no more Jet for me

Page 1 of 6  
a piece on my table saw broke and I decided that I will not spend money on Jet tools again. Too many little things have broken on the two shop tools I have that are made by Jet.
I've made a replacement piece for the latest breakage from wood and so far it seems to be fine the original part is broken into about 10 pieces a crappy cast aluminum part which was exactly the wrong material for this application
I can't do that for the other stuff and have just had to fudge it
for example the quick-adjust handle on the lathe tool rest is stripped. the handle is spring loaded so you can pull it out, rotate it then tighten/loosen in a better position. well that crappy aluminum was a really bad choice as it stripped out and I did not abuse this handle I was always careful to pull it all the way out then rotate and made sure it was seated again then tighten/loosen
I bought a plastic knob and that works ok, but not as much leverage as the original handle
also the nut on the lathe tool rest that attaches under the bedway was a flattened nut with a nylon ring. the nylon gave way and the tool rest could not be adequately tightened to the bedway replaced it with a plain old nut and so far so good
all these little things add up to sour me on Jet they may have reduced the cost to pass on the savings to me but now i lose and they lose
a lose-lose situation or mutually assured disappointment
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/24/2015 1:53 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

I can understand your frustration and is the primary reason I buy better quality tools. But having said that I own/have owned 5 Jet woodworking machines. They are by far a better quality of any Delta tools that I have purchased. Anyway things wear out and a few dollars for a replacement or better replacement part seems to be better than a premium price for a competitive brand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I like my Unisaur and Delta 18-300 drill press better than anything equivalent from Jet. I can't think of any other Delta tools I'd have, though.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/24/2015 5:44 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

I considered a Unisaw when buying my first cabinet saw in 1999. At that time there was a lot of comments about new Unisaws having broken trunnions. The Delta explanation was that the shippers were at fault. While this may have been true no other manufacturers were having issues. IIRC some one like Charlie Self had found out one way or another that the torquing was not correct during assembly, IIRC. Anyway I thought that the complaints/issues were an anomaly until I visited my local supplier, 2 blocks from home, and learned that their show room floor saw had a broken trunnion. That prompted me to buy the Jet cabinet saw. I owned that saw until 2013, when I replaced it with the SawStop, and sold the saw for what I paid for the saw itself. I threw in the HTC out feed roller and mobile base. The saw cost me $400 to use for 14 years. I had no issues with the saw at all other than a normal situation that even the Unisaw on NYW exhibited. I do have a Delta DP and like it, it replaced a smaller Rockwell radial DP. Delta Scroll Saw sucked a big one. Delta 15" stationary planer works fine but is no better IMHO than the other Jet equipment that I have. Delta 12" disk sander is useful but it is not a precision tool. Although it has adjustments for table tilt I would not want to make those adjustments. Delta 12" CMS prone to break at the guard.
And speaking of the Unisaw, the new one/latest version has dropped in prove significantly since the first few years of production. IIRC when I was looking at all of the saw brands again 2 years ago the Unisaw was in the neighborhood of $3700.00, basically the price of a PM 2000. Today it can be had for about $1000.00 less. The PM is a little less too but still north of $3K.
Anyway.....it was going to be the Euro version of a Laguna with scoring blade and sliding table or the SawStop. I chose the industrial version of the SS and I am extremely pleased with it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I remember that period. I didn't buy mine until 2009, though. It's been great (wish I could play with it).

The SawStop would have cost twice what I paid for the Unisaw. The capital expense board didn't have any problem with $1600. Nearly $3500 wasn't going to get approved. ;-) Remember, it doesn't represent income, rather outgo.
When I was looking at DPs, I just about went with the variable speed Powermatic but decided that it didn't go slow enough. The 18-300 came out about that time and I bought it instead.

Yes, when I bought my Unisaw the new version was about the price of the SawStop (silly). Mine was a leftover so I got a steal on it New Unisaws under $1000?

Given unlimited $$ I might have done the same. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/24/2015 9:45 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

I looked closely at the Powermatic VS but was really turned off by the loud noises coming from the transmission. Way too noisily for an expensive piece of equipment.

No, $1000. less that they were introduced at. You can get them now in the $2500~$2700 range.

I hear you, selling my work helps justify the expense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I didn't notice that. I guess it's a good thing I didn't go that way. I really like the Delta, though changing speeds is sort of a pain (three pulleys).

Ah, that makes more sense. They were at least that much overpriced when they came out.

WW is never going to be more than a hobby for me. It keeps me out of the bars. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/25/2015 8:21 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

I hear you.... I did upgrade to the link belts for considerably less vibration but a bit more noise on higher speeds.

