TR GOLD

[Peter Cobbold]

I have been following this thread closely.

 

I have my own considered views but will keep these to myself.

 

I would suggest that this thread needs a 'dignified silence'.

 

Is it possible for threads to be locked?

 

If yes, please lock this thread.

 

David

David,

Why keep your views to yourself? What's the point is doing that?

The whole popint of a forum is to embrace everyone's point of view.

Even the '+1' or '+2' comments can be useful feedback.

 

This thread was intitiated by a Director of TRR. That is a big step forward in my view.

OK he has had some flack, but also support too.

Killing the thread would I think be his prerogative, and not mine or yours.

 

Peter

[stillp]

Peter, I don't think Paul has had any 'flak', at least not about TR GOLD. He's had a lot of feedback, both positive and negative, because various people can't see how the scheme will work. The negative feedback is surely not aimed at Paul but at the scheme. However I'm sure we all want it to work, and wish it well.

 

Pete

[Peter Cobbold]

Peter, I don't think Paul has had any 'flak', at least not about TR GOLD. He's had a lot of feedback, both positive and negative, because various people can't see how the scheme will work. The negative feedback is surely not aimed at Paul but at the scheme. However I'm sure we all want it to work, and wish it well.

 

Pete

Pete, yes I was speaking too loosely. The flak - negative feedback- was directed at the details of the scheme not at Paul personally. Peter

[Paul Harvey]

A friend told me today 'nobody kicks a dead dog' which I had never heard before.

TR GOLD is either meant to happen or it isn't and I am happy to accept the way the wheel wants to turn.

 

I am also perfectly happy with everything that has been said on this thread and I have no wish or reason for it to disappear.

 

As ever, I KNOW for certain that we all drive and follow TR Sports cars for the right reasons, and I too always prefer passion to anything else.

[TR5tar]

Good luck with your meeting today Paul. I hope all goes well. Let us know.

 

Cheers, Darren

[Marc R]

Good luck with your meeting today Paul. I hope all goes well. Let us know.

 

Cheers, Darren

+1 for your meeting today Paul

[mike3739]

Hopefully not long to wait!

 

Cheers

 

Mike.

[mints53]

I would like to say at the outset that I support the idea for a quality certification scheme; I have personal experience of problems resulting from poor quality parts. Indeed I would willingly pay a considerable premium to be sure that I will not have to pay the cost of a breakdown or early failure. However I have some comments and suggestions on what is being proposed.

 

The Platinum, Gold and Silver levels strike me as over complicated. I can see some difficulties making judgements especially at the margins e.g. when does a silver get promoted to gold? Better, I think in the first instance to stay with a single Gold category indicating that a component is at least as good as the original.

 

Some sort of policy will be needed regarding the old question of originality. To what degree will it be permissible to ‘improve’ on the original design in order to enhance the reliability or function of a part but still be able to enter it for classification?

 

Careful consideration needs to be given to the degree that the Register is endorsing a component. I am sure that liability in the event of failure of a safety critical part in not something that the Register wants.

 

How will acceptability of a part be judged? Perhaps one of the requirements for certification should be the submission of a technical document for the part. This would give details of the application of the component, material used, manufacturing method, heat treatment etc. The idea being to focus the mind a little on the engineering of the component rather than it just looking somewhat similar to the original. That said, we should avoid this becoming an onerous activity I certainly do not envisage it being akin to an aerospace like traceability process, in the end we need the support of the supplier base for this to work. It’s a matter of finding a balance.

 

I hope this is a useful input to the debate

 

Andy

[Paul Harvey]

I am pleased to report that TR GOLD has unanimous support in principle from the board of directors of the TR Register.

 

I have been tasked with developing the concept and all the details of a finished scheme for final approval and launch in due course.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Paul Harvey

[peejay4A]

Well done Paul.

[McMuttley]

"Indeed I would willingly pay a considerable premium to be sure that I will not have to pay the cost of a breakdown or early failure."

