FWW Jointer review - We can do better Creekers !!

[lou sansone]

dear ww friends

The other post that Dev first started as gotten hijacked IMHO... But I do believe we have a chance to redeem the situation and get back to the original intent of the FWW test.

Objective of the FWW test was to see if a pretty clear recommendation could be made in regards to an 8" jointer from a field of 11 possible machines.

Let me summarize a couple of thoughts about the test

1. If you look at the statistics of the flatness measurements you find that there is really no standard deviation and thus no 3 sigma. What does that mean? It means that based upon table flatness alone the data is really inconclusive. The only possible option in this case would be to buy 5 of each machine and then do the analysis on all of them to see if there was any statistical spread in the data. The machines measured are just all to close to perfect to make any real choice.

2. I do believe that you all have enought smarts to devise a series of tests for these 11 machines that would in the end point to a single top performer or at least the top 3 machines.

3. Here are a couple of things I would have wanted to see added to the test. First, lets see how each company handles "problems" or the request for " a replacement part" Although it somewhat subjective, you could measure the time it takes to place the order for say a new belt ( or somthing more complicated ). You could measure how long it takes to get the part once you have ordered it. I guess this catagory would be called "service after the sale". If you really wanted to stress the parts system, you could enquire about a replacement fence or some big casting that got "broken" some how. I had an experience with a tiawian machine that took 12 months to get a major part. I would have been better off just buying an entire new machine rather than try to get a big part that does not break very often.

4. How about a catagory called "routine maintenance". The test person could have to change all the knives and reset them. There should be some way of measuring how long it took and the results one got with the "jig" provided by the mfg.

5. How about a catagory called "set up". A lot of these machines are covered with gooo.. How long and how hard is it to get the machine ready to work?

6. How about a catagory called "long term stability" Some fences get wacked out of square very quickly when being moved or simply by having the pork chop guard repeatedly hit the fence. Maybe the infeed table keeps drifting down after a while. I am sure some simple test of the machine running for even an hour could be devised that might show that many of them got out of wack pretty quickly or maybe none of them did.

7. How about a catagory of Noise. This is any easy one to measure.

8. Ok I got the ball rolling, now it is your turn. I am confident the all of you could add some other tests to this list or maybe you don't like some of mine.

Bottom line I think IRT the FWW test is now who won and who lost, but was the test as meaningfull as it could have been. I think that when I look at test results for a machine, I believe that if I was to buy the top pic that "my" machine would be just as good as the machine that FWW had to test. So how does one assure this? In addition, when I do buy that wonderful machine and something is wrong with my baby... is it going to take an act of God to get the part sometime in the next 10 weeks.


regards

Lou

[Frank Pellow]

Good list Lou.

I have not seen the FWW review that Dev was refering to, but I am surprised that noise was not covered. I have fopund that this is usually covered in most reviews.

[lou sansone]

hi frank
yea your right ... I guess I need to put my glasses on
lou

[Donnie Raines]

I will re-state my view on this. The test was performed in a manner that would be more in line with the way most of us would be capable of testing our own machinery. The majority do not have the equipment to test for noise and other tolerance issues that larger "testers" could perform. And I venture to say, that, if all of the test were performed that have been stated(in the other thread) most would not be able to distinguish what the inofrmation means any how. Thus...what good does it do the majority?

I do agree Lou...that the other thread has gotten way of track...and we can do better. I have had the opportunity to read the review..and re-read it. Granted it is not a scientific test at all...why should it be....its a jointer.

[lou sansone]

I will re-state my view on this. The test was performed in a manner that would be more in line with the way most of us would be capable of testing our own machinery. The majority do not have the equipment to test for noise and other tolerance issues that larger "testers" could perform. And I venture to say, that, if all of the test were performed that have been stated(in the other thread) most would not be able to distinguish what the inofrmation means any how. Thus...what good does it do the majority?

I do agree Lou...that the other thread has gotten way of track...and we can do better. I have had the opportunity to read the review..and re-read it. Granted it is not a scientific test at all...why should it be....its a jointer.

hi donnie

You make a good point on the noise issue, but I do think that it might be nice to know just how loud is loud and the noise meters are really pretty cheap.

what about service after the sale and changing knives?
lou

[Keith Hooks]

It's relatively easy to test the decibel level. You just need a decibel meter and a way to consistantly fix the distance from the meter to the tool, while it's running. DB meters start at around $100. I'd like to see that part of all the tool testing reviews.

I've read the review and the biggest issue that jumped out at me was the flatness measurement. It wasn't clear to me how someone could measure to 1/10th's of a thousandth (.0001) using a straight edge and as small as a .001" feeler gauge. If you're going to take the time to make measurements and include them in the article, at least make sure they're credible. It's possible that he used some scheme that I'm not familiar with but at the least, it should be described. If for no other reason, suppose we wanted to compare a machine that wasn't included in the original test?

So, I would like to see the methods of measurement accurately described and the accuracy of the measurements justified. If the author claims to be able to measure to .001 using a folding ruler, then I want to know how they did it.

[Donnie Raines]

hi donnie

You make a good point on the noise issue, but I do think that it might be nice to know just how loud is loud and the noise meters are really pretty cheap.

what about service after the sale and changing knives?
lou

I agree that the later would have been important information. But, the service aspect is open to interpretation. One man's poor service is anothers good services....for example. Many have ranted about the lack of service at the local borgs...but I have excellant services whenever I needed it. So I don't no how fair that would be. The noise level is rather mute(no pun intended) to me....all induction motors sound about the same to me.

