If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.


I was stunned at how good the Grizzly's did and even more stunned at
how BAD the Delta did.

Now I am wondering about the Delta line in it's entirerty. I seem to
be hearing a lot of bad rumors about Delta QA. I only own one major
stationary tool newer than 12 years old and it is the Powermatic 14"
bandsaw. It did pretty well on the review except for a misalingment
problem that I did not experience. My only Delta tools are an older
12" planer and an old Contracters saw. Both have serverd me well. I am
in the market in the next 6 months for a new jointer and a new cabinet
saw. I planned on the Jet 6" jointer and the Delta Unisaw, but now,
based on the issues they had wiht fit and finish, I think I will look
more towards the Grizzly / Steel City and at the Powermatic PM2000.

Neillarson wrote:
If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.

I bought a bandsaw this past December. I went looking for the best
bandsaw in my price range, rather than the best of a particular size.

I wanted some power for resawing, as well as the ability to take smaller
blades (but didn't see a need for 1/16" blades). Also, I live in Canada
which rules out Grizzly and makes shipping the Laguna very expensive.

I ended up with the 18" Steel City. The table and fence were both out
of true but they sent out new ones with no hassles and included upgraded
wing-screws for the upper guides. I also cut down the blade guard so
that I could change larger blades without removing the guard.

It's seen light use since then, but I haven't had any problems yet.
Dust collection is decent (it tends to collect around the lower guides,
may rig something up for that). The tension quick release is handy,
it's easily capable of tensioning a 3/4" blade and I don't anticipate
any problems with a 1" blade. Haven't had to compensate for drift yet.

Chris

Good question. I have not checkd mine, but I do know that my blades
track dead on, and that my blade in respect to my table is dead on in
all directions.

So, how importand is co-planar?

And now that you ask, I believe that I will pull my table and check it
out his weekend. But, like the Jet, I can't adjust mine anyway without
a shim, so I would like to know how critical it is.

Neillarson wrote:
Good question. I have not checkd mine, but I do know that my blades
track dead on, and that my blade in respect to my table is dead on in
all directions.

So, how importand is co-planar?

And now that you ask, I believe that I will pull my table and check it
out his weekend. But, like the Jet, I can't adjust mine anyway without
a shim, so I would like to know how critical it is.

If blade tracks and is perpendicular to table in all directions, what is
there to fix even if they aren't exactly coplanar? It can only matter
if the saw doesn't track or there is such a large discrepancy one to the
other that the blade tracks sufficiently out of square that it matters
measurably in use. It is wood, after all, and there's more movement in
a piece you lay down after milling from moisture and temperature change
overnight to the next morning than you're likely to find in even a
fairly mismatched set of wheels.

Taking even ten-thou over the distance between the top and bottom of a
piece being cut is probably nearly immeasurable even if the blades were
assumed to be tracking precisely in the center of each wheel, unless it
is a very thick piece...

I think it tends to be an overrated spec as far as real performance is
concerned. It's useful as an indication of overall quality of the
manufacturing process, etc., but unless grossly in error unlikely to be
a significant performance issue.

$0.02, ymmv, etc., ...

--

On Sep 18, 12:42 pm, Neillarson wrote:
If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.

I was stunned at how good the Grizzly's did and even more stunned at
how BAD the Delta did.


I was more stunned at how bad the article was.

I've got a 14" Delta bandsaw. Before you assume I'm an apologist for
Delta, though, let me sy that it's a 50+ year old Delta Milwaukee, and
that I'm not crazy about the quality of some recent tools I've seen.

That said, though, there is no way in hell that the Delta should take
nine times as long as a comparably powered saw to resaw a piece of
maple. I tried to come up with some reasons that might happen.
Perhaps the blade tension was too low, allowing the blade to vibrate
or bow. Most Delta owners have learned to ignore the blade tension
scale on the saw, and set it by feel and performance. Perhaps the
blade was set or sharpened badly, causing a large lead or drift which
they didn't compensate for. Other than that, about all I can figure
is that maybe the morons had the blade on inside out.

Whatever the reason for the tremendous difference, the magazine owed
an explanation of some sort. To just present those numbers without
any comment is highly unprofessional. I wrote them to say exactly
that - we'll see if there is a reply.

