Thread: Responsible tool design

Originally Posted by watson

All too true Bob,
Being on a restricted income, unfortunately GMC rules in my workshop, as they are affordable whilst I learn what each tool is capable of. In the last 5 years I have returned two faulty items to GMC and a third (small bandsaw) I never turned on and returned it un-used the same day. Most of the GMC saws have had good blades added immediately, and lots of set-up and tuning...and safari so goody.
Do you reckon I wouldn't love a high-end table saw / woodlathe / thicknesser / drill press / etc etc.
But I've got 'em....use 'em everyday....and work around their problems.
My workshop is " JIG CITY" to get them to do things that they groan at, but as per my previous post, I don't chuck them away.
Maybe in my next life I'll have good kit to start with...but I'm having an absolute ball with the cruddy stuff I can afford.
Not a whinge, but GMC are doing OK by me.
And if I can't afford something that they don't make...I build it myself....and don't even throw the prototypes of home built stuff out........need more space!!

Regards,
Noel
Regards,
Noel

Geez! Noel, I hope our shed's never meet or they might start breeding!..

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

What I would like to know is the actual difference in the manufacturing cost between making, say, your $29 Ozito random orbit sander and your $159 DeWalt sander or your $229 Metabo sander.

I find it very hard to believe that higher spec wire, plastic, bearings and control circuitry can add $100 or more on the final price.

Yes, I'll allow some money for reseach and product design (assuming the cheapies are just copies of someone elses tool and not original design work, which may sometimes be the case), but the major costs - tooling, setup, assembly and shipping/distribution - would be about the same.

(caution, rant coming ) As you increase the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF or reliability) you have an increasing burden on just about every aspect of the manufacturing processes - including training. There is a rule of thumb that 80% of the work is in the last 20% of the reliability. 100% reliability is generally accepted as being way past affordable.

The cost of tooling may be about the same if it is capable of the same tolerences. Regular quality checks and maintenance to maintain the required tolerances to guarantee the MTBF at a high level has additional costs. Similarly, package design can be more expensive if you ship and store for longer periods. Materials need to be different if the MTBF is higher - a ten hour tool probably does not need UV stabilisers whereas a trade tool does (add $).

There are a thousand variations and it is overly simplistic to say there are ten ounces of plastic, 20 ounces of steel in each tool, so why not the same price. I guess it would be equal to selling racehorses by the kilo, there's more to it than that.

If you factor in wages, unionised labour, work safety standards, pension schemes and the required human factors engineering then costs do spiral.

If two tools are exactly the same but manufactured in Oz and China, one will cost a lot more. Moving labour intensive work offshore is just a way to avoid all the safety nets built in for our workers and increase corporate profits. The longer term affects will be bad for us and are already being felt. Loss of key infrastructure, lack of skilled workers, no training infrastructure leading to a general weakening of our industries and our ability to be self sufficient.

But a lot of the expensive stuff is made in an overseas country with poor conditions and cheap labour on the same production lines as the cheap stuff.

I can understand the MTBF argument, but to me it still does not account for the price differential - especially with simple, low parts count items where their might be only three or four 'critical' assembly points where a high level of precision is needed.

Mind you, we toolies have it easy - if you like premium chocolate, it's worse...

Originally Posted by Groggy

(caution, rant coming ) As you increase the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF or reliability) you have an increasing burden on just about every aspect of the manufacturing processes - including training. There is a rule of thumb that 80% of the work is in the last 20% of the reliability. 100% reliability is generally accepted as being way past affordable.

The cost of tooling may be about the same if it is capable of the same tolerences. Regular quality checks and maintenance to maintain the required tolerances to guarantee the MTBF at a high level has additional costs. Similarly, package design can be more expensive if you ship and store for longer periods. Materials need to be different if the MTBF is higher - a ten hour tool probably does not need UV stabilisers whereas a trade tool does (add $).

There are a thousand variations and it is overly simplistic to say there are ten ounces of plastic, 20 ounces of steel in each tool, so why not the same price. I guess it would be equal to selling racehorses by the kilo, there's more to it than that.

That's basically what I was going to say.

I know I am jumping on this thread a little bit late, but I only just found it, and I feel very strongly about this topic. OK??

Being in the top end of the tool market myself I know there is a lot more to quality than simply higher spec materials. You need higher spec machinery and more manufacturing processes to complete work to a higher standard.

Well guess what guys,(Being a bit cheeky here) I'm one step ahead of you all: check out this poster I had on my stand for the first time at the Melbourne Wood Show last October.



It gives me THE SHYTES NO END to see people wasting their money, their time, and other resourses, (ie; jobs buggered up) on cheap crap because it is ingrained in them that that is all they need. Partially due to the clever marketiong tactics of companies not to be mentioned. Thus the consumer is led to believe that the product will offer them everything they will ever need, and more. (it slices, it dices, and makes your F***** coffee too...oh and it self cleanes and puts itself back in the cupboard when it's finished)

I am not here to push my own barrow with my own Brand of tools, but to try and help people realize that you will acheive so much more with better quality tools.
1) You will be able to do the work to a higher standard. A lot of people don't realize the shyte tools will drag your work down to their level, but Quality tools will bring your standard up through inspiration, often without you even realizing.
2) It will happen quicker (means less time spent working, more time for (insert favourite pasttime here))
3) You will be less likely to stuff up.
3A) Better tools are more versatile, you need less of them to get stuff done.
4) When all finished, if you look after the tools, you will have them to use again, in a year's time, 3 years, 5 years and for the rest of your life!!!
5) You will enjoy your work more, hopefully...

There is saying I quote to potential customers of mine, read my signature down there

That's a beauty I reckon.

In my own personal experience, I have seen the poor side of the spectrum, I couldn't afford jack when I started woodworking as a hobby, (that is actually had a lot to do with why I started making tools in the first place) I have had the $14 marking gauge, and the $22 block plane. I still keep them, only so I can get them out every now and then for a laugh, and say "I can't believe they really expect people to get anything done with these" After which I turn back to my bench and continue making my range of tools whilst I bash my head against the wall because not enough people are buying them.

If I need a tool, or a machine, or something, I will now wait until I can save enough $$ for the real thing. Every time I do that, as frustrating as it can be to wait, I end up with a big grin in the end.

Hope I havn't ruffled any feathers in my rantings, I am not always known for being PC. But I do hope this will help make a difference to the way people think.

Cheers,
Chris.

Originally Posted by Groggy

I reckon the best solution is going to come from government introducing legislation to make us more efficient with resource use (yeah, yeah, government control is bad - but let's face it, no-one is going to start this on their own).

Well that's not going to happen whilst the government collects 10% of everything that is sold

The cost of manufacturing isn't adding the $100.

But say for example the $20 tool costs $5 for the factory to make. If they make a decent one, put in $2 bearings instead of .20cent bearings etc, it cost $25 to make. Same markups down the distribution chain = $100 tool. OK thats simplified, but I bet it's close to what happens

Likewise if you hire another guy to actually check the thing is assembled right and maybe even works, there is another cost. You want to actually have spare parts available.. that costs too.

Now I've bought some cheap tools over the years, usually because they have been 'good enough' to do a particular job that I needed done. But for a regular use tool I'm willing to pay for something decent that will last for years.

Cheers

Ian

Strangely enough, the 'CE' have actually enacted legislation that requires all those tool be made of recycleable materials and be recycled as well. An example of the cost/benefit thingie would be Bosch green tools - made in Chaiwan or where ever, but made to "CE" standards for recycling etc.

Pricing is a good bit above Ozito, but not ridiculously so - I see 12volt cordless drills for less than $100 from Bosch in a lot of shops.

As far as cordless tools go, the best thing that 'government' could do is mandate easily repackable battery packs and possibly standardised pack designs so every model doesn't have a unique fitting.

Originally Posted by Ianab

The cost of manufacturing isn't adding the $100.

But say for example the $20 tool costs $5 for the factory to make. If they make a decent one, put in $2 bearings instead of .20cent bearings etc, it cost $25 to make. Same markups down the distribution chain = $100 tool. OK thats simplified, but I bet it's close to what happens

As Gumby says volume is very important (maybe more than unit price).

Its total sales that keeps you afloat, not just unit price.

Lets say you need $100k to run your company for the year.

Mr Ozeetoe wholesales $10 power tools and makes $1 profit per too so he needs to sell 100000 cover cost

Mr Nozeetoe wholesales $100 power tools and makes $20 per tool but needs sell 5000 to cover costs.

When average Joe opens his wallet to buy a tool that low price tool has a good chance of winning more than 20:1.

So why doesn't Mr Nozeeto wholesale his drills for $10? Whole lot of reasons, probably because he will go broke investing in advertizing or plant, or in cutting a slice to a major retailer to get his sales up to 100000 per year since he doesn't have the commercial backing to do this.

Cheers

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

I
I am fond of reminding everyone that it's consumers that drive the manufacture, not vice versa. If in the case of battery tools, people started replacing the batteries instead of replacing the cheap tool, then the waste would cease with the current batch of manufacture!
P

I can not agree that its consumers that drive manufacture. IMO its technology that drives manufacture and consumer spending. I have to agree, why not just replace a battery rather then buy a new drill. The problem is by the time you come to replace your old 9.6v battery, you can buy a 14.4v drill for a few more dollars - so which is better value??

I have 4 cordless drills now. The old blue Makita - stuffed battery (again), a 9.6v Bosch which was my quality drill purchase. Battery for it went about 18mths again and Ive just spent $60 on a new battery because I just couldn't let it sit in the cupboard not being used.

I also have a GMC which i bought for a second drill to save changing bits and an Otzio with twin battery pack which I purchased about 12 mths ago to replace Bocsh as it was cheaper then a battery for the Bosch.

If we didn't have technology, we'd still be using a brace and bit, not to mention we wouldn't be having this discussion on a web forum .