FWW's review of 14" bandsaws? Supprised by the results?

[chris del]

I have owned the Delta X5 bandsaw for a couple years now. For the most part it is a good machine. Im my opinion a little overpriced at over $1400 CDN when I purchased it.
I have had a couple of problems with it, the first being I had to grind the cast tab on the upper arm to attach the riser blade guard. It was cast on 5 degree angle which made it impossible to align the upper blade guard. The second problem was that I had to shim the upper wheel by .100" . Both problems minor in my opinion and I was happy to make both corrections.
My biggest problem is that the top plate of the stand, where the bandsaw mounts too is way too light. There is excessive flex between the saw and the stand. I have sent e-mails and spoken to reps here in Canada and they are not willing to do a thing. In my opinion, this is a design flaw and causes vibration. I was not supprised that FWW gave the machine a bad review and relieved that a woodworking professional confirmed that I was not just being a difficult customer.
The X5 has a 5 year warrenty against manufacturing defects. This is a defect is it not? I would be happy if they supplied a thicker top plate for the stand, 3/16" or 1/4" thick.
I have also considered having one made at a machine shop, but dont think I should throw good money after bad.....

[Matt Meiser]

Actually its an engineering defect. They don't warranty those It probably manufactured exactly to what engineer said to do.

Could you just reinforce from underneath with either some angle iron or by epoxying a piece of 3/4" baltic birch to the underside of the top? That would probably stiffen it significantly at a lot lower cost than having a machine shop make something. If you do go that route, talk to a couple welding shops first. It sounds like this is just a flat plate. If so it could be cut with a plasma cutter pretty quickly. If you were closer I could do it for you.

[Jim O'Dell]

I agree, design flaw, not a defect. Defect is if your's was the only one that was built this way.That said, I'd think a good quality piece of 3/4" plywood between the base and the saw would probably do the trick...don't think I'd just add it to the inside of the cabinet. But a 3/16 to 1/4" piece of plate steel would be better. Get it cut to size, put it in, mark and drill holes to remount the saw to the base using the factory holes. Could spread a thin layer of silicone across this to help dampen vibrations. Sounds like you have a nice saw that just needs some tweeking. Jim.

[Matt Meiser]

I was thinking inside because it would be hidden so you won't see it and get mad at the bad engineering every time

The reason I recommended epoxy is to make the pieces act as one thick piece since epoxy has no give. Even if you put 1/4" steel plate on top I'd think about that.

[Andre Masse]

No Grizzly here up north .

Too bad they didn't review the Steel City as I'm seriously thinking about getting one... Anyone here has it?

[Todd Jensen]

I'm with Jim, and wouldn't necessarily consider it throwing good money after bad. I think most of the mid-range(albeit expensive) tools may take some tweaking to be just right. I personally don't care that much for Delta(no good reason, just one of those things), but don't recommend you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[chris del]

The simplest fix would be to take the saw off the stand, remove the top plate of the stand (which is not even 1/8" thick) and have a 1/4" thick plate made. Anything thicker like plywood would require the dust shoot to be extended.
The fact is that I spent top dollar for what I considered a lifetime purchase. I thought I was buying the best and clearly it is not. I am dissapointed that Delta has not offered a fix for this problem and that it is my responsability to correct a engineering mistake.
BTW, did anyone see the re-saw numbers in the FWW review? They cant be correct. With the weighted sled pulling the stock thru the blade, the Delta was 3 or 4 minutes slower than all of the competition. How could that be? It has comparable horsepower, blade speed and the same blade.

[Todd Jensen]

its a delta? I completely empathize with your situation, but hate to see you waste any energy/time/frustration in getting Delta to solve this. Also, you must keep FWW's review in perspective - is the bandsaw fast enough for you? If so, who cares what its doing in respect to the others in this particular test.

As far as 'buying the best'... You knew you weren't buying the 'best' for $1400 for a 14" bandsaw. I think it is probably a decent machine that as soon as you address the issues that are bugging you, will work great for your purposes and likely last you a good long time.

Lastly, the best solution for buyer's remorse is to go blow a wad of money on another tool.

[Chuck Saunders]

I was surprised when I looked to see which saws were included in the "New Breed" looked like a lot of the same 1950's saws.

[Mark Duginske]

I got a new Delta X5 for my new band saw book. I also got the Chinese 14" Delta. I also have a 20 year old 14" Delta which I like the most.

The stand on the Delta X5 is problematic as mentioned above. Also the tensioning mechanism not easy to use. I prefer the simpler Chinese quick release machanism. Also the stand if very clumsy to assemble and the cord it too short.

Of the Delta saws I much prefer the 20 year old saw. I also got a Jet for the book and it worked fine after I put a quarter inch spacer behind the bottom wheel so that the wheels would be in the same plane with the 1/2" blade tensioned.

ALL bandsaws need some adjustment and fine tuning especially a 14" used for resawing because they were designed to cut curves not cut straight.

[chris del]

The stand on the Delta X5 is problematic as mentioned above. Also the tensioning mechanism not easy to use. I prefer the simpler Chinese quick release machanism. Also the stand if very clumsy to assemble and the cord it too short.

That is the other problem with the bandsaw... If you add a riser the cord is too short. So short that the gromit in the stand wont stay in place due the the fact that the cord is pressing against the side of it.... An extra 4" would have been tonnes, but I guess that would have added $.10 to the manufacturing cost.
I like the tensioning system, but dont have much to compare it too.

[Maurice Ungaro]

O.K......is it just me, or did anyone else have a "head scratching moment" and say to themselves, "what the #$%@?"
I'm reading the latest issue (Sept/Oct.) and go through the tool test of "new breed" bandsaws. I saw two types of bandsaws: cast iron frames and welded Euro-type frames. Anything really “new” about that?

What really got to me was the time it took ALL of these machines to resaw a 10” X 12” piece of hard maple. A vast majority of the reported times were exasperatingly slow. Not only that, but the times listed for the Delta 28-475X to cut through the sample block was 5 minutes and 3.6 minutes (first using a 5 lb weight and then using a 7.5 lb weight). The Laguna, General and Grizzly (GO457) were the only ones that looked like normal cutting rates (around 25 seconds for the 7.5lb weight).

Go back in time to FWW issue #169, early 2004. John White had done an exhausting and controlled review of 19 resaw blades, all measuring 1/2”. Mr. White had used the same bandsaw for all of the blade evaluations – a 14” Delta, with riser and a 1.5 hp motor. For all practical purposes, this is functionally the same saw as the one tested in the current issue. By that, I mean that it had the riser kit installed, and sported a 1.5hp motor. The wood used for testing was soft maple, not hard maple like that used in the current issue’s article, but how much difference is that going to make? Certainly not minutes added to the cutting time. Also, there was only a ½ dimensional difference in the test block sizes: 9.5” X 12” vs. 10” X 12”.

Mr. White had devised a resaw sled to do controlled, repeatable testing on the bandsaw, and utilized a 7.5lb weight to do the pulling. The current issue shows the author using the same resaw sled devised by White, only the saws are tested for resaw capability using a 5lb & 7.5lb weight. A 10lb weight was also used, but as the notes tell you in the article, only ONE saw (Rikon) did not stall using the faster feed rate, therefore, the data was not listed in the chart. Heck, Why short the Rikon that way? Go ahead and show that all the others failed that test, otherwise, don’t even mention it as a side note.

In FWW#169, two blades came out clearly on top: Highland’s Woodslicer, and Sterrett’s Woodpecker. The current article states that the same make blade was used to compare all of the saws, but, did the author use one of the top blades tested by FWW three years ago? He certainly used some of the same methods, but achieved drastically different results. I suspect that the teeth on the blade were pointing up, and not down into the wood. Trust me, a blade will cut this way (DAMHIKT), but it is painfully slow going. He also noted that blade changes on a couple of the saws were “difficult”, with the Delta being “Very Difficult”. Let’s face it; the procedure is basically the same for all. Some may have nice features like a viewing window when tracking the blade, or more ergonomic tensioning knobs, but the process is the process.

One final note: the Delta 28-475X is listed as having a 1.5hp motor (I know mine does), but a quick look at Delta’s website shows the current 28-475X as having a 2 hp motor. If FWW did not have this model for their review, don’t you think they could have mentioned that the upgraded power was now available, yet not used for the article?

[chris del]

What really got to me was the time it took ALL of these machines to resaw a 10” X 12” piece of hard maple. A vast majority of the reported times were exasperatingly slow. Not only that, but the times listed for the Delta 28-475X to cut through the sample block was 5 minutes and 3.6 minutes (first using a 5 lb weight and then using a 7.5 lb weight). The Laguna, General and Grizzly (GO457) were the only ones that looked like normal cutting rates (around 25 seconds for the 7.5lb weight).

What was really strange was that the Jet stalled out with the 7.5lb weight and the Delta didnt, but the Jet kicked the Delta's butt with the 5 lb weight..... These numbers dont seem at all to be accurate. I am not a engineer but if something quacks like a duck, isnt' it a duck?
I am thinking that the Delta blade tracked off and the teeth ran into the steel door prior to the test!!!!

[Art Mann]

If you go to the FWW website and watch the movie on how they tested the speed of cut, you will see they made up a special fixture that feeds the wood by a pulley system and barbell weights. They did it that way to standardize the measurements and take the human factor out of it. It looked to me like the feed force was way too small for the horsepower and may have skewed the results in an arbitrary fashion. My $320 Craftsman 22401 will cut faster than most of those times. I don't put too much faith in their speed measurement.

[Maurice Ungaro]

If you go to the FWW website and watch the movie on how they tested the speed of cut, you will see they made up a special fixture that feeds the wood by a pulley system and barbell weights. They did it that way to standardize the measurements and take the human factor out of it. It looked to me like the feed force was way too small for the horsepower and may have skewed the results in an arbitrary fashion. My $320 Craftsman 22401 will cut faster than most of those times. I don't put too much faith in their speed measurement.

Art,
This is the same method they used in 2004 to test resaw blades. See my post above.