On Apr 8, 9:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 1:29 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> >> >IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actua=
l
> >> >comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rock=
well
> >> >was like.
>
> >> Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
>
> >> mac
>
> >> Please remove splinters before emailing
>
> >Just because HomeDespot carries Ridgid tools does not mean that the
> >name is licensed by them. Rigid is not owned by Home Despot, rather
> >Emerson.
>
> >http://www.ridgid.com/Tools/About-Ridge-Tool/
>
> He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
> sold through HD, although not owned by them.
When did that happen (I see it on the site below)? I have a couple of
Ryobi tools and neither was bought at a Home Despot, though some time
back. The (crappy) circular saw was bought at a local tool store and
my RE-600 router (decent in a table) from Northern Tool, IIRC.
> Ryobi is owned by TTI
>
> http://www.ttigroup.com/en/our_brands
On Apr 12, 9:36=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Swiss style mandatory military service is not a bad idea. With the
> 'European style government' wannabes in vogue these days, I'm surprised
> it's not been proposed.
Ohhhhhhhh. I dunno.
Compulsory service -- like the draft -- seems blind to issues of
socioeconomic status.
And there's one group that *really doesn't like* that.....
Truth, though, I'm a HUGE supporter of compulsory/draft.
Lot tougher to get behind wars when -- though you stand to make
millions -- you might lose the guy whose name is the same as yours,
but with some weird Roman numeral after it ;-)
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:17:54 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Quality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
>>>
>>
>>
>>I typically will defend Chinese if it deserves recognition. I have had
>>older Rockwell machinery, the new Rockwell I have seen is like comparing
>>Ryobi to Festool, IMHO.
>>
> Do you think that the loss of quality is because of where they're built,
> or
> because of what Rockwell demands from their manufacturer's?
I'd say that the new Rockwell does not have as high of standards as the old
Rockwell.
On Apr 6, 4:51=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Compa...
The quality just oooooozes off that plastic and die-cast
potmetal...YUM!
"mac davis" wrote:
> As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly..
> labor..
----------------------------------
Very often, cost of labor takes the brunt of the cost argument, simply
because it is most visible.
That catch all cost, burden, is truly the major cost item, but it's
components are most difficult to identify.
Cost of money, age of facilities, sales, engineering, research,
administration, ever shortening life cycles resulting in high
depreciation rates for equipment and/or products sold, cost of
obtaining and training and retaining the labor pool, etc, all factor
into the cost of product and taken collectively have a much higher
impact on product cost than labor.
Yes, the USA will never again compete in the low tech mass markets
again unless logistics are the controlling factor.(i.e.: You don't
hire an offshore painter to paint your house for example).
The USA has to do what it does best, export education and technology.
To do that, much of the existing workforce must be retrained in order
to participate.
That won't be easy, but it can be done.
Bunch of farmers in Iowa found that out.
When Maytag no longer wanted them, they learned how, and started
making wind turbine blades.
Took a lot of effort, but they got it done.
Our conversion away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is
not only necessary, but also it provides a great opportunity to not
only create jobs to build the new products, but to also export them to
the rest of the world.
It is truly the opportunity of a lifetime.
Collectively, we just have to seize the moment and run with it.
Off the box.
Lew
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
> comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
> was like.
It makes perfect sense. They bought the NAME. People remember the name. It
will sell a lot of product for them. They target a certain segment of the
market and sell to that segment.
Singer used to make good sewing machines. They have only made junk for a
long time now. But people remember the name. Singer has sold a lot of crap
with that name. Regardless of the quality of the current products.
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:17:54 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Quality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
>>
>
>
>I typically will defend Chinese if it deserves recognition. I have had
>older Rockwell machinery, the new Rockwell I have seen is like comparing
>Ryobi to Festool, IMHO.
>
Do you think that the loss of quality is because of where they're built, or
because of what Rockwell demands from their manufacturer's?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:18:48 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>[...]
>>As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
>
>Yes, and there's a reason for that.
>>
>>I like my turning tools from Woodchuck tools a lot.. made in Tennessee...