 

I think we all endorse quality - not sure a premium is justified, particulalrly a considerable one for what will be existing parts already on the shelf at a non premium price - it should bloody well work in the first place if being sold at market price.

 

Under this scheme, participating traders will (i) pay a subscription - I think a read that (ii) pay increased advertising revenues (iii) pay TRR commission on sales (iv) on an item sold to us at less than market value - for a period at least.

 

However, these are not new parts that have suddenly been manufactured to new exacting standards, just existing ones. No retailer is simply going to absorb all of the above costs just to be able to say that say 29 of their 13,739 parts are 'gold'. It is inevitable that the costs will be added elsewhere.

 

"How will acceptability of a part be judged?"

 

This is what concerns me and goes to the heart as to whether this is really a genuine / effective quality initiative.

 

I read through all of the posts again yesterday and it seems that it boils down to a supplier sending in a list of the parts they wish to be 'gold'. The panel of validation 'experts' can come to Didcott to inspect the part if they wish, (#102) but do not have do. TRG will not test parts, simply a lack of an objection to an item is to be treated as an endorsement. (#107) but how does this tally with the overall objective of ensuring quality and how does simply not objection to a parts list tally with the earlier stated objectives / requirement of os 'parts must have been found to have been in use and satisfactory' (#53) 'if parts cannot be assessed with certainty they will not carry TRG' (#54) - I just do not get how not objecting to a part on list is 'assessing with certainty'.

 

Paul suggests that The Register is not saying that one part is better than another or is best for the job, just that it is Gold and therefore good (#53) (even though the Inspection team might have never actually looked at it) but at #103 says "The Register" (not TRG) has a moral obligation to guide and lead members to gold parts ?

 

I think Icarus summed it up best at #160 by suggesting that this is a brand creation exercise with no obvious technical benefit.

 

Paul doesnt shy from the idea that it is about making money for the Register and fine - if he can without undue risk or already stretching pressed volunteers, then great, but if it is to be anything financially meaningful and grow from an acorn, does the Register want to be managing "powerful tracking software" (#138). Also, how does demanding names and postcodes of transactions (#138) tie in with the Data Protection Act ? (even if TRR already have my details)

 

It almost seems like it is a way of bullying traders into a scheme, but in the end who will win.

 

It is suggested, for example, that a trader would be taken off the list for life (#141) if there is a failure of stock QC, but how is this measured. Lets say I am Trader X – arguably the largest and I have my second slap on the wrist for poor quality of a Gold part. Is the Register really going to ban me for life – will there be a queue of small indy trader replacements with the same budget? More likely I will simply remind the Register of the revenue they derive from my subscription/advertising/commission and suggest they think again.

 

Also, if a trader gets banned for life from the TRG scheme, they lose all incentives to promote quality again.

 

Like any relationship driven by financial motive, the original underlying objective can be lost.

 

As another example, lets say Trader X sells an alternator )badged 'gold' by TRG) at a certain price and pays commission / offers discount. Retailer Y might know that their’s comes from the same manufacturer and is identical in every way. They would not be in breach of any IPR if they were to say to their customer 'It is exactly the same as the one sold by Trader X with a badge on it, but its X cheaper’. Surely trader X will re-think whether their commitment is justified.

 

And it all comes down to the crunch, this scheme seems to be about existing parts, no trader is going to put forward a part that isn’t good enough, so we will only get a tiny sample of their stock. Will the really go off an improve a part because of this scheme, no, it will simply sit with the 99% of their stock that isn’t badged gold.

 

I have no issue with Paul, I have met him briefly a few times at IWE and enjoyed the conversations, I even like his dog !

 

I applaud his work as the Italia Register and his stepping into the TD role, but I just don’t get how this scheme will create a step change in quality of parts as a whole – just a tiny fraction – but if it’s a way of increasing advertising revenue then make it clear that’s what it is.

 

ANY SCHEME WOULD NEED TO BE MORE DEMANDING UP-FRONT AND SET AND CONTROL KEY REQUIREMENTS

It may be better that before allowing any trader into the scheme, the Register identifies (i) those parts we know have been problematic and demands that they are addressed and presented for Gold first (before their banker items) – then at least we get early improvements to quality and (ii) creates a list of the wider key parts that the Register has identified are needed across the car range that the Trader/s must have certified within an agreed period.

