Road test of the FETool.

[RETIRED]

When someone makes a claim that one tool will replace a roughing gouge, a skew chisel and a bowl gouge then it gets my attention pretty rapidly and I have to try it.

I received Franks latest tool that he has been talking about here The tamed skew (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f8/tamed-skew-123523/)

Although I use traditional tools I keep an open mind about new tools and am always on the lookout for a tool that does a job quicker, easier and safer. If it does those then it is a sound investment that saves me money, hence my testing and subsequent purchase of the Easyrougher Ci1 discussed previously, a tool that made the claim it hogged out quicker and longer than any thing else on bowls. I don't use it on bowls but on big spindles it lives up to its blurb.

All opinions are my personal point of view and the following tests are done looking at the tool from a production turners and teachers point of view. If it can make a job easier to teach a student proper techniques then it is worthwhile as an aid.

When I first saw the pictures of the FETool (my name for it), something clicked in the brain that I had seen something similar many years ago but wasn't sure. A friend was down over the weekend and saw it and said, "Ah, the Vic Wood oops tool". I had seen Vic using this tool to get the sharp edge on the lids of his boxes. The "oops" part comes from the fact that a slightly heavy cut will spin it over.

The tool consists of a hexagonal shaft machined at one end to accept a square Tungsten Carbide Cutter with the leading side edge having a small radius to the point.

First impressions of the tool were that it felt good in the hands and was well made.

A few flaws in design for the purpose were evident. One of the rules of woodturning is "The cutting edge must be supported on the tool rest." This cannot happen with this tool unless it is tilted to the side. The bevels are too blunt at 30 degrees.

Easy Rougher Ci!
149334
FETool.
149333

As this tool was developed in part from seeing the Easy Wood Easy Rougher Ci1 a few comparisons are inevitable.

We shall start with roughing out. My definition of roughing out is, “Removal of unwanted stock in a safe, quick and efficient manner.”

The normal roughing gouge of any shape (U or spindle) in practised hands will remove the edges of a 45 mm X 45 mm x 250mm red gum spindle in about 15-20 seconds. It can also be used to rough form the intended shape of larger curves. It leaves a finish that can be sanded with about 150# paper. It uses a cutting or slicing action.

The Easy Rougher uses a scraping action and takes a fraction longer than a gouge and a little longer to put curves in because of the 15mm square front. It leaves a reasonable finsh with some effort and light cuts. You would probably start with 100# paper.

Going by Franks picture of roughing out his walking stick I started by using the tool this way with the cutter upppermost. This is a scraping action.
149340

This is all right if you take small cuts.
149335
The tool feels unsteady and if you get aggressive it results in a huge catch with torn grain.
149336
It took 265 seconds to rough out. The finish was a little rough and would need 80# paper to smooth.

A better way to get slightly aggressive is to angle the cutter but if the back of the cutter contacts timber before you have the cut started it twists backwards. It is scraping.

149338Direction of cut is to left or towards headstock.
It took 81 seconds to rough out and the finish would require 80# paper.

The next way we tried was with the tool sitting on an angle with the tool supported by the flat on the hex bar.
149337

The cutting edge is still not supported and the tool reacted by wanting to twist if a half decent cut was attempted. You have to rub the bevel to maintain an even cut otherwise it wants to go deeper which results in it coming to a complete stop in the cut. Another problem is that with the bevel rubbing you get a lot of chatter from the square section of the timber.

This is a slicing cut but because of the angle of the cutter, it does not perform well.

It took 265 seconds to rough out and the finish was terrible as the the angle tended to pull out the grain.

The next way was to use the tool upside down (ala bedan) with the cutter facing towards the timber and the tool slightly angled to get a slicing cut.
149339

This can take an aggressive cut but the low angle at the front and the narrowness of the tool requires a "balancing act" between forcing the tool to cut and not allowing the back corner to dig in like a skew chisel.

Roughing time was 107 seconds with picked out grain needing 80# paper to clean up.

The skew chisel is used for smoothing or planing cuts, peeling cuts, V cuts for the purpose of marking out, rolling a bead, rounding the end of cylinders, fine tuning fillets, long curves and cutting beads.
These can also be accomplished with an appropriately sharpened spindle or bowl gouge as well and in some cases are preferable because of timber structure. Red Gum and Blackwood spring to mind.

The first test with the FETool is smoothing a cylinder.

The one on the left is done with a skew, the next is using the FETool as a skew. This is difficult because of the narrowness of the cutter and the bevel.
149346
This one is using it as a bedan.
149341
Bedan scraping.
149343
Using FETool as a scraper.
149348

The finish left after each of these cuts is a little rough and does not compare to the finish off a skew.

I rounded the end of the cylinder with the FETool using a skew cut, a “bedan” type cut and scraping with the cutter up. Surface of timber was ok in all cases but it took about 10 times longer than with a normal skew.
149347]Sorry about pic quality.
The bedan type cut tends to bog down if you take too heavy a cut.

The next cuts were V cuts.

Normal skew on left, FETool on right.
149349
Both the skew and FETool did this ok but it is harder to get a sharper “base” with the FETool and placement to start the cut is critical otherwise a screwcut results.

Next were beads. The angle of the bevel makes it hard to get in without hitting an adjoining bead and is a bit of a balancing act again to avoid catches. The base does not have the crispness you get with a skew or lady finger type gouge.

Skew on the left and FETool on right.
149342
Next on the list was cleaning up a fillet.

Skew on left, catch from FETool and FETool on right.
149344
The FETool was hard to use in this because in order to get a clean cut it must be sliced and with the FETool in skew mode you are balancing on a corner of the hex bar and on entry to the cut wants to twist a bit. The slight radius of the cutter makes it hard to get a clean entry.

In bedan mode the same applies about the cutter. You have a slightly bigger footprint.

Finally we come to the peeling cut.

In bedan mode The FETool did reasonably well but because of the weight (or lack of it) in the tool it tended to vibrate badly.

In Normal mode with the cutter up, it cut well but if you move a fraction towards the solid timber well you can see what happens.

Skew on left, normal in centre and bedan on right.
149345

The next test was hollowing a box.

The tool did not like doing this cut aggressively at all. Any cut larger than this
149540149541
resulted in the tool rolling over and catching.
149549

It did not matter how the tool was presented it did not cut well at all.

The final test was doing a bowl. The timber used for this was oak.

Again the problem was catching if more than a mild cut was used.

Small cut.149544

Catch 149546

It worked reasonably well as a scraper but a light touch was needed.
149547

Shear scraping was not as successful. I feel that this was because the cutter was getting a bit blunt.
149548

I did not do the inside of a bowl as the results would have been the same as end grain hollowing.

A tool should cut almost by itself if used properly with little effort on the part of the turner but you are forever fighting this tool.

In conclusion I do not think this tool will replace any tool and in the hands of a beginner could be very frustrating and even a little dangerous.

[Sturdee]

At 's invitation I had a tryout of F & E's new tool. purposely did not talk to me about it so he could not influence me prior to my tests and the tool was unhandled.

Using redgum blanks I first roughed a blank to round, then cut V shapes and rolled beads. The roughed down finish was not as smooth as my roughing gouge produces but acceptable. The V cuts were not as deep as with the skew and the beads were not as smooth as with a skew. Because of the shape I could not roll very acute beads.

I had some dig ins with the tool and because of the shaft shape it had a tendency to twist over and dig in on the side to side cutting movement. This is because the acute trapezoidal shape means the side edges are not supported directly by the tool rest.

I then used it to hollow out an edge grain box. Again I had to fight the tendency to twist on the side way movements and had quite a bit of chatter. Inside side finish was acceptable but would require a fair bit of sanding.

I then repeated the same tests using my Bedan tool holding it the same way.

On each test the finish was smoother and easier to use. With the Bedan the side cutting edge is more acute which means that the side cutting edge is still sufficiently supported by the tool rest so that instead of fighting to keep the tool level all I had to do was guide it.

