Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is Bean.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name
is Bean.

I have to agree with Mr Hall here. I've had an Argos own label drill driver
& a reciprocating saw - they both ended up in the bin. Complete ****e.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On May 31, 11:50 pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49

Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name
is Bean.

I have to agree with Mr Hall here. I've had an Argos own label drill driver
& a reciprocating saw - they both ended up in the bin. Complete ****e.

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

I've been using my Challenge Extreme 3/8" Router to cut hinge rebates
in a load of internal doors (14 at tthe last count) and it has been
brilliant. Much faster, more efficient and neater than I could ever
hope to achieve with a chisel. To me, it's worth more than I paid for
it in time saved alone. It's back in the cupboard now, until the next
time I need a router for something.

MBQ

On 2007-06-01 12:10:11 +0100, "
said:

On May 31, 11:50 pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49

Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name
is Bean.

I have to agree with Mr Hall here. I've had an Argos own label drill dri
ver
& a reciprocating saw - they both ended up in the bin. Complete ****e.

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use"
and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered,
but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be
reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues
or be adequate for the purpose.

It doesn't make sense to say that because a tool is only for occasional
DIY use that it's therefore OK to buy the lowest priced inadequate one.

If the issue is purchase price, then there also has to be an acceptance
of a loss of quality in the outcome. That isn't related to the
frequency of use.

On Jun 1, 1:01 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 12:10:11 +0100, "
said:





On May 31, 11:50 pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49

Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name
is Bean.

I have to agree with Mr Hall here. I've had an Argos own label drill dri
ver
& a reciprocating saw - they both ended up in the bin. Complete ****e.

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use"
and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It is.


It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered,
but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be
reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.


More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues
or be adequate for the purpose.

It was adequate for the purpose, all purposes during the 5 years I've
had it.


It doesn't make sense to say that because a tool is only for occasional
DIY use that it's therefore OK to buy the lowest priced inadequate one.

I never said anything about it being the lowest price or inadequate.
It quite clearly is adequate. Just ask SWMBO about the good job I did
on the doors;-)


If the issue is purchase price, then there also has to be an acceptance
of a loss of quality in the outcome.

Not absolutely. Quality and purchase price do not go hand in hand.
Money CAN by better quality, it can also pay for the "brand".

That isn't related to the
frequency of use

MBQ

wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 31, 11:50 pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49

Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name
is Bean.

I have to agree with Mr Hall here. I've had an Argos own label drill
driver
& a reciprocating saw - they both ended up in the bin. Complete ****e.

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

I've been using my Challenge Extreme 3/8" Router to cut hinge rebates
in a load of internal doors (14 at tthe last count) and it has been
brilliant. Much faster, more efficient and neater than I could ever
hope to achieve with a chisel. To me, it's worth more than I paid for
it in time saved alone. It's back in the cupboard now, until the next
time I need a router for something.

MBQ

I wouldn't worry about it,he buys his tools from wickes. :0) virtually argos
brands.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is
Bean.



Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the
money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it
has to earn its keep.

If the person who is not fussy on accurate cuts then its for them to decide

On 2007-06-01 14:21:52 +0100, "
said:

On Jun 1, 1:01 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 12:10:11 +0100, "
said:

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use"
and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It is.

Which is fortunate.



It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered,
but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be
reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.




More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues
or be adequate for the purpose.

It was adequate for the purpose, all purposes during the 5 years I've
had it.

Then that's fine.



It doesn't make sense to say that because a tool is only for occasional
DIY use that it's therefore OK to buy the lowest priced inadequate one.

I never said anything about it being the lowest price or inadequate.
It quite clearly is adequate. Just ask SWMBO about the good job I did
on the doors;-)


If the issue is purchase price, then there also has to be an acceptance
of a loss of quality in the outcome.

Not absolutely. Quality and purchase price do not go hand in hand.
Money CAN by better quality, it can also pay for the "brand".

Both are true. As in all things, caveat emptor. However, if one pays
for a quality product, there is little room for argument on the part of
the supplier for providing anything less than excellent. At teh low
end of the market it becomes a debate between expectation and price
paid.

On Jun 1, 4:20 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 14:21:52 +0100, "
said:

On Jun 1, 1:01 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 12:10:11 +0100, "
said:

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use"
and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It is.

Which is fortunate.


