You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper. An
exception was the staged exploding GM on NBC news. Theory is that the
auto industry spends way too much money on advertising.
Does the same hold true for router bits?
Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
Am I reading the wrong mags? (ShopNotes, Wood, AWW, WWJ, Workbench)
RayV wrote:
> You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
> auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper. An
> exception was the staged exploding GM on NBC news. Theory is that the
> auto industry spends way too much money on advertising.
>
> Does the same hold true for router bits?
>
> Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
> comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
> comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
>
> Am I reading the wrong mags? (ShopNotes, Wood, AWW, WWJ, Workbench)
Probably.
FWW did a "Router Bit Matchup" in 1999, I believe.
Also, I've seen and read plenty of negative press on the auto industry.
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> How would you put together such a comparison? What criteria would you
> use? Seems to me that it would be difficult to put together any really
> objective evaluation criteria.
>
shank diameter
balance & vibration
coating quality
carbide quality
bearing runout
shape consistency of cutters
Things I can't measure but do affect the quality of the cut and the
wear on routers. They do all kinds of tests on dust collectors with
flow meters and the like so critical tests of router bits could also be
done.
Sure I could by the most expensive and hope for the best but that
doesn't always work.
I don't know how anyone could say auto makers haven't taken an ass
whipping at the hands of the press. Anywhere from basic design flaws
to their business model has been beaten to death in the business pages
since the 70's and the first gas shortage.
This is probably the article on router bits that people are
remembering:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00045.asp
Robert
RayV wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > How would you put together such a comparison? What criteria would you
> > use? Seems to me that it would be difficult to put together any really
> > objective evaluation criteria.
> >
>
> shank diameter
> balance & vibration
> coating quality
> carbide quality
> bearing runout
> shape consistency of cutters
>
> Things I can't measure but do affect the quality of the cut and the
> wear on routers. They do all kinds of tests on dust collectors with
> flow meters and the like so critical tests of router bits could also be
> done.
Add to that (as did the FWW review someone else already posted a link
to) a comparative measure of cut quality for sample cuts and number of
feet before seeing any notable degradation, etc., etc., ...
> Sure I could by the most expensive and hope for the best but that
> doesn't always work.
For at least one, it certainly does -- you can rely on Amana to ALWAYS
be absolute top quality.
After them, Whiteside and CMT will run a very close race for "value"
and will rarely, if ever, disappoint.
Only when you go to the "no-name" importers imo are you going to have
much variability from one to another, and then, imo, you still take a
chance that from one time you buy a bit from a particular distributor
there's no guarantee the next time they're using the same supplier so I
really only think the comparative tests have any validity for the
"name" manufacturers or for a very short time-duration for the others.
All, of course, imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., ... :)
[email protected] wrote:
> I don't know how anyone could say auto makers haven't taken an ass
> whipping at the hands of the press. Anywhere from basic design flaws
> to their business model has been beaten to death in the business pages
> since the 70's and the first gas shortage.
>
Here are couple items about the way automakers/dealers, realtors, and
the like control what gets in the paper.
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/broken_wall.html
http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1993/1993-story9.htm
RayV wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I don't know how anyone could say auto makers haven't taken an ass
> > whipping at the hands of the press. Anywhere from basic design flaws
> > to their business model has been beaten to death in the business pages
> > since the 70's and the first gas shortage.
> >
> Here are couple items about the way automakers/dealers, realtors, and
> the like control what gets in the paper.
>
> http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/broken_wall.html
>
> http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1993/1993-story9.htm
Yeah..........OK..........but isn't that negative press in and of
itself?...........
Why do you have such a bug up your butt about the auto industry?
Did a dealer screw you over? If so, choke it down and move on.
RayV wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I don't know how anyone could say auto makers haven't taken an ass
> > whipping at the hands of the press. Anywhere from basic design flaws
> > to their business model has been beaten to death in the business pages
> > since the 70's and the first gas shortage.
> >
> Here are couple items about the way automakers/dealers, realtors, and
> the like control what gets in the paper.
