Ian1783

OK. I put on a 38" belt with the 3" driver (measuring the outside diameter of the pulley), which I had figured for about a 40" belt, but thought that 1" wouldn't be enough to do it. Way too tight with the 38". So I put on the 2.125" driver (again, measuring the outside dia.) and that did the trick, though with the machine just nestling into place; tight enough to require a little loosening of the motor's adjuster. I was leaning toward the smaller driver, as it was original to the machine's setup (off the original clutch motor), and shortening the adjuster should strengthen the motor-mount setup. For belt tension, I loosed the adjustor until its nut was loose and let the weight of the motor determine the tension (belt tightness). I figured that was about right, unless I hear other wise. With things setup as well as I could, I measured using the string trick: 36". So, I think Tom's outer diameter measurement is probably the right way to go, considering the way the belt nestles a bit deeper into the driver than it does on the machine's driven, or the driver that came with the new servo motor. A 40" belt with the larger driver might have worked. I think what is illustrated is that an inch either way can be a big difference. I think I've got this down. Cool. Thanks all! Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Dirt, that's what I did for my initial measurement. I just bought a few belts and will see which works and how that may or may not jibe with the formula. Thanks! Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

So, using the formula: distance between shaft centers (15.5") X 2= 31", + smaller driver diameter (2.125") X 1.57"= 3.3 + driven diameter (3.125") X 1.57= 4.9= 39.2". A 40" belt then. But my 41" belt is way too loose. It seems to me that a 40" belt won't take up that slack. By the way, I have the motor's adjustor at the halfway point. If I use the same formula using the outside diameter of the the larger of the two drivers that I have, I get: 31" + 4.9" (driven dia.) + 4.71" (driver dia.), I get 40.61". My 41" belt is far too loose for this result. Am I missing something here? I realize I can eyeball it and pick up what I think I should use, and exchange it for another if that doesn't work. I'm just surprised that a pulley would be measured at the outside diameter. For one thing, the original pulley (smaller of the two) allows the belt to ride a bit lower in the groove, for an effective outside dia. of about 1 7/8". Well, I don't want to beat this to death. I'll stop by the auto store and see what they have. I'll try a 38" belt and see if I can get that to work. Who knows, maybe the one belt can be used for the two driver pulleys. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

I did search for this ( http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=45569&hl=%20belt%20%20sizes&st=0 ), and did get that formula, which was great, but I'm wondering how to measure pulley size. Do I measure the inside diameter? That is, the diameter of the pulley at the bottom of the V? Or is pulley size determined by the outside diameter of the pulley? Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

I bought my Chandsew 406RB with a broken spool pin. I ordered a new pin and received what must be a rather common size, as it's the same size spool pin as on my Singer 153. The original Chandsew spool pin is of a different diameter (smaller). Is this a common size? Easily found? Is there a size designation that I'd use for ordering? Needless to say, I can't use the new pin on the Chandsew. Photo shows: Original on top. Singer in the middle. New replacement on the bottom. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

I would think it would thread just like a Singer 15. Google "threading a singer 15-90". At any rate, if there are differences, it should be easy to figure out. Can you post a picture of your machine, showing the thread path? I may see something that you're missing. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

The Singer 15- is perhaps the world's most copied sewing machine. Many of those machines will have parts that can be interchanged with Singers. I've worked on a few. What seems to be the problem? Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Wiz. I just heard of Lily Oil today. Much to learn. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

This may have a bit more info for you, Gerry: http://www.parts.singerco.com/IPinstManuals/153B8_153B8B.pdf I, too, will be interested in what others may offer, as I have the same machine, but am waiting for parts before I'll be able to get into the adjustment stage. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

My latest acquisition, a Chandsew 406RB, requires Spindle Oil, which isn't something I've heard about or seen until googling it; light, low-viscosity oil. 3 in 1 Oil is spindle oil apparently. Hydraulic fluid was mentioned. I don't recall what I used for my Consew 206RB-3 (of which the Chansew is, essentially, a clone), but I'm sure I just used whatever sewing machine oil (domestic) I had lying around. Is there a substitute, or more readily found oil that will work for this machine? Will regular home sewing machine oil work? My Singer 153W103 is supposed to use type B or type D oils. Type B is a "stainless" oil, as spindle oil is supposed to be, so is it in fact spindle oil? Will hydraulic oil work for both of these? Or can I use 3 in 1 for both? Or, again, regular sewing machine oil? I've heard Zoom Oil, which can be purchased at Home Depot, can be used. But googling Zoom Oil shows oil in a bottle with an applicator spout, which seems to be the selling point, rather than the oil. No real mention of just what the oil is, other than fine, paraffin-based, all-purpose oil. Of course, I won't be using my machines in a commercial setting. More like slow, occasional, hobby-project uses. Bottom line, what should I use? Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Ian, check the pinned thread named "Tips for Your 441 Sewing Machine". There's a lot of info in there that may help pinpoint your problem. I don't know that I see any great connection between your tension disks and spring and the problem that you're experiencing (not enough to replace them if they at least looked normal, anyway). I would suspect timing issues, or maybe something as simple as making sure you hold firm the upper and lower threads as you begin sewing. Does the issue present itself as you begin sewing, or at any point while stitching? I'll be looking for others to lend their knowledge, though I did just sell my 29K60 to help finance a 206RB clone. Good luck. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Great tips for general knowledge, not just the focus on the machines mentioned. I learned, or had reinforced, a few steps in the process. One query: I see in Ron's video (great video) the double looping of the thread around the upper tension disks. I've run across this before, but can't recall if it was for a specific machine of mine, or a threading step for any number of machines. Can anyone describe why the double looping, and if it pertains generally to a machine type, or more specifically to a make, model, class, etc.? Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Gerry, that looks like a typewriter table. Heavy duty enough to handle that machine, apparently. Certainly gives me ideas. It also has me thinking how a smaller table-saw stand might work well as a portable SM table. Cool. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Double check the model number. I don't see anything coming up when Googled. Photo? Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Thank you all for these responses. Karina's info let me know that raising the frame (as I would, with wheels) was not a bad thing - in fact, suggested by the factory as an option. Cool. CD, your description of what you've done is this regard is great, and the photos give me an idea of options I wasn't considering. Thanks! Steve and itch, sounds like it's a regular practice. I'm glad to know I was on the right track. I attached 2X4s to my legs so I can move the machine without the metal legs digging into the floor, but then I don't have the original motor in. A servo will lighten things up considerably, but wheels will be a part of the final configuration, for sure. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Of the four industrials I've had, three came with lengths of wood attached to the legs, running from front to back legs, one on each side (by the time I got them, beat up and dirty, so tossed). This was meant perhaps to help facilitate both moving of the machine when needed and also offer more surface area for better stability and surface "grab". I put a set of lockable wheels on one of my tables (right to the metal legs) and love the option of moving the machine about for cleaning or repositioning in my tight quarters. But the wheels are lighter duty than I'd like, though they were what would fit the holes in the legs. Do you use wheels? Why the wood used on these? Is there a general thought about how best to manage tables on indoor (home, not commercial) floors? Wheels attached to lengths of 2" X 4"s might raise the pedal more than I'd like, but would allow for good quality, heavy-duty wheels. Thoughts? Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

An update of sorts: The motor for this Chandsew 406RB is dated: 1988. I was thinking the table might then be a replacement given what I was told was the approximate age of the machine. However, I again noted the home-applied sticker below the Chandler plaque is the machine's serial number preceded by the number 87. I don't know the model sequence as it applies to the years of manufacture of these machines, but if I were to find that the sixties is too early for this, and that the eighties is just about right, then I have to think this is a 1987 Chandsew. And it seems very clear that this is either pretty much an exact clone of a 206RB-1, or was made in the same factory, or is, in fact, a 206RB re-badged for distribution by Chandler, which I have to believe is a possibility. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

I just picked this up today. It a Chandsew 406RB from Chandler. I can find no "Made in XXXXX" so wonder who made this. I've heard Seiko, but wonder if Consew sold their 206RB through Chandler as a 406RB. The decal is in great condition, though the flash is washing it out. The seller said this was his father's and his grandfather's before that. He called it an antique (sigh) from the 1960's. Looks to have seen little use. Sat in the gentleman's home, covered, for many years. It came with a table and motor, smooth-bottom double-toe foot set, two sets of welting feet. Instructions are also included (of the cheap mimeograph type) and any photo used that would show a logo has an artificially applied Chandsew logo (the name). The father (who recently passed away) did upholstery for vintage cars at museums in New York. I've just started tearing into it for cleaning and lubrication. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Bob. The seller mentioned its being a Singer W15591. I can't find anything with that type of model number. This machine faces the user (90 degrees counter-clockwise in the table, or perpendicular to the long axis of the table. Interesting, but can't place it, and I won't be looking at it as I just picked up another machine (see separate post). Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

It's local on CL. I'm waiting for reply from the seller, but thought I'd hear more from those of you here. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

I've seen something like this after tearing down a domestic machine. I believe what I had were parts connected to the brush system in the motor. My memory is a bit cloudy on this, but I do know I have something just like this floating around here, and that it's definitely from a motor, or related electrical component off a domestic machine (foot control?). Perhaps having to do with the brush springs (wracking my brains here). Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Search "patcher", "Singer Patcher" and Singer 29K (29K-4, 29K60, 29K71). Your predicament illustrates, for me, just what a "patcher" sewing machine is intended to do. The small free-arm allows for access to tight spaces. These machines were mostly used, I've learned here, for shoe and boot repair, but are often suggested as perfect for the sewing on of patches on leather vests and jackets. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/

Others will know more, and I'm sure you'll be hearing from them, but I'll try my best (I have a lot to learn still): L-shaped lever adjusts the height of the presser foot. The adjustor to the left adjusts presser-foot pressure. yes, the broken piece in photo 2 is a tension spring for the take-up arm. To move the wheel to the front of the machine, you'll need a gear-shaft-plate setup that Bob can get for you. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/ Well, there ya go! Nobody better than Wizcrafts to explain things. I second the job well done on the knife bag! That would make a great project for a machine. Can you explain your design?

I have no doubt your table, however it's made will turn out looking great! Do post pics when complete (or in the process - that'd be cool!). FWIW, I like the industrial-style table that came with my Singer 153 W 103, a medium weight machine, so a medium weight table. It's almost spindly - quite delicate, I think, for an industrial table. I gave it a fresh coat of paint (black), and with its faux-wood laminate top, it looks good enough to have my wife think so. Graceful little curves at the feet where I attached fairly light-weight lockable wheels. The whole thing should weigh quite a bit less with a servo motor, rather than the monster that it came with.

OK! I'm familiar with domestic-machine zipper feet. Good to know. I can see that coming in handy. Ian SF Bay Area http://imcinnis.blogspot.com/