Bearing "Selection" - Very Long

[patrick flowers]

>
> Patrick you are making a lot of assumptions.

I'm only assuming those things that Timken refuses to confirm or deny.

> What if the cinnabar bearings use a diffeent angle between the roller and
> the race such that the roller is longer for the same bearing depth? Would
> not have to be much longer to get 20% more bearing load. Just a thought.

Ah, but then, Cinnabar would correctly claim that the bearing was
manufactured to their specifications. That's not the claim.

> Note: manufacturers have different tolerances of bearings all the time. the
> precision of the bearing is what dictates the price.

Tolerances and precision are set in the specification process - not
after manufacture.

> I see nothing illegal about selecting the best of everything.

I didn't say it was illegal. Stupid yes, illegal no. There are two
scenarios here. The first is that a hypothetical bearing manufacturer,
"Total Bearings", has an agreement with a customer, "Chocolate Bar
Engineering" to hand select "superior" bearings from Total's production
for Chocolate's use. The remainder of production is sold to the rest of
Total's customers(who likely buy volumes more bearings than Chocolate).
When the other customers discover(and they will) that they are basically
being sold "second quality" merchandise, Total Bearings is toast.
Doesn't make a gnat's whisker difference that the entire remainder of
production met all the spec's, the other customers will go elsewhere.

The second scenario has the same setup as the above. A GMC motorhome
owner, Joe Public, buys a Total Bearings Set 23 from his local auto
parts store and installs it in his coach. The bearing fails at some
point down the road with Joe and Jane Public dying in the resulting
accident. The Publics' survivors sue a whole phone book full of
defendants, including Total Bearings. During discovery, the plaintiff's
attorneys find the agreement between Total and Chocolate. Plaintiff's
attorneys present to jury that Total was selling "superior" product to
Chocolate and ergo the remainder of production was "inferior".
Convinced that Total was knowingly selling an "inferior" product, the
jury awards $millions to plaintiff.

Don't expect it to make sense, but it happens almost every day.
Insurance and industry trade publications are full of this stuff. It's
what I deal with every day.

> If my memory serves me right didn't GMC do that????? They
> picked the best toronado engines and trannies, least
> runnout accuride rims etc. Nothing has changed.

Oh yes it has - the legal and business climate have changed an
incredible amount in the past 25 years! Also you're speaking of
selections made by a manufacturer, not a vendor.

Quoting from the 9/96 GMC Motorhome News, in reply to Paul Bartz, Wes
Caughlin writes, "The 20 percent higher load-carrying capacity comes
from component selection, Paul. General Motors Service Parts Operations
got Timken to select the "cream of the crop" to make these bearings.
All manufactured product has minimums and maximums with the average
somewhere in between. The components for the 12351677 bearings only
come from the high side of the bell curve, whereas the components for
the generic bearings come from the whole curve."

Now tell me, what type of "component selection" can Timken be doing?
Bearing manufacture is an incredibly precise operation. There is
extremely little variation among components. This is a necessity given
the high production rates necessary to sell quality bearings at a
reasonable price. I've toured at least a dozen bearing plants in my
career and seen the process up close. The only "selection" process I
can imagine is for unassembled axial clearance. Cinnabar is likely
paying a premium for a Timken employee to match up bearing sets and
spacers to achieve the .0095 inch clearance. Note that this is not in
conflict with a literal reading of Wes' statement above, although it
might lead a reader to believe Wes guilty of some "embellishment".

But don't takeb my word for it. Email Timken yourself to see if they
will verify Wes' statements in the Sept. 96 GMC Motorhome News. Either
they must say that one customer has misrepresented himself or admit that
they preferentially select product. Best case scenario is that you get
a carefully worded reply from their legal department stating, "Timken
Bearing Co. can make no comment regarding contractural arrangements with
our customers." But I'll wager a Diet Coke that you get silence.

Patrick
- --
Patrick Flowers
Mailtoatrick

The GMC Motorhome Page
http://www.gmcmotorhome.com

 

[thomas g. warner]

Paul you are clouding the argument with so many assumptions and red herrings
that it is difficult to know where to start. first for every 100 bearings
off the end of the line, the tolerances will fit some bell curve as Wes
noted. The rollers and races can never be manufactured to a specific
measurement, each of them varies and when put together the variations either
add or subtract to give a final axial measurement and roundness of the
rollers and races, which translate to load capability. If this were not
true, the spacers between the double front bearings would all be the same
thickness, and the bearing maximum load would all be the same. Last I looked
they were not.

In all manufacturing the vendor separates the completed widgets into
different specs, tolerances and the tighter the tolerances the more you pay
for them. happens every day and it is not illegal or immoral. When you buy
a bearing set, you are buying one with a specific set of specifications,
normally noted as plus or minus some measurement. Just because that same
manufacturing process turns out sets of bearings of closer and maybe even
loser tolerances, does not jeopardize their reputation.

lastly why would you conclude that silence from Timken some how justifies
your assumptions?

>>
>> Patrick you are making a lot of assumptions.
>
>I'm only assuming those things that Timken refuses to confirm or deny.
>
>> What if the cinnabar bearings use a diffeent angle between the roller and
>> the race such that the roller is longer for the same bearing depth? Would
>> not have to be much longer to get 20% more bearing load. Just a thought.
>
>Ah, but then, Cinnabar would correctly claim that the bearing was
>manufactured to their specifications. That's not the claim.
>
>> Note: manufacturers have different tolerances of bearings all the time. the
>> precision of the bearing is what dictates the price.
>
>Tolerances and precision are set in the specification process - not
>after manufacture.
>
>> I see nothing illegal about selecting the best of everything.
>
>I didn't say it was illegal. Stupid yes, illegal no. There are two
>scenarios here. The first is that a hypothetical bearing manufacturer,
>"Total Bearings", has an agreement with a customer, "Chocolate Bar
>Engineering" to hand select "superior" bearings from Total's production
>for Chocolate's use. The remainder of production is sold to the rest of
>Total's customers(who likely buy volumes more bearings than Chocolate).
>When the other customers discover(and they will) that they are basically
>being sold "second quality" merchandise, Total Bearings is toast.
>Doesn't make a gnat's whisker difference that the entire remainder of
>production met all the spec's, the other customers will go elsewhere.
>
>The second scenario has the same setup as the above. A GMC motorhome
>owner, Joe Public, buys a Total Bearings Set 23 from his local auto
>parts store and installs it in his coach. The bearing fails at some
>point down the road with Joe and Jane Public dying in the resulting
>accident. The Publics' survivors sue a whole phone book full of
>defendants, including Total Bearings. During discovery, the plaintiff's
>attorneys find the agreement between Total and Chocolate. Plaintiff's
>attorneys present to jury that Total was selling "superior" product to
>Chocolate and ergo the remainder of production was "inferior".
>Convinced that Total was knowingly selling an "inferior" product, the
>jury awards $millions to plaintiff.
>
>Don't expect it to make sense, but it happens almost every day.
>Insurance and industry trade publications are full of this stuff. It's
>what I deal with every day.
>
>> If my memory serves me right didn't GMC do that????? They
>> picked the best toronado engines and trannies, least
>> runnout accuride rims etc. Nothing has changed.
>
>Oh yes it has - the legal and business climate have changed an
>incredible amount in the past 25 years! Also you're speaking of
>selections made by a manufacturer, not a vendor.
>
>Quoting from the 9/96 GMC Motorhome News, in reply to Paul Bartz, Wes
>Caughlin writes, "The 20 percent higher load-carrying capacity comes
>from component selection, Paul. General Motors Service Parts Operations
>got Timken to select the "cream of the crop" to make these bearings.
>All manufactured product has minimums and maximums with the average
>somewhere in between. The components for the 12351677 bearings only
>come from the high side of the bell curve, whereas the components for
>the generic bearings come from the whole curve."
>
>Now tell me, what type of "component selection" can Timken be doing?
>Bearing manufacture is an incredibly precise operation. There is
>extremely little variation among components. This is a necessity given
>the high production rates necessary to sell quality bearings at a
>reasonable price. I've toured at least a dozen bearing plants in my
>career and seen the process up close. The only "selection" process I
>can imagine is for unassembled axial clearance. Cinnabar is likely
>paying a premium for a Timken employee to match up bearing sets and
>spacers to achieve the .0095 inch clearance. Note that this is not in
>conflict with a literal reading of Wes' statement above, although it
>might lead a reader to believe Wes guilty of some "embellishment".
>
>But don't takeb my word for it. Email Timken yourself to see if they
>will verify Wes' statements in the Sept. 96 GMC Motorhome News. Either
>they must say that one customer has misrepresented himself or admit that
>they preferentially select product. Best case scenario is that you get
>a carefully worded reply from their legal department stating, "Timken
>Bearing Co. can make no comment regarding contractural arrangements with
>our customers." But I'll wager a Diet Coke that you get silence.
>
>Patrick
>--
>Patrick Flowers
>Mailtoatrick
>
>The GMC Motorhome Page
>http://www.gmcmotorhome.com
>
>
>
>

