# Musclechuck



## KenBee (Jan 1, 2011)

I wonder if a Musclechuck would be feasible for a trim router? I suspect there are times it would come in handy as an extension as well as the added convenience of the bit installation as opposed to the wrench method. I love my Ridgid Trim Router but the darned thing is a pain in the posterior to tighten the collet and the DeWalt 611 isn't much better. Just a thought.

As an afterthought I just now sent a message to Mr. DeRosa suggesting the same thing. He may have have considered it already but if not as popular and convenient as his present Musclechuck is it would actually be a worthwhile project I would think.


----------



## Semipro (Mar 22, 2013)

Most trim routers are quarter-inch they don't make Muclechucks in quarter inch that I know of


----------



## Mike (Nov 22, 2004)

Ken, I discussed this very subject with John a couple years ago. At that time John felt there would not be enough interest to justify the engineering cost vs return. I will mention it to him again.


----------



## KenBee (Jan 1, 2011)

Mike said:


> Ken, I discussed this very subject with John a couple years ago. At that time John felt there would not be enough interest to justify the engineering cost vs return. I will mention it to him again.


Actually Trim Routers have made great strides since you last talked to him so it may be a feasible project now. As I said I just sent him a message about that too so maybe it might spark more interest in him.


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

I use trim routers for most of my hand held routing, don't need the big ole honkers most of the time. Right now I have 4 set up for specific tasks because changing bits is such a chore. I don't know if the extended length would merit a musclechuck as trim router don't have a lot of height adjustment. Just speculation.
Herb


----------



## Nickp (Dec 4, 2012)

Ken...not sure what's giving you trouble with changing bits...I assume you are moving the motor to an appropriate height by releasing the lock, depressing the spindle lock, using the wrench to loosen the collet nut...? I have the same router and have not found a problem...just wondering what I'm doing differently...


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Even if a MUSCLECHUCK became available for my RTO700, I doubt that I could justify the cost because of the little use compared to that of my 1/2" routers.


----------



## Stick486 (Jan 4, 2013)

the Muscle Chuck isn't for everyone.... it either is or isn't...
why are some trying to jam/force it others w/ what appears to be a passion...

plan "B"... an extension for more depth, ie mortises, bowls, box locks and etc......
if the original collet nut fits the opening in the base this will too.. same for bushings..
everything has it's limitations... that seems to have been forgotten...










plan ''C''...


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

Re plan C; does that have anything to do with the Manhattan Project?


----------



## Mike (Nov 22, 2004)

Not everybody has a door jig Stick.


----------



## Duane Bledsoe (Jan 6, 2013)

Ken Bee said:


> I wonder if a Musclechuck would be feasible for a trim router? I suspect there are times it would come in handy as an extension as well as the added convenience of the bit installation as opposed to the wrench method. I love my Ridgid Trim Router but the darned thing is a pain in the posterior to tighten the collet and the DeWalt 611 isn't much better. Just a thought.
> 
> As an afterthought I just now sent a message to Mr. DeRosa suggesting the same thing. He may have have considered it already but if not as popular and convenient as his present Musclechuck is it would actually be a worthwhile project I would think.


You think the DW611 is hard to change a bit in? I thought it was one of the easiest I'd ever worked with. I always remove the motor, though.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

. I always remove the motor, though.


How quaint!


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

Duane Bledsoe said:


> You think the DW611 is hard to change a bit in? I thought it was one of the easiest I'd ever worked with. I always remove the motor, though.


Duane, I think the reason you remove the motor is because it is easier to change the bit. I do too because trim routers are notoriously hard to change bits while the base is attached,being that there is just not enough room. 
That has been overcome somewhat by the new bases that have a rack and pinion height adjustment and a cam lock. These bases are easy to remove. 
I am not certain if a muscle chuck is a good idea for a trim router, like " come on " guys , take the time to remove the base and change bits. 

What you guys might do is lobby the router manufacturers to make "snap in" chucks/bits like the screwdrivers have. >

Herb


----------



## Ghidrah (Oct 21, 2008)

I have 1 lam router the PC 7310 lam kit bought in the beginning of 1991 it paid for itself before the remodel was complete. It rarely see formica now but does get a decent amount of inlay work. With some adjustments I can get at the bits on some of the bases while they remain attached to the motor. But in general the time it takes me to make the adjustments to facilitate bit removal I could have had the base off and removed the bit.