Upon reflection I feel that as a beginner's tool the Bedan would be better as it is easier to use and gives a smoother surface (and can be sharpened) whilst learning to use the skew.


Peter.

[Sturdee]

At 's invitation I had a tryout of F & E's new tool. purposely did not talk to me about it so he could not influence me prior to my tests and the tool was unhandled.

Using redgum blanks I first roughed a blank to round, then cut V shapes and rolled beads. The roughed down finish was not as smooth as my roughing gouge produces but acceptable. The V cuts were not as deep as with the skew and the beads were not as smooth as with a skew. Because of the shape I could not roll very acute beads.

I had some dig ins with the tool and because of the shaft shape it had a tendency to twist over and dig in on the side to side cutting movement. This is because the acute trapezoidal shape means the side edges are not supported directly by the tool rest.

I then used it to hollow out an edge grain box. Again I had to fight the tendency to twist on the side way movements and had quite a bit of chatter. Inside side finish was acceptable but would require a fair bit of sanding.

I then repeated the same tests using my Bedan tool holding it the same way.

On each test the finish was smoother and easier to use. With the Bedan the side cutting edge is more acute which means that the side cutting edge is still sufficiently supported by the tool rest so that instead of fighting to keep the tool level all I had to do was guide it.

Upon reflection I feel that as a beginner's tool the Bedan would be better as it is easier to use and gives a smoother surface (and can be sharpened) whilst learning to use the skew.


Peter.

[Sturdee]

At 's invitation I had a tryout of F & E's new tool. purposely did not talk to me about it so he could not influence me prior to my tests and the tool was unhandled.

Using redgum blanks I first roughed a blank to round, then cut V shapes and rolled beads. The roughed down finish was not as smooth as my roughing gouge produces but acceptable. The V cuts were not as deep as with the skew and the beads were not as smooth as with a skew. Because of the shape I could not roll very acute beads.

I had some dig ins with the tool and because of the shaft shape it had a tendency to twist over and dig in on the side to side cutting movement. This is because the acute trapezoidal shape means the side edges are not supported directly by the tool rest.

I then used it to hollow out an edge grain box. Again I had to fight the tendency to twist on the side way movements and had quite a bit of chatter. Inside side finish was acceptable but would require a fair bit of sanding.

I then repeated the same tests using my Bedan tool holding it the same way.

On each test the finish was smoother and easier to use. With the Bedan the side cutting edge is more acute which means that the side cutting edge is still sufficiently supported by the tool rest so that instead of fighting to keep the tool level all I had to do was guide it.

Upon reflection I feel that as a beginner's tool the Bedan would be better as it is easier to use and gives a smoother surface (and can be sharpened) whilst learning to use the skew.


Peter.

[RETIRED]

As I said previously, my opinions after nearly 3 days of testing.

[Frank&Earnest]

Thanks , I really appreciate the time you have put into this.

There is one substantial difference in the way we use the tool that could partially explain some different results: as shown by my picture above, I put the tool rest much higher, which results in a cutting presentation, while your toolrest is about centre high, which means that you either scrape or lower the handle to an impractical (at least for me) position to achieve a cutting presentation.

The different presentation also overcomes in part the issue of the base being smaller than the width of the blade, because in a cutting presentation with minimum clearance the whole width of the bevel is supported by the timber. (IIRC you made that point about the skew).

What I can not understand is why, by presenting the tool the same way I do for hollowing and shaping a bowl , at least for what can be seen in the picture, you get catches and "fight all the time" with the tool while, unless I am unknowingly extremely tolerant of it, I do not have that problem at all.

[brendan stemp]

Peter and , apologies if this is a dumb question but did you put a handle on the tool? I ask because I tried to use it without a handle when I first got it and had all sorts of problems but all was rectified when I put a handle on it. I also shortened the shaft considerably (by about 150mm)

[RETIRED]

No. I try all new tools unhandled (if they are long enough) so that I am sure the tool is doing the work and not being forced.

[tea lady]

Had a try with "the tool" the other day also. It wants to twist in your hand all the time, so you have to keep a grip on the thing. Maybe a handle would help that a little, but it shouldn;t have too.:C With bevel rubbing in a "bedan" kinda way, or as a scraper. If the side of the tool touched anything it flipped over. Beads could only be shallow. It just never felt comfortable or relaxing to use. Beginners might think this is OK, cos perhaps no tool is yet relaxing to use. :shrug: It doesn't seem to have a sweet spot as "traditional tools" have, where you have things balanced just right and it sounds right and it just glides across the work making beautiful shavings.

I know you have put a lot of effort into this tool Frank and it does look well make, but ya can't make a tool work by saying it works. :C I tried it many differant ways but I wouldn't tell a beginner to get one. Let alone anyone else. :C Sorry Frank!

[Frank&Earnest]

Thanks guys. The picture is getting clearer.

- Not using a handle. Did you try the tool with one eye closed? You do not need two to see it. Cynical little me could think that you are looking for any excuse to come up with results that support a prejudice ... :) Given that twisting is a potential weakness because of its design, would you not agree that a proper handle goes a long way towards counteracting it? That "it should not have to be so" means little when you are knowingly counteracting a weakness. We should not have to change government every few years, should we? :D

- Beginners could think it's OK because they do not know any better. Yep, I agree. I have said before that the level of expectations can be a relevant factor.

- Saying it works does not make it work. Yes, this is true. The point is that I do not say it works, I made it work. The problem we all have here is that one can not prove a negative. Even if the best turner in the world comes up and says that it does not work, there is always the possibility that it actually does in some circumstances. You have all seen the pictures of what I produced with it, from the finial to the walking stick, from the bowl to the undercut vessel. Do you honestly think that I lied?

What I can say , and you may choose to believe me or not, is that in two years of fiddling with it I have never, repeat never, had a horrific catch like the one has shown. I did always go slow and use a handle, though. :D

All this said, has been fair: he says that the tool is slower and less effective than the half a dozen tools it can replace, which we already knew, but does not deny that it can actually do what they do. Which is what I have always claimed: if I am Robinson Crusoe and I am building a pole lathe having ony one cutting tool and no grinder, that's the tool I want to have.

The question of effectiveness in hollowing the end grain puzzled me, so I tried this vase/big goblet (I have not thinned out the stem yet, will see). Once drilled the pilot hole to the desired depth, I hollowed the inside with the insert tool. I do not think I could have done it any better or faster with any of the other tools I have ( beginner's expectations, TL :U ) and, for a purportedly unstable and vibrating tool, I humbly submit that the chatter cutting with 160mm overhang was quite acceptable. The wood is dry cherry. Will experiment with other tools to see if any improves the finish of the roughed out internal wall.

[Sturdee]

- Not using a handle. Did you try the tool with one eye closed? You do not need two to see it. Cynical little me could think that you are looking for any excuse to come up with results that support a prejudice ... :) Given that twisting is a potential weakness because of its design, would you not agree that a proper handle goes a long way towards counteracting it?

Actually I have read all the posts, seen all the photos and I have always approached this subject with an open mind. I wanted to prove that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

When , because of my interest and since I am still a beginner - only having taking it up less than a year ago, gave me the opportunity to try the tool he made a point of not discussing it with me, gave it to me and a lathe.

Yes, the tool was unhandled but it was not my tool. With the tool shortened a bit and handled it would probably handle better but the centre of the side cutting tip is still not directly supported by the toolrest and more effort would need to be made in controlling it rather than the Bedan that I regularly use.


Peter.

[RETIRED]

If anyone else wishes to try this tool, PM me and I will mail it to you.

[Frank&Earnest]

Actually I have read all the posts, seen all the photos and I have always approached this subject with an open mind. I wanted to prove that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

When , because of my interest and since I am still a beginner - only having taking it up less than a year ago, gave me the opportunity to try the tool he made a point of not discussing it with me, gave it to me and a lathe.

Yes, the tool was unhandled but it was not my tool. With the tool shortened a bit and handled it would probably handle better but the centre of the side cutting tip is still not directly supported by the toolrest and more effort would need to be made in controlling it rather than the Bedan that I regularly use.


