Walke Moore Router Plane opinions - Not so Happy with mine

[Patrick Chase]

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.

[Steve Voigt]

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.

[Frederick Skelly]

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

[Patrick Chase]

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.

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 :-).

[John Kananis]

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).

[allen long]

Sorry everyone for not checking the post for several days. I am still in a quandary as to whether to keep this gorgeous plane and try to improve upon the retention mechanism or contact W M. I never wanted anyone to get the impression that I had any qualms about contactics WM or that I did not think they would not take great care of me. Nor, did I dream there would be such controversy over my original post. My apologies to the group and to WM if my comments have been misconstrued as disparaging WM. That was never my intent. I do wish to continue to rationally discuss the design and potential improvements.

The wide Preston retention slot, the square blade stem, and the much larger bearing surface on the retention collar are heads and shoulders above the WM design from an engineering perspective. In addition, the columns are slightly tapered on the WM where as they are completely straight on the preston. The taper adds a bit of its own limitations. I am a bit surprised they changed the design to a less robust mechanism. I'll try to provide a few pictures of the mechanism details in a day or two.

Many Kind Regards

[andy bessette]

... My apologies ... to WM if my comments have been misconstrued as disparaging WM...

The wide Preston retention slot, the square blade stem, and the much larger bearing surface on the retention collar are heads and shoulders above the WM design... the columns are slightly tapered on the WM where as they are completely straight on the preston. The taper adds a bit of its own limitations. I am a bit surprised they changed the design to a less robust mechanism...

Still sounds disparaging.

[Patrick Chase]

Sorry everyone for not checking the post for several days. I am still in a quandary as to whether to keep this gorgeous plane and try to improve upon the retention mechanism or contact W M. I never wanted anyone to get the impression that I had any qualms about contactics WM or that I did not think they would not take great care of me.

If you have no qualms then why haven't you done it? IMO that would probably be a lot more fulfilling and productive than spending your time posting to SMC about it.

This whole thread is absurd, as it's based on an issue in a new tool that you haven't given the manufacturer an adequate opportunity to resolve. I understand (and actually tend to agree with) your point about the differences between the Preston and W-M mechanisms, but you still owe it to them to give them a chance to make it right regardless. Even ignoring those pseudo-ethical concerns, that's almost certainly your best move from a purely selfish perspective.

EDITED: Deleted pointlessly inflammatory bit.

[Jim Koepke]

I am a bit surprised they changed the design

To me the design change does have some logic. The Preston blades are unique in the way the back lines up parallel to the blade's edge. Almost every other common router plane blade has a diamond cross section with a point of the diamond pointing toward the blade. This does have the advantage of a wide selection of blades one can find if WM is unable to produce a wide selection of blades.

jtk

[allen long]

Great points Patrick.

My quandary is not over contacting WM. The quandary is that I love the looks and the chioice seems to be either get a refund or attempt to fashion a new mechanism myself. I will contact them first thing Monday, but I don't hold out for much hope that WM will have a sigificant fix other than WM refunding my money based on the current design. And I am not sure I want to go the way of a refund just yet. But perhaps they do have something up their sleeve other than hand filing a deeper notch in the collar. Personally think that route iwould be a bandaid fix.

Andy, I am not sure expressing surprise over a design choice rises to the level of a disparaging remark. Most of us at one time or another has been subjected to much more disparaging remarks on this forum.

[Frederick Skelly]

Stepping on soapbox....

Friends, the OP has apologized and explained. While my views are different than his, I don't personally see ill-intent in his post now that he's explained. And we do allow discussion of design improvements here. Careful we don't drive the man off, like we have a couple others.

Ok. Stepping off the soapbox now.....
Fred

[Keith Outten]

Below is the original post, the highlighted text indicates to me that there was a conversation with the vendor and an attempt by Walke Moore to correct the problem.

This satisfies the requirement here to contact the vendor before publicly sharing a complaint.
There is a rule that prohibits publicly sharing the contents of email and private messages. When this happens it is best that the issue is reported to myself or one of our Moderators so it can be handled privately rather than publicly challenging another Member.

Unfriendly behavior in this thread has now caused two people, at the very least, to stop posting which is no doubt a loss for the entire group. I'm not sure why such a large number of people who frequent this forum have to be so critical of others opinions. Note that this is not a problem in just this thread, it happens almost constantly in this Forum but is rarely an issue in any other area at SawMill Creek. It has become a problem managing this Forum as I have not been able to increase the number of Moderators or even maintain more then just one Moderator because nobody wants to have to referee such a large number of people whose egos exceed their sense of compassion for others.

Although disabling this Forum is an option it would be unfair to the large number of our Members who enjoy its content even though I expect they would prefer a more friendly atmosphere. We will be discussing our preventative and corrective options available to us in the Moderators Forum shortly. Anyone who has comments that would like to assist us with a resolution please send me a private message and include your constructive comments for consideration. I have no intention of punishing the masses for the sins of a few but the childish behavior that continues to haunt this Forum is over.

I purchased one of the Walke Moore Bronze Router Plane at the recent Handworks show. It is one gorgeous plan with a feature I really wanted that allows you to position the blade at one end.

I am pretty unhappy regarding the way the blade is held in place. The holder just doesn't seem to be able to secure the blade from moving/coming loose when any kind of pressure is applied as you are shaving the wood.

The great folks at Walke Moore attempted to correct this on the spot, but when I got it home, it still is an issue.

Anyone else with this plane have the same problem or suggestions?

I was going to offer my LV router plane for sale, but I am leaning toward getting rid of this and keeping my LV router plane (which breaks my heart.)

I have a piece of bronze I could attempt to fashion into a more robust holder, but I really shouldn't have to for a $300 plane. Nor, am I excited about modifying the plane itself to improve the bed on the plane that supports the blade column.

I could also come up with a way or sub-base for the LV router plane that would allow it to rout an unsupported board end.

Thoughts anyone?

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen