First some words about me and then the question.
My first employment was in the automotive machine shop that my father
managed. Later on, I ran the place.
A boyhood interest in radio brought me a ham radio license and when I
was 25 I went to work for Hughes Aircraft (later GM-Hughes) as an
electronics technician. In the next 30 years at Hughes I was at
various times: assembly line supervisor, senior research assistant,
member of the technical (engineer), engineering group head, retired,
contract consultant. When Raytheon bought Hughes, my contact was
terminated and I was asked to hire on with Raytheon, which I did for a
couple of years before I could no longer stand working for them. This
brings me to today when I have time to pursue a long-time interest in
woodworking. A couple of "woodshop" classes and the construction of
about half of my house is pretty much my experience so far.
I have always been a "hands on" guy and a voracious reader; in fact,
I'm primarily self-taught in my fields of interest, pretty much
learning by making mistakes [g]. Some course work in photography
proved to me that I was a damn good darkroom technician, but an artist
I am not. I'm sure the same applies to woodworking. So, I take great
delight in reading this group as well as FWW, et cetera.
By now, you're saying this belongs in the "How did you get into
woodworking thread" so let me veer to the question:
Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
My loving wife is encourging me to buy whatever I want for my shop so
I am in the market (I think) for some new tools. (This is why I will
continue to wear my wedding ring in the shop, but I digress) I have
been reading this group and all of the other references I can find for
reviews and opinions and frankly I appalled at what I'm finding.
In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
equipment and components. *Never* would I, or my employers, put up
with buying stuff that was in the sorry state that seems to be the
norm for woodworking equipment. Neither would our customers put up
with us supplying products of similar quality.
As a radio amateur I put together a number of Heathkit radios. These
were of course, "kits"; it even said so in the company name. I
suggest in the interest in truth-in-labeling that woodworking
equipment suppliers should be required to add "kit" to their names.
For example, the "Stanley Plane Kit" company.
The instructions would say, "Unpack your plane kit and disassemble the
pieces. Finish the manufacturing process by, flattening the sole,
filing the throat, adjusting the frog, grinding and honing the
chipbreaker, flattening the back of the iron and refining the edge.
Reassemble the pieces and adjust for a proper cut."
The instructions for Marples chisel kits would include instructs on
retempering, regrinding and honing the blade (Other chisel kit
manufactures could leave out the retempering part.)
If I believe the reviews, even a $2000 Powermatic PM66 table saw is a
kit. The instructions would say something like, "Throw away the
crappy table extension that was broken in shipment and build a new one
out of hard Maple banded in Rosewood." Additional instructs would
tell how to make shims to get the iron extension wings flush with the
tabletop and file the miter gauge so it doesn't scratch the table.
And, "Oh, by the way, we sold you a "saw" but if you want to actually
cut something, you'll have to buy a "saw blade" separately and that
motor cover you see in all of the pictures is extra too."
The Grizzly table saw kit would include instructions for contacting
the trucking company that dropped it off the truck, to make a claim.
The General International table saw kit would include instructions for
completing the manufacturing process by drilling the holes required to
attach the "Made In Canada" fence to the "Made in the Far East" saw.
There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
of machinery.
I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
What's up with this?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:03:37 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>|Wes Stewart wrote:
>|> First some words about me and then the question.
>|> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
>|> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
>|> equipment and components. >
>|> What's up with this?
>|
>|You worked at Rayetheon (sic) too long.
>
>
>I agree, I hated that company.
>
>
>|The machinery you specified, approve, and
>|purchased came from much higher budgets than the tools we use. We can't go
>|back the the Pentagon and get more money because we found a different way of
>|doing something. If we worked our budgets like the typical aerospace
>|contractor, our tools would be much better and we'd be subsidized. The
>|manufacturers make what we can afford to buy, not what really can be made.
>
>I believe that you miss my point. Let's use another example. If you
>bought the cheapest Hyundai or Kia automobile you would not begin to
>accept the defects that you would find in a table saw made in the same
>neck of the woods.
>
>The car can be had for $12K and you can easily spend $2K+ for a Jet,
>General International or other Asian built TS. I submit that there
>are over six times the material, labor, transportation, advertising
>costs and markup, not to mention complexity in an automobile compared
>to a table saw. And, if what I read is any indication, table saws
>come with a 100% defect rate, few of which are corrected by the seller
>but are the responsibility of the buyer. If Kias were 100% defective
>and the dealer said tough shit buddy, you fix it, how long with they
>be selling cars?
>
>|Safety is a concern in the shop, but we don't have the same life ensuring
>|redundancy in the controls like a sspace casule, nor do we need them. Table
>|saw castings don't get magnafluxed before assembly. Sure, some things
>|could be better, that is why we complain to the manufacturers at times, but
>|there is a practical limi to the tolerances we can afford.
>
>Text based communicating where nuance, facial expression and body
>language are missing is fraught with the possibility of
>misinterpretation and besides being a "hands-on" guy, I'm a
>"tongue-in-cheek" guy. So nothing I've said or am about to say is
>personal or directed to anyone in particular.
>
>I really do appreciate your comments. As a fairly long-time reader but
>only recent poster to this forum I hope that I'm not stepping on any
>toes because I get a great deal out of reading the group and I have a
>lot more questions.
>
>But that said, in just the few comments received already, I think I've
>gotten the answer to my question, "Why do woodworkers put up with such
>crappy tooling and machinery?"
>
>And the answer is.... Because they don't expect any better and the
>manufacturers know it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Wes
Wes, You're right and your post rather ammusing, but what's the point?
