Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/

Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
chinese knock-offs.

zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>
> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
> chinese knock-offs.
>

Did seem likely that this was the case, reading more cautious comments,
this said I’m not convinced it’s a particularly useful technology for the
road side particularly for the rider.

Roger Merriman

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>
>https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>
>Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>chinese knock-offs.

Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.

"Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes" (July 22, 2016).
<https://www.twospoke.com/threads/danger-from-carbon-fiber-bikes.17594/>
"On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also
riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill."
"WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR
DEATH!"

These remind me of the Feb 22, 2024 AT&T cellular outage, which was
initially blamed on a "solar flare":
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/26/att-cellphone-outage-solar-flares-fact-check/72715063007/>

Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.

Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>
>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>
>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>> chinese knock-offs.
>
> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>
> "Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes" (July 22, 2016).
> <https://www.twospoke.com/threads/danger-from-carbon-fiber-bikes.17594/>
> "On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also
> riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill."
> "WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO
> YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR
> DEATH!"
>
> These remind me of the Feb 22, 2024 AT&T cellular outage, which was
> initially blamed on a "solar flare":
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/26/att-cellphone-outage-solar-flares-fact-check/72715063007/>
>
> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>
> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.
>
>

The Chinese groupsets which have being doing the rounds have had decent
reviews at least from a cost/shifting perspective, the brakes even for a
cable disk much less so. Ie only bit that’s actually poor
quality/performance.

Roger Merriman

On 3/19/2024 5:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>>
>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>
>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>
>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
>> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>
>> "Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes" (July 22, 2016).
>> <https://www.twospoke.com/threads/danger-from-carbon-fiber-bikes.17594/>
>> "On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also
>> riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill."
>> "WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO
>> YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR
>> DEATH!"
>>
>> These remind me of the Feb 22, 2024 AT&T cellular outage, which was
>> initially blamed on a "solar flare":
>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/26/att-cellphone-outage-solar-flares-fact-check/72715063007/>
>>
>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
>> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>>
>> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
>> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
>> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
>> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
>> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
>> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.
>>
>>
>
> The Chinese groupsets which have being doing the rounds have had decent
> reviews at least from a cost/shifting perspective, the brakes even for a
> cable disk much less so. Ie only bit that’s actually poor
> quality/performance.
>
> Roger Merriman
>

I'm actually test driving a couple of Microshift shifter/derailleur sets
right now. I built up a "gravel" bike and a new commuter over the
winter. They're a bit heavy, but seems to work fine for Zwift. I'll be
taking it out on the road as soon as time and weather permit.

On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>
>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>
>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>> chinese knock-offs.
>
> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.

Not as of this morning -
https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj

Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still railing against the
technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is going to give
him much ammunition.

>
> "Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes" (July 22, 2016).
> <https://www.twospoke.com/threads/danger-from-carbon-fiber-bikes.17594/>
> "On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also
> riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill."
> "WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO
> YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR
> DEATH!"

>
> These remind me of the Feb 22, 2024 AT&T cellular outage, which was
> initially blamed on a "solar flare":
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/26/att-cellphone-outage-solar-flares-fact-check/72715063007/>
>
> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.

At my company, the digression follows the same predictable path

- customer reports a problem
- marketing/sales blames engineering
- engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or incorrect customer
application
- marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway

>
> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.

It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the same with cast
metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from china. First Article
Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and beautifully
finished. It's everything after that you have to watch out for - even
with CoCs accompanying each shipment.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>>
>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>
>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>
>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
>> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>
>Not as of this morning -
>https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj
>
>Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still railing against the
>technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is going to give
>him much ammunition.

Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the media stream.
That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that getting media
attention is more important than admitting that the early speculation
was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly premature. I was
rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted in the
direction of carbon fiber "safety". Oh well.

>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
>> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>
>At my company, the digression follows the same predictable path
>
>- customer reports a problem
>- marketing/sales blames engineering
>- engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or incorrect customer
>application
>- marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway

That works. The first step is to blame someone, but they can't blame
the person or group that is responsible for fixing the problem.
Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or uninvolved to
receive the blame. It also can't be someone who signs the paychecks,
which generally eliminates all the various "decision makers". In the
distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering to accept the
blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and then solving
the problem. That didn't end the bickering, but was fun for a while.
If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained estimating the
total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a useless meeting.
>> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
>> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
>> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
>> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
>> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
>> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.
>
>It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the same with cast
>metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from china. First Article
>Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and beautifully
>finished. It's everything after that you have to watch out for - even
>with CoCs accompanying each shipment.

