Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'quality'.
Found 4 results
Scatcat posted a topic in RockwheelSo I bought a second hand GT16 for about 900€, it had 74 km on the clock and no real dents or scrapes. Given a new one in EU would cost close to twice that amount I took a chance, knowing full well that my frugal side could come bite me in the rear if I were unlucky. I got it on eBay from a seller with 60-ish positive comments and no negatives. I got it pretty fast, about a week from payment to delivery, and unpacked it with some trepidation and a suspicious mind. The positives were: It had no real dents and scratches except for on the pedals. It started OK, and balanced perfectly The app connected without fail, and the meter matched the pictures on eBay. It came with a trolley. The negatives on the other hand: The trolley was partly broken, but fixable. The LEDs on the sides were not connected, and there is not even a cord to connect them to unless that is stuck in the controller compartment. The mudflap is just as useless as people say, I'll have to look into what can be done about that. One of the plastic dampers for the pedals were missing, I fixed it with a skateboard riser. The same pedal were loose, meaning would not stay up when risen agains the shell. The shell sat somewhat loose on the wheel, it seems the screws connecting the shell to the wheel were not tight enough. Some of that is the breaks of the game when you buy second hand, but a few points were a bit worrying. Standing with my weight on one of the pedals the first time made the tire "screech" against the shell. The dreaded "cracked axle" ghost raised its head grinning my way. But as it turned out, the reason were fourfold: One - the air valve stuck out a bit too much, two - the screws to the shell needed tightening, three - the shell is not as rigid as it should be, and four - the tolerances are too small. The last aspect is my main negative feeling about the wheel, it could well have a quarter-inch more space around the tire on all sides, where the tire meets the shell. That would make the mudflap immensely more useful, would eliminate the risk of the valve or the sides of the tire rubbing against the shell, and maybe even allow a 2.5" tire upgrade... Also, the screws connecting the shell to the pedals, which AFAIK are the only twelve screws that hold the shell to the wheel, doesn't even have washers. Basically the screw sits directly on the shell, which seem outright stupid. A metal backing, washer or a plate, would spread the forces over a bigger area, making the connection stronger. Four of those are the bottom screws that sits below the pedals, and there is no form of metal backing there either. Sure the forces push the pedal towards the shell, but there are side-forces too. I fixed the trolley with loctite, a cable tie and some really strong weave-tape. I also added chrome strips, to avoid my clumsy self killing the beauty of the wheel. The loose pedal turned out to be a combination of the tightening screw being loose enough that the pedal axle had moved around. So when the previous owner tightened it, the flat part where the adjustment screw should grip had slipped around. Taking it apart, and putting it together correctly solved the problem beautifully. I added skateboard gripping tape to the pedals, the really rough kind. You can't see it on the pic, but there is some silver tape on the shell under the pedal to avoid imprinting the grip tape on the shell. Will get rubber stickers or something to replace it with. Now to learn to actually ride the darn thing... I now realise my Inmotion V3 have given me some really, really bad habits. The first half hour, in the middle of the night, were like going to the bloody gym! Today, the second day, I actually got on unassisted for the first time and rode my first ten meters before a controlled stop. Good exchange for 45min of trials, still exhausting though. There's still a lot of familiarisation to do, and a lot of twin wheel stupidities to unlearn, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel. With this tempo I will be zipping around in no time The bad habits to unlearn are: almost no leaning of the wheel before getting on; getting on first, then start rolling; going really, really slow – plus the lower center of gravity on that wheel with lower pedals and 14" wheels. I look forward to getting used to a "true" unicycle. I'll report more as things progress...
Lately, GotWay's seemingly below average quality standards in combination with the risk exposure merely from the high speed these beasts allow, became the catalyst for a more generic discussion about Quality Management and Quality Assurance. As this is relevant for all EUCs regardless of brand, I suggest collecting our thoughts on this topic in a separate thread. To prevent a wild mishmash of ideas (and risking to loose sight of some important ones), I also propose to separate EUC Quality Management (Assembly / Production) - in this thread here, and EUC Quality Management (Product Design / Change Management) - in another thread. In this place I suggest to collect and discuss all measures we expect any responsible EUC manufacturer to apply to his production of any given (i.e. readily designed) EUC model to prevent Failure of the wheel to keep the rider in balance when operating the EUC inside the advertised margins, Secondary risks, like fire hazards, Failure of the wheel to complete a planned trip, Failure of advertised functionality/properties (e.g. Bluetooth, water resistance) Poor production quality reducing the lifespan of the EUC or its components (e.g. by corrosion), Poor assembly impacting the serviceability of the wheel (e.g. by using glue instead of screws), Incomplete delivery (missing/wrong parts, screws, etc.), Cosmetic imperfections. Is this list complete? Do you agree with the sequence of priorities? Once we settled on a common list of goals for production Q-management, what can we do directly and short term to make it happen? At least: to start a dialog with manufacturers and come closer to finding and implementing the desired balance between QA efforts and price impact for each of the brands we love? My suggestion: we develop a questionnaire for manufacturers listing concrete QA measures and ask for the current way they operate, their willingness to implement the measures, expected price impact and comments. Next, we appoint one Q-spokesperson per brand we love and care about out of our membership. If we find more than one candidate for a brand, we