Why ask about tool quality? Here's one reason.

[Dave Morris]

Questions come up asking for input about certain tools all the time. Beginning woodworkers ask because they seek information they have not had the chance to learn through experience. Experienced woodworkers ask because they value the input received from others with equal or more experience. Even the Masters can learn from others. Me? I've got a few projects under my belt, but I'm always yearning to learn more.

While I agree that a talented woodworker can turn out exquisite results with so-so tools, many of us need all the help we can get as we learn how to create with our hands in wood what our mind sees in thought. The process can be slow, frustrating, filled with despair, accented with strong language, and generate a lot of firewood. It can be also be joy, pride, and the confidence to take on a more challenging project.

However, asking about tool quality doesn't mean I want something to do the job for me, it means I want to know if the tool can do the job for which it is designed. Does it work? Does it work well, or not so well? Will it stand up over time, or will I be throwing my money away in the long run? Nothing brings a project to a halt faster than a tool that breaks doing what it's supposed to do without breaking. Many tool attributes and deficiencies are visible upon inspection. Sometimes, it's what you "can not" see that bites you.

Example: A bandsaw sliding tension mechanism "shaft hinge" for the upper wheel. It looks fine, the company certainly doesn't say it's of poor quality when they sell the tool, but the consumer doesn't have any way to check what he or she can not see with their own eyes. Below are two parts to an older bandsaw, the one on the right is the original part that has cracked in half, the one on the left is it's new replacement. I don't want to say what brand of saw it is, because I an NOT trying to badmouth any particular brand. Following posts show close up shots. The part broke while in use, under proper tension according to the gauge, and while using the tool according to the manual's instructions. This broken part isn't exactly what I'd call an example of "quality". It's a wonder it didn't fail a long ago. Hopefully, the replacement part has more inner beauty than it's older sibling.

But I hope when others see a post asking about the *quality* of a tool, which brand is good, better, best, or how to determine if a tool is worth the money spent (be it for just the next project, or for a number of years), they will understand that the person asking the question values their input about the tool. None of us started out as an expert woodworker. Many of us, myself included, will never be an "expert". Woodworking gets shoe-horned between a lot of other demands on my time, but the few hours I have to work wood are worth a lot to me. My best hope is that I learn enough knowledge, and develop enough skill, to build things from wood that will bring happiness to those I love. If I can build them well enough that they will be handed down to the next generation, so much the better. Can I do a whole project right now with just a saw, handplane, and chisel? Nope, no way. For me, the power tools I buy let me turn my creative thoughts into reality. If the unseen quality of the tool isn't there to begin with, I'd rather know ahead of time and purchase a different tool.

Not directed at anyone in particular, just food for thought. We all learn from each other, that's why we ask questions. I've learned a heck of a lot over the years through this and other forums, but I don't expect to ever know enough that I can't learn something new.

[Dave Morris]

Here is what the metal looks like below the surface. The dark spots in the metal are voids in the casting.

[Dave Morris]

Close-up of the break. Granted, the tool is some years old, but how can you tell if the new tool you are thinking of buying has a flaw such as this below it's shiny new paint? That's where the company's reputation, and even more so, the input of other woodworkers can help a person make an informed decision when purchasing a new tool.

Thanks for reading.

Dave

[Tim Sproul]

This type of defect is also common in knock-off golf club heads.

Lots of voids and such in the knock-offs and none in Ping's.

At least with a golf club head and some experience hitting golf balls, you can feel/hear/experience the difference. I'd wager the part broke due to fatigue of the metal combined with the voids in the casting. If the casting was good, then fatigue wouldn't have caused breakage until many more uses.

[Kyle Kraft]

Looks like in this case, destructive testing is a good way to view the flaws hidden beneath the shiny paint. From the outside, one would never suspect the porosity you found within. Seems like the folks with more die casting experience than me could shed some light on this. Is there a way to vacuum de-gas the metal during the die casting process??

