In your second tool, you bolted the mounting bar on both sides of the flexure slot. Basically eliminating any spring action. From what I can see in the video.
@@WinkysWorkshop Winky: jfl4066 is correct. You bolted both sides of the flexible tool mount to the holder. This eliminated its ability to flex, reintroducing chatter. Take out the front bolts and you should see it cut like the first one. It's like a tuning fork with both legs clamped. It cannot vibrate.
@@darrelsartin4355 Ah but at 1:52 he said "I put some bolts in there to kinda dampen the vibration" implying that he added these later, as a method to combat the chatter. I think he means that they were partially tightened to provide some friction simulating the potential friction on the other welded holder.
I like it Wink you remind me so much of my Dad. He could just look at something and figure in his head a better way to make it function better. He was a WWII vet that didn’t know the meaning of it couldn’t be fixed. He never had access to a lathe and Mill and now I have those but don’t have near him creative mind. I would give anything if he were here now with access to my equipment to see what he would build. Again you remind me so much of him , simple but highly effective solutions to problems. Thanks for the great videos!!!
Thanks Richard. A version of this tool was made many years ago I just adapted it to a quick change post. I never tried the original but the one I made works great!
Thanks for all the effort to make this happen. I found one of the original tool holders on ebay. It will not fit in my tool holders but I bought it anyway. The intent was to use it to get starting point dimensions for a DIY tool, I'll compare what you have with what the original has when I build my holder.
"I found one of the original tool holders on ebay. It will not fit in my tool holders but I bought it anyway." So get the right tool holders and the right toolpost and the right top slide, cross slide, carriage and lathe - LOL
Mounting the blade at an angle is a good idea. Adds some top rake, but also reduces the front clearance. That alone can make a huge difference in stopping chatter.
Thank you, looks like a sure winner. I do not have a milling machine so this will be a welding project and a lot of hand cutting with some modifications. Much appreciated.
How about two pins for the blade to sit on and then weld a plate that sits on top of the blade. Its a T shaped blade but the top of the blade is only slightly wider.
You're welcome. It seems to work well for me aside from chatter at the start of the cut. Once the tool is under load it stops. it might be that the blade closer to level would work better but it's hard to say.
I never had any luck with HSS blade cut off tools, made several kinds and just wasn’t satisfied. However I see the concept and in my opinion the rigidity of using the tool block mass and bolting it to the top, plus shortening the distance from the quick change post is why it works so well. Basically that what I did with my last cut off block that uses inserts.
I like this revision much better than the original. I've downloaded the plans and got an AXA tool holder. Looking forward to building it and hopefully cure my parting troubles. Thanks Winky!!
I'll be making a small change to the plans today so wait until tomorrow and download them again. It's a minor change that is easy to do later if you have started the tool.
I just watched this video, and this is a great idea. I aways have problems parting off so I am going to build your spring parting blade holder. Thanks for the plans and Marry Christmas
I really like it. I like all the tools and stuff you make. I have an old South Bend 9in, and I have to make all my tool attachments. And you have inspired me to keep making more, thank you for being here for all of us.
Thanks and yes, it drives me crazy too. Waiting on a gear, I sure hope it matches. I made the gear with what I thought were the correct specs but it's terrible.
No idea what sort of time and materials you have in this parting tool, but you might consider selling them. This is a giant improvement over what I'm used to with parting.
Thanks! Several have said the same. Maybe I need to look into this. I guess a couple hours work, $20 for the axa holder and maybe $12 bucks in materials not counting the blade. I'd to figure out a way to make it work with different tool posts.
@@WinkysWorkshop Like probably everyone else that watches your channel, I sent you an email. I have the same tool post as you do so this is going to slide right into place for me. I liked the original design with a bar. This makes the tool holder universal since every tool post can hold a bar. I think welding your new hinge section to a bar would work.
I intended to build your original design from January but procrastination paid off as I like this design better. I made it last week and it works great. Thank you for supplying the drawings. I would suggest you make a note on the piece that bolts to the top of the AXA holder though. I have holders from 3 different manufacturers and the spacing between the 2 holes is different on all of them, one was even .830" but I used one that was .880". So in order to ensure a tight fit folks should measure the AXA holder they are going to use before making this part. I increased the chamfer to get more weld penetration and also continued the weld around the front down to the start of the slot opening to give more stability in the Y axis. I didn't have a good way to make the bandsaw cuts so I used a 1/8" end mill for the slot. This probably works better for your revision of adding a screw to limit movement. Enjoy your videos; keep up the good work.
