I have seen the new table base with the metal tracks for hold down. I have had my shark pro for a year and have many projects but my table is oneven and doesn't cut the same all the time. I have indicted the table many times to correct the problem. So now I want to know if I purchase the nw table and will it fit on my machine
doceby
table base
Moderators: ddw, al wolford, sbk, Bob, Kayvon
Re: table base
I am also interested in getting the new table! It looks like it would provide many more possibilities than the table that came with my Shark Pro. I love the machine overall, but am just frustrated with trying to get smaller projects firmly held.
Re: table base
Gentleman I have been asking the same question, I think they will get to where we can get the table top we want soon, they say positive things about the table top for the Pro.
Re: table base
Guys, I have the new Shark Pro Plus and bought it based on the number of upgrades from previous versions - the table being one of them. But personally I have encountered some problems with the table. It is a great material especially the T-slot, anywhere you could want them but there are some cons to the table too. The old Shark material (MDF) make a great sacraficial material. Aluminum doesn't so you almost always need to have a sacrafical board underneath for those just-in-case times. Now the table is simpley this material on Rockler: http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page ... lter=fence
so you could technically make your own. My table is the same material. To secure the tracks is a square material; same stuff use to construct the CNC body, each track is set with a special 1/4" bolt secured to the square backer which is secured to the Shark base. Problem I found it when you secure material with the hold down clamp, that track has a tendancy to pull upward. Think of it like the end of a leaf rake. Each finger is attached at a common point but something pull harder at one finger, and it lifts.
When I clamp a 24" wide panel at the corners, those two tracks will pull up slightly. There are some work-arounds to this such as placing something similar to this angle: http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page ... lter=angle (this one is 2" X 2") secured under each track. It would act as the strong back - more so than the solid plastic core used on the Pro Plus. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I love the table but I did have some discoveries with this system.
Now the controller - a very nice upgrade as well as the increased work surface!
so you could technically make your own. My table is the same material. To secure the tracks is a square material; same stuff use to construct the CNC body, each track is set with a special 1/4" bolt secured to the square backer which is secured to the Shark base. Problem I found it when you secure material with the hold down clamp, that track has a tendancy to pull upward. Think of it like the end of a leaf rake. Each finger is attached at a common point but something pull harder at one finger, and it lifts.
When I clamp a 24" wide panel at the corners, those two tracks will pull up slightly. There are some work-arounds to this such as placing something similar to this angle: http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page ... lter=angle (this one is 2" X 2") secured under each track. It would act as the strong back - more so than the solid plastic core used on the Pro Plus. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I love the table but I did have some discoveries with this system.
Now the controller - a very nice upgrade as well as the increased work surface!
Re: table base
Reg,
My Pro Plus is on the way.
Since you found the flexing/distortion, did you measure how much the track moved? For that matter, did you by chance run an indicator over the complete work area?
My Pro Plus is on the way.
Since you found the flexing/distortion, did you measure how much the track moved? For that matter, did you by chance run an indicator over the complete work area?
Re: table base
The lift of the track is visible on the slot you use the clamp. In other words if you clamp down a 1/2" piece of material 20" wide parallel with the gantry, where your slots bolts go on the table, you will notice that the track will lift some. This is more prominent near the ends obviously.RhB_HJ wrote:Reg,
My Pro Plus is on the way.
Since you found the flexing/distortion, did you measure how much the track moved? For that matter, did you by chance run an indicator over the complete work area?
After I assembled my Shark I found one side of the "X" axis carved a little deeper than the other. I removed my Colt router and setup a dial indicator on the router base. I placed my metal straight edge flat on the table and jogged the "X" axis from side to side. I had close to 1/8" difference (nothing clamped anywhere on the table and this was done in the center travel of the "Y" axis). I double checked with my calipers at each section width wise of the table.
I also found my gantry was not at a true 90 degree to the table. I loosened all fasterners on the gantry and proceeded to "square it" and re-tightened.
Then I loosened all the fasterners on the table including the bolts holding each track. I made certain each track was flat to the table base and then tightened them in pattern going snug on each bolt then going back and making each tight.
I now believe the table is square and flat. The gantry showed significant improvement in both table adjustments and squaring the gantry. Running the same dial indicator run - the maximum run-out across the table is .0003"; a huge improvement. Carve are now equal across my projects.
A bit more detail than you probably was looking for but it may help in your assembly.
Bobby
Re: table base
Thanks Bobby, 
Good info,
doing that routine will be first item on the list.
