|
|
Post by GhostFist on May 27, 2015 20:53:38 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not talking about the biggest and baddest, but overall tool efficiency including costs involved. How do you determine wether a tool is living up to its potential in your arsenal? Will the upfront cost pay off over time by giving you a competitive advantage? If so, how do you predict this?
For example, a cheapo empire combo square is overall more efficient than my expensive starrett one. Reason being, a lot of simple little layouts that I do regularly do not require the precision of the starrett. For these "dummy" jobs I'm often marking lines on glue dribbled on surfaces, off away from the bench, some distant location where I'm going to possibly lose the thing, sometimes I'm using a felt marker to strike a line with it. I would punch my own head off if I tried to do that with my starrett.
It makes more sense for me to use a cheaper combo square for those application as replacing it is more manageable than replacing a starrett, thereby, the empire combination square is better at those jobs.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by holmz on May 27, 2015 21:45:14 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not talking about the biggest and baddest, but overall tool efficiency including costs involved. How do you determine wether a tool is living up to its potential in your arsenal? Will the upfront cost pay off over time by giving you a competitive advantage? If so, how do you predict this? ... Differential Value = $-rate/hour * Time-saved/per-use * Number of times used Long answer:From a mathematical perspective it is easier. One can maximize or minimize the cost function. For example a race car would be rated in minimizing the time, and a weapon would be maximizing effectiveness. For work it is generally maximizing profits. For example (using minimization): Cost function: Dust = (100 -% Efficiency) Noise is non-linear, so maybe below 80dB = 0, so minimum of Absolute value of |(dB - 80)| Speed = time is takes Saftey = some combination of weighted factor and maybe non-linear Human factors = again non-linear Total cost function = (Weight Dust * Cost Dust) + (Weight Noise * Cost Noise)) + (Weight Speed * Cost Speed) ... If one uses maximzation then it is something like: Cost function: Dust =|(% Efficiency - minimum efficient one can tolerate)| Noise is non-linear (80-dB - dB (Tool)); if < 80 then Speed = Time saved - which is something like (Acceptable-time - time is takes) Saftey = Add 1 for every unsafe feature Human factors = again non-linear. Add 1 for every unsafe feature Total cost function equation is the same, but you go for the maximum. As everyone rates the weighing differently it becomes subjective. Add in emotion and you can justify anything. How does one rate happiness or avoidance of frustration? I doubt that my EVA 115 sander can be rationally justified over the 5" RO Bosch, except for the fact that I smile when I use it. Maybe as my hands are not numb and my ears are not ringing. But I can justify it over the FT RO in screen longevity and perceived ease of use. |
|
bb
New Member
Posts: 36 
|
Post by bb on May 27, 2015 21:54:52 GMT -5
I like these kinds of topics, they always make me sit back and think.
I'm with you on your logic on a simple tools like the combo square. It gets a lot more complicated with more expensive tools. For example, I just ordered the KSS400 the other day after going around in circles debating the purchase. Most of the work I do is time and materials so more efficiency doesn't necessarily translate into more profit. Increased efficiency was one of the factors that played a smaller role in my decision. My goal over the last year or so was to try to be more lean, but still be flexible. I think the KSS400 will mean there will be considerably less times I'll need the miter saw and/or table saw on the job. Less stuff to load and unload, transport and less wear and tear on the body (and mind) is a nice step in the direction of efficiency and operating more lean.
While not directly related to efficiency, how I feel about using a tool has a big impact on perceived value. A bigger element of this feeling is how it effects me. A well made tool that works well and is fun to use greatly improves not only my efficiency, but my motivation and pride in workmanship. There can be this strange sort of synergy with great tools...
|
|
|
|
Post by 7 on May 27, 2015 23:45:25 GMT -5
There are some that are simple like stepping over a dime to pick up a dollar. They get tricky when you are possibly stepping over 95 cents to pick up a dollar or vice versa.
The ones that are obvious to me are items like a track saw or multi master. Tools that although expensive allow you to do jobs that would otherwise be very difficult and not as accurate. On these types of items I don't really care if they are expensive.
In short if it helps me do better work in less time then I buy it. Since it is how I make a living and my productivity and reputation both are increased certain purchases are obvious. It is also a big deal to me to enjoy what I am to the extent possible and cool tools help a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on May 28, 2015 4:53:56 GMT -5
Great answers. 7 I like the formulated approach. I'd like to attempt to apply a mathematical approach to tool efficiency that we could perhaps use as a study when we do a personal review of tools. of course there's a lot of personal factors involved in tool choices and methods of work but it would be interesting to see if we could get some data to play with.
This of course would differ from a sponsored review of tools and hopefully give a measurable result that would eliminate brand bias when recommending equipment.
