Tormek T4 Reviews thoughts for new or prospective buyers

[Rob]

You're in London, Rob?  Wow, I lived in the UK for several years and I hardly remember seeing a
lawn like that -- except for estates like Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire (the county I lived in).

Really beautiful!

My house and garden are big.....but not that big :-)

[Rob]

I was under the impression that it's the garden you mow, not the lawn.

I can't tell whether or not you're being serious here Herman??  I read your comment a number of times wondering if it was a (very dry) humorous remark.  But I'm now sensing more towards it's yet another example of UK/US English language mishap.

In England one mows one's lawn typically.  The term garden is used in two ways.  It either means everything that's outside your property's actual building (which I think is yard in American), or it specifically means any bits which are given over to flowers/shrubs etc ie borders that are open soil with ornamental plants for show.

The lawn is part of your garden and you mow the lawn (or mow the grass).

[Rob]

or to be slightly more accurate in my case....one fails to mow one's lawn because one is spending one's entire week visiting one's wife in hospital and one's lawn now resembles a wild meadow!

I would swear I caught sight of a Tiger in it just now!!

[SharpenADullWitt]

And now for Scythe sharpening on the Tormek......

Also good defense against tigers.

[Rob]

ah now....scythes.......yes....I have one of those......now where's my T7 :-)

[Herman Trivilino]

Jeff, I believe you've underestimated the number of times a grindstone is trued. Mine last me about as long as you estimate, but I have to true mine probably 10 times a year. That's a guess. By the way, in the Tormek vocabulary the Stone Grader is used to dress the grindstone. Truing the grindstone is not the same as dressing it.

[jeffs55]

If I have under estimated the amount that one "trues" the grindstone, it only emphasizes the reduced life of the T4 stone. I do not think that Tormek brought to market a piece of crap but looking at the known limitations it makes you wonder. Do not tell me that it has not happened before, how many Edsels do you see on the highway today?

[Ken S]

Jeff,

I found the question you asked Jeff Farris and his answer. Your question was direct and simple, as was Jeff Farris' answer. The only model of the Tormek involved would have been the T7 with its SG-250 grinding wheel. That was the only model being manufactured for the US market at the time. The model using the SG-200 grinding wheel was only manufactured for the European marker. (It was made with a 50HZ 240V motor, and would not function in the US.)

Jeff Farris did not say anything about the SG-200 and certainly did not imply anything because there was nothing to say. To imagine anything about the SG-200 from Jeff Farris' comment is erroneous. The thousands of European Tormek users who have used the SG-200 for many years would certainly not be foolish enough to replace their grindstones after less than a half inch of the diameter had been used.

"I do not think that Tormek brought to market a piece of crap but looking at the known limitations it makes you wonder." Have you ever used a T4? I have used one. I have examined it closely and run cutting tests with it. I have not treated the T4 any differently than I treat the T7. No babying. Certainly no "cooling off periods".I have come to doubt the alleged "known limitations". Many of the parts are actually the same as used on the T7. The shaft is the same diameter and thread. It uses the same jigs as the T7, all of them. It shares the same handbook as the T7 and comes with a seven year warranty, hardly what one might associate, even indirectly, with "a piece of crap".

In my opinion, the only real limitations of the T4 are those of its marketing. it is a stout machine, more than capable of the demands of the home craftsman or light industry. Since its introduction, the only factory special deals I have seen have been with the T7. This makes me think that Tormek prefers to market its flagship model. The T7 is a fine machine. I have been more than satisfied with both of my T7s. I also believe that Tormek has designed an equally fine machine in the T4, one which is actually better suited for the part of the market which does not have unlimited space or who prefer or need a lighter weight machine.

What is the useful minimum size of the SG-200" Page 155 of the handbook recommends it should "not be less than 150 mm (6")."

[jeffs55]

You have done far more research than me, I will drop the subject.

[Ken S]

Consider it dropped. Let's move on.

[Herman Trivilino]

By the time you add in the cost of the accessories that come with the T7, there's not much to be saved with the T4. The only advantage is the smaller size and lighter weight, and that's offset by 36% less grindstone.

[Ken S]

I have never thought the cost difference between the T4 and T7 was a significant factor. Herman is correct, to compare apples to apples, one needs to include the cost of the TT-50 truing tool($89) and probably the SE-76 square edge jig ($60). That brings the cost difference to around $120. For a lifetime purchase, I would make my decision on other factors.

For me, size and weight are significant factors, at least in the future. I have a separare table generally dedicated to the Tormek. It is not even remotely fancy. I presently have a large workshop. My next move, in ten to fifteen years, will probably be to much smaller retirement quarters. For anyone presently in smaller quarters, both the size and weight differences can be considerable. The T4 has plenty of power for any home shop.

I consider size/weight and grindstone statistics to be unrelated. Both should be considered, however, I do not see where one offsets the other. If we should tchoose to include 36 per cent less grindstone as a cost minimizer, that difference would be more than offset by the extra cost of the larger replacement wheel, presently $184 vs $110.

The wheel of the T4 ihas a diameter of 200 mm, compared with 250mm for the T7. The wheel thickness is 40mm compared with the T7's 50mm. Are these differences significant? I would say they matter more to those with theoretical interests than to those who just want sharp working tools.

Both my working tests and computing the surface feet per minute indicate no noticeable difference in speed of grinding. The T7 has a larger wheel circumference; the T4 has a higher motor speed.

I would make a decision based on the actual work and workspace environment. The T4 can do any work that the T7 can do. The T7 may do big jobs more conveniently. As a stationary tool, the T7 makes sense. For portability, the nod goes to the T4. It is nice to have a choice.

Ken

[Rob]

The wheel width might affect the decision of turners grinding bowl gouges.  The elliptical jig allows the user to swing the gouge from side to side to get a perfect single facet bevel.  In performing that arc with a long handled tool, which many are, its quite a feat to prevent it from slipping off either side of the wheel.  The 50mm wheel on the T7 can handle it just about right with only the occasional user lapse in concentration but a 40mm wheel would make that job a lot more tricky.  For bench tools I cant see it making much difference.

[Ken S]

Good point, Rob. I'm not a turner.

Ken