R
-
It's time to cast your vote in the April 2025 Turning Challenge. (click here for details) -
Congratulations to Steve Bonny for "A Book Holds What Time Lets Go" being selected as Turning of the Week for 28 April, 2025 (click here for details) -
Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.
Looked at the video......
Was that rumbling noise I heard, an indication that the demonstration should have been made at a slower speed? In regard to the previous demo-video of the Ci1, this is something that was called to my attention in a personal message. That person suggested the speed was too high, because it looked better that way......and likely produced sales. Too bad we don't have the luxury of comparing the quality of cuts by a personal inspection......all we can see are the chips flying, and nothing to really judge just how fine of a cut the tool is making.
If I'm not mistaken, the round Ci0 insert is made more like the Hunter insert.....with a cupped interior surface. (If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know.) This would be a "practical" difference between it and the square sided, but flat top insert of the Ci1. With a cupped interior surface, the cutting edge itself would be a more acute angle than it would be with a flat top surface.
With that noted difference, I could see how the Ci0 might cut a bit cleaner than a sharp scraper, likewise held flat and solid.....but, since we're discussing roughing, I'm not sure how much advantage that might be....if at all.
otis of cologne
Was that rumbling noise I heard, an indication that the demonstration should have been made at a slower speed? In regard to the previous demo-video of the Ci1, this is something that was called to my attention in a personal message. That person suggested the speed was too high, because it looked better that way......and likely produced sales. Too bad we don't have the luxury of comparing the quality of cuts by a personal inspection......all we can see are the chips flying, and nothing to really judge just how fine of a cut the tool is making.
If I'm not mistaken, the round Ci0 insert is made more like the Hunter insert.....with a cupped interior surface. (If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know.) This would be a "practical" difference between it and the square sided, but flat top insert of the Ci1. With a cupped interior surface, the cutting edge itself would be a more acute angle than it would be with a flat top surface.
With that noted difference, I could see how the Ci0 might cut a bit cleaner than a sharp scraper, likewise held flat and solid.....but, since we're discussing roughing, I'm not sure how much advantage that might be....if at all.
otis of cologne
Last edited:
I interpreted Rob's question as the square bit versus the radiused bit (still 4 sides but something like a 4" radius to form the arc on each side). Both of these bits are sold for the Ci1 Easy Rougher.
The Ci0 is dubbed Easy Finisher and looks to have a circular bit with the same type of profile as the Hunter tool bits.
One point of interest in the video is the operator notes that he is cutting from the outside to the center, as if that was unusual. I wonder if this blank is in face grain or spindle orientation.
The Hunter tool is a bit grabby if you hold it flat. Usually it works better rolled to 30-60 degrees, IME. Hopefully there is something different about this tool since it can only be used in the flat position.
The Ci0 is dubbed Easy Finisher and looks to have a circular bit with the same type of profile as the Hunter tool bits.
One point of interest in the video is the operator notes that he is cutting from the outside to the center, as if that was unusual. I wonder if this blank is in face grain or spindle orientation.
The Hunter tool is a bit grabby if you hold it flat. Usually it works better rolled to 30-60 degrees, IME. Hopefully there is something different about this tool since it can only be used in the flat position.
You know, KEW.......I think you're right!
Rob Wallace is, indeed inquiring about the radius vs square inserts that are available for the Ci1. In that case, I'll bet someone else can come along to give a first hand experience comparing the two.
As you say, the Hunter is very grabby when presented to the wood in the same manner as the EasyFinisher or EasyRougher. I'd be willing to bet the flat top insert of the Ci1 would be less grabby.....because of the more obtuse angle of the cutting edge.....but, still grabby, nonetheless. The Ci0 will be a different story, but since it's held by a square shank, it will be better than the Hunter presented in the same way.
In regards to the Ci0, and since it seems to be marketed as a finishing tool, I'm having a hard time understanding how it could possibly give a finer cut than the hunter. This is because the Hunter is presented to the wood in much the same fashion as a gouge would be.....at an angle.......and the Ci0 is presented to the wood much the same way as a scraper held flat to the tool rest would be. (Not the shear scrape mode.)