John Martin

John Martin wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:42 pm, Neillarson wrote:
If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.

I was stunned at how good the Grizzly's did and even more stunned at
how BAD the Delta did.


I was more stunned at how bad the article was.

....
....there is no way in hell that the Delta should take
nine times as long as a comparably powered saw to resaw a piece of
maple. ...

Whatever the reason for the tremendous difference, the magazine owed
an explanation of some sort. To just present those numbers without
any comment is highly unprofessional. I wrote them to say exactly
that - we'll see if there is a reply.

The really bizarre thing is that while the Delta was the worst in the
timing tests, there were four in the class of 3 minutes or greater while
the other four were 1 minute or less. The time doesn't correlate w/
motor hp or cost or any other of the published parameters.

As you say, John, there's a fundamental problem/difference between the
two classes of saws and to say nothing whatsoever about that extreme
difference is mind-boggling to be kind...

Delta 28-475X 5:36
Grizzly G0555X 3:23
Rikon 10-325 3:12
Powermatic PWB2-14CS 2:50

General 690-1 0:57
Jet JWBS-14DX 0:57
Grizzly G0457 0:59
Laguna LT14SE 1:00

Go figure...

--

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:53:57 -0700, John Martin
wrote:

On Sep 18, 12:42 pm, Neillarson wrote:
If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.

I was stunned at how good the Grizzly's did and even more stunned at
how BAD the Delta did.


I was more stunned at how bad the article was.

I've got a 14" Delta bandsaw. Before you assume I'm an apologist for
Delta, though, let me sy that it's a 50+ year old Delta Milwaukee, and
that I'm not crazy about the quality of some recent tools I've seen.

That said, though, there is no way in hell that the Delta should take
nine times as long as a comparably powered saw to resaw a piece of
maple. I tried to come up with some reasons that might happen.
Perhaps the blade tension was too low, allowing the blade to vibrate
or bow. Most Delta owners have learned to ignore the blade tension
scale on the saw, and set it by feel and performance. Perhaps the
blade was set or sharpened badly, causing a large lead or drift which
they didn't compensate for. Other than that, about all I can figure
is that maybe the morons had the blade on inside out.

Whatever the reason for the tremendous difference, the magazine owed
an explanation of some sort. To just present those numbers without
any comment is highly unprofessional. I wrote them to say exactly
that - we'll see if there is a reply.

John Martin

I haven't read the article. I'm curious, what model number(s) (Delta)
did they test?

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
....

...I'm curious, what model number(s) (Delta) did they test?

I posted the eight models w/ the funky resaw times...

--

dpb wrote:
John Martin wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:42 pm, Neillarson wrote:
If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.

I was stunned at how good the Grizzly's did and even more stunned at
how BAD the Delta did.


I was more stunned at how bad the article was.

...
....there is no way in hell that the Delta should take
nine times as long as a comparably powered saw to resaw a piece of
maple. ...

Whatever the reason for the tremendous difference, the magazine owed
an explanation of some sort. To just present those numbers without
any comment is highly unprofessional. I wrote them to say exactly
that - we'll see if there is a reply.

The really bizarre thing is that while the Delta was the worst in the
timing tests, there were four in the class of 3 minutes or greater while
the other four were 1 minute or less. The time doesn't correlate w/
motor hp or cost or any other of the published parameters.

As you say, John, there's a fundamental problem/difference between the
two classes of saws and to say nothing whatsoever about that extreme
difference is mind-boggling to be kind...

Just for grins, other data as well...

Resaw Motor Misalignment Cost(3)
HP/V Wheel(1) Post(2) ($)
Delta 28-475X 5:36 1.5/115 0.000 0.012 1,230
Grizzly G0555X 3:23 1.5/110 0.000 0.010 635
Rikon 10-325 3:12 1.5/115 -0.080 0.000 750
Powermatic PWB2-14CS 2:50 1.5/110 0.150 0.007 975

General 690-1 0:57 1.5/230 0.090 0.012 2,609
Jet JWBS-14DX 0:57 1.25/115 0.220 0.035 743
Grizzly G0457 0:59 2.0/110 -0.040 0.005 795
Laguna LT14SE 1:00 2.0/220 0.050 0.000 1,500

(1) Positive for top wheel forward relative to lower.
(2) Sideways movement of guide from full down to full up position
measured as distance from blade at top as opposed to snug at lower position.
(3) "Street price"; some included options such as riser kits, etc.,
required to make roughly equivalent units.

