Shars and Grizzly, Grrr...

[verbotenwhisky]

If Chinese AXA were a standard, it would be called out, like DIN-EN/ISO AXA Type 1. There is no standard, just a bunch of factories behind the bamboo curtain producing parts that usually work okay together. No standard means no deficiencies... and no guarantees. It's a free market, but if I expect something to comply with a standard, I want to see the certificate first.

Then again, I don't need to tell anyone here what the price difference is between Kung Pao and Aloris.

Preach it Brother John, Preach it.... The facts be with ya...

 

[pontiac428]

I didn't say anything about facts... facts are all over the internet for anyone to read. There is one thing you can't get any place else- my official opinion!

 

[verbotenwhisky]

I didn't say anything about facts... facts are all over the internet for anyone to read. There is one thing you can't get any place else- my official opinion!

Oops, sorry man, I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken... Facts indeed, I did not mean to accuse you of anything like that.

 

[WobblyHand]

In defense of Shars, their AXA 101 holders, (that's what I checked,) match the dimensions of the Aloris AXA 101 holders. (Not XL holders.) I have a few of the Shars AXA tool holders. Do they clock the same as other holders, err, no. But they are fine. I have some holders that are too tall for my lathe. The only easy cure was to machine off the bottom of the tool holder so the cutting edge could reach center. I just chucked the tool holder in a 4 jaw, and turned the bottom. If it was hardened, the carbide tool didn't care. One of those tool holders was an Aloris AXA-8. Another was some AXA 1, maybe an XL.

My Grizzly G0602 compound to center line height was 0.050" less than someone else's G0602. ( @RJSakowski ) So stuff that worked for him, didn't work for me. My compound was effectively higher, maybe due to a hidden design change, but it could simply be to poor QC. But it sure was a shock to me that some "standard" tool holders didn't fit - and it didn't matter if the tool holder was domestic or foreign. It was a lesson learned. But in the end, since we have machines, we can fix many of these issues.

 

[Damn Yankee]

I would like to thank all who responded in good faith with no bias toward any manufacturer.

I am a Noob, but this Noob did his due diligence before blindly laying down my cash.

Yes, the Grizzly tool post is a BXA. After looking at the dimensional drawings, I walked away with the thought it is (albeit so slightly) stouter that some others. That point will be clearer when you look at the dimensions and remember that Shars do fit other BXA posts. I am usure how one could mistake any AXA/BXA/CXA series with another.

To those, especially Dabbler who correctly pointed-out the mechanical drawings, yes - they were on the Product Page and fully inspected by me. I am quite used to specifications and mechanical drawings for it is a large part of my profession. For the record, the Grizzly tool post is .389". The Grizzly tool holder measures .414" deep. The Shars is advertised at .417". It certainly should fit, but as keen-eyed Dabbler noticed in his follow-up post there is material either side of the "Red Line". It is this material which prevents installation. And no, I did not purchase $150 of product to mill to fit.

There was no disclaimer on the product page: https://www.shars.com/turning-and-facing-holder-1-type-201-xl-bxa. I look for that kind of thing.

I am quite aware of the common lack of quality and inconsistency of Asian products. As wild as this build inconsistency is, it is further propagated by inconsistencies between manufacturers/distributors. There can be an argument all day long about the quality of a machine when the only difference is the name, color, and to whatever extent the reseller can control - a little extra TLC in the build, add-on goodies, or customer service that BTW, is totally subjective.