[Rob Will]

Well said Dave

Rob

[Chuck Lenz]

I had the same thing happen with my JET 14" bandsaw. I called JET about geting a new one and inquired why it cracked and bent, the answer I got was that your not supose to leave the tension on the blade when your done for the day. So I said, well ok, then why doesn't it mention that in the owners manual ? The reply was, we will look into geting it writen into the manual. So I left it at that and ordered the new part. When I recieved the new part I put the old part next to the new part and to little suprise the new part had been beefed up in the area where the old part had failed. I may have got a better part now, but the whole ordeal left a sour taste with me, and cost me $50 because JET had a faulty initial part design in my opinion and wouldn't cover it. Not to mention the down time I had on the saw till the part got here also.

[Brad Townsend]

Great post. Sadly, we encounter this cheapening of goods to serve the bottom line every day. The other day, I had the tailgate latch of my 2003 Ford Ranger snap off in my hand. Up to that point, I hadn't even taken notice that the darn thing was plastic! To add insult to injury, the dealer wanted $80 for a replacement (I ordered one off the internet for $30).

I suspect a large part of the blame for this is the consumer who buys primarily on price and does little or no research on quality. One of the things I admire about woodworkers is that, as a group, they demand quality and are willing to pay for it.

As for the golf club analogy; while I agree with Tim's assertion, the void in my game makes any void in my clubhead a moot issue.:D

[Andrew Williams]

This brings to light fundamental issues about the way our society is going...

I always ask myself "Why am I doing this business endeavor?" and the answer always comes back to something akin to love, or a personal need to achieve something, or perhaps just the joy of the work itself. It is very rare, although sometimes necessary, for me to take a job simply because I need the money. I never do any business for the sole purpose of making money.

So many of the product names that we have come to know and trust were started this way. Usually by someone who, for them, the making of this product represented a piece of their soul, cast out into the world, and in the hopes that it's quality would show, and be duly compensated for. They would then hope that the compensation would be enough so that they may continue doing what they loved to do, which is build these things.

So many of these products are now being sold by companies which share only two major characterstics with the aforementioned people: the name, and the type of product. I have heard it said countless times that business people are in business to "make money". I find this an sad commentary on our society, especially in light of the fact that it has not only become standard procedure, but something that is encouraged and taught to our children. Anyone with a reasonable amount of logic can figure out that one can make far more money by simply making products that appear to be the same, and do the same job as a quality product, but are manufactured with cheap materials, cheap labor, and certainly no love of the process. The only love here is the love of the profits, not the process. This is a dramatic reversal of the Smithian sense of economics, where money used to actually represent a medium of exchange for goods and services, a direct barometer of value, rather than today's economics. Today, money is the goal in and of itself. The fact that a product will self-destruct in a short time is looked upon as a good thing, because buyers have been conditioned to expect that, and then funnel more money to the vendor for more flawed goods.

If you take a look at some large corporate entities, see how the people at the top always seem to move from one company to another, regardless of what the company produces. It is as if you could have an imaginary conversation over drinks in a bar with a major multinational CEO...

"So what do you do?"
"I run a large corporation."
"What do you make?"
"I don't know and I don't care"
"You mean it doesn't matter to you how you spend your time as long as you make a profit?"
"Bingo!"

This is just a thought-exercise of course, but it illustrates something which I percieve to be very real. If we continue to treat life as some sort of card game where the only goal is to collect the "pot", how will we be able to enjoy the process of anything? Seems that we would all be too busy making money to be distracted by little insignificant things like life, love, the pursuit of happiness, or the simple pleasure of a job well done.

[Pete Bradley]

II called JET about geting a new one and inquired why it cracked and bent, the answer I got was that your not supose to leave the tension on the blade when your done for the day.

Coming up with some bogus way to blame the customer for a faulty part is another indicator of the vendor's quality.

Pete

[Quesne Ouaques]

Hi Dave:

As a relative novice who asks lots of dumb questions, I appreciate this post.

I also appreciate the "tool quality" discussion, in general. Over the past few years, I have noticed many limitations in some of the low quality tools I've bought or inherited.

