Ahhh, it's a few minutes til Friday, and my plan is to finish setting up my shop tomorrow and Saturday; and maybe get some small projects done by Monday.
Now, as I said, I've got a decent, but not huge, space to use; my two+ car garage (it's not quite big enough for a three car, but it's bigger than a standard 2 car). I've got 672 square feet on the ground floor; about 512 of it free space, clear of walls, stairs, and builtins.
Not bad.. and certainly a lot better than things have been. In Arizona my "shop" was my front "porch" (actually a converted single car car port) and a 12x12 E-Z-UP style pavilion.
In Arizona.
In summer...
Yeah... I didnt get much done between May and October.
Now I've got a decent space, that I could theoretically heat and cool (though neither are in place as of yet); with both a regular entry door and a nice big garage door; and an upstairs loft for wood storage etc...
So... What am I going to fill that space in with?
Oh yay, we get to have some tool porn.
So, I've been accumulating tools for a while; but I never wanted to make a big investment in the fixed "anchor" tools, until I had a real shop... in fact, since this house is just a rental (albeit one we plan to spend at least two years in), I still don't.
BUT... I also want to do a bunch of precision work. I'm going to be using this shop to build a BUNCH of furniture for our house, plus patio furniture, to build a playset for the kids, to help convert my 28 foot race trailer into a toy hauler (yay, custom cabinetry and benchwork), to restore an old wooden boat or two, and maybe to build a new one or two as well.
So I really need some decent quality tools. I really can't get by with what I was working with.... Or at least I wouldn't be able to put up with the frustrating difficulty of getting it done using that stuff. It's time for REAL tools to work with (if not necessarily the ones I'll have as my primary tools when I have a permanent shop that I build from scratch)
The Anchor Tools
In every wood shop, there are some fundamental or perhaps foundational tools. I tend to think of them as anchor tools... Basically, they are the big, important tools, you really don't want to do without.
The most important tool in a wood shop, is the table saw. Without a table saw, it isn't a wood shop. Really, everything else is convenient, and nice to have, but optional.
Theoretically, you can do MOST of what a table saw will do, with a circular saw, a router, and some hand tools... but you really don't want to do without a good table saw.
In a close tie for second place, are a miter saw, and a band saw. You CAN do the jobs they do with other tools (hand saws, jig saws, circular saw); but your life is going to be a lot harder without them.
Next up is a drill press. Again, you can do most of what a drill press will do using hand and handheld power drills; but it will be slower, less precise, and a hell of a lot harder... And trust me, you dont want to hand drill a few dozen regularly spaced holes in hardwood.
Those are the tools I consider absolutely essential (not including the hand power tools like drills and sanders etc...). There are another couple of tools that are optional, but HIGHLY desirable.
First among these, are the jointer and planer. If you're going to do any furniture making, or other finish carpentry, you really must have either a large number of hand planes, and table saw and router jigs; or a jointer and planer.
The jointer and planer (and you really need both; though with a large jointer, and a good sander and router with the right jigs; you can do without the planer for smaller stock 6" wide and under) allow you to mill your lumber down close to finish dimensions, and make it strait, fair, and true... critical for any fine work.
Also optional but very useful, is a combo disc and belt sander. This lets you move the stock, rather than the sander; for working on large flat surfaces, stock removal, and the edges of pieces.
A "nice to have", that has only recently become affordable for the home woodworker, is the wide belt or wide drum thickness sander. This is a lot like a planer, but instead of cutting knives, it has a wide sanding belt or drum; that will rough sand the surface of the wood you are milling. They ARE rather expensive however. Most woodworkers don't have them yet; but I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, there will be more people with drum sanders, than with planers. People are already starting to give up their planers in favor of buying an equivalent capacity and quality sander (they cost about the same).
The final big "really nice to have" is a dedicated dust collection system. You can always run your shop vac over to each tool as you use it; but they aren't actually all that good at pulling dust, and doing that is a real pain in the ass. You're much better off with a dedicated dust collection system. They start off relatively cheap (in the $250 range), but can easily run into several thousand dollars.
Then there's a third category of "man, that'd be handy, but I can do it some other way".
In that category, I'd put a router table (for dadoes, rabbets, and edge shaping, but can be done with a router and jig), drum and spindle sanders (for edge sanding, but can be done with a drill press and jig), and a dedicated mortising machine (which you can also do with a jig and drill press).
A bit of a special case is the wood lathe. If you're going to do turning, it's not optional; if you're not going to turn you don't need one... I think every shop should have one, but it's something you can put off until you specifically want to do some turning.
Molders and shapers are similar, in that if you aren't going to do a lot of beading or molding, you can get away without them (using your router, router table, a molding/shaping head in your planer etc..), but if you are, you need'em.
In Arizona, I got by with a 10" benchtop saw with a floor stand (not really a contractors saw), a 10" benchtop bandsaw (WAY too small), a 10" direct drive miter saw, a 10" benchtop drill press, a benchtop belt and disc sander, a 4" benchtop jointer, and a 12" benchtop planer.
The sad part is, that's still $1300 worth of tools (oh and it wasn't intentional buying all craftsman, I got them all at different times... it just sort of happened that way)... and all of them will get the job don... just not as well, and much less conveniently than better tools. Trying to work with these tools made things a lot more difficult than they had to be. They just didn't have the power, the capacity, or the quality, to get the results I wanted.
Of course, $1300 doesn't quite get you a decent 10" cabinet saw (though you can snag a decent hybrid for a couple hundred less) from a major manufacturer... So there are certainly tradeoffs.
What that means though, is that I knew I'd be buying a lot of new tools to rebuild my shop here in Idaho; and since I knew I was replacing them, I didn't want to carry the smaller/lower quality stuff with us.
So, I sold, gifted, just gave away, or otherwise got rid of the tools I was planning to replace (I kept all my really good tools),or otherwise didn't want, or need, to keep.
Of course, that left me with big gaps to fill.
Time to rebuild...
(to be continued in "Tool Time episode 2", tomorrow).
Showing posts with label Hobbies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hobbies. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, April 05, 2010
The Double Truck Shuffle
So, we're moved up to Idaho (again I say, long post about that forthcoming. The pneumonia has kept me from getting the pics I want to accompany the post); and among the MANY other changes, projects, acquisitions, and everything else we're going to be doing over the next... Oh two or three years let's say... I promised my wife we'd build her a truck when we got up here.
The Truck of Doom (Diesel Edition), is an awesome truck, and an incredible tow/haul vehicle. It's also 21 feet long (not including the hitch stinger), 8 feet wide to the mirrors, and over 7 feet tall (now that it's got 35" tires on).
Frankly, it just doesn't fit some places; and she's terrified of trying to park it in tight spaces. She absolutely will not even attempt to parallel park the damn thing at all (really, it's not THAT hard. It's got good mirrors, and a decent turning radius).
All that said, 4x4 is definitely a necessity up here (three months of the year, my car is going to live in the garage and not come out... because it won't be able to get out of our driveway, never mind be able to deal with the roads); and she still wants a truck, both as a fun vehicle, and for the school run/grocery getter.
Then there's the fact that I'm planning on seriously kitting out the Dodge over the next couple years (I'm keeping the thing til it dies, or 'til I do; whichever happens first. I'm going to make it into exactly what I want); and she wants a vehicle of her own, done HER way.
Finally, there's an additional complication that pushes this purchase up the line so to speak:
We seem to have fried the tranny in our truck.
It's not 100% dead, yet, but it's on its way rapidly. The thing is slipping badly, and flapping gears in certain RPM and load ranges. It needs a full rebuild or replacement very soon (along with the torque converter).
This wasn't particularly unexpected. With a Chrysler automatic, it's generally a question of WHEN it's going to die, not if. I was hoping to get another 20k miles out of it, but I wasn't surprised it died at 60k, given the heavy towing we were doing.
It IS happening at an inconvenient time, but that's life.
I really don't feel like paying somebody $3k to swap out with just a rebuilt stock tranny (that was the LOWEST quote by the way); which is just going to lunch itself in another 60,000-80,000 miles (thats about average for this tranny when you're doing a lot of heavy towing, or offroading, or anything particularly strenuous).
So we're looking into replacing the stock trans with a super heavy duty manual (a tow truck tranny), or a highly upgraded super heavy duty automatic from one of the various specialty tranny makers/rebuilders.
ATS and B&M are both selling upgraded versions of the stock auto. I can't find any source for third party manuals, but there are enough junked Cummins medium duty trucks out there (I found four under $2500 within 100 miles of me, in 5 minutes of searching) I shouldn't have a problem finding a manual if I want to go that way.
The real problem there is the cost and complexity of a conversion. It would really be best just to find a junked 2500 of similar vintage, and strip the clutch, pedal assembly, tranny, brackets, lines etc.. out of it; otherwise you're talking about more than $6k in parts easy.
A lot easier, is to just replace the standard TorqueFlite 48RE-HD; with either a super heavy duty upgraded model (from ATS or B&M or others), or possibly dropping in the next model years heavy duty six speed 68rfe (ATS builds a version of that tranny for the same price as the 48RE).
Just for comparison, the stock 48RE trans is rated for 400hp and 650ftlbs of torque (the 68rfe is rated a bit higher, for 450hp and 750ftlbs max) with a 13,700lb max towing capacity; the ATS is rated for 750hp and 2000ftlbs, with a 20,000lbs max tow.
With the ATS trans, clutches, valvebody, pump, I/O shafts, torque converter, trans/TC controller, and exhaust brake (you can buy the whole thing as a package for about $5.5k); you've got most of the advantages of a manual right there; including the ability to force manual shift and hold on every gear, and to lock and unlock the torque converter either manually, or at preprogrammed points.
That, and it'll be cheaper over all; less work, and less modification to the truck. I'd really prefer a manual, but the hassle of it... Plus, I'm partially disabled, and I'm not likely to get much better; sticking with the auto might be the better choice given my knees.
At any rate, whatever we decide to do I'm going to do the work (I've done tranny swaps before, though not on a Cummins, and it's going to save me at least a grand, maybe two), and buy the parts myself.
