Stronghold chuck jaws, whats wrong with this picture.

Apr 29, 2005 132 Replies

There has been a couple of good points made in this discussion but none of them has touched on the real reason we have a gap. An earlier poster stated that when he made a tenon that was in the gap he removed the safety pin and that he was then able to hold the piece. This is the very crux of the matter. When we first made the Stronghold we had overlap. The biggest problem we had with the chuck was that people would open it up to the maximum so that only one partial tooth was engaged between the scroll and the base jaw and then tighten down hard and snap that tooth off the base jaw. When we devised the safety pin we limited the range of the chuck so that not only would the base jaws always stay engaged but that the partial tooth on the one base jaws would never engage alone. This was not a foreseen circumstance because it is common knowlege in a machine shop that you should never work a scroll chuck hard at its maximum capacity because it gets weaker as you work more towards the outer range of the grip. Sometimes at Oneway we forgot that what is common knowledge here is not so common in the wood shops of the world. Once we had the jaw sizes made and were selling them it was very difficult to change them as people sometimes want single jaw replacements so it is necessary to keep the jaw sizes the same. As for making new size jaws the screw holes work out quite awkwardly. Decreasing the size of the number 3 jaws to make a worthwhile size number 2-1/2 jaws puts the screw holes right in what would be the chucking diameter. This would not be so bad for chucking on a tenon but would not be so great for going into a recess as that is right where the pressure point is. The number 4 jaws were not designed by us but that size was arrived at by one of our larger dealers that wanted that exact size. As far as we are concerned they are kind of silly, that extra little bit of size will not do you much good. To best use our chucks we feel that the base jaws should always be used inside the body of the chuck. Obviously the chucks have more range than that and when required go ahead and use it but the chuck will work better and you will have less danger of collision with a protruding jaw when the chucks are used toward the smaller part of the range. As for the smooth jaws versus the serrated jaws, we consider the smooth jaws as poor, again they were made at the insistance of customers. We feel that chucking marks and methods should be completely removed. If you think that smooth jaws leave no marks you are incorrect. Wood is compressible and when you compress it, you mark it. If all you ever work is very very hard exoctics maybe the marks are so small that you cannot see the marks, but I have never seen a foot where I could not see the chucking mark. As an amateur craftsman you owe it to yourself to do the very best job you can.

regards Kevin Clay Oneway Manufacturing

What if you don't compress the wood, Kevin?

If no one see's 'em are they really there?

most of us lost our grip years ago, George.. lol

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Hi All

"George" wrote: /snip/ The weakness of the Oneway

So I went and turned a large 20"+ wet Sycamore Bowl to have a look at the distortion and destroying that my Stronghold chuck jaws would bring to bear on the portion gripped, as it turned out, there was no evidence or any indication of any destruction nor other weakening of the portion gripped to my observation, but maybe I'm wrong ??

To those that like to see any of the distortion caused, I have loaded some pictures, so you can decide for yourself if the distortion and destruction is really unacceptable, or just a figment of the imagination

formatting link
fun and take careLeo Van Der Loo

On Mon, 2 May 2005 8:26:06 -0700, mac davis wrote (in message ):

no prob mac. a lot of people drop the second L.

On Mon, 2 May 2005 5:49:29 -0700, Kevin wrote (in message ):

interesting. i had not considered the conflict with the screw holes.

why did they insist on that exact size? why did you allow someone else to design something that you put your name on if you think they are silly?

if you *had* made the #4s a little larger i for one would have purchased a set allong with a stronghold chuck body to put them on.

On Mon, 2 May 2005 23:58:06 -0700, Leo Van Der Loo wrote (in message ):

nice work Leo. i enjoy your website. i think the "destruction" that most people are crying about comes from the ribbed inside of the oneway jaws when they grip in compression mode.

Okay, the question that immediately came to mind with the opening of this thread, and NOT directed against anyone in particular, just using yours because it's available.

formatting link
must there be overlap, or forty sizes? Can't we, as turners, chose thesize of our recesses or tenons within the capability of the equipment weown? If I want to, I can hold a 12" bowl - done it a few times - with a 25recess - not at maximum size, but at maximum hold dimension - but after thefirst couple, it became apparent that it looked a bit tippy and dumb, so Ileft some more wood around recesses on the others. Once I got to a designthat wanted 2 1/2 for a base, I used the 50. If I were fond of flipping andre-cutting, I could make any size I wanted second time around. Why "they oughtta" instead of "I can?"

great pictures, Leo! Very impressive gouge you're using... did you make it yourself?

