Laguna ResawKing 1/2" vs. 3/4"?

[LongLook]

The Laguna products are now on sale at 10% off and I'm considering a Laguna ResawKing blade for my 1412 bandsaw.  I've never tried a 3/4" blade before and am curious if anyone has had problems tensioning the 3/4" on the 1412. I know Laguna says the saw will handle a 3/4" but without any direct experience I'm looking for others experience before ordering either the 1/2" or the 3/4".  

I have been resawing using 1/2" Laguna ProForce and Woodslicers but find I need to do some significant planing or sanding with either.    Either of those gives me good results as far as lack of drift, etc., so the saw performs well (as long as I use a sharp blade).

[mikefm101]

Hi

I have a Laguna 14 SE so older than yours.

I use a 3/4” resaw blade with no problem. I think it’s a wood slicer from Highland. Bought it years ago.

As an aside, Not sure if they still say this, but Laguna claimed my saw could handle a 1” blade. I tried and It sort of fit but not really well.

Mike

[jteneyck]

It's not hard to figure out whether or not your saw can handle a 3/4" blade.  Make a tension meter and check the tension on the blades you have now.  Here's a link to my web page that describes building and using a tension meter.  

Let's say you find you can easily apply 20K psi on the 1/2" blades you now use, and the tension meter is someplace close to the 1/2" tension indicator on the saw.  That would suggest that the saw probably can apply at least 20K psi on a 3/4" blade.  25 K psi would be better on a carbide tipped blade like the Resaw King, FWIW.  The good news is the Resaw King uses a narrow gage band so applying higher tension requires less spring force than on something like a Lennox carbide blade.  However, if you find that in order to get even just 20K psi on your 1/2" blade that the tension indicator is at or almost at the 3/4" tension indicator then it's pretty clear it can't handle a 3/4" blade.  

It's better to run a 1/2" blade at 20K psi than a 3/4" blade at (20/0.75x0.5)= 13K psi.  

John

[GeeDub]

I've not noticed any decrease in what I can do or the quality of the result in moving from a 3/4" RK to a 1/2" RK. YMMV of course based on what you do.

[Cabinet Monkey]

I'd be very surprised if the 1412 will tension a 3/4" carbide blade properly.

Even if the spring will produce the force, I seriously doubt the the spine could handle it without flexing. 

I can't really see an advantage (or better results) by you switching to 3/4" ; but I can see exposure to poorer results.   Just like GeeDub's experience.

[jteneyck]

I'd be very surprised if the 1412 will tension a 3/4" carbide blade properly.

Even if the spring will produce the force, I seriously doubt the the spine could handle it without flexing. 

I can't really see an advantage (or better results) by you switching to 3/4" ; but I can see exposure to poorer results.   Just like GeeDub's experience.

Measuring the tension will tell you what the spring is capable of.  Measuring frame deflection, or simply observing whether or not the upper blade guides stay centered on the blade over it's full range of motion tells you whether the spine can handle the load.  My 14" Delta can actually apply over 15K psi to a 1/2" blade with the Iturra spring on it, but the upper frame bends so much that the guides go way out of alignment.  12K psi is about all it's capable of with a 1/2" blade, which is one reason I normally use a 3/8" one.  

On the other hand, my larger saw can run a 1" blade w/o issue at 25K psi and higher.  Being able to run full tension allows me to get straight cuts at a faster rate than I could with a 3/4" blade because of the higher beam strength.   It all gets back to measuring tension and frame deflection, and then choosing the blade that best fits within those parameters and what you want to do.  

John

[mdhills]

I've not noticed any decrease in what I can do or the quality of the result in moving from a 3/4" RK to a 1/2" RK.  YMMV of course based on what you do.

What decrease would you expect with the narrower blade?  Decreased beam strength and smaller gullets for removing waste?  I assume both of these would affect achievable feed rate?

Matt

[GeeDub]

What decrease would you expect with the narrower blade?  Decreased beam strength and smaller gullets for removing waste?  I assume both of these would affect achievable feed rate?

Matt

A number of folks get a better cut and/or better tracking with 3/4", 1" or larger blades.  These folks state that narrower blades do not track as well for them and do not provide the result they are after.  I have not noticed this in my work and just wanted to supply a contrasting experience.  The rendering down of the many different experiences of folks on the forum is what adds the most value for me. 


Some people also go through all sorts of voodoo to get their bandsaws to track true or to compensate for them not doing so.  I am in the no-drift camp and just align my saw to cut straight; some folks are in between.  All these methods are correct for the people using them, we're all different.  The differing views and experiences add value to the threads overall.

[jteneyck]

What decrease would you expect with the narrower blade?  Decreased beam strength and smaller gullets for removing waste?  I assume both of these would affect achievable feed rate?

Matt

Yes, that's right.  A narrower blade has lower beam strength so the maximum rate of cut is lower even for blades with the same tooth count.  For those who "listen" to their saw as it cuts that's no problem, it just takes longer to complete a cut compared to a wider blade.  For tone deaf people, however, they will push the board into the blade faster than it can handle and it will bog down, or deflect, or belly.  

John

[Pirate]

"A narrower blade has lower beam strength so the maximum rate of cut is lower even for blades with the same tooth count."

I would think a thinner blade regardless of width, would cut faster than a thicker one.