Yep. I'm seeing the same thing. It wasn't always like that. At one
point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling marine radios from
Japan. The first articles were hand crafted, hand solder and looked
like something from Japan circa 1950. However, the next container
full of radios showed major incremental improvements. The spaghetti
wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board). Phenolic PCBs
switched to G10/FR4. Front and rear panel wiring was moved to PCBs.
The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment was better
than the previous. I've seen very little of that since those radios.
Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and component cost
reductions and design changes intended to reduce product life.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/2024 5:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>>
>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
>>> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>>
>>> "Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes" (July 22, 2016).
>>> <https://www.twospoke.com/threads/danger-from-carbon-fiber-bikes.17594/>
>>> "On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also
>>> riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill."
>>> "WARNING! IF YOU OWN A CARBON FIBER BICYCLE THAT IS MORE THAN TWO
>>> YEARS OLD - GET RID OF IT NOW!!! IT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR
>>> DEATH!"
>>>
>>> These remind me of the Feb 22, 2024 AT&T cellular outage, which was
>>> initially blamed on a "solar flare":
>>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/26/att-cellphone-outage-solar-flares-fact-check/72715063007/>
>>>
>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
>>> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>>>
>>> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
>>> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
>>> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
>>> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
>>> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
>>> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Chinese groupsets which have being doing the rounds have had decent
>> reviews at least from a cost/shifting perspective, the brakes even for a
>> cable disk much less so. Ie only bit that’s actually poor
>> quality/performance.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> I'm actually test driving a couple of Microshift shifter/derailleur sets
> right now. I built up a "gravel" bike and a new commuter over the
> winter. They're a bit heavy, but seems to work fine for Zwift. I'll be
> taking it out on the road as soon as time and weather permit.
>

Ah more the L-TWOO kit ie stuff sold from Aliexpress the latest 12s
electronic group set which has folks interest due to its cost or lack of,
than Micro shift which does get sold as OEM on some more budget bikes,
believe they have a Gravel Group set? Though possibly cable than hydraulic.

Roger Merriman

On 3/19/2024 2:46 AM, zen cycle wrote:
> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>
> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
> chinese knock-offs.

The reality is that non-racers are unlikely to be using the lightest,
most fragile, components like carbon-fiber wheels and tubeless tires,
whether from China or other country.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 3/20/2024 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash suffered by
>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>>
>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
>>> forks and frames? After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>
>> Not as of this morning -
>> https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj
>>
>> Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still railing against the
>> technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is going to give
>> him much ammunition.
>
> Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the media stream.
> That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that getting media
> attention is more important than admitting that the early speculation
> was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly premature. I was
> rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted in the
> direction of carbon fiber "safety". Oh well.

I'm still not sure just how much influence the CPA has over much of
anything. Making noise is one sure way to get attention, but it remains
to be seen IMHO if Mr. Hansen is merely tilting at windmills.

>
>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
>>> blame. I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>>
>> At my company, the digression follows the same predictable path
>>
>> - customer reports a problem
>> - marketing/sales blames engineering
>> - engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or incorrect customer
>> application
>> - marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway
>
> That works. The first step is to blame someone, but they can't blame
> the person or group that is responsible for fixing the problem.
> Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or uninvolved to
> receive the blame. It also can't be someone who signs the paychecks,
> which generally eliminates all the various "decision makers". In the
> distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering to accept the
> blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and then solving
> the problem. That didn't end the bickering, but was fun for a while.
> If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained estimating the
> total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a useless meeting.

I'm fortunate here in that management trusts my assessments. It wasn't
always that way, and changed significantly for the better when we hired
a new director of QC a few years ago. He reviewed the outstanding issues
that had yet to be signed off by management, and noted that my Root
Cause Failure Analysis were all correct, and for the most part
implemented my corrective action suggestions. I think it went a long way
that in nearly every case I identified either a process or a
specification failure rather than trying to blame an individual.