Yeah, an 1/8" slot is fine. The the extra weld work okay? It seems like the extra weld would stop it from flexing but the amount of flex needed is difficult to determine anyway. Maybe less flex is better.
@@WinkysWorkshop Yes, the extra weld works fine. Since the upper portion is welded this small area where I also welded has no affect on limiting any flex since that all takes place on the portion below the slot. I also didn't mention that, since I am fortunate enough to have a small surface grinder, I ground those 2 main parts not only to have a smooth surface where they rub together when flexing but also to have more precise thickness which I think would help the blade keep it's perpendicularity while in use. Of course, careful face milling would work also. One of the things I think a lot of us old hobby guys complain about is having to adjust the height of the blade holder every time you have to change the stick out length. This is the case with the cut off blade holder that came with my AXA set and also with this design. But because of how this design works I wonder if the blade could be parallel to the bed. Unless you know of a reason why it wouldn't work or have already tried it I'm thinking about making one myself and trying it. Thanks again for resurrecting and old design, adapting it to our modern tool holders and sharing it.
@@johnziebron4058 Unless you grind a back relief the blade would act like a scraper if it was level. However, I also made a direct mount cut off blade holder that works perfectly with a level blade. It might also work well with this design... Try it and let me know. The direct mount is very solid but I like the quick change for speed. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-B6NMY73eOxU.html
@@WinkysWorkshop I watched all your videos on the subject of cutoff tooling. I realize the significance of having a solid mount and I like this design with the flex slot. I made this holder based on your drawings (I have the same cut off blade except mine are 1/2" tall) and it worked well but I just don't like having the blade on an angle because every time you need to change the stick out length you have to adjust the height of the holder. So I decided to make a new blade holder based on this same basic design but welding part B with no angle so the blade slot is parallel to the top of the cross slide. I did make a couple of changes though. Part A is the same size except that I use the holes at each end of the AXA holder instead of just the the back 2 holes. For part B I used 2" wide stock (milled to 1 7/8) so I could put 2 blade hold downs. The 1/2" hole is in the same location so my slot ends up being longer. A generous chamfer allows for a penetrating weld between parts A and B after which I milled this top surface flush. I also welded the right side of part B down to the slot opening. I do not require part C for height adjustment. Instead I opted to use a "shim" under the AXA holder for making a more solid mounting. You want the tip of the blade to be around the center of the spindle and in order to zero in on the shim thickness I used drills initially. My final shim ended up being .345". (Final shim thickness can also be varied by changing the blade position on part B). I was able to do a lot of testing today. Since I already had my collet chuck on I used some 3/4" stock first and had great results after playing with spindle and cross slide speeds. My final test results were with my 6" 3 jaw chuck (similar to yours with the hang out) and using 1 7/8" diameter stock which put my 11 inch Logan almost at the limits of cross slide retracted and enough blade stick out to reach the center. When I switched to the 3 jaw chuck I turned my compound to be in line with the cross slide for better support. I had to put my lathe in back gears for this size stock but it worked great. My back gear speed was 120 RPMs and I had my compound speed at 2 1/2 thousands per revolution. I put an indicator on back end of the blade and zeroed it. After the blade started the cut the indicator was moving slightly between 6 and 7 thousands. There was no chatter even when starting the cut. The cut took almost 5 minutes but I'm just a hobbyist, not production work. I could probably move my belt to a different pulley ration to get a faster back gear speed and it should still work fine. The previous testing I did with slight changes in height ended up with my final shim putting the tip of the blade exactly at the center of spindle. I made several cuts on this larger stock and all ended up with no nib on the piece in the chuck. In fact, you can't tell the difference if a facing tool was used or not. I'm so glad this holder experiment was not a waste of time and I wish I could include some pictures and even a video here to prove it. So maybe you could end up doing another video for other "lazy" machinists who don't like to have to mess with changing cut off blade height.
@@JimsShed I tried chain lube but I'll have to admit that I may have had the wrong type. It wasn't as thick as the stuff I used to get. What brand do you use?
