Spindle moulder or router table?

[TRITON]

@deema
Do those percentages take into account how many have saws and how many have moulders. I think you'll find though the statistics suggest saws are more dangerous, the lack of moulders in the home worker or small diy shop is being discluded and in truth for the actual numbers involved, statistically the moulder the more dangerous.
Many small shops have a saw, many home diy'ers and occasional job homeowners might have a chop saw. very very few (if any) will own a spindle moulder)Only really find that professional and serious makers own a spindle moulder.
Furthermore. The statistics shown from the hse give other machines a high percentage. It would be interesting to know if these other machines include router tables.

 

[johnnyb]

the biggest issue with router tables is the cutting angles are all wrong. they can often result in breakouts as the slot cutters don't have scribes. I've found these things become more unacceptable the more you charge!also bigger mouldings are not crisp.
router tables are a lot less intimidating than spindles and so I totally get Peters perspective. but safety should be at the forefront of every job on every machine.
a broken through fence on a spindle is a great thing for safety finish.

 

[TRITON]

Agree.
I have been known in the past to run the router around the other way to back cut as ive found this prevents breakout due to the lack of scribe cutters.
Im not using the router at full power. its only ever just to cut in a couple of mm., before going round the proper way.

 

[Doug71]

These videos from the 90's were recently posted over on The Woodhaven 2 by Trevanion (ex member here), They demonstrate the difference between cutters with and without limiters, you can see how the spindle got it's bad reputation in the past. They use a pigs tail to emulate a human finger

I'm sure he won't mind me posting them here for reasons of safety and education, don't watch if you are feeling squeamish.

 

[philip sewell]

I use Whitehill blocks if I have to but use the Euro block most of the time. I’ve got an old Robinson sm which has a split fence and reverse. I also picked up a power feed on the way.

I have to say I’m always a bit uncomfortable starting it up when I’m using a whitehill block. I put a big lump of timber on the bed, switch it on and stand back for a minute (theory being if the cutters are going to come out it will happen fairly quickly!).

It’s the same with the blades on the planer, they are also held in by friction only. Again, that uncomfortable feeling when I switch on after a blade change.

With a euro block and power feed your hands shouldn’t be anywhere near the cutter so you should be ok.

I wouldn't want to be without the sm or the router table (my router table actually was originally a sm which I've converted).

I personally think the planer is more dangerous as your hands are much closer to the blades (even with correct use of the guard).

What do others think?

Phil.

tooleypark.com

bespokehandmadeboxes.co.uk

 

[Doug71]

I personally think the planer is more dangerous as your hands are much closer to the blades (even with correct use of the guard).

I have always said the planer is the one that will most likely get me, I use push sticks on the TS and always really cautious with the SM but the planer gets a lot of use and is probably the thing I get most complacent with.

 

[johnnyb]

it's true to get good results you have to get "intimate" with the planer unfortuneatly. I like rubber faced gloves on the planer simply to improve control and stop slipping. bare hands in winter can be really slippy tbh. I also swap to the outfield as soon as possible then I'm pushing away from the cutters.

 

[isaac3d]

@deema
Do those percentages take into account how many have saws and how many have moulders. I think you'll find though the statistics suggest saws are more dangerous, the lack of moulders in the home worker or small diy shop is being discluded and in truth for the actual numbers involved, statistically the moulder the more dangerous.
Many small shops have a saw, many home diy'ers and occasional job homeowners might have a chop saw. very very few (if any) will own a spindle moulder)Only really find that professional and serious makers own a spindle moulder.
Furthermore. The statistics shown from the hse give other machines a high percentage. It would be interesting to know if these other machines include router tables.

You are absolutely right to point out that the chart posted by deema showing percentage of accidents is potentially very misleading.
For those without statistics training (or natural statistical savvy) an imaginary example might serve: Imagine 100 people who had an accident with power tools of which 50 used routers and only one used a spindle moulder. Lets say 10% of all the accidents were with routers and only 1% were with spindle moulders. At first glance one might say routers are 10 times more dangerous than spindle moulders. But in fact, the percentage of accidents with routers is actually 20% (10 out of 50), whereas the percentage of accidents with spindle moulders is 100% (1 out of 1). So, in this imaginary example, routers are 5 times less dangerous than spindle moulders (20% compared to 100%). This is a purely hypothetical example but it serves to show that percentages in statistics must be used with as much caution as spindle moulders!

 

[countrybumpkin]

@Peter Sefton all machines carry some risk, used properly which is what I have throughout advocated the risk is reduced as far as possible. However, what I don’t do is propose something that is not based upon evidence.

The original query, which is what I am responding to is for making windows, which is best. A router is not the most appropriate piece of machinery. A spindle moulder is the machine which is best suited for this type of operation.

Spindle moulders had deservedly a fearsome reputation for removing hands when the old style tooling was used. To reduce the risk legislation was brought in to limit cutter projection (LCPT) something that is also applied to routers for the same reason. Under the legislation the cutter projection for either machine at its maximum, for compliance is the same. A lot of accidents were caused by operators not waiting for cutters to come to a stop before putting their hands in, and again legislation (PUWER regs 1998) required moving blade machines to stop within 10 seconds. Interesting they specifically mention hand fed routers, and a lot of router tables setups don’t comply when swinging large tools, where as all modern Spindle moulders do (Their specification states the maximum weight for the cutter block they can handle). I am not aware of any handheld router that is braked, as they don’t need to stop in 10 seconds. A handheld router used in a router table in a workshop employing anyone they are not I don’t believe legal to use as they don’t comply with the PUWER 98 requirements without a brake fitted.
Best practice for a spindle is to use a powerfeed, which removes totally your hands from any where near the blade. It also almost eliminated when set properly the risk of kick back. The small amount of statistical evidence from both the UK’s HSE and across the pond that breaks down the equipment involved with an accident is that table saws create the most injuries and loss of fingers, closely followed by planers and then spindle moulders.
View attachment 128802
View attachment 128801

Thank you

 

[countrybumpkin]

@deema @countrybumpkin I joined the post late, looking back at the original question. The windows with rebates and chamfers could be done on a table saw with tunnel guards for safety, no need for a spindle or router table.

For joinery work or larger production furniture making a spindle moulder is a must, for home woodworkers a router table is the way to go IMO.

Cheers

Peter

Thanks

 

[Spectric]

It is just as dangerous to categorise machines on a scale of " how dangerous " because all machinery can be dangerous and cause injury so it is safer to just treat all machinery with equal respect and look upon them as a potential source of injury.