That is how I started out.....and then a hobby turned into more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have no intention of doing that. It would ruin a perfectly good hobby.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:48:28 -0600

I would guess that delta will have to get more thoughtful designs to remain viable, same for jet. I looked at some videos of laguna bandsaws and if I had the $ I'd get one soon

this is nothing to do with parts wearing out, this is about bad engineering which includes bad choices for materials
jet saw short-term sales by lowering quality but long term they now will see diminished customer loyalty and lower sales
mutually assured disappointment
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As an engineer, I have to comment on this. It's not "bad engineering". It's "cost engineering", which is when management forces the engineers to design to a predetermined cost. Engineers hate it, because it forces you to design in all sorts of crap to meet an unrealistic goal.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/25/2015 1:21 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Price point has become more important than dependability. Anyone working in a manufacturing world had seen this for years now.
A major appliance manufacturer called in all of its suppliers. They had their unit on display as well as a competing unit from Korea. We were told to reduce the price by 25% or the product would not exist any longer. Everyone did what they had to do to meet the competition, but after a few years, China came along and the plant closed down anyway.
Who do you blame? All of us. We talk how much we want quality, but price become the deciding factor. We go to Woodcraft, fondle the tool, then order it from Amazon because it is $5 cheaper there. Just look at how well Harbor Freight is doing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 1:18:13 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Right there with you, Ed. Couldn't agree more. When I started in the trad es back in the early 70s, tools were good enough to rebuild. Using them al l day, we simply wore out hand power tools and their parts. So we put in t riggers, bearing, brushes, etc., as a regular part of the tool owning exper ience.
Many of the old tool names that were on the tools I used to love were bough t by investment groups, not tool makers back in the 80s. The powers that b e at those companies only sought to maximize their profits, not caring abou t the tools, nor understanding their importance to the craftsman, tradesman , or any other end user that valued a good tool. For all those companies c ared, they were simply manufacturing widgets, and applied their college eds as they had been taught.
Now, unless it is a stationary tool all tools to me are a balance of tool l ife to longevity. About ten years ago I took my favorite Milwaukee circula r saw in (at that time about 25 years old) for a new cord, bearings and a " tightening up". The bench fee was $65, the bearings were $35, the cord was $18, and the clean and lube was another $25. I was stunned and found that the newest replacement model for that saw was $125 at HD.
I commented to the guy at the counter as I was getting my saw (no repairs.. .) that I was glad the trigger didn't go out. So just for fun, he looked i t up. The "heavy duty" trigger was $49, and still carried the same bench f ee ($65) as any process.
So I bought a Makita at HD, and it is a great saw. But now as before, if so mething breaks or wear out, it will be prohibitive to have it fixed.
Years ago I always bought from our local supply house as they stocked acces sories for the tools they sold, some parts, and had someone that could diag nose your problem if a tool "quit working". We haven't had anyone like tha t years here.
I would gladly pay more for a tool of there was a quality company standing behind it and I got good utility value from the tool. Now they all seem to be varying degrees of just junk to pretty good until you get up in the Fes tool, Metabo, Lamello, etc., range. I buy the Bosch, Ridgid, DeWalt, etc., and depending on what goes wrong and how long it lasted, probably toss the m after they break.
I feel like I am like a lot of folks that are getting the short end of the stick because of consumer habits. I have no more local support for my tool s or for parts as Amazon, ebay, etc. put them out of business long before H F came on the scene. At one time, you could save 30% by buying online, so off most went to their computers. I have no selection for better tools as no one can afford to keep a showroom since folks will do as you said, try o ut a tool, handle and inspect it and then go home and purchase it. I have seen many, many times at the Woodcraft demos where folks go and use the too ls they are interested in, then go to Amazon or other places to buy their t ool after using one for a few hours at WC.
Folks always brag about the low prices they pay on things, but then if you need any backup or support, many times you find out how little that price d ifferential was actually worth. I would gladly pay more for a quality tool backed by good service.
On the other hand, the black eye isn't all on us consumers. About 3 years ago I bought a Ridgid branded 12v drill package. Two identical drills, a c harger, and two batteries for a promotional price. Lifetime warranty on th e drills and batteries, one year on the charger. I went through the scrupu lous registration process and got the drills registered.
Last Monday I took the drills in as the batteries had died. In about 3 wee ks I will need them to drill and mount about 60 hinges and installs new dra wer hardware at the house I am working on. The guy at the counter told me he was "the tool guy" and would evaluate them. It could take (he told me) about a month for him to get to their assessment. If he found the batterie s to be dead and non revivable, then he would send them to the Ridgid servi ce center, so add in another 10 days for packing, transit, and receiving. So now we are at six weeks.
They told me at the service center that their normal turn around on any too l (unless it needed an extensive rebuild) was about a month. So now good s ir, the replacement of two dead batteries (which were determined dead by th e tool guy when I brought them in, he was just wanting to do additional tes ting to "make sure") is at best guess... 2 1/2 to 3 months.
What professional can have a duty tool offline for a quarter of the work ye ar?
Further, I was informed and signed a document at the time I turned the tool s over that said that Ridgid/HD has the sole power to determine of the tool was simply worked until the end of its life, abused, broken due to acciden t, used incorrectly (drilling 2" holes in yellow pine all day with the 12v drill), not stored or taken care of properly, used for a task other than wh ich it was specifically designed to do, or neglected in any way they determ ine is detrimental to the tool. Any of the aforementioned conditions could and probably would lead to denial of the warranty.
So now what do I do? I don't even know if they are going to honor their wa rranty... I need the drills in a couple of weeks and probably won't have wo rd by then on what they are going to do.
In reality, I will probably go buy a cheaper drill and use it for the job, then until it breaks. At this point, I see little point in paying any prem ium for a working class tool. At this point (at least with Ridgid) I feel l ike I am playing a game with them, one I just might lose. I don't have the time for all that dancing around and I need my drills. With that in mind and at the cost of rebuilding my tools, I almost always look for cheaper al ernatives for the job site these days.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