I no noise meters are rather in-expensive...but why would one buy one to test their machinery???...you have already bought the stuff what diffrence does it make????.....:)

[lou sansone]

I agree that the later would have been important information. But, the service aspect is open to interpretation. One man's poor service is anothers good services....for example. Many have ranted about the lack of service at the local borgs...but I have excellant services whenever I needed it. So I don't no how fair that would be. The noise level is rather mute(no pun intended) to me....all induction motors sound about the same to me.

I no noise meters are rather in-expensive...but why would one buy one to test their machinery???...you have already bought the stuff what diffrence does it make????.....:)

Hi donnie
When I think of testing products to help one make an informed choice about this or that machine, I personally would like to know just how loud is that sucker. If most of the other things about all these 11 machines are close to each other, maybe, just maybe one is a lot quieter than the rest. Even though I always wear hearing protection, noise does travel and for me at least, quiet it good. It is "before I bought the stuff" that I want to know how loud it is, not after the fact.


lou

[David Fried]

Lou,

OK, I'll start. I think if we could improve the information giving in reviews, not limited to FWW, that would be great!

I too am bothered by judging a machine/company based on one machine but the answer isn't clear to me. Given the number of machines those companies produce I'm not sure testing five machines would be any better than one. That is, given the population I doubt five machines would affect the statistical confidence interval or level. Wish I had a better answer.

If a review combined feed back from owners of the machines with their in-house testing perhaps we could learn more.

The FWW review was the final impetus I needed to purchase my Grizzly jointer. After I set it up I did put my straight edge on it. ( Just a 24" Woodcraft model Dev) I put a 60 watt light behind it and didn't see any light coming under it, no matter where I put it. I didn't even consider breaking out feeler gauges. I wonder if this kind of go, no-go test might not be worth considering. Tell me what tolerance the machine is made to and if it was in spec. If it made to +/- .005 then I don't really think measurements of .002 or .003 are meaningful to me. In fact, I think they are distracting.

One corner of the crate the jointer came in was crushed. I noted this when signing for it. The bolt that tightens the fence down so it wouldn't move forward or backwards wiggled loose in shipping and was missing. A quick call to Grizzly and it's is on its way, under warranty. In the mean time a Bessey clamp is doing the job.

Likewise, the paint peeled off the motor cover of my Grizzly planer after almost a year . One call and a replacement was sent, no charge. This impressed me and is an important consideration to me. It would fun see a reviewer picking random pieces and trying to get replacements from various companies. Grizzly did great when I called and said I needed parts 121 and 122 for model GO500. It would be interesting to know companies handle a call for the the gizmo that goes through the green thing into the whatchamacallit.

I spend more time doing "routine maintenance" then I would care to admit but it needs to be done. It would be great to know which machines minimize this. Do they provide jig, clear instructions, or have they made access to adjuster bolt easy?

Goo, styrofoam that sheds little pieces that need to be picked out, missing nuts and bolts, unthreaded nuts, hardware that doesn't agree with the manual, manuals written by folks with little grasp of the english language, manuals written by folks who apparently have never seen the machine, assemble instructions written by professional contortionists: these are all things I have run into and would love to be warned about in advance. Rate the manual!

In addition to testing "long term stability" in the lab, how about real world testing. Before testing this years crop of jointers lets revisit last years crop. (Most of them are same machine, again) Drop them off at the local high school and see how they fared during a year of use in the hands of my fellow wood butchers. (Better yet, drop them off at my shop!) Really, lend them out to your readers and see what happens in the real world. Lend me anything that says MM on it and I will definitely renew my subscription!

How about a category of Noise? Great idea. I see it now and then, it should be a standard item. FWW devoted a good deal of space to talk about spiral head cutters and the noise reduction even though none of the machines tested had them! It would seem appropriate for a general article on jointers but odd in the context of a review.

Woodworking isn't science. You can test machines, give me numbers, apply statistics, etc. but please tell me what you think. My fear in buying a Grizzly is that I have never seen one or touched one. Delta, Powermatic, etc. have an advantage that I can go over to a store and run my hands over the machine: Turn the knobs, spin wheels, and get a feel for it. I can't do that with a Grizzly, Bridgewood, Sunhill, Yorktown, Oliver, etc.. The reviewer needs to communicate that experience to me. Sometimes the feeling transcends words, that is, it's not just the size of this or the placement of that but rather, as a whole, the machine just feels right. The reviewer needs to communicate that to the readers who may never get the chance to touch the machines the reviewer has in front of them.

Lastly, the FWW review had one measurement I didn't really understand. It seemed to be a measurement of the front-to-back alignment of the tables. The machines tested had eight inch cutter heads and many had nine inch wide tables. Why would I care if the front-back table alignment is off a couple of thou when I have an inch or more of table to spare? Am I understanding that measurement? Thanks.


Dave Fried

[Donnie Raines]

Hi donnie
When I think of testing products to help one make an informed choice about this or that machine, I personally would like to know just how loud is that sucker. If most of the other things about all these 11 machines are close to each other, maybe, just maybe one is a lot quieter than the rest. Even though I always wear hearing protection, noise does travel and for me at least, quiet it good. It is "before I bought the stuff" that I want to know how loud it is, not after the fact.


lou

You had mention that it would be in-expensive to buy a meter to test the sound....I figured you meant for use on tools one already had. I guess one could buy a meter before buying a tool...but could you not just turn the tool on and see what you think??...this is where I think we are puting to much thought into the testing process.

