JET bandsaws

Page 1 of 3  
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.
I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The new (current} iss ue of Fine Woodworking has a comparison of 14 inch bandsaws. The Laguna took best overall and the Grizzly best value.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Houston wrote: ...

Slight correction -- one of the two Griz's took best value, the other was in the "also-ran" category w/ some defects (although w/o looking again I don't recall what specifically was the problem with it).
I do remember noting and being somewhat surprised that PM and Jet were two which rated worst on wheel alignment owing to being out and not having sufficient upper shaft length to compensate via shimming...
I always have a real problem in believing some of the details on these reviews like this, however--they take measurements of some such as runout and report it. But, there's absolutely no indication of reproducibility and no way to measure it so you could by the same model and have results better or worse by a significant amount...or, it could be identical, there's no way to know.
Caveat emptor...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

A correction to the correction... :)
I don't mean "believe" here, bad choice. I meant relying on the single-point measurement as being a reliable ranking of all machines of the given vendor/model compared to the population of another...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you guys think I know more about this than I really do. I was asking about JET and the replies all mentioned Grizzly and Laguna. Since I don't read Fine Woodworking I don't really understand what you are referring to except maybe that JET makes the Grizzly line.
Sorry for the confusion, I'm a total woodworking noob and am just trying to familiarize myself with the vendors so that later when I can justify the purchases I can put a name with a face so to speak.
For now I'm looking at a joiner/planer for $450, a bandsaw is a long way aways for now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps, if you bought the magazine and read the article it might put some things in perspective.
Or don't.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Houston wrote:

Or looked at it online...I think they still have current articles available but their site is slow for dialup so I don't use it much...
www.taunton.com is top link
Grizzly is independent importer www.grizzly.com
Jet is the parent of Powermatic besides the Jet line
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eigenvector wrote:

same few brands (Laguna, Grizzly, Jet, Craftsman, Harbor Freight). You don't even have to ask here. Either search the archives (Google is your friend) or just wait a few days.
Big bucks are on Laguna. Grizzly is for serious hobbyists. Jet is for occasional users. Craftsman is for habitual losers (hey ... it rhymed). And Harbor Freight is for the likes of me, big ambitions and dinky wallet.
;-)
Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong!!
I had to tune the saw, put an after market tension spring on it and shim the top wheel to get proper alignment. It does a great job resawing and it is adjusted to have no blade drift. I am completely happy with it. It will cut tenons quickly and there is no after work required on the tenon to make it fit. I use B.C saw blades from Canada. I had very poor luck with Timberwolf. The saw was made in Taiwan and the fit and finish are what Delta used to be. I also added the extension block to resaw 12" stock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lowell Holmes wrote:

No, what DJB posted was in fact printed and photo illustrated in said article.

I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? <G> I will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my example will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally disagree with other comments about my saw.
Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the examples you and I own.
So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just use them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many cases, personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did not mean the op was wrong. I totally disagree with the article.
When I was shopping for my saw, I was biased toward Delta, but The Jet suited me and the fit and finish of the Delta tools had deteriorated to being un-acceptable.
Michael Fortune did a FW article about tuning a band saw. I don't remember if it was Michael or another writer that resaws happily with a 3/4 hp Rigid saw. It seems to me that a properly tuned bandsaw is a joy, but if you don't take time to figure it out, you will be miserable. Michael Fortune recommends using a 3tpi skip tooth blade fro BC Saw. I went to using that blade and the performance is great.
I might mention that I regularly apply Johnson's paste wax to the blade and there is no rust, which being in the Texas Gulf Coast area is remarkable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lowell Holmes wrote:

That wasn't OP, but me who commented on what the article said and your point might have been clarified a little... :)
I think it illustrates what I went on to say that a single-point sample may (or may not) be an accurate representation of a machine overall.
Then again, maybe the one machine out of a 1000 you happened to get is the one on the far extreme of the distribution that did just happen to have manufacturing tolerances come out right.
Or, is it sure that the machine you have is even the same model as the one in the FWW review article? Or have they introduced a "new and improved" version of the same model? Is it clear that the 1 hp motor on yours isn't actually stouter in performance than the 1-1/4 hp-rated one on the sample machine?
None of those are known so if you had the tested machine in your shop it's quite possible you would be badmouthing it, too, or had sent it back and gone to something else.
Too many variables and too much unknown to draw more than some general conclusions on various things such as a general "fit and finish" and the design features or lack thereof imo.
What I'd like to see would be a subsequent test where instead of 8 or 10 different manufacturers' machines they took a sample of (say) 5 each from two to make an actual assessment of variability. It would be ideal if these were procured over a period of at least a year or so and not all in one bulk purchase as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Manufacturers have process tolerances and a final functional tolereances. The final functional tolerances on a band saw are such things as blade tracking,radial and axial wheel runnout, wheel balance, table flatness, slot alignment, blade speed, arm deflection under tension, motor power characteristics, overall run vibration, table tilt accuracy, etc...
Good manufacturers check most of these things on every saw. Hitting one out of a thousand would put them out of business in a hurry.
The process tolereances and the philosophy for gettting them are what insures meeting the functional expectations. Or not meeting them in a statistically relevant manner.

