Pehaps the problem is in the message and how it is received. Perhaps the concern is that the group gets hijacked by an interminable moronic thread because two people are at it, yes two and both insistant on having the final say so. I know there is an issue that in order to avoid misguiding those looking for info perhaps moronic post should be countered but the way it goes I don't think it works.
Personally when you forthrightly stated warranties on cheapos were scam warranties I objected because in my personal experience that's not the case. A few examples, PP planer switch went intermittant, replaced without question. I was planing Fermacel edges so a cheapo was definately what I wanted. Challenge sander just kind of wandered over the surface unlike my Bosch which had shamefully packed up. Refunded without question by Argos is spite of it showing evidence of use. So no sign of scam warranty there. Neither is it always the case that cheapos are crap. Lidl 18V cordless drill, well not needed the warranty yet as its been a good buy and seems sound electrically and mechanically though the batteries are not brilliant but there are 2 and they still charge more quickly than they discharge in use. When my Lidl kettle leaked, refunded without question. So no sign a of scam warranty there either.
It was my Makita drill that packed up. OK perhaps I should have replaced the brushes earlier but since useful as it was it was overpowered for SDS drilling of 8mm holes and underpowered for chiselling and core-cutting, not a criticism but a recognition, I now find that my new £14.99 cheapo drill is perfectly adequate for 8mm holes in masonry.
So the criteria of a SDS chuck in itself Is irrelevant, otherwise we would never been able to drill a hole in hard masonry before its invention.
Obviously (before im corrected) if you increase the percussion energy beyond a certain point, a drill bit in a 3jaw chuck will slip and rotate, but SDS does not define the suitability of the drill for the job.
Manufacturing yes. Dealerships no. If you read the histories of BMC one of the various reasons for its slide was the power of the dealers, unlike Ford who IIRC had a policy of not allowing any dealership chain to take more than x% of its production (where x was a very small number) so that Ford controlled its dealers rather than the other way round.
"Rather than tackling these issues head-on ? something that really should have been done years previously ? Harriman acceded to the wishes of the Nuffield dealers, and agreed to release ADO16 [1100] just as a Morris model initially. An Austin version would appear only after a sufficiently long delay. This sop to the dealers may have seemed like a good idea at the time as a way of pacifying any dissenting voices, but it undoubtedly cost BMC sales"
formatting link
"As Morris dealers had first bite at the cherry with the 1100, Austin dealers were first to get the new big car [1800] with the Morris version making its debut in 1966"
I was using the term SDS as a shorthand for the whole SDS Drill rather than just the chuck. This seems to be a bit of a moot point however since I am not aware of any conventional drill that use a SDS chuck but are not also accompanied by the SDS style hammer mechanism.
It goes a bit beyond that. One of the gains in hammer efficency on the SDS chuck is the fact that the chuck itself is not "hammered" - i.e. it stays put, and the drill bit (which is free to slide in and out of the chuck) cops the full force of the hammer.
From an engineering point of view that has nothing to do with efficiency, it 's a neat solution to both a manufacturing consideration and a safety issue. You would not want your fingers trapped between a chuck and a hard place.
I simply try to be as clear as possible. I can't be responsible for how people choose to interpret what is said.
OK, let me be more specific about what I meant.
I didn't say or even mean to imply that the retailer wouldn't honour the warranty by exchanging the product within the specified period.
My point was that the approach is a scam because exchange is usually the *only* remedy that they have for many of these own/anonymous products.
This means that if the thing breaks within the warranty period, a replacement or refund happens without questions asked unless there is evidence of misuse - and perhaps even then.
My issue is what happens after that - e.g. in months 13, 25 or 37 and beyond.
There is no service organisation, no spares backup and no means of repair in most cases. In effect the only option is to buy a new product.
I have a number of issues with this approach:
1) The retailer does not make it clear to potential customers what the reality of the situation is. There are helplines (which in reality are a simple call centre that achieves little) and apparently attractive warranties. They don't have notices by he products or in the manuals that the arrangement is replacement only, that there is not real support and that there is no provision for repair or spares after the end of warranty. Many times I have seen customers at the returns counter in DIY stores having brought back a product out of warranty and being told that they can't have a replacement but will have to buy a new one. The look of astonishment on some people's faces has been a picture. They have assumed that because there is a seemingly attractive warranty, that the manufacturer is taking his support responsibilities seriously. Nothing is further from the truth. The fact that the retailer is not open about this is, in my view, a complete and utter scam and I feel that legislation should be passed such that retailers are required to provide precise details of the nature of the support during and after warranty. It is very apparent that a significant proportion of customers are taken in by what is basically a cynical marketing an distribution mechanism with a certain predicted return rate. I believe that this is fundamentally wrong.
2) If I am sharp enough to figure out the situation, my buying decision becomes more complicated. If I choose the own label product with N year replacement support, I have to take a view on how long the product is likely to last after that. Since many of these products are built down to a price and sold on features with a build quality adjusted to achieve better than a certain return rate, I have to take a fairly conservative to pessimistic view on longevity after the warranty expires. For practical purposes, I have to consider that the product is written down to zero and living on borrowed time after the end of the warranty.
