Supermax 19-38 and Jet 16-32

[Wade Lippman]

I got my Supermax in yesterday, but can't try it until I find some help to lift it onto the stand. No one seems to be around.

It is over twice as heavy as the Jet because it has steel and cast iron where the Jet has plastic and steel. Very impressive machine; but I question why they used a class A motor when a higher class would seem to have been better. So, I wonder what class the Jet uses, if it says.

[Rob Holcomb]

This thread caught my eye as I am debating whether to buy the Supermax or the Jet. I keep going back and forth in my mind. I could care less about the price difference or the size difference. For me, it's the Jet having tons of positive reviews while the Supermax gets positive reviews but the no name motor concerns me and it's newer in the market place so there's not nearly as many.

[Jeff Monson]

it's newer in the market place so there's not nearly as many.

Not sure if you are aware of this Rob, but Supermax is the same company that Performax used to be. Performax sold out the drum sander to Jet a few years ago, now that the "no compete" clause in their contract has expired, they reintroduced the drum sander, with slight differences of course. I spoke with the owner and his wife at the AWFS a couple years ago regarding the company and what had happened. While I really like their sanders, the fact that they sold out, and now produce a similar product to me is not right, that would stop me from buying a Supermax sander.

[Gene E Miller]

Greetings & Salutations,

I have a 16-32 but always like to read reviews of newer equipment.
I also belong to lumberjocks and one of our members over there just
got one of these and we have a section for writing reviews and here
is the link for his review and a few comments from other members.

http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/2721

Hope this will be of service to you.

[Wade Lippman]

Greetings & Salutations,

I have a 16-32

So what class motor does the 16-32 have?

[Jim Neeley]

Not sure if you are aware of this Rob, but Supermax is the same company that Performax used to be. Performax sold out the drum sander to Jet a few years ago, now that the "no compete" clause in their contract has expired, they reintroduced the drum sander, with slight differences of course. I spoke with the owner and his wife at the AWFS a couple years ago regarding the company and what had happened. While I really like their sanders, the fact that they sold out, and now produce a similar product to me is not right, that would stop me from buying a Supermax sander.

Jeff,

Why the concern? When one company buys the rights for a product from another, one thing they usually negotiate on is a no-compete clause and the longer term the buyer wants in the no-compete clause the higher the sales price. If companies are willing to pay *enough* they can typically make that a "forever" or very long (i.e. 20-30 year) clause, but this does not come cheap and is negotiated in the sale.

While I have a problem with someone violating a no-compete clause, I'd like to understand your concern with them re-entering the market after the no-compete contract (as long as the buyer was willing to pay for) runs out. To my way of thinking, that's why no-competes have a duration and why a 3-year or 5-year pays less than a "never in your lifetime". As I see it, any ideas for innovation the seller has, as long as he thought of them after the sale and waits to bring them to market until the clause runs out, only leads to product innovation and healthy competition. Perhaps I'm missing something? If so, I'd appreciate the opportunity to consider the issue again.

Jim in Alaska

[Jeff Monson]

Jeff,

Why the concern? When one company buys the rights for a product from another, one thing they usually negotiate on is a no-compete clause and the longer term the buyer wants in the no-compete clause the higher the sales price. If companies are willing to pay *enough* they can typically make that a "forever" or very long (i.e. 20-30 year) clause, but this does not come cheap and is negotiated in the sale.

While I have a problem with someone violating a no-compete clause, I'd like to understand your concern with them re-entering the market after the no-compete contract (as long as the buyer was willing to pay for) runs out. To my way of thinking, that's why no-competes have a duration and why a 3-year or 5-year pays less than a "never in your lifetime". As I see it, any ideas for innovation the seller has, as long as he thought of them after the sale and waits to bring them to market until the clause runs out, only leads to product innovation and healthy competition. Perhaps I'm missing something? If so, I'd appreciate the opportunity to consider the issue again.

Jim in Alaska

Just a personal thing Jim, there is nothing legally wrong here. I was in business buyout and got the short end of a "no-compete" clause, finding out later it is really expensive to legally pursue with little to no guarantee ..... so I have a really bad taste in my mouth for that sort of thing, that's all. Maybe Jet knew all along that this would happen, who knows?

[Dan Blackshear]

Not sure about the 16-32 but my Jet 22-44 oscillating has a 1.75 hp class A motor.