A more sturdy and functional professional level machine is almost always going to be safer than a machine with slightly less power that you have to fight to get to work such as the spindle sander in its current state.
I hear everyone on the argument that the hive needs reliable tools. I also respect the argument against unguarded industrial tools, especially given the state of our certification program. I have only needed to use a spindle sander one time two years ago, but who knows what my next project needs? I just want to help y’all reach quorum to settle this issue.
Can someone please take pictures of the two devices and summarize specifically what safety devices exist on both sets of devices?
One “side” stated they have no guards and are extremely unsafe, the other “side” is stating the guards are the same and the other viewpoint is dishonest. I’d like some evidence, please.
This entire discussion feels personal and weirdly political, the bluntness and accusations and insinuations by both “sides” are not helpful to resolve this issue and honestly it looks awful from the outside looking in.
Yes vote.
If the proposed sander gets voted down for safety concerns, we definitely need a follow up vote on removing the current spindle sander to remove it along with a handful of other shop equipment.
A lot of pictures are in the “pre-discussion” linked in the vote text, and I dont have the ability to link them here now, but they can be found in the woodshop channel or the link. (Lots of other questions can be answered there too). If someone wants to post the pictures here that would be helpful.
In that thread, you can see the incumbent disc sander, with the guard only covering the backside of the disc and the proposed sander with the same except also extending over the front.
For the spindle sander, the only guard on both is the ring around the base so your workpiece doesn’t slip through. On the old one those are plastic, on the new one those are metal.
I can take more photos if people want specific details that cant be answered by what i posted already, just ask.
If we really wanted to modify either to make them more safe, that can be done and it would have been great to hear that suggested in the pre-vote discussion. Safety concerns should be taken very seriously, so if people are truly worried about this we need to reevaluate a lot of the things in the shop with the same scrutiny.
When does this vote close? If given a few days after I get back from vacation I can get better pictures and label them…
If there are particular safety features that modern spindle and disk sanders have that people want to see please let me know, as I am not familiar with any beyond the throat plates, disk guard, platten gap adjustment, dust collection hookup, and enclosure to keep hands out of mechanism.
The sanders under consideration are not “unguarded”, they have the same guarding as the current grizzley setup. As far as woodshop equipment goes these sanders are much safer than much of the other woodshop equipment. They are much safer than the tablesaw, even with the sawstop, the routers, or the jointer. I would say the disc sander is pretty much on the same safety level as the miter saw or the bandsaw. The spindle sander is even safer
My attempt at uploading photos here to answer the question. More can be found in the woodworking thread linked in the vote.
As you can (hopefully, if I did this right) see, the proposed machine has improved guarding than the incumbent machine (metal vs plastic, more guarding on the proposed disc sander). The result of this should be neutral to improved safety from my perspective. But again, we can always modify this to make it better if we really wanted, and we will still end up with a more durable and more capable machine due to the improved robustness, larger and more variety of spindles, larger disc area, and larger reference planes. I expect (but don’t know for a fact) that dust collection should be improved as well due to my experience with the incumbent and the build of the proposed (addition of dust shroud - overall better build quality, more rigid tubes).
If I may, I would like to update my vote to YES contingent on the machines having functional guarding.
I was informed that my previous comment was made with incomplete information, which is true considering that I have not personally looked at the new machines in question. Given the fact that Hive13 has no maintenance personnel on the payroll, we should probably always consider maximum reliability & uptime for the minimum amount of upkeep. Unless someone knows better than I’m assuming about the reliability and upkeep of these purpose built industrial machines, I think replacing the current combination sander is a priority (and from what I’ve been told reliability is a problem with all combination sander manufacturers).
I saw both machines in person when I was at the hive.
Neither machine is in “ready to run” state. In fact, there were obvious defects on one machine (torn bellows) and highly questionable items on both machines. Potentially leaky gearbox. Someone who was considerably more knowledgeable than me observed that they did not look to be impeccably well maintained in general.
When I voted “yes,” I voted yes to spending money on wiring to make two machines operational, I incorrectly thought that was all was going to be needed. This clearly is not going to be the case. I feel like this is going to turn into a case of toxic “stone soup.” What I mean by “stone soup” - these machines are going to need electrical. Mmm that tastes good but I think we need a few parts to make it taste better. Mmm. A new gearbox would sure give it some kick. Mmmm… Without knowing the service history and more precise condition of these machines, we could easily be sinking thousands more into getting them fully operational. At that point, I think at least due dilligence needs to be done comparing the cost of buying alternatives. What I mean by “toxic” is that the people voting in favor of this (myself included) are not seeking to be involved in making them operational. Further, there appears to be very limited support for including the devices in the woodshop from the woodshop warden…
Playing this vote out in current form: we buy electrical supplies. We wire the devices/pay a contractor. They get grudgingly put in some part of the woodshop. They get hooked up. Neither of them performs at their full potential. Everyone who voted for this gets bent out of shape because the tools aren’t working. No one has volunteered to step up and maintain/service them. They consume space in the woodshop without increasing utility and people argue and point fingers.
In order for me to vote yes again, I would need:
-These machines to get temporarily hooked up in order to test them, verify operational condition. Thoroughly inspected.
-A list of any repairs needed to make the machines fully functional is compiled along with costs and a plan for the repairs to happen - who+when
-A vote re-submitted as a comprehensive Total-Cost-to-get-running along with documented Total-Cost-of-Ownership to KEEP them running.
Until the more complete big picture is filled in and there is a reasonable plan to get them operational and keep them operational, my vote will be NO
Your vote is your own, I am only here providing facts so you can make an informed choice and with that in mind;
« What I mean by “toxic” is that the people voting in favor of this (myself included) are not seeking to be involved in making them operational. Further, there appears to be very limited support for including the devices in the woodshop from the woodshop warden…«
Two of the yes votes are from myself and Kevin and we stated in the linked pre discussion we would do the setup and oulined what we would specifically do and the timelines we were saying we would do those actions by.
Also, most of the woodshop wardens in this thread voted yes. We dont have “a” woodshop warden.
Is the link to the pre-discussion working? A lot of your concerns are addressed there. Another example is that we talked about long term maintenance there too. But no public discussion about leaky gearboxes until 2 days before the vote closes? Why did we wait so long to bring this up?
Also lots of points there about questions about the service history- what questions would you like to have answered? These came from Kevin’s work, he may be able to answer (or get answers). You also mentioned questionable defects - can you elaborate?
