G Scale Model Train Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Got my GR today

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 105 Posts
#22 ·
So why not at least do a follow up review and say, "We've found people are having these problems with their xxxx from xxxx. Our review gave them glowing comments, but ....." Whatever, basically just something to let readers know that there is a problem. I do like the idea of GR just going out and buying a product and revewing it. As is, without the manufactorer ever knowing where it came from. If there is a problem, send it back as just a user and report your experience.

I realize Greg can be kind of blunt, but there is nothing wrong with any of his comments. He's right, if GR doesn't look out for it's readers it's going to be history.
Bob
 
#23 ·
Bob.
GR should buy their samples unannounced over the counter for reviews. That would be the least biased way of doing it. However, as far as I know, and I could of course be wrong, GR, for whatever reason, and there could be quite a few reasons, does not go out and simply buy an item. Rather, the samples are submitted by a manufacturer (or an agent) for review.

That Kevin has received dud samples is to me outstanding, given that a manufacturer had the opportunity to get the sample" right" before sending it in.
 
#24 ·
Posted By TonyWalsham on 04 Mar 2012 03:54 PM
Bob.
GR should buy their samples unannounced over the counter for reviews. That would be the least biased way of doing it. However, as far as I know, and I could of course be wrong, GR, for whatever reason, and there could be quite a few reasons, does not go out and simply buy an item. Rather, the samples are submitted by a manufacturer (or an agent) for review.

That Kevin has received dud samples is to me outstanding, given that a manufacturer had the opportunity to get the sample" right" before sending it in. I totally agree with all you've said Tony. And it is amazing that any manufacturer would send a dud sample. I remeber working for a company many years ago (over 30) that hand picked and carfully checked out products to send out for review. The company we were trying to sell to finally sent a representative to obaerve our production. I can't imagine why they didn't trust us.
Bob
 
#25 ·
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04 Mar 2012 02:46 PM
Sorry, I screwed up and said S1 when Tom is completely correct with the SW1. Lewis has been wanting to build one for years.

I think the last official comment was:

(Aristo forum 6/7/2011)

Dear Todd,

We are doing an SW-1 for next year. The R & D is done and mold work will begin soon.

All the best,
Lewis Polk



Ah! ok, thanks..I forgot about the Aristo SW1.. darn, I was hoping for Alco blunt sideframes! oh well.. Scot
 
#26 ·
Bob,
Receiving dud review samples from a manufacturer could be looked at in a couple of different ways.
1). The manufacturer was honest in that they didn't check the sample first.
2). The manufacturer had duff QC in not checking them first.

In either case the consumer was also highly likely to get duds right out of the box.
 
#27 ·
Personally, I really wonder if they take time to open the cases ,check it out, then repack and ship. If they just randomly grabed a case and shipped . then all is fair.
GYs ,I don't think would or could spend the $$ buying over the counter ones, then some add dealers would be mad cause they don't buy from them. its a circle.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#28 ·
Marty.
It is only fair if the reviewer points out in the review if the supplied "random" sample arrived in an unreviewable condition. Otherwise the manufacturer is being rewarded for shipping a dud.
 
#29 ·
(Greg) Aristo certainly should have mentioned the fracas over these wheels when presenting their hand-picked locomotive to GR.
Greg, you're making suppositions that simply aren't true. I'm surprised the manufacturers don't hand-pick their review samples, but each and every loco or piece of rolling stock I've ever reviewed comes sealed as it left the factory in whatever country it was made. There's no stop-over for tweaking. (This is particularly odd with cottage industries who pack their own products and forget silly things like, oh, instructions... It boggles the mind.) You'd think they would, but they don't. I think the reviews are better for it, myself, as it's a more honest view of the product as it comes "out of the box." Sure, the potential for "idealized" products is there, but the practical reality is far different.

You're also not taking into consideration the possibility that perhaps the 2-8-0 was one such product which was returned for being defective. I did mention I was "well aware" of the issues surrounding the locomotive. Did that knowledge come strictly from reading the forums, or was there first-hand experience? Given what I've written about my policy towards defective products in the context of a review, I'm not going to disclose that fact one way or the other on this forum, either. That's between me and the manufacturer. I would presume, however, that any consumer who purchases a locomotive which falls off the track because the wheels are too wide would have the foresight to contact the manufacturer themselves and arrange for a return/repair. He may be inclined to take careful measurements of the wheels upon its return to make sure things were kosher and the repair effective before putting the loco back on the rails to compare performance. And, would likely be quite pleased to see that the locomotive, with wheels set to company specs and industry standards, stay reliably on the rails when it had previously fallen off.

