My, that escalated quickly. We’ve gone from a complaint about the origin of products to blaming the EU for a British local council’s decision to cut corners on an order for some building cladding…
Gordon…I take your response as somewhat of an affront…hence the tone of my response… if you need an explaination on this, here it is:
Affront - implies treating with deliberate rudeness or contemptuous indifference to courtesy.
If you have nothing more to comment, other than to demonstrate your contempt for my posts, please do not bother further…
Stu, so far in this thread you’ve said “I really don’t recall stating that I expected Axminster to have this sorted out by tomorrow morning…lol… in fact I. Don’t recall setting any deadlines”… when you’d earlier claimed “adding a short line of text nowadays to a web page is easy and takes seconds…”.
Then you’ve essentially blamed the EU for the tragic deaths of many people… “EU standards are lower… unfortunately it is disasters like Grenfell that will tell the tale…I just hope in that case justice prevails and it does not just come to finding scapegoats…as lower standards of EU approved materials will no doubt be a contributing cause…”… when so far the evidence seems to be that safe materials were available but people cut corners in ordering a different product.
Now I don’t know about you, but essentially implying someone carries responsibility for the loss of innocent life (without providing any supporting evidence) is a bit of an affront in itself, no?
Let’s just wait until the inquiry has finished before throwing around blame.
CGordon…if your going to quote me, then quote fully, not just the bits that you think provide you with ammunition .
LASTLY, if you are keen to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of EU standards and their relationship to materials and materials testing be my guest, you are doing a fine job… All I can say is that perhaps you need to do a bit of research on the subject…
No doubt you’ll be responding with more comments that bear no relationship to the crux of my post, or my comments, except those you feel might give you a hammer to beat… you carry on grinding your axe chap…your on your own…
Stu, well why not try to educate then? Either you are or you are not intimating some responsibility on the part of the EU for Grenfell. If you’re not, then continuing to reference EU standards seems a bit odd.
If you are, then please point to said standards. Give at least some proof as to why you believe there to be a connection.
If you had been professionally involved with Grenfell, and someone had written what you’d written (but replaced “EU” with “Stu” - or your employer) I suspect you’d (quite rightly) be asking for some evidence.
Interesting thread…I don’t have an issue with a machine being made in the Far East, but would never buy an Axminster lathe on account of the very limited warranty; their Hobby Series lathes are only guaranteed for 100hrs per year…that’s 2hrs/week!!! And paying more for a Trade Series only increases that to 20hrs per week. Other brands do not limit their warranties in the same way.
Going back to the question over Powermatic not being US made anymore, that is correct. But don’t assume China…it’s actually Taiwan 
Powermatic, JET, Grizzly, DeWalt…all coming from one factory in Taiwan; a manufacturer producing under ODM agreement, it seems. Don’t take my word for it - Geetech confirm it on their website: www.geetech.com.tw/index.php/en/strategic-partenrship-e
Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but just giving some clarification lest anyone thought it was gossip!
As above, I’d be more concerned with quality/warranty than country of origin. And Axminster’s very limited warranties raise some serious questions, in my opinion. I know countless Hobby Series owners who had no idea the warranty was limited to 100hrs/year, and they ought to make that a lot more clear in marketing.
Jonnie…at the end of the day I think it all boils down to quality…whether made overseas or not…my particular gripe was the fact that it appears Axminster imply they make their own, without actually stating that anywhere, and when you buy following being ‘taken-in’ if you like by that, it turns out what you bought was made in China…
I just don’t know why companies can’t be more up-front with customers…yes it may affect a buying decision, but on the whole I think customers would appreciate the company more for being up-front about it…
From my own research on the non-axminster table saw, panel saws and bench saws axminster re-sell via their stores, Sedwick are manufactured in the UK, Bosch its seems manufacture (in their own factories) in both Germany and Malaysia, Jet manufacture in Switzerland (which is where my JET Mortising Machine was manufactured), and De Walt Manufacture in Germany…
I would quite well believe that some or most of those import parts made overseas and may well ‘assemble’ those parts elsewhere, or like Powermatic, may have moved some or all of their manufacturing off-shore… I understand Powermatic are doing so in their own factory though, not having the machines made on someone elses factory and just having their name stuck on it…
One thing I can add though is that ALL of Axminsters range of Hobby, Trade and Industrial table/panel/bench saws are made either in China or Taiwan…having spent some time going through all their manuals and lookinmg under the ‘Declaration of Conformity’ which identifies the ‘Country of Origin’… all but one carried this information; the one that didn’t had no declaration of conformity in the manual at all (so the manual has obviously not been updated for some time!)…
I don’t think I need to ‘clarify’ the above statement unless someone thinks its gossip…
you can look it up yourself by going to the web site, looking up table saw, clicking the ‘more+’ buttons and selecting ‘user manual’, then slowly paginging through to the ‘Declaration of Conformity’…and there it is in black and white…
Guys. Sorry I’m late to this party, but have been doing some of my own ‘tracing origins’: Another UK company sold a very nice cabinet saw, they just, and apparently unexpectedly, lost the franchise: and when I tried to source, found the Aladdin’s cave in China; A company called Alibaba.com seem to procure and ship, from loads of Chinese machine manufacturers: if you can make them understand! I have still have no idea of shipping and customs duties, but everything seems to jump to very unexpected levels! The yanks can but tools from China, in their big barn shops, much cheaper than anything we can get here in the UK.
