Record cl4

[windows20]

Hi
Any one have this lathe,how do you find them.do the bars make any difference compared to a flat bed.
Thanks
Andy

 

[AJB Temple]

The bars are fine. Very heavy and solid.

 

[Mal]

I bought a CL4 Next Generation a couple of weeks ago ( Sounds like a Star Trek episode! )
Only just managed to get it spinning this evening, thanks to Record Power who kindly forgot to pack the motor pulley, which arrived yesterday after a few pointed phone calls!
I have to say though,even after a couple of hours , I am very, very impressed with it.

 

[Bigbud78]

I've had one for maybe a year now, bought it used. Its one of the one's made in the uk before they moved manufacture overseas. Its not been a bad machine and a couple of the niggles I have with it have been sorted on the new machines.

I personally am not keen on the bed bars and want to change the machine but I'm looking at £3k jet maybe next year.

If buying used then your best bet is a CL4 or similar as they come up on ebay and sale often, I've seen very few machines being sold used which would match it with cast iron beds for the money.

If buying new, I'd be looking at the AT1628VS now.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I had one from new for 3 years and really liked it. It's basically a classic design that has stood the test of time and is a very useful lathe. here's my take on it's pro's and cons:

Rotating headstock a real nice touch when hollowing bowls to avoid leaning over the bars and extending right arm away from body.
Bronze bearing....just lovely....most people cite the need to oil the bearing as a drawback but one drip every 4 hours or so never bothered me.
Hefty length allowing long spindle work to be done.

Bars versus flat bed. Many people seem to be paranoid about the bars as though they're flexing and causing vibration problems. I didn't find this, I had the stand with mine and the solid steel bars were fine for work up to a certain weight/size and if you were judicious about keeping them as spherical as possible. Badly out of true blanks did cause vibration but then that's when the variable speed comes into its own because you just dial down the velocity until the vibration stops and take light cuts with sharp gouges until it's true. Flat beds are better in my view. I think they are more sturdy and they're definitely more convenient for placing tins of polish etc on temporarily but bars just aren't nearly as bad as some people seem to lament.

The big cons for me were the fact it was MT1 and the swing. Neither of these were a problem for my first 2 years of turning but as my skill and experience evolved, so did my ambition for bigger more hefty work and I basically ran out of capacity with the swing (max diameter for bowls) and the beefiness of MT1 when MT2 is clearly more suited to heavier work.

So if you plan to turn bowls with a diameter greater than 9" you're better off with a larger swing, a 1.5 -2HP motor and MT2 but otherwise it will handle all you can throw at it. I should point out that the new gen are indeed MT2 so it would seem that even RP agree with me on that point. The fact is that the entire industry has been landsliding slowly towards MT2 being the accepted standard. My guess is the Jets and Axy clones starting cannibalising RP's revenues which triggered their recent upgrade to MT2 as standard.

But for a hobby turner turning a combination of spindle work and small to medium sized bowls the older MT1 CL4's are a time tested classic design. Pretty they're not but functional and long lasting they are. I'm definitely a fan. If you see yourself wanting to turn much bigger bowls/platters closer to 20" then you need a bigger swing and MT2. The notion of turning larger work on the CL4 with the headstock rotated through 180 degrees so it's outboard like they show in their catalogue (with a 30" platter) is pure marketing hogwash in my view as I for one would certainly not want to true up a 30" platter on an MT1 rig.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I meant to say I also didn't like the non hollow headstock either because it meant the use of a thread protector to eject stuck morse taper drive centres instead of the more common knock out bar. All a bit of a pain...as was the tailstock wheel having no handle to facilitate fast use. Again, I think all those bugs are fixed on the new gen models. But, these are really cosmetic and don't get in the way of it's primary purpose. They're more about finessing once you've got used to it all.

 

[Stiggy]

I have a CL4 and it's great - the frame is a little on the flimsy side but can be strengthened easily - overall it's awesome!

 

[DTR]

I meant to say I also didn't like the non hollow headstock either because it meant the use of a thread protector to eject stuck morse taper drive centres instead of the more common knock out bar.

I prefer using the thread protector for ejecting centres myself, much more civilised than using a bumper-outer! :lol:

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

It really is down to personal taste.....things like that......that's why I mentioned that the last few things were cosmetic and don't in any way affect its function. One thing I've noticed about my own personal likes and dislikes is that I tend towards impatience when I'm turning. I don't like anything that takes me away from the tools, whether that's sharpening or operating a thread protector versus a knock out bar. Once I'm in the zone I kind of resent anything that distracts that. Consequently, once you've owned and operated a lathe for a long time, you start to home in on the little things and they become more important and more of a niggle. They take on a greater value and colour your judgement. So the fact you prefer a thread protector over a knockout bar is a great example of where there's nowt wrong with the lathe, the problem is with me (my impatience).

But I should perhaps reiterate that for the avoidance of doubt I thoroughly enjoyed my 3 years with the CL4, it's a dam good lathe, bullet proof, easy to transport, excellent quality in all the big things that matter for a given capacity. And to that end I would be unreserved in my recommending of it. I would happily have another if circumstances led that way too.

One thing I'll never be without again and that's variable speed......that's on my cant live without list

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I meant to say I also didn't like the non hollow headstock either because it meant the use of a thread protector to eject stuck morse taper drive centres instead of the more common knock out bar.

I prefer using the thread protector for ejecting centres myself, much more civilised than using a bumper-outer! :lol:

A bar is quicker and easier, though - you don't need to first find a spanner.

 

[DTR]

I meant to say I also didn't like the non hollow headstock either because it meant the use of a thread protector to eject stuck morse taper drive centres instead of the more common knock out bar.

