Why do many tools appear to be inferior?

[Thomas Beckett]

There are several reasons why many tools appear inferior. First, machines are made of poor materials. Second, the average person has more tools today then ever before. Third, motors only have a certain life expectancey. Therefore, the central purpose of this article is to discuss how the misuse of materials, the number of power tools that a person owns, and life expectency of motors makes many tools appear inferior. In many machines, plastic has replaced metal to the degree that a great deal of strength has been lost. For instance, in one of the table saws made by Sears, the nose of the saw fence is made of plastic, and there is a steel pin that goes through this nose piece that is used to put tension on the locking mechinism of the table fence. Since the nose is not made of aluminum or steel, and because there is a great deal of pressure on the point where the pin goes into the plastic, there is cracking around the holes on both sides of the nose. I have experience this twice. At one time, the amount of plastic would have been limited in a machine, but now every part that can be made of plastic as opposed to aluminum or steel is done so in order to cut costs. Of course, the number of tools a person owns is a factor too. The more power tools a person owns, the odds increase rapidly that something is not going to work. It mearly follows the law of probability. For instance, I own a jointer, radial arm saw, table saw, shop smith, home made band saw, home made spindle sander, finish sander, battery opperated drill, electic drill , two routers, belt sander, saber saw, spare electric motor, belt and disc sander, polisher, compressor, Dewalt Saws All, and a portable power saw. That makes a total of eighteen electic motors and all their parts that might not work when called upon. If I have eighteen machines, I have eighteen times more likely that something is not going to work, then if I had only one machine. At least as far as the individual was concerned. Each machine would have the same odds of working, but the individual who is exposed to eighteen machines as opposed to one has 18 times the number of chances that something is not going to work. If you rely on a fewer number of tools, you will have less break downs. The average person has more tools now then twenty years ago. This simply adds to the illusion that things are always breaking down.The life expectency of a motor plays a part as well. Motors are designed by the manufacture to have a certain life expectency. We see this in springs, batterys, car engines, transmissions, etc. Things are built to last so long, and then crap out. The manufacture pits quality against cost, and cost , the underlying factor of all manufacturing, is the more important of the two. For the manufacture to be competive, he must always cut costs, and he will do this at the expence of quality over the cost to manufacture the product. The manufacture must give the illusion of being competive by lowering the price of his product to that of his competition. If he can not keep his price as low as his competition, he will go out of business. Thus, something has to give. If you can't cut the cost of the manufacturing process, you will cut the quality. For instacne, less expenisve motors have bushings rather than bearings, and bushings wear out faster than bearings. As a result motors with bushings will cost less than those with bearings, but they wear out faster too. In closing my opion, there are many reasons why it appears that machines are getting worse. First, manufactures of machines should not try to cut corners by using plastic in every situation just because it saves them money. Second, the number of power tools a person owns increases his or her chance that something is going to go wrong. Lastly, life expectency of a motor is determined by pitting quality agianst cost.

[Dave Balderstone]

The market demands "low, low prices". In a market-driven economy, manufacturers provide what people want.

There are many high quality tools available. Because the market for those tools is smaller, the price is higher.

QED

[David G. Sizemore]

The law of planned obsolescence. You see it everywhere.

[Jay Pique]

I've begun to keep a log of my tool purchases, as I find it to be a source of entertainment. Even when a tool turns out to be somewhat less than expected, I keep it, and I keep it in good working order. Why? I have no idea, other than that I like to experiment with tools.

So you think you bought a dud? Maybe so - but LEARN from it. Put it through all of its paces before you write it off.

JP

[Dave Balderstone]

I didn't say I bought a dud. All my tools perform as expected. Except, sometimes. the grey one between my ears...

;-)

[Andy Dingley]

Law of planned failure actually (which is in one of Parkinson's books).

A tool built according to a law of planned obsolescence might work forever, but would be rendered useless by convincing us that we no longer needed it. One way would be to rely on funny-shaped dowels, then stop making the dowels. Or to bring out a car model next year with the door handles on upside down, and have an advertising campaign to convince the neighbours to laugh at those still driving "last year's handles" (US car adverts from 1945 to 1975).

[Old Nick]

On 26 Nov 2004 02:53:24 GMT, "David G. Sizemore" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Not quite the same thing. Planned _failure_ (as we have been told it actually is ) is quite different from the economics of producing a longer-lasting machine. The first has the aim of deliberately causing repeat purchase, keeping cash-flow going by relying on greed, desperation and short memories (all very reliable human traits I might add). The second is simple economics of cost vs sale price in the market. That is what the OP is talking about above.