It's going to be several months before we can do it; and in the mean time, we need to have a usable vehicle, big enoguh for us, the kids, the dogs, and costco runs, and with at least some towing and hauling capability; on the road. Say enough to haul a small utility trailer, a couple of quads, a small boat etc...
So, the question then becomes, "what to buy as a project truck"?
That really comes down to a question of, what does she like, what do we want, and what do we need.
The desired properties are fairly simple, though unfortunately, not particularly easy to find all in one platform:
To meet all these requirements, we looked at a lot of different possibilities:
There were a number of others that we thought about, but dismissed for various reasons. Jeep CJ/YJ/TJ (excluding unlimiteds which are too new, or CJ8s which are impossible to find in decent shape) etc... are a bit too small; as is the first gen Bronco, the International scout, and the FJ40 land cruiser.
The majority of the "other brand" SUVs out there don't meet enough of the criteria above, or are just too crappy (Suzuki Samurai make great buggies when tricked out, but are still crap on the road for example, and are too small etc...).
Right away, we excluded the ramcharger based on it's problematic 4 wheel drive system, and transmissions; and the near impossibility of finding a good one in decent shape in this region.
The 1st gen Explorer has similar driveline issues; with crap auto trannies, decent manuals with crap clutches, and hubs that shred themselves. They are seriously upgradable, but they also generally suffer from having been long term mommy mobiles, then passed on as beaters. And honestly, the explorer just has no soul.
The 1st gen 4runner is a BIT too crappy. It's a solid pickup truck design (you just can't kill the damn things), but the engines and transmissions are weak, and not particularly upgradeable. There ARE good swaps available for it, but probably not worth it. The second gen is a bit better, but both have the problem of availability, and of parts availability at a reasonable price.
The Land Rover suffers from availability, and parts availability issues; otherwise it'd be at or near the top of the list. The land cruiser only slightly less so. It's not that there aren't lots of parts available for both; it's just that they are all special order parts, and EXPENSIVE.
The third gen on fullsize Broncos are great trucks, but they have major front suspension issues (the wife hates the look of the second gen. She loves the first gen, but they're too small). If we were going to run one, we'd have to swap out the TTB front suspension for a true solid axle. It's still a possibility, especially given the engine, tranny, transfer case, and axle options available to the machine; and that you could still get a removable hard top all the way until '96... but lets just say it's moved off the "short list".
That brings us down to the K5 Blazer/Jimmy, or some kind of midsize Jeep SUV.
The jeeps have the mixed advantage/disadvantage of being smaller. They're certainly more nimble and better on the trails; but they also don't have nearly as much room.
All of them have a lot of engine options; though obviously the K5, being a GM pickup truck based vehicle, has basically infinite options, including several diesels.
The XJ doesn't have an easy v8 or diesel option (actually, it has two diesel options, but neither are particularly good), but it does have a very good inline six that's highly upgradeable (including a factory 4.7l crate motor, and an available supercharger kit). The SJ, ZJ, and WJ all have V8 options.
The SJ, XJ, and K5 can all be had with a decent manual tranny, good axles, and good transfer cases; never mind every axle and transfer case manufacturer EVER makes a model either explicitly for, or that will swap in to, all three.
The ZJ and WJ don't have a manual tranny option, and have far more limited axle and transfer case options, without some SERIOUS fab work. It can be done, but it's probably not worth it.
Parts availability? Well, SJ parts are getting a little harder to come by, and there weren't ever as many parts for WJ/ZJs; but the XJ and K5 have basically infinite parts available, OEM and aftermarket. Hell, you can actually build an entire XJ or K5 minus frame, straight from newly available catalog parts from LMC and the like.
It's getting hard to find a good condition SJ for reasonable money. They're out there, but it takes some looking. On the other hand, there are right now, over 100 K5s for sale within 150 miles of me, and over 200 XJs.
So what we've come down to really, is trying to decide between an XJ and a K5; though the SJ is still in the running (my wife and I both love the old Wagoneer look; and they're great to work on, with real old truck construction, and a decent aftermarket), if we can find the right one.
The XJ is more upgradeable as an offroader, and is smaller and more maneuverable for in town stuff. The only real offroad limitation on it, is the tires. It requires a lift and flares just for 32s.
The K5 has more room, is cheaper, is easier to work on (that whole "more room" thing again), the parts are cheaper (it's a GM pickup based vehicle), we can get a diesel for it, and there are more options (though honestly, both have so many options that's really a wash). Oh and if you get one of the 3/4ton rated models (the civvy diesel, or the CUCV), you can put 35s on it with no lift (it will need flares though); or 32s with the stock half ton rating and no flares.
Complicating the decision, is the number of really nice XJs available around here for under $4k, including some already built or partially rigs.
Complicating the decision further, is the availability of a couple of diesel K5s; including an m1009 CUCV (ex military), with a turbo upgrade and newly rebuilt motor and tranny, for just $2250.
The Truck of Doom (Diesel Edition), is an awesome truck, and an incredible tow/haul vehicle. It's also 21 feet long (not including the hitch stinger), 8 feet wide to the mirrors, and over 7 feet tall (now that it's got 35" tires on).
Frankly, it just doesn't fit some places; and she's terrified of trying to park it in tight spaces. She absolutely will not even attempt to parallel park the damn thing at all (really, it's not THAT hard. It's got good mirrors, and a decent turning radius).
All that said, 4x4 is definitely a necessity up here (three months of the year, my car is going to live in the garage and not come out... because it won't be able to get out of our driveway, never mind be able to deal with the roads); and she still wants a truck, both as a fun vehicle, and for the school run/grocery getter.
This is complicated by the fact that the nearby town, is one of those stupid "walking cities" that deliberately make driving and parking in town difficult; with one ways and traffic diversions through the whole damn town.
During summer tourist season the town and the parking are damn near impossible, and a bigass pickup truck just aint gonna do it; but anything short of a big 4 wheel drive station wagon isn't going to cut it for our practical need either. If we're going to do that, we might as well get a small SUV, for the extra off road capability, toughness, and cargo capacity (especially tow capacity).
Then there's the fact that I'm planning on seriously kitting out the Dodge over the next couple years (I'm keeping the thing til it dies, or 'til I do; whichever happens first. I'm going to make it into exactly what I want); and she wants a vehicle of her own, done HER way.
Finally, there's an additional complication that pushes this purchase up the line so to speak:
We seem to have fried the tranny in our truck.
It's not 100% dead, yet, but it's on its way rapidly. The thing is slipping badly, and flapping gears in certain RPM and load ranges. It needs a full rebuild or replacement very soon (along with the torque converter).
This wasn't particularly unexpected. With a Chrysler automatic, it's generally a question of WHEN it's going to die, not if. I was hoping to get another 20k miles out of it, but I wasn't surprised it died at 60k, given the heavy towing we were doing.
It IS happening at an inconvenient time, but that's life.
I really don't feel like paying somebody $3k to swap out with just a rebuilt stock tranny (that was the LOWEST quote by the way); which is just going to lunch itself in another 60,000-80,000 miles (thats about average for this tranny when you're doing a lot of heavy towing, or offroading, or anything particularly strenuous).
So we're looking into replacing the stock trans with a super heavy duty manual (a tow truck tranny), or a highly upgraded super heavy duty automatic from one of the various specialty tranny makers/rebuilders.
ATS and B&M are both selling upgraded versions of the stock auto. I can't find any source for third party manuals, but there are enough junked Cummins medium duty trucks out there (I found four under $2500 within 100 miles of me, in 5 minutes of searching) I shouldn't have a problem finding a manual if I want to go that way.
The real problem there is the cost and complexity of a conversion. It would really be best just to find a junked 2500 of similar vintage, and strip the clutch, pedal assembly, tranny, brackets, lines etc.. out of it; otherwise you're talking about more than $6k in parts easy.
A lot easier, is to just replace the standard TorqueFlite 48RE-HD; with either a super heavy duty upgraded model (from ATS or B&M or others), or possibly dropping in the next model years heavy duty six speed 68rfe (ATS builds a version of that tranny for the same price as the 48RE).
Just for comparison, the stock 48RE trans is rated for 400hp and 650ftlbs of torque (the 68rfe is rated a bit higher, for 450hp and 750ftlbs max) with a 13,700lb max towing capacity; the ATS is rated for 750hp and 2000ftlbs, with a 20,000lbs max tow.
With the ATS trans, clutches, valvebody, pump, I/O shafts, torque converter, trans/TC controller, and exhaust brake (you can buy the whole thing as a package for about $5.5k); you've got most of the advantages of a manual right there; including the ability to force manual shift and hold on every gear, and to lock and unlock the torque converter either manually, or at preprogrammed points.
That, and it'll be cheaper over all; less work, and less modification to the truck. I'd really prefer a manual, but the hassle of it... Plus, I'm partially disabled, and I'm not likely to get much better; sticking with the auto might be the better choice given my knees.
At any rate, whatever we decide to do I'm going to do the work (I've done tranny swaps before, though not on a Cummins, and it's going to save me at least a grand, maybe two), and buy the parts myself.
It's going to be several months before we can do it; and in the mean time, we need to have a usable vehicle, big enoguh for us, the kids, the dogs, and costco runs, and with at least some towing and hauling capability; on the road. Say enough to haul a small utility trailer, a couple of quads, a small boat etc...
So, the question then becomes, "what to buy as a project truck"?
That really comes down to a question of, what does she like, what do we want, and what do we need.
The desired properties are fairly simple, though unfortunately, not particularly easy to find all in one platform:
- Smaller and more maneuverable than our big truck, but still big enough for us, kids, dogs, stuff etc...
- REAL 4x4 is an absolute must, with serious upgradability. Part time or full time are both OK, but if full time, it must still have a multirange transfer case and properly locking hubs; and locking diffs must be available for it
- Must be available, in decent condition, at low cost (say under $2500 for a base vehicle, under $4k for one in great shape with a bunch of extras), with EXCELLENT parts availability at a reasonable price.
- The availability, or easy retrofit, of a manual transmission, is a BIG plus
- The availability, or easy retrofit, of a diesel engine, is a plus
- General upgradeability; especially serious power, reliability, suspension, and driveline upgradeability.
