• We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Holzmann HOB260NL P/T Issues

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

AJB Temple

Finely figured
Joined
13 Oct 2015
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
870
Location
Tunbridge Wells
Good write up Mike.

I have the Axminster trade version of this machine. It is abused quite a bit (dragged around my workshop) and is OK in that the top is coplanar. The thicknesser is just about OK but crazily sensitive to how much depth is taken off.

Personally I would simply sell the machine on rather than spend hours of precious time trying to fix this piece of junk. I too would like a better machine, ideally with 14" width and spiral cutter. I can't really justify it with my hobby throughput.

Look forward to seeing what you get as a replacement.
 

MikeK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
9 Apr 2017
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,097
Location
Germany
Great thread and again such attention to detail with good clear photos to support, I will look at my PT107 soon and compare what it has / has not in common and maybe common issues, once again another great technical thread.

Thanks, Roy! I look forward to your comparison. I do not have access to any other versions, so it would be good for me to know if these different models share more than just appearances or a few traits.
 

MikeK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
9 Apr 2017
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,097
Location
Germany
Good write up Mike.

I have the Axminster trade version of this machine. It is abused quite a bit (dragged around my workshop) and is OK in that the top is coplanar. The thicknesser is just about OK but crazily sensitive to how much depth is taken off.

Personally I would simply sell the machine on rather than spend hours of precious time trying to fix this piece of junk. I too would like a better machine, ideally with 14" width and spiral cutter. I can't really justify it with my hobby throughput.

Look forward to seeing what you get as a replacement.

Thanks, AJB! The trade version looks much better than mine and has better reviews. Unfortunately for me, I didn't do much (any?) research before I bought this treasure, but have gained a lot of knowledge since I uncrated it.

I don't know if I'll be able to sell it, but it will leave my shop as soon as the replacement arrives. I'll list it on the German equivalent of Gumtree, but I won't hesitate to take it to the recycling center if there are no takers. I thought I was going to haul away my Triton Workcentre that had been gathering dust for a couple of years in my garage. None of the schools in the area wanted it as a donation, but I finally found someone who would take it. I needed the space and the Workcentre no longer had any value to me.
 

Spectric

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
1,859
Location
North Cumbria
One difference between the PT107 and your Holz is in the locking mechanism, yours uses a jaming action with that piece of metal being pushed against the column whereas the 107 uses a split sleeve that clamps the central column. On the raise / lower mechanism instead of bevel gears the 107 uses a worm and wheel arrangement from what I can see.

The one early modification I did make was on the fence slide, originaly it was a pain to go from planing to thicknessing where you need to remove the fence in order to lift both tables. By removing 40mm from the slide the fence can just be moved right forward and removed as it now clears the fixed part it slides in.
 

MikeK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
9 Apr 2017
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,097
Location
Germany
One difference between the PT107 and your Holz is in the locking mechanism, yours uses a jaming action with that piece of metal being pushed against the column whereas the 107 uses a split sleeve that clamps the central column. On the raise / lower mechanism instead of bevel gears the 107 uses a worm and wheel arrangement from what I can see.

The manual that came with mine shows the split sleeve and side clamp like you describe. Here are two screen shots from the online manual. The red arrow is pointing to the side clamp.

HOB260NL-Lock-1.png


HOB260NL-Lock-2.png





The one early modification I did make was on the fence slide, originaly it was a pain to go from planing to thicknessing where you need to remove the fence in order to lift both tables. By removing 40mm from the slide the fence can just be moved right forward and removed as it now clears the fixed part it slides in.

Good idea! I'll do the same to mine.

I noticed in a couple of videos another difference between ours is the direction the planer tables tilt when using the thicknesser. My tables tilt away from the fence while it looks like the PT107 tables tilt towards the fence. When I looked at the casting on mine, I can see the area with the table height adjustment bolts are identical to the area with the hinges, but without the additional milling. I suppose this is a one size fits all approach to making a common casting that can be used on the different models.
 

Spectric

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
1,859
Location
North Cumbria
I can also add that the hinge attachment on the 107 to the tables also uses the two roll pins, not sure why they have done this unless they experienced movement with just the fasteners. I have not done exhaustive measurements as yet on my 107 but it has a Wixey gauge fitted and I do notice it changes when I lock the thicknessing bed by around 20 thou, at this point I cannot conclude if this is entirely due to the bed or within the Wixey gauge attachment so will have to use my one time gauge like you have between the cutter block and bed to give confirmation.

As to manufacturing of these machines I do not understand or know the asian manufacturing model but there is too much comonality between so many P/T's there has to be a common link, either one factory or a couple of factories buying in common components but I would suspect a common factory, the question then arises as to where the design originates that leads to these variations between them. Shame we do not have any asian members on this site who work in manufacturing and make machinery for the west.
 

