5" ROS choices?

[Leon]

I understand the concept "QC" however I believe that expectations have been watered down so much that the term Quality Control no longer means what it was probably was intended to be. QC now days is to maintain a certain standard. Many years back it was to insure perfection as much as that was possible. Several years back when I was in the automotive business I ran a service department for an Oldsmobile dealership. We had a QC for all vehicles that were serviced or repaired in our shop. Every car was inspected to insure that everything was done correctly and 100% of the vehicles were expected to pass. Now by todays watered down expectation of the QC term perhaps 75% of the vehicles would be expected to pass QC and that might be an acceptable failure rate. Basically QC no longer stands for quality as it once did.

[dpb]

Leon wrote: ...

No, the example is yet again a reduction in the level of the standard (or perhaps a loss of QC in the implementation of what a standard might still be if, in fact, there hasn't been a formal redefinition of a program goal).

In the former you're mixing up something like the "5-sigma" _level_ of quality w/ QC as a technique. The two are a separate pieces of the total.

While retired, in former life I was member of ASQC (as well as ASA, ANS and various others) and QC was a part of my consulting gig. The definitions of QC have _NOT_ changed; and in fact Mickey D's is quite a serious implementor of QC. That they have a product that you and others like to poke at isn't the same thing; they do an excellent job of maintaining their product at the desired point which is the object of QC.

Again, if they were a 5-star cuisine organization the same principles would serve just as well with only a different set of measures.

--

[dpb]

dpb wrote: ...

...

And, more specifically, if the dealership has determined that owing to cost pressures or other factors that they have a 75% goal and are achieving that; that is achieving a QC goal.

Now that that carries with it a lower level of customer satisfaction is likely a concomitant cost. The question then is where the overall balance is in profitability, etc., and if management has made that decision that's a choice. Given current cost pressures many have done such and it's even more difficult in businesses having to deal with cheap imported goods or the ilk than in service industries owing to factors outside their direct control.

OTOH, if the goal is still nominally 100% because the program hasn't actually been modified but they're only achieving 75, then the organization is failing. Such things happen quite a lot, unfortunately, for several reasons. The largest reason (by far) for such failures I saw in the consulting gig was loss of commitment by management.

Now that there are a lot of organizations that are lowering the level of the quality standard given economic pressures; particularly as noted in response to cheap import goods I'll not disagree but it isn't necessarily the same thing as QC itself not being good; W-M is another cheap outfit that does extremely tight control on less expensive goods.

--

[Swingman]

It's relative.

Seems like the airlines are having BIG problems with the QC of the aircraft maintenance. 75% doesn't make if for me.

I know, I know ... you addressed it further _down_, but I just couldn't bring myself to use that word in that context!

:)

[Leon]

Our QC goal was 100% correct when the vehicle went out the door. QC rejected about 12% and returned the vehicle to the technician to rectify before the customer took possession. In addition we had a satisfaction survey with immediate follow up phone calls to each and every customer that had their vehicle serviced. Our satisfaction rating was ALWAYS above 95% achieved and we encouraged the customer to return the vehicle if there was a problem, and if necessary offered a free loaner car to use while we corrected the problem. Seldom did we see a vehicle return with our prior knowledge from our caller that it was coming back in.

Was that a profitable business plan? Yes it was. We had more work than we knew what to do with. Each week during the spring and summer we stopped taking in customers on Wednesday for the week. Typically we would write up

100~125 vehicles each Monday morning before the lines ended. By Wednesday afternoon we would have written 300+ vehicles for the week. I got paid really really well.

Quality service and products served right will always be profitable. To expect less of yourself and your service or product for the sake of trying to increase profit margins will be a loosing proposition in the long run.

By today's definition of QC it is no wonder that businesses are in the shape that they are in and it is a small wonder why the foreign competition has been gaining steadily for many many years. QC is now better defined as a level of acceptable incompetence or inferiority. It is a shame that "most" businesses today don't know that any thing less than 100% satisfaction of its product is not a good thing, but then we live in an immediate gratification society. So you can continue to explain how your QC does not stand for perfection rather a level of tolerable acceptance and you can continue to wonder why that ain't working.

[Leon]

We are old school and we stick to what is right. If you look up the words Quality and Control you do not come up with a definition that describes what today's interpretation is. Today's meaning is simply a way of hiding/disguising unacceptable.

[J. Clarke]

You are conflating "quality control" with "zero defects". You can do that if you want to and you make make points with the peanut gallery but anybody who knows anything about industrial processes knows that he's got the right of it.

QC is a process, zero defects is a goal. One generally has to run a QC process to achieve zero defects but it is not necessary that zero defects the the result of the QC process.

As to the notion thathe can continue to wonder why QC at a level less than zero defects isn't working, you really need to demonstrate _where_ it isn't working. Show us an industry where there is a leader that achieves zero-defects and has slaughtered all their competition.