It's no les than I expected from a reputable retailer at a particular
price point. I don't think good fortune comes intoi it.




It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered,
but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be
reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.

I never said it wasn't. You're the one who keeps going on about
quality.


More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues
or be adequate for the purpose.

It was adequate for the purpose, all purposes during the 5 years I've
had it.

Then that's fine.


Exactly! The product is fine for occasional DIY use.

MBQ

George wrote:


But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

I wasn't a tradesman when I bought the Argos stuff, just DIY & they were
crap. The chuck on the drill driver keep working loose, the batteries
failed to keep a charge after a short while & the blades wouldn't stay in
the recip saw.

I wouldn't worry about it,he buys his tools from wickes. :0)
virtually argos brands.

Wickes black range I'd agree, but the grey range is mainly made by Kress in
Germany and is mostly very good indeed. I'd rate the SDS against any make
for performance.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 2007-06-01 16:09:16 +0100, "George" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is
Bean.



Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the
money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it
has to earn its keep.

No. Again. The amount of use is not really the issue - it's the
quality of the result required and the price than one is willing to pay
for that.



If the person who is not fussy on accurate cuts then its for them to decide

That's right.

What does not compute is that a small amount of use doesn't justify a
quality tool. The price/use discussion is a completely different one
to the price/quality of result one.

Amount of use/quality as a discussion point makes no sense.

Generally quality is influenced by price (notwithstanding brand value
and the customer has to decide that). As a result, amount of use is a
red herring to the discussion of good vs. poor quality tools.

It is really an issue of deciding what one is willing to pay and
accepting the resulting quality or deciding what level of quality one
will accept and paying the price to achieve that.

If the issue is that the activity is infrequent, then the solution is
to rent a good quality tool rather than buying a poor one.

On 2007-06-01 16:40:11 +0100, "
said:

On Jun 1, 4:20 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 14:21:52 +0100, "
said:

On Jun 1, 1:01 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 12:10:11 +0100, "
said:

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use"
and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It is.

Which is fortunate.


It's no les than I expected from a reputable retailer at a particular
price point. I don't think good fortune comes intoi it.

Expectation and what you will get are two different things.

Price point is highly influential on service that will be delivered.
It is not realistic to expect the same level of service for a £25
unknown router from Argos as it is a DeWalt at ten times that price
from a specialist tool supplier.

In the event of a dispute, a court will take the same view, as will the
credit card company.

In that sense, it is a matter of fortune, although one can exercise a
degree of control.




It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered,
but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be
reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.

I never said it wasn't. You're the one who keeps going on about
quality.

Yes, because there are only two factors to consider that actually make
any difference:

- Quality of outcome and use

- Price.

Frequency of use is irrelevant. Either one wants to achieve a price
point or a level of quality or to trade those two.

Once that is determined, the discussion is about where to source the
appropriate tool - buy it or rent it.




More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues
or be adequate for the purpose.

It was adequate for the purpose, all purposes during the 5 years I've
had it.

Then that's fine.


Exactly! The product is fine for occasional DIY use.


No, no. That assumes that "DIY" defines a level of quality. It
doesn't at all. In the minds of some people, price is an important
factor and understanably so. However, the concept that something is
"fine for occasional DIY use" is completely meaningless unless one is
making an implied assumption that the level of quality of result for
"DIY" is low.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.

I never said it wasn't. You're the one who keeps going on about
quality.

Yes, because there are only two factors to consider that actually make any
difference:

- Quality of outcome and use

- Price.

Frequency of use is irrelevant. Either one wants to achieve a price
point or a level of quality or to trade those two.

Actually, frequency of use is relevant - a cheap tool may well have a
shorter lifetime, either in absolute terms (it blows up after a while), or
in quality terms (bearings go wobbly over time, lowering the reaulting
quality).

Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the
quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable. These
won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody who spends
a lot of time with it.

clive

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:08:36 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 16:09:16 +0100, "George" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is
Bean.



Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the
money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it
has to earn its keep.

No. Again. The amount of use is not really the issue - it's the
quality of the result required and the price than one is willing to pay
for that.

I would suggest that the quality of the final result is only partially
determined by the quality of the tools used. A big factor is the
experience of the user.
If they don't use a router (or any other tool) regularly, the end result
will be of a lower standard than from someone, like a professional, who
uses that tool 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. In that case, where there's
an upper limit on the "quality" of work produced, it makes good financial
sense to use a standard of tool that is commensurate with the skill of
the user.