- The ability to put in a nice, but TOUGH (kidproof, dogproof, weather proof) interior, at a relatively reasonable cost
- The ability to lose the top in back is a small plus
- There should be no "fatal flaws" in the vehicle that can't be easily corrected (i.e. bad suspension that's hard to replace, bad driveline, body rusts away to nothing etc..).
- The thing has to be FUN
To meet all these requirements, we looked at a lot of different possibilities:
- 1st through 3rd generation Chevy Blazer/GMC Jimmy
- 1st and 2nd generation Dodge Ramcharger
- 2nd through 5th generation Ford Bronco
- 1st gen Ford Explorer
- Jeep SJ (Wagoneer)
- Jeep XJ (Cherokee)
- Jeep ZJ and WJ (grand cherokee)
- 2nd or 3rd generation Toyota 4runner
- 60 series or 80 series Toyota Land Cruiser
- 1st or 2nd generation Range Rover
There were a number of others that we thought about, but dismissed for various reasons. Jeep CJ/YJ/TJ (excluding unlimiteds which are too new, or CJ8s which are impossible to find in decent shape) etc... are a bit too small; as is the first gen Bronco, the International scout, and the FJ40 land cruiser.
The majority of the "other brand" SUVs out there don't meet enough of the criteria above, or are just too crappy (Suzuki Samurai make great buggies when tricked out, but are still crap on the road for example, and are too small etc...).
Right away, we excluded the ramcharger based on it's problematic 4 wheel drive system, and transmissions; and the near impossibility of finding a good one in decent shape in this region.
The 1st gen Explorer has similar driveline issues; with crap auto trannies, decent manuals with crap clutches, and hubs that shred themselves. They are seriously upgradable, but they also generally suffer from having been long term mommy mobiles, then passed on as beaters. And honestly, the explorer just has no soul.
The 1st gen 4runner is a BIT too crappy. It's a solid pickup truck design (you just can't kill the damn things), but the engines and transmissions are weak, and not particularly upgradeable. There ARE good swaps available for it, but probably not worth it. The second gen is a bit better, but both have the problem of availability, and of parts availability at a reasonable price.
The Land Rover suffers from availability, and parts availability issues; otherwise it'd be at or near the top of the list. The land cruiser only slightly less so. It's not that there aren't lots of parts available for both; it's just that they are all special order parts, and EXPENSIVE.
The third gen on fullsize Broncos are great trucks, but they have major front suspension issues (the wife hates the look of the second gen. She loves the first gen, but they're too small). If we were going to run one, we'd have to swap out the TTB front suspension for a true solid axle. It's still a possibility, especially given the engine, tranny, transfer case, and axle options available to the machine; and that you could still get a removable hard top all the way until '96... but lets just say it's moved off the "short list".
That brings us down to the K5 Blazer/Jimmy, or some kind of midsize Jeep SUV.
The jeeps have the mixed advantage/disadvantage of being smaller. They're certainly more nimble and better on the trails; but they also don't have nearly as much room.
All of them have a lot of engine options; though obviously the K5, being a GM pickup truck based vehicle, has basically infinite options, including several diesels.
The XJ doesn't have an easy v8 or diesel option (actually, it has two diesel options, but neither are particularly good), but it does have a very good inline six that's highly upgradeable (including a factory 4.7l crate motor, and an available supercharger kit). The SJ, ZJ, and WJ all have V8 options.
The SJ, XJ, and K5 can all be had with a decent manual tranny, good axles, and good transfer cases; never mind every axle and transfer case manufacturer EVER makes a model either explicitly for, or that will swap in to, all three.
The ZJ and WJ don't have a manual tranny option, and have far more limited axle and transfer case options, without some SERIOUS fab work. It can be done, but it's probably not worth it.
Parts availability? Well, SJ parts are getting a little harder to come by, and there weren't ever as many parts for WJ/ZJs; but the XJ and K5 have basically infinite parts available, OEM and aftermarket. Hell, you can actually build an entire XJ or K5 minus frame, straight from newly available catalog parts from LMC and the like.
It's getting hard to find a good condition SJ for reasonable money. They're out there, but it takes some looking. On the other hand, there are right now, over 100 K5s for sale within 150 miles of me, and over 200 XJs.
So what we've come down to really, is trying to decide between an XJ and a K5; though the SJ is still in the running (my wife and I both love the old Wagoneer look; and they're great to work on, with real old truck construction, and a decent aftermarket), if we can find the right one.
The XJ is more upgradeable as an offroader, and is smaller and more maneuverable for in town stuff. The only real offroad limitation on it, is the tires. It requires a lift and flares just for 32s.
The K5 has more room, is cheaper, is easier to work on (that whole "more room" thing again), the parts are cheaper (it's a GM pickup based vehicle), we can get a diesel for it, and there are more options (though honestly, both have so many options that's really a wash). Oh and if you get one of the 3/4ton rated models (the civvy diesel, or the CUCV), you can put 35s on it with no lift (it will need flares though); or 32s with the stock half ton rating and no flares.
Complicating the decision, is the number of really nice XJs available around here for under $4k, including some already built or partially rigs.
Complicating the decision further, is the availability of a couple of diesel K5s; including an m1009 CUCV (ex military), with a turbo upgrade and newly rebuilt motor and tranny, for just $2250.
Mel likes them both. I like them both. Their advantages and disadvantages pretty much balance each other out.
We're slightly leaning towards the Cherokee, because of the manual transmission (I've found a half dozen in easy distance. I haven't found a single manual K5), and because it's a bit easier to deal with in town.
Basically, it comes down to finding the right truck, at the right time, for the right price.
We're flying down to Arizona in a couple days for JohnOCs wedding; and driving home with the kids and the car. When we get back, we're going to start looking in earnest, so we can take the truck off the road as soon as possible.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Camera Lust
So yesterdays lens post prompted a reader to comment "You are inciting camera lust".
Oh, you think so? Honey I aint even started yet ;-)
Seriously, I love photography, and have since I was a kid. I got my first camera as a "premium" from one of those door to door sales programs for kids to sell wrapping paper and stamps and collectibles to their neighbors, that they used to advertise in boys life and the like.
It was an Ansco 110 with a built in flash... and it was utter crap. It broke pretty much right away; and my mother felt bad, and bought me a considerably less crappy Vivtar 35mm for christmas; with cheesy autofocus and auto exposure that sort of worked.
Yeah, it was a junk camera, BUT it taught me the most basic principles of photography:
I admit it, I like photography half for the photos, and half for the gear... in fact maybe more than half, considering how much of a gadget obsessed geek I am...
But really, what I want, isn't bells and whistles; it's gear that will get out of my way, and let me take the photo that I want to take.
When I was 12, I cleaned out a neighbors attic, and he let me keep anything I wanted. In that attic was a box with a Nikon F2, a 60s era Rolleiflex 35c, a light meter (my memory says Contax, but I don't think they ever made standalone meters... maybe Konica?) and a Bolex movie camera; along with some lights and accessories.
Unfortunately, they were all broken except the meter; but I was able to trade the Bolex and the lights and accessories to a Camera shop for the repairs to the Nikon and Rollei ( shutter on the Rollei, mirror on the Nikon. Monetarily I probably got the worse of that deal, but I didn't care).
The biggest problem I had with the Rollei was getting film stock for it. Of course I grew up in Boston where there was no shortage of camera shops; but I was 12. It wasn't exactly easy for me at the time. Consequently, I never used it much. Also, as I didn't have my own darkroom, development costs were high... and mostly it just sat on my shelf looking cool (until it was lost in the fire when I was 19).
Hey, what can I say, I was 12. I didn't know any better.
The F2 on the other hand... Well first, it was an F2AS with the DP-12 viewfinder, so it had automatic light metering, which was awesome; and the worlds most expensive and hardest to find batteries; which was not. Thankfully the camera was operable without batteries (how long since that's been true eh?).
I had a 50mm f/1.8 and an 85mm f/1.8 with it (from the box o goodies), but no flash. Thank god for fast lenses (sharp too, though I remember them both having a lot of what I know know is chromatic abberation).
I eventually saved and got an 80-200mm f/4.5 to go with it (flea market find actually); and an old SB-2 flash unit that went over the film winder, because the F2 didn't have a real hotshoe. It was weird... you had to take the flash off to rewind the film; and the flash batteries lasted for like a single roll anyway. It mostly got left behind, and eventually the adapter for the winder/shoe broke.
I took a LOT of pictures with that camera.
Of course I was always losing rolls of film, or forgetting to have them developed, or not having cash to have them developed... I'd guess I probably took 4 times as many shots as I ever developed, at least.
A couple years later my grandfather bought a fancy little Ricoh point and shoot, and gave me his Canon "AE-1 Program", because it was "old" (though at least 10 years newer than my Nikon) and "too big, and bulky, and complicated" for what he wanted a camera for.
He also gave me a pair of binoculars with a 110 camera built in. Very fun to play with, but I didn't use it much because the 110 camera bit was awful... huh, funny how google is. I decided I wanted to figure out what they were, and bang, one of the first results is exactly right, including the case.
Anyway, the Canon was theoretically a much "better" and more advanced camera than the Nikon, with full auto-exposure, and exposure and aperture priority program modes (which I don't remember ever using); and it had a medium size zoom lens and a decent flash with it.
Honestly, I didn't like it. I only took a few photos with it, and sold it to pay for other things (including the Nikon Speedlight, and a 24mm, or maybe 28mm, wide angle which had horrible distortion). It was too fiddly, and the controls seemed wrong... like they were in the wrong places.
However, the Nikon was almost old as I was; and there were lots of new and cool cameras coming out. In particular, new cameras with full autometering, full autofocus, built in flashes, remote shutter releases, and real hotshoes.
Unfortunately, I couldn't afford any of the new Nikons with autofocus... not by a long shot.
At the time, the then current "prosumer" Nikon SLR, the N90 (or F90 everywhere but America) was running a cool $1500 list, and even on the deepest discount was over $1000, and that wasn't even for the kit. If I remember right, at the time, the cheapest of the new generation lenses was like $400. Never mind even considering the F4, which was around $2000 (the F5 was still a couple years off).
Also, all my Nikon lenses and gear were manual focus, and mostly older than me; and while they would work with the new bodies (that's the joy of Nikon), I wouldn't get all the features possible.