@@WinkysWorkshop The product I use is GRO Chain Lube (200ml). I'm in Australia so not sure what's available where you are. The BelRay products suggested by @PhatPizza are similar.
Great work, well done. The 5 degree up nose has the disadvantage that the tool height needs readjusting. That decreases the release angle as well. Suppose a deep part off and You want to extend the blade bit by bit as the parting off advances. Grinding the release angle is preferred as I feel.
A small price to pay for a better cutting tool. Grinding top rake on a standard blade has a problem in that the cut becomes narrower than the blade and can cause broken blades when it jams.
@@chrisstephens6673 I understand what You say. Checking my HSS 1/16x1/2x4-1/2 China blade the thicker upper part is 4 mm high/deep. That allows for a cut to create the chip maker.
Yes, having the angle creates minor drawback but resolves another issue. This blade has a concave surface on the top and a slight taper on the sides. Grinding a back relief would destroy this good geometry. This is by far the best blade I've ever used. This shape make the chips smaller than the cut. Here's a link a picture of the balde close up. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s9qcd5-wj3c.html
@@WinkysWorkshop The sideview of Your blade looks pretty much like the blade I refer to. The taper is at least very small near the cutting edge. Grinding a bit ought to be possible. It cuts 6061 well without any back relief so far. I might be wrong but I think I've cut some steel as well that way.
Glad you like it! I have another video coming out Friday with a small update that significantly improves the function of this tool. If you just downloaded the plan the update is on the last page.
@@WinkysWorkshop , thanks, my Jet 12-36 lathe uses the BXA quick change. Now I have to dig around and see what I have in an extra tool holder! Lol! Take care. Tom
Sorry no. You might try down sizing the holder. They also make smaller blades the same as the one I used that work great. They just don't go very deep. Maybe 1 inch max.
Just watched your first south bend video. Nice haul. The tail stock looks just like mine. I had to make the ram for mine... it was missing. Mine's an 11 inch.
It seems to work well. It sometimes chatters until full cutting pressure is achieved at the start of the cut but only for about 1 second. Slowing the RPM or shortening the blade seems to almost eliminate this however.
I'm using 130 wt. I made a gear and didn't get it right. Actually I made it 3 times!!! I think I have some bad info on the gears. I have a gear ordered. The only reason I made one was that 16 DP with a 14.5 PA are not made 5/8" wide. I ordered a 1/2" wide. But thanks anyway. Hopefully it will work... if not I know I'm working with a different PA. The DP is easy to figure.
Fantastic video Mark ! I wonder if on your design the addition of a screw pushing on a heavy spring or maybe rubber slug which is pushing on a metal plunger and all this is built into the upper main housing so the metal plunger pushes onto the lower section of the flexture across the slot , could this be used to tune the amount of flex of the unit and maybe the harmonics that cause chatter ?
I think it would need to pull the spring closed to work well (like preloading the spring). A screw that pushed would likely make it act like a normal cutoff tool. Maybe a screw with s super strong spring pushing might work too.
You know I have never calculated them. I built the drive for the lathe and never did the math. I'm guessing a little fast but it works (maybe 700 RPM for 1-inch stock). I use back gear for 1.5" stock. I tried to figure the feed but the threading chart doesn't make sense to me. The chart is all TPI but above it there are words that say, "Longitudinal Feeds 2 1/3 Times Treads Per Inch" ? This doesn't make sense to me. 24 TPI=55 and 16 TPI=12. I'm using 24 or 48 but the feed rates don't jive. Any idea?
Did the second tool of the first style fail because of vibration due to pieces being bolted and not welded? To me, even with an interference fit there would be movement to cause chatter.
This could be the case although it was a very tight fit. I suspect the previous design was on the edge of usable even on the first one I made. This new design moved the pivot point toward the cut. This makes the tool move back more when it tries to grab. It seems to be VERY forgiving. Speed and feeds have very little effect.
I like it ! couldn't find your email address so I'm hoping this is good enough ! Nobody does cuttoff as good as Winky !!!! i need one of those cut off tools !