>>No reason that they couldn't be made to the exact spec's and quality standards
>>anywhere in the world, though..
>
>Actually, there *is* such a reason. In a free-market economy, pay for
>productivity creates an incentive to do a better job. Where there are no such
>incentives, where your pay is the same regardless of whether you do your job
>well or poorly, quality inevitably suffers. Hence manufactured products from
>almost any capitalist country will be, in general, of higher quality than
>similar products from almost any communist country.
>
><dons Nomex coveralls>The same disincentive is provided by labor union
>contracts, which is the main reason that most Japanese cars are better made
>than most American cars.
I can't buy into that, Doug.. Take Mexico, for example.. The wages are much
lower that in the US, but so is the cost of living.. People need good jobs here
as much as anywhere and the quality is as good as the better US stuff...
People don't do sloppy work just because they're paid less..
Also, the bottom line has to be quality control... I doubt that lathes as good
as my 2 Jet's could be made any better if they were made somewhere else, and I'd
have to guess that it's because Jet makes sure that the lathes are made to the
same specifications wherever they're made..
As an ex-union drone, I have to agree there.. If your job is guaranteed and your
benefits are good, where is the incentive to do good work?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Our conversion away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is not
> only necessary, but also it provides a great opportunity to not only
> create jobs to build the new products, but to also export them to the rest
> of the world.
>
> It is truly the opportunity of a lifetime.
>
> Collectively, we just have to seize the moment and run with it.
>
> Off the box.
>
> Lew
Gosh Lew, is that how the California government is explaining how to get out
of the jam y'all are in?
On Apr 7, 10:40 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
> It makes perfect sense. They bought the NAME. People remember the name. It
> will sell a lot of product for them. They target a certain segment of the
> market and sell to that segment.
>
> Singer used to make good sewing machines. They have only made junk for a
> long time now. But people remember the name. Singer has sold a lot of crap
> with that name. Regardless of the quality of the current products.
I wouldn't wax too poetic over the old Rockwell name. Somewhere in
the mid/late 80s their brand when to crap. They started making a lot
of homeowner style tools, worse than Black and Decker's worst efforts.
That's what switched me to Milwaukee and Hitachi tools (made in
Japan).
Rockwell made a lot of crappy tools then to appeal to a larger market
(read: cheaper to purchase), not like the ones I bought in the 70s and
early 80s. I wasn't sad to see them go at all.
Robert
On Apr 8, 9:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
> sold through HD, although not owned by them.
>
> Ryobi is owned by TTI
>
> http://www.ttigroup.com/en/our_brands
Nope. You can even buy Ryobi tools on Amazon. While HD certainly
sells the bulk of them here, I have corresponded with folks in other
countries that have the same Ryobi tools (including a professional
grade we don't have here) sold through hardware stores.
Robert
>
> Yes, but I seriously doubt that China has reached the same quality
> control that Japan currently commands. Probably in the future, just
> not now, not yet.
Yeah, and we haven't seen any quality problems with ANY Japanese
goods.
Quoted from the article:
An extension of Rockwell's commitment to quality and customer
satisfaction can be seen in the "Free Batteries for Life" program. As
the name implies, the concept is pretty simple. If you purchase a
cordless Rockwell or Rockwell ShopSeries tool and the battery dies,
they'll replace it for the life of the tool. The offer covers both
NiCad and Li-Ion batteries. You need to register the tool initially
and pay the shipping charges for replacement batteries, but otherwise
the batteries are free to the original tool purchaser. And, there's no
need to send the old battery back to Rockwell; just recycle it
responsibly.
Now I know they are just trying to gain ground, but what is the "life
of the tool" in their eyes?
Allen
On Apr 8, 11:30=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
> > sold through HD, although not owned by them.
>
> > Ryobi is owned by TTI
>
> >http://www.ttigroup.com/en/our_brands
>
> Nope. =A0You can even buy Ryobi tools on Amazon. =A0While HD certainly
> sells the bulk of them here, I have corresponded with folks in other
> countries that have the same Ryobi tools (including a professional
> grade we don't have here) sold through hardware stores.