>
> http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/broken_wall.html
>
> http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1993/1993-story9.htm
I skimmed the first and don't find it particularly damming in the way
you seem to feel...
It _is_, of course, a free market and advertisers are consequently free
to choose where and how they spend their advertising dollar.
Publishers have to decide what is significant to them. Unfortunately,
what happens far too often (and seemed in the instances I read in the
above article to be mostly the case) is that the zealous reporter is
out to make a scandal in order to create a "name" for himself as much
or more than to really report an actual problem. Not that there aren't
legitimate issues to be raised in many of these stories, but I read far
too many that are so obviously based on a particular preconceived
opinion that the actual story is so biased in its presentation as to be
nearly fiction.
Gus wrote:
>
> Why do you have such a bug up your butt about the auto industry?
Never said I did. I just used it as an example of how some advertisers
can influence content and wondered if advertisers in WW mags had the
same kind of clout. Maybe not since the target market is so small.
If anything I have a bug up my butt about 'news'papers and TV news and
their alleged objectivity.
>
> Did a dealer screw you over?
Of course not, the guy told me his boss was gonna give him hell the
next day for selling me the truck so cheap.
dpb wrote:
> RayV wrote:
>
> It _is_, of course, a free market and advertisers are consequently free
> to choose where and how they spend their advertising dollar.
> Publishers have to decide what is significant to them. Unfortunately,
> what happens far too often (and seemed in the instances I read in the
> above article to be mostly the case) is that the zealous reporter is
> out to make a scandal in order to create a "name" for himself as much
> or more than to really report an actual problem. Not that there aren't
> legitimate issues to be raised in many of these stories, but I read far
> too many that are so obviously based on a particular preconceived
> opinion that the actual story is so biased in its presentation as to be
> nearly fiction.
I agree with you on that. One of the biggest frauds the media pushes
is abortion. Look at the second question of the CNN poll from Aug-Sep
2006 (skip over the blatantly obvious push poll from Newsweek)
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Around 24% (+/- 4.5) have strong feelings on either side of the issue,
yet every four years the media pushes this as the defining issue for
the election. Meanwhile we have Byrd and Stevens robbing us blind.
What you can look for in cutter quality:
http://patwarner.com/routerbits.html
*******************************************************************
RayV wrote:
> You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
> auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper. An
> exception was the staged exploding GM on NBC news. Theory is that the
> auto industry spends way too much money on advertising.
>
> Does the same hold true for router bits?
>
> Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
> comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
> comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
>
> Am I reading the wrong mags? (ShopNotes, Wood, AWW, WWJ, Workbench)
resrfglc wrote:
> Hey guys, when you decide to changethe subject, could you change he subject
> line, too?
AMEN! I couldn't agree more. Some people are so anxious for any
opening to voice their opinons they can't even connect the dots to the
orignal post.
And some, like dgb even take partial post out of context (mine) and
repost with another posters comments to make it seem as if I said
something else. Sloppy, sloppy work.
If you cannot pay attention to the subject, then pay attention to what
you are doing.
Robert
(who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself)
I saw one article in one of my mags, don't remember which. They only
rated carbide bits, If I remember right. They explored the type and
amount of carbide per bit, runout, how many ft. at what depth of cut
before dulling/burning....some other criteria, too. They rated some
edgers and some straight and spiral bits. I believe CMT came out on top
for the best overall. Amana and MCLS were up there, too. I believe that
the "Best Buy" category was given to Freud.
I see many, many aticles about different TS blades and a few about BS
blades.
As for autos, there is a plethora of bad press regarding any of the big
3 autos. As with tools, I buy the vehicle that suits my needs. I refuse
to allow the press to sway my decisions....in any area......including
router bits.
Gene
RayV wrote:
> You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
> auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper. An
> exception was the staged exploding GM on NBC news. Theory is that the
> auto industry spends way too much money on advertising.
>
> Does the same hold true for router bits?