Edited August 3, 2016 by McMuttley

[TR NIALL]

I am pleased to report that TR GOLD has unanimous support in principle from the board of directors of the TR Register.

I have been tasked with developing the concept and all the details of a finished scheme for final approval and launch in due course.

Congratulations and We'll Done its just what the Club needs,a new Driving Force.

[mike3739]

Congratulations and We'll Done its just what the Club needs,a new Driving Force.

+1

[Glenn_Howard]

I think this is a great idea in principle and I'm confident that the issues raised will be ironed out as the scheme develops.

 

As a relative novice, I would prefer thorough testing and approval of fewer parts than 'at a glance' testing on greater numbers. Perhaps starting with the regular consumables and then moving onto critical parts like braking, steering and suspension. I'm sure the big dealers can generate a list of the most popular items bought? That way the scheme will appeal to the largest possible audience.

 

Thanks for your efforts Paul!

Glenn

[TR5tar]

I am pleased to report that TR GOLD has unanimous support in principle from the board of directors of the TR Register.

 

I have been tasked with developing the concept and all the details of a finished scheme for final approval and launch in due course.

 

Interesting to hear of your progress Paul. What specific details of the concept are yet to be worked out? Are there any areas in particular where further feedback from the forum might help? What are your next immediate steps? Do you have an idea yet as to when the scheme will be launched? Keep us updated with progress.

 

Darren

[Paul Harvey]

Guys,

 

I think the Forum has played a major part in shaping this project and all the stated views, concerns and points of view will be considered and addressed.

I think it is now right and proper that I get on with the next stage in private and work out how the whole thing can be presented again from scratch in a new thread that is real rather than imaginary.

 

I cannot commit to timescales as there is so much else happening and we have the AGM in November at which a board of 10 directors will be appointed by the Members for another year.

I would like to think the members might see and approve something at that time but again there are too many variables for me to commit to that now.

 

All I can say is that TR GOLD is very much alive and kicking, and I have more belief then ever in the role it might play in identifying really good parts our members should buy.

Actually, it doesn't matter whether TRR makes a single penny from TR GOLD as long as it provides a genuine benefit to members of TRR.

 

It is that, and only that, which I shall concentrate on when considering the financial aspects of how the scheme works in practice.

For now I can simply and proudly sign off to say that TR GOLD is an officially endorsed project and product owned by the TR Register.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Paul Harvey

[boxofbits]

With the proposed introduction of TR Gold which Paul has clearly done a lot of work on, is it proposed that manufacture's will be required to have some kind of 'standard', be it ISO or BS quality control for instance.

 

I think to replicate the rigorous standards set by Triumph Canley will be difficult, as the quality of the product was driven by sheer necessity on a rolling production line where parts had to fit like a glove each and every time, and secondly to achieve a reputation for reliability in a tough market.

 

The investment in quality control, and fit-first-time must have been immense, with parts constantly being taken of the assembly line and tested/measured all day every day.

 

I do wonder, with many and various manufacturers on the other side of the world as things are today, how TR Gold will find the investment financially and in terms of time to enforce and match OEM standards, which I assume is the objective. I think there needs to be a stipulation 'at source' which requires manufacturers to work to an already recognised manufacturers quality control system, and to display who the manufacturer is,and that their manufacturing process complies with this standard, on the boxed product. This would hopefully go a long way to prevent poor quality even leaving the factory gates.

 

I recently bought a water pump from Moss as a replica original part. Whilst it works, it does not meet the standard of the original, and the packaging carries no 'standard' mark or the name of the company who made it. I have not read this thread thoroughly so some content along the lines of my comments might be contained within, but I thought I would share my thoughts on a good idea, but can it work long term?

 

Kevin

[Andy Moltu]

I know I am a bit of a cynic I do think the initiative may prove fraught in application.