My favorite professional quote is from Dogbert - "I'll develop a process
which will compensate for your sloth, apathy, and overall incompetence".

>
>>> Drivel: I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
>>> proper job. That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
>>> seeing something rather different. Before 2015, such products really
>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
>>> the product. Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
>>> or worse. In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time. However,
>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
>>> sell junk. It's a strange world we live in.
>>
>> It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the same with cast
>> metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from china. First Article
>> Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and beautifully
>> finished. It's everything after that you have to watch out for - even
>> with CoCs accompanying each shipment.
>
> Yep. I'm seeing the same thing. It wasn't always like that. At one
> point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling marine radios from
> Japan. The first articles were hand crafted, hand solder and looked
> like something from Japan circa 1950. However, the next container
> full of radios showed major incremental improvements. The spaghetti
> wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board). Phenolic PCBs
> switched to G10/FR4. Front and rear panel wiring was moved to PCBs.
> The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment was better
> than the previous. I've seen very little of that since those radios.
> Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and component cost
> reductions and design changes intended to reduce product life.

Credit Edward Demming for the implementation of process control and
continuous improvement cycle philosophy in Japan in the 60's and 70's
(PDCA, known these days as DMAIC, or part of general Kaizen or 6sigma
philosophies). It's well know that removing hand operations from the
manufacturing process dramatically reduces random error errors (vs
systemic errors).

>
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/21/2024 4:00 AM, sms wrote:
> On 3/19/2024 2:46 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the
>> crash suffered by Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last
>> month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed rock
>> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>
>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>
>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought
>> the cheap chinese knock-offs.
>
> The reality is that non-racers are unlikely to be using the
> lightest, most fragile, components like carbon-fiber wheels
> and tubeless tires, whether from China or other country.
>

Mr Kunich does and he is not alone. The whole point of
professional racing is selling crap to wannabees.

Or as they used to say of autos in my youth, 'Race on
Sunday, sell on Monday."
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/21/2024 7:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 3/20/2024 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the
>>>>> crash suffered by
>>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah,
>>>>> hitting a big-assed
>>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will
>>>>> do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and
>>>>> bought the cheap
>>>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>>>
>>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there
>>>> anyone at the
>>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon
>>>> fiber rims,
>>>> forks and frames?  After all, all innovation can be
>>>> dangerous and
>>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>>
>>> Not as of this morning -
>>> https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj
>>>
>>> Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still
>>> railing against the
>>> technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is
>>> going to give
>>> him much ammunition.
>>
>> Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the
>> media stream.
>> That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that
>> getting media
>> attention is more important than admitting that the early
>> speculation
>> was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly
>> premature.  I was
>> rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted in the
>> direction of carbon fiber "safety".  Oh well.
>
> I'm still not sure just how much influence the CPA has over
> much of anything. Making noise is one sure way to get
> attention, but it remains to be seen IMHO if Mr. Hansen is
> merely tilting at windmills.
>
>>
>>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to
>>>> assign the
>>>> blame.  I worked for a company which practiced that no
>>>> problem can be
>>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>>>
>>> At my company, the digression follows the same
>>> predictable path
>>>
>>> - customer reports a problem
>>> - marketing/sales blames engineering
>>> - engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or
>>> incorrect customer
>>> application
>>> - marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway
>>
>> That works.  The first step is to blame someone, but they
>> can't blame
>> the person or group that is responsible for fixing the
>> problem.
>> Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or
>> uninvolved to
>> receive the blame.  It also can't be someone who signs the
>> paychecks,
>> which generally eliminates all the various "decision
>> makers".  In the
>> distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering to
>> accept the
>> blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and
>> then solving
>> the problem.  That didn't end the bickering, but was fun
>> for a while.
>> If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained
>> estimating the
>> total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a
>> useless meeting.
>
> I'm fortunate here in that management trusts my assessments.
> It wasn't always that way, and changed significantly for the
> better when we hired a new director of QC a few years ago.
> He reviewed the outstanding issues that had yet to be signed
> off by management, and noted that my Root Cause Failure
> Analysis were all correct, and for the most part implemented
> my corrective action suggestions. I think it went a long way
> that in nearly every case I identified either a process or a
> specification failure rather than trying to blame an
> individual.
>
> My favorite professional quote is from Dogbert - "I'll
> develop a process which will compensate for your sloth,
> apathy, and overall incompetence".
>
>
>>>> Drivel:  I used to think that the cheap Chinese
>>>> knock-offs were junk
>>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or
>>>> money to do a
>>>> proper job.  That was probably true until about 2015,
>>>> when I started
>>>> seeing something rather different.  Before 2015, such
>>>> products really
>>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over
>>>> the life of
>>>> the product.  Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments
>>>> being quite well
>>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress
>>>> toward junk
>>>> or worse.  In other words, the Chinese contract
>>>> manufacturers do have
>>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first
>>>> time.  However,
>>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews
>>>> are posted to
>>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce
>>>> costs, and
>>>> sell junk.  It's a strange world we live in.
>>>
>>> It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the
>>> same with cast
>>> metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from
>>> china. First Article
>>> Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and
>>> beautifully
>>> finished. It's everything after that you have to watch
>>> out for - even
>>> with CoCs accompanying each shipment.
>>
>> Yep.  I'm seeing the same thing.  It wasn't always like
>> that.  At one
>> point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling marine
>> radios from
>> Japan.  The first articles were hand crafted, hand solder
>> and looked
>> like something from Japan circa 1950.  However, the next
>> container
>> full of radios showed major incremental improvements.  The
>> spaghetti
>> wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board).
>> Phenolic PCBs
>> switched to G10/FR4.  Front and rear panel wiring was
>> moved to PCBs.
>> The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment
>> was better
>> than the previous.  I've seen very little of that since
>> those radios.
>> Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and
>> component cost
>> reductions and design changes intended to reduce product
>> life.
>
> Credit Edward Demming for the implementation of process
> control and continuous improvement cycle philosophy in Japan
> in the 60's and 70's (PDCA, known these days as DMAIC, or
> part of general Kaizen or 6sigma philosophies). It's well
> know that removing hand operations from the manufacturing
> process dramatically reduces random error errors (vs
> systemic errors).
>
>>
>>
>

Nice! A pithy anti-Deming quip.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/21/2024 8:40 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/21/2024 7:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/20/2024 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash
>>>>>> suffered by
>>>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a big-assed
>>>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>>>>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
>>>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
>>>>> forks and frames?  After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
>>>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>>>
>>>> Not as of this morning -
>>>> https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj
>>>>
>>>> Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still railing against
>>>> the
>>>> technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is going to give
>>>> him much ammunition.
>>>
>>> Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the media stream.
>>> That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that getting media
>>> attention is more important than admitting that the early speculation
>>> was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly premature.  I was
>>> rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted in the
>>> direction of carbon fiber "safety".  Oh well.
>>
>> I'm still not sure just how much influence the CPA has over much of
>> anything. Making noise is one sure way to get attention, but it
>> remains to be seen IMHO if Mr. Hansen is merely tilting at windmills.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
>>>>> blame.  I worked for a company which practiced that no problem can be
>>>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>>>>
>>>> At my company, the digression follows the same predictable path
>>>>
>>>> - customer reports a problem
>>>> - marketing/sales blames engineering
>>>> - engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or incorrect customer
>>>> application
>>>> - marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway
>>>
>>> That works.  The first step is to blame someone, but they can't blame
>>> the person or group that is responsible for fixing the problem.
>>> Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or uninvolved to
>>> receive the blame.  It also can't be someone who signs the paychecks,
>>> which generally eliminates all the various "decision makers".  In the
>>> distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering to accept the
>>> blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and then solving
>>> the problem.  That didn't end the bickering, but was fun for a while.
>>> If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained estimating the
>>> total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a useless meeting.
>>
>> I'm fortunate here in that management trusts my assessments. It wasn't
>> always that way, and changed significantly for the better when we
>> hired a new director of QC a few years ago. He reviewed the
>> outstanding issues that had yet to be signed off by management, and
>> noted that my Root Cause Failure Analysis were all correct, and for
>> the most part implemented my corrective action suggestions. I think it
>> went a long way that in nearly every case I identified either a
>> process or a specification failure rather than trying to blame an
>> individual.
>>
>> My favorite professional quote is from Dogbert - "I'll develop a
>> process which will compensate for your sloth, apathy, and overall
>> incompetence".
>>
>>
>>>>> Drivel:  I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
>>>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to do a
>>>>> proper job.  That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
>>>>> seeing something rather different.  Before 2015, such products really
>>>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
>>>>> the product.  Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
>>>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
>>>>> or worse.  In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do have
>>>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time.  However,
>>>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
>>>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
>>>>> sell junk.  It's a strange world we live in.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the same with cast
>>>> metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from china. First
>>>> Article
>>>> Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and beautifully
>>>> finished. It's everything after that you have to watch out for - even
>>>> with CoCs accompanying each shipment.
>>>
>>> Yep.  I'm seeing the same thing.  It wasn't always like that.  At one
>>> point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling marine radios from
>>> Japan.  The first articles were hand crafted, hand solder and looked
>>> like something from Japan circa 1950.  However, the next container
>>> full of radios showed major incremental improvements.  The spaghetti
>>> wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board). Phenolic PCBs
>>> switched to G10/FR4.  Front and rear panel wiring was moved to PCBs.
>>> The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment was better
>>> than the previous.  I've seen very little of that since those radios.
>>> Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and component cost
>>> reductions and design changes intended to reduce product life.
>>
>> Credit Edward Demming for the implementation of process control and
>> continuous improvement cycle philosophy in Japan in the 60's and 70's
>> (PDCA, known these days as DMAIC, or part of general Kaizen or 6sigma
>> philosophies). It's well know that removing hand operations from the
>> manufacturing process dramatically reduces random error errors (vs
>> systemic errors).
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Nice! A pithy anti-Deming quip.