And I was stupid.
I sold all my Nikon gear, to buy a fancy brand new Minolta Maxxum 3xi, a flash, and three autofocus zoom lenses (a 35-85, a 55-135, and a 135-300 if I remember correctly).
What can I say, I was a teenager.
I would KILL to have that F2 and lenses back right now (not the least consideration of, the F2 is now a collectors item, and worth a fair bit; and those lenses are spectacular).
That isn't to say that the Maxxum wasn't a great camera; it was. What it wasn't was a professional quality camera, with professional quality lenses. It was slow to shoot, slow to focus, the lenses were slow to zoom... (to be fair, all the first two generations of autofocus cameras were; escpecially in comparison to a pro manual like the F2).
I took good pictures with it, but the camera got in the way.
Finally a few years ago, I sold all my film SLR gear, thinking that I would immediately buy a Canon DSLR (the Nikons were too expensive at the time, and not as good)... and I lost my job and went broke shortly thereafter.
I was stuck with prosumer point and shoots for a few years, biding my time so to speak; and in the mean time I acquired a wife, children, and a MUCH lower budget for cameras and lenses etc...
Finally, Nikon announced the D80, a very nearly pro quality camera, at a reasonable price (I paid $1345 with an 18-135 zoom); and I was able to get back into SLR photography in the digital world.
I've been shooting with the camera since Christmas 2006, and I still love it. It's a great camera. In fact, the best I've ever owned. If you know the controls, it gives you every bit as much control as the old F bodies. No, it's not a magnesium body, and yes, there are still some control you need to access from menus, but overall I'm very happy.
There's only one problem.
It's a DX camera; which means lens cropping factor is an issue. If I want to get a really decent wide angle lens, I need to spend a LOT of money on a much wider model than if it was a full frame camera.
The fact is though, I really can't afford a full frame camera right now. The three lowest cost, good quality choices are the $4,000 Nikon D3 (apparently worth every penny, but still outrageous), the $3,000 Nikon D700, and the $3,000 Canon EOS-5D... though the D3 and 5D are being replaced by upgraded models shortly (both are officially out, but not widely available yet), so we should see SOME price drop in them (though with the D3X streeting at $8k I don't expect a huge drop), I don't think we'll be seeing any kind of full frame DSLR under $2,000 any time soon.
For those who would tell me to go to another manufacturer for a lower cost, I would say to you two words: Lens Selection
note: I always want to spell lens lense. Lense is the proper spelling. I don't know when it was decided in American english to drop the E. The pronunciation is with the Z sound, not the sibilant S; therefore should be followed by an e.
Anyone who had any plans for using a wide variety of lenses would be silly buying any camera other than a Canon or Nikon. There's nothing wrong with Pentax or Sony (formerly Minolta) lenses (and the new Sony bodies are actually quite excellent. Very good sensors -Nikon uses them- , and built in anti-shake/vibration reduction); there just aren't nearly as many of them in comparison.
Actually, that's my "camera lust" dilemma.
I can buy a used D3 for $2000, or wait a while for the price to come down a bit to around $2000 with the D3X coming out; or wait for the next generation of smaller full frame DSLRs for hopefully less money (the D700 just came out at $3000, but it's streeting at $2500 to $2700); or until some used D700s come on the market (maybe soon given the number of people who can't afford those credit card payments now)...
...But I don't have that kind of cash to spend on a camera, nor will I for a long time.
...but, I DO want to buy some different lenses, for different shots and effects than I currently have; and you can buy a fair number of lenses for $2500.00
And then of course there's the fact that DSLRs are definitely going in the full frame direction. Though the DX lenses that will do what I want right now, on the camera I have right now, are FAR cheaper than the D lenses; DX lenses aren't usable on full frame bodies...
...Well, that's not exactly true. The D3 and D700 will both autocrop their sensors to mimic a DX sensor so you can use DX lenses without vignetting; but at that point you might as well be shooting with a DX body.
So if I know I'm going to eventually buy a full frame body, isn't it a waste to buy DX lenses?
Or maybe not. After all, I'll be able to take great pictures with those lenses now, and for years in the future; and I won't be able to afford that full frame camera for years anyway.
In fact it's far more likely that I'll pick up a new old stock D300 (also a DX camera, and currently about $1500, but likely to dip under $1k sometime late this year), or maybe a D90 for the HD video feature; than spring for a D3 or D700 any time soon.
Or I could spend the extra cash for full frame (what Nikon now calls "FX"; though the lenses don't have any special designation) lenses, which work on both, and split the difference.
I have what I'll call a "lens lust list" for my current camera, that looks something like this:
On a full frame body, the 35mm f1.8 would be replaced by the 50mm f/1.4, and I'd need a fast 75mm to 85mm prime to replace on full frame what the 50mm was doing for me on DX. Nikon has their 85mm f/1.4, and it now sells for about $1100; though the 85mm f/1.8 is only $400, and is smaller and lighter.
To get the full frame versions of the three that HAVE them, would run an extra at least $1000... and several thousand to get full frame equivalents for everything. Of coure if I DIDN'T spend more on the D lenses, when I upgraded to full frame, I'd have $1550 worth of lenses that I wouldn't be able to use.
Oh well, it's nice to dream, since I don't have the cash for any of it right now anyway.
Oh, you think so? Honey I aint even started yet ;-)
Seriously, I love photography, and have since I was a kid. I got my first camera as a "premium" from one of those door to door sales programs for kids to sell wrapping paper and stamps and collectibles to their neighbors, that they used to advertise in boys life and the like.
It was an Ansco 110 with a built in flash... and it was utter crap. It broke pretty much right away; and my mother felt bad, and bought me a considerably less crappy Vivtar 35mm for christmas; with cheesy autofocus and auto exposure that sort of worked.
Yeah, it was a junk camera, BUT it taught me the most basic principles of photography:
- Interesting subjects make interesting photos
- Composing a shot badly can make the most interesting subject boring. Composing it well can make boring things, surprisingly interesting
- Lighting isn't everything, but it's everything else
- Great cameras don't take great photos; you do. The better the gear, the more it gets out of your way to let YOU take the photo you want; that's all.
Oh and coincidentally, the better the gear, the easier it is for YOU to screw up the photos as well. After all, good gear assumes you know what you are doing, and just want it that way.
- That said, bad cameras certainly can (and frequently do) ruin good photos. Although you can take great shots with bad cameras, you're always taking a risk that the camera won't do what you need it to.
If you want to get good shots, consistently; you need as much control, as much versatility, as much quality, as much reliability, and as much toughness as you can afford.
I admit it, I like photography half for the photos, and half for the gear... in fact maybe more than half, considering how much of a gadget obsessed geek I am...
But really, what I want, isn't bells and whistles; it's gear that will get out of my way, and let me take the photo that I want to take.
When I was 12, I cleaned out a neighbors attic, and he let me keep anything I wanted. In that attic was a box with a Nikon F2, a 60s era Rolleiflex 35c, a light meter (my memory says Contax, but I don't think they ever made standalone meters... maybe Konica?) and a Bolex movie camera; along with some lights and accessories.
Unfortunately, they were all broken except the meter; but I was able to trade the Bolex and the lights and accessories to a Camera shop for the repairs to the Nikon and Rollei ( shutter on the Rollei, mirror on the Nikon. Monetarily I probably got the worse of that deal, but I didn't care).
The biggest problem I had with the Rollei was getting film stock for it. Of course I grew up in Boston where there was no shortage of camera shops; but I was 12. It wasn't exactly easy for me at the time. Consequently, I never used it much. Also, as I didn't have my own darkroom, development costs were high... and mostly it just sat on my shelf looking cool (until it was lost in the fire when I was 19).
Hey, what can I say, I was 12. I didn't know any better.
The F2 on the other hand... Well first, it was an F2AS with the DP-12 viewfinder, so it had automatic light metering, which was awesome; and the worlds most expensive and hardest to find batteries; which was not. Thankfully the camera was operable without batteries (how long since that's been true eh?).
I had a 50mm f/1.8 and an 85mm f/1.8 with it (from the box o goodies), but no flash. Thank god for fast lenses (sharp too, though I remember them both having a lot of what I know know is chromatic abberation).
I eventually saved and got an 80-200mm f/4.5 to go with it (flea market find actually); and an old SB-2 flash unit that went over the film winder, because the F2 didn't have a real hotshoe. It was weird... you had to take the flash off to rewind the film; and the flash batteries lasted for like a single roll anyway. It mostly got left behind, and eventually the adapter for the winder/shoe broke.
I took a LOT of pictures with that camera.
Of course I was always losing rolls of film, or forgetting to have them developed, or not having cash to have them developed... I'd guess I probably took 4 times as many shots as I ever developed, at least.
A couple years later my grandfather bought a fancy little Ricoh point and shoot, and gave me his Canon "AE-1 Program", because it was "old" (though at least 10 years newer than my Nikon) and "too big, and bulky, and complicated" for what he wanted a camera for.
He also gave me a pair of binoculars with a 110 camera built in. Very fun to play with, but I didn't use it much because the 110 camera bit was awful... huh, funny how google is. I decided I wanted to figure out what they were, and bang, one of the first results is exactly right, including the case.
Anyway, the Canon was theoretically a much "better" and more advanced camera than the Nikon, with full auto-exposure, and exposure and aperture priority program modes (which I don't remember ever using); and it had a medium size zoom lens and a decent flash with it.
Honestly, I didn't like it. I only took a few photos with it, and sold it to pay for other things (including the Nikon Speedlight, and a 24mm, or maybe 28mm, wide angle which had horrible distortion). It was too fiddly, and the controls seemed wrong... like they were in the wrong places.
However, the Nikon was almost old as I was; and there were lots of new and cool cameras coming out. In particular, new cameras with full autometering, full autofocus, built in flashes, remote shutter releases, and real hotshoes.
Unfortunately, I couldn't afford any of the new Nikons with autofocus... not by a long shot.
At the time, the then current "prosumer" Nikon SLR, the N90 (or F90 everywhere but America) was running a cool $1500 list, and even on the deepest discount was over $1000, and that wasn't even for the kit. If I remember right, at the time, the cheapest of the new generation lenses was like $400. Never mind even considering the F4, which was around $2000 (the F5 was still a couple years off).
