Interesting quote from FW's Roland Johnson

[Bill ThompsonNM]

In the previous issue of Fine Woodworking, they had an article on restoring old equipment (mixed feelings about that, I'd prefer to keep down the competition for those deals on CL :D ) In the latest issue someone questions the utility of him spending so much on a restoration. Most of his reply is good, the usual old arn vs new.. but he also makes the statement about bandsaws: "Secondly, cast iron will always be stouter than a welded steel machine, and no one manufactures a cast iron frame, 16 inch bandsaw anymore." Stouter, of course is an ambiguous term... might refer to weight, strength or rigidity. My impression is weight is probably the only place it wins. Comments?

[Jim Matthews]

I own a larger welded steel frame bandsaw made by Centauro of Italy.

I can't imagine the sheer weight required to build something this large in cast iron.

Smooth running bearings, and proper alignment should keep vibration at a minimum, the only thing more mass would effect.

[ian maybury]

The advantage cast iron seems to have is better internal damping - meaning that it's a bit less prone to harmonics and other vibration related issues. It's a 'deader' material. Which is why it's very much the preferred material for machine tools.

That said a fabricated steel chassis by virtue of placing a lot of (stronger) material a long way out from the neutral axis (it enables a very deep beam section) can be very resistant to bending under the major loads. (e.g. blade tension) This is the principle of the H beam. Probably lighter and cheaper too.

The price is presumably the resulting higher risk of the saw suffering from undesirable vibration, especially if the walls are fairly thin and unsupported by webs etc. Chances are that in practice the saw builders sidestep this possibility by adjusting the design (wall thickness, shape/form, web positioning etc) to avoid the chassis vibrating at natural frequencies that match the sort of relatively low (?) driving frequencies that arise in the saws. (e.g. motor, pulley and band wheel frequencies and their harmonics)

I'm not aware of (at least mainstream) machine tools using fabricated beds (chassis), but in that case the cutting action is presumably much more sensitive (given the very fine finishes and high precision required) to the sort of high frequency, low amplitude vibrations that are the hardest to eliminate.

Fabricated band saws on the other hand while functional can often be quite harsh sounding machines - you can tell that there's all sorts of 'buzzing' and stuff going on in the background. I've not seen a cast iron band saw run, but I'd not be surprised if it's a lot 'sweeter' sounding and feeling.

ian

[David Kumm]

The big old cast iron saws are second to none in operation. If the saw is smooth and resaws it doesn't matter but the old saws run with a smooth power that is hard to explain but hard to leave when experienced. They were common up to 42". The steel saws compensate somewhat with cast iron wheels where the old saws often ran aluminum or steel carter wheels with much less mass. It wasn't needed as the frame sucked up the vibration. Add to that the direct drive stability, and in Oliver's case, the motor mounted directly into the casting, and the results have led people to run them for 100 years. A new Tannewitz is in the 25000-30000 range to produce. Look up a northfield as well. They are a lighter saw in comparison to Oliver, Tanny, and especially Yates and sell for 20000. A steel saw can cut wood as well but not better than a cast iron equivalent. The same holds true for old cast iron jointers. A big steel standed cast iron bed jointer will flatten anything, but if you run a good old newman, porter, oliver, etc, you will know what I am talking about. I have a Knapp KFS and a Felder shaper which are wonderful pieces of equipment. I find them to have more capability than I have skill, but when I start my old arn, I feel even better about them. It's part of what makes the hobby fun to me. Dave

[Larry Edgerton]

I have a mix of new and old. I just got rid of an Oliver 36, a Powermatic 180, A big old Delta 12" tablesaw and a Porter 12" Jointer because of room. I also have SCM equipment. I think MR Johnson may be a bit sentimental.

The Oliver 36 did cut nice, but it took up so much room it had to go. I don't know how it will compare to the Delta 20" I bought to replace it, I have not run that saw yet. Jury is still out. But I can easily move the Delta, and for me that is important right now. The Oliver weighed more than the 2000#s my tractor will pick up.

The Porter jointer was all right, but it again took up too much space with its flat belt drive and motor bolted to the floor. I had that and a DJ 20 in the shop, and I found I was using the DJ 20 almost exclusively. It was faster to abjust and unless face jointing it was just a lot easier to live with. I will replace that with a F1 eventually, but for now it was my choice to move to the new digs.

