QC tool holders

I have decided to go ahead and purchase an Aloris style quick change tool holder for my lathe. I have seen two types (piston & wedge). Are there any
advantages to either style?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike, Wedge is rigid, piston is cheap. Which is better? Depends on the size of the lathe and the nature of the work. For many years I used a 1 hp 13 x 36 with a Phase II piston type and did good work; the lathe would bog before the tool post deflected (except in deep hole boring which was caused by excessive tool overhang). I have a 5 hp 17 x 40 these days with an Aloris wedge type tool post. I haven't bogged the machine or felt that the tool post deflected ( see the thing about deep holes but even then the boring bar broke before I thought the toolpost moved), work piece deflection on the other hand has been an issue. The advantage is to be found by matching the cost to the application. Kent

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Agreed.
    I feel that the lack of rigidity inherent in the piston style design is in the interface between the toolpost and the tool holder, not in the mounting of the tool post to the compound. (Though there can be some give in the compound's dovetails, the cross-slide dovetails, and the swivel mount of the compound which can result in the toolpost itself moving somewhat.
    The accumulation of these various lacks of rigidity can lead to chatter when turning or boring -- resulting in spoiling the finish, and shortened life for carbide insert cutters.
    However -- aside from the rigidity problem, which may be outweighed by other sources of lack of rigidity, depending on the lathe and its condition, there is another problem with a piston style toolpost which may or may not be more of a problem.
    With the wedge style, the locking lever locks the tool holders to the toolpost at about the same position, whether you are using the turning dovetails, or the boring/facing dovetails. With the piston style, the locking position for a given holder is typically 90 degrees different from one dovetail to the other. This can be a problem if in one position it sticks so far back that it interferes with the tailstock (or with the tooling on the turret, if you have a bed turret for your lathe). Or in the other position, it may be so far forward that it may risk being hit by the jaws of the chuck. You can deal with this by drilling and tapping your own hole for the locking lever at the optimum compromise position for you -- and the existing one *may* be right for you. But I really like the wedge style far more -- enough so that I spent the extra to get it when I purchased a Phase-II Series 200 (BXA size), for my 12x24" Clausing (which does have the bed turret).
    Good Luck,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe price. There seems to be strong feelings in favor of the wedge style.
When I took a shop course at Mesa CC here in AZ they used piston type toolposts. Myself, I listened to the wedge proponents when I bought mine from Enco. Made a halfdozen toolholders in class.
Either way it's the way to go. Drill a hole, change tool holder, tap the hole, chamfer the hole, cut off the stock, etc. Once the toolpost is adjusted tobe on center vertically, removal and replacemenet no more adjusting until the toolbit it reground-NICE.
Do not waste time get it ...
Paul in AJ AZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike wrote:

There are an awful lot of both the wedge and piston posts in operation so one could hardly dispute that they both work well. Both the wedge and the piston post and holders have identical mating profiles as viewed from above (interchangeable) and I personally had never considered them to have operated in a much different manner, but they do!
The wedge operates by being forced between the faces of one of the mating male and female dovetail shoulders. This in turn draws flat mating surfaces of the holder tight to the flat mating surfaces on the post on the outboard sides of the dovetails. As such the holder is securely bound to the post providing no possibility of roll or movement in any direction with essentially absolute indexing in all directions.
By contrast the piston operates by forcing the holder away from the post causing the female dovetails of the holder to drive securely into the male shoulders of the post's dovetails. The security of this connection, for the most part seems to be serviceable since it works however there are serious shortcomings in the design itself.
The design relies on the dovetails alone to anchor the holder by the force applied outwardly upon the holder by the piston.
The design relies on the integrity of the piston fit alone to provide rotational indexing of the holder about the vertical axis. (IE if the piston fit permits any slop then there is nothing to prevent the holder from seating in the dovetails, anywhere within the range of the slop present in the piston. *** (we are just left to hope it will find center each time it is operated)
*** this condition arises from the fact that the holder is pushed away from, rather then into the flat mating surfaces on either side of the dovetails on the post. Therefore while these mating/ indexing surfaces exist on both the post and holder, they are simply *not* utilized by the piston post arrangement and are therefor of no value. (*they needn't even be there*) This leaves the pressure exerted by the piston on the mating dovetails, and it alone, to locate and hold the holder in place and hope that it centers, all without the benefit of adequate indexing of any kind, Other then height which is a function of the height adjustment nut.
My 2 cents.
Bill D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Since I do have intentions to build a QC toolpost (for my lathe I'll hopefully be getting this weekend), I need a few ideas. I really like the idea of the wedge style vs the piston, but I'd rather not have weeks into building the "wedge" part. I've never seen them up close (hands on or in a picture), how does this wedge part work? Also, is it somewhat easily built? Thanks for the help!