--

John Martin wrote:

Perhaps the blade tension was too low, allowing the blade to vibrate
or bow. Most Delta owners have learned to ignore the blade tension
scale on the saw, and set it by feel and performance.

The saws were all tensioned according to the scale on the saw. If this
results in bad performance, that would be a valid complaint about the
saw, although not indicative of the maximum possible performance. On
the other hand, the article did indicate that tension was double-checked
by finger-pressure against the blade.

Perhaps the
blade was set or sharpened badly, causing a large lead or drift which
they didn't compensate for.

According to the article, all saws used an identical brand of 3tpi,
1/2", hook-tooth blade. Unless the blades have poor quality control I
would expect reasonable performance when new.

On the other hand, the results are certainly suspicious...23sec to 3min
37sec is quite the range for saws that are all supposedly in the 1.5-2HP
range.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:
John Martin wrote:

Perhaps the blade tension was too low, allowing the blade to vibrate
or bow. Most Delta owners have learned to ignore the blade tension
scale on the saw, and set it by feel and performance.

The saws were all tensioned according to the scale on the saw. If this
results in bad performance, that would be a valid complaint about the
saw, although not indicative of the maximum possible performance. On
the other hand, the article did indicate that tension was double-checked
by finger-pressure against the blade.

Perhaps the
blade was set or sharpened badly, causing a large lead or drift which
they didn't compensate for.

According to the article, all saws used an identical brand of 3tpi,
1/2", hook-tooth blade. Unless the blades have poor quality control I
would expect reasonable performance when new.

On the other hand, the results are certainly suspicious...23sec to 3min
37sec is quite the range for saws that are all supposedly in the 1.5-2HP
range.

The numbers I posted were for the 5-lb test instead of 7-1/2 so all
eight would show up (the Jet stalled at 7-1/2 but tied for fastest at 5
w/ only a 1/4hp less than the General w/ which it was tied and a full
3/4hp less than the Grizzly that it beat by 2 seconds. The fastest to
slowest ratio is about 6 instead of 9, but still highly questionable.

The thing as noted is that there are two classes in the test--fast and
slow, with half of the test sample in one class and half in the other.
For it to be the blade, half of the blades would have to have been bad
if used one for each. I suppose it could be possible instead of buying
eight or one, they could have used two and the luck of the draw as to
which got which one killed the entire rating for the unlucky. And,
again, except for the Jet, the relative ranking of each was quite
consistent with the two groups clearly delineated at around 1:00/1:30 or
0:30 with the exception of the Delta which was a real outlier on that test.

If half have that bad of tensioning devices, that would also have been
worthy of noting it would seem, and in fact the whole subject of
tensioning was essentially neglected other than to say "tension and
tracking are important" but other than complaining about the size of the
knobs on a couple, there was no mention of any testing at all of how the
tensioning mechanisms actually did their job...

--

Maxwell Lol wrote:
dpb writes:

Powermatic PWB2-14CS 2:50 1.5/110 0.150 0.007 975
Jet JWBS-14DX 0:57 1.25/115 0.220 0.035 743

These two saws are nearly identical. It makes no sense that the
Powermatic is 3 times slower while having a more powerful motor.

Precisely.

--

Maxwell Lol wrote:
dpb writes:

Powermatic PWB2-14CS 2:50 1.5/110 0.150 0.007 975
Jet JWBS-14DX 0:57 1.25/115 0.220 0.035 743

These two saws are nearly identical. It makes no sense that the
Powermatic is 3 times slower while having a more powerful motor.

What blade speeds are they running?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Maxwell Lol wrote:
dpb writes:

Powermatic PWB2-14CS 2:50 1.5/110 0.150 0.007 975
Jet JWBS-14DX 0:57 1.25/115 0.220 0.035 743
These two saws are nearly identical. It makes no sense that the
Powermatic is 3 times slower while having a more powerful motor.

What blade speeds are they running?

Another measurement/piece of information not provided in the review but
one that could at least conceivably be a significant factor in
explaining the discrepancies...

