On Apr 21, 7:03 am, "Wayne J." wrote:
why can't a person just ask a question and not get a civil answer?

Like I have posted above, I have researched this and I am asking for some
genuine opinions. If you don't have one, then don't asnwer.

I am very sorry I cam back to this group.

thank you
wayne

"CW" wrote in message

.net...



This again? Try Google.

"Wayne J." wrote in message
news:h_dWh.102630$6m4.6331@pd7urf1no...
http://www.sawstop.com/

Is this for real?
has anyone actually used one?
how accurate are they or has all the money been put in to the safety
features?

wayne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Welcome back to a great hobby.

Ignore the jerks...it is the price of admission.

TMT

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Wayne J. wrote:

9" Rockwell 6201B (made in Guelph Ontario, circa 1975). Good saw. Came
with
two extensions and round fence rails . The rails had the ability to be
placed so that the extensions were all on one side or one on each side of
the blade. Putting them all the way to the right gives you a 48" rip
setting. It was the only saw up here that did that other then the Unisaw
back then.

That's relatively new Wayne. Did you see my post about the Delta 1160 I
bought at an estate sale?

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Now I remember it. I just saw a picture at
http://owwm.com/PhotoIndex/detail.asp?id=5788

My ex-boss had one. I liked the looks of it, I just never liked the idea of
holding my wood at an angle when it was cutting.

I love the old machines

wayne

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:59:17 GMT, "Wayne J." wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
link.net...
Wayne J. wrote:

SWMBO is getting real concerned with my old saw, so maybe she will let me
spring for a "safer" saw.

So what is existing saw?

Lew

9" Rockwell 6201B (made in Guelph Ontario, circa 1975). Good saw. Came with
two extensions and round fence rails . The rails had the ability to be
placed so that the extensions were all on one side or one on each side of
the blade. Putting them all the way to the right gives you a 48" rip
setting. It was the only saw up here that did that other then the Unisaw
back then.

Problem is it only uses round rails, so I can't put a Beismeyer on it.
(crud).

Enlighten me. I'm not familiar with that saw. Does it not have a
flat table front edge? I'm curious about why a biese won't mount.
All the old saws used round rails with special spacing shoulder bolts
assemblies that had a radiused section to mount the rail. But, for
most saws, to mount a Biese the only requirement was to remove the
guide rail and mount the flat rail directly to the front edge.



It is powered by a 220VAC 1.5 HP Marathon motor off of a AB paddle starter.
The guts of the saw are identical to the 10" contractor saws. The cabinet,
handwheels and top were different.

Wayne

Wayne J. wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

That's relatively new Wayne. Did you see my post about the Delta 1160 I
bought at an estate sale?

Nope, probably while I was gone. I don't know if I have ever seen one. I am
thinking hard, but that rally hurts. I am going to go look through my old
manuals.

I love the old tools. It is nice to rebuild one and show it off later.


Agreed. I've got a fair number of old hand tools, but the 1160 is my first
old power tool. I hope I'm not getting addicted :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:48:48 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message

Not doubting what you say, however, has nothing to do with "quality
problems" at Delta. Has a lot to do with "quality" problems with LTL
shippers.


It has nothing to do with LTL shippers, but everything to do with inadequate
packaging or poor design. When you have damage getting a product to the
customer, you must change one or both.

So let's see, you design your pack then send it out to an independent
International Safe Transit Association lab to have it tested and
certified. The certification means that it has been tested to the
most severe handling the package will see consistent with the
contractural terms LTL shipping. It passes the test and is rated
"Transit Tested". The LTL shipper accepts the package for shipment.
The LTL shipper mishandles the package in a manner inconsistent with
the general terms of the shipping contract and damages the contents.
Damages it in a manner whereby the shipper admits liability for
freight damage to your package. The package they accepted and you
paid a fee for them to transport.

It has nothing to do with the LTL shipper?


I had a customer that tried to solve a very expensive breakage problem with
a $25 package when what they really needed was a 5¢ screw to hold a power
supply. This sort of thing happens all the time. Once the problem is
recognized, just fix it in the most simple manner.