Peter.

Thanks, Peter, sorry for not acknowledging directly your contribution earlier (one would have been enough, though :wink: ). I am sure that you have been looking at it objectively and I accept the fact that, because the base is narrower than the width of the cutting edge, allowance has to be made for the inherent reduction of stability.

Here is where practice is important. Probably because of the long period of adjustment, I am unconsciously compensating for it, adjusting the height of the toolrest, as mentioned before, and changing the presentation to suit. For example, a side rake of 10 - 15 degrees is sufficient for the cutting edge to fall within the width of the base and therefore be fully supported by the toolrest.

Given that you are an expert of the bedan, you know that it has to be used with the toolrest up and pushed before rolling, a different technique than that of the skew. I am not sure that one can be considered a training ground for the other.

To test the limits of the tool it is necessary to highlight the consequences of excess, for which I am grateful. My hope is that a beginner, proceeding slowly in this discovery, would avoid them like I did.

[Frank&Earnest]

If anyone else wishes to try this tool, PM me and I will mail it to you.

Thanks , you are a gentleman.

The first batch is all gone, will be a couple of weeks before I get more.

[brendan stemp]

I can't believe you guys are prepared to condemn this tool after trying it unhandled. Very unfair. It is quite a different proposition with a handle on it and I can't see that this a design fault. I would recommend it to beginners if it had a handle on it. I wouldn't if Frank was suggesting to use it unhandled. In fact I can think of a number of tools (traditional included) I would be very reluctant to use without handles. I had the catches with this tool when it was unhandled but didn't when it was handled. The fact the cutting edge is unsupported is overcome very adequately with a handle.

[RETIRED]

Brendan, every tool with the exception of deep hollowing tools should be able to be used (once in the cut) by your thumb and forefinger on the handle and one finger keeping it located on the rest. That is why I test a lot of tools without handles.

If it needs a handle to control it then it is not cutting or scraping properly and you are fighting the whole time to control it. Makes for a very tiring day.

If you can only take small cuts as evidenced in Franks photo of the walking stick and my own observations it makes for a very long expensive day.

I would like to hear others opinions as I stand to be corrected but I stand by what I said.

This tool has no place in a teaching environment or mine.

[jefferson]

I'm still trying to figure out why Frank used a hexagonal bar. There is no way you can obtain bevel support from this kind of tool - perhaps a chip limiting feature but that is all. So why not use square bar so the cutter is supported?

No doubt Frank will have some answers.

[gtwilkins]

I can't understand why you would design a tool with built in in-stability. That just goes against all common sense! I don't want a tool that starts out with a deficiency.

I have built several styles of these tools and quite frankly they don't do anything well. They do save your gouges when roughing blanks with dirty bark on them but that's about all I use them for.

Trevor

[Frank&Earnest]

Hi Jeff. I already answered this question in the previous thread (any compelling reason for separating it from this one, , especially seen that there are 2 with this title?) The hex shaft allows the continuation of the side bevels, so you can "rub" them. Anyway, it seems commonly accepted that a bit of side rake is desirable in most cases, and as I already said a 10-15 degree side rake is sufficient to obtain stability with this hex shaft. Not a very onerous requirement, I would say. Maybe a waltz is required instead of a tango? :U

Trevor, if the world only followed "common sense" (which according to Voltaire is not so common after all :) ) there would never be any innovation. Look at the latest fighter planes. They are designed to be unstable, so they can change fly path in a flash. It takes dozen of computers (a bit more complex than a wooden handle :D) just to keep them in the air. A human can not operate these machines unaided.

If you said that these tools don't do anything as well as other already existing tools do for specific purposes, I would agree with you. I have no problem agreeing with either: the information provided by his analysis is very useful for avoiding mistakes and his conclusion, given his premises, is quite logical. Better turners than I am might find errors in his analysis, but I can't fault it. I said that this tool is useful within a different paradigm, if you want to remain in your current one this tool is not for you.

The discussion now is mostly a matter of values: for using this tool means "fighting" for a "tiring, long, expensive" time; for Brendan it would appear to be no way near as bad as he has seen some advantages; for me and, I contend, for a lot of hobbyists, the advantages could be more than the disadvantages. 80 grit paper costs much less than a Tormek :wink:. (BTW, I am also interested in making sharpening jigs :D ).

I am anxious to see what Ern can come up with. :)

[NeilS]

I am anxious to see what Ern can come up with. :)

Last I heard he was at Robe in the SE of SA working his way home to Melbourne, so expect he will be back in his workshop soon.

.

[Sturdee]

To test the limits of the tool it is necessary to highlight the consequences of excess, for which I am grateful. My hope is that a beginner, proceeding slowly in this discovery, would avoid them like I did.

That's why the beta testing by so many different turners will help to get a better tool.

A clearly written instruction sheet, outlining the benefits, the pitfalls and methods of use can now be collated and supplied with each tool and will help new users.


Peter.

[Frank&Earnest]

That's why the beta testing by so many different turners will help to get a better tool.

A clearly written instruction sheet, outlining the benefits, the pitfalls and methods of use can now be collated and supplied with each tool and will help new users.


Peter.

Yep. :2tsup: The first improvement would appear to be to machine a couple of mm off the bottom so the base is wider and vertical access better. This means that I bought 80 screws too many.. filing them off one by one would not be practical. :D

[jefferson]

Hi Jeff. I already answered this question in the previous thread (any compelling reason for separating it from this one, , especially seen that there are 2 with this title?) The hex shaft allows the continuation of the side bevels, so you can "rub" them. Anyway, it seems commonly accepted that a bit of side rake is desirable in most cases, and as I already said a 10-15 degree side rake is sufficient to obtain stability with this hex shaft.

Sorry, Frank, I must have missed your response on this one. Otherwise, I would have bitten hard. Bevel rub means you are contacting the wood immediately behind the cut. I think. You can't do that with your (or any other insert tool). Unless clearance is an issue, I can't see the benefit in any case of a shaft that almost follows the side rake of the insert.

So, still not settled on a hex shaft.

[Frank&Earnest]

It's my turn to be sorry, Jeff. :- I do not understand at all what you are saying. It is quite possible I am using incorrect terminology. What I mean by rubbing the bevel is to lay it flat on the surface of the wood and then lower the edge until it starts cutting. This is definitely possible with this tool on all three edges. For the definition of side rake see my draft document, I have taken it straight from Darlow. In that sense, you can't say "the side rake of the insert".

[barnsey]

Excuse me for my naivety BUT using a wood turning tool unhandled :no:

Where and/or when on earth did this become recommended practice :?

I wouldn't use a file unhandled on something in a vice much less a hand tool cutting something spinning :no:

Am I to expect that I next be recommended to test my new hand plane blade in my hand first to see if it will do the job :C

Maybe it's just me who's lost the plot here :doh:

[RETIRED]

Barnsey, it is nearly 300mm long so has sufficient leverage.

Turning tools (except miniature sets) for spindle work are generally long enough to use unhandled for light work.

Quite a few people buy an unhandled tool and make a handle as their first project with the tool they have just bought.

Totally different than a plane or other woodworking type tools.

[jefferson]

Frank, this is getting too hard to digest on-line.

The other option is for you to bring yourself and the tool over to my place at Kiewa between Xmas and New Year and road test it. You'll have two production turners here, plus WWW and quite a few others to impress.

I'm really looking forward to you showing us how to cut coves with that tool. :wink::wink::wink:

[barnsey]

Barnsey, it is nearly 300mm long so has sufficient leverage.

Turning tools (except miniature sets) for spindle work are generally long enough to use unhandled for light work.

Quite a few people buy an unhandled tool and make a handle as their first project with the tool they have just bought.

Totally different than a plane or other woodworking type tools.

- Have many tools that I've bought unhandled and made the handle for it on receipt - but NEVER with the unhandled tool :no:

Light work does not preclude a heavy dig in.