But, it apparently isn't...
hp/V Amps sfpm
Delta 28-475X 5:36 1.5/115 13 3000
Grizzly G0555X 3:23 1.5/110 15 3000
Rikon 10-325 3:12 1.5/115 14 2950/1445 (1)
Powermatic PWB2-14CS 2:50 1.5/110 -- 3000

General 690-1 0:57 1.5/230 8 3000
Jet JWBS-14DX 0:57 1.25/115 -- 3000
Grizzly G0457 0:59 2.0/110 20 3000
Laguna LT14SE 1:00 2.0/220 -- --

(1) Dual-speed option.

Also, note that while not noted, all the 110/115V motors are actually
dual-voltage as supplied with the possible exception of the Powermatic
which didn't indicate other than shipped 110V.

So the mystery still appears to be a mystery...

--


--

On Sep 18, 6:49 pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
According to the article, all saws used an identical brand of 3tpi,
1/2", hook-tooth blade. Unless the blades have poor quality control I
would expect reasonable performance when new.

On the other hand, the results are certainly suspicious...23sec to 3min
37sec is quite the range for saws that are all supposedly in the 1.5-2HP
range.

Chris

Suspicious is an understatement. The fastest saw at 7.5 pounds feed
was the 1.5 HP General, the slowest was the 1.5 HP Delta. Nine times
as long.

I wasn't there, so I can't pretend to know what was wrong with the
test - if something was. To report results such as those, however,
without any comment or explanation, is asinine.

Maybe we'll see some further explanation from Fine Woodworking.

John Martin

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:40:19 -0700, John Martin
wrote:

I wasn't there, so I can't pretend to know what was wrong with the
test - if something was. To report results such as those, however,
without any comment or explanation, is asinine.

Remember, the reviewer stated that the blades were tensioned based on
the saw's tension scale.

My particular saw, a five year old version of one of the tested
models, has a scale stamped into the frame that is way off for most
blades. If I use the frame scale, I'm usually quite under tension. If
I use a pluck or flutter test, measured deflection, or a borrowed
tension gauge, and set the saw up properly, there's a huge improvement
in cut speed and quality.

To me, it says that the manufacturer of my saw could have used a
better (stiffer or more precisely measured) spring, or they can
improve the scale's usability by documenting it better. One of the
other complaints for my saw was vibration, which was totally removed
with a link belt. Again, the manufacturer could have easily fixed
this by including a better belt. Both were valid points, even on my
five year old version. Cut quality and speed are fantastic, once the
tool was tuned.

I think a better stationary tool review should always follow generally
accepted setup and tuning procedures, and document them, for the
particular tools being tested. It also wouldn't kill some
manufacturers to improve the quality of documentation included with
the tool.

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

B A R R Y wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:40:19 -0700, John Martin
wrote:

I wasn't there, so I can't pretend to know what was wrong with the
test - if something was. To report results such as those, however,
without any comment or explanation, is asinine.

....

I think a better stationary tool review should always follow generally
accepted setup and tuning procedures, and document them, for the
particular tools being tested. ...

Amen!

This article was particularly egregious in that it mentioned various
out-of-nominal measurements, ignored other factors like the
effectiveness of the tension indicator as supplied, and then proceeded
to make the timed resaw test the cornerstone of the evaluation without
even the hint of what, if anything, was done to the saws before running
the test. Making the results essentially useless...

--

On Sep 19, 6:37 am, B A R R Y wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:40:19 -0700, John Martin
wrote:

I wasn't there, so I can't pretend to know what was wrong with the
test - if something was. To report results such as those, however,
without any comment or explanation, is asinine.

Remember, the reviewer stated that the blades were tensioned based on
the saw's tension scale.

My particular saw, a five year old version of one of the tested
models, has a scale stamped into the frame that is way off for most
blades. If I use the frame scale, I'm usually quite under tension. If
I use a pluck or flutter test, measured deflection, or a borrowed
tension gauge, and set the saw up properly, there's a huge improvement
in cut speed and quality.

To me, it says that the manufacturer of my saw could have used a
better (stiffer or more precisely measured) spring, or they can
improve the scale's usability by documenting it better. One of the
other complaints for my saw was vibration, which was totally removed
with a link belt. Again, the manufacturer could have easily fixed
this by including a better belt. Both were valid points, even on my
five year old version. Cut quality and speed are fantastic, once the
tool was tuned.

