Woodworker II not performing

[Daz]

Hello all,

I finally saved enough pennies to buy the coveted Forrest Woodworker II (thin kerf) and I have to say I'm extremely disappointed.

Let me preface this by telling a brief story:

I picked up a Forrest Woodworker I from a flea market one day for $2. It was covered in pitch and amongst a ton of really crappy blades. (A diamond in the rough if you will) I figured for $2 it was worth it even if I had to replace a few carbide teeth and get the whole thing sharpened I'd still come out ahead.

So I took it home, cleaned off the pitch and made a few test cuts (rip cuts to be exact). The results were PHENOMENAL. (It was dull and 7 of the carbide teeth had small chips in them) Now, granted I had to use more force than normal to push the wood through the cut due the the teeth being dull, and I got some burning on the edge--but the cut was like glass. No saw marks at all and this is a WWI, which is not even supposed to be as good for ripping as a WWII.

So I was sold on Forrest from that moment on. A true believer.

Anyways yesterday I installed the recently purchased WWII and the results I got were NOTHING like the results from the dull WWI. Saw marks all along the ripped edge--it looked like the results from my thin kerf ryobi blade which I always had to touch up on the jointer due to the saw marks.

The first few cuts were without the recommended blade stabilizer, so I figured that was the problem and installed it next to the blade. The results with the stabilizer? WORSE. Even more saw marks along the ripped edge.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the difference is the width of the blade. The dull WWI that I used was full kerf. I'm not sure why that would be better, as the BT3000 was designed for thin kerf...

Anyway, I'm calling Forrest tomorrow to see what they say, but in the meantime I thought I'd ask my fellow BT3xers if they ever had a similar experience.

Thanks for any thoughts you might have on the issue.

Daz

[LCHIEN]

Have you tuned up your rip fence to be parallel to the blade? That makes all the difference in the world. I have both a WWII TK and a FK for my BT3 and they're great. Smooth rips and super smooth crosscuts. Got the FK used and when I sent it to Forrest for resharpening I put the TK on. Wouldn't waste money on a stabilizer disc. Don't use them.

of course, I got very good results with the original Ryobi blade, too. No saw marks.

i think pronounced saw marks can be from a bad blade, blade warpage, and also from bad alignment.

Also, you didn't overtighten the arbor nut? Doing so can warp the blade. Seat the nut and snug by hand, then maybe an 1/8th more turn with the wrench is all it takes. Easy does it. No death grips as some have proclaimed to have used; the nut is self tightening in a way due to the rotation (hence the left hand thread). This may well be your problem as both blades that you say you have had problems with were TK models and the full kerf WWI has a much thicker plate that's probably harder to warp with the same force. A stabilizer disc may also warp the blade since it presses on the blade at the outer edge of the disc and the other side of the blade is pressed in the center.

Finally, Not accusing you of this but every once in a while we hear of someone who puts the blade in backwards. Cuts, but not very well. Not saying you did this but you have to check everything.

[chopnhack]

I have to second Loring here. I have used thin kerf blades on the bt3 with never a problem. I did get a WWII blade (not thin kerf) and I got just too much vibration to use it on the bt3. Some had mentioned that perhaps it was on too tight, etc. There may simply just be an alignment issue. You shouldn't have to use excessive force when ripping, it can become a safety issue

[Daz]

Hahaha Loring that's funny, I haven't heard of the backwards blade before, that would be quite a weird cut for sure...

As far as the alignment goes, I have checked, rechecked and triple checked the alignment of the fence to the blade (with a dial indicator) and everything lines up. I even reinstalled the dull full kerf WWI that I mentioned and got great results again. So don't think it's a fence alignment issue.

I also checked with the dial indicator the runout of the blade as I spin it on the arbor and I get only .003" variation with the WWII tk and I also checked the WWI fk and get .002" variation. So it seems like it's not a blade warpage problem...

I haven't thought of the arbor nut being too tight, (I think I only use a reasonable amount of pressure) but I'll check into that. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Daz]

Chopnhack, that is very interesting that you got more vibration from the fk WWII and I seem to be getting less vibration when I use the fk WWI...hmmm.

[pelligrini]

There are some good ideas to look into above. Sounds like a possible alignment issue. It might very well be a bad blade. You might make sure all the hardware on your arbor is clean. Check your runout with your new blade on the saw. You might try turning the blade a 1/4 turn on the arbor.

*edit- nevermind the runout & alignment. It might just be a bad grind. I'd contact Forrest. They'd probably ship you a new one.