It's actually more supportive than it isn't. Deming showed that strict
process control was the key to reliable repeatable quality output. Take
away interpretive processes. It's the corner stone of the ISO 9000
series of manufacturing process control - "say what you do, do what you
say". That portion is wholly pro-Deming.

I will concede that 'sloth, apathy, and overall incompetence' is
antithetical to to the the concept Quality Circles and employee
empowerment that Deming also championed, but that isn't necessarily
anti-Deming. At some point an employer has to make a decision that the
competence of his employees meets the standards they are trying to
achieve. Higher levels of manufacturing and design process certification
require demonstrated competence by the contributors. If an employee
isn't capable of maintaining a certain level of quality output, they
either need to be trained or reassigned.

Our factory certifications require that we maintain training records
proving that the individuals involved in the development and manufacture
of Hazardous Location equipment have been adequately trained to perform
their job function.

Sometimes, the process to compensate for sloth, apathy, and overall
incompetence is to empower and train the individual and give them a
stake in the system such that they are motivated to produce with pride.

On 3/21/2024 8:50 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 3/21/2024 8:40 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/21/2024 7:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2024 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle
>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the
>>>>>>> crash suffered by
>>>>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah,
>>>>>>> hitting a big-assed
>>>>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY)
>>>>>>> will do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and
>>>>>>> bought the cheap
>>>>>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there
>>>>>> anyone at the
>>>>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of
>>>>>> carbon fiber rims,
>>>>>> forks and frames?  After all, all innovation can be
>>>>>> dangerous and
>>>>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not as of this morning -
>>>>> https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still
>>>>> railing against the
>>>>> technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident
>>>>> is going to give
>>>>> him much ammunition.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the
>>>> media stream.
>>>> That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that
>>>> getting media
>>>> attention is more important than admitting that the
>>>> early speculation
>>>> was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly
>>>> premature.  I was
>>>> rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted
>>>> in the
>>>> direction of carbon fiber "safety".  Oh well.
>>>
>>> I'm still not sure just how much influence the CPA has
>>> over much of anything. Making noise is one sure way to
>>> get attention, but it remains to be seen IMHO if Mr.
>>> Hansen is merely tilting at windmills.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to
>>>>>> assign the
>>>>>> blame.  I worked for a company which practiced that no
>>>>>> problem can be
>>>>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming
>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>
>>>>> At my company, the digression follows the same
>>>>> predictable path
>>>>>
>>>>> - customer reports a problem
>>>>> - marketing/sales blames engineering
>>>>> - engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or
>>>>> incorrect customer
>>>>> application
>>>>> - marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway
>>>>
>>>> That works.  The first step is to blame someone, but
>>>> they can't blame
>>>> the person or group that is responsible for fixing the
>>>> problem.
>>>> Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or
>>>> uninvolved to
>>>> receive the blame.  It also can't be someone who signs
>>>> the paychecks,
>>>> which generally eliminates all the various "decision
>>>> makers".  In the
>>>> distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering
>>>> to accept the
>>>> blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and
>>>> then solving
>>>> the problem.  That didn't end the bickering, but was fun
>>>> for a while.
>>>> If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained
>>>> estimating the
>>>> total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a
>>>> useless meeting.
>>>
>>> I'm fortunate here in that management trusts my
>>> assessments. It wasn't always that way, and changed
>>> significantly for the better when we hired a new director
>>> of QC a few years ago. He reviewed the outstanding issues
>>> that had yet to be signed off by management, and noted
>>> that my Root Cause Failure Analysis were all correct, and
>>> for the most part implemented my corrective action
>>> suggestions. I think it went a long way that in nearly
>>> every case I identified either a process or a
>>> specification failure rather than trying to blame an
>>> individual.
>>>
>>> My favorite professional quote is from Dogbert - "I'll
>>> develop a process which will compensate for your sloth,
>>> apathy, and overall incompetence".
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Drivel:  I used to think that the cheap Chinese
>>>>>> knock-offs were junk
>>>>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time
>>>>>> or money to do a
>>>>>> proper job.  That was probably true until about 2015,
>>>>>> when I started
>>>>>> seeing something rather different.  Before 2015, such
>>>>>> products really
>>>>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve
>>>>>> over the life of
>>>>>> the product.  Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments
>>>>>> being quite well
>>>>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to
>>>>>> progress toward junk
>>>>>> or worse.  In other words, the Chinese contract
>>>>>> manufacturers do have
>>>>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first
>>>>>> time.  However,
>>>>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews
>>>>>> are posted to
>>>>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality,
>>>>>> reduce costs, and
>>>>>> sell junk.  It's a strange world we live in.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the
>>>>> same with cast
>>>>> metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from
>>>>> china. First Article
>>>>> Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and
>>>>> beautifully
>>>>> finished. It's everything after that you have to watch
>>>>> out for - even
>>>>> with CoCs accompanying each shipment.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.  I'm seeing the same thing.  It wasn't always like
>>>> that.  At one
>>>> point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling
>>>> marine radios from
>>>> Japan.  The first articles were hand crafted, hand
>>>> solder and looked
>>>> like something from Japan circa 1950.  However, the next
>>>> container
>>>> full of radios showed major incremental improvements.
>>>> The spaghetti
>>>> wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board).
>>>> Phenolic PCBs
>>>> switched to G10/FR4.  Front and rear panel wiring was
>>>> moved to PCBs.
>>>> The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment
>>>> was better
>>>> than the previous.  I've seen very little of that since
>>>> those radios.
>>>> Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and
>>>> component cost
>>>> reductions and design changes intended to reduce product
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> Credit Edward Demming for the implementation of process
>>> control and continuous improvement cycle philosophy in
>>> Japan in the 60's and 70's (PDCA, known these days as
>>> DMAIC, or part of general Kaizen or 6sigma philosophies).
>>> It's well know that removing hand operations from the
>>> manufacturing process dramatically reduces random error
>>> errors (vs systemic errors).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nice! A pithy anti-Deming quip.
>
> It's actually more supportive than it isn't. Deming showed
> that strict process control was the key to reliable
> repeatable quality output. Take away interpretive processes.
> It's the corner stone of the ISO 9000 series of
> manufacturing process control - "say what you do, do what
> you say". That portion is wholly pro-Deming.
>
> I will concede that 'sloth, apathy, and overall
> incompetence' is antithetical to to the the concept Quality
> Circles and employee empowerment that Deming also
> championed, but that isn't necessarily anti-Deming. At some
> point an employer has to make a decision that the competence
> of his employees meets the standards they are trying to
> achieve. Higher levels of manufacturing and design process
> certification require demonstrated competence by the
> contributors. If an employee isn't capable of maintaining a
> certain level of quality output, they either need to be
> trained or reassigned.
>
> Our factory certifications require that we maintain training
> records proving that the individuals involved in the
> development and manufacture of Hazardous Location equipment
> have been adequately trained to perform their job function.
>
> Sometimes, the process to compensate for sloth, apathy, and
> overall incompetence is to empower and train the individual
> and give them a stake in the system such that they are
> motivated to produce with pride.
>

