Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: Walke Moore Router Plane opinions - Not so Happy with mine

  1. #31
    I was not referring to any level of service beyond providing the buyer with a properly working tool, but to that, he is certainly entitled; or due a refund. Tool makers get returns because customers don't like the grain in the wood handles or the plane soles are three-thou out of flat over a foot of length. Those are frivolous claims.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon MacGowen View Post

    Judging from this update: http://www.walkemooretools.com/router-update-may-2017/, the router plane has had a number of issues for the maker.

    Simon



    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    It's probably worth noting that the original was cast iron while the WM is cast Manganese-Bronze. As Simon pointed out in #28 they've acknowledged a *lot* of trouble with both the base and collar castings, and with that in mind it would not surprise me if their material choice made it impractical to accommodate those slots. One obvious possibility is that they may not have been able to add enough wall thickness without compromising some other attribute of the casting.

    On a related note: Mn-Bronze is stronger than cast iron, which is an attractive property in this class of plane. Despite that even L-N (which uses Mn-Bronze for smaller planes) hasn't brought an Mn-Bronze router plane to market, so I strongly suspect that this material poses some fundamental challenge in router planes.

    The "issues" mentioned in the link you guys reference are exclusively cosmetic--pitting that wouldn't mill out, basically. Nowhere is any functional problem mentioned. In fact, it explicitly says that the design is done, implying that any functional problems have been resolved.

    I think it's striking that so many commenters here feel qualified to diagnose "problems" with the design of the tool, despite having never actually used it or even seen it in the flesh. I've used the WM router twice, in Covington and Amana. I took heavy and light cuts. It works as advertised.

    All the OP has to do is email the maker, and the problem would be resolved right away. Either he hasn't done so, or he's not mentioning it here. In the meantime, this thread festers, with people making all sorts of unfounded speculation about the tool and the maker. "It needs a curvy washer." "No, it needs a keyway." "They have a bad business model." It's ridiculous. Again, ZERO of the people making these insinuations have ever used the tool in question.

    Last thing: since someone will ask, I have no affiliation with WM. I know them from shows, that's it. But as someone in a related line of work, it makes me sick to think that a simple defect (which will happen to every maker, no matter how big or small) could result in a thread like this.
    "For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brady View Post
    I was not referring to any level of service beyond providing the buyer with a properly working tool, but to that, he is certainly entitled; or due a refund.
    Sure, in principle the customer is *always* entitled to that, regardless of price. What I was objecting to is the argument that the price of this particular tool somehow justifies an increased level of service. I think it's priced the way it is because it costs that much (or more, given their casting yield issues...) to bring to market, not because there's a super-high gross profit margin there to support "above and beyond" customer service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brady View Post
    Tool makers get returns because customers don't like the grain in the wood handles or the plane soles are three-thou out of flat over a foot of length. Those are frivolous claims.
    Sure, and that makes it especially ballsy of WM to go to market with pitting issues. They're up front about it and aren't doing anything wrong, but they're taking a business risk given how "finicky" some woodworking customers can be.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    The "issues" mentioned in the link you guys reference are exclusively cosmetic--pitting that wouldn't mill out, basically. Nowhere is any functional problem mentioned. In fact, it explicitly says that the design is done, implying that any functional problems have been resolved.
    Steve, I think that your emotional investment in this topic is getting in the way of reasonable discussion. As a product designer I know where you're coming from, but all professionals have to eventually move past that.

    As a designer I'm sure that you're well aware that there is no such thing as a perfect design. Even designs with unlimited budgets entail compromises. By the same token, everything can be rebalanced/reoptimized if not improved outright, so in that sense nothing is ever "done". That's why it's a great thing that there are so many to choose from and (though it may make you and other designers/vendors uncomfortable) discuss.

    I never said that they needed a keyway or had a bad business model. W.r.t. the former I advanced a hypothesis as to why they may have removed the keyway that the Preston had. If like WM you advertise that you're producing an improved version of some existing design, then you are inviting discussion of the changes you make relative to that design, because those must either be things that you felt were improvements or things that you were forced to do for one reason or another (cost, material constraints, etc).

