![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphmontI wish I got to write more product reviews that recommend fabulously well designed, well made products that function perfectly. Unfortunately, it seems like the reviews that are warnings to others come up way more often.
Camilla, as you know, has an old workhorse Singer 66 that we found at a Goodwill, gave a little love over a weekend, and has been working very nicely since. The vast majority of the original accessories for this class of machine (vintage low-shank singers) are plentiful and cheap on eBay. There are a few exceptions.
I've been looking for a 'walking foot' attachment for her machine as she does occasional quilting, and the theory is that an upper moving presser foot that follows along with the feed dogs ('walking' in step with the feed) makes it much easier to keep the thick layers of a quilt aligned while sewing. Then as today, only industrial machines have true walking feet, but you can supposedly buy an attachment for home machines that simulates a true walking foot pretty well.
A walking foot as an attachment attachment was a new idea just as the old low-shank machines were being phased out of active production. Singer made a single walking foot attachment for the old low-shank machines (Simanco part #160741) commonly referred to as the 'Black Penguin'. It is a rather unusual beast and works somewhat unlike any of the modern attachments, mainly because the old low-shank machines have a *ton* of space under the head, so Singer could make something comparatively tall. The Black Penguin is reputed to be the best walking foot attachment ever made. Rose colored glasses? I don't know. They're not hard to find, but when you do find one, buying it will set you back between $500-$600. Ouch. The 66 itself cost us $15.
Needless to say, I've been looking for a somewhat more economical, modern alternative. So far, 'modern' has failed to live up to even lowered expectations. I've found a world of easily bent stamped metal workings, flimsy plastic, comical design indifference, and plating that's falling off the part still inside the box. For sure, nothing that measures up to a 70 year old cast iron sewing machine that never drops a stitch. At this point, I'll almost be relieved to find a modern walking foot that actually bucks up to the standard of mediocre.
Today I'll review the first arrival that wasn't already broken inside the box. I'm not going to offer it much more praise than that. We've still not gotten to the point of one actually worth trying on fabric.
A REVIEW: Alphasew P60400 Walking Foot
This part is allegedly 'designed specifically for the Singer low-shank straight stitch machines', all of which share the same narrow feed dog and needle spacing. As far as I can tell, this means P60400 will universally fail to fit correctly on every one of them.
To start, the part is 'flexy'; it is not particularly stiff and it's easy to bend the long thin metal bits back and forth when mounted. Good thing too-- the first thing I noticed mounting mine is that the needle hole in the walking foot's presser was nowhere near where the needle actually wanted to go. I took it off and remounted it a few times. Nope... consistently set too far right and slightly too far back. So I gently tweaked it sideways until the needle hole lined up. Now the needle only sits too far forward and brushes the hole on the way down, which is not really acceptable either.
Sigh. Not a good start. Already not worth $25. It gets worse.
I rolled the handwheel forward for a few cycles watching the mechanism until the second glaringly obvious flaw hit me: The moving gripper feet on the walking foot almost completely miss the feed dogs on the sewing machine. The alignment isn't just off a little bit, it barely engages the feed dogs at all. Only half the length of the left gripper engages, the tip of the right gripper engages and the center of the gripper misses the feed dogs entirely.
Upon closer inspection, the mechanism will happily allow the gripper foot to slide back as far as it wants (good):
But the return mechanism, which pulls the foot forward again when the needbar plunges down, only returns the gripper about half as far forward as it should (bad):
For reference, the feed dogs on a low shank singer actually sit slightly farther forward of the forward extreme of the slot in the presser foot. This is not a slight tolerance problem due to too-thin metal or wibbly plastic. This is a mechanism design error of a full quarter inch on a part that is supposed to be made specifically for just this machine.
Jeebus. Do modern manufacturers even *check* what's rolling off their assembly lines? How do you not notice that the part you're making for a specific machine *does not even fit that machine*? The mind boggles.
Of course, the troubles don't end there. Stay with me here, the pointing and laughing isn't over yet.
When the needlebar plunges the needle down into the fabric and the white gripper pulls up off the fabric to move forward, it has the tendency to kick off to the side at the same time. When the needle rises, the gripper is supposed to pass down through the presser foot slots and grip the fabric again. Except that sometimes it moves so far to one side it misses the slots completely, hits the presser instead, and jams there. Oops.