Frank Boettcher wrote:

So let's see, you design your pack then send it out to an independent
International Safe Transit Association lab to have it tested and
certified.

As an observer of this thread, one thing is obvious.

Frank, makes no difference whether you are right or wrong, you are
trying to **** up wind.

Lew

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:35:35 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

So let's see, you design your pack then send it out to an independent
International Safe Transit Association lab to have it tested and
certified.

As an observer of this thread, one thing is obvious.

Frank, makes no difference whether you are right or wrong, you are
trying to **** up wind.

Lew

Now that could be the greatest understatement of the day :~)

I promised myself I would not jump in on another thread that starts
out with"Saw Stop". Should have kept that promise. Subject tends to
make people crazy (me included?) and usually brings out the trolls and
sockpupets in droves.

Frank

On Apr 23, 1:35 pm, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Frank, makes no difference whether you are right or wrong, you are
trying to **** up wind.

Lew

Buy that man a beer. Kinda cut through all the crap, there. Nicely
said, Lew.

Robert

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:48:48 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message

Not doubting what you say, however, has nothing to do with "quality
problems" at Delta. Has a lot to do with "quality" problems with LTL
shippers.


It has nothing to do with LTL shippers, but everything to do with
inadequate
packaging or poor design. When you have damage getting a product to the
customer, you must change one or both.

So let's see, you design your pack then send it out to an independent
International Safe Transit Association lab to have it tested and
certified. The certification means that it has been tested to the
most severe handling the package will see consistent with the
contractural terms LTL shipping. It passes the test and is rated
"Transit Tested". The LTL shipper accepts the package for shipment.
The LTL shipper mishandles the package in a manner inconsistent with
the general terms of the shipping contract and damages the contents.
Damages it in a manner whereby the shipper admits liability for
freight damage to your package. The package they accepted and you
paid a fee for them to transport.

It has nothing to do with the LTL shipper?

Frank, I think that some Delta management knew what needed to be done but
unfortunately were limited in what they could do by the greater powers
above them and their strangle hold on the money needed to fix the problem.

Similarly, GM went through a similar situation back in the mid 80's. They
used many different carriers and because of the great variety in sizes and
shapes of the parts being shipped there were almost daily claims by any
given receiving dealer.
The packaging passed Transit Tests but sheet metal/ fenders, hoods etc. were
almost always in harms way because of the variety of other goods being
loaded in the same trailer.
Finally GM took the initiative to admit that this was not working and
switched to a dedicated carrier. Trailers were built specifically for and
to deliver strictly GM parts. These carriers only delivered GM parts.
Claims dropped about 90%.
As a parts manager receiving freight from GM daily I was not interested in
the least about packaging standards, transit tested standards or why parts
were being delivered in damaged condition. To the dismay of my local GM
Parts rep and apparently to the dismay of hundreds others, I and a great
number of parts managers purchased GM parts from other vendors rather than
GM Parts division when ever I could. I did not want excuses as that did not
solve the problems. Action by GM switching to dedicated carriers did solve
the problems.
Sometimes you have to think outside the box and spend extra money to stop
the bleeding and unfortunately in many cases managements hands are tied.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

As an observer of this thread, one thing is obvious.

Frank, makes no difference whether you are right or wrong, you are
trying to **** up wind.

Lew

But ****ing upwind has its place......we have way too many half truths
accepted as fact...and often a shortage of critical or logical
thinking.....In this case Franks unique insider view sheds a interesting
light on a likely errant view..... Even better it is rather interesting to
see a glimpse of a companies quality control and/or trouble shooting.....Rod

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:50:18 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:48:48 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message

Not doubting what you say, however, has nothing to do with "quality
problems" at Delta. Has a lot to do with "quality" problems with LTL
shippers.


It has nothing to do with LTL shippers, but everything to do with
inadequate
packaging or poor design. When you have damage getting a product to the
customer, you must change one or both.

So let's see, you design your pack then send it out to an independent
International Safe Transit Association lab to have it tested and
certified. The certification means that it has been tested to the
most severe handling the package will see consistent with the
contractural terms LTL shipping. It passes the test and is rated
"Transit Tested". The LTL shipper accepts the package for shipment.
The LTL shipper mishandles the package in a manner inconsistent with
the general terms of the shipping contract and damages the contents.
Damages it in a manner whereby the shipper admits liability for
freight damage to your package. The package they accepted and you
paid a fee for them to transport.