I prefer using the thread protector for ejecting centres myself, much more civilised than using a bumper-outer! :lol:

A bar is quicker and easier, though - you don't need to first find a spanner.

I've never needed a spanner on mine, and I'd say it's as quick and easy as using a bar. Probably quicker, actually. But as Bob said, it's horses for courses.

 

[Stiggy]

I actually put a spanner between the tailstock and the rotating centre then wind back the wheel - the centre just pops out - simples!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I don't see quite what you're doing there? How does winding the tailstock back pull the centre from the headstock?
Some of you seem to be using different cl4s to the three I've used - there is no way on any of them I could use the thread protector without a spanner (possibly because they are rarely taken off?), that one thing alone would irritate me enough not to buy one. I think it is only me it irritates, though - everyone else never takes the chuck off and just sticks the morse taper drive into the chuck.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Towards the end of my CL4 days I too pretty much never took the chuck off. I bought a Sorby STEB drive (not the morse taper version, it had a rear end that supported being gripped in chuck jaws).

That was a fabulous solution as you have the best of both worlds with the minimum down time. The only downside is having a dirty great chuck poking from the headstock does restrict access to the back of the work on the odd occasion its called for whereas a pure morse taper drive centre doesn't. There is also something kind of pure about having a morse taper drive centre that I rather like. It's the minimum of clutter and load on the bearings and I like the feel of that on smaller spindles.

I've since switched to the Axy evolution chuck which has an insert to take a morse tapered steb centre. That chuck is absolutely superbly engineered from a solid block of stainless steel and its easily the best chuck I've ever used. Solid as a rock, totally concentric and impossible to rust....nice.

 

[steadyeddie]

I've had one for years. Absolutely no regrets. The 1MT is quite adequate for the items I turn and as mentioned previously, the variable speed is a God send.

Dave

 

[Dalboy]

I have the CL3 which does not have VS it does every thing I want. The only thing that I would like is as stated a through hole in the head shaft but that is only so I can fit a vac chuck, but I am sure I will get around that.

 

[DTR]

Some of you seem to be using different cl4s to the three I've used - there is no way on any of them I could use the thread protector without a spanner

I've just realised my mistake

SWMBO has a Coronet (same lathe, different colour). I was so impressed by the thread protector that I made one for my own lathe, which also has a blind headstock socket. It's only just occurred to me that when ejecting a centre on my lathe, I most likely hold on to the exposed pulley with my other hand. It's so intuitive that I don't realise I'm doing it. I completely forgot that on the Coronet everything is enclosed so there's nothing to hang on to. Having said that, SWMBO says that on her lathe it's enough just to hold the centre still while turning the protector

 

[woodpig]

I rarely remove my chuck either. All my drive centres fit into the chuck as do the face plate rings and even the pigtail for buffing.

 

[timber]

I rarely remove my chuck either. All my drive centres fit into the chuck as do the face plate rings and even the pigtail for buffing.

Woodpig I do just the same with My Legacy ornamental mill
I did offer my Record CL4 36 to windows 20 as I have no further use for it, I just use my Legacy mill, does what I want to do .I sent him a couple of pics. and no response is he just a collector of pictures
Has me wondering what he is up to
Timber

 

[mpcpba]

I have had the new version of the CL4 for 6 months now. (NB Quite a few of the comments here were wrongly relating to the old CL4 which is a different much older design machine all together). Compared most options in the market before purchasing and for me this stuck out head and shoulders above the othes at the price.
As a new turner I wanted to ensure that i made a value driven future proofed purchase which would last me a good while as my turning needs developed. I am overall extremely happy with the new style CL4 and would commend it highly. I also have found Record Power very responsive with the couple of isues I had with it - all easily resolved.

The variable speed motor is invaluable- it makes working so easy and is a great aid to stress reduction when learning. Just remember to unplug every night as the inverter still seems to be powered even when 'off'.
The round bed bars are very solid and heavy. In an ideal world I would still probably prefer a flat bed though as you can't as easily balance a gouge on the bars as you can on a flat. However as doing so is probably not good practice anyway it just means you need a lay out table near to hand as you work which is far better and more toe friendly anyway!
The hollow head and tailstocks make knocking out of centres easy and the MT2 tapers are very solid.
The motor is very powerful and quiet albeit that the variable speed head unit is quite a big affair
The frame is very solid and even though it is not yet bolted down it has only really vibrated a lot with one or two very large out of balance pieces. Ideally bolting it down would be sensible though and is something I will do when I am finally sure of my workshop layout.
The tailstock has good travel and the handwheel is easy to use. Removing it when bowl or faceplate turning is a bit if a fiddle though as it can't slide straight off the bed bars without using a spanner on the underneath.

So now for some minor niggles
The headstock is not lockable. So fixing the headstock to sand / carve whilst a piece is on board is not possible and you have to use 2 spanners to remove the chuck which is fiddly.
There is no headstock hand-wheel so spinning a piece to check or apply finish etc is again, fiddly.
The optional bowl toolrest support works well enough for larger bowls turned at an angle to the bed. Turning the headstock is easy too. The system of sliding bars and brackets gives good flexibility for the position of the toolrest but the tightening sytems of bolts and bars is a bit fiddly again. But my issue with it is that it is a large piece of kit which has to be permanently fixed in place (as it replaces part of the bed bar support) and it sticks out at right angles quite a way from the main bed. As a result it gets in the way somewhat when using the lathe in its normal set up. It is very useful for large bowl turning (and will be better too when the lathe is bolted down) but the fact that you can't remove it for every day use is a pain. I may even consider removing it and rigging up a free standing tool support which can be set aside when I'm not turning large bowls.
Overall I am very happy wth the CL4 though and think it will last me for many years to come.