The Amazon Ryobis must be gray market. From the site Salty posted:
"The RYOBI=AE power equipment brand is exclusively distributed in
North America by The Home Depot=AE, and through leading reputable
retailers in other countries around the world."
Surprised me too.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:77632057-384b-4d8d-84b3-6e06ce01bb33@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 7, 10:40 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> It makes perfect sense. They bought the NAME. People remember the name.
>> It
>> will sell a lot of product for them. They target a certain segment of the
>> market and sell to that segment.
>>
>> Singer used to make good sewing machines. They have only made junk for a
>> long time now. But people remember the name. Singer has sold a lot of
>> crap
>> with that name. Regardless of the quality of the current products.
>
> I wouldn't wax too poetic over the old Rockwell name. Somewhere in
> the mid/late 80s their brand when to crap. They started making a lot
> of homeowner style tools, worse than Black and Decker's worst efforts.
>
> That's what switched me to Milwaukee and Hitachi tools (made in
> Japan).
>
> Rockwell made a lot of crappy tools then to appeal to a larger market
> (read: cheaper to purchase), not like the ones I bought in the 70s and
> early 80s. I wasn't sad to see them go at all.
>
> Robert
Would not argue with that, that is the reason many tool manufacturers are no
longer around. My Rockwell DP was new in 1978 and I simply out grew it.
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
>>comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
>>was like.
>>
> Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
Sounds right to me.
On 4/12/2010 8:58 AM, Charlie Self wrote:
> A friend and I have tried to figure his motivation, beyond his being
> the laziest human being in six counties. We can't. He has no personal
> pride, or he has the most warped outlook I've ever seen. His idea of
> exercise is changing the batteries in his remote. He is now working as
> a gofer in a furniture rental store, which does not suit him at all. I
> must say, it delights me, though my bet is that before the year is
> out, he finds a way to get on Workman's Comp permanently.
3rd generation TPF (total parental failure)? ... starts out with PPF
(partial parental failure) and, if both parents are afflicted, by the
third generation is endemic. Look around, there are plenty out there
already.
Just imagine, with no other influence, what his kids would be like.
> Pride IS a motivating factor. I discovered that in the Marines, when
> starting pay was $78 a month.
A Swiss style mandatory military service is not a bad idea. With the
'European style government' wannabes in vogue these days, I'm surprised
it's not been proposed.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Quality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
>
I typically will defend Chinese if it deserves recognition. I have had
older Rockwell machinery, the new Rockwell I have seen is like comparing
Ryobi to Festool, IMHO.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
> [...]
>>As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
>
> Yes, and there's a reason for that.
>>
>>I like my turning tools from Woodchuck tools a lot.. made in Tennessee...
>>No reason that they couldn't be made to the exact spec's and quality
>>standards
>>anywhere in the world, though..
>
> Actually, there *is* such a reason. In a free-market economy, pay for
> productivity creates an incentive to do a better job. Where there are no
> such
> incentives, where your pay is the same regardless of whether you do your
> job
> well or poorly, quality inevitably suffers.
Is that Ford, GM or Chrysler 4 years ago that you are talking about? ;~)
With unions protecting the workers there is little incentive to do a better
job either.
Hence manufactured products from
> almost any capitalist country will be, in general, of higher quality than
> similar products from almost any communist country.
>
> <dons Nomex coveralls>The same disincentive is provided by labor union
> contracts, which is the main reason that most Japanese cars are better
> made
> than most American cars.
There you go.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:06051fbb-0b07-4af7-b438-784b168276e0@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 9:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 1:29 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
> >> >comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old
> >> >Rockwell
> >> >was like.
>
> >> Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
>
> >> mac
>
> >> Please remove splinters before emailing
>
> >Just because HomeDespot carries Ridgid tools does not mean that the
> >name is licensed by them. Rigid is not owned by Home Despot, rather
> >Emerson.
>
> >http://www.ridgid.com/Tools/About-Ridge-Tool/
>
> He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
> sold through HD, although not owned by them.
When did that happen (I see it on the site below)? I have a couple of
Ryobi tools and neither was bought at a Home Despot, though some time
back. The (crappy) circular saw was bought at a local tool store and
my RE-600 router (decent in a table) from Northern Tool, IIRC.
I have a 27 year old Ryobi planer that i bought from a tool store....but in
the last 7-8+ years Ryobi power tools have a HomeDepo thing unless you find
an outlet store.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> They saw a marketing opportunity to leverage an existing known brand
>> name.
>>
>
> This seems so matter-of-fact to me it doesn't even make me raise an
> eyebrow.
> I'm surprised at the reaction here. Its part of M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G, ugly
> though it may be.
>
> Bill
IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
was like.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:957188ac-0897-4c73-9027-ec4a5dbf977d@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 11:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
> > sold through HD, although not owned by them.
>
> > Ryobi is owned by TTI
>
> >http://www.ttigroup.com/en/our_brands
>
> Nope. You can even buy Ryobi tools on Amazon. While HD certainly
> sells the bulk of them here, I have corresponded with folks in other
> countries that have the same Ryobi tools (including a professional
> grade we don't have here) sold through hardware stores.
The Amazon Ryobis must be gray market. From the site Salty posted:
"The RYOBI® power equipment brand is exclusively distributed in
North America by The Home Depot®, and through leading reputable
retailers in other countries around the world."
Surprised me too.
They might be refurbished also..... those tools are certainly available from
outlet stores and IIRC CPO.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Qu
>>ality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
>
> "Craig assured me that Rockwell is "dead serious" about backing up its
> shop-trusted name with the quality. The tools are manufactured in a
> 1-1/2-year-old state-of-the art Chinese facility."
>
> I call bullshit.
>
> If they really were "dead serious" about quality, they wouldn't be
> building
> the tools in Communist China. They'd be making them in the U.S., Canada,
> Japan, Austria, Germany, Australia, NZ, or a half a dozen other countries
> I
> could name -- but not in China.
Some stuff from China is crap, but not all. We've been buying tooling that
is better quality than the US at 60% of the price and lead times of 25 days
instead of 8 to 10 weeks. Much of the crap coming from China is exactly
what was speced by the importer.
On Apr 7, 8:32=A0pm, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "mac davis" wrote:
>
> >> As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor.=
.
> > ----------------------------------
>
> > Very often, cost of labor takes the brunt of the cost argument, simply
> > because it is most visible.
>
> > That catch all cost, burden, is truly the major cost item, but it's
> > components are most difficult to identify.
>
> > Cost of money, age of facilities, sales, engineering, research,
> > administration, ever shortening life cycles resulting in high depreciat=
ion
> > rates for equipment and/or products sold, cost of obtaining and trainin=
g
> > and retaining the labor pool, etc, all factor into the cost of product =
and
> > taken collectively have a much higher impact on product cost than labor=
.
>
> > Yes, the USA will never again compete in the low tech mass markets agai=
n
> > unless logistics are the controlling factor.(i.e.: You don't hire an
> > offshore painter to paint your house for example).
>
> > The USA has to do what it does best, export education and technology.
>
> > To do that, much of the existing workforce must be retrained in order t=
o
> > participate.
>
> > That won't be easy, but it can be done.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Lew
>
> At least you've provided a model for a "recovery" that makes sense. =A0Ca=
n't
> remember
> the last time I heard one of those.
>
> The MBAs and CEOs, etc. have guided us towards an economy where they'd
> rather
> play it safe--say by making money off of other peoples money, than take a
> chance.
>
> Bill
Oh, yes. The wonderful world of derivatives, AKA as "get up against
the wall, you stupid MF" when it comes time for really big banks to
fail, the MF being Joe & Jane Taxpayer, who can feel their wallets
being lifted, even unto the seventh generation, so the 20 million buck
a year execs won't have to sacrifice.
On Apr 8, 2:27=A0am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> As an ex-union drone, I have to agree there.. If your job is guaranteed a=
nd your
> benefits are good, where is the incentive to do good work?
>
Personal pride?