(Greg) ...and what will you say to the guy who asks you about your review, Garden Railroads?
Precisely what I just wrote... that if the wheels are so far out of gauge that the locomotive falls off the track, that's a manufacturing defect that should be addressed by the manufacturer under warranty--the same as a broken gear, smoke unit that doesn't function, lights that don't light, motor that doesn't turn, etc. If the factory specs were such that the wheels were out of gauge and the loco fell off the track, that's a different ball of wax. But it's not the case here. A locomotive built to factory specs stays reliably on the rails.

(Tony) ...IMHO that attitude, which I assume is corporate and not necessarily personal, gives the impression of looking after the interests of the manufacturer and not looking after the interests of the consumer.
First-off, that is a personal position. I have autonomy when it comes to the standards I use for my reviews. It's my reputation at stake, and I've got to make sure I stay consistent. Other reviewers may have differing criteria. Tony, you're a manufacturer. Suppose you sent me a throttle, and as soon as I plugged it into a battery, it started smoking. (I've had that happen.) I contact you and say "Hey, Tony, this thing just blew up." You say "That shouldn't have happened. Send it back, and I'll send you a new one." I get the new one, and it works as advertised. Do I write the review and say the product may blow up? That's what happened, right? It's a fair assessment of the product. Or, do I take into account that the cause of the failure was not endemic to the throttle, but caused by something out of the norm and write my review based on the working sample. By your reasoning, I should mention the board may blow up because it's in the interest of the consumer. I don't see it that way. I see no reason to scare a consumer away from a product because of a factory defect that is readily and easily corrected by the manufacturer. And I guarantee that you as a manufacturer would be mad as a hatter if I were to write "may blow up" in the review. And quite frankly, you'd be right to be mad. The board blowing up was the result of a random factory defect, not a limitation of the board as designed. (You'd be amazed at how some manufacturers react to even glowing reviews! It, too, boggles the mind.)

A review is about putting the product in the most accurate light possible. A light that neither favors the manufacturer nor scares the consumer away. What I choose to highlight in terms of positives and negatives is very much a judgment call in terms of how best to achieve that goal. As I wrote earlier, there are circumstances where I mention issues others have with a product that I do not based on what I read on forums or hear from other modelers. I've done it in the past (don't ask me when, I don't remember). As I stated, that's a case-by-case basis.

There is no "perfect" business model for doing product reviews. Each has its potential for flaws. All I can do is put forth my opinion based on the most solid foundation I can muster. If I made a habit of giving faulty products "passing" grades, my integrity would be shot, and no one would believe what I have to say. Likewise, if I had a habit of raking products unnecessarily over the coals for minor faults, what good does that do to the consumer? No one would buy anything. It's in the hobby's best interest for me as a reviewer to make it a point to stay in the middle of the road; pointing out faults as they arise, but not being nit-picky about things that would scare away customers unreasonably. I can't control how the reader reacts. If you think the system in place is flawed and the reviews are protecting the manufacturers and their advertising dollars, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your perception. For my part, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, how I'm doing it. As I stated earlier, I'll back anything I put in print up 100%. My integrity is my trade, and I'd be stupid to write anything which would undermine that.

Later,

K
 
#30 ·
Kevin,
I must respectfully disagree.
Given that as a manufacturer I have the right to send in a perfect sample to start with I would be ashamed to hear that it had blown up whilst being tested. Assuming of course the test was being carried out correctly.
I understand the manufacturer should have the right to inspect and if necessary replace the sample for review. However, unless the test was being carried out incorrectly, I believe the consumer should be told of the circumstances under which the review took place.
That also means the manufacturer should have the right to query any review to ensure said review is accurate.

The interests of the consumer should be paramount in all circumstances. Give them facts and let them decide for themselves.
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
There is no "factory seal" on Aristo locos, nor rolling stock. This part of the discussion is a needless distraction though.