[Cecil Arnold]

Hi Lou. I find a lot to agree with and some to disagree with in the above postings. While machine tolerances are important, we're working wood, so is .001 or .005 really that important other than a measure of QC? With the humidity where I live most wood will move more than that overnight. I would like to see someone champion testing along the lines of Consumers Reports in which both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of a machine could be judged. This would give the consumer a "weights and measures" portion as well as tester feedback (ergonomics, innovation) and some owner input (after the sale service, broken/missing parts, etc,) to use in their buying decision. I'm currently looking for a cyclone and would kill for the kind of information I've described, so I think others would feel the same when it comes to tool reviews. I recall a test of band saw blades/band saws someone did that seemed to approach an acceptable testing method, but even that missed the mark IMHO because of some of the arbitrary limits imposed. As someone says, my 2 cents.

[Keith Hooks]

The noise a machine makes is hard to judge without having something else to compare it to. If you turned on your table saw, you might think it was loud. But, compared to your router, it might not seem that loud. If you used that approach to buying a router, you might never take one home. As long as these reviewers have the machines available to them, it wouldn't take that long to note the noise output as well.

[Rob Blaustein]

I reread the jointer review and it confirmed what I, an admitted novice, felt the first time I read it--the review was a good one and gave me a reasonable idea of some features to look for in an 8" jointer, and which jointers had those features. Are there areas that it might have been improved? Probably, but that will be true of just about anything written anywhere. I'm not sure I understand why it ruffled so many feathers. I understand when I read something like this that I am reading one person's opinion, in contrast to a Consumer Reports approach in which teams of reviewers rate items. I also understand that they are not testing neurosurgery equipment, they are testing woodworking equipment. Lou brings up the point that all of the flatness measurements are pretty close to each other with differences that may not even be statistically significant. This is a point I raised in the other thread, and it was echoed here by others--in order to get a sense of what those measurements mean, you'd have to test several machines (and probably more than 5) from each manufacturer to see how something like flatness varied within each company's group. But that's just not practical for a publication like FWW. We could do it here as a group, but of course then we have the problem of different techniques used to make the measurements. But frankly mostly what I'm after from a review like this, as a novice in the market for an 8" jointer, is what sorts of features are most important. Sure, some of you more experienced folks may disagree with the author as to what is important, but at least it's a starting point for me. And when I have questions not covered (e.g. magnetic vs mechanical switches) I'll ask here. So I say, let's give the poor guy a break (and no, I'm not related to him or FWW). That's my 2 cents.

[Donnie Raines]

The noise a machine makes is hard to judge without having something else to compare it to. If you turned on your table saw, you might think it was loud. But, compared to your router, it might not seem that loud. If you used that approach to buying a router, you might never take one home. As long as these reviewers have the machines available to them, it wouldn't take that long to note the noise output as well.

The issue I see with posting the results of a sound test, is what would it all mean?? If I seen that the decibel were higher on one...I would understand that mean it is louder then one with lower output. But, that does not make the one with the higher decible output as loud...that is only to be determined by the user. What is loud to me may not be loud to you. So who is to say?

[lou sansone]

excellent responses and I think right on for the main point I want to make :

Since all the machines had about the same flatness and it would take many of the same to get any more meaningfull statistics on flatness, I say look at other things that make the machine a joy to use or just misery.

I like the idea of customer feed back, I also really liked the idea of donating these machines to a variety of schools for 1 semester or 1 year and then see how they held up. that would really be interesting.

I agree with all of you who say " hey this is wood we are working with".

I think that more weight should be put on the " abilities" of the machine if possible... reliablity, maintainability, repairability, usability ...

lou

[Ken Garlock]

Let me comment on the comments, then I will crawl back into my sawdust pile.;)

1. Precision is important in any tool test. Most of us can't measure more precisely than .001 inches. I think it is incumbent on the tester to use any available methods to accomplish those measurements that most of us can't muster.

2. Noise level must always be measured for like equipment. Testing a jointer with Shellex cutters is not the same as testing with standard blades. Don't test one against the other. Example, my cabinet saw cranks out about 92 db with the dust collector running. However, my jointer with DC cranks out 102 db due to the loud noise of the spinning blades. Measurements made by a Radio Shack sound meter.

3. Customer service should also be a consideration, but IMO it is secondary. Most of the power tools we have in our shops are not delicate instruments. A jointer is a rather simple machine, so for me customer service is almost a non consideration. The same can be said for a cabinet saw, or even a band saw.

4. Fit and finish are also low on the list. I don't buy a tool for its innate beauty. I want performance, appearance is a far secondary. I define fit and finish as those exterior items like does the doors fit well and is the paint of good quality.

5. We expect our blades in our planes to have Milli-micron sharpness, why not hold other manufacturers to the tolerances that we hold ourselves to when honing a blade?

I can only regard these reviews as what I call "rock and rat" filters. They can eliminate the truly bad products, the rocks and rats, from those items that need further consideration.

Now where is my saw dust pile.:confused:

[Andrew Ault]

I think that a measure of relative dust collection would be feasible.

If you put a machine in a clean room, ran a proscribed number of operations on it, with a dust collector hooked up, you could then sweep up any escaped dust and measure it.

[Donnie Raines]

Let me comment on the comments, then I will crawl back into my sawdust pile.;)

1. Precision is important in any tool test. Most of us can't measure more precisely than .001 inches. I think it is incumbent on the tester to use any available methods to accomplish those measurements that most of us can't muster.