If we could all afford Bridgeport milling machines, surface grinders
and fly cutters our furniture projects would all be super accurate and
cold as the space shuttle. :)
Wes, to a point you are correct. I too worked as an automotive machinist
and mechanic. My interest and love of woodworking began with my
grandfather, a master furniture builder. Continued by my father, who taught
me at a very young age, 40 years ago or so, just how important a sharp tool
is. I do not make my living as a woodworker however, I do take it as a
serious hobby.
I have most of the tools available to woodworkers, Delta, Porter-Cable, Jet,
Ect. I also have Miller and Lincoln welders (my other hobby), and there is
no comparison in the quality. As we all know, the mass quantity of tools
available in a rational price range are made in Taiwan/China. The USA gave
up making them long ago.
The main difference between woodworking and metal working/machining is
precision. The sort or precision required for machine work simply is not
required for woodworking. Some talented woodworkers use no power tools at
all and manage to create fabulous pieces. I have yet to see a neander metal
worker. (Except maybe a blacksmith.)
The quality of your work in wood is a reflection of your skill and talent,
not your wallet. Do you need to buy the absolute carp they pedal at HF? No.
Will you have to buy a euro type saw to make furniture? No.
What you will need is quality hand tools and the ability to make and keep
them sharp, and above all, the desire and talent to make quality pieces out
of wood.
My two cents.
Dave
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First some words about me and then the question.
>
> My first employment was in the automotive machine shop that my father
> managed. Later on, I ran the place.
>
> A boyhood interest in radio brought me a ham radio license and when I
> was 25 I went to work for Hughes Aircraft (later GM-Hughes) as an
> electronics technician. In the next 30 years at Hughes I was at
> various times: assembly line supervisor, senior research assistant,
> member of the technical (engineer), engineering group head, retired,
> contract consultant. When Raytheon bought Hughes, my contact was
> terminated and I was asked to hire on with Raytheon, which I did for a
> couple of years before I could no longer stand working for them. This
> brings me to today when I have time to pursue a long-time interest in
> woodworking. A couple of "woodshop" classes and the construction of
> about half of my house is pretty much my experience so far.
>
> I have always been a "hands on" guy and a voracious reader; in fact,
> I'm primarily self-taught in my fields of interest, pretty much
> learning by making mistakes [g]. Some course work in photography
> proved to me that I was a damn good darkroom technician, but an artist
> I am not. I'm sure the same applies to woodworking. So, I take great
> delight in reading this group as well as FWW, et cetera.
>
> By now, you're saying this belongs in the "How did you get into
> woodworking thread" so let me veer to the question:
>
> Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
>
> My loving wife is encourging me to buy whatever I want for my shop so
> I am in the market (I think) for some new tools. (This is why I will
> continue to wear my wedding ring in the shop, but I digress) I have
> been reading this group and all of the other references I can find for
> reviews and opinions and frankly I appalled at what I'm finding.
>
> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
> equipment and components. *Never* would I, or my employers, put up
> with buying stuff that was in the sorry state that seems to be the
> norm for woodworking equipment. Neither would our customers put up
> with us supplying products of similar quality.
>
> As a radio amateur I put together a number of Heathkit radios. These
> were of course, "kits"; it even said so in the company name. I
> suggest in the interest in truth-in-labeling that woodworking
> equipment suppliers should be required to add "kit" to their names.
> For example, the "Stanley Plane Kit" company.
>
> The instructions would say, "Unpack your plane kit and disassemble the
> pieces. Finish the manufacturing process by, flattening the sole,
> filing the throat, adjusting the frog, grinding and honing the
> chipbreaker, flattening the back of the iron and refining the edge.
> Reassemble the pieces and adjust for a proper cut."
>
> The instructions for Marples chisel kits would include instructs on
> retempering, regrinding and honing the blade (Other chisel kit
> manufactures could leave out the retempering part.)
>
> If I believe the reviews, even a $2000 Powermatic PM66 table saw is a
> kit. The instructions would say something like, "Throw away the
> crappy table extension that was broken in shipment and build a new one
> out of hard Maple banded in Rosewood." Additional instructs would
> tell how to make shims to get the iron extension wings flush with the
> tabletop and file the miter gauge so it doesn't scratch the table.
> And, "Oh, by the way, we sold you a "saw" but if you want to actually
> cut something, you'll have to buy a "saw blade" separately and that
> motor cover you see in all of the pictures is extra too."
>
> The Grizzly table saw kit would include instructions for contacting
> the trucking company that dropped it off the truck, to make a claim.
>
> The General International table saw kit would include instructions for
> completing the manufacturing process by drilling the holes required to
> attach the "Made In Canada" fence to the "Made in the Far East" saw.
>
> There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
> flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
> miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
> blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
> table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
> of machinery.
>
> I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
> case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
> include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
> out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
> job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
>
> What's up with this?
>
Sun, Jan 25, 2004, 11:49am (EST-2) n7ws@_arrl.net (Wes=A0Stewart)
pontificates:
First some words <snip>
Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
I beg your pardon? My stuff may not be expensive, but it does just
what I want it to. As does the items I make, tool stands, jigs, etc.
Inexpensive it may be, if it does what it's supposed to then crappy it
is not. I don't see anyone offering to buy me any fancy, new, equipment
- or are you offering?
My loving wife is encourging me to buy whatever I want <snip>
Oh, goody for you.
I have been reading this group and all of the other references I can
find for reviews and opinions and frankly I appalled at what I'm
finding.
You have apparently led a very sheltered life, and don't get out
much.
In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
equipment and components.
And, you never bought for a bit of it with your own dime.
*Never* would I, or my employers, put up with buying stuff that was in
the sorry state that seems to be the norm for woodworking equipment.
Neither would our customers put up with us supplying products of similar
quality.
The quality of the tool, is not necessarily indicitive of the end
result. You should have learned that by now.
