Wood Magazine blade test - retest

[Dave Falkenstein]

As Howard Acheson posted at Woodnet, and Bob Hunter posted at the Wood site, the table saw blade test published in the Dec 2007/Jan 2008 Wood Magazine was redone. Read about it here:

http://www.woodmagazine.com/wood/story.jsp?storyid=/templatedata/wood/story/data/1197909616100.xml

[Eddie Darby]

Thanks for posting this!

[Jim Becker]

Thanks, Dave. Impressive results from a lot of the blades. It appears that one could realistically choose any of the better performers and be very happy. And the note about the ZCI with the pictures is a great lesson to all. If you're not using a ZCI, you're not getting the greatest benefit from your blade investment just due to the physics of the cut!

[RichMagnone]

It seems that the moral of the story is to buy an expensive blade. I guess you get what you pay for.

[Jim O'Dell]

Thanks! I've got it locked and loaded! Jim.

[scott spencer]

It seems that the moral of the story is to buy an expensive blade. I guess you get what you pay for.

...or the manufacturer's get what you pay for! ;) :D

( I do believe for the most part that the premium blades have better long term performance, but I can't help but wonder what the truth is behind the scenes of this one....)

[Jon Bonham]

Nice to see a publication step up and admit they were wrong. Refreshing in today's world.

[glenn bradley]

I don't always agree with magazine reviews but I am not a zealot. I factor in that we all do things differently but I do commend Wood for going to the time and expense of setting things right as they see them. I do find their re-test to be closer to my own (limited) experience. Kudos to them.

[Greg Funk]

I may be a cynic but I can't help thinking that Freud played a significant role in explaining how flawed their original test was and the proper way to run the tests such that Freud looked better. I noticed that they didn't just re-run the tests but changed many of the categories as well.

Greg