And I might suggest that advocating such a practice in a public forum might leave someone open to a duty of care law suit. I would hate to think of the consequences of a 300mm long bullet being launched from a tool rest :o

I guess that is why lathe tool handles roughly double the length of the steel bit itself


To give one a leverage ratio that allows sufficient control.
To provide something to hang onto should one make an error using a tool they may well have never used before as in this case.

Indeed one might argue that to provide opinion on the capabilities of a tool without operating it as it was meant to be is rather calling the idea foul before it's given a fair chance.

I agree it is totally different to a plane - I used the analogy to try and illustrate the stupidity of the idea. I do not believe anyone would advocate buying a lathe and 1/2 doz unhandled tools with a first project of turning handles for them. I guess that would be classed as stupid because they would not have the experience to use them without handles and quite rightly. If you don't have tools to turn a handle then you do not buy unhandled tools!

Even us guys with lots of years behind us on a lathe can get a dig-in and with no handle it will be wrenched from your hand. Tell me the risk hazard in that situation.

What would you say to a mate who took a finger or worse off on a buzzer because he took the guard off coz it was in his way?:-

And yes I've done it too although not with an unhandled tool but the point remains a lot of accidents occur because our experience can make us unwittingly disregard basic safety rules because we believe we can operate outside them :doh: You would be one of very few that didn't wind up being bitten on the backside as a result:C

It's bitten me before - I still have all my digits however and it will happen to countless others - What you and others are doing or have done should not be condoned nor even suggested as an acceptable practice.

OK soapbox is put away:)

[Cliff Rogers]

Having a handle doesn't preclude a heavy dig in either.

I have bent & broken shafts with dig ins & I have broken handles with dig ins.

Doesn't stop me from using turning tools without handles if they are long enough & of a type that can be controlled with a minimum of effort.

If anything, using it without a handle is more likely to make you concentrate on using it correctly rather than just pushing on with brute strength & ignorance.

[RETIRED]

My last word on the matter.

I do not advocate using tools without handles except if the tool is long enough to have acceptable leverage for the task at hand.

There are many tools that in turning that do not have a "handle" and many turners that have unhandled tools in use.

Rude Osolnik is one who comes to mind with his double ended tools. If you look here at the tool rack there is probably half a dozen without handles.Rude's Studio (http://www.rudeosolnik.com/Rude%27s%20Studio.htm)

One manufacturer even makes double ended tools without a handle.

As with all things the right tool to suit the purpose is what I have always said.

[tea lady]

didn't recomend using it ALL THE TIME unhandled. Just testing it at the outset for balance and whether the bevels etc work. Using it unhandled may also give you a feel for what the handle should be like. :shrug: As stated in his post, the tool itself should be self supportng when designed and used properly, so that a minimum of "grip " is required to control it. I guess this is what I call the "sweet spot" when it is all coming together nicely. Perhaps we all need a handle normally, cos we can't all be in the "sweet spot" all of the time. :C:U But as we get more experience, and if the tool is well designed we can spend more and more time in "the zone"! :cool:

[Frank&Earnest]

I agree with your last point, Cliff, and I am quite comfortable with doing it in this context to test the limits of the tool.

I would say, though, that you feeling comfortable with using a tool unhandled notwithstanding having experienced handle breaking dig ins does not in any way invalidate Barnsey's assessment of the wisdom of the practice.

Edited after reading 's comment: I agree with all says but the point now is just semantics: what constitutes a handle? The fact that a tool does not have a piece of wood attached does not necessarily mean that it is "unhandled". For example, one of my early experiments was with an insert applied to a half a metre long 1" steel rod. I would say that that constitutes shaft and handle. To use the fact that certain tools are made and sold to be used without a wooden handle as a justification for using unhandled tools is twisting the truth a little, IMHO.

[barnsey]

To each his own I guess :?

Not for me though and if people want to do silly things then I'll never be able to stop them - hospitals are full of 'em every day:roll:

[Sturdee]

Before we go to far of on a tangent of handled or otherwise lets consider some facts.

The two who have used it unhandled are and myself, is very experienced turner and I took every precaution to make sure that it was used in a safe and controlled manner.

The tool is long enough to hold and use it two handed as if it was handled, in fact if it was to be handled it would need to be shortened by about 100mm.

I looked at it very objectively and based my comments on my experience and have made what I believe to be positive suggestions accordingly.

Neither and myself have advocated the use of this tool unhandled by others and I have suggested that in the accompanying information/instruction sheet of the tool the need for making a handle is specified.

So let's move on from this issue, unless someone thinks that testing it unhandled gave wrong results.

Peter

[Frank&Earnest]

To make it absolutely clear, Peter, I reword what I have already said: it is not a matter of right or wrong results, it is a matter of whether the test is about finding what is the best that the tool can do or finding what its inherent deficiencies are. has been quite open in saying that his purpose was the latter, hence my gratitude for the opportunity he has given me to improve the tool as we have already discussed. If your purpose was to find the former, I hope you agree that a better handle than 100mm of 9.3mm hex rod would have helped, particularly for the first hour of working with an unknown tool. You might take 's offer, make a handle to suit you and give it another go. :)

Thanks for suggesting a shorter shaft. The next batch will be 250 instead of 300mm with the opportunity for the user to shorten it further. As per user manual. :wink:

[brendan stemp]

So let's move on from this issue, unless someone thinks that testing it unhandled gave wrong results.

Peter
I for one definitely think that testing this tool unhandled gave the wrong results and, as I have said previously I thought it very unfair to condemn it based on using it unhandled. What tool is bought and then used unhandled. I don't disagree with 's statement that a tool should be capable of being used unhandled but as I said previously there are a lot of tools that I wouldn't feel comfortable using unhandled. I reckon I could use them without mishap but would have to take things very carefully and concentrate a lot more than I am prepared to do.

's evaluation was based on a production turners context (he did state this) and in this context this tool is perhaps not an option. However, what percentage of turners out there in the turning world are production turners? Very, very few and this tool was never claimed to be for them.

I would like to reiterate that I really like the tool. I used it today and still like the tool. Unfortunately I haven't got the time to do thorough tests or the equipment to photograph my results at 50x, but I did found myself reaching for it today when I was doing a particular job. And this, for me is a good sign that a tool is worthwhile. I also gave it to someone whose skew chisel skills are very basic and he felt very confident with this tool (and demonstrated this). And that was enough proof for me. The fact that Sturdee based his opinion on using the tool unhandled was very unfortunate and I reckon if he kept an open mind and had five minutes with me he would change his mind. I wish would put a handle on it and give it another go but maybe the the shutters are down and/or the horse has bolted.

Back to the handle issue. Yes the cutting edge is unsupported at times but any average sized handle compensates for any unwanted torque, in what I would suggest is an effortless manner. I cant see myself getting tired or overworked from the minute amount of extra torque the unsupported edge provides that a handle overcomes. Maybe I would if I were using it for the whole day in a production turning context, but I never will be in this situation and I'm sure 99.9% of turners are in the same boat.
Theoretically the handle is an issue; in practise it simply isn't. Using this tool unhandled is a very different prospect to using it with a handle; very very different. And, (I am repeating myself once again) I don't think, as some have suggested, this is a design deficiency. It is simple, put a handle on the tool and try it out.

The other issue was whether or not it would be suitable for the instructional context. has emphatically said no. I emphatically say yes and I have tested the tool with a handle. I wouldn't give it to a beginner without a handle but then again I wouldn't give any tool to a beginner without a handle.

[Jim Carroll]

all this argy bargy back and forth on the merits of this tool and any other tool indicates that all learners need to be shown how to use the tools properly.

The FE tool in the hands of any novice not shown how to use the tool will give the same results as a skew chisel in the same hands. Disasterous

All the differing opinions about tools handled and unhandled dont bring anything new to the argument.
The tool should be able to be used with delicate hands and not white knuckle, Give the tool to a woman and watch how they use any tool. They dont try to throttle the tool as they are relying on a sharp edge to do the cutting not forcing the tool into the wood. If they do have to use any force to hold the tool they will look elsewhere for the right tool.