Where possible, I'm all for cutting time waste, so I prep multiple routers to avoid bit and height changes. I have and really like the T4 plunge but I'm not so thrilled with the base config for guides the default PC base spoiled the living crap out of me.


----------



## Marcel M (Jun 14, 2012)

*Plan C*



Stick486 said:


> the Muscle Chuck isn't for everyone.... it either is or isn't...
> why are some trying to jam/force it others w/ what appears to be a passion...
> 
> plan "B"... an extension for more depth, ie mortises, bowls, box locks and etc......
> ...


Haven't seen a Porter Cable 513 Door Lock Mortiser in years. :surprise:


----------



## TwoSkies57 (Feb 23, 2009)

Herb Stoops said:


> What you guys might do is lobby the router manufacturers to make "snap in" chucks/bits like the screwdrivers have. >
> 
> Herb


Craftsman came out with something very similar to what you described 10-15 years ago... A common collet that replaced the OEM collet, then little mounting collets for your bits that snapped into the replacement collet. I got a bunch of em one time, but never did get around to using them.. just seemed kinda iffy at best...:surprise:


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

TwoSkies57 said:


> Craftsman came out with something time, but never did get around to using them.. just seemed kinda iffy at best...:surprise:


Bill that is interesting,and a new one on me. Thanks for posting.
Herb


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

I thought I was doing a decent job of keeping up with what Sears had to offer about that time but I also missed those. There is probably a good reason (or reasons) why they didn't catch on.


----------



## Ghidrah (Oct 21, 2008)

I had something similar, (chuckwise) that attached to the opposite side of the Craftsman RAS motor for router work, tried it once and was not comfy.


----------



## PhilBa (Sep 25, 2014)

TwoSkies57 said:


> Craftsman came out with something very similar to what you described 10-15 years ago... A common collet that replaced the OEM collet, then little mounting collets for your bits that snapped into the replacement collet. I got a bunch of em one time, but never did get around to using them.. just seemed kinda iffy at best...:surprise:


I'm sure it had absolutely no run out at all :laugh2:


----------



## TwoSkies57 (Feb 23, 2009)

PhilBa said:


> I'm sure it had absolutely no run out at all :laugh2:


:smile: put one together "once"...thought better of it.. put it in the drawer with the rest of em...shortly afterwards, in the trash.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Stick486 said:


> the Muscle Chuck isn't for everyone.... it either is or isn't...
> why are some trying to jam/force it others w/ what appears to be a passion...
> 
> plan "B"... an extension for more depth, ie mortises, bowls, box locks and etc......
> ...


"why are some trying to jam/force it others w/ what appears to be a passion..."

My dear friend, your interpretation of what I and all other happy MUSCLECHUCK uses have ever had to say surprises me, I for one have never attempted to coerce anyone to purchase a MUSCLECHUCK, sure, I never miss an opportunity to promote a tool that I consider to be a major breakthrough in routing technology. I know that you haven't used a MUSCLECHUCK Stick but if you were to get an opportunity to use one I'd be very surprised if you didn't instantly understand my enthusiasm.


----------



## Stick486 (Jan 4, 2013)

I do understand your enthusiasm Harry..
I pretty much don't change bits till they're dead... 
and I'm one of those guys that has a router for every occasion...
several job sites..
two shops..
service trucks...
you get the idea..
I looked into the muscle chuck and felt it wasn't for me..

seemed like every time there was a nay the nay sayer was told how wrong they were for thinking that way... 
that's what prompted me to say what I did...