The unit reviewed is out of character compared to the majority of the units, it is much better. Still bad, but better than every other one I have gotten actual measurements on.

My big points are:

1. There was widespread common knowledge about the problems of wheel gage in the Consolidation
2. Aristo definitely knew about this. It's on their forum, and subject of public comments by Lewis Polk on 2 different forums.
3. It was definitely on this forum, so accessible easily by GR.
4. Given the depth of detail on the review, I cannot understand why wheel gage measurements (and flange measurements) were not revealed.
4. There STILL are no measurements revealed by GR on the wheel gage of the Consolidation

My confidence is definitely shaken in GR's reviews, in the review process itself, which includes the review and upper management reviewing it before it is published.

If anyone has any "pull" with GR, maybe we could get the reason that the all important wheel gage was missing from the review?

Personally, I cannot believe that the wheel gage measurements were not taken. I notice that no one has denied this. This is just a personal opinion.

Greg
 
#32 ·
I'm on a roadtrip vaccation now but will have somemore comments on the 2-8-0 when I get home. My Sunset Valley track is NOT undergauge as Lewis Polk stated. I chose not to respond anymore to Lewis because it was pointless. The 2-8-0's are ALL out of gauge. Back to back is ok. I took matters into my own hands and had the wheels turned to a better profile. My two 2-8-0's now run as nice as anyone would want. End of comments for now. I think that if this 2-8-0 topic is to continue,maybe a new thread?
 
#33 ·
The basic problem is that as long as production remains in China where the number of product out the factory door is the critical objective not the quality of product out the door, the problem is going to remain. These QC problems have been around for at least 10 years. Its not rocket science to know what and where the problems lay.
 
#34 ·
I'm not sure it's china, really. Aristo's wheel design design is flawed, the tapered axle into a cast wheel is always going to be problematic. Slathering it with loctite is an obvious sign of a bad design, but they've really done nothing to address it, other than the "fillett" they added to the Consolidation, which tuned out to be an ineffective kludge.

They should key the wheels and axles--it'd solve most of the problems.



I've fixed some of mine by lapping the taper, and then grinding down the back of the flange to get the back to back right, and also enlarging the holes for the connecting rods on steamers, so out-of-quarter conditions are less problematic. I didn't learn this from Garden Railways, which has never mentioned any of the problems I've experienced with Aristo or USAT. It's one of the reasons I let my subscription lapse.


It seems to me that the print publication model has had its day, and that GR will have to go to an online magazine format, where costs are lower and the need to keep manufacturers on board is maybe less pressing. But I suspect it's too late. I liked GR in a lot of ways--great pictures, the format is easy to read, the ads were useful, the reviews less so. I hope it survives. But as a person who has been burned by a number of purchases, I'd like more critical content.
 
#35 ·
Do I write the review and say the product may blow up? That's what happened, right? It's a fair assessment of the product. Or, do I take into account that the cause of the failure was not endemic to the throttle, but caused by something out of the norm and write my review based on the working sample. By your reasoning, I should mention the board may blow up because it's in the interest of the consumer. I don't see it that way. I see no reason to scare a consumer away from a product because of a factory defect that is readily and easily corrected by the manufacturer.

I think as a reviewer you have to say exactly what happened. If it blew up you say that and you don't recommend the product. Giving the manufacturer a chance to correct the problem isn't the point of a review. If the Q/C lets it get out the door, that's the manufacturers risk and assuming you took a random sample from production then they need to deal with it. You're not doing anyone any favours by sending back a dud and waiting until you get one that works. You are worried that nobody would buy anything if you called a spade a spade? No, they might stop buying the crap you are inadvertantly protecting, but they wouldn't stop buying the good products.

Keith
 
#36 ·
There is no "factory seal" on Aristo locos, nor rolling stock. This part of the discussion is a needless distraction though.
Greg, trust me. These things are NOT vetted prior to submission. I'm probably not going to convince you, but when you open the boxes I've opened, and look at the products that come out of them--warts and all--you can reach no other logical conclusion.

...Still bad, but better than every other one I have gotten actual measurements on.
"Still bad?" The spacing and gauge--by your own math--is within tolerances of the standard. The loco stays on the rails and operates smoothly through switches. Something that's built to standard and runs smoothly is "still bad?" We're at an impasse there, I guess.