OOC
Attachments
Last edited:
BTW, Michael......
I suspected the demonstration was on green, or partially seasoned wood, as well. If it was, then how appropriate would it be on a tool that is being marketed as a finishing tool?.....?
OOC
Last edited:
I continue to be absolutely amazed at the number of intelligent people who apparently cannot accept the notion of a new tool that does what the maker says it'll do. 
Rumor, suspicion, doubt, and unwillingness to believe the word of people who've actually used the tool seems to be pretty common around here.
Speed too high? That's a subjective evaluation, especially from someone who's never used the tool. It cuts better at faster speeds. Simple as that. If you want to turn at 50 RPM, feel free to do so.
Green wood? Wet wood? Maybe Craig's using maple-colored styrofoam to make the demo look better. (Wet styrofoam, of course.) Believe it or not, the Ci1 can pull clean, full-width ribbons off a bone-dry ash blank. How? I don't know and don't really care. But based on my experience with the Ci1, I have no reason to doubt the Ci0 can do the same.
Y'all can just keep on turning on your spring pole lathes with hand-forged carbon steel tools, since apparently everything introduced since then is either wrong, impossible, or a devious plot by the manufacturer to take over the world.
/soapbox
Rumor, suspicion, doubt, and unwillingness to believe the word of people who've actually used the tool seems to be pretty common around here.Speed too high? That's a subjective evaluation, especially from someone who's never used the tool. It cuts better at faster speeds. Simple as that. If you want to turn at 50 RPM, feel free to do so.
Green wood? Wet wood? Maybe Craig's using maple-colored styrofoam to make the demo look better. (Wet styrofoam, of course.) Believe it or not, the Ci1 can pull clean, full-width ribbons off a bone-dry ash blank. How? I don't know and don't really care. But based on my experience with the Ci1, I have no reason to doubt the Ci0 can do the same.
Y'all can just keep on turning on your spring pole lathes with hand-forged carbon steel tools, since apparently everything introduced since then is either wrong, impossible, or a devious plot by the manufacturer to take over the world.
/soapbox
I continue to be absolutely amazed at the number of intelligent people who apparently cannot accept the notion of a new tool that does what the maker says it'll do.
Speed too high? That's a subjective evaluation, especially from someone who's never used the tool. It cuts better at faster speeds. Simple as that. If you want to turn at 50 RPM, feel free to do so.
Green wood? Wet wood? Maybe Craig's using maple-colored styrofoam to make the demo look better. (Wet styrofoam, of course.) Believe it or not, the Ci1 can pull clean, full-width ribbons off a bone-dry ash blank. How? I don't know and don't really care. But based on my experience with the Ci1, I have no reason to doubt the Ci0 can do the same.
Y'all can just keep on turning on your spring pole lathes with hand-forged carbon steel tools, since apparently everything introduced since then is either wrong, impossible, or a devious plot by the manufacturer to take over the world.
/soapbox
What amazes me is the small number of folks that let their feelings be hurt, if someone else questions the usefulness of a new tool they happen to own. Why should reasoned opinion, analysis, thought, etc., on the subject be so important an issue, for you to attempt browbeating it, in an attempt to shut it down?
I don't believe anyone, in any of these threads has questioned whether the Ci1 will do what it's advertised to do......but, that's not what is being examined. What IS being examined is whether it will, either theoretically or demonstrably, produce a better, faster cut on appropriate wood that is being turned in a manner that properly represents the tool in a fair analysis......instead of representing salesmanship.
OOC
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
Nice bit of doublespeak oddie.
C'mon......lighten up a little bit, Ron......
Resorting to name calling doesn't help your stance.
....it usually means there is no intelligent reply forthcoming......
OOC
Last edited:
My feelings aren't hurt in the least. What some seem to consider reasoned opinion, analysis, thought, etc, I see as FUD.
I'm not trying to shut it down, either...just expressing my amazement at it. I'm not trying to change the way anyone here turns, but when I've just finished doing exactly what some people stridently say "can't be done", those people lose a bit of credibility in my book.
Carry on.
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
No name calling intended, just a typo, sorry
Ok, sounds good to me, Vaughn......your opinion is as good as anyone else's.....including mine.
Out of curiosity, what was it that you just did, that others stridently say "can't be done"?
OOC
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 372
- Likes
- 0
- Location
- Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
- Website
- www.burntchimneystudios.com
Recent learning experience, Ci1
I recently took a piece of cherry and tried to make a bowl. The positive part of this exercise was using the Easy Rougher. I tried to see how many mistakes I could make with a bowl gouge - ones that I usually avoid. External factors prevented me from completing the bowl and it warped beyond reasonable limits before I could complete the reverse turning. Firewood.
What did I learn about the Easy Rougher?
1. It cuts best when you have a little speed. As you begin this is obviously limited by how much the wood is out of balance.
2. Using the slightly radiused cutter that comes with the tool, you can get a remarkably smooth cut.
3. Like with a bowl gouge, wet wood cuts easier than dry. (This wood was dry on the exterior and wet inside.)
4. The shield is quite useful.
5. Anyone who wants to turn lots of bowls will find this to be an extremely useful tool.
I recommend this tool. If you don't believe me, I really don't care.
I recently took a piece of cherry and tried to make a bowl. The positive part of this exercise was using the Easy Rougher. I tried to see how many mistakes I could make with a bowl gouge - ones that I usually avoid. External factors prevented me from completing the bowl and it warped beyond reasonable limits before I could complete the reverse turning. Firewood.
What did I learn about the Easy Rougher?
1. It cuts best when you have a little speed. As you begin this is obviously limited by how much the wood is out of balance.
2. Using the slightly radiused cutter that comes with the tool, you can get a remarkably smooth cut.
3. Like with a bowl gouge, wet wood cuts easier than dry. (This wood was dry on the exterior and wet inside.)
4. The shield is quite useful.
5. Anyone who wants to turn lots of bowls will find this to be an extremely useful tool.
I recommend this tool. If you don't believe me, I really don't care.
john lucas
AAW Forum Expert
Well I don't believe it has a top bevel like the Hunter. Used flat the hunter will self feed into the wood and be very nasty. It looks like it's flat on top and has an angle of about 45 degrees below.
I'm sure it will do exactly what it is designed to do but it's till a scraper. You can't control the shape of a piece as well with a scraper because you simply don't have the control. The control is simply how hard or how light you push. With a bowl gouge you have the full length of the handle to control where the bevel of the tool goes. This gives you incredible control over the final shape.
I'm not putting the tool down. Many people will use it and turn out some nice stuff. I just think the work would be better if they learn to use a bowl gouge and the advantages of the gouge. I also think the finish will be better off of a bowl gouge, especially in tear out prone wood.
I'm sure it will do exactly what it is designed to do but it's till a scraper. You can't control the shape of a piece as well with a scraper because you simply don't have the control. The control is simply how hard or how light you push. With a bowl gouge you have the full length of the handle to control where the bevel of the tool goes. This gives you incredible control over the final shape.
I'm not putting the tool down. Many people will use it and turn out some nice stuff. I just think the work would be better if they learn to use a bowl gouge and the advantages of the gouge. I also think the finish will be better off of a bowl gouge, especially in tear out prone wood.
OK heres my 2 cents
I have followed both the threads about the Ci_ and the one thing that keeps coming up is a big one for me, "Does it do anything that i can't do with an existing tool in my arsenal?"
Roughs outside fast - So does my 5/8 bowl gouge
Does it do finish cuts - Jury still out on that one for me, but have several gouges that do
Does it remove material from inside bowls quickly - My Pro-forme can hog out a 16" diameter x 5 inch deep semi-dry bowl in 15 to 20 minutes.
