Not fit for purpose

When asked if drawings from My Hobby Store were "fit for purpose" the responce was

"What a silly question.Of course I can't guarantee they are fit for purpose."

I'm sorry but "not being fit for purpose" contravenes the Sale of Goods Act.

Some things can be sold quite legally and they have serious potential problems

Software is the most obvious example, some software can be useless or ridden with bugs

Software has an updated E&OE clause, errors and ommissions excluded

The last time I read a software clause properly it basically said

"If this product turns out to be a complete pile of crap then I accept that fact by my clicking the accept button"

Drawings for model engineering have always had issues, part of the challenge is for the individual to find and sort them during the build

Everyone knows this

Like smoking is bad for you and can kill you

You, as an intelligent being, then have to make a choice as to whether to purchase and participate

Edited By Ady1 on 10/05/2012 11:16:52

Eric.

I've never looked at these drawings, but does My Hobby Store actually state what their purpose is anywhere?

Martin.

All MyHobbyStore drawings are sold for decorative purposes.

They are intended for hanging up on workshop walls or similar.

regards David

LMFAO, What a cop out.

I think I recall reading that they are intended as the 'foundation' of your new model

Martin.

Nice one David. Perhaps every plan should come with Blu-tack or drawing pins.

However the hobby has fewer and fewer ex engineers and more consumers who need a sell by date on a tomato to tell them when it has gone off so perhaps checking drawing dimensios is not on the cards.

It will all be solved when then home 3D printer comes with a free 'make me a 5" loco' app.

Depends on your definition of fit for purpose.

I have never worked on a product in 30 years of engineering where there isn't errors on drawings and a marked up print with corrections somewhere, that someone keeps to work to but doesn't feed back through the change note system.

many of the drawings published today are obviously drawn by armatures, but that doesn't mean a model cant be made without a bit of cross checking and the odd remake.

Push the fit for purpose sale of good act too far and a lot of drawings could be withdrawn.

Steve Larner

"drawings published today are obviously drawn by armatures"

No wonder they're not correct if they're drawn by bits of electric motors

I like this... It should generate much discussion

Hi There

Yes, my drawings are drawn by printer.

