Dale Thompson
10-31-2004, 10:17 PM
Hi Folks,
Just to show you how a warped mind works, the following is a photo of how my feeble brain has been working lately. I've got some pics coming up but the projects are not quite done yet and there is always, for me, the high probability of them finding a slippery slope to the fire pit.
Anyway, for what it's worth:
To begin with, I’m NOT a “scroller”. On the other hand, I’m not a turner, cabinet maker, clock maker, jewelry box maker or, for that matter, any of the attributes generally attributed to woodworkers on the whole. However, if I had waited to become any of the above, I never would have made anything out of wood in my entire life – not that I have!
Whatever, I recently had the rare (for a novice) opportunity to compare two quality, mid-priced scroll saws side-by-side for about two weeks. They were the Delta Q3 (now out of production) and my new DeWalt 788. The results were interesting and kind of surprising.
Delta has an upgraded version of the Q3 that has a 20” throat depth vs. the 18” depth of the Q3. That may or may not be of importance to you. I’ll comment on that later.
My observations were as follows:
· APPEARANCE: The Q3 looks like it was designed in the 21st Century. The 788 looks like a design from the days of Bonnie and Clyde.
· DESIGN: The Q3 uses the C-arm design and the 788 uses the double parallel-link system. This results in the fact that the 788 is a more “aggressive” cutting machine because, due to the relatively short pivot radius, there is more “front to back” movement of the blade than on the Q3. “Over cutting” your pattern is more of a problem with the 788 and in tight cuts I found myself leaning more on the back of the blade than I did with the Q3. By definition, however, this aggressiveness is a positive if you are cutting large or straight patterns. It is also a positive in that spiral blades cut much faster (I’m not a fan of spiral blades except in thin plywood where grain does not deflect the blade).
· SMOOTHNESS: The nickel test is often used as the hallmark of measurement when it comes to smoothness. So be it. My Q3 was set with the back leg “up” and I was not about to try to level the 788 to the degree necessary to certify the “nickel test”. I am always at least a “half-bubble” off on everything anyway so I must digress to a simple “touch” test to compare “smoothness”. I would suggest that the 788 is a “bit” smoother. However, that may be due to the fact that I spent $200 to ”upgrade” to the 788. I strongly doubt that there is any intricate pattern that I could make on the 788 that I could not duplicate on the Q3. I’d give the benefit of a very strong doubt to the 788!??!
·BLADE VERSATILITY: The 788 can use spiral blades if that is your preference. The Q3 cannot! Period! . With the 788, you can even use spiral blades in the “top threading” mode. Just make sure that you are “gentle” in tightening the bottom thumbscrew. “Thin” spirals have a tendency to kink in the bottom holder if you over tighten the screw. I found that the best way to prepare for “top loading” with a spiral blade was to tighten it into the upper holder first and “lean” it into the lower clamping slot. That way you will not have to force it in and potentially kink the blade. Practice makes perfect! I need more practice – as usual!
·CONVENIENCE OF BLADE CHANGE/THREADING: If you are a “scroller”, this is of ultimate importance. The “Quickset II” system is a “joke” in comparison to the simple wing nut system on the 788. In a couple of days, the 788 made me into a “top threading” fanatic. “Top threading” is the “cats meow” for serious scrollers. As I recall, “top-threading” was not a real option on the Q3. The bottom blade clamp was just too hard to “find” and the upper arm did not lift for convenient access. The “Quickset II” System may be OK if you use the same width blade all the time. However, if you change widths, you have to use an awkward little special wrench to adjust the “Quickset” holder screw. That is an inconvenience – to put it mildly.
·WOULD I DO IT AGAIN?: The transition cost me $200. I paid $400 for the 788 system and sold my Q3 for $200. I think that I would do it again. In itself, the blade change system and versatility are worth the money. In addition, I want to keep up with the daughters of the rich folks down in Spring Green.
·THE ALTERNATIVES: This is not a “flame” (or is it) but Delta has replaced the Q3 with a 20” “parallel-arm” saw. It features the old “Quickset II” jaws, a dangerous (in my opinion) shroud over the moving arm, and a hilariously archaic 6-speed belt changing drive with an incredibly flimsy cover. HMMMM? The electronic variable speed system on the Q3 was GREAT! What’s the problem? With all of this, Delta will charge you about $70 more for this saw than you will pay for the 788! Go figure!!?
·MISCELLANEOUS: My new 788 came in essentially two pieces, the saw and the table. Being the genius that I am, I just put the two together, added a blade and started to “scroll”. BAD DECISION! I started with some ¾” Oak as a test. I got quite a bit of smoke and the blade was difficult to control for on-line cutting. It turned out that the blade was about 1 degree off from perpendicular to the table. Easy to fix? No! Not with the 788. My Q3 had never been a problem in terms of bevel adjustment. However, the 788 has enough “slop” in the mechanism to allow the blade/table perpendicularity to shift when the knob is tightened. The only way that I could get it right was to install the thinnest blade that I had and then cut into a piece of ¾” pine, make a circle and then make an exit cut about ¼” away from the entrance cut. When the “circle” and its leg fell out of both the top and bottom of the cut, I figured that I was “close enough”. Putting a micrometer on the top and bottom of the “leg” gave me a pretty comparable reading so – problem solved! Please understand that the original lack of perpendicularity would not have been a problem if I had known that it was there. I was trying to "follow the line" as if the blade/table had been aligned properly.
Sorry for the boring post. However, you should know by now that your time is FAR too valuable to waste on MY posts!! :p HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Dale T.
Just to show you how a warped mind works, the following is a photo of how my feeble brain has been working lately. I've got some pics coming up but the projects are not quite done yet and there is always, for me, the high probability of them finding a slippery slope to the fire pit.
Anyway, for what it's worth:
To begin with, I’m NOT a “scroller”. On the other hand, I’m not a turner, cabinet maker, clock maker, jewelry box maker or, for that matter, any of the attributes generally attributed to woodworkers on the whole. However, if I had waited to become any of the above, I never would have made anything out of wood in my entire life – not that I have!
Whatever, I recently had the rare (for a novice) opportunity to compare two quality, mid-priced scroll saws side-by-side for about two weeks. They were the Delta Q3 (now out of production) and my new DeWalt 788. The results were interesting and kind of surprising.
Delta has an upgraded version of the Q3 that has a 20” throat depth vs. the 18” depth of the Q3. That may or may not be of importance to you. I’ll comment on that later.
My observations were as follows:
· APPEARANCE: The Q3 looks like it was designed in the 21st Century. The 788 looks like a design from the days of Bonnie and Clyde.
· DESIGN: The Q3 uses the C-arm design and the 788 uses the double parallel-link system. This results in the fact that the 788 is a more “aggressive” cutting machine because, due to the relatively short pivot radius, there is more “front to back” movement of the blade than on the Q3. “Over cutting” your pattern is more of a problem with the 788 and in tight cuts I found myself leaning more on the back of the blade than I did with the Q3. By definition, however, this aggressiveness is a positive if you are cutting large or straight patterns. It is also a positive in that spiral blades cut much faster (I’m not a fan of spiral blades except in thin plywood where grain does not deflect the blade).
· SMOOTHNESS: The nickel test is often used as the hallmark of measurement when it comes to smoothness. So be it. My Q3 was set with the back leg “up” and I was not about to try to level the 788 to the degree necessary to certify the “nickel test”. I am always at least a “half-bubble” off on everything anyway so I must digress to a simple “touch” test to compare “smoothness”. I would suggest that the 788 is a “bit” smoother. However, that may be due to the fact that I spent $200 to ”upgrade” to the 788. I strongly doubt that there is any intricate pattern that I could make on the 788 that I could not duplicate on the Q3. I’d give the benefit of a very strong doubt to the 788!??!
·BLADE VERSATILITY: The 788 can use spiral blades if that is your preference. The Q3 cannot! Period! . With the 788, you can even use spiral blades in the “top threading” mode. Just make sure that you are “gentle” in tightening the bottom thumbscrew. “Thin” spirals have a tendency to kink in the bottom holder if you over tighten the screw. I found that the best way to prepare for “top loading” with a spiral blade was to tighten it into the upper holder first and “lean” it into the lower clamping slot. That way you will not have to force it in and potentially kink the blade. Practice makes perfect! I need more practice – as usual!
·CONVENIENCE OF BLADE CHANGE/THREADING: If you are a “scroller”, this is of ultimate importance. The “Quickset II” system is a “joke” in comparison to the simple wing nut system on the 788. In a couple of days, the 788 made me into a “top threading” fanatic. “Top threading” is the “cats meow” for serious scrollers. As I recall, “top-threading” was not a real option on the Q3. The bottom blade clamp was just too hard to “find” and the upper arm did not lift for convenient access. The “Quickset II” System may be OK if you use the same width blade all the time. However, if you change widths, you have to use an awkward little special wrench to adjust the “Quickset” holder screw. That is an inconvenience – to put it mildly.
·WOULD I DO IT AGAIN?: The transition cost me $200. I paid $400 for the 788 system and sold my Q3 for $200. I think that I would do it again. In itself, the blade change system and versatility are worth the money. In addition, I want to keep up with the daughters of the rich folks down in Spring Green.
·THE ALTERNATIVES: This is not a “flame” (or is it) but Delta has replaced the Q3 with a 20” “parallel-arm” saw. It features the old “Quickset II” jaws, a dangerous (in my opinion) shroud over the moving arm, and a hilariously archaic 6-speed belt changing drive with an incredibly flimsy cover. HMMMM? The electronic variable speed system on the Q3 was GREAT! What’s the problem? With all of this, Delta will charge you about $70 more for this saw than you will pay for the 788! Go figure!!?
·MISCELLANEOUS: My new 788 came in essentially two pieces, the saw and the table. Being the genius that I am, I just put the two together, added a blade and started to “scroll”. BAD DECISION! I started with some ¾” Oak as a test. I got quite a bit of smoke and the blade was difficult to control for on-line cutting. It turned out that the blade was about 1 degree off from perpendicular to the table. Easy to fix? No! Not with the 788. My Q3 had never been a problem in terms of bevel adjustment. However, the 788 has enough “slop” in the mechanism to allow the blade/table perpendicularity to shift when the knob is tightened. The only way that I could get it right was to install the thinnest blade that I had and then cut into a piece of ¾” pine, make a circle and then make an exit cut about ¼” away from the entrance cut. When the “circle” and its leg fell out of both the top and bottom of the cut, I figured that I was “close enough”. Putting a micrometer on the top and bottom of the “leg” gave me a pretty comparable reading so – problem solved! Please understand that the original lack of perpendicularity would not have been a problem if I had known that it was there. I was trying to "follow the line" as if the blade/table had been aligned properly.
Sorry for the boring post. However, you should know by now that your time is FAR too valuable to waste on MY posts!! :p HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Dale T.