Winky, I like the look of that unit and it is certainly less intrusive compared to the original Armstrong design but I am not sure that I can afford the reduced usable width with that attachment in place. I wish we could get affordable T profile cutoff blades here in Aus, the only place I can find is 50AUD plus shipping for a 4inch piece. Years ago I had a small piece that came with a cutoff tool holder from the UK but that has long gone to the graveyard of broken tools. Good on you for making the plans available, Is there such a thing as a postal VPN so I can pretend to be in the US?
@@WinkysWorkshop perhaps you could order me a couple and forward using letter post (depending on postage I would obviously reimburse using paypay) as I am sure they wouldn't weigh that much.
I've got to make myself something like that, parting off is still very much a lottery as to survival of the tool. No amount of stiffening things up has done any good, tightening the gibs, adjusting the bearings, I even replaced the compound with a solid block. Really strange that the second one of the earlier design didn't work, do you think there could be a difference in the material itself?
Obviously something it different between the first two but what I'm not sure. I I had to guess I'd say that the first was not ideal either. The pivot point (point of flex) on the second design is key I think. The tool moves back more as it deflect
Can you lathe take a 3/16" depth of cut without effort? If it cant, then you can't use a 3/16" parting blade. Pretty simple, parting tools should be about 80% of the max depth of cut your machine can handle. After that, parting is just like turning, use a slightly reduced speed, but feed should be the same. People get in trouble when they try to cut too slow - cram the tool in there, if the machine stalls, get a thinner tool or a bigger machine.
I'm not sure I understand but the blade is 3/32". And yes that's about what the lathe can handle. I just made about 15 cuts at a verity of speeds and feeds cutting 1.5" bar. It will cut at 800 RPM but 180 was better. 800 was good for 1-inch but I still like the lower speeds... less oil slinging. Feed rates were .001 to .002 per rev.
From here, with regard to the failed second design, what I see is that the springing action is removed by bolting the tool holder bar to the front part of the tool. 🤔 🤣 JIM
The spring is the vatical bar with the hole. It's welded above the hole to the non-flexing horizontal bar. This design works a little better due to the point of flex being closer to the cutting edge. The blade retracts more under load.
@@WinkysWorkshop When you say retracts ? What happens when the spring retraction relaxes ? Or doesn't it ? If it doesn't .. then that suggests to me that lowering the blade might have the same effect ?
@@MatthewTinker-au-pont-blanc Look at the second tool he made, there are four screws through the tool into the holding bar. That makes the tool solid, no springing. JIM
it didn't work because of your front blots removing the spring . les England like it & I'm in he UK LOL Les . ha ha ha i Bild my cut of holders out of all old forged spanners. no longer used .i like it Ha Ha Ha .
The front bolts were an afterthought. The holes were oversized and there was a piece of shim stock between the bar and plate. It created an adjustable brake kind of but with out without the screws it didn't work.
No I haven't made drawing because it didn't work as well and second one I made of the first type was terrible. I do see the advantage of the first type however. It can be put in any size tool holder. I thought about mounting the new design the same but it increases the amount of overhang... Utilizing the tool holder like I did moved the tool about 5/8" closer to the post.
I understand what you are saying. They were added to try and stop it from chattering. They had over size holes so that that depending on the tightness you could adjust for chatter. It didn't work with or without anyway.
I am very interested to hear why the second tool didn’t work like the first, so if you or your viewers figure it out I would love to hear about it. Jim
I like the new design better but I will admit that I'm baffled. I moved the point of flex forward on the new design. this makes the tool pull back more when deflected. Maybe the first one was very close to not working also...
Great project Mark, I really enjoyed your explanations and proof of principals. Nice penetration on the weld. When I was learning how to run my newly acquired NIG, a talented young welder taught me 2 things you control are the ground clamp, and it never hurts to clean to bare metal if possible. Would this holder work with an indexable cutter? Cheers and thanks for the drawings!
i like it but dont qualify as am in eu. but just wanted to say maybe the second one doesnt work cause of the heat treatment you gave the first one with the weld. seeing it doesnt work couldnt hurt it trying to heat it and let it cool. thats the only differents i see in all 4 no heat put in from the weld on second one
Would this work with the carbide insert type cutoff blades? I've destroyed so many of those things I've developed a complex about using the lathe to cut off discs of any type.
@@stevewilliams2498 There were reps traveling between towns selling the stuff to workshops. One of them split down the centerline, so I can say without a doubt, that's all you can get in Southern Africa, "Boss bought Chinesium".