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:10:11 -0700, "
wrote:

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use.

Yes, tradesmen wil use any old crap if they have to, because they have
to. We only do it because it's fun, so if it isn't fun, why do it?

On 2007-06-01 17:35:28 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.

I never said it wasn't. You're the one who keeps going on about
quality.

Yes, because there are only two factors to consider that actually make
any difference:

- Quality of outcome and use

- Price.

Frequency of use is irrelevant. Either one wants to achieve a price
point or a level of quality or to trade those two.

Actually, frequency of use is relevant - a cheap tool may well have a
shorter lifetime, either in absolute terms (it blows up after a while),
or in quality terms (bearings go wobbly over time, lowering the
reaulting quality).

Usually the bearings are wobbly from the outset and just get worse.



Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the
quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable.
These won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody
who spends a lot of time with it.


That isn't true either. If poor ergonomics prevent good results that
will be true regardless of the amount of use.

On 2007-06-01 17:44:46 +0100, Peter Lynch said:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:08:36 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 16:09:16 +0100, "George" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is
Bean.



Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the
money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it
has to earn its keep.

No. Again. The amount of use is not really the issue - it's the
quality of the result required and the price than one is willing to pay
for that.

I would suggest that the quality of the final result is only partially
determined by the quality of the tools used. A big factor is the
experience of the user.
If they don't use a router (or any other tool) regularly, the end result
will be of a lower standard than from someone, like a professional, who
uses that tool 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

To some extent that may be true, but for most woodworking power tools
the issue is much closer to one of learning to ride a bike. In other
words, once the techniques have been learned, often through trial and
error, they are not forgotten - for example in the case of a router how
the work is supported and the machine held and run.

This may take some practice and hence an investment in time, but I
don't buy the argument that regular use is required to develop and
maintain skill level. It isn't athletics.



In that case, where there's
an upper limit on the "quality" of work produced, it makes good financial
sense to use a standard of tool that is commensurate with the skill of
the user.

I think that there is a degree of truth in that but that it relates
much more to hand tools or the combination of hand tools with a machine
(e.g. woodturning lathe).

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the
quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable.
These won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody
who spends a lot of time with it.


That isn't true either. If poor ergonomics prevent good results that
will be true regardless of the amount of use.

Um, there's a difference between being heavier or a bit uncomfortable and
ergonomics sufficiently poor that good results are unobtainable. I carefully
restricted my statement to the former, so my statement is true.

clive

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:10:11 -0700, "
wrote:

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use.

Yes, tradesmen wil use any old crap if they have to, because they have
to. We only do it because it's fun, so if it isn't fun, why do it?


Tradesmen need good quality tools so they can use blunt cutters and not
burn the motor out. I'd go for a sharp cutter in an Argos router if I
had to economise.

George wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is
Bean.



Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the
money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it
has to earn its keep.

If the person who is not fussy on accurate cuts then its for them to decide

On the point of a router, if the rotation is so sloppy that it cannot be
accurate then it will not only shake itself to bits it will be
dangerous. The main input as to accuracy is the quality of the bit [1]
and how sharp it is. Issues of fine height adjusters and micro
adjustable fences are more time savers than true accuracy aids. The
argument for buying a cheap router is the necessity of getting a job
done within a budget. Which is why my first and second routers were
Power Devils, I sunk my money into reasonably decent bits (Trend
largely). The first one still runs, it has been permanently in my table
since I bought the second one. When the second one died (blown upper
bearings which wrecked the bushes etc) I had enough to get a T5.

If I had an urgent need to run a half inch bit (panel raising is
probably the most likely use), I might be tempted by such a router,
provided I could fit it on my table. Especially since decent 1/2" panel
raising bits aren't cheap ;-)

[1] Caveats about pushing the motor too hard notwithstanding.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On Jun 1, 12:10 pm, "
wrote:
But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

I've been using my Challenge Extreme 3/8" Router to cut hinge rebates
in a load of internal doors (14 at tthe last count) and it has been
brilliant. Much faster, more efficient and neater than I could ever
hope to achieve with a chisel. To me, it's worth more than I paid for
it in time saved alone. It's back in the cupboard now, until the next
time I need a router for something.

Hi,

I also have the 3/8 'Xtreme' router, on mine the plunge lock lever
sheared where it's moulded to fit on a hex nut.

Also it was very hard to get the 1/4" collet to grip router bits well,
they would tend to go loose while it was running!

I think the 1/2" router mentioned above would be OK, as long as care
is taken if the plunge lock lever is the same sort of plastic.

The g'tee can be extended to 3 years for a fiver, and Argos are pretty
good at refunds if it's crap or breaks.

Probably worth having as a cheap second router to put in a table which
is what I'll do with my 3/8" one.

cheers,
Pete.

On 2007-06-01 18:02:01 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the
quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable.
These won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody
who spends a lot of time with it.


That isn't true either. If poor ergonomics prevent good results that
will be true regardless of the amount of use.

Um, there's a difference between being heavier or a bit uncomfortable
and ergonomics sufficiently poor that good results are unobtainable. I
carefully restricted my statement to the former, so my statement is
true.

clive

I disagree. Inappropriate weight for the tool type or it being in the
wrong place is one of the main indicators of a cheap product made to a
price vs. one designed to do a proper job.

On 2007-06-01 18:23:43 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

George wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-31 22:05:39 +0100, "Arthur" said:

Might do someone.
Challenge Xtreme 1500W 1/2in Plunge Router £27.49


Arthur

For doing what? Far too fast for stirring paint unless your name is
Bean.



Oh come now MrHall if the tool is for the occasional use it is worth the
money the only time a more expensive router should be bought is...when it
has to earn its keep.

If the person who is not fussy on accurate cuts then its for them to decide

On the point of a router, if the rotation is so sloppy that it cannot be
accurate then it will not only shake itself to bits it will be
dangerous. The main input as to accuracy is the quality of the bit [1]
and how sharp it is.

That's one factor. Another, in terms of both safety and outcome is how
well the plunge mechanism works. If it isn't silky smooth then the
motor will tend to jump in height during plunge and release causing
defects to the cut and the user not being able to prevent slight
movements in the wrong direction as it jumps.


Issues of fine height adjusters and micro
adjustable fences are more time savers than true accuracy aids. The
argument for buying a cheap router is the necessity of getting a job
done within a budget. Which is why my first and second routers were
Power Devils, I sunk my money into reasonably decent bits (Trend
largely). The first one still runs, it has been permanently in my table
since I bought the second one. When the second one died (blown upper
bearings which wrecked the bushes etc) I had enough to get a T5.

But the money spent on the Power Devils could have gone towards the
cost of the T5 and the overall investment would have been less.

I do agree about getting decent bits such as Trend, CMT and Freud.



If I had an urgent need to run a half inch bit (panel raising is
probably the most likely use), I might be tempted by such a router,
provided I could fit it on my table. Especially since decent 1/2" panel
raising bits aren't cheap ;-)

[1] Caveats about pushing the motor too hard notwithstanding.

I think you would be disappointed. The mechanical watts output of
this class of router is poor for the input power. It's the same
marketing as laser guides on tools. Claim a power of 2000W vs. the
proper router's 1800W and it looks as though the former is better.
Tick in the box. The fact that it is misleading and that laser guides
are mainly ornamental is pure marketing.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-06-01 18:02:01 +0100, "Clive George"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the
quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable.
These won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody
who spends a lot of time with it.


That isn't true either. If poor ergonomics prevent good results that
will be true regardless of the amount of use.

Um, there's a difference between being heavier or a bit uncomfortable and
ergonomics sufficiently poor that good results are unobtainable. I
carefully restricted my statement to the former, so my statement is true.

I disagree. Inappropriate weight for the tool type or it being in the
wrong place is one of the main indicators of a cheap product made to a
price vs. one designed to do a proper job.

I do feel you're missing the point by some considerable margin. Being a bit
heavy could well not be a problem for infrequent use, where it would be a
problem for regular use. Frequency of use is relevant in determining what
qualities a tool requires.

clive

On 2007-06-01 19:17:17 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2007-06-01 18:02:01 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

Price can also affect aspects of the tool which are irrelevant to the
quality of the result - eg it may be heavier, or a bit uncomfortable.
These won't matter to the occasional user, but will matter to somebody
who spends a lot of time with it.


That isn't true either. If poor ergonomics prevent good results that
will be true regardless of the amount of use.

Um, there's a difference between being heavier or a bit uncomfortable
and ergonomics sufficiently poor that good results are unobtainable. I
carefully restricted my statement to the former, so my statement is
true.

I disagree. Inappropriate weight for the tool type or it being in the
wrong place is one of the main indicators of a cheap product made to a
price vs. one designed to do a proper job.

I do feel you're missing the point by some considerable margin.

Not at all.

Being a bit heavy could well not be a problem for infrequent use,
where it would be a problem for regular use. Frequency of use is
relevant in determining what qualities a tool requires.

There are many more factors in ergonomics than the weight. About the
only tool that has pretty much a weight/durability argument is an SDS
drill. The entry level ones often weigh considerably more than the
mid range professional 2kg models. I would agree that if one were
using each all day, then the heavier one is more likely to cause
fatigue. However, none of these would be described as being for
precision work. A router, and indeed many other woodworking power
tools are used where precision is expected. For these, the weight is
one factor. The location of it, but much more importantly, the
balance and handling and quality of the mechanisms are much more
important. It really doesn't matter for these factors whether the
tool is used for 20 minutes a month or 20 hours a week, if these
factors aren't right, the results are likely to be poor.

Andy Hall wrote:

Issues of fine height adjusters and micro
adjustable fences are more time savers than true accuracy aids. The
argument for buying a cheap router is the necessity of getting a job
done within a budget. Which is why my first and second routers were
Power Devils, I sunk my money into reasonably decent bits (Trend
largely). The first one still runs, it has been permanently in my table
since I bought the second one. When the second one died (blown upper
bearings which wrecked the bushes etc) I had enough to get a T5.

But the money spent on the Power Devils could have gone towards the
cost of the T5 and the overall investment would have been less.

Except that at the time I couldn't afford both a T5 and the Trend bits I
needed. As I said the first one is still doing sterling service inverted
in the table. That means it gets all the bigger diameter 8mm bits.

I do agree about getting decent bits such as Trend, CMT and Freud.



If I had an urgent need to run a half inch bit (panel raising is
probably the most likely use), I might be tempted by such a router,
provided I could fit it on my table. Especially since decent 1/2" panel
raising bits aren't cheap ;-)

[1] Caveats about pushing the motor too hard notwithstanding.

I think you would be disappointed. The mechanical watts output of
this class of router is poor for the input power. It's the same
marketing as laser guides on tools. Claim a power of 2000W vs. the
proper router's 1800W and it looks as though the former is better.
Tick in the box. The fact that it is misleading and that laser guides
are mainly ornamental is pure marketing.

I agree that it is indeed underpowered for a 1/2" router, however it
will still take 1/2" bits and used carefully there is no reason why it
can't do a job perfectly adequately. You will for eg spend more hiring
one for the weekend.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 2007-06-01 20:58:14 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Issues of fine height adjusters and micro
adjustable fences are more time savers than true accuracy aids. The
argument for buying a cheap router is the necessity of getting a job
done within a budget. Which is why my first and second routers were
Power Devils, I sunk my money into reasonably decent bits (Trend
largely). The first one still runs, it has been permanently in my table
since I bought the second one. When the second one died (blown upper
bearings which wrecked the bushes etc) I had enough to get a T5.

But the money spent on the Power Devils could have gone towards the
cost of the T5 and the overall investment would have been less.

Except that at the time I couldn't afford both a T5 and the Trend bits I
needed. As I said the first one is still doing sterling service inverted
in the table. That means it gets all the bigger diameter 8mm bits.

Ah. Must admit that I have never used 8mm bits although I have
collets for them.

Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.




I do agree about getting decent bits such as Trend, CMT and Freud.



If I had an urgent need to run a half inch bit (panel raising is
probably the most likely use), I might be tempted by such a router,
provided I could fit it on my table. Especially since decent 1/2" panel
raising bits aren't cheap ;-)

[1] Caveats about pushing the motor too hard notwithstanding.

I think you would be disappointed. The mechanical watts output of
this class of router is poor for the input power. It's the same
marketing as laser guides on tools. Claim a power of 2000W vs. the
proper router's 1800W and it looks as though the former is better.
Tick in the box. The fact that it is misleading and that laser guides
are mainly ornamental is pure marketing.

I agree that it is indeed underpowered for a 1/2" router, however it
will still take 1/2" bits and used carefully there is no reason why it
can't do a job perfectly adequately. You will for eg spend more hiring
one for the weekend.

This is the amount of use question again. I do wonder about an
underpowered router and a panel raising cutter though.

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-06-01 20:58:14 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Issues of fine height adjusters and micro
adjustable fences are more time savers than true accuracy aids. The
argument for buying a cheap router is the necessity of getting a job
done within a budget. Which is why my first and second routers were
Power Devils, I sunk my money into reasonably decent bits (Trend
largely). The first one still runs, it has been permanently in my table
since I bought the second one. When the second one died (blown upper
bearings which wrecked the bushes etc) I had enough to get a T5.

But the money spent on the Power Devils could have gone towards the
cost of the T5 and the overall investment would have been less.

Except that at the time I couldn't afford both a T5 and the Trend bits I
needed. As I said the first one is still doing sterling service inverted
in the table. That means it gets all the bigger diameter 8mm bits.

Ah. Must admit that I have never used 8mm bits although I have
collets for them.

Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.

Well not having a 1/2" router and not up to now really needing one 8mm
collets give you larger diameter bits than you can get with 1/4"
collets. So I have a Trend rebating set that is significantly bigger
than the 1/4" equivalent and Trend even do an 8mm panel raiser, its
vertical rather than horizontal so you would need a tall fence on the
table but it does enable panel raising on 8mm. That was why I went for
Power Devil routers at the start, they came with 8mm collets.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:28:38 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:
Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.

Is there any real significance in this '12·7mm' and '6·35mm' stuff?

Why not ½ or ¼ inch, which it really is?

--
Frank
Foot, pint and pound are perfectly sound.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:58:14 GMT, (Peter Ashby)
wrote:

Except that at the time I couldn't afford both a T5

I still can't afford a T5. Obsolete design and vastly over-priced.
I also do 90% of my routing with the same bit. Not much cost there.

One of these days I might get a Triton, but for the moment the Freuds
(although one's an AEG and slightly better made) will do me fine.
They're also one of the cheapest 1/2" routers around, once you're out of
the Argos crap-pile.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:14:10 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

Why not ½ or ¼ inch, which it really is?

It's probably illegal to call it such, under the "prevention of straight
bananas act"

However if you ever find a 6mm collet or a 6mm cutter, throw them away
before you mix them up. They'll come loose and throw themselves at you.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:23:59 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:14:10 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

Why not ½ or ¼ inch, which it really is?

It's probably illegal to call it such, under the "prevention of straight
bananas act"

Apparently not, in view of a recent backslide by the 'EU' (or whatever
it calls itself this week).

--
Frank
Foot, pint and pound are perfectly sound.

On 2007-06-02 00:14:10 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:28:38 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:
Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.

Is there any real significance in this '12·7mm' and '6·35mm' stuff?

Why not ½ or ¼ inch, which it really is?


Because I work in metric.

All of my fixed machinery has metric scales only.

I have some measuring instruments such as an Aigner Distometer, which
is used to help set up machines, which also has metric reading only.

http://www.vos.nu/default.asp?catego... ht&type=nieuw


If

I'm using this to set up a router cutter in the spindle moulder, I am
certainly going to be thinking about 12.7mm bits (or whatever size the
bit is). Mix the systems of units together and there is sooner or
later going to be an expensive mistake.

There are one or two that I have like a Vogel electronic caliper which
has buttons to select between metric and deprecated imperial units. The
button has to be pressed for a while to switch. The display is
reasonably smart in that if it is set to imperial, it will show 0.75
inches as 3/4 in. Thus it's possible to see that it is set to the
wrong system of measurement. I used to have a cheap caliper,
since thrown away, which had decimal inches on the display when set to
inches. Under those circumstances with small amounts of distance,
it's possible to make mistakes. For example, 0.3 inches and 3mm if the
display isn't very good.

Gradually I've been throwing out tape measures, and rules etc.with dual
inch/mm markings. These things are useless because the wanted
measurement system is always on the opposite side to the side wanted.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-02 00:14:10 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:28:38 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:
Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.

Is there any real significance in this '12·7mm' and '6·35mm' stuff?

Why not ½ or ¼ inch, which it really is?


Because I work in metric.

All of my fixed machinery has metric scales only.