It has nothing to do with the LTL shipper?

Frank, I think that some Delta management knew what needed to be done but
unfortunately were limited in what they could do by the greater powers
above them and their strangle hold on the money needed to fix the problem.

You would be wrong with that thought. Why would you think that there
is some high power that would want to let a reputation damaging
problem continue?

Similarly, GM went through a similar situation back in the mid 80's. They
used many different carriers and because of the great variety in sizes and
shapes of the parts being shipped there were almost daily claims by any
given receiving dealer.
The packaging passed Transit Tests but sheet metal/ fenders, hoods etc. were
almost always in harms way because of the variety of other goods being
loaded in the same trailer.
Finally GM took the initiative to admit that this was not working and
switched to a dedicated carrier. Trailers were built specifically for and
to deliver strictly GM parts. These carriers only delivered GM parts.
Claims dropped about 90%.
As a parts manager receiving freight from GM daily I was not interested in
the least about packaging standards, transit tested standards or why parts
were being delivered in damaged condition. To the dismay of my local GM
Parts rep and apparently to the dismay of hundreds others, I and a great
number of parts managers purchased GM parts from other vendors rather than
GM Parts division when ever I could. I did not want excuses as that did not
solve the problems. Action by GM switching to dedicated carriers did solve
the problems.
Sometimes you have to think outside the box and spend extra money to stop
the bleeding and unfortunately in many cases managements hands are tied.


Your example is not relevant. Factory to the Distribution Center,
dedicated carrier, no problems. DC to the customer (over a thousand
distributors, large and small all over the country), LTL. Can't have
dedicated carriers for one or two unisaws at a time, have to rely on
or force LTL carriers living up to their contract to handle freight
responsibly.

First off, please accept my appoligy for accidentally sending this reply
directly to you.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Boettcher"
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Safe Stop




Frank, I think that some Delta management knew what needed to be done but
unfortunately were limited in what they could do by the greater powers
above them and their strangle hold on the money needed to fix the problem.

You would be wrong with that thought. Why would you think that there
is some high power that would want to let a reputation damaging
problem continue?

More profit maybe? I once worked for a company that was more concerned
with it's good reputation in certain aspects of it's business than
pleasing the customer. Yes, top management does think like that some times.
They are no longer in business and that was not a suprise or mystery.

So that I am straight on this Frank, what exactly did fix the broken trunion
problem? How long were broken trunions a problem that Delta is aware of,
keeping in mind that it would not be a stretch of the imagination for there
to be some New Old Unisaws with unknown broken trunions that have sat or are
sitting in a retailers stock room today. I would like to use your comments
when/if this comes up in the future.



Your example is not relevant. Factory to the Distribution Center,
dedicated carrier, no problems. DC to the customer (over a thousand
distributors, large and small all over the country), LTL. Can't have
dedicated carriers for one or two unisaws at a time, have to rely on
or force LTL carriers living up to their contract to handle freight
responsibly.

I think my example is very relevant. The dedicated carrier delivered to the
tens of thousands of individual Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick,
Cadillac, and GMC dealerships through out the US, not between the factory
and distribution center.

"Daily" GM would deliver a shipment as small as a few dollars or thousands
of dollars.
This still goes on today.
In the old days dealerships got initial stock orders once a week from 3 to 4
different carriers. Starting back in the 80's a single carrier with nothing
but GM parts on the truck delivered daily literally 24 hours a day after and
during business hours.

In Texas the GM Parts distribution center was in Dallas. Every day
dedicated carriers delivered parts to dealerships all over Texas 24 hours a
day. Often the freight was delivered and stored inside a safe location at
each dealership in the middle of the night.

From there if I shipped to a customer and the freight got damaged, it was MY
responsibility. If I had problems with a shipping company, I changed
shippers.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
t:

snip

If you are sitting watching TV and getting hit on the head with a
hammer, so you put on an "transit tested" and approved helmet or do
you stop the hammer from hitting you?