Also, all my Nikon lenses and gear were manual focus, and mostly older than me; and while they would work with the new bodies (that's the joy of Nikon), I wouldn't get all the features possible.
And I was stupid.
I sold all my Nikon gear, to buy a fancy brand new Minolta Maxxum 3xi, a flash, and three autofocus zoom lenses (a 35-85, a 55-135, and a 135-300 if I remember correctly).
What can I say, I was a teenager.
I would KILL to have that F2 and lenses back right now (not the least consideration of, the F2 is now a collectors item, and worth a fair bit; and those lenses are spectacular).
That isn't to say that the Maxxum wasn't a great camera; it was. What it wasn't was a professional quality camera, with professional quality lenses. It was slow to shoot, slow to focus, the lenses were slow to zoom... (to be fair, all the first two generations of autofocus cameras were; escpecially in comparison to a pro manual like the F2).
I took good pictures with it, but the camera got in the way.
Finally a few years ago, I sold all my film SLR gear, thinking that I would immediately buy a Canon DSLR (the Nikons were too expensive at the time, and not as good)... and I lost my job and went broke shortly thereafter.
I was stuck with prosumer point and shoots for a few years, biding my time so to speak; and in the mean time I acquired a wife, children, and a MUCH lower budget for cameras and lenses etc...
Finally, Nikon announced the D80, a very nearly pro quality camera, at a reasonable price (I paid $1345 with an 18-135 zoom); and I was able to get back into SLR photography in the digital world.
I've been shooting with the camera since Christmas 2006, and I still love it. It's a great camera. In fact, the best I've ever owned. If you know the controls, it gives you every bit as much control as the old F bodies. No, it's not a magnesium body, and yes, there are still some control you need to access from menus, but overall I'm very happy.
There's only one problem.
It's a DX camera; which means lens cropping factor is an issue. If I want to get a really decent wide angle lens, I need to spend a LOT of money on a much wider model than if it was a full frame camera.
The fact is though, I really can't afford a full frame camera right now. The three lowest cost, good quality choices are the $4,000 Nikon D3 (apparently worth every penny, but still outrageous), the $3,000 Nikon D700, and the $3,000 Canon EOS-5D... though the D3 and 5D are being replaced by upgraded models shortly (both are officially out, but not widely available yet), so we should see SOME price drop in them (though with the D3X streeting at $8k I don't expect a huge drop), I don't think we'll be seeing any kind of full frame DSLR under $2,000 any time soon.
For those who would tell me to go to another manufacturer for a lower cost, I would say to you two words: Lens Selection
note: I always want to spell lens lense. Lense is the proper spelling. I don't know when it was decided in American english to drop the E. The pronunciation is with the Z sound, not the sibilant S; therefore should be followed by an e.
Anyone who had any plans for using a wide variety of lenses would be silly buying any camera other than a Canon or Nikon. There's nothing wrong with Pentax or Sony (formerly Minolta) lenses (and the new Sony bodies are actually quite excellent. Very good sensors -Nikon uses them- , and built in anti-shake/vibration reduction); there just aren't nearly as many of them in comparison.
Actually, that's my "camera lust" dilemma.
I can buy a used D3 for $2000, or wait a while for the price to come down a bit to around $2000 with the D3X coming out; or wait for the next generation of smaller full frame DSLRs for hopefully less money (the D700 just came out at $3000, but it's streeting at $2500 to $2700); or until some used D700s come on the market (maybe soon given the number of people who can't afford those credit card payments now)...
...But I don't have that kind of cash to spend on a camera, nor will I for a long time.
...but, I DO want to buy some different lenses, for different shots and effects than I currently have; and you can buy a fair number of lenses for $2500.00
And then of course there's the fact that DSLRs are definitely going in the full frame direction. Though the DX lenses that will do what I want right now, on the camera I have right now, are FAR cheaper than the D lenses; DX lenses aren't usable on full frame bodies...
...Well, that's not exactly true. The D3 and D700 will both autocrop their sensors to mimic a DX sensor so you can use DX lenses without vignetting; but at that point you might as well be shooting with a DX body.
So if I know I'm going to eventually buy a full frame body, isn't it a waste to buy DX lenses?
Or maybe not. After all, I'll be able to take great pictures with those lenses now, and for years in the future; and I won't be able to afford that full frame camera for years anyway.
In fact it's far more likely that I'll pick up a new old stock D300 (also a DX camera, and currently about $1500, but likely to dip under $1k sometime late this year), or maybe a D90 for the HD video feature; than spring for a D3 or D700 any time soon.
Or I could spend the extra cash for full frame (what Nikon now calls "FX"; though the lenses don't have any special designation) lenses, which work on both, and split the difference.
I have what I'll call a "lens lust list" for my current camera, that looks something like this:
- Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
Price: $700
Notes: Basically the best DX lens ever made. It's very sharp, has relatively low distortion for the incredibly broad zoom range, has that incredibly broad zoom range, and has vibration reduction.
This is the lens you can put on the camera and leave there forever; only taking it off if you want to use a special lens, or take a weird shot.
This lens is in such high demand, it was consistently sold out the first three years of its production.
I have shot with a friends sample of this lens, and I want it more than any other (thus the number 1 spot).
Unfortunately, it's DX only; and the closest thing in an FX lens is the 24-120vr (not nearly as wide a zoom range, and especially not very wide on a DX camera; though it is $150 cheaper). In fact, it's the kit lens on the new D700; and were I buying one, it would be my default lens.
- Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
Price: $200
Notes: The lens I talked about yesterday. A DX equivalent of the classic "fast fifty" prime lens. Very versatile, good in low light, good for fast action, great for portraits... just a good all around lens, and a good value.
- Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
Price: $329
Notes: Pretty much the best candid portrait lens available for a Nikon F mount; whether digital or film (and this is useful on either). The fastest 50mm commonly available for under $1500. I just wish they made it (or any other full frame AF lens faster than f2) in 35mm.
- Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
Price: $475
Notes: The longest tele with VR that doesn't require its own tripod. If I need something longer than the 18-200, I'd like to be able to reach for this; especially since with the crop factor, it's effectively a 450 (though you do lose detail compared to a real 450).
Plus, it's a great value, and it's not a DX, so it's good for full frame.
I could possibly live with out it if I had the 18-200DX, but if I went for the 24-120 D (full frame) alternative, I'd definitely need this one too.
- Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX AF 11-16 f/2.8
Price: $650
Notes: Basically the widest lens you can buy for a DX camera; and $300 cheaper than the Nikon equivalent, sharper, and with less distortion.
Unfortunately, it's only DX; the closest FX is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, which is about $1800 (and three times the size and weight).
On a full frame body, the 35mm f1.8 would be replaced by the 50mm f/1.4, and I'd need a fast 75mm to 85mm prime to replace on full frame what the 50mm was doing for me on DX. Nikon has their 85mm f/1.4, and it now sells for about $1100; though the 85mm f/1.8 is only $400, and is smaller and lighter.
To get the full frame versions of the three that HAVE them, would run an extra at least $1000... and several thousand to get full frame equivalents for everything. Of coure if I DIDN'T spend more on the D lenses, when I upgraded to full frame, I'd have $1550 worth of lenses that I wouldn't be able to use.
Oh well, it's nice to dream, since I don't have the cash for any of it right now anyway.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Fantasy Football
My best friend doesn't have internet access at home or work (or rather his access is limited and intermittent) and he's bad with statistics and the like. I on the other hand spend pretty much 24/7 online (I've got an iPhone after all) and I'm very good with numbers.
So, he wanted to try and play fantasy football last year, but couldnt figure out the details in time to get into a draft. This year he got an invite a couple weeks early, and roped me in to managing the team with him.
Now, no man has a greater love for football than me, but I'm not so sure about the whole fantasy thing... I mean it seems kinda interesting and all, but also kinda wanktastic.
Anyway, our fantasy league is through Yahoo, which has you pre-rank all your players, priorities and positions, and does an autodraft. We have 8 teams in our league, so I made 8 primary and a couple of secondary choices for each position and then put them in our pre-draft player list.
Then I decided where I wanted to put each player in our priorities; which is kinda hard actually, given you have no idea what the other teams are going to do... You could put all your top picks for a particular position up front, but you'd end up week in other positions if you do etc...
Here was our pre-draft list in preference order by position (not in draft preference order which was messy, and I no longer have my notes on it):
Offense
QB - Tom Brady
QB - Peyton Manning
QB - Tony Romo
QB - Eli Manning
QB - Carson Palmer
QB - Jake Delhomme
QB - Ben Roethlisberger
QB - Donovan McNabb
TE - Vernon Davis
TE - Antonio Gates
TE - Tony Gonzales
TE - Dallas Clark
TE - Heath Miller
TE - Jeremy Shockey
TE - Greg Olson
TE - Ben Watson
WR - Randy Moss
WR - Santonio Homes
WR - Calvin Johnson
WR - Reggie Wayne
WR - Sidney Rice
WR - Ted Ginn Jr.
WR - Kevin Walter
WR - Vincent Jackson
RB - Ladanian Tomlinson
RB - Adrian Peterson
RB - Brian Westbrook
RB - Clinton Portis
RB - Joseph Addai
RB - Marchand Lynch
RB - Frank Gore
RB - Marian Barber
PK - Stepehen Gostowski
PK - Adam Viniateri
PK - Josh Brown
PK - Nate Kaeding
PK - Nick Folk
PK - Phil Dawson
PK - Shayne Graham
PK - David Akers
Defense
Defense - Patriots
Defense - Steelers
Defense - Vikings
Defense - Chargers
Defense - Giants
Defense - Bears
Defense - Jets
Defense - Cowboys
Well, our draft was yesterday, and we got first pick (randomly selected):
Starting:
QB: Eli Manning
WR: Vincent Jackson
WR: Santonio Holmes
RB: LaDainian Tomlinson
RB: John Paul Foschi
TE: Vernon Davis
W/R: Hines Ward
K: Steven Gostowski
Defense: Indianapolis Colts
Bench:
QB: Jake Delhomme
WR: Nate Burleson
WR: Marvin Harrison
TE: Ben Watson
K: David Akers
Defense: Jacksonville Jaguars
Waivers:
RB: John Paul Foschi
WR: Marvin Harrison
Adds:
RB: Ricky Williams
RB: Rashard Mendenhall
Overall though I'm happy with the draft, with a couple of exceptions (that I'm trying to fix with waivers and adds).
