Hazard of Sourcing to China 9

[plasgears]

At this point we have had long experience with sourcing to China, and my experience has been negative for the most part. It caused the downfall of my company in an automotive disaster. When Ford mandated a 10% cost reduction, we passed the reqt to our supplier. He promptly sourced plastic material from China. The source and material were not qualified; so much for QS9000.

Why is China such as economical place to get parts made? This warrants in-depth study and intelligence. Some have described the Chinese economy as a 'false' economy. My theory is that oil money from our enemies is undermining American economy by priming China to sell very low to us. The result has been closed enterprises, jobs lost, and spiraling disasters in the housing market and Wall St. Recent visitors to China report that the Chinese revel in these outcomes. If this scenario is true, what an ingenious plan our enemies have plotted to destroy us. Who would have anticipated it.

China doesn't care about our specifications; we should not care about China and their practices. We should withdraw and study what is going on under the surface. It has been confirmed that Chinese are brought down from the western mountains, and they are put to work on our parts. This doesn't fully explain the very low pricing.

We are now hearing American businessmen expressing regrets about associating their production with China. Realization of what it means to do business in China is rising. When Detroit, in response to union demands years ago, expressed that car business would heretofore become international, most didn't anticipate the full import of that statement. We will have to wake up before it is too late.

 

[GregLocock]

"As far as I know, the quote is correctly rendered by thruthefence"

As far as google knows none of the top 10 hits on "forgiveness than permission" prefers 'better' to 'easier'.

re Pinto, just bear in mind that in practice it was just as safe as its competitors, and the jury awarded punitive damages because they were shocked that a company used a cost benefit analysis to decide whether to put a safety improvement in. Needless to say this is standard practice these days in /many/ industries, including passenger aircraft and road design, as well as automotive. You do realise that safety systems have a budget don't you?

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry, make that 9 of the top 10

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[IRstuff]

"it was just as safe as its competitors"

That seems dubious, given the propensity for the original Pinto design to rupture its gas tank in a rear-end collision, and given your own usage of the term "safety improvement." This was a known problem. The cost benefit analysis was to determine whether to fix the problem or not.

Since it was an acknowledged problem, not found on its competitors designs, it was definitely not as safe as its competitors. It was not a issue of being as safe, and not making it better, it was a matter of not being as safe, and refusing to make it as safe as others, because of cost.

Naturally, had the Ford people being more circumspect in their memos, it would have just been chalked up to poor design, but not necessarily negligent design. Since Ford had known and documented the problem, not fixing it was potentially negligent. The fact that the cost benefit analysis tipped away from fixing it made it that much more egregious. The juries, I think, felt obliged to break past Ford's damage suit cost estimates.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[GregLocock]

Dubious? Overall vehicle safety was as safe as its competitors. NHTSA statistics said so. The gas tank was possibly less safe than other designs (but actually has some advantages, such that tank behind the axle has been used for many years before and since by many manufacturers), but other aspects of the design were safer, so as a system it was competitive, as we would hope for in an efficient market.

Incidentally that article that was linked is credulous rubbish, thousands of Pinto passengers were not burnt alive, the actual figure is 27 deaths in fires, all causes. Two million Pintos were built. That is, 14 deaths per million.

Here's the average fatality rate per million vehicles for the competitive set in 75-76, lower is better.

Gremlin 345
Vega 299
Datsun 1220/210 405
Datsun 510 317
Pinto 310
Corolla 313
Beetle 374

So, deaths from fire were a tiny proportion of the fatality rate at the time, and Pinto was the second safest car on that list, or perhaps more accurately, was one of the safer cars on the list.

Of course, if you have /objective/ evidence to the contrary...


Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[thruthefence]

I actually was paraphrasing, and if fact I prefer Greg's (and google's) version anyway.

And the Pinto link, was of course a crude response to the "ethics" segue this link has taken, which I suppose was itself an comment on my permission/forgiveness saying. I would assume that by my posting, I was placed in the robber baron,scorched earth ,feed the whales-to-my-cat category.

Regarding again the "Pinto Link" my point was not to point out "bad engineering" but compromise, as you have stated.

And Greg, didn't ACBC strive to build a car that the first pieces began to fall off, just as the checkered flag fell? Compromise taken to it's extreme?

