FWW Jointer review - We can do better Creekers !!

[lou sansone]

dear ww friends

The other post that Dev first started as gotten hijacked IMHO... But I do believe we have a chance to redeem the situation and get back to the original intent of the FWW test.

Objective of the FWW test was to see if a pretty clear recommendation could be made in regards to an 8" jointer from a field of 11 possible machines.

Let me summarize a couple of thoughts about the test

1. If you look at the statistics of the flatness measurements you find that there is really no standard deviation and thus no 3 sigma. What does that mean? It means that based upon table flatness alone the data is really inconclusive. The only possible option in this case would be to buy 5 of each machine and then do the analysis on all of them to see if there was any statistical spread in the data. The machines measured are just all to close to perfect to make any real choice.

2. I do believe that you all have enought smarts to devise a series of tests for these 11 machines that would in the end point to a single top performer or at least the top 3 machines.

3. Here are a couple of things I would have wanted to see added to the test. First, lets see how each company handles "problems" or the request for " a replacement part" Although it somewhat subjective, you could measure the time it takes to place the order for say a new belt ( or somthing more complicated ). You could measure how long it takes to get the part once you have ordered it. I guess this catagory would be called "service after the sale". If you really wanted to stress the parts system, you could enquire about a replacement fence or some big casting that got "broken" some how. I had an experience with a tiawian machine that took 12 months to get a major part. I would have been better off just buying an entire new machine rather than try to get a big part that does not break very often.

4. How about a catagory called "routine maintenance". The test person could have to change all the knives and reset them. There should be some way of measuring how long it took and the results one got with the "jig" provided by the mfg.

5. How about a catagory called "set up". A lot of these machines are covered with gooo.. How long and how hard is it to get the machine ready to work?

6. How about a catagory called "long term stability" Some fences get wacked out of square very quickly when being moved or simply by having the pork chop guard repeatedly hit the fence. Maybe the infeed table keeps drifting down after a while. I am sure some simple test of the machine running for even an hour could be devised that might show that many of them got out of wack pretty quickly or maybe none of them did.

7. How about a catagory of Noise. This is any easy one to measure.

8. Ok I got the ball rolling, now it is your turn. I am confident the all of you could add some other tests to this list or maybe you don't like some of mine.

Bottom line I think IRT the FWW test is now who won and who lost, but was the test as meaningfull as it could have been. I think that when I look at test results for a machine, I believe that if I was to buy the top pic that "my" machine would be just as good as the machine that FWW had to test. So how does one assure this? In addition, when I do buy that wonderful machine and something is wrong with my baby... is it going to take an act of God to get the part sometime in the next 10 weeks.


regards

Lou

[Frank Pellow]

Good list Lou.

I have not seen the FWW review that Dev was refering to, but I am surprised that noise was not covered. I have fopund that this is usually covered in most reviews.

[lou sansone]

hi frank
yea your right ... I guess I need to put my glasses on
lou

[Donnie Raines]

I will re-state my view on this. The test was performed in a manner that would be more in line with the way most of us would be capable of testing our own machinery. The majority do not have the equipment to test for noise and other tolerance issues that larger "testers" could perform. And I venture to say, that, if all of the test were performed that have been stated(in the other thread) most would not be able to distinguish what the inofrmation means any how. Thus...what good does it do the majority?

I do agree Lou...that the other thread has gotten way of track...and we can do better. I have had the opportunity to read the review..and re-read it. Granted it is not a scientific test at all...why should it be....its a jointer.

[lou sansone]

I will re-state my view on this. The test was performed in a manner that would be more in line with the way most of us would be capable of testing our own machinery. The majority do not have the equipment to test for noise and other tolerance issues that larger "testers" could perform. And I venture to say, that, if all of the test were performed that have been stated(in the other thread) most would not be able to distinguish what the inofrmation means any how. Thus...what good does it do the majority?

I do agree Lou...that the other thread has gotten way of track...and we can do better. I have had the opportunity to read the review..and re-read it. Granted it is not a scientific test at all...why should it be....its a jointer.

hi donnie

You make a good point on the noise issue, but I do think that it might be nice to know just how loud is loud and the noise meters are really pretty cheap.

what about service after the sale and changing knives?
lou

[Keith Hooks]

It's relatively easy to test the decibel level. You just need a decibel meter and a way to consistantly fix the distance from the meter to the tool, while it's running. DB meters start at around $100. I'd like to see that part of all the tool testing reviews.

I've read the review and the biggest issue that jumped out at me was the flatness measurement. It wasn't clear to me how someone could measure to 1/10th's of a thousandth (.0001) using a straight edge and as small as a .001" feeler gauge. If you're going to take the time to make measurements and include them in the article, at least make sure they're credible. It's possible that he used some scheme that I'm not familiar with but at the least, it should be described. If for no other reason, suppose we wanted to compare a machine that wasn't included in the original test?

