Walke Moore Router Plane opinions - Not so Happy with mine

[allen long]

I purchased one of the Walke Moore Bronze Router Plane at the recent Handworks show. It is one gorgeous plan with a feature I really wanted that allows you to position the blade at one end.

362171

I am pretty unhappy regarding the way the blade is held in place. The holder just doesn't seem to be able to secure the blade from moving/coming loose when any kind of pressure is applied as you are shaving the wood.

The great folks at Walke Moore attempted to correct this on the spot, but when I got it home, it still is an issue.

Anyone else with this plane have the same problem or suggestions?

I was going to offer my LV router plane for sale, but I am leaning toward getting rid of this and keeping my LV router plane (which breaks my heart.)

I have a piece of bronze I could attempt to fashion into a more robust holder, but I really shouldn't have to for a $300 plane. Nor, am I excited about modifying the plane itself to improve the bed on the plane that supports the blade column.

I could also come up with a way or sub-base for the LV router plane that would allow it to rout an unsupported board end.

Thoughts anyone?

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen

[James Waldron]

Is the issue only with the end positions or all three?

[Hasin Haroon]

That's a gorgeous plane, and one that was on my 'eventual' list. I'm sorry to hear it doesn't live up to expectations, and that they didn't just offer you a different plane at Handworks as it sounds like the issue was identified then - maybe it's a known issue. I agree with you, a $300 plane should need no modification to work as it should.

[Simon MacGowen]

- The great folks at Walke Moore attempted to correct this on the spot, but when I got it home, it still is an issue.

Sounds to me a machining issue and there is some play in the blade holder.

Simon

[allen long]

Is the issue only with the end positions or all three?

It also occurs in the middle position when you orient the blade sideways (axially along the length) There are times when this is desirable due to the long width of the plane when you want to but it up against a long fence.

The plane has great potential if the method of securing could be improved.

To answer Hasin, the initial diagnostic was that the collar of the securing mechanism needed to be filed to better contact the blade column or stem. They did that on the spot and it seemed to help. So I don't think replacing the plane would have made a difference. I did get the impression I could have exchanged it if I wanted. Thus my comment on the guys at the booth being excellent to work with.

I just think it is a design issue. I did offer to hep (free of cost) to test and recommend design improvements for product design, but they didn't seem interested. Not that I necessarily blame them, but I do have a some experience in that regard.

Still, the engineer in me is tempted to fabricate a new collar and locking mechanism in an effort to make it work better.

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen

[Simon MacGowen]

Still, the engineer in me is tempted to fabricate a new collar and locking mechanism in an effort to make it work better.

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen

Oh no! Not when the price you paid for a tool was $300. If the seller is willing to take it back as part of its return policy, I would return it for a refund and let it deal with any fixes necessary. Trying to sell yours to someone else (at a loss, presumably) is only passing the problem to its new owner and the holder problem may still be there for him or her.

Did you contact the seller to see if there might be an effective fix that came up after the show?

Just checked. In a review by J. McConnell in Pop Woodworking, he said the lock never came loose while in use. If that indeed was the case, the problem could lie with the parts and not the design.

Simon

[allen long]

That is a good idea. I will contact them.

I am still hoping to find out if I am alone with this problem and whether it is user error on my part.

[Steve Voigt]

That is a good idea. I will contact them.

I am still hoping to find out if I am alone with this problem and whether it is user error on my part.


In the "before you rant, read this" section of this site, it states:

In order to be fair to the many vendors that provide woodworking products, the following policies will be in force:
The original poster must have first contacted the manufacturer/vendor and have attempted a solution PRIOR to posting the thread.

Perhaps this is a bit of a gray area, since the problem was (partially) identified at the point of sale, but it seems clear that you thought the problem was solvable when you left Handworks. When you discovered that it wasn't, why didn't you contact the vendor and try to resolve the problem directly? I know the Walke Moore guys and as you yourself said, they are great folks (and they make great products). I can't imagine them doing anything other than bending over backwards to fix the problem. It seems pretty unfair to post a thread whose very title sullies their reputation without even giving them the chance to correct it first. I hope that when they've fixed it--as I'm sure they will--you will come back here to correct the record.

[allen long]

Steve, prhaps you miseed the part where I was asking opinions to verify whether I was to blame (user error).

Or did you miss the part where I said they we great at the show.

Perhaps you have not seen the mechanism on the plane that holds the blade. It us simple and not rocket science.

Perhaps you missed the part of me being an engineer and that I have experience in assessing design (much of the experience has been rocket science for NASA propulsion systems just to mention one aspect) So I don't think anything I have asked or said was disparaging or out of line.

I don't know what I said to set you off, but it appears you have a pretty bid chip on your shoulder.