I've got a son-in-law who thinks work is for the stupid class, but
lately he's had to join the rest of us fools, as my daughter is no
longer supplying his jones's for computer games, adult (jerk-off)
movies, and singing in karaoke bars.
With a bit more luck, he will no longer be titled SIL by year's end.
A friend and I have tried to figure his motivation, beyond his being
the laziest human being in six counties. We can't. He has no personal
pride, or he has the most warped outlook I've ever seen. His idea of
exercise is changing the batteries in his remote. He is now working as
a gofer in a furniture rental store, which does not suit him at all. I
must say, it delights me, though my bet is that before the year is
out, he finds a way to get on Workman's Comp permanently.
Pride IS a motivating factor. I discovered that in the Marines, when
starting pay was $78 a month.
On Apr 8, 1:29=A0am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
> >comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwel=
l
> >was like.
>
> Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
Just because HomeDespot carries Ridgid tools does not mean that the
name is licensed by them. Rigid is not owned by Home Despot, rather
Emerson.
http://www.ridgid.com/Tools/About-Ridge-Tool/
They saw a marketing opportunity to leverage an existing known brand name.
"...We at Positec thought it was a crying shame to see that brand out of the
marketplace and a trusted name no longer used. Although there was no
transfer of ownership, we acquired the brand name and are carrying forward
its proud tradition for a new century." According to Taylor, when you read
the name Rockwell on one of these tools, it's intended to deliver the same
performance expectations as the tools you remember from years gone by...."
If you believe it is raining, then you won't mind the wet shoes so
much...although you should start to wonder about the smell.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Quality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
>
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:32:54 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:957188ac-0897-4c73-9027-ec4a5dbf977d@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 8, 11:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 9:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
>> > sold through HD, although not owned by them.
>>
>> > Ryobi is owned by TTI
>>
>> >http://www.ttigroup.com/en/our_brands
>>
>> Nope. You can even buy Ryobi tools on Amazon. While HD certainly
>> sells the bulk of them here, I have corresponded with folks in other
>> countries that have the same Ryobi tools (including a professional
>> grade we don't have here) sold through hardware stores.
>
>The Amazon Ryobis must be gray market. From the site Salty posted:
>
> "The RYOBI® power equipment brand is exclusively distributed in
> North America by The Home Depot®, and through leading reputable
> retailers in other countries around the world."
>
>Surprised me too.
>
>They might be refurbished also..... those tools are certainly available from
>outlet stores and IIRC CPO.
Yes, I ran into a lot of crap today (Ryobi, PC, FireStorm, B&D,...) in a
couple of outlet stores in the Gulf Shores, AL area today.
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
>comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
>was like.
>
Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Qu
>ality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
"Craig assured me that Rockwell is "dead serious" about backing up its
shop-trusted name with the quality. The tools are manufactured in a
1-1/2-year-old state-of-the art Chinese facility."
I call bullshit.
If they really were "dead serious" about quality, they wouldn't be building
the tools in Communist China. They'd be making them in the U.S., Canada,
Japan, Austria, Germany, Australia, NZ, or a half a dozen other countries I
could name -- but not in China.
On 4/6/2010 5:08 PM, Sonny wrote:
> .... "Craig assured me that Rockwell is "dead serious" about backing
> up its shop-trusted name with the quality. The tools are manufactured
> in a 1-1/2-year-old state-of-the art Chinese facility."
>
> State-of-the-art by what/who's reference? I wonder what Craig's
> pedigree is?
Probably by any reasonable reference. What makes you think it would not be?
Are you laboring under the misconception that "made in China" means
hand-filed out of scrap metal? If so, you are falling into the same
trap that American industry fell into with regard to the Japanese. And
we all know how _that_ turned out.
Upscale wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:53:05 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Probably by any reasonable reference. What makes you think it would not be?
>
> Can't agree with that. If the manufacturing has gone offshore, then it
> likely means that it's cheaper to build over there. And despite the
> measurably cheaper wages in China, if it's cheaper to build there then
> something less costly has gone into the manufacturing. The final
> result in that case usually means there's something missing quality
> wise.
There's more that's cheaper offshore than simply labor -- energy and
regulation two major factors.