On the other hand, if I buy a product of better build quality and with availability of spares and proper service then I have more options available to me after the end of any warranty. With a better build quality, there is a better chance that the product won't need repair and spares for rather longer anyway which further reduces the expected cost of ownership. When I also factor in the quality of use, absence of messing around factor and stronger position with the retailer in the event of a problem, it becomes easy to justify a higher purchase price.
All of this is before one gets into the ecological soundness or otherwise of the throw-away mentality.
This is not the point that I was making. That was all about what happens after the warranty has expired and the fact that the retailers don't make the situation clear.
So, surprise surprise neatly full circle back your disigenuity about Miele warranty and your insatiable desire for the final say so, just like the other one.
What I was saying, mainly, was that the retailer of *any* product, quality or cheapo, washes his hands after the expiry of the sold warranty whether that is 12,
24 or 36 months and where the extended element is an manufacturers extension, almost certainly after the unwritten "sale of goods" period expires after 12 months. I personally have no expectation of redress after the sold warranty period expires and that is factored into the purchasing decision, nor in my frequent passages through DIY sheds have I ever been aware of customers seeking redress over out of sold warranty cheapo power tools.
As for the implication that my fellow cheapo or non Miele users have no concern for the environment, well that's the sort of arrogant assertion which is responsible for some of the flak flying in your direction at the moment.
I was simply clarifying an earlier point to avoid misunderstanding.
OK. I don't disagree that the retailer would *like* to do that. If the product is low end, then he can reasonably make that argument. If it is higher end, then I can reasonably make the argument, and have, that he owns the problem for a reasonable period of time up to the 6 year statute of limitations.
At that point, it is a matter of negotiation and if the retailer and I disagree then I have the option of taking legal action against the retailer and have done. The notion of a 12 month warranty is a fiction that is unsupported in consumer legislation.
If the manufacturer wishes to provide or sell through the retailer an extended warranty, it is merely a convenience, but does not absolve the retailer of his prime responsibility.
This is one of the exact points. I would have no expectation of redress after the end of warranty on a private labelled inexpensive product sold by a DIY store. However, this is not where I consider the scam to be. My point is that there is usually no support, repair or sparing available after the warranty period on these products even if I am prepared to pay. I am denied that option and the only choice that I am left with is to buy a replacement. That situation is not made clear at the outset, and it should be.
If I buy a quality product and consider that it has unreasonably failed after any notional warranty period that the retailer or manufacturer may give, then I will certainly push the retailer on that and have done successfully. In almost all cases, the situation doesn't arise, and spares or repairs are more typically needed at what I would consider to be a reasonable time after purchase. I then have the option to pursue that path, but I don't necessarily expect the retailer to be involved in that either commercially or logistically. If they are and offer a good service, then I am much more likely to buy from them in the future, however.
I specifically avoided making an issue of that and leave it as a matter for the individual as I think is appropriate for most issues like this
There are occasions when they are of use, but I find visiting them about as pleasurable as a visit to IKEA on a Saturday, so understandably avoid if I can.
You think? I would say it has quite a lot to do with it.
A traditional chuck with drill bit fixed, will have a much higher mass than just the (splined) bit on its own.
Each blow from the pneumatic hammer mechanism will generate a certain amount of energy (c. 2J is not uncommon on the lighter machines) of which a proportion will transferred to the projectile (i.e. either drill in the case of the SDS design, or drill plus chuck in conventional design)
The greater the inertia of the projectile, the more energy you are likely to lose at the point of impact (noise, heat, vibration, deformation of the components etc), and the less forward velocity you will impart on it. The more vibration etc, the more energy dissipated into the operator which is both inefficient and fatiguing.
Buy a quality product and you stand a very good chance of getting redress even after the warranty expires assuming your claim has some merit, the manufacturers have a reputation to think of, its a commercial decision.
The reasoning is a bit cockeyed here. The reason you don't want a drill chuck, is because the drill chuck mechanism cannot handle the high impact loads without the jaws of the chuck slipping and the chuck mechanism being damaged. The energy imparted to the tip of the drill bit in a normal chuck, will to a first approximation, be the same. This is why SDS drill chucks are specifically barred from impact usage.
Mike - do a Google on these two. The resident fool - Adam, IMM, Dr Evil etc - real name John - trys to be top dog on everything in this group and fails miserably. He *claims* to be a pro and therefore better than all others, but fails at nearly every jump. Which is sad, because he has a fairly comprehensive knowledge of many central heating products gleaned from extensive web site and advertising research. Ie, he reads and quotes catalogues. In that, he is a pro. Pity he couldn't just stick to that, as he'd have the respect of others for this application.
But when others give chapter and verse on practical applications of products of which he has absolutely no clue, he resorts to insults. With the language of an idiot.
A quick search will give you the full story - if you have some basic knowledge.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.