[Max]

Could I interrupt this QC discussion for a question on Festool ROS? My curiosity has been piqued now as to why the Festool is so superior to other ROSs. Is there really a performance advantage sufficient to justify the higher cost. What is it that makes a Festool so much better? I've been looking at the 150:

have several ROS sanders but if I become persuaded that the Festool is worth the money..........I'll spring. Thanks,

Max

[Robatoy]

The one(s) I use and really like is this one:

difference in performance and price, however.

[Swingman]

I would say that you might get a better bang for your buck by shopping around and checking other reviews, like this one:

"Rotex" versions are what I'm most familiar with and ...

I would say yes ... mainly due to having a choice of motions ("rotex", or aggressive removal, and eccentric, or less aggressive), bolstered by the hole location and number in the pad, increasing the benefit (longer sandpaper life) from dust extraction, given you overall a much more efficient sanding system.

However ... to be effective and get the greatest sanding efficiency, you most definitely do need a dust extraction system. Might not have to be a Festool DE system, but they certainly optimize the performance.

Also, the motors are robust, well engineered and relatively quiet and vibration free in operation.

Here's an independent review of the Rotex 125, which compares it to the Rotex 150, so covers both quite nicely.

I have several ROS sanders but if I become persuaded that the Festool is

Only caveat, as stated above ... IME&O, the sander must be part of a dust extraction system to get you maximum efficiency/cost effectiveness ... just my tuppence.

That, of course, raises the ante ...

I will say this, if you're in the woodworking business in some fashion, it is highly unlikely you will EVER regret any Festool purchase.

[Markem]

Or having the customer return it. That is where the QC departments now reside.

Mark

[Max]

I don't think I *need* the rotary action. I can't recall an instance where I had a sanding situation where I needed that sort of an aggressive action. Once in awhile I might need to take off a slight misfit between a face frame and the carcase but my belt sander does it very well. And an extra $200. doesn't seem to me to be justified..................at this point.

Max

[Upscale]

"Swingman" wrote in

One caveat. You'll regret the initial cost... . . . For a little while.

[Max]

"Swingman" wrote

> The "Rotex" versions are what I'm most familiar with and ...

As I mentioned to Robatoy, I'm dubious about the need for the aggressive action of the Rotex series. (but I'm holding that option) As for dust extraction I have two of these:

have a "remote" on/off transmitter. I use one with my Festool TS75. It works perfectly. I feel confident that it will work with the ROS. So how well would you say the 150/5 compares to a Bosch 3727DVS? (which I have) I don't have a woodworking "business" but I do quite a bit of work "by request" for family, friends and those who might become aware of my work. Under that circumstance I'm not under any kind of production deadline but I have a real appreciation for tools that "do the job right".

Many thanks for your input.

Max

[dpb]

Chuckle...

Seriously, of course some applications call for much higher quality levels. What I've seen of the failures in the aircraft maintenance aren't QA failures but actual fraud.

--

[Swingman]

I can partially help you there ... I have a Bosch 3727DEVS, which was my go to sander for face frame and panel work before I got the Rotex125, and always used after using the belt sander ... which I no longer need with the Rotex125.

There is NO comparison, although the Bosch stood me in good stead for a number of years, it has been sitting on the shelf and may not ever be used again ... I won't even bother to turn it on with this less than five feet away:

except for any situation where I might put the Festool sanders in harms way.

:)

My mantra ... I never quibble when it comes to springing for the tools needed to get the job done. Skimp there and you negate most of the satisfaction, as well as a good deal of the time and expense of getting any project completed.

The best tools you can buy will save you money in the long run ...

[Larry Jaques]

I thought Leon said that both modes of the festers were random orbit, but the video and descriptions definitely sound like one is a rotary and the other random orbit. Can you clarify? The 9-hole system sure sounds like nice tech.

-- Doubt 'til thou canst doubt no more...doubt is thought and thought is life. Systems which end doubt are devices for drugging thought. -- Albert Guerard

[-MIKE-]

I hate you.

[J. Clarke]

So found your own tool company on the basis of your definition of "quality control" and see how many you sell.

[J. Clarke]

I remember one of the support engineers walking into a meeting at Enormous Aerospace with a box of parts that had our part numbers and our logos and our QC marks and all sorts of other identification on them, that had absolutely no resemblance to the parts that we produced that bore those marks. I mean in some cases they were so far off that it was like seeing a rock with a Bosch label and logos and the identification plate for one of their jigsaws attached. The things were ostensibly spares for some of our older equipment and had been returned by customers who had bought them as surplus from third party suppliers. The issue at hand was whether we had produced them and one glance said "no".

At that point things moved to a higher level, with the FAA and the FBI getting involved and all that was way above my pay grade so I have no idea what the outcome was, but presumably whoever was making these things was shut down.