On 3/21/2024 2:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/21/2024 8:50 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/21/2024 8:40 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2024 7:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2024 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:42:20 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2024 2:37 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:46:49 -0400, zen cycle
>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zipp finally released an analysis of the cause of the crash
>>>>>>>> suffered by
>>>>>>>> Thomas De Gendt at the UAE tour last month. Yeah, hitting a
>>>>>>>> big-assed
>>>>>>>> rock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ICecXdOcTY) will do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zipp-releases-photos-debunking-hookless-rim-failure-after-de-gendt-crash/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they should have followed tommy's advice and bought the cheap
>>>>>>>> chinese knock-offs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that the real cause has been identified, is there anyone at the
>>>>>>> UCI issuing press releases advocating the ban of carbon fiber rims,
>>>>>>> forks and frames?  After all, all innovation can be dangerous and
>>>>>>> should be banned before the inevitable carnage arrives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not as of this morning -
>>>>>> https://www.uci.org/press-releases/9WTkI4p7rPgHZhBZvWpZj
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam Hansen (president of the riders union) is still railing
>>>>>> against the
>>>>>> technology, though it doesn't seem like this incident is going to
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> him much ammunition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it is a convenient way to get his name into the media stream.
>>>>> That's rather surprising as he seems to believe that getting media
>>>>> attention is more important than admitting that the early speculation
>>>>> was wrong and that the demand for a ban was highly premature.  I was
>>>>> rather disappointed that the discussion hasn't drifted in the
>>>>> direction of carbon fiber "safety".  Oh well.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not sure just how much influence the CPA has over much of
>>>> anything. Making noise is one sure way to get attention, but it
>>>> remains to be seen IMHO if Mr. Hansen is merely tilting at windmills.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the first step to solving a problem really is to assign the
>>>>>>> blame.  I worked for a company which practiced that no problem
>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> solved or even investigated without first blaming someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At my company, the digression follows the same predictable path
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - customer reports a problem
>>>>>> - marketing/sales blames engineering
>>>>>> - engineering shows either a manufacturing defect or incorrect
>>>>>> customer
>>>>>> application
>>>>>> - marketing orders engineering to fix it anyway
>>>>>
>>>>> That works.  The first step is to blame someone, but they can't blame
>>>>> the person or group that is responsible for fixing the problem.
>>>>> Therefore, they need to find someone innocent and/or uninvolved to
>>>>> receive the blame.  It also can't be someone who signs the paychecks,
>>>>> which generally eliminates all the various "decision makers".  In the
>>>>> distant past, I would ruin the meeting by volunteering to accept the
>>>>> blame so that we could move on to properly analyzing and then solving
>>>>> the problem.  That didn't end the bickering, but was fun for a while.
>>>>> If that didn't work, I would keep myself entertained estimating the
>>>>> total cost in salaries for having everyone attend a useless meeting.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fortunate here in that management trusts my assessments. It
>>>> wasn't always that way, and changed significantly for the better
>>>> when we hired a new director of QC a few years ago. He reviewed the
>>>> outstanding issues that had yet to be signed off by management, and
>>>> noted that my Root Cause Failure Analysis were all correct, and for
>>>> the most part implemented my corrective action suggestions. I think
>>>> it went a long way that in nearly every case I identified either a
>>>> process or a specification failure rather than trying to blame an
>>>> individual.
>>>>
>>>> My favorite professional quote is from Dogbert - "I'll develop a
>>>> process which will compensate for your sloth, apathy, and overall
>>>> incompetence".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Drivel:  I used to think that the cheap Chinese knock-offs were junk
>>>>>>> because the factory or designers didn't have the time or money to
>>>>>>> do a
>>>>>>> proper job.  That was probably true until about 2015, when I started