 

How do we know what is a quality part?

Sounds simple but it's often easier to identify a truly appalling part because it simply doesn't fit or leaks within a short duration of usage.

Those that fail, and even high quality parts will occasionally fail prematurely for a variety of reasons from defective workmanship, casting faults or improper installation to countless others.

 

Does a quality part fail 1 in 10, 1:1000 or 1:100000 and in what time frame? Our cars get used relatively infrequently compared to a modern car which may mean it takes 2 years for a component to fail that would only have lasted a couple of months in regular use. Then you have to work back where it came from and the vendor having adequate records of who supplied them, who supplied the wholesaler and so on.

 

Can the manufacturer demonstrate testing records for the product?

 

Is it financially viable to have an independent testing agency test a repro part that may have been made in a batch of 30 or 40, yet retail for a fiver. It's one thing if the same part is produced in huge number if it has multiple applications and all that's needed is an adaptor.

We know claims for some household LED light bulbs sound fishy - 50000 hours means nearly 6 years before they fail? Or does it mean that if they test 100 for a year and say 10 fail are they extrapolating that to mean that 50 will fail in 5 years and that can be interpreted to mean that if half have failed, that's the life expectancy? Or have they tested thousands of them for 50000 hours to know that is the lifespan of most?

 

What was an OEM standard of the era - if that was the early 70's in the UK the bar is very low.

What is better than OEM? Hard to interpret if you don't know the above!

 

It will therefore be easier to pick out the obvious ****, like the felt seals in some front wheel bearing kits that are vastly thicker than they should be and make proper fitting very difficult. But it won't be so easy to pick out the wheel bearings that will wear out after 20,000 miles.

 

Reproduction panels again may be easier to grade into likely to fit directly and "will need a lot of work to fit".

 

Engine bearings - may last 100000 miles in normal use, yet a tuned car may trash them in 500 miles because to the extra loading and stresses at high revs.

 

Ultimately for this to work it will require effective audit tracing from manufacture to point of sale, verification of correct installation, verification of use and of the nature of the failure.

Did an electrical item fail prematurely because it was poor or because it was subjected to greater voltage surges from an ageing alternator, under bonnet heat, vibration or water ingress? Did a fuel pump fail because it was built with poor bearings and seals, because the application required it to work at consistently higher loads than specified by the designers or because it got fed an abrasive mixture of rust and debris from a 40 year old fuel tank.

 

I think this will be vastly complicated task.

[Richardtr3a]

I needed new hinges for the 3A bonnet (Hood). There is a loud rattle which is the bonnet half vibrating against the pin. I thought it was touching the scuttle but it was against the pin.

 

I bought a new pair. There is some movement on the new pin and they are still in the pack. I was hoping that there would be no movement as in domestic hinges. There are two studs fitted to each half of the hinge. On the bonnet side the two studs are not spaced the same on both hinges..So there are two measurements. The shorter one fits my car and the longer one is no good. There is no room for me to drill new holes in the bonnet. They are going back to the supplier.

 

The pack has a label

".802-878 650021/22 hood hinge set, chrome a bar code Made in Taiwan".

 

The packaging includes a blue backing card printed authentic reproduction CLASSIC GOLD and a small square trademark like a coat of arms with CG and classic gold repeated.

 

What can all this mean?

 

Richard & H.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Richardtr3a

[AndyR100]

Simply confirms that that are some duff parts available and the supplier in question would need to improve that product in order for it to be allocated a future 'TR Gold, gold status'

.... Andy

Edited November 6, 2016 by AndyR100

[Alec Pringle]

Classic Gold is just a supplier's / manufacturer's trademark, brand name, no more no less . . . . . you could call it any damn thing you like, but the brand name is in no sense an independent quality accolade.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[Don H.]

The potential for confusion between TR Gold and Classic Gold was mentioned some time ago, in fact. Perhaps "gold" isn't the right word for the TR program, due to that word already in use by a well-established and generally decent-but-not-superior brand.

