I would vote yes if the line items for the planer and planer stand were replaced with a new spindle sander.
Reasoning:
As I understand it, the jointer is a fundamental component of our actively-used wood shop. Our current jointer is barely adequate. Therefore, having a heave-duty one that will see frequent use justifies the proposed expense.
Our current DeWalt planer, on loan from Coy, is fully functional and does not have any major deficiencies. Hive13 owns another planer that could be brought into service. Perhaps that one should be made functional and if deemed inadequate we could then look into alternatives.
We donât have a reliable spindle sander. It would be frequently used and a decent new one could be purchased at sub-$500 cost.
I vote YES. This is really a lot of money. These are expensive because among other things they use helical carbide cutters. They should be much more durable than the tool steel cutters that we are used to. These are not by any means top of the line tools. They are a compromise between getting what are really inadequate tools and getting way more than we need. I have talked to Doug and Jim Dallam (our treasurer) extensively about this. Jim actually recommended a more expense option and Doug trimmed it down to be closer to the minimum of what we need. Doug has put a lot of effort into this and I believe he is trying to get us a woodshop that is fully functionally without being a serious maintenance headache.
Re: Dave Schwinnâs comments about removing the electrical infrastructure from this vote:
Dave Velzyâs vote for the Bandsaw, lathe and dust collector also included funds for electrical. It was needed because there were 3 tools that needed 240v service that was not set up. It was just not broken out but it was essential to getting the equipment working.
Similar on this vote except the electrical panel is just plain running out of space.
I think the point was that the included electrical budget in this vote is excessive. I calculated in the spreadsheets above that the Jointer would need $138 worth of electrical parts to hook up, and the planer would require $275 worth of electrical parts. There are 5 spaces available in that panel right now, so strictly speaking we do not yet need a subpanel, so this vote (rather, these votes) should include a total budget of around $415 in electrical stuff required to hook up these machines.
If we decide we need to add more things to panel X later, we could add a sub panel and move these circuits to it at that time. This sub panel is $125 for 24 more spaces, and would require a 125 amp breaker in panel X for $108. We woudl need some conduit fittings to link the two panels, I estimate that at $20, and we would need the cable, which we already have on hand in the dungeon (I donated it during the move). That puts estimated cost for the sub panel at around $235.
together that adds up to just $650, not the stated $1500.
I would like to point out that any overage on the budget stays in The Hiveâs bank account, or at very worst is returnemd to it. It is better to overestimate the cost needed to set the equipment up than to underestimante and have to let the equipment sit idle while a second vote is put up. Itâs not like any individual gets to keep the overage!
Can we switch the focus of the topic to what the jointer should be replaced with? There was mention of a Rigid brand jointer that was half the price and already more than adequate for our needs. Why not that one? Why not the less expensive Laguna Coil 8â NON-Pro model? I assume there ARE reasons, but do those reasons make a difference for more than one single person?
Again, I think everyone is on board with sending the old one on itâs way to hell or beyond. But letâs not replace it with a Lamborghini tractor if the reality is a John Deer is already more than adequate.
I donât know all the details, but I do know you can get a much nore expensive jointer. The proposed one is mid level. It isnât the biggest, or fanciest.
The spec difference is in motor power (1.75HP vs 3HP) and in the cutter head.
(QuadTec vs ShearTec). To the best of my limited understanding, the more expensive machine will produce a higher quality and quieter cut. Hopefully, more experienced woodworkers can offer an informed opinion here.
The jointer seems like a great choice to me. Helical head is really a necessary feature in my opinion, as itâs quieter, wears slower, gives a better surface on curly figure woods, etc.
Really need to stick with a heavy casting parallelogram style machine for hive use, otherwise it wonât hold adjustment. There are few similar class machines that have bad reputations for that (grizzly and jet)
There are other helical head options, like Oliver Machine at $2700, Powermatic at $3500, etc. This Laguna is a pretty well regarded machine that should serve us well.
As for the planer, again, I donât at all see the argument for replacing the 100% functional 13" planer we have in the shop right now, as it works perfectly, has decent dust collection, the knives are cheap and easy to replace, and it cuts a nice smooth surface (particularly on the slow feed setting). Also, 13" width is not at all limiting when we are talking about having an 8" jointer and our big bandsaw has only 9" resaw capacity.
Even if we did feel a new planer was something we needed, we could easily pick a model that made more sense with the sizes of the rest of our machines and would cost several thousands less. Even just picking the 16" Laguna instead of the 20" would drop the cost by $1000. This is why Iâd really like this split into two discussions and posted as two seperate votes.
