Singer 95-1 Internal Drive/timing Belt Update 120113

[BLW]

Hello everyone...

Since I first posted on this forum about my having reverse engineered the internal drive/timing belt for the Singer 95-1 machine, I have been working on upgrading the first leather belts using the same alternating hole jig that made making the belts possible.

The belts essentially made it possible to "rebirth" an otherwise obsolete but venerable sewing machine of which I have now learned there a LOT of them still sitting on shelves or on their tables just waiting for their owners to learn about the belts I make for them.

As of now, I get anywhere from 2-3 Ebay sales per month...many have come from Puerto Rico and in the last 2 years, I have sold about 70 belts.

Even though I have always tested every belt on my 1919 95-1 before I send them out to buyers, there have been some failures of the belts over extended use. I do continue to test every belt in this manner.

The failures of the first belts was primarily due to the fact I was making them with cowhide which was stretching even though I was reinforcing them with sewing across the glue bond and on the edges. The belts were running off the sprocket pulleys. It later occurred to me after examining more of the original belts that they appeared to me made of horsehide, not cowhide. Horsehide is nowhere as stretchy as cowhide, but it is still not impervious to oil...something I wanted to have as a feature of the replacement belts.

Furthermore, I had not yet fully learned how Singer engineered & designed the machine to run with this internal belt and that there is no way to adjust the tension on the internal belt. The gear driven 95-10 made the 95-1 obsolete, but I still can't figure out why the 95-1 was ever introduced...same for the 96-1. If anyone knows the definitive answer to this "mystery", I'd sure like to hear it.

I've never seen a 96-1, but if you look up the parts manuals for both machines, you will see the belts of the PDF parts files. I've never seen a 96-1.

I had been rolling my cowhide leather belts onto the lower pulley w/o removing it...all were tight enough to run the machine for my test, but some did not endure. Therefore, I reasoned out that in fact, the lower pulley and sewing hook would have to be removed to install a replacement belt made of a non-stretch material.

Furthermore, I set out on a sort of a "quest" to find a synthetic material certainly tougher than horsehide which would not stretch and also be impervious to oil plus the internal heat generated by a seamstress sewing daily as was the case in the 1920's factories.

After all, the 95-1 is rated at over 3500 SPM

I believe I have finally achieved my goal after the many misses and near hits I've had as I have been experimenting with various types and thicknesses of materials...not to mention the adhesives to well-set the bond.

The belts I make now are made of a rubberized gasket-type material that bonds excellently (with the adhesive I'm using) and tracks perfectly on the upper and lower sprockets. I test the belts at full speed for 5 minutes using a 1725 RPM clutch motor, the same rating of the early Singer transmitter motors that were matched with the 95-1.

I sew with my 95-1 every once in a while and it puts down a perfect, tight stitch with its original Simanco hook and feed dog. Truly a great, classic vintage Singer sewing machine.

If anyone has ever seen a 96-1 or 96-1, please let me know.

If you want to see my Ebay listing for the replacement belt and/or the Youtube video I made on how to install the belt, please be their guest...just search "Singer 95-1" on Google.

Thanks for reading...

Bob Marshall 919.889.7894

bobsleatherworks.com

[CowboyBob]

I have to applaud you in your dedication to make this belt & keep a machine running that has an obsolete part.I get call every for them every once in a while & send them to you.I also think it's great that you've improved them.As far as SingerI think after time just like you found out there's a better way to design things & maybe that's why they went to gears esp in a factory where most of them were w/oil getting on them & streching I'll bet they got some complaints & improved them.They also done this on a lot of other machine like the 29's.It sure would be nice to read some of their engineers notes from back in the day about some of the designs.

[BLW]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your kind words...in fact, just today I got my first unsolicited email testimonial from one of my buyers thanking me for making it possible to use their 95-1 again. The machine has been in their family for over 50 years. Most of the belts have gone to east coast buyers because that's where the sewing machine factories were, but I've sold over 10 belts to Puerto Rico...one woman there called to thank me for getting her grandma's machine running again. Its been a great experience so far giving new life to the 95-1.

I'm still trying to figure out why Singer's engineers designed the 95-1 and 96-1 with these belts...it may very well have been a cost decision if they thought it would save them $$$ instead of using a gear system. After all, it's fairly obvious that in the early 1900's they already knew how to run a rotary sewing hook with a reversing gear system. They even had to put a slot in the case to make it possible to replace a belt when it failed. You may be right about the complaints regarding the probability that the belts failed too often making for maintenance complaints from the sewing companies. As we know, these machines ran 24/7 in VERY HOT factories...especially during the war years. The 95-10's and 96-10's solved the problem with the belts.

I just picked up a 1937 96-107 in great condition with the dual ball bearing guided upper main shaft....great machine!

Bob

[CowboyBob]

I've noticed with Singer that a lot of the first model # like this model a 95-1 then they revised it to 95-10 improved with metal gears also happened with a lot of other models like 7 class,45K & others.