Inside bowl finish cuts - Jury still out on this one also, but once again i have gouges that do.
Personally ithink it is a new dog old tricks. Not to say my mind won't be changed when i have had one in my hand, But considering my experience with it is only a few youtube videos with no eveidence of finished product i dont think i will be purchasing one anytime soon.
I have followed both the threads about the Ci_ and the one thing that keeps coming up is a big one for me, "Does it do anything that i can't do with an existing tool in my arsenal?"
Roughs outside fast - So does my 5/8 bowl gouge
Does it do finish cuts - Jury still out on that one for me, but have several gouges that do
Does it remove material from inside bowls quickly - My Pro-forme can hog out a 16" diameter x 5 inch deep semi-dry bowl in 15 to 20 minutes.
Inside bowl finish cuts - Jury still out on this one also, but once again i have gouges that do.
Personally ithink it is a new dog old tricks. Not to say my mind won't be changed when i have had one in my hand, But considering my experience with it is only a few youtube videos with no eveidence of finished product i dont think i will be purchasing one anytime soon.
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
I thought the same thing until I Actually tried a Ci1 and it changed my mind.
For the record, I did own a Hunter and returned it because it didn't meet my needs.
Once I actually try the Ci0 will I offer my opinion, that is if anyone wants to hear it.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 372
- Likes
- 0
- Location
- Burnt Chimney, SW Virginia
- Website
- www.burntchimneystudios.com
Ci1 cutters
The cutters on the Easy Rougher Ci1 are FLAT. It is nothing like a Hunter insert cutter, except that they both have a screw hole in the center.
My PERSONAL GUESS is that for roughing a bowl, the Easy Rougher is about twice as fast as when using a bowl gouge. You will probably still clean up with a bowl gouge. I'm not saying to stop using a bowl gouge, but it is much quicker if you start with the Easy Rougher.
The cutters on the Easy Rougher Ci1 are FLAT. It is nothing like a Hunter insert cutter, except that they both have a screw hole in the center.
My PERSONAL GUESS is that for roughing a bowl, the Easy Rougher is about twice as fast as when using a bowl gouge. You will probably still clean up with a bowl gouge. I'm not saying to stop using a bowl gouge, but it is much quicker if you start with the Easy Rougher.
Now that gets my attention, that is basically what i do with the pro-forme on the insides of bowl, quick removal then clean up and final contouring with gouge.
Originally Posted by Rob Wallace:
I'd like to know the PRACTICAL difference between using a square sided carbide insert and a radius-edged carbide insert in the roughing mode.
Rob,
To answer your question, I think the main difference is that with the radiused bit, you can more easily blend your cuts together with less of a chance of having steps or grooves at the edges. Technically, since it is a roughing tool it shouldn't be a big concern, but for those of us that like to design the form as we turn, these lines could be a problematic distraction from the actual shape of the turning.
This is my best take on this.
Here is what the Easy Rougher website has to say:
The same Ci1 accepts either the crowned insert or square insert. The crowned insert excels at spindle roughing and finishing and working inside bowls. Choose the square insert for cutting square shoulders such as tenons on bowls and spindle work. For maximum efficiency have a tool for each insert.
I'd like to know the PRACTICAL difference between using a square sided carbide insert and a radius-edged carbide insert in the roughing mode.
Rob,
To answer your question, I think the main difference is that with the radiused bit, you can more easily blend your cuts together with less of a chance of having steps or grooves at the edges. Technically, since it is a roughing tool it shouldn't be a big concern, but for those of us that like to design the form as we turn, these lines could be a problematic distraction from the actual shape of the turning.
This is my best take on this.
Here is what the Easy Rougher website has to say:
The same Ci1 accepts either the crowned insert or square insert. The crowned insert excels at spindle roughing and finishing and working inside bowls. Choose the square insert for cutting square shoulders such as tenons on bowls and spindle work. For maximum efficiency have a tool for each insert.