I do feel that if neither (D'Oh! Another bloody e before i word that breaks the rules!) of the above were applied in manufacture, none of us could afford tools. LOnger-lasting tools have a double cost bump. They cost more to make, and the cash-flow from sales is slower. So the maker has to boost prices twice.

[Lazarus Long]

I think your claims are too broad and unfairly denigrate the good along with the bad.

No doubt. Too much plastic. There's several problems here - poor design. Someone didn't anilyze the stress properly and account for them. And plastic tends not to age well. And there's heat transfer issues too. But I don't see that plastic is entirely bad when used correctly.

times more

Balogna. The issue is quality, not quantity. If you want to play a numbers game, I have 14 tools with electric motors. I used to have

1. Three of them failed because they were pieces of shit. Not because they took a census and decreed one day that three must die. The "good" tools are all name brand, the failed ones are a name brand famous for failing early.

If only it was so easy. Design to run x hours and upon reaching that number, immediately stop.

First, a well designed bushing isn't necessarily bad. In a router, yeah - bad. Don't do that. In other electric motors - not bad, depending on the application.

Again though, too broad a generalization. Else, how do you account for Hitachi, Porter-Cable, Makita and Milwaukee? Not cheap, and very good quality.

Some machines are bad. Not all. And the number of tools I (or anyone else) own has nothing to do with the likely hood that one will break. It's the quality, not the quantity.

[GregP]

You're likely to experience a greater number of failures, but not that many: if you have only one tool, you are likely to use it much more than each of the eighteen.

First, I don't believe that there is any greater reliance on cheap tools/goods now than 50 years ago. I think that the first point you made is the key one: most of us own a lot more stuff of all kinds than our parents and grandparents. So there is a lot more cheap stuff floating around. Secondly, one reason for manufacturers to concentrate on the cheaper stuff (in addition to market share, etc) is the cost of repair relative to the cost of initial production. At most levels of quality, it is possible to produce the majority of goods incredibly efficiently - just think of all the components mechanical & electronic in a sub-$1K computer - but repairs are not. Even if you make something really well, the probability is high that something will eventually break and it is likely that the repair cost will run on the order of 30 - 100 percent of the purchase price. Most people I know are likely to opt to purchase a new item instead. This is a disincentive to high-quality goods.

[Charlie Self]

Thomas Beckett brings his outlook to us with:

snip of long diatribe that is mostly inaccurate

First, learn something about plastics technology. Plastics often save money, but just as often increase quality and safety. They provide greater electrical safety, drop resistance, and grip safety versus most thin cast or sheet metals while also providing lower manufacturing costs, and lower development costs.

Second, the number of power tools owned may increase the chance that one of them is going to fail, but that is incidental and of little importance. Anything complex may fail at any time for any of variety of reasons, almost none of which have to do with quality of manufacture or design.

Third, motors are designed to last a specific number of hours in actual use to provide a minimum use time, not a maximum. If every tool is designed to last

500 hours, Joe or Jane Average is going to pay for that 500 hour lifetime, and never use the tool more than 10 hours. If the tool Joe or Jane buys is designed to be last for 75 hours, and they use it for 100, they've gotten more than they paid for, not less.

We have more types of power tools than ever before, available from more manufacturers than ever before. The buyer has the responsibility to learn something about the tools and materials used to make each brand before making the purchase. People who don't do so don't get tools that last (and serve) as well as those who do. Too, those who make decisions based totally on price almost never get good quality tools. Price, though, is always a part of the decision, and should be, because buying more tool than you need may be as wasteful as buying the cheapest tool on the market.

Finally, over-generalizations about a field as large as the power tool field are good only for relieving the feelings of someone who has made a poor tool buying decision and blames it on someone else.

Charlie Self "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." H. L. Mencken

[Australopithecus scobis]

The referred-to poster's argument was correct. The larger the number of items, the larger the chance that one will break in a given time. His probability calculations are, strictly speaking, incorrect, but the gist of his message is correct. Now, if the collection of items is not homogeneous, e.g., some "good" mixed with some "bad," then the calcs don't apply so well. Have to compare apples to apples.

LL's argument looks at the situation from a completely different point of view from TB's. Both approaches are valid when the appropriate parameters are correctly specified.

[In the bushing/bearing argument, does "bearing" mean "ball bearing?" I thought bushings were just another kind of bearing (e.g., pillow blocks). Seems a mech engineer could inform us about the appropriate usage of the various kinds of bearings out there.]

[Leon]

Because you are expecting way more that what you paid for.

[BUB 209]

Now, somebody take a survey. Find out how many people believe that ANY Sears Craftsman tools can be returned, no questions asked, for a free replacement, at any time. I bet more than 500 out of 1000 would say yes.