vote. If there is no candidate for any particular brand, tough luck, you're out. Personally, I would not exclude anybody (except manufacturers and their employees of course). An elected Q-spokesperson can be a dealer, "fanboy", accident victim or anybody else who cares enough about production quality and feels able and is trusted to communicate effectively with a manufacturer. Those Q-spokespersons present our questionnaire to their respective manufacturer, explain the context and the weight and reach of this forum they represent (5000 members and probably >50.000 readers; @John Eucist can you help with some impressive stats?) and collect their respective brands responses for us. Dealers may utilize this dialog to negotiate production of special Q-Edition wheels incorporating quality improvements defined by this process under the condition, that they may reserve exclusive rights for distribution for max. 6 month - after that, any special Q-Edition wheels need to be available to all sales channels. Does this approach make sense to you? Is it fair? Any more promising suggestions to move things quicker? Would you even consider being a Q-spokesperson, if so: what brand? Manufacturer Questionnaire: this will become a multi-page list of questions and must try to include all the "crowd intelligence" from our members. Just to get things startet, let me try to write up 3 examples: Quality Measure: Written/pictured Work Place Instructions Do you have written/pictured work instructions for every step of the assembly of every currently produced EUC model available for all assembly workers? Do those instructions clearly show, what parts to use? Do those instructions show, what tools to use and what the correct settings are (e.g. torque setting for electric screw drivers; pressure setting to fill tires, soldering temperature)? Do those instructions include cabling plans and show exactly, how cables must be routed? Do those instructions clearly show, which parts need to be secured for vibration or humidity with sealant, glue or tape and how it must be applied? Do those instructions include decision making, which parts are fit for assembly and how to identify parts, which are not? Do those instructions include measures against ESD damage to electronic parts (like wearing a ground strap)? How do those instructions prevent high current sparking during assembly? By enforcing a sequence of steps, which ensure equal levels of battery charge status and proper sequence of connection. By requesting the worker to charge the batteries to equal level? What is an assembly worker expected to do, if something "does not want to fit" according to plan? Make it fit? Ask a co-worker for help? Ask an engineer/manager for help? Do you maintain a "white list" of parts/components, which may be repaired when faulty (e.g. connectors, incorrectly seated tires)? If no, do you maintain a "black list" of parts/components, which must not be repaired (e.g. straightening of a bent motor axis; exchange of a single battery cell)? Do you agree to show the existing work place instructions to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that? For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? Quality Measure: Single Item Tracking Data Do you keep complete records, which assembly worker performed which assembly tasks per EUC serial number? Do you keep records of all parts and modules purchased from suppliers with the respective supplier batch IDs? If so, do you keep records of which parts from which supplier batches were used to build which EUC by serial number? Do you record all failed parts prior to assembly, during assembly and after (i.e. in complete units)? For every supplier batch consumed completely, can you evaluate the number of good vs. rejected/failed parts? If so, can you differentiate failed parts by EUC model, they had been consumed into (e.g. failed MOSFETs in model A vs. failed MOSFETs of same source/type/batch in model B)? Can you differentiate the above by firmware revision used in the affected EUCs? If so, is such an analysis possible with little effort or does it require substantial manual work? Do you agree to show these records (without price information) to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that? For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? If so, in the form of paper records or as an IT solution? Quality Measure: Incoming Goods Inspection Do you have a process in place that requires an explicit internal release before any incoming goods may be used for production? If so, what is the qualification of the person in charge of the release? Do you receive complete manufacturer batch information along with the goods delivered to you (i.e. can you tell precisely, which items have been produced in which production run)? Do you receive trustworthy documentation along with incoming goods about the quality category of the parts/modules (e.g. "automotive grade" certification)? Do you perform a technical inspection of incoming goods before release? If so, by visual inspection (100% or % of sample size)? by non-destructive functional testing (100% or % of sample size)? by destructive testing (% of sample size or number of items per batch)? What test setups are available to you (e.g. motor test stand; circuitry for main board stress testing, metering equipment for sensors or battery capacity)? If so, own equipment on site or option to rent/test externally? Do you keep manufacturing batches of incoming goods separated until consumption in assembly? Do you agree to show inspection and test protocols to our Quality Spokesperson? Do you require a NDA for that? For those suggested measures, which are not in use yet: do you plan or consider introducing them? If so, what testing rigs do you plan to introduce? ... to be improved/completed! Obviously there are more questions to ask, like own quality checks by the manufacturer during and after assembly ...
Time to start a new topic. I have 4 ninebot tires (as you know I own 2 Mini Pro) which loose constantly pressure. The tires get holes very quickly. I'm not sure, but I thing the valves aren't the best too. I always have a little CO2 pump with me and a small bottle of Stans NoTubes Milk, but I can't get the tires tight completely. Do you have the same experiences? Any better tricks?
I have just one more pre-purchase question (before I order an IPS 191)... Are they usually assembled with good quality batteries (from Japan / Korea)? And if they have Chinese batteries as standard, is there a "high quality" replacement option?