----------



## Johnd426 (Feb 21, 2013)

Gentlemen, I have been following Ken’s degradation of my Musclechuck and I have found it quite discouraging! The configuration is more complicated than it appears but we can get into that later. I have offered to give Ken a total refund more than once even though he didn’t purchase the Musclechuck from me and the offer is still valid. If he would accept my offer it would give me the opportunity to examine the Musclechuck for possible defects and I would then gladly publish the results on Routerforums! Over the past two years or so we have sold over 3000 Musclechucks and have had only about a dozen complaints. I have resolved all of them. One chuck had a honing defect and another had a retaining ring problem. They were both replaced and the customers were totally satisfied. Ken has a vibration problem so we have to ask ourselves what could cause the vibration. Well, I have written two highly un-technical descriptions on my web site [musclechuck.com]instructions that describes basic vibration and it’s causes. 
To put matters into rudimentary perspective I would like to present a few facts about the Musclechuck. The total weight of the assembly is approximately 101 grams depending on the model type. The mass in the balance hole is approximately 1.0 gram. So the Musclechuck is being balanced to 1 part in 101 or approximately 1%. The concentricity of the Musclechuck is better than .0003 of an inch after plating as measured on the Mitutoyo bench centers which can resolve better than 50 millionths of an inch. So both the mass and the position of the mass can be measured to a very high tolerance.
The real problem is trying to get two solid cones to line up collinearly, that is, along the same line when the Musclechuck is placed in the spindle of the router. The reason the collet works better for alignment is because its flexible and can conform more easily to the irregularities in the spindle. So, all that can be done is to manufacture the Musclechuck to very high tolerance and hope that all of the routers are manufactured to the high tolerance. I have a small company and can maintain a very high standard of quality control. However, no part can be manufactured to compensate for all the defects that can show up in the router and router spindle. Depending on the numerical calculations for identifying the resonance’s or RPM’s at which vibrations occurs of the assembly of the router plus Musclechuck and cutter are both extremely complicated and way beyond the scope of this discussion. In most cases the testing router is below .002 of an inch of parallel run out and the Musclechuck can be mounted to approximately .002 of an inch for parallel run out. This is when the axis of the router spindle and Musclechuck are parallel. This is not conical run out which can cause very severe vibration. This is when the axis of the router and Musclechuck form a cone. I will be adding more descriptions of these conditions on my site and how to measure and test them on your router very soon. 
The usual problem turns out to be a weak front bearing in the router. The reason this is usually true is that this bearing has to continually support very heavy side loads. Angular contact bearings are the type of bearing used in this application because they can support both axial and radial loads simultaneously. However, there are two ways the bearing can wear and so as it wears it begins to be unable to support the loads placed on it and vibration occurs at lower and lower RPM. 
A safe way to correctly measure run out is as follows; Stabilizing the router by clamping it down or placing it in a vise, obtain a quality 1/10,000 of an inch reading dial indicator with a magnetic base, and rotate the spindle very slowly by hand being carefully NOT to push on it sideways as you rotate it. This insures reasonable resolution and a correct measurement. It should NOT be attempted dynamically because the indicator return spring cannot respond to the RPM the router is spinning unless the RPM used is very low, typically 1 to 10 RPMS would be OK. Higher RPMS such as a 100 or a 1000 depending on the accuracy of the indicator used would cause the indicator to float or bounce and give false indications. The RPMS could be increased if the circumference of the shaft being measured were increased. This would increase the distance between the same defects so the indicator doesn’t have to respond as fast. The usual way the run out and defects are measured dynamically, is optically, so the response is way beyond the mechanical limit of the system. 
So, to conclude on Ken’s problem, I would put my money on either a bad front bearing or badly 
mis-aligned spindle and Musclechuck. Whether the mis-alignment is parallel or conical is unknown. A measurement of the spindle on the router at two heights without the Musclechuck could answer that question. A final thought is that the spindle could be ground at an incorrect angle, which would only allow contact in a ring between the spindle and the Musclechcuck. This would cause mis-aligment and thereby cause vibration.
It all boils down to weather Ken wants to use the Musclechuck on that router or try it on another router and if it still vibrates then the Musclechuck is defective and will be replaced or a refund given.


----------



## Semipro (Mar 22, 2013)

Thank you John for taking the time to respond to the router forum.
About your musclechuck.


----------



## KenBee (Jan 1, 2011)

Johnd426 said:


