Subject: Re: South Bend lathe

From: [email-masked] (John W. Hall)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 15:34:09 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (Stuart Friedberg) wrote:
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
>Path: 
nbt.nbnet.nb.ca!news.unb.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.intern
etmci.com!in1.uu.net!gateway.sequent.com!muncher.sequent.com!stuartf
>From: [email-masked] (Stuart Friedberg)
>Subject: Re: South Bend lathe
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>Sender: [email-masked] (usenet )
>Nntp-Posting-Host: eng3.sequent.com
>Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
>References: <[email-masked]> 
<[email-masked]> 
<[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 19:22:12 GMT
>Lines: 22
>Status: N
>
>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (darylb)
>writes: 
>>Watching this cause I'm interested in the answer and your answer makes
>>sense but my South Bend states the bed is 7ft (14.5" x 7ft) and when you
>>measure it that includes the part the headstock sits on.
>
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Dale A. Keltie  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>I always thought, perhaps erroneously, that the dimension referred to
>>the max. distance between centers.
>
>You're both correct.
>
>When a lathe is described as an "A by B" size, the A is the swing
>and the B is the distance between centers, *not* the bed length,
>which may be several feet longer than B.  So Dale is correct.
>
>The bed length generally *does* include the portion under the headstock
>and any gap.  (At least for smaller lathes.  Some engine lathe designs
>don't support the headstock on the bed.)  So Daryl is correct.
>
>Stu Friedberg ([email-masked])

I'm using a new news reader so I apologize if this gets posted incorrectly.

 I have followed this thread and was waiting for somebody to quote "the 
source". they didn't so I will:

Sout Bend in "How To Run a Lathe", page 11, 56th edition says: "In the United 
States the size of a Screw Cutting Lathe is designated by the swing over bed 
and the length of bed...". Reference is made to an illustration indicating 
that the "bed length" is the entire bed casting length. My copy of the SB 
catalog for 1936 describes lathes this way as well, eg. 9X36, 9X48, etc. Thus 
the lathe mentioned originally in this thread is a 9X36, even though its 
actual working capacity is less.

John

---

From: [email-masked] (darylb)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:44:02 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (John W.

> actual working capacity is less.

This agrees with my South Bend Data (14.5" x 7ft) but man, that is a stupid
way to spec size (the 7ft part). This should be posed under "never under
estimate marketing hype".