JET bandsaws

Page 2 of 3  
Frank Boettcher wrote:

See the followup where I corrected my quoting context...perhaps that helps, I don't know???
...

I don't think we much disagree at all, fundamentally, but seem to be having a communication problem (hopefully not deliberately)...
I'll try again...
The "they" in the above paragraph did indeed refer to testing but was intended generically to include an individual test/tester and/or a sponsoring publisher such as FWW. I don't care specifically who does the test and as I replied in the followup, even if it were vendor-supplied data that would be fine for supplying the population data currently missing.
That being given though, the point of any testing and reporting isn't for the benefit of the tester but the readership of the resulting test report for whom it is at least one if not the primary basis for selection of or at least a winnowing down of one particular machine for purchase. So, the overall target of my comments was intended towards providing more meaningful data for the general readership, yes, and that is why I said I, at least, was directing comments from the readership audience pov.
...

For a lot of these measurements reported, no, I don't (and certainly don't believe the general audience for which such reviews might be of real value do either). Whether the reviewer does have some knowledge turns out to be immaterial for the most part because I've never seen that knowledge or information presented in any review that I can recall. Some of them are probably not even measurements that are part of the manufacturer's QA/QC checks, either. That may be because they're derived measurements controlled by others or because they could be considered as immaterial.
Really basic measurements such as runout on a tablesaw arbor flange are pretty clear. The offset in the guide bar on a bandsaw in mils so that it isn't perfectly straight and therefore might require a tweak of a fixed guide block type of blade guides when switching from thin stock to a heavy cut isn't nearly so obvious as to how much is too much. Sure, it makes sense that "less is better" but it certainly isn't directly clear that the worst of a reported value is actually enough to make a real problem in the shop.
The other difficulty in the reports that I was attempting to address is that if the sample measurement for machine A is 1 mil worse than the same measurement for machine B, does that imply that if another unit A and B were purchased and measured that the same differential would be present or would A even still be worse than B for this pairing of test machines? Certainly the way test reviews are written and presented there is no basis for judging anything else but you have done enough QA/QC testing to know that isn't necessarily so. In fact, the population mean of the two machines could be the same or even A better than B instead of what the single sample result indicates. If so, the poor reader who concludes that B is the better buy in conjunction w/ the author's "Best Buy" label just might have made the wrong decision if swayed by the reported numbers. So, I'm simply saying it is an incomplete service imo to not have context such as that provided in reviews but recognize that to do so raises the scope of reviews to a level beyond what would be practical for general circulation magazines. Hence the "game".
It doesn't imply I think anybody is rigging anything, incompetent, nor underhanded in any way. They're simply operating under a set of conditions that aren't optimal to answering some questions in a rigorous manner. As you have pointed out, vendors have such data and some of that data would be of real value and lots more of interest (if of little actual practical value) to at least the more astute and interested in the general readership. You also noted at least one manufacturer made such information available if requested, but didn't contradict my conjecture that such data would not have been allowed to be published which is certainly understandable for competitive reasons if no other. I suspect not all vendors were so open to potential reviewers for such data even then, particularly if they were aware the same reviewer was visiting other vendors. With the present competitive environment I can only imagine such pressures weigh even more heavily upon them to maintain such data closely held proprietary information.
Hopefully, that makes a step forward?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

One other thought struck how to perhaps explain the pov I was trying to get over. I consider the test/tester/publisher as an entity to be a surrogate for the reader who would like to do what they're doing but has to rely on them for that service in a practical manner. Ergo, from that point of view, yes, the "they" does indirectly refer to the readers...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a bit. Still means the same thing.

Well that's too bad, maybe you should study up a little, or better yet, use your machines to get some practical experience.
(and certainly

Then there is probably no basis for continuing this discussion. I believe the vast majority do. I base my conclusion on talking with literally thousands of end user woodworkers at shows and directly resolving issues as quality manager for a number of years. And your belief is based on...

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

...
That there is no direct correlation of the magnitude of a measurement of the vertical post alignment to the actual misalignment of the guide blocks for an adjustment on the height into an actual performance statistic for the saw as just one example. The last review in FWW mentions the misalignment can cause a need for readjustment as a general reason for looking at it but gave no guidelines at all on how much is too much or would be considered acceptable.
That "smaller is better" is a given, but whether 3 or 10 or 30 is really, really bad isn't clear to a general audience who is looking to buy a saw for the first time, certainly, which is a large part of the target audience of such reviews.
I'd be terribly surprised if you could take a sample of the readers of any of the general circulation magazines and have even 5% of those who are owners of a bandsaw and could come anyways close to telling either what their saw measured for that statistic or had ever actually measured it or thought to.
And it still doesn't address the issue of how the distribution of individual machine measurements correlate to the measurements of the population of machines of which the tested one was a single sample.
All I'm pointing out is that w/o some context, the reviews have some merit but could be more informative than they are but recognizing there are limitations to the format.
Don't know what you're seemingly so angry over or feel the need to denigrate, but whatever you say...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And absolutely nothing in that answer had anything to do with any statistical supporting basis for your belief that most end users don't know. As I thought, strictly an opinion. That's fine. I believe most do. My sample is large, and the vast majority could discuss those things clearly.
However, as I recall, you're the same guy who believes that end user woodworkers are relatively dumb and are clamoring for a 10% lower price to get chinese junk. Your stated belief from an earlier thread, is that is what is causing the flight to china rather than the manufacturers "corporate whiz kids", who by the way share your belief, that is, those woodworkers are dumb, cut the cost by 25%, cut the price by 10%, give them junk and they'll be happy as clams and we'll clean up.
Not angry, just know BS when I see it.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank Boettcher wrote:

