There are several reasons why many tools appear inferior. First,
machines are made of poor materials. Second, the average person has more
tools today then ever before. Third, motors only have a certain life
expectancey. Therefore, the central purpose of this article is to
discuss how the misuse of materials, the number of power tools that a
person owns, and life expectency of motors makes many tools appear
inferior.
In many machines, plastic has replaced metal to the degree that
a great deal of strength has been lost. For instance, in one of the
table saws made by Sears, the nose of the saw fence is made of plastic,
and there is a steel pin that goes through this nose piece that is used
to put tension on the locking mechinism of the table fence. Since the
nose is not made of aluminum or steel, and because there is a great deal
of pressure on the point where the pin goes into the plastic, there is
cracking around the holes on both sides of the nose. I have experience
this twice. At one time, the amount of plastic would have been limited
in a machine, but now every part that can be made of plastic as opposed
to aluminum or steel is done so in order to cut costs. Of course, the
number of tools a person owns is a factor too.
The more power tools a person owns, the odds increase rapidly
that something is not going to work. It mearly follows the law of
probability. For instance, I own a jointer, radial arm saw, table saw,
shop smith, home made band saw, home made spindle sander, finish sander,
battery opperated drill, electic drill , two routers, belt sander, saber
saw, spare electric motor, belt and disc sander, polisher, compressor,
Dewalt Saws All, and a portable power saw. That makes a total of
eighteen electic motors and all their parts that might not work when
called upon. If I have eighteen machines, I have eighteen times more
likely that something is not going to work, then if I had only one
machine. At least as far as the individual was concerned. Each machine
would have the same odds of working, but the individual who is exposed
to eighteen machines as opposed to one has 18 times the number of
chances that something is not going to work. If you rely on a fewer
number of tools, you will have less break downs. The average person has
more tools now then twenty years ago. This simply adds to the illusion
that things are always breaking down.The life expectency of a motor
plays a part as well.
Motors are designed by the manufacture to have a certain life
expectency. We see this in springs, batterys, car engines,
transmissions, etc. Things are built to last so long, and then crap out.
The manufacture pits quality against cost, and cost , the underlying
factor of all manufacturing, is the more important of the two. For the
manufacture to be competive, he must always cut costs, and he will do
this at the expence of quality over the cost to manufacture the product.
The manufacture must give the illusion of being competive by lowering
the price of his product to that of his competition. If he can not keep
his price as low as his competition, he will go out of business. Thus,
something has to give. If you can't cut the cost of the manufacturing
process, you will cut the quality. For instacne, less expenisve motors
have bushings rather than bearings, and bushings wear out faster than
bearings. As a result motors with bushings will cost less than those
with bearings, but they wear out faster too.
In closing my opion, there are many reasons why it appears that
machines are getting worse. First, manufactures of machines should not
try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it
saves them money. Second, the number of power tools a person owns
increases his or her chance that something is going to go wrong. Lastly,
life expectency of a motor is determined by pitting quality agianst
cost.
C & S wrote:
> One other factor comes into play: We tend to say "they don't build'm like
> they used to". Dawin owned tools too. All the shit quality stuff from 60
> years ago has long since been tossed in the dump. Almost all the old tools
> we see today are the good ones that lasted. It's a bit of an unfair
> comparison.
I think this is a great point that's useful to remember about a lot of
things. There aren't any thirty-year-old lemon cars on the road. If
it's thirty years old and still running, it's a _honey_, because all the
ones that weren't are in the junkyard. I used to own a Honda Sabre
motorcycle, and they had an engine design flaw which would cause the
V45/V65 engine to not deliver enough oil to the top of the engine. Some
number of these engines also were made with cams that were made out of
an inferior quality of metal, and these two problems resulted in some
engines developing terrible pits in the cams, leading to failure. But,
that's not a problem, anymore. If you find a V45 or V65 engined Honda,
and it still runs, by definition it doesn't have that problem, since
they fixed that problem in '86. All of them that did have the trouble
are dead (or were preemtively fixed).
This is probably true of a lot of other things, too. I'm sure there
were a lot of really awful symponies written a couple of hundred years
ago, but the only ones you hear today are the really really good ones.
Makes you wonder if the popularity of Shaker furniture doesn't have
something to do with its excellent construction...
