Shopsmith Mark VII (YUBA, Magna American) Mark 7 Information, Review and History

The Mark VII was Magna American's attempt to one-up the Mark V with the addition of an integrated shop vacuum and a below-the-table shaper option. (Actually, that's two up isn't it?) The bad news for Magna America is that Hans Goldschmidt was long gone and the engineers went a little wild in his absence.

They incorporated several new "space-age" plastics, which over time have been notorious for melting and cracking with use. One such part was a cam that is rotated by the user when they turn the speed dial up or down. This cam is in direct contact with a part that, when the tool is not properly lubricated by the user, seizes-up, and snaps or melts the cam. Sweet.

Another problem was a plastic rack which is incorporated on the inside of the front top waytube. This was a neat idea. You'll notice the crank in the middle left side of the headstock? When you flip-out the crank it engages the plastic rack, and you can move the headstock left and right. The carriage, which supports the table, links to the headstock, so where one goes the other follows. The bad news here is that this rack becomes brittle in cold weather, and when exposed to UV rays.

One neat innovation that sort-of lives on today in the Mark V 510 and 520 is the floating table. Unlike the Mark V of the 50's and 60's which had a single narrow extension table, the Mark VII extension table was wide and had two faces set at 90 degree angles to each other. It could be used on either end of the base, just like the Mark V, but it could also be mounted to the bottom of the main table, as seen in the photo above. (Click pic from US Patent for Mark VII) The beauty of this is that the extension table would go anywhere the main table would go, meaning if the table is tilted, the extension table tilted with it! This table was VERY tricky to align, as once you got it zeroed-in when it was attached to the main table, the adjustments you made to align it when mounted on the base frame would knock the previous adjustments out! I can feel my scalp hurting from pulling my hair out many years ago when I attempted this.

The main table featured a second saw blade slot, which was also found on the Mark V during this same period. In the end this was abandoned on the Mark V, because it left the narrow, extreme left edge of the table vulnerable to bending and flexing and saw guards were complicated enough without having to make them accommodate a second slot.

The miter gauge is ever so slightly different on the Mark VII in that the knurled knob was replaced by a V-shaped flip-cam. This miter gauge will fit any of the Shopsmith tools, except the 10er. The fence is also slightly different than the Mark V model 500. There's no knob for clamping, but rather it using a lever. I find this arrangement cumbersome, and tend to knock the fence out of alignment as I fumble with the lever. This is probably just me.

The base of the unit is also unique in that it allows the unit to tilt either to the left or the right. The advantage is your headstock can be under the table for drum sanding and shaping. Great idea, but this necessitates the need for a reversing switch, otherwise your cutters will run in reverse; so they developed a complicated switch which... wait for it... is prone to breaking!

The other problem with the base is that when the tool is tilted to the right for normal drill press us the headstock is just about mid-chest height, while the table is level with your crotch. Awesome! (See pics in the article below) This is because the tool pivots a foot or so further in on the bench tubes than the Mark V and the other 5-in-one Shospmith tools.

Lastly the base is part of a built-in dust collector. This was a great idea, and it was way ahead of it's time. The cabinet is for dust storage, while the impeller is mounted at the right base of the headstock. Here's where things went wrong. For the impeller to work it had to function equally well with the motor turning in forward or reverse. Now, I'll leave this to the Engineers to explain, but it's not easy for an impeller to suck when it's spinning in reverse, and this impeller is no exception. What this blower is good at doing is making a very loud noise and causing the motor to work harder than it needs to. For these reasons many Mark VII owners removed the blower.

Watch for broken reversible switches, melted speed-control cams, broken speed dials, damaged way-tube rack and missing impellers on the vacuum. Oh yea, I really dig this tool!

While not a manual, the patent for the Mark VII is interesting and is available at www.patentplaceusa.com. Search "Shopsmith"

Click here for Shopsmith Mark VII's For Sale (Very light activity)

Click here for Shopsmith Mark VII Replacement Headstock listings (Very light activity)

Click here for Shopsmith Mark V Replacement Headstock listings FYI: The Mark V headstock will fit on the Mark VII frame, but the plastic rack must be removed. Not a big loss, seeing that it's probably already broken!





Click pics to Biggie-Size

Rare Shopsmith Tilting-Arbor Tablesaw Information, Review and History

I've only found this saw on eBay twice in the three years that I was on the look-out for mine. In the end I didn't even find mine on eBay after all. This saw was made to mount on one of Shopsmith's single or double SPT stands and was sold under the name Shopsmith and PowerKraft by Montgomery Wards.

When this saw is mounted on the double stand, it can sit beside the Shopsmith 4" jointer and the two tools share a common motor with a double shaft and two different size drive pulleys. The second photo is from the patent for another Magna saw that features a sliding table for cross cutting. I'm unaware if Magna ever produced it. As usual these guys were years ahead of their time! Click on pic to Biggie-Size it.

Click here for Shopsmith Tablesaw For Sale (Very, very, VERY light activity!)


Click here to see (and to purchase) the Patent Art Print for the Magna Table Saw

How the Shopsmith Mark V changed liability law

I remember a lawyer who attended one of my classes back in the 1990's who told me that he read an interesting case that involved the Shopsmith Mark V and that the resulting verdict changed liability law forever. In the lawsuit known as Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Mr. William Greenman was the plaintiff who brought an action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of the Shopsmith Mark V in those days; Yuba Power Products.

