How good is your Bandsaw?

[MIGNAL]

Came across this:

http://www.borsonresaw.com/

Serious set up. Given the size and type of wood, the yield is incredible. One chap who used his services stated that it required less than 0.3 mm clean up each side.
I'd be lucky to achieve that on 1 inch material.

 

[Jonzjob]

I've just had a look at the kerf that my lowely Startrite 301s with a Tewksbury Saw 1/4" 6 skip leaves. 50 thou. So not too bad for when I'm putting celtic knots on some of the pens that I have just been doing. Really easy to cut the 50 thou strips to fill the hole as it were, but I don't think that the rip fence would be up to the job for doing guitar backs? That is a very impressive bit of sawing kit!

P.S. Not too sure just how much I take off when I'm sanding it down, 'cause I just wipe it across my Carol drum sander a couple of times to get the high spots off that are left by said saw blade. Not much though? About that much, what ever 'that' is?

 

[ondablade]

He's done some tuning by adding a sliding table, but for anybody interested in looking at establishing that sort of capability Axminster now have two re-saw bandsaws (HB 600 & 700) in their line of heavy duty Taiwanese made band saws: http://www.axminster.co.uk/page/find/?name=resaw&page=1

 

[MIGNAL]

I'm curious what could be achieved (in terms of amount of clean up required) with the 301, or a mid priced Bandsaw. Resawing something like 6 or 7 inch Oak

 

[markymark12]

Its not that hard. Just a case of the right bands. If you use something like the Trimaster or Resaw kings, some times you have to look very hard to see any saw marks.
Just a case of having a saw that can tension it properly.

 

[ondablade]

This is the million dollar question Mignal. As it happens probably quite a lot, but the question is probably at what speed, with what level of repeatability, and with how much fussing about to get it set up right.

It's become a bit of a hobby horse for me, in that while trying to figure out what route to take on upgrading my band saw a few months ago I got quite frustrated trying to establish what capability was around in what areas at what price points.

The literature tends to be worse than useless. Quite apart from the fact that they can't all be the best, many of the makers to my mind seem to purposely set out to mislead potential buyers. One common gambit for example (which I doubt is accidental) sees vertical capacity routinely confused with re-saw capacity.

Just because you can fit e.g. 300mm under the top guide doesn't mean you have the power to drive that depth of cut, or the frame stiffness to properly tension and maintain the alignment of the width of blade needed for consistently straight cuts at this depth.

I took this issue up with one of the UK mags (many of which seem hell bent on dumbing down woodworking) that recently tested a mid range band saw - because so far as I was concerned all they offered in quite a long piece was qualitative and in the end quite vague impressions. With very little hard data in there on how the saw performed, and how this compared to others.

There certainly wasn't the sort of hard data you'd expect for example when buying a piece of industrial equipment - yet this is what's needed if you are to decide if a piece of kit can truly do what you need it to do.

Why should it be the norm in woodworking equipment that we're somehow expected to take a punt when we buy a piece of equipment? Who for example doesn't know somebody who has been suckered into buying 'toy' machines by dodgy buzz words and other non-specific claims - 'professional' or the like?

I got a reply all right, but it amounted to basically a refusal to even entertain the possibility that this might be a significant issue....

 

[Jonzjob]

I'm curious what could be achieved (in terms of amount of clean up required) with the 301, or a mid priced Bandsaw. Resawing something like 6 or 7 inch Oak

Resawing? I am not totally familiar with that term? Anyone give me an explanation please?

As for my saw, the 301S, it is quite capable of cutting 8" oak either across or down the grain. You just have to let the blade cut and not try to shove it through in a hurry. The quality of the cut is good in my restricted opinion. Because of the kind of stuff I do I always use a 14" 6 skip.

I can also cut glazing bars for dolls house wndows too.

 

[devonwoody]

I took a 150mm piece of oak into a showroom once and tried on their £1000 bandsaw and did not buy the machine because I was not impressed.