You all agree that everyone should be taught how to use all tools properly do not comprimise on this.

Now everyone got to bed .

Frank you have been given enough info to fix all the problems with the tool, go away and see if you can do it. If not throw it in the corner and forget about this. It wont be alone as I am sure there is a lot of other tools like this in sheds all over the place.

[RETIRED]

:iagree:

I have put a handle on it and tried it.

You can take a slightly deeper cut but it still is unstable and wants to twist.

[Frank&Earnest]

Fair enough, Jim, will do.

My understanding, please correct me if I am wrong, is that the tool can be improved by increasing the flat area of the base and shortening the length of the shaft. All other features, good or bad, make the tool what it is. A video would be much useful to show how to use it properly, but I do not know how to post one..

I could not agree more with your statement "The tool should be able to be used with delicate hands and not white knuckle". has said it himself, for best results this tool requires indeed a delicate touch too slow to be practical in a production environment.

BTW, you have seen me, I am the size of the average Australian woman...:-

[Cliff Rogers]

............I have put a handle on it and tried it.........
So what tool did you use to make the handle? :D

[Sturdee]

The fact that Sturdee based his opinion on using the tool unhandled was very unfortunate and I reckon if he kept an open mind and had five minutes with me he would change his mind.

will be passing the tool onto me at the WWW show and I will try it again handled next week and again with an open mind. Brendan if you are at the show this weekend I would love to meet up and spend those 5 minutes with you.


Peter.

[Frank&Earnest]

:iagree:

I have put a handle on it and tried it.

You can take a slightly deeper cut but it still is unstable and wants to twist.

, do you agree that a side rake of about 15% (depending on the position of the toolrest) is sufficient for the rotating force applied to the cutting edge to fall within the support area of the base? You should be able to do your two fingers test in that position. By widening the base it would be even less.

[brendan stemp]

Now everyone got to bed .


Awww! Come on Jim, don't spoil the fun. I did go to bed but now I'm awake again and a little bit of good natured argy bargy never hurt no-one.:D

[tea lady]

I could not agree more with your statement "The tool should be able to be used with delicate hands and not white knuckle". has said it himself, for best results this tool requires indeed a delicate touch too slow to be practical in a production environment.

BTW, you have seen me, I am the size of the average Australian woman...:-I am an Australia woman. Average or other wise is prolly open to debate.:rolleyes:

I think you are misinterpreting the "delicate touch" required. I guess what I am trying to explain with the "sweet spot" Is that every good tool seems to have one, and it then cuts FAST and EASILY! "Delicate touch" and "slow" do not necessarily go together.

[Frank&Earnest]

Hi TL. Last time I looked "average" was 1.64m, 58kg. :) The trend towards obesity is very fast, though...:D

I fully understand what you say, that's why I suggested a position where the "sweet spot" could be.

No sexual innuendo implied or invited.

[jimbur]

This thread has fascinated me, not least because of the opposing viewpoints. Oddly enough I find myself agreeing with both sides.
Frank has displayed admirable aplomb in taking the criticisms in the spirit in which I am sure they have been offered.
A couple of points occur to me:
Firstly anyone who develops something new cannot help but become an expert in its use. Look at all the computer programmes which are described as intuitive!
Probably the only fair test would be to take a group of rank beginners, split them into two sets and instruct one set with Frank's invention and the other with traditional woodturning tools.
Cheers,
Jim

[Frank&Earnest]

Fair point Jim :2tsup:. I am sure I underestimated my unconscious learning during the development process and overestimated the "intuitiveness" of the tool.

[rsser]

Having read through the posts it seems to me that the criteria that folk use to evaluate Frank's tool are important and should be made clear. In most cases of evaluation they have been, more or less.

I'd start with the intention of the maker, which was a tool easy to use by beginners for common spindle cuts.

Given the data in the posts, I'd say the result is a qualified positive.

I think 's done a thorough evaluation but one skewed (ahem!) by the values of a production turner of speed and quality of finish (which amounts to speed anyway). I don't see however that that matches Frank's intention if I've understood it correctly.

What I can't see working just by looking at the tool in front of me, which is supported by 's tests, is how it can get a crisp bottom on a V cut or adjacent beads. But I'll have a play once the fall-out of the just finished trip to the bush is dealt with.

Thanks Frank for sending me the tool. I'll turn a handle for it and have at some timber.

[jefferson]

Ern, don't forget to try some coves as well as those beads. :D:D:D

[rsser]

Will do Jeff, if you look up what 'rake' means in Darlow :p

[barnsey]

I am pleased that handles have been applied and further tests are being done :2tsup:

I don't consider myself as anywhere near a master of the skew but I never shy away from it - without practice I will not ever master it. I'm getting better.

This tool is designed from my observations for someone who wants spindle turning results before mastering or instead of using a traditional skew. An admirable idea.

Probably not one which I would pursue given where I'm at but that doesn't preclude others from using it if it works for them. I commend Frank for his dedication.

On the same idea if anyone is trying to woodturn in the less than experienced category put a bl&%# handle on it before you even think about it:;

I'm with jimbur and I'd be happy to try one - I'll even turn a handle for it just to see what it can do - I'm open to new ideas - except ones without a handle. Did I say that somewhere before?:?

Jamie

[jefferson]

Will do Jeff, if you look up what 'rake' means in Darlow :p

I would refer to Darlow, Ern, but some of my books and DVDs have gone west to other forumites. Once bitten.....

[rsser]

The great US photographer Edward Weston once said "I like my books and I like my friends and I don't want to lose either" ;-}

I usually keep a note of who I lend books to, memory being fallible.

Frank, once I've had a play with the tool I'll either pay you for it or return it. Many thanks for the opportunity.

[Frank&Earnest]

Well, Ern, to keep on the books theme: ever heard of critics paying for the books they review? :) Your honest assessment is payment enough, thanks.

Which brings up also the point of what to do in the future if this tool becomes accepted. I said from the beginning that I am not interested in the commercial side and purposely put it in the public domain so that nobody can patent the innovation (not really an invention! :) ) even assuming it were possible in the first place. What I am happy to continue doing when the R&D phase is finished is to be the contact point for group purchases on a purely cost recovery basis, especially for the obliging retired toolmaker who has rigged up for the job.

For the moment I am happy to have a few more machined, to see whether reducing the thickness of the tool and increasing the width of the base overcomes the main weakness identified by , to shorten the shaft as suggested by Brendan and to incorporate further impovements you might suggest, Ern.

If the slight radius of the cutter proves to be a disadvantage, it is possible to revert to square cutters. My earlier experiments were with the highest grade (and therefore marginally more expensive) 14x14x2 cutter Leuco 176341. It has a 60 degree bevel, so it is a trade off between the more acute corner and the less acute bevel. Opinions on this point welcome. The squareness definitely works better in some cases but I found that a slight tilting of the edge to compensate for the small radius still achieves a square cut where needed.

[rsser]

Thanks Frank.

When in academia I only got to keep an inspection copy of a book if I prescribed it for a class of > 20.

Have put a handle on now. One rounded side of each corner is intriguing and a point of difference from the EWTs. Under the loupe at 30x however it is tad faceted.

[rsser]

So I've had a play at some spindle cuts.

At the outset let me say that as a spindle turner I'm a better motorbike rider ;-}

And my experience of TCT tools is very much shaped by my evaluation of the EWTs with which I was positively impressed despite myself.

For test timber fast growth pine was used, about 75mm diam run at 2000 RPM.

Truing.

Cutter parallel to the centre line, first with horizontal shaft and then handle end slightly lifted. A pretty good finish; as good as the EWTs. The rounded corner is useful as a feed in.

Shear cut: produced a significantly better finish than the flat scraping cut and than anything I could get out of the EWT rougher at shear angle. The tool shaft 'shear' face clearly helps stability. The finish was as good as that from a forged spindle gouge with bevel rubbing. But I've found that over a few days the finish from the gouge stays smooth on this timber but the grain from a 'scraper' rises.

Shear cut with bevel rubbing: finish not improved over the plain sheer cut.

Facing off end grain

A light touch produced a good finish. But a skew got as good a finish and quicker.

Bead

At a shear angle with bevel rubbing the finish was good but I found the tool hard to control to get a flowing line. I got a good catch in this mode.

In scraping mode the finish was also good but cp the EWT Detailer I found the tool harder to work. Lesser shaft contact on the rest and awkward edge angle (seen in plan) would be the reasons at a guess.

I normally use a spindle or detail gouge for this, and a skew when the bottom is tight, and both give a better finish in my hands ... but those are what I'm used to.

...

Looking at the tool edge with a 30x loupe after these runs, I found distinct chipping out on the front edge away from the rounded corner.

Hope this helps.

[Frank&Earnest]

Thanks Ern. Looking forward to your experiments with the tool as a bowl gouge and a hollower...:wink: I thougth about that and I believe what makes hollowing with this tool effective is the pilot hole, which virtually allows cutting with the grain instead of on the end grain, using the side edge instead of the front edge.

Re the bead: I find difficult to visualise how you did it "at a shear angle", never tried it that way, it does indeed seem hard to do. Have you tried starting flat on top and pushing the corner inward just enough to keep the bevel rubbing all the way down the side, like with a bedan? That works with the coves also, so you can make Jeff happy...:D

Interesting finding about the chipping in the centre, especially after such a short time. Mine generally chip because of accidentally hitting the chuck...:- I wonder whether I sent you by mistake one that was already chipped, did you check it before starting? Will be very interesting to see if that occurs again with a fresh side.

I am amazed that you got a decent finish out of pine, I have not been able to manage that yet. Maybe I gave up too early in my learning process, must try again.

[rsser]

Hi Frank,

Last first ...

Re Pine, no drama. A light touch, and if truing flat on, bring the handle end up. Yeah, sounds odd but that was the advice I got from Craig Jackson of EWT and it works.

Re chipping, no I didn't check with the loupe to begin with, just eyeballed and didn't see anything of concern. At a guess, the catch might've done the damage...? TCT is fairly brittle

Re the bead, OK, will try it that way.

Re hollowing, yes, another realm and another day. Will bring it out on Thursday when we have a mini-Ernfest and will have a lump of green Elm on the lathe.

Thanks again for the opportunity to test the FET.

[ozhunter]

I would refer to Darlow, Ern, but some of my books and DVDs have gone west to other forumites. Once bitten.....

Not so subtle reminder noted. PM sent.

[Sturdee]

I got the FETool from over the weekend at the WWW Show and I also spent some time (more than 5 minutes :2tsup: ) with Brendan watching him using the tool.

has shortened it and handled it, but it's still longer than Brendan's. Being handled was easier to use and it had less tendency to twist sideways although I still had catches and spirals.

The first test I did was using 400mm pine,divided into 4 parts, which I rounded using a 1 1/4" roughing gouge, a skew, a bedan and the FETool.

The second test was using 300mm of mahogany, divided into three parts, where I rolled beads using a skew, a bedan and the FETool.

Tomorrow ,if I find time :D, I'll do some end grain hollowing tests.

These I'll take with me on Thursday to the midweek turn on at Ern's place and let others decide which finish is best before I make further comments. In other words a blind finish test.


Peter.

[Frank&Earnest]

Thanks Peter. As regards finish, the essential point as I see it is not better v worse, is whether the difference is big enough to make either tool unviable or something that starting sanding with a lower grit would easily fix. The considered comments of your group on this point will be highly valuable.

[Jim Carroll]

Thanks Peter. As regards finish, the essential point as I see it is not better v worse, is whether the difference is big enough to make either tool unviable or something that starting sanding with a lower grit would easily fix. The considered comments of your group on this point will be highly valuable.

Any new tool on the market should make the job easier and sanding should be started at a higher grit. If you have to go lower then the tool is useless and needs more work.

[Tim the Timber Turner]

What Jim said:2tsup:

[Frank&Earnest]

Ancient proverb: the worst deafness is not wanting to hear.

I can understand that you prefer to sell 5 tools at $50 each instead of one tool and one extra sheet of 80 grit at $2, Jim, but I look at it from the other side. :) And anyway, my tool is not technically on the market, unless somebody decides to produce and sell it. Which, I appreciate it, is even worse for you: no tools to sell at all if everybody DIY!

Tim, I have at least 20 witnesses to your public statement that, while purists might scoff at it, starting at 80 grit as soon as you get the line right is a more efficient way to finish. I even quoted you here before on that. :)

[Sturdee]

Considering the similarities of the FETool with the bedan which I often use for hollowing small boxes I made two miniature pen cupholders.

Timber was mahogany approx 80mm *40mm and the centre hollowed out to 60mm. Apart from a drill bit to start the hollowing and a small skew to part of I only used either the FETool or the bedan with again no sanding.

I'll take these tomorrow as well for opinions.

BTW can someone take photos of these for the board as our camera has gone north with the LOML on holidays.

Peter.

[Jim Carroll]

Ancient proverb: the worst deafness is not wanting to hear.

I can understand that you prefer to sell 5 tools at $50 each instead of one tool and one extra sheet of 80 grit at $2, Jim, but I look at it from the other side. :) And anyway, my tool is not technically on the market, unless somebody decides to produce and sell it. Which, I appreciate it, is even worse for you: no tools to sell at all if everybody DIY!



If it could do the job of 5 tools then it would get jumped on by any manufacturer but as yet there is no proof that it can do the job of one tool more succesfully.

So there is still a place for me to sell 5 tools that do work properly.

Nobody wants to waste sandpaper and if you can acheive a better finish of the tool then you start at a higher grit and may delete 3 or 4 grades of paper so saving money and time. And also less dust in the work shop. Your tool is not doing this so not a money or time saver.

[Frank&Earnest]

With the utmost respect, Jim, and assuring you that my mild jibes edited out were not in any way intended as a personal attack on you or Tim, I would like to point out that your continued misunderstanding of the issue can only entrench in the readers of this public forum the impression that there could be a specific interest in doing so.

I have never claimed that this tool "can do the job of one tool more succesfully".

I have claimed that this tool can do the job of 5 tools more cheaply and easily and close enough to the results achievable with the traditional tools that the difference, if any, can be easily fixed with a bit more sanding. The findings so far have not disproven this statement.

I am not an expert turner but can read and understand turning theory. I do claim expertise in cost analysis but in this case most of the variables depend on individual values. I am sure you appreciate that the time spent sanding has a totally different value for and Ken Wraight, for example.

[RETIRED]

I have tried to be subtle in the test and replies regarding this tool. It has not worked so a sledge hammer is coming.


With the utmost respect, Jim, and assuring you that my mild jibes edited out were not in any way intended as a personal attack on you or Tim, I would like to point out that your continued misunderstanding of the issue can only entrench in the readers of this public forum the impression that there could be a specific interest in doing so. There is no misunderstanding on either parties on this tool. They are both respected turners in their own right who have seen the tool and understand the way a tool works. This tool does not work.

I have never claimed that this tool "can do the job of one tool more succesfully". But you did claim that it would do the job of " a roughing gouge, a skew and a bowl gouge". It does not do any of them well and in fact in some cuts is dangerous.

I have claimed that this tool can do the job of 5 tools more cheaply and easily and close enough to the results achievable with the traditional tools I am afraid that it does not. that the difference, if any, can be easily fixed with a bit more sanding. That is the trouble. You can sand a straight cylinder but as soon as you put fine detail in, heavy sanding destroys it. This tool cannot cut a fine fillet, disc or bead and sanding is not going to help in any way. Sanding will never fix bad turning or incorrect tool usage.

The findings so far have not disproven this statement. True, because you could not get fine detail with the tool. This is evident in the finial you show pictured.

I am not an expert turner therein lies the problem but can read and understand turning theory. Theory in woodturning is fine but far divorced from practice and can only be used as a guideline. I know the theory behind flying a jet but you wouldn't want me as a pilot. I do claim expertise in cost analysis but in this case most of the variables depend on individual values. So does turning I am sure you appreciate that the time spent sanding has a totally different value for and Ken Wright, for example.True but you must have a good base at which to start sanding.Flak jacket and Nomex on.

