no more Jet for me

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

Reply to
nailshooter41
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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

Reply to
John McCoy

Martin Eastburn wrote in news:l4xHw.1932473 $ snipped-for-privacy@fx18.iad:

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

Reply to
John McCoy

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.

Reply to
dpb

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:mcnkvp$vai$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

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

Reply to
John McCoy

On 02/26/2015 3:05 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...

...

Amen, brother!!! Just one example is the exit/entrance heater hose ports on the 3800L GM engine that are just plastic elbows. They fail regularly where an "old style" threaded hose connector would never fail.

Another pet peeve of mine is the replacement of glass headlamp covers with plastic that crazes and weathers reducing visibility markedly whereas the glass would typically be good for the life of the vehicle barring following too many trucks too closely.

On our gravel roads the plastic headlight covers are pitted/scratched within months...

I could go on (and on and on....) with a litany.

Reply to
dpb

If you can test drive each start saving for the Laguna.

Reply to
Leon

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.

Reply to
Leon

I hear what you are saying but many plastic parts on door strikers and latches provide more cushion than metal, keeps the noise down.

Reply to
Leon

I'll assume you are talking about glass sealed beam headlights. Those simply burn out before the glass goes bad. And none of these compared in out put like the body shaped lenses over the head lamp bulbs.

Reply to
Leon

------------------------------------- One of the reasons it never even made my long list for a toy PU truck.

But then after the Toyota Tacoma, nothing else even came close.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

I have no intention of doing that. It would ruin a perfectly good hobby.

Reply to
krw

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:54efb594$0$43061 $c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

To my regret, I learned of it's deficiencies by owning one. Unfortunately it combined poor engineering with worse build quality, easily the worst vehicle I ever bought.

The S10 got replaced by a Ford F150 longbed in 2000, which is still in fine shape (except it needs to be painted). Doubt I'd ever consider anything but another Ford if I was looking for a new pickup - but at this point I kinda figure I'll never need to replace the one I have.

One thing, tho - if you do woodworking a longbed truck is a really useful thing. Being able to put 8' lumber and plywood in the bed, with the tailgate up and the tonneau cover over, makes life much simpler. And I can easily carry 12', and with careful tieing 16', with the tailgate down. The only downside is it's a pain to park.

John

Reply to
John McCoy

Exactly. Ford didn't put an aluminum hood on my wife's car to save money and the aluminum F150 isn't a cost reduction either. I work in the automotive electronics industry. Even the electronics is under pressure to save weight. Grams count.

Reply to
krw

The difference is only a couple of hundred bucks. The smaller Lagunas aren't the same as the spaghetti saws, either. Laguna has a horrible reputation for service and build quality on the lower end. If Laguna's reputation weren't in the toilet, I wouldn't consider the Rikon.

Reply to
krw

MSRP on a 2015 4x4 Crew cab $50,000 and a regular cab at about 40 grand. But they were having a sale so you don't have to pay full price.

Reply to
Markem

8' is a "long bed"? It's the standard F150 bed, except the king cab has a 7'. But you're right. Hauling 12' lumber isn't a big deal. I built a 12'frame that gets anchored to the bed so I can easily carry 12' sheetrock (except that I can't lift it ;-).
Reply to
krw

Yikes! I paid $25K for my 4x2 2013 extended cab XLT. The 4x4 was only a couple of grand more.

Reply to
krw

FWIW I lave been very happy with my 07 Tundra.

Reply to
Leon

On 02/26/2015 5:00 PM, Leon wrote: ...

...

No, I'm talking about the plastic lens covers over the lamps...I don't care what the lamp style is; if the covers were glass instead of plastic they wouldn't craze nor get scratched within a few months...

Reply to
dpb

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.