posted 07 September 2000 03:14 AM               

I have already circulated this in my customers, IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ARTICLES OF SIMILAR CONTENT, PLEASE POST HERE, OR SEND THEM TO ME, I WILL MAKE GOOD USE OF THEM.

Lawmakers Slam Firestone, Ford on Tires
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers slammed Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
(5108.T) and Ford Motor Co (F.N) for failing to sound the alarm early
enough on the failure of Firestone tires linked to at least 88 deaths in
the United States.
In the first of two hearings on the same day by Congress,senators said
it seemed as if the companies did not have the interests of the American
consumer in mind when they tackled the problem of treads separating,
leading to the fatal accidents.

``It sure looks like several critical players were covering their
ears,'' said Sen. Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Transportation
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Firestone, owned by Japanese tiremaker Bridgestone Corp., announced on
Aug. 9 a voluntary recall of 6.5 million 15-inch tires in response to a
U.S. probe that began in May. So far nearly two million have been
replaced, and several more people have died in tire-linked accidents
since the recall.

Most of the Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles were outfitted with
Firestone tires, and this vehicle has featured prominently in the
accident statistics.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began investigating
the accidents formally in May and Shelby questioned if this had been
soon enough.

Facing a grilling by the lawmakers, Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. CEO
Masatoshi Ono said his company would not rest until it knew the reason
for the fatal accidents.

``Unfortunately, I am not able to give you a conclusive cause at this
time. However, you have my word that we will continue until we find the
cause,'' Ono said in testimony before the panel.

Ono and Jacques Nasser, president and CEO of Ford (F.N), and other
officials are due to testify in the House of Representatives about the
largest tire recall in U.S. history later on Wednesday.

A Ford official reiterated that the accidents, some of which involved
the Explorer rolling over, were a tire problem rather than something
linked to the performance of the vehicle.

Helen Petrauskas, Ford's vice president of environmental and safety
engineering, said the automaker began looking for defects in the tire at
the same time it was replacing tires overseas after learning of reports
of tread separation.

``We had new tires tested under three separate, severe test conditions
to try to cause tread separation to happen,'' she said. ``No defect
trend was found.''

Panel member Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, said she had
questions about why American consumers were kept in the dark when tires
were replaced or recalled in more than 15 countries outside the United
States.

``American consumers need better and more timely information on product
safety,'' she said in an opening statement.

``Many in this Congress have prided themselves on loosening Federal
Regulations -- this crisis has shown why regulations and oversight are
needed to ensure public safety.''

posted 09 September 2000 11:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by EyeSpy:

Firestone has allowed their PR firm to walk away ...

---

posted 10 September 2000 08:14 PM               

It appears to have a couple of small inaccuracies, but was interesting from a perception viewpoint.

Quality auditor OK'd Decatur tire plant
By Del Jones, USA TODAY

Another major company may get swept up in the tire saga that has caused corporate crises at Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor.

Lloyd's Register, a 240-year-old company with headquarters in the United Kingdom and 200 offices worldwide, inspected Firestone's Decatur, Ill., plant in 1997 and awarded it the quality seal of approval known as QS-9000.

Bruce Kaster, a lawyer who sues tire companies, says he doubts if Lloyd's will be sued, because companies can hide the truth from auditors. But James Kolka, a lawyer who has written a book about the legal liability of such quality certifications, says there is no reason plaintiffs won't name Lloyd's along with Bridgestone and Ford.

Federal regulators have linked 88 fatalities in the USA to wrecks involving tread separation in Firestone tires, mostly on Ford Explorers. Most of those tires were produced in Decatur.

QS-9000 is the automotive subset of ISO-9000, a rigid quality standard well known to manufacturers worldwide. In this case, it saved the trouble and expense of each automaker inspecting Firestone's Decatur plant. Instead, Firestone hired Lloyd's to inspect the plant and verify its process quality for all.

The Lloyd's Register Web site says it is in "the business of safety." Last month, it won a multimillion-dollar contract to verify the safety of a $14 billion high-speed rail system in Taiwan, the largest such rail project in the world.

Phone calls Thursday to Lloyd's headquarters in Croydon, United Kingdom, and to offices in New York and Houston were not returned.

Bridgestone/Firestone also had no response .

"I wouldn't have any basis to render a comment," says Steve Walsh, Ford's QS-9000 expert.

QS-9000 has come under some criticism for being long on paperwork and short on results. The running joke among quality experts is that a plant making life preservers of cement could get certified provided procedures were written and exactly followed, Kolka says. Many automakers are switching to a German quality standard.

Jim Smith of Cambridge Management Sciences says he was recently at a telecommunications plant that was being ISO-9000 certified, not by Lloyd's. "The auditors spent virtually three days outside smoking, and they came back with five trivial quality problems."

Lloyd's Register is not affiliated with Lloyd's of London. Its roots go back to when insurers needed verification that ships they covered were seaworthy.

QS-9000 certifications are good for three years. The Decatur plant is due for re-certification this month.

posted 12 September 2000 03:47 PM               

Ford Knew of Ignition Module Problems -

Report DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (F.N) was aware of increasing problems with an ignition systems part but withheld
data from federal regulators looking into complaints the components were failing in large numbers, the New York Times
reported on Tuesday.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the report said, Ford engineers, safety officials and board members were aware of growing problems with the thick film ignition system, which
passes sparks to the engine distributor. The system would shut down if it got too hot and cause the car to stall, the report said.

The paper said the No. 2 automaker provided about a dozen documents to federal regulators. The company told regulators who opened and closed five investigations in the issue, it did not know of any defect with the part.

However, Ford had internal studies about the part, consumer complaints, reports of fatal and serious accidents and lawsuits, as well as warranty claims that during some years
topped 40 percent, the paper said.

Ford spokeswoman Susan Krusel said Ford and investigators from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) had an ``honest disagreement'' over the wording of some NHTSA questions that was later resolved. NHTSA did not find that Ford had deliberately misled it, and later said plaintiff attorney contentions did not change its findings that there is not a safety defect trend, Krusel said.

Ford also said none of the cases filed against it has proved that an accident was caused by a module failure, adding that the modules were more reliable than earlier systems.

On Aug. 30, a California judge said he was prepared to order Ford to recall nearly 2 million vehicles after finding that the automaker misled consumers about the alleged module design defect. The ignition modules were put on 22 million vehicles from 1983-1995.

posted 14 September 2000 01:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Mullins:
QS-9000 has come under some criticism for being long on paperwork and short on results. The running joke among quality experts is that a plant making life preservers of cement could get certified provided procedures were written and exactly followed, Kolka says.
[/B]

---

Y'know, this joke is true. After all ISO is designed to assure that you know what your customer ordered, 4.3-Contract Review, and follow it up with checking out customer complaints, 4.14-Corrective and Preventive Actions.

What it doesn't go into is telling you what you have to make, just that you're supposed to give the customer what he wants.

There might be a market out there for cement life preservers; I wouldn't have thought there'd be a market for pet rocks, but I'd have been wrong.

For safety standards you go to industry and/or product specific standards. In the product standards I've read, the system of producing the goods is never addressed, only the specifications of the final product.

I think that the misunderstanding lies in the fact that ISO addresses consistancy of product rather than reliability, etc. And people are used to standards that give specs for the final product.

posted 15 September 2000 06:41 AM               

As far as i can see the latter is in the majority, no wander that business students view it as a Marketing gimmick.

Regards

posted 15 September 2000 06:42 AM               

As far as i can see the latter is in the majority, no wander that business students view it as a Marketing gimmick.

Regards

posted 15 September 2000 09:24 AM               

It looks like unfortunately we share a similar paradigm, it wish it wasnt true.

PS what are you doing now. Did you get demoted to a consultant?

Regards

posted 15 September 2000 09:44 AM               

You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. Most companies (mine included) persue registration primarily as a marketing tool. What else are we to do when we call on a new customer, and their first question is "Are you ISO registered". Many potential new customers will not even consider us unless we achieve registration.

posted 18 September 2000 12:05 AM               

So - I said something about the Firestine thing. he said he knew ther were problems but hadn't been following it in the news. It was a long story but back in about 1976 his wife took a trip to florida on 4 Firestone tires with 6000 miles on them. On the trip down the treads separated on 2 of them and screwed up the car. he flew to FL and drove the car back because his wife was freaked out after 2 serious blowouts on the way down. He ended up with an adjuster from Firestone who started out a hard ass but - my friend kept the tires that blew out - with the evidence was a quick settlement.

The tires which blew out both went in Tennnessee and both were rear tires. The tread, when they separated, the tread wrapped around the rear axle and flapped around the outside of the rear wheel well screwing up the paint and such on the outside of the car. Both sides...

he sais the rep came out and was an asshole until he measured tread depth. My friend said from then out it was a cake walk.

Firestone paid for his flight to FL and his wife's flight back, damage to car, 4 new tires, etc. But -- they 'required' the tires that blew out (he was not allowed to keep them {read evidence}) be given to the Firestone rep. My friend told me that he nerver bought a Firestone product again.

This is an old design problem. It has been there too long. This story is from back in the 1970's!

No matter how you look at it the whole thing is a design 'paradigm' problem going back years. It has nothing to do with QS-9000, auditors or anything like that.

Could a QS auditor have spotted it? Possibly. When you get into what the auditor sees you get into a problematic area, however. And it's not just an auditor thing. I recently ended up terminating a contract with a company because of its 'Firestone like' attitude. I was in the test lab where they did returns analysis. A request for a corrective action came in from a customer. The DUT was tested for 2 days. The failure complained about could not be reproduced. However, during the testing several other failures occured.