Before I posted this vote I knew it would be a controversial vote. Itâs a huge vote. No question. I understood that the vote might not pass. No problem. The reasoning behind posting this vote was to help improve Hive13 and not for my benefit.
The woodshop is our busiest area. It probably also has the potential of attracting more new members than other areas. More new members equals more money to buy cool new tools and expand our capacities. Not having functional milling equipment is a huge hole in our capacity and greatly limits the number of new members for the woodshop. The jointer that is currently at the woodshop is non-functional. It is also on loan to the Hive from our treasurer. The planer that is currently at the Hive is fine for a garage/hobbyist shop. It is also on loan to us from a different member. A member who has been ordered to discontinue his normal use of the Hive. It is completely untenable to continue to use this planer. The past several woodshop certifications that Iâve done Iâve had to bring up to my space and use my equipment for surfacing.
I assiduously followed the procedures documented in the wiki for voting. In fact, I went a step beyond and spoke with Jim Dallam, our Treasurer, first to make sure we could afford a procurement this large. In fact, he said our budget could sustain a substantially larger amount of money spent. Attempting to be a good steward of Hive13âs money I chose to post equipment that I feel is the best value for the hive. Equipment that is much more durable. Equipment that will stand up to the heavy use that any shared pace will throw at it and maintain walk up readiness. Equipment that will provide a superior end product Equipment on par with the new table saw. Equipment that is not overkill and will be used by most woodworkers at least occasionally and some woodworkers regularly. I posted a discussion before posting the vote and I took feedback from that discussion prior to posting the vote. The planer was part of that discussion. Whether or not the planer was discussed further is outside of my control.
As good as these machines are most of my work will still be done in my fully functional shop. Yes, I will come down and use the 8â jointer on wider boards. Yes, I will come down to edge joint any lumber that is so highly figured that my straight knife jointer tears out too badly. That being said, my equipment works. I have a jointer. I have a planer. They work. It doesnât hurt me if the decision is to not pass this vote. I produce damn good work with my existing equipment. Work that is impossible to produce with the Hiveâs current status.
I will continue as warden/woodworking mentor as best I can with the equipment we have. I will be answering concerns posted on Discourse over the next few hours to the best of my ability. If you have other questions about why the planer and jointer need to be replaced jointly, please mention me in the post or contact me directly. If you have question about why I chose the equipment I chose the same goes.
I passionately believe that filling this hole in the woodshop with this equipment is best for Hive13.
Why do we need to replace the âperfectly goodâ planer?/Why do we need to replace both the planer and jointer at the same time?
The planer is not ours. The planer belongs to a member who had his membership temporarily suspended. If that suspension was right or wrong is somewhat immaterial, he very definitely feels it was wrong and that he is being singled out for special adverse treatment. There was at least some talk that his membership should be terminated. That planer sits there on his goodwill. If he feels wronged, which he does, he could take the planer at anytime with no warning. To continue to rely on his planer is untenable.
A larger floor model machine offers much more stability than a tabletop portable âlunchboxâ style planer. Also on the lunchbox planers snipe, where the cutter digs into the work piece, is a constant problem that with constant and meticulous adjustment can be minimized. Because the larger floor model machines the pressure rollers, that feed the lumber through the planer, are designed differently. According to the reviews snipe can be totally eliminated. Even if itâs not eliminated snipe will be greatly reduced and will not require constant adjustments making the Laguna planer much more walk-up ready.
Our current planer uses disposable blades which are extremely easy to damage and rather a chore to replace. Even a knot or a particularly hard chunk of intertwined grain can and sometimes will damage the blade. The proposed planer has 4 sided carbide cutters. Carbide is much harder and will not get damaged as easily or often as disposable blades. If they are damaged itâs a quick easy job to rotate the individual damaged cutter 90 degrees and have a fresh cutting surface. There are 138 cutters on the cutterhead.
Due to wood movement and internal stresses in the lumber you almost always need to run the first face through the planer as well. Running a face that has surfaced using a helical cutter through a planer with straight knives will damage that face so it just doesnât make much sense to have a helical jointer and straight planer. Much better to have a straight jointer and a helical planer.
The ability to utilize figured or other difficult lumber. If I had tried to run this moderately figured tiger maple through our existing planer there would have been tearout across the complete board making the board unusable. More highly figured or lumber with more tangled wood fibers would be even worse.
