Page 1 of 2

I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:07 pm
by algale
I sent away for some Mark 7 informational material (in case I hit the lottery). I received an email back telling me about the Mark 7's advantages over stand alone tools, including a link comparing the cost and features of the six most comparable stand alone tools to each of the Mark 7's seven functions. I don't think I've ever seen this analysis before and unfortunately they don't identify which six tools they are using for comparison purposes.

Here's the link: http://www.shopsmith.com/mark7site/emai ... pn=WUXYPYV

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 4:11 pm
by rjent
algale wrote:I sent away for some Mark 7 informational material (in case I hit the lottery). I received an email back telling me about the Mark 7's advantages over stand alone tools, including a link comparing the cost and features of the six most comparable stand alone tools to each of the Mark 7's seven functions. I don't think I've ever seen this analysis before and unfortunately they don't identify which six tools they are using for comparison purposes.

Here's the link: http://www.shopsmith.com/mark7site/emai ... pn=WUXYPYV
It is kind of impressive .... I do get a kick of the infinitely variable from 250 to 10000. In reality, it goes in 1 RPM steps from 250 to 10000, hardly "infinite". The Mark V is truly "infinite" as theoretically there is always one speed in between any two settings on the dial .... :D

I know, picking nits .... :rolleyes:

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:37 pm
by JPG
More nit picking!

" Shopamirh Mark 7 "

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:27 pm
by admin
JPG wrote:More nit picking!

" Shopamirh Mark 7 "
Not any more :) I must have been half-asleep on that one, when fixing it I caught two other typos in that same page.

Thanks

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:10 am
by Ed in Tampa
They looked at commercial production machines.

And PRODUCTION is the operative word here. They looked at machines that were built to handle thousands of board feet a month.

Interestingly I know many commercial Production shops that use lesser machines process hundreds if not thousand of board feet a month and do it day in and day out.

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:31 am
by algale
Ed in Tampa wrote:They looked at commercial production machines.

And PRODUCTION is the operative word here. They looked at machines that were built to handle thousands of board feet a month.

Interestingly I know many commercial Production shops that use lesser machines process hundreds if not thousand of board feet a month and do it day in and day out.
I had a feeling you would respond to this, Ed. I suspect you are right but I'm curious how you know that they looked at production machines.

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:56 pm
by rjent
This thread is kind of turning negative. Although there are always arguments for or against anything, I think that the fact I have three Shopsmith products, one of which is 63 years old and a second one that is 32 years old and both are still doing what they were built for, speaks volumes.

Personally I wouldn't want stand alone machines: production level or not .... The whole idea behind what the Shopsmith is, particularly the Mark 7 suits me to a tee ...

Thank you Shopsmith for such a fine, American made machine, may you long continue for many more generations ... :cool:

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:00 pm
by dusty
Ed in Tampa wrote:They looked at commercial production machines.

And PRODUCTION is the operative word here. They looked at machines that were built to handle thousands of board feet a month.

Interestingly I know many commercial Production shops that use lesser machines process hundreds if not thousand of board feet a month and do it day in and day out.
If they did do this comparison against PRODUCTION MACHINES, I am impressed. The Shopsmith did quite well.

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:50 pm
by algale
dusty wrote:
Ed in Tampa wrote:They looked at commercial production machines.

And PRODUCTION is the operative word here. They looked at machines that were built to handle thousands of board feet a month.

Interestingly I know many commercial Production shops that use lesser machines process hundreds if not thousand of board feet a month and do it day in and day out.
If they did do this comparison against PRODUCTION MACHINES, I am impressed. The Shopsmith did quite well.
Good point! :D :D :D Somehow I doubt this will be the last word....

Re: I Wonder Which Machines They Looked At

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:00 pm
by dusty
algale wrote:
dusty wrote:
Ed in Tampa wrote:They looked at commercial production machines.

And PRODUCTION is the operative word here. They looked at machines that were built to handle thousands of board feet a month.

Interestingly I know many commercial Production shops that use lesser machines process hundreds if not thousand of board feet a month and do it day in and day out.
If they did do this comparison against PRODUCTION MACHINES, I am impressed. The Shopsmith did quite well.
Good point! :D :D :D Somehow I doubt this will be the last word....
This shall be the last post from me on this subject. I normally do not give manufacturers reports much attention. One can not expect them to report the negatives and they always highlight what they see as positives.

The fact that Shopsmith is in business and the web site is constantly improving and expanding tells me all that I need to know.