TR GOLD

[boxofbits]

Standard Triumph tested every part to destruction and beyond, and in addition to that cars were exhaustively test driven in the most adverse conditions across the world including rain, dust, snow, ice, blizzards, winds and across every tyoe of surface. They had teams of people devoted solely to the cause of OEM quality. Why? Because they had no choice. The demands of a rolling production line made this an absolute imperative, and in the face of rigorous competition from the likes of Ford, Vauxhall, and BMC. That period has passed.

 

We are now down to a few thousand vehicles worldwide doing around let's say 500 miles per annum on average. Therefore, achieving OEM quality is going to be tough, given the relatively casual turnover of parts.

 

I do agree, however, that the most effective way of ensuring ' acceptable' quality is to require the manufacture to conform to a recognised manufacturing standard and to prove their compliance to a quality standard, which as mentioned by Keith above, ensures that even micrometers and tooling are regularly audited. I also think the manufacturer should be shown on the box, together with batch numbers, date of manufacture etc, to allow proper auditing and quality control to take place, rather than a box marked 'Classic Gold'.

 

Otherwise I believe achieving consistent OEM quality, even if that is possible, and with the benefit of a team of assessors is going to be a big ask.

 

Kevin

Edited November 9, 2016 by boxofbits

[Ian Vincent]

There seems to be some confusion in this thread between quality control and quality assurance. The former is about checking items during and after manufacture to confirm they are "in spec" QA is about having clearly defined and repeatable processes that will ensure the required standards are achieved. QA needs to be backed up with a judicious amount of QC to check it is working.

 

Using trained operators and calibrated equipment is usually part of QA.

 

I would expect QA to be more appropriate for the production of parts. When I worked in nuclear construction we would expect all sub contractors / suppliers to allow us access to their works to satisfy ourselves over the adequacy of their processes noting that for mission critical components we would employ independent inspectors to carry out 100% QC.

 

Rgds Ian

[rhino_mac]

I agree in an ideal world all this should happen.

But what I'm suggesting is that if this is the standard TR Gold will be required to achieve it will never happen as it's too onerous. None of the suppliers will sign up to it. If none of the suppliers sign up, the scheme will be dead in the water and you're left in the situation we are now - is the Moss Oil Pump OK or is it garbage? Who knows? Except those that fit them and have to deal with the problems/complaints if they're carp.

 

Lets take the case of the Red Rotor Arms. Hundreds of people have bought them on here. All the professional fitters will recommend them to their customers - Stuart put me onto Martin. This sort of part should therefore qualify for TR Gold once it's been identified and verified by someone suitable. I can't imagine any reason to go and mic one up a NOS (if anyone has one) and see if it's the same.

 

The problem with the cheapy Moss/Rimmer ones was that they fell apart after a while. Are you suggesting material testing? Or electrical testing. Or a combination of both? It'll never happen because it's too complex/expensive. Meanwhile, those people "in the know" will continue buying Martins rotor arms and those new to TR's (like I was) will buy the cheapy one not knowing any better and wonder why the car has broken down at the side of the road.

 

To me, this is the point of TR Gold

[stillp]

QA is about having clearly defined and repeatable processes that will ensure the required standards are achieved.

Quite right Ian, but the important words there are "the required standards". For some parts this could mean that 5% of the items are faulty, if that is what manufacturing (or marketing) have specified.

 

Pete

[Ragtag]

I agree in an ideal world all this should happen.

But what I'm suggesting is that if this is the standard TR Gold will be required to achieve it will never happen as it's too onerous. None of the suppliers will sign up to it. If none of the suppliers sign up, the scheme will be dead in the water and you're left in the situation we are now - is the Moss Oil Pump OK or is it garbage? Who knows? Except those that fit them and have to deal with the problems/complaints if they're carp.