-------------------------------------------------
Right there with you, Ed. Couldn't agree more. When I started in the trades back in the early 70s, tools were good enough to rebuild. Using them all day, we simply wore out hand power tools and their parts. So we put in triggers, bearing, brushes, etc., as a regular part of the tool owning experience. <snip> ---------------------------------------------------- During the early '60s, I worked on devices that got mounted on the engines of military vehicles.
The performance specification was straight forward.
500 hours of performanc life with ZERO, ZIP failures.
If the device survived 500.001 hours and then died, that was acceptable.
The reason the performance spec was written as stated was simple.
Hit the beach with 100 new trucks and the enemy destroys 10-20 of them in the first 10 hours of battle, and renders another 50 of them inoperable without a rebuild facility to make repairs which is highly unlikely on the battlefield.
Turns out the lowest cost to the military is to have new spare devices available to be used when the opportunity presents itself.
It's a case starting with a 100% operating device and using it until it fails, then scrap the device and start with another new device.
No attempt is made to rebuild what is basically a throw away item.
Another example of a throw away device is the printed circuit board populated with poorest tolerance components as possible except for a single resistor and a capacitor which are the tightest tolerance devices available.
The populated boards are then tested to determine the resistor and capacitor values to classify the board assembly as a tight tolerance device.
From a manufacting point of view, it's the best of all worlds.
Low cost, wide tolerance components are used for at least 90% of the of the devices while high cost, tight tolerance devices allow a low cost, high performance boards to be delivered to the market.
There is no way to repair a board like this in the field which is why a replacement board assembly is routinely sold for about 60% of a new device along with the old board ass'y.
I'm afraid the days of being able to make repairs, even simple ones to rebuild a tool in the field are quickly becoming history from another era.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:21:06 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy

As an engineer, I'll have to disagree. Engineering is *all* about cost. It's easy to build a bridge that will stand. It's really hard to design one that will barely stand. The goals might be unrealistic or perhaps the engineers aren't quite smart enough. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote in

You're kind of misreading what I meant.
There's a difference between "come up with the lowest cost design that meets these specs" and "come up with a design that doesn't exceed this cost". For the first one I might come back and say "here it is, and the cost is $43.17". For the second I might say "here it is, and to meet the $35 cost requirement we have to relax this, this, and this specification".
The fun part of engineering is balancing all the specs, both performance and cost, to get the best result. It's not fun when the cost is locked in, and you can't trade off one area for another.
Bridges, fortunately, are not built to a preset price.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/25/2015 12:21 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Just like the cantilever locking device made out of plastic and opens / locks the back side door on my 3 door S10. The door is held in by force and the force drives the plastic to break. Wish I had a metal version. Might have to make one.
I suspect it was done to limit weight like the crappy 5mph bumpers that is used on many cars to limit weight.
Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The S10 is an excellent example of cost-engineering. There's a lot of crappy design in that truck to make it cheap.
The plastic part isn't to save weight, it's to save cost. The cost to form a metal part is 10x that of a plastic part, if not more.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/26/2015 9:13 AM, John McCoy wrote: ...

Much of it is both...the imposition of the fleet average requirements was the beginning of a massive upswing in plastics/composites/etc. for the weight reduction.
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's much to what you say. In many cases plastic parts replaced castings of zamac or similar pot metals which had comparable strength. In those cases there is a worthwhile savings in weight and cost.
On the other hand, there are many cases where a plastic part replaced a metal part (often steel), where the strength, brittleness, or wear resistance of the plastic part was not adequate, leading to a much reduced product life.
It's also worth noting that not all plastics are equal, and an application where a fiber reinforced plastic like Delrin is suitable wouldn't work with something like LDPE. Especially in the 80s you saw a lot of metal subsituted with weak, unsuitable plastics, where now better material choices are being made.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.