The bubbling rant in me likes to think this is exactly why the market in vintage parts is so strong. They're items that "Just Work" and "Already Outlived Your Grandmother And Will Outlive You Too". I can see why people are willing to pay $500 for the Black Penguin. They just might not be crazy collectors after all.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 11:01 pm (UTC)I will keep an eye out for a low-shank walking foot for you. I never use them myself, and there's a vague tiny possibility that I have one tucked away someplace. If I come across one, it's yours!
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 07:30 pm (UTC)It's worth mentioning that the modern 'Singer' has no relation at all to the Singer of old. When Singer finally went under in the 1980s, they sold the brand name to a Chinese consortium. Today's Singers are nothing more than flimsy cheapo nonames with a famous brand decal on the side.
Most real Singer parts are stamped 'Simanco' (Singer Manufacturing Company) not 'Singer' (Singer Sweing Machine Company).
The actual sewing division of Singer was sold without the brand to Pfaff.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 11:14 pm (UTC)AlphaSew P60400
Date: 2008-05-23 04:54 am (UTC)Re: AlphaSew P60400
Date: 2008-05-30 04:34 am (UTC)Worth noting: I figured out why the feed grippers sit so far back, and it is very much on purpose. It has to leave 50% of its travel unused in normal operation so it can work while backtacking. It has to be able to move the same amount back as forward. Amusingly, it doesn't leave enough space. Thrown into full reverse, there's not enough room for the gripper feet to feed the whole distance back.
So the weird fit is not a manufacturing error or strictly design error-- it's just a lazy/cheap design compromise that leaves the whole thing seriously lacking (and flimsily constructed).
Walking Foot
Date: 2008-09-24 11:01 pm (UTC)On the other hand, I am also looking for a really good 'new' walking foot too. Let me know what you find out.
Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-09-30 07:48 am (UTC)Definitely not common. I'd call them 'scarce' rather than 'rare' because there are a few sellers out there who do the hard work of keeping them available [for a fee, of course!]
Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-10-02 05:55 am (UTC)Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-10-02 07:00 am (UTC)Since then I've gotten to compare with the old Singer plastic Even-Feed feet. Despite also being made of plastic, the older Singer was way smoother. And it actually lined up exactly.
[And this was an even feed foot that looked like it had been chewed on by a cat. Seriously, covered in teeth puncture marks. It showed up in a box of other parts]
As for the Alphasew foot sort of missing front or back, it's obvious now why there's the extra travel out front-- for backtacking--- by why is it shifted so far off the dogs? It might work but wouldn't having extra travel and being centered properly have worked even better? Oh Alphasew, you crazy crazy guys.
Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-10-02 05:56 am (UTC)Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-10-02 07:01 am (UTC)Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-12-14 05:18 am (UTC)Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-12-18 02:48 pm (UTC)A 'scace' part is expensive because there are very few around-- price has thus climbed to meet demand. But, if I wanted to buy one today, I'd probably be able to plunk down a possibly large chunk of cash and have it done.
A 'rare' part is one I usually can't have in a predictable period of time for love nor money. I just gotta wait and see if I ever find one or one turns up...
So, the walking feet are 'scarce' because there's usually someone with one for sale somewhere if I look. A 3/32 blind stitch braider is rare because I couldn't have one now or next week or next month no matter how much I was willing to pay. A blind stitch corder is fantastically rare because I don't even know anyone who can say they've ever seen or heard of someone who has seen one.
Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2008-12-27 12:10 am (UTC)http://64.78.221.247/p-430-deluxe-two-sole-walking-foot-low-shank.aspx
$80 is a bit much to throw away but I've been told it's superior to the black penguin (by the person selling it).
Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2010-03-23 11:06 am (UTC)Re: Walking Foot
Date: 2013-07-31 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-22 08:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-05 09:21 pm (UTC)The Black Penguin actually works really well, but it counts as a collector's item pricing wise.
The old Singer 'Even Feed' feet from the early seventies are half-plastic, but they're beefier than the ones Alphasew is selling now, and actually work fairly well.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-09 06:31 am (UTC)Any chance I could get a link of where to by the "even feed" foot or a link to a picture of one? I got one of the plastic ones and it has completely ruined a quilt I was trying to do :(
Thank you for the review!
Date: 2013-01-12 10:29 pm (UTC)