I think a better stationary tool review should always follow generally
accepted setup and tuning procedures, and document them, for the
particular tools being tested. It also wouldn't kill some
manufacturers to improve the quality of documentation included with
the tool.

---------------------------------------------
**http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

Tensioned based on the saw's scale, true, but then confirmed by finger
pressure. Which implies that it was OK.

We agree that the scale is miserable. It's based on the deflection of
the tension spring, which may be a worn-out old one, a brand new one,
a brand new higher-rate die spring, whatever. Not the best setup, but
I'm not sure that any of the others are any better. Like you, I've
found that the best way to set the tension is to start with the gauge,
go higher, then try the saw and see if you need to go even higher.

The belt vibration may not have been due to a cheap belt, but just to
an old one. A belt that has been sitting tensioned in one position
for some time can take a set, which can then cause vibration. A new
belt - even a cheap one - will usually make it go away. As will,
obviously, a link belt.

On the setup, tuning and documentation, again we agree.

If I had done the test, I think I'd have ordered the saws anonymously,
but then invited reps from each of the manufacturers in to set them up
and observe the testing. Documenting the steps, tools and time
required to bring each saw up to its best. As a prospective buyer,
that's something I'd want to know.

John Martin

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:42:55 -0700, Neillarson
wrote:

If you haven't seen this in this months Fine Woodworking magazine, you
gotta read it, especially if you are looking for a new bandsaw. It is
also available on line but you gotta have a memebership.


I was stunned at how good the Grizzly's did and even more stunned at
how BAD the Delta did.

Now I am wondering about the Delta line in it's entirerty. I seem to
be hearing a lot of bad rumors about Delta QA. I only own one major
stationary tool newer than 12 years old and it is the Powermatic 14"
bandsaw. It did pretty well on the review except for a misalingment
problem that I did not experience. My only Delta tools are an older
12" planer and an old Contracters saw. Both have serverd me well. I am
in the market in the next 6 months for a new jointer and a new cabinet
saw. I planned on the Jet 6" jointer and the Delta Unisaw, but now,
based on the issues they had wiht fit and finish, I think I will look
more towards the Grizzly / Steel City and at the Powermatic PM2000.


I didn't read the article nor am I likely too. However, when the
changes to Delta band saws ( 1.5 hp 3450 rpm motor and associated
drive train changes to drop the output blade speed, new tensioning
spring, new quick release and presets for various width blades, larger
table, multiple presets for the pattern makers to set their casting
drafts, new stand with much better dust collection, etc..) that
preceded and were incorporated into the 28-475X, I personally observed
similar tests with that unit pitted against the best that Jet,
Powermatic and several others had to offer at the time. All machines
were set up properly and used the same blade. Set up included tension
gage on the blade because one of the things that was measured was
overarm deflection, and the tension had to be equal for all units.
All this occurred about 2001 plus or minus

The Delta won the resaw test easily but certainly not by a factor of
nine. It won the dust collection test, overarm deflection and motor
overload tests also. And these were lab controlled tests by product
engineers that had an average of 25 years experience with the design
of woodworking machinery. The tests, if anything were judged
conservatively, as the final results would be given to marketing for
use in ads and selling, and it is important that you can back up what
you say.

Since that time each of those manufacturers has had their own upgrades
for the most part matching but not exceeding the motor hp that the
Delta has.

And Delta has, I believe changed motor manufacturers from Marathon to
whomever, but not changed HP (except that the Marathon could legally
be rated 1-3/4 HP, probably who they are with now, could not). And the
cast iron may be coming from China by now, if they have used up the
batch that me and mine made for them before shutting down.

But even with the changes, I would be a skeptic about the results of
the FWW testing, particularly a 9 times thumping in resaw. In the old
days, I would expect something like that to be challenged. But in the
world of B & D with folks with big box mentality and no industrial
experience, I don't think there is anyone capable of challenging.

Frank

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:48:27 -0700, John Martin
wrote:


If I had done the test, I think I'd have ordered the saws anonymously,
but then invited reps from each of the manufacturers in to set them up
and observe the testing. Documenting the steps, tools and time
required to bring each saw up to its best. As a prospective buyer,
that's something I'd want to know.