2. Noise level must always be measured for like equipment. Testing a jointer with Shellex cutters is not the same as testing with standard blades. Don't test one against the other. Example, my cabinet saw cranks out about 92 db with the dust collector running. However, my jointer with DC cranks out 102 db due to the loud noise of the spinning blades. Measurements made by a Radio Shack sound meter.

3. Customer service should also be a consideration, but IMO it is secondary. Most of the power tools we have in our shops are not delicate instruments. A jointer is a rather simple machine, so for me customer service is almost a non consideration. The same can be said for a cabinet saw, or even a band saw.

4. Fit and finish are also low on the list. I don't buy a tool for its innate beauty. I want performance, appearance is a far secondary. I define fit and finish as those exterior items like does the doors fit well and is the paint of good quality.

5. We expect our blades in our planes to have Milli-micron sharpness, why not hold other manufacturers to the tolerances that we hold ourselves to when honing a blade?

I can only regard these reviews as what I call "rock and rat" filters. They can eliminate the truly bad products, the rocks and rats, from those items that need further consideration.

Now where is my saw dust pile.:confused:

Ken in repsonse to your statements:

1)If the unit tested shows to be near perfect, how can we be sure that the one we purchase is? And how do we use the information...if the "popular" item test poorly...does that mean we have all made a bad buy?

2) If I seen in writing, as I just have, what the db rateing of certain items are tested at...I would have no idea how loud that really is...and I suspect many would be the same. Again, not sure why one would need to test the db in person if you can simply turn the machine on prior to buying.

3) agree :)

4) agree :)

5) agree to a certain extent.:rolleyes:

[Lee DeRaud]

Ok, my two cents, commenting more on the usefulness of certain test criteria (I have a Delta 6" benchtop jointer...what do I know?:p). And no, I haven't read the FWW review/test/whatever yet.
1. If you look at the statistics of the flatness measurements you find that there is really no standard deviation and thus no 3 sigma. What does that mean? It means that based upon table flatness alone the data is really inconclusive. The only possible option in this case would be to buy 5 of each machine and then do the analysis on all of them to see if there was any statistical spread in the data. The machines measured are just all to close to perfect to make any real choice.
Agreed. But as Cecil noted, the units used are pretty much meaningless with respect to wood. This one (and any other tolerance) should probably be a "pass/fail", as in "This POS is so far out-of-flat as to be useless." More useful here would be comments on how easy/hard it is to adjust it.
2. I do believe that you all have enought smarts to devise a series of tests for these 11 machines that would in the end point to a single top performer or at least the top 3 machines.
Maybe not a single top performer. Have you seen the way Road & Track does comparison tests? Typically two winners: one price-adjusted, one price-no-object...and relative rankings listed for every test.
3. Here are a couple of things I would have wanted to see added to the test. First, lets see how each company handles "problems" or the request for " a replacement part" Although it somewhat subjective, you could measure the time it takes to place the order for say a new belt ( or somthing more complicated ). You could measure how long it takes to get the part once you have ordered it. I guess this catagory would be called "service after the sale". If you really wanted to stress the parts system, you could enquire about a replacement fence or some big casting that got "broken" some how. I had an experience with a tiawian machine that took 12 months to get a major part. I would have been better off just buying an entire new machine rather than try to get a big part that does not break very often.Problem with this one is, it's a test of the vendor, not the machine. That whole issue should probably be the subject of a completely separate test (or poll, ala PC Magazine).
4. How about a catagory called "routine maintenance". The test person could have to change all the knives and reset them. There should be some way of measuring how long it took and the results one got with the "jig" provided by the mfg.Definitely.
5. How about a catagory called "set up". A lot of these machines are covered with gooo.. How long and how hard is it to get the machine ready to work?How much weight would you want to give to something that only happens once? Some notes on egregiously bad manuals or missing parts, sure, but this whole category is certainly not something I'd want to base a purchase decision on.
6. How about a catagory called "long term stability" Some fences get wacked out of square very quickly when being moved or simply by having the pork chop guard repeatedly hit the fence. Maybe the infeed table keeps drifting down after a while. I am sure some simple test of the machine running for even an hour could be devised that might show that many of them got out of wack pretty quickly or maybe none of them did.Yes, but again, a 'pass-fail', not "This POS's fence was 0.03" out of alignment after 37 minutes of run-time."
7. How about a catagory of Noise. This is any easy one to measure.As a comparison for that type and size of machine only, sure. They'll probably need a whole article on noise just to get the readership educated on what the numbers really mean in the real world. Probably easier to just rank the machines from quietest to loudest, with any significant outliers noted.
I think that when I look at test results for a machine, I believe that if I was to buy the top pic that "my" machine would be just as good as the machine that FWW had to test.But what you really want to know is if their "top machine" is the one that you will be the happiest with. My bet? Ain't gonna happen...because you're not a "bench racer": you actually use your tools.

[lou sansone]

lee and others

excellent points and I agree with them..

