Dust Shroud Option

[Randy Dutkiewicz]

The reason I am posting this poll is in hopes manufacturers will look at this and hopefully change their marketing strategies when it comes to offering upgrades to the dust shroud on their floor machines (primarily). I believe most of us can agree the current dust shrouds manufacturers offer are severely under-rated and quite ineffecient. I'm curious if customers would be willing to pay an additional charge if given the option to upgrade the shroud in order to offset additional manufacturing costs. It is always easier to "reduce" the shroud size to fit a customer's pipe or flex hose size, but almost impossible to "increase" from the manufacturers standard sizes at the source. Personally, I am wanting to purchase a floor model 15" planer, but the standard dust shroud is only 4".

[Rod Sheridan]

I voted that it shouldn't be an "added cost".

In my opinion it should be designed in by the engineering group.

I went from a General 650 cabinet saw to a Hammer B3, guess what? The Hammer had a 120mm base connection (5") and a 50mm (2") overhead connection. The Hammer also has a below the table blade shroud.

Guess which machine was designed to meet dust emmision legislation, and which was designed to fit a 4" hose?

What's needed in North America is some legislation for dust emmisions from machines, that would force the marketing people to allow the engineering people to design in dust collection.

I don't know how much the hose inside the saw cabinet, and the shroud added to the price, probably not much, same for putting a dust port on the saw blade guard, not much money, however the two machines are a world apart in dust collection.

Regards, Rod.

[Randy Dutkiewicz]

I voted that it shouldn't be an "added cost".

In my opinion it should be designed in by the engineering group.

I went from a General 650 cabinet saw to a Hammer B3, guess what? The Hammer had a 120mm base connection (5") and a 50mm (2") overhead connection. The Hammer also has a below the table blade shroud.

Guess which machine was designed to meet dust emmision legislation, and which was designed to fit a 4" hose?

What's needed in North America is some legislation for dust emmisions from machines, that would force the marketing people to allow the engineering people to design in dust collection.

I don't know how much the hose inside the saw cabinet, and the shroud added to the price, probably not much, same for putting a dust port on the saw blade guard, not much money, however the two machines are a world apart in dust collection.

Regards, Rod.

I agree Rod. This is something that is too simple of a change for manufacturers to make, but still refuse to do so. BTW, I submitted a comment to the Moderators to please remove the "show name of voter" option. I mistakenly checked that block and is pretty much irrelevant. Although I'd be willing to pay a minor increase for the option, I understand your point of view also.

[Paul Wunder]

I would not be willing to pay additional for a basic 6" port on all machines such as cabinet saws, jointers, planers, sanders and band saws. It is about time that manufacturers paid some attention to improving basic minimum design standards. I would consider a price upgrade for features such as dust collection from a table saw blade guard and a second collection port beneath a band saw table because that would add mfg cost. I find it interesting that there has been an explosion of available dust collection products such as cyclones and collectors with cartridge filters, etc. but machine mfg. companies are locked into their tired old designs with the same sub optimal collection capabilities. At the least, a firm such as Grizzly could/should set a "feature" standard of 6" minimum ports. I say this because Grizzly makes a full line of equipment as well as a full line of dust collectors and cyclones and there would be a benefit all across their line. I think there would be a marketing benefit to any company that does so.

[Rich Neighbarger]

... And if "they" don't redesign, we continue to buy the stuff that is here today anyway. I don't expect a manufacturer to invest anything into redesigning a product that is already selling, and to receive nothing in return. I will pay more for the tool that is of the design I want and with the features that I want. Afterall, all 10" table saws spin the same 10" blades, why then are we not all using the same saw? Because of the features. It is that simple.

[Kelly Colin Mark]

I selected "$31 or more", heck I am spending considerable amounts of time on my own trying to increase my ability to collect dust at source. If one company offered a significant advantage in this regards, it would make me much more inclined to buy their product.

[Randy Dutkiewicz]

Wow, interesting spread so far! Right now, slightly more than half would pay at least "some" additional cost for better collection/efficiency. Will be really interesting to see in a few more weeks! Thanks everyone!

Randy

[Ryan Hellmer]

Maybe it's a bit too European of me, but I think that our health and safety standards on tooling need a little attention. The utter neglect of dust management by manufacturers is offensive. I shouldn't have to spend a weekend building a shroud to accomodate dust collection when it would cost .10 a piece to have them vacuum formed or molded at the factory.

[David Hostetler]

This is a tricky question to answer. I opted for the option of, tools should already be shipped with proper dust ports. But what is a proper dust port? My table saw has 2 4" ports and a 2.5" port. (I need to rework the cabinet port), only one of them is factory though (the 2.5" port). The issue isn't just how BIG the port is, the issue is also how EFFECTIVE the port is. If you have a 6" port on the wrong end of the tool to do any good, why bother?

More time and engineering needs to go into health and safety aspects of consumer / DIY / Hobbyist level woodworking machines without a doubt...

[Richard Shaefer]

I think the point that should be made here to manufacturers is that a properly designed dust shroud, when considered early in the design process, cost absoloutely nothing to add to a machine, but probably adds a marketable value to the machine of 5%.
i.e., I might throw another $75 at a $1500 machine that collected, say, 97% of the waste material where as I might shy away from a machine of the same price that had no such features.

[Jim O'Dell]

I'd like to see larger pickups also, but remember, the majority of users don't have cyclones with 6" capacity. 4" is the norm because that is what most collectors will work properly with. I still think Grizzly did a great job on the G0690/691 saws with the dust port on a separate door. It was easy to modify to 6" and if I ever sold it and the new owner wanted it back to 4", it would be easy to make a flat plate out of wood and attach the original 4" piece to it, or purchase a new metal door for 30 bucks. Now could they make it with the larger hole, have an adapter that screws on to the door for 4" and sell an accessory adapter to swap out that was for 6"? Certainly. How much would it cost to make a mold for this? I personally don't know. What would they have to sell it for to recoup their costs? A lot more that 10 cents!! Would the 6" work for everyone? No, probably not. So at that point, do you make one for 6" metal HVAC, one for 6" spiral, and another for 6" PVC?
I'm pleased as punch with the removable door that I could modify to the 6" pipe I used in my system. It was a much better deal than trying to cut a hole out in the side of the cabinet! Jim.