Here are some of the details of the suit, with some comments and commentary thrown in.

He saw a Shopsmith demonstrated by the retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer. He decided he wanted a Shopsmith for his home workshop, and his wife bought and gave him one for Christmas in 1955. In 1957 he bought the necessary parts to use the tool as a lathe for turning a large piece of wood he wished to make into a chalice. (The chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true, but that's another story) After he had worked on the piece of wood several times without difficulty, it suddenly flew out of the machine and struck him on the forehead (aka: Bonked him on the knoggin'), inflicting what he described as serious injuries. Now here's where it gets interesting. About 10 1/2 months later, he gave the retailer and the manufacturer written notice of claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them alleging such breaches and negligence.

After a trial before a jury, the court ruled that there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or had breached any express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied warranty. Accordingly, it submitted to the jury only the cause of action alleging breach of implied warranties against the retailer and the causes of action alleging negligence and breach of express warranties against the manufacturer. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer against plaintiff and for plaintiff against Yuba Power Products in the amount of $65,000. (Adjusted for inflation, that would be $474,975.57 in today's dollars.) The trial court denied the manufacturer's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict. The manufacturer and plaintiff appeal. The plaintiff then seeks a reversal of the part of the judgment in favor of the retailer, however, only in the event that the part of the judgment against the manufacturer is reversed.

The plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. His expert witnesses testified that inadequate set screws were used to hold parts of the machine together so that normal vibration caused the tailstock of the lathe to move away from the piece of wood being turned permitting it to fly out of the lathe. They also testified that there were other more positive ways of fastening the parts of the machine together, the use of which would have prevented the accident. The jury could therefore reasonably have concluded that the manufacturer negligently constructed the Shopsmith. The jury could also reasonably have concluded that statements in the manufacturer's brochure were untrue, that they constituted express warranties, and that plaintiff's injuries were caused by their breach.

Now, this is where I got a bit confused. How could loose set screws possibly cause the tailstock to move away from the headstock? That's when I remembered that the way tubes are held in place by set screws which in the early days were inserted through the base of the Mark V while it is in the vertical drill press position. These set screws are now visible and accessible from the top of the unit, but that change wasn't made until the 1990's. If THESE set screws were to become loose then the way tubes would pull away from the base, and in actuality the headstock would move away from the tailstock. (See figure 14 from the Mark V patent, and parts 18 and 38 are what I believe moved. The set screws are not shown.)

The manufacturer contended that plaintiff did not give it notice of breach of warranty within a reasonable time and that therefore his cause of action for breach of warranty is barred by section 1769 of the Civil Code. Since it cannot be determined whether the verdict against it was based on the negligence or warranty cause of action or both, the manufacturer concludes that the error in presenting the warranty cause of action to the jury was prejudicial.

Section 1769 of the Civil Code provides: "In the absence of express or implied agreement of the parties, acceptance of the goods by the buyer shall not discharge the seller from liability in damages or other legal remedy for breach of any promise or warranty in the contract to sell or the sale. But, if, after acceptance of the goods, the buyer fails to give notice to the seller of the breach of any promise or warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer knows, or ought to know of such breach, the seller shall not be liable therefor."

In the end the plaintiff was able to plead and prove that an express warranty existed because he read and relied on the representations of the Shopsmith's ruggedness contained in the manufacturer's brochure. Implicit in the machine's presence on the market, however, was a representation that it would safely do the jobs for which it was built. Under these circumstances, it should not be controlling whether plaintiff selected the machine because of the statements in the brochure, or because of the machine's own appearance of excellence that belied the defect lurking beneath the surface, or because he merely assumed that it would safely do the jobs it was built to do. It should not be controlling whether the details of the sales from manufacturer to retailer and from retailer to plaintiff's wife were such that one or more of the implied warranties of the sales act arose. (Civ. Code, § 1735.) "The remedies of injured consumers ought not to be made to depend upon the intricacies of the law of sales." (Ketterer v. Armour & Co., 200 F. 322, 323; Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272, 282 [93 P.2d 799].) [11] To establish the manufacturer's liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use.

The manufacturer contended that the trial court erred in refusing to give three instructions requested by it. It appears from the record, however, that the substance of two of the requested instructions was adequately covered by the instructions given and that the third instruction was not supported by the evidence.

The judgment was affirmed.

­1. In this respect the trial court limited the jury to a consideration of two statements in the manufacturer's brochure. (1) "When Shopsmith is in Horizontal Position--Rugged construction of frame provides rigid support from end to end. Heavy centerless-ground steel tubing insures perfect alignment of components." (2) "Shopsmith maintains its accuracy because every component has positive locks that hold adjustments through rough or precision work."

­ 2. Any affirmation of fact or any promise by the seller relating to the goods is an express warranty if the natural tendency of such affirmation or promise is to induce the buyer to purchase the goods, and if the buyer purchases the goods relying thereon. No affirmation of the value of the goods, nor any statement purporting to be a statement of the seller's opinion only shall be construed as a warranty."

And so, boys and girls, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Greenman. For if it wasn't for his bonkin' we could all be working on unsafe tools. Oh yeah, and also all of our tools cost more because companies like Yuba (now bankrupt) must cover their buts with expensive liability insurance policies. God bless America.