Does anyone know of an equipment mfg that has a show room that allows you to "try out" the machine? Seems like it wouldn't be a bad idea

lou

[John Renzetti]

hii Lou, Personally I think FWW did a good job with the review. The tester appeared to clearly state how he did his tests. I always take measurements when taken to a .001" with a grain of salt, since a number of variables included the instrument used and the persons skill at taking and reading such a close tolerance can cause some variations from one reading to the next. My main test is "how's it cut."
I know some here may not have liked the idea that Grizzly was first, but based on the criteria used in the test, they were. Whether that machine is totally representative of every 8" jointer that Grizzly sells, I don't know, but a friend in CA who owns a big Felder saw, also has a 12" Grizzly jointer. He told me his tables were pretty much dead flat also.
To me Grizzly saw an excellent opportunity to show their machine at its best and they took advantage of it. Every manufacturer knew that their machine would be tested. If any of them didn't make the effort to send the best machine possible and pack it so that it arrives in perfect setup condition, then they should get mediocre marks. I don't think Grizzly just grabbed a jointer at random and said "lets ship this one." I wouldn't expect them to. They probably took a lot of time and care in getting that machine to FWW for testing. To me that is a good sign.
I'll go on to say that I've never been a big fan of Grizzly mainly because of the way they advertise and the situation with Oneida and Bill Pentz. But I've ordered from them and the orders have arrived very quickly.
take care,
John

[Lee DeRaud]

Does anyone know of an equipment mfg that has a show room that allows you to "try out" the machine?If there is, it's probably on the opposite coast from where I live.:mad:

[Donnie Raines]

lee and others

excellent points and I agree with them..

Does anyone know of an equipment mfg that has a show room that allows you to "try out" the machine? Seems like it wouldn't be a bad idea

lou

The wood stores around me allow you to run the machines...sometimes they even have a demo. To put this into perspective...I don't test drills, sanders or things like that. I do test jointers, tables saws and items of that nature prior to buying. I have been very lucky to have tried many diffrent tools(a friend of mine is a good postion to allow me this opportunity). Jointers have always sounded the same to me...excpet for when they have the shellix type heads in them. Planers....they seem to be the same as well(with induction motors that is). Again...the shellix head does make a diffrence as well.

I guess there is no one test that will appeal to everyone. The very detailed test on certain machinery are a turn off to me...the numbers all run toegther. For hand tools(chsiels etc), table saws and finishing products(I am sure there are others) a more detailed test would be nice.

[JayStPeter]

Lou,

I think your point #3 about service is a good idea. However, it should be a test of its own. That has little to do with a jointer test, but more of a brand test for all machines. If any mags are reading, a customer service shootout might make good reading.

On your point #5. I believe many of the mag tests are flavored by this wether they mention it or not. The author usually does have to setup all the machines and may immediately not like that machine because of the extra effort it took relative to the others. I personally find it unimportant as it is a one time deal. In FWWs review of mobile bases, they based a significant amount of their scores on ease of setup. Brand-X has 10 bolts and Brand-Y has 50 ... blah, blah, blah. I only need to set it up once. But, since the author had to set up 15-20 bases, it was important to him. It's worth a mention, but not worthwhile in the scoring unless it is extreme. I found the results of the mobile base test useless at best.

#6. A long term test would be difficult for a magazine to do. I don't think they could resonably put 11 machines through enough abuse and get the article released while those models still exist. If they do choose to keep some of the top performers around, an update article would be good. Sort of like the Road & Track long term tests.

Jay

[Donnie Raines]

Lou,

#6. A long term test would be difficult for a magazine to do. I don't think they could resonably put 11 machines through enough abuse and get the article released while those models still exist. If they do choose to keep some of the top performers around, an update article would be good. Sort of like the Road & Track long term tests.

Jay

There are a few magazines out there that perform long term use reports on tools. They don't test several tools at once this way...just one or two. I think one of the mags test the unit for a year prior to reporting. They also do the more tradtional test as well.

[Lee DeRaud]

On your point #5. I believe many of the mag tests are flavored by this wether they mention it or not. The author usually does have to setup all the machines and may immediately not like that machine because of the extra effort it took relative to the others.I find that very hard to believe: more likely the machine is delivered from the factory or major distributor in (or near) ready-to-run condition. For small stuff like drills, they might go out and buy a bunch at retail, but not the "big iron". (Except maybe Consumer Reports, assuming they still do that.)

But I agree that this "test" is not particularly important.

[Donnie Raines]

I find that very hard to believe: more likely the machine is delivered from the factory or major distributor in (or near) ready-to-run condition. For small stuff like drills, they might go out and buy a bunch at retail, but not the "big iron". (Except maybe Consumer Reports, assuming they still do that.)

But I agree that this "test" is not particularly important.

They don't go to retail stores for the big stuff...they are ship directly to them via the factory. often the company wants the tool back afer testing as well...or you can buy it at a slight discount.

[lou sansone]

opps.... frank I stand corrected ... they did measure sound levels... sorry about that.

Hi john R... Thanks for your wise comments as always. BTW ... I did not mean to suggest that the FWW article was junky.. I just wanted to explore what other types of things could be looked at in the light of the fact the most of these machines seemed to be so close to each other in the table flatness area ( which I agree with most that after a few .001" it is too close to call ).

I really do not care who "won" the test anyway... I just think that we were getting somewhat de-railed on Dev's initial post and lost the forest from the trees.

Donnie says that he has found a place where you can test drive the machines, how about the rest of you creekers... I have not seen that in my neck of the woods... maybe the woodcraft stores that have a school in them might count as a place where you could try out the machine, but other than that I have not seen it. But I live a sheltered life up here in CT.:rolleyes: ;)
lou

[Frank Pellow]

I will re-state my view on this. The test was performed in a manner that would be more in line with the way most of us would be capable of testing our own machinery. The majority do not have the equipment to test for noise and other tolerance issues that larger "testers" could perform. And I venture to say, that, if all of the test were performed that have been stated(in the other thread) most would not be able to distinguish what the inofrmation means any how. Thus...what good does it do the majority?

I do agree Lou...that the other thread has gotten way of track...and we can do better. I have had the opportunity to read the review..and re-read it. Granted it is not a scientific test at all...why should it be....its a jointer.
Just because a "normal" user can not accurately measure noise does not mean that he can't benefit from the measurements of others.