The Minimax I replaced the Delta tablesaw with is better all the way around except it is a little underpowered on deep cuts, but other than that is just more precise, has better dust collection, and it has the slider. I have a PM 66 around still, but if one had to go it would not be the Minimax.

Powermatic 180 Planer, and SCM S520. Hands down the S520 is better in every way, except weight. and it weighs in at over 1800 lbs, and is all steel welded construction, where the Powermatic was Cast iron and II think was up around 3K. The SCM paid for itself in sanding time. the finish out of that machine is awesome, a few quick swipes with 220 and it is ready.

But.... Besides weight, the SCM kicked its butt in every catagory. 78 Db at idle, not much louder when working, capable of doing finish or rough planing at the flip of its four speed trans. Way better finish, 4 minute knife changes, and the list goes on. There was no debate which one was coming with me.
That being said, the Powermatic was a great machine, and I wish I could have kept them both. I had carbides in the Powermatic and used it for roughing incoming stock. I've noticed my bill for Tersa Knives has gone up since I don't have that running cleanup.

Overall, I have to give the nod to Europe for better machines. Americans have not designed much new in that catagory of tool in fifty years or more, shame really. Ya, I disagree with his position, but reserve the right to change my mind on the bandsaw. I wouldn't out of hand dismiss either new or old.

['Jacques Malan']

The big old cast iron saws are second to none in operation. If the saw is smooth and resaws it doesn't matter but the old saws run with a smooth power that is hard to explain but hard to leave when experienced.

I have fiddled around with both old and new machines in my life, and I've come to the conclusion that the best machines is the ones that is designed correctly and made correctly. That big old cast iron machine still works very well since it was made right in the first place. The ones made at the same time that weren't made as well has long since gone to the scrap heap. It doesn't help having a cast iron machine if the casting alloy wasn't correct or the melt not at the right temperature or the machinist having a bad day and didn't care about the very slight inaccuracy during set up.

But it is such a pleasure to work on a well made old machine, that I always will choose it.

[glenn bradley]

That big old cast iron machine still works very well since it was made right in the first place.

This pretty well sums it up. A big old cast iron machine that was poor to begin with doesn't improve with age :). "Tastes Great / Less Filling" and "Ford / Chevy" arguments aside; regardless of the material, if properly designed, the tool will function well.

[David Kumm]

I agree with Larry and Jacques. There was alot of mediocre old stuff just like there is new. If you go old, condition and knowledge is important. Even the best of the old companies made some machines better than others. The oliver 116 is a beast and takes up too much room 90% of the time. The 217-30" on the other hand has a fairly small footprint and still resaws 15". Flat belt babbit machines are older than I care to deal with so I'm not a purist. SCMI is pretty close to the top of the food chain so you can't go wrong there. I would say however that comparing them to a PM 66 or a180 isn't a fair fight. The 180 as was the case with all other companies 18" planers, was considered their light duty machine and weighed about 1300 lbs. A grinder added some more. The industrial machines that are comparable to the SCMI were the 24" versions. They were twice the weight and a whole different animal. Old machines are not as refined however and can be real finicky to adjust. The porter with the spring joint mechanism requires two dial indicators and an 8' straight edge to really get right. The oliver 12 with spring and draft adjustment are exponentially complex. Table saws and shapers are two machines that the top euro machines really stand out, however I find a separate rip saw is pretty handy. A combination approach is pretty valid and as with anything, knowledge the the individual machines helps. Dave who has screwed up enough to know.

[Frank Drew]

Just from the brief quote, my take on Roland Johnson's position is similar to Dave's first post: It's really not a question of new design vs. old (that's not a fair fight), the question is whether cast iron, as a material, has some advantage over welded steel for woodworking machinery. For example, if SCM made their already good machines from cast iron rather than steel, would they be even better (ignoring cost for the moment)? Or, conversely, if Oliver was still in business and had taken some design cues from the more modern machines coming out of Europe, would their cast iron machines be the leaders today as they were for decades last century?