In some respects a bit of déjà vu, going back to the first milling machine I bought almost 30 years ago. The saddle, table and the head had to come off to get it in the shop (in the basement). So while I was at it I rescraped the guideways and the seating of the head, fitted the gibs and fixed a few other things. That got it fair and square, but two weeks of running was all the spindle bearings managed, replaced those with a much better grade and that was it.
Good info,
doing that routine will be first item on the list. In some respects a bit of déjà vu, going back to the first milling machine I bought almost 30 years ago. The saddle, table and the head had to come off to get it in the shop (in the basement). So while I was at it I rescraped the guideways and the seating of the head, fitted the gibs and fixed a few other things. That got it fair and square, but two weeks of running was all the spindle bearings managed, replaced those with a much better grade and that was it.
Re: table base
The shark pro I have was a bit off in squareness also, and I had done the same process as Bobby outlined.
To get a flat table I used 80x20 extrusion material which is similar to the extrusion used on the new pro. Their 1030 extrusion is 1" x 3" with slots. Ten 36" lengths worked out fine for my shark pro. To mount them I made aluminum "ledger boards" from 1.5 x 1.5 x .25 aluminum angle. The angle bolts to the face of the shark frame front and rear,and the extrusions bolt to the aluminum angle. Threaded height adjusters on the ends of the angle help get the fine adjustment to the table height at the corners before final tightening of the ledger boards to the shark frame. This was about $250.00 in materials. A sacrificial top may still be needed (or incorporated into the material holding jigs) depending on the work being done.
With a dial indicator mounted in the same spot as the router bit would be, my original table was off by about 1/16" overall. I also noticed that when I was trying to indicate the whole table surface, the head would be lower in the center the x and y axis travel, and higher at the ends. ( by around .015" center to end)
The shark uses round bearing rods supported only at the ends, and in my case the flex of the rods at the center of x and y was more than I wanted. It was more noticeable on the x axis as the forces from the router act on the x axis rods a little differently than they do on the y axis rods. The flex may not be a problem issue for decorative carvings, but I wanted to try and get the uniformity a bit better if I could. FYI, I am using BobCad and Mach3, and need greater accuracy than I would for typical decorative carvings.
I ended up converting my shark to fully supported rods on the x axis and made roller supports for the Y. I will most likely convert the Y axis to supported rods in the future. There is a lot of new aluminum on my shark pro, some replacing some of the original shark parts, so my unit is becoming more like a "sharkenstein". I also replaced the x and y lead screws with 1/2" diameter ones.
I can get down to about .004" overall variance at any point of the 24 x 24 workspace, which is close enough for me. Greater accuracy will cost me too much of my little remaining hair and sanity.
I hope some of this info helps.
Bob.
To get a flat table I used 80x20 extrusion material which is similar to the extrusion used on the new pro. Their 1030 extrusion is 1" x 3" with slots. Ten 36" lengths worked out fine for my shark pro. To mount them I made aluminum "ledger boards" from 1.5 x 1.5 x .25 aluminum angle. The angle bolts to the face of the shark frame front and rear,and the extrusions bolt to the aluminum angle. Threaded height adjusters on the ends of the angle help get the fine adjustment to the table height at the corners before final tightening of the ledger boards to the shark frame. This was about $250.00 in materials. A sacrificial top may still be needed (or incorporated into the material holding jigs) depending on the work being done.
With a dial indicator mounted in the same spot as the router bit would be, my original table was off by about 1/16" overall. I also noticed that when I was trying to indicate the whole table surface, the head would be lower in the center the x and y axis travel, and higher at the ends. ( by around .015" center to end)
The shark uses round bearing rods supported only at the ends, and in my case the flex of the rods at the center of x and y was more than I wanted. It was more noticeable on the x axis as the forces from the router act on the x axis rods a little differently than they do on the y axis rods. The flex may not be a problem issue for decorative carvings, but I wanted to try and get the uniformity a bit better if I could. FYI, I am using BobCad and Mach3, and need greater accuracy than I would for typical decorative carvings.
I ended up converting my shark to fully supported rods on the x axis and made roller supports for the Y. I will most likely convert the Y axis to supported rods in the future. There is a lot of new aluminum on my shark pro, some replacing some of the original shark parts, so my unit is becoming more like a "sharkenstein". I also replaced the x and y lead screws with 1/2" diameter ones.
I can get down to about .004" overall variance at any point of the 24 x 24 workspace, which is close enough for me. Greater accuracy will cost me too much of my little remaining hair and sanity.
I hope some of this info helps.
Bob.