Excellent suggestion.

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

John Martin wrote:
....
If I had done the test, I think I'd have ordered the saws anonymously,
but then invited reps from each of the manufacturers in to set them up
and observe the testing. Documenting the steps, tools and time
required to bring each saw up to its best. As a prospective buyer,
that's something I'd want to know.

Suspect it would be unlikely for a manufacturer to spring for doing that
on their nickel given the number of reviews done. But, one would hope
that the reviewer is experienced and expert enough to do the tuning and
report what was done as you note. I suppose there's some value in also
knowing how a tool performs "out of the box", but unless the potential
buyer is one who won't tinker on their own, it would be far more
valuable to know which can be made to perform well relatively easily,
which require more effort, and which are basically a lost cause or at
least require significant effort.

Sorta' a case in point -- in looking up manufacturers' spec's for the
blade speed to see if there was any chance that might be a correlating
factor on the timed test disparity, I found several reviews for the
subject saws. One had several where the riser block attachment pins
were badly misaligned so that the saw wheels were drastically
non-coplanar if installed as manufactured. The solution from the
manufacturer was to remove the pins on one end of the block and just set
the block in place where needed to align the wheels. This was,
coincidentally, one of the saws with a high misalignment value in the
test, but nothing mentioned in the review other than the measurement.

Space constraints, of course, mean not all can be reported, but it seems
that much of significance wasn't in this particular review...

--

Frank Boettcher wrote:
....

I didn't read the article nor am I likely too. ...

You didn't miss much...

But even with the changes, I would be a skeptic about the results of
the FWW testing, particularly a 9 times thumping in resaw. ...

It's clearly fraught with some unexplained problem in that half the
population fell into one of two widely disparate groups, the Delta just
happened to be the worst of the poor for some unexplained reason.
There's certainly little to suggest it really is or would be such a poor
performer in the report that one could reliably hang one's hat on.

It seems there must have been some uncontrolled factor to cause the
measured resaw times to be so split into two groups, but what that could
have been is, of course, impossible to tell from the published story...

For comparison, for the 5-lb test, there's this overall comparison --

Group Average/Std Dev

Slow 3:45 +/- 1:15
Fast 0:58 +/- 0:01.5


--

dpb wrote:

I suppose there's some value in also
knowing how a tool performs "out of the box", but unless the potential
buyer is one who won't tinker on their own, it would be far more
valuable to know which can be made to perform well relatively easily,
which require more effort, and which are basically a lost cause or at
least require significant effort.

This is only valid information if the manufacturing is consistent enough
that the results hold true from unit to unit.

Given that one of the common complaints about cheaper imports is that
there is relatively little quality control, it would seem that testing a
single unit and reporting the results is always going to end up
generalizing from a single datum.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:
dpb wrote:

I suppose there's some value in also knowing how a tool performs "out
of the box", but unless the potential buyer is one who won't tinker on
their own, it would be far more valuable to know which can be made to
perform well relatively easily, which require more effort, and which
are basically a lost cause or at least require significant effort.

This is only valid information if the manufacturing is consistent enough
that the results hold true from unit to unit.

Given that one of the common complaints about cheaper imports is that
there is relatively little quality control, it would seem that testing a
single unit and reporting the results is always going to end up
generalizing from a single datum.

Yep...

And, of course, that's always true of any testing unless it is
replicated (and I know of no circulating magazine that does that kind of
reviews).

It really doesn't matter whether it's a descriptive comparison as in
"fit and finish" or the detailed measurements of (since this is on the
FWW BS article) how close to coplanar the wheels are, there's an open
issue of what the next unit of the same model would have measured and
how well does the tested unit represent the one you might receive.

One can speculate that QC is better on higher-priced units, but unless
reviewers either get corroborating data from the manufacturers or run
tests on more than a single unit, there's nothing that says the test
unit isn't representative of the average, the median, the mode, the 5th
or 95th percentile of the manufactured units. It is, of course, less
likely that a randomly purchased unit is at one extreme or the other,
but not out of the question...

--

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:21:08 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Given that one of the common complaints about cheaper imports is that
there is relatively little quality control, it would seem that testing a
single unit and reporting the results is always going to end up
generalizing from a single datum.

What you have not heard about end user Quality Control.