[Frederick Skelly]

That is a good idea. I will contact them.

I think this is the right answer. These folks are reputable - they'll make it right.

[Steve Voigt]

Steve, prhaps you miseed the part where I was asking opinions to verify whether I was to blame (user error).

Or did you miss the part where I said they we great at the show.

Perhaps you have not seen the mechanism on the plane that holds the blade. It us simple and not rocket science.

Perhaps you missed the part of me being an engineer and that I have experience in assessing design (much of the experience has been rocket science for NASA propulsion systems just to mention one aspect) So I don't think anything I have asked or said was disparaging or out of line.

I don't know what I said to set you off, but it appears you have a pretty bid chip on your shoulder.

Nope, I didn't miss any of that stuff; in fact I acknowledged much of it in my first post.

Do you really not see how putting "not so happy with mine" in your title would cast a negative light on Walke Moore, unfairly so since you have not given them a chance to fix the problem first?

[allen long]

Well I guess you got me there. Although disparaging the company itself was not my intent. Just that I had some issues with the tool. Personally I see a big difference between the two discussions. I never said I was unhappy with Walke Moore, or their service.

That said, we discuss design aspects, the good and the not-so-good about products all the tme in these forums. While I am sure Walke Moore would take back the plane, it has enough superb aspects that I am not ready to return it.

The enginger in me sees what the basic flaw is in the holding collar an wants to fix it.

The collar casting requires hand-filing prior to packaging it for sale (based on conversations with the guys at the Walke Moore booth). Mine needed to be filed a little bit more by the Walke Moore staff. This allowed the collar to have more contact surface with the blade column or stem. While their filing did improve the blade holding ability, but did not completely eliminate the breaking loose of the blade under medium usage.

The problem is that the collar casting is not beefy enough to allow a deep groove for grabbing the blade stem. I could file it a bit more, but the material thickness will not allow much more depth without risking splitting the collar when tightening the knob.

Another area for improvement would be the knob stem. It has very little bearing surface at the tip which limits you from cranking it down. Of course, this may be designed this way on purpose to prevent cracking the collar from cranking it too tightly. Brilliant and a bit exasperating at the same time.

If you compare the collar with the LV collar, you will notice there is about the same amount of meat (thickess) where the blade stem meets the collar. However it is machined such that there is more contact surface with the stem. In addition, there is more bearing surface (deeper groove) on the LV plane. The LV plane holding nut also has a beefier end with a spring-loaded free turning pin. If this same knob were to be modified with the free-wheeling end shaped as a wedge to fit in the plane column. And put into a beefier collar that allows you really groove the collar bearing surface, you would have a premium product upgrade.

Not disparaging the company, and there are features that are really useful. The blade stem mechanism that holds the blade to the stem is elegant and nothing short of brilliant. But there are shortcomings with the collar casting that could stand to be improved.

Thus I would still like to hear from other owners with a different experience in case there is a trick or two I am just not understanding. I would like to make this beautiful piece of art work.

[Derek Cohen]

If you compare the collar with the LV collar, you will notice there is about the same amount of meat (thickess) where the blade stem meets the collar. However it is machined such that there is more contact surface with the stem. In addition, there is more bearing surface (deeper groove) on the LV plane. The LV plane holding nut also has a beefier end with a spring-loaded free turning pin. If this same knob were to be modified with the free-wheeling end shaped as a wedge to fit in the plane column. And put into a beefier collar that allows you really groove the collar bearing surface, you would have a premium product upgrade.

Allen, try adding a curvy washer to the screw that tightens. This will add a progressive tension on the blade, offering also a little more finger tightening, and may do the trick. I bought curvy washers on eBay.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I bought curvy washers on eBay.

In the states they are often called, curved spring, curved, wave or in some circles warpy washers.

They are also listed on amazon.

Looking at the image of the plane makes me think this might not help us much as a redesign of the collar.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Jim.

To be clearer, this is what they look like ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaWoodenRouterPlane_html_755881cf.jpg

The idea came from their use on Veritas planes. I used one to tension the blade clamp on this router plane ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaWoodenRouterPlane_html_m5a6ae9d7.jpg

The washer creates a little spring in the clamp. It is possible to loosen it off and still retain enough tension that the blade does not drop out. Tighten a little more, and the blade is held firmly.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andy Nichols]

362620Can you show a close up? Here is my Preston and there's no issues with it holding the blade in any position. Did they include the little round detent on the copy?

they must have changed something ?

362621
Andy

[Jim Koepke]

Andy,

Looking at your pictures it is clear the collar has a keyway or ramp to trap the blade. The Walke Moore copy as seen in Allen's pictures doesn't seem to have any accommodation to keep the blade from twisting in use.

jtk

[Andy Nichols]

Jim:

Have not had a WM in my hands to compare, but that seems like a strange thing to leave out, the original does have the slots at each post, and as I tried to explain, it also has a hole, opposite the slot, that captures the lock down bolt.