As a radio amateur I put together a number of Heathkit radios. These
were of course, "kits"; it even said so in the company name.
Yes, and?
I suggest in the interest in truth-in-labeling that woodworking
equipment suppliers should be required to add "kit" to their names.
<snip>
Apparently, then, none of the things made by any of the companies
you worked for were ever less than perfect.; nothing ever had to be
repaired, or returned. You must have been so happy.
What's up with this?
Well, since you seem to be so bright, you tell us.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear". What do you
"know"?.
- Granny Weatherwax
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 25 Jan 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:24:38 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:22:26 -0800, "RWM" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>|
>|From your description it sounds like you have some disposable income,
>
> Oh, if it were only so. Disposable never [g] discretionary maybe, but
> my last name is Stewart so I try not to throw money away.
>
> Furthermore, this all may be a passing fancy. I have some specific
> projects (primarily bathroom and kitchen cabinetry and a few small
> furniture projects) in mind where to get what I want, my only
> alternative seems to be build them myself or hire someone to do it.
>
> When I built onto my house the crappist work was performed by
> "craftsmen" and "journeymen" who I hired and the acceptable work was
> done by yours truly so I'm reluctant to hire it done. Plus, as I said
> I'm a hands-on guy and take pleasure in doing this stuff.
>
> So, I can rationalize the cost of equipment, up to a point, as a part
> of the cost of the end product.
>
I justify the cost of my (mainly decent) tools by thinking of how much
money I have saved by not paying somebody else to do the work for me.
ie. Say I've built myself a nice cabinet I think to myself "How much
would that have cost me to buy? 500 quid? I spent 100 on timber so I
can get a Lie Nielsen plane and I've still made money!"
If you're not sure whether woodworking will be anything more than a
passing fancy then I'd suggest just buying good hand tools. It means
more time and labour using hand tools but if you decide you don't want
to take it up `seriously' you haven't sunk too much money into your
tools and the tools you've bought will always come in handy or you can
always sell them.
If you take it up a bit more seriously then I'd recommend buying a
couple of *good* power tools. They are available but always consider
that you're not working to the same tolerances with timber that you
would be in an engineering shop so the tools are inevitably a bit more
primitive than what you are probably used to in your professional
capacity. But there are good European machine tools and the Japs make
pretty good power saws, drills etc.
I agree with your general point that a hell of a lot of tools are cr*p
and a complete waste of money but then most of them are made for the
hobbyist market and they compete on price not quality - a hobbyist
probably wouldn't recognise a quality tool if it hit them over the
head.
--
Frank
http://www.freebsd.org/
I hear ya...
Grew up on the farm. Owned a retail TV business in college. Got my
ham license when I was a freshman -- chief engineer at a 1 KW AM radio
station before I got married, etc., then 30 years at Hewlett-Packard
before I got fed up with small-fry building their personal empires
inside the company instead of doing their job.
We built our own home (1/5 acre of floor space) while the critics stood
in line taking turns taking shots. Then last year went out on the internet
to buy a dust collector not unlike yours. That's when I got my eyes
opened about the HAZARDS associated with the dust collectors most people
use in complete ignorance of those risks.
I don't wear my wedding ring -- ever, and my wife approves. She'd prefer
a husband with 10 fingers instead of nine. The ring doesn't mean a thing
for men who carouse anyway and women who prey on them.
Get a dust collector that works. Educate yourself at
http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm , and if
you're interested in getting a system that's done right, the cyclone
kit and matching welded-all-steel blower housing are at
http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/ClarkesKits.cfm .
Add a motor, controller for the motor, impeller, filters, and some
ducting, and you have a first-rate dust collection system that WORKS,
and without spending a big pile of cash.
As for other tools, table saws don't come with dado blades, importers
don't ship assembled tools because they don't fit nicely in freight
containers and they don't want to do it, even if the cost of the tool
is 20% of the selling price... I bought a Powermatic drill press, and
it turned out to be a piece of junk. The chuck wobbled and when you
pulled it off of the tapered quill shaft, it was visibly obvious that
the reamer had been run into it on the slant. And Powermatic had such
nice machines when I used them at HP.
My wife says I'm spoiled. I expect quality from everybody. But if I
make cyclone kits and blower housings, I demand quality from myself, so
why can't I demand it of others? Some outfits make a nice living by
keeping customers and consumers as poorly informed and as ignorant as
possible. It's dangerous to have informed customers. They can see through
the fakery.
CE
Wes Stewart wrote:
>
> First some words about me and then the question.
>
> My first employment was in the automotive machine shop that my father
> managed. Later on, I ran the place.
>
> A boyhood interest in radio brought me a ham radio license and when I
> was 25 I went to work for Hughes Aircraft (later GM-Hughes) as an
> electronics technician. In the next 30 years at Hughes I was at
> various times: assembly line supervisor, senior research assistant,
> member of the technical (engineer), engineering group head, retired,
> contract consultant. When Raytheon bought Hughes, my contact was
> terminated and I was asked to hire on with Raytheon, which I did for a
> couple of years before I could no longer stand working for them. This
> brings me to today when I have time to pursue a long-time interest in
> woodworking. A couple of "woodshop" classes and the construction of
> about half of my house is pretty much my experience so far.
>
> I have always been a "hands on" guy and a voracious reader; in fact,
> I'm primarily self-taught in my fields of interest, pretty much
> learning by making mistakes [g]. Some course work in photography
> proved to me that I was a damn good darkroom technician, but an artist
> I am not. I'm sure the same applies to woodworking. So, I take great
> delight in reading this group as well as FWW, et cetera.