 

[Eric The Viking]

I took this issue up with one of the UK mags (many of which seem hell bent on dumbing down woodworking) that recently tested a mid range band saw - because so far as I was concerned all they offered in quite a long piece was qualitative and in the end quite vague impressions. With very little hard data in there on how the saw performed, and how this compared to others.

I don't think that will ever change.

The problem is that we don't want to pay a realistic price for that information. The mags stay alive because of regular big-name advertising, and literally can't afford to upset the advertisers by saying their kit is poor or their claims are exaggerated.

Independent reviews, which we all crave, would have to be funded, and it's unlikely many manufacturers would take the risk of supplying kit to test on that basis, meaning it would have to be purchased, meaning more cost.

The answer? Some sort of quality test mark from an independent lab? I fear the industry is too small to fund this, but it's ideal if it could ever happen.

Perhaps distributor-level testing: Axminster, to name but one, is renown for its attitude to customers. They're half-way there with their own-brand 'trade' and 'industrial' ratings. Perhaps putting their own measures on performance might do it, but again this would add cost. They'd also have to be prepared to upset big manufacturers by down-rating their kit. I can't see that happening.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but given the economic realities, I think subjective reviews are actually fairer. They don't set false expectations.

I recently acquired three years back issues of one magazine, with each edition full of reviews of tools. Hardly anything got less than four out of five 'stars' - the rankings are simply a waste of space, better filled with more detailed descriptions and/or more pictures of the products concerned.

Sorry: long ramble (again). But there's no easy fix I can see. Don't blame the mags though - they're operating in a very difficult business environment. Personally, I'd far prefer they were available than gone, and I'm sure most of them are only borderline profitable at the moment.

 

[ondablade]

There's a lot of truth in that picture Eric, but I feel there's a bigger picture in play too. Pardon the length.

I feel that the mags have been the authors of their own misfortune in this regard. My sense is that they caved in to greed, and in doing so destroyed their standing - leaving themselves beholden to the highest bidder among the manufacturers, and pandering to the lowest common denominator within their readerships. There was a time when the manufacturers did not dictate to the mags.

I'm not sure either that it's a matter of there not being the money to do it properly.

Motorcycles have been a lifelong interest of mine, and something similar happened in the motorcycle press. (and actually to most other forms of journalism , and to society) I watched it shift in the late 70s/early 80s from being a situation where independent mags ran salaried writers as long term employees - people who over the years had developed a very real expertise and knowledge of the industry, and were decent and trusted writers - to hiring often freelance mouthy kids fresh out of school who filled the mags with hype but knew nothing and adhered to tabloid values.

That was more or less that, in that whatever expertise and standing they had leaked away, and they very quickly became no better than tabloids. It quickly led to a dumbing down of motorcyclists too - they largely turned into technically ignorant wannabees posing about in dayglo kit - with a greatly enlarged mine/ours is bigger/better than yours bragging rights oriented element much like soccer hooligans. The era of the lifelong motorcyclist faded and was replaced by a 'buy into the lifestyle for a year or two' 'look how hard/wealthy/cool/whatever I am' mentality.

This all followed from the rise of the large publishing conglomerates that bought up titles with no loyalty to anything except the bottom line, and others that gained control over distribution - and led to the above hiring of kids and an associated refusal to invest in infrastructural stuff like building proprietary expertise or databases on markets and machinery.

It wasn't for me so much about the need to minimise costs, it was more a case of using the resulting massive concentration of power to ruthlessly force fit a one size fits all management approach designed to drive up short term profits for a few owners.

This shift in mindset to me has been in many respects a society wide phenomenon, in that it was largely this greed driven drive for short term profits at all costs by corporates (controlled by smaller and smaller elites) that created the bubble which has just burst, and from which all our economies are struggling to recover.

Most of the woodworking mags have been wobbling around trying to survive in the aftermath of these changes for some years, and while some are better than others (F&C has just put out a very decent December issue), and some have suffered ups and downs the fact is that there's few writing that I can see with much deeper a background than the average (fairly isolated) home hobbyist. They seem to take material from almost anybody.

