I watched your new video, and I really like your products. However, to be honest, I’d be a bit more careful about criticizing your competitors as bluntly as you do.
For example, you mentioned that the Siegmund tables have poorly chosen hole sizes because there isn’t a standard 28 mm bolt. That’s a fair criticism. On the other hand, your European version uses 19 mm holes, for which there isn’t a standard bolt size either. Arguably, a 20 mm hole would have been the more practical choice.
The same applies to some of your older videos where you criticized competitors for only tack-welding the top plate to the subframe. Now, on the X-Frame tables, the top plate is supported by small grub screws. I don’t think either design choice necessarily makes a product good or bad, they’re simply different engineering compromises.
Overall, I don’t think any of these points invalidate a product. I just think it comes across better to focus on the strengths of your own products rather than calling out competitors’ design choices. Otherwise, people may start applying the same level of scrutiny to your own products, and every design inevitably involves trade-offs.
That’s just my two cents. I genuinely like what you’re building, and I think your products stand well enough on their own merits without needing to put competitors down.
3/4" = 19.05mm. In other words, not enough of a difference to matter. 3/4" may not be a standard or common size in countries without flags on the moon, but they are at least obtainable.
3/4 has the longest history in tables. Wood working has used it for documented for over 100 years. To deviate and change to a proprietary diameter like 28mm is criminal. 3/4 is obtainable in any country around the world. It’s mathematically the most logical and size. The old timers had it correct 100 years ago.
The xframe is engineered to surpassed the most rigorous tests and perform any task the fabricator can congregate.
For the European market, 20 mm would still make more sense. M20 bolts are readily available in virtually every hardware store, and most fabricators keep them in stock, whereas 3/4" bolts are not common at all in Europe. The same applies when making your own fixtures or tools—20 mm rods, reamers, and core drills are easy to source, while 19 mm raw stock is generally not available from standard suppliers.
When referencing off a 19 mm hole, you also end up with an 8.5 mm offset instead of 10 mm, which is less practical, since most European designs are based on whole millimeter increments.
That said, my intention isn’t to start a debate about different design philosophies. My point is more about communication: making strong or loaded statements in public (for example calling certain design choices “criminal” or implying they were made to upsell) can come across poorly and opens the door to the same kind of criticism in return. For instance, one could just as easily argue that choosing 19 mm holes was driven by internal cost considerations rather than what’s most practical for European users.
I think your products stand well on their own, and focusing on their strengths would likely come across more convincingly than criticizing competitors.
It’s stating facts not criticism or opinion. Yes that’s why they choose 28mm to force you to buy table bolts. You should ask them.
There’s more to selecting a table hole size then just bolt availability. 20mm doesn’t work with 1”centers on the fixtures. So there’s not enough material between the holes. 20mm doesn’t work with 1”wide material. It’s too large. As I stated before 3/4 is the perfect engineered hole size. Here’s a photo showing how close the holes are to each other.
If fireball made a 28mm table systems it would be for pure profit. It would be designed for that reason. It has zero user advantages of the 3/4 system. It be easier for us to drill half the number of holes and charge the customer the same price, make special thickness of fixtures to require the customer to buy expensive special bolts. The fixtures are excessively large due to the 4 inch hole centers, raising the cost of the tooling, putting more profit into the companies pockets.
I encourage everyone to ask questions and look at the engineering behind the designs.
[Edit to add; Jason’s response came while I was typing; this is not a reply to him.]
This is maybe a stupid question as I am new to having a fixture table, but wouldn’t you reference from the side of your fixture, and not the side or center of the hole?
The criticism of competitor’s products can definitely rub the wrong way at times. OTOH If a salesman is going to convince you to buy his product rather than a competitor’s, he has to be able to demonstrate the ways in which (in his opinion) his product is superior. There’s unfortunately not really any getting around that fact. Unless you have the good fortune of being in a market where the demand far outstrips the cumulative output of all manufacturers of a product type, it’s just the nature of business. As consumers it’s incumbent upon us to remember that what we are watching IS a sales pitch and not necessarily a neutral review.
Yes you can reference from any surface in the Fireball fixtures.
The Siegmund or Buildpro make using the sides to reference from more difficult because they made the fixtures an odd dimension 30mm that doesn’t match the table grid. The fixtures should always be the same width as the grid size.
So there’s clearly a logical engineering reason why you chose a 19 mm hole instead of a more common metric size, and that’s fair. It’s still a good system, no question about that.
I just find it a bit unfair to suggest that competitors choose their designs to upsell or mislead customers, while your own design choices are presented as purely logical.
That’s really my point: it’s less about the design itself and more about how those comparisons are framed publicly. Presenting competitors’ design constraints as malicious while framing your own as purely rational doesn’t come across well. You can point out design differences without implying that other companies deliberately build them in to take advantage of customers. In many cases, it’s more likely that a certain size or system was chosen at some point for whatever reasons and has simply been carried forward since then.
Fair comparisons are valuable for customers, but overly negative remarks about competitors tend to discredit your own work.
That’s exactly the intention of a 28mm hole. It’s designed to upsell the customer. Do you think they will tell you that’s their intention? No they won’t say that. I’d encourage you to ask them the engineering behind why 28 mm was selected. I’ve asked every manufacturer of fixture tables this question at the time of the fireball system was being developed and not one manufacturer could tell me the reason. They said it was for strength. When asked why they didn’t choose 30mm or any common bolt size the conversation stopped. It was clear that I had discovered that 28 was chosen to NOT be a bolt size on purpose.
The simple fact is that the strength of the fixture comes from the material size or thickness. The hole has very little to do with fixture strength. When what’s the last time you’ve used a fastener larger than 3/4 to temporary bolt two objects together? 3/4 has more clamping and shear force needed for any fixture mounting options.
The reason could just as well be that the original design team didn’t prioritize standard bolt sizes for their fixtures, or that a larger size like 30 mm simply didn’t fit their design constraints, similar to how a slightly larger, more common size doesn’t fit within your own (metric) system. Maybe the use case wasn’t fully considered at the time, or different priorities were set.
The fact that you use more standardized sizes can absolutely be seen as an advantage and shows that your product is well thought out. But suggesting that competitors deliberately designed their systems to take advantage of customers comes across as unprofessional.
If you look at it the other way around: why isn’t there a fully standard metric bolt size on your own metric table? A 3/4" bolt isn’t something that’s easily sourced in Europe either. As you’ve explained before, that comes down to design constraints, which is completely fair. But criticizing competitors for unusual hole sizes or mixing metric and imperial, while facing similar constraints yourself, feels inconsistent.
That’s really the point: every design has its trade-offs, and highlighting your advantages is strong on its own without framing others’ decisions negatively.
Like I said ask them. If they designed a system and didn’t consider the user being able to use off the shelf bolts that’s a crummy design. You can get 3/4 bolts in Europe. Any mcmaster cart or supply house will have them. You can order them on amazon. Once you have a small selection they don’t go bad. You’ll have them forever. And they are cheap. One 3/4 bolt is 1-2 dollars. 85 dollars for a ball bolt from Siegmund is ridiculous.
I totally agree with that. Personally, I’d just suggest easing up a bit on the negative remarks.
You could, for example, frame it more like: “We improved the design so you can use off-the-shelf bolts on your table, this makes it more practical/cheaper than tables from the competitor.” Instead of: “Competitors don’t use standard bolts because they want to scam you.” The first version highlights your improvement, while the second one comes across as an accusation. Even if the second statement is factually true I dont think its prudent to say stuff as someone who is a manufacturer himself.
I think the first approach is simply more appealing to customers because it focuses on how you made the product better and avoids mud-slinging.
To put it into perspective, you’ve also been on the receiving end of this. Quantum, for example, made a video implying you were hiding the origin of your product. They could have presented that information without framing it as if you were trying to deceive customers. That kind of loaded messaging (“what do they have to hide?”) doesn’t really add value either.