Nah. I come into the den, and fire up the 'rec...



Patriarch

If you are sitting watching TV and getting hit on the head with a hammer,
do you put on an "transit tested" and approved helmet or do you stop the
hammer from hitting you?


Politicians Answer : Um, yes.

Engineer's Answer : How heavy is the hammer?

Wrecker's Answer : Is it a Klown Hammer?

Troll Answer : Is it grounded?

Lawyers Answer: Well, yes and no, depending on who is swinging the hammer

SWMBO's answer : He would hit the remote control to see if it stopped that
strange feeling in his head.

Your question is too non-specific sir.

Regards
Mike

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:48:32 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:



First off, please accept my appoligy for accidentally sending this reply
directly to you.

Certainly, however, no apology necessary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Boettcher"
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Safe Stop




Frank, I think that some Delta management knew what needed to be done but
unfortunately were limited in what they could do by the greater powers
above them and their strangle hold on the money needed to fix the problem.

You would be wrong with that thought. Why would you think that there
is some high power that would want to let a reputation damaging
problem continue?

More profit maybe? I once worked for a company that was more concerned
with it's good reputation in certain aspects of it's business than
pleasing the customer. Yes, top management does think like that some times.
They are no longer in business and that was not a suprise or mystery.

I'm sorry you had that experience. That was never the case with
Delta. Pentair made some long term "strategic" decisions with
disastrous results, that I'm sure they would like the opportunity to
rethink (or forget now that they have peddled the company), however,
operating decisions were never restricted by any corporate entity.

So that I am straight on this Frank, what exactly did fix the broken trunion
problem? How long were broken trunions a problem that Delta is aware of,
keeping in mind that it would not be a stretch of the imagination for there
to be some New Old Unisaws with unknown broken trunions that have sat or are
sitting in a retailers stock room today. I would like to use your comments
when/if this comes up in the future.

I could ask you to DAGS, however, a post to a thread sometime in 2005
on this subject specifically to comments you made similar to those in
this thread.:

Leon,

I have a great deal of respect for you through reading your posts but
in this case you have been mislead by someone. I've read the threads
on this before and there has been much misinformation.

There has never been a problem with the torque setting at the factory
on the trunion bracket bolts or any other improper assembly methods.
This comment has been posted a number of times and regardless of the
original source, it is not true.

The package design has been ISTA tested with the appropriate inclined
plane, straight drop and vibrations tests at an independent lab. It
holds a transit tested rating. Even so, trunions would ocasionally
break in shipment even when the package looked fine on arrival.

In testing to try to find out why they were breaking the only way the
trunions could be broken was to tip the unit over and have it land
solidly on the front table edge. When this happened there was no
packaging damage, the internal damage was concealed. You can't imagine
how many sets I've observed broken during that testing process. It is
kind of sickening to keep tipping a saw over just to see if you could
get a statistical read on what would break.

Changes made a number of years ago were to specifically address this
issue. The red motor strap was removed, not to save money but because
it was creating another problem. freight dock drivers would drive up
on a running pickup and slam fork lift masts into the relatively
unprotected end bell of the motor, breaking the end bell and sometimes
the motor bracket. The change was to drop the motor down as far into
the cabinet as possible, supporting it on the dust chute, to protect
it and also to lower the center of gravity to make tip overs less
likely.

A device called a tilt watch was added to the package alerting a
distributor to not accept the package from the freight carrier if the
device had been activated. The only way it could be activated is if
the freight dock person had tipped it over.

The only design change on the trunion brackets and trunions was to
increase the cross sections where there was breakage and to increase
any radii to eliminate the notch effect on impact. There has been no
reduction in the specifications for chemical or mechanical properties
of the iron as was suggested in some old threads.

There were a number of other changes to the pack to improve the
shippability. And after any change the unit was transit tested again
by an independent lab.

A broken internal component is a small percentage of returns. Most
are minor (cosmetic) freight damage or internal warehouse damage or
distributor resets. Many come in and the refurb diagnosis indicates no
apparent reason. However, the refurb process is outstanding. You will
get a good saw if you buy refurb. My everyday use unisaw is a
reconditioned unit.