Mine will use LN, LV or Stanley blades without issues....makes me want to examine the one in question, it sure is gorgeous.


Andy

[Patrick Chase]

The collar casting requires hand-filing prior to packaging it for sale (based on conversations with the guys at the Walke Moore booth). Mine needed to be filed a little bit more by the Walke Moore staff. This allowed the collar to have more contact surface with the blade column or stem. While their filing did improve the blade holding ability, but did not completely eliminate the breaking loose of the blade under medium usage.

The problem is that the collar casting is not beefy enough to allow a deep groove for grabbing the blade stem. I could file it a bit more, but the material thickness will not allow much more depth without risking splitting the collar when tightening the knob.

Another area for improvement would be the knob stem. It has very little bearing surface at the tip which limits you from cranking it down. Of course, this may be designed this way on purpose to prevent cracking the collar from cranking it too tightly. Brilliant and a bit exasperating at the same time.

I think that these sorts of issues are to be expected when you're an early adopter of an unconventional tool, particularly from from a small maker.

As W-M themselves point out in the ad copy, this is a unique router plane in both size and configuration. Even the best-resourced makers may take quite a few iterations to get all the kinks wrung out of a tool like that. A smaller maker often can't afford that sort of development timeline, and that may prevent them from addressing the sorts of design opportunities you highlight before going to market.

What I'm driving to here is that these seem like predictable issues for a tool like this, and IMO the true test will be whether they do right by the customer.

[Pat Barry]

I'm surprised they didn't make it right at the show. Sounds like they did something but not enough. I'm surprised they let you walk away not totally happy. Now though, will they take it back and fix it? Will they exchange it? Will they give you your money back? If none of these are yes answers they are not really serious about customers satisfaction. Not a good business model IMO.

[Frederick Skelly]

I'm surprised they didn't make it right at the show. Sounds like they did something but not enough. I'm surprised they let you walk away not totally happy. Now though, will they take it back and fix it? Will they exchange it? Will they give you your money back? If none of these are yes answers they are not really serious about customers satisfaction. Not a good business model IMO.

Me too, but it sounded like he didnt realize he still had the problem until he got it home?

I'll bet they take care of him. They're supposed to be pretty reputable.

[Eric Brown]

Check that the screw is going into the appropriate hole in the post. Failure to make this alignment results in the screw tightening on the vee groove cocking the clamp. The screw has a small pin like end that is flat on the end to push against the bottom of the hole.

[Patrick Chase]

I'm surprised they didn't make it right at the show. Sounds like they did something but not enough. I'm surprised they let you walk away not totally happy. Now though, will they take it back and fix it? Will they exchange it? Will they give you your money back? If none of these are yes answers they are not really serious about customers satisfaction. Not a good business model IMO.

It can be hard to tell if something like that has really been fixed until you use it at some length for your own projects. I wouldn't fault the OP for not realizing he still had the issue at the show.

Now what I want to know is how BCTW is able to go from CAD to sales without, you know, prototyping. Those things must have usability and ergonomic issues, that's just the nature of first iterations.

[Pat Barry]

I know the Walke Moore guys and as you yourself said, they are great folks (and they make great products). I can't imagine them doing anything other than bending over backwards to fix the problem. .
Perhaps you could intervene on behalf of the OP and help him get resolution of the issues with your friends?

[Patrick Chase]

Perhaps you could intervene on behalf of the OP and help him get resolution of the issues with your friends?

I think Steve's point (and mine in a previous post, made less directly) is that the OP should contact them again. Both he and W-M thought his problem had been addressed at the show, and it isn't reasonable to expect them to be psychic or monitor SMC, so he needs to re-engage with them. Involving a 3ed party in that situation would only cause confusion.

My other point was that if you buy a new and unique tool like this you should reasonably expect to need to work with the maker to resolve glitches. Such is life on the bleeding edge of traditional woodworking :-).

[Mike Brady]

Also, it is important to report the outcome of the effort to correct the problem. There is nothing wrong with posting the problem if a good faith effort on the part of the buyer and seller to resolve it. What draws praise here is an earnest response by the seller to correct deficiencies. Frankly I don't know why the tool wasn't replaced immediately if it was not corrected by the first attempt. That price of the tool alone would dictate this, otherwise where is the value in the high cost?

[Andy Nichols]

Looked at the WM photos in detail and also noticed that the collar is also missing the machined slot. The original has machined slots on both the shaft and the collar, must be why WM has to file the collar before releasing the plane, but strange they left that out of their copy....