There's no need to think the Chinese are less capable of any level of
manufacturing of common items at anything but the level to which the
particular customer specifies for any product that is contractually
produced there. What they produce "on spec" is another matter entirely.
>> Are you laboring under the misconception that "made in China" means
>> hand-filed out of scrap metal? If so, you are falling into the same
>> trap that American industry fell into with regard to the Japanese. And
>> we all know how _that_ turned out.
>
> Yes, but I seriously doubt that China has reached the same quality
> control that Japan currently commands. Probably in the future, just
> not now, not yet.
Know of several products in the electric utility industry that are
produced widely in China now at the same quality standards of the former
US and European manufacturers that have put several Japanese-owned
foundries into other product lines in the US.
It all has to do w/ what, specifically, and what is required. Most US
manufacturers who have shipped manufacturing overseas have also accepted
or designed in the lower quality to either further reduce cost or to
try to hit a lower-target market in some instances.
--
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:53:05 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Probably by any reasonable reference. What makes you think it would not
>>be?
>
> Can't agree with that. If the manufacturing has gone offshore, then it
> likely means that it's cheaper to build over there. And despite the
> measurably cheaper wages in China, if it's cheaper to build there then
> something less costly has gone into the manufacturing. The final
> result in that case usually means there's something missing quality
> wise.
Name brands made in China tend to be OK. Many, if not most, of the name
brands put their own people on site to keep an eye on things.
"allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7f41f17f-4bf3-45bc-9356-82e78aa41c54@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Yes, but I seriously doubt that China has reached the same quality
>> control that Japan currently commands. Probably in the future, just
>> not now, not yet.
>
>
> Yeah, and we haven't seen any quality problems with ANY Japanese
> goods.
>
> Quoted from the article:
>
> An extension of Rockwell's commitment to quality and customer
> satisfaction can be seen in the "Free Batteries for Life" program. As
> the name implies, the concept is pretty simple. If you purchase a
> cordless Rockwell or Rockwell ShopSeries tool and the battery dies,
> they'll replace it for the life of the tool. The offer covers both
> NiCad and Li-Ion batteries. You need to register the tool initially
> and pay the shipping charges for replacement batteries, but otherwise
> the batteries are free to the original tool purchaser. And, there's no
> need to send the old battery back to Rockwell; just recycle it
> responsibly.
>
> Now I know they are just trying to gain ground, but what is the "life
> of the tool" in their eyes?
Until it dies.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
[...]
>As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
Yes, and there's a reason for that.
>
>I like my turning tools from Woodchuck tools a lot.. made in Tennessee...
>No reason that they couldn't be made to the exact spec's and quality standards
>anywhere in the world, though..
Actually, there *is* such a reason. In a free-market economy, pay for
productivity creates an incentive to do a better job. Where there are no such
incentives, where your pay is the same regardless of whether you do your job
well or poorly, quality inevitably suffers. Hence manufactured products from
almost any capitalist country will be, in general, of higher quality than
similar products from almost any communist country.
<dons Nomex coveralls>The same disincentive is provided by labor union
contracts, which is the main reason that most Japanese cars are better made
than most American cars.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Do you think that the loss of quality is because of where they're built, or
>because of what Rockwell demands from their manufacturer's?
IMO, mostly where they're built, and partly what the manufacturer demands.
SWMBO used to work for Wood-Mizer; a few years ago, W-M started an effort to
produce mills in China (for sale there -- not here). After six months, the
effort was abandoned due to the inability of Chinese foundries to produce
steel of a consistently acceptable quality.
Sure, if Wood-Mizer had been less demanding, they could have kept the project
going, but the point is that it doesn't matter what the manufacturer's
standards are -- mediocre is all they're going to get. That's changing, but
there's still a long way to go before Chinese products are anywhere near the
quality that's produced in the U.S., Japan, Canada, Germany, etc.
"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> They saw a marketing opportunity to leverage an existing known brand name.
>
This seems so matter-of-fact to me it doesn't even make me raise an eyebrow.
I'm surprised at the reaction here. Its part of M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G, ugly
though it may be.