 

Lets take the case of the Red Rotor Arms. Hundreds of people have bought them on here. All the professional fitters will recommend them to their customers - Stuart put me onto Martin. This sort of part should therefore qualify for TR Gold once it's been identified and verified by someone suitable. I can't imagine any reason to go and mic one up a NOS (if anyone has one) and see if it's the same.

 

The problem with the cheapy Moss/Rimmer ones was that they fell apart after a while. Are you suggesting material testing? Or electrical testing. Or a combination of both? It'll never happen because it's too complex/expensive. Meanwhile, those people "in the know" will continue buying Martins rotor arms and those new to TR's (like I was) will buy the cheapy one not knowing any better and wonder why the car has broken down at the side of the road.

 

To me, this is the point of TR Gold

 

I confess that I haven't gone back and re-read this thread but I agree with you. The Rotor arm issue should be what TR Gold is about but unfortunately it isn't. Only suppliers who sign up to the scheme will be eligible to submit parts for Gold status. I can't believe the scheme, as presented, would hold any attraction for a small supplier like Martin, given that he is not exclusively TRiumph

[RogerH]

Hi Richard/Chris,

quite complicated isn't it.

There are other aspects to the quality issue. Cosmetic appearance and time.

Many thanks to John for raising the 4 pot oil pump thread. John is in search for a decent pump having read horror stories of what is going on.

Chilliman shows a couple of nice pics with casting defects in a pump body.

 

The first thing is are the horror stories justified!!

Are the defects actually causing a problem.

Toronto Tim has a beauty of a casting defect in a clutch slave cy. It isn;t cosmetic and it is serious.

 

The only way to understand if the stories are good or not is to see the evidence. Why does something fail etc

Understanding if a visual indications is actually a problem or not.

 

Take the Rotor arm. Rotor arms always worked in the old days (except when they didn;t)

Now they appear to last about 5 minutes - but is this true.

How many people in the last 10 years or so have had rotor failure. The little rivet was a problem; and the plastic burning exploding has also been noted.

But, what are the numbers. I know Stuart has found a fair few but what has been the history of the component - installation life etc.

 

We know that there are problems - what are these problems and what is the history.

When should a bog standard rotor arm be changed - every 5 years or 10 years. Or perhaps closer to annually

You do an oil change - then change everything else that is consumable - plugs, CB's, rotor, capacitor.

 

The only thing I can do is ask you to send me your PQI queries and it will help build up the information picture.

 

Meanwhile buy the best you can afford and listen/read the forum.

 

Roger

[Paul Harvey]

Roger,

 

Or you could support TR Gold, and all these problems would gradually fade away as momentum and market forces made it the default option for confused buyers.

[rhino_mac]

Hi Roger,

 

Taking the rotor arm into consideration (as it seems to be a good one with both good and poor quality parts out there).

 

If a part was "approved" in some way - TR Gold or whatever and this was well communicated to the membership, people would buy the approved part, forcing the suppliers of the bad part to up their game as Paul H mentions above.

The PQI, while a worthy idea, to my mind just doesn't have the same clout. If a part is defective and this is communicated to the supplier, but sales remain strong (which they will as nothing has really changed except an email from the PQI), what incentive is there to change things? Not much...........why rock the boat.

 

A negative list isn't as useful as a positive list for this application.

 

Again, using the rotor arm as an example, the Moss one ends up on the PQI list as a result of complaints. So members buy the Rimmer instead of the Moss but it ends up being from the same supplier. However, if there was a positive list, people would have bought this one in the first place, avoiding the issue.

 

On the other hand, if TR Gold is to be predominantly a revenue stream for the TR Register by licensing the marks to the suppliers, I think this will dilute the message. You could perhaps charge a registration fee for the effort involved in approving the part, but to my mind the priority should be to approve as many parts as quickly as possible so the membership can benefit from peace of mind. This is the real benefit to TR Gold (or similar).

 

I hate to say it, but in my eyes the only advantage of PQI over TR Gold, is that it's easy to fire off an email to a supplier in the event of a complaint. But it's for one single part out of tens of thousands. TR Gold requires a lot more work, but I think it's worth it and could be one of the most valuable resources to anyone restoring or maintaining one of these cars.