But to your points:
1. There was widespread common knowledge about the problems of wheel gage in the Consolidation

For anyone reading the forums, agreed, there is widespread common knowledge of the problem. However, there's reason to debate how widespread the problem itself may be. That's a key distinction to draw. It's one thing to know a problem exists. No one's denying that--it's well documented. That's partly why I paid particular attention to the wheels when doing my measurements. But how widespread is the problem itself? That's harder to answer. If you read the forums, you get conflicting messages. Some like you and Paul would have you believe the entire production run was doomed. Others say their locos ran great right out of the box, or that the issue is far more isolated than critics would have you believe. The truth--if it can even be determined--lies somewhere in the middle.

2. Aristo definitely knew about this. It's on their forum, and subject of public comments by Lewis Polk on 2 different forums.

Agreed, and I talked with Lewis about this over the course of the review process. Part of the review process is engaging the manufacturer with any questions that may arise from not only my own observations, but what others are reporting as well. If you look at Lewis's statements over the course of the "gauge debate," he acknowledged there was an issue, but over time stated that it appeared to be more and more isolated. Take that for what it is--a manufacturer's statement about the quality of his own product. But it's a piece of the puzzle that can either be supported or undermined by other, less potentially biased observers, just like comments from outspoken critics can be supported or undermined. In any analysis, you have to consider the source and weigh the evidence accordingly.

3. It was definitely on this forum, so accessible easily by GR.

See above.

4. Given the depth of detail on the review, I cannot understand why wheel gage measurements (and flange measurements) were not revealed.

I'm having a hard time recalling a time where I stated any measurement other than back-to-back in my reviews. I measure many aspects--including gauge--to see how they conform. It's part of my basic review process. I don't state them in the reviews unless something is horribly out of whack. Space is limited, and so long as things are within tolerances of the standard, there's no reason to bore the reader with statistics they don't care about. What they do care about is whether the loco stays on the track. If the answer is "yes," then end of story. I have never (nor has any other reviewer including TOC to my recollection) stated detailed measurements of every aspect of a wheelset. We measure the gauge, we just don't feel the need to publish it.

4. There STILL are no measurements revealed by GR on the wheel gage of the Consolidation
I could go down to the workshop, take a micrometer to the wheels on my sample, even take photos of the process. The numbers would (and do) show the spacing on the wheels is equal to the gauge of the track--a fact mirrored by your own math a few posts back. It would show there's no problem with the review sample; that the wheels are within NMRA tolerances and the unit will operate smoothly on properly gauged track. I could publish that in big bold type, but what to what end? You're convinced "the unit reviewed is out of character with the majority of the units." Why should I bother jumping through those hoops for your benefit when you're going to dismiss them as being an anomaly anyway?

I can't prove your theory of a widespread gauge problem with the review sample I have in my workshop. I know you believe there's a problem, and I know you're disappointed the review didn't bolster that theory, but I cannot in good faith support such a claim based on the locomotive that was sent for review, or my analysis of others' experiences with similar locos. It doesn't mean I'm turning a blind eye to those issues. It simply means I weighed the evidence and rendered my personal verdict.

I'm not the person who's going to run a product through the wringer simply so I can sound like I'm being critical. I could easily shred virtually every product that crosses my workbench with nit-picky details--being out of scale, the wrong shade of fuchsia, wheels that don't exactly meet NMRA or G1MRA standard, just looking ugly, the list goes on and on. What purpose does that serve? Why is there the perception that to be "critical," I have to rip apart a product? If I always took that path, nothing would ever be "good enough." I can have very high standards. I don't think you do the reader any service by constantly nit-picking products. I think as a reviewer, my first obligation is to be fair, but that fairness has to be spread equally among the product, customer, and manufacturer. Yes, you HAVE to be fair to the manufacturer. That's not as easy as it sounds, especially given the subjectivity of the word "fair." (Just ask my 6-year-old.) Sometimes, "good enough" is indeed good enough.

I've said all I'm going to say on this. I've laid out my philosophy in terms of how I approach reviews, I've made it clear that I did (and regularly do) measure all aspects of locomotive wheels as part of the review process--even if I don't publish the results, and I've defended my review of the locomotive in question. If you still think it's flawed, if you don't think I'm being critical enough, if you think the whole process favors the manufacturer, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. As I stated in my first (or second) post, no review is Gospel. It's a subjective analysis of the product in question. I appreciate the feedback, as I do learn from it, and often will "do things differently" in the future as a result. But I simply cannot say things about a product that I do not believe just because there's a vocal chorus of people who think I should. That's a compromise I'm unwilling to make. If I'm ultimately proven wrong in my assessment, I'll admit it. But for now, I can't join this particular choir.

Later,

K
 
Discussion starter · #37 ·
While I would be inclined to try to "help" the manufacturer out, the only path I could conscience were I to be in the position of reviewing products would be absolute, unassailable truth. Tell it like it happened.

If the manufacturer indicated that what problems I saw were not typical, I would invite a "re-test" with a larger sample of merchandise.

If it happened to you the reviewer, then it could happen to the customer as well, although they typically don't get a "second chance". I believe there are several people on this forum who have had a particular 2-8-8-2 loco back for warranty repairs like 4 times and finally gave up. (They were not offered a replacement locomotive).

People want to believe in the objectivity and integrity of a magazine with experts in the field.

In this economy, people will vote with their checkbooks, as well they should.

Regards, Greg
 
Discussion starter · #39 ·
Not to try to twist the knife, but I really WOULD like to get the measurements of the gage on your loco.

But, with the grossly exaggerated fillet, could you measure the gage BEFORE it "climbs" the fillet? I think you will be surprised, you will see that the fillet is what is riding on the inner rail head most of the time.

Anyway, I've pretty much said all I can say, but be sure it's not just me that is having trouble with these locos, it is many people, it is a systemic flaw in the wheel contour that cannot be overcome without modifying the wheels themselves (and then you have the adjustment problem on top of that).

I just hope that Aristo will follow up on revising the wheels as promised by Lewis Polk in his forum in response to this problem.

(Yes, Aristo at first acknowledged the problem before dismissing it on bad track)

Greg
 
#40 ·
But, with the grossly exaggerated fillet, could you measure the gage BEFORE it "climbs" the fillet? I think you will be surprised, you will see that the fillet is what is riding on the inner rail head most of the time.
Aye, there's the rub, though. The standards consider the flange to be exclusive of the fillet, so by giving you the measurement from the outside of the fillet, I'd be giving you a measurement that is technically not the "gauge" of the wheel, as that's measured from flange to flange. It's fully expected that the locomotive or car would spend varying amounts of time--maybe even all the time--riding on at least one part of the fillet. Given the NMRA's recommendation of a fillet radius between .020" and .030", unless you stuck to the NMRA's standard flange thickness of .059" (which virtually NO ONE does), you'll be hard pressed to find a wheelset that doesn't ride on part of the fillet most of the time. And with an oversized fillet, it's virtually impossible NOT to be riding on it. So I have no doubt the 2-8-0 rides on the fillet. That's what it's designed to do. If there was no fillet, it'd be riding on the tread same as any other wheel. But that's also why the railheads are rounded on the corners. It gives the wheels just that extra bit of wiggle room.

But, since I'm in a sporting mood (and hopefully it will put this issue to bed), here goes.

I measure my flange thickness at .082" exclusive of the fillet. I'll meet you halfway, and pick a point about midway on the fillet, which coincidentally is approximately 0.106" (the flange thickness you mention in your math early on). That's nominally at a point that's 45 degrees, or at least where--when I push my calipers down--they stop moving open just with the pressure. The exact point will obviously vary from axle to axle, measurement to measurement, but here are the numbers I got.

Axle 1 - 1.771"
Axle 2 - 1.769"
Axle 3 - 1.762"
Axle 4 - 1.758"

As I've stated repeatedly, these numbers are less than the gauge of the track, and within NMRA standards, thus the review sample locomotive tracks extremely well.

Later,

K
 
21 - 40 of 105 Posts
About this Discussion
104 Replies
33 Participants
Last post:
chuck n
G Scale Model Train Forum
posts
460K
members
32K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to G scale model train owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Live Steam General G Scale Discussions Beginner's Forum Model Making Track, Trestles, Bridges and Roadbed