Bill
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mac davis" wrote:
>
>> As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
> ----------------------------------
>
> Very often, cost of labor takes the brunt of the cost argument, simply
> because it is most visible.
>
> That catch all cost, burden, is truly the major cost item, but it's
> components are most difficult to identify.
>
> Cost of money, age of facilities, sales, engineering, research,
> administration, ever shortening life cycles resulting in high depreciation
> rates for equipment and/or products sold, cost of obtaining and training
> and retaining the labor pool, etc, all factor into the cost of product and
> taken collectively have a much higher impact on product cost than labor.
>
> Yes, the USA will never again compete in the low tech mass markets again
> unless logistics are the controlling factor.(i.e.: You don't hire an
> offshore painter to paint your house for example).
>
> The USA has to do what it does best, export education and technology.
>
> To do that, much of the existing workforce must be retrained in order to
> participate.
>
> That won't be easy, but it can be done.
<snip>
> Lew
>
At least you've provided a model for a "recovery" that makes sense. Can't
remember
the last time I heard one of those.
The MBAs and CEOs, etc. have guided us towards an economy where they'd
rather
play it safe--say by making money off of other peoples money, than take a
chance.
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> [...]
>>>As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
>>
>> Yes, and there's a reason for that.
>>>
>>>I like my turning tools from Woodchuck tools a lot.. made in Tennessee...
>>>No reason that they couldn't be made to the exact spec's and quality
>>>standards
>>>anywhere in the world, though..
>>
>> Actually, there *is* such a reason. In a free-market economy, pay for
>> productivity creates an incentive to do a better job. Where there are no such
>> incentives, where your pay is the same regardless of whether you do your job
>> well or poorly, quality inevitably suffers.
>
>Is that Ford, GM or Chrysler 4 years ago that you are talking about? ;~)
Four, fourteen, or twenty-four years ago, the comments still apply.
>With unions protecting the workers there is little incentive to do a better
>job either.
As noted below, that's a significant component of the reason that Japanese
cars are better built than American cars.
>
>
>Hence manufactured products from
>> almost any capitalist country will be, in general, of higher quality than
>> similar products from almost any communist country.
>>
>> <dons Nomex coveralls>The same disincentive is provided by labor union
>> contracts, which is the main reason that most Japanese cars are better made
>> than most American cars.
>
>There you go.
>
>
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:18:48 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>[...]
>>>As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
>>
>>Yes, and there's a reason for that.
>>>
>>>I like my turning tools from Woodchuck tools a lot.. made in Tennessee...
>>>No reason that they couldn't be made to the exact spec's and quality
> standards
>>>anywhere in the world, though..
>>
>>Actually, there *is* such a reason. In a free-market economy, pay for
>>productivity creates an incentive to do a better job. Where there are no such
>>incentives, where your pay is the same regardless of whether you do your job
>>well or poorly, quality inevitably suffers. Hence manufactured products from
>>almost any capitalist country will be, in general, of higher quality than
>>similar products from almost any communist country.
>>
>><dons Nomex coveralls>The same disincentive is provided by labor union
>>contracts, which is the main reason that most Japanese cars are better made
>>than most American cars.
>
>I can't buy into that, Doug.. Take Mexico, for example.. The wages are much
>lower that in the US, but so is the cost of living.. People need good jobs here
>as much as anywhere and the quality is as good as the better US stuff...
I know that. I've done nearly all of my own auto repairs since I was a
teenager. I can't tell you how many Mexican-made parts I've installed in my
cars over the years. No quality problems with any of them.
>People don't do sloppy work just because they're paid less..
That's not what I said. People do sloppy work when there is no incentive for
them to do *better* work.
>
>Also, the bottom line has to be quality control... I doubt that lathes as good
>as my 2 Jet's could be made any better if they were made somewhere else, and I'd
>have to guess that it's because Jet makes sure that the lathes are made to the
>same specifications wherever they're made..
>
>As an ex-union drone, I have to agree there.. If your job is guaranteed and your
>benefits are good, where is the incentive to do good work?