> Gentlemen, I have been following Ken’s degradation of my Musclechuck and I have found it quite discouraging! The configuration is more complicated than it appears but we can get into that later. I have offered to give Ken a total refund more than once even though he didn’t purchase the Musclechuck from me and the offer is still valid. If he would accept my offer it would give me the opportunity to examine the Musclechuck for possible defects and I would then gladly publish the results on Routerforums! Over the past two years or so we have sold over 3000 Musclechucks and have had only about a dozen complaints. I have resolved all of them. One chuck had a honing defect and another had a retaining ring problem. They were both replaced and the customers were totally satisfied. Ken has a vibration problem so we have to ask ourselves what could cause the vibration. Well, I have written two highly un-technical descriptions on my web site [musclechuck.com]instructions that describes basic vibration and it’s causes.
> To put matters into rudimentary perspective I would like to present a few facts about the Musclechuck. The total weight of the assembly is approximately 101 grams depending on the model type. The mass in the balance hole is approximately 1.0 gram. So the Musclechuck is being balanced to 1 part in 101 or approximately 1%. The concentricity of the Musclechuck is better than .0003 of an inch after plating as measured on the Mitutoyo bench centers which can resolve better than 50 millionths of an inch. So both the mass and the position of the mass can be measured to a very high tolerance.
> The real problem is trying to get two solid cones to line up collinearly, that is, along the same line when the Musclechuck is placed in the spindle of the router. The reason the collet works better for alignment is because its flexible and can conform more easily to the irregularities in the spindle. So, all that can be done is to manufacture the Musclechuck to very high tolerance and hope that all of the routers are manufactured to the high tolerance. I have a small company and can maintain a very high standard of quality control. However, no part can be manufactured to compensate for all the defects that can show up in the router and router spindle. Depending on the numerical calculations for identifying the resonance’s or RPM’s at which vibrations occurs of the assembly of the router plus Musclechuck and cutter are both extremely complicated and way beyond the scope of this discussion. In most cases the testing router is below .002 of an inch of parallel run out and the Musclechuck can be mounted to approximately .002 of an inch for parallel run out. This is when the axis of the router spindle and Musclechuck are parallel. This is not conical run out which can cause very severe vibration. This is when the axis of the router and Musclechuck form a cone. I will be adding more descriptions of these conditions on my site and how to measure and test them on your router very soon.
> The usual problem turns out to be a weak front bearing in the router. The reason this is usually true is that this bearing has to continually support very heavy side loads. Angular contact bearings are the type of bearing used in this application because they can support both axial and radial loads simultaneously. However, there are two ways the bearing can wear and so as it wears it begins to be unable to support the loads placed on it and vibration occurs at lower and lower RPM.
> ...


Sorry John but I didn't waste my time reading your post even though it seems to be directed at me and I doubt it says anything that I don't already know or understand, but somebody else may get something interesting and informative out of it. You waited too long to vent in regards to my original post so as it stands now it isn't meaningful. You also seem to be a bit confused because nowhere in this thread have I said anything derogatory about the Musclechuck. Not only that why if I have a problem with the Musclechuck why would I suggest one for use with the 1/4 inch compact routers as indicated in this thread? 

Just so you know I have no problem with the Musclechuck and the one I have works fine on the router I bought it for and am quite pleased with it. In fact I have 3 routers The Musclechuck I have will fit and it works well with all of them. As I said in another post I would really like to have one for my 1/4 inch DeWalt 611 palm router also but that seems out of the question from what I understand.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Ken, I'm now puzzled as to why my opening line replying to your original post regarding the MUSCLECHUCK went something like this: WOW, this guy has left himself wide open to being sued.

" You also seem to be a bit confused because nowhere in this thread have I said anything derogatory about the Musclechuck."



but what about your first thread?


----------



## KenBee (Jan 1, 2011)

harrysin said:


> Ken, I'm now puzzled as to why my opening line replying to your original post regarding the MUSCLECHUCK went something like this: WOW, this guy has left himself wide open to being sued.
> 
> " You also seem to be a bit confused because nowhere in this thread have I said anything derogatory about the Musclechuck."
> 
> ...


Granted my first thread was somewhat critical of the Musclechuck but once I got it sorted out I gave in and suggested there should be one for compact routers in this thread. The first thread and my criticism of the Musclechuck was helped along by by people like you and eventually it got out of hand. Now John has chimed in with a long post more or less directed at me but I didn't read it because since I no longer have an issue with the Musclechuck it is a meaningless post to me personally even though it may be of help to others. 

I no longer have a problem with the Musclechuck as stated but you keep throwing gasoline in the fire. All that is needed is to follow the directions, have a little patience and eventually the problem solves itself. I also didn't say the Musclechuck had caused an accident but that it was possible which is true of of any and all woodworking tools if not handled or set up properly or maybe that doesn't apply to you. Even if what I said didn't sound to you like that and you want to twist it around to sound worse than what it is be my guest.


----------



## Semipro (Mar 22, 2013)

To the forum members I believe that this thread has heard from both sides and now it is turning into heated discussion 
So at this time I have decided to close the thread! 
John


----------