I have some measuring instruments such as an Aigner Distometer, which is
used to help set up machines, which also has metric reading only.

http://www.vos.nu/default.asp?catego... ht&type=nieuw



If
I'm using this to set up a router cutter in the spindle moulder, I am
certainly going to be thinking about 12.7mm bits (or whatever size the
bit is). Mix the systems of units together and there is sooner or
later going to be an expensive mistake.

There are one or two that I have like a Vogel electronic caliper which
has buttons to select between metric and deprecated imperial units. The
button has to be pressed for a while to switch. The display is
reasonably smart in that if it is set to imperial, it will show 0.75
inches as 3/4 in. Thus it's possible to see that it is set to the
wrong system of measurement. I used to have a cheap caliper, since
thrown away, which had decimal inches on the display when set to
inches. Under those circumstances with small amounts of distance,
it's possible to make mistakes. For example, 0.3 inches and 3mm if the
display isn't very good.

Gradually I've been throwing out tape measures, and rules etc.with dual
inch/mm markings. These things are useless because the wanted
measurement system is always on the opposite side to the side wanted.



I must conclude that you are first and foremost a tool junkie. Do you
get time to do any woodwork?

On 2007-06-02 10:10:09 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-02 00:14:10 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:28:38 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:
Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.

Is there any real significance in this '12·7mm' and '6·35mm' stuff?

Why not ½ or ¼ inch, which it really is?


Because I work in metric.

All of my fixed machinery has metric scales only.

I have some measuring instruments such as an Aigner Distometer, which
is used to help set up machines, which also has metric reading only.

http://www.vos.nu/default.asp?catego... ht&type=nieuw


If
I'm

using this to set up a router cutter in the spindle moulder, I am
certainly going to be thinking about 12.7mm bits (or whatever size the
bit is). Mix the systems of units together and there is sooner or
later going to be an expensive mistake.

There are one or two that I have like a Vogel electronic caliper which
has buttons to select between metric and deprecated imperial units. The
button has to be pressed for a while to switch. The display is
reasonably smart in that if it is set to imperial, it will show 0.75
inches as 3/4 in. Thus it's possible to see that it is set to the
wrong system of measurement. I used to have a cheap caliper,
since thrown away, which had decimal inches on the display when set to
inches. Under those circumstances with small amounts of distance,
it's possible to make mistakes. For example, 0.3 inches and 3mm if the
display isn't very good.

Gradually I've been throwing out tape measures, and rules etc.with dual
inch/mm markings. These things are useless because the wanted
measurement system is always on the opposite side to the side wanted.



I must conclude that you are first and foremost a tool junkie. Do you
get time to do any woodwork?

Frequently. I like to get things right though and not waste material
through making silly mistakes by mixing units. The only junkie aspect
I'd admit to are the hand planes.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

Wickes black range I'd agree, but the grey range is mainly made by Kress
in Germany and is mostly very good indeed. I'd rate the SDS against any
make for performance.

Wickes have a blue range too - three ranges in all. The guarantees are 1, 3
and 5 years for each range. The pro grey Kress SDS drills are about the best
pro SDS around for price/performance/quality.

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:28:38 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:
Most of mine are 12,7mm with a few 6,35mm.

Is there any real significance in this '12·7mm' and '6·35mm' stuff?

Why not ˆ� or Ï€ inch, which it really is?

Well one reason is that as our cousins across the pond are always
bitching about, sheet material is now 6mm, 9mm, 12mm and 18mmm. They all
have 1/4", 3/8", 1/2" and 3/4" cutters. So their panels are always
rattling in their grooves.

Only 3/8"/9mm is close enough not to matter.

So for straight cutters and rebaters it matters and it pays to care.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:58:14 GMT, (Peter Ashby)
wrote:

Except that at the time I couldn't afford both a T5

I still can't afford a T5. Obsolete design and vastly over-priced.
I also do 90% of my routing with the same bit. Not much cost there.

One of these days I might get a Triton, but for the moment the Freuds
(although one's an AEG and slightly better made) will do me fine.
They're also one of the cheapest 1/2" routers around, once you're out of
the Argos crap-pile.

The Triton is a nice machine, I've seen it demonstrated and laid hands
on one. It's a bit bulky for handheld work though, I'd be inclined to
stick one in the table if I had one.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net