[Dev Emch]

Well, Dev is back with a big old Crocadile Dundee profile, ear to ear grin!

First of all, for Lou: AMEN BRUDA! You have concisely hit several nails on the head.

1). The absence of any sigma deviation should be setting off alarms in your brain. Perfection is work done by God, not by us mortals. We have deviation. All of us. And a good designer understands this and works to design a design that can work around imperfections. For example, look at how the delta deviation angle works out to nill in the T fence (patternmaker fence or new Incra/Woodpecker fence) verusus a front mount fence such as the Biesmeyer. One is absolute deviation and the other is differential deviation. Both are excellent but the Biesmeyer has to be held to a higher set of tolererances to maintain the same overall accuracy. To quote Clint Eastwood in one of his dirty harry classics... "A man has to know his limitations.".

2). Parts and service is very important and often lost. If you hire one paper pusher to man your parts franchise, your dead! A phone call parts exchange transaction that could take less than 10 minutes including the credit card verification process could wind up as a two hour elevator music hold exercise with some person comming back to say in a nasel voice, "I am sorry SIR, but I am not clear what your talking about. The guy who knows this was layed off a month ago so please bear with me. Could you please leave a call back number so one of our techs can call you back as soon as possible". Of course, by this time your going quasi balstic. And the pros know what I am talking about. You respond "Honey, I have a line down condition and the payroll clock is ticking. I need resolution now and this is really a simple issue. Can I talk you through it?". She comes back and says, "SIR, Please stop yelling at me. Sir, Sir,....". Your reponse is.."Sweetheart, I am not yelling! If I were yelling, you could hear me two states away and you would not need the phone".

What many companies are to dumb to grasp is that often the customer on the other end of the service line is flustered and pulling his/her hair out. The customer service guy need to have training in how to handle this situation and how to de-esculate and de-fuse the problem. Then find out what the problem is and provide quick solutions. Often, one of the best tools a customer service guy can have is his computer. Each company needs to have a data base in which CAD files are stored as database entries and these are cross linked to the parts schdules and BOMs or Bill of Materials which in turn are linked to the parts franchise transaction system. This maintains current parts inventories as well as current prices for parts and order processing capability. Also of extreme vital importance! Yo, Corporate America, are you paying attention here! The parts diagrams need to be in the form of say *.jpg or *.DXF files and the system needs to be able to quickly email these to a customer. Most customers have computers and email. So here, the service guy can email a diagram ASAP to get the cutomer on the same page so to speak instantly. As soon as the problem part is identified, the order is placed. By knowing the SSN of the machine, all current warranty data is at your finger tips. That is why you should always mail in those warrenty cards. Guys, a warrenty return and its RAN or Return Authorization Number is a black mark on your face. You need to calm down the customer, get him to feel good again about his purchase and then fix the problem quickly and quietly. If this cutomer gets loose on the internet and begins to blog over the problem, YOU HAVE PROBLEMS. Its a wild fire that can get out of control very quickly. This is a sincere warning!

3). Many machines are covered in "goo" as Lou mentioned. This is normal practice and if you have ever seen a brand new bridgeport milling machine right of the shipping case, you would now what I am talking about. Often this is cosmoline and its put there to protect machined surfaces from rust. Lately, its more of a petro jelly as cosmo has come under the EPA gun. At any rate, the trip on the container freighter can have wild conditions that can cause all sorts of issues including lots of surface rust. When I unpacked my hofmann shaper, the tables were covered with 1/8 in layer of cosmoline followed by a rust preventative sheet of brown paper followed by plastic shrink wrap. It took about 2 hours to wipe this goo off and clean it with paint thinner. No problem as the tables were perfect after the boat ride over here.

4). The Nickel and Dime Test. Vibration and noise are a big deal. A poor design will be load and will buzz. This is not only uncomfortable for the human animal, but it can also cause error in your work. Why do we need vibration dampers and laser cut perfs on circular saw blades? I once ran an Freud 16 in blade on a northfield #4 slider. The noise was really bad. It was like standing on the tarmac in front of an airliner just turning over and winding up its turbines. You have to yell at full volume to have anyone next to you hear anything. The blade was an older "ringer" with no perf slots. The difference is day and night. That ringing also affects your work as the kerf is wider than you think!

Sound deadening and vibration supression have been major research areas in machine design for years. So its not like this is a new problem. Its one reason why massive cast iron was once used and why martin uses CONCRETE to make its base structures today. Done right, you should be able to set a nickel and even a dime on edge and run a board through the machine! This is the ideal and I have seen it done. Its not some urban legend. So this is the ideal that all machine makers have to pursue. How close did they get? This is of value.

5). And much of what David Fried wrote about is also material that I am in full agreement on. And I will say this about grizzly. I have talked to many folks about their parts availability and I have liked what I have heard. I have also dealt with the Jet parts franchise and I was quite pleased with their service as well. And the new Delta/Porter Cable/DeWalt ServiceNet website and service account system is killer! If your not registered for this, I would advise you to get on there ASAP. They even have parts blow ups online for stuff made during the heyday of Leave it Beaver!

My 5 cents worth (again:D). Just remember, with what I post and a $1.50, you can get a regular mug of Jo.

[Donnie Raines]

Just because a "normal" user can not accurately measure noise does not mean that he can't benefit from the measurements of others.
I guess my point is Frank, if you can fire up one of those units, one can tell if it is to loud or not. If the test gave you a db rateing, would you really no if it was loud or not??? I guess if the number gets to a certain point one could, but how could one no what the true diffrence between 70 db vs 85 db is??? I sure don't.

