Finally a review on TS blades

[lcm1947]

Since everybody is always wondering what the best blade is ( myself included ) somebody finally did a review. It's in Woodworkers Journal at your local HEB. Well that's where I got mine. Just briefly I'll mention the top two "Best Bets". Ridgid R1050C and DeWalt DW7640. Extremely interesting - at least to me. Looks like the Forrest Woodworker II's came out real good until they considered the price and then they lost out as far as the total points score. For whatever that's worth. They still had more excellence's then any of the others. I guess the guys cheap or something. Anyway extremely interesting and will be a good source to have on hand when buying blades.

[gsmittle]

Since everybody is always wondering what the best blade is ( myself included ) somebody finally did a review. It's in Woodworkers Journal at your local HEB. Well that's where I got mine. Just briefly I'll mention the top two "Best Bets". Ridgid R1050C and DeWalt DW7640. Extremely interesting - at least to me. Looks like the Forrest Woodworker II's came out real good until they considered the price and then they lost out as far as the total points score. For whatever that's worth. They still had more excellence's then any of the others. I guess the guys cheap or something. Anyway extremely interesting and will be a good source to have on hand when buying blades.

Yeah, I wondered about the price/value evaluation. I'm thinking it was too simple. For example, even though an Irwin blade is pretty cheap, that doesn't make up for the fact that it's not a very good blade. Maybe the score should have been some sort of ratio of perceived quality vs. price or something. OTOH, I'm no statistics/math whiz, so I have no idea what I'm talking about.

g.

[coach]

Don't go thinking all Irwin blades are cheap. I have a couple of thin kerf 24t rip blades that are marked Irwin, but they were Leitz made. I'll put 'em up against a Freud or DeWalt rip blade any time.

[Knottscott]

I read that review and was dismayed at how poorly they rated the DeWalt DW7657. That's the 40 tooth Series 60 blade that Wood compared very favorably to the WWII in 2003...retail is about $50. I've had one on my saw and found it's design and cut quality very similar to the WWII and the Ridge Carbide...for intents and purposes, I really couldn't tell the cuts apart....first rate blade at a bargain price IMHO. It seemed very strange that the DW7640 would outperform the DW7657, a blade they specifically designed to be the "Forrest slayer"... a milestone which they have been previously credited with being successful at. DW's best 40T general purp blade rated "Fair" for crosscuts in wood, "Fair" for ripping wood, "Good" for plywood, "Fair" for melamine, and "Excellent" for "Blade Feel". Without what I feel is a subjective "Excellent" for "Blade Feel", the venerable 7657 would have rated just about on par with the Irwin Marathon, Vermont American, and Milwaukee...the worst performers in the pack. I wonder if they got a defective or damaged blade. I also wonder why they didn't question the results on that one...?

Some significant exclusions had me baffled too. The Freud LU86R010 is Freud's best quality thin kerf 40T general purpose blade which sells at a bargain price of ~ $40 ($32 on sale)...it's usually just a few dollars more than the Diablo, and is proclaimed by Freud to be made to a higher standard with harder and larger carbide. The Diablo is undoubtedly a huge money maker for Freud though. The Ridge Carbide TS 2000 and Tenryu Gold Medal were no where to be found, but the test included four CMT models! No Tenryu blades were included at all even though they make dozens of different models. After having used two of the value blades from Tenryu, I think there's a strong possibility that either could have take top spot once the price factor was included. It's not exactly like CMT is the industry sales leader, so why 4 for them?

A few other knitpicks....they included a category called "blade feel" that got equal weight with material cut ratings. The "feel" category leaves too much room for subjectivity...perhaps objective vibration measurements may have been better. Also, their ratings were based on a scale of "Poor", "Fair", "Good", and "Excellent" (essentially 1-4). I think it would have been more useful to increase the scale to at least 1 - 5, or better yet, 1 - 10 ....especially in price. The difference between an "Excellent" price rating and "Good" had a 50% price swing....marked by a full 1 point difference between the ratings. The WWII TK got the same price rating as the full kerf even though it costs $15 more (18%).