[tea lady]

I have claimed that this tool can do the job of 5 tools more cheaply and easily This "cheaply" claim seems a bit far fetched too. If I buy a tool steel tool I can sharpen it for a couple of years for my original outlay. I can only renew the blade 4 times on this "Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" tool before I need to outlay another amount of $ to get another tip. :shrug: Also sandpaper is the great unadmitted expense in wood turning. Adding another grade or two to the sanding regime? No thanks. :~

I'm not looking at this thread anymore. :banghead:

[rsser]

One $10 bit; estimate say 10 hours per side; more, or less, depending on the wood, gives around 40 hours of cutting time without sharpening. Say 30 hours while reserving one side for finishing cuts.

[Cliff Rogers]

Cup of tea, a Bex, & a little lie down. :D

[cultana]

Seriously :whs:

[cultana]

Ok I am down in the sub novice class of this wood turning thing, so this thread and the related one "The tamed skew" holds some interest.

I gather the tool under discussion it is an option/replacement for the following roughing gouge, a skew chisel and a bowl gouge.
Fine, for a beginner the skew and bowl gouge are somewhat scary items, understatement actually. The roughing gouge is not that bad, but face it any fast spinning chunk of timber being assaulted/roughed down by a hand held tool is scary.
Also for the humble beginner end grain work can also be daunting. To be honest my first bit of end grain work with a scraper was the pits of an experience. Catches and associated gouges not to mention the shallow cuts allowed became frustrating. OK the timber being used did not help, (e-spathulata), but that should be secondary to the experience.

When I bought my lathe I also bought a box of tools, (spindle gouge, parting tool, roundnose scraper, roughing gouge, oval skew and a bowl gouge) standard issue HSS variety. I had a few things to learn fast.
1. What the heck each was and what for. Not so silly if you are a rank non turner.
2. How to actually use them
3. How to sharpen them.
Actually #3 came before #2 as they were blunt. I did not have a jig of sorts then so I had to learn quickly how to do it by hand. Surprisingly the first tools I learned to sharpen were the roughing gouge, skew and parting tool. Actually the roughing gouge is sort of obvious but the skew that nasty vicious tool, not that obvious. The spindle gouge looked too hard to sharpen so I left that initially alone. The bowl gouge, well forget that as a basic beginner and the scraper, well easy to sharpen but why use something that looked even more dangerous to use than a skew.
I spent ages trawling the YouTube woodturning stuff to see how it was all done. Yes I know easy way to learn the wrong way. Tough!
I spent ages watching the expertvillage videos and listening to a chorus of Rex Burningham, Lou Zabohonski and Donna Zils Banfield and a few others as well from Jet tools.
So I started to rough out some spindle blanks with my new knowledge of the roughing gouge and then with more watching etc and more new knowledge started to make beads with THAT tool, the skew.
By this stage I figured out how to sharpen a spindle gouge so I did some coves and beads with that.

Yes I did make catches with the skew and both gouges but I had some sort of idea what I was supposed to be doing and why it stuffed up.

Now back to topic:
How would this tool under discussion have helped?
First I guess it meant I would not have had to learn how to sharpen anything. Just rotate the tip and when fully used replace it. Will I learn anything here? NO.

Secondly would I have a collection of resources to use this tool? Well I guest there would be some form of instructions, but are they going to be suitable for a rank beginner?
No it is not OK to say go to the local turners club or men’s shed to get assistance/help as there may be neither close by. Besides will they know ho to use this tool properly?

Thirdly, is this tool actually going to benefit my turning lifestyle and will it direct me to use other tools, (standard turning tools and experiment with say the Oland tools).

Woodturning is a collection of tools and all have their place and learning curve. Some learning curves are steep other not so.

Anyway I ramble on but just my passing thoughts from a sub novice.

[jimbur]

Turning is like arthritis and golf. There is a lot of money to be made by coming up with something new. And, in all three cases, there isn't a cure for the ailment whether it comes from the cartilage of a shark or has Arnold Palmer's name on the club (showing my age here) or is made from steel using space age technology.
I wouldn't call myself a turner but I turn things using traditional tools because, like Cultana, that's how I started.
If ever I need an object lesson in what can be done with minimal equipment, I look up the beds made in India from rosewood during the Raj - exquisite workmanship.
I admire what Frank is trying to do. It is a great concept aimed at simplifying the entry point into turning. There must be many people who want to go a little further in their woodwork than square legs but are put off by the plethora of tools offered, their cost and even the mystique which seems to attach to them.
Whether Frank's tool does what he hopes it does is a different matter and he has done the right thing by throwing it into the forum to find out.
Perhaps he's wrong and turning tools can't be improved in basic design but manufacturers are trying it all the time. Just being on the forum is useful for us all in that it makes us look at what we are doing.
Cheers,
Jim

[barnsey]

What cultana says makes a great deal of sense.

Observations:
Having not used the tool I have to rely on the opinions of others who have - nothing I've seen here really inspires me to want to try it.

Roughing gouge - not really scary when you accept that's the macho bit ripping off the clothes to get to the finer things.

Bowl gouge - now that's fun having those shavings coming off and flying through the air - can't see that as scary at all as long as you stick with the "rub the bevel" concept.

Skew - ahh the damned skew. Now this little baby takes a fair bit of mastering. Today I thought I had but tomorrow it will turn around and bite me again:((. It truly is a wonder tool when you do it right but not a lot of room for error and when there is it's almost always nasty:o. Practice is the game.
One tool to replace all these - well I do not see the need for the first 2 applications and the third seems beyond the realms really if it cannot produce the results of a well executed skew or gouge cut - the sanding bit seems ancilliary as both the bowl gouge and skew will give results requiring little and the scraper will add what they might not.

If I wanted a lathe to take the artistry out of the turning I might consider a symtec type copying unit but that is not what I want. The thrill is in using traditional tools to produce the shapes and contours I find pleasing. My skill levels will determine how well I do at it.

I won't buy a Porsche and expect Bugatti Veyron performance nor will I buy a tool that can only do a percentage of what others are capable of. I'll still need a level of skill in any event to achieve the most out of whatever I chose - no tool will compensate for that factor.

[jimbur]

The main problem with a loose skew is that it can ruin a piece just as you are making the final cuts. Still if you look at chairs carefully it's amazing how many have a thinner leg at the back.
Cheers,
Jim

[Frank&Earnest]

Thanks Cultana, Jimbur and Barnsey. You have added further viewpoints to the discussion, and this is all we are about here.

, I do not see it as a matter of subtlety or sledge hammer. I was grateful for your testing and expert opinion and, as I said before, I was satisfied with your logic approach, even when the conclusions appeared a bit subjective. If you now increase the subjectivity of your comments, you make clearer what your standpoint is, but you do not add anything positive to the testing process. I have added in blue what I think would maintain the objectivity of your comments.

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>I have tried to be subtle in the test and replies regarding this tool. It has not worked so a sledge hammer is coming.


Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest http://cdn.woodworkforums.com/images/button2/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f8/road-test-fetool-125029/index5.html#post1224697)
With the utmost respect, Jim, and assuring you that my mild jibes edited out were not in any way intended as a personal attack on you or Tim, I would like to point out that your continued misunderstanding of the issue can only entrench in the readers of this public forum the impression that there could be a specific interest in doing so. There is no misunderstanding on either parties on this tool. They are both respected turners in their own right who have seen the tool and understand the way a tool works. This tool does not work well enough for them to want to use it.

I have never claimed that this tool "can do the job of one tool more succesfully". But you did claim that it would do the job of " a roughing gouge, a skew and a bowl gouge". It does not do any of them well enough for me () to want to use it and in fact in some cuts is dangerous. Please define dangerous and why this tool meets your definition. All tools can be dangerous if used to do things they are not meant to do.