 

[bartz paul]

Tom:

It must be getting late for you. Looks like you've now drug my name
into this discussion although I have contributed nada to it so
far!!!!!!!

Paul Bartz

From: Tom Warner

Sent: 6/22/99 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: GMC: Bearing "Selection" - Very Long

Paul you are clouding the argument with so many assumptions and red
herrings

 

[john dolan]

As I read this, Wes is saying that GM paid Timken to select spacers from
the population of spacers that when matched with bearing sets will yield
no less than 0.0095 inches of unassembled axial clearance. (Special
criterion #1.) This was all on the 1677 bearings delivered starting in
1991.

He also says on 06/96 page 7, line 19, "It also has 20 percent more load
carrying capacity than generic bearing sets..." (now 'generic bearing
sets' may be the key to understanding this... was that a 20% increase in
the load carrying capacity of the Timken bearing sold prior to 1991 or is
that a 20% better load capacity bearing over the generic Timken bearings
manufactured for this application, today? It is unclear. Elsewhere in
the article he defines generic bearing sets as 4949E/4911 sets. Is that
the bearings that are being sold as timken 23s today?

Not in the article, but in his response to Paul, Wes says all componets
of our bearings come from the high side of the bell curve, and his famous
"creme of the crop" characterisation. Engineers and lawyers could call
that simply, GM has contracted-for and paid-for components with tighter
tolerances, but you won't get Timken into the middle of that fight by
confirming that they select the creme for GM via email for Arch!

- --
"I do whatever my Rice Krispies tell me to..."
John said, err "Frosty the Snowman" said, from inside a 1974 Glacier.

 

[patrick flowers]

>
> Paul you are clouding the argument with so many assumptions and red herrings
> that it is difficult to know where to start. first for every 100 bearings
> off the end of the line, the tolerances will fit some bell curve as Wes
> noted. The rollers and races can never be manufactured to a specific
> measurement, each of them varies and when put together the variations either
> add or subtract to give a final axial measurement and roundness of the
> rollers and races, which translate to load capability. If this were not
> true, the spacers between the double front bearings would all be the same
> thickness, and the bearing maximum load would all be the same. Last I looked
> they were not.

Tom, don't look now, but you just agreed with me with the exception of
the "roundness of the rollers and races", which is an entirely ludicrous
statement. We're speaking of mass produced bearings here. For less
than $100 a set, there's no way Timken is checking the "roundness" of
each individual part.

> In all manufacturing the vendor separates the completed widgets into
> different specs, tolerances and the tighter the tolerances the more you pay
> for them. happens every day and it is not illegal or immoral.

Okay Tom, I challenge you to quote any point in my previous post where I
said anything was illegal or immoral. Do you actually think about any
of this before you write? Might help you keep the names straight.

> When you buy
> a bearing set, you are buying one with a specific set of specifications,
> normally noted as plus or minus some measurement. Just because that same
> manufacturing process turns out sets of bearings of closer and maybe even
> loser tolerances, does not jeopardize their reputation.

Tom, you missed the point again. The point was that Timken is doing
exactly what you said in the previous paragraph, selecting bearings for
a specified axial clearance, not selecting bearings because they are any
better or "cream of the crop".

> lastly why would you conclude that silence from Timken some how justifies
> your assumptions?

For the same reason as when a child is silent after being asked if they
took the cookies, I know they're guilty. I know how manufacturing
businesses interact. Did you see Arch's post saying he finally got the
Legal Dept. reply that I predicted? I swear on the Bible that I did not
know that previous to reading his post this morning.

Finally, once again, prove me wrong. Find anyone in the bearing
manufacturing business that will attest to being able to "select"
bearings of this type(matched set of tapered roller bearings) out of a
single production lot, after manufacturing, that will have a 20% higher
load capacity other than by adjusting axial clearance. It's my opinion
that, if you buy a Timken Set 23 with .0095 inch axial clearance from
any source, then you have purchased exactly the same product that
Cinnabar sells. I bought my bearings from Cinnabar, so I'm not trying
to justify anything.

I'm from Missouri on this one,
Patrick
- --
Patrick Flowers
Mailtoatrick

The GMC Motorhome Page
http://www.gmcmotorhome.com

 

[richard bachert]

I remind you of Mr. Jefferson's quote about how we would become a litigious
and contentious people as socialism took root here. It not only took root
- -- about 200 years ago -- it covers the landscape like kudzu.
Dick 75 PB in Atlanta

>>
>> Patrick you are making a lot of assumptions.
>
>I'm only assuming those things that Timken refuses to confirm or deny.
>
>> What if the cinnabar bearings use a diffeent angle between the roller and
>> the race such that the roller is longer for the same bearing depth? Would
>> not have to be much longer to get 20% more bearing load. Just a thought.
>
>Ah, but then, Cinnabar would correctly claim that the bearing was
>manufactured to their specifications. That's not the claim.
>
>> Note: manufacturers have different tolerances of bearings all the time. the
>> precision of the bearing is what dictates the price.
>
>Tolerances and precision are set in the specification process - not
>after manufacture.
>
>> I see nothing illegal about selecting the best of everything.
>
>I didn't say it was illegal. Stupid yes, illegal no. There are two
>scenarios here. The first is that a hypothetical bearing manufacturer,
>"Total Bearings", has an agreement with a customer, "Chocolate Bar
>Engineering" to hand select "superior" bearings from Total's production
>for Chocolate's use. The remainder of production is sold to the rest of
>Total's customers(who likely buy volumes more bearings than Chocolate).
>When the other customers discover(and they will) that they are basically
>being sold "second quality" merchandise, Total Bearings is toast.
>Doesn't make a gnat's whisker difference that the entire remainder of
>production met all the spec's, the other customers will go elsewhere.
>
>The second scenario has the same setup as the above. A GMC motorhome
>owner, Joe Public, buys a Total Bearings Set 23 from his local auto
>parts store and installs it in his coach. The bearing fails at some
>point down the road with Joe and Jane Public dying in the resulting
>accident. The Publics' survivors sue a whole phone book full of
>defendants, including Total Bearings. During discovery, the plaintiff's
>attorneys find the agreement between Total and Chocolate. Plaintiff's
>attorneys present to jury that Total was selling "superior" product to
>Chocolate and ergo the remainder of production was "inferior".
>Convinced that Total was knowingly selling an "inferior" product, the
>jury awards $millions to plaintiff.
>
>Don't expect it to make sense, but it happens almost every day.
>Insurance and industry trade publications are full of this stuff. It's
>what I deal with every day.
>
>> If my memory serves me right didn't GMC do that????? They
>> picked the best toronado engines and trannies, least
>> runnout accuride rims etc. Nothing has changed.
>
>Oh yes it has - the legal and business climate have changed an
>incredible amount in the past 25 years! Also you're speaking of
>selections made by a manufacturer, not a vendor.
>
>Quoting from the 9/96 GMC Motorhome News, in reply to Paul Bartz, Wes
>Caughlin writes, "The 20 percent higher load-carrying capacity comes
>from component selection, Paul. General Motors Service Parts Operations
>got Timken to select the "cream of the crop" to make these bearings.
>All manufactured product has minimums and maximums with the average
>somewhere in between. The components for the 12351677 bearings only
>come from the high side of the bell curve, whereas the components for
>the generic bearings come from the whole curve."
>
>Now tell me, what type of "component selection" can Timken be doing?
>Bearing manufacture is an incredibly precise operation. There is
>extremely little variation among components. This is a necessity given
>the high production rates necessary to sell quality bearings at a
>reasonable price. I've toured at least a dozen bearing plants in my
>career and seen the process up close. The only "selection" process I
>can imagine is for unassembled axial clearance. Cinnabar is likely
>paying a premium for a Timken employee to match up bearing sets and
>spacers to achieve the .0095 inch clearance. Note that this is not in
>conflict with a literal reading of Wes' statement above, although it
>might lead a reader to believe Wes guilty of some "embellishment".
>
>But don't takeb my word for it. Email Timken yourself to see if they
>will verify Wes' statements in the Sept. 96 GMC Motorhome News. Either
>they must say that one customer has misrepresented himself or admit that
>they preferentially select product. Best case scenario is that you get
>a carefully worded reply from their legal department stating, "Timken
>Bearing Co. can make no comment regarding contractural arrangements with
>our customers." But I'll wager a Diet Coke that you get silence.
>
>Patrick
>--
>Patrick Flowers
>Mailtoatrick
>
>The GMC Motorhome Page
>http://www.gmcmotorhome.com
>
>
>

 

[dave1]

>"Total Bearings", has an agreement with a customer, "Chocolate Bar
>Engineering" to hand select "superior" bearings from Total's production
>for Chocolate's use. The remainder of production is sold to the rest of
>Total's customers....

This is standard practice in the electronics industry. Computer and memory
chips are produced from the same masks then selected and sold based on post
production performance testing. For example, it was very common for users
to simply switch to a higher clock speed on their motherboards and run
their CPU at speeds higher than that printed on the chip. This is possible
because the faster chips and the slower chips where actually the same.
Those sold as high speed units where tested for proper operation at high
speed and the rest where sold as slower speed parts.

I could see where there may be a liability problem in using bearings other
than those sanctioned by the manufacturer. But I think that same liability
problem exists whenever we use parts from alternative sources. It would be
nice if the bearing manufacturer would tell us what they are selling to
whom. But, short of a lawsuit, I don't see where they have any obligation
to do so.

The real choice is ours. We can choose to pay the premium to purchase parts
from a source (Cinnabar) sanctioned by the manufacturer (GMC) or we can
attempt to save some money by trusting the reputation of an alternative
source for these parts. If the alternative source provides parts that prove
to be as reliable as the manufacturers then that should force the
manufacturers source to lower their prices. If the parts from an
alternative source turn out to be of a lesser quality then the alternative
source will pay the price through loss of business (and potential lawsuits
related to damages caused by selling inferior parts). But in the end, the
choice is ours and thats the way it should be.

Think of the alternative. If you look at the aviation industry you will
find a good example. To sell parts for aircraft the parts have to be
certificated by the manufacturer with the government. The cost of the
certification process and the layers of bureaucracy it takes to comply with
all of the government regulations greatly limits the number of choices the
consumer has. The end result is parts that sell for five or ten times what
they would reasonably cost where it not for all of the regulation and
bureaucracy. As you can see, there is not much left of recreational flying
in the US. I would hate to see the lawyers and lawmakers do the same to our
segment of the RV industry.

In the end, we make the decisions. In the end, we should also expect to
shoulder the liability for the decisions we make. Fortunately we are seeing
the dawn of an age where the information we need to make well informed
decisions is becoming more avalable to us. The web, and this list, are two
very good examples of how we can learn more (from manufacturers, suppliers
& customers) and use that knowledge to make good choices.

Dave
73 Sequoia

 

[patrick flowers]

>
> The real choice is ours. We can choose to pay the premium to purchase parts
> from a source (Cinnabar) sanctioned by the manufacturer (GMC) or we can
> attempt to save some money by trusting the reputation of an alternative
> source for these parts. If the alternative source provides parts that prove
> to be as reliable as the manufacturers then that should force the
> manufacturers source to lower their prices. If the parts from an
> alternative source turn out to be of a lesser quality then the alternative
> source will pay the price through loss of business (and potential lawsuits
> related to damages caused by selling inferior parts). But in the end, the
> choice is ours and thats the way it should be.