Why post now? It was/is a company policy not to respond to posts on
unmoderated news groups. I no longer work for the company and I do
not represent them with this post. It is, however, the truth.

Frank

Back to the present, I have no idea what specifically eliminated the
problem, because the pack passed transit testing before the problem
started, at each change during the process of working on the pack, and
at the final iteration. Statistically speaking, the process went out
of its' control range with no apparent change to the process
parameters, and came back in at no point where any one change was
apparently causative. If I had to make a guess, I would suspect it
was the introduction of the "tilt watch" that caused the shippers to
know that they could not get away with dropping a package with
concealed damage and just drive off. The distributor would refuse the
package and file a freight claim. Terrible thing when that is what is
necessary to have shipper handle freight as it was intended to be
handled and as they were being paid to handle it.



Your example is not relevant. Factory to the Distribution Center,
dedicated carrier, no problems. DC to the customer (over a thousand
distributors, large and small all over the country), LTL. Can't have
dedicated carriers for one or two unisaws at a time, have to rely on
or force LTL carriers living up to their contract to handle freight
responsibly.

I think my example is very relevant. The dedicated carrier delivered to the
tens of thousands of individual Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick,
Cadillac, and GMC dealerships through out the US, not between the factory
and distribution center.

"Daily" GM would deliver a shipment as small as a few dollars or thousands
of dollars.
This still goes on today.
In the old days dealerships got initial stock orders once a week from 3 to 4
different carriers. Starting back in the 80's a single carrier with nothing
but GM parts on the truck delivered daily literally 24 hours a day after and
during business hours.

In Texas the GM Parts distribution center was in Dallas. Every day
dedicated carriers delivered parts to dealerships all over Texas 24 hours a
day. Often the freight was delivered and stored inside a safe location at
each dealership in the middle of the night.

From there if I shipped to a customer and the freight got damaged, it was MY
responsibility. If I had problems with a shipping company, I changed
shippers.


If you think comparing distribution options for GM one of the largest
corporations in the world, and Delta, a very small company is
relevant, so be it. I would disagree.


What I said before stands. If you think that some jerk on a shipping
dock who throws a load off his forks creating concealed damage of the
product is a reflection of product quality then so be it. I would
respectfully disagree.

If you choose to believe the "respected" poster who claimed that the
broken trunnions were a result of "improper torque settings in the
factory" then it is your right to do so. I know that not to be true
and will challenge the comment whenever I see it publicly stated.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
The package design has been ISTA tested with the appropriate inclined
plane, straight drop and vibrations tests at an independent lab. It
holds a transit tested rating. Even so, trunions would ocasionally
break in shipment even when the package looked fine on arrival.

In testing to try to find out why they were breaking the only way the
trunions could be broken was to tip the unit over and have it land
solidly on the front table edge. When this happened there was no
packaging damage, the internal damage was concealed. You can't imagine
how many sets I've observed broken during that testing process. It is
kind of sickening to keep tipping a saw over just to see if you could
get a statistical read on what would break.

Changes made a number of years ago were to specifically address this
issue. The red motor strap was removed, not to save money but because
it was creating another problem. freight dock drivers would drive up
on a running pickup and slam fork lift masts into the relatively
unprotected end bell of the motor, breaking the end bell and sometimes
the motor bracket. The change was to drop the motor down as far into
the cabinet as possible, supporting it on the dust chute, to protect
it and also to lower the center of gravity to make tip overs less
likely.

A device called a tilt watch was added to the package alerting a
distributor to not accept the package from the freight carrier if the
device had been activated. The only way it could be activated is if
the freight dock person had tipped it over.

The only design change on the trunion brackets and trunions was to
increase the cross sections where there was breakage and to increase
any radii to eliminate the notch effect on impact. There has been no
reduction in the specifications for chemical or mechanical properties
of the iron as was suggested in some old threads.

There were a number of other changes to the pack to improve the
shippability. And after any change the unit was transit tested again
by an independent lab.

Thank you, Frank, for verifying what I said about inadequate packaging..
ISTA standards just don't always hold up to real life situations that occur
every day.

Delta evidently was, smart enough to find and correct the problem. It is a
shame they had to take so many "hits" on reputation from customers in the
meantime. They did both, improve the package and the product. Good for
them. Tipping is a problem with high center of gravity products. Forklifts
do slam into the side of pallets. Changing he orientation or a larger
pallet fixes that in most cases.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
Snip


If you choose to believe the "respected" poster who claimed that the
broken trunnions were a result of "improper torque settings in the
factory" then it is your right to do so. I know that not to be true
and will challenge the comment whenever I see it publicly stated.

Frank





Thank you Frank, I'll again try and word any future comments about the
trunions in a less damning way.

If indicating that the Delta Trunion problem was short lived and believed to
be damage caused by improper handling with no visible signs of abuse, I'll
do my best to try remember to state that.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:23:58 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
The package design has been ISTA tested with the appropriate inclined
plane, straight drop and vibrations tests at an independent lab. It
holds a transit tested rating. Even so, trunions would ocasionally
break in shipment even when the package looked fine on arrival.

In testing to try to find out why they were breaking the only way the
trunions could be broken was to tip the unit over and have it land
solidly on the front table edge. When this happened there was no
packaging damage, the internal damage was concealed. You can't imagine
how many sets I've observed broken during that testing process. It is
kind of sickening to keep tipping a saw over just to see if you could
get a statistical read on what would break.

Changes made a number of years ago were to specifically address this
issue. The red motor strap was removed, not to save money but because
it was creating another problem. freight dock drivers would drive up
on a running pickup and slam fork lift masts into the relatively
unprotected end bell of the motor, breaking the end bell and sometimes
the motor bracket. The change was to drop the motor down as far into
the cabinet as possible, supporting it on the dust chute, to protect
it and also to lower the center of gravity to make tip overs less
likely.

A device called a tilt watch was added to the package alerting a
distributor to not accept the package from the freight carrier if the
device had been activated. The only way it could be activated is if
the freight dock person had tipped it over.

The only design change on the trunion brackets and trunions was to
increase the cross sections where there was breakage and to increase
any radii to eliminate the notch effect on impact. There has been no
reduction in the specifications for chemical or mechanical properties
of the iron as was suggested in some old threads.

There were a number of other changes to the pack to improve the
shippability. And after any change the unit was transit tested again
by an independent lab.

Thank you, Frank, for verifying what I said about inadequate packaging..
ISTA standards just don't always hold up to real life situations that occur
every day.

You're welcome, however, It was not my intention to nor did I verify
that. Your original post stated:

"It has *nothing* to do with LTL shippers,...... but everything to do
with inadequate packaging or poor design".

ISTA means that if a shipper handles a package as they have been
contracted to do, then the package will arrive damage free. If they
handle it in a way that is improper, an ISTA transit tested rating
does not indicate anything. I continue to believe that the general
public should not have to pay for "improvements" over and above ISTA
transit tested just because the shipper(s) is irrisponsible.

What we found in this investigative process is that many shippers have
remote terminals where the terminal manager does not provide a
forklift or in some cases even an adequately functional hydraulic hand
truck ($500?). So dock workers are pushing pallets across the floor
manually. Now with your premise, I guess we should add $20 of $30
bucks to the pack (many thousands of them) so that they can continue
to not live up to their contracted responsiblity and the terminal
manager can "control" his expenses.

As mentioned, it was not a structural improvement to the pack or the
unit that I believe led to the moderation of the problem, but a rather
expensive "tattletale" device. To one who spent most of his days
looking for a few cents of unit cost here or there to keep the product
world class but still reasonably priced, that hurts.

So, if the premise for your position is that "It has nothing to do
with the LTL shipper"...we have no starting position for debate on the
matter and I am through with the thread.

Frank





Delta evidently was, smart enough to find and correct the problem. It is a
shame they had to take so many "hits" on reputation from customers in the
meantime. They did both, improve the package and the product. Good for
them. Tipping is a problem with high center of gravity products. Forklifts
do slam into the side of pallets. Changing he orientation or a larger
pallet fixes that in most cases.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:25:10 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
Snip


If you choose to believe the "respected" poster who claimed that the
broken trunnions were a result of "improper torque settings in the
factory" then it is your right to do so. I know that not to be true
and will challenge the comment whenever I see it publicly stated.