Carbide isn't as sharp which is why I went back to the blade. However... this set up might works very well with a carbide tool. I may have to explore this! Thanks!
The carbide is dull in comparison to HSS but this might work well with carbide. Be sure you watch part one. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-du2eCZlOQXE.html
Thanks for the free download. No secret I have problems parting off. I put it down to having old worn out machines. I am going to try your design. It doesn't make sense to me ? Allowing the blade to deflect down means either it stays down, suggesting that the setup is too high in the 1st place, or that it springs back up so why doesn't that make it dig in deeper as it comes up ? A mystery to be investigated.
Steve, if you haven't seen part one you need to watch it. I think it will clear things up. Thanks! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-du2eCZlOQXE.html
Great Job. Too bad i'm up here in canada and can't participate :( Also can;t see any of your replies to other comments. Strange thing, Keep doing the great work
Going to have to make one of these. I use BXA. Question: Thought on the size of flexure cross sectional area. Approach to sizing that amount of material. Looks like a perfect part to be reviewed with a stress-strain software program. The load for parting feed rate, stock material, etc. How much flex needed for deflection to get rid of chatter tied back to tool feed rate. An interesting problem to grind out the numbers on.
Interesting... There is a LOT going on with this tool and it's hard to know how everything interact. The point of flex in relation to the point of cut is huge. As you move the point closer to the point of cut (straight away from the operator) the more the tool retracts when deflected. I don't think it actually retracts when you factor in the feed but I do think it is compensating for flex in the compound and tool post. For this reason I think the ideal design may vary with the lathe it is used on. Hopefully not too much however.
@@WinkysWorkshop It's a complicated design digging down a few layers. Have to look into it closer. Might have to drop a question on Lipton. I'll wait till he's done with shop move and life is more stable for him. Pondering if the flexure design would be upgrade for my CNC lathe. Don't have chatter issue, so if it's not broke, don't mess with it is thought. I set it based on just feeds and speeds. I also have used the SFM mode for rpm before, didn't seem to matter. SFM mode is a nice feature for increasing insert life for other tools.
@@johnm840 From what Lipton said in his video I'd say his understanding is probably the same as mine but I could be wrong. I'm not sure I'd use the spring design if I wasn't having any problems. There are too drawbacks but one you got covered. The tool tends to dip under the stock at the end of the cut due to low RPM (SFPM). The other is a pattern on the stock on the end that is cut. It's basically flat but I assume they are due to a resonance change.
@@WinkysWorkshop Tom knows more than he said in video, and added time as well to learn more. Being Engineer (EE) take limits and evaluate. IF flexure is 4X+ beefier, then no motion from tool force pushing down on it. Make it much smaller, then the tool force will bend the flexure to the limit where the slot is gone with contact to back side. Not much help there for determining sweet spot. For a certain chip size, and rpm. What is down force on parting blade. That said need to write an equation with variables ( rpm, Depth of cut, diameter of stock, material, etc) A task unto itself. Next the flexture and motion of it based on the force load. sound be some info out there on this I would think. A common design with force gauges and other devices. Used to have access to an ME with stress-strain software on his computer. Was pretty interesting as he dinged around with bike frames for a fellow engineer in the group at that time. He messed with that program for a good 6 months before it was useful. Not an option these days as we all work in different capacities. Have to go old fashion way with a free body diagram and make assumption. Or just make a part and test it with a known force and measure deflection. Repeat for a few parts to get a curve. I like option to think about it more.
@@johnm840 All interesting stuff but too time consuming for my life right now. The amount or flex away from the cut vs downward movement is simple math but the rest isn't so easy. I will say, the movement is very slight until you get very small (less that 1/32" in diameter). At this point the SFPM is not adequate and the tool tends to go under the stock. It breaks off but always leaves a numb.
I like your design. Parting tools can always be a challenge. I was not able to find the plans you included in the video. I sent you an email, asking if you would forward them to me. I cannot join the draw, since I live in Canada.
Smaller lathes are not as stiff as a larger lathe. The downward force on the cutting tool causes the tool to dig in deeper and basically chatter or seize up depending on how much pressure is applied. The geometry of a flexible or camel back tool holder causes the tool to back out when the pressure is increased. It is basically going from a positive feedback to a much more stable negative feedback system.