Roughed out a blank with something easier than a bowl gouge. I guess I was being a bit hyperbolic.
John, I use bowl gouges a lot, and while I don't consider myself an expert, I get very acceptable results. (At least my customers and I think the results are acceptable.) So I don't feel I need to "learn to use the bowl gouge". I've turned quite a few pieces from start to finish with a gouge...I just prefer to start with something other than a gouge most of the time. When it's time for the finishing cuts, that's when I break out the gouges. I just think the carbide cutter is a faster and easier way to get to the finishing cut stage.
I'm honestly not trying to make anyone "wrong" for not using these tools, but I don't understand why those of us who do use them (including some turners with far more abilities that I have) are considered by some to be lacking in skills, or somehow otherwise breaking some kind of hallowed turning rules. People can turn with a shovel for all I care; just don't say I'm a lesser turner or that I need to "learn" something just because I use something different.
I have a couple 5/8" Thompson gouges, and I sharpen them on a Tormek. They are wood hoggin' son of guns. But the Ci1 is as fast or faster roughing the outside of a blank, leaves a comparable cut (properly applied), and does it with considerably less physical effort.
Finish cuts? On the right wood you could probably get them, but I prefer to switch to the gouges for that, especially in tear-out prone wood.
Length of time to hog out a 16 x 5 bowl? I'd guess about the same, or a bit faster, but with less physical exertion than a gouge. (I have problems with my hands, and they fatigue easily. The reduced exertion is very noticeable to me.) I haven't used the Pro-Forme, so I can't offer a comparison on the physical effort.
Inside bowl cuts? On a big deep bowl (if I'm not coring it), I'll usually start with the Ci1 to get some of the middle out of the way, but finish with the gouges. Shallower or smaller bowls, I usually use a gouge from start to finish. And this is talking about green wood. After the roughout has dried, I generally do any remaining cutting with a gouge. The round tip Ci0 might change that approach for me, though.
For me, the CiX tools won't replace gouges, but they augment them very nicely. If I had to only own one turning tool, it'd be a bowl gouge. But I'm not limited to just one tool, and I take advantage of that fact.
Like a lot of other folks, I was very skeptical about the Ci1, and fairly vocal about my skepticism. The first time I used one was a real "aha" moment for me.
Last edited:
Thanks for the answer and comments!
Howdy KEW:
Just back from a 4-hour Little League Board of Directors meeting....whew... Glad to see people have been discussing this a bit.....!!!
Thanks for answering my question - this is what I was wondering: Whether there is that much of a difference between the radiused edge square cutters versus the straight-sided square cutters. I have used a square-end HSS scraper and a bedan in a "hog-out" wood scraping mode before, and this can be an effective way of removing stock quickly, particularly in diffuse porous woods.
I would, however, argue that woods more prone to tear-out should be tried to see how effective the Easyrougher scrapers are at leaving a decent surface. Box elder (as a different kind of "soft" maple) may give different results than that shown on the 'Easyfinisher' video whose use of fine-grained and dense maple is fairly benign to any well-sharpened scraper.
My conclusions are that the advantages of the Easyrougher include:
1. A well-supported carbide scraping tool due to the 1/2" square tool shank; this seems to give good support under the cutter for efficient energy transfer.
2. Carbide edge allows longer time between rotating the insert or replacement; carbide stands up to included rocks, soil, bark, etc. that may dull HSS edges (even in high vanadium steels); Disadvantages are that carbide steels are brittle, and can be easily damaged by simple impacts with other metal, resulting in chips and fractures.
3. Square shape of the tool shank provides a reliable registration surface on the tool rest so that the cutting edge is presented "flat", or at 90 degrees to the circumference lines, and parallel to the rotational axis, thereby assuring a consistent tool presentation with reduced possibility of tool rotation. It also probably greatly reduces vibration and chatter.