[Dave Morris]

I had the same thing happen with my JET 14" bandsaw. .... When I recieved the new part I put the old part next to the new part and to little suprise the new part had been beefed up in the area where the old part had failed. I may have got a better part now, but the whole ordeal left a sour taste with me, and cost me $50 because JET had a faulty initial part design in my opinion and wouldn't cover it. Not to mention the down time I had on the saw till the part got here also.



Chuck, I agree completely. Question--- in what manner was/is the new part beefed up? Both my old part and the new part "look" identical. No telling if the casting is of higher quality on the new part. I wonder if packing the spaces between the ribs on my new replacement part with JB Weld might not be a bad idea. An ounce of prevention, so to speak.

Just for clarification to the thread: The reason I do not wish to say what brand of saw this came from is it's an older model not presently on the showroom floor, and quality control may have (hopefully WILL have) improved at the present time. I'm trying to give the company the benefit of the doubt. However, if this had happened to a new tool, or this new replacement part breaks in the same manner, I'd have no qualms about revealing the brand name.

[Garth Keel]

Dave, I not only appreciate your bringing this subject to our attention, but I really enjoy reading a well written essay whatever the subject. Yours is the best I have read in quite a while.

[Chuck Lenz]

Dave, how it was beefed up is instead of it being hollow in that particular area, it was solid and thick, filled in, as in a new complete casting, they also added a horizontal rib about half way down on the right side if you look closely. The part number has changed from 100016J to 100016ACP also, but 100016J is still cast into the new part. They had put a sticker on the new part with the new number on it. http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c89/Woodchuck_/JETarm1-1.jpg

[Greg Peterson]

Andrew, you're partly correct in that corporations are in business to make money. The part you overlooked is who are they making this money for.

They are bulking up their bottom line to attract investors. Who are these investors? You, me, the guy next door, your co-workers, friends and family.

It has become a self perpetuating economic engine. We power this engine in part, through unchecked consumerism. As a society, we buy many goods that we really do not 'need'. Chalk one up for advertisers. Used to be called "Keeping up with the Jones".

The other way we power this self perpetuating economic engine is through our actions as investors. Publicly traded companies are competing both in the marketplace and on Wall Street. As a consumer, they want you to buy their goods and services. As an investor, they want you to invest in their company that provides goods and services.


Perhaps I am a little cynical. Okay, a lot cynical. It's a paradox at this point. As long as consumers value price over quality and investors value short return on investment, we are, with ever increasing speed, painting ourselves into a corner. The wants and needs of consumers and investors are diametrically opposed.

It has been all to easy getting to this point. How we break the cycle is the question that needs to be asked.

[glenn bradley]

Good post Dave. I'm in a long term savings effort for a new jointer. I always appreciate reading other's experience and opinions. At times the same tool gets as much praise as it does sour grapes. I find instead of being confused by this it just gives me more to think about while making my decision. I'd hate to have to rely on marketing info only, lord help me.

[Mike Henderson]

Perhaps I am a little cynical. Okay, a lot cynical. It's a paradox at this point. As long as consumers value price over quality and investors value short return on investment, we are, with ever increasing speed, painting ourselves into a corner. The wants and needs of consumers and investors are diametrically opposed.

It has been all to easy getting to this point. How we break the cycle is the question that needs to be asked.
I don't think consumers value price over quality but consumers are always looking for the best bargain. That's just how our free market economy works. Back in the late '60s, Japan began exporting steel to the United States that was of better quality at a lower price and they took a significant market share.

The same thing is true of electronic components (semiconductors). We have electronic equipment today that almost never fails, at a price that's way less than the older equipment. Flat screen televisions are falling in price about 30% per year, and they work even better than the earlier models.

The imperative in our market is to sell your product at a lower price than your competitor and increase the quality. Which raises the question, "What is Quality?" Quality is a human assigned attribute that cannot be measured objectively - that is, you cannot have a gallon of quality, or a pound of quality. You can only measure quality by asking people to rate the quality of a product. And, in our market economy, there's only one person whose opinion counts - that's the person who's about to plunk down some money to buy a product. Everyone else can have an opinion about quality, but their opinion does not matter in the marketplace - the only opinion that matters is the person who actually buys the product.

So what is the definition of Quality? Quality is meeting the needs of the customer.

Mike

[mike holden]

Mike, Mike, Mike -
"So what is the definition of Quality? Quality is meeting the needs of the customer."
Bzzzt! Wrong!
Meeting the needs of the customer is the responsibility of the engineer, manufacturing quality is defined as: "parts to specification, consistently"
Why do I say this? Because I am a quality specialist for DaimlerChrysler, and the AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group - a consortium of the big 3 and others) defines it that way.
We teach and train in methods that will produce consistency and conformance to specifications. That is what is considered quality.
The usual example is the making of concrete life jackets - totally unfit for the intended use, BUT can be made with excellent quality.
The function of the part is directly the responsiblity of the engineer who designed it. In the above example, either the specifications did not specify a lack of voids within the casting, OR the supplier supplied a nonconforming part. With the extreme emphasis on part cost these days, a supplier who omitted an x-ray scan of a batch of parts is not unrealistic.
To be fair this is probably not the end supplier (the one whose name is on the machine) as the tools today are generally a simple design that is shopped around, the variables are usually in the assembly and clean up of the tool prior to shipping. Occasionally there might be a difference in the specs for components, but then there is the difficulty (cost) of keeping similar looking parts separate.
Short answer: We think of quality as fitness for use, Manufacturing thinks of quality as consistent to specifications.

Sorry for the correction, but this IS how manufacturers, both here and abroad, view the term quality.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

I don't think you and I disagree. Manufacturing correctly defines quality as meeting specifications. That's all manufacturing has to go on.

But someone has to establish the specifications (as you point out). Why are you given those specifications? Someone has researched what customers want and has established those specifications. Perhaps reseach has indicated that customers want a car that will go 12,000 miles between oil changes and marketing decides to meet that demand. Engineering will figure out how to make the car go 12,000 miles betweeen oil changes and not fall apart. Those specifications will be sent to manufacturing as part of the "build" for the car.

In the marketplace, not in manufacturing, the definition of quality is determined by the customer laying down his/her money to pay for the product.

You can easily see that with auto models that fail. Manufacturing can build them to specifications (high quality for manufacturing) but if they don't meet the needs of the customer, the product fails in the market (poor quality as seen by the customer). You can sort of think of it as meeting the specifications of the customer (and often, it's very difficult to figure out, in advance, what those specifications will be at the time of sale - say you have a oil shock just before the car goes on sale - the customer's specifications suddenly change).

Quality is a human determined attribute - you can only measure it (in the marketplace) by asking people to subjectivly judge the quality of a product. And the only judge that counts (in the marketplace) is the person who's ready to buy the product or one by a competitor. The buyer will buy the one that best meets his/her needs.

And just as an aside, two dimensions of quality that people often ignore are (1) getting the product to market rapidly (before someone else does) and (2) the selling price compared to the competition (for the same features/functions).

Mike

[added note] Since quality is a human determined attribute, you can define it any way you want. The advantage of defining it as "Meeting the needs of the customer" is that it focuses everyone on the most important thing in a company - selling the product.

Example: Suppose you had a car that went five years between oil changes and absolutely, positively would not require any repairs for 300,000 miles. You might think that's a high quality car. But if the car costs $1,000,000 it probalby won't sell many units and will be a terrible financial loser. The most useful definition of Quality is one that leads to success in the marketplace - meeting the needs of the customer.

[Bob Marino]

I don't think you and I disagree. Manufacturing correctly defines quality as meeting specifications. That's all manufacturing has to go on.

But someone has to establish the specifications (as you point out). Why are you given those specifications? Someone has researched what customers want and has established those specifications. Perhaps reseach has indicated that customers want a car that will go 12,000 miles between oil changes and marketing decides to meet that demand. Engineering will figure out how to make the car go 12,000 miles betweeen oil changes and not fall apart. Those specifications will be sent to manufacturing as part of the "build" for the car.

In the marketplace, not in manufacturing, the definition of quality is determined by the customer laying down his/her money to pay for the product.

