Modifying a typical band saw to a 3-wheel setup?

Why not buy a 3-wheeler and modify the drive? @RaisedByWolves modified a Craftsman 10" 3-Wheeler earlier this year. I have an older, similar Craftsman I found on eBay in VG condition 10 years ago which came from the factory with variable speed and the same belt setup that RBW added to his bandsaw:

View attachment 500141

View attachment 500142

View attachment 500143

It works reasonably well on thinner sections of 6061, and eventually I'm planning (?) of changing the motor & control so it will have more low speed torque, lower minimum speed and more power. I used it to transform a section of 2-1/2" x 1/8" square 6061 tube into a 2-1/2" x 1-3/16" x 1/8" channel for my Mini-Lathe DRO project (HSM Jan/Feb 2024); didn't need the deep throat but did need to accommodate the more than 6" length that is the limit for my DeWalt 5" x 6" Portaband/SWAG vertical band saw:

View attachment 500144

The secret to improved blade life is to use thinner (0.014"), "tougher" blades from SuperCut™ Bandsaw Company, who has created an industry making blades for these machines:

View attachment 500145
They also make 14TPI blades (like I used on the square tube). You can get bimetal blades to fit the 3-wheelers from Starrett, but they are 0.025"thick (I have a 1/4" x 14TPI, but haven't tried it yet).

No, even modified to the hilt these saws will not rival @Winegrower 's beast, but they are very handy (and take up a lot less space).
THREAD HERE.


Technically the thinner blade is the way to go as it works better, ie flexes better, at the weld than a thicker blade, but they always seemed so delicate as there's no where for the heat to go if things get sporty.

Im using a Starrett Bi-metal (I think, Ill have to check) blade that is .025 thick with good results.

I think a lot of the blade thickness issues are due to a lot of these saws being marginal on power for metal cutting as the thinner blade cuts less material, therefore requiring less power.
 
Increased throat depth, may not be a minor advantage for some. I wish I had the room for a such a machine and be able to cut 3' wide!

3 wheel only gives you more throat depth compared to a similar size wheel. The older Craftsman - King Seely 12" 3 wheel model is 20" tall, 12" wide and 28" deep. A 14" Delta is 41" tall (without stand), 14" wide and 24" deep.

Unless height is an issue, the 14" Delta actually takes up a little less floor space and gives you 2" more throat depth. The 12" Craftsman is about 1/3 the weight though, 73lbs vs 250lbs so easier to move about.
 
3 wheel only gives you more throat depth compared to a similar size wheel. The older Craftsman - King Seely 12" 3 wheel model is 20" tall, 12" wide and 28" deep. A 14" Delta is 41" tall (without stand), 14" wide and 24" deep.

Unless height is an issue, the 14" Delta actually takes up a little less floor space and gives you 2" more throat depth. The 12" Craftsman is about 1/3 the weight though, 73lbs vs 250lbs so easier to move about.
I was thinking more like the one Robert posted:
 
Oh, I realize that money and timewise, it's probably best to just buy one, but where's the fun in that? It's mostly a what-if challenge and not a must-have. My saw is 13.5" and while 16-18" would be better, I've gotten by for years with it as-is. Looking at it, I can already see a small complication because all the controls in the vertical column are at table height. Still, it's tempting to at least model it in CAD and play around with it. I agree that a small radius third wheel is a bad idea due to the flexing, so a large one would be used.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking more like the one Robert posted:

That is a nice saw, but I have to wonder does it really have any advantage other than height compared to a traditional bandsaw of similar size?
I don't know, maybe the added complexity of that Doall makes up for needing to be 7 feet tall to change the blade on this one. ;)

This is a 36" Tannewitz, and appears to me to be of a similar foot print, maybe a bit less.

1724010023435.png
 
Back
Top