Happy shopping.
Just as an aside to some of the earlier comments in this thread on EU standards and fire resistance that I referred to at the time, I paste below details of the now known EU standards that have been referred to for ‘High Pressure Laminates’ (HPL), that are used for construction/building cladding, as below, and in the refurbished cladding system on Grenfell Tower. I think the reference to EU standards having to be ‘adopted’ says it all really…the HPL having been been approved for use under the EU Standard… Also, if your interested, you should know that HPL has consistently failed fire tests carried out under the relevant British Standard, BS 8414.
In the news the BBC quote the Building Research Establishment, which stated that none of the cladding systems that had passed a standard BS 8414 safety test included an HPL.
Another study, released in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, found that HPL cladding materials released heat 25 times faster and released 115 times more heat than non-combustible products
The International Committee of the Decorate Laminates Industry, states in its Information Data Sheet on HPLs, under the heading ‘Fire behavior of decorative high pressure laminates (HPL)’ dated November 2009…the following:
-
European Fire classification of construction products and building elements according to EN 13501
A new European fire classification system has been developed for construction products (defined as products to be installed permanently into or on buildings). This new fire classification system will replace the national fire classification systems for construction products. The definitions and classification for construction products in terms of fire performance are described in the European standard EN 13501. It consists of several parts. For HPL products part 1 and 2 are important. Part 1 describes the reaction to fire classification and test methods for construction products (table 2, 3, 4 and 5 of appendix 1). EN 13501 part 2 describes the resistance to fire classification for building elements. Interior standard grade HPL panels have a Classified Without Further Testing (CWFT) classification Euroclass D-s2, d0 (table 1 of appendix 1).
The CWFT classification is published in the Official Journal of the European Union (8-8-2003). This means that these products are classified as Euroclass D-s2,d0 and do not need an official test report to prove this. -
Building Regulations
Building regulations determine where and how products with various reaction to fire classifications can be used. In Europe these exist only at the National level. The EU member states have to transpose their national fire classification system to the European fire classification system. Each member state will set national fire requirements for construction products based upon the European fire classification system
So for doubters, there you have it…EU standards says HPL is fine with. Class 1 fire rating… the UK Building Research Establishment says no HPL, including the cladding used on Grenfell Tower were able to pass the relevant British Standard Fire Test…
I think personally this vindicates my earlier comments, although I don’t expect any rush from anyone of those detractors of my comments identified by their comments above…to say, ‘blimey, seems you were right’…!!
“blimey, seems you were right”
Good post.
I must admit I’m surprised (given that EU rules often seem to be much more risk averse - sometimes even to the point of being over the top).
I assume the HPL product is cheaper than the alternatives (so the building company responsible went for that cheaper product) - but if the rules say it was ok then it’s hard to claim they weren’t doing things by the book.
Gordon… very gracious of you, thank you…
As a Civil Engineer of some years standing I can respond that it all probably amounts to what is known as ‘Value Engineering’…this happens when during the design, the designers choose the best, and often most expensive materials… When the design, usually now over budget, is presented to the ‘Client’…in many cases with blocks of flats, many owners represented by a ‘Consultant’, the reply is as expected…’that’s too expensive’… so the designers go into a ‘Value Engineering’ stage… This stage then reviews the materials to be employed, and chooses cheaper options…this may occur many times until they end up at a price the ‘Client’ accepts…and then the design, which may have changed many times by now to accommodate the ‘Value Engineering’ is fixed…
I think it goes without saying that as choice of materials declines, standards often decline too…whilst purportedly doing the same job…I suppose in simple terms you could compare this, as in buying a Rolls Royce or a Tribant…