The article did have lots of great information about blades, construction, tooth shapes, and tooth geometry in the article, but I really didn't care for their ranking method. I'd really rather see the blades judged by performance ratings, then determine the price factor for myself. There were just too many little things that could have resulted in a big difference in the outcome of the test if categories and rating scales were altered even slightly. Too bad...someone put alot of effort into this but IMO diluted it with poor categorization decisions. It just didn't leave me with the feeling that they really got the best performers OR best values rated at the top.

Oh well...maybe next time they'll ask for my input ahead of time!

[Knottscott]

Don't go thinking all Irwin blades are cheap. I have a couple of thin kerf 24t rip blades that are marked Irwin, but they were Leitz made. I'll put 'em up against a Freud or DeWalt rip blade any time.

I agree...the Leitz made Irwin rippers will stand against any, but the test used the Marathon line, not the Woodworking series that Leitz makes.

[lcm1947]

Overall a very interesting article but I have doubts about the scoring too. I personally will just go by the individual scores like for plywood, etc. He did mention however that much of the difference was by just a hair. To me if I only get a hair more and it costs me $10.00 I'm going with the cheaper one. Anybody know what " run out " means? He said that he tested that but I don't know what it is.

[SARGE..g-47]

Mac, run-out is deviation from perfect alignment. On a good blade, the acceptable run-out is about .003 to .004. On the arbor itself, it needs to be no more than about .001. Anything more will give a combined run-out that will not allow a near square cut in your stock.

A blades run-out can attributed to out of flat, a burr or im-properly set edge on a kert or kerfs, pitch build-up on the blade (that will get you scorch on stock also as it heats to well above normal blade-stock temperatures), steel with too much flex or just poor quality of machining (again out of flat).

Won't go into arbor run-out, but the same principles apply. Excessive run-out will not result in square. Run-out applies to basically all machines and their major components that result in movement and drive toward and end result.

Too add to you guys discussion, the biggest factors I have found grading results of quality of cut from any given blade regardless of price is make sure it is sharp and make sure you keep the pitch cleaned off the blade. Either will result in less than satisfactory results.

In other words.. is it the blades fault that YOU allowed it to get dull and coated with pitch? Can you expect a 50 or 60 tooth blade to rip like a 24 tooth? Or a 24 tooth to cross-cut like a 60T? I have used $12 blades.. I have used $100 blades! They all had one thing in common. With the proper tooth match to the job, sharp and clean: they got the job done. Without those factors, the price does not reflect the poor results attained! :>)

Regards...

SARGE.. g-47

[brooks]

Sorry, I read the same article and I don't think the methodology by which they weighted the blade with estimates of VALUES make much sense. It's all pulled out of thin air. Read the actual test results and then try to figure out how they had to stand on their heads to come up with the fudget factor.

I don't much like fudge factors anyway. Show me pictures of the cuts.

There's no way I'd spend nearly the cost of a Forrest on those department store blades that made the cut (pardon the exression) mainly by using fudge factors.

[brooks]

Dustmight, check the Fudge Factor, that's how those two blades made such a good showing despite NOT scoring as well in the actual cutting. It's a crazy new gimmick, if you ask me. Rating values relies on things that might not be TRUE for the person doing the buying at that moment. I just got a Forrest II blade from Amazon.com for $65 a couple of weeks ago. Where would it fall on that "values" curve?

This diluted report hurts the credibility of the magazine, in my view.

[lcm1947]

Thanks very much Sarge for that info. Excellent reply, thanks.

[SARGE..g-47]

You're quite welcome, sir..

P.S. you have to sometimes be a little skeptical of reviews by Wood mags. Ever notice how their heavy advertisers always seem to get reviewed and how some "not so financially well eqiupped to advertise" with excellent products get left standing outside looking in? I should't be thinking out loud I suppose.

Ya know, a place like Austin Texas should consider building a college. And when you get one, work on getting a quality foot-ball team, would ya? :>)

Regards...

SARGE.. g-47

[lcm1947]

Sarge. We, years ago thought about getting a university but then figured we wouldn't ever be able to find any good coaches or guys for a team so we didn't. I know what you mean about not mentioning some of the lesser but just every bit as good as the others. Take Skill for example - well OK take another one, but I do see your point.