Re: Luxfer Trade in Offer

x-no-archive:yes

bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote:

> When you buy a tank, there is no guarantee that
>it will ever pass a second hydro.

I have no special allegiance to Luxfer either, but I don't know about
that. I bought a US Divers Luxfer 6351 tank brand new in 1976 with a
lifetime warranty, still have the receipt and the paperwork. Luxfer
and US Divers both told me they will still honor it: If the tank ever
fails a hydro or eddy current test in my lifetime they say they will
replace it, as long as I pay the freight and "handling" both ways. It
would end up costing me at least $80, according to their estimate,
plus I'd have to wait until it failed a test. Or blew up, in which
case I might not care for a new one if I was close enough to it. It's
passed hydro every 5 years since 1976 and visuals every year, but with
the buy back for about $80 more than my annual visual and eddy current
test I got a nice shiny new from a dealer who's shipping them back to
Luxfer in groups of 10 by freight. Better than throwing it out and
more righteous than selling it on eBay. It was a no brainer for me.

As for Luxfer's alleged culpability in the 6351 issue, there are those
that claim a sizeable body of evidence exists (internal memos, and
such) that Luxfer was aware of the problems with the alloy for as long
as a decade before discontinuing it and banked on tanks being retired
from service long before defects became an issue. There are also
people who say an alien craft crashed in Roswell, who knows...

<no.spam@at.all> wrote in message news:3ef53c7d.172030384@127.0.0.1...
>There are also
> people who say an alien craft crashed in Roswell, who knows...

Yea, there are a lot of nuts out there....The fact is it crashed in my back
yard and I keep the bodies on ice in the basement....

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:21:23 GMT, no.spam@at.all (no.spam@at.all) wrote:

>x-no-archive:yes
>
>bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote:
>
>> When you buy a tank, there is no guarantee that
>>it will ever pass a second hydro.
>
>I have no special allegiance to Luxfer either, but I don't know about
>that. I bought a US Divers Luxfer 6351 tank brand new in 1976 with a
>lifetime warranty, still have the receipt and the paperwork. Luxfer

You learn something new everyday. I got no warranties with mine.
Evidently they existed but my LDS dropped the ball; or maybe
it was no longer offered in 1984.

How can they do that? Seriously. How can they guarantee a
tank for lifetime when they don't have any idea what it
is subjected to in that life? But then again, under the
conditions, it doesn't cost them all that much. On paper
and again by the rigors of design approval, it would appear
to be a low cost offer.

The warranties such as yours, must be honored as written.
But those conditions cut right to the heart of the matter.
It seems they intend to honor the warranties, but we won't
get a chance to, or in my case, refuse to...I retired my
tanks voluntarily because the defect is so capricious.

The specific intent when DOT chose materials was predictable
loss of elasticity and end of life. No tank that passes hydro
should ever fail at service pressure, let alone lower pressures.
Even then, other specifications and approvals directly address
failure and failure modes with the express purpose of securing
a safe failure...no frags...just a split and a hiss.

3AA tanks (steel) officially don't even need to be hydroed.
For most applications, the Hydro can be renewed with a
special visual and 'E' added to the Hydro date. Cylinders
for underwater breathing are excepted.

As to the 6351, it was still an approved material in
the CFR 49 until just recently (as in a couple of weeks).

Warranty matters aside, the specification is still the
result of DOT, CGA and The Aluminum Association. I see those
as clearly higher authorities, and have a hard time seeing
Luxfer as any kind of bad guy in the failed tanks. They
toed a line not of their choosing. I'm not even sure they
had a choice about the material. I can't find CFR 49 that old,
so I don't know when 6061-T6 was added to the list.

