what handles do you use

[hughie]

I am wondering how popular the wood turning multi handles are? That is handles such as Vermec. Porforme, Oneway etc

So what do you use?

What diameter does it take?

If you have more than one whats your favourite?

What are its draw backs if any?

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Why have a multi-handle, when one of each tool in it's own handle is so much more convenient? :D

[rsser]

For deep(er) hollowing adjusting the extension can help.

1. Munro std., for 5/8 shafts. Comfy foam rubber grip. Warm in winter. Adjustment of extension via the knob is much better than messing around with grub screws, and the knob helps you orient the cutting edge.

The handle is light being made of alloy. There's a school of thought that heft is good but the Munro works fine for me and lead shot can be added if wanted.

2. Woodcut Pro-master; no longer made. Steel tube with foam covering most of it. Uses a grub screw to fix the shaft. Orig 3/4 ID and it took another tube with 1/2 ID. I've sleeved the orig down to 5/8 to take the Munro or Proforme shafts.

Also have the Vicmarc hollowing tool support. That comes with 4 diff size collets fixed with 4 grub screws which is a pain but the alt would prob bump the price of the unit into the stratosphere.

So Hughie, you going to prototype an entirely new technology?

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

IF you have a stubby, are stressing it to it's limits and all of your tools have handles in the 4' long range, then I could understand a multi-handle. A 4' length of 2" round stock is a significant outlay by itself, let alone several of them.

But this is a specialised market... I know of perhaps two blokes (in the entire web... and 's not one of them! :oo:) who would consider them a good idea. But who (do) make their own and probably wouldn't by a "commercial" handle anyway.

Similarly, IF you're going into deep hollowing in a big way, then I could understand a multi-handle because it would give you a standardised size for the gates. (I'd still prefer one of each type of tool in it's own individual handlem but sized appropriately)

Even so, I'd want to be turning fairly large hollow forms to make it worth the effort of changing tips, instead of just picking up another tool.

For the general "home-hobbyist" market, I seriously believe these handles are just tool . ie. another way to separate a tool "collector" from their money. :shrug:

[rsser]

When you're deepish hollowing - at forces between an easy hold and one requiring a captive system - you can minimise the leverage by having the handle as close to the pivot as possible. This does make a lot of difference even at fairly modest overhangs. So an adjustable handle is useful.

As for cost, well the Munro came as part of a system and does service on the orig shaft and a couple of Pro-forme shafts, and the Pro-Master cost all of $40 or so. It takes the shaft that carries the scraper head so for a very modest investment I can quickly alternate between stock removal and clean up as I ream out the inside of some captured carbon. That means for the duration of a hollowing session there's only two tools on the bench.

As regards 'ordinary' turning tools, I take the same view you do Skew. A US mate has gone for a modular system that I've bagged him about. Swapping blades in and out of a handle multiple times in a session strikes me as time and cost inefficient.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

I'd best mention that they can be convenient for a hobbyist at times, too.

When doing demos I've often whinged about the amount of tools I've had to lug around. In reality I think I've narrowed my selection down to a mere four "basic" tools, but that won't stop me from complaining. :)

But even that sort of thing is a specialised market, really. How many turners use more than their own lathe, except on a social basis?

I think my main complaint against them is that for the market such tools need to be cost-effective. And what the manufacturer's don't seem to understand is that this doesn't necessarily equate to "cheaper to make." That a solid handle of mild steel can be twice as effective as a hollow pipe made from the best steel. Or that reducing the tang size of a tip so that it can be used in the handle is not necessarily a bonus. :rolleyes:

If Hughie's Ripsnorter Oland tool had been drilled another 4" deeper to take a shaft instead of a HSS tip it'd be around the size I reckon is practical. (It's my latest toy and I'm still in lust with it. :U)

But I don't know that I'd want to pay Hughie the extra it'd cost him to one drill out deeper, when I know that I'd quickly become bored with the novelty and it'll end up with one dedicated tip for the long term anyway.

[jefferson]

I dunno about the tools handles.

hid some of my greatest pleasures (including my Ci1) on his last visit, just to make sure that I used "proper" tools, the way they were designed to work.

At last count, I was three chisels and handles short, all of which I think are now on long order from OS.

Plus the new Ci0 to scrape the inside of my little redgum bowls......

Unfortunately the tools do not makeeth the man, but they sure do help....

Just can't figure out those Oland tools yet Ern and I need to fast. Had to undercut the inside of an outside S pattern today that gave me no end of grief.

So I am in favour of one handle per tool and leave it at that!

Jeff

[rsser]

Jeff,

Just use 'em like a scraper. You can also rotate the shaft to do shear scraping.

On some of that redgum of yours they'll need frequent sharpening.
If you haven't got the knack of doing that on the high speed grinder then just lap the top on a stone or with a diamond hone.

[hughie]

.:USo Hughie, you going to prototype an entirely new technology?
[/QUOTE]

Now theres a thought :2tsup: have a couple of ideas or adaptations in prototype stage, due for testing shortly


But I think the most successful handle would be a dual capacity say 1/2'' at one end this would allow 12mm dia shafts to be used. Then a 16mm at the other end this would allow 5/8" to be used, so a 4 shaft diameter potential.Probably around 500mm long foam covered, not from steel tho, it would weigh around 4-4.5kg :o :C I would be worn out dragging it around. :U

As to shafts and cutter changes etc I could easily imagine a lot of guys have multiple shafts one for each cutter to speed up the change over. Especially if they priced right etc

I like the idea of a "an all incorporating system " It appeals to my engineering mind. But the reality is, I would find the constant changing a PITA. So for me it would have to be simple system of a couple or so. Roughing, finishing and maybe a scraper. Natural desending order much like sand paper grit. KISS works for me over anything else here.

Currently I have every tool handled individually with its own shape and size.One, it depends on its intended usage and two for easy recognition.

[TTIT]

The main reason I used a multi-type handle was for experimenting with hollowing setups. Nothing worse than turning up a handle for a tool that doesn't work out and having to pull it apart again. It's much easier to make/modify tools when they're not glued in to a chunk of wood :;. My multi-handle is a piece of Qld walnut that I drilled out to about 8" deep then glued in a piece of pipe with a 16mm inside diameter. It's handy because I scrounge all sorts of odd sized bits of steel to use for tool shafts and this will hold 16mm or 5/8", 1/2" and even 1/2" square if the corners are arissed a little.
It's become even more useful since I built my captive rig as I still like to use the same hollowing tools/shafts freehand when I'm hollowing small forms. :shrug: