The worst tool for the job • Hacker News Board

Re: The worst tool for the job

#191

Post by pinusc » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 12:00 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #138

paozac wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second cheapest is often where the seller makes the most profit. There is a pricing strategy around this idea - people will rarely buy the cheapest or the most expensive item of the list. Their function is to shift up all prices and set the bar

You're saying that as if someone else profiting off of providing you a product you want is a bad thing.

Paying more for something that you think is higher quality hile beeing just as bad as the cheapest product is a bad thing. Assuming parent comment is right that this is the case.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#192

Post by FridgeSeal » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 1:46 AM UTC

eezurr wrote: post #92

dmurray wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bike will wear down more than cheaper bikes, unfortunately. Chainrings, derailleurs, cassettes on mid-range bikes are made of lighter metals and to tighter tolerances than those on cheaper bikes. You'll replace them 3x as often and pay 3x as much for the parts, so maintenance is an order of magnitude more expensive per kilometre. There are some exceptions: higher-quality bottom brackets seem to last longer, and o…

Thanks for the info! Could you give me an idea of the yearly cost to maintain a mid-range bike?

The cost of some chain lube, grease, a citrus based bike cleaner and a couple of brushes should total less that $50/60 (they often come in bundles) and will keep you covered until they run out (approx 8-12 months, less for the chain lube).

I clean and re-lube my road bike when it gets dirty or starts making noise (literally once every 3-4 months), and it gets ridden 3-5 days a week. I clean and re-lube my mountain bike slightly more frequently because it gets far dirtier and gets ridden far harder - usually if it starts making noises, or anything feels (too) gritty or it's just too dirty. Once a month it usually gets a quick clean.

All in all, it's a fairly minor amount of time, money and energy.

As for component wear, I'm going to disagree with the OP - my friends and I have found that better components _tend_ to last longer, up until the point of diminishing returns (race level componentry). For example SRAM GX would be preferable over NX/SX for quality and lifetime.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#193

Post by snvzz » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 1:59 AM UTC

mjayhn wrote: post #148

snvzz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this done a lot with headphones. Sennheiser HD600 cost around $280, are comfortable, do sound really accurate and pleasant, effectively last forever, are full modular with all pieces sold individually in the odd event the user drops them from a building or steps on them, and are effectively the market peak in value/price. But people keep buying uncomfortable foul-sounding sub-$100 headphones that last a few mon…

I have about 4-5 pairs of headphones in a drawer of various $80-150 prices that were finally replaced with my $300 Sony ANCs. I just had to finally get so sick of my open office that I'd splurge that much coin into ANC.

HD600 are open monitors, so they are more suitable for non-open offices or home/studio use.

I'm unfortunate as ANC screws with my balance really hard and makes me extremely uncomfortable immediately and lasting quite a bit more upon removal. Thus on open office I'm stuck with closed w/o ANC. I use ath-msr7 there.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#194

Post by amgutier » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #134

gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique. I've experienced this pretty directly wit…

Another option for sport equipment is to rent before you buy. You can rent skis and boots for a week for less than a cheap kit, learn, and then choose to invest. More difficult with some items (shoes), though.

I had a homework problem in some math class about the optimal online algorithm for deciding when to rent vs. buy. It works out to "rent until you've spent as much as you would spend to buy, then buy," and I think that applies well here. You may spend up to double the cost, but you avoid spending _a lot more_ on incremental upgrades before getting gear that actually fits your needs.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#195

Post by ccanassa » Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

I usually buy the best tool that I can afford, my reasoing is:

- This forces me to research first, if I am dropping €500 on a new piece of woodworking equiment I want to make sure that's not going to be wasted.

- There is a better market for used expensive tools and they can sell for a even higher price than a new one (I am looking at you Festool Domino)

- I pet my expensive tools. The cheap stuff just get throw around and get lost.

- There is a argument about buying a cheap one first and then once it breaks you get a better one. That doesn't really work for me, several of these cheap tools can last for ages.

- Good tools requires less skill to use; they just do their job. With cheap tools you have to account not only your lack of skill but also deviations introduced by the tool.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#196

Post by Graziano_M » Sat, Aug 01, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #134

gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique. I've experienced this pretty directly wit…

An example for me is soldering irons. I bought a crappy $5 weller and used it for some time, and I never enjoyed soldering. When I used a nice one, everything changed. I bought a $100 iron and now I enjoy it quite a bit, and I feel like my electronics skills have suffered because I could have been a lot more enthusiastic about soldering if it wasn't always such a chore.