We need larger floor model machine because it offers much more stability than a tabletop portable âlunchboxâ style planer. The large machines start at 15 or 16 inches. Also on the lunchbox planers snipe, where the cutter digs into the work piece, is a constant problem that with constant and meticulous adjustment can be minimized. Because the larger floor model machines the pressure rollers, that feed the lumber through the planer, are designed differently. According to the reviews snipe can be totally eliminated. Even if itâs not eliminated snipe will be greatly reduced and will not require constant adjustments making the Laguna planer much more walk-up ready.
A large planer is great to have when you are doing large panel glue-ups, especially edge glue-ups with more than 2 pieces where cambered clamping cauls are going to be of minimal use to keep the panel flat and aligned. This is especially true of edge grain glue-ups where its not unheard of to have upwards of 20 pieces in the panel. I cant tell you the number of times Iâve lamented, with much non PG language, not having a large planer.
The PX|16 planer would be quite adequate but there is only a $900 difference between the PX|16 and the PX|20, $225 per inch. The difference between the JX|8 PRO 8â jointer and the JX|12 12â jointer is about $4,000 or $1,000 per inch. There was at least one person, I think 2, who were really pushing for the 12â. The larger planer is much more useful than the larger jointer. I believe that $225 per inch of additional planer capacity is well worth it.
If you have any other questions or need further information please leave a post or contact me directly.
We need larger floor model machine because it offers much more stability than a tabletop portable âlunchboxâ style planer. The large machines start at 15 or 16 inches. Also on the lunchbox planers snipe, where the cutter digs into the work piece, is a constant problem that with constant and meticulous adjustment can be minimized. Because the larger floor model machines the pressure rollers, that feed the lumber through the planer, are designed differently. According to the reviews snipe can be totally eliminated. Even if itâs not eliminated snipe will be greatly reduced and will not require constant adjustments making the Laguna planer much more walk-up ready.
A large planer is great to have when you are doing large panel glue-ups, especially edge glue-ups with more than 2 pieces where cambered clamping cauls are going to be of minimal use to keep the panel flat and aligned. This is especially true of edge grain glue-ups where its not unheard of to have upwards of 20 pieces in the panel. I cant tell you the number of times Iâve lamented, with much non PG language, not having a large planer.
The PX|16 planer would be quite adequate but there is only a $900 difference between the PX|16 and the PX|20, $225 per inch. The difference between the JX|8 PRO 8â jointer and the JX|12 12â jointer is about $4,000 or $1,000 per inch. There was at least one person, I think 2, who were really pushing for the 12â. The larger planer is much more useful than the larger jointer. I believe that $225 per inch of additional planer capacity is well worth it.
Your justification for a larger planer makes sense to me. I am sure some people still might not find a larger planer as useful as the current smaller lunch box planer is good enough for their needs.
It may be a point of discussion to understand, what size planer would serve us best? For cost per inch perspective, a larger planer makes sense to me.
Can you share a few examples of comparative planers and pricing?
Neither of these have the DRO that the Laguna has.
Both of these have an open feed so it is possible to access the the cutter heads while the machine is running. It seems to me that this poses an additional safety risk over the enclosed Laguna. It may not be a great additional safety risk but when weâre talking about a shared space like the Hive then every little increase in safety is rather important. At lease thatâs the it seems to me and thatâs why I supported the SawStop even though I wouldnât have spent the extra money in my shop.
The woodshop is starting to become somewhat crowded so machine footprint and placement is something we have to start thinking about. Neither the Jet nor the Powermatic have mobility capability engineered by the manufacturer the Laguna does. With equipment this heavy, if itâs going to have at least some mobility, safety becomes a factor. Iâm much more comfortable with mobility solutions engineered by the equipment manufacturer rather than some generic mobility base.
Both the Jet and Powermatic machines have fixed cast iron infeed and outfeed tables. Again this poses a space issue. The Laguna has extendable rollers that can be retracted when not in use thus reducing footprint. When I first starting looking at planers I was quite frankly skeptical of this setup. But after some research and testing I found that the rollers worked very well indeed. I found, through hands on testing, that the rollers posed no issue at all. I read reviews of the Laguna planer and didnât find one had a serious issue with the rollers. In fact a few praised the Laguna setup.
And finally, I very much like Laguna. I have two pieces of Laguna equipment, the PX|12 portable planer and the 1412 bandsaw. The ease of setup, tuning, and use of this equipment has been an absolute joy. This is very much a personal opinion so take from it what you will.
Sorry for the novella length replies but this is a big vote and concerns deserve complete answers.