>>>>>>> seeing something rather different.  Before 2015, such products
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> were junk when first release, but tended to improve over the life of
>>>>>>> the product.  Now, I'm seeing the initial shipments being quite well
>>>>>>> designed and built, but later shipments tend to progress toward junk
>>>>>>> or worse.  In other words, the Chinese contract manufacturers do
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the talent, time and money to do it right the first time.  However,
>>>>>>> once the contracts are signed and the initial reviews are posted to
>>>>>>> multiple web sites, it's now time to cut quality, reduce costs, and
>>>>>>> sell junk.  It's a strange world we live in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't strange, it's business. We experience much the same with
>>>>>> cast
>>>>>> metal and injection molded ABS/PC parts we get from china. First
>>>>>> Article
>>>>>> Inspection parts are always well within tolerance and beautifully
>>>>>> finished. It's everything after that you have to watch out for - even
>>>>>> with CoCs accompanying each shipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.  I'm seeing the same thing.  It wasn't always like that.  At one
>>>>> point, about 1978, my employer was private labeling marine radios from
>>>>> Japan.  The first articles were hand crafted, hand solder and looked
>>>>> like something from Japan circa 1950.  However, the next container
>>>>> full of radios showed major incremental improvements. The spaghetti
>>>>> wiring became a flex PCB (printed circuit board). Phenolic PCBs
>>>>> switched to G10/FR4.  Front and rear panel wiring was moved to PCBs.
>>>>> The improvements never seemed to end where each shipment was better
>>>>> than the previous.  I've seen very little of that since those radios.
>>>>> Usually, later "improvements" consisted of labor and component cost
>>>>> reductions and design changes intended to reduce product life.
>>>>
>>>> Credit Edward Demming for the implementation of process control and
>>>> continuous improvement cycle philosophy in Japan in the 60's and
>>>> 70's (PDCA, known these days as DMAIC, or part of general Kaizen or
>>>> 6sigma philosophies). It's well know that removing hand operations
>>>> from the manufacturing process dramatically reduces random error
>>>> errors (vs systemic errors).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice! A pithy anti-Deming quip.
>>
>> It's actually more supportive than it isn't. Deming showed that strict
>> process control was the key to reliable repeatable quality output.
>> Take away interpretive processes. It's the corner stone of the ISO
>> 9000 series of manufacturing process control - "say what you do, do
>> what you say". That portion is wholly pro-Deming.
>>
>> I will concede that 'sloth, apathy, and overall incompetence' is
>> antithetical to to the the concept Quality Circles and employee
>> empowerment that Deming also championed, but that isn't necessarily
>> anti-Deming. At some point an employer has to make a decision that the
>> competence of his employees meets the standards they are trying to
>> achieve. Higher levels of manufacturing and design process
>> certification require demonstrated competence by the contributors. If
>> an employee isn't capable of maintaining a certain level of quality
>> output, they either need to be trained or reassigned.
>>
>> Our factory certifications require that we maintain training records
>> proving that the individuals involved in the development and
>> manufacture of Hazardous Location equipment have been adequately
>> trained to perform their job function.
>>
>> Sometimes, the process to compensate for sloth, apathy, and overall
>> incompetence is to empower and train the individual and give them a
>> stake in the system such that they are motivated to produce with pride.
>>
>
> I have more experience in small-midsize Japanese manufacturers 35~45
> years ago than here, but a critical aspect of Deming's work, cited
> often, was that employee buy-in for total quality processes was
> considered essential.

On 3/21/2024 2:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> I have more experience in small-midsize Japanese manufacturers 35~45
> years ago than here, but a critical aspect of Deming's work, cited
> often, was that employee buy-in for total quality processes was
> considered essential.

I remember hearing at a seminar that the Japanes "mistake proofing"
system originally had a different name. From Wikipedia:

====================
Etymology
Poka-yoke was originally baka-yoke, but as this means "fool-proofing"
(or "idiot-proofing") the name was changed to the milder poka-yoke.[4]
Poka-yoke is derived from poka o yokeru (ポカを避ける), a term in shogi that
means avoiding an unthinkably bad move.
====================

Supposedly the name was changed when one female employee complained
about "baka-joke" saying essentially "That's insulting! I'm not a fool!"

--
- Frank Krygowski