I've always been after the best tools for the job, and buy regardless of brand but I have no measured system to see if they're really paying off. I feel good, but could my business be spending more efficiently?
|
|
|
|
Post by holmz on May 28, 2015 5:37:47 GMT -5
Great answers. 7 I like the formulated approach. I'd like to attempt to apply a mathematical approach to tool efficiency that we could perhaps use as a study when we do a personal review of tools. of course there's a lot of personal factors involved in tool choices and methods of work but it would be interesting to see if we could get some data to play with. This of course would differ from a sponsored review of tools and hopefully give a measurable result that would eliminate brand bias when recommending equipment. I've always been after the best tools for the job, and buy regardless of brand but I have no measured system to see if they're really paying off. I feel good, but could my business be spending more efficiently? I think that would be easy. Safety (dust, noise, punctures, cuts, bruises...) The first two are measurable The efficiency. For sanders or saws it is speed. For drills torque and speed, which is also power, but like engines one can have lots of one or the other and still be lacking. And there could be perceptual or subjective scores. As long as they are set out as such. In the end it could look like a spec sheet though. |
|
|
|
Post by toomanytoys on May 28, 2015 6:54:27 GMT -5
Safety is one that can get elusive, especially depending on age. Maybe it's age or being a manager for 30 years and seeing long term effects on workers. I've had older guys out with Carpel Tunnel while I'm watching younger guys doing things where they would never consider the long term effects of hammering or vibrating tools. Same with dust collection and COPD. Tinnitus .... I could go on. I think we better understand the long term effects now then we did in the past, but when you are hampered from doing these tasks at your older age it certainly alters you lifetime efficiency. So it is an aspect that I look towards more in equipment then I did two decades ago. But unless it has a sharp edge, I'm good to go with an Empire square for most things  ? |
|
|
|
Post by wrightwoodwork on May 28, 2015 12:48:32 GMT -5
For myself it's things like being efficient, does the tool work simply and get the job done with out faffing about. Is the tool a pleasure to use. The kss saws for myself including the cordless have properly being the best bang for buck I've spent on tools ever. They are just so universal in what they can do. I would recommend everyone to try the system be it the mafell or the festool system. Especially if you work on sites. Then I also have the multi tool which I hardly use yet it is handy for jobs when I'm scratching my head. I certainly don't tools fir the heck of it until I have the actual need or I know that I will be definitely using it in the near future
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on May 28, 2015 14:27:13 GMT -5
How I look at that has changed in the past 10 years for the better I think now if I have the work for the tool even if it is only one big job with enough profit to pay for the tool and pay that months bills and that tool makes my life easer on the body and mind I am happy to get it
Before I would only get it if I had to if I could manage with what tools I had then that was what I did
So for me if it makes my life easer it is worth it and if you have a better finished job then it is well worth it
How to calculate it I have no idea
|
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on May 28, 2015 17:00:49 GMT -5
Amen on the kss system.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrToolJunkie on May 28, 2015 20:33:52 GMT -5
Good thread. The value of a tool is way beyond the cost/price of it. I think it is ease of use, reliability, quality, ergonomics, functions, features, accessories and a host of other things that goes into it. Some tools that have lots of value are cheap, but effective at getting the job done. For example, an indispensable tool for me are razor blades - it seems silly, but I use them for getting glue out of corners and even as a mini scraper in a pinch. I buy them in bulk and always have them within reach. They are efficient in my workflow beyond just cutting things.
I love the KSS system too for the reasons Aaron so eloquently stated. And my P1CC allows me to do things with a jigsaw that you could not achieve easily with a different make.
|
|
|
|
Post by holmz on Jun 19, 2015 19:07:57 GMT -5
To provide the alternate perspective to my first post would be the example of buying a car.
The spec sheet is litter with USB, Nav, heated seats, etc, electric mirrors, etc etc etc.
And it is easy to could the tick marks.
The Mrs was not impressed with some car seats and mirrors I got a few years ago...
Her replacement Pius side mirror was >500 $, for that price I want to be able to see into the future and not just the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by jalvis on Jun 22, 2015 11:38:08 GMT -5
"Ease of use" and durability are the most important factors for me. Working in the trades is hard enough so why fight your tools.
"Term of use" is also a large factor for me. Tools that last my lifetime are easy decisions. Perhaps thats why I dislike battery operated tools since I know they are short term items.
In the end I have a mix of items but since I rarely pay full price or buy new theres more high quality then poor.
My problem is buying items too early. I find a good deal and buy before its needed. Its a good plan but often times years in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on Jun 22, 2015 14:29:03 GMT -5
I'm guilty of this. Buy while the price is right and I have the money to spend. There's a few tools I'm not getting the most out of yet and it bugs me that they are still sitting. I purchased a few items in anticipation of a collapse in the film industry which would allow me to efficiently transition while remaining independent.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrightwoodwork on Jun 22, 2015 15:37:51 GMT -5
I always think it's better to have the tool rather than not I do tend to buy certain tools for a specific job if need it to get on. I don't worry if I will need it on the next job or not. My attitude is the tool has made me money on the first job and doesn't owe us anything I never sell tools my thinking is I might need it in the future
|
|
?