[Donnie Raines]

Dev,

If a test were to state: " when we tested_____ (fill in the blank) we experienced a large vibaration when the machine was running."

Should the test stop there, thus be judged on that? Or should those perfoming the test attempt to make the needed adjustements and re-test?

I would like, given said example, for the "tester" to state the issue they found, BUT, that it was resolved with________ whatever. If the issue was not fixed then you have an issue worth talking about. I have seen some PM tools that needed adjustments to get them working porperly.

For the record, not trying to argue...just pointing out that no matter how much info you have....there are always ways to justify them or loop around the data.

[Chris Barton]

Maybe I am delusional but, am I the only person that thinks this topic has been beat to death?

[Dev Emch]

Donnie...

I need to agree with you here. When setting up a new machine, you often have to "dial it in". Oliver jointers are nortorious for this. You need to start with levels and work your way up to the tables. You dont just rip the case off an oliver and expect it to work perfectly. These are large, expensive and accurate machines.

The same is true about parallogram designs. One reason these are superior is that they have lots of tweak-ability. So if the DJ was out a bit on arrival, one needs to go through an accurate, factory certified dial in process to bring it online. This is not difficult and I expect some of these features to assist in keeping the machine accurate both when new, and later on down the line after years of use.

When you sell very expensive solutions to customers who do not build the solution but use the solution, it pays to have a factory service rep do some handholding with the customer and get the machine dialed in. For us, that meant sending out field engineers. Jointers are not computer storage solutions so a good manual and dial in procedure is vital to educating the customer and enhancing his comfort with the new purchase.

In the case of the DJ, this process was not properly followed. No mention was made that you can do things with the DJ that simply cannot be done with the wedge bed designs. All of the remaining field were wedge beds.

Am I making excuses for Delta? Nope. But I am defending the parallogram design concept. Had the DJ been dialed in correctly according to factory service procedures, much of its errors would be mute.

Likewise, had there been an oliver 166 in the test, it would using the testing methods have been rated as the absolute worst jointer in the field. You need to understand how to dial this machine in before you can use it. Once dialed in, the owers rant and rave on how good it is and how wonderful it is, etc.

So comparing a wedge bed be it a grizz or a bridgewood or a powermatic or even a delta to the likes of a parallogram such as the DJ is comparing apples to oranges.

[JayStPeter]

There are a few magazines out there that perform long term use reports on tools. They don't test several tools at once this way...just one or two. I think one of the mags test the unit for a year prior to reporting. They also do the more tradtional test as well.

I haven't seen it in FWW. I could be wrong, but it seems that FWW doesn't really have a "test department" or even a magazine workshop. It seems like they just have the tools shipped to an author who performs the test in his own shop and writes the article. IMO, their tests lack consistency (and sometimes quality) because of this. The other mags you mention that do long term tests seem to have a magazine shop which gets the machine and uses it for a while. Other mags seem to get ratings on machines from a group of editors before declaring a winner. Specifically, I think Wood has the best tests and PWWs seem OK also. In FWW you are getting one individuals opinion ... period.
In any case, it's not realistic to expect a long term test of 11 machines. Especially since that would be required of every test they do (probably 10 or so per year in the case of FWW). My simple thought was that they take the leaders into a couple shops and report back on their experiences at a later date in a quick sidebar type article.


I find that very hard to believe: more likely the machine is delivered from the factory or major distributor in (or near) ready-to-run condition. For small stuff like drills, they might go out and buy a bunch at retail, but not the "big iron". (Except maybe Consumer Reports, assuming they still do that.)

But I agree that this "test" is not particularly important.

start "supertuning" claims rant:

I don't know how it all works, but most editors claim they do things in such a way as to not get ringer machines. If it's true that the mfrs. deliver supertuned machines, then there are a lot of very stupid mfrs. Almost every test mentions one of these "supertuned" machines that has some significant flaw. I have met a few of the magazine editors at various WW'ing shows and/or online forums and all have struck me as genuine good people. I like to think that there is some integrity involved in the tests. But, if they are indeed supertuned machines and Grizzly tuned theirs better than the rest, shame on the rest as they know darn well how the game is played.
I suppose it's possible that Grizzly somehow figured out that this was a mag test machine and the others didn't. That would be unfortunate for us. But, if the magazine got all fully prepped machines as you claim, again they would be stupid not to be able to figure it out while prepping the machine. So, the bottom line is that I believe that claims of "supertuning" actually equate to claims of stupidity for the losers.

rant off.


Jay

[lou sansone]

Maybe I am delusional but, am I the only person that thinks this topic has been beat to death?

hi chris
first of all congratulations on you new tools .... they look pretty nice.

second, I understand your thoughts. I am not into self inflicted pain... I thought that once the smoke cleared with the first attempt at looking at the FWW test that all the knowlegable folks here would be able to stand back and take a look at what features should be, or could be, put into a tool test in addition to those that were included. So far I think the group has come up with some excellent suggestions.

The nickel test seems pretty straight forward to me and who knows if all the machines would pass.

The loudness test was done, and I apoligize for missing it in the write up. If I am not mistaken every 3dB results in a doubling of the sound intensity. So there is a big difference between the 82dB of the Grizz and the 92 dB of the "Sunhill" machine ( a factor of 10 ) which is pretty loud.