We got our top pic in Ladainian Tomlinson, which I'm very happy about, and our top pick for kicker in Gostowski. I'm also pleased we got Holmes, Jackson, and Davis
Unfortunately, it seems that most of the other teams in our league put our top few choices for RB and QB in their lists, at higher priorities than ours, so we ended up with a two middle of the road QBs, a secondary runningback I've never even heard of (he wasn't on our list at all), and we ended up heavy on wide recievers.
Also we didn't get any of our choices of defense, which is weird because two of our top 8 picks went undrafted; but I'm not really unhappy with what we've got either.
It seems that the autodraft software is a bit buggy. Somehow we ended up with a couple players I put on the exclusion list as definitely NOT wanting. Also some of our picks weren't chosen by any other team in the league, but we were given players lower in our priority list, and the players we prioritized higher went undrafted... and for some reason we cannot now pick those players to replace the ones we got.
Anyway, I'm trying to compensate for that by adding and dropping as best I can before this weekend (the first trade/add/drop deadline is Friday).
Overall though, I think we're looking very competitive. I just need to shore up that secondary running back (I REALLY wanted Addai, Westbrook, Lynch, Gore, or Barber... and who the hell is Foschi?)... and we've got a nice deep bench, with good trade prospects.
So, he wanted to try and play fantasy football last year, but couldnt figure out the details in time to get into a draft. This year he got an invite a couple weeks early, and roped me in to managing the team with him.
Now, no man has a greater love for football than me, but I'm not so sure about the whole fantasy thing... I mean it seems kinda interesting and all, but also kinda wanktastic.
Anyway, our fantasy league is through Yahoo, which has you pre-rank all your players, priorities and positions, and does an autodraft. We have 8 teams in our league, so I made 8 primary and a couple of secondary choices for each position and then put them in our pre-draft player list.
Then I decided where I wanted to put each player in our priorities; which is kinda hard actually, given you have no idea what the other teams are going to do... You could put all your top picks for a particular position up front, but you'd end up week in other positions if you do etc...
Here was our pre-draft list in preference order by position (not in draft preference order which was messy, and I no longer have my notes on it):
Offense
QB - Tom Brady
QB - Peyton Manning
QB - Tony Romo
QB - Eli Manning
QB - Carson Palmer
QB - Jake Delhomme
QB - Ben Roethlisberger
QB - Donovan McNabb
TE - Vernon Davis
TE - Antonio Gates
TE - Tony Gonzales
TE - Dallas Clark
TE - Heath Miller
TE - Jeremy Shockey
TE - Greg Olson
TE - Ben Watson
WR - Randy Moss
WR - Santonio Homes
WR - Calvin Johnson
WR - Reggie Wayne
WR - Sidney Rice
WR - Ted Ginn Jr.
WR - Kevin Walter
WR - Vincent Jackson
RB - Ladanian Tomlinson
RB - Adrian Peterson
RB - Brian Westbrook
RB - Clinton Portis
RB - Joseph Addai
RB - Marchand Lynch
RB - Frank Gore
RB - Marian Barber
PK - Stepehen Gostowski
PK - Adam Viniateri
PK - Josh Brown
PK - Nate Kaeding
PK - Nick Folk
PK - Phil Dawson
PK - Shayne Graham
PK - David Akers
Defense
Defense - Patriots
Defense - Steelers
Defense - Vikings
Defense - Chargers
Defense - Giants
Defense - Bears
Defense - Jets
Defense - Cowboys
Well, our draft was yesterday, and we got first pick (randomly selected):
Starting:
QB: Eli Manning
WR: Vincent Jackson
WR: Santonio Holmes
RB: LaDainian Tomlinson
RB: John Paul Foschi
TE: Vernon Davis
W/R: Hines Ward
K: Steven Gostowski
Defense: Indianapolis Colts
Bench:
QB: Jake Delhomme
WR: Nate Burleson
WR: Marvin Harrison
TE: Ben Watson
K: David Akers
Defense: Jacksonville Jaguars
Waivers:
RB: John Paul Foschi
WR: Marvin Harrison
Adds:
RB: Ricky Williams
RB: Rashard Mendenhall
Overall though I'm happy with the draft, with a couple of exceptions (that I'm trying to fix with waivers and adds).
We got our top pic in Ladainian Tomlinson, which I'm very happy about, and our top pick for kicker in Gostowski. I'm also pleased we got Holmes, Jackson, and Davis
Unfortunately, it seems that most of the other teams in our league put our top few choices for RB and QB in their lists, at higher priorities than ours, so we ended up with a two middle of the road QBs, a secondary runningback I've never even heard of (he wasn't on our list at all), and we ended up heavy on wide recievers.
Also we didn't get any of our choices of defense, which is weird because two of our top 8 picks went undrafted; but I'm not really unhappy with what we've got either.
It seems that the autodraft software is a bit buggy. Somehow we ended up with a couple players I put on the exclusion list as definitely NOT wanting. Also some of our picks weren't chosen by any other team in the league, but we were given players lower in our priority list, and the players we prioritized higher went undrafted... and for some reason we cannot now pick those players to replace the ones we got.
Anyway, I'm trying to compensate for that by adding and dropping as best I can before this weekend (the first trade/add/drop deadline is Friday).
Overall though, I think we're looking very competitive. I just need to shore up that secondary running back (I REALLY wanted Addai, Westbrook, Lynch, Gore, or Barber... and who the hell is Foschi?)... and we've got a nice deep bench, with good trade prospects.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Confessions of a Tool Addict
So in a week and a half, we're heading off to Texas for the NoR shoot; and we're going with four people, probably about 30 guns, at least 5000 rounds of ammo, a camp kitchen and a camp pavilion, some folding chairs, and some shooting tables; plus clothes, air mattresses, bedding...
Anyway, it's a LOT of crap, honestly more than I want to carry AND have all of us in the truck, and I don't feel like towing a trailer; so I picked up a new hitch carrier.
I was thinking about the 2” Hitch Haul, with a side rail kit. I had been thinking of the Hitch haul magnum, which has the same carrying capacity and 4"x60" of extra space (20"x60" vs24"x60", but I found out they don’t have rails for it. Cabelas is currently selling them for $65 plus $45 for the rail kit; and $40 if I want the folding receiver, for $150 all up.
I was also considering the Valley industries heavy duty model. It has the same cargo carrying capacity, but lower rails. However, the rails are welded not bolted on; and it has a folding receiver built in, for $140 all up (or $120 for fixed - $10 more than the Hitch Haul for fixed, $10 less for folding compared to Hitch Haul).
Oh and the Valley can fold with the rails in position (because the rails are a fixed welded part of the frame); the Hitch Haul can’t fold with the rails in place.
What I ended up buying was this:
MasterBuilt Hitch Haul 2" reciever hitch cargo carrier
MasterBuilt Hitch Haul folding receiver bar mount
They totaled out at $110 plus tax. It would have been $25 more for the Magnum model, which has the same weight capacity, but an extra 4” of depth on the platform; and $45 for the side rails.
I looked at the depth of the side plates, and the structure of the thing; plus the size of the cargo box I’d be building, and I decided no way did I need the rails, or the extra 4”.
Anyway, on to the topic in the title...
Have you seen what they want for a truck cargo box lately? A 20x60 will cost me $150 for a cheezy plastic model, and at least $300 if I want a nice diamond plate one.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
It’s 10 small pieces of sheet metal presuming fully cut sides, or two pieces from a press and brake, a piano hinge, some weather stripping, two handles and a lock.
1.5 sheets of aluminum, $20 worth of hardware, and a half hour worth of welding.
The plastic ones are even cheaper to make; and NEITHER of them have what I would consider acceptable fit finish or quality for a piece you’re paying that much for.
Anyway, I looked at that, and I looked at the cost of plywood and said “Screw that, I’mna build one”. I can build a really nice one out of oak plywood with oak stringers, marine epoxy, and spar varnish for about $100. Probably take me two hours without the finishing".
60x20x20 main box with a 4” deep lid; rabbeted corners and a mitered 1/2” oak face frame all the way around. Brass piano hinge and some generic locks and handles from the hardware store; or use amplifier handles and road case locks from musicians friend for fancy hardware if the Lowes doesn’t have it and it’s an extra $20.
The main difference of course is that I’ll actually be PROUD of the way the oak box looks; never mind the price.
I went to the local Lowes, and picked up two sheets of 3/4” oak plywood, 4x 10 foot and 3x 8 foot 1"x2" strips of red oak for the frame, a piano hinge, two handles, two latches, and a hasp.
Total: $150 after taking $20 from a friend for the half sheet I’m not going to use; $118 in wood, $32 in hardware.
I wanted to use 1/2” oak for both the plywood and the frame, and they didn’t have any; it was special order only. That would have dropped my cost about $20 on the plywood and $20 on the framing wood for $110 total if I’d had time to wait a week for the special order, but obviously I didn't have that kind of time.
The box is going to be 24"h x 20"d x 60"w outside dimension, 3.5” smaller internal length and width (because of thickness of wood) for a total volume of 22374 cubic inches, or 13 cubic feet. Unfortunately it's also going to weigh about 100lbs; but it's going to be beautiful, solid, weather tight, well made, and should last longer than I do.
What does this have to do with my tool addiction?
Don't worry, I'll get there... you need to context to understand how it all made sense at the time.
Ok, so that was Saturday morning to mid afternoon. Then, on the way home I stopped by the pawn shop closest my house which I try to check out once a week. While I was there I grabbed up a nice Bostich brad nailer for $30. I don't know where my brad nailer disappeared to when I moved last, and it's damn useful to have one around in general; plus I wanted one to build the box with.
Sunday I head out to start building the box, and I'm getting excessive vibration from my table saw; a 10" Ryobi portable.