Jameshow

Established Member
Joined
4 Oct 2020
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
1,469
Location
Bradford
I can also add that the hinge attachment on the 107 to the tables also uses the two roll pins, not sure why they have done this unless they experienced movement with just the fasteners. I have not done exhaustive measurements as yet on my 107 but it has a Wixey gauge fitted and I do notice it changes when I lock the thicknessing bed by around 20 thou, at this point I cannot conclude if this is entirely due to the bed or within the Wixey gauge attachment so will have to use my one time gauge like you have between the cutter block and bed to give confirmation.

As to manufacturing of these machines I do not understand or know the asian manufacturing model but there is too much comonality between so many P/T's there has to be a common link, either one factory or a couple of factories buying in common components but I would suspect a common factory, the question then arises as to where the design originates that leads to these variations between them. Shame we do not have any asian members on this site who work in manufacturing and make machinery for the west.
The link - shoddy workmanship!!
 

Spectric

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
1,859
Location
North Cumbria
They are manufacturing to a cost for a retailer, retailer wants to max profits and yet we still purchase. Don't under estimate what they could produce if the retailer accepted lower profit margins, paid them more and charged us a realistic price but also woodworking machinery is not going to be a high volume product so hence why so much re-badging.
 

Inspector

Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
Joined
18 Jun 2006
Messages
3,084
Reaction score
1,160
Location
Saskatoon, SK., Canada
I'm curious if all your planer/thicknessers have table locks and are they needed? Do the setting move in use? Reason I ask is my Hitachi F1000a Planer/Jointer (side by side rather than over and under like yours) from around 1980 doesn't have one and it never moves while in use. Lots of stand alone thicknessers don't have them either with the exception of some of the more recent lunchbox planers.

Pete
 

MikeK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
9 Apr 2017
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,097
Location
Germany
I'm curious if all your planer/thicknessers have table locks and are they needed? Do the setting move in use? Reason I ask is my Hitachi F1000a Planer/Jointer (side by side rather than over and under like yours) from around 1980 doesn't have one and it never moves while in use. Lots of stand alone thicknessers don't have them either with the exception of some of the more recent lunchbox planers.

Pete
On my P/T (J/P), both the upper and lower tables have locks. The upper tables each have a locking shaft that mates under a M10 bolt head. Depending on how much force is used to lock the tables in place, the coplanar relationships between the two tables does change. I don't use the locks on the upper tables because I got tired of trying guessing on the Kentucky windage needed to compensate for the change when adjusting the tables. Gravity is much more predictable and constant, and I haven't noticed any movement in the upper tables during normal use...other than when the adjustment bolts loosen.

The lower table on my machine has it's own stability problems, which are compounded by the locking method. I don't know if the lower table moves on it's own during use because I haven't used it enough to find out. As I stated earlier, I will make a new method of locking the lower table in place that doesn't involve touching the pedestal.

I looked at images of your Hitachi. It is a beast, but I hope you don't need parts for it. :D
 

Inspector

Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
Joined
18 Jun 2006
Messages
3,084
Reaction score
1,160
Location
Saskatoon, SK., Canada
I've had the Hitachi since new and the only thing that went was the switch which I replaced with better. If the motor goes I can exchange it for a rebuilt one from an American company but it would be about $500US so not cheap. A New Zealander has modified his to use an induction motor on the base which makes it quieter and would be cheaper. Blades are still available and aftermarket spiral carbide insert heads are available if one wants to put the bucks in it. It is a really good machine as was the Makita 2030 version of that time, my buddy has one of them. The only reason I would have to sell it is if I had the opportunity to get a wider thicknesser and separate wider jointer but it is nice and compact so I would likely keep it even if I got bigger separates. I hope you can get yours to a workable state.

Pete
 

Spectric

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
1,859
Location
North Cumbria
The upper tables each have a locking shaft that mates under a M10 bolt head. Depending on how much force is used to lock the tables in place, the coplanar relationships between the two tables does change.
Same idea on the 107 and will need to do a lot more measuring but it does have a major input on my machine. Unlocked it fails to remove anything and locked removes the 1mm it is set to which to me is an uncertainty, looks like I will also be doing more investigations and checking for the coplanar relationship is maintained.
 

MikeK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
9 Apr 2017
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,097
Location
Germany
I started working on adjusting the planer tables, starting with the outfeed table. After I filed the tops of the height adjustment bolts flat (or at least flatter), I added a second lock nut and reattached the table to the machine.

In the process, I found more useless bits of hardware and discarded them. The two grub screws, which are in both table hinges and identified by the red arrows in the image below, lock the height of the table when they are tightened against the steel shaft. This would be a good thing, but it also prevents the table from tilting when they are tightened. Since there is no mention of using these in the Holzmann operator's manual, I banished them to my spare hardware bin. I have not noticed the tables shifting height once set by the adjustment knob.