>
> By now, you're saying this belongs in the "How did you get into
> woodworking thread" so let me veer to the question:
>
> Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
>
> My loving wife is encourging me to buy whatever I want for my shop so
> I am in the market (I think) for some new tools. (This is why I will
> continue to wear my wedding ring in the shop, but I digress) I have
> been reading this group and all of the other references I can find for
> reviews and opinions and frankly I appalled at what I'm finding.
>
> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
> equipment and components. *Never* would I, or my employers, put up
> with buying stuff that was in the sorry state that seems to be the
> norm for woodworking equipment. Neither would our customers put up
> with us supplying products of similar quality.
>
> As a radio amateur I put together a number of Heathkit radios. These
> were of course, "kits"; it even said so in the company name. I
> suggest in the interest in truth-in-labeling that woodworking
> equipment suppliers should be required to add "kit" to their names.
> For example, the "Stanley Plane Kit" company.
>
> The instructions would say, "Unpack your plane kit and disassemble the
> pieces. Finish the manufacturing process by, flattening the sole,
> filing the throat, adjusting the frog, grinding and honing the
> chipbreaker, flattening the back of the iron and refining the edge.
> Reassemble the pieces and adjust for a proper cut."
>
> The instructions for Marples chisel kits would include instructs on
> retempering, regrinding and honing the blade (Other chisel kit
> manufactures could leave out the retempering part.)
>
> If I believe the reviews, even a $2000 Powermatic PM66 table saw is a
> kit. The instructions would say something like, "Throw away the
> crappy table extension that was broken in shipment and build a new one
> out of hard Maple banded in Rosewood." Additional instructs would
> tell how to make shims to get the iron extension wings flush with the
> tabletop and file the miter gauge so it doesn't scratch the table.
> And, "Oh, by the way, we sold you a "saw" but if you want to actually
> cut something, you'll have to buy a "saw blade" separately and that
> motor cover you see in all of the pictures is extra too."
>
> The Grizzly table saw kit would include instructions for contacting
> the trucking company that dropped it off the truck, to make a claim.
>
> The General International table saw kit would include instructions for
> completing the manufacturing process by drilling the holes required to
> attach the "Made In Canada" fence to the "Made in the Far East" saw.
>
> There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
> flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
> miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
> blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
> table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
> of machinery.
>
> I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
> case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
> include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
> out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
> job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
>
> What's up with this?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:17:35 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:
|
|>> I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
|>> case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
|>> include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
|>> out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
|>> job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
|
|
|Next time, try cutting two slots in one of the screws with a Dremel
|tool. The slots will allow the screw to act as a tap well enough to
|finish the job and get on with things.
Sure, I could have done that.
Also, a lot of my remarks were slightly rhetorical. In the same vein,
if I need Dremel tool to do the job, why don't they supply one? Just
kidding [G].
Wes
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:03:37 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
>to a table saw. And, if what I read is any indication, table saws
>come with a 100% defect rate, few of which are corrected by the seller
>but are the responsibility of the buyer. If Kias were 100% defective
>and the dealer said tough shit buddy, you fix it, how long with they
>be selling cars?
If many people looked at any new car the way they looked at a new
power tool, cars would also have a 100% defect rate. Most of these
defects WOULD get a "tough shit, buddy" from the dealer. It's a
perception thing. Most people jump in their new car, and drive away
saying "wheeee, I'm in my new car!"
We woodworkers are anal, know it all, pains in the asses, who think a
.003 dip in the table, or .001 error in the parallelism to the miter
slots makes a huge difference. <G>
How many people roll their new cars onto a race scale and check to see
if each wheel is weighted the way they should be, or chassis dyno it
to see if the advertised horses are there? How would a dealer react
if you brought your Subaru WRX back because it only measured 218 HP
(or less) at the wheels, and the ad says 227? How may dealers or
buyers would actually know where the advertised HP was measured? <G>
On a more realistic bent, how many cars leave the dealer's lot
slightly misaligned, which won't show until the tires get 10-15k on
them? At that point, the dealer will blame it on you for hitting
potholes. Who _checks_ the alignment before accepting the car? <G>
I'll bet you and I can find defects, especially cosmetic and fit and
finish, on every new car on a lot, you pick the lot.
Barry
sorry about that...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:49:45 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
snip--
> the question:
>
>Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
>
snip--
>
>The instructions for Marples chisel kits would include instructs on
>retempering, regrinding and honing the blade
Now that they are owned by rubbermaid, I guess we should be looking
for their new rubber bladed line....
>
>If I believe the reviews, even a $2000 Powermatic PM66 table saw is a
>kit.
snip---
> "Oh, by the way, we sold you a "saw" but if you want to actually
>cut something, you'll have to buy a "saw blade" separately
So if you buy a cnc mill you expect it to come with all of the
tooling?
>
>The Grizzly table saw kit would include instructions for contacting
>the trucking company that dropped it off the truck, to make a claim.
the bill of sale oughtta have the damage claim slip attached with the
relevant parts pre- filled out....
>
>The General International table saw kit would include instructions for
(insert) instructions for reading the instructions....
>completing the manufacturing process by drilling the holes required to
>attach the "Made In Canada" fence to the "Made in the Far East" saw.
>
>There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
>flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
>miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
>blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
>table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
>of machinery.
yep.
>
>I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
>case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
>include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
>out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
>job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
>
>What's up with this?
woodworking is older than metalworking, so the technology is more
primitive.
Bridger
Wes Stewart wrote:
> But that said, in just the few comments received already, I think I've
> gotten the answer to my question, "Why do woodworkers put up with such
> crappy tooling and machinery?"
>
> And the answer is.... Because they don't expect any better and the
> manufacturers know it.