Although long term, I thought the idea of donating the machines to various high schools has merit and would be interesting to see the long term durability of them. Some ww wear dual hats and may be responsible for their school's ww program. I think a student test would be helpful to some here at the creek.

best wishes and
regards
lou

[Donnie Raines]

I haven't seen it in FWW. I could be wrong, but it seems that FWW doesn't really have a "test department" or even a magazine workshop. It seems like they just have the tools shipped to an author who performs the test in his own shop and writes the article. IMO, their tests lack consistency (and sometimes quality) because of this. The other mags you mention that do long term tests seem to have a magazine shop which gets the machine and uses it for a while. Other mags seem to get ratings on machines from a group of editors before declaring a winner. Specifically, I think Wood has the best tests and PWWs seem OK also. In FWW you are getting one individuals opinion ... period.
In any case, it's not realistic to expect a long term test of 11 machines. Especially since that would be required of every test they do (probably 10 or so per year in the case of FWW). My simple thought was that they take the leaders into a couple shops and report back on their experiences at a later date in a quick sidebar type article.



start "supertuning" claims rant:

I don't know how it all works, but most editors claim they do things in such a way as to not get ringer machines. If it's true that the mfrs. deliver supertuned machines, then there are a lot of very stupid mfrs. Almost every test mentions one of these "supertuned" machines that has some significant flaw. I have met a few of the magazine editors at various WW'ing shows and/or online forums and all have struck me as genuine good people. I like to think that there is some integrity involved in the tests. But, if they are indeed supertuned machines and Grizzly tuned theirs better than the rest, shame on the rest as they know darn well how the game is played.
I suppose it's possible that Grizzly somehow figured out that this was a mag test machine and the others didn't. That would be unfortunate for us. But, if the magazine got all fully prepped machines as you claim, again they would be stupid not to be able to figure it out while prepping the machine. So, the bottom line is that I believe that claims of "supertuning" actually equate to claims of stupidity for the losers.

rant off.


Jay

PWW and Wood were the two I was thinking of. A friend of mine works at PWW and they are located just down the street from me. I have been there several times looking at all of the goodies.....:cool:

[Dev Emch]

As for the high school tests....

As I recall, it was either oliver or delta who said this. I dont remember. But they had made a comment about their lathes and lathe durability. The final remark was...

"...in the end, our machines are boy proof"

So its a comment that has merit. I remember my high school days, well, just barely.:o What we did to our poor shop teacher and those machines! He should put in for Hazardous Duty Pay!

[John Bailey]

Chris,

It has been beat to death, but that doesn't prove you're not dillusional.(At least with-in the close statistical framework of this discussion - give or take a couple of .00001 of an inch) Or, like me, you may just be an outlier. (And glad to be there.)

John

[Ken Garlock]

Ken in repsonse to your statements:

1)If the unit tested shows to be near perfect, how can we be sure that the one we purchase is? And how do we use the information...if the "popular" item test poorly...does that mean we have all made a bad buy?

2) If I seen in writing, as I just have, what the db rateing of certain items are tested at...I would have no idea how loud that really is...and I suspect many would be the same. Again, not sure why one would need to test the db in person if you can simply turn the machine on prior to buying.

3) agree :)

4) agree :)

5) agree to a certain extent.:rolleyes:

Donnie, you rattled my sawdust pile.:)

1. I don't know that you can say anything about the one you buy. I guess that is where the statistics come into play. Do 8 out 10 approximate each other and is that approximation regarded as acceptable? That says that you have taken the time to test 10. The question then becomes where did you get those ten, from the factory or various vendor sites. It all comes down to what is a reasonable sample size, and I don't know. Does that relieve the precision constraint? Not at all.

2. A search of the Internet will give you what different DB levels are equivalent to what items you know. Normal conversation is about 60 DB. A jet taking off is in excess of 120 DB. A large rocket taking off is 140 DB. All these are recollection on my part. Secondly, our friends at OSHA have constructed guide lines for time of exposure to a given sound level. I fear that some think that 100 DB from a saw for the time it takes to cross cut a sheet of plywood is going to permanently damage your hearing. Both time and loudness contribute to the end result.

Back to the dust pile.:)

[Lee DeRaud]

I find that very hard to believe: more likely the machine is delivered from the factory or major distributor in (or near) ready-to-run condition. For small stuff like drills, they might go out and buy a bunch at retail, but not the "big iron". (Except maybe Consumer Reports, assuming they still do that.)
start "supertuning" claims rant:

I don't know how it all works, but most editors claim they do things in such a way as to not get ringer machines. If it's true that the mfrs. deliver supertuned machines, then there are a lot of very stupid mfrs. Almost every test mentions one of these "supertuned" machines that has some significant flaw. I have met a few of the magazine editors at various WW'ing shows and/or online forums and all have struck me as genuine good people. I like to think that there is some integrity involved in the tests. But, if they are indeed supertuned machines and Grizzly tuned theirs better than the rest, shame on the rest as they know darn well how the game is played.
I suppose it's possible that Grizzly somehow figured out that this was a mag test machine and the others didn't. That would be unfortunate for us. But, if the magazine got all fully prepped machines as you claim, again they would be stupid not to be able to figure it out while prepping the machine. So, the bottom line is that I believe that claims of "supertuning" actually equate to claims of stupidity for the losers.

rant off.Hang on a minute. I never claimed the machines were "supertuned": I just don't believe they were delivered to the magazine unassembled in retail packaging, dripping with cosmoline. OTOH, I also don't think that delivering a machine ready-to-use makes it a "ringer".

[lou sansone]

even I now think this has been beaten to death;)

regards
lou