Vevor 8x14 tailstock headache

It would seem that gap is by design as it matches other product pictures that I found online. One could argue about the merits of the design, but that's besides the point.

However the original poster's picture shows the vee is not properly machined, even to Vevor's standards. I'd contact the supplier and ask for a new tail stock, (or lower section) because the original pictured one is NFG. (No Freaking Good.) It could be machined, that's what we do here, but as received, that lower tail stock vee is not fully machined to depth.
 
Any idea what this label might say? Seems to show two prismatic ways where there is clearly only one on the real item.

1680214056230.png
 
Any idea what this label might say? Seems to show two prismatic ways where there is clearly only one on the real item.

View attachment 442954
It's a label that says the bed has hardened ways. I wondered about that too. Looking at the Vevor site it seems that the tailstock is correct for the model but as @WobblyHand says not machined correctly.
 
From photo #10 on the Vervor website, it appears that the tailstock is seated the same. It is unclear from your photo but does the tailstock fully engage the vee? Also, when viewed from directly behind, is the tailstock vertical or is it tilted? Have you checjed to see if the tailstovk is aligned with the headstock axis?
 
It almost looks to me like the way itself is wrong (too fat) who knows? Doesn't it?- It's too wide!
Virtually anything can be messed up on these no-name contraptions- I thought I had seen it all
Send it back immediately is my recommendation. And if you have any trouble, get your CC company involved
You shouldn't have to fix something like that
-Mark
 
Last edited:
I get it, it looks totally goofy and you really have to wonder how these things get built. But on the other hand, as RJ asked earlier, do the headstock and tailstock centres line up as they should in spite of this?

In a way it reminds me of one of those pre-cut computer tables I had to assemble for one of the office people years ago. No way in heck there was anything square on that whole thing but when I finally got it together it was as stable as can be. I still marvel at that.

-frank
 
That's effed up.
The tail stock should be sitting flat on both ways.
If you line up a dead center in the tail stock and a point in the chuck, I'd bet the tail stock point is higher than the chuck point.
From everything I've seen, it's the way that's wrong. The tail stock should be the Vee that it is.

I will add this, it looks like the tail stock is just locked on one side and the other floats? That's not cool.
 
So I have learned a great many things.
And, thanks for all the helpful thinking.
There is no second vee. More surprisingly, to my untrained eyes, is that Vevor is all-in on the jaunty-angle approach to bed seating: both the cross-slide and even the headstock sit on the vee/bed in the same way, though in both cases the far end has been machined to be relatively flat to the bed, and therefor have some meaningful bearing on it (the tailstock has no such machining, and so sits on the bed on the single outside edge of the casting, against the center of the bed).
Headstock (easiest to see the machining):
PXL_20230330_230954766.jpg



Cross-slide (hard to see behind those little plates: are those intended to keep chips out of the way?):

PXL_20230330_044109745.jpg


Here's the beginning of my current working solution: turn that casting around and let it bear fully on the ways; build a new vee out of 2 45 plates (I have limited precision tooling, or perhaps patience); after it's all set up right (have to flatten some sides) bolt it on with loctite between the plats and between them and the casting, so the loctite is taking any shear forces, the bolts are just keeping things together:

PXL_20230331_030559745.jpg


I'm drilling the holes in the plates oversized to allow for a bit of adjustment, and in the wrong places to keep me humble (hence the second bolt doesn't go in). It turns out that the other features of the casting are either symmetrical or easily duplicated.
I expect to keep the lathe, which is a good thing since I've drilled and tapped two holes in that casting! I think cheap mini-lathes are just like this, so I'll take a while to fix it up and see how much smoother/better I can get it. Many screws and such are loose on it, but that's just requiring me to learn it inside & out...
I'm curious about checking the axial alignment of the headstock shaft with the bed, I haven't quite figured out the right way to do that... I suppose ideally such an effort would also reveal flatness & twist... I'm thinking a crossline laser module in the chuck, like this one https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07L4225TM/ref=sw_img_1?smid=A17O8U969TLM8D&psc=1,
I suspect that most of the things I do on this will be in plastic, aluminum, maybe brass... and that most of my projects will not require aerospatial precision. Like, before I even opened it I realized that a belt sander I am rebuilding requires bearings with external snap-ring grooves: on quick inspection I can't find them anywhere (yes, they are probably out there somewhere...). But now I can just cut a little snap ring groove into a standard bearing (yes, weakening it: that's what they did though). I mean, we'll see how all that goes should I ever get that far.
So far so fun!
btw: this is sort of proof-of-concept. I will come back and mill those properly, or at least flatten the pertinent sides, someday. After I move those pesky holes. Anyone know how to remove a misplaced hole?
Keith
 
They say these machines are "kits" and usually require some fiddling- but to me this seems to be taking it a bit far...
But if you are having fun who am I to judge? It's all good
:)
 
Hi Keith,

And welcome to the friendly machinist site....

I admire your willingness to workwith what you have there but I will second the send it back right away comment that @markba633csi posted. The tailstock is a critical component for a lathe and fabricating a fix for this machine is likely to be an exercise in frustration....

We have folks on here who attempt to get perfect measurements on inexpensive asian machines and many folks who use them and produce good results after "tuning them up", but from what I see you just have a factory defect.

If they want to send the proper tailstock that might be okay, but looking at how they did the headstock I think you'll be hard pressed to do good work with it ever. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like a lathe shaped object more than an actual lathe.

We have a standard here in the US called implied merchantability. It means that If I sell you something it needs to be suitable for doing the job it's advertised as doing. This machine falls short of that just from looking at a few pictures. Send it back now and either get another one from them that's built right or get your money back.

John
 
Back
Top