I guess it depends then entirely on who you think the prospective audience is -- I do think the general audience of the ww'ing magazines have quite a lot larger proportion of those who are casual as opposed those who aren't than you apparently do. I don't know that either of us has anything other than opinion to substantiate that belief.
All I know about the Chinese junk syndrome is what I see about what is being manufactured and being advertised and reviewed along w/ the better. If there weren't a market, why are they building it and where's it going???
Still don't see that any of that answers in any regards the simple suggestion that more data rather than less is a bad idea for anybody in a review, expert or not--the more expert, the more valuable I think.
But, again, to each his own...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I didn't read the FWW article, don't know what they said, but your saw may be completely different from the saw that was tested with regard to the process control of the parts that result in appropriate function. A lot of water has gone under the bridge from then to now.
Frank

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

I figured as much. So sad!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eigenvector wrote:

They're the parent of Powermatic now. As w/ most other manufacturers, their products are mostly imports if not all. They made their mark as a Grizzly-type distributor before Griz became big -- a good value, lower price alternative when most of the import stuff really was pretty trashy.
In most reviews their stuff rates pretty well altho the particular model of bandsaw reviewed didn't fare so well in the FWW shootout...
--


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

I bought one about a year ago. I went around all the shops in Auckland, NZ and looked at maybe 10-12 brands of saw. Most were made in Taiwan, except for a couple of Italians. Of all the Taiwan made saws, the 18" Jet I ended up buying had by far the best production standards. It was also the only saw that didn't try to judder itself off its pallet when turned on (didn't get the Italians started, they had no plugs, and they were twice the price). So far I am happy with the performance. But there are brands in the US that we don't get here, so you may be able to do better .... in any event, I can tell you that the one I've got isn't total crap ;-)
-P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks, actually I'm not necessarily interested in only US equipment, but rather equipment that ISN'T Chinese manufactured. After all I really want to buy an Audi Quattro - I don't expect it to be made in the US
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eigenvector wrote: ...

Well, your choices then get somewhat limited from virtually all manufacturers of homeshop priced equipment.
Some are Taiwanese or other overseas but very little (if any) is actually US-made for stationary equipment any more owing to price structure and the competitiveness of the marketplace...
But, Chinese alone doesn't signify a bad piece of equipment a priori...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It does for me personally. I won't purchase Chinese made products unless it is unavoidable.
Now if JET still makes their stuff in Taiwan I'm sold.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Although I'd like to do that, I've been buying tooling from China. Compared to our US suppliers, it is equal or better quality, half the price, half the lead time.
Wait until you want to buy a toaster or other small appliance. The only one I could find not made in China was $225 from England
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Not true. You just have to know where to look A friend of mine takes lots and lots of overseas trips, airline field engineer, when in Germany he noted that all the appliances, tools, cars, whathaveyou were actually made in Germany - even things that when sold in the US were made in China. Now that's not to say its ALL made in Germany, but rather it would appear the Germans go out of their way to use German made goods. Hell I'll do that - arrange to buy German goods and have them shipped over here. It's not like I buy all the much anyway. I'll gladly buy Chinese made goods when they stop poisoning us and when they pay their employees comparable salaries and benefits. Japan is a good example of that - Japan used to equal crap, now its equal or better to many good and services. It took years of training, rethinking their business models, and demonstrating those successes to the consumers here in America to accomplish that turnaround. No reason why China can't do the same. But for now I'd rather support my fellow American whenever possible, if not, then my next door neighbors Canada and Mexico.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:34:07 -0700, "Eigenvector"

I have their Jet 16" bandsaw, and, so far, it has done all that I've asked of it. I'm not displeased with it.
"Jet" is a brand name of the WMH Tool Group whose corporate offices are in Elgin, Illinois. WMH Tool Group is a subsidiary of Walter Meier Holding AG which is based in Zurich Switzerland. Other brands of WMH Tool Group include Wilton, Powermatic, Performax, Columbian, Polishmaster, and Waxmaster.
I believe that most if not all the Jet line is manufactured outside the USA, but I stand to be corrected on that.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

JET is part of WMH Tools. http://www.wmhtoolgroup.com /
My bandsaw was made in Taiwan and it is pretty good in quality and value. That was 5 years ago so things may have changed. There are better, but they are generally much more expensive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As mentioned, WMH tool company. JET began as Japan Engineering and Tools I believe. Before Taiwan. Most of their higher end stuff is still from there, but I imagine they'll be on the mainland soon. If they hold their partner to their standards, the product will be the same. http://www.jettools.com/jet_index.cfm?CFID 731947&CFTOKENB927518
Good bandsaw? Sure. ALL of the saws in the test are better than ninety percent of us using them, so I'd say you buy by feature rather than by what faults they could find with their particular unit.
Only saw I was never able to get to perform consistently, including my old 12" Sears, was the Grizzly at school. Casting and machining was so bad that it couldn't be counted on repeat a setting. Most frustrating animal I ever encountered. Of course, the jointer we got was no prize, either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment. Jet and Powermatic are divisions of the same company.
What you saw on the webpage was the address of the divsion of this company which distributes their products to Europe.
Since I don't own any kind of bandsaw, I have no opinion on the FWW article. However, the Grizzly model certainly seems attractive.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When did they stop making them in Taiwan?
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.