Still Making Cars With Defective Takata Air Bags

OldGray320i wrote:

alfadriver wrote: One has the option of not selling cars or selling them with a known defect. Seems like selling the cars is a better option.

This bothers the E36 M3 out of me - notwithstanding my usual comment of what problem are we trying to solve, and at what cost, and as was pointed out above, 13 deaths on 30 million cars sold is small percentage wise, and seems to me would be small even given the number of air bag deployments in a given year. Etc, ad nauseam. But you're the same guy who will say that everything needs to be regulated to the Nth degree to preserve our safety and health - recollections of the diesel particulate filters debate - no matter how much it costs.

I don't understand what it bothers you so much.

A car can't be sold without an airbag. And the issue is a long term durability problem, not an intentional defect. So while the solution is found, it's not unreasonable to keep selling the product, as long as it can be dealt with.

Had VW's issues been about durability, I'd say the same thing about their emissions stuff.

Takata didn't go out and lie about their product to companies and regulators- they just made a colossal error in the robustness of their product. And it still works as intended for most people.

alfadriver wrote:

STM317 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I've been in Manufacturing since right after college, 2007. Yes, companies have to run INCREDIBLY lean to compete. And we still have to source many of the raw materials/castings and such from overseas to keep costs down. And I'll leave it at that.

I know everyone does it to stay competitive on price. It just seems to me that being so lean that you can't overcome small occurances (speaking about automotive suppliers in general here, not specifically the Takata situation) could be a competitive disadvantage too. Having adequate stock on hand to quickly replace a defective production batch, or pick up the slack if your competition has an issue, etc seems like it could be a sellable point to your customers and could help you gain market share more quickly if somebody stumbles. Just a general complaint about the way things are now. Get off my lawn!

Stock takes space. Space = money. Stock costs money. So having enough stock to cover another company is not economically feasible. Capability costs money. Having too much capability costs a lot of money. So the idea that the sum of all other manufacturers can keep 25% more capability is incredibly unreasonable. That's ignoring the tiny problem that most airbag systems are specific to a particular car. So as a supplier to GM, I'm not going to bother making airbags for Toyota just to have them sitting around. One other thing- the air bag issue- it's not JUST the sum of all new cars at this point- it's that PLUS the entire recall. That is a huge amount of required increase. And much of that is a transient blip. This isn't just the automotive industry- this is ALL manufacturing of all goods.

I understand all of that. It just seems to me like it's been taken just a bit too far. If a supplier could promise a customer less downtime due to issues that commonly arise from ultra lean manufacturing, I think that could be a sellable point, and could also be a business advantage should a rival supplier falter. Instead of over promising and under delivering, maybe there's a balance where efficient manufacturing can be combined with whatever is needed to be flexible for those times when the unexpected arises. Almost like insurance.

Obviously I'm wrong, because everybody's trying to wring as much manufacturing efficiency out of their product as possible, and nobody does what I'm suggesting because shareholders have to see the biggest gains possible every quarter or else the world ends.

Dusterbd13 wrote: Stupid question : I have received no recall notice on the daily drivers. Where do I get the information to see if mine are affected?

Dealerships, every car that comes in for service we check for open recalls. I'm sure there are websites as well.

alfadriver wrote: Takata didn't go out and lie about their product to companies and regulators- they just made a colossal error in the robustness of their product.

Wrong again, as usual:

takata-engineers-altered-airbag-testing-data-for-10-years-whistleblowers-were-ignored

takata-engineer-who-warned-of-catastrophic-failures-willing-to-testify-against-company

takata-engineer-on-airbag-testing-happy-manipulating

takata-lied-to-conceal-airbag-problems-senate-panel-finds

takata-faked-test-data-a-year-after-airbag-recalls-report-says

In reply to Javelin:

Come work on the supply side, sometime. It's not what you seem to think it is.

Your assumption that people don't see the obvious solution just tells me that.

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Takata didn't go out and lie about their product to companies and regulators- they just made a colossal error in the robustness of their product.

Wrong again, as usual: takata-engineers-altered-airbag-testing-data-for-10-years-whistleblowers-were-ignored takata-engineer-who-warned-of-catastrophic-failures-willing-to-testify-against-company takata-engineer-on-airbag-testing-happy-manipulating takata-lied-to-conceal-airbag-problems-senate-panel-finds takata-faked-test-data-a-year-after-airbag-recalls-report-says

Ok, so I didn't research the issue in it's sum. Big deal.