This has run a little far afield from the original question and that's
mainly my fault. The issue that started this thread was whether the 20%
additional load carrying capacity was the result of anything other than
the additional axial clearance specified by Cinnabar. I can't think of
any other way that you could pick two "Set 23" bearings out of one
production run and claim one has any greater strength than the other.

John Dolan made an excellent observation yesterday, referring to Wes
Caughlin writing in GMC Motorhome News:

> He also says on 06/96 page 7, line 19, "It also has 20 percent more load
> carrying capacity than generic bearing sets..." (now 'generic bearing
> sets' may be the key to understanding this... was that a 20% increase in
> the load carrying capacity of the Timken bearing sold prior to 1991 or is
> that a 20% better load capacity bearing over the generic Timken bearings
> manufactured for this application, today? It is unclear.

Maybe that's the key - current production bearings are just better
bearings. Beats me...

I bought my bearings from Cinnabar and probably will again if I need
to. It's worth the extra couple bucks to me to *know* that I'm getting
the right product. I just dislike seeing people told that there's
something magic about the Timken bearing sold in a GM box vs. a Timken
Set 23 you pick up at the local NAPA, except for the "correct" .0095
inch unassembled axial clearance.

Patrick
- --
Patrick Flowers
Mailtoatrick

The GMC Motorhome Page
http://www.gmcmotorhome.com

 

[thomas g. warner]

Dave there is one other piece to the puzzle adn that is that there are half
a dozen businesses that support the GMC motorhome exclusively, Cinnabar,
Golbys,Gateway etc to name a few. They do not have the luxury of large
volume customers and thus must charge a little extra for their parts. If we
start buying from to many alternative sources, one by one they will
disappear until the GMC will be like all the rest....unsupportable unless
you want to scrounge in junk yards

> >"Total Bearings", has an agreement with a customer, "Chocolate Bar
> >Engineering" to hand select "superior" bearings from Total's production
> >for Chocolate's use. The remainder of production is sold to the rest of
> >Total's customers....
>
>This is standard practice in the electronics industry. Computer and memory
>chips are produced from the same masks then selected and sold based on post
>production performance testing. For example, it was very common for users
>to simply switch to a higher clock speed on their motherboards and run
>their CPU at speeds higher than that printed on the chip. This is possible
>because the faster chips and the slower chips where actually the same.
>Those sold as high speed units where tested for proper operation at high
>speed and the rest where sold as slower speed parts.
>
>I could see where there may be a liability problem in using bearings other
>than those sanctioned by the manufacturer. But I think that same liability
>problem exists whenever we use parts from alternative sources. It would be
>nice if the bearing manufacturer would tell us what they are selling to
>whom. But, short of a lawsuit, I don't see where they have any obligation
>to do so.
>
>The real choice is ours. We can choose to pay the premium to purchase parts
>from a source (Cinnabar) sanctioned by the manufacturer (GMC) or we can
>attempt to save some money by trusting the reputation of an alternative
>source for these parts. If the alternative source provides parts that prove
>to be as reliable as the manufacturers then that should force the
>manufacturers source to lower their prices. If the parts from an
>alternative source turn out to be of a lesser quality then the alternative
>source will pay the price through loss of business (and potential lawsuits
>related to damages caused by selling inferior parts). But in the end, the
>choice is ours and thats the way it should be.
>
>Think of the alternative. If you look at the aviation industry you will
>find a good example. To sell parts for aircraft the parts have to be
>certificated by the manufacturer with the government. The cost of the
>certification process and the layers of bureaucracy it takes to comply with
>all of the government regulations greatly limits the number of choices the
>consumer has. The end result is parts that sell for five or ten times what
>they would reasonably cost where it not for all of the regulation and
>bureaucracy. As you can see, there is not much left of recreational flying
>in the US. I would hate to see the lawyers and lawmakers do the same to our
>segment of the RV industry.
>
>In the end, we make the decisions. In the end, we should also expect to
>shoulder the liability for the decisions we make. Fortunately we are seeing
>the dawn of an age where the information we need to make well informed
>decisions is becoming more avalable to us. The web, and this list, are two
>very good examples of how we can learn more (from manufacturers, suppliers
>& customers) and use that knowledge to make good choices.
>
>Dave
>73 Sequoia
>
>
>