See the comment below. Also watch this video where I explain it better if you want. Tried and true seems to be a bit illusive to many, especially smaller lathes. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-du2eCZlOQXE.html
Thanks, there is an area below the video that has a link to the plans and email. Maybe it's hard to see if you are viewing on a phone. Also, you may have to click "SHOW MORE" to see it all.
Don't get me wrong, this tool seems to work great, but I liked the initial design better - this one has too much overhang off the compound base, whilst the first was right on top of it. An alternative could be a rear cutoff tool post, which seems to be better for smaller (less rigid) lathes - example (not endorsing) here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nxD5jof0bfY.html
The new design is 3/8" closer to the post and has the same front overhang. That's why I mounted it on top of the AXA holder. The point of flex is also closer to the work which makes the blade pull back more when deflected. As for the rear post, this is a fantastic method but my lathe is not set up for this (although I have thought about modifying the cross slide (big job). And... for some reason the last design failed when i made the second one. I'm not sure why but I suspect the point of flex is too far back.
@@WinkysWorkshop Thanks for your reply! Somehow, it seemed to have a lot of overhang - my mistake, sorry. Anyway, it appears to work great and the surface finish is good for a parting job 🙂
1:53 - those extra bolts spoil it. Take those out, make sure it flexes and it should work fine too ! The bolts just make the whole thing rigid again - so pointless !
You kissed what I said in the video although I didn't explain it well either. Those bolt were not there originally. I was just looking to a reason the second tool was messed up. I looked at the first tool and notice that there was no gap between the 1/2" square bar and the plate. I thought maybe it warped during welding and that the friction between the two was stopping it from chattering. It made no difference but the tool holder did not work before installing screws.
The cutters at the beginning of the roller are spring-loaded, mistakes have been made in them and therefore they do not work properly or do not work at all. The thickness of the metal is taken very small and the arc of the "spring" is too narrow, the cut is small. And the cutter itself is more precise, its design is too short. If done correctly, then you do not need to make a more complex design. In any case, a person chooses what is convenient for him. Good luck to you in your work.
Correctly is a problem sometimes. For instance, a Harbor Freight lathe is not ridged enough to do cut off. A many Logan, Atlas and South Bend suffer the same although not as bad. This tool is a work around for those that do not have lathes built like a tank. With that being said, I have successfully parted many times and failed several as well. This tool works 100% of the time. I would be foolish not to use the better method. The only negative to this design is slight resonance patterns on the end of the stock. It's basically a straight cut but you can see variation. Most often this is totally acceptable.
@@WinkysWorkshop I understand you perfectly about the strength and rigidity of the machine design. There is no such strength on my homemade one and there was a cutting problem and the situation was corrected by a spring cutter like yours at the beginning of the roller that you refused. It's your right that you strive and choose the best for yourself and that's good. The first model is easy to manufacture and works 100% on most machines, but your model is also worthy of attention, but a little more difficult to manufacture and more details. I'm glad you did it and it works.
Actually, in this case, it's the fact that the tool has built in flex. The point of flex is over the top of the tool rather than the tool post or compound. This makes the tool pull out of the cut when things flex. See part one for more details. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-du2eCZlOQXE.html
When i was in high school back in the early 70s , our shop teacher had us to use the cutoffs upside down and the lathe in reverse, he said it was less stressful on his nerves.
Yep, it has the same effect as this tool. If it tried to grab it pulls out of the cut. Many lathes, including mine are not set up to run a tool post in the back so it's not a good option. Thanks.
Also remember that you should not run lathes with threaded spindles in reverse if there is any load because of the danger of the chuck coming loose! You even need to be careful with stopping them quickly if there is a heavy workpiece in the chuck which can happen with a VFD with aggressive braking settings.
I like it very much ,plus the other videos you put out . I llve in uk so no draw for me .. But would appreciate the plans on a Email . I have a small shop and enjoy making parts in steel plus making things in wood furniture etc . Looking to the plans All though i live in uk ., thanks for all your videos have great pleasure watching them and learning from them .. All the best .Geo.
I thin you totally missed how this design works. Look at the plans I posted. The top bar is solid. The flexing takes place at the top of the vertical piece where the hole is drilled.
