Shaper/Router Table

[Sean Troy]

Whats the differences in the two? Can you do most of the same with either one? Thanks, Sean

[Bill Ragland]

Whats the differences in the two? Can you do most of the same with either one? Thanks, Sean

I don't own a shaper but a router table. I have found that the router table does everything that I need. The bits are less expensive for a router and I think there are more profiles available. Routers are dangerous, shapers are more dangerous. While some hobbyist have shapers, you will find most shapers in production shops. A router table with a 3+ hp router will do about anything the average woodworker needs to do and at less cost that outfitting a shaper set-up. I have made furniture of various types and a kitchen full of cabinets with raised panels and drawer fronts using only a router. I have also made crown molding and regular molding using the router table.

Bear in mind that I have never had or used a shaper and hopefully others will chime in with more information on the subject. Just my $.02.

[Greg Hines, MD]

A shaper is a production tool. You can raise a panel in a single pass with it, because it uses an induction motor to spin the cutters. A router table does some of the same jobs, but even the largest of routers will not hold up to the constant abuse that a shaper will. Couple that with the fact that the shaper can run both directions (feed from left or right) based on the grain direction to prevent tear out, it is very versatile. The cutters on a shaper are also massive compared to router bits.

That said, most people say that unless you are trying to produce a large number of cabinets or custom mill work where a shaper would excel, a router table is much more at home in the average workshop than a shaper.

Doc

[keith ouellette]

Grizzly has a Shaper/router table. It is a light duty shaper that will hold a router bit collet. You sacrifice rpm speed this way. It spins much slower than a router.

[David DeCristoforo]

Did you ever see the movie "Twins"? Well Arnold would be the shaper and Danny DeVito would be the router table.....

YM

[Ben Cadotte]

A shaper can do larger profiles quicker. Big mouldings, or even smaller moulding with a single pass. Where as a router on the bigger bits you will need to take several passes for a quality cut. Router bits are less expensive than shaper cutter (smaller). The router can do alot a shaper can, but not all. One thing a router can do, is be handheld. For a first router / shaper I always suggest go with router. Better bang for the buck in my opinion.

[Richard Wolf]

One big advantage to the shaper is that a power feed can be used. A power feed can improve the quality of your work more than you think. No burn marks, more uniform profiles and faster work.
OTOH, it takes more time to set up a shaper and power feed than a router table.

Richard

[Peter Quinn]

Yoshikuni...I am laughing out loud. Thank you. That is the single funniest and most accurate comparison I have ever heard. Very concise!

Shapers are bigger, smoother, stronger, and WAY more expensive than a router. Expect to pay $1800 to $3500 for a new name brand entry level Heavy Duty 3HP production machine. Expect to pay three times the cost of the machine for a basic set of cutters. You can find industrial shapers in the $10K to $20K range.

Shapers offer far more profile options than routers, not less. There is probably a greater number of router bits on the market, but shaper cutters are stackable, shapers can use a few basic bits with multiple passes to create complex profiles, and shaper insert tooling, be it custom or stock, indexed or corragated, opens up possibilities a router can't touch. Between the height of the spindle and the diameter of the cutters shapers can create profiles that would be nearly impossible with a router.

Shapers have a reputation for being dangerous, but I disagree. Woodworkers are dangerous. Shapers are powerful and predictable machines. They are VERY unforgiving of your mistakes, but when proper feed and hold down mechanisms are employed they are no more dangerous than any other tool. They also give a better quality of cut due to the gentler exit angle of the large diameter cutters and the higher cutting tip speed.

Routers are flexible capable tools. They excell at mortising, rabits, dados, profiling, flush triming...the list goes on. They also offer plenty of options for shaping and joining wood. The cutters are less expensive so easier to aquire on a budget. Routers can do plenty of work that shapers can not, though for most profiling the shaper is hands down quicker and smoother.

A router is an essential tool for any modern woodworker. A shaper is an essential tool for most professional woodworkers or furniture makers but mearly a very nice option for a well financed hobbiest.

