开云体育

A 37” WB only takes a lot of power if you’re running material close to 37” wide and at a depth of cut that is at the design limits of the machine. ?Running such a machine with a lower HP motor and depth-of-cut is distinctly better than using a wider platform Performax-type drum sander. ?Netanel might in fact be well served with a 37” 10HP WB while observing the reduced duty capacity and taking proper steps to ensure the machine is not overloaded. ?I’ve used a 37” Timesaver with 10 HP motor, and while not ideal for hogging off glue-line irregularities of a 36” tabletop, great results for such a workflow can be achieved with patience and multiple passes. ?It sure beats 3 hours with a ROS and produces a flat surface without all the potential stalls and burn marks of a drum sander. ?It also beats the results of sending a 32” table top through a 16" open-side wide belt (or drum sander) with alternating directions/sides. ?Just my two cents, but the decision on WB machine all relates to expectations, demands, and patience. ?In the world of WB vendors and users, there’s often too much emphasis on time to complete a task, and not enough emphasis on what the end-goals is with less regard on how long it takes you to get there. ?“Look at this - I can send this 36” wide table, with ?” glue-line irregularities, throughout the machine and get a finish ready result in a single pass.” ?Yea, that’s bravado personified IMO. ?What if it took 10 passes, and you get to the same end result, and it’s flatter than any other method you have available?