I have claimed that this tool can do the job of 5 tools more cheaply and easily and close enough to the results achievable with the traditional tools I am afraid that it does not well, you said so above. That does not mean that it could not be well enough for others. that the difference, if any, can be easily fixed with a bit more sanding. That is the trouble. You can sand a straight cylinder but as soon as you put fine detail in, heavy sanding destroys it. This tool cannot cut a fine fillet, disc or bead You can't prove a negative. Define fine detail and others, like Peter, will try to show how close to your definition they can do it. It will then be up to the individual to decide if it is good enough for them. We have alredy agreed that the tool can't do V cuts more acute than about 46 degrees, for example. and sanding is not going to help in any way. Sanding will never fix bad turning or incorrect tool usage. Never say never. :D

The findings so far have not disproven this statement. True, because you could not get fine detail with the tool. This is evident in the finial you show pictured. See above.

I am not an expert turner therein lies the problem but can read and understand turning theory. Theory in woodturning is fine but far divorced from practice and can only be used as a guideline. I know the theory behind flying a jet but you wouldn't want me as a pilot. Yes, but I am not flying the plane, I am building an engine. You would not want the best pilot to fiddle with the plane's engine, would you? Thats' why I, the engineer, need good pilots to test it. I do claim expertise in cost analysis but in this case most of the variables depend on individual values. So does turning We are agreed, then. :) I am sure you appreciate that the time spent sanding has a totally different value for and Ken Wright, for example.True but you must have a good base at which to start sanding. Define good base.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[RETIRED]

This is going in ever decreasing circles and will disappear up its own orifice like the Oopsy bird.

Unless there is more tests to add it will be closed tonight.

[Frank&Earnest]

Please wait at least for the tests already announced.

[Sturdee]

Frank here are the results of the blind finish tests. I asked all to rate the finish in order from best to worst, without disclosing which tool did what section.



The first test I did was using 400mm pine,divided into 4 parts, which I rounded using a 1 1/4" roughing gouge, a skew, a bedan and the FETool.


The skew came first but there was very little difference between the roughing gouge, the FETool or the bedan with the FETool coming last more than the others.



The second test was using 300mm of mahogany, divided into three parts, where I rolled beads using a skew, a bedan and the FETool.

Again for this test the skew came first but the bedan came second and the FETool last.



two miniature pencup holders.Timber was mahogany approx 80mm *40mm and the centre hollowed out to 60mm. Apart from a drill bit to start the hollowing and a small skew to part of I only used either the FETool or the bedan with again no sanding.


The result of this test was pretty well even, there being very little difference between them.


So generally speaking the finish that the bedan or the FETool gave was very close and with sanding you would start at the same grit level being about 2 grades lower than the skew.

By now having done a fair amount of work with the tool I found that being handled it is easier to control but I had more catches with it than with the bedan or the skew.

With the endgrain hollowing, although the finish was about the same with your tool I needed to drill a pilot hole first and opening it out had a lot of chatter as I started to hollow out. This I do not get with the bedan. Further using the bedan took only a quarter of the time to make it.

After all this I believe the Sorby bedan, currently retailing unhandled at the same price of $ 45.00 is a better option. It is more stable, can be sharpened and used for other cuts as well. I was willing to tackle the lump at Ern's place today with the bedan but would not do it with the FETool.


Peter.

[jefferson]

I've tried to largely stay out of this one, but as is closing the thread down, I thought I'd better get in before it's too late.

Now.....

Production turners have a fetish for using basic tools properly. Learn them and you can almost do anything. True. Except for deep hollowing. Or texturing. Or ..... etc etc. FACT ONE.

So you need more tools than the 5 basics: parting tool, spindle gouge, bowl gouge, roughing tool and skew. FACT TWO.

Now Frank has it in his head that his AKA Easy Wood Tools CI1 Rougher will do the task of the 5 basic tools. Oops, sorry Frank, I don't think you ever said that you could part with your FETool.

FACT THREE. Frank would also have us believe that a square insert tool will cut coves. Now, how does that work? A cove is a U and if you cut it with a square tip you end up with scratches. (Are you listening Frank?)

The depth/ acuteness of your cut on between centre work is determined by the length of the bevel. Acute bevels let you cut deeper. Unlike the FETool.

FACT FOUR and Frank is ignoring this one too. YOU CANNOT TURN A DECENT FINIAL WITH THE Fetool.

Whatever the tool, you need support under the cutting edge as has mentioned. The FETOOL is only supported on the front edge with a push cut. As others have said, it's dangerous cutting sideways. FACT FIVE.

FACT SIX: the FETOOL largely scrapes. If you want Mt. Pimple, by all means scrape. But if you want to learn to turn, use a PROPER tool designed for the task at hand and go for not Mt. Everest but just a nearby hill. THAT IS:

- use a roughing gouge for roughing
- use a skew for planing and v cuts etc
- use a spindle gouge for coves and probably beads
- use a bowl gouge for cutting side grain
- use a parting tool for parting off!

CUT, not scrape. And for beginners out there thinking otherwise, aim higher than scraping, you will feel much better for it once you acquire the basic skills.

FACT 7: Frank tells everyone to listen. HE IS NOT LISTENING.

FACT 8: INSERT TOOLS OF A DIFFERENT DESIGN are great tools. I have plenty, mostly EWTs and Vermec ones. GREAT TOOLS for a specific purpose.

Example 1. Want to finish deep hollowing a lidded box square? Use an insert tool instead of a bedan or a square skew or a wide beading / parting tool. Ci1 perfect.

Example 2. Want to turn a hollow form? Use an insert tool (or an equivalent, not being a traditional tool).

Example 3. Want to rough out rock-hard Oz timber without constant sharpening? Use an insert tool.

NOTE: The FETOOL doesn't cut it for any of the above!!!!

FACT 9:

THERE IS NO EASY WAY.

If you want to go the carbide insert route, you need more than one tool. At least 3 in fact. Check out the Easy Wood Tools website and think about it. And while not Mt. Everest, learning to use the 3 tools will not be as simple as you think. Challenge: use a round insert tool to hog out waste then finish scrape. How did you go?

FACT 10:

Frank has invented nothing. Lots of people are doing insert tools. Oops, Frank has invited danger on sideways cuts. Can you patent that?

FACT 11:

Mt Everest is a long way away. The hill nearby is not. Take some lessons, turn every other day, spend tens of thousands on lathes etc but the hill remains close. Persist, learn to use the basic kit, then get out there into the other world using insert and Oland etc tools.

FACT 12:

Frank won't be happy with me. :D

[RETIRED]

This thread will be closed after Frank responds.

[NeilS]

This thread has been a real tribute to this forum and its participants.

There isn't another woodturning forum out there that comes close to this level of robust, yet civil, discussion of firmly held views.

Where else could you get the top professional turners in a country to engage so generously with such keen enthusiasts.

I value this forum for lots of things, and this is one of them.

Thanks everyone

.

[Frank&Earnest]

Well, NeilS has pretty much said what I meant to say, I am sure these feelings are shared by all readers.

Jeff, allow me to quote you: saying that your belief is a fact does not make it so.

If something fairly easily quantifiable as this raises some quasi-religious responses, what chance has the world to ever achieve peace?

Amen.

[cultana]

Frank thanks for this thread. It may not improve my turning as I am sure I can make better catches than most in this forum.:D

It has made me contemplate going to a carbide tipped tool be it round, square or diamond. I have just started with my massive Oland thing so I suspect that is the next step.

I should threaten you and NielS with a visit at some stage when I go to the "big smoke and place of traffic lights". promise no turning on my part that would only scare you both.:D

[Cliff Rogers]

Tea time .

[Sturdee]

Where else could you get the top professional turners in a country to engage so generously with such keen enthusiasts.

I value this forum for lots of things, and this is one of them.



I fully agree. There has been some robust, but civil debate to get to a better tool. I've enjoyed being one of the testers and I hope that my findings and views have been helpful in this regard.

Thanks for your efforts so far in trying to improve tool design. You have put in a lot of work and I for one appreciate it.


Peter.