So, I would like to see the methods of measurement accurately described and the accuracy of the measurements justified. If the author claims to be able to measure to .001 using a folding ruler, then I want to know how they did it.

[Donnie Raines]

hi donnie

You make a good point on the noise issue, but I do think that it might be nice to know just how loud is loud and the noise meters are really pretty cheap.

what about service after the sale and changing knives?
lou

I agree that the later would have been important information. But, the service aspect is open to interpretation. One man's poor service is anothers good services....for example. Many have ranted about the lack of service at the local borgs...but I have excellant services whenever I needed it. So I don't no how fair that would be. The noise level is rather mute(no pun intended) to me....all induction motors sound about the same to me.

I no noise meters are rather in-expensive...but why would one buy one to test their machinery???...you have already bought the stuff what diffrence does it make????.....

[lou sansone]

I agree that the later would have been important information. But, the service aspect is open to interpretation. One man's poor service is anothers good services....for example. Many have ranted about the lack of service at the local borgs...but I have excellant services whenever I needed it. So I don't no how fair that would be. The noise level is rather mute(no pun intended) to me....all induction motors sound about the same to me.

I no noise meters are rather in-expensive...but why would one buy one to test their machinery???...you have already bought the stuff what diffrence does it make????.....

Hi donnie
When I think of testing products to help one make an informed choice about this or that machine, I personally would like to know just how loud is that sucker. If most of the other things about all these 11 machines are close to each other, maybe, just maybe one is a lot quieter than the rest. Even though I always wear hearing protection, noise does travel and for me at least, quiet it good. It is "before I bought the stuff" that I want to know how loud it is, not after the fact.


lou

[David Fried]

Lou,

OK, I'll start. I think if we could improve the information giving in reviews, not limited to FWW, that would be great!

I too am bothered by judging a machine/company based on one machine but the answer isn't clear to me. Given the number of machines those companies produce I'm not sure testing five machines would be any better than one. That is, given the population I doubt five machines would affect the statistical confidence interval or level. Wish I had a better answer.

If a review combined feed back from owners of the machines with their in-house testing perhaps we could learn more.

The FWW review was the final impetus I needed to purchase my Grizzly jointer. After I set it up I did put my straight edge on it. ( Just a 24" Woodcraft model Dev) I put a 60 watt light behind it and didn't see any light coming under it, no matter where I put it. I didn't even consider breaking out feeler gauges. I wonder if this kind of go, no-go test might not be worth considering. Tell me what tolerance the machine is made to and if it was in spec. If it made to +/- .005 then I don't really think measurements of .002 or .003 are meaningful to me. In fact, I think they are distracting.

One corner of the crate the jointer came in was crushed. I noted this when signing for it. The bolt that tightens the fence down so it wouldn't move forward or backwards wiggled loose in shipping and was missing. A quick call to Grizzly and it's is on its way, under warranty. In the mean time a Bessey clamp is doing the job.

Likewise, the paint peeled off the motor cover of my Grizzly planer after almost a year . One call and a replacement was sent, no charge. This impressed me and is an important consideration to me. It would fun see a reviewer picking random pieces and trying to get replacements from various companies. Grizzly did great when I called and said I needed parts 121 and 122 for model GO500. It would be interesting to know companies handle a call for the the gizmo that goes through the green thing into the whatchamacallit.

I spend more time doing "routine maintenance" then I would care to admit but it needs to be done. It would be great to know which machines minimize this. Do they provide jig, clear instructions, or have they made access to adjuster bolt easy?

Goo, styrofoam that sheds little pieces that need to be picked out, missing nuts and bolts, unthreaded nuts, hardware that doesn't agree with the manual, manuals written by folks with little grasp of the english language, manuals written by folks who apparently have never seen the machine, assemble instructions written by professional contortionists: these are all things I have run into and would love to be warned about in advance. Rate the manual!

In addition to testing "long term stability" in the lab, how about real world testing. Before testing this years crop of jointers lets revisit last years crop. (Most of them are same machine, again) Drop them off at the local high school and see how they fared during a year of use in the hands of my fellow wood butchers. (Better yet, drop them off at my shop!) Really, lend them out to your readers and see what happens in the real world. Lend me anything that says MM on it and I will definitely renew my subscription!

How about a category of Noise? Great idea. I see it now and then, it should be a standard item. FWW devoted a good deal of space to talk about spiral head cutters and the noise reduction even though none of the machines tested had them! It would seem appropriate for a general article on jointers but odd in the context of a review.

Woodworking isn't science. You can test machines, give me numbers, apply statistics, etc. but please tell me what you think. My fear in buying a Grizzly is that I have never seen one or touched one. Delta, Powermatic, etc. have an advantage that I can go over to a store and run my hands over the machine: Turn the knobs, spin wheels, and get a feel for it. I can't do that with a Grizzly, Bridgewood, Sunhill, Yorktown, Oliver, etc.. The reviewer needs to communicate that experience to me. Sometimes the feeling transcends words, that is, it's not just the size of this or the placement of that but rather, as a whole, the machine just feels right. The reviewer needs to communicate that to the readers who may never get the chance to touch the machines the reviewer has in front of them.

Lastly, the FWW review had one measurement I didn't really understand. It seemed to be a measurement of the front-to-back alignment of the tables. The machines tested had eight inch cutter heads and many had nine inch wide tables. Why would I care if the front-back table alignment is off a couple of thou when I have an inch or more of table to spare? Am I understanding that measurement? Thanks.


Dave Fried

[Donnie Raines]

Hi donnie
When I think of testing products to help one make an informed choice about this or that machine, I personally would like to know just how loud is that sucker. If most of the other things about all these 11 machines are close to each other, maybe, just maybe one is a lot quieter than the rest. Even though I always wear hearing protection, noise does travel and for me at least, quiet it good. It is "before I bought the stuff" that I want to know how loud it is, not after the fact.


lou

You had mention that it would be in-expensive to buy a meter to test the sound....I figured you meant for use on tools one already had. I guess one could buy a meter before buying a tool...but could you not just turn the tool on and see what you think??...this is where I think we are puting to much thought into the testing process.

[Cecil Arnold]

Hi Lou. I find a lot to agree with and some to disagree with in the above postings. While machine tolerances are important, we're working wood, so is .001 or .005 really that important other than a measure of QC? With the humidity where I live most wood will move more than that overnight. I would like to see someone champion testing along the lines of Consumers Reports in which both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of a machine could be judged. This would give the consumer a "weights and measures" portion as well as tester feedback (ergonomics, innovation) and some owner input (after the sale service, broken/missing parts, etc,) to use in their buying decision. I'm currently looking for a cyclone and would kill for the kind of information I've described, so I think others would feel the same when it comes to tool reviews. I recall a test of band saw blades/band saws someone did that seemed to approach an acceptable testing method, but even that missed the mark IMHO because of some of the arbitrary limits imposed. As someone says, my 2 cents.

[Keith Hooks]

The noise a machine makes is hard to judge without having something else to compare it to. If you turned on your table saw, you might think it was loud. But, compared to your router, it might not seem that loud. If you used that approach to buying a router, you might never take one home. As long as these reviewers have the machines available to them, it wouldn't take that long to note the noise output as well.

[Rob Blaustein]

I reread the jointer review and it confirmed what I, an admitted novice, felt the first time I read it--the review was a good one and gave me a reasonable idea of some features to look for in an 8" jointer, and which jointers had those features. Are there areas that it might have been improved? Probably, but that will be true of just about anything written anywhere. I'm not sure I understand why it ruffled so many feathers. I understand when I read something like this that I am reading one person's opinion, in contrast to a Consumer Reports approach in which teams of reviewers rate items. I also understand that they are not testing neurosurgery equipment, they are testing woodworking equipment. Lou brings up the point that all of the flatness measurements are pretty close to each other with differences that may not even be statistically significant. This is a point I raised in the other thread, and it was echoed here by others--in order to get a sense of what those measurements mean, you'd have to test several machines (and probably more than 5) from each manufacturer to see how something like flatness varied within each company's group. But that's just not practical for a publication like FWW. We could do it here as a group, but of course then we have the problem of different techniques used to make the measurements. But frankly mostly what I'm after from a review like this, as a novice in the market for an 8" jointer, is what sorts of features are most important. Sure, some of you more experienced folks may disagree with the author as to what is important, but at least it's a starting point for me. And when I have questions not covered (e.g. magnetic vs mechanical switches) I'll ask here. So I say, let's give the poor guy a break (and no, I'm not related to him or FWW). That's my 2 cents.

[Donnie Raines]

The noise a machine makes is hard to judge without having something else to compare it to. If you turned on your table saw, you might think it was loud. But, compared to your router, it might not seem that loud. If you used that approach to buying a router, you might never take one home. As long as these reviewers have the machines available to them, it wouldn't take that long to note the noise output as well.

The issue I see with posting the results of a sound test, is what would it all mean?? If I seen that the decibel were higher on one...I would understand that mean it is louder then one with lower output. But, that does not make the one with the higher decible output as loud...that is only to be determined by the user. What is loud to me may not be loud to you. So who is to say?

[lou sansone]

excellent responses and I think right on for the main point I want to make :

Since all the machines had about the same flatness and it would take many of the same to get any more meaningfull statistics on flatness, I say look at other things that make the machine a joy to use or just misery.

I like the idea of customer feed back, I also really liked the idea of donating these machines to a variety of schools for 1 semester or 1 year and then see how they held up. that would really be interesting.

I agree with all of you who say " hey this is wood we are working with".

I think that more weight should be put on the " abilities" of the machine if possible... reliablity, maintainability, repairability, usability ...

lou