Andy

[Simon MacGowen]

My other point was that if you buy a new and unique tool like this you should reasonably expect to need to work with the maker to resolve glitches. Such is life on the bleeding edge of traditional woodworking :-).

Good point.

Judging from this update: http://www.walkemooretools.com/router-update-may-2017/, the router plane has had a number of issues for the maker.

Simon

[Patrick Chase]

Looked at the WM photos in detail and also noticed that the collar is also missing the machined slot. The original has machined slots on both the shaft and the collar, must be why WM has to file the collar before releasing the plane, but strange they left that out of their copy....


It's probably worth noting that the original was cast iron while the WM is cast Manganese-Bronze. As Simon pointed out in #28 they've acknowledged a *lot* of trouble with both the base and collar castings, and with that in mind it would not surprise me if their material choice made it impractical to accommodate those slots. One obvious possibility is that they may not have been able to add enough wall thickness without compromising some other attribute of the casting (like, say, void formation leading to pitting).

On a related note: Mn-Bronze is stronger than cast iron, which is an attractive property in this class of plane. Despite that even L-N (which uses Mn-Bronze for smaller bench planes) hasn't brought an Mn-Bronze router plane to market, so I strongly suspect that this material poses some fundamental challenge in router planes.

[Patrick Chase]

That price of the tool alone would dictate this, otherwise where is the value in the high cost?

According to their blog, W-M expects to manufacture and sell 30 of these a month. At that sort of run rate the price needs to be high merely to overcome [in]efficiencies of [lack of] scale and the fixed costs of running a business.

As a practical matter they won't survive long if they don't make things right for their customers, but in this instance I don't think that the price tag entitles the buyer to "concierge service" or anything like that. To be blunt, this looks more like a labor of love to me than anything that's likely to yield a profit.

[Mike Brady]

I was not referring to any level of service beyond providing the buyer with a properly working tool, but to that, he is certainly entitled; or due a refund. Tool makers get returns because customers don't like the grain in the wood handles or the plane soles are three-thou out of flat over a foot of length. Those are frivolous claims.

[Steve Voigt]

Judging from this update: http://www.walkemooretools.com/router-update-may-2017/, the router plane has had a number of issues for the maker.

Simon





It's probably worth noting that the original was cast iron while the WM is cast Manganese-Bronze. As Simon pointed out in #28 they've acknowledged a *lot* of trouble with both the base and collar castings, and with that in mind it would not surprise me if their material choice made it impractical to accommodate those slots. One obvious possibility is that they may not have been able to add enough wall thickness without compromising some other attribute of the casting.

On a related note: Mn-Bronze is stronger than cast iron, which is an attractive property in this class of plane. Despite that even L-N (which uses Mn-Bronze for smaller planes) hasn't brought an Mn-Bronze router plane to market, so I strongly suspect that this material poses some fundamental challenge in router planes.


The "issues" mentioned in the link you guys reference are exclusively cosmetic--pitting that wouldn't mill out, basically. Nowhere is any functional problem mentioned. In fact, it explicitly says that the design is done, implying that any functional problems have been resolved.

I think it's striking that so many commenters here feel qualified to diagnose "problems" with the design of the tool, despite having never actually used it or even seen it in the flesh. I've used the WM router twice, in Covington and Amana. I took heavy and light cuts. It works as advertised.

All the OP has to do is email the maker, and the problem would be resolved right away. Either he hasn't done so, or he's not mentioning it here. In the meantime, this thread festers, with people making all sorts of unfounded speculation about the tool and the maker. "It needs a curvy washer." "No, it needs a keyway." "They have a bad business model." It's ridiculous. Again, ZERO of the people making these insinuations have ever used the tool in question.

Last thing: since someone will ask, I have no affiliation with WM. I know them from shows, that's it. But as someone in a related line of work, it makes me sick to think that a simple defect (which will happen to every maker, no matter how big or small) could result in a thread like this.

[Patrick Chase]

I was not referring to any level of service beyond providing the buyer with a properly working tool, but to that, he is certainly entitled; or due a refund.

Sure, in principle the customer is *always* entitled to that, regardless of price. What I was objecting to is the argument that the price of this particular tool somehow justifies an increased level of service. I think it's priced the way it is because it costs that much (or more, given their casting yield issues...) to bring to market, not because there's a super-high gross profit margin there to support "above and beyond" customer service.


Tool makers get returns because customers don't like the grain in the wood handles or the plane soles are three-thou out of flat over a foot of length. Those are frivolous claims.

Sure, and that makes it especially ballsy of WM to go to market with pitting issues. They're up front about it and aren't doing anything wrong, but they're taking a business risk given how "finicky" some woodworking customers can be.