You can easily see that with auto models that fail. Manufacturing can build them to specifications (high quality for manufacturing) but if they don't meet the needs of the customer, the product fails in the market (poor quality as seen by the customer). You can sort of think of it as meeting the specifications of the customer (and often, it's very difficult to figure out, in advance, what those specifications will be at the time of sale - say you have a oil shock just before the car goes on sale - the customer's specifications suddenly change).

Quality is a human determined attribute - you can only measure it (in the marketplace) by asking people to subjectivly judge the quality of a product. And the only judge that counts (in the marketplace) is the person who's ready to buy the product or one by a competitor. The buyer will buy the one that best meets his/her needs.

And just as an aside, two dimensions of quality that people often ignore are (1) getting the product to market rapidly (before someone else does) and (2) the selling price compared to the competition (for the same features/functions).

Mike

[added note] Since quality is a human determined attribute, you can define it any way you want. The advantage of defining it as "Meeting the needs of the customer" is that it focuses everyone on the most important thing in a company - selling the product.

Example: Suppose you had a car that went five years between oil changes and absolutely, positively would not require any repairs for 300,000 miles. You might think that's a high quality car. But if the car costs $1,000,000 it probalby won't sell many units and will be a terrible financial loser. The most useful definition of Quality is one that leads to success in the marketplace - meeting the needs of the customer.

Mike, I think I would agree with you if you substituuute the word VALUE for the word QUALITY. In your above example, the quality is quite high, but the customer senses that the value (cost/benfit/pleasure) for him is not worth the price.

Bob

[Chuck Lenz]

I think of quality in how it's built, not what demand is from the general public. It's like compareing Craftsman to Festool. What may work for the general public may not work for the professional.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, I think I would agree with you if you substituuute the word VALUE for the word QUALITY. In your above example, the quality is quite high, but the customer senses that the value (cost/benfit/pleasure) for him is not worth the price.

Bob
Bob - Both "Value" and "Quality" are human determined attributes. The question of "Quality" raised it's head big time when Japanese car companies became so successful in the United States because they built a better "Quality" car. The problem was to understand what that meant - what made a better "Quality" car. The manufacturing people said "We build high quality cars. Look at our record. We meet all the specifications." But that didn't sell cars. The customer didn't care if the car met specifications or not. The customer had a list of requirements, one of which was that the car not have many "problems" during the ownership period (and there were many other requirements).

I believe that most manufacturers came to realize that customers had a "vision" of what a Quality car was and the only way they could be viewed as making a quality car is to find out what customers wanted and try to satisfy those needs better than any other company.

Since those early days, Quality has come to mean a lot more than "few repairs". Today, it means features - safety features and especially electronic features (like a navigation system, Bluetooth, DVD player, etc.).

We could segment the definitions and say that Quality only applies to the service record of the car (or other product) and that value applies to the features/price function. But we then run into problems like the safety features: Does a car that has a full complement of safety features offer high quality, or high value? I think most companies would say that Value is one of the dimensions of Quality.

Mike

[added note] Some companies define Quality as "exceeding the customer's expectation".

[Bob Marino]

Bob - Both "Value" and "Quality" are human determined attributes. The question of "Quality" raised it's head big time when Japanese car companies became so successful in the United States because they built a better "Quality" car. The problem was to understand what that meant - what made a better "Quality" car. The manufacturing people said "We build high quality cars. Look at our record. We meet all the specifications." But that didn't sell cars. The customer didn't care if the car met specifications or not. The customer had a list of requirements, one of which was that the car not have many "problems" during the ownership period (and there were many other requirements).

I believe that most manufacturers came to realize that customers had a "vision" of what a Quality car was and the only way they could be viewed as making a quality car is to find out what customers wanted and try to satisfy those needs better than any other company.

Since those early days, Quality has come to mean a lot more than "few repairs". Today, it means features - safety features and especially electronic features (like a navigation system, Bluetooth, DVD player, etc.).

We could segment the definitions and say that Quality only applies to the service record of the car (or other product) and that value applies to the features/price function. But we then run into problems like the safety features: Does a car that has a full complement of safety features offer high quality, or high value? I think most companies would say that Value is one of the dimensions of Quality.