    W.r.t. business model read what I wrote and more importantly what I was replying to. My comments were in response to somebody else's assertion that the customer was entitled to something extra in terms of service because their price was very high.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 06-25-2017 at 12:18 AM.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    Steve, I think that your emotional investment in this topic is getting in the way of reasonable discussion. As a product designer I know where you're coming from, but all professionals have to eventually move past that.

    As a designer I'm sure that you're well aware that there is no such thing as a perfect design. Even designs with unlimited budgets entail compromises. By the same token, everything can be rebalanced/reoptimized if not improved outright, so in that sense nothing is ever "done". That's why it's a great thing that there are so many to choose from and (though it may make you and other designers/vendors uncomfortable) discuss.

    I never said that they needed a keyway or had a bad business model. W.r.t. the former I advanced a hypothesis as to why they may have removed the keyway that the Preston had. If like WM you advertise that you're producing an improved version of some existing design, then you are inviting discussion of the changes you make relative to that design, because those must either be things that you felt were improvements or things that you were forced to do for one reason or another (cost, material constraints, etc).

    W.r.t. business model read what I wrote and more importantly what I was replying to. My comments were in response to somebody else's assertion that the customer was entitled to something extra in terms of service because their price was very high.
    Patrick, the comments about the keyway, or the "bad business model," were made by other posters. I didn't attribute them to you, but perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear about that. My bad.

    Other than that, all your points above are good, but not really relevant to what I was/am saying. Let me try one more time: The OP has a plane with a defect. He should have contacted WM, who I am certain would repair or replace it, no questions asked. Instead, he posted this thread (in direct contravention of SMC policy, as I pointed out earlier; really, the whole mess should be deleted). The result has been a flood of baseless speculation. People have suggested that the design is flawed in numerous ways; they have intimated that WM might not stand behind their product, or are otherwise not entirely above board. None of this is appropriate because the premise, the whole basis for the thread, is flawed. All the speculation about design flaws ignores that this is almost certainly a case of a single defective part in an otherwise good product. The speculation about whether they stand behind their product, whether they'll take it back, their business model for God's sake, is all inappropriate because we have no information from the OP, or any other customer, about how WM treats returns.

    You and I have both seen numerous threads that start like this: "I bought an LN/LV tool, it was defective, but I called customer service, they were awesome, they fixed it right away, no questions asked, yadda yadda." Well, that's what this thread should have been, too. But the OP didn't give them the chance to make it right before he posted.

    With all that said, you're right that I'm too close to the subject, for both personal and professional reasons, and it's making me a little hot under the collar. I'll therefore excuse myself from the rest of the thread. Actually, I "retired" from posting here about six months ago, but this thread got my goat and lured me out. So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.
    "For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    Actually, I "retired" from posting here about six months ago, but this thread got my goat and lured me out. So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.
    I noticed you'd moved on and I was, and am, sorry to see it Steve. Thanks for all the help and advice you've given me. It's helped me and I appreciated it.

    Best regards,
    Fred

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by allen long View Post
    Well I guess you got me there. Although disparaging the company itself was not my intent. Just that I had some issues with the tool. Personally I see a big difference between the two discussions. I never said I was unhappy with Walke Moore, or their service.

    That said, we discuss design aspects, the good and the not-so-good about products all the tme in these forums. While I am sure Walke Moore would take back the plane, it has enough superb aspects that I am not ready to return it.

    The enginger in me sees what the basic flaw is in the holding collar an wants to fix it.

    The collar casting requires hand-filing prior to packaging it for sale (based on conversations with the guys at the Walke Moore booth). Mine needed to be filed a little bit more by the Walke Moore staff. This allowed the collar to have more contact surface with the blade column or stem. While their filing did improve the blade holding ability, but did not completely eliminate the breaking loose of the blade under medium usage.

