Argos 1/2" router

[Arthur]

Might do someone. Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49

Arthur

[Andy Hall]

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is Bean.

[The Medway Handyman]

I have to agree with Mr Hall here. I've had an Argos own label drill driver & a reciprocating saw - they both ended up in the bin. Complete s**te.

[manatbandq]

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

I've been using my Challenge Extreme 3/8" Router to cut hinge rebates in a load of internal doors (14 at tthe last count) and it has been brilliant. Much faster, more efficient and neater than I could ever hope to achieve with a chisel. To me, it's worth more than I paid for it in time saved alone. It's back in the cupboard now, until the next time I need a router for something.

MBQ

[Andy Hall]

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use" and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered, but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues or be adequate for the purpose.

It doesn't make sense to say that because a tool is only for occasional DIY use that it's therefore OK to buy the lowest priced inadequate one.

If the issue is purchase price, then there also has to be an acceptance of a loss of quality in the outcome. That isn't related to the frequency of use.

[manatbandq]

It is.

10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

It was adequate for the purpose, all purposes during the 5 years I've had it.

I never said anything about it being the lowest price or inadequate. It quite clearly is adequate. Just ask SWMBO about the good job I did on the doors;-)

Not absolutely. Quality and purchase price do not go hand in hand. Money CAN by better quality, it can also pay for the "brand".

MBQ

[George]

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

I've been using my Challenge Extreme 3/8" Router to cut hinge rebates in a load of internal doors (14 at tthe last count) and it has been brilliant. Much faster, more efficient and neater than I could ever hope to achieve with a chisel. To me, it's worth more than I paid for it in time saved alone. It's back in the cupboard now, until the next time I need a router for something.

MBQ

I wouldn't worry about it,he buys his tools from wickes. :0) virtually argos brands.

[George]

Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it has to earn its keep.

If the person who is not fussy on accurate cuts then its for them to decide

[Andy Hall]

Which is fortunate.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.

Then that's fine.

Both are true. As in all things, caveat emptor. However, if one pays for a quality product, there is little room for argument on the part of the supplier for providing anything less than excellent. At teh low end of the market it becomes a debate between expectation and price paid.

[manatbandq]

It's no les than I expected from a reputable retailer at a particular price point. I don't think good fortune comes intoi it.

I never said it wasn't. You're the one who keeps going on about quality.

Exactly! The product is fine for occasional DIY use.

MBQ

[The Medway Handyman]

I wasn't a tradesman when I bought the Argos stuff, just DIY & they were crap. The chuck on the drill driver keep working loose, the batteries failed to keep a charge after a short while & the blades wouldn't stay in the recip saw.

Wickes black range I'd agree, but the grey range is mainly made by Kress in Germany and is mostly very good indeed. I'd rate the SDS against any make for performance.

[Andy Hall]

No. Again. The amount of use is not really the issue - it's the quality of the result required and the price than one is willing to pay for that.

That's right.

What does not compute is that a small amount of use doesn't justify a quality tool. The price/use discussion is a completely different one to the price/quality of result one.

Amount of use/quality as a discussion point makes no sense.

Generally quality is influenced by price (notwithstanding brand value and the customer has to decide that). As a result, amount of use is a red herring to the discussion of good vs. poor quality tools.

It is really an issue of deciding what one is willing to pay and accepting the resulting quality or deciding what level of quality one will accept and paying the price to achieve that.

If the issue is that the activity is infrequent, then the solution is to rent a good quality tool rather than buying a poor one.

[Andy Hall]

Expectation and what you will get are two different things.

Price point is highly influential on service that will be delivered. It is not realistic to expect the same level of service for a £25 unknown router from Argos as it is a DeWalt at ten times that price from a specialist tool supplier.

In the event of a dispute, a court will take the same view, as will the credit card company.

In that sense, it is a matter of fortune, although one can exercise a degree of control.

Yes, because there are only two factors to consider that actually make any difference:

- Quality of outcome and use

- Price.

Frequency of use is irrelevant. Either one wants to achieve a price point or a level of quality or to trade those two.

Once that is determined, the discussion is about where to source the appropriate tool - buy it or rent it.

No, no. That assumes that "DIY" defines a level of quality. It doesn't at all. In the minds of some people, price is an important factor and understanably so. However, the concept that something is "fine for occasional DIY use" is completely meaningless unless one is making an implied assumption that the level of quality of result for "DIY" is low.

[Clive George]

Actually, frequency of use is relevant - a cheap tool may well have a shorter lifetime, either in absolute terms (it blows up after a while), or in quality terms (bearings go wobbly over time, lowering the reaulting quality).

Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable. These won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody who spends a lot of time with it.

clive

[Peter Lynch]

I would suggest that the quality of the final result is only partially determined by the quality of the tools used. A big factor is the experience of the user. If they don't use a router (or any other tool) regularly, the end result will be of a lower standard than from someone, like a professional, who uses that tool 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. In that case, where there's an upper limit on the "quality" of work produced, it makes good financial sense to use a standard of tool that is commensurate with the skill of the user.

Pete

[Andy Dingley]

Yes, tradesmen wil use any old crap if they have to, because they have to. We only do it because it's fun, so if it isn't fun, why do it?

[Andy Hall]

Usually the bearings are wobbly from the outset and just get worse.

That isn't true either. If poor ergonomics prevent good results that will be true regardless of the amount of use.

[Andy Hall]

To some extent that may be true, but for most woodworking power tools the issue is much closer to one of learning to ride a bike. In other words, once the techniques have been learned, often through trial and error, they are not forgotten - for example in the case of a router how the work is supported and the machine held and run.

This may take some practice and hence an investment in time, but I don't buy the argument that regular use is required to develop and maintain skill level. It isn't athletics.

I think that there is a degree of truth in that but that it relates much more to hand tools or the combination of hand tools with a machine (e.g. woodturning lathe).

[Clive George]

Um, there's a difference between being heavier or a bit uncomfortable and ergonomics sufficiently poor that good results are unobtainable. I carefully restricted my statement to the former, so my statement is true.

clive

[Stuart Noble]

Tradesmen need good quality tools so they can use blunt cutters and not burn the motor out. I'd go for a sharp cutter in an Argos router if I had to economise.