Mike

[added note] Some companies define Quality as "exceeding the customer's expectation".
Mike,

I would respectfully disagree with you. I think the American auto makers were not offering high quality cars at that time. Maybe they did build a car to good specs, but what good is that if the car needed to be in the shop to maintain those specs? American auto manufactures really started to lose market share to the Japanese auto makers right after the first gas/oil problem in the late 70's. They offered better mileage and I think later many here thought that they offered a higher qualty (better built/fewer repairs) not neccasarily more features.
I just don't think quality alway relates to sales.

Bob

[Gary Keedwell]

I always read Consumer Reports before I buy anything. They have an excellent chart that tracks a Make and Model for about 6 or 7 years. They rate by the different systems and integrity of the model , like electrical, brakes etc. In the 80's the american cars all scored in the black (bad) while Japenese cars all rated in the red (good).
American cars were slow to improve but now are seeing alot of red in their ratings. Since they were so slow to improve, they lost alot of loyal customers who were stung with lemons back in the 70's and 80's.
In 1974 I was one of the first on my block to buy a Toyota. (gas crisis) I went out back and talked to the mechanic who was servicing my car and asked him how he liked Toyotas. He said he worked for years on American cars but had recently started to work for this Toyota dealer. He said the biggest difference he saw was that an American car would have a problem (faulty part for an example) and would be slow to fix it or would not fix it. The problem stay from one year to the next to the next etc.
He said if Toyota had a problem it would be fixed right away. Now that was in 1974. I would say that Detroit got to the point that they didn't care (apathy) or there was too much bureaucracy to do anything.
Sorry for the rambling, but being stuck on the side of the road in a new vehicle still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.:(
Gary K.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike,

I would respectfully disagree with you. I think the American auto makers were not offering high quality cars at that time. Maybe they did build a car to good specs, but what good is that if the car needed to be in the shop to maintain those specs? American auto manufactures really started to lose market share to the Japanese auto makers right after the first gas/oil problem in the late 70's. They offered better mileage and I think later many here thought that they offered a higher qualty (better built/fewer repairs) not neccasarily more features.
I just don't think quality alway relates to sales.

Bob
I understand your point. What we're discussing is the meaning of words, and different people will offer different opinions. The definition I offered is strictly pragmatic. That is, "What is Quality?", "How do you measure it?", and "What use is it?"

We can define quality as not needing repairs, but what use is that definition to a business person if it doesn't help sell products? So companies I were involved with started with "How can I increase sales and profitability through quality?" This leads to a lot of dicusussion, mostly about "Why do people buy a product?" The answers to that question got wrapped up under the idea of building quality products - a product which best fit the needs of the customer, at a price the customer is willing to pay.

There is segmentation in the market. Some people will want a "high end" product at a high price, while others will want a product with less features and functions at a lower price. Under my definition, both products can possess "quality".

I realize that my definition is arbitary, but if you're going to use quality in selling a product, you have to define it first so that you can measure it. When you look at it closely, it turns out to be hard to define in a useful way - at least it was for me.

Mike

[Jack Briggs]

Dave,

I had that very same part break on my 18 yr. old "Total Shop" import. Fortunately all the Taiwanese machines use some same parts, so I found one at Grizzly's online site in a parts list for same size saw of theirs, ordered it online ($5) and had it in 2 days. A couple hours later I was back in business!

It sure was a scare though to have my 3/4" resaw blade jump off of the wheel an into the cover when it broke! Fortunately I wasn't feeding an African Blackwood log into it at that moment!!

[Greg Peterson]

Mike, quality is a moving target, and as you stated, means different things to different market segments.

In terms of tools, there exists several market segments. A professional tradesmen will have an entirely different definition of quality than a hobbyist. And then you have everyone in between.

The larger point I was attempting to make is that consumers and investors have polar opposite needs.

Certainly the examples you listed where sheer economy of scale result in lower cost and higher performance. But that model seems to apply to industry where markets are growing. When it comes to established and mature markets and products, consumers demand a high return on their investment. They want to pay a certain price for a pair of shoes and expect those shoes to deliver adequate or better fit, comfort, performance and longevity. Manufacturers can only go so far in streamlining manufacturing processes, thus reducing cost.

And, manufacturers are competing in two markets. Consumer and investor markets.

This whole argument of course ignores the rapidly changing manufacturing paradigm taking place in China, where entire cities exist solely to manufacture socks or shoes or widgets and so on.

In the meanwhile, the surest way to remain competitive in the retail and investment market is to cut expenses. The easiest and most expedient way currently is to cut jobs, shut down domestic operations and move offshore where operating expenses are a fraction of domestic expenses.

We all recognize this paradox. The persons that find a solution to this unsustainable economic model will be this century's Rockefeller.

In the meanwhile, as a hobbyist, I have to decide which tool will deliver the best value (quality) for my investment. Do I put a higher premium on the objective quality of a tool (Baldor motor versus a no-name off shore motor for instance) or do I have a greater value for the features?

There are many perspectives and you bring up valid points. Ultimately, each of us is the final arbiter of quality.

[Scott Crumpton]

Sometime back I became aware of a paper by George Akerlof titled "The Market for Lemons". Here's the Wikipidia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons) page. I think this explains a lot of the quality problems we are seeing in the marketplace. It also reinforces the need for objective product reviews and user experience reporting in order to actually spot the quality items.

---Scott.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Akerlof)

[Greg Peterson]

Discouraging at best.

One could argue that the marketplace isn't as free as it could or should be.

The economic market we live in is theoretically free flowing and the best product at the best price always wins. This assumes that the market isn't manipulated by mans tendency towards greed. Monopoly's are simply the manifestation of greed. We've seen it before, doubtless we are seeing now and more to come in the future.

[Jules Dominguez]

Greg and Dave, to both of you: very well said!

[Tom Veatch]

...Both my old part and the new part "look" identical. No telling if the casting is of higher quality on the new part. ...

Well, you might try weighing the two parts. That broken one looks like it has enough voids in it to float if you drop it in a bucket of water. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't hurt, but I doubt that filling the hollows with JB Weld will offer much strength. I believe it's just epoxy or polyester resin with metal powder filler. Blocks of cured resin aren't really very good structural materials. Very good for interlaminar shear stresses in composite layups, but needs the tensile strength of the glass/carbon/boron/etc. fibers to make a good structural material.

[joe greiner]

I'm with Mike Holden on this, up to a point. I've also worked in quality assurance, but our "product" was the design of major highway bridges, where nonconformance could result in the deaths of hundreds of motorists, all at once.

There are two components at work here. First is definition of requirements. For most products, this is established by the market. Different price points will have different levels of requirements, generally higher price = more requirements, e.g. strength, MTBF, appearance and such. In our case, we work with established specifications from State and Federal transportation agencies.

Second component is verification of conformance. This is where manufacturing can fall on its face. Often, the easiest way to reduce production costs is to reduce the amount of verification; usually a false economy, but sadly the way things are, especially if customers don't complain. Is this really what you meant to say, Mike?


With the extreme emphasis on part cost these days, a supplier who omitted an x-ray scan of a batch of parts is not unrealistic. Mike

Or just a cynical comment on the current state of affairs?

Without verification, and verification of the verification (by adequate record keeping), manufacturers and customers are flying blind.

Joe

[Greg Peterson]

Could also be yet another example of Lee Iacoca's Pinto project. Of course this is an extreme example, but manufacturers since at least the early 70's have assumed that a certain number of units were going to fail, and the cost of preventing units from failing, or in the Pinto example, failing catastrophically, it is less costly than the cost associated with the occasional failed unit.

It's cheaper to put out a bad, poorly designed product and take care of a few customer complaints than it is to put out a product that will work as advertised and then some.

Engineer to the minimum specifications. Rare to see consumer grade products over-engineered these days.

[Mike Henderson]

Could also be yet another example of Lee Iacoca's Pinto project. Of course this is an extreme example, but manufacturers since at least the early 70's have assumed that a certain number of units were going to fail, and the cost of preventing units from failing, or in the Pinto example, failing catastrophically, it is less costly than the cost associated with the occasional failed unit.

It's cheaper to put out a bad, poorly designed product and take care of a few customer complaints than it is to put out a product that will work as advertised and then some.

Engineer to the minimum specifications. Rare to see consumer grade products over-engineered these days.
The goal of engineering is to never over-engineer (or over specify) any product. Any design that goes beyond what is needed is wasted and is basically lost profit. But no product can be "perfect" - every product will have design tradeoffs.

A buyer needs to be aware of the market and the purpose of the products. "Consumer" grade products are intended for a certain level of usage. If you intend to use the product in a production environment, you should purchase a tool designed for that environment.

I think most products work as advertised. If you purchase a consumer grade product, you should expect to get a consumer grade product, not a production grade product.

And it is definitely not cheaper to put out a defective product. The cost to address defects goes up significantly as you move along the product chain.

We have better products today than have ever existed before, and a larger variety and selection.

Mike

[Bruce Benjamin]

It's cheaper to put out a bad, poorly designed product and take care of a few customer complaints than it is to put out a product that will work as advertised and then some.


This policy doesn't always work out so well for some companies though. If the complaints are too loud the consumers will get wise and shop elsewhere. The American automotive industry is the classic example. Too many crappy cars and Americans started to buy more cars from Japan. They may have corrected their mistakes for the most part but that ugly impression that American cars are unreliable is proving to be pretty hard to shake. I'll bet Redmond finds it's new reputation hard to shake too.

Bruce

[Ed Falis]

Mike H. nailed it. The most cost-effective way to be in business is to design the product to its intended use, and to ensure its quality within the relevant parameters. Anything else will turn into waste that eats money for the company.

[Greg Peterson]

In the past, engineers would fudge on the side of too much. Now, with better science (x-ray, computer modeling) and technology (CAD), engineers are better able to get right next to that fine line that separates just enough from not enough. Tolerances are much tighter today.

Look at Boeing. They absolutely over engineer their aircraft. The amount of wing deflection a 737 can absorb before failure is so tremendous that the passengers would probably all have broken bones long before the wings shattered.

I think just about everyone can see in everyday life the numerous products that are 'just good enough', and no more, to do what it was designed to do.

Good engineering? Sure. Is it what the consumer expected? Depends. I've had plenty of things break or wear out long before I expected, only to find out that the failure was caused by engineering to the minimum spec on one part and that the item is not serviceable. It's a throwaway world we live in these days.

As for the OP, I wonder if the engineer that designed the piece that failed was assuming the unit was going to exist in a perfect world or if he was engineering to the penny?

[Mike Henderson]

I don't think Boeing over-engineers the wings of their planes. I'll bet there's a lot of internal discussion about how strong the wings have to be and they design to that requirement and no more.

Regarding a product failing by having one part "break" - that's the way things fail. Oliver Wendal Holmes wrote a poem about this, gently poking fun at people who complain that one part failed on their product - it's called "The Deacon’s Masterpiece or, the Wonderful "One-hoss Shay": A Logical Story". You can read it here (http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm).

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

When you see how far they have to flex the wings to get them to fail, it would be difficult to say they are not over engineered. I doubt anyone could survive the turbulence required to flex the wings to their point of failure. Fighter jets are over engineered as the machine is able perform well beyond the limits of the human body piloting the craft.

Regardless, I doubt at this point in the thread that either one of us is likely to enlighten the other. This medium doesn't afford the latitude and digressions one usually has in a conversation or opposing perspective. I doubt that we are really all that far apart on the topic, but the economy required in an online forum prevents a more robust discussion.

When I use the term over engineered, I mean it in a matter of degrees. Slight and subtle. Not overkill. You may feel that anything above and beyond minimum spec is overkill. In some instances going beyond spec is overkill.

"Regarding a product failing by having one part "break" - that's the way things fail."

Agreed. And that one part seems to be the one part that can not be replaced. Thus the throwaway and replace society. 95% of the machine may still work perfectly well, but its weakest link was engineered within a gnats hair of minimum spec to save a fraction of a percent. Penny wise, pound foolish.