Hey guys,
I'm new to the forum, but I have been reviewing all of this Rikon design flaw info. I had my checkbook in my hand yesterday getting ready to purchase one from Woodcraft due to the 10% off sale presently going on. All of this made me hesitate - not saying I bought all of it yet - but I hesitated.
I went to Woodcraft today to do two things: Get a look at the the new tension system and ask the main guy there if has heard of any issues. I have done business with him for some time and I trust his opinions - he has always appeared to be honest with me.
I have looked at the saw and the photos within this this forum in the explanation of this issue posted here - not sure I agree yet. My thoughts as follows. Rikon has moved the cam from above to below and the cam is a different style - thus requiring a horizontal swinging handle versus thte vertical one on the 340 version. There was some discussion about whether the spring was in tension or compression because of where this cam is if I understood correctly. I would actually like to get another look at the saw, but I don't think the cam location has anything to do with that. The cam appears to simply move that entire black assembly (housing the spring) up and down releasing and applying tension. This happens whether the cam is above or below the wheel - doesn't it? The cam actually moves the black frame up and down and the spring is along for the ride it seems. It's just a way to quickly drop the wheel without having to crank the tension handle/wheel below. Again I want to get another look and I will admit if I am wrong here - but I don't think the position of the cam here has changed the resulting tension or compression in the spring. I did notice that the new cam makes the upper wheel twist slightly when the tension release is pulled back and forth where the old cam wouldn't appear to cause this, but I have never touched the 340 design either - so I am assuming.
I don't know enough to comment on the tracking problems so I won't dispute the fact that someone had an issue with the 345 design. I'm just trying to understand this as I am seriously considering purchasing the 345 and I am not sold that there is a design flaw yet.
My friend at Woodcraft said he hasn't heard any complaints on this issue. I know you will say he sells them, so why would he be honest - maybe so. But I trust him to some degree and he has stood behind everything he has sold - whether good or bad. His is just another opinion to me in this case. He also gave me the support number for Rikon as I suggested I wanted to quiz them about this. I may give them a call tomorrow.
Anyone have any more recent experience with this - confirming or denying the presence of a flaw in the design?
Thanks,
Tim
I'm new to the forum, but I have been reviewing all of this Rikon design flaw info. I had my checkbook in my hand yesterday getting ready to purchase one from Woodcraft due to the 10% off sale presently going on. All of this made me hesitate - not saying I bought all of it yet - but I hesitated.
I went to Woodcraft today to do two things: Get a look at the the new tension system and ask the main guy there if has heard of any issues. I have done business with him for some time and I trust his opinions - he has always appeared to be honest with me.
I have looked at the saw and the photos within this this forum in the explanation of this issue posted here - not sure I agree yet. My thoughts as follows. Rikon has moved the cam from above to below and the cam is a different style - thus requiring a horizontal swinging handle versus thte vertical one on the 340 version. There was some discussion about whether the spring was in tension or compression because of where this cam is if I understood correctly. I would actually like to get another look at the saw, but I don't think the cam location has anything to do with that. The cam appears to simply move that entire black assembly (housing the spring) up and down releasing and applying tension. This happens whether the cam is above or below the wheel - doesn't it? The cam actually moves the black frame up and down and the spring is along for the ride it seems. It's just a way to quickly drop the wheel without having to crank the tension handle/wheel below. Again I want to get another look and I will admit if I am wrong here - but I don't think the position of the cam here has changed the resulting tension or compression in the spring. I did notice that the new cam makes the upper wheel twist slightly when the tension release is pulled back and forth where the old cam wouldn't appear to cause this, but I have never touched the 340 design either - so I am assuming.
I don't know enough to comment on the tracking problems so I won't dispute the fact that someone had an issue with the 345 design. I'm just trying to understand this as I am seriously considering purchasing the 345 and I am not sold that there is a design flaw yet.
My friend at Woodcraft said he hasn't heard any complaints on this issue. I know you will say he sells them, so why would he be honest - maybe so. But I trust him to some degree and he has stood behind everything he has sold - whether good or bad. His is just another opinion to me in this case. He also gave me the support number for Rikon as I suggested I wanted to quiz them about this. I may give them a call tomorrow.
Anyone have any more recent experience with this - confirming or denying the presence of a flaw in the design?
Thanks,
Tim