The report to the customer stated they could not reproduce the failure the CAR identified -- so it was a moot issue (no corrective required). They did not inform the customer of the failures which did occur. To me this is outright fraud. And I believe the Firestone thing is the same type of situation.

Now - the product -- anti-lock break electronic assemblies [controllers]. Bottom line is if their component fails you still have regular brakes. Failure of their component doesn't typically kill you, but then again.... Can you say Head Games?

Old problem. Ford has bought complaints explainations from Firestone for years as a 'preffered' supplier (going back to Fred Firestone's personal relationship with Henry Ford). Now there are congressional investigations...

My friend stopped buying Firestone tires back in the 1970's. Will you buy a Firestone (or Bridgestone) tire now? In the future? I will not!

posted 18 September 2000 12:33 AM               

All the major contractors here are doing the same hoop dance with their quality programs and the registration thing.. Everybody looks great on paper, and I think the registrars are just taking the checks and running. I can look just from my vantage point and see that there is no way that a real in depth 3rd party audit could be passed by these guys in this place....my lowly opinion of course.

On a previous post somewhere I said that I worked a fatality accident in the 70's that appeared to be caused by the sidewalls failing on Firestone 500 tires. I can't remember the particulars anymore, but I can still remember the tire s real well. I never have driven on Firestones since then, and never will because of what I saw back then as a cop (there were a couple of more accidents in our area).

posted 18 September 2000 05:19 AM               

Yes you are right, most people think so. As carol points out, you hit the nail on the head there.

This fact indicates a major improvement area. We are pretty good at discussing commitment and understanding what it's all about... ...within the profession. But how about spreading the word to the "outsiders"?

The way I see it we often discuss quality and preach among ourselves, and forget about spreading the word. We have lots of room for improvement there.

posted 18 September 2000 09:07 AM               

Jim

posted 18 September 2000 11:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Smith:
No matter how you look at it the whole thing is a design 'paradigm' problem going back years. It has nothing to do with QS-9000, auditors or anything like that.

Could a QS auditor have spotted it? Possibly.

---

Marc: I will ask the question a different way:

Should the QS auditor be expected to catch design flaws?

IMHO: No. The QS auditor is there to audit your QOS against the QS standard. In a sense, they are there to pass "judgement" on your 4.4 Design System - not the design.

And as we all know, certification to a QOS standard does not equal "error free" products and services.

posted 18 September 2000 08:55 PM               

Are these guys into 6 Sigma too? What is the acceptable number of failures per million? 3 point something? How many tires are we looking at? 60 million? That comes out to about 180 failures being acceptable maybe? How many dead folks for the 60 million tires? Not even close to the 6 Sigma range so no sweat.

posted 19 September 2000 08:40 AM               

I copied this from the NY Times:

"Since 1995 there has been a steady increase in tire-related accidents in Ford Explorers, from 9 per 1,000 fatal Explorer accidents in 1995, to 11 in 1996 and 20 in 1997 and 25 in 1998, but last year the rate doubled to 52 per 1,000 accidents. Other utility vehicles of similar vintage had tire-related rates fluctuating around an average 6 per 1,000 fatal accidents during the period."

The 99 figures would come to about 52000 deaths per million accidents. Now if we take that number and divide by the total tires recalled (6.5 million) we get 0.008 deaths per tire. Acceptable performance?

posted 19 September 2000 10:14 AM               

Only the fatal accidents? (how many were just Crippling/paralyzing vehicle totaling - without injury etc.?)

Considering only the tire brand names deemed nonconforming under the recall (how many "other tire sizes/models show the same condition?)

Did I not hear last night that with yet another tire manufacturer .... for Lincoln/Mercury SUV's - there is a "concern" that they also "May show tire tread separation? 6 incidents in Saudi within the last year(if memory serves)

Appears this tread separating thing is snowballing... The only "rumor" or reported subject info one doesn't hear is "Root Cause" -- Has anyone heard - Why tread is separating?

Regards
Jim

posted 19 September 2000 02:10 PM               

Also, has anyone studied whether it is the front tire or the rear tires that fail in these accidents. If there is a pattern, wouldn't that points more to the Explorer and Ford as the "guilty" party?

posted 20 September 2000 06:43 PM               

I think the big issue here is....Did Ford and/or Firestone know of a potential problem and hide their heads in the sand hoping it would go away?

posted 29 September 2000 10:10 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by EyeSpy:
Andy

Mid-way through this article (Dated 1997) explains that Firestone could have been aware that belt/rubber "sepearation" was a possibility as long ago as the early 1970's
http://www.ohio.com/bj/projects/rubber/080397/lede.htm

---

You strike a memory chord! Sometime in the mid-1970's, Consumer's Union tested a bunch of passenger car tires for an article in "Consumer Reports" magazine. The headline event of the test was that, out of all the tires that went through identical tests, ALL of the "Firestone 500" tires experienced destructive failure!

"Those who fail to learn from history are condemmned to repeat it."