3 ms·
Agreed! If you are a trade professional and regularly have tools crap out on you, that's one thing. But my tools are more likely to need replacing purely out o
by legitster 4y ago
Agreed!
If you are a trade professional and regularly have tools crap out on you, that's one thing. But my tools are more likely to need replacing purely out of obsolescence than anything else. And having an overbuilt tool collecting dust is just as much a waste as throwing one away occasionally.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago> "And having an overbuilt tool collecting dust is just as much a waste as throwing one away occasionally." Is it?
- creaturemachine 4y agoYes, because a good amount of the cost of that pro level tool is R&D and support for its use by pros. By using it once and shelving it you've paid for more engineering than you need. Case in point, when I needed to drill two holes in concrete block I opted for the cheapest $20 aliexpress carbide hole saw I could find rather than the professional diamond tipped version costing hundreds. In the unlikely event that I'll need to do the same job again I could easily bang out a few more cuts with what I have or order another cheap one and still be ahead.
- creato 4y agoI think this thread is conflating wasted money with wasted materials. Buying a nice tool once and underutilizing it wastes money. Buying cheap tools multiple times wastes materials.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoand energy. and creates waste.
- creaturemachine 4y agoThat underused professional tool is as much a waste as the underused cheap one, maybe more considering the upgrade in materials. And between cost and materials, it's obvious which is the most on the mind of the consumer. The aliexpress tool is already rusting sitting on the shelf and I don't care. If I had followed "the mantra" and spent hundreds I'd feel like a sucker each time I opened my tool box.
- CoastalCoder 4y agoI second this question. If nothing else, there are various kinds of wastefulness: money, pollution during manufacture / delivery, landfill, opportunity costs, etc.
- legitster 4y agoNice tools are nice because they use more resources. A Milwaukee drill is physically heavier than a Ryobi of the same size - purely because of all of the upgraded components to make it more durable/longer-lasting. But if you are only touching 5% of the expected lifespan of your tool, no need to have one that's over-engineered.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoWell, you are ignoring several things: 1. is the milwaukee doubly-engineered compared to the ryobi? because if you end up with 2 ryobis, that's twice the material/energy input of the one milwaukee 2. you seem to be ignoring the possibility that the milwaukee is "so" over-engineered that you pass it on to someone else, greatly extending its effective lifetime.
- legitster 4y agoAgain, from personal experience I have yet to ever get rid of a tool because it failed on me. The only reason I have ever lost a tool was through theft, the battery/charger/replaceable component was no longer supported, or the tool was too unsafe to use. If I was a professional or ran a tool rental business I would 100% agree. But I wouldn't buy a pickup track no matter how durable if all I need it to do is grab groceries. It's better to get a tool engineered for the level of work expected.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agofor the typical level of work expected, or (as most Americans do with their vehicles) the "max" level of work expected? There are plumbing tools I will never buy because I'm not a professional plumber. But you can be sure that the plumbing tools that I do own are top of the line for the tasks that they can accomplish.
- alanbernstein 4y agoWhat is the difference between "too unsafe to use" and "failed on me"?