All the above, quite likely

Five better than one, but still doesn't result in a statistically relevant sample for a capability study. Better to send the tester to the assembly line and observe the final tests, the number of failures that are set off, and what is done about them.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank Boettcher wrote:

All true and don't disagree to varying degrees w/ any of the above points.
The point is, of 14 saws in the sample, point estimates for two for alignment of wheels wasn't all that great. Now, whether that is significant functionally is another question not addressed specifically.
Given the two manufacturers whose saws were the two in question, I found that a most interesting observation in as they are two normally considered as "better" than the run-of-the-mill imports.
While a sample size of five is certainly small, the results would certainly be indicative of the variability in the underlying process and would go a long way towards establishing what could be expected by a prospective buyer contemplating a future purchase of one of the subject machines. And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the actual operating line quality control data from any of the manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are likely to know in the future).
Again, it revolves around the product review "game" -- much of it is no more than that--guys want to write a story and need something to put into it to make it appear worthwhile...
imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., of course...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote in message

In case you aren't aware of it, the guy you're talking to _did_ just that. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/8/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of that -- he has lots of inside info that the general population don't -- but I have a lot more experience in manufacturing than _he_ may think as well... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We were not discussing the general readership audience but the testers/writers representing the various mags. At my place they had an open invitation to come whenever they requested, and often did. However, none spent a week on an assembly line observing units coming off and collecting quality data. Would be an eye opener if that were done on a comparison basis. I would have welcomed it.
And I think that it would be more fun to test a bunch of units in the lab, and quicker to get the results and go to publication.
Back in the late eighties early nineties, I believe it was, FWW did do an article on each of the major manufacturing plants, comparing processes and technology. Somewhere, I have reprints....One manufacturer stood out for technology, cleanliness and impressive process control. "like going on the set of Star Wars", I believe was the quote.
Sadly, that plant is no longer in business, nor, I think, are any of the others that were in the comparison.

While sometimes I would question whether a particular functional judgement was weighted properly in the larger scheme of things, I've found the tester/writers to be very knowledgeable, competent and fair.

And mine,
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank Boettcher wrote:

We were? That's news to me! :)
My comments had to do with the presentation of a single measurement to the world through the vehicle of a review of a sample of products based on the measurements taken from that sample. Those are the only data available to the person reading that article other than some they might take (if so equipped and inclined to do so) on a similar piece of gear of their own.
In that respect I questioned the validity of the apparent conclusion which can be inferred would be drawn by those readers that the data reported are of value and importance and imply a real difference between the machines themselves that has some bearing on the selection of one over another for a prospective purchase. Otherwise, what is the point of even making the measurement or reporting it other than to have something to write in the article?

I don't doubt either of those although it would undoubtedly have been in the first enlightening and in the second, worthy of discussion and in reporting. I would doubt though, that the invitation would have extended to allowing them to publish those data... :)
Which is what I was driving at. If the vendors would supply the manufacturing tolerances for the measurements the reviewers thought of interest and value and those were published as a reference, _THAT_ would be of real value, far more than an individual number. Lacking that, the best they can do would be the data from the individual machines. And, of course, what that leaves out is context of where is this particular measurement in the overall range of tolerances?
And, of course, there is very little serious evaluation in most reviews at least of what these measurements _really_ mean in a quantitative sense of how the machine actually will perform on a comparative basis. That is where a really knowledgeable reviewer and writer in conjunction with an open and candid manufacturer could provide a real educational service to his audience.

I recall it...it was, as you say very interesting and informative and I, too, grieve that the subject facility is no more... :(

I didn't intend anything I wrote to imply otherwise -- my use of "game" was referring more to the limitations for their reviews owing to the restrictions of format and volume in a publication. There is far more to say than can be fit into the available space and many really useful details are thus never brought out.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Ooops!
That of course was meant to read as
> We were not discussing the general readership audience > but the testers/writers representing the various mags.
We were? That's news to me! :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your post that preceded this part of the thread:

I guess you meant "they" to be the general readership audience and not the testers?

Your contention is that most do not already know how a particular feature measurement translates into real world comparitive performance? Do you?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.