|
High effciency motors
While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem: http://www.grainger.com/content/moto...e=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616 While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things. Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity. |
High effciency motors
On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem: http://www.grainger.com/content/moto...e=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616 While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things. The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such a simple change to meet this standard? I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of issue at all. Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity. |
High effciency motors
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem: http://www.grainger.com/content/moto...e=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616 While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things. Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity. So to have the inductance of the motor balanced by capacitance and it is high efficiency motor. This has been the case in "high efficiency appliances" or Energy Star ones. |
High effciency motors
"J. Clarke" wrote in
: While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, LOL. While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. I beleive the expectation is to go from ~75% efficient (mechanical power out / electrical power in) to ~80%. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. That is likely to be the case, since a big part of improving efficiency is reducing resistive losses, and the way to do that is thicker copper wiring. Another issue is that the higher efficiency motors are likely to be larger than the current ones, so manufacturers may have to redesign their mountings. (which may also be a problem for anyone replacing a bad motor in an older tool). Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity. Probably across the board. A run capacitor improves the motor's power factor, which reduces resistive losses. So it's a big help in improving efficiency. Note that improving efficiency means less electrical energy is lost as heat, so capacitor lifetime may improve. BTW, before a political debate starts on this, it should be noted that the legislation requiring the high efficiency motors dates to the GW Bush administration. John |
High effciency motors
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says... On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote: While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem: http://www.grainger.com/content/moto...e=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616 While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things. The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such a simple change to meet this standard? The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys? I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of issue at all. |
High effciency motors
On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote: While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem: http://www.grainger.com/content/moto...e=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616 While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things. The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such a simple change to meet this standard? The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys? Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China what our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the paint up to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is, they are going to use what they want and that is typically going to be the cheapest. I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of issue at all. |
High effciency motors
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote: Can the Chinese meet the new standards? The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such a simple change to meet this standard? The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys? Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China what our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the paint up to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is, they are going to use what they want and that is typically going to be the cheapest. It's less a case of the importers not specifying, as it is the importers being unable or unwilling to verify their specs are met. The Chinese know that most of what they make isn't tested for compliance, and a lot of them are willing to take a chance on using whatever's cheap, whether it mets spec or not. This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get melamine in baby formula. John |
High effciency motors
On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote: Can the Chinese meet the new standards? The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such a simple change to meet this standard? The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys? Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China what our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the paint up to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is, they are going to use what they want and that is typically going to be the cheapest. It's less a case of the importers not specifying, as it is the importers being unable or unwilling to verify their specs are met. The Chinese know that most of what they make isn't tested for compliance, and a lot of them are willing to take a chance on using whatever's cheap, whether it mets spec or not. Which is business 101 for any company anywhere. If no specifications are requested they use what it takes to get the bid. China offers cheap labor and importers go for that. If the truth were to be known the air quality from off gassing of products at the Harbor Freight stores might be more dangerous than eating lead. ;~) This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get melamine in baby formula. We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell. |
High effciency motors
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote: This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get melamine in baby formula. We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell. A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China, were purposefully done. John |
High effciency motors
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem: http://www.grainger.com/content/moto...e=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616 While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up. In general, all it takes for higher efficiency is more copper and iron. This isn't anything new and is just a matter of cost. For something like a power tool, it's a complete waste of money (but it's the government's job, anymore, to spend other people's money). Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things. Why would they have a problem. High-efficiency motors have been with us pretty much since motors were invented. It's all a matter of trading off cost and weight vs. efficiency. Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity. Capacitor life is more about temperature than anything else. Higher efficiency should help. |
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 9:09 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote: This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get melamine in baby formula. We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell. A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China, were purposefully done. John Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. This has been a problem for many years. Simple QC testing at random points for the last 10 years would have shown this and IIRC they knew it was a problem and did choose to wait and see and or get caught. |
High effciency motors
On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
On 8/1/2015 9:09 AM, John McCoy wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote: This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get melamine in baby formula. We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell. A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China, were purposefully done. John Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance...but I don't know that there was sufficient evidence that testing of new units would've uncovered the issue as, at least as I understand the scenario, it took time before the changes in internal composition of the detonators would cause the resultant damage whereas a new-condition unit did not. According to the last report I looked at in June at the ASQC (Amer Soc for Quality Control, a professional org for QC to which besides Amer Statistical Assoc I was member for 30+ yr so even retired I still read stuff), Takata still hasn't been able to fully determine an actual root cause. -- |
High effciency motors
dpb wrote in :
On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John |
High effciency motors
|
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 1:24 PM, John McCoy wrote:
dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John Pomatoes, Topatoes |
High effciency motors
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: Pomatoes, Topatoes Pomelos? |
High effciency motors
In article ,
says... "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? |
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 3:18 PM, John McCoy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. Exactly and as I was reading today, the gas tanks on the Ford Pinto. I knew about the Pinto tanks but learned today that they only needed to add a $1 part during manufacture to make the tanks safer. Ford chose to not do that for several years. http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobile...-drive.html/5/ |
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right. Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every model of GM vehicle and they never improve it. |
High effciency motors
On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
.... The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the key to change positions. I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in the switch than any of the other GMs. -- |
High effciency motors
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , says... "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right. Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every model of GM vehicle and they never improve it. This wasn't a part that had been in uses since the '50s though, it was a design that was new around 2002. |
High effciency motors
|