I've been programming computer since 1976. I probably have the world's
greatest text editor. Drop by and for only $129,578.86 you can have a copy.
Or you can get a freeware editor 98.5% as good for ZERO $. You may have to
shim the freeware editor's cast extension tables.... <g>
-- Mark
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> But that said, in just the few comments received already, I think I've
> gotten the answer to my question, "Why do woodworkers put up with such
> crappy tooling and machinery?"
>
> And the answer is.... Because they don't expect any better and the
> manufacturers know it.
>
>
I totally disagree. I think that the answer is because most woodworkers are
only willing to pay for crappy products. With your logic, a company could
come into the market and sell a $800 cabinet saw with zero defects, all
necessary accessories, and still make a decent profit. The intellectual
property threshold for entry into this market is low, the manufacturing
capability is sufficient, and the distribution channel is open, so why isn't
it happening? It isn't happening because the margin is not there.
Your argument also implies that there must be some type of collusion between
the manufactures. If not ,one of the companies could have a huge increase
in market share simply by reducing the margins and drop the price, or
increase quality at the same retail price.
As I stated in an earlier post, there are lots of high quality machines for
woodworkers to purchase but for the most part they choose not to. They are
willing to trade high quality out of the box tools for lower priced tools
that have some aggravations.
Bob McBreen
Simple. Many of us demand low prices and that has become the main criteria
for what we buy. Manufacturers can't give us precision machinery at low
prices, so, we have to finish the machining/assembly process, ourselves.
This, of course, is also the reason much of what we buy is manufactured
somewhere else.
--
Best Regards, Phil
Living In The Woods Of Beautiful Bonney Lake Washington
Visit My Web Site www.madrona.bizhosting.com
Wes Stewart complains:
<snip>
> There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
> flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
> miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
> blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
> table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
> of machinery.
>
> I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
> case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
> include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
> out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
> job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
>
> What's up with this?
Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
> equipment and components. *Never* would I, or my employers, put up
> with buying stuff that was in the sorry state that seems to be the
> norm for woodworking equipment.
> I
> suggest in the interest in truth-in-labeling that woodworking
> equipment suppliers should be required to add "kit" to their names.
Eh? I don't beleive you paid very much attention to the millions
of dollars of machinery & test equipment you were specifying.
We not so long ago installed a several million dollar leadless
component assembly line. Took a team of guys a week with shims
& laser levels to get it to run...which is totally normal for
that kind of equipment: it needs to be fine tuned and adjusted
before it's ready for use. By the same token, every bit of
electronic test equipment we get goes thru the calibration lab
before it's put to use - even the $60k stuff from Aligent needs
to be checked against a standard, and possibly adjusted, before
it's used the first time. This is totally normal for the
electronics industry. And I don't see that woodworking tools
are any different - they need adjusting & fine tuning (in
general in inverse proportion to price) to be ready for use.
John
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:21:50 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
|On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:49:45 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
|wrote:
|
|>A boyhood interest in radio brought me a ham radio license and when I
|>was 25 I went to work for Hughes Aircraft (later GM-Hughes) as an
|>electronics technician.
|
|Did you happen to know Bob Zimmerman, WB9BPX? He worked for Hughes for
|quite a while. I knew him for several years when I was N9AKE. I'm now
|K4QG. Licensed since '63; did my fair share of Heathkits...
That name is familiar although I can't put a face to it, and I
definately don't recall him by amateur call sign.
I was K7CVT in 1958 and had a Heath DX100 :-).
Nice to meet you,
Regards,
Wes
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
|Wes Stewart wrote:
|> First some words about me and then the question.
|> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
|> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
|> equipment and components. >
|> What's up with this?
|
|You worked at Rayetheon (sic) too long.
I agree, I hated that company.
|The machinery you specified, approve, and
|purchased came from much higher budgets than the tools we use. We can't go
|back the the Pentagon and get more money because we found a different way of
|doing something. If we worked our budgets like the typical aerospace
|contractor, our tools would be much better and we'd be subsidized. The
|manufacturers make what we can afford to buy, not what really can be made.
I believe that you miss my point. Let's use another example. If you
bought the cheapest Hyundai or Kia automobile you would not begin to
accept the defects that you would find in a table saw made in the same
neck of the woods.
The car can be had for $12K and you can easily spend $2K+ for a Jet,
General International or other Asian built TS. I submit that there
are over six times the material, labor, transportation, advertising
costs and markup, not to mention complexity in an automobile compared
to a table saw. And, if what I read is any indication, table saws
come with a 100% defect rate, few of which are corrected by the seller
but are the responsibility of the buyer. If Kias were 100% defective
and the dealer said tough shit buddy, you fix it, how long with they
be selling cars?
|Safety is a concern in the shop, but we don't have the same life ensuring
|redundancy in the controls like a sspace casule, nor do we need them. Table
|saw castings don't get magnafluxed before assembly. Sure, some things
|could be better, that is why we complain to the manufacturers at times, but
|there is a practical limi to the tolerances we can afford.
Text based communicating where nuance, facial expression and body
language are missing is fraught with the possibility of
misinterpretation and besides being a "hands-on" guy, I'm a
"tongue-in-cheek" guy. So nothing I've said or am about to say is
personal or directed to anyone in particular.
I really do appreciate your comments. As a fairly long-time reader but
only recent poster to this forum I hope that I'm not stepping on any
toes because I get a great deal out of reading the group and I have a
lot more questions.
But that said, in just the few comments received already, I think I've
gotten the answer to my question, "Why do woodworkers put up with such
crappy tooling and machinery?"
And the answer is.... Because they don't expect any better and the
manufacturers know it.
Regards,
Wes
In article <[email protected]>,
Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote:
> ...