[Patrick Chase]

The "issues" mentioned in the link you guys reference are exclusively cosmetic--pitting that wouldn't mill out, basically. Nowhere is any functional problem mentioned. In fact, it explicitly says that the design is done, implying that any functional problems have been resolved.

Steve, I think that your emotional investment in this topic is getting in the way of reasonable discussion. As a product designer I know where you're coming from, but all professionals have to eventually move past that.

As a designer I'm sure that you're well aware that there is no such thing as a perfect design. Even designs with unlimited budgets entail compromises. By the same token, everything can be rebalanced/reoptimized if not improved outright, so in that sense nothing is ever "done". That's why it's a great thing that there are so many to choose from and (though it may make you and other designers/vendors uncomfortable) discuss.

I never said that they needed a keyway or had a bad business model. W.r.t. the former I advanced a hypothesis as to why they may have removed the keyway that the Preston had. If like WM you advertise that you're producing an improved version of some existing design, then you are inviting discussion of the changes you make relative to that design, because those must either be things that you felt were improvements or things that you were forced to do for one reason or another (cost, material constraints, etc).

W.r.t. business model read what I wrote and more importantly what I was replying to. My comments were in response to somebody else's assertion that the customer was entitled to something extra in terms of service because their price was very high.

[Steve Voigt]

Steve, I think that your emotional investment in this topic is getting in the way of reasonable discussion. As a product designer I know where you're coming from, but all professionals have to eventually move past that.

As a designer I'm sure that you're well aware that there is no such thing as a perfect design. Even designs with unlimited budgets entail compromises. By the same token, everything can be rebalanced/reoptimized if not improved outright, so in that sense nothing is ever "done". That's why it's a great thing that there are so many to choose from and (though it may make you and other designers/vendors uncomfortable) discuss.

I never said that they needed a keyway or had a bad business model. W.r.t. the former I advanced a hypothesis as to why they may have removed the keyway that the Preston had. If like WM you advertise that you're producing an improved version of some existing design, then you are inviting discussion of the changes you make relative to that design, because those must either be things that you felt were improvements or things that you were forced to do for one reason or another (cost, material constraints, etc).

W.r.t. business model read what I wrote and more importantly what I was replying to. My comments were in response to somebody else's assertion that the customer was entitled to something extra in terms of service because their price was very high.

Patrick, the comments about the keyway, or the "bad business model," were made by other posters. I didn't attribute them to you, but perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear about that. My bad.

Other than that, all your points above are good, but not really relevant to what I was/am saying. Let me try one more time: The OP has a plane with a defect. He should have contacted WM, who I am certain would repair or replace it, no questions asked. Instead, he posted this thread (in direct contravention of SMC policy, as I pointed out earlier; really, the whole mess should be deleted). The result has been a flood of baseless speculation. People have suggested that the design is flawed in numerous ways; they have intimated that WM might not stand behind their product, or are otherwise not entirely above board. None of this is appropriate because the premise, the whole basis for the thread, is flawed. All the speculation about design flaws ignores that this is almost certainly a case of a single defective part in an otherwise good product. The speculation about whether they stand behind their product, whether they'll take it back, their business model for God's sake, is all inappropriate because we have no information from the OP, or any other customer, about how WM treats returns.

You and I have both seen numerous threads that start like this: "I bought an LN/LV tool, it was defective, but I called customer service, they were awesome, they fixed it right away, no questions asked, yadda yadda." Well, that's what this thread should have been, too. But the OP didn't give them the chance to make it right before he posted.

With all that said, you're right that I'm too close to the subject, for both personal and professional reasons, and it's making me a little hot under the collar. :rolleyes: I'll therefore excuse myself from the rest of the thread. Actually, I "retired" from posting here about six months ago, but this thread got my goat and lured me out. So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.

[Frederick Skelly]

Actually, I "retired" from posting here about six months ago, but this thread got my goat and lured me out. So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.

I noticed you'd moved on and I was, and am, sorry to see it Steve. Thanks for all the help and advice you've given me. It's helped me and I appreciated it.

Best regards,
Fred

[Pat Barry]

Well I guess you got me there. Although disparaging the company itself was not my intent. Just that I had some issues with the tool. Personally I see a big difference between the two discussions. I never said I was unhappy with Walke Moore, or their service.

That said, we discuss design aspects, the good and the not-so-good about products all the tme in these forums. While I am sure Walke Moore would take back the plane, it has enough superb aspects that I am not ready to return it.

The enginger in me sees what the basic flaw is in the holding collar an wants to fix it.

The collar casting requires hand-filing prior to packaging it for sale (based on conversations with the guys at the Walke Moore booth). Mine needed to be filed a little bit more by the Walke Moore staff. This allowed the collar to have more contact surface with the blade column or stem. While their filing did improve the blade holding ability, but did not completely eliminate the breaking loose of the blade under medium usage.