-BAT
Brett A. Thomas notes:
>I think this is a great point that's useful to remember about a lot of
>things. There aren't any thirty-year-old lemon cars on the road. If
>it's thirty years old and still running, it's a _honey_, because all the
>ones that weren't are in the junkyard. I used to own a Honda Sabre
>motorcycle, and they had an engine design flaw which would cause the
>V45/V65 engine to not deliver enough oil to the top of the engine. Some
>number of these engines also were made with cams that were made out of
>an inferior quality of metal, and these two problems resulted in some
>engines developing terrible pits in the cams, leading to failure. But,
>that's not a problem, anymore. If you find a V45 or V65 engined Honda,
>and it still runs, by definition it doesn't have that problem, since
>they fixed that problem in '86. All of them that did have the trouble
>are dead (or were preemtively fixed).
>
>This is probably true of a lot of other things, too. I'm sure there
>were a lot of really awful symponies written a couple of hundred years
>ago, but the only ones you hear today are the really really good ones.
>Makes you wonder if the popularity of Shaker furniture doesn't have
>something to do with its excellent construction..
It applies to just about everything. Add pleasing design to good construction
and something survives. It pleases the eye enough for someone to take care of
it, while being well enough built to withstand normal rigors of
use/weather/whatever it needs to withstand. We say that homes today aren't
built like the used to be. I've lived in one house built in 1839 and another in
1855. In some ways I'm glad my newer house isn't built that way, because I
don't bump my head as often, but in other ways it was easy to understand why
those houses lasted. And both were attractive through numerous eras, not just a
few decades. Right now, a small house near Bedford is being torn down. The
under-house is a log cabin, with dovetailed cuts on chestnut logs. Heaven only
knows when it was built---this area was originally settled in the mid-1750s,
but it is probably newer than that. My cousin and her husband own an old house
that has a similar base structure, though it is now a fairly large clapboard
farmhouse.
Old structures aren't always all old, either, as the above shows. Some parts
are a couple hundred years old, while others are 20-30-40 (obviously, old in
houses and old in vehicles fit on different calendars).
Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken
Charlie Self wrote:
> today aren't built like the used to be. I've lived in one house built in
> 1839 and another in 1855. In some ways I'm glad my newer house isn't built
> that way, because I don't bump my head as often, but in other ways it was
> easy to understand why those houses lasted. And both were attractive
> through numerous eras, not just a few decades. Right now, a small house
Houses are a mixed bag for sure. On the one hand, it's sad to see so much
OSB and particle board and stuff going in. The framing is definitely much
more wimpy, and they just don't seem to be built to stand up to time.
OTOH, a friend of mine growing up lived in a house like you're talking
about, and there's something to be said for modern construction and
materials. Their bathroom was a converted bedroom. There were no halls.
Every room had four doors. Every room on the back had a door for the
slaves to use, and every door leaked air like a sieve. The windows were
paper thin, and they leaked air like a sieve. The walls had no insulation,
and they leaked air like a sieve.
There were no sheet goods anywhere, T&G subfloor, plaster lathe walls and
ceilings. It made many matters complicated at repair or modification time.
The walls being so hard to work with made it a really unappealing prospect
to do anything about the ancient, turn of the century wiring, or the bad
retrofit plumbing from the '40s.
It had a huge ass coal gobbling furnace, but a very inefficient heat
distribution system. They could burn up a massive amount of coal, have a
fire in every fireplace, and still have to have five quilts on the bed to
keep from freezing at night.
They finally had to move. They couldn't afford to retrofit it with
insulation, new wiring, new plumbing, new HVAC, but they couldn't afford to
keep heating it either.
> near Bedford is being torn down. The under-house is a log cabin, with
> dovetailed cuts on chestnut logs. Heaven only knows when it was
> built---this area was originally settled in the mid-1750s, but it is
> probably newer than that. My cousin and her husband own an old house that
> has a similar base structure, though it is now a fairly large clapboard
> farmhouse.
The place we used to live had an under-house made out of locust logs. That
was a weird little house, similar to what I just described, but smaller,
and with the bathroom tacked onto the back. The living room floor was held
up with an old bumper jack. Quality living conditions. It also had about
17.3 quadrillion spiders in the crawlspace. I hate spiders. The rent was
only $200 a month though. We mostly moved because of the crazy neighbor
who used to pull up a lawn chair and sit staring in our back window eating
popcorn.
I just now realized that I felt comfortable enough selling off my guns to
pay for Christmas a few years ago largely because we no longer live in that
dump. I had forgotten why I owned guns in the first place.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Swingman wrote:
> Barnes and Nobles last night. They appear to be made of mahogany of some
> sort, are heavy and solidly built, with comfortable curves, and are not so
Probably some foreign mahogany-looking wood that's all over the place in
Indonesia or wherever.
