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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

--

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

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".

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

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Pomatoes, Topatoes

Pomelos?

"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.

John

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_?

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/

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.

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.

--

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

--

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.

--

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-

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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