Anyway, I decided to remount my saw "permanently" on my "temporary" work bench. I put the "temporary" in quotes there because it's a ripped sheet of 3'x5' 3/4" plywood, and a pair of heavy duty saw horses; and it's been my main wood working and general use outdoor work bench for about six months now. I keep meaning to build a couple of real benches, I just haven't had time.
I didn't have any carriage bolts handy, and besides, I couldn't find my glue brushes (those cheap aluminum tube brushes that you buy 5 for $0.99); so I headed out to the local ACE.
In the process of picking up the carriage bolts to mount the saw (and some extras to remount my bench grinder, my band saw, and my drill press, which were all mounted on these Black and Decker x-fold aluminum tool stands, which I love by the way), I hit the discount bin and grabbed a couple pairs of cheap vise grips, and a bunch of small clamps, all $o.99 or $1.99 each. It's amazing how a $5 trip can turn into a $50 trip ain't it.
But, you can never have too many clamps.
So I get home, remount the saw and test again, and the vibration is worse. I try and make a cut, and it wobbles so much that the 1/8" kerf blade is making a 1/4" kerf cut.
I tore down the saw, and the wobble was in the motor... seems the bearings are gone.
Great... time for another table saw... but not on Sunday; by then it was time to go pick up the kids from grandmas.
Monday afternoon rolls around, and I take a long lunch to go pick up a new table saw. I looked around the websites of all the local tool retailers looking for a good deal, and unsurprisingly it seemsthe best deal and selection are at Sears.
So I'm on the web site checking out the deals, and I find a couple of really spectacular ones, but for some reason when I call the local store they can't tell me if anyone in the area has them in stock; so I head down to the store directly.
There was a special closeout deal that I really wanted on this saw:
It's just a spectacular deal, $265 for a $600 entry grade cabinet saw.
One small catch though, the nearest one is in northern California, wouldn't arrive for 14-21 days, and would cost $251 to ship.
Which actually is STILL a decent deal, but no way am I going to pay $250 for shipping, and I can't wait two weeks anyway.
So, my second choice was this other spectacular deal, $250 for a JET convertible saw that lists at $500:
Another small problem, the nearest one is in Ohio, wont even ship for 21-28 days, and is $60 to ship (80lbs on this saw, vs 350lbs on the other saw).
Well damn.
So after the little bait and switch act, I'm still looking for a half decent table saw in the $250 price range. Of course Sears has a half dozen saws between $99 and $269; but the cheapest ones are really crap, and the more expensive ones aren't really worth the premium over the $200 saws. Really you're better off just buying one of the $200 saws, or going all the way and and spending the $500 to $1000 for a contractor grade saw.
Anyway, that's what I did; buying this convertible saw:
I payed $199 on sale from $220. There was a similar saw mounted on a plastic cabinet for $220, but I saw no real advantage to it. There was another saw $30 cheaper, but it had a smaller table, that didn't extend as far, and had a smaller outfeed support etc....
I read all the reviews on the saws in the price range before I went to the store, and the one I bought had the best reviews; and seemed the best value for the money, so there you go.
One REAL irritation I had in this process, other than the bait and switch: ALL the saws in this price range have these little tiny t-slot miter gages. They're so small as to be basically useless, and the t-slots are not only unstable, but you cant replace them with a standard miter gage, or a panel cutter, or any other jig that runs in the miter gage slot, because of the stupid "t-slot"
Ok, so I pick up the saw, and then head over to Harbor Freight, to pick up a couple of those cheap roller stands they had on sale for $10.
Tactical error on my part.
There are so many things waiting for me to buy them at horror freight, most of them under $5. I grabbed two new vises (one tiny hobby vise for gunsmithing, and one big benchvise) for $30 TOTAL for example. Sure, they aren't very good, but they work, and a good vise is $200. All the bar clamps were on special sale 50% off, so I grabbed about a dozen various bar clamps for a total of about $30.
Remember, you can never have too many clamps. Seriously.
Funny how a $20 trip can become a $200 trip ain't it?
So anyway, I put the saw together Monday night. I ripped some pices up and was VERY happy with the saw overall.
I started to rabbet the edges of the ply panels for the box with my router, and it was just irritating. For stop rabbets, or curved rabbets yes go for router, but were talking about long straight lines here. The proper tool for this job is a dado head cutter.
Unfortunately, I can't find mine anymore.
Also, working with the limited bench space and saw space that I had was REALLY irritating with these 5 foot long panels.
I've been needing to build a couple new benches and work tables lately anyway...
So, I headed down to the Lowes again, pick up the dado set ($40) three sheets of plywood (1x 23/32" and 2x 15/32" A-C - $65), 10x 10 foot doug fir 2x4s ($27) and 3lbs of 3" deck screws ($15); or $107 total for three tables, or $35.33 a table.
That's gonna give me three tables; two 3'x4' and one 2'x4'. The tables are saw height (35.5"), with two layer tops 1-1/4" thick (one layer is 1/2" the other 3/4", glues and screwed together), with the frame fully deck screwed together, and a 1/2" plywood shelf on the cross braces.
I may make the tables 32' to fit through standard interior door jams, or 24" to fit through exterior jams; I haven't decided. The two larger tables are intended for exterior/shop use, and I could use the extra couple inches of work space. Besides, I have a sliding glass door I can get the tables through if I have to. Of course I may not always have that option, and it IS only losing 2" or4"... I'll figure it out as I go.
Unfortunately, while I was loading the plywood, I managed to jerk my arm free and accidentally ram a 1" long 1/4" thick splinter deep under the surface of my left forearm, exactly at the spot where I cant get to it, and deep enough that Mel can't dig it out.
And by can't dig it out, I mean can't get it out with a scalpel, a 1/4" deep 1/2" long incision, and forceps. I was an EMT basic at one point and I don't see any point in going to the emergency room if you can do it yourself.
Anyway, it's bad enough, and deep enough that we cant get it now; so I've butterflied it up. I'm taking antibiotics (tetracycline lasts for 3 years without refrigeration), and waiting a couple days to see if it pushes towards the surface enough to get at it. If not I'mna have to go in for surgery to have it removed.
Oh Joy.
Anyway, nothing I can do there; and now I'm really irritated, so at about 6pm I saw "screw it, I'mna go build a damn table.
At 9 'clock, I had this:
A 2' by 4' saw height smooth top table. It's not completely done yet, I still need to put in the final two side stringers around the bottom, and screw down the lower plywood shelf; but other than that it's ready to go.
The best part of course is that now that I have one table, building the other two is going to be MUCH faster; because I have a nice large work surface at the right height. It should be two hours each for the other two tables, maybe less.
The BOM on this table is pretty simple:
A 1/2" sheet of a-c ply is $20, 4x 10 foot studs are $11 and a pound of deck screws is $6. Throw in an extra stud for insurance, and you've got a total of $40 for the whole thing.
Considering Home Despot will charge you $60 for a "kit" for a similar, but lower quality table (thinner, lower quality wood), or god forbid $150 from Sears for a cheap sheetmetal one... that's a pretty good deal.
I built this table as a workbench with a 2" clamping lip on the front edge; if you want flush rails, add 2" to the side dimensions. Obviously, for the 3'x4' tables, you just add 12" to each of the side pieces, and another 8 or so screws.
The same design can be extended out to about 4'x6'; but any bigger than that and you'll probably want to go to 4x4 posts for the legs (or use a doubled 2x4 mitered or lap jointed into an "L" angle beam, but a 4x4 is simpler), and 2x6s for the main frame members.
Oh and you can build 3x 32" deep tables from the same number of sheets, if you are looking to buld tables you can move through interior doorways... or you can take the extra 8" and make two back splashes (I prefer no back on my benches and tables so I can slide stock around on them).
...Anyway...
So, what started off as a simple $110 cargo carrier, is ending up as a $110 cargo carrier, $500 worth of tools and $300 worth of wood and other materials... oh and maybe a $500 urgent care trip to boot.
Hello, my name is Chris, and I'm an addict... but I swear, I can stop any time I want to.
Anyway, it's a LOT of crap, honestly more than I want to carry AND have all of us in the truck, and I don't feel like towing a trailer; so I picked up a new hitch carrier.
I was thinking about the 2” Hitch Haul, with a side rail kit. I had been thinking of the Hitch haul magnum, which has the same carrying capacity and 4"x60" of extra space (20"x60" vs24"x60", but I found out they don’t have rails for it. Cabelas is currently selling them for $65 plus $45 for the rail kit; and $40 if I want the folding receiver, for $150 all up.
I was also considering the Valley industries heavy duty model. It has the same cargo carrying capacity, but lower rails. However, the rails are welded not bolted on; and it has a folding receiver built in, for $140 all up (or $120 for fixed - $10 more than the Hitch Haul for fixed, $10 less for folding compared to Hitch Haul).
Oh and the Valley can fold with the rails in position (because the rails are a fixed welded part of the frame); the Hitch Haul can’t fold with the rails in place.
What I ended up buying was this:
MasterBuilt Hitch Haul 2" reciever hitch cargo carrier
MasterBuilt Hitch Haul folding receiver bar mount
They totaled out at $110 plus tax. It would have been $25 more for the Magnum model, which has the same weight capacity, but an extra 4” of depth on the platform; and $45 for the side rails.
I looked at the depth of the side plates, and the structure of the thing; plus the size of the cargo box I’d be building, and I decided no way did I need the rails, or the extra 4”.
Anyway, on to the topic in the title...
Have you seen what they want for a truck cargo box lately? A 20x60 will cost me $150 for a cheezy plastic model, and at least $300 if I want a nice diamond plate one.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
It’s 10 small pieces of sheet metal presuming fully cut sides, or two pieces from a press and brake, a piano hinge, some weather stripping, two handles and a lock.
1.5 sheets of aluminum, $20 worth of hardware, and a half hour worth of welding.
The plastic ones are even cheaper to make; and NEITHER of them have what I would consider acceptable fit finish or quality for a piece you’re paying that much for.
Anyway, I looked at that, and I looked at the cost of plywood and said “Screw that, I’mna build one”. I can build a really nice one out of oak plywood with oak stringers, marine epoxy, and spar varnish for about $100. Probably take me two hours without the finishing".