>But that said, in just the few comments received already, I think I've
>gotten the answer to my question, "Why do woodworkers put up with such
>crappy tooling and machinery?"
>
>And the answer is.... Because they don't expect any better and the
>manufacturers know it.
It just ain't that simple. There are many persuasions of woodworkers,
and each has a variety of reasons - not necessarily all consistent.
Some woodworkers are pros - for whom time=money. Some are amateurs for
whom time is of some value, but not all that important. Some have a
limited budget so that time is (almost) irrelevant (they might be quite
happy to put in on hour to save $1.) At the extreme are the ignorant
who don't know what they are doing - but want to save money.
Similarly, there are varying uses and amounts of use to which a tool
will be put. For a production tool, usability and life may be very
important. At the other end is the "one time use" tool - for which the
only important criterion is "will it last through that one use" (and,
implicitly, will it do the job that one time.)
Multiply the number of types of woodworkers by the number of
requirements gives a large number of price points. For many of these,
there is a desire for low price - and that's the mass market. People
who want the low price are usually willing to accept the lower quality
as a trade-off. Expecting low price and wanting high quality just
doesn't work.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:20:48 -0500 (EST), [email protected]
(T.) wrote:
|Sun, Jan 25, 2004, 11:49am (EST-2) n7ws@_arrl.net (Wes Stewart)
|pontificates:
|First some words <snip>
|Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
|
| I beg your pardon? My stuff may not be expensive, but it does just
|what I want it to. As does the items I make, tool stands, jigs, etc.
|Inexpensive it may be, if it does what it's supposed to then crappy it
|is not. I don't see anyone offering to buy me any fancy, new, equipment
|- or are you offering?
No.
|
|My loving wife is encourging me to buy whatever I want <snip>
|
| Oh, goody for you.
I believe so. Wives number 1 and 2 weren't so nice.
|
|I have been reading this group and all of the other references I can
|find for reviews and opinions and frankly I appalled at what I'm
|finding.
|
| You have apparently led a very sheltered life, and don't get out
|much.
See comments about wives 1, 2 and 3.
|
|In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
|used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
|equipment and components.
|
| And, you never bought for a bit of it with your own dime.
I didn't say that. But I did buy some of it with your dimes. Aren't
you glad that I demanded better quality that you're willing to accept.
Didn't look at it that way before did you? [G].
|
|*Never* would I, or my employers, put up with buying stuff that was in
|the sorry state that seems to be the norm for woodworking equipment.
|Neither would our customers put up with us supplying products of similar
|quality.
|
| The quality of the tool, is not necessarily indicitive of the end
|result. You should have learned that by now.
Oh, I have.
|
| Apparently, then, none of the things made by any of the companies
|you worked for were ever less than perfect.; nothing ever had to be
|repaired, or returned. You must have been so happy.
Of course we had "returns" and we received crap from our suppliers
too. In one instance, after visiting one of our suppliers, I
recommended the recall of hundreds of Tomahawk missiles. For reasons
beyond my control it didn't happen, but I believed I was looking out
for our servicemen and you taxpayers.
OTOH, we built over three-quarters of a million TOW missiles at a unit
cost of only $80,000. These were over 99% reliable, in fact this was
a "fly-to-buy" program where the Army randomly selected a quantity of
missiles from each month's production and fired them at Redstone
Arsenal, in Huntsville, Alabama. (I helped instrument that firing
range in the 70's) If they did not meet contract requirements, the
Army didn't buy them. If we exceeded contract requirement, we got a
bonus. At the height of production, we built over 1500 per month and
missiles that have been in storage for 10 years, without *zero*
maintenance, are routinely fired with nearly the same reliability.
Once again, since you helped pay for this, you should be happy too.
|
|What's up with this?
|
| Well, since you seem to be so bright, you tell us.
I thought I was asking the question.
Warmest regards,
Wes
Sun, Jan 25, 2004, 6:52pm (EST-2) n7ws@_arrl.net (Wes=A0Stewart) puts
out:
<snip> I didn't say that. But I did buy some of it with your dimes.
Aren't you glad that I demanded better quality that you're willing to
accept. Didn't look at it that way before did you? [G]. <snip>
Rather, I am reminded of when the Isralies needed a way to observe
remotely. They ended up going to a hobby shop, buying a remote control
airplane, and one of the wireless TV cameras, for a few hundred bucks.
And, it only took our defense contractors about $50,000 to some up with
the equivalent. So, no I don't think I'm glad.
Of course we had "returns"
Then I don't think you need to call someone else's product crap.
and we received crap from our suppliers too.
Goodness, I can't believe you'd put up with that.
In one instance, after visiting one of our suppliers, I recommended the
recall of hundreds of Tomahawk missiles. <snip>
And, I sorta wonder how many of my dimes that would have cost.
OTOH, we built over three-quarters of a million TOW missiles at a unit
cost of only $80,000.
Only!
These were over 99% reliable, in fact this was a "fly-to-buy" program
where the Army randomly selected a quantity of missiles from each
month's production and fired them <snip>
Wonder how many of my dimes that one cost. And, I didn't even get
invited to fire even one.
If we exceeded contract requirement, we got a bonus.
More of my dimes, just for doing your job.
At the height of production, we built over 1500 per month and missiles
that have been in storage for 10 years, without *zero* maintenance, are
routinely fired with nearly the same reliability.
I see he without should be with. At $80,000 a pop, I would think
they should have the same reliability not "nearly", and "nearly" is a
bit vague.
Once again, since you helped pay for this, you should be happy too.
<snip>
Yeah, sure, right. What's the price of hammers and toilet seats
lately?
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear". What do you
"know"?.
- Granny Weatherwax
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 26 Jan 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
Wes Stewart wrote:
> Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and
> machinery?