And the situation is exactly the same under a communist economy. An old joke
among Soviet-era Russian factory workers was "They pretend to pay us, and we
pretend to work."
>
>
>mac
>
>Please remove splinters before emailing
On 4/8/2010 9:18 AM, Leon wrote:
> "mac davis"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
>>> comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
>>> was like.
>>>
>> Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
>
>
> Sounds right to me.
Except that Home Depot doesn't have any right to use the name.
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Apr 8, 1:29 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
>> >comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
>> >was like.
>>
>> Sort of like Home Depot having the name "Ridgid" licence?
>>
>> mac
>>
>> Please remove splinters before emailing
>
>Just because HomeDespot carries Ridgid tools does not mean that the
>name is licensed by them. Rigid is not owned by Home Despot, rather
>Emerson.
>
>http://www.ridgid.com/Tools/About-Ridge-Tool/
He is likely confusing it with Ryobi Tools, which *is* exclusively
sold through HD, although not owned by them.
Ryobi is owned by TTI
http://www.ttigroup.com/en/our_brands
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> IMHO the use of the old Rockwell name was a streatch, making an actual
>> comparison is a hope that no one remembers or knows what the old Rockwell
>> was like.
> It makes perfect sense. They bought the NAME. People remember the name. It
> will sell a lot of product for them. They target a certain segment of the
> market and sell to that segment.
>
> Singer used to make good sewing machines. They have only made junk for a
> long time now. But people remember the name. Singer has sold a lot of crap
> with that name. Regardless of the quality of the current products.
I believe yo have hit the nail on the head.
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:53:05 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Probably by any reasonable reference. What makes you think it would not be?
Can't agree with that. If the manufacturing has gone offshore, then it
likely means that it's cheaper to build over there. And despite the
measurably cheaper wages in China, if it's cheaper to build there then
something less costly has gone into the manufacturing. The final
result in that case usually means there's something missing quality
wise.
>Are you laboring under the misconception that "made in China" means
>hand-filed out of scrap metal? If so, you are falling into the same
>trap that American industry fell into with regard to the Japanese. And
>we all know how _that_ turned out.
Yes, but I seriously doubt that China has reached the same quality
control that Japan currently commands. Probably in the future, just
not now, not yet.
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:07:43 -0400, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
IMHO, WHERE it's built has very little to do with it, HOW it's built is a world
of difference..
You can have good or bad specifications and quality control as easily in the
States or Canada as you can offshore..
Looking around my shop, most of my favorite tools are made offshore... jet,
Craftsman, Nova, etc., etc,...
As you said, if it's built offshore, something is less costly.. labor..
I like my turning tools from Woodchuck tools a lot.. made in Tennessee...
No reason that they couldn't be made to the exact spec's and quality standards
anywhere in the world, though..
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:53:05 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Probably by any reasonable reference. What makes you think it would not be?
>
>Can't agree with that. If the manufacturing has gone offshore, then it
>likely means that it's cheaper to build over there. And despite the
>measurably cheaper wages in China, if it's cheaper to build there then
>something less costly has gone into the manufacturing. The final
>result in that case usually means there's something missing quality
>wise.
>
>>Are you laboring under the misconception that "made in China" means
>>hand-filed out of scrap metal? If so, you are falling into the same
>>trap that American industry fell into with regard to the Japanese. And
>>we all know how _that_ turned out.
>
>Yes, but I seriously doubt that China has reached the same quality
>control that Japan currently commands. Probably in the future, just
>not now, not yet.
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:17:54 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> http://woodworkersjournal.com/Ezine/Articles/Rockwell_Tools_New_Company_Same_Quality_from_a_Nam_7292.aspx
>>
>
>
>I typically will defend Chinese if it deserves recognition. I have had
>older Rockwell machinery, the new Rockwell I have seen is like comparing
>Ryobi to Festool, IMHO.
>
All they bought was the Rockwell name, it has nothing to do with the
former manufacturing. I've got an old Rockwell planer and its still
going strong and its model number matches up to Delta model numbers.
I'll take your word for the quality difference, the only product I've
actually seen is their Jaws.
Mike M