[Rod Sheridan]

I don't own a router table (or a router, unless you count an EC Emmerich wooden one).

I do own a 3 HP shaper, and made the decision to purchase it as opposed to a router/table for the following reasons;

- you never see a "My shaper table is sagging" thread in SMC

- if you purchase a premium router table (Example Jessem) and a good router, they will cost as much as a shaper. I know, you can make your own, see point above.

- a shaper allows you to use a stock feeder, which improves safety, cut quality and allows climb cutting

- a shaper can accept a cutter head with HSS knives, which produce a superior finish in solid wood, and the knives are about $20 per pair (Look at the CMT set)

- a shaper can run reverse rotation for times when the grain is going the wrong way, or when you want to flip the cutter over.

- a shaper is far quieter and smoother than a router

- a shaper swings larger diameter cutters which can take deeper cuts and have a more optimum cutting geometry

I don't buy the router is safer argument, my fingers cannot differentiate between a 2 inch cutter at 12,000 RPM or a 4 inch cutter at 6,000 RPM.

A quick look at accident statistics will show how many router accidents there are, probably because we don't view the router as being a dangerous machine.

A shaper is also dangerous, however people tend to treat it with more respect and use proper guards, jigs, hold downs etc.

This thread will probably turn into the proverbial chicken/egg thread as far more people own a router table than a shaper. Each has its place, however of I only had space for one, it would be the shaper.

Regards, Rod.

[Peter Quadarella]

That's interesting Rod. I have been thinking along those lines for a while because I've been looking at some of the premium router tables, and along with the routers the costs can equal or exceed the cost of a shaper. However what has held me back is that I have 2 routers and a small router table, and that the router table seems like it may be more versatile. But I'm not positive.

[Sean Troy]

That's interesting Rod. I have been thinking along those lines for a while because I've been looking at some of the premium router tables, and along with the routers the costs can equal or exceed the cost of a shaper. However what has held me back is that I have 2 routers and a small router table, and that the router table seems like it may be more versatile. But I'm not positive.
Same situation here. Thats why I posed the question. Thinking about woodworking takes more time than doing woodworking some days http://sawmillcreek.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

[David DeCristoforo]

Many good points here. I would just like to add that, in truth, a router table and a shaper should not be considered "mutually exclusive". In spite of their apparent similarities, they are really quite different as many have pointed out. A router will never have the power or capacity of a shaper. And a shaper will never have the versatility of a router/table. Although some shapers attempt to "cover all the bases" by providing router collets as well as spindles, I know of no shaper that can hit 25,000 RPM, essential when trying to push small diameter bits through hard wood with any expectation of a clean cut. And I have yet to see a router that can power a full sized panel raiser stacked with a back panel cutter in one pass.

YM

[Mike Heidrick]

A few good reads.

Shaper Handbook by Cliffe
The Shaper Book by Lonnie Bird

There are also a lot of articles on finewoodworking dot com - a great subscription by the way.

I have both tools and each has its place and function in my shop.

[Rob Will]

I just came home with a Bench Dog router table. After many months of wondering about the same thing, I decided to get a router table first. My thinking is that I don't make raised panel cabinet doors that would require big diameter cutters. If I do need a shaper, my friend has one I can use.

Rob

[Joe Chritz]

I have a shaper. I will be building a router table (most likely in a tablesaw wing) for those times I don't want to break down the shaper.

A power feed, even a baby feeder is worth its weight.

Just to add, unless you are doing a lot of big profiles you don't really "need" a shaper but there are distinct advantages when you get into panel raising, making crown molding and the like.

Joe

[Tom Veatch]

....
A quick look at accident statistics will show how many router accidents there are,

...far more people own a router table than a shaper.


I don't have a bone to pick or an opinion to share in the shaper vs router question since I have first hand knowledge only on the router side. But I was struck by the conjunction of the quoted sentences and wonder if the statistics mentioned take into account the relative populations of the two devices. Perhaps they do. I don't know.