That made me think of a really ironic thing. Usually the reason American
companies go under is because nobody wants to pay for American quality, and
the Asian stuff is cheaper, and "good enough."
I'm watching a domestic furniture manufacturer slowly going, going, handing
on by the tiniest thread. We had to start selling more imports and fewer
of this company's products because everybody else was selling imports, and
we had to compete.
I finally took a good look at one of these "crappy imported pieces of junk"
and I have to say I'm pretty amazed. Some kind of mahogany-looking wood
(that's where this thought came from :) that's got beautiful figure, solid,
sturdy, good M&T joinery throughout.
I have one of the domestic products, and it was put together with staples
and screws. When we were carrying a lot of these, we'd take one truck out
and ship back two pallets of rejects every week. The stuff would fall
apart if you looked at it funny because of the crappy construction.
I guess the crappy construction itself was their answer to trying to keep
costs down and stay competitive, but if I were shopping, it would be hard
to pay twice as much for something not built nearly half as well. They
build all their stuff out of ash, which is still ash no matter how you
dress it up. Not an ugly wood, but if you don't want that look, you get it
anyway. I think it's more valuable for being hard as a rock than for
beautiful figure.
> Besides, did you ever think, being raised in the 50's, that you would see
> automobiles made with so damn much plastic? Certainly gives a new meaning
> to the word "bumper", with which we were raised.
I dunno. I did most of the growing I remember in the '80s. I did find it
surprising in the '90s when they started making cars with plastic bumpers,
but the '90s cars with plastic bumpers generally look much better than
anything they ever came out with in the '80s. That was a bad decade for
cars. They even made Corvettes look gay.
Anyway, I was delivering next to a car dealership the other day, and they
had a Wilys Jeep straight out of WWII. It was the first time I had ever
seen one in real life. I was amazed at how incredibly SMALL it was. Tiny
little thing. Four guys and two duffle bags, and it's full up. Little
half windshield. Really poopy looking motor. Best of all, the seats were
a green cushion tied to a piece of steel, except for the driver's seat,
which was a green cushion tied to a gas tank.
I guess some of you old codgers remember these things up close and personal,
but I was really surprised at how primitive those things were. Not a piece
of plastic anywhere except maybe the gear shift knobs, but how safe can it
possibly be to sit directly on the gas tank in a military vehicle that's
going to take fire? Oh good, he missed me. Oh shit, he hit my seat.
There again, I finally got to drive one of those much coveted, much touted,
much loved '57 Chevy Bel-Airs. A 500,000 pound vehicle with no power
steering, a master cylinder that held about two and a half ounces of brake
juice, a metal dashboard with pointy things everywhere. It had room for
three Honda Civics and six dozen Mexicans in the engine compartment, but
there was no motor in there. Just a little weedeater engine.
I think I'd rather have a '67 Hemicuda, thank you very much.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> It applies to just about everything. Add pleasing design to good
construction
> and something survives. It pleases the eye enough for someone to take care
of
> it, while being well enough built to withstand normal rigors of
> use/weather/whatever it needs to withstand. We say that homes today aren't
> built like the used to be. I've lived in one house built in 1839 and
another in
> 1855. In some ways I'm glad my newer house isn't built that way, because I
> don't bump my head as often, but in other ways it was easy to understand
why
> those houses lasted. And both were attractive through numerous eras, not
just a
> few decades.
This veers off just a bit, but I am in the design/planning stage for a set
of chairs and "chairs" in general have caught my eye for the past few
months, wherever I may be.
Noticed, for the first time but I am sure they have been there all along,
some beautifully well made wooden chairs for customers at, of all places,
Barnes and Nobles last night. They appear to be made of mahogany of some
sort, are heavy and solidly built, with comfortable curves, and are not so
obviously machine made despite the fact that there are dozens of clones
throughout the store.
These chairs are the embodiment of your "... pleasing design to good
construction".
Point is, if these things don't last a couple of hundred years it will not
be from the heavy use they get, but from corporate mentality when their
interior designers go for a different look based on demographic or
psychological studies on what decor will facilitate parting customers from
their money.
Besides, did you ever think, being raised in the 50's, that you would see
automobiles made with so damn much plastic? Certainly gives a new meaning to
the word "bumper", with which we were raised.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
Swingman responds:
>
>Besides, did you ever think, being raised in the 50's, that you would see
>automobiles made with so damn much plastic? Certainly gives a new meaning to
>the word "bumper", with which we were raised.