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 5:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , says... "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right. Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every model of GM vehicle and they never improve it. This wasn't a part that had been in uses since the '50s though, it was a design that was new around 2002. What difference would the time period make? FWIW those parts I was talking about were around from the late 70's to at least the mid 90's. |
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 5:07 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: ... The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the key to change positions. I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in the switch than any of the other GMs. It is odd how that falls in place to cause a problem, unless the detents in the switch it self prematurely wear out because of the rocking motion of the keys on the lock. The ignition lock turns more freely out of the steering column than when mounted in the column. You feel more resistance when it is all assembled properly. On GM vehicles what you put the key in is the ignition "lock". On the opposite end of the lock was a rack and pinion and rod. The gear on the lock moved the rack and rod back and forth inside and along part of the length of the steering column. The end of that rod connected to the ignition switch. It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. |
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 5:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: ... The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the key to change positions. Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything else except certain GM models. It did on the late 60's-70's on most all Fords that had a wad of keys hanging on the ignition lock. You eventually had to lift the shift lever before you could turn the key. When I was a kid I always wondered why Ford owners rested their left arm on top of the steering wheel and grabbed and lifted the shift lever with their left hand every time they wanted to start the engine. I learned why when I started driving. Not exactly the same thing but the integration of the ignition lock and shift lever position was eventually compromised. Than again it may have been more if an issue with the park lever detent in the park position. What ever the case the ignition switch would not engage unless the lever was in the proper position. And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD. I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in the switch than any of the other GMs. You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing tolerances. Better yet, keyless ignition. I love ours. |
High effciency motors
On 08/01/2015 5:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says... On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: ... The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the key to change positions. Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything else except certain GM models. And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD. I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in the switch than any of the other GMs. You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing tolerances. I don't believe that--I think it's "operator error" in this case... -- |
High effciency motors
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
.... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. -- |
High effciency motors
dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well, we can all chose which side we want to fall on, but too many engineers (including GM's own engineers) have pointed out this problem ove rmany years. Besides that - people owning other cars do not suffer the same problem. People behave in a consistent manner and you can't suggest that Ford, or Toyota, or Honda owners behave differently than GM owners do. This is a long known problem with GM ignitions - going back nearly 20 years. It's just flat out been a long known problem with their ignitions. But like all things GM - ignore it and continue to produce the defective product. Think about the albatross that was the 60 degree engine wet intake manifold gasket... -- -Mike- |
High effciency motors
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:56:10 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , says... "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Same way they screwed up an intake manifold- and manifold gaskets - and didn't fix it through how many years of production of the 3.8? They just held their nose and ignored it because they figured it was cheaper to do some warranty repairs than to re-engineer something (even as simple as a gasket) |
High effciency motors
In article ,
says... On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:56:10 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article , says... dpb wrote in : On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote: Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ... Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance... That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same. John How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled". Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow. One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? Same way they screwed up an intake manifold- and manifold gaskets - and didn't fix it through how many years of production of the 3.8? They just held their nose and ignored it because they figured it was cheaper to do some warranty repairs than to re-engineer something (even as simple as a gasket) Chryler did something similar with the 5.2--if I understand correctly the bolts were a little bit too long and bottomed out before properly compressing the gasket. Didn't help that there was a relatively thin steel plate covering the bottom of an aluminum manifold. Mine has a machined aluminum plate there now--I figured it was worth the hundred bucks extra to be reasonably certain that I would not have to take it apart again to fix that problem. |
High effciency motors
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:56:10 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case. The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_? By paying attention to per unit pricing to save a few cents. |
High effciency motors
On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves. and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel. But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener. |
High effciency motors
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote: On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves. and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel. But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener. It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is turned off the airbags are turned off. |
High effciency motors
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:27:26 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote: On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves. and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel. But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener. It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is turned off the airbags are turned off. Given than airbags, themselves, are a source of potential (and real) law suits, it's reasonable to turn them off when the vehicle is off. The fault still lies with the reason it's off. I had a car that needed to be restarted occasionally (it took *many* returns to the shop before they finally found the real problem). To do it, it first had to be turned to the "off" position, which locked the steering wheel. Ugly situations followed. Similarly, several models lock the steering wheel when shifted out of "drive". Not so good when the engine dies (coasting off the road may not be an option). |
High effciency motors
On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote: On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves. and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel. But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener. It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is turned off the airbags are turned off. Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all vehicles had them. |
High effciency motors
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says... On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote: On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves. and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel. But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener. It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is turned off the airbags are turned off. Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all vehicles had them. Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned itself off, that's a bad situation. Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody intentionally turns it off. |
High effciency motors
On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , lcb11211 @swbelldotnet says... On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote: On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ... ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem. Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves. and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis. I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly. Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel. But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener. It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is turned off the airbags are turned off. Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all vehicles had them. Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned itself off, that's a bad situation. It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident. Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody intentionally turns it off. Well **** happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect. |
High effciency motors
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all vehicles had them. Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned itself off, that's a bad situation. Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody intentionally turns it off. My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall (waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by shrapnel. |
High effciency motors
Markem wrote in
: My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall (waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by shrapnel. My Mom and my niece both have affected cars. My niece was told (after they inspected the car to confirm it was under the recall) that they had turned off the airbag. My Mom was not. Both Corollas, both at the same dealership, altho about a month apart. John |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter