I have a nice set as well. Lets look at the design

For a given motor system (saw) a given blade if rigid
will provide back pressure (resistance) in the process
of cutting. The motor is turning the face of the cutter
as hard as it can. If the same motor has 1/2 the area
to cut, the cut will be clean and better than the wider blade.

It is like driving a small diameter sharp nail into a board.
Then take a nail of 2x diameter and drive it.

The larger one will likely chip and compress. The small one shears.

Martin

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:05 -0600, Leon wrote:

"scritch" wrote in message
...



Fine Woodworking also said that the quality of cut depends on the
general quality of brand. Thus, I would expect a Forrest blade would
yield better results than those sold at the "orange" store. Given
that, the thin-kerf blades are a good option for the huge population of
us wood-butchers that haven't been able to afford expensive cabinet
saws.

Scritch

Actually you do not need a cabinet saw to get better results from a
regular kerf blade. I used thin kerf up until about 1988 on a 1 hp
Craftsman TS. I was not very happy with the flatness of the cuts that I
was getting and I was getting burn marks on some cuts. My local
sharpening service suggested switching to a Systematic regular kerf
combo blade. I was very skeptical but he promised that I would not be
disappointed. I never looked back. I continued to use "that" regular
kerf blade until I upgraded to a cabinet saw about 12 years later.


I recently put a Freud Fusion blade on my antique Delta saw. I was
impressed. Crosscuts look like they've been polished and plywood cuts
have no splintering. Haven't done any ripping yet, but if it turns out
bad I'll post that info.

Freud claims the Fusion blade is as good or better than the Forrest. So
far, I haven't seen any evidence to disprove that claim.