While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
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
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.
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.
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.
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. ;~)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.