 

Which after all, is the primary objective of the TR Register.

[Peter Cobbold]

Roger,

 

Or you could support TR Gold, and all these problems would gradually fade away as momentum and market forces made it the default option for confused buyers.

'Gradually' defined:

 

Look at the numbers of parts.

The BL TR6 Parts catalogue has roughly 20 parts listed per page and 150 pages: Total: 3000

If each TR2 to 7 has a similar number, that's 12,000 parts, allowing for common fitments between models.

Then add in the aftermarket improved parts, and alternative fitments eg brake pads etc and the number rises to say 15,000.

And than we multiply that by the number of suppliers of each part, because we do not know which parts are from a common source shared by all suppliers.

Total: 150,000 +

 

So gradually as it goes, we get around to the rotor arms in............err............uum..................................... June 2093 ????

 

===================

 

Gold is nonsensical, the numbers say so.

 

Peter

Edited November 10, 2016 by Peter Cobbold

[RogerH]

Hi Paul,

I neither support or deride TRGOLD. I have forwarded a post (#124) that showed you would have problems and for this you put me down and asked not to post again. I have tried not posting but somethings have to be sidelined.

 

It is interesting that after each 'helpful' critisism your scheme changes direction ever so slightly.

 

When you come up with a working plan it would be interesting to read it.

 

Roger

Edited November 10, 2016 by RogerH

[RogerH]

Hi Richard,

clearly you have tried to understand the workings of PQI but I think you are missing the hands on side of things.

 

If somebody complains about a part, having contacted the supplier etc, then we have a deeper look usually with the supplier.

Unbelievably it isn't always the fault of the part.

So before we condemn the part and the suppler we try to understand what is happening. Knowing what is going on helps to stop the supplier hood winking you.

 

A very small part sold be David Manners was flagged up as being too small.

Manners were adamant it wasn't. Ian Brown took a new Moss part and an old used part to show then and they were defeated within minutes.

The box was full of a Jag parts of similar usage. - bit significantly smaller.

 

Rimmer TR6 cam shafts that didn't fit due to casting errors. Sorted by Rimmers in a very efficient way.

The PQI followed it up and were happy with Rimmers actions. They know we are looking and that must be a benefit.

 

One of our moles (Bruce) happened to find a TR6 layshaft that was rather soft (not hardened). He spoke to the counter assistant and showed him how he checked the basic hardness. The counter assistant returned form the warehouse 20 or so minutes later and stated that he had just binned 50 odd new shafts.

I spoke to their man later on and he said that the manufacturers were having problems and that things were to be sorted.

I hpe none were fitted.

 

Indeed it is a slow process (because people are not sending in the reports) but very positive once set in motion.

 

Ask your self 'how many duff parts are out there'

It really isn't that many compared to the total amount on the shelf - but can still be a serious problem if oyu have one fitted.

 

Roger

[rhino_mac]

Hi Roger,

 

To be fair to you I probably wasn't positive enough about the efforts the PQI have made in my last post - mainly because I was trying to discuss TR Gold but I agree PQI has had its share of "wins".

 

However, I think by its very nature, it will be a slow burn to resolve some of the issues. The one thing PQI does is "Fix" the problem - as per the TR6 camshafts. TR Gold won't do that.

 

But if a part is identified by PQI as poor, where is this highlighted during the (possibly lengthy) investigation. What stops people buying it during this process. Indeed, if the problem isn't resolved to the satisfaction of the PQI, what stops a member buying the part in the future. Is there a list of unsuitable parts somewhere that is easily accessed by the membership. Sorry if this has all been done and I'm missing it (very possible).

 

TR Gold (or similar) won't fix poor quality parts like the PQI aims to. But it will highlight suitable parts quickly to the membership which is equally, if not more useful to someone fixing their car (see my rotor arm example where you avoid one bad part to only buy another). Where I see PQI becoming more involved perhaps is when suppliers can't get their parts approved to TR Gold and the PQI then offer guidance as to what needs improving.