[keith1948]

Hello Paul

Not commented on this before but read through all posts and if I understand the concept properly then the main problem I can see is the assessment of the quality of a component by the TRR team of experts. I spent many years as a trained quality assessor trained by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) experts based at Teddington. As an example, if you simply use a micrometer to measure dimensions of a part then that micrometer needs to be checked and calibrated by the NPL and have a valid certificate of accuracy. This needs to be renewed by retesting at regular intervals. There are also recognised test procedures approved by the NPL. In addition the people doing the testing need to be trained and have a current certificate of competence. Have a look at their website at their measurement services to see what I mean.

 

http://www.npl.co.uk/measurement-services/

 

I remember visiting the testing laboratories of M&S where they tested clothing. Machine after machine testing durability of fabrics, shoes, socks etc. This was only part of their way of quality assessment. TRR could not operate like that.

One of the posts raised the question of how many samples do you test. I use to give lectures on this to the food industry. As a guideline figure, we used to reckon testing 300 samples and you could still have 1% defectives even if all 300 were ok. Testing just a few items will give no confidence at all that the rest of the batch is ok. If you want less than 0.1% defective then you are looking at 3000 sample size.

 

It's not the principle of the idea I question but the mechanics of it.

 

Maybe best way forward would be for the suppliers themselves to audit the manufacturers they get their parts from and provide TRR with copies of the quality control records for those parts rather than TR 'experts' trying to assess parts themselves. TRR would then be able to apply gold standard (or approval) to those parts and components with "adequate' QC records. Companies like Tesco etc place the responsibility of quality firmly at their suppliers door and their suppliers have to provide evidence of quality and are audited. Suppliers like Moss, Rimmers etc could do the same with the knowledge that properly audited manufacturers with QC records for parts would qualify for TRR approval.

 

Keith

[rhino_mac]

I can't help think that the easiest way to get this started would be to ask Watermill, TRGB, Protek etc if they have a list of parts they are happy to vouch for (if they don't mind getting involved).

 

For example, Stuart has offered multiple opinions on here about door rubbers etc. Some are s*** and some are great. Why not just ask the people that have to fit them day in day out as to whether they are an acceptable quality standard or a load of garbage.

 

Here's a starter for ten, Distributor Doctors red rotor arms and condensers are always touted as the best available. Most people seem to agree. There's two products that could be certified straightaway. Rimmer Brothers gear lever lock off nut for a TR3 is c*** (the thread is wrong for the gear leveer) but the one Stuart fitted is pukka. Find out which one and that's another part added to the list. What about tyres? Find the original fitments and if they're still available add them to the list. Who's the chap that reconditions TR3 fuel pumps that everyone swears by? There's another part.

 

This is the information that is worth my membership. I wasted a load of money on c**p parts from Rimmers when I first bought my 3 (including a "new" chinese fuel pump that Stuart immediately ditched because the car took 20 minutes to start). I still have a little box of duff bits at home now. A list of published parts somewhere would save everyone this cost and I'll bet the Moss/Rimmers take note if their part isn't on that list.

 

I'm sorry Keith - no offence intended as you have echoed some other peoples concerns on here (and I also see your point). But taking your (considerable) experience as an example, I would say it's OK for NPL and M & S to have multi million pound testing facilities and independently audited quality systems, but if we apply that requirement to all of the suppliers making little bits for our old cars this scheme will get nowhere fast and we will still be in a situation where parts quality is a lucky dip. We need to get a list of products together quickly that we know work right if TR Gold is to ever get off the ground. And the best people for that are the people that fit them for a living.

 

I'd take Stuarts word over a test certificate any day. After all, if the specification is wrong, it doesn't matter if it passes the test - it's still useless. I'd be sure any professional wouldn't endorse a poor product for TR Gold if they think their punters will be buying them and asking them to fit them.

 

To get the ball rolling, why not have an form that can be completed by people that have fitted parts they were pleased with and then get someone suitable to verify that the parts are indeed of suitable quality that the Register might endorse them. A sort of two step process much like appointing our board (God forbid!!). One person suggests a part, which is then approved by another. Then maybe the Register agrees it and puts it into the scheme.

