Thread: Blades for Table Saw

Thanks for all the great info guys. Barramonday (forum member) contacted me. He used to have the same saw and had three good quality blades he had kept. I have purchased them and am set to go.
Well would be set to go if the saw worked. Out of the box after setting up, the switch box seems to be faulty. Carbatec is sending me a new one to fit. So hopefully I’ll be cutting in a few days.

Originally Posted by Norm C

Thanks for all the great info guys. Barramonday (forum member) contacted me. He used to have the same saw and had three good quality blades he had kept. I have purchased them and am set to go.
Well would be set to go if the saw worked. Out of the box after setting up, the switch box seems to be faulty. Carbatec is sending me a new one to fit. So hopefully I’ll be cutting in a few days.

Good with regard to the blades and damn for the switch box. When you've had the time to evaluate your whole set up I'd really like to hear your feedback on the sliding table, pro and cons and all that since I have the same machine and if it works well would be an appealing option.

Originally Posted by jack620

I don't understand this. It's the same number of teeth removing the same amount of material. Why do they wear faster?

Good question, if you look at the two photos, you will see the angle of attack in the first one where the blade is only just protruding through is much more acute, and the length of material that is actually in contact with the timber is about 90mm. In the second photo, where the blade is up at the maximium height, the angle of attack is much squarer, and the amount of material that the cutting tips are in contact with is about 50mm, almost half. This means that the blade,and the saw turning it , are working better and removing less material. And therefore the tips on the blade stay sharp longer. There’s other reasons too,like the gullets being able to clear the waste easier and geometry stuff, but that’s the main reason. E05CAEBC-AB18-499B-8C4C-1ED7884C5D14.jpeg
DD8FC1E7-BCC5-4E8F-A6DC-901464B96D6A.jpeg

Also, longer time in cut = more heat and Rule 2 of preserving cutting tools is "Keep them as cool as possible", closely behind Rule 1 "Don't hit anything hard with them".

Most "standard blades are 3.2 mm the thin ones do seem to be about 2.5 mm so should be all good - at work dealing with clearances we work to say .1 -.2 or anything that will not touch.

Originally Posted by wood spirit

Most "standard blades are 3.2 mm the thin ones do seem to be about 2.5 mm so should be all good - at work dealing with clearances we work to say .1 -.2 or anything that will not touch.

what I don't know is if the "industry standard" varies either side of the pond and what that means for a country like Australia which imports almost all of its cutting tools (and all its woodworking machinery) from manufacturers located in Europe, the US or China.

does a "standard kerf" blade cut a 1/8" kerf in the US, and the same size kerf (3.175 mm) in Europe?
or are "standard kerf" blades different widths depending which market they are made for? i.e. blades made for the US market cut a kerf 1/8" wide (and have a 5/8" bore), while blades made for the European market cut a kerf that is exactly 3.2 mm wide (and have a 30 mm bore).
or are all "standard kerf" blades made to cut a kerf that is 3.2 mm wide?, or is 3.2 mm the European approximation of the 1/8" (3.175 mm) standard used in the US.

for narrow kerf blades. Is the standard 3/32" as per US measurements, or is 3/32" (=2.38125 mm) a US approximation of the metric standard of 2.4 mm?


Does anyone know?

Originally Posted by ian

Does anyone know?

I don't, but does it matter though? The difference is tiny by woodworking standards. And since the teeth are tapered they get slightly narrower with every sharpening, so the dimensions are only correct until the blade gets sharpened.

Originally Posted by jack620

I don't, but does it matter though? The difference is tiny by woodworking standards. And since the teeth are tapered they get slightly narrower with every sharpening, so the dimensions are only correct until the blade gets sharpened.

Blades aren't sharpened on the sides of the teeth only the front face.

Edit: I missed the point of what Jack was saying there. The teeth are of course narrower at the point closest to the centre of the blade and wider at the top so the kerf does get narrower with each sharpening.

Originally Posted by aldav

Blades aren't sharpened on the sides of the teeth only the front face.

Yes, but the sides have a relief angle so as you sharpen the face back, the width will change. Not enough to make any difference on timber, but it would be measurable with a micrometer

Originally Posted by jack620

I don't, but does [the exact size of the kerf] matter though? The difference is tiny by woodworking standards.

I think it matters to NormC.
His riving knife is specified as requiring a blade kerf between 0.102" to 0.126"
Now 1/8" is 125 thou, which is less than 126 thou.
But 126 thou is approximately 3.2 mm.
On the face of it this would imply that a standard kerf blade cuts a kerf a smidgen wider than 3.2 mm. Or the 126 thou dimension could be due to rounding at the tenths and hundredths of a thou to exactly 3.2 mm.


does that make sense?

I would suggest the extra thou making a difference is... unlikely

Now that I’ve sorted out the switch with your help I can get to work soon. Picking up a heap of ply tomorrow to start on some significant projects.