Anyway, pardon the diatribe - but it's not a pretty scene.

 

[kirkpoore1]

There's a lot of truth in that picture Eric, but I feel there's a bigger picture in play too. Pardon the length.

...
Most of the woodworking mags have been wobbling around trying to survive in the aftermath of these changes for some years, and while some are better than others (F&C has just put out a very decent December issue), and some have suffered ups and downs the fact is that there's few writing that I can see with much deeper a background than the average (fairly isolated) home hobbyist. They seem to take material from almost anybody.

Anyway, pardon the diatribe - but it's not a pretty scene.

Ian, I hear ya and agree, but there's also a bigger picture to your bigger picture. In the last decade, the Internet [points around here] has kicked the legs out from under the economic model that the magazines have used. So not only have they sold out, I don't think they could have afforded a professional staff and testing facilities if they hadn't sold out.


The good thing is that forums like this give a voice to a dedicated person who wants to do their own testing at a minimal cost. No, they aren't going to make money at it, at least not right away. But if you want to set up a blog or a website with honest tool reviews nobody is stopping you. And if you gather up your friends to help and everybody does a professional job, you'll get a good rep and lots of visitors. Making it pay? Heck, I have no idea. But I'd sure like to see somebody be the on-line publishing equivalent of Lie-Nielson or Lee Valley/Veritas.


Kirk

 

[Eric The Viking]

Motorcycles have been a lifelong interest of mine, and something similar happened in the motorcycle press. (and actually to most other forms of journalism , and to society) I watched it shift in the late 70s/early 80s from being a situation where independent mags ran salaried writers as long term employees - people who over the years had developed a very real expertise and knowledge of the industry, and were decent and trusted writers - to hiring often freelance mouthy kids fresh out of school who filled the mags with hype but knew nothing and adhered to tabloid values.

(sorry - this turned out longer than I intended, too)

I concur. Firstly about the bike press (have two in the garage as I type), and secondly about the dumbing down, and the buyouts and 'rationalization' you mention.

That was then; now the pressure is from the new media. As our friend from the colonies ( :wink: ) points out, the Internet has stripped much of the value (and income) from traditional publishing.

In that climate, manufacturers have to use other media to reach customers (targeted adverts with click-through on the web, for example), and the money has been pared down (because the Web takes its cut) before magazines even get considered.

You're right about management centralization too. Overall there are far fewer journalist jobs than there were. Companies like ITV have hardly any now, when previously every major city boasted a newsroom, now there are only a very few. When I worked in regional telly there were over 100 people overall working on the nightly regional news, now I doubt there are many more than thirty. Audiences have plummeted too: people get their news from other outlets.

There are many parallels with print media. Time was when a magazine might even break a story. Now that almost exclusively happens on the internet. Everybody wants to be a journalist, so nobody gets properly paid for doing it, except at the highest levels. I think many of the top-level people are blissfully unaware how much has changed. The days of the 'cub' reporter went decades ago.

You're right too about 'dumbing down.' Publishing is easier to do, and there are more specialist titles than ever before, but this is a bit of a paradox, as the content of commercial stuff can be poor: I spotted some expert names in some of the woodworking magazines I've recently read, but the context wouldn't lead you to recognise them otherwise.

I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, editors are expected these days to be generalists, not experts, and that gets reflected in the output. Secondly, when desk top publishing supplanted hot metal (or whatever), there was an explosion of niche titles on the 'because we can" principle. The trouble is that there isn't the content out there to sustain the editorial side, nor the advertising spend to fund the printing and salaries, albeit smaller than before.

The pressures are on all traditional forms of journalism though, not just the niche markets like woodworking. There is room for quality, but I think the margin that allowed true independence from advertisers has largely gone.

 

[ondablade]

Another motorcyclist Eric! Proof of civilisation. At least there's more than me in this space.

No question but that the web has greatly changed the business environment for publishing.

While we're on the topic I think another big factor has been rapid new product introduction, and greatly shortened product life cycles - effectively the result of competitive product introductions by manufacturers.