60x20x20 main box with a 4” deep lid; rabbeted corners and a mitered 1/2” oak face frame all the way around. Brass piano hinge and some generic locks and handles from the hardware store; or use amplifier handles and road case locks from musicians friend for fancy hardware if the Lowes doesn’t have it and it’s an extra $20.
The main difference of course is that I’ll actually be PROUD of the way the oak box looks; never mind the price.
I went to the local Lowes, and picked up two sheets of 3/4” oak plywood, 4x 10 foot and 3x 8 foot 1"x2" strips of red oak for the frame, a piano hinge, two handles, two latches, and a hasp.
Total: $150 after taking $20 from a friend for the half sheet I’m not going to use; $118 in wood, $32 in hardware.
I wanted to use 1/2” oak for both the plywood and the frame, and they didn’t have any; it was special order only. That would have dropped my cost about $20 on the plywood and $20 on the framing wood for $110 total if I’d had time to wait a week for the special order, but obviously I didn't have that kind of time.
The box is going to be 24"h x 20"d x 60"w outside dimension, 3.5” smaller internal length and width (because of thickness of wood) for a total volume of 22374 cubic inches, or 13 cubic feet. Unfortunately it's also going to weigh about 100lbs; but it's going to be beautiful, solid, weather tight, well made, and should last longer than I do.
What does this have to do with my tool addiction?
Don't worry, I'll get there... you need to context to understand how it all made sense at the time.
Ok, so that was Saturday morning to mid afternoon. Then, on the way home I stopped by the pawn shop closest my house which I try to check out once a week. While I was there I grabbed up a nice Bostich brad nailer for $30. I don't know where my brad nailer disappeared to when I moved last, and it's damn useful to have one around in general; plus I wanted one to build the box with.
Sunday I head out to start building the box, and I'm getting excessive vibration from my table saw; a 10" Ryobi portable.
Anyway, I decided to remount my saw "permanently" on my "temporary" work bench. I put the "temporary" in quotes there because it's a ripped sheet of 3'x5' 3/4" plywood, and a pair of heavy duty saw horses; and it's been my main wood working and general use outdoor work bench for about six months now. I keep meaning to build a couple of real benches, I just haven't had time.
I didn't have any carriage bolts handy, and besides, I couldn't find my glue brushes (those cheap aluminum tube brushes that you buy 5 for $0.99); so I headed out to the local ACE.
In the process of picking up the carriage bolts to mount the saw (and some extras to remount my bench grinder, my band saw, and my drill press, which were all mounted on these Black and Decker x-fold aluminum tool stands, which I love by the way), I hit the discount bin and grabbed a couple pairs of cheap vise grips, and a bunch of small clamps, all $o.99 or $1.99 each. It's amazing how a $5 trip can turn into a $50 trip ain't it.
But, you can never have too many clamps.
So I get home, remount the saw and test again, and the vibration is worse. I try and make a cut, and it wobbles so much that the 1/8" kerf blade is making a 1/4" kerf cut.
I tore down the saw, and the wobble was in the motor... seems the bearings are gone.
Great... time for another table saw... but not on Sunday; by then it was time to go pick up the kids from grandmas.
Monday afternoon rolls around, and I take a long lunch to go pick up a new table saw. I looked around the websites of all the local tool retailers looking for a good deal, and unsurprisingly it seemsthe best deal and selection are at Sears.
So I'm on the web site checking out the deals, and I find a couple of really spectacular ones, but for some reason when I call the local store they can't tell me if anyone in the area has them in stock; so I head down to the store directly.
There was a special closeout deal that I really wanted on this saw:
It's just a spectacular deal, $265 for a $600 entry grade cabinet saw.
One small catch though, the nearest one is in northern California, wouldn't arrive for 14-21 days, and would cost $251 to ship.
Which actually is STILL a decent deal, but no way am I going to pay $250 for shipping, and I can't wait two weeks anyway.
So, my second choice was this other spectacular deal, $250 for a JET convertible saw that lists at $500:
Another small problem, the nearest one is in Ohio, wont even ship for 21-28 days, and is $60 to ship (80lbs on this saw, vs 350lbs on the other saw).
Well damn.
So after the little bait and switch act, I'm still looking for a half decent table saw in the $250 price range. Of course Sears has a half dozen saws between $99 and $269; but the cheapest ones are really crap, and the more expensive ones aren't really worth the premium over the $200 saws. Really you're better off just buying one of the $200 saws, or going all the way and and spending the $500 to $1000 for a contractor grade saw.
Anyway, that's what I did; buying this convertible saw:
I payed $199 on sale from $220. There was a similar saw mounted on a plastic cabinet for $220, but I saw no real advantage to it. There was another saw $30 cheaper, but it had a smaller table, that didn't extend as far, and had a smaller outfeed support etc....
I read all the reviews on the saws in the price range before I went to the store, and the one I bought had the best reviews; and seemed the best value for the money, so there you go.
One REAL irritation I had in this process, other than the bait and switch: ALL the saws in this price range have these little tiny t-slot miter gages. They're so small as to be basically useless, and the t-slots are not only unstable, but you cant replace them with a standard miter gage, or a panel cutter, or any other jig that runs in the miter gage slot, because of the stupid "t-slot"
Ok, so I pick up the saw, and then head over to Harbor Freight, to pick up a couple of those cheap roller stands they had on sale for $10.
Tactical error on my part.
There are so many things waiting for me to buy them at horror freight, most of them under $5. I grabbed two new vises (one tiny hobby vise for gunsmithing, and one big benchvise) for $30 TOTAL for example. Sure, they aren't very good, but they work, and a good vise is $200. All the bar clamps were on special sale 50% off, so I grabbed about a dozen various bar clamps for a total of about $30.
Remember, you can never have too many clamps. Seriously.
Funny how a $20 trip can become a $200 trip ain't it?
So anyway, I put the saw together Monday night. I ripped some pices up and was VERY happy with the saw overall.
I started to rabbet the edges of the ply panels for the box with my router, and it was just irritating. For stop rabbets, or curved rabbets yes go for router, but were talking about long straight lines here. The proper tool for this job is a dado head cutter.
Unfortunately, I can't find mine anymore.
Also, working with the limited bench space and saw space that I had was REALLY irritating with these 5 foot long panels.
I've been needing to build a couple new benches and work tables lately anyway...
So, I headed down to the Lowes again, pick up the dado set ($40) three sheets of plywood (1x 23/32" and 2x 15/32" A-C - $65), 10x 10 foot doug fir 2x4s ($27) and 3lbs of 3" deck screws ($15); or $107 total for three tables, or $35.33 a table.
That's gonna give me three tables; two 3'x4' and one 2'x4'. The tables are saw height (35.5"), with two layer tops 1-1/4" thick (one layer is 1/2" the other 3/4", glues and screwed together), with the frame fully deck screwed together, and a 1/2" plywood shelf on the cross braces.
I may make the tables 32' to fit through standard interior door jams, or 24" to fit through exterior jams; I haven't decided. The two larger tables are intended for exterior/shop use, and I could use the extra couple inches of work space. Besides, I have a sliding glass door I can get the tables through if I have to. Of course I may not always have that option, and it IS only losing 2" or4"... I'll figure it out as I go.
Unfortunately, while I was loading the plywood, I managed to jerk my arm free and accidentally ram a 1" long 1/4" thick splinter deep under the surface of my left forearm, exactly at the spot where I cant get to it, and deep enough that Mel can't dig it out.
And by can't dig it out, I mean can't get it out with a scalpel, a 1/4" deep 1/2" long incision, and forceps. I was an EMT basic at one point and I don't see any point in going to the emergency room if you can do it yourself.
Anyway, it's bad enough, and deep enough that we cant get it now; so I've butterflied it up. I'm taking antibiotics (tetracycline lasts for 3 years without refrigeration), and waiting a couple days to see if it pushes towards the surface enough to get at it. If not I'mna have to go in for surgery to have it removed.
Oh Joy.
Anyway, nothing I can do there; and now I'm really irritated, so at about 6pm I saw "screw it, I'mna go build a damn table.
At 9 'clock, I had this:
A 2' by 4' saw height smooth top table. It's not completely done yet, I still need to put in the final two side stringers around the bottom, and screw down the lower plywood shelf; but other than that it's ready to go.The best part of course is that now that I have one table, building the other two is going to be MUCH faster; because I have a nice large work surface at the right height. It should be two hours each for the other two tables, maybe less.
The BOM on this table is pretty simple:
- 1x - 2'x4'x3/4" a-c plywood. Used as tabletop base glued and screwed to the finish top
- 2x - 2'x4'x1/2" a-c plywood. Used as finish tabletop and shelf
- About 40 foot of 2"x4" whitewood. Longest length is 4'.
- 4x 48" long stringers (top and bottom)
- 4x 34" legs
- 2x 19" top side rails
- 2x 15" top rail doublers
- 2x 11" bottom side rails
- 2x24" feet
- 70x 3" deck screws (just over a pound)
A 1/2" sheet of a-c ply is $20, 4x 10 foot studs are $11 and a pound of deck screws is $6. Throw in an extra stud for insurance, and you've got a total of $40 for the whole thing.
Considering Home Despot will charge you $60 for a "kit" for a similar, but lower quality table (thinner, lower quality wood), or god forbid $150 from Sears for a cheap sheetmetal one... that's a pretty good deal.
I built this table as a workbench with a 2" clamping lip on the front edge; if you want flush rails, add 2" to the side dimensions. Obviously, for the 3'x4' tables, you just add 12" to each of the side pieces, and another 8 or so screws.
The same design can be extended out to about 4'x6'; but any bigger than that and you'll probably want to go to 4x4 posts for the legs (or use a doubled 2x4 mitered or lap jointed into an "L" angle beam, but a 4x4 is simpler), and 2x6s for the main frame members.
Oh and you can build 3x 32" deep tables from the same number of sheets, if you are looking to buld tables you can move through interior doorways... or you can take the extra 8" and make two back splashes (I prefer no back on my benches and tables so I can slide stock around on them).
...Anyway...
So, what started off as a simple $110 cargo carrier, is ending up as a $110 cargo carrier, $500 worth of tools and $300 worth of wood and other materials... oh and maybe a $500 urgent care trip to boot.
Hello, my name is Chris, and I'm an addict... but I swear, I can stop any time I want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)