![]() |
|
|||||||
| All types of English wheels cast, fabricated and bench Construction details, methods to build, techniques of use, top adjusters, bottom adjusters, anvil profiles, top wheel size, and different types of specialized tooling . |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
What are the problems or benefits to using an English wheel with a 3” x 8” top wheel and using 2” x 3” anvils? Will the larger width of the top wheel cause any problems?
Thanks, Dave
__________________
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, the wider upper wheel will help to stabilize the panel - lessening the chance of the upper leaving marks.
Tim D.
__________________
If something I say can be taken two ways, and one of those ways offends you, I meant it the other way..........................................maybe . The Voice from the Cheap Seats -Proudly making cheap, crappy tools for my own personal entertainment! |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is no downside that I know of in combining a 3" upper and a 2" anvil. In fact you will gain stability in handling the panel because of the wider area on the upper wheel. There may be a very special application here or there that this would not apply, but in general, IMHO, this combination is probably one of the best general setups you could choose. This would allow you to handle reasonablly large panels without a helper using a "low crown" lower, without leaving track or scoring.
__________________
Rick Tucker (FriarTuck) no longer is a member of Metalmeet.com |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tim and Rick,
Thank you very much for the advice. Thanks, Dave
__________________
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Dave Propst (sp) who posts once in awhile over on Metalshapers has a web site that goes into quite a bit of detail on this issue. Maybe someone knows the address of his site. While we're on the subject of upper wheels, IMO the best choice is a large bearing. They're extremely hard, run true, and can be found at salvage yards for practically nothing. They're generally narrow, but by adding support to both sides you have the best possible upper wheel. Doug |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for the link to Dave Propst’s web site. A lot of very good information.
Thanks, Dave
__________________
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug and Gene, the Dave Propst article is great. I'm keeping that one in the library.
__________________
Rick Tucker (FriarTuck) no longer is a member of Metalmeet.com |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi Doug, I wrote about the benifits of a wide wheel on metalshapers ( which I co-founded) from day one in April 2000. Dave Propst phoned me a short while after he showed up on metalshapers. He asked about and I told him about my top wide wheel experience. He wrote his article on his website several years later... As for the benifits of a top wheel made from a hard center section and plastic edges, there is more effort to make one that way than making one out of steel all the way to the edge. There is also the danger of damaging the soft edges when accidently and improperly wheeling reverse curves. Top wheels should be made from hardenable alloy steel 3/8 wall seamless tubing and then pressed onto a cast or billet center aluminum hub. That way would be the least expensive method to make top wheels of any width. All that is needed is a source for the alloy steel seamless tubing.
__________________
Wray click here to visit My New Ebay Store Shrinking Discs,BeaterBags,DVD Comprehensive sheetmetal shaping classes, offered one weekend every month. Please e-mail me direct for more information. wesparts@charter.net |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yes, you should get credit for the wide wheel concept. As to the effort in adding width, I disagree, it doesn't have to be a major project. Dave P complicated it, but everything he does looks like a part for the space shuttle. Starting with a narrow upper and adding width allows converting back and forth between narrow and wide. I stand by my advice of using a large bearing. The two I have are approx 8" diameter and 1-1/2" wide, cost was 5 bucks each at the scrap yard (even buying new from a bearing house might be less than buying a $250 to $300 machined wheel). One of mine is unused salvage with very slight surface rust, the other was used. They're ultra hard, much harder than a wheel machined of pre-hardened alloy steel. They run true, within .001" total runout. I prefer a cantilever wheel mount, bearings are easy to do this way. For the wheeling I do, the hardness of the bearing is needed. I don't do car or cycle work. My wheeling has been for garden art where I used rusty steel from the weeds behind the shop, wheeled right over the sand and grits without a thought. My lower anvils are fashioned from self aligning pillow block bearings, also extremely hard. If I needed, I could wipe my wheels clean and run aluminum with no hint of the previous sand and grit showing on the panels. Regarding your suggestion of heat treatable seamless tubing over a core....IMO too much work and expense. Just the cost of heat treating in my area is a minimum of $75, not to mention dealing with the distortion. Then finding a steel service center who'll sell you a short section of large diameter alloy steel tube is a whole 'nother issue. This method requires far more machining capability than the average wheel builder will ever have. Doug |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|