This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could
turn the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

Jeff Wisnia wrote:

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could
turn the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Yes, so you end up with what is effectively a stalled vehicle. I still
fail to see how a stalled vehicle leads to deaths unless the operators
of such vehicles were not qualified to operate them to begin with.

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could turn
the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Jeff

One of the recommendations for wear and tear on vehicles in general I read,
(I forget the source) said to not use a heavy key ring in any vehicle
ignition as the extra weight and force from movement would wear the ignition
switch assembly significantly faster than a lighter key ring without extra
fobs and keys. I seem to recall that one of the big name insurance
companies quoted that tip in national advertising a few years ago as well.

The source might have something I got from my brother in law when he was a
manager at Delphi.

On 2014-05-18, Bob La Londe wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could turn
the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Jeff

One of the recommendations for wear and tear on vehicles in general I read,
(I forget the source) said to not use a heavy key ring in any vehicle
ignition as the extra weight and force from movement would wear the ignition
switch assembly significantly faster than a lighter key ring without extra
fobs and keys. I seem to recall that one of the big name insurance
companies quoted that tip in national advertising a few years ago as well.

The source might have something I got from my brother in law when he was a
manager at Delphi.


I have a ****load of keys, from all my trucks and so on, thanks for
food for thoughts.

i

"Ignoramus6145" wrote in message
...
On 2014-05-18, Bob La Londe wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could
turn
the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Jeff

One of the recommendations for wear and tear on vehicles in general I
read,
(I forget the source) said to not use a heavy key ring in any vehicle
ignition as the extra weight and force from movement would wear the
ignition
switch assembly significantly faster than a lighter key ring without
extra
fobs and keys. I seem to recall that one of the big name insurance
companies quoted that tip in national advertising a few years ago as
well.

The source might have something I got from my brother in law when he was
a
manager at Delphi.


I have a ****load of keys, from all my trucks and so on, thanks for
food for thoughts.

I

Or it could have been a GM company (eh-hem, like Delphi) trying to claim the
problem is other people, and not GM parts. LOL.

On Sun, 18 May 2014 14:16:58 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Jeff Wisnia wrote:

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could
turn the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Yes, so you end up with what is effectively a stalled vehicle. I still
fail to see how a stalled vehicle leads to deaths unless the operators
of such vehicles were not qualified to operate them to begin with.

Most likely not a problem if you are expecting it. Could be
a big problem in traffic, going around a curve at speed, as
you lose power steering, power brakes, and if you hit
something the airbags won't deploy.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Sun, 18 May 2014 12:34:07 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
wrote:

snip
One of the recommendations for wear and tear on vehicles in general I read,
(I forget the source) said to not use a heavy key ring in any vehicle
ignition as the extra weight and force from movement would wear the ignition
switch assembly significantly faster than a lighter key ring without extra
fobs and keys. I seem to recall that one of the big name insurance
companies quoted that tip in national advertising a few years ago as well.
/snip

An other excuse by the manufacturers. The problems due to
heavy key rings have been know at least since the 1940's,
and it is known people will hang heavy key rings off the
ignition switches. SAAB put the ignition lock on the floor
between the front seats. This is the type of thing that
leads to government standards and overkill. 60 years (and a
number of consumer deaths) and still no voluntary solution,
but tons of complaints and whining when one is imposed...


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Sun, 18 May 2014 14:16:58 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
Jeff Wisnia wrote:

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could
turn the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Yes, so you end up with what is effectively a stalled vehicle. I still
fail to see how a stalled vehicle leads to deaths unless the operators
of such vehicles were not qualified to operate them to begin with.

Of the ignition-switch-problem deaths mentioned in recent news articles,
many involved marginal driving (eg 20 mph above safe speed) that people
ordinarily get away with, but when the power steering or power brakes
unexpectedly failed, the drivers ran off the road into trees or had
rollovers. Yes, the drivers were incompetent -- which I think is true
of most drivers nowadays -- but the ignition switch problem changed
the chance of a serious accident from say one in 100000 to one in 100.