Whether the Easyrougher has a square or round cutter (as in the forthcoming Easyfinisher"), these tools still operate in the "true" scraping mode where the scraping edge touches the workpiece at 90 degrees to the circumference line at the tangent point of contact, i.e. parallel to the axis of rotation. The difference in cutting practice with the Hunter tool (or the "Eliminator") is that it is NOT to be used at 90 degrees (horizontal); rather, it is best used at a more acute (shear) angle to the rotational axis with (at least partial) bevel rubbing - changing the tool's mode from scraping to cutting.
It appears that both kinds of the carbide inserts used in the Ci1 Easyrougher (whether radiused/"crowned" or straight sides) are similar (or the same?) to those developed for use in multi-cutter helical heads in jointers and planers.
A friend has a few of these 'replacement' cutter inserts, and I hope to try one or two of them in the scraping mode to emulate an Easyrougher. His cutters are not 'radiused' but have straight sides. If all that is "lost" by using square cutter is the ability to blend surfaces in the roughed out piece, this should not be too big a deal.
I find that by carefully examining and understanding the geometry (and ultimately, the physics) of the tools we use, and how they function as cutting or scraping tools, one can better adapt their turning technique to optimize use of whatever tool is in the hand of the turner. One of my demos I enjoy doing most ("The Geometry of Woodturning") reviews just that - how to improve turning technique by analyzing the geometry of the tools and cuts we use routinely.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion...
Rob Wallace
Howdy KEW:
Just back from a 4-hour Little League Board of Directors meeting....whew... Glad to see people have been discussing this a bit.....!!!
Thanks for answering my question - this is what I was wondering: Whether there is that much of a difference between the radiused edge square cutters versus the straight-sided square cutters. I have used a square-end HSS scraper and a bedan in a "hog-out" wood scraping mode before, and this can be an effective way of removing stock quickly, particularly in diffuse porous woods.
I would, however, argue that woods more prone to tear-out should be tried to see how effective the Easyrougher scrapers are at leaving a decent surface. Box elder (as a different kind of "soft" maple) may give different results than that shown on the 'Easyfinisher' video whose use of fine-grained and dense maple is fairly benign to any well-sharpened scraper.
My conclusions are that the advantages of the Easyrougher include:
1. A well-supported carbide scraping tool due to the 1/2" square tool shank; this seems to give good support under the cutter for efficient energy transfer.
2. Carbide edge allows longer time between rotating the insert or replacement; carbide stands up to included rocks, soil, bark, etc. that may dull HSS edges (even in high vanadium steels); Disadvantages are that carbide steels are brittle, and can be easily damaged by simple impacts with other metal, resulting in chips and fractures.
3. Square shape of the tool shank provides a reliable registration surface on the tool rest so that the cutting edge is presented "flat", or at 90 degrees to the circumference lines, and parallel to the rotational axis, thereby assuring a consistent tool presentation with reduced possibility of tool rotation. It also probably greatly reduces vibration and chatter.
Whether the Easyrougher has a square or round cutter (as in the forthcoming Easyfinisher"), these tools still operate in the "true" scraping mode where the scraping edge touches the workpiece at 90 degrees to the circumference line at the tangent point of contact, i.e. parallel to the axis of rotation. The difference in cutting practice with the Hunter tool (or the "Eliminator") is that it is NOT to be used at 90 degrees (horizontal); rather, it is best used at a more acute (shear) angle to the rotational axis with (at least partial) bevel rubbing - changing the tool's mode from scraping to cutting.
It appears that both kinds of the carbide inserts used in the Ci1 Easyrougher (whether radiused/"crowned" or straight sides) are similar (or the same?) to those developed for use in multi-cutter helical heads in jointers and planers.
A friend has a few of these 'replacement' cutter inserts, and I hope to try one or two of them in the scraping mode to emulate an Easyrougher. His cutters are not 'radiused' but have straight sides. If all that is "lost" by using square cutter is the ability to blend surfaces in the roughed out piece, this should not be too big a deal.