 

I think the biggest issue with TR Gold (which I think is a great concept even though I don't particularly like the added complication of the other grades) is getting it off the ground. Approve some parts - ask other suppliers if they want to get in on it or lose their sales to those parts that are approved. Up until we have a working model, with approved parts it's just a concept and it's much harder to sell a concept than something tangible.

[BlueTR3A-5EKT]

I can't help think that the easiest way to get this started would be to ask Watermill, TRGB, Protek etc if they have a list of parts they are happy to vouch for (if they don't mind getting involved).

 

For example, Stuart has offered multiple opinions on here about door rubbers etc. Some are s*** and some are great. Why not just ask the people that have to fit them day in day out as to whether they are an acceptable quality standard or a load of garbage.

 

Here's a starter for ten, Distributor Doctors red rotor arms and condensers are always touted as the best available. Most people seem to agree. There's two products that could be certified straightaway. Rimmer Brothers gear lever lock off nut for a TR3 is c*** (the thread is wrong for the gear leveer) but the one Stuart fitted is pukka. Find out which one and that's another part added to the list. What about tyres? Find the original fitments and if they're still available add them to the list. Who's the chap that reconditions TR3 fuel pumps that everyone swears by? There's another part.

 

This is the information that is worth my membership. I wasted a load of money on c**p parts from Rimmers when I first bought my 3 (including a "new" chinese fuel pump that Stuart immediately ditched because the car took 20 minutes to start). I still have a little box of duff bits at home now. A list of published parts somewhere would save everyone this cost and I'll bet the Moss/Rimmers take note if their part isn't on that list.

 

I'm sorry Keith - no offence intended as you have echoed some other peoples concerns on here (and I also see your point). But taking your (considerable) experience as an example, I would say it's OK for NPL and M & S to have multi million pound testing facilities and independently audited quality systems, but if we apply that requirement to all of the suppliers making little bits for our old cars this scheme will get nowhere fast and we will still be in a situation where parts quality is a lucky dip. We need to get a list of products together quickly that we know work right if TR Gold is to ever get off the ground. And the best people for that are the people that fit them for a living.

 

I'd take Stuarts word over a test certificate any day. After all, if the specification is wrong, it doesn't matter if it passes the test - it's still useless. I'd be sure any professional wouldn't endorse a poor product for TR Gold if they think their punters will be buying them and asking them to fit them.

 

To get the ball rolling, why not have an form that can be completed by people that have fitted parts they were pleased with and then get someone suitable to verify that the parts are indeed of suitable quality that the Register might endorse them. A sort of two step process much like appointing our board (God forbid!!). One person suggests a part, which is then approved by another. Then maybe the Register agrees it and puts it into the scheme.

 

I think the biggest issue with TR Gold (which I think is a great concept even though I don't particularly like the added complication of the other grades) is getting it off the ground. Approve some parts - ask other suppliers if they want to get in on it or lose their sales to those parts that are approved. Up until we have a working model, with approved parts it's just a concept and it's much harder to sell a concept than something tangible.

 

 

I can see where Rimmers got the gear knob lock nut wrong - they copied the Moss TR5-6 catalogue section and translated it backwards to do TR2-3. Perhaps they are not that familiar with the older car's quirks.

 

These sidescreen car gear knob lock nuts are available made in stainless steel, that can be polished, if any one is stuck PM me.

 

Am I allowed to propose my own product?

 

My reproduction aeroscreen mounting brackets to fit aftermarket aeroscreens to TR2-3-3A cars that have the original 4 mounting bolt holes for factory aeroscreens. Using them saves having to drill an originally and already threaded scuttle top to fit aeroscreens.

 

These items are availble direct from me or via UK TR specialists.

Racetorations << http://www.racetorations.co.uk/triumphs-c56/tr2-c3/tr2-body-and-exterior-trim-c65/aeroscreen-fitting-kit-p674>>

Revington TR also stocked these items but I cannot find them on their website.

 

Peter W