Stopping myself before this ends in an endless rant.

Mark

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:16:55 -0500, Markem
wrote:



What you have not heard about end user Quality Control.

Ahhh... I know that feeling...

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

On Sep 19, 4:41 pm, dpb wrote:

Suspect it would be unlikely for a manufacturer to spring for doing that
on their nickel given the number of reviews done. But, one would hope
that the reviewer is experienced and expert enough to do the tuning and
report what was done as you note. I suppose there's some value in also
knowing how a tool performs "out of the box", but unless the potential
buyer is one who won't tinker on their own, it would be far more
valuable to know which can be made to perform well relatively easily,
which require more effort, and which are basically a lost cause or at
least require significant effort.

Sorta' a case in point -- in looking up manufacturers' spec's for the
blade speed to see if there was any chance that might be a correlating
factor on the timed test disparity, I found several reviews for the
subject saws. One had several where the riser block attachment pins
were badly misaligned so that the saw wheels were drastically
non-coplanar if installed as manufactured. The solution from the
manufacturer was to remove the pins on one end of the block and just set
the block in place where needed to align the wheels. This was,
coincidentally, one of the saws with a high misalignment value in the
test, but nothing mentioned in the review other than the measurement.

Space constraints, of course, mean not all can be reported, but it seems
that much of significance wasn't in this particular review...

--

I too would hope that the reviewer would be experienced and expert
enough. I'd expect it too - at least I would have until this review.
If I were the marketing manager at one of the manufacturers/importers,
I'd consider spending $1,000 or so to send one of my tech guys to a
product test to be an easy decision. Especially if I happened to be
the Delta marketing manager after seeing that review. Doesn't take
too many lost sales to pay for that - and can you imagine how many
sales that review may have cost them?

I'm guessing that blade speed wasn't the main factor in this test, as
(I'm guessing that) the speeds are likely in the same general range.
Although maybe that's the reason the Jet, with the smallest motor,
tied for fastest at the lower feed pressure but stalled at the higher.

The fastest saws were all either 2 HP or 230 volt. Any significance
there? Maybe, if the slower saws were bogging down to the point of
stalling. Not too likely, though.

In my own experience, slow resawing often means that a stringy chip is
dragging in the throat plate. Or that the blade is too loose and is
vibrating in the cut. Who knows?

John Martin

John Martin wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:41 pm, dpb wrote:
Suspect it would be unlikely for a manufacturer to spring for doing that
on their nickel given the number of reviews done. But, one would hope
that the reviewer is experienced and expert enough to do the tuning and
report what was done as you note. I suppose there's some value in also
knowing how a tool performs "out of the box", but unless the potential
buyer is one who won't tinker on their own, it would be far more
valuable to know which can be made to perform well relatively easily,
which require more effort, and which are basically a lost cause or at
least require significant effort.

Sorta' a case in point -- in looking up manufacturers' spec's for the
blade speed to see if there was any chance that might be a correlating
factor on the timed test disparity, I found several reviews for the
subject saws. One had several where the riser block attachment pins
were badly misaligned so that the saw wheels were drastically
non-coplanar if installed as manufactured. The solution from the
manufacturer was to remove the pins on one end of the block and just set
the block in place where needed to align the wheels. This was,
coincidentally, one of the saws with a high misalignment value in the
test, but nothing mentioned in the review other than the measurement.

Space constraints, of course, mean not all can be reported, but it seems
that much of significance wasn't in this particular review...

--

I too would hope that the reviewer would be experienced and expert
enough. I'd expect it too - at least I would have until this review.
If I were the marketing manager at one of the manufacturers/importers,
I'd consider spending $1,000 or so to send one of my tech guys to a
product test to be an easy decision. Especially if I happened to be
the Delta marketing manager after seeing that review. Doesn't take
too many lost sales to pay for that - and can you imagine how many
sales that review may have cost them?

I'm guessing that blade speed wasn't the main factor in this test, as
(I'm guessing that) the speeds are likely in the same general range.

Yes, I went and found manufacturers' spec's and posted them for all
except the Laguna -- they are all 3000 sfpm except for the Rikon which
was 2950 so blade speed isn't the explanation at all.

Although maybe that's the reason the Jet, with the smallest motor,
tied for fastest at the lower feed pressure but stalled at the higher.

