I can't imagine trying to manage a 1" blade on a 14" saw with crowned tires. That sounds like trying to get a stretch of 10-gauge romex back into a perfect coil again.Originally Posted by Van Huskey
Erik
Contributor
I can't imagine trying to manage a 1" blade on a 14" saw with crowned tires. That sounds like trying to get a stretch of 10-gauge romex back into a perfect coil again.
Erik
Contributor
Thanks Andrew. This is on my new Grizzly 636X. The factory blade was junk, which I expected. I made a few test cuts with it just to see what it could do. Ripping 8/4 and thinner was fine, but resawing even a piece only 6" wide was rough going with a poor finish. I put the 1", 1.3 tpi Woodmaster CT on the saw, adjusted the tension and tracking, and ran that same 6" piece through and my eyes almost popped out of my head. Then I tried a 12" piece of walnut. Slice after beautiful slice as fast as I could push the wood past the blade.
I am a happy guy. The Resaw King may be a great blade, but I doubt I'll ever look at it when I can get cuts like this.
John
Contributor
Exactly what Van said. It seems all BS manufacturers claim their saws can handle a blade wider than they truly can. My little 14" Delta says it can use a 3/4" wide blade. It can only put about 12K psi (measured) on a 1/2" blade. How the heck could you run a 3/4" blade? Yes, it will cut, slowly, but it won't cut well for long, nor will it last very long. My new Grizzly 636X is a very robust saw in its class. Grizzly says it can take a 1-3/8" blade. That seems a huge stretch in my mind for a 17" saw. I don't really care, though, I don't plan to ever use anything wider than the 1" blade I have on it now which cuts beautifully.
Whatever max. blade width your BS manual says the saw can handle, if you go one width lower I think you will enjoy better performance, fewer problems, and longer blade life. And narrower blades are cheaper. What's not to like?
John
Member
IME the CT's finish is behind the Tri-master which is behind the RK, though the difference is minor. The CT is the most susceptible to harmonics but cuts faster (and clears chips better) than the other two. While I prefer the RK for hand feeding (thin kerf) the CT makes the most sense for power feeding (1.3 TPI) so I have been gravitating that way. Each of these blades has pros and cons and one just has to pick the best one for them, the finish though different is not night and day better between the three.
Of all the laws Brandolini's may be the most universally true.
Deep thought for the day:
Your bandsaw weighs more when you leave the spring compressed instead of relieving the tension.
Contributor
Power-fed 1.0" Tri-master. Species are maple and Lyptus. Feeder was on the slowest speed.
I've never personally been able to tell the difference in cut between a Tri-master and a Woodmaster CT. Or at least not any difference that I couldn't say was just a result of the species or of that particular piece of wood. We used the Tri-Master forever, I think. Had a connection for Lenox stock and maybe that dried up or something. Then, started using the Woodmaster CT because it cut the same, but was 2/3rds the cost. Still wish I had a chance to try an RK blade, though.
Erik
Member
I agree! Lots of tension on a 1" blade.
Contributor
A 1" blade on a 14" saw is not a good idea. I really doubt you can tension one, properly, on your saw.
Never, under any circumstances, consume a laxative and sleeping pill, on the same night
Member
I learned from Sam the ability to use a standard shaper feeder for the bandsaw. I leave mine attached to the shaper, pull it around and use it for the bandsaw. I use a Comatic 8 speed 3ph powered with a VFD and for tall veneer cutting I run it at 30hz on the slowest speed so I get about 3.25 FPM with any of the three blades it produces a near polished finish. The Tri-master and RK will produce a better finish BUT when power feed it takes chalking the surface to see the difference or using a harsh raking light. The CT gets worse on the really tall cuts (but still excellent), I attribute this to the lack of variable pitch and harmonics, only a guess. The thing about the RK is its thin kerf which saws precious wood when slicing veneer, is easier to handfeed tall pieces and though more expensive is more economical due to the speed, ease and cost of resharpening. The only issue I have with it is the small gullets (like the Tri-master) but that is only an issue with resawing tall pieces while powerfeeding while the CT is available in 1.3 TPI which still evacuates the chips in a tall resaw. While my MM20 has a reasonable blade speed one of the huge cast saws with outrageous blade speeds would be helpful. In the end the RK is purpose built for the hobbiest/studio furniture builder compared to the Woodmaster CT and Tri-master which were designed for entirely different markets so the RK makes the most sense for most even though the initial cost is higher in the end powerfeeding is the way to go for ultimate finish quality and thats where the CT really shines.
Of all the laws Brandolini's may be the most universally true.
Deep thought for the day:
Your bandsaw weighs more when you leave the spring compressed instead of relieving the tension.
Contributor
Band speed also plays a role in type of blade and tooth count. My old saws run at 6750 fpm while most new saws run at about 4000. Dave
Contributor
Erik your not missing a thing with a Rk blade what you guys have got going on is as good as it gets.
I look at the Rk blade as a fine jointery blade.Most woodworker would probably just use their tablesaw.
For tall Resaw Lenox rules.
Now I did see a video of a guy resawing something like Koa with a Rk blade and that makes sense to me.
Wow expensive wood easy as fine mahogany to cut.The thin kerf adds up quick.
Anyone reading this and wondering why don't I get flat glue ready cuts on my bandsaw?
