknown, and graduated dials were bit of a luxury, as was aq back gear facility for screwcutting.

My turning instructor, (in the late 50s) with a lifetime of experience, could measure, using a worn 6 inch rule and a knarled thumbnail, to within a few thou. He had started with that rule and callipers, before graduating to Micrometers, and Verniers!

During my training, at one time, I was tasked with preparing the "programme" for a technological advance. A co ordinate table that was controlled by punched cards! About this time, the company purchased its first computer, which took a whole week end to produce the purchase schedules for parts required over the next three months.

How times have changed!

Howard

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember32069]

[This posting has been removed]

[Niels AbildgaardParticipant @nielsabildgaard33719]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j00T-fhvvc&t=0s&list=UUl1kMtx8XGqBr2dNLXEGBPw&index=13

 

My friend Ole Baggesen turns handle on a S7

 

We were three unmarried skilled workers buying the Myford and my wage was ca 1400 danish crowns per month.

The bill comes here

 

 

Edited By Niels Abildgaard on 14/08/2018 20:53:39

Edited By Niels Abildgaard on 14/08/2018 20:54:12

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

Lack of T slots on small lathe- I know it's been said before, but simple to drill and tap a few holes in cross slide. Not as good but does the job.

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

It might be interesting to compare the cost of a new Drummond M type (plus motor) in the 30s to the cost of a new Chinese Minilathe in terms of proportion of average earnings. Does anyone know the figures?

Russell

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

From memory (mmm, not as good as it once was!) when the first Myford ML7 came out in 1946 or so, it cost 36 Pounds, compared with the M-Type's 42 Pounds.

According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, that is equivalent to today's Pounds of 1433 Pounds for the cheap-azz Myford and 1672 Pounds for the venerable M-type.

A comparable lathe today costs just almost that much. The Seig SC4 at ArcEuroTrade is a similar size and sells for 1399 Pounds including VAT. I think the mini-lathe is not a fair comparison because it is much smaller and can't do the same range of jobs as a Myford/Drummond with their gap-bed, 10" diameter faceplate and 24" or so between centres.

However, I've an idea that in 1946 you then had to pony up extra for the luxury of an electric motor, four jaw chuck, traveling and fixed steadies and a tailstock centre, all of which seem to come standard on today's budget hobby lathes.

So the prices are somewhere in the ballpark of the same, maybe a bit more expensive for the old Brit iron accessories.

Quality? Hmm. Vexed question. The M-type was a very good quality lathe. Mine is still going strong today and very accurately, 80 years later. Change gears are DP14 and solid as anything, as are all the castings etc.  The ML7 Myford I have is not as sturdily built but has less chatter due to better design, larger spindle and bearings. So still a good quality machine and still (after a rebuild) very accurate.

I don't have enough Chinese lathe ownership experience to really be able to compare. But ones I have worked on, or used, or looked at in friends' workshops etc don't seem to have quite the same quality in either finish, "feel"  or accuracy or robustness. My personal preference (obviously) is for the old Brit iron, if in good condition. But plenty of others are perfectly happy with their modern Chinese hobby lathes. Just ask Neil about his mini-lathe and now his SC4.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2018 11:05:52

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2018 11:14:55

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 15/08/2018 10:51:19:

It might be interesting to compare the cost of a new Drummond M type (plus motor) in the 30s to the cost of a new Chinese Minilathe in terms of proportion of average earnings. Does anyone know the figures?

Russell

Historic wages link **LINK**

pgk

[Author]

Posts