But that does not mean Takata is the same as VW, in my eyes.

Have fun at your angry counter.

STM317 wrote: I understand all of that. It just seems to me like it's been taken just a bit too far. If a supplier could promise a customer less downtime due to issues that commonly arise from ultra lean manufacturing, I think that could be a sellable point, and could also be a business advantage should a rival supplier falter. Instead of over promising and under delivering, maybe there's a balance where efficient manufacturing can be combined with whatever is needed to be flexible for those times when the unexpected arises. Almost like insurance. Obviously I'm wrong, because everybody's trying to wring as much manufacturing efficiency out of their product as possible, and nobody does what I'm suggesting because shareholders have to see the biggest gains possible every quarter or else the world ends.

It may seem that way. And there's no reason at all that someone can step up to the supply line and do exactly that. But nobody does- as it just costs too much. Again, this thinking isn't limited to cars.

Javelin wrote: In reply to alfadriver: You know nothing about me or what I do. I know plenty about the supply side, and just how stupid they can be sometimes. If you really want to have your mind blown, go ask the VP of QC at A1 Cardone's steering systems division about the "obvious solution".

I know as much about you as you seem to actually know about making stuff, as i see it.

alfadriver wrote:

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Takata didn't go out and lie about their product to companies and regulators- they just made a colossal error in the robustness of their product.

Wrong again, as usual: takata-engineers-altered-airbag-testing-data-for-10-years-whistleblowers-were-ignored takata-engineer-who-warned-of-catastrophic-failures-willing-to-testify-against-company takata-engineer-on-airbag-testing-happy-manipulating takata-lied-to-conceal-airbag-problems-senate-panel-finds takata-faked-test-data-a-year-after-airbag-recalls-report-says

Ok, so I didn't research the issue in it's sum. Big deal. But that does not mean Takata is the same as VW, in my eyes. Have fun at your angry counter.

Didn't research the issue?!?! More like been living under a rock and ignoring every single piece of news about the issue for over three years! Seriously, how can you NOT know that Takata lied? That speaks volumes about you...

I would say that Takata is worse than VW. Volkswagens only polluted more under certain circumstances, a takata airbag could cause your death.

alfadriver wrote: So you assume that every company out there is so dumb that they would not choose the most obvious solution and go to another supplier??? I don't get that.

Not sure how you're making these weird mental leaps, but I will give you credit for being highly entertaining.

My take on this... If there is no law regarding a duty to disclose a known, potentially fatal, defect in a new product there probably should be. Even absent that law I think continuing to sell these with no disclosure is arguably unethical.

Robbie wrote: the "lake Wobegon effect" is that most humans have a tendency to over-estimate their own capabilities, and has been proven in many arenas (i.e. the majority of drivers think they are above average). I believe this is tied to the fact that probably the majority of people think they are above average problem solvers/critical thinkers. And that is BEFORE you get into whether a casual observer is armed with the right detail knowledge or not.

I thought this was the Dunning-Kreuger effect. People overestimate their ability because they don't know what they don't know.

And they are usually the most verbosely adamant about their percieved Knowledge

In reply to Javelin and alfadriver:

Knurled wrote:

Robbie wrote: the "lake Wobegon effect" is that most humans have a tendency to over-estimate their own capabilities, and has been proven in many arenas (i.e. the majority of drivers think they are above average). I believe this is tied to the fact that probably the majority of people think they are above average problem solvers/critical thinkers. And that is BEFORE you get into whether a casual observer is armed with the right detail knowledge or not.

I thought this was the Dunning-Kreuger effect. People overestimate their ability because they don't know what they don't know. And they are usually the most verbosely adamant about their percieved Knowledge

After some wiki reading, it would appear they are both common names for something called "Illusory Superiority". the Dunning-Kreuger studies seem to be mostly focused on cognitive tasks (i.e. I'm better than average at math...), but the effect has much further reaching tendrils (i'm more athletic, i'm more popular, I'm higher IQ, I'm better at my job, etc). Interestingly, with more training on a certain subject, people also tend to get more accurate at rating their own performance. Even folks like Confucius and Shakespeare have quotes similar to "only the fool calls himself wise, while the wise man knows himself a fool", which is making a similar observation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

I bet that Illusory Superiority is generally a good thing and a direct result of a survival technique. The 'fake-it-till-you-make-it' idea has helped a lot of people find success by effectively shielding them from the hopelessness of their situation for long enough for them to actually get good at something.