 

I can see the merits of both schemes. PQI by its nature will never be able to resolve issues with the 100,000+ parts that make up a TR2-TR8 because it is relying on members to report it to them. TR Gold has a chance of approving many of these parts more quickly if the approval process is efficient.

 

I really don't see it as one or the other. There's a requirement for both.

[RogerH]

Hi Richard,

highlighting a bad part whilst being investigated or afterwards is not part of the plan - perhaps it should be.

 

We do occasional TRAction reports but so far everything reported to the suppliers has been sorted.

 

I'm sure the time has come to be a bit more structured.

 

Roger

[McMuttley]

"TR Gold has a chance of approving many of these parts more quickly if the approval process is efficient."

 

 

How will even scratch the surface of the number of parts in any meaningful way ?

 

In the most recent of is many forms, it seemed to have descended to no more than a badge of 'endorsement without inspection' - sure, such a non-QA/QC process might speed up the numbers of parts on the list than a focussed PQI, but I still don't see how it addresses, as it was originally launched to do - the quality of parts as a whole.

[rhino_mac]

"TR Gold has a chance of approving many of these parts more quickly if the approval process is efficient."

 

 

How will even scratch the surface of the number of parts in any meaningful way ?

 

In the most recent of is many forms, it seemed to have descended to no more than a badge of 'endorsement without inspection' - sure, such a non-QA/QC process might speed up the numbers of parts on the list than a focussed PQI, but I still don't see how it addresses, as it was originally launched to do - the quality of parts as a whole.

 

What's wrong with a "badge of endorsement"? The part will have been inspected multiple times by the most important people - those who have actually found it fitted and worked correctly. In the case of professionals, they fitted it and it didn't break 5 minutes later resulting in a grumpy customer complaining to them from the side of the road (that is of course, if the professionals want to commit time to this project - I imagine they're busy so this might be a thorn in the side of anything like this).

 

I for one would rather buy a part endorsed by someone who fits them professionally on a regular basis than one that has a QC sticker by a Chinese supplier and a convincing looking test document that is meaningless (trust me, I see these all the time from Chinese toy manufacturers).

 

Here's the thing. We agree there is an issue with parts quality. The PQI relies on people complaining about specific parts which doesn't happen very often in a formal manner (we might moan on here but do we raise it specifically with the PQI). It's not receiving the level of complaints that will approve 1000's of parts.

 

So we're left with a number of choices in terms of TR Gold

 

1) Sit arguing about test methods, QA/QC protocols, etc etc for the next year (or more)

2) Agree a "Propose/Second/Approve" method (or some other method that would allow products to be approved relatively quickly) to get the ball rolling and go for it.

3) Give up on TR Gold all together

 

I think option 3 would be a shame. The scheme does have merit.

 

I can't help but think TR Gold is in danger of being doomed from the start due to death by committee (although we are just chatting about it on the forum and we're not sure of what is happening at HO).

 

We have to realistic about its goals and they need to be achievable. The approval process needs to be fit for purpose, rather than gold plated.

 

 

Because I for one, would rather buy a part endorsed by someone who fits them professionally on a regular basis than one that has a QC sticker by a chinese supplier and a convincing looking test document that is meaningless (trust me, I see these all the time from Chinese toy manufacturers).

 

Here's the thing. We agree there is an issue with parts quality. The PQI relies on people complaining about specific parts which doesn't happen very often in a formal manner (we might moan on here but do we raise it specifically with the PQI).

 

So we're left with a number of choices in terms of TR Gold

Edited November 10, 2016 by rhino_mac

[TR5tar]

Any initiative that sets out to determine quality TR parts from bad and thereby improve the standard of parts across the board obviously has merit. It's something we all want, but where we might disagree is on how best to achieve the desired aim.