No, it's 3000 sfpm just like all the others (with the possible but
unlikely exception of the Laguna for which I didn't find a spec.)

The fastest saws were all either 2 HP or 230 volt. Any significance
there? Maybe, if the slower saws were bogging down to the point of
stalling. Not too likely, though.

No, that's not true, either. The Jet was as fast as any for the 5-lb
test and it had the smallest motor.

All the motors w/ the exception of one which wasn't noted are dual
voltage, so the 115V rating was simply as shipped. Doubt it is a
factor. The one motor spec no data for is torque.


In my own experience, slow resawing often means that a stringy chip is
dragging in the throat plate. Or that the blade is too loose and is
vibrating in the cut. Who knows?

Not possible to tell, of course, as we've already concluded from the
data, but the two groups of fast/slow and the same saws falling in the
same group on the two tests means it has to be consistent. The blade
tension problem seems certainly up there as a likely candidate. I don't
think the consistency of the results could be attributed to something
like the chip in the throat plate...

--

"dpb" wrote in message

same group on the two tests means it has to be consistent. The blade
tension problem seems certainly up there as a likely candidate.

Jumping in late, but that's my take on the reason for the published results
also.

Because I lucked into an "Iturra Blade Gage", I'm keenly aware of just how
different the "finger pressure deflection method", the "pluck method", "the
flutter method", and the least desirable of all, reliance on the default
built-in marker gauge, can be from an actual measured tension.

IME, use of any but the blade tension gauge usually resulted in my under
tensioning a blade.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/08/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message

same group on the two tests means it has to be consistent. The blade
tension problem seems certainly up there as a likely candidate.

Jumping in late, but that's my take on the reason for the published results
also.

Because I lucked into an "Iturra Blade Gage", I'm keenly aware of just how
different the "finger pressure deflection method", the "pluck method", "the
flutter method", and the least desirable of all, reliance on the default
built-in marker gauge, can be from an actual measured tension.

IME, use of any but the blade tension gauge usually resulted in my under
tensioning a blade.

I agree completely.

What baffles me is that nobody in editorial seemed to pick up on the
gross difference and ask when the article was submitted for publication.
Or that the reviewer didn't think it really odd and at least futz
around a little to figure out what went (obviously) wrong...

A nice bandsaw has been on my wish list for a long time, but this
article surely won't help much in making the decision, methinks, even if
were to jump in the near term...which ain't likely, anyway,
unfortunately.

--

Swingman wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message

same group on the two tests means it has to be consistent. The blade
tension problem seems certainly up there as a likely candidate.

Jumping in late, but that's my take on the reason for the published results
also.
....

While I agree in another response w/ the tendency to under-tension w/o a
good measurement, what I intended to add in context of the published
results is how, if the same reviewer set the tension and checked for
"ok", even if the builtin guide was the initial reference he would end
up w/ such a discrepancy between saws where there were these two groups
that performed so nearly identically within the subgroups but so grossly
differently between...

'Tis a puzzle still and one can only hope enough questions were raised
that there's a follow-up to the article eventually that sheds some light
on the issue.

I've undoubtedly gone on far too long on it, but being an analytic type
I like futzing around w/ numbers and trying to find underlying patterns
and failing that, tend to get obsessive...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Snip
\
I've undoubtedly gone on far too long on it, but being an analytic type I
like futzing around w/ numbers and trying to find underlying patterns and
failing that, tend to get obsessive...

--

What no one has considered or mentioned is that these guys that publish
these articles are first, journalists, and second, woodworkers.
If you watch the news, you will find the fact that the high temperature for
today this year has been over 85 degrees "x" number of times, setting some
kind of record. So and So has hit the base ball straight over the pitchers
head "x" number of times on the second Tuesday of each month, setting some
kind of record. There is certainly some kind of record being set this year
with the lack of hurricanes and or tropical storms. The fact that there
have been darn few actual storms does not stop the weather bureau and all
its journalists/meteorologists from naming every cloud cover to hide the egg
on their faces. They have quota's you know and they have to justify all
that expensive equipment.
The guys conducting the band saw tests don't care about accuracy, they are
interested in selling magazines, and when you throw in some hard to detect
flaw in the testing procedures you get sensational results that excite the
readers. ;~)