CW review in woodworkers journal

[Mikewiz]

Hey,

I got a free didgital copy of woodworkers journal, It had a review on the CW and the Shark. Thought I'd share.

Mikewiz

http://www.zinio.com/pages/WoodworkersJournal/Aug-09/416087190/pg-54

[Jeff_Birt]

Thanks for sharing Mike.

The reviewer had lots of the technical details about the CW wrong though. But it was eye-opening to find out the more expensive 'Shark' is made entirely out of plastic. Makes me wonder how much the frame moves around with changes in temperature.

[mtylerfl]

Thanks for sharing Mike.

The reviewer had lots of the technical details about the CW wrong though. But it was eye-opening to find out the more expensive 'Shark' is made entirely out of plastic. Makes me wonder how much the frame moves around with changes in temperature.

Yes, I noticed a few comments that I wish he had put more thought into. However, it was a very tough job to write a comparison article.

I would have found it very difficult to compare the two head-to-head because the machines are so vastly different. The CW is by far the easiest one to master for most hobbyists and you can accomplish so much more with the CW than the Shark, IMHO.

- the reviewer failed to emphasize the CW feed-through design greatly extends the x-axis carving capability (much, much better than the Shark's very limited x-axis) For me, the limited area of 13" x 24" that the Shark offers, immediately eliminates it for most everything that I can do with my CW.

- he mentioned how the Shark is constructed of mostly high density polyethylene, but he "liked" that, I guess (?)

- he didn't mention that the CW will take stock up to 5" thick

- I thought it was kind of funny he thought the CW was more suited for sign making and that the Shark was more suited for larger projects like furniture, etc. That kind of puzzled me - even if I didn't already own a CW and "know better" than his "suitability" statements, after reading the article, I probably would have drawn the exact opposite conclusion than the author did! The Shark's 13" x 24" work area actually sounds more like a "sign-making" machine to me (and rather small signs, at that).

I suppose he (and me too) would have to spend some extended "quality time" with both machines to really get to know both of them well, and be able to judge which is more suited for certain tasks.