 

With regard to TR Gold, it's difficult to know what else to say about the concept, without having more detail, so as you have now been working on this for some months Paul, I wonder if you can answer a few of questions:

 

Who do you have signed up to examine the parts and give accreditation if appropriate?

Which suppliers have said they will definitely put forward products for TR Gold endorsement?

Will TRG require any financing from the TRR and if so how much?

 

If, as seems to be suggested, no actual quality testing of parts will take place, then I don't think we can view TR Gold as much more than an supplier endorsement scheme. Of course, if you can get the majority of suppliers to sign up to it and thereby make more money out of their advertising, then that's one thing, but it's not going to be a way of improving a significant number of poor quality parts, given the large numbers involved. In terms of trying to improve quality, I just think TRG comes at it from the wrong direction, as it's far easier to focus on determining which parts are poor (as the PQI does), than to try to determine which parts are fine and worthy of endorsement (as TRG will aim to do).

 

For me, the PQI is the best option we have for improving parts quality, but it'll not be done overnight and it does rely on people flagging up problems. What does it mean if people aren't flagging up problem parts? Well, it's either because they are not that bothered, or there aren't that main problem parts, or that many people do not know about the PQI. It's probably a combination of all three, but where we can make a difference is by a greater effort to promote the PQI. It would take a bit of searching to find mention of it on our website. A bright, bold, linked banner, somewhere up in the corner of the site would work wonders for bringing it to the attention of more members.

 

OK, assuming that everyone is agreed that TRG is not a quality assurance scheme, because none of the parts put forward for endorsement will be subject to any form of rigorous testing, then what we have is a money making scheme. I think we have to be extremely clear on this, to the point where when a supplier sells a TRG endorsed product it must include a certificate/document that states "The TRR makes no claims about this part and cannot guarantee its quality". Plus, there would have to be the usual disclaimers. If we were to go ahead with this scheme and we did not make it clear to buyers what TRG endorsement entails, then we are on dodgy ground.

 

In a universe of suppliers that is quite small, such as ours, there are dangers with such endorsement schemes, because they obviously favour those suppliers that have the ad bucks to join in, so you might please the few that take part, but hack off a lot of others. That's a risk that would need to be assessed before moving the scheme forward, I'd suggest.

 

Darren

Edited November 10, 2016 by TR5tar

[Peter Cobbold]

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
― Richard Feynman

[Richardtr3a]

I submitted the front two connector sidelights for a TR3A to the PQI. The new ones are very poor quality and the connector slips to the side and melts the wiring. England is spelled incorrectly backwards on the base and my and some others have had damaged front looms.

 

I sent the rubbish quality lights and a proper Lucas nos item to the PQI to explain the difference. Nothing has happened.

My wiring now has a fuse on each side.

TR Gold would be helpful if it could be made to work.

 

Thanks.

Richard & H.

[RogerH]

Hi Richard,

that is not true. You sent me the new repro ones and an original.

Indeed the original looked far better made.

Bulb contacts are nicely rounded and are as far away from the body as is possible.

The repro was of a lower quality. The bulb contacts are not rounded but a squeezed rectangle. This allows the contacts to be closer to the body.

 

This I told you.

 

However is the repro item defective. Lower picture

It is not pretty for sure but the contacts are restrained , can not rotate and should under normal conditions not short to earth.

 

This type of sidelight is sold by many many suppliers. Do you have an example of a failed sidelight.

I know you are not happy with these lights but without the failed light I can't make a full judgement.

 

If the example to investigate is functional what more can we do.

 

I did suggest fitting a fuse in line - just to be safe. But there was nothing about the lights to suggest they would fail.

 

NOS

 

Repro

 

 

Roger

[McMuttley]

Richard, I dont think you get TRumpGold, it is never going to improve cack, just ignore it.

 

Under TRumpGold - as pitched so far, suppliers dont have to submit all their parts, just a few trophy items; and they can carry on selling tens of thousands of OK, average or cack parts.