>
> Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
> comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
> comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
>
> Am I reading the wrong mags? (ShopNotes, Wood, AWW, WWJ, Workbench)
It was probably FWW but could've been American Woodworking Journal
(or some combination of those three words). The evaluations included
the easily measured values - diameter, thickness of carbide, runout
etc. AND quality of cut - for one type of bit. Using a CNC machine -
on melamine, they routed a groove of a specific depth using a specific
feed rate, for a specific number of cuts for a specific length. The
tester then examined the cuts, counting the number of visible chip
outs, how far along they began and some subjective evaluated point
at which the chip out was bad enough to be unacceptable. The
bit's cutting diameter was measured again after it had cut a hundred
or so lineal (or it could be linear) feet to get some quantitative
info on wear and tear.
If I recall, Whiteside performed the best. Not surprising - at least
to me - Whiteside doesn't use a "special colored anti-stick coating"
(read "product differentiation technique") like the Yellow Guys, the
Orange Guys or the Red Guys.
Whichever magazine did the article/evaluation does some pretty
well thought out tests which eliminate much of the "skill and
technique" stuff that also influences the results. A bandsaw
blade test for resawing used a weight wired to the stock and
a pulley to get a consistent feed pressure. They used Time
To Complete The Cut as one of their evaluation criteria, along
with measured surface roughness of the cut surface. Seemed
overkill but thorough as hell. Not up to manufacturing quality
control testing but adequate for indicating which blades sucked,
which were adequate and which worked very well - the stuff
most of us want to know.
charlie b
"Gus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Also, I've seen and read plenty of negative press on the auto industry.
>
Yup. the GM coverage was staged. Ford OTOH lost sales on the big Crown Vic
to many police departments because of the potential of an explosion when
rear ended. Also the old Mustangs had the gas tank/bottom of the trunk that
would rupture and soak the occupants of the car with gasoline when rear
ended.
And then the Ford tucks of recent years having a massive recall because of
the cruise control switch under the hood that caused the vehicles to catch
on fire including the houses that they were housed in.
Gosh, do you remember the Ford/Firestone news concerning the roll over
Explorers?
Not to mention the millions of recalls by all manufacturers that are covered
by the news regularly.
"resrfglc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kNYhh.7967$hy6.598@trnddc05...
> Hey guys, when you decide to changethe subject, could you change he
> subject line, too?
Should we follow your lead?
"Patriarch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> THOSE blew up, too? I was thinking of the Mustang II, a real
> disappointment of a design, as I recall.
Yeah it was a Pinto with Mustang badges. Ford has gone back to the old
style with the latest model, I hope they have sense to not reproduee the II
on the next model change.
> The mid-60's designed Mustangs were an object of admiration, but for me,
> it
> was a somewhat distant admiration. We were pretty much a GM household.
> ;-)
>
> Patriarch
Yeah, GM afforded me the opportunity to retire at 40.
(Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> You'd think they would have learned a lesson about that from the Pinto
>> disaster in the 70s...
The 60's Mustangs were manufactured before the 70's Pinto's.
"RayV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Never said I did. I just used it as an example of how some advertisers
> can influence content and wondered if advertisers in WW mags had the
> same kind of clout.
Not always. Wood mag did a glue comparison test and showed that TB II did
better than TB III in wet applications. That is when many people
discovered that TB III is merely water resistant by testing standards vs.
the advertised Water proof. In Franklins eyes, Water Resistant and Water
Proof is the same thing.
I can assure you that Franklin was not happy with that article as indicated
by their e-mail sent to me addressing that test. They also sent me a case
of TB III glue to prove to me that it was good glue. It is good glue but
not Waterproof.
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yup. the GM coverage was staged. Ford OTOH lost sales on the big Crown Vic
>to many police departments because of the potential of an explosion when
>rear ended. Also the old Mustangs had the gas tank/bottom of the trunk that
>would rupture and soak the occupants of the car with gasoline when rear
>ended.