I find that by carefully examining and understanding the geometry (and ultimately, the physics) of the tools we use, and how they function as cutting or scraping tools, one can better adapt their turning technique to optimize use of whatever tool is in the hand of the turner. One of my demos I enjoy doing most ("The Geometry of Woodturning") reviews just that - how to improve turning technique by analyzing the geometry of the tools and cuts we use routinely.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion...
Rob Wallace
Last edited:
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
I will agree with that.
As I said in the other thread, this is a roughing tool. I few swipes with a skew or bowl gouge (depending on what you are turning) is needed for a finished surface.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 181
- Likes
- 1
I continue to be absolutely amazed at the number of intelligent people who apparently cannot accept the notion of a new tool that does what the maker says it'll do.
Speed too high? That's a subjective evaluation, especially from someone who's never used the tool. It cuts better at faster speeds. Simple as that. If you want to turn at 50 RPM, feel free to do so.
Green wood? Wet wood? Maybe Craig's using maple-colored styrofoam to make the demo look better. (Wet styrofoam, of course.) Believe it or not, the Ci1 can pull clean, full-width ribbons off a bone-dry ash blank. How? I don't know and don't really care. But based on my experience with the Ci1, I have no reason to doubt the Ci0 can do the same.
Y'all can just keep on turning on your spring pole lathes with hand-forged carbon steel tools, since apparently everything introduced since then is either wrong, impossible, or a devious plot by the manufacturer to take over the world.
/soapbox
You know it's funny you took this stance. I'm willing to give anything a try. Ever tried a skewchigouge Henry Taylor makes? Read the marketing, it too does everything a skew or gouge does, and with no catches or tool marks to be seen. It's poor competition to the spindlemaster, and with that too we could dispose of our skews and gouges, say goodbye to catches, and never worry about sanding again.
I know methods differ from one shop to the next, and results will too.
Well, I can't show you a video of the Ci1 in action but I can show a before and after picture of a dry cherry blank that I roughed with the Ci1 tool. The time to get it round was under 20 minutes without any physical strain. The finished piece is in my photo gallery.
Attachments
![P2222704 [800x600].JPG](/community/data/attachments/2/2026-e66c45ac42bfc82c67f598e44ba5a317.jpg?hash=5mxFrEK_yC)
![P2222706 [800x600].JPG](/community/data/attachments/2/2027-20055da50846c1eeaf17b972d57ddbfa.jpg?hash=IAVdpQhGwe)
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
This is what I like about the Ci1.
A person (if they where crazy enough) could round this chunk of wood with a spindle roughing gouge. I know if I tried, I would feel like I went through a few rounds with a heavy weight boxer and would need to take a long nap.
I've rounded out blocks of wood just like the ones pictured here with the Ci1 and it was a breeze.
What surprises me the most is unwillingness of some to believe that this tool may actually work. They'll spend time convincing themselves and others that it doesn't work without ever even seeing the tool.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy or make one right away. But at least have an open mind.
Ron,
To paraphrase another turner's byline:
"Arguing with some is like mud wrestling with a pig...after a while you realize the pig likes it."
That might have some application in this discussion.
George
To paraphrase another turner's byline:
"Arguing with some is like mud wrestling with a pig...after a while you realize the pig likes it."
That might have some application in this discussion.
George
Last edited:
So, for those that DO believe, and have made their own tool, what specific (link please, maybe) carbide inserts did they use?? I tried ordering what I thought were the same ones from an ebay seller, but they aren't sharp;; they certainly have an edge, but were meant for a metal lathe for roughing, not wood; they're not even close to being as sharp as a carbide saw blade or straight router bit. Its kindof a low priority project for me, but I'd really like to know where to get them. Enco and carbide cutter have 100's of inserts to get confused with......help finding the right one must be out there....
Thanks for asking the question Rob! I'm getting ready to make one myself. I got the cutter (square) From the spiral head planer at work. It came with several replacement cutters in the tool kit, so I know its designed for wood, but I was wondering, like you, what people thought of the square cutter versus the radius cutter. I should finish the tool within a couple of days and give it a test run.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 34
- Likes
- 10
I made my own rougher using a spare radius insert from my planer and a 12" length of 1/2" key stock (nicer finish than regular 1/2" bar stock). It cuts exactly the same as the Easy Rougher I had borrowed from a friend......the only difference was that it cost me less than $10 (I already had the carbide insert) including the drill and tap!
One warning: When spindle roughing a piece of fir that had a "not too tight" knot it really took a bite and tore out parts of the knot. Good confirmation of the importance of wearing a face shield!
One warning: When spindle roughing a piece of fir that had a "not too tight" knot it really took a bite and tore out parts of the knot. Good confirmation of the importance of wearing a face shield!
i used a spiral 14mm insert from grizzly. only $2.50 each but you have to buy a 10 pack.
I just got mine finished and tried it out today, I did the same as you Rick, I used 1/2" key stock from Ace Hardware. Hardest part was tapping the threads, snapped off 2 taps! That keystock seemed pretty hard. It seems to work fine, though I havent really put it to a hard test, just a soft maple blank. It will be a nice tool to have in the quiver, but I could have done the same thing on that particular piece just as well with my roughing gouge. It's easy to put one together for a few bucks, not sure it's worth a hundred bucks though. Of course mine doesn't have a windshield.
.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 34
- Likes
- 10
Barry,
After I finished my rougher I threw on a 3 ft. long piece of dry fir 4 x 4 and spent quite a bit of time going from roughing gouge to rougher over and over. I'm pretty convinced that, especially in the initial stages of roughing, the rougher has considerably less tool movement than the roughing gouge which translates to less abuse of the arm & joints. For that reason I will use it regularly, but not exclusively. I also found that it is easier to make a straight cylinder with the rougher than with gouges. But I will still use my gouges and skew where appropriate. I'm looking forward to trying it on some bowl roughing this weekend.
Rick
After I finished my rougher I threw on a 3 ft. long piece of dry fir 4 x 4 and spent quite a bit of time going from roughing gouge to rougher over and over. I'm pretty convinced that, especially in the initial stages of roughing, the rougher has considerably less tool movement than the roughing gouge which translates to less abuse of the arm & joints. For that reason I will use it regularly, but not exclusively. I also found that it is easier to make a straight cylinder with the rougher than with gouges. But I will still use my gouges and skew where appropriate. I'm looking forward to trying it on some bowl roughing this weekend.
Rick
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
That is really the bottom line, "What insert to use?" You can easily spend more than $100 buying and trying inserts that don't measure up.
Many inserts are just not as sharp and some person will make his own version of the tool with an inferior insert and exclaim "See! The Easyrougher doesn't work!"
I would suggest if you don't want to buy the whole tool from Craig, just buy the inserts. They are reasonably priced and they work.
Besides, Craig is just a regular guy with a day job who likes to turn. He's one of own own, not a big corporation.
The insert I used sure cuts sweet in the planer, so I think it's quality and sharpness is fine. It's not likely Craig has his own inserts made, I imagine he gets them from a supplier like everyone else...but I could be wrong
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
I'm glad you have found some inserts that work. I never thought Craig has his own inserts made.
My comment was meant as instead of hunting around for the right insert it might be easier/cheaper to buy direct from Craig.
For close to a year I've heard more then a few people say the planer inserts work well. But since I have no experience with planer insserts, I never commented on them.
I beleive they come in packages of ten. If you have a few extra and would like to sell me one, I'd be happy to do a side by side comparison.
PM me if you are interested.
My comment was meant as instead of hunting around for the right insert it might be easier/cheaper to buy direct from Craig.
For close to a year I've heard more then a few people say the planer inserts work well. But since I have no experience with planer insserts, I never commented on them.
I beleive they come in packages of ten. If you have a few extra and would like to sell me one, I'd be happy to do a side by side comparison.
PM me if you are interested.
Ron, PM sent