HOB260NL-Outfeed-Adjust-4.jpg


I started the outfeed table alignment process by adjusting the rough height of the leading edge to match the top of a cutter blade at top dead center. This is an approximate setting, since I will set up the blades later. This step is to ensure the bottom leading edge of the outfeed table is clear of the blades as the cutter block spins. If I was starting without the blades in the cutter block, I would set the leading edge of the table about 0.030-inch (about 0.762mm) from the top dead center of the cutter block. The Holzmann operator's manual recommends the blades protrude between 0.7mm and 0.8mm, but no more than 1.1mm, from the cutter block.

I then removed the blades to prevent any cuts while I spin the cutter block around to make spot checks...not that I doubt the accuracy of this finely crafted machine. I also checked to make sure the outfeed table was closely level with the thicknesser table. There is no relationship between the two tables, but this gives me a reasonable starting point for the planer table alignment. Since the outfeed table is the reference for setting the infeed table, I need to make sure the outfeed table is not angled up or down along the length such that I can't match it with the infeed table.

The next step is to pick a side of the table as the reference height, with respect to the cutter block (not the blades). I put the Oneway Gauge on the hinge side of the table and set the dial to the zero reference.

HOB260NL-Outfeed-Adjust-1.jpg


Then I moved the gauge to the latch side and began the "adjustment point dance", which is similar to hovering a helicopter. Adjustment of any of the points affects the overall movement of the table, so small adjustments and frequent back and forth checks are required. Lowering the latch side raises the hinge side, so there is a constant adjustment of the corner points and the overall table height to ensure the leading edge of the table stays in the correct zone. The outfeed table is the least painful to adjust because I don't care if a minor adjustment of the leading edge has a minor effect on the trailing edge. This is definitely not the case with the infeed table. I didn't touch the two adjustment points on the hinge side and made all of my adjustments from the latch side.

After about 30 minutes, I had the hinge and latch sides of the table as nearly perfect as I could manage.

HOB260NL-Outfeed-Adjust-2.jpg


Then came the big test with locking the table in place. To my amazement, the hinge side didn't move at all, and the latch side moved about 0.0005-inch. I can live with that. I didn't use brute force to lock the table, only enough to ensure it would mostly stay in place. If I used a lot of force, the table would deflect by 0.001-inch on the hinge side and 0.003-inch on the other side.

HOB260NL-Outfeed-Adjust-3.jpg


I also made over a dozen table tilts, simulating changing from planing to thicknessing and back again, to see if there was any unwanted change in the table adjustments. I checked the height of both sides with respect to the cutter block on every third tilt after locking the table in place. The height varied between 0.0005-inch and -0.0005-inch randomly between the sides, so I can live with that as well.

In the process of setting the outfeed table, I noticed the leading edge of the table is not square with the cutter block. Either the cutter block or both tables are skewed slightly in the casting, as can be seen in the photo below. I don't know if this will have any adverse effect on the machine's performance, but since the table is flat with the cutter block surface, I'm not going to worry about it.

HOB260NL-Outfeed-Adjust-5.jpg


Now the fun begins with the infeed table...more to follow. o_O
 

sploo

Somewhat extinguished member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
752
Location
West Yorkshire
Interesting thread. I have an old Holzmann KAD-320 that I picked up (used) some years ago - and still haven't finish restoring. I don't know if that one is actually Austrian made, but it does look to be a fair bit beefier than the HOB260NL (in construction - I know it's a 12" rather than a 10" model).

1639697414633.png
 

MikeK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
9 Apr 2017
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,097
Location
Germany
Interesting thread. I have an old Holzmann KAD-320 that I picked up (used) some years ago - and still haven't finish restoring. I don't know if that one is actually Austrian made, but it does look to be a fair bit beefier than the HOB260NL (in construction - I know it's a 12" rather than a 10" model).

Just looking at what appears to be a cast iron fence tells me your Holzmann is much better than mine. Care for a trade? :LOL:
 

Digger58

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2021
Messages
37
Reaction score
17
Location
Limerick
I empathize entirely with you, Last year (yes 2021) I bought a Holtzmann metal cutting bandsaw, from the outset it refused to cut square, The only blade adjustment is with the guide rollers into an aluminium housing, the threads pulled out very quickly, I aslo found the whole saw did not sit down perpendicular to the table either. Much adjustment later between grinding one edge and shimming the other I managed to get it to rise and fall at right angles to the table, I was given new roller guides to hold the blade adjustment which I adapted so that the pressure is not just on the bolt holding it, I had to fabricate little adjusters for each side of the bearings to get the blade to run correctly. Very poorly made and could not recommend them to anyone. The metal is of course Chinesium so basiclly same as lead!
 
Top