I think some got the point of my post. I was not out to bad-mouth Shars exclusively nor am I so naive that my spout would have any effect other than to ****-off some members on this site who love them. Hell, I don't have the time to write about such crap. The purpose of my post was summarized in the last paragraph. There I had two points:
1) Why would any seller who knows they have a Noob with his 1st-ever lathe, presumably little knowledge, and no tooling/accessories lose that customer for $17.60? That was a question for the Group to ponder. I now ask, why is it as a Nation we pay good money for inferior products and services only to make excuses for them? The latter part totally escapes me. Marshall Field made a fortune base upon one principle: "Give the lady what she wants...". One could buy a mink coat for thousands and return it next day - no hassle. How many hoops or fights do we have to engage in today? It is almost better to toss it in the can and chalk it up to experience.
2) I did some forensic snooping as to why the holder did not fit and came across another post last month by a fella who had the same problem. It pretty much went the way this post did. A member, craigsoutdoorsports, posted the Shars holders did not fit his Grizzly post. Unfortunately, his message got lost in the noise of opinion and unsubstantiated claim. His post was the answer - Shars' holders do not fit Grizzly products. But no one got it or they had 2 cents to add. I wanted to put the Shars/Grizzly BXA toolholder to bed for future folks looking to buy a Shars holder for a G4004G and let craigsoutdoorsports know his effort was not un-noticed!

I do appreciate all the spirited replies. That is what makes this group great!

John

 

[pontiac428]

I apologise for the noise. I find it interesting that you want Shars to hold your hand and make sure you're fully informed over a part they're selling for less than $20. I bet dollars to donuts that Dorian would take the time over the phone to answer your questions, but they have a different business model when it comes to price, volume, and quality. One cost that comes with import price savings is you do the legwork yourself- either online, with your measuring instruments, or with your wallet as you test parts from different distributors and a black box of manufacturers. You can't expect the seller to anticipate your needs, and even the ancient Romans knew the meaning of caveat emptor.

Full disclosure, I sold off my Shars brand AXA when I sold my little lathe. It was a great post, and every one of the 30 tool holders I had fit without issue. Most holders were Shars, but I had others. It's not about branding, it's about product tiers and expectations. I like Shars for what they're good for, even if their return policy burdens the customer.

 

[Inferno]

I will say this. Similar scenario.
Ebay established a policy of no question returns and seller pays shipping.
Many, including myself, stopped selling because the customers were buying things to test fit. (I had a new starter come back all greasy and the buyer admitted that they thought their starter was bad but it turns out it wasn't the starter). That's why auto parts stores don't do returns on electrical components.
Ebay switched their policy to buyer pays for return shipping on some items so if something comes in that's not as described, I had to pay to ship it back to get my money back. I buy less from ebay now.

Either way the company will lose business or money. If Shars paid return shipping, then anyone could buy things just to check them out.
If they charge buyers for shipping then buyers will buy less.
It's a no win, nobody will be happy, game.

 

[projectnut]

In this case the business in question clearly states their product will interchange with Dorian, Aloris, and Phase II tool posts. It is unreasonable to expect them to identify all the different brands they won't interchange with. Would you expect the same level of service from any other company? If you went to an auto parts store and said you needed a starter motor advertised to fit a 2013 Chevrolet Corvette, would you expect them to list all the other brands and models it wouldn't fit? The list would probably be several pages long and essentially serve no purpose. Anyone looking for a starter motor for a different brand and model would identify that brand and model and ask if the store had one.

If you had ordered tool holders to fit one of the identified brands and for some reason they didn't fit, I would expect Shars to pay the return freight. You made the assumption that the tool holders you ordered would interchange with your tool post even though it wasn't listed as identified as one they would fit. The small amount of money you spent on return shipping should be chalked up to lessons learned. The lessons being "Don't make assumptions that something will fit. Be willing to admit you made a mistake and Move on.

We've all made mistakes in life. I recently needed a few drill bits for a job out of town. I searched through my inventory for over an hour, sure in my mind I had the set needed. I finally gave up and purchased a $90.00 drill set at a local store. When I got back home the drill set I was looking for all but hit me in the face. I could have tried to return the drill set, but having used some of them my conscience wouldn't allow it. I now have 2 nearly identical drill sets. One will be kept in the shop in a prominent place, and the other will reside in the toolbox I take with me whenever I have a job away from the shop. It hurt a bit to spend $90.00 needlessly, but it has inspired me to better organize the inventory to avoid future reoccurrences.