I would like to point out that all woods move when there cut some more then others.
Only very dry well behaved wood will get the blade and saw to perform its best.
We cannot control what the wood will do.
Aj
Contributor
I'd suggest that 3.25 fpm is way too slow for the Woodmaster CT. I get much better finish at higher speed. I'm hand feeding, but I'd guess the feedrate is at least 10 fpm and probably higher.
Slower is not always better - quite the opposite in my admittedly limited experience with the CT.
John
Contributor
There's a local BBQ place here in Austin that is world-famous, was featured in an AmEx commercial, President Obama got take-out there, and that all the hipsters wait 2-3 hours in line to eat at. Everyone I've talked to says their BBQ is great. Now, my wife and I have tried pretty much every BBQ within a 50-mile radius and there is one that we consider the best. It is about a half-hour drive out of town and there is never a wait. My logic is, "Why should I wait in line for 2-3 hours when I can just get in the car, have awesome BBQ, and be back home and taking a nap on the sofa while all those hipsters are still standing in line. Or do they know something I don't?". So, whenever I run into someone that has tried the first place, I always ask the them if they have tried the place that is my favorite.
That sums up my relationship with the RK: I know lots of folks swear by it but I've never been able to justify paying what Laguna asks when you can get a Lenox for less, that gives awesome results.
Erik
Member
Technically the blade was designed for MUCH faster feed rates, but then it was designed to be used on sawmills, not hobby bandsaws. Try slamming a 18" hunk of exotic hardwood through at much faster than 3 fpm and you get the blade slamming the thrust bearing and doing nasty things in the cut, just not enough beam strength in a 1" blade even at 30k psi. You also have the issue of chip clearance, the gullets just aren't big enough to clear the swarf from that tall a cut on my MM20, if I had a saw that ran 8,000 to 9,000 FPM it would help a LOT. Plus are you talking about hand feeding? In general hand feeding you want to go as fast as you can with as constant a rate as possible. I can read the cut on any of my handfed resaws and tell you exactly where I repositioned my hands or picked up my push stick. The constant rate of powerfeeding brings a whole new level of finish into play. Now if I am ripping strips for bent laminations say 4" wide (or less) in most domestics I'm only limited by how fast I can get to the other side to take the outfeed (given my feeder). If I had someone to catch I would probably run ~50 fpm. In the end I should have been more specific, I was just talking about my worst case, wide, hard, expensive wood that I want to cut as thin as possible and merely have to kiss it with the sander/scraper or plane. The other issue is you generally don't run into slow feedrates burning wood on a bandsaw. A bandsaw blade tends to run much cooler than a table saw blade (the bigger the saw the cooler the band) and the blade is narrow enough it is unlikely for wood to close on the blade and can't get cut twice by closing on the back of the blade like on a TS.
Of all the laws Brandolini's may be the most universally true.
Deep thought for the day:
Your bandsaw weighs more when you leave the spring compressed instead of relieving the tension.
Member
My guess is the lines are for Franklin BBQ.
My favorite BBQ place was in Western North Carolina (I am a pulled pork guy) but in the last couple of years it has been ruined by being discovered and getting some social media fame, the lines are long, the service is down, the signature dishes are gone, the portions halved and the prices doubled. It gets one and 5 star reviews, the ones are from people that knew what it was and the fives from people just "discovering" it.
I'll reiterate my take on the RK, it has advantages over the Lenox blades in particular for people with smaller saws or wanting a thin kerf (the finish is MARGINALLY better and if it isn't powerfed you won't see a demontsrable difference). I think the big advantage is actually the economy. While it does cost more than the Lenox blades $300 for the MM20 compared to $240 and $140 for the last TM and CT I bought it only costs $45 to resharpen including return shipping so about $55-60 bucks all in. So when it a RK is resharpened only once it is cheaper than a TM and not much more than a CT. I got three sharpenings out of my last RK so at todays prices thats about $115 a blade. Some people get 4 sharpenings and I probably would have because I drove it into the ground the last time because my TM I had as a backup needed to be rewelded and I was in a hurry. I see them like I see the Forrest WWII, Tenyru Gold Medal and Freud Next Gen Premier Fusion I happily use all three but when push comes to show I can cite pros and cons for each but unlike those table saw blades I don;t know of a better carbide band than those three.
Of all the laws Brandolini's may be the most universally true.
Deep thought for the day:
Your bandsaw weighs more when you leave the spring compressed instead of relieving the tension.
Contributor
Yep! I'd love to try it some day but am having a hard time believing that it's 2-3 hrs. wait better than Opies' (our favorite).
Getting back to the blade-thing, this is what I see as a guy in the industry: Many folks are under the impression that there is that "magic bullet" of bandsaw blades that will cut everything perfectly: Wet wood, dry wood, exotic species, domestic species. That it will cut fast, track like a laser beam, regardless of what machine you have, and give you results you don't even have to sand. And there is at least one vendor that has been mentioned in this discussion that, in my opinion, that somewhat markets their blades this way. Just look at all the "What's wrong with my cut" threads on Sawmill Creek. People need to realize thta blades are like shoes. You have a pair of work boots, you have a pair of dress shoes, you have a pair of sneakers, you have a pair of flip-flops, etc. But lots of us don't apply that logic to buying blades. Just my 2-cents.
Erik
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