Actually, they generally don't. Most woodworkers buy the quality
they decide they need; and many are willing and able to trade off
purchase price against the investment of time and effort.
Woodworking tools are available from a number of quality ranges:
[1] Junk, [2] Consumer, [3] Contractor, [4] Professional, and [5]
Production. Every time a woodworker buys a tool, he/she makes a
determination of quality requirements and an assessment of how
much can be spent on that purchase.
Most of my shop is at [4]. I've replaced most of the [1], [2],
and [3] stuff that I started out with; and just added my first
[5] tool (a CNC router, bought to produce a specific set of
products.)
There is a fair variety of equipment available that'd satisfy
anyone's thirst for quality - but as with machine tools, the
quality goes up linearly as the price goes up exponentially.
I'm thinking pretty seriously about adding a tiny milling machine
and lathe (7x12) to my shop. I plan to spend about $1K for the
pair and don't have great expectations about precision - but then
I don't really need the kind of precision that the people in the
Hughes model shop take for granted.
A lot of woodworkers seem to find as much joy in their tools as
with what they create with the tools. Sharpening, tuning,
aligning, squaring, truing, calibrating, polishing,... all bring
their own satisfactions - at first because of the "I can do it!"
factor; and later because of the difference in results made by
liberally applying elbow-grease and TLC to the tools.
And after all, this is a /recreational/ woodworking forum
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:03:37 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>|Wes Stewart wrote:
>|> First some words about me and then the question.
>|> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
>|> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
>|> equipment and components. >
>|> What's up with this?
>|
>|You worked at Rayetheon (sic) too long.
>
>
>I agree, I hated that company.
>
>
>|The machinery you specified, approve, and
>|purchased came from much higher budgets than the tools we use. We can't go
>|back the the Pentagon and get more money because we found a different way of
>|doing something. If we worked our budgets like the typical aerospace
>|contractor, our tools would be much better and we'd be subsidized. The
>|manufacturers make what we can afford to buy, not what really can be made.
>
>I believe that you miss my point. Let's use another example. If you
>bought the cheapest Hyundai or Kia automobile you would not begin to
>accept the defects that you would find in a table saw made in the same
>neck of the woods.
>
>The car can be had for $12K and you can easily spend $2K+ for a Jet,
>General International or other Asian built TS. I submit that there
>are over six times the material, labor, transportation, advertising
>costs and markup, not to mention complexity in an automobile compared
>to a table saw. And, if what I read is any indication, table saws
>come with a 100% defect rate, few of which are corrected by the seller
>but are the responsibility of the buyer. If Kias were 100% defective
>and the dealer said tough shit buddy, you fix it, how long with they
>be selling cars?
>
>|Safety is a concern in the shop, but we don't have the same life ensuring
>|redundancy in the controls like a sspace casule, nor do we need them. Table
>|saw castings don't get magnafluxed before assembly. Sure, some things
>|could be better, that is why we complain to the manufacturers at times, but
>|there is a practical limi to the tolerances we can afford.
>
>Text based communicating where nuance, facial expression and body
>language are missing is fraught with the possibility of
>misinterpretation and besides being a "hands-on" guy, I'm a
>"tongue-in-cheek" guy. So nothing I've said or am about to say is
>personal or directed to anyone in particular.
>
>I really do appreciate your comments. As a fairly long-time reader but
>only recent poster to this forum I hope that I'm not stepping on any
>toes because I get a great deal out of reading the group and I have a
>lot more questions.
>
>But that said, in just the few comments received already, I think I've
>gotten the answer to my question, "Why do woodworkers put up with such
>crappy tooling and machinery?"
>
>And the answer is.... Because they don't expect any better and the
>manufacturers know it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Wes
BTW...Life is a carnival...Grab a handplane and have some fun!
>> I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
>> case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
>> include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
>> out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
>> job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
Next time, try cutting two slots in one of the screws with a Dremel
tool. The slots will allow the screw to act as a tap well enough to
finish the job and get on with things.
The slots won't affect the screw's ability to do it's real job once
you've chased the threads.
Barry
Wes Stewart wrote:
> First some words about me and then the question.
> In my former jobs, I have literally specified, approved, purchased and
> used several million dollars worth of machinery, electronics test
> equipment and components. >
> What's up with this?
You worked at Rayetheon too long. The machinery you specified, approve, and
purchased came from much higher budgets than the tools we use. We can't go
back the the Pentagon and get more money because we found a different way of
doing something. If we worked our budgets like the typical aerospace
contractor, our tools would be much better and we'd be subsidized. The
manufacturers make what we can afford to buy, not what really can be made.
Safety is a concern in the shop, but we don't have the same life ensuring
redundancy in the controls like a sspace casule, nor do we need them. Table
saw castings don't get magnafluxed before assembly. Sure, some things
could be better, that is why we complain to the manufacturers at times, but
there is a practical limi to the tolerances we can afford.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:22:26 -0800, "RWM" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip]
|
|From your description it sounds like you have some disposable income,
Oh, if it were only so. Disposable never [g] discretionary maybe, but
my last name is Stewart so I try not to throw money away.
Furthermore, this all may be a passing fancy. I have some specific
projects (primarily bathroom and kitchen cabinetry and a few small
furniture projects) in mind where to get what I want, my only
alternative seems to be build them myself or hire someone to do it.
When I built onto my house the crappist work was performed by
"craftsmen" and "journeymen" who I hired and the acceptable work was
done by yours truly so I'm reluctant to hire it done. Plus, as I said
I'm a hands-on guy and take pleasure in doing this stuff.