 

[RJSakowski]

The H in Shars drawing is at the corners. If the depth is measured at the center of the flat by Shars, it is a manufacturing error on their part and the tool holder is out of spec.

I checked two of my Shars AXA tool holders and they measured .3832" and .3813" at the ends of the flat and .3910" and ..3859" in the center of the flat. Shars lists the H value as .386". If my QCTP was dependent upon that .386" value, I could have a prob;em as well.

Although there is a similarity between piston type and wedge type QCTP's, the fundamental difference is the wedge type pulls the tool holder toward the center of the tool post while piston type pushes it away. The wedge type needs the H value for the tool holder to be greater than the corresponding dimension on the tool post while for the piston type, the L value is the critical dimension and the H value can be less or greater than the corresponding dimension on the tool post with no consequence.

 

[woodchucker]

I would like to thank all who responded in good faith with no bias toward any manufacturer.

I am a Noob, but this Noob did his due diligence before blindly laying down my cash.

Yes, the Grizzly tool post is a BXA. After looking at the dimensional drawings, I walked away with the thought it is (albeit so slightly) stouter that some others. That point will be clearer when you look at the dimensions and remember that Shars do fit other BXA posts. I am usure how one could mistake any AXA/BXA/CXA series with another.

To those, especially Dabbler who correctly pointed-out the mechanical drawings, yes - they were on the Product Page and fully inspected by me. I am quite used to specifications and mechanical drawings for it is a large part of my profession. For the record, the Grizzly tool post is .389". The Grizzly tool holder measures .414" deep. The Shars is advertised at .417". It certainly should fit, but as keen-eyed Dabbler noticed in his follow-up post there is material either side of the "Red Line". It is this material which prevents installation. And no, I did not purchase $150 of product to mill to fit.

There was no disclaimer on the product page: https://www.shars.com/turning-and-facing-holder-1-type-201-xl-bxa. I look for that kind of thing.

I am quite aware of the common lack of quality and inconsistency of Asian products. As wild as this build inconsistency is, it is further propagated by inconsistencies between manufacturers/distributors. There can be an argument all day long about the quality of a machine when the only difference is the name, color, and to whatever extent the reseller can control - a little extra TLC in the build, add-on goodies, or customer service that BTW, is totally subjective.

I think some got the point of my post. I was not out to bad-mouth Shars exclusively nor am I so naive that my spout would have any effect other than to ****-off some members on this site who love them. Hell, I don't have the time to write about such crap. The purpose of my post was summarized in the last paragraph. There I had two points:
1) Why would any seller who knows they have a Noob with his 1st-ever lathe, presumably little knowledge, and no tooling/accessories lose that customer for $17.60? That was a question for the Group to ponder. I now ask, why is it as a Nation we pay good money for inferior products and services only to make excuses for them? The latter part totally escapes me. Marshall Field made a fortune base upon one principle: "Give the lady what she wants...". One could buy a mink coat for thousands and return it next day - no hassle. How many hoops or fights do we have to engage in today? It is almost better to toss it in the can and chalk it up to experience.
2) I did some forensic snooping as to why the holder did not fit and came across another post last month by a fella who had the same problem. It pretty much went the way this post did. A member, craigsoutdoorsports, posted the Shars holders did not fit his Grizzly post. Unfortunately, his message got lost in the noise of opinion and unsubstantiated claim. His post was the answer - Shars' holders do not fit Grizzly products. But no one got it or they had 2 cents to add. I wanted to put the Shars/Grizzly BXA toolholder to bed for future folks looking to buy a Shars holder for a G4004G and let craigsoutdoorsports know his effort was not un-noticed!

I do appreciate all the spirited replies. That is what makes this group great!

John

What is the redline that you are referring to. I didn't see it in the drawing. Just looking for clarification.