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Neill.. my guess is it was a business decision.. if enough people wanted to buy plastic coated or some other weird jaws, it would be silly NOT to make them..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

And it would appear Neill that it is those same people that can't seem to figure out how to make a decent/decorative foot on the bottom of a bowl after gripping with the Oneway jaws. Sigh.............. It bears repeating something that Kevin from Oneway has already stated in this thread..............

Quote: We feel that chucking marks and methods should be completely removed. As an amateur craftsman you owe it to yourself to do the very best job you can. End quote.

Did you look at the series? He made a recess to hold, and shows no trace. That's what at least two of us now have been trying to say. Kevin said wasn't possible.

In your rush to offend, you really have come off as quite the fool.

To me, the markings left by my Stronghold chuck are not acceptable. If you click on Leo's picture "There is no indication of any destruction caused by the Stronghold chuck !!!" at

formatting link
, you will see themarks left by the chuck jaws. It is up to the individual to decide whetherthese are acceptable or not. I prefer to have a radiused recess.Derek

On Tue, 3 May 2005 4:06:23 -0700, George wrote (in message ):

George,

on the one hand i respect and appreciate the creative, problem solving, can-do attitude that you are promoting.

on the other hand (and please correct me if i am wrong about the intent of your words) i get a bad taste in my mouth from the dogmatic, missionary, tone in some of your comments. its like you are trying to win converts to your way of working. as if your way is the one true way and everyone else is turning in sin.

i would never fault you for discussing ways of working around the limitations of your equipment. please tell me why the limitations, design flaws, etc. of my equipment are not a valid topic of discussion. imagine if people had never discussed ways of making lathes and turning tools better. your lathe would be made of wood instead of cast iron, you would not have electronic variable speed, you would not have a four jaw scroll chuck that was made for woodturning, etc. etc.

we don't need the thought police telling us to just shut up and make do with things the way they are. lets keep the dialogue open and free because that is what has allowed the evolution of the modern tools we now enjoy. may they continue to evolve and improve.

Hi Neill

and thank you

My personal opinion on the so called "destruction" is just a overblown ballyhoo, anyway I do use tenons as well as recesses, the problem with a tenon if used on a deeper bowl or other deep turning in a side grain held way, is the possibility of breaking the tenon off of the blank, and If You don't get hurt the turning probably will.

So if one is to use a tenon without the tailstock support, the type of wood used has to be taken into consideration, some wood splits easy and some does not, and some wood is just to soft to be held that way. Also the way the tools are used makes a big difference, and don't talk about catches.

One other thing to consider is that the jaws do less damage to a turning than it flying out of a chuck and bouncing around the shop.

One more thing, did you have a look at the way I finish my bowl etc. bottoms ? if not, have a look, if you want, no chuck marks on them.

formatting link
fun and take careLeo Van Der Loo

neill wrote:

Neill I totally agree

I have come a long way, in more than one way, and because of al kinds of ideas and input of turners from around the globe I have found more and better ways (in my opinion) to make round wood, and do enjoy helping others to overcome some of the same problems we all have run into. We sometimes come over like "my way or the hiway" but I think that this is also because the written word is oh so easily misunderstood.

Have fun and take care Leo Van Der Loo

neill wrote:

Hi Derek

I feel similar about the finishing of the total, that includes top as well as the bottom, IMO. At one time, (long time ago) (longer than that) I didn't know how to get around the screw holes left by the screws used with the face plate, (this was before bowl gouges and woodchucks etc., and used felt disk glued to the bottom, that was my way of finishing then. It is so much nicer now to be able to make the bottom just as nice (sometimes nicer) as the rest of the turning and I have a few pictures in one album on my site that shows how I have done the bottom finish on those turnings. Have a look if interested

formatting link
fun and take careLeo Van Der Loo

Derek Hartzell wrote:

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required