    The problem is that the collar casting is not beefy enough to allow a deep groove for grabbing the blade stem. I could file it a bit more, but the material thickness will not allow much more depth without risking splitting the collar when tightening the knob.

    Another area for improvement would be the knob stem. It has very little bearing surface at the tip which limits you from cranking it down. Of course, this may be designed this way on purpose to prevent cracking the collar from cranking it too tightly. Brilliant and a bit exasperating at the same time.

    If you compare the collar with the LV collar, you will notice there is about the same amount of meat (thickess) where the blade stem meets the collar. However it is machined such that there is more contact surface with the stem. In addition, there is more bearing surface (deeper groove) on the LV plane. The LV plane holding nut also has a beefier end with a spring-loaded free turning pin. If this same knob were to be modified with the free-wheeling end shaped as a wedge to fit in the plane column. And put into a beefier collar that allows you really groove the collar bearing surface, you would have a premium product upgrade.

    Not disparaging the company, and there are features that are really useful. The blade stem mechanism that holds the blade to the stem is elegant and nothing short of brilliant. But there are shortcomings with the collar casting that could stand to be improved.

    Thus I would still like to hear from other owners with a different experience in case there is a trick or two I am just not understanding. I would like to make this beautiful piece of art work.
    Is it the inside of the collar or something on the posts that needed filing? Could you post a picture or two showing what exactly it is that needs filing?

    From my view, just looking at the WM website, it looks like the mounting posts are tapered, which is necessary for casting, but which could create significant issues for their use as reference points for mounting the cutter assembly.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    94
    I'm very happy WM is making this plane, think it's a beautiful thing, so much so that I'd like to purchase one even though there is an original in my tool chest. The Preston design has been copied more than once, also have the small version, that was copied by someone who did not even put their name on it.

    Contrary to other points of view, this WM router is neither "New" nor "Unique" it is a reproduction of an old time tested tool that many consider the "best router plane ever made". However there seems to be a few small changes to the design that may or may not be contributing to the OP issues.

    Steve's point of view is valid, but WM obviously knows there is an issue here, and the OP could have left off the "l'm not Happy" statement, but asking if anyone else has the same issue, given the stated history, it's not a bad thing.

    The discussion needs to continue now, never had the thought that WM would not fix this plane, but we all want to know if the stated problem is a one off, or if its also something that we might have to deal with as a customer. Field testing is always revealing and this discussion may be revealing, and may help develop a better product.

    Again, never even crossed my mind that WM would not fix any issue, but the issue was obviously known when the product left, and asking if anyone else had and fixed the same issue without having to send the tool back and forth is a valid course of action.

    Still want a WM router plane....

    Andy

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    909

    Walke-Moore response

    I contacted them about this issue on the forum. Here is their response:

    we are aware of the sawmill creek forum and the gentleman has yet to contact us, we don't have his contact info. We may post on the forum soon to reach out to him so we can resolve it. Going forward, the issue is really the result of the collars not being cast quite as they were designed. This lead to the file-work mentioned in the forum to correct the problem. Going forward, we looking at a few changes in the casting and/or machining of the collar to correct this issue. It's not something we expect to be a problem long-term that we have to check on each tool we sell.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Brown View Post
    I contacted them about this issue on the forum. Here is their response:

    we are aware of the sawmill creek forum and the gentleman has yet to contact us, we don't have his contact info. We may post on the forum soon to reach out to him so we can resolve it. Going forward, the issue is really the result of the collars not being cast quite as they were designed. This lead to the file-work mentioned in the forum to correct the problem. Going forward, we looking at a few changes in the casting and/or machining of the collar to correct this issue. It's not something we expect to be a problem long-term that we have to check on each tool we sell.
    Well done Eric. Thanks for doing that.

    Reading this reply and the link in post #28, it sounds like WM released the tool for sale a tad too soon, perhaps because they were spending a bunch of money on resolving the casting issues and needed to get a tool out the door. I don't know. (But it sure isnt the first time a manufacturer has done that.)

    Personally, I'm not much of an early adopter and wouldn't buy the tool until it was fully debugged. YMMV.

