Looks like no more Makita Petrol Saws

[Jamie Jones]

I would still get a Dolmar... Good reliable saws... Parts will be about for a while.... And lets be honest at the price Makita is selling them for it is a bargin never to be missed.. Fraction of the price of a Stihl...

[Dan Maynard]

Still got a couple of years to buy one anyway.

I found the announcement on Makita site but not on Dolmar, I'm wondering if they will effectively split the branding back up so Makita is battery and Dolmar petrol, otherwise they might sell off Dolmar again.

Seems a bit odd to just scrap the existing products, then again the 6100 and 73/7910 saws are quite old design now so maybe they just don't feel it's justfied to develop a new generation.

[Echo]

1 hour ago, Dan Maynard said:

Still got a couple of years to buy one anyway.

I found the announcement on Makita site but not on Dolmar, I'm wondering if they will effectively split the branding back up so Makita is battery and Dolmar petrol, otherwise they might sell off Dolmar again.

Seems a bit odd to just scrap the existing products, then again the 6100 and 73/7910 saws are quite old design now so maybe they just don't feel it's justfied to develop a new generation.

It would be good if they made this clear, as a lot of people will be put off buying

that would otherwise buy a Dolmar, needs cleared up, maybe @shavey could contact

Dolmar and ask for a straight answer. 

Yes the saws have not changed much in 10 years, other than to keep up with the

emissions regulations, that says a lot abouth how well they were designed and built.

The 7900 and even the 7300 can still compete with the new Husqvarna 572, and for

40% less in price.

[DCS6800i]

5 hours ago, wyk said:

Let's try to be a bit reasonable here, folks. You are not going to equal either the efficiency(cost per kWh) or the carbon output per kWh of ANY power plant with a combustion engine, let alone a small two stroke engine, regardless of what that power plant uses to make the power. You just aren't. All you have to do is look at the figures of c02/kWh and £/kWh anywhere on the web to figure that out.

 

Yes, batteries will produce some chemical waste. But so does spilling c02 into the air and petroleum products in to the environment at every stage of petrol harvesting there is. And right now we really aren't exactly sure what to do with battery waste since lithium recycling isn't state mandated to be terrifically efficient. This will come.

 

But what batteries do is keep c02 out of the air far better than petroleum(as well as a great many other contaminants). And we simply can not keep pouring c02 and other junk in to the atmosphere indefinitely. It has to stop sometime - that's the main point of making everything electric that we can.

 

The earth is 40,000km around. It's highest peaks are ~9km. If you go halfway up those mountains, you will need extra oxygen to help you breath, assuming you haven't frozen to death yet. That is how thin the layer of breathable air and liveable environment is painted on to this planet. When you look up, it seems infinite. It just isn't. It's finite, and it has to be maintained, or we all suffer.

 

 

You're not taking into account of the manufacturing of the components of the motors, the batteries etc... the energy and emissions put into making the product. The energy and emissions put into making old saws obsolete and melting them down to be replaced by these new ones. It's the same glaring omission made in the car industry when we are told petrol/diesel will be gone by 2040!

 

You're also ignoring the huge burden and strain charging all these batteries will put on the national grid which is already feeling the load. Those power stations also need to produce electricity constantly, even if nobody is using it... all releasing c02 into the atmosphere at ever higher levels

 

 

Batteries do not keep c02 out of the air better - they shift where it's produced...

Like I said, all it's doing is shifting the dust on the floor - it isn't 'solving' the problem.

[doobin]

18 minutes ago, DCS6800i said:

 

You're not taking into account of the manufacturing of the components of the motors, the batteries etc... the energy and emissions put into making the product. The energy and emissions put into making old saws obsolete and melting them down to be replaced by these new ones. It's the same glaring omission made in the car industry when we are told petrol/diesel will be gone by 2040!

 

You're also ignoring the huge burden and strain charging all these batteries will put on the national grid which is already feeling the load. Those power stations also need to produce electricity constantly, even if nobody is using it... all releasing c02 into the atmosphere at ever higher levels

 

 

Batteries do not keep c02 out of the air better - they shift where it's produced...

Like I said, all it's doing is shifting the dust on the floor - it isn't 'solving' the problem.

I'm no battery fan but it's important to realise that a big power station can capture far more of the nasties than a two strole engine. Economies of scale mean that giant scrubbers are installed.

 

But yeah, the notion that we will all have electric cars and do the same miles in 2040 is a fallacy without a hundred new nuclear plants and a major grid upgrade.

[wyk]

49 minutes ago, DCS6800i said:

 

You're not taking into account of the manufacturing of the components of the motors, the batteries etc... the energy and emissions put into making the product. The energy and emissions put into making old saws obsolete and melting them down to be replaced by these new ones. It's the same glaring omission made in the car industry when we are told petrol/diesel will be gone by 2040!

 

You're also ignoring the huge burden and strain charging all these batteries will put on the national grid which is already feeling the load. Those power stations also need to produce electricity constantly, even if nobody is using it... all releasing c02 into the atmosphere at ever higher levels

 

 

Batteries do not keep c02 out of the air better - they shift where it's produced...

Like I said, all it's doing is shifting the dust on the floor - it isn't 'solving' the problem.

 

You think states have decided to go electric because it will pollute more?

This is your position?

Finding an engineer or scientist to agree will be difficult.

 

The future is coming, ready or not.

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by wyk

[spudulike]

Not sure this rare earth magnet mine looks very "environmental".

[Bolt]

56 minutes ago, DCS6800i said:

 

You're not taking into account of the manufacturing of the components of the motors, the batteries etc... the energy and emissions put into making the product. 

You’re not taking into account the manufacturing of the components of the engines, carburettors, oil rigs, supertankers, refineries, transfer hubs, petrol tankers, filling stations, combi-cans etc.... the energy and emissions put into making the product.

[DCS6800i]

14 minutes ago, wyk said:

 

You think states have decided to go electric because it will pollute more?

This is your position?

Finding an engineer or scientist to agree will be difficult.

 

The future is coming, ready or not.

 

Where did I say it will pollute more?

 

I'm saying it isn't any greener. It just has a greener image.

 

 

The pollution is still happening

[DCS6800i]

2 minutes ago, Bolt said:

You’re not taking into account the manufacturing of the components of the engines, carburettors, oil rigs, supertankers, refineries, transfer hubs, petrol tankers, filling stations, combi-cans etc.... the energy and emissions put into making the product.

 

Oil rigs, refineries, and all else you've posted there are still needed even with electric cars and saws...

 

How else will you make the plastic?!