They produced millions that have seen hard service (and still do),
and nobody has yet explained why some of the 6351 loses elastic
properties it possessed when manufactured. It is not traceable to
specific lots AFAIK.

bullshark

When tanks started to explode in the early 80's, Luxfer started to complain
about "tank abuse". They claimed that cylinders were being filled too fast
and handled too roughly. They claimed that visual inspections were being
improperly done at most dive centers. they said that there was absolutely
nothing wrong with their cylinders. "failures were due to overfilling".

They did and continue to try to push the blame to shops and consumers. They
have lied about events leading up to explosions. We had one go off in our
shop without any air being added to it. It was filled to 3000 psi over a
week before it went off.

The short version:
Customer comes in with two tanks. Asks check the pressure. Tanks were full
but staff hears a very slight hiss. puts tanks in the bath to discover the
source and BLAM. Chris lost most of his left hand. Shop almost destroyed.

Luxfer evidently found out about it because when DOT came to examine the
cylinder pieces at the fire department, Luxfer had two lawyers on hand. The
lawyers accused us of overfilling the tank. I told them what happened but
that didn't do any good. They posted lies about the incident on their
website. The tank wasn't even one of theirs but they were having a fit.

What you said about the 17 year life of a cylinder is correct. It makes them
pretty damn durable. The problem lies in how they fail. Not when they fail.
I find it hard to believe that Luxfer, Catalina, Kiddi, and maybe others
went to the Fed., said we want to make scuba tanks out of aluminum and our
government said to Luxfer that "we have researched this and this is what you
can make the cylinders out of". You know that is bull sh-t bull shark. The
process had Luxfer and the others involved all the way.

No prudent company offers a huge discount on durable goods as a marketing
ploy. That kind of stuff is saved for consumables or products with a short
life or products that need very profitable components (like printers).

This is a recall on the cheap. They chose the alloy. They got it approved.
They eat the mistakes. Luxfer financed the development of the first eddy
current machine to find microscopic cracks in defective tanks. They sold
them to the dive shops at a profit so that they could intercept the bombs
before they went off. Gee thanks!

Luxfer is a very, very large company. They could do better. I think what
they've done is criminal.

Skip Commagere
Force-E Scuba Centers
Southeast Florida


"bullshark" <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote in message
news:cc6bfvoalvkv422panm531d54r3633j8fd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:21:23 GMT, no.spam@at.all (no.spam@at.all) wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive:yes
> >
> >bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When you buy a tank, there is no guarantee that
> >>it will ever pass a second hydro.
> >
> >I have no special allegiance to Luxfer either, but I don't know about
> >that. I bought a US Divers Luxfer 6351 tank brand new in 1976 with a
> >lifetime warranty, still have the receipt and the paperwork. Luxfer
>
> You learn something new everyday. I got no warranties with mine.
> Evidently they existed but my LDS dropped the ball; or maybe
> it was no longer offered in 1984.
>
> How can they do that? Seriously. How can they guarantee a
> tank for lifetime when they don't have any idea what it
> is subjected to in that life? But then again, under the
> conditions, it doesn't cost them all that much. On paper
> and again by the rigors of design approval, it would appear
> to be a low cost offer.
>
> The warranties such as yours, must be honored as written.
> But those conditions cut right to the heart of the matter.
> It seems they intend to honor the warranties, but we won't
> get a chance to, or in my case, refuse to...I retired my
> tanks voluntarily because the defect is so capricious.
>
> The specific intent when DOT chose materials was predictable
> loss of elasticity and end of life. No tank that passes hydro
> should ever fail at service pressure, let alone lower pressures.
> Even then, other specifications and approvals directly address
> failure and failure modes with the express purpose of securing
> a safe failure...no frags...just a split and a hiss.
>
> 3AA tanks (steel) officially don't even need to be hydroed.
> For most applications, the Hydro can be renewed with a
> special visual and 'E' added to the Hydro date. Cylinders
> for underwater breathing are excepted.
>
> As to the 6351, it was still an approved material in
> the CFR 49 until just recently (as in a couple of weeks).
>
> Warranty matters aside, the specification is still the
> result of DOT, CGA and The Aluminum Association. I see those
> as clearly higher authorities, and have a hard time seeing
> Luxfer as any kind of bad guy in the failed tanks. They
> toed a line not of their choosing. I'm not even sure they
> had a choice about the material. I can't find CFR 49 that old,
> so I don't know when 6061-T6 was added to the list.
>
> They produced millions that have seen hard service (and still do),
> and nobody has yet explained why some of the 6351 loses elastic
> properties it possessed when manufactured. It is not traceable to
> specific lots AFAIK.
>
> bullshark
>
>
>

In article <cc6bfvoalvkv422panm531d54r3633j8fd@4ax.com>,
bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> writes:
...
>How can they do that? Seriously. How can they guarantee a
>tank for lifetime when they don't have any idea what it
>is subjected to in that life? ...

Most tanks will be sold or removed from service for reasons not covered
by the guarantee. (Read the "fine print"!) Most tanks will last long
enough that the guarantee will be lost or forgotten before they "fail".

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:34:56 GMT, hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) wrote:
>To suggest that a retail markup of 50% of cost is unreasonable is just
>plain silly -- and perhaps a bit ignorant.

I agree completely Charlie. I would further add that failing
to understand written words, imposing unintended meanings
on their interpretation and standing in judgement is even
more ignorant.

There was no suggestion that a 50% markup was inappropriate.
It is however, frighteningly small compared to the 2-400% markups
they put on other products....When you look at Leisure Pro prices
don't forget they are *still* making a profit...

The suggestion is that standing on that markup, refusing to make
economical replacements available (no valve/no boot), and preserving
your profits is inconsistent with whining about the public safety.

You can complain about a problem or you can do something about it.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
They are a part of the problem. Square one. They[dive shops] sold
me the tanks.

>To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is the
>manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.

There was no suggestion that they "pay" anything. The suggestion is
that if the tanks are so worrisome, then do something about it that
costs them nothing. It pays them nothing either, except peace of mind,
which is their problem, not mine. They are the ones with the
problem, not me. They are the ones that sold me the problem.

Luxfer's rebate program has eliminated their profit. I think the
offer is generous. It's too bad the diveshop operators insist on
making it uneconomical for the consumer, and in so doing impede the
retirement they want so badly.

The pity is, a smart shop could gain lots and lots of new
business, and boodles of goodwill by making cheap swaps possible
(at no cost to them)...

"Attention Divers: We want the 6351 tanks out of service and
here is what we're doing to make it happen..."

Lets see, dive shop gets tank+boot and valve for $100 from a
wholesaler (not luxfer). Wholesaler got tanks from luxfer and
valves and boots from someone else, and also had a markup.

Cost to them: say $70. Subtract the valve and boot, and there
isn't much way for Luxfer to charging them much more than $50.
Subtract Luxfers cost of material and manufacturing and they
might even be losing money on the 50.00 rebate.

It's hard to see the subject line as anything but
disingenuous. The only ones standing to gain are the dive shops.

So yeah, I got a problem with people spending all their time
finding fault and blame, calling people criminals, telling
everyone how risky their business is, condemning all tanks
over ten years old (when only one has a problem), and then
insisting that they make a handsome profit from any solution
process, particularly when they were in the profit chain that
started the problem in the first place.

While you pay lip service to the possibility that the
rumors are nothing more, it seems you proceed an assumption
of guilt. All I have seen are rumours that there are rumours,
do you have anything better than that?

bullshark

In article <lkfefv4n0i1kdjrgmbdgbtgogrde65uvsk@4ax.com>, bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> writes:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:34:56 GMT, hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) wrote:
>>To suggest that a retail markup of 50% of cost is unreasonable is just
>>plain silly -- and perhaps a bit ignorant.
..
>There was no suggestion that a 50% markup was inappropriate.
>It is however, frighteningly small compared to the 2-400% markups
>they put on other products....When you look at Leisure Pro prices
>don't forget they are *still* making a profit...
>
>The suggestion is that standing on that markup, refusing to make
>economical replacements available (no valve/no boot), and preserving
>your profits is inconsistent with whining about the public safety.

This is not how I read your prior posting.
Your point is now understood and taken.


>>To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is the
>>manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.
>
>There was no suggestion that they "pay" anything. The suggestion is
>that if the tanks are so worrisome, then do something about it that
>costs them nothing. ...

Selling a product at the price they pay for it -- nothing added for
their costs -- certainly does mean that the dealer is paying something.
We may disagree on the amount of that something, and on the amount
of good will it would buy.


>While you pay lip service to the possibility that the
>rumors are nothing more, it seems you proceed an assumption
>of guilt. All I have seen are rumours that there are rumours,
>do you have anything better than that?

We've probably heard much of the same and a little different,
but nothing remarkably unique.

While I doubt that all of the rumors are completly true, it is my
personal judgement that there is at least some truth to them.
The trade-in program leads credence to that judgement.

However, in the absence of proof, I will continue to "pay lip service
to the possibility that the rumors are nothing more". Hopefully this
will help to differentiat my personal opinion from what I can fairly
regard as fact.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:4TGJa.3167$na7.1378@news.cpqcorp.net...
| In article <o8udfv8kcj4flltlrr6rqaa12kfb79d8u8@4ax.com>,
| bullshark <bullshark@scubadiving.com> writes:
| ..
| >The dive shop industry is at least half the problem. If you pikers
| >weren't so dedicated to minimal wages and training, you might be
| >able to keep competent employees around. I know you can order a
| >pallet of 80's with boot and valve for less than $100/unit, and
| >that you turn around and mark them up to $150. If you were really
| >concerned about safety, you would do something about it, like
| >ordering pallets of raw 80's(no boot/no valve), and offer them
| >to the 6351 public at YOUR COST, reduced by Luxfers trade-in, net
| >of shipping...At $50/unit or less, the 6351's would disappear from
| >service overnight.
| ..
|
| While I'm not inclined either to defend or to condem Skip, I rather think
| that the above might better have been signed "Bull Shit" rather than
| "bullshark". (Rhetoric intended to be cleaver, not insulting.)
|
| To suggest that a retail markup of 50% of cost is unreasonable is just
| plain silly -- and perhaps a bit ignorant.

Agreed... but don't those tanks actually only cost the retailer $50 (after
the rebate) so the net markup is 200%...

|
| To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is the
| manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.

And if the retailer is recouping the cost of the tank and shipping, how are
they paying for the problem?

Assuming they can purchase the tank for $100 including s/h and they get a
$50 rebate for returned tanks, why is it so bad for them to "trade" the
customer for his/her tank for $50? I realize that the owners can't do this
with everything that they sell bacause there would be not profit then, but
to choose to do this with a few items would probably garnish a good deal of
extra business. I will gladly admit though that I do not currently own/run
my own business and have no plans to do so anytime in the near future.

C Guynn

|
| --
| Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
| (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
| All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
|

> While you pay lip service to the possibility that the
> rumors are nothing more, it seems you proceed an assumption
> of guilt. All I have seen are rumours that there are rumours,
> do you have anything better than that?


Nice work between you and Charlie...nice points in these last two posts.


<Applauds>

AirHog

In article <nDJJa.5095$h84.1801592881@newssvr12.news.prodigy. com>,
"Chris Guynn" <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:

>| To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is the
>| manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.
>
>And if the retailer is recouping the cost of the tank and shipping, how are
>they paying for the problem?

Apparently you (and possibly others) do not consider overhead a real cost.
It is. If this "at cost exchange" is not paying its share of overhead,
then either other prices must be raised or profits will be reduced.
Most business owners would consider that if they have less money in thier
pocket they are paying for something.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.