<grin, followed by broad grin>

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:dh76rk$v74$2@news.isdn.net...
[...]
>>
>> Porbably the first time in two years on this ng that someone used
>> "effect" as a verb and used it correctly.
>
> Except I mis-spelled "probably". Sheesh.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')


 
This is the bit which I consider simplistic and with which I do not agree.
There is no EU legal requirement to comply with ISO 9000, nor are EU-based
manufacturers exempt.

Nobody can force quality 'increase' since it is entirely subjective (already
commented upon in this NG several times). Only economics can have that
effect.

However, if a system, a documentation system, can ensure, or help to bring
about, consistency, then this is a very good thing. Anyone who complies
with ISO 9000 has a better chance of this. If manufacturers do not use the
system properly then it is at their own risk. This is an
internationally-recognised system for product consistency and is an
opportunity, rather than trying to do it your own way. Why re-invent the
wheel?

ISO 9000 is like QA (quality assurance): more a state of mind.

In my and a related industry I am aware of the consequential costs of not
producing consistent quality.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:7dHZe.1005$lb.83773@news1.epix.net...
[...]
>
> That is a waste of money and serves only as a barrier to selling to the
> European market.
>
> If ISO actually had requirements that increased the quality of the
> product, then I might agree with you that ISO serves other than as a
> bureaucratic, protectionist barrier.
>
>
> Matt


 

But I knew you meant 'effect' because:
(1) In context it clearly was the meaning, and
(2) You are an educated Brit and tend to use words more precisely than
certain other "types". :)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> Very perceptive.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1baci0fwer.fsf@viper.cs.nmsu.edu...
> [...]
>
>>Oddly, one of the very few times I can think of ever seeing a sentence
>>in which "effect" and "affect" would both have been correct...
>>--
>>Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
>>Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
>>New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
>> skype: jjpfeifferjr
 
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> This is the bit which I consider simplistic and with which I do not agree.
> There is no EU legal requirement to comply with ISO 9000, nor are EU-based
> manufacturers exempt.
>
> Nobody can force quality 'increase' since it is entirely subjective (already
> commented upon in this NG several times). Only economics can have that
> effect.
>
> However, if a system, a documentation system, can ensure, or help to bring
> about, consistency, then this is a very good thing. Anyone who complies
> with ISO 9000 has a better chance of this. If manufacturers do not use the
> system properly then it is at their own risk. This is an
> internationally-recognised system for product consistency and is an
> opportunity, rather than trying to do it your own way. Why re-invent the
> wheel?

Consistency isn't always a good thing. Consistently bad is a bad thing.
And sometimes processes stay bad because updating the documentation is
more work than it is worth. You may think this isn't true, but ask any
airplane manufacturer how much paperwork is required with the FAA in
order to make any significant upgrade to an airplane or engine. Many
airplanes still use archaic designs because of this barrier. It isn't
that much different at many ISO certified companies. A process
improvement requires that all affected documents be updated. If the
improvement isn't of great value, it may not be worth the effort. This,
in my opinion, is not a good thing.

However, it does make life easier for the start-ups who aren't bound by
their legacy documentation! :)


Matt
 
On 25 Sep 2005 19:30:20 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
wrote:

>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>
>> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>> > Agreed.
>> > On reproducibility, what I meant was that the purpose (of ISO 9000)
>> > is to effect reproducibility.
>>
>> Porbably the first time in two years on this ng that someone used
>> "effect" as a verb and used it correctly.
>
>Oddly, one of the very few times I can think of ever seeing a sentence
>in which "effect" and "affect" would both have been correct...


Well, while we are persnicketing, perhaps one could say that either
would be acceptable in the sentence: but preferably not both! :)

Brian W
 
Regarding your attempt at introducing an unknown verb version of a known
adjective (courtesy of an US dictionary in deference to this NG) this is
laudable but whilst I agree that both "affect" and "effect" could work in my
sentence, it is EFFECT I meant...

:)
DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:292hj15nd3q9btrj535r1ugt2mpgp59on4@4ax.com...
[...]

>
> Well, while we are persnicketing, perhaps one could say that either
> would be acceptable in the sentence: but preferably not both! :)
>
> Brian W


 
You called it a trade barrier. As you see, it isn't.

As I said before, 'bad' quality is a matter for management and economics/the
market. Nothing in ISO 9000 to stop anyone changing the quality.

If the documentation inhibits development, review the documentation. There
is no absolutely set way to do docs under ISO 9000.

The FAA is not ISO 9000. Same as the US FDA (or any regulatory authority)
is not ISO 9000. Different constraints

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:V7%Ze.1048$lb.85754@news1.epix.net...
[...]
>
> Consistency isn't always a good thing. Consistently bad is a bad thing.
> And sometimes processes stay bad because updating the documentation is
> more work than it is worth. You may think this isn't true, but ask any
> airplane manufacturer how much paperwork is required with the FAA in order
> to make any significant upgrade to an airplane or engine. Many airplanes
> still use archaic designs because of this barrier. It isn't that much
> different at many ISO certified companies. A process improvement requires
> that all affected documents be updated. If the improvement isn't of great
> value, it may not be worth the effort. This, in my opinion, is not a good
> thing.
>
> However, it does make life easier for the start-ups who aren't bound by
> their legacy documentation! :)
>
>
> Matt


 
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> Regarding your attempt at introducing an unknown verb version of a known
> adjective (courtesy of an US dictionary in deference to this NG) this is
> laudable but whilst I agree that both "affect" and "effect" could work in my
> sentence, it is EFFECT I meant...

You tell 'em, Dori!! :)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> You called it a trade barrier. As you see, it isn't.

I don't see any other useful purpose.


> As I said before, 'bad' quality is a matter for management and economics/the
> market. Nothing in ISO 9000 to stop anyone changing the quality.

It doesn't stop anyone, but it certainly increases the cost.


> If the documentation inhibits development, review the documentation. There
> is no absolutely set way to do docs under ISO 9000.

True, but there are some generally accepted requirements if you want to
get certified.


> The FAA is not ISO 9000. Same as the US FDA (or any regulatory authority)
> is not ISO 9000. Different constraints

Yes, different constraints, but the same net result ... inhibition of
technological progress.

As an aside, do you have any evidence that ISO 9000 has increased the
quality of products produced in Europe?

Matt
 
I agree with Dori. It's not what I would consider a trade barrier. If you
want an example of a trade barrier, try the "CE Mark".

Ken

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:fPj_e.1093$lb.88217@news1.epix.net...
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> > You called it a trade barrier. As you see, it isn't.
>
> I don't see any other useful purpose.
>
>
> > As I said before, 'bad' quality is a matter for management and
economics/the
> > market. Nothing in ISO 9000 to stop anyone changing the quality.
>
> It doesn't stop anyone, but it certainly increases the cost.
>
>
> > If the documentation inhibits development, review the documentation.
There
> > is no absolutely set way to do docs under ISO 9000.
>
> True, but there are some generally accepted requirements if you want to
> get certified.
>
>
> > The FAA is not ISO 9000. Same as the US FDA (or any regulatory
authority)
> > is not ISO 9000. Different constraints
>
> Yes, different constraints, but the same net result ... inhibition of
> technological progress.
>
> As an aside, do you have any evidence that ISO 9000 has increased the
> quality of products produced in Europe?
>
> Matt


 
Well James, Bill Putney was right. This is working itself into a long
thread. I asked the same sort of question at the beginning and,
unfortunately, got a lot of opinions and little substance. There seemed to
be some general agreement that there isn't much objectivity to be had when
it comes to tires.

If you really want to assess the quality of any tire, you are pretty much in
the dark.

My original premise was that you will do well to buy on price and buy from
someone who has an interest in your repeat business. Keep them aligned,
balanced and properly inflated and they will likely do the 40K miles or so
that they advertised. There will be some variance and you may find yourself
not liking this or that about the tires. But if you went cheap, you will
feel better about it than if you paid through the nose for "quality" tires
that weren't.

Ken

"Grimly Fiendish" <Alien@Sexfiend.fsnot.co.youK> wrote in message
news:4336b0af$0$39416$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> <jamesp010@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127300159.195455.220130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
> > this forum.
> >
> > With regards to tire composition and characteristics, what are the
> > important things I need to look out for when assessing quality of an
> > unbranded tire.
>
> You're American aren't you ?
>
>


 
IMO it is and it is not. What about US requirements like UL? Same thing,
no?

In fact, CE marking has resulted in substantial simplification of the safety
standards in the EU. Even now I get statements in potential clients'
machine specifications requiring compliance with (taking the latest example)
with certain Belgian standards. When I replied, saying that our machines
(supplied from Canada) are CE-marked but we would be happy to comply with
additional requirements if we were sent the documentation, I was told to
forget about it; CE would be sufficient.

Otherwise we would have a plethora across the EU. The mind boggles in
today's context.

So, is it a trade barrier per se, or only because it is not a copy of US
regs????

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"KWS" <noaccount@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WLadnQLjUpwOmafeRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>I agree with Dori. It's not what I would consider a trade barrier. If you
> want an example of a trade barrier, try the "CE Mark".
>
> Ken
[...]


 
Good question.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:fPj_e.1093$lb.88217@news1.epix.net...
[...]

> As an aside, do you have any evidence that ISO 9000 has increased the
> quality of products produced in Europe?
>
> Matt


 
KWS wrote:
> I agree with Dori. It's not what I would consider a trade barrier. If you
> want an example of a trade barrier, try the "CE Mark".

I'm not terribly familiar with the CE process, but I thought it was
supposed to be somewhat akin to our UL program. If this is the case,
then at least it has some functional value, safety, whereas the ISO 9000
process lacks any functional value. It is all about cosmetics. Now, if
the CE mark doesn't give some assurance of safety or other functional
attribute, then I agree with you. :)


Matt
 
In article <1127300159.195455.220130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
jamesp010@hotmail.com wrote:

> I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
> this forum.

Just buy Michelins and you'll be happy.
 

"Spam Hater" <iHate@spam.net> wrote in message
news:iHate-5AC87D.11315504102005@news.telus.net...
> In article <1127300159.195455.220130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> jamesp010@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
> > this forum.
>
> Just buy Michelins and you'll be happy.

I did and I am not. I bought a set of Cross Terrains for an Expedition and I
am not all that happy with them, mostly because they have become very noisy.
The original Continentals on the vehicle were replaced at 50,000 miles
because they were hard to keep balanced (but they still had plenty of tread
left). Initially the Michelins were quieter, but now, after 25,000 miles,
they are much nosier than the original Continentals were after 50,000
miles.They look good - in fact it is hard to tell they have worn at all. I
also have a set of Michelins on my Thunderbird and they are horrid. They
won't stay balanced and they don't have good traction.

However, I just bought a set of Michelins for another vehicle, so I guess I
am still a Michelin man. But if these don't work out, I think I'll try
something else on the Thunderbird.

Ed


 
"C. E. White" wrote:

>
> I did and I am not. I bought a set of Cross Terrains for an Expedition and I
> am not all that happy with them, mostly because they have become very noisy.
> The original Continentals on the vehicle were replaced at 50,000 miles
> because they were hard to keep balanced (but they still had plenty of tread
> left). Initially the Michelins were quieter, but now, after 25,000 miles,
> they are much nosier than the original Continentals were after 50,000
> miles.They look good - in fact it is hard to tell they have worn at all. I
> also have a set of Michelins on my Thunderbird and they are horrid. They
> won't stay balanced and they don't have good traction.

IMO, Michelin are the most over rated tire on the market. In 40 years of
driving, the only tire that has ever blown out on me was a Michelin, and the
rest of the same set were less than satisfactory.... performance and short life.
Many years ago when I worked on a highway maintenance crew we picked up more
tire debris from blown out Michelins than all other brands combined, and they
were not all that common at the time, so the failure rate was many times worse
than other brands. When you look at the tire brands used by transportation
companies, who would expect to do careful research before committing to a brand,
you will note that very few of them use Michelin.

>
>
> However, I just bought a set of Michelins for another vehicle, so I guess I
> am still a Michelin man. But if these don't work out, I think I'll try
> something else on the Thunderbird.

 

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4344556C.FD12BB78@sympatico.ca...
> "C. E. White" wrote:
> IMO, Michelin are the most over rated tire on the market. In 40 years of
> driving, the only tire that has ever blown out on me was a Michelin, and
the
> rest of the same set were less than satisfactory.... performance and short
life.
> Many years ago when I worked on a highway maintenance crew we picked up
more
> tire debris from blown out Michelins than all other brands combined,

I'd like to see how you collected those statistics. Ironically, I just had a
Michelin blow-out on my pick-up. Of course it was 7 years old and had a big
nail in the side of the tread. I suspect I had been driving around with low
pressure for more than a few miles and when I went over a horrid bump in the
road (thank you State Government of NC) it deflated more or less instantly.
But, I didn't leave any debris behind to be picked up (although there was
something runmbling around inside the tire).

> were not all that common at the time, so the failure rate was many times
worse
> than other brands. When you look at the tire brands used by transportation
> companies, who would expect to do careful research before committing to a
brand,
> you will note that very few of them use Michelin.

Actually I would expect them to buy the cheapest tire they could (with some
adjustment passed on the UTG wear index). I have a friend who operates a
small fleet of tractor-trailers. He swears Michelins are the best, but then
his extensive research consists of driving a truck.

Ed


 
Dave Smith proclaimed:

> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
>
>>I did and I am not. I bought a set of Cross Terrains for an Expedition and I
>>am not all that happy with them, mostly because they have become very noisy.
>>The original Continentals on the vehicle were replaced at 50,000 miles
>>because they were hard to keep balanced (but they still had plenty of tread
>>left). Initially the Michelins were quieter, but now, after 25,000 miles,
>>they are much nosier than the original Continentals were after 50,000
>>miles.They look good - in fact it is hard to tell they have worn at all. I
>>also have a set of Michelins on my Thunderbird and they are horrid. They
>>won't stay balanced and they don't have good traction.
>
>
> IMO, Michelin are the most over rated tire on the market. In 40 years of
> driving, the only tire that has ever blown out on me was a Michelin, and the
> rest of the same set were less than satisfactory.... performance and short life.
> Many years ago when I worked on a highway maintenance crew we picked up more
> tire debris from blown out Michelins than all other brands combined, and they
> were not all that common at the time, so the failure rate was many times worse
> than other brands. When you look at the tire brands used by transportation
> companies, who would expect to do careful research before committing to a brand,
> you will note that very few of them use Michelin.

Could you describe the type of debris from Michelins that you picked
up?


Purely an unscientific survey consisting of checking the brands on
the commercial big rigs I drive next to, the appearance of any brand
*other* than Michelin is pretty darned rare. This is as much due to
their wear patterns and re-treading capabilities as to any inherent
superiority I suspect. That unscientific survey does include having
the top truck lines as customers....which gives pretty good
opportunity to check tires.

 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kOidnWKibKMqUtvenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Dave Smith proclaimed:
>
>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I did and I am not. I bought a set of Cross Terrains for an Expedition
>>>and I
>>>am not all that happy with them, mostly because they have become very
>>>noisy.
>>>The original Continentals on the vehicle were replaced at 50,000 miles
>>>because they were hard to keep balanced (but they still had plenty of
>>>tread
>>>left). Initially the Michelins were quieter, but now, after 25,000 miles,
>>>they are much nosier than the original Continentals were after 50,000
>>>miles.They look good - in fact it is hard to tell they have worn at all.
>>>I
>>>also have a set of Michelins on my Thunderbird and they are horrid. They
>>>won't stay balanced and they don't have good traction.
>>
>>
>> IMO, Michelin are the most over rated tire on the market. In 40 years of
>> driving, the only tire that has ever blown out on me was a Michelin, and
>> the
>> rest of the same set were less than satisfactory.... performance and
>> short life.
>> Many years ago when I worked on a highway maintenance crew we picked up
>> more
>> tire debris from blown out Michelins than all other brands combined, and
>> they
>> were not all that common at the time, so the failure rate was many times
>> worse
>> than other brands. When you look at the tire brands used by
>> transportation
>> companies, who would expect to do careful research before committing to a
>> brand,
>> you will note that very few of them use Michelin.
>
> Could you describe the type of debris from Michelins that you picked
> up?
>
>
> Purely an unscientific survey consisting of checking the brands on
> the commercial big rigs I drive next to, the appearance of any brand
> *other* than Michelin is pretty darned rare.

ANd checking big rig brands is useless, as they are more then likely recaps!
And the reacps are not made by the original manufacturer.

This is as much due to
> their wear patterns and re-treading capabilities as to any inherent
> superiority I suspect. That unscientific survey does include having
> the top truck lines as customers....which gives pretty good
> opportunity to check tires.
>


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
2005 HSE L322 - correct tire pressure for Nokian APT?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
backinblack
backinblack
Blob
L322 Fixed (Sort of) - Every single module in fault. Where to start?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
11K
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
G
My wiring harness is on it's last legs
Replies
13
Views
409
British Leyland Rover
British Leyland Rover
R
FTC5200 clutch release bearing
Replies
0
Views
884
RichDevon90
R
A
Fuel pump
Replies
0
Views
499
Ausman123
A