The problem is that the collar casting is not beefy enough to allow a deep groove for grabbing the blade stem. I could file it a bit more, but the material thickness will not allow much more depth without risking splitting the collar when tightening the knob.

Another area for improvement would be the knob stem. It has very little bearing surface at the tip which limits you from cranking it down. Of course, this may be designed this way on purpose to prevent cracking the collar from cranking it too tightly. Brilliant and a bit exasperating at the same time.

If you compare the collar with the LV collar, you will notice there is about the same amount of meat (thickess) where the blade stem meets the collar. However it is machined such that there is more contact surface with the stem. In addition, there is more bearing surface (deeper groove) on the LV plane. The LV plane holding nut also has a beefier end with a spring-loaded free turning pin. If this same knob were to be modified with the free-wheeling end shaped as a wedge to fit in the plane column. And put into a beefier collar that allows you really groove the collar bearing surface, you would have a premium product upgrade.

Not disparaging the company, and there are features that are really useful. The blade stem mechanism that holds the blade to the stem is elegant and nothing short of brilliant. But there are shortcomings with the collar casting that could stand to be improved.

Thus I would still like to hear from other owners with a different experience in case there is a trick or two I am just not understanding. I would like to make this beautiful piece of art work.

Is it the inside of the collar or something on the posts that needed filing? Could you post a picture or two showing what exactly it is that needs filing?

From my view, just looking at the WM website, it looks like the mounting posts are tapered, which is necessary for casting, but which could create significant issues for their use as reference points for mounting the cutter assembly.

[Andy Nichols]

I'm very happy WM is making this plane, think it's a beautiful thing, so much so that I'd like to purchase one even though there is an original in my tool chest. The Preston design has been copied more than once, also have the small version, that was copied by someone who did not even put their name on it.

Contrary to other points of view, this WM router is neither "New" nor "Unique" it is a reproduction of an old time tested tool that many consider the "best router plane ever made". However there seems to be a few small changes to the design that may or may not be contributing to the OP issues.

Steve's point of view is valid, but WM obviously knows there is an issue here, and the OP could have left off the "l'm not Happy" statement, but asking if anyone else has the same issue, given the stated history, it's not a bad thing.

The discussion needs to continue now, never had the thought that WM would not fix this plane, but we all want to know if the stated problem is a one off, or if its also something that we might have to deal with as a customer. Field testing is always revealing and this discussion may be revealing, and may help develop a better product.

Again, never even crossed my mind that WM would not fix any issue, but the issue was obviously known when the product left, and asking if anyone else had and fixed the same issue without having to send the tool back and forth is a valid course of action.

Still want a WM router plane....

Andy

[Eric Brown]

I contacted them about this issue on the forum. Here is their response:

we are aware of the sawmill creek forum and the gentleman has yet to contact us, we don't have his contact info. We may post on the forum soon to reach out to him so we can resolve it. Going forward, the issue is really the result of the collars not being cast quite as they were designed. This lead to the file-work mentioned in the forum to correct the problem. Going forward, we looking at a few changes in the casting and/or machining of the collar to correct this issue. It's not something we expect to be a problem long-term that we have to check on each tool we sell.

[Frederick Skelly]

I contacted them about this issue on the forum. Here is their response:

we are aware of the sawmill creek forum and the gentleman has yet to contact us, we don't have his contact info. We may post on the forum soon to reach out to him so we can resolve it. Going forward, the issue is really the result of the collars not being cast quite as they were designed. This lead to the file-work mentioned in the forum to correct the problem. Going forward, we looking at a few changes in the casting and/or machining of the collar to correct this issue. It's not something we expect to be a problem long-term that we have to check on each tool we sell.

Well done Eric. Thanks for doing that.

Reading this reply and the link in post #28, it sounds like WM released the tool for sale a tad too soon, perhaps because they were spending a bunch of money on resolving the casting issues and needed to get a tool out the door. I don't know. (But it sure isnt the first time a manufacturer has done that.)

Personally, I'm not much of an early adopter and wouldn't buy the tool until it was fully debugged. YMMV.

I also noticed that the OP hasnt commented since about the first dozen posts. Odd that he hasnt contacted WM for a refund or replacement though.

[Simon MacGowen]

I contacted them about this issue on the forum. Here is their response:

we are aware of the sawmill creek forum and the gentleman has yet to contact us, we don't have his contact info. We may post on the forum soon to reach out to him so we can resolve it.

A bit surprised that they knew about this but would let such a bad press about one of their products linger on for so long in the public, instead of trying to get hold of the OP here, or by PM. And this isn't a cosmetic issue in my book as someone alleged.

Simon

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, the comments about the keyway, or the "bad business model," were made by other posters. I didn't attribute them to you, but perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear about that. My bad.

You quoted me in your reply so I assumed I was the offender. I could/should have held off and given you more of a chance to clarify. My bad too.

As I've said a couple times, we violently agree about the basic point that you raise: The OP needs to contact W-M and work with them. The notion that W-M should be reading SMC to proactively find "concerned customers" and reach out to them is not reasonable. They have better things to do, like design and build tools.

I reiterate that very seldom is it a binary thing where a tool is "flawed" or not, and I haven't seen anything on this thread that would lead me to describe the WM as "flawed". Different tools have different relative strengths, and those strengths interact with how individual customers work and what they do to produce a range of opinions about the tool's usefulness. "Unusable" for one person might be "best tool ever" for another. As you pointed out you tried the tool and found it quite usable. It's quite possible that your technique is smoother (and therefore better in my value system :-) than the OP's even when taking a heavy cut, and that you don't load the retention mechanism to the same degree, leading to a very different outcome and opinion.

A similar example: A lot of people complained about the retention of the depth stop on the v1 LV Small Plow. I had that plane for some time before getting it reworked to v2 for beading support, never had a problem, and thought it to be an exceptional tool. I treat the depth stop mostly as tactile feedback (something that tells me by feel when I've reached full depth) and purposely avoid pushing too hard against it, so that may be why I had such a different experience than some others. I don't think that the original depth stop design was in any way "flawed", but it was a weakness relative to some other planes for some users.

As an engineer I (and apparently some others) am deeply curious as to why W-M made some of the design changes they did relative to the Preston, which is what led to the long digression into Mn-Bronze. Returning to your point from an earlier post that the pitting is a "cosmetic" issue, I'm sure you're aware that when it comes to a process like casting it's all inter-related. Void formation is influenced by material flow, which is in turn driven by the geometry of the casting. I think it's well within the realm of possibility that pitting concerns imposed wall thickness constraints on the collar casting, and those in turn constrained the retention design.



With all that said, you're right that I'm too close to the subject, for both personal and professional reasons, and it's making me a little hot under the collar. :rolleyes: I'll therefore excuse myself from the rest of the thread. Actually, I "retired" from posting here about six months ago, but this thread got my goat and lured me out. So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.

Like others I'll just say that your opinion and experience are a huge asset to the forum. I'll even STFU for a while again if that helps :-).

[John Kananis]

So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.

So sorry to hear this; was wondering why I hadn't seen any of your posts. Thank you for all the contributions you made while you were active. You will be missed (sincerely hope you change your mind).

[Matt Lau]

I just pulled my router plane out of the box.
Haven't had time to do any woodworking in months.

Plane is pristine and works beautifully, elegantly, and doesn't slip. The fit and finish makes my Lie Nielsen look cheap.

I don't see any of the problems the OP has with his plane.

IMHO, the lads at WMT are responsive and good guys.

Try contacting them

[Eric Brown]

Deleted everything. No more help. Enjoy.

[Patrick Chase]

In a private e-mail, Allen mentioned this: [snipped] This is probably the main issue.
Wait, are you posting something somebody told you in a private Email? Did you get permission to do that? If not then please consider deleting your post as that is unacceptable online etiquette.

Besides, if you're trying to defend W-M then from a pragmatic perspective your best move would have been to just let this thread die the death it so richly deserves.

[Eric Brown]

OK, you win. I will no longer post. I'm obviously a horrible person.

[Pat Barry]

It appears the OP sadly reached the same conclusion 15 days ago.

[Patrick Chase]

It appears the OP sadly reached the same conclusion 15 days ago.

That's OK, people can just keep reposting his Emails...

[allen long]

Sorry everyone for not checking the post for several days. I am still in a quandary as to whether to keep this gorgeous plane and try to improve upon the retention mechanism or contact W M. I never wanted anyone to get the impression that I had any qualms about contactics WM or that I did not think they would not take great care of me. Nor, did I dream there would be such controversy over my original post. My apologies to the group and to WM if my comments have been misconstrued as disparaging WM. That was never my intent. I do wish to continue to rationally discuss the design and potential improvements.

The wide Preston retention slot, the square blade stem, and the much larger bearing surface on the retention collar are heads and shoulders above the WM design from an engineering perspective. In addition, the columns are slightly tapered on the WM where as they are completely straight on the preston. The taper adds a bit of its own limitations. I am a bit surprised they changed the design to a less robust mechanism. I'll try to provide a few pictures of the mechanism details in a day or two.

Many Kind Regards

[andy bessette]

... My apologies ... to WM if my comments have been misconstrued as disparaging WM...