[george wilson]

I was just at a friend's shop this afternoon. He has a steel construction 18" thickness planer that he doesn't like to use because it is so much louder than a cast iron one. The old 36" Tannewitz direct drive bandsaws I used to see in the furniture factories were so smooth that you had to look at the saw teeth to see if they were running(with the ambient factory noise). Incredibly smooth machines.

[David Kumm]

We need Jeff from Northfield in this discussion. They have their castings done in Eau Claire WI- I believe. I have a foundry client and they have old fully paid for facilities and the city leaves them alone so they remain in business. It is expensive to cast stuff with all the environmental regulations and cheaper alternatives. The old cast iron sat out in the field for a year or two to season, which is not the case today. There have been discussions about the movement in today's cast iron machines, jointers etc. Can you imagine the cost involved in eliminating or replacing defective castings? Martin uses a special process to deaden their steel bases and add weight. It must still be cheaper than casting them in iron. Look at the old t-71-75 machines. Even felder has found it is cheaper to fold steel into bases rather than weld it. I find it difficult to believe that steel is the preferred material, but do admire that companies have gotten very good at utilizing it's strengths and compensating for it's weaknesses. And yes, I have to make sure the blade on my yates is stopped because I can't tell when it is running. My laguna LT 18 was a good saw but not even close to the Snowflake. Dave

[Frank Drew]

Dave,

Don't they deaden some steel bases with cement, or some similar loading material?

[David Kumm]

Frank, I think Martin has a proprietary process that is more complicated. Altendorf uses concrete in the base. Partially to deaden, partially for stability when loading multiple heavy sheets. Martin has always been the pick of the litter. I've been told their bearings are massive. That was another area the old stuff did well. Both oliver and porter used huge abec 7 spec bearings in their cutterhead assembly. I digress. Knapp actually welded their 6mm steel bases underwater to avoid stress and still seasoned their cast iron. The market did not appreciate the difference. Hopefully Martin will keep being Martin. The fact they sell industrial helps. Knapp tried to be to the hobby market what Martin is to the industrial side and there just aren't enough bodies for that to work. Some of those hobbyists even buy Martin. There has been some great used Martin for sale recently. Dave

[Bill ThompsonNM]

All very interesting-- whether it's better or not , I do have an appreciation for old arn-- just as I do for steam trains-- which I ride every chance i get .
I think, in fact, Roland johnson's 16 inch cast iron bandsaw is more in the class of an Italian 16 inch rather than the 17 inch $1000 bandsaw the reader suggested as a better investment.

My bandsaw at present is s 10 1/2 inch Inca -- known for it's precision and quality of cut despite being made from cast aluminum! I truly would like to add a 36 inch snowflake to my shop-- but have long ago realized that any equipment that takes a rigger to move is probably not well suited to a home shop(. Well, unless I win the lottery. ).

It's not that I think the old arn is necessarily
Better. -- It is just that it's old arn ----
sometimes it's nice to go into your shop and be transformed to a different place and time!

Time to go home mr wizard..

[Frank Drew]

Thanks for the follow up Dave; very interesting information.

If you have a Yates snowflake, you suck! :D

[David Kumm]

Frank, all my saws came through Chuck Hess. I should have acknowledged the importance of his expertise when I got started. The oliver 116, 217 and yates y20 are still on his website- hesswoodworks.com Dave

[Bill ThompsonNM]

If you have a Yates snowflake, you suck! :D

+1! Or +ONE! Since the software objects to my original less than
10 characters.....

[Bill ThompsonNM]

In summary , I think Roland Johnson, was perhaps being too flippant or at least not sufficiently communicative. He may have ended up with a better saw and saved some Old arn. Implying that new steel saws were inferior seems a stretch. For resaw capacity, for example, new saws have more capacity in a smaller saw-- easier tonmove, less $ new, are good attributes .

[David Kumm]

Bill, your points are correct about the best of the new steel saws, but they are priced accordingly. The mm16 or laguna 16hd are in the 2500-3000 range. I don't recall what he spent on his rehab but it is tougher to find a new saw in that price range that will compete. I think his response was to someone who thought a grizzly was a better choice for the money. In 20 or 30 years it will only be the best of the steel saws that survive. Dave

[Larry Edgerton]

I was just at a friend's shop this afternoon. He has a steel construction 18" thickness planer that he doesn't like to use because it is so much louder than a cast iron one. .

That is not always the case George. My SCM is quiet. You can stand next to it when it is running and have a conversation in normal tones. Planing it is louder of course, but not a lot until the knives get dull. At times I will not notice I left it on if the dust collector is still running, until I shut off the collector. It was $11,000 todays money, which still is cheap compared to the selling price of say an Oliver 199, dollars compensated. Like I said it is steel, but there is a lot of steel. The finish at 16fpm is as good as I have ever seen, and with the Tersa head it will plane birdeye without popping a single eye, something the old planers could not do.

[David Kumm]

Larry, Your planer with tersa knives is definitely at the top of the food chain. Did you buy it new? Machinery guys are telling me that the scmi's from the 80's and 90's are the hot ticket now that most of the oliver people are dying off. I have about 6k into my 299 with the ITCH and grinder but it takes some skill to grind those knives wheras your tersa system is plug and play. Dave

[Richard Shaefer]

Typically speaking, cast iron (or aluminum) is NOT STRONGER than steel. Garden variety cast irons are about 30 ksi in tensile strength, steels can bump 100k without breaking a sweat, esp. the newer thinner stuff. However, stiffness (not strength) is a geometric property and independant of strength. Castings are typically much thicker than weldments and are therefore inherently stiffer, and will deflect less than weldments. Add to this that anything that vibrates will benefit from the damping effect of mass, and cast iron is about the same density as steel (give or take).

[Wes Grass]

There are a number of precision metal working machines made from steel fabrications, rather than iron castings. Typically filled with concrete for vibration damping. They're stiffer, stronger, cheaper to make in small qty's, and are more stable. As for putting iron castings outside to 'season', that basically does nothing but make them rusty. They have to be thermally stress relieved to be stable. And for large parts, that's quite time consuming and energy intensive.

[Larry Edgerton]

Larry, Your planer with tersa knives is definitely at the top of the food chain. Did you buy it new? Machinery guys are telling me that the scmi's from the 80's and 90's are the hot ticket now that most of the oliver people are dying off. I have about 6k into my 299 with the ITCH and grinder but it takes some skill to grind those knives wheras your tersa system is plug and play. Dave

David

I bought new. I actually went to the Grand Rapids show with the intention of buying a Martin, had cash in my pocket and a truck in the parking lot. The salesman was rude. Guess he didn't want to sell to a guy with blue jeans. I walked across and paid cash for a SCM, and have not been sorry.

I read a while ago what a 299 cost new back in the day. It was expensive! Can't remember good enough to quote, but it seems like it was about 7 grand. In todays dollar that would be huge.

I like the Tersa head. It was a $2K option, and I am glad I have it, but..... I wish I had hung on to my Powermatic for roughing. They make carbides for the Tersa, and they switch fast, but I would rather have two!:D

[David Kumm]

Larry, Rich Fink sells new 299's for about 30k. I use mine as a rough planer and a delta dc33 with a byrd head for small finish work. I've had good luck with it although some haven't. Wes, I don't know much about the casting process or how it has changed. I just know it has. Like everything else, I suspect quality has something to do with the price people are willing to pay or how much profit the manufacturer wants to make. Good stuff is good stuff- cast iron or steel. I wish we as consumers were less addicted to price and more to quality. Dave

[Larry Edgerton]

I wish we as consumers were less addicted to price and more to quality. Dave

Somehow I don't think you or I are a part of that problem. Just guessing, but I'm just saying........

[David Kumm]

We probably contribute to some others. Dave

[Jeff Duncan]

Just goes to show how careful you need to be when you make an offhand comment:D

I'll vouch for the old Martin stuff. I'm at the tail end of the rebuild of a 69' Martin shaper.....it's not light:eek: The bearings (like everything else) are indeed massive, although unlike some of the previously mentioned machines only ABEC 5's. SCMI is also a good manufacturer though there is a noticeable jump. I have an older 20" SCM planer and have looked over many of their 110 and 130 shapers before buying the Martin. There are more than a few European manufacturers that make top notch machinery.

Another advantage (at least to me) of cast iron over steel is that cast iron is far easier to machine than steel hardened to a similar surface hardness. When your drilling for power feeds or any other accessories that's a big help.

good luck,
JeffD