You'd think they would have learned a lesson about that from the Pinto
disaster in the 70s...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"RayV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
> auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper. An
> exception was the staged exploding GM on NBC news. Theory is that the
> auto industry spends way too much money on advertising.
>
> Does the same hold true for router bits?
>
> Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
> comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
> comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
>
> Am I reading the wrong mags? (ShopNotes, Wood, AWW, WWJ, Workbench)
>
You are not reading the wrong mags but perhaps not long enough. IIRC Wood
had a router bit article a few years back. The article was concerning
different brand straight cut bits, how well they cut and how long they cut
well. IIRC this happened just before Jesada sold out.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yup. the GM coverage was staged. Ford OTOH lost sales on the big
>>Crown Vic to many police departments because of the potential of an
>>explosion when rear ended. Also the old Mustangs had the gas
>>tank/bottom of the trunk that would rupture and soak the occupants of
>>the car with gasoline when rear ended.
>
> You'd think they would have learned a lesson about that from the Pinto
> disaster in the 70s...
>
The old Mustangs practically WERE the old Pintos. They had a very bad run
of years for a while there.
Patriarch
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in news:I7bih.24526$wc5.18415
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
> (Doug Miller) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> You'd think they would have learned a lesson about that from the Pinto
>>> disaster in the 70s...
>
>
> The 60's Mustangs were manufactured before the 70's Pinto's.
>
THOSE blew up, too? I was thinking of the Mustang II, a real
disappointment of a design, as I recall.
The mid-60's designed Mustangs were an object of admiration, but for me, it
was a somewhat distant admiration. We were pretty much a GM household. ;-)
Patriarch
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:32:13 -0800, RayV wrote:
> You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
> auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper. An
> exception was the staged exploding GM on NBC news. Theory is that the
> auto industry spends way too much money on advertising.
That may be the theory but the practice is that they beat up the auto
industry pretty thoroughly in the '60s and '70s and got laws passed that
implemented all of the changes that they were demanding (safety laws,
emission laws, defect reporting laws, recall laws, etc) then Ralph Nader
shot himself in the foot by attacking a major cultural icon and lost his
street value and now they've moved on to other things.
> Does the same hold true for router bits?
>
> Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
> comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
> comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
>
> Am I reading the wrong mags? (ShopNotes, Wood, AWW, WWJ, Workbench)
How would you put together such a comparison? What criteria would you
use? Seems to me that it would be difficult to put together any really
objective evaluation criteria.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
RayV <[email protected]> wrote:
: You will rarely, if ever, see an article or expose' that reflects the
: auto industry in a negative way on either TV or in local paper.
Sure you will. Read car reviews. Read the business section. Etc.
: Does the same hold true for router bits?
Your premise about cars is false.
: Almost every issue of the mags I get have THE ULTIMATE power tool
: comparison. Every once in a while they will throw in a TS blade
: comparsion. I don't ever recall seeing a router bit comparison.
Why do you think router bit makers would have so much more
power over editor than tablesaw, blade, router, or jigsaw makers?
Fine Woodworking did one a few years ago, using straight bits
in melamine. Ratings were based at least partially on amount of
chipout. Other than that, I don't recall having seen one either.
Many articles are submitted by readers. So, why don't you design
a test for router bits, subm,it the proposal to a good mag,
and see what happens?
-- Andy Barss
Hey guys, when you decide to changethe subject, could you change he subject
line, too?
"Gus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> RayV wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > I don't know how anyone could say auto makers haven't taken an ass
>> > whipping at the hands of the press. Anywhere from basic design flaws
>> > to their business model has been beaten to death in the business pages
>> > since the 70's and the first gas shortage.
>> >
>> Here are couple items about the way automakers/dealers, realtors, and
>> the like control what gets in the paper.
>>
>> http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/broken_wall.html
>>
>> http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1993/1993-story9.htm
>
> Yeah..........OK..........but isn't that negative press in and of
> itself?...........
>
> Why do you have such a bug up your butt about the auto industry?
>
> Did a dealer screw you over? If so, choke it down and move on.
>