Why did they do it like this

I will probably be burnt at the stake as a heretic for such a suggestion, but have you observed design shortcomings in your ML7? What are your pet hates (but of course we all love our little lathes really, warts and all unless going to a larger machine for bigger works - Colchester?)

Here's some of mine

The clumsy back gear engagement screw, need a special short Allen key to get in there (Im going to make a wing nut version)

The tail stock can move crossways every time you want to realese the clamp and move it up the bed - why was there no clamp nut? Gotta fix this

No dial on the tailstock?

Nasty Mazac index dial on the slide

Amazingly fiddly fabricated brass plate assy for entry of two cables at the back of the cabinet, must have been an apprentice job, guess they dint have grommets back then

and so on

Cheers Robin

No leadscrew clutch for screwcutting and roughing down either

Curiously their previous Lathe, the M series had this hugely useful feature

The M series also had an eccentric backgear engagement and an easy to use bullwheel pin

**LINK**

The M series also had a cantilever system design for the bed, so you could bolt the lathe to a fairy cake and there would be no bed twist. Strange that they dropped it

Edited By Ady1 on 30/11/2012 12:29:39

You can always grind a standard Allen key to size

My take on the ML7 was that it was designed to be mass produced to allow it to be sold at a low price. Hence the use of die castings - and it also had some shortcomings regarding functionality. Some of the earlier competition I have seen did not have graduated dials on the cross or top slides, so the fixed Mazak dial would have been a big step forward at the time ? The world was a very different place in 1947.

Most of the issues you raise appear to have been sorted on the Super 7 - but this also cost more. You pays your money, etc.

Regards,

Nigel B.

You can always adapt the Mazak dials to be resetable, does it really matter what material they are made of?

Like Nigel says 'you pays your money' also

there is an old addig that says' it's a poor work man that blames his tools'

we all risk being burned at the stake for re-modifying the shortcomings of manufacturers that are unable to make a machine that does all we require, that's why the intercom was invented to request cups of tea and dinner updates from the kitchen whilst we are busy, and then still in this climate CNC, computers, 3D printing etc I have not as yet found a machine with operator heating nor brewmaking facilities which are both definately required when you the time considered we spend with the machines.

I believe if the machine you have is not suitable get rid and buy one that is until that one fails then same again.

I currently have 1954 ML7, 1971 ML10 and 2011 Wm 14 etc and all seem fine to me, remember we learn more by failure than we do by success and the journey is rewarding than the destination or why did we enbark on the road

Barry

I used a brand new ML7 for 4 years to build various locos. At first the main bearing began to get hot after about 20 minutes, even though the oil drip feed was working. I used various oils then i tried EP90 back axle oil. Result was amazing. I could turn off the feed almost entirely and the lathe would keep running for weeks on end. It continued like this until I bought a Boxford AUD instead. Like someone just said on a forum, there is no comparison. The Boxford has as large a range of accessories as the Myford, unlike what is normally spread around. I had 4 Boxfords in my department at the local grammar school and the only fault I ever had to rectify was a burnt centrifugal switch on one motor, in 25 years of everyday use.

My original ML7 had a bolt for the backgear this one has an allen screw which is much better, KWIL is quite correct simply shorten a standard key and it should pose few problems.

I must be honest I very rarely use the back gear since fitting an inverter and three phase motor some years ago.

Mine still has the Mazak dials they arent pretty but still usable.

I fitted a tailstock DRO (from Machine DRO) made a nice difference.

These simple modifications are items one might find on a modern lathe so in the ML7's defence given the age of it's design in it's day it must have been a wonderful machine.

_Paul_

I often look at products I have bought and wonder if they ever did any user testing at all, or if the magazine reviewer actually used the item rather than just paraphrasing the text the manufacturer handed over with the cheque for the full page adverts.

However it all changes when you get on the design side. "We don't have a budget for changing the drawings we used last time" " We always do it like this" " I have calculated that this miserably thin section is strong enough" " If we change it now it will delay launch by 3 weeks" "we only have 1 week for mechanical design (even though the marketing dept will subsequently waste 3 weeks faffing around deciding which colour to paint it)"

and just on Friday
"We are still fitting this feature just in case we need it like we have for the last ten years even though in the last ten years we have never used it"
Yes we shipped a million units last year with that pointless 25p connector that will never be used, plus the 50p on/off switch required by EU Lot 6 regulations that is also never used by Customers.

"You can always grind a standard Allen key to size"

Yep - did that for the ML10 when I had it -worked fine. Made a leadscrew clutch for it too - great improvement to functionality. Part of the joy of a workshop is getting your kit to work the way you want it. Remember all machines are just tools and your budget will determine the quality and flexibility of the product as supplied.. You have the facility then to alter things to suit you at a price you can afford.

Is a Boxford better than a Myford? - I don't care - I have a Myford and it will do just what I want. The important thing is what you DO and what CAN you DO with your machines. I has an old friend who swore by his Super 7 (and regretted upgrading to a Myford 254). He produced two Gold Medal winning models on the S7. I know my machine is far more capable than I am!

Regards

Norman

Edited By NJH on 17/12/2012 11:03:55

I have both an ML7 & a Boxford Model "A" both have their merits the Myford does not currently have a gearbox so nearly all my screw cutting is done on the Boxford, I mostly use the Myford for smaller/finer work seems better suited to it possibly down to the plain bearing head.

_Paul_

> He produced two Gold Medal winning models on the S7. I know my machine is far more capable than I am!

I saw the antique scientific instrument collection in the Science Museum. I couldn't get within a mile of anything in that huge room, and most of it made on machines that woudn't be considered 'fit for purpose' today*.

Neil

*Let alone the Heath-Robinson wood-framed copy lathes in Watt's workshop.