For example, since "far more people own a router table than a shaper", assume there exists only 50 shapers and 1000 routers. If that were the case and there was 20 router accidents and only one shaper accident reported last year, could you conclude that routers are 20 times as dangerous as shapers?

[Rod Sheridan]

I don't have a bone to pick or an opinion to share in the shaper vs router question since I have first hand knowledge only on the router side. But I was struck by the conjunction of the quoted sentences and wonder if the statistics mentioned take into account the relative populations of the two devices. Perhaps they do. I don't know.

For example, since "far more people own a router table than a shaper", assume there exists only 50 shapers and 1000 routers. If that were the case and there was 20 router accidents and only one shaper accident reported last year, could you conclude that routers are 20 times as dangerous as shapers?


Hi Tom, I am in complete agreement with your point on the number of accidents per machine.

Routers are far more common than shapers in the home environment, and of course the router is represented in far more accidents.

My point with the statistics is that you often hear that shapers are far more dangerous than routers, which I disagree with. As I stated my fingers couldn't tell the difference if they ever get caught up in the cutter.

I think that people don't treat routers with the respect they deserve, which makes the operator more dangerous when using a router than a shaper.

When you own a shaper, you often are a more experienced, better trained woodworker than someone who just received a router and table for a Fathers day gift. (Obviously this isn't always true).

The shaper operator often spends more time on setup, including special guards, jigs, hold downs, or the use of a stock feeder to control material and guard the operator from contact with the cutter.

If you're like me, you probably check everything twice, and spin the cutter by hand a few times before plugging the shaper back in. (And then check everything again because I believe in seeing if the cow's brown on both sides).

There's nothing like the sound of the air being moved by a 5 inch cutter at 7,000RPM to motivate the Operator to be really safety concious.

Thanks for the comments Tom, I always learn something here.........Rod.

[Sean Troy]

It would seem to be a good idea to gain working knowledge and experience with a router table before moving on to a Shaper. That would help determine need also I would think.

[Peter Quadarella]

I think the decision point comes after using a cheapo table and a router or 2. When you start looking at expensive lifts and tables, should you be looking at shapers instead?

Based on the comments about small bits and clean cuts, and the fact that I don't nee to complete anything in one pass (not a production shop), I think I will likely stick with the router.

[James Wellman]

so what about the middle of the road shapers like the Grizzly 1 1/2 HP unit? One is for sale locally with some cutters that a guy used for one job, I bought a router and table from him plus a lot of extras but I was looking at this shaper too. However, other than it being a new tool I could not make myself spend the $400 and loss of floor space...... but a new tool would be so cool :)

[David DeCristoforo]

1.5 HP is not enough power for a shaper. Here's the thing...if you have a shaper, you will almost certainly end up wanting to take advantage of all it's potential capabilities and you will soon find the 1.5 HP a great limitation. Of course if you never do anything more demanding than running small moulding runs and other "light duty" work, it might be fine....

YM

[Greg Hines, MD]

I would agree that flesh cannot tell if it is being atomized by a shaper cutter or router bit, but your point about safety applies equally. I built my own router table, and built my own guard. I use it as often as I can, which is to say, when not doing something vertically that it would interfere with. If you are going to use any tool, high powered or hand powered, you need to learn the safe way of doing things.

Your point about a power feeder is a good one, but I cannot justify a power feeder for the garage projects that I build. As to cost, I would agree that when you compare a middle of the road shaper and a high end (phenolic table, lift, 3+ HP router) the costs approach each other, I would disagree that those are the only options. Many, many woodworkers do great work using a sink cutout clamped to the side of their workbench for table work.

I would still consider a shaper to be a bit high end for most hobbyists. I do not feel that the only choices out there are between a high end router table or shaper.