Yes. The "crumple" theory has produced some really easily damaged bumpers. Gone
are the days when you could safely push another vehicle. Front or rear, push
starting most cars or light trucks today can cause a thousand bucks worth of
damage in an eyeblink.
Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken
Charlie Self wrote:
> rear, push starting most cars or light trucks today can cause a thousand
> bucks worth of damage in an eyeblink.
They're even starting to put plastic on big trucks. I guess there's still a
real bumper under the plastic, but I'm not quite sure.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
And if a collision passes the airbag initialization force - Katie bar the
door....
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The problem with such bumpers is that at at any speed above the design
speed
> a great deal of costly damage occurs as the mechanisms necessary to absorb
> the energy of the design-speed impact get destroyed. That's why you can
do
> thousands of dollars worth of damage easily--it's not that the bumpers are
> weak, it's that the mechanisms necessary to comply with the law are
> expensive to replace when they are broken in an impact at a speed higher
> than that they were designed to survive.
>
> The other difficulty is that bumper-heights are not standardized in a way
> that is beneficial for pushing--getting bumper to meet bumper when one
> vehicle is a truck and the other is a car isn't always easy.
Charlie Self wrote:
> Swingman responds:
>
>>
>>Besides, did you ever think, being raised in the 50's, that you would see
>>automobiles made with so damn much plastic? Certainly gives a new meaning
>>to the word "bumper", with which we were raised.
>
> Yes. The "crumple" theory has produced some really easily damaged bumpers.
> Gone are the days when you could safely push another vehicle. Front or
> rear, push starting most cars or light trucks today can cause a thousand
> bucks worth of damage in an eyeblink.
The crumple theory doesn't have anything to do with bumpers, it involves
controlled collapsing of the major structure to control g-loading on the
passengers, and exists primarily due to Federal laws that require that all
cars be able to keep their passengers alive in a 30 mph barrier crash. If
the structure under the bumper attachments is what gets damaged then you
might have a case for this being responsible but that is not usually what
happens.
Ralph Nader and his fellow nutcakes induced Congress to enact laws many
years ago that require that bumpers be undamaged in a 5 mph impact. I seem
to recall that that was reduced to 2.5 a few years ago. It could be that
your perception that newer bumpers are weaker is due to the reduction in
design speed.
The problem with such bumpers is that at at any speed above the design speed
a great deal of costly damage occurs as the mechanisms necessary to absorb
the energy of the design-speed impact get destroyed. That's why you can do
thousands of dollars worth of damage easily--it's not that the bumpers are
weak, it's that the mechanisms necessary to comply with the law are
expensive to replace when they are broken in an impact at a speed higher
than that they were designed to survive.
The other difficulty is that bumper-heights are not standardized in a way
that is beneficial for pushing--getting bumper to meet bumper when one
vehicle is a truck and the other is a car isn't always easy.
> Charlie Self
> "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
> Christianity has made them good." H. L. Mencken
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Silvan" wrote in message
> Houses are a mixed bag for sure. On the one hand, it's sad to see so much
> OSB and particle board and stuff going in. The framing is definitely much
> more wimpy, and they just don't seem to be built to stand up to time.
My oldest daughter and her husband live in a 175 year old house in
Sheffield, England. A recent visit still fresh in mind, I'll take my
"stick-built" house over that one for overall comfort, convenience, and
economy any day.
Comfort is relative, however ... just imagine how much more comfortable it
probably was for the first occupants than what they had lived in previously.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
Thomas Beckett brings his outlook to us with:
snip of long diatribe that is mostly inaccurate
>In closing my opion, there are many reasons why it appears that
>machines are getting worse. First, manufactures of machines should not
>try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it
>saves them money. Second, the number of power tools a person owns
>increases his or her chance that something is going to go wrong. Lastly,
>life expectency of a motor is determined by pitting quality agianst
>cost.
First, learn something about plastics technology. Plastics often save money,
but just as often increase quality and safety. They provide greater electrical
safety, drop resistance, and grip safety versus most thin cast or sheet metals
while also providing lower manufacturing costs, and lower development costs.
Second, the number of power tools owned may increase the chance that one of
them is going to fail, but that is incidental and of little importance.
Anything complex may fail at any time for any of variety of reasons, almost
none of which have to do with quality of manufacture or design.
Third, motors are designed to last a specific number of hours in actual use to
provide a minimum use time, not a maximum. If every tool is designed to last
500 hours, Joe or Jane Average is going to pay for that 500 hour lifetime, and
never use the tool more than 10 hours. If the tool Joe or Jane buys is designed
to be last for 75 hours, and they use it for 100, they've gotten more than they
paid for, not less.
We have more types of power tools than ever before, available from more
manufacturers than ever before. The buyer has the responsibility to learn
something about the tools and materials used to make each brand before making
the purchase. People who don't do so don't get tools that last (and serve) as
well as those who do. Too, those who make decisions based totally on price
almost never get good quality tools. Price, though, is always a part of the
decision, and should be, because buying more tool than you need may be as
wasteful as buying the cheapest tool on the market.
Finally, over-generalizations about a field as large as the power tool field
are good only for relieving the feelings of someone who has made a poor tool
buying decision and blames it on someone else.
Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken
In article <[email protected]>, Thomas
Beckett <[email protected]> wrote:
> First, manufactures of machines should not
> try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it
> saves them money.
The market demands "low, low prices". In a market-driven economy,
manufacturers provide what people want.
There are many high quality tools available. Because the market for
those tools is smaller, the price is higher.
QED
In article <[email protected]>, Jay Pique
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So you think you bought a dud? Maybe so - but LEARN from it. Put it
> through all of its paces before you write it off.
I didn't say I bought a dud. All my tools perform as expected. Except,
sometimes. the grey one between my ears...
;-)
On 2004-11-26, Thomas Beckett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Motors are designed by the manufacture to have a certain life
> expectency. We see this in springs, batterys, car engines,
> transmissions, etc. Things are built to last so long, and then crap out.
> The manufacture pits quality against cost, and cost , the underlying
> factor of all manufacturing, is the more important of the two. For the
> manufacture to be competive, he must always cut costs, and he will do
> this at the expence of quality over the cost to manufacture the product.
> The manufacture must give the illusion of being competive by lowering
> the price of his product to that of his competition. If he can not keep
> his price as low as his competition, he will go out of business. Thus,
> something has to give. If you can't cut the cost of the manufacturing
> process, you will cut the quality. For instacne, less expenisve motors
> have bushings rather than bearings, and bushings wear out faster than
> bearings. As a result motors with bushings will cost less than those
> with bearings, but they wear out faster too.
The law of planned obsolescence. You see it everywhere.
--
If you don't know to switch the "com" and the "gmail",
You probably shouldn't attempt to email me.
David G. Sizemore
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:13:07 -0600, [email protected] (Thomas
Beckett) wrote:
> There are several reasons why many tools appear inferior. First,
>machines are made of poor materials. Second, the average person has more
>tools today then ever before. Third, motors only have a certain life
>expectancey. Therefore, the central purpose of this article is to
>discuss how the misuse of materials, the number of power tools that a
>person owns, and life expectency of motors makes many tools appear
>inferior.
I think your claims are too broad and unfairly denigrate the good
along with the bad.
> In many machines, plastic has replaced metal to the degree that
>a great deal of strength has been lost. For instance, in one of the
>table saws made by Sears, the nose of the saw fence is made of plastic,
>and there is a steel pin that goes through this nose piece that is used
>to put tension on the locking mechinism of the table fence. Since the
>nose is not made of aluminum or steel, and because there is a great deal
>of pressure on the point where the pin goes into the plastic, there is
>cracking around the holes on both sides of the nose. I have experience
>this twice. At one time, the amount of plastic would have been limited
>in a machine, but now every part that can be made of plastic as opposed
>to aluminum or steel is done so in order to cut costs. Of course, the
>number of tools a person owns is a factor too.
No doubt. Too much plastic. There's several problems here - poor
design. Someone didn't anilyze the stress properly and account for
them. And plastic tends not to age well. And there's heat transfer
issues too. But I don't see that plastic is entirely bad when used
correctly.
> The more power tools a person owns, the odds increase rapidly
>that something is not going to work. I have eighteen machines, I have eighteen times more
>likely that something is not going to work, then if I had only one
>machine.
>The life expectency of a motor
>plays a part as well.
Balogna. The issue is quality, not quantity. If you want to play a
numbers game, I have 14 tools with electric motors. I used to have
17. Three of them failed because they were pieces of shit. Not
because they took a census and decreed one day that three must die.
The "good" tools are all name brand, the failed ones are a name brand
famous for failing early.
> Motors are designed by the manufacture to have a certain life
>expectency. Things are built to last so long, and then crap out.
If only it was so easy. Design to run x hours and upon reaching that
number, immediately stop.
>The manufacture pits quality against cost, and cost , the underlying
>factor of all manufacturing, is the more important of the two. For the
>manufacture to be competive, he must always cut costs, and he will do
>this at the expence of quality over the cost to manufacture the product.
>The manufacture must give the illusion of being competive by lowering
>the price of his product to that of his competition. If he can not keep
>his price as low as his competition, he will go out of business. Thus,
>something has to give. If you can't cut the cost of the manufacturing
>process, you will cut the quality. For instacne, less expenisve motors
>have bushings rather than bearings, and bushings wear out faster than
>bearings. As a result motors with bushings will cost less than those
>with bearings, but they wear out faster too.
First, a well designed bushing isn't necessarily bad. In a router,
yeah - bad. Don't do that. In other electric motors - not bad,
depending on the application.
Again though, too broad a generalization. Else, how do you account
for Hitachi, Porter-Cable, Makita and Milwaukee? Not cheap, and very
good quality.
> In closing my opion, there are many reasons why it appears that
>machines are getting worse. First, manufactures of machines should not
>try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it
>saves them money. Second, the number of power tools a person owns
>increases his or her chance that something is going to go wrong. Lastly,
>life expectency of a motor is determined by pitting quality agianst
>cost.
>
Some machines are bad. Not all. And the number of tools I (or anyone
else) own has nothing to do with the likely hood that one will break.
It's the quality, not the quantity.
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Thomas
>Beckett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> First, manufactures of machines should not
>> try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it
>> saves them money.
>
>The market demands "low, low prices". In a market-driven economy,
>manufacturers provide what people want.
>
>There are many high quality tools available. Because the market for
>those tools is smaller, the price is higher.
I've begun to keep a log of my tool purchases, as I find it to be a
source of entertainment. Even when a tool turns out to be somewhat
less than expected, I keep it, and I keep it in good working order.
Why? I have no idea, other than that I like to experiment with tools.
So you think you bought a dud? Maybe so - but LEARN from it. Put it
through all of its paces before you write it off.
JP
BUB 209 wrote:
> Now, somebody take a survey. Find out
> how many people believe that ANY
> Sears Craftsman tools can be returned,
> no questions asked, for a free replacement, at any time. I bet more
> than 500 out of 1000 would say yes.
ANY implying what? That this also includes machines, mowers, etc.?
They do honor the hand tool guarantee. Or at least they did the last time I
broke something.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
>Subject: Re: Why do many tools appear to be inferior?
>From: Silvan
>ANY implying what? That this also includes machines, mowers, etc.?
Yes, I'm saying that's what most people believe, or at least it's factored in
subconsiously when people think about
Sears warranty policies. Sears does
have generally good return and service policies. For example, they were ready
to come out and replace the motor in
my 6 mo. old tablesaw until I realized
I hadn't pushed the reset button hard
enough. But no, they aren't going to
replace my Crafts-
man Chinese-made rolling toolbox
with the broken handle
even if it's not a year old. What I'm
saying is, people hear, "y'know, if
that's a Craftsman wrench, they'll
replace it for free," and think that
applies to all Craftsman tools.
On 2004-11-27, Mark Jerde <[email protected]> wrote:
> Silvan wrote:
>> BUB 209 wrote:
>>
>>> Now, somebody take a survey. Find out
>>> how many people believe that ANY
>>> Sears Craftsman tools can be returned,
>>> no questions asked, for a free replacement, at any time. I bet more
>>> than 500 out of 1000 would say yes.
>>
>> ANY implying what? That this also includes machines, mowers, etc.?
>
> I was in a Sears when a guy brought in a dead hand drill he thought Sears
> should replace for free. It was old enough to have a metal body.
>
>> They do honor the hand tool guarantee. Or at least they did the last
>> time I broke something.
>
> Me too. I know they'd even replace the screwdrivers I used to chip paint
> off a concrete wall but my conscience won't let me take them in. ;-)
>
> -- Mark
I had the fortune to be working at Sears when an older gentleman with a
dump-bed pickup and the back full of tools dump the entire load in the
parking lot. Yes, he thought the power tools were lifetime warrantied. No,
they never have been. If you ever got to replace one after the 1 year
period, you had a nice employee just "make it happen" for you.
About your conscience and the screwdrivers, Sears knows they will be
replacing tools not used for their intended purpose. They figure if they
get you into the store to replace the tool, you might buy something else.
Had a guy come in with a broken 1/2" breaker bar snapped just below the
head. Out of curiosity, I asked him what happened. He mentioned something
about 3 guys and a 6 foot cheater pipe. I replaced it with a smile.
--
If you don't know to switch the "com" and the "gmail",
You probably shouldn't attempt to email me.
David G. Sizemore
David G. Sizemore wrote:
> Had a guy come in with a broken 1/2" breaker bar snapped just below the
> head. Out of curiosity, I asked him what happened. He mentioned
> something
> about 3 guys and a 6 foot cheater pipe. I replaced it with a smile.
That one year Dad got about 750 million cubic buttloads of logs dumped on
our garden, the guy at Sears did finally request that we put tape on the
maul before returning it the next time. We were going through three a day
at the high point of that.
Wow, I musta been stronger than I am now. I don't remember how many cords
that wound up being, but it lasted three or four winters. I had to do 2/3
of the splitting, and never could convince ol' Dad of the efficacy of a
handy dandy hydraulic log splitter.
Thanks to Sears, we kept whoever makes those things in business
single-handedly that year. :)
Then many years later, I used the same dull, rusty, mangled maul to rip up a
bunch of carpet tacks. Worked great. No problem getting a new one
either. :)
(I'm glad Dad got a pellet stove or I'd probably *still* be guilt tripped
somehow into helping him split all that. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
On 26 Nov 2004 22:07:59 GMT, [email protected] (BUB 209) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Why do many tools appear to be inferior?
>
>Now, somebody take a survey. Find out
>how many people believe that ANY
>Sears Craftsman tools can be returned,
>no questions asked, for a free replacement, at any time. I bet more
>than 500 out of 1000 would say yes.
My answer: only hand tools. Dunno if that's correct or not, but
that's my understanding.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
Silvan wrote:
> BUB 209 wrote:
>
>> Now, somebody take a survey. Find out
>> how many people believe that ANY
>> Sears Craftsman tools can be returned,
>> no questions asked, for a free replacement, at any time. I bet more
>> than 500 out of 1000 would say yes.
>
> ANY implying what? That this also includes machines, mowers, etc.?
I was in a Sears when a guy brought in a dead hand drill he thought Sears
should replace for free. It was old enough to have a metal body.
> They do honor the hand tool guarantee. Or at least they did the last
> time I broke something.
Me too. I know they'd even replace the screwdrivers I used to chip paint
off a concrete wall but my conscience won't let me take them in. ;-)
-- Mark
> > Some machines are bad. Not all. And the number of tools I (or anyone
> > else) own has nothing to do with the likely hood that one will break.
> > It's the quality, not the quantity.
>
> The referred-to poster's argument was correct. The larger the number of
> items, the larger the chance that one will break in a given time. His
> probability calculations are, strictly speaking, incorrect, but the gist
> of his message is correct.
But the OP postulates that motors have a calculated lifetime. That suggests
that the 1 tool instead of 5 is going to die in 1/5 the time because it gets
5 times the use. Your total shop down-time would not be diminished at all
having fewer motors. Or the other way around: more motors does not mean more
failures because the tools are getting less user per tool.
This, of course assumes equal quality as well as equal shop throughput.
One could argue that the tools would fail less frequently because as
special-purpose tools, they would besubject to lower or more appropriate
stress (e.g. OSS rather than a DP with a sanding drum). Since tool quality
(service life) is not linear with price, the whole notion of "motor math" is
hogwash.
Although I agree with the OP's premise that tool quality has gone down hill,
I suspect that it is partly the effect of our ability to engineer to closer
tolerances of quality. We now have the means to engineer just enough plasic
to handle 18.632 lbs/square inch of impact resistance rather than beef it up
just in case.
One other factor comes into play: We tend to say "they don't build'm like
they used to". Dawin owned tools too. All the shit quality stuff from 60
years ago has long since been tossed in the dump. Almost all the old tools
we see today are the good ones that lasted. It's a bit of an unfair
comparison.
-Steve
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:00:41 +0000, Lazarus Long wrote:
> Some machines are bad. Not all. And the number of tools I (or anyone
> else) own has nothing to do with the likely hood that one will break.
> It's the quality, not the quantity.
The referred-to poster's argument was correct. The larger the number of
items, the larger the chance that one will break in a given time. His
probability calculations are, strictly speaking, incorrect, but the gist
of his message is correct. Now, if the collection of items is not
homogeneous, e.g., some "good" mixed with some "bad," then the calcs don't
apply so well. Have to compare apples to apples.
LL's argument looks at the situation from a completely different point of
view from TB's. Both approaches are valid when the appropriate parameters
are correctly specified.
[In the bushing/bearing argument, does "bearing" mean "ball bearing?" I
thought bushings were just another kind of bearing (e.g., pillow blocks).
Seems a mech engineer could inform us about the appropriate usage of the
various kinds of bearings out there.]
--
"One word: plastics."
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:13:07 -0600, [email protected] (Thomas
Beckett) wrote:
>....That makes a total of
>eighteen electic motors and all their parts that might not work when
>called upon. If I have eighteen machines, I have eighteen times more
>likely that something is not going to work, then if I had only one
>machine. At least as far as the individual was concerned. Each machine
>would have the same odds of working, but the individual who is exposed
>to eighteen machines as opposed to one has 18 times the number of
>chances that something is not going to work.
You're likely to experience a greater number of failures,
but not that many: if you have only one tool, you are likely
to use it much more than each of the eighteen.
> In closing my opion, there are many reasons why it appears that
>machines are getting worse. First, manufactures of machines should not
>try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it
>saves them money. Second, the number of power tools a person owns
>increases his or her chance that something is going to go wrong. Lastly,
>life expectency of a motor is determined by pitting quality agianst
>cost.
>
First, I don't believe that there is any greater reliance on cheap
tools/goods now than 50 years ago. I think that the first point you
made is the key one: most of us own a lot more stuff of all kinds
than our parents and grandparents. So there is a lot more cheap
stuff floating around. Secondly, one reason for manufacturers
to concentrate on the cheaper stuff (in addition to market share,
etc) is the cost of repair relative to the cost of initial
production. At most levels of quality, it is possible to produce
the majority of goods incredibly efficiently - just think of all the
components mechanical & electronic in a sub-$1K computer -
but repairs are not. Even if you make something really well,
the probability is high that something will eventually break and
it is likely that the repair cost will run on the order of 30 - 100
percent of the purchase price. Most people I know are likely
to opt to purchase a new item instead. This is a disincentive to
high-quality goods.
On 26 Nov 2004 02:53:24 GMT, "David G. Sizemore" <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>On 2004-11-26, Thomas Beckett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Motors are designed by the manufacture to have a certain life
>> expectency. We see this in springs, batterys, car engines,
>> transmissions, etc. Things are built to last so long, and then crap out.
>> The manufacture pits quality against cost, and cost , the underlying
>> factor of all manufacturing, is the more important of the two. For the
>> manufacture to be competive, he must always cut costs, and he will do
>> this at the expence of quality over the cost to manufacture the product.
>> The manufacture must give the illusion of being competive by lowering
>> the price of his product to that of his competition. If he can not keep
>> his price as low as his competition, he will go out of business. Thus,
>> something has to give. If you can't cut the cost of the manufacturing
>> process, you will cut the quality. For instacne, less expenisve motors
>> have bushings rather than bearings, and bushings wear out faster than
>> bearings. As a result motors with bushings will cost less than those
>> with bearings, but they wear out faster too.
>
>The law of planned obsolescence. You see it everywhere.
Not quite the same thing. Planned _failure_ (as we have been told it
actually is <G>) is quite different from the economics of producing a
longer-lasting machine. The first has the aim of deliberately causing
repeat purchase, keeping cash-flow going by relying on greed,
desperation and short memories (all very reliable human traits I might
add). The second is simple economics of cost vs sale price in the
market. That is what the OP is talking about above.
I do feel that if neither (D'Oh! Another bloody e before i word that
breaks the rules!) of the above were applied in manufacture, none of
us could afford tools. LOnger-lasting tools have a double cost bump.
They cost more to make, and the cash-flow from sales is slower. So the
maker has to boost prices twice.
On 26 Nov 2004 02:53:24 GMT, "David G. Sizemore" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The law of planned obsolescence. You see it everywhere.
Law of planned failure actually (which is in one of Parkinson's
books).
A tool built according to a law of planned obsolescence might work
forever, but would be rendered useless by convincing us that we no
longer needed it. One way would be to rely on funny-shaped dowels,
then stop making the dowels. Or to bring out a car model next year
with the door handles on upside down, and have an advertising campaign
to convince the neighbours to laugh at those still driving "last
year's handles" (US car adverts from 1945 to 1975).
--
Smert' spamionam