On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:17:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:




I'm with you, Ed. Quality has to go into the product before
consistency. Then the ISO procedures can ensure consistency and,
hopefully, quality. Good QA is necessary all along. I saw ISO coming
in back when I was an inspector, and hooted as I heard it being pawned
off as a quality control procedure. It ain't! (but it helps)

About a dozen years ago, one of my suppliers became ISO9000 with all
the hoopla. It did make them very consistent. Once certified, they
f'd up every order until I finally dropped them.

On 3/25/2012 12:24 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:53:21 -0400, Ed wrote:
Let's define quality. It is a product that works and will last for
the time it is designed to.

That's a **** poor definition of quality in my opinion Ed. To me
"quality" is a concept that sets something above its competitors.
Whether that means something that lasts longer, looks better or
operates better than a competitor, it certainly does *not* mean that
it's just "Ok".


No I agree, it is a quality product, an average quality object.

On 3/26/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
On 3/25/2012 12:24 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:53:21 -0400, Ed wrote:
Let's define quality. It is a product that works and will last for
the time it is designed to.

That's a **** poor definition of quality in my opinion Ed. To me
"quality" is a concept that sets something above its competitors.
Whether that means something that lasts longer, looks better or
operates better than a competitor, it certainly does *not* mean that
it's just "Ok".


No I agree, it is a quality product, an average quality object.

Like "built to code", means built to _minimum_ standards.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:33:22 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
No I agree, it is a quality product, an average quality object.

Guess it all depends on where and how the word is used. Context will
do that.

On Mar 25, 10:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:17:05 -0700, Larry Jaques

wrote:

I'm with you, Ed. Quality has to go into the product before
consistency. *Then the ISO procedures can ensure consistency and,
hopefully, quality. *Good QA is necessary all along. *I saw ISO coming
in back when I was an inspector, and hooted as I heard it being pawned
off as a quality control procedure. *It ain't! (but it helps)

About a dozen years ago, one of my suppliers became ISO9000 with all
the hoopla. *It did make them very consistent. *Once certified, they
f'd up every order until I finally dropped them.

All that hoopla hasn't amounted to a hill of beans with many
suppliers.
Wilsonart Canada, for instance, bragged about all those ISO numbers.
Their delivery system was so incredibly bad that it actually became a
source of humour for us at my shop. They used their own trucks and
sometimes other carriers. They had managed to get 23 shipments in a
period of 6 months, wrong. 23 out of 23. Wrong sinks, Wrong adhesive
colours, Wrong quantities Batting a 1000. Then one day, a truck pulled
up and it had 6 sheets of 12-ft x 30" solid surface, the associated
sinks and adhesives and the whole order was correct. We laughed and
laughed.. they finally got one right.

A half hour after that truck left, another truck, this time their own
truck, pulled in with the identical order on it to the one that was
just delivered.
Now the laughing really started. All was well with the universe, the
spell had not been broken, they screwed up yet again, even by getting
it right...twice!

Robatoy wrote in news:ce631232-9326-44e7-ae32-
:

Now the laughing really started. All was well with the universe, the
spell had not been broken, they screwed up yet again, even by getting
it right...twice!

So you accepted both deliveries, and paid once, and told them to come pick
up the wrong delivery?

Hey, good luck today, Rob!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

On Mar 25, 10:59 pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:17:05 -0700, Larry Jaques

wrote:

I'm with you, Ed. Quality has to go into the product before
consistency. Then the ISO procedures can ensure consistency and,
hopefully, quality. Good QA is necessary all along. I saw ISO coming
in back when I was an inspector, and hooted as I heard it being pawned
off as a quality control procedure. It ain't! (but it helps)

About a dozen years ago, one of my suppliers became ISO9000 with all
the hoopla. It did make them very consistent. Once certified, they
f'd up every order until I finally dropped them.

All that hoopla hasn't amounted to a hill of beans with many
suppliers.
Wilsonart Canada, for instance, bragged about all those ISO numbers.
Their delivery system was so incredibly bad that it actually became a
source of humour for us at my shop. They used their own trucks and
sometimes other carriers. They had managed to get 23 shipments in a
period of 6 months, wrong. 23 out of 23. Wrong sinks, Wrong adhesive
colours, Wrong quantities Batting a 1000. Then one day, a truck pulled
up and it had 6 sheets of 12-ft x 30" solid surface, the associated
sinks and adhesives and the whole order was correct. We laughed and
laughed.. they finally got one right.

A half hour after that truck left, another truck, this time their own
truck, pulled in with the identical order on it to the one that was
just delivered.
Now the laughing really started. All was well with the universe, the
spell had not been broken, they screwed up yet again, even by getting
it right...twice!
================================================== ===========

There is a saying in the aircraft industry that a plane will not fly until
the weight of the paper work meets or exceeds the weight of the plane. I
worked in a shop one time that did aircraft and military work. They were, of
course, ISO certified. We got the chance to get into the RV after market
parts business. Our ISO certification made it impossible to do as they would
have to have the same inspections, certifications and paper work as aircraft
parts or they could not be in the shop. That ate or profit so that
opportunity was sunk.

Max wrote:
On 3/23/2012 10:54 AM, RonB wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:12 pm, wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Questions have been posed by the previous input:
1. Is a Grizzly (foreign made) better than a Powermatic or Unisaw?
2. What features do others consider most important? (never mind the
fence,
it can be purchased separately if necessary)
I don't dismiss anyone's suggestions.

Max

I'll frame this it the time frame when I bought my Grizzly G1023S:

At the end of the day, folks who try to rank Grizzly in a category
with Harbor Freight are uninformed. No comparison. And no, I am not
a Grizzly-only shop. My cabinet saw and planer are sitting among
Powermatic, Jet, Delta and other machine tools. The Grizzly machines
are in the same class as all of them.

So There! :O)

RonB

After seeing several recommendations by those with Grizzly experience I
would agree that they deserve consideration.
I looked at the 690. It seems to be a worthy candidate but I noticed
that it didn't have a "blade shroud"; a feature that several other
manufacturers have adopted. Since dust control is a major item on my
"want" list I hesitate on buying a Grizzly.
Your input is greatly appreciated.

Max



This review on the Grizzly 0690 was just posted to Lumberjocks.com.
They send them to me automatically : ) I thought anyone here currently
considering the saw might be interested.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hauer commented on a review:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Brand new to Lumberjocks and joined mainly to give my initial opinion on
this saw. Recieved a couple weeks ago and set up recently. Mine too
needed significant adjuistment in every area (fence to slot, blade to
table, etc.). I too used a Pinnacle set up guage and it was a huge
help. Couple points I wanted mention to see if others had similar
issues. First, the throat inserts (both standard and dado) that came
with the saw were not flat. It makes leveling them with the table near
impossible. I called Grizzly and they sent out anther set...same
problem not as bad however. I ended up making zero clearance inserts.
The issue there was that the blade does not lower enough to install the
insert flush with table then raise blade through it (even with a relieve
cut in bottom of insert). I had to shim the insert up almost 1/4" above
the table surface in order to clear blade on initial pass through.

Squaring the fence to miter slot does take some time but is pretty
straightforward. However, upon squareing the fence I did notice that
the guage would still fluctuate when passed along the face down the
length of the fence. This is because the face is HDPE and where it is
secured to the fence the fasteners create an indention. The guage would
bounce some 10/1000 at each attachment point. Prob not a big deal but
just thought I'd mention.

Like I said, was just checking to see if any others shared concerns or
would like to comment on those listed. Thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So that is the similar to "we pay competitive wages", other wise known
as minimum wage.

On 3/26/2012 8:47 AM, Swingman wrote:
snip

Like "built to code", means built to _minimum_ standards.

On 03/26/2012 05:01 PM, Bill wrote:
I ended up making zero clearance inserts. The issue
there was that the blade does not lower enough to install the insert
flush with table then raise blade through it (even with a relieve cut in
bottom of insert). I had to shim the insert up almost 1/4" above the
table surface in order to clear blade on initial pass through.

That "problem" is not unique to Grizzly saws.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

In article ,
Steve Turner wrote:
On 03/26/2012 05:01 PM, Bill wrote:
I ended up making zero clearance inserts. The issue
there was that the blade does not lower enough to install the insert
flush with table then raise blade through it (even with a relieve cut in
bottom of insert). I had to shim the insert up almost 1/4" above the
table surface in order to clear blade on initial pass through.

That "problem" is not unique to Grizzly saws.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Lower the blade completely. Lift up your standard insert slightly, then
bring the fence over so it contacts the insert. Drop the insert back in
place. Now place your new, soon-to-be ZCI on top of the standard insert
and butting against the fence. Clamp a block to the fence over the ZCI
and another in front of it. You can now raise the blade up through the
standard insert and your new ZCI. If youv'e made multiple ZCI blanks,
t's now a good time to slot those as well.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Larry W wrote:
In ,
Steve wrote:
On 03/26/2012 05:01 PM, Bill wrote:
I ended up making zero clearance inserts. The issue
there was that the blade does not lower enough to install the insert
flush with table then raise blade through it (even with a relieve cut in
bottom of insert). I had to shim the insert up almost 1/4" above the
table surface in order to clear blade on initial pass through.

That "problem" is not unique to Grizzly saws.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Lower the blade completely. Lift up your standard insert slightly, then
bring the fence over so it contacts the insert. Drop the insert back in
place. Now place your new, soon-to-be ZCI on top of the standard insert
and butting against the fence. Clamp a block to the fence over the ZCI
and another in front of it. You can now raise the blade up through the
standard insert and your new ZCI. If youv'e made multiple ZCI blanks,
t's now a good time to slot those as well.


Sounds way better than paying $30-40 a piece! : )