I use several blades on my 21829, but I mostly stick with my TK-30T-WWII. It does need sharpening though. I also have a 40T-WWII, same thin kerf. I really do think Forrest makes a fine blade. My 40T will do some pretty smooth crosscuts. I usually don't switch to my 80T Dewalt for crosscuts unless I'm doing a whole lot of cuts to warrant a change of blades or needing a really good finish on some harder wood. I like the 30T for an all around combination blade.

I usually use a 4" Forrest stabilizer on my saw. I have a 5" one too, but I didn't like the height reduction. My saw has a tiny bit of arbor runout and the stabilizer seems to help, especially with the occasional blade vibration I would get.

[chopnhack]

That is bizarre Daz... I just figured that the WWII full kerf was just too heavy for the arbor/motor of the bt3 and in spinning it worked itself into an inbalance - kinda like an eccentric movement only induced by the heavier blade. I guess that belief is gone now, lol. Good luck and keep us informed of the outcome.

p.s. - since you have a dial indicator have you tried to harmonize the imbalances of the arbor and blade? i.e. - rotate the arbor with blade to find where the sweet spot is and mark the blade and arbor flange, run the saw and see if it improves.

[mpc]

One idea to try: get a small square/rectangular piece that you can push with the miter fence rather than using the rip fence. See if that gives you a better cut quality - if so, suspect something with the rip fence.

Another thing to examine: since you did a runout check and that seems okay, how about a tooth alignment check? Use the dial indicator to measure each tooth and compare them; perhaps one is mounted offset from the rest so it becomes a nasty gouge maker. It's akin to having one tooth with big runout rather than the whole blade having runout.

mpc

[Daz]

MPC and Chopnhack,

Those are awesome suggestions. I have not tried any of them but I will tomorrow before I call Forrest.

Pelligrini: How did you manage to test your arbor for runout? I attempted to do that but since the BT3 has the two flat spots running the length of the arbor, I couldn't get an accurate reading.

[cabinetman]

Lots of good suggestions. It may just be a defective blade.

.

[Knottscott]

Give Forrest a call....bad blades can happen, but definitely check all the other possibilities first.

[Stytooner]

Bad blades are why I like to buy mine locally. I can exchange them quickly. Good reputable companies like Forrest will also take care of you though. I'd say out of the last 10 blades I have bought, 3 were returned immediately. Three different brands and all were brand names. Bad blades are just part of the game. Some guys will likely never get any. Others will get more than their fair share.

I think another issue is that on a BT3, any wackyness is magnified by the speed it turns. Not a lot of saws turn as fast as the BT's. Maybe why I had so many that were unsuitable for my saw, but might work fine on a different saw. None of the blades I keep leave any blade marks. They are nearly ready for glue up when they come off the saw.

[pelligrini]

Pelligrini: How did you manage to test your arbor for runout? I attempted to do that but since the BT3 has the two flat spots running the length of the arbor, I couldn't get an accurate reading.

I didn't have a decent way to directly measure the arbor, but I used my 5" plate and then a couple other blades. I was getting the same very small runout at the same points in the rotation at the same distance from the arbor. I mounted my dial guage horizontally and turned the blade by hand.

[Dal300]

I didn't have a decent way to directly measure the arbor, but I used my 5" plate and then a couple other blades. I was getting the same very small runout at the same points in the rotation at the same distance from the arbor. I mounted my dial guage horizontally and turned the blade by hand.

Years ago I machined a saw blade so it was nothing more than a round platter. It's not perfect, but gets me within .001 which is the limit of my dial gauge.
When I set up my saw, I get that old blade out and mount it then set up the dial gauge in a few different places.

I've bought 4 Freud blades in the last 6 years and two of them had to be returned because they had excessive wobble. Freud made no complaints, but took months to replace them.

Although I've never used the Forrest blades, I probably will one of these days. How are they compared to the Freud LM/LU and Fusion blades generally?

[Knottscott]

...Although I've never used the Forrest blades, I probably will one of these days. How are they compared to the Freud LM/LU and Fusion blades generally?

The Fusion is very comparable to the WWII in quality, but actually has better crosscut and ply performance. It also leaves a more polished edge on rips, but is less efficient ripping in thicker material, being a bit more prone to burning in some situations. Forrest actually introduced a 48T version of the WWII that I believe was intended to compete better with blades like the Fusion and Infinity Super General. The LU80 was formerly from the Freud Premier line (F80) and is pretty comparable to the Forrest Duraline blades.