tool
any
one
piston
operated
surfaces of

sides
providing
absolute
the
piston
seating
piston.
operated)
from,
on
the
arrangement
the
the
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you want to build a very good wedge type toolpost see john Stevenson's toolpost at: http://www.rt66.com/~hypoxic/tool_post/toolpost.html
You can see all the posts and holders he built (plus a lot more) at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/machines /
His is not near as complicated to build as the commercially built posts!
Good luck!
PS I bet you'll get yours built before I get around to building my hardinge rip off type!!
Remove the word SPAM
Lynn Amick wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hardinge rip

Bill.........
A while ago at a garage sale, I spent $2 for a Hardinge QC tool holder. I'm ready to try to make it work on my Craftsman/Atlas/Clausing 12" x 48" lathe. There doesn't seem to be any provision for adjusting tool height on this holder. Am I missing something?
Pictures at:
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwood89/pa160001.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwood89/pa160002.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwood89/pa160003.jpg
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwood89/pa160004.jpg
Rich S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, since I have to raise the tool holder a bit anyhow, mebbe I'll make an adjustable rotating shim to fit under the block. Like a couple of large, thin tapered washers - one would key into the slot and stay fixed, the other would have a handle so's I could rotate it. The drill would be to loosen the mounting bolt, rotate the top washer until the tool is at the right height, then tighten the bolt.
If there is more than one tool in the block, they should all be set the same, so one block height would work.
Sound okay?
Thanks, Rich S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

an
other
the
That won't work. As the two tapered washers turn, they will tilt the tool block.

The distance from the cutting edge to the bottom, varies considerably from tool to tool. so their height will vary in the tool block.
Make your spacer so that the top of the slot in the tool block is slightly above centerline. Find a stack of shims for each tool that lines it up on center, and keep those shims with the tool at all times. One guy on the group keeps his together in pill bottles.
I don't, I'm not that organized.
Paul K. Dickman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Paul.........
I guess you're correct. I was thinking of the same setup that is used on an adjustable dado blade - but I guess that takes three pieces to work right.
The point is moot anyway, as you have explained that each tool needs its own setup. Probably explains all those shims I removed when I tool the two bits out to clean up the block. I emailed Hardinge and asked for any manuals they might have on the holder's setup and use, but no reply.
I'll still need to make a spacer to raise the block ~.125" to fit my lathe. The holder came with a couple of adaptors which you can see in the photos. One is for a center drill and another for a twist drill. I'll make the spacer so these two adaptors are aligned OC.
Thanks, Rich S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

tool
an
Oops. Got to thinking about this incredibly stupid statement while lying awake listening to the gentle patter of the SEVEN inches of rain we had yesterday.
The adjustable dado blade I had in mind doesn't get thicker when adjusted. the center portion just wobbles more, cutting a wider swath. As does my brain. Senior moments seem to be coming more often.
Rich S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A matching set of two 'snail like' curved inclined plane washers would work, but would be a pain to make. They'd also be prone to slipping, however, so a set of steps instead of a slant would be better ... kind's like a pair of rotary step blocks. Versions are commercially available, sold as variable width spacers for milling cutter stacks. A large sized one of these might work for the purpose. Of course, the steps don't allow infinitesimal adjustments.
Dan Mitchell ========= "Rich S." wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With an infinite number of steps? ;-)
Rich S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep - had a bunch and then got another couple of boxs full with the tool holder. BTW, my Dad bought the lathe about the time I was born (62 years ago).

I knew I'd eventually find a reason to buy onea them cheap dial indicators from HF! I've always guesstimated the height by using the center in the tailstock.
Rich S.
P.S. Don't EVER bungee jump from a bridge directly over a Mexican Christmas party!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Rich S." wrote:

I use a mag base with one of those long skinny scriber rods with one end at 90 degrees, like you get with a Starret surface gage. Set it to your tailstock center. When wanting to be dead on I also use a dial indicator.
michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

at 90

tailstock
Got one. Good idea.
Thanks, Rich S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.