So, I can rationalize the cost of equipment, up to a point, as a part
of the cost of the end product.
|Good luck with your shop - Bob McBreen
Thanks, Bob, I appreciate your input.
Wes
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:47:00 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
>I was K7CVT in 1958 and had a Heath DX100 :-).
Check my website. My Novice xmter was a DX100, too, and I also had an
NC300 rcvr.
Thanks for the response.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:49:45 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
>A boyhood interest in radio brought me a ham radio license and when I
>was 25 I went to work for Hughes Aircraft (later GM-Hughes) as an
>electronics technician.
Did you happen to know Bob Zimmerman, WB9BPX? He worked for Hughes for
quite a while. I knew him for several years when I was N9AKE. I'm now
K4QG. Licensed since '63; did my fair share of Heathkits...
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <SNIP>
> There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
> flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
> miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
> blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
> table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
> of machinery.
>
> I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
> case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
> include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
> out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
> job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
>
> What's up with this?
>
I believe that the answer is really simple. The quality of woodworking
tools directly reflects what the consumers are willing to pay. You make the
case of a Stanley plane being poor out of the box. With planes there are
alternatives. Lee Valley and Lie Neilsen planes work great out of the
box...but cost more than Stanley planes. You also mentioned tablesaws, and
gave some examples, but you didn't mention the high-end saws that are highly
accurate. Some of these companies send a technician to setup the saw, check
specifications, and to train the operator on the use/features. The cost is
high, and I don't think that most woodworkers want to pay $20K for a sliding
tablesaw.
If the woodworking tool companies were extremely profitable then you might
have a valid complaint but for the most part they are not getting rich. It
would be great to think that they were making a $800 profit on a $1600 saw
and that some white knight could start a company that could live with a $100
profit on a saw and put all of the excess profit back into the tool. It
isn't going to happen.
From your description it sounds like you have some disposable income, and
are interested in precision, so you might want to look at some of the
high-end European companies. There are plenty of quality alternatives and
it would be interesting to see the list of equipment that you purchase.
Good luck with your shop - Bob McBreen
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:49:45 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
snip--
> the question:
>
>Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
>
snip--
>
>The instructions would say, "Unpack your plane kit and disassemble the
>pieces. Finish the manufacturing process by, flattening the sole,
>filing the throat, adjusting the frog, grinding and honing the
>chipbreaker, flattening the back of the iron and refining the edge.
>Reassemble the pieces and adjust for a proper cut."
>
>The instructions for Marples chisel kits would include instructs on
>retempering, regrinding and honing the blade
ow that they are owned by rubbermaid, I guess we should be looking for
their new rubber bladed line....
>
>If I believe the reviews, even a $2000 Powermatic PM66 table saw is a
>kit. The instructions would say something like, "Throw away the
>crappy table extension that was broken in shipment and build a new one
>out of hard Maple banded in Rosewood." Additional instructs would
>tell how to make shims to get the iron extension wings flush with the
>tabletop and file the miter gauge so it doesn't scratch the table.
>And, "Oh, by the way, we sold you a "saw" but if you want to actually
>cut something, you'll have to buy a "saw blade" separately and that
>motor cover you see in all of the pictures is extra too."
>
>The Grizzly table saw kit would include instructions for contacting
>the trucking company that dropped it off the truck, to make a claim.
>
>The General International table saw kit would include instructions for
>completing the manufacturing process by drilling the holes required to
>attach the "Made In Canada" fence to the "Made in the Far East" saw.
>
>There have been millions of words written about arbor run out, table
>flatness, aligning the blade to the miter gauge slots, getting the
>miter gauge tight in the slots, getting the fence parallel to the
>blade, poorly designed blade guards, lousy dust collection, making new
>table inserts and on and on. All of this over a rather simple piece
>of machinery.
>
>I very recently assembled a Jet 1100 dust collector kit. In this
>case, I knew it was a kit that required assembly, but why didn't they
>include the tap that I needed to chase the threads to get the paint
>out of them so the screws would go in without galling? A half hour
>job turned into two hours spent chasing down a tap.
>
>What's up with this?
Wes Stewart wrote:
> Why do woodworkers put up with such crappy tooling and machinery?
I saw a poster the summer of 1976 that sums up my philosophy. The poster
photo was a beautiful multi-story, ivy-covered mansion with a chauffer
driven streatch limo in the circular drive. The lawn, bushes and flowers
were obviously under the care of one or more full time individuals. It
dripped with wealth and stability. The poster's caption:
"I Have Simple Tastes. I Want The Best."
The woodworking shop in my dreams has the equivalent of Theodore Horstmann
for Nero Wolfe's orchid greenhouse. Theodore sets up all the equipment, and
I make all the table saw cuts. ;-)
The reality is I don't have a full-time chef (Fritz), assistant (Archie
Goodwin) and orchid nurse (T. Horstmann) working for me. So my one car
garage shop has been built by me, one tool at a time, with extremely careful
calculations of cost/effectiveness. I have had to deal with the setup
problems of equipment.
If I hit the lottery (<g>) several people in the greater Washington DC area
will receive an email to the effect, "How much per hour would you charge me
to set up a woodworking shop?" I just want to make stuff; I don't like
fussing with the setups.
<g>
-- Mark
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:34:26 -0800, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip]
|
|What you will need is quality hand tools and the ability to make and keep
|them sharp, and above all, the desire and talent to make quality pieces out
|of wood.
|
|My two cents.
Worth a lot more than two cents. Thanks
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:52:38 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws@_arrl.net>
wrote:
| At the height of production, we built over 1500 per month and
|missiles that have been in storage for 10 years, without *zero*
|maintenance, are routinely fired with nearly the same reliability.
Whoops, issue a recall... That should have read "with" zero
maintenance.