[Alec Pringle]

The total number of part numbers for the sidescreen cars amounts to less than 4000.

 

For the wedges less than 5000 numbers in total.

 

TR4, 4A, 250, 5 and 6 amount to some 2500 part numbers apiece, but given the very considerable amount of common parts, perhaps 6000 overall, at most.

 

Of those 15,000 parts, covering the TR range from start to finish, a considerable proportion are sundries and fixings, for example, and unlikely to be an issue in terms of PQI or TRG.

 

A fair number of items are unlikely ever to be reproduced, as quite simply uneconomic given the strictly limited potential demand.

 

A modest number will be irrelevant in the sense that a later or superseding alternative will do the job adequately.

 

So in real terms we're probably looking at less than 10,000 part numbers . . . . . .

 

A large number to be sure, 4 figures rather than 5, but not impossibly large.

 

We certainly don't need to multiply that large number by 10 or whatever specialist retail suppliers, given that so many items are manufactured by only one, two or at most three source manufacturers.

 

The overwhelming majority of aftermarket pattern and/or reproduction parts that I've ever laid hands on are quite capable of doing the job for which they were designed, and given the relatively low annual mileage of the average classic then I'd suggest it's arguable that a design life of 20K miles rather than 100K miles is in many instances acceptable - always assuming that the price corresponds . . . . .

 

Which leaves a minority of items which are on the one hand of exceptional quality, to OE standard or above . . . . .

 

And on the other hand a minority of items which are of insufficient calibre in terms of cosmetic or functional aspect to be considered adequate.

 

By now we might be considering exceptional items in terms of three figure numbers, and inadequate items similarly in three figure numbers.

 

Manageable numbers in other words - at least in the medium term.

 

There is some potential merit in the PQI principle, there is also some potential merit in the TRG principle . . . . .

 

There is a sound argument suggesting that in order to be able to criticise what is below par, one must acknowledge also that which is above par . . . .

 

So why don't we kick off some sort of TRG exercise by identifying items which are above expectation ?

 

Forget the income stream or commercial aspect, simply regard the highlighting of 'above standard' and 'sub standard parts' alike as part and parcel of the benefits of membership of the TR Register. The club acts as an impartial and honest broker, with no commercial involvements or potential conflicts of interest, seeking simply to identify the minorities of exceptionally good and of downright inadequate products offered . . . .

 

Or is that all too simple ?

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Edited November 10, 2016 by Alec Pringle

[TorontoTim]

Alec,

 

Good insight - and you certainly have more experience than many from your long involvement with TR's.

 

Taking what you say a bit further, if the total number of parts is c. 10,000 and the number of unacceptable/unfit for purpose parts is in three figures (say, 500) then are we basically saying that, notwithstanding anecdotal evidence, we don't have a serious parts quality issue across all models? We really have a relatively small number of parts that are NOT fit for purpose - either as a result of poor design, poor manufacturing process, or whatever.

 

If that's right (and I believe it is) then surely the task is about identifying and eliminating these "bad" items - how we do that is the trick. Clearly PQI is part of that and, if it is used actively and in sufficient numbers, could have a serious impact. Maybe TR Gold is also part of it through identifying the 1,000's of parts that ARE ok, it just leaves those that aren't.

 

But does that mean that the process for assigning TRG status is through exception rather than verification (i.e. everything gets "Gold" status unless we know that it doesn't deserve it)? That would short-cut the volume problem that has been highlighted, but it might cause problems through something having to have its "incorrect" Gold status removed when it was found not to be any good after all...

 

Obviously, I don't know the answers and perhaps this post is just an unhelpful rabbit hole, in which case please ignore it and carry on!! But I thought I'd chuck it in in case it has value.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[rog1]

.

Edited November 11, 2016 by rog1

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Tim,

 

I don't like the 'TR Gold' tag, especially given the fact of the existing 'Classic Gold' brand.