I really like your testing videos and your general marketing style, but once it shifts into that negative tone, it becomes harder to watch. It starts to feel more like back-and-forth criticism than a focus on building and showcasing good products.
Call it what it is. It is a scam to make proprietary bolt and hole size to keep you buying product from them and preventing you the customer from having alternatives.
I’ll stop calling it a scam the moment they share the engineering decisions that shows 28mm was a best for the customer.
You wouldn’t believe how many people I’ve talked to didn’t know 28mm wasn’t a bolt size. The first thing they reply with is “why did they do that”?
If Siegmund were honest with the customer they would have a disclaimer or notice that states that 28mm isn’t a bolt size and they must use the bolts they provide for 85 dollars. But no they keep this information hidden.
Maybe there’s some merit in calling things as they are, being direct instead of diplomatic. But then the same standard should apply across the board.
For example, placing Fireball logo stickers over the place of origin can also be perceived as scammy. I understand that producing overseas is often necessary from a cost perspective, but actively covering origin markings can come across as an attempt to obscure that information.
If you’re willing to call out questionable business practices in others, it’s only fair to hold your own practices to the same standard of transparency.
Like I said before, please go ask Seigmund, Buildpro and any other manufacturers why 28mm was chosen. Report back to the forum with your findings and if I agree with their design decision I’ll happily and publicly redact my statement.
You’re asking others to go chase down manufacturers for justification while you’re comfortable labeling them a “scam,” but you didn’t address the point about your own practices.
If we’re going to hold companies to a standard of transparency, that standard has to apply equally, including to you. Otherwise it just comes across as selective criticism.
But if you’re going to call out what you see as misleading behavior, it’s reasonable to expect the same level of openness about things like covering origin markings on your table.
So the question still stands, how do you reconcile calling others out for lack of transparency while not addressing similar concerns raised about your own business?
I saw a video recorded by Siegmund table opening 2 Fireball tables, and clearly they damaged the tables, leaving them rusted outside with water.
When they were opening, the small boxes were in one shot everything was perfect, but as they were uncovering the table, the video was cut, and when the video came back, the tables were in terrible shape.
It’s funny because if you trust your own product, show the features and capabilities, because opinion is very different from a lie. The video gets worse when they smash a heavy fixture to compare damages.
It’s so intentionally made to show material weakness without any real features.
I understand they are not happy;
I’ve seen the video, and in my opinion it probably did more damage to Quantum/Siegmund than to Fireball, because some of the points come across as questionable. For example, the rust issue could be the result of deliberate tampering, or even a one-off manufacturing or shipping oversight where corrosion protection wasn’t applied. Since it doesn’t appear to be a widespread issue, most people likely won’t see it as a systemic problem, but rather as an unjustified accusation.
The fixture drop test has some merit in principle. For example, there’s no mention of surface hardness or wear resistance on the Fireball Table. Given that cast iron is generally softer than steel, that would likely be a relevant comparison point. From a practical standpoint, a fixture table will see a lot of heavy steel parts being dragged across it, so surface wear is a real consideration and one of the drawbacks of a cast iron design.
That being said, my point isn’t that Siegmund/Quantum is right, I just find it unfortunate that the discussion is shifting away from the actual products and turning into a back-and-forth between companies.
A clear example is that Fireball is quick to call out competitors’ design choices, sometimes even labeling them as scams. At the same time, their own more questionable business decisions don’t seem to be addressed. In this thread, a lot of constructive criticism has been met with “but the competitors are scamming you,” which I don’t think really moves the discussion forward. It would be more helpful to address the points directly rather than deflecting them.
I see things differently. When I’ve purchased my 28mm table it was very clear that to only option for bolts was the proprietary bolt that Siegmund sales. They have left no other options for me the customer but to buy a $100 fastener. That’s not even the worst part, it’s not having the option to use a hex bolt as a temporary solution.
Have you ever assembled something with fasteners before and it not be a common hole size? These table systems are all about holes. But it’s not a standard hole size. This is a scam on the customer.