The wide Preston retention slot, the square blade stem, and the much larger bearing surface on the retention collar are heads and shoulders above the WM design... the columns are slightly tapered on the WM where as they are completely straight on the preston. The taper adds a bit of its own limitations. I am a bit surprised they changed the design to a less robust mechanism...

Still sounds disparaging.

[Patrick Chase]

Sorry everyone for not checking the post for several days. I am still in a quandary as to whether to keep this gorgeous plane and try to improve upon the retention mechanism or contact W M. I never wanted anyone to get the impression that I had any qualms about contactics WM or that I did not think they would not take great care of me.

If you have no qualms then why haven't you done it? IMO that would probably be a lot more fulfilling and productive than spending your time posting to SMC about it.

This whole thread is absurd, as it's based on an issue in a new tool that you haven't given the manufacturer an adequate opportunity to resolve. I understand (and actually tend to agree with) your point about the differences between the Preston and W-M mechanisms, but you still owe it to them to give them a chance to make it right regardless. Even ignoring those pseudo-ethical concerns, that's almost certainly your best move from a purely selfish perspective.

EDITED: Deleted pointlessly inflammatory bit.

[Jim Koepke]

I am a bit surprised they changed the design

To me the design change does have some logic. The Preston blades are unique in the way the back lines up parallel to the blade's edge. Almost every other common router plane blade has a diamond cross section with a point of the diamond pointing toward the blade. This does have the advantage of a wide selection of blades one can find if WM is unable to produce a wide selection of blades.

jtk

[allen long]

Great points Patrick.

My quandary is not over contacting WM. The quandary is that I love the looks and the chioice seems to be either get a refund or attempt to fashion a new mechanism myself. I will contact them first thing Monday, but I don't hold out for much hope that WM will have a sigificant fix other than WM refunding my money based on the current design. And I am not sure I want to go the way of a refund just yet. But perhaps they do have something up their sleeve other than hand filing a deeper notch in the collar. Personally think that route iwould be a bandaid fix.

Andy, I am not sure expressing surprise over a design choice rises to the level of a disparaging remark. Most of us at one time or another has been subjected to much more disparaging remarks on this forum.

[Frederick Skelly]

Stepping on soapbox....

Friends, the OP has apologized and explained. While my views are different than his, I don't personally see ill-intent in his post now that he's explained. And we do allow discussion of design improvements here. Careful we don't drive the man off, like we have a couple others.

Ok. Stepping off the soapbox now.....
Fred

[Keith Outten]

Below is the original post, the highlighted text indicates to me that there was a conversation with the vendor and an attempt by Walke Moore to correct the problem.

This satisfies the requirement here to contact the vendor before publicly sharing a complaint.
There is a rule that prohibits publicly sharing the contents of email and private messages. When this happens it is best that the issue is reported to myself or one of our Moderators so it can be handled privately rather than publicly challenging another Member.

Unfriendly behavior in this thread has now caused two people, at the very least, to stop posting which is no doubt a loss for the entire group. I'm not sure why such a large number of people who frequent this forum have to be so critical of others opinions. Note that this is not a problem in just this thread, it happens almost constantly in this Forum but is rarely an issue in any other area at SawMill Creek. It has become a problem managing this Forum as I have not been able to increase the number of Moderators or even maintain more then just one Moderator because nobody wants to have to referee such a large number of people whose egos exceed their sense of compassion for others.

Although disabling this Forum is an option it would be unfair to the large number of our Members who enjoy its content even though I expect they would prefer a more friendly atmosphere. We will be discussing our preventative and corrective options available to us in the Moderators Forum shortly. Anyone who has comments that would like to assist us with a resolution please send me a private message and include your constructive comments for consideration. I have no intention of punishing the masses for the sins of a few but the childish behavior that continues to haunt this Forum is over.






I purchased one of the Walke Moore Bronze Router Plane at the recent Handworks show. It is one gorgeous plan with a feature I really wanted that allows you to position the blade at one end.

I am pretty unhappy regarding the way the blade is held in place. The holder just doesn't seem to be able to secure the blade from moving/coming loose when any kind of pressure is applied as you are shaving the wood.

The great folks at Walke Moore attempted to correct this on the spot, but when I got it home, it still is an issue.

Anyone else with this plane have the same problem or suggestions?

I was going to offer my LV router plane for sale, but I am leaning toward getting rid of this and keeping my LV router plane (which breaks my heart.)

I have a piece of bronze I could attempt to fashion into a more robust holder, but I really shouldn't have to for a $300 plane. Nor, am I excited about modifying the plane itself to improve the bed on the plane that supports the blade column.

I could also come up with a way or sub-base for the LV router plane that would allow it to rout an unsupported board end.

Thoughts anyone?

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen