Cutting slabs - follow-up.

[Stuart Noble]

Your second swipe at Skoda recently, and a particularly bad example of the "you get what you pay for" argument I would have thought

[dennis]

Its a made up example. 8-)

[dennis]

Cars are expected to run continuosly.. power tools are not unless otherwise stated. Even some industrial grinders aren't expected to work continuously for hours.

You are labouring the point a bit.. you just have odd expectations.

Why do you expect a duty cycle of better than 3:1? Where does it say and angle grinder has to have a better duty cycle than that?

There is no requirement for a self reseting thermal cutout on an angle grinder AFAIK. I doubt if many have them.

The issue is tool suitability.. as it happens the one in question should have been OK and would probably been fine if a replacement had been taken. I wouldn't expect my £9.99 angle grinder to cut 15 slabs without substantial rest periods. It will quite happily cut a slab and then cut another a few minutes later after I have laid the first one. Its not suitable for say a two man team with one cutting and another laying.

[dennis]

The only thing visually obvious about a SMART is that it would probably be illegal if you parked it sideways, especially at night. This shows that anyone, even you, can be wrong about what an item is suitable for just by looking at it.

[:Jerry:]

Indeed, seeing that he doesn't inclued VW and Audi - which are what Skodas are these days...

[:Jerry:]

That would be *miss-selling* and there should be a refund [1] BUT if after reading the instruction manual the purchaser still uses the tool beyond it's design limits then that is *miss-use*, if the purchaser chooses not to read the instruction manual and just assume then that is their own look out!

[1] as I originally said.

It's not irrelevant, many cars do not have rev counters (or rev limiters) even today, most drivers manuals give maximum top speeds for each gear - and it's still possible for the driver to over rev the engine. A rev limiter will only limit the power output of the engine, in effect, it will not stop crankshaft over speeds - such as would happen if the owner changed from 5th to 2nd whilst doing 80mph! Why should a car manufacture be responsible for such a engine failure?

So why don't you buy the cheapest power tools then Andy, you can't have it both ways, you make a point about telling people to read the tools spec' (even find out were they are made and what the service back-up is) - why are you now suggesting that people only need to compare tools on marketing hype and looks alone?!

Then that is *miss-selling*, but the owner of the tool should (and indeed has a duty) to read the manual - if on doing so it's found that the tools spec is inappropriate and thus the marketing was inaccurate there is a case for a full (and out of pocket) refund, if the owner carries on and uses the tool beyond it's design spec' that is their look out and on one else's - just as it would be if they dropped the tool in a bucket of water, even though the manual said not to because the tool is not water-tight...

They don't need to, they just need to offer a refund / replacement option.

[Andy Hall]

It doesn't really matter. They may well be good value for money nowadays, but still have a poor reputation from the past to live down - e.g.

- How does one double the value of a Skoda? Fill it with petrol

- What is a Skoda with twin exhausts called? A wheelbarrow

- What is a Skoda with a sun roof called? A skip

and so on...

The illustration was obviously figurative....

[Andy Hall]

Of course. However, they should be designed such that either that is achieved or that they protect themselves in a way that the user can reset.

Not at all. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a purchased item to be fit for purpose.

For something advertised as being suitable for trade use, it is reasonable to expect that it can actually achieve that.

It's certainly not acceptable for a product advertised as being suitable for trade use to fail after a few minutes use.

Exactly. Then it should not be advertised as being suitable for trade use without the allowed pattern of use being made clear to the user before purchase.

The supplier chose not to do that which is really being economic with the truth by not providing the purchaser with highly relevant information from which to make a purchasing decision.

[Andy Hall]

The thing is practically square, which is the real point. One *can* park it sideways. Whether one *may* is another issue entirely.

[dennis]

Get your drill driver out and put the chuck in a vice and run the battery flat while the motor is stalled.. let us know how well it is protected.

See what I said about your drill driver above.

There is no evidence that the unit can't stand up to trade use.. one failed and that doesn't mean they are all cr@p. Unless you have taken it apart and can see what's wrong then I think you are just arguing for nothing.

[:Jerry:]

Like the fact that Skoda had many years of success in numerous rallies etc. you mean?!...

[Andy Hall]

Actually there should be a refund and reasonable damages such as the cost of the trip to return the unsuitable product.

That's use of an extreme example.

The point is about a took which is not fit for purpose - viz. cutting of masonry under trade use conditions.

Frankly, I wouldn't have bought this one anyway. Of course one should research what one buys before doing so. This is all the more reason to buy from a reputable manufacturer where one can see that the product is being correctly represented before buying.

The point is a moot one. It is reasonable to expect that the product is fit for the purpose advertised. It wasn't.

That's going to turn into a very expensive hobby for them....

[Andy Hall]

Doesn't really matter for the use in the illustration.

[Andy Hall]

Perfectly thanks. If the motor should overheat for whatever reason, the electronic controller will cut the power to it.

.. and you are still wrong...

Doesn't matter - a ten minute running time isn't suitable for trade use.

[:Jerry:]

of Andy attempting to dig himself out of his own quagmire

[Andy Hall]

In your dreams. You chose to extrapolate the example beyond its clear and intended use.

[:Jerry:]

No, you chose to make some cheap (and old) jokes that the *facts* don't back up, if you believe the jokes rather than the *facts* then you are more the fool, not me.

[dennis]

Your the one that said it was suitable to park sideways.. it isn't.. maybe it says something about it in the manual?

[Andy Hall]

I think that you are missing the point.

The reason that Skoda was mentioned is exactly because of its use in the entertainment world as the butt of humour for crappy cars that had a reputation for breaking down. It really doesn't matter whether it's not an accurate representation - the reputation serves the purpose for the illustration.

The point was that cars are not expected to have to be stopped by the roadside every ten minutes during normal use - even Skodas.

(You're not a Skoda owner, are you?)

[Andy Hall]

It may well do.

It would be rather surprising if the car would break down irrevocably as a result though.

Hence the difference between *can* and *may*