    I also noticed that the OP hasnt commented since about the first dozen posts. Odd that he hasnt contacted WM for a refund or replacement though.
    Last edited by Frederick Skelly; 06-25-2017 at 6:44 PM.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Brown View Post
    I contacted them about this issue on the forum. Here is their response:

    we are aware of the sawmill creek forum and the gentleman has yet to contact us, we don't have his contact info. We may post on the forum soon to reach out to him so we can resolve it.
    A bit surprised that they knew about this but would let such a bad press about one of their products linger on for so long in the public, instead of trying to get hold of the OP here, or by PM. And this isn't a cosmetic issue in my book as someone alleged.

    Simon
    Last edited by Simon MacGowen; 06-25-2017 at 6:44 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    Patrick, the comments about the keyway, or the "bad business model," were made by other posters. I didn't attribute them to you, but perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear about that. My bad.
    You quoted me in your reply so I assumed I was the offender. I could/should have held off and given you more of a chance to clarify. My bad too.

    As I've said a couple times, we violently agree about the basic point that you raise: The OP needs to contact W-M and work with them. The notion that W-M should be reading SMC to proactively find "concerned customers" and reach out to them is not reasonable. They have better things to do, like design and build tools.

    I reiterate that very seldom is it a binary thing where a tool is "flawed" or not, and I haven't seen anything on this thread that would lead me to describe the WM as "flawed". Different tools have different relative strengths, and those strengths interact with how individual customers work and what they do to produce a range of opinions about the tool's usefulness. "Unusable" for one person might be "best tool ever" for another. As you pointed out you tried the tool and found it quite usable. It's quite possible that your technique is smoother (and therefore better in my value system :-) than the OP's even when taking a heavy cut, and that you don't load the retention mechanism to the same degree, leading to a very different outcome and opinion.

    A similar example: A lot of people complained about the retention of the depth stop on the v1 LV Small Plow. I had that plane for some time before getting it reworked to v2 for beading support, never had a problem, and thought it to be an exceptional tool. I treat the depth stop mostly as tactile feedback (something that tells me by feel when I've reached full depth) and purposely avoid pushing too hard against it, so that may be why I had such a different experience than some others. I don't think that the original depth stop design was in any way "flawed", but it was a weakness relative to some other planes for some users.

    As an engineer I (and apparently some others) am deeply curious as to why W-M made some of the design changes they did relative to the Preston, which is what led to the long digression into Mn-Bronze. Returning to your point from an earlier post that the pitting is a "cosmetic" issue, I'm sure you're aware that when it comes to a process like casting it's all inter-related. Void formation is influenced by material flow, which is in turn driven by the geometry of the casting. I think it's well within the realm of possibility that pitting concerns imposed wall thickness constraints on the collar casting, and those in turn constrained the retention design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    With all that said, you're right that I'm too close to the subject, for both personal and professional reasons, and it's making me a little hot under the collar. I'll therefore excuse myself from the rest of the thread. Actually, I "retired" from posting here about six months ago, but this thread got my goat and lured me out. So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.
    Like others I'll just say that your opinion and experience are a huge asset to the forum. I'll even STFU for a while again if that helps :-).
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 06-25-2017 at 11:24 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    So, back to retirement for me, hopefully on a permanent basis.
    So sorry to hear this; was wondering why I hadn't seen any of your posts. Thank you for all the contributions you made while you were active. You will be missed (sincerely hope you change your mind).
    "The reward of a thing well done is having done it." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  14. #44
    I just pulled my router plane out of the box.
    Haven't had time to do any woodworking in months.

    Plane is pristine and works beautifully, elegantly, and doesn't slip. The fit and finish makes my Lie Nielsen look cheap.

    I don't see any of the problems the OP has with his plane.

    IMHO, the lads at WMT are responsive and good guys.

    Try contacting them

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    909

    Solution found?

    Deleted everything. No more help. Enjoy.
    Last edited by Eric Brown; 06-30-2017 at 9:50 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •