Chinese lathes

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

With respect Katan, it’s a matter of record that the consumer laws state that any goods sold must be “fit for purpose” and that a product should continue to perform its function for a reasonable period of time. If its parts become excessively worn or broken through what amounts to poor production quality control, the consumer is within their rights to demand remedial action or their money back. However, if the customer is made aware of what they are receiving and one of the conditions is that the product WILL need attention from them before it’s put into service, that’s a different matter. The defence that because you only paid a small sum for it doesn’t let a dealer off the hook legally and I can point you to numerous consumer websites which will restate this. I also agree though that giving dealers the chance to solve any problems first is better than just moaning about them. Dealers don’t want returns anymore than the customer does because happy customers are return customers.

Edited By Chris Trice on 24/11/2010 18:01:16

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

My perception of Lathejack’s contribution is this:-
He has a photo album of pictures titled Chinese torture.
They are accompanied with descriptive text, in which he briefly explains what he has found and subsequently rectified.
The first picture is headed New 1330 lathe, very poorly.
Which seems to suggest the machine isn’t second-hand and certainly looks like it hasn’t been used, although it could be be just new to him.
Other text within the album appears (to my eyes) remarkably unbiased and simply serves to describe what faults he found and then did to put them right.
I don’t see him making any accusations – only passing on his findings.
It doesn’t look like Lathejack started this thread, so I can’t see that he’s obliged to contribute to it.

Martin.

Edited By blowlamp on 24/11/2010 18:06:57

[Gray62Participant @gray62]

My GH1330 came from    Warco recentlyg as an ex demo as I have previously stated. I have not experienced any of the issues which seem to have started this thread. In fact the machine has more than exceeded my expectations. This is the 5th machine that I have purchased from Warco and I have been happy with all of them ( two have since been sold on as they have been superceeeded by other equipment)

 

Please stop giving the supplier a hard time before they have been given a chance to rectify the problems (if that is applicable in this case), and defend their position.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that  this machine was not procured direct from Warco as new or ex demo, My lathe was purchased recently but is dated 2004 and was from their ex demo stock, that said, it still comes with a limited warranty which, based on past experience with Warco will cover pretty much all eventualities.

To quote an actual case, I bought a drill press from them which was deemed out of spec and sold at their open day at a much reduced price, that said, it still had a limited parts only warranty. 

When after a couple of weeks, the sliding drive dog for the main pulley broke, they were quite happy to send me a replacement free of charge, 

As Ketan has quite rightly said, incorrect information has a negative impact on a suppliers reputation/livelyhood/business.

Get your facts straight and engage brain before fingers!! But keep it clean and professional  profanity and expletives should be kept out of this arena.

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

 

Coal Burner said
“There is no evidence to suggest that  this machine was not procured direct from Warco as new or ex demo,”

 

I talked to Warco.

No evidence can be found that this lathe was purchased new from Warco unless it was prior to 2002.

 

Warco has checked their database and Lathe Jack has only purchased accesories since 2002. Records prior to that are not instantly available.

 

So Lathejack, did you purchase new from Warco or not?

 

Did you purchase it prior to 2002?

 

Had it been standing for long prior to stripping down hence the rusty Bearings?

 

When did you strip it down?

 

So Lathejack, please set us straight. When did you buy it?

 

When did you take the photographs?

 

David

 

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by Chris Trice on 24/11/2010 17:57:18:

With respect Katan, it’s a matter of record that the consumer laws state that any goods sold must be “fit for purpose” and that a product should continue to perform its function for a reasonable period of time. If its parts become excessively worn or broken through what amounts to poor production quality control, the consumer is within their rights to demand remedial action or their money back. However, if the customer is made aware of what they are receiving and one of the conditions is that the product WILL need attention from them before it’s put into service, that’s a different matter. The defence that because you only paid a small sum for it doesn’t let a dealer off the hook legally and I can point you to numerous consumer websites which will restate this. I also agree though that giving dealers the chance to solve any problems first is better than just moaning about them. Dealers don’t want returns anymore than the customer does because happy customers are return customers.

Edited By Chris Trice on 24/11/2010 18:01:16

 

We always see these remarks on various forums about sale of goods, “fit for purpose ” etc

 

But NOT being a [ expletive deleted ] bar room lawyer I’m intrigued to find the definition “fit for purpose “

In the case of a lathe surely the minimum would be works, turns round and has no broken parts because defining anything else would open a can of worms.

 

When say Winfields sold their lathes in the 50’s it was deemed “fit for purpose ” even though if sold today people would complain you have to turn the carriage handwheel the wrong way for it to go forward.

The early Myfords [ 1 minutes hushed silence ] only had a top slide held on with one bolt and we wont mention the Adept lathe [ expletive deleted ]

 

Accuracy in many cases is dependant of setting and mounting the lathe, something well out of the manufacturers and re-sellers control.

 

At the end of the day it all depends not on the machine but the wally on the ends of the handwheels.

I know people who can’t turn a broom handle on a Monach10EE and some who can turn absolute marvels on a round bed Drummond.

 

John S.

 

PS.

To save David the trouble of editing my post I have already inserted the [ expletive deleted ] so you can add your own respective words.

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

“In the case of a lathe surely the minimum would be works, turns round and has no broken parts because defining anything else would open a can of worms.”

 

Emphasis added by me. That should read defective parts or parts that become defective within a reasonable time span. Everything works until it breaks. There are no hard definitions of  ‘reasonable’ but for example if you bought a washing machine and it went wrong thirteen months later (a month out of guarantee), you can still make a claim because there is a ‘reasonable expectation’ that a washing machine should last longer than a year. A court would decide what is reasonable on a case by case basis.

 

I highly recommend the following website and the forum that goes with it where you can pose such questions.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com

 

Edited By Chris Trice on 25/11/2010 00:01:54

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Lathejack’s reply in this post http://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=45283 hints at how long he has owned his lathe.

 

I must say that I see his Album pictures as being valid and valuable to the members of this forum as they show the reality of his particular situation.

He hasn’t embarked on a rampage of insults against anyone and has only shown what he has found to be at fault with his equipment, as received from the manufacturer/vendor.

 

Martin.

[Martin WParticipant @martinw]

Martin

 

I have looked at the post in the thread you identified regarding a posting by Lathejack. It says that he has been using a Warco 1330 for five or six years which would seem to tie in with what David has unearthed. If this is the same lathe then any fault with it does not necessarily reflect on the quality of  the products being supplied by the company today, the converse is of course also true . If there was a problem was it raised with the company?

 

I agree with your comments regarding the notes accompanying the photos in as much he was, for a majority of the notes, explaining how he had corrected any problems that he found. However if a subject like this is raised, be it a thread or photo album entry, then I would have thought it was only courteous to have included some indication of when the machine was purchased and if he had been in contact with the supplier with respect to the faults found.

 

If the machine is indeed the one he refers to in the thread you identified and it is 5 or 6 years old it would explain why it looks so new if the work had been done shortly after delivery. As I said in my previous post if this was the state the machine was delivered in then, at that time, there was a case for complaint.

 

Regards

 

 

Martin (W)

 

 

[adyParticipant @ady]

I’m Lucky, but only by coincidence….I never knew to start with.

 

Being a buyer of old decently made WW2 and 1950s British Lathe equipment this thread is a complete and utter irrelevance.

 

I do notice though, that the old gear on ebay is becoming increasingly valuable.

 

 

Edited By ady on 25/11/2010 02:05:37

[adyParticipant @ady]

I have looked at the post in the thread you identified regarding a
posting by Lathejack. It says that he has been using a Warco 1330 for
five or six years which would seem to tie in with what David has
unearthed. If this is the same lathe then any fault with it does not
necessarily reflect on the quality of  the products being supplied by
the company today, the converse is of course also true . If there was a problem was it raised with the company?

 

My company expired around 1942.

 

Six years eh? wow…must be a quality bit of kit…

 

 

Enjoy yer fight guys. I’ll just watch and laff.

[adyParticipant @ady]

Look.

 

The bottom line is:

 

If you have a decent lathe it grows with you as an individual and as your abilities adapt to new challenges.

 

You do not end up on a poster site squawking about its limitations, you have better things to do with your existence.

Do you really think I want to complain about diddly at my time of life???

 

My own lathe is a friend, and I am a lucky man to have been introduced to her.

 

This chinese lathe stuff is profitland stuff.

 

I am more interested in something which will help me…as a person…to feel more worthy, and have a little potential for my limited future.

 

 

What do I want to complain about now??

 I’m over 45, they can’t even send me to a stupid war to die…If I even agreed to go there.

 

 

So:

 

 

The squawkers are taking the mick or they have a genuine axe to grind.

 

 

If they have a good axe we will be educated by their incredibleness… and innovation

 

…otherwise I will sink into a world of  dark rum and pre 1970 lathes.

Edited By ady on 25/11/2010 02:57:45

[adyParticipant @ady]

What gets right up my nose is the fact that there were people who could crank out Drumonds from 1922 in our own society.

 

Why has China not even got close yet??

 

I know there are the basic capitalistic outputs…BUT WHERE IS THE ORIGINALITY??

 

As far as I am aware, there is not a single product from China which is regarded as an original with a quality procedure which would make a chinaman proud to be a part of the process.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Ady, have you looked at the Dalian Machine Tool Group lathes mentioned at the top of page 4 of this thread?

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Ady,

 

Exactly the same things were being said of the Japanese products in the 1960s.  In a country and culture such as China, of course initially they don’t have the design expertise and skills which we built up over centuries of industrial development, but when they do get those skills, as the Japanese did, then watch out.

 

Terry

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Posted by ady on 25/11/2010 02:30:46:

Look.

 

The bottom line is:

 

If you have a decent lathe it grows with you as an individual and as your abilities adapt to new challenges.

 

You do not end up on a poster site squawking about its limitations, you have better things to do with your existence.

Do you really think I want to complain about diddly at my time of life???

 

 

Hi Ady,

 

You seem to have been doing a lot of posting lately and bitching about the quality of Chinese products.  I’m contributing because I have time while my garage/workshop is rebuilt following a fire (but there again I for one am not complaining), what’s your excuse?

 

Terry

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

The act states that:

 

“Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.”

However:

 

“Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.“

” It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.”

  Note “free from minor defects” let alone major ones and I would suggest that sand in a mechanical device is more than a minor defect. let alone rusty bearings and chipped gears.

 

This idea that quality would cost is misleading.  Arc charge 120.00 for a “preparation Service” for a mini lathe.  They have to unpack, strip down check, clean, lubricate and reassemble the lathe then repack it.  If the quality was insisted upon from the factories it would be much cheaper.

 

When cars from the 50s and 60s were falling apart after 4 or 5 years from rusted bodies (politely known as ‘Planned Obsolescence’)  we were told that it would add hugely to the price of a car if it were to be rust proofed and galvanised. Apart from the cost of the process, the manufacturers and suppliers insisted that they would not have to make so many so they would cost much more.  They were also generally unreliable, poor starting and inefficient.  they were also poorly equipped compared with modern cars.

 

Cars now last much longer, are more reliable and are even basic models are equipped to what would have been considered luxury at that time.  In real terms cars cost much less now than they did then.  How has that come about? of course it is due to much better production engineering and quality control.

 

There is no reason this could not be applied to the manufacture of small machines. 

 

If enough people made use of the legislation it may force the suppliers to insist on better quality control from the factories.  The Chinese are not stupid, they want to make quality products which sell well.

 

 

Edited By Terryd on 25/11/2010 10:39:20

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Wow Terry,

 

Yes indeed, the act says many things. Fitness for purpose, etc., etc.. I totally agree with the act.

 

As I said before, we live in the real world. The act is X number of years old now. If it was “tested” and “enforced” in the manner you suggest, in engineering, on lathes, EVERY lathe and milling machine would fail, including Myford – DCs lathe of choice ofcourse . So, if the situation got that far, then there would be NO lathe or mill manufacturer or supplier to buy from. I know I am sticking my neck out, especially considering that no other supplier or manufacturer will.

 

So, especifically in the context of engineering, can anyone demonstrate to me where this act has been enforsed, and which supplier or manufacturer has been shut down in the model engineering field – SPECIFICALLY – directly resulting from this act being enforsed?.

 

With respect, you and all can talk all you like about the act, the law, but the FACT remains that NO issues have reached o the extent of being tested in a court of law. In my limited experience of hobby engineering industry – about 10 years – most issues are resolved before they get to the courts. A hobby machine is much cheaper than a lawyers opinion!….which has yet to be tested under the reasonableness test….as far as I am concerned…..regardless of the act!….and no, I have more sense than to have it tested, because if the case rules in your favor, I guarantee that there will not be any machine supplier left in the U.K..!….Still, that is my opinion.

 

You think that we do not discuss your comment: “If the quality was insisted upon from the factories it would be much cheaper” with the factory.

 

a. I personally discuss this with the SIEG factory on an almost daily basis. I am prepared to pay more (not less as you suggest), and after nearly 10 years of continous “discussion”, we have made slow progress with the production process at SIEG.

 

b. If quality could get so cheap, do you consider Myford prices to be cheap?, and why arn’t there more “real manufacturers” of hobby machines in the U.K., Europe, or even the U.S.?. The reason is that YOU (THE ROYAL YOU), want things cheap!!. But then, at the same time, some of you want to quote us the law – “BIG COLOURFUL DEAL”

 

c. the fact remains, if the lawyers win, YOU will not have a hobby. David Clark will be out of a job, as there not be an ME/MEW magazine…and probably no THIS FORUM to talk about the law. Pure and simple GUARANTEE. I say this on behalf of all the importers. We try to make this hobby affordable, because this is what you want. The margins we make are not so great as Ady believes. Still, I agree that there is no place for absolute rubbish being sold. At the same time, in this particular situation with the lathe, we really donot know ALL the facts, so why is anyone quoting the law?. If you wish to do that, put your money where your mouth is and try to test the act, instead of talking non-factual BS (colourful Beautiful South). Until then, I take WARCOs side. All the fit for purpose examples being talked about do not relate specifically to hobby lathes and mills. As has been stated by you earlier, this has to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and “in my opinion” – if the reasonableness test is applied, WARCO would win, just as much as “in your opinion”, the customer would win. But, I cannot as yet see any FACTUAL PROOF on this thread of a situation like this ever reaching to the courts to be tested.

 

As for Ady, you are indeed lucky that you have a very good old British lathe. If I could make it in the U.K. today, at a cheap price, and meet all the legal regulations of our beloved European Community, I would. This begs the question, why did the company expire in 1942? Is it still possible to get spares? Oh..does it comply with current regs…or is it exempt?. When you die, are you intending to give it to a relation? If so, please ask him/her to come to me for the tooling they need. I will try to give them a good deal. Please make sure you write that in your will. At the same time, do tell him/her, that I dont really know if it will be Chinese crap …in which case, he can weight it in I guess.

 

Terrd’s comment: “The Chinese are not stupid, they want to make quality products which sell well.” – I will pass on your comment to SIEG. I am sure they will appreciate it.

 

I case of claims, I prefer to use the rule of commen sense instead of stating “the law” – becasue this is the course of last resort – considering the costs involved. If I feel that the customer is right, I agree, refund or replace or come to a solution as they wish. If I feel that they are wrong, I invite them to state their case in writing. If I do not agree with their observation and if I am not prepared to give them a refund, I suggest that they take legal guidance and take action against me. In the past ten years, I have invited three customers to take legal action, under the “reasonableness test”. I am still waiting for them to do this.

 

Ketan at ARC.

 

 

 

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by Terryd on 25/11/2010 10:35:42:

 

This idea that quality would cost is misleading.  Arc charge 120.00 for a “preparation Service” for a mini lathe.  They have to unpack, strip down check, clean, lubricate and reassemble the lathe then repack it.  If the quality was insisted upon from the factories it would be much cheaper.

 

Edited By Terryd on 25/11/2010 10:39:20

 

If the factory quality improved then as you say Arc’s Preparation Costs probably would be reduced but not probably by much as most of this is labour and it still has to be completely stripped and checked or you don’t know what you are missing.

 

However in an effort to increase quality the manufacturer will be forced to increase price which in turn knocks on to increased import duty, VAT we will ignore as this will balance out.

 

So we now have a lathe that is more expensive and may or may not require preparation.

 

So now take say a Warco lathe of the same ilk as a Myford as regards size, spec etc, on page 25 on the current MEW171 they advertise a WM280 V-F for £1500 including VAT and mainland delivery.

 

Actually it’s not really fair to compare this one as it come with larger motor all chucks and steadies and is slightly larger.

Now add a preparation service costing say £350, we now have an included price of £1850

 

Now the rub, if the factory had to pay for more skilled labour to assemble these and a long preparation time they would cost about the same as the machine and prep service but more import duty which would have to be passed on.

 

Either way we are looking a a cost of £1850 or there abouts.

 

On page 39 of the same magazine Myfords advertise their lathe priced FROM £8,357.00 plus VAT, plus delivery, plus chucks, plus steadies etc.

 

So there you have to two end of the same coin and it’s personal choice what you purchase, no one is twisting your arm unless it’s Gert indoors.

 

If these lathes were so bad why do they keep selling them? I was told in good faith that Grizzly in the US have a standing order of 1,000 machines per month. We run the  free Homeworkshop.org model engineers sale and wanted site, we get about 350 – 400 adverts a month. I can’t remember the last time I saw one advertised. Plenty of cheap Myfords compared to a few years ago so what Ketans says about the lack of these machines driving prices up can be proved.

 

There is even a cottage industry set up to buy and strip clapped out Myfords for the spares.

 

Long Short, don’t bitch, you have a choice, take it.

 

John S.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

A lot of hot air has been expended in this forum, together with a lot of very valid comments on both sides. Somehow I don’t think that a consensus is about to be reached very easily.

 

However, I do think that there is something which could be done which would improve matters considerably. And which would only require doing once for each machine type. I refer to the supplied manuals.

 

I have two machines, both bought from Warco, both have their faults, but both were cheap enough for me to afford them. Afterall. my lathe at £1500 15 years ago was considerably cheaper than the equivalent Myford. Mind you, with what I now know, I would have been better off buying a S/H Boxford, ME10A preferably, but that’s another story. I also have a Nu-Tool CH10 drilling machine. In all three instances, the manual is lacking in information, eg no indication of the correct drive belt for the CH10, but there is an exploded parts list; the 220 lathe manual has at least 2 errors in it, and no exploded parts list. One of the errors concerned the drive belts – the correct type was given as it happens, but the associated description was wrong thus causing confusion when I changed them recently; whilst the manual for the MiniMill is incomplete in that there is no mention of how to use the vertical fine feed, the on/off control description is wrong, and the exploded diagrams are wrong. It took a download from America before I could discover how to operate the fine feed, and hence discover what was wrong with it. Is it too much to expect an accurate manual? I’m not talkingabout the use of Chinglish, or mis-spellings, just that it be accurate. It only needs doing the once for, in my case, the MiniMill, and even then a lot of the work has already been done in America.

 

In my view, we will have to accept that cheap machines will have problems, but an accurate manual would go some way to helping the users to overcome these problems. Surely it wouldn’t add that much to the cost would it?

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

[The Merry MillerParticipant @themerrymiller]

In my experience, manuals were the responsibility  of the QA/Regulatory department.

That says something doesn’t it ?

 

Len P.

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Peter,

 

You are absolutely right about the manual. All the Chinese manuals we have come across are poor. This is the way they were before I started selling the machines, and they still are the same. It boils down to cost, time, and commercial intent.

 

I tried to find a good manual writer. Easily said then done. The ones I did come across had little or no experience of writing manuals and wanted to charge a bomb. Even if I agreed to this, there was no guide of what the finished result would be like. In one case, I did pay out a bomb, but the result was so crap that we had to do the work ourselves in-house. We did this for the KX1 and KX3. It is not perfect, it cost a lot of money, but it is far better than the manuals you get with general Chinese machines.

 

Competirors with clones of the KX3 have tried several ways of trying to get the manual, with little success. In one case, SIEG took legal action against a competitor for trying to use the same manual.

 

Grizzly has good manuals. They buy and sell very big volumes of the machines they sell. This justifies the cost investment.

 

For us, we are a small company. People are happy to look at our prep.guide for the X3 and buy it from our competitors – Axminster. We got good PR out of it, the commercial intent is there, but at the end of the day, someone else got the sale.

 

If WARCO did the manual for the mini-mill and made it available for free, as many people would not pay for it, it is more than likely that YOU (ROYAL YOU) would buy the mill from Amadeal, Chester, SPG, TTMT, Sealey, Clarke etc…who ever is the cheapest on the day. The only reason you may be loyal to WARCO is becasue you know WARCOs history. A new comer to the hobby does not know WARCO from Adam. If Adam provides a good sales pitch with a cheap price, he will buy from Adam. If WARCO charged for the manual, sooner or later it would appear on the forums or with some Chinese machine. Chester machines with Optimum manual is a good example. Who paid the cost of the original manual?

 

It is a balancing act, but you do have a valid point.

 

Ketan at ARC.

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Len,

 

Regarding your comment: “In my experience, manuals were the responsibility  of the QA/Regulatory department.

That says something doesn’t it ?”

 

What does it say? What is your point?. For E.U. and USA, government regulatory bodies – considered higher in status than company regulatory departments are authorities which govern CE, GUV/S?, EMC, GS..fred, Mike …make a name up. Companies such as SGS with ex-government officials pass the machines with official regulatory paperwork for a fee (magic word).

 

So, if the machines pass these authorities with poor manual, whats your point? Are Japanese manuals still much better?. I am looking at the FUJI invertor manual – which is in english. It makes zero sense to me. So what does that say about the writer or Fuji’s regulatory department??

 

You are still correct in your observation, even though there are other commercial issues at play here.

 

Ketan at ARC.

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Its very easy for people to bash the importers, on this forum, quoting the laws, acts, procedures, etc..

 

All these people do not expect the importers to respond, as I have, even though this tread was to do with WARCO bashing.

 

At the end of the day, talk is cheap. Most issues are resolved before they even get anywhere near a court, and under the correct circumstances, along with funding for a good lawyer – an expert drama trained person – can make the act work in the sellers favour too – applying the reasonableness test. The customer is NOT always right.

 

Mis-quoted facts only effect all of you at the end of the day. Some of you should consider making constructive comments and direct the person who has a problem to the supplier, instead of talking crap.

 

The moderators job is to moderate. As an editor, DC carries even more responsibility that correct facts are stated. Otherwise even I, WARCO and others can talk crap and say that I can take him, My Hobby Store and the writer of non-fact about the machine being made by SIEG – when it wasnt, to court. In theory – I can. In practice, I do not have deep pockets. Anyone prepared to fund me for some leagl action, considering that the law staters on this tread know exactly what they are talking about??

 

Ketan at ARC.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Ketan,

 

A very fair comment as it had never occurred to me about other companies piggy-backing as you have described.

 

Even so, would it hurt you, or any other company, to at least check through the supplied manual looking for obvious mistakes? It would only need to be done the once, and any spotted problems put on an amendment sheet to be supplied with each machine. But let’s face it, when  I have to use someone else’s manual to find out how to operate the vertical  fine feed, then it’s wrong, wrong, wrong. Also, information about UK drive belts and possibly bearings really ought to be supplied as these are, in my opinion, expendable items. To put it another way, you buy a car, you expect to have to change the tyres and the timing belt and brake parts every so often: these being expendable items. And the same applies to our machinery: certain parts will wear out, or be damaged due to bad maintenance.

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

 

ps Ketan, may I congratulate you on having the guts to stand up and be counted. And for that matter to defend a member of the competion – it certainly does you credit, especially as I notice that Warco hasn’t (yet) said anything at all.

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Peter,

 

Yes, I agree with you. As a user, it would be good to have a good manual.

 

This applies to a seller too. In the nicest way possible, we dont really want you to call us with questions. Time is free for you, but it costs us money . So, wherever we can, we try to address the commen questions we get in an addition to the manual – example is an addition in C0 lathe manual.

 

I have to confess as a seller that if the cheapest solution is to direct you to Grizzlys or someone elses website for a solution, I will, just as others do. At the end of the day, I did not have to make the investment which will be “borrowed” by competitors or other Chinese manufacturers. It may be wrong, but it solves a problem.

 

We do point out obvious errors to the factory for rectification, but this takes several attempts over years to rectify.

 

For bearings, they sometimes ask me for the western bearing number for the Chinese bearing number, which I am happy to translate, as it is the same as a Russian bearing number. On our website, in the spare parts section, we state the western bearing number. If it still has the Chinese number, I change it. Ofcourse it is a consumable, which I can sell!

 

Belts: We were instrumental in getting the Chinese non-standard belts which were on the X3 mills changed to standard belts. But again, making changes is a slow and long process.

 

Warco may or may not reply. Cant speak for them. They are probably busy with sales, whilw I am busy with posting on this thread!, but I am sure that they will be supportive of my comments.

 

Ketan at ARC.

[Author]

Posts