Frank





Thank you Frank, I'll again try and word any future comments about the
trunions in a less damning way.

If indicating that the Delta Trunion problem was short lived and believed to
be damage caused by improper handling with no visible signs of abuse, I'll
do my best to try remember to state that.



Thank you, I appreciate that.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message

You're welcome, however, It was not my intention to nor did I verify
that. Your original post stated:

"It has *nothing* to do with LTL shippers,...... but everything to do
with inadequate packaging or poor design".

ISTA means that if a shipper handles a package as they have been
contracted to do, then the package will arrive damage free. If they
handle it in a way that is improper, an ISTA transit tested rating
does not indicate anything. I continue to believe that the general
public should not have to pay for "improvements" over and above ISTA
transit tested just because the shipper(s) is irrisponsible.

What we found in this investigative process is that many shippers have
remote terminals where the terminal manager does not provide a
forklift or in some cases even an adequately functional hydraulic hand
truck ($500?). So dock workers are pushing pallets across the floor
manually. Now with your premise, I guess we should add $20 of $30
bucks to the pack (many thousands of them) so that they can continue
to not live up to their contracted responsiblity and the terminal
manager can "control" his expenses.

As mentioned, it was not a structural improvement to the pack or the
unit that I believe led to the moderation of the problem, but a rather
expensive "tattletale" device. To one who spent most of his days
looking for a few cents of unit cost here or there to keep the product
world class but still reasonably priced, that hurts.

So, if the premise for your position is that "It has nothing to do
with the LTL shipper"...we have no starting position for debate on the
matter and I am through with the thread.

Frank

OK. I concede the LTL shipper has "something" to do with the situation and
my wording was incorrect, but it is still the responsibility of Delta to
find a way to get the product from assembly line to customer. If you cannot
do that, you don't have a viable business. Does not matter if we are
talking about tables saws, computers, beer, apples, etc. If the product is
damaged, the packaging is wrong for that design. Either change the design,
change the package, change the shipping environment. One big problem is
that you have no control over the shipping environment as discovered by
Delta.

The customer does not care how you solve the problem. He does care that his
new tool does not work and he does not care who handled it. He wants Delta
to fix it. Does it take $30 per package? Maybe, but maybe it takes 10¢ for
a beefier part. Maybe it takes a part that is 20¢ cheaper but of a
different design or material. Still comes back to the manufacturer.

No matter how you proclaim the package meets the ISTA standards, it did not
work in the real world. Fact is, you did make changes to accommodate the
real world handling. My opinion is that ISTA is a starting point but not a
guarantee of performance. You can write book, write standards, make drawing,
procedures, pretty colored boxes, but the fact is, dock workers are still
going to push pallets when they want to. Contracts are written by desk
drivers, packages are delivered by truck drivers. You found a solution that
was outside the ISTA standard because that is what was needed to make it
work.

If a company in the same situation actively investigated and changed
something to correct the problem, good for them. If they sat back and kept
saying "we meet ISTA standards so it is not our problem" then they are
wrong.

My premise is still that the manufacturer has ultimate responsibility to get
his product to his customer in good condition. He has the responsibility to
make a product that is safe, meets the standards as advertised, and makes a
profit so the company can pay its employees, suppliers, etc.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

My premise is still that the manufacturer has ultimate responsibility to
get his product to his customer in good condition. He has the
responsibility to make a product that is safe, meets the standards as
advertised, and makes a profit so the company can pay its employees,
suppliers, etc.




That is exactly right. Unless a business realizes that and takes charge if
it's own destiny it could go down the tubes. If the competition is not
having the same problems the company with the problems suffers the
consequences. What you do with the data reports and "in the field findings"
determines whether you remain competitive or not.
Ultimately, loose money if you have to if that is what it takes to quickly
make things right and then figure out how to get the profit back. You do
not want your customer to suffer in any way as a result of buying your
product no mater where the fault falls.

This is not directed at you Frank. ;~)