And I think both the research and my observations agree with you that the loudest people are generally the wrongest (or, at least, the earliest in their quest to become wise and feel like a fool).

STM317 wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

STM317 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I've been in Manufacturing since right after college, 2007. Yes, companies have to run INCREDIBLY lean to compete. And we still have to source many of the raw materials/castings and such from overseas to keep costs down. And I'll leave it at that.

I know everyone does it to stay competitive on price. It just seems to me that being so lean that you can't overcome small occurances (speaking about automotive suppliers in general here, not specifically the Takata situation) could be a competitive disadvantage too. Having adequate stock on hand to quickly replace a defective production batch, or pick up the slack if your competition has an issue, etc seems like it could be a sellable point to your customers and could help you gain market share more quickly if somebody stumbles. Just a general complaint about the way things are now. Get off my lawn!

Stock takes space. Space = money. Stock costs money. So having enough stock to cover another company is not economically feasible. Capability costs money. Having too much capability costs a lot of money. So the idea that the sum of all other manufacturers can keep 25% more capability is incredibly unreasonable. That's ignoring the tiny problem that most airbag systems are specific to a particular car. So as a supplier to GM, I'm not going to bother making airbags for Toyota just to have them sitting around. One other thing- the air bag issue- it's not JUST the sum of all new cars at this point- it's that PLUS the entire recall. That is a huge amount of required increase. And much of that is a transient blip. This isn't just the automotive industry- this is ALL manufacturing of all goods.

I understand all of that. It just seems to me like it's been taken just a bit too far. If a supplier could promise a customer less downtime due to issues that commonly arise from ultra lean manufacturing, I think that could be a sellable point, and could also be a business advantage should a rival supplier falter. Instead of over promising and under delivering, maybe there's a balance where efficient manufacturing can be combined with whatever is needed to be flexible for those times when the unexpected arises. Almost like insurance. Obviously I'm wrong, because everybody's trying to wring as much manufacturing efficiency out of their product as possible, and nobody does what I'm suggesting because shareholders have to see the biggest gains possible every quarter or else the world ends.

When you're supplying customers like an automotive assembly line, you DO NOT cause them down time. Otherwise you get fined at some completely exorbitant hourly rate (which is still probably less money than they're actually losing.) They don't give a E36 M3 how you keep them supplied, they just expect you to do it and do it for cheap. And to be cheap enough, you have to be lean. As already mentioned, excess capacity and inventory is just something you can't afford in this day and age.

Javelin wrote: Didn't research the issue?!?! More like been living under a rock and ignoring every single piece of news about the issue for over three years! Seriously, how can you NOT know that Takata lied? That speaks volumes about you...

So over the 3 years, you still assume that nobody thought of using other suppliers??? That's one hell of an assumption you make.

I don't care if Takata lied- that's not the point of this thread. The point is that there's not enough air bag manufacturing capability in the world to make up for Takata instantly. Which is why cars STILL have them new.

Honestly, I don't care what you think of me.

foxtrapper wrote:

alfadriver wrote: So you assume that every company out there is so dumb that they would not choose the most obvious solution and go to another supplier??? I don't get that.

Not sure how you're making these weird mental leaps, but I will give you credit for being highly entertaining.

Is it that much of a mental leap to think this

There is not one single other manufacturer of airbags other than Takata, there are multiples. Ammonium nitrate is not the only inflator, and it is not unable to be set up without desiccant. Even Takata has mastered those points.

Means that you think that the sum of all other airbag suppliers CAN make up for Takata? Sure seems like it.

And if it does, then the fact that Takata bags are still being used, someone didn't think of calling any other supplier? Sure seems like that, too- given how upset you are in the first post.

If you mean something else, what is it?

Really- if a supplier was sending you bad parts, and would not fix them, the first choice is to go to supplier 2, isn't it??? That seems pretty obvious to me.

alfadriver wrote:

Javelin wrote: Didn't research the issue?!?! More like been living under a rock and ignoring every single piece of news about the issue for over three years! Seriously, how can you NOT know that Takata lied? That speaks volumes about you...