 

[IRstuff]

The closest I could find:

https://idenet.bth.se/servlet/download/news/19641/Assignment+outline+-+Ford+Pinto.doc

http://www.autosafety.org/uploads/phpKLxf8i_ODIPinto.pdf

Ford's own product testing showed 100% failure of the gas tank at relatively low speeds. This was what eventually caused the Pinto recall. Similar problems occurred in the Crown Vic.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[GregLocock]

So, you'd buy a car with a worse safety record because its faults have not been widely exaggerated, whereas I'd rather buy the car with the better safety record.

OK, that's freedom of choice.




Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[IRstuff]

It's just a matter of whether you trust your own driving vs. other peoples' driving. Other people's driving tend to result in side and rear collisions, so there would be an argument for picking a car with stronger rear and side collision performance. I've never driven into a brick wall, but have been side and rear impacted.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[jmw]

didn't ACBC strive to build a car that the first pieces began to fall off, just as the checkered flag fell? Compromise taken to it's extreme?

In competition, components that fail in the race are substandard and components that last much longer than a race are over-engineered and carry a weight/speed penalty.

Drivers are expensive to replace and safety is a primary consideration, repair costs for the cars an overhead.

The family saloon must be affordable, and repairable.
There is and always will be and always should be a personal choice involved that balances costs against the features and benefits, within the framework of an appropriate set of legislation.

Now when it comes to trade barriers and cars the past masters are the Japanese. By judicious use of standards (environmental and safety) frequently changed and implemented, Japanese cars have sold the world over while foreign cars were foreign to Japanese streets.

The trouble is a lack of alignment of political and commercial interests in western countries (and inept politicians anyway) so that such trade barriers as are set up often become meaningless or easily evaded.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[RARWOOD]

A lot of different comment to this thread. I know of a case where an A490 bolt broke in half when being installed in a glulam truss. I do not know where it was made, just that it failed well below its design load. Bad products get made all over the world. However some countries have a relaible court system to deal with problems when they do occur.

Dealing with China sound similair to dealing with Sovergein Native American Nations. In many case if you provided them with services and materials and there is a dispute you have to sue in Tribal Court. So there are cases where the tribe will refuse to pay for services and materials, and refuse to hear a case over it in tribal court.

Please note I have been involved in a number of very sucessful projects working with Sovergein Nations. The vast vast majority of the Sovergein Nations pay their bills and deal fairly with contractors.

I just bring this up as an example of dealing with a different goverment and court system. Also in many cases particularly on very large construction projects, the Sovergein Nations will agree to settle disputes in State Courts.

 

[KENAT]

http://www.break.com/index/chinese-made-car.html

I saw this over in the pub from another poster and it made me chuckle.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[jmw]

There seems to have been a bit on the news recently about an impending economic problem for China.
One source was a Chinese economist who questioned the wisdom of the massive investment in new industrial cities while neglecting the rural areas.

There doesn't appear much from a casual internet search but I'm sure more can be found.

Mostly what is there is the conventional reaction to the current global problems but the discussion I heard was related to a more deep seated problem with the approach taken since Tienanmen Square.

Of real concern is what this means to us, if it is true, and not just generally but how it will affect engineering and outsourcing.

Typical of easily found:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/21/china-globalrecession

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7679679.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7727237.stm

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[EddyC]

My brother the accountant (ie...someone who has never really worked) thinks that the proper way to do business & make money is to have something manufactured in the far east, bring it to the US, slap your name on it and then sell it for a profit. This is his idea of "business". Spoken like a true New Yorker.

 

[KENAT]

EddyC, your brother in law isn't our CEO, or his adviser is he?

I can't find a good link but my direct Boss tells me he saw part of a speech or something from Obama where he talked about taxing companies that move jobs overseas or something like that.

Given our places big plans for this in the near future, he thought he should let a few people know we might want to consider this when we look at outsourcing/offshoring.

He got told to shut up, they didn't want to hear it. The plan is to outsource abroad regardless of whether it makes any sense to do so.

Genius.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[IRstuff]

Just bear in mind that there's probably every reason to expect that if the economy gets going again, oil prices will rise commensurately, simply because of excess money chasing returns. For many items with low margins, the transportation costs are not controllable.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[KENAT]

Almost everyone of Director level and below has brought up that and all the other related issues mentioned above.

Senior management don't want to hear it though. Their latest management book must say 'outsourcing/off-shoring good' and they cannot be disuaded.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[drawoh]

Is everybody else seeing a "Buy Online from China" ad when they view this thread? I wonder if someone is getting value out of his ad dollars.

JHG