the slates ARE pinned on a GCIII.So the slates weren't pinned
the slates ARE pinned on a GCIII.So the slates weren't pinned
the slates ARE pinned on a GCIII.
the very first version had the doweled slates. After that: no dowels.
did they just cheapen them or is there a good reason to not pin the slate? my GCIII has pins but someone also told me that it has a GCII frame so it's an early version.
I've heard that frames on the 3 were laminate as opposed to solid wood. True/untrue? What is the advantage of doweled slates? Do "un-doweled" move around or what?There's no difference in the games between a 1,2, or 3.
I've heard that frames on the 3 were laminate as opposed to solid wood. True/untrue? What is the advantage of doweled slates? Do "un-doweled" move around or what?
Thanks 'Cobra. One last thing: when the 4 came out what was the biggest improvement over the 3? Flush pockets and slate leveling screws? again, thanx for answers and Merry Xmas.Not true on the frames, and pin & dowels helped keep the seams flush, or that was the idea at the time anyway. But after causing more problems than it solved, that and the improvement in slates, it is no longer needed.
There's no difference in the games between a 1,2, or 3.
Possibility of a drawing/diagram? Can't visualize "short" and "long" members or how they're attached. Found a video of a 3 being installed but i can't really see what you refer to. Thanks for all your answers as well. This place is awesome for this stuff.The design of the III frame is different from the I/II.
On a I/II frame, the short members attach between the long members.
On a III frame, the short members attach to the ends of the long members.
Consequently, the ends of the GC III frame have a tendency to sag.
Thanks 'Cobra. One last thing: when the 4 came out what was the biggest improvement over the 3? Flush pockets and slate leveling screws? again, thanx for answers and Merry Xmas.
Wrong, the GC4 frame came out at the end of the production cycle of the 3's, beginning of the 4's and not until about 96'. The 3 frame is no different than the 1s, 2,s as I said.The design of the III frame is different from the I/II.
On a I/II frame, the short members attach between the long members.
On a III frame, the short members attach to the ends of the long members.
Consequently, the ends of the GC III frame have a tendency to sag.
What's wrong with these GC1 pocket castings, do they sit to high?
That one looks a little tighter than mine, are those 4" pockets?? Arent the GCV pocket castings flush with the top of the rail or do they sit a little proud too? I have never seen one in person.
9
Wrong, the GC4 frame came out at the end of the production cycle of the 3's, beginning of the 4's and not until about 96'. The 3 frame is no different than the 1s, 2,s as I said.
I owned 3 pool rooms from 89'-92' all with GC3's, trust me, I know what the frames look like.
Great diagrams. This is what i was wondering about. Very clear now. Thanx.Your rather polite contradiction prompted me to do a bit of research.
At some point during the production of the GC III, the design changed from inner-mounted end sills, to end-mounted end sills. Based on the GC III's that I have worked on, it was much earlier than 1996. Even still, the GC IV frame is much different from the later model GC III frames.
Guess we were both wrong.
For reference, see the attached images.
Your rather polite contradiction prompted me to do a bit of research.
At some point during the production of the GC III, the design changed from inner-mounted end sills, to end-mounted end sills. Based on the GC III's that I have worked on, it was much earlier than 1996. Even still, the GC IV frame is much different from the later model GC III frames.
Guess we were both wrong.
For reference, see the attached images.
WHY did the GC4's go to this build method? Cheaper? Faster? Was the previous method with the end sills between the side sills stronger? Costlier? I can see why RKC came up with his frame-sag solution. A simple and stout looking fix.The bottom drawing sure looks like a crappy way to mount the frame ends. Do the people who design this stuff not have an education in some sort of engineering? If not then anybody would be capable of scribbling some pictures up of how to build something if strength and longevity was not an issue.
No, I wasn't wrong. At the end of the GC3 Production run, it overlapped with the GC4 Production design. Brunswick made the frame design change to the 4 frame, but still had GC3 rails and blinds left over from the 3's, so rather than continue producing the 3 frame design, the substituted the 3 with the 4 frame until all the GC3 rails were sold off as GC3's, then went into the GC4 Production to include the 22 point leveling system, which was not available on the GC4 frame being used in the last of the GC3 Production end of run.Your rather polite contradiction prompted me to do a bit of research.
At some point during the production of the GC III, the design changed from inner-mounted end sills, to end-mounted end sills. Based on the GC III's that I have worked on, it was much earlier than 1996. Even still, the GC IV frame is much different from the later model GC III frames.
Guess we were both wrong.
For reference, see the attached images.