--
jiw

Bob La Londe wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could turn
the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Jeff

One of the recommendations for wear and tear on vehicles in general I read,
(I forget the source) said to not use a heavy key ring in any vehicle
ignition as the extra weight and force from movement would wear the ignition
switch assembly significantly faster than a lighter key ring without extra
fobs and keys. I seem to recall that one of the big name insurance
companies quoted that tip in national advertising a few years ago as well.

The source might have something I got from my brother in law when he was a
manager at Delphi.

It's really sad that if all the moving parts in a car, the designers
really had to to get cheap and ****ty on the keyswitch of all things.

I bet some managers roll dice and whatever components gets selected get
made wimpier to save 1.2 cents.

On Sun, 18 May 2014 17:13:25 -0500, Ignoramus6145
wrote:

On 2014-05-18, Bob La Londe wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.

The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold
the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could turn
the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)

http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn

Jeff

One of the recommendations for wear and tear on vehicles in general I read,
(I forget the source) said to not use a heavy key ring in any vehicle
ignition as the extra weight and force from movement would wear the ignition
switch assembly significantly faster than a lighter key ring without extra
fobs and keys. I seem to recall that one of the big name insurance
companies quoted that tip in national advertising a few years ago as well.

The source might have something I got from my brother in law when he was a
manager at Delphi.


I have a ****load of keys, from all my trucks and so on, thanks for
food for thoughts.

i

Same here.

Last truck I put 440,000 miles on it with no issues, this truck has
285,000 on it..and I need a valve job. Dont think that was the keys
though.

Gunner

--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

On Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:50:06 AM UTC-7, Jeff Wisnia wrote:
This video by Machine Design magazine shows what is wrong.



The detent plunger was too short and it's spring too weak to firmly hold

the switch in the "run" position. So, extra weight on a keyring could

turn the ignition switch off. (By swinging I suppose.)



http://tinyurl.com/mdx67rn



Jeff



--

Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.



http://www.mbtmag.com/news/2014/05/g...s-banned-words


"DETROIT (AP) -- What do the words "safety," ''chaotic" and "problem" have in common?

They're all on General Motors' list of banned words for employees who were documenting potential safety issues.

The revelation of the 68-word list is one of the odder twists in GM's ongoing recall of 2.6 million older-model small cars for defective ignition switches.

On Friday, the U.S. government slapped GM with a $35 million fine for failing to report the deadly defect for more than a decade. The government also released a 2008 GM training document that includes the list and warns employees to stick to the facts and not use language that could hurt the company down the road.

The word "defect," for example, "can be regarded as a legal admission" and should be avoided, the company document says.

Adjectives like "bad," ''terrifying," ''dangerous," ''horrific" and "evil" are on the list. So are unflattering terms like "deathtrap," ''widow-maker" and "Hindenburg." Even seemingly benign words like "always" and "never" made it on the list.

From there, it veers into the extraordinary. "Kevorkianesque" -- as in the late assisted-suicide activist Jack Kevorkian -- and "Corvair-like" -- a reference to the GM car once called "unsafe at any speed" by Ralph Nader -- are on it; so is "apocalyptic," ''grisly" and "rolling sarcophagus." Phrases like "unbelievable engineering screw-up" and "potentially disfiguring" were also discouraged.

GM said flowery language simply wasn't helpful in getting to the root of a problem. Saying "This is a lawsuit waiting to happen," for example, isn't as useful as saying, "Windshield wipers did not work properly." But it also warned that language could be misinterpreted later by someone outside the company. Employees were asked to think how they would feel if something they were writing was reported in a major newspaper.

David Friedman, the acting chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Friday that the materials were part of a larger problem at GM, where engineers were reluctant to send documents with words like "defect" up the chain of command.

"The fact that GM took so long to report this defect says there was something very wrong with the company's values," he said.

GM said Friday that employees are now encouraged to discuss safety issues.

"We encourage employees to be factual in their statements and will continue to work with NHTSA to improve our safety processes," the company said in a statement.

But Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said what GM did isn't unusual. Automakers are required by federal law to report safety defects to the government within five days of discovering them, so they're careful not to use language that will trigger that law.

"The D-word -- 'defect' -- is banned in any auto company. GM just confirms it," Ditlow said."