So over the 3 years, you still assume that nobody thought of using other suppliers??? That's one hell of an assumption you make.

I never said that, or anything even remotely close to it.

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Why do people think that others live in a complete vacuum like that? The most obvious solution is overlooked?

Because it usually is.

Uh, yes you did say that in this post. Unless you were answering a different question than what I was asking.

Or what did you mean by that answer?

alfadriver wrote:

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Why do people think that others live in a complete vacuum like that? The most obvious solution is overlooked?

Because it usually is.

Uh, yes you did say that in this post. Unless you were answering a different question than what I was asking. Or what did you mean by that answer?

Exactly what I said. People tend to usually overlook the most obvious answer. Period, the end. It's a generality. Not any of the assumptions you made, like that it was specifically about not buying from Takata over the last 3 years.

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Why do people think that others live in a complete vacuum like that? The most obvious solution is overlooked?

Because it usually is.

Uh, yes you did say that in this post. Unless you were answering a different question than what I was asking. Or what did you mean by that answer?

Exactly what I said. People tend to usually overlook the most obvious answer. Period, the end. It's a generality. Not any of the assumptions you made, like that it was specifically about not buying from Takata over the last 3 years.

Hahahahahaha.

Oh right. Buyers in multi-million (in this case multi-billion) dollar companies aren't constantly shopping other sources to save money, have alternate supply routes setup in case of delays, etc.

Thank you for the laugh.

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

Javelin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Why do people think that others live in a complete vacuum like that? The most obvious solution is overlooked?

Because it usually is.

Uh, yes you did say that in this post. Unless you were answering a different question than what I was asking. Or what did you mean by that answer?

Exactly what I said. People tend to usually overlook the most obvious answer. Period, the end. It's a generality. Not any of the assumptions you made, like that it was specifically about not buying from Takata over the last 3 years.

Ok.

Be general in saying that people don't choose the obvious solution, but that does not apply to this situation, apparently.

Can I point out that doing that creates a lot of confusion? And it's pretty clear that I'm not the only one.

Dusterbd13 wrote: Stupid question : I have received no recall notice on the daily drivers. Where do I get the information to see if mine are affected?

Just Google Takata Recall, but it really doesn't matter. My car is on the list but I have been told by the local Subaru dealer that it may be years before supplies actually get to the point that replacements are getting done. The list is long, very long.

alfadriver wrote:

OldGray320i wrote:

alfadriver wrote: One has the option of not selling cars or selling them with a known defect. Seems like selling the cars is a better option.

This bothers the E36 M3 out of me - notwithstanding my usual comment of what problem are we trying to solve, and at what cost, and as was pointed out above, 13 deaths on 30 million cars sold is small percentage wise, and seems to me would be small even given the number of air bag deployments in a given year. Etc, ad nauseam. But you're the same guy who will say that everything needs to be regulated to the Nth degree to preserve our safety and health - recollections of the diesel particulate filters debate - no matter how much it costs.

I don't understand what it bothers you so much. A car can't be sold without an airbag. And the issue is a long term durability problem, not an intentional defect. So while the solution is found, it's not unreasonable to keep selling the product, as long as it can be dealt with. Had VW's issues been about durability, I'd say the same thing about their emissions stuff. Takata didn't go out and lie about their product to companies and regulators- they just made a colossal error in the robustness of their product. And it still works as intended for most people.

You appear to advocate selling cars with "defective" safety gear to stem profit and production loss. The cars could be built with alternatives, or not built at all pending a correction.

Your replies are typically safety first, cost or other effects be damned.

Intentionality of the defect has nothing to do wo with it, it's killed people when it's deployed. Is it safety first, or not?

Not sure I understand where you're coming from with the VW comment - I'll pass on that one.

As regards Takata, someone already mentioned that they did in fact deceive, but on its face your statement of "they just made a colossal error" is at odds with your usual penchant for saying the engineers got it right, don't question the science. A "colossal error" in engineering means at a minimum, negligence, and quite possibly gross negligence. Quite simply, there is no excuse for it.

If you're going to champion safety uber alles, please do so consistently.