Nothing like a bit of thumping and gouging to liven things up!!!
More seriously - I've been banging away at Nick on the other thread (and poked Andy previously in another context too I think) on the view that there is a need to generate more (and more carefully chosen) data in tool and equipment reviews.
A piece on router alignment, smoothness and the like (but will they dare move beyond generalities to publish measurements from specific models I wonder???? :mrgreen: ) would be useful - to inform as to what you get at what price point.
There's maybe a less contentious way of doing it too. An expose type piece is just going to upset people, and probably be a bit of a one day wonder. The establishment of standard criteria/formats for routine use when testing stock bits of equipment has surely got to be the real game.
Why not consider establishing standing lists of key criteria against which you
always test/evaluate e.g. routers, band saws, and all the other machines? Why not issue these to free lancers testing on your behalf? Why not when you produce what is simply a qualitative quickie impression of a bit of kit specify clearly that this is the case?
There's more than a few here I suspect that would be happy to help out with input on what these criteria should be, and maybe more than one with access to the mostly tool room and similar kit needed to make the measurements. (stock action for every piece of tested kit = haul in your metrology guy?) Some might not be feasible, but most are not that complicated. (it's not hard to measure stuff like fence deflection, blade tension, tilt accuracies, real motor current and hence HP, table flatness and so on)
These criteria would be carefully chosen real world ones that determine true capability, and wouldn't just parrot maker's dodgy 'tick the box' 'specification' :roll: claims. Surely the prevalence of the latter has become such that it requires a response???
These are issues with real implications for buyers. Why for example should anybody (other than maybe for bragging rights) pay gazillions for a Festool router, when they can have a cheap and cheerful unit from a box store at lest than 10% of the cost that superficially has all the same features? Why should they spend months struggling to get good work from a router only to find the problem was the damn equipment all along?? Why should it be necessary to spend significant money on a saw to discover that it's got a rip fence best suited to flicking spit balls, and is powered by two mice running around in a wheel?
We've allowed this situation (in the worst case the selling of equipment - often to new entrants to the hobby/activity/even profession - so skimped that it's almost unusable) to progress to the point where it's become ridiculous. Even with more intermediate/light professional stuff the limits are not clear - as matters stand it's by and large necessary to buy a machine to get any precise sense of its capability....