Re: table base
Bob, this is very interesting! I never considered any variances by the bearing rods as they seem pretty stout. Any variance I measured from the router base to the table was that the ends were lower - indicating and arch in the center of my "X" axis but I feel certain it was an arch in the table. When I used my calibers on the gantry bearing rods, I wasn't thinking of checking the rods (which I assumed to be "true") but more in seeing if the tracks had any measurable rise since each track is independent of its neighbor.
I thought of doing the same for my tracks as you did; but securing them to 1.25" X 1.25" X 1/8" angle aluminum, giving the tracks a stronger backing. This would certainly help with the track lift when using the slot clamp. Problem is the original 1/4" blots securing the tracks seem to have a slightly larger head to fit in the "T" slots and the existing bolts were too long for my 1/8" angle. Everything I bought at the hardware - the bolt heads would turn in the "T" slots. I went back with the original plastic track holder and resecured the bolts in a rotation starting with snug and then going back around for tightening. It seems to have the table flat for now but I might wrap the aluminum with the original plastic. That way I can keep the bolts and spacing and use the aluminum as the strong back for the tracks.
I know this is real hard to understand without pictures. If I do the modification I will post before and after photos.
Now I need to look better at my bearing rods. I haven't seen the Shark Pro up close so I don't know how much material was upgraded into the Shark Pro Plus other than the table itself.
Bobby
I thought of doing the same for my tracks as you did; but securing them to 1.25" X 1.25" X 1/8" angle aluminum, giving the tracks a stronger backing. This would certainly help with the track lift when using the slot clamp. Problem is the original 1/4" blots securing the tracks seem to have a slightly larger head to fit in the "T" slots and the existing bolts were too long for my 1/8" angle. Everything I bought at the hardware - the bolt heads would turn in the "T" slots. I went back with the original plastic track holder and resecured the bolts in a rotation starting with snug and then going back around for tightening. It seems to have the table flat for now but I might wrap the aluminum with the original plastic. That way I can keep the bolts and spacing and use the aluminum as the strong back for the tracks.
I know this is real hard to understand without pictures. If I do the modification I will post before and after photos.
Now I need to look better at my bearing rods. I haven't seen the Shark Pro up close so I don't know how much material was upgraded into the Shark Pro Plus other than the table itself.
Bobby
Re: table base
Hello Bobby
You can see the x axis bearing rods flex if you push or pull the router shaft forward or back. That also tends to lift the router bit up a little as it flexes around a center point between the bearing rods. A modest forward pull on the router mount would raise my bit by 15 thousandths or more in the z. So I knew that the force of the bit moving through material would be adding loads that would affect the z position slightly, and that effect would be the worst if cutting mid span.
Front to back tool forces load the x axis rods so that they flex forward and back in opposite directions to each other (twist) and it can be seen quite easily when the router head is in midspan in the x direction. That is worst case, as you are loading the rods midspan and developing some leverage due to the location of the router head relative to the rods. Those rods are also loaded with the weight of the z assembly and will sag a little midspan due to that.
The y axis rods are loaded differently, primarily with the weight of the gantry assembly. The twist loading is taken differently in the y vs the x axis as the geometry is so different. The front to back tool force load is parallel to the bearing rods in the y axis, but perpendicular to the two narrowly spaced rods in the x. The fully supported style rods made a huge difference in my x axis rigidity. That is why I changed that axis first.
I'll try and attach a picture of the table, you can also see the supported style y axis rods in the picture as well.
Bob
You can see the x axis bearing rods flex if you push or pull the router shaft forward or back. That also tends to lift the router bit up a little as it flexes around a center point between the bearing rods. A modest forward pull on the router mount would raise my bit by 15 thousandths or more in the z. So I knew that the force of the bit moving through material would be adding loads that would affect the z position slightly, and that effect would be the worst if cutting mid span.
Front to back tool forces load the x axis rods so that they flex forward and back in opposite directions to each other (twist) and it can be seen quite easily when the router head is in midspan in the x direction. That is worst case, as you are loading the rods midspan and developing some leverage due to the location of the router head relative to the rods. Those rods are also loaded with the weight of the z assembly and will sag a little midspan due to that.
The y axis rods are loaded differently, primarily with the weight of the gantry assembly. The twist loading is taken differently in the y vs the x axis as the geometry is so different. The front to back tool force load is parallel to the bearing rods in the y axis, but perpendicular to the two narrowly spaced rods in the x. The fully supported style rods made a huge difference in my x axis rigidity. That is why I changed that axis first.
I'll try and attach a picture of the table, you can also see the supported style y axis rods in the picture as well.
Bob
- table from 8020 extrusions