Doc

[Greg Hines, MD]

1.5 HP is not enough power for a shaper. Here's the thing...if you have a shaper, you will almost certainly end up wanting to take advantage of all it's potential capabilities and you will soon find the 1.5 HP a great limitation. Of course if you never do anything more demanding than running small moulding runs and other "light duty" work, it might be fine....

YM


Yoshikuni, you are comparing apples to oranges. a 1.5HP shaper is not the equivalent of a 1.5HP router. The induction motor on the shaper will spin at a lot heavier torque than the universal motor on the router.

Doc

[David DeCristoforo]

"...1.5HP shaper is not the equivalent of a 1.5HP router...."

Of course you are correct. I did not intend to imply otherwise. I think my point was that if you are going to invest in a shaper, 1.5 HP will, sooner or later, become a limitation. For a router, that might be a lot of power but it is "entry level" at best for a shaper, the difference in "real world" power notwithstanding. If you want a demonstration, mount a "full sized" raised panel knife with a back panel cutter on a 1.5 HP shaper and try to cut a panel in hard maple in one pass. Then try it on a machine with 3+ HP. IMMHO, 3HP should be considered minimum for a shaper. Unless of course, you are, as I said before, only doing "light duty" work.

YM

[Joe Chritz]

I've used the jet small shaper (2 HP I think) and have a friend with the small shop fox. They are basically slow speed heavy router tables.

Depending on what he has with that shaper it would be nice to have, even if you don't hog stuff out on it. You can't build a router table anywhere near it for close to that cost.

It is under powered for a shaper but will be every bit as powerful as a router in a table.

A 1.75 HP router draws about 10 amps at 110 that shaper is 16. Different motors make for different HP ratings.

Joe

[Brad Shipton]

Before you buy a shaper you might want to go watch someone use one and see if you can try it out. It is a very intimidating machine. I have a 4hp Felder and it is quite the site to watch a 5lb cutter head spin up to 6000rpm and then send pieces through. Cutters are also quite a bit more expensive and not usually stocked by many places. If you have any thoughts of large runs, it is the machine. I ran 300bdft of flooring last night with it and the PF and could not imagine doing so with a router. If you do move forward and have intentions of using a PF, consider the mass of the machine you buy. I had a 3hp version before, and when I mounted a .75hp PF to it, it bordered on being tippy. The effect of a 80lb PF cant'd 36" is quite surprising.

Brad

[David DeCristoforo]

"...it is quite the site to watch a 5lb cutter head spin up to 6000rpm and then send pieces through..."

Ya, baby.....that's what I'm talkin' about!!! Makes you want that power feeder, doesn't it?

YM

[Rod Sheridan]

OK, in a moment of sillyness it came to me, we don't NEED a shaper.

However just like the mythical Binford 5000 Tree Harvester/Shaper or whatever Tim Taylor used to lust after, which would you rather have in the garage?

A wimpy little universal motored router, or a Binford 5000 Tree Harvester/Shaper?

Anyone who answers "wimpy router" should have to throw out their plaid shirts and get kicked out of Possum Lodge!

Some days I crack myself up.

[Tom Veatch]

...I think that people don't treat routers with the respect they deserve, which makes the operator more dangerous when using a router than a shaper.

When you own a shaper, you often are a more experienced, better trained woodworker than someone who just received a router and table for a Fathers day gift. (Obviously this isn't always true).....

I think you nailed it there! I would suspect that the majority of shapers are operated in professional/industrial shops where the inverse is true for routers. I'm certainly not saying that all "pro" operators are better "____" (fill in the blank) than any "amateur", but I'd guess that the median for the pro group is higher than the median for the amateur group.

The reason I noticed the statistical reference is that I just went through something like that with my wife. We jusr replaced a dishwasher. My wife was talking to the repairman about the best brand to buy as a replacement. He mentioned something along the lines that he had 10 times the service calls for Brand X than he did for Brand Y. Forget that the repairman is not exactly a disinterested party and consider that if there are 20 times the number of Brand X in his service area than there are Brand Y, then Brand X is a more reliable unit.

According to Mark Twain, "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"