[C & S]

But the OP postulates that motors have a calculated lifetime. That suggests that the 1 tool instead of 5 is going to die in 1/5 the time because it gets

5 times the use. Your total shop down-time would not be diminished at all having fewer motors. Or the other way around: more motors does not mean more failures because the tools are getting less user per tool.

This, of course assumes equal quality as well as equal shop throughput.

One could argue that the tools would fail less frequently because as special-purpose tools, they would besubject to lower or more appropriate stress (e.g. OSS rather than a DP with a sanding drum). Since tool quality (service life) is not linear with price, the whole notion of "motor math" is hogwash.

Although I agree with the OP's premise that tool quality has gone down hill, I suspect that it is partly the effect of our ability to engineer to closer tolerances of quality. We now have the means to engineer just enough plasic to handle 18.632 lbs/square inch of impact resistance rather than beef it up just in case.

One other factor comes into play: We tend to say "they don't build'm like they used to". Dawin owned tools too. All the shit quality stuff from 60 years ago has long since been tossed in the dump. Almost all the old tools we see today are the good ones that lasted. It's a bit of an unfair comparison.

-Steve

[Silvan]

ANY implying what? That this also includes machines, mowers, etc.?

They do honor the hand tool guarantee. Or at least they did the last time I broke something.

[Mark Jerde]

I was in a Sears when a guy brought in a dead hand drill he thought Sears should replace for free. It was old enough to have a metal body.

Me too. I know they'd even replace the screwdrivers I used to chip paint off a concrete wall but my conscience won't let me take them in. ;-)

-- Mark

[BUB 209]

Yes, I'm saying that's what most people believe, or at least it's factored in subconsiously when people think about Sears warranty policies. Sears does have generally good return and service policies. For example, they were ready to come out and replace the motor in my 6 mo. old tablesaw until I realized I hadn't pushed the reset button hard enough. But no, they aren't going to replace my Crafts- man Chinese-made rolling toolbox with the broken handle even if it's not a year old. What I'm saying is, people hear, "y'know, if that's a Craftsman wrench, they'll replace it for free," and think that applies to all Craftsman tools.

[David G. Sizemore]

I had the fortune to be working at Sears when an older gentleman with a dump-bed pickup and the back full of tools dump the entire load in the parking lot. Yes, he thought the power tools were lifetime warrantied. No, they never have been. If you ever got to replace one after the 1 year period, you had a nice employee just "make it happen" for you.

About your conscience and the screwdrivers, Sears knows they will be replacing tools not used for their intended purpose. They figure if they get you into the store to replace the tool, you might buy something else.

Had a guy come in with a broken 1/2" breaker bar snapped just below the head. Out of curiosity, I asked him what happened. He mentioned something about 3 guys and a 6 foot cheater pipe. I replaced it with a smile.

[Silvan]

That one year Dad got about 750 million cubic buttloads of logs dumped on our garden, the guy at Sears did finally request that we put tape on the maul before returning it the next time. We were going through three a day at the high point of that.

Wow, I musta been stronger than I am now. I don't remember how many cords that wound up being, but it lasted three or four winters. I had to do 2/3 of the splitting, and never could convince ol' Dad of the efficacy of a handy dandy hydraulic log splitter.

Thanks to Sears, we kept whoever makes those things in business single-handedly that year. :)

Then many years later, I used the same dull, rusty, mangled maul to rip up a bunch of carpet tacks. Worked great. No problem getting a new one either. :)

(I'm glad Dad got a pellet stove or I'd probably *still* be guilt tripped somehow into helping him split all that. :)

[Brett A. Thomas]

I think this is a great point that's useful to remember about a lot of things. There aren't any thirty-year-old lemon cars on the road. If it's thirty years old and still running, it's a _honey_, because all the ones that weren't are in the junkyard. I used to own a Honda Sabre motorcycle, and they had an engine design flaw which would cause the V45/V65 engine to not deliver enough oil to the top of the engine. Some number of these engines also were made with cams that were made out of an inferior quality of metal, and these two problems resulted in some engines developing terrible pits in the cams, leading to failure. But, that's not a problem, anymore. If you find a V45 or V65 engined Honda, and it still runs, by definition it doesn't have that problem, since they fixed that problem in '86. All of them that did have the trouble are dead (or were preemtively fixed).

This is probably true of a lot of other things, too. I'm sure there were a lot of really awful symponies written a couple of hundred years ago, but the only ones you hear today are the really really good ones. Makes you wonder if the popularity of Shaker furniture doesn't have something to do with its excellent construction...

-BAT