 

I'd rather see something like 'TRR Commended', or even 'TRR Acclaimed' . . . . . for products recognised by our members and our club as being a real cut above the run of the mill.

 

We can never be a pukka QA or QC body, but we can offer an opinion based on member feedback and inspection by knowledgeable members.

 

I'd suggest we focus initially on simply highlighting those exceptional items, not as a commercial exercise of any sort, simply as a service to members - and that we allow suppliers to utilise that description.

 

As for the other side of the coin, the less than adequate items - again, we rely on feedback from members and from an inspection process, and express our reservations to members, again as an opinion . . . . . items which have the capability of improvement.

 

The great majority of products will not be addressed, simply because they are of reasonable calibre and do the job adequately - decent run of the mill items in other words.

 

My usual attitude . . . .Keep It Simple Stupid !

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[Peter Cobbold]

The total number of part numbers for the sidescreen cars amounts to less than 4000.

 

For the wedges less than 5000 numbers in total.

 

TR4, 4A, 250, 5 and 6 amount to some 2500 part numbers apiece, but given the very considerable amount of common parts, perhaps 6000 overall, at most.

 

Of those 15,000 parts, covering the TR range from start to finish, a considerable proportion are sundries and fixings, for example, and unlikely to be an issue in terms of PQI or TRG.

 

A fair number of items are unlikely ever to be reproduced, as quite simply uneconomic given the strictly limited potential demand.

 

A modest number will be irrelevant in the sense that a later or superseding alternative will do the job adequately.

 

So in real terms we're probably looking at less than 10,000 part numbers . . . . . .

 

A large number to be sure, 4 figures rather than 5, but not impossibly large.

 

We certainly don't need to multiply that large number by 10 or whatever specialist retail suppliers, given that so many items are manufactured by only one, two or at most three source manufacturers.

 

The overwhelming majority of aftermarket pattern and/or reproduction parts that I've ever laid hands on are quite capable of doing the job for which they were designed, and given the relatively low annual mileage of the average classic then I'd suggest it's arguable that a design life of 20K miles rather than 100K miles is in many instances acceptable - always assuming that the price corresponds . . . . .

 

Which leaves a minority of items which are on the one hand of exceptional quality, to OE standard or above . . . . .

 

And on the other hand a minority of items which are of insufficient calibre in terms of cosmetic or functional aspect to be considered adequate.

 

By now we might be considering exceptional items in terms of three figure numbers, and inadequate items similarly in three figure numbers.

 

Manageable numbers in other words - at least in the medium term.

 

There is some potential merit in the PQI principle, there is also some potential merit in the TRG principle . . . . .

 

There is a sound argument suggesting that in order to be able to criticise what is below par, one must acknowledge also that which is above par . . . .

 

So why don't we kick off some sort of TRG exercise by identifying items which are above expectation ?

 

Forget the income stream or commercial aspect, simply regard the highlighting of 'above standard' and 'sub standard parts' alike as part and parcel of the benefits of membership of the TR Register. The club acts as an impartial and honest broker, with no commercial involvements or potential conflicts of interest, seeking simply to identify the minorities of exceptionally good and of downright inadequate products offered . . . .

 

Or is that all too simple ?

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Yes, many small items can be sourced from modern rigorously controlled sources eg fixings such as nuts bolts, UJs etc. But Gold is not intending to supply that information. TRR could usefully compile those sources.

 

re the numbers. A part number is not a unique identifier, for parts made in batches. Small batch manufacture is all too common as suppliers operate just-in-time ordering. Unless QC is consistent then that part may fall off-spec from one batch to the enxt. If the reinspection-rate of an given item for re-evaluation by TRG does not keep up with the batch-refresh rate then TRG fails. For TRG to work each fresh batch has to be assessed. And the supplier needs to id each batch.

 

I have not seen nay detailed analysis as to how the batch-time element can be embraced by TRG. In fact I have not read anything that leads me to think it practical.

 

Peter

Edited November 11, 2016 by Peter Cobbold