Never mind that they ride roughshod over every principle of sound innovation management - in that most of it is only what in management consulting is called 'churn'. That is new or modified products that deliver little or nothing by by way of any real improvement or benefit - that are instead only there to create an unfounded 'must have that' urge in a dumbed down market. (but ultimately as in the case of bum marketing claims they eat their seed corn by rendering anything they say as meaningless)

We're mostly getting the woodworking equivalent of sneakers with flashing lights. It's sobering to read the (excellent) Elllis joinery handbook published as far back as 1902 - and see how little is new about woodworking machines.

The death of the ability to innovate seems to be another consequence of the advent of the big corporates in most industries anyway - many industries (who's fed up with overly hyped reworked versions of the products of yesteryear?)

How's about this though as an option. The $million dollar question is whether or not enough people still recognise and will respond to quality, honesty and the saner environment that follows from a creating a bullshi1t free zone.

If as I think they do/will the question becomes how satisfy this need in a commercially feasible way - one that will educate more into a value based way of thinking.

There's a significant lead time involved in preparing material, meaning that a periodical/magazine is surely not out of the question at all. (the web is full of woodworking sites that haven't significantly changed in years) But it'd take a considerable up front and ongoing investment in testing and research before first going to print - so it couldn't be cheap, and it'd have to be able to keep going for long enough to re-educate buyers.

The latter is important. Offer a high cost journal, and most will produce a knee jerk refusal to buy. But give it a while with those who do providing good feedback, and I have to think that the many I see week after week on forums searching for good buying information would be attracted and ready to pay a decent sum.

It's a limited field anyway. There's in truth only a smallish number of pieces of equipment in use in woodworking, and even adding hand tools and workshop systems it'd be hard to put out fresh stuff forever. Then reduce the market to those seeking higher standards.

But it's not necessarily an impossibility. Look at 'Woodworking', where so far as I know Chris Schwarz tried a no advertising quality material route. MY impression is that it wouldn't take a lot more to get that approach working well.

Look too at how Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley (Veritas) have forced the makers of junk tools to respond to their quality and to hell with the price approach...

PS I'm just a bullshitter too Kirk - given my age and situation I'm unlikely to be the pioneer.

 

[Jonzjob]

While we are on the subject of band saws

Can anyone please tell me exactly what re-sawing is? I honestly would like to know..

 

[kirkpoore1]

While we are on the subject of band saws

Can anyone please tell me exactly what re-sawing is? I honestly would like to know..

Sawing a thick piece of wood to get two (or more) useable thinner pieces of wood. Frequently done to get veneer pieces or bookmatched panels. Basically, stand the board on edge and run it through the bandsaw. Of course, it takes a little more setup than that to get good results.

Kirk

 

[Jonzjob]

Thank you Kirk!! I have been doing re-sawing for years it would seem?? Like when I make my Lanz Bulldog tractor/trailers from firewood.

Just about everything I do actually, because I very rarely buy wood to the actual size I want.

I genuinely thought that it was more complecated than that..

 

[kirkpoore1]

I genuinely thought that it was more complecated than that..

The complications come in when you're trying to get a clean veneer slice off of a 12" wide walnut burl.

Kirk

 

[Jonzjob]

Not a complication at all for me Kirk. Dead easy in fact, 'cause I can only cut up to 8". But I think that is where the difficulty may just start? :roll:

 

[kirkpoore1]

Not a complication at all for me Kirk. Dead easy in fact, 'cause I can only cut up to 8". But I think that is where the difficulty may just start? :roll:

I think the difficulty is proportional to the height of the cut times the inverse of the thickness, divided by the sharpness of the blade. Or some such thing.

Kirk

 

[Jonzjob]

OK, I think? So very easy really??? :shock: :shock:

Still not too sure what the time of the cut and the universe of the thickness combined with the sharpness of the operating blade? My brain 'urts! I will just go back to cuttin me likkle bits for me tractors and leave the complications to you Kirk? I never did like veneer work anyway, though lovely to look at anyway..