One of the responses in a recent thread brought it home to me that quite a few people have totally different cost-quality assessments from me, and I was wondering what yours are.
I have often seen it said 'Buy the best you can afford'. Over the last 30 years I have been, accidentally, conducting an experiment to test this assertion with electric corded drills. In 1988 I bought a fairly expensive Bosch drill, and it was the best I could afford at the time. A year later, I came across a job where I was going to need to mask up, and effectively use the drill as a mortar rake in conditions that would seriously shorten the life of my expensive drill. So, I bought a cheap drill, as cheap as I could find. After that job, I used the two interchangeably, and when the cheap one wore out, I replaced it. When there was a horrible job, the cheap one always got used to protect the Bosch.
Now, 30 years on, my Bosch drill is just about worn out, as is my fourth cheap drill. So, I thought I'd look at the running costs over those 30 years, taking inflation into account. Over that time, taking inflation into account, the current value of my Bosch is £150. The current value of the 4 cheap drills is £100. And they had a harder life, always being chosen for the difficult, dusty jobs with large side loads etc.
So, is it worth buying the best you can afford? In the case of hand held electric drills, my experience would suggest that it's a foolish assertion. I know it's a limited sample, but is one where people have decided opinions.
Now, there are other cases. I have seen, and that is what prompted me to start this thread, the assertion that milling cutters should be bought to last a lifetime.
Why?
On the face of it, it seems sensible advice, but look more closely & the foundations to the assertion seem shaky. I'd like to explain:
- As time goes on, cutter geometry improves, feeds & speeds can be increased. How many cutters from the 1930's are viable now? That's a lifetime ago, so would fall into the category of 'Buy tools for a lifetime'.
- Inherent in the assertion is that more expensive = better. That is a fallacy as more expensive just means you have less money in your wallet. If you have had any experience of marketing people, you understand that they will always charge as much as they can, and value is not directly related to cost
- If a factory in a far eastern country churns out 50,000 tools using cnc machines at £5 each, does that inherently make them of lower quality than the same tool made as a one-off tool in the UK with a manual machine at £75? No, quite obviously the far eastern country is benefiting from investment that enables them to get huge production savings, and the UK company has squandered its competitive advantage by not investing in machinery.
- In 20 years time, will the hugely expensive tool do the job you want? Or would it have been better to invest in a tool at a lower price so you can afford another tool to do the job you need to do now?
When doing an assessment of cost-vs-quality, I look for the cheapest tool that will do the job well enough. Well enough means +/- 0.02mm for most of the work I do (for cost reasons at work we try to keep machinings to +/-0.5mm as any tighter tolerances is not often needed if the design is adequately thought through). If the tool looks as if it'll only last the one job, that is a weighting on the cost side, making the tool less attractive. Basically, looking at the tools ArcEurotrade sell, I reckon they have the quality about right, but if I can get the stuff cheaper, I'll be a happy bunny.
Where does your cost – quality dividing line sit? And do you have other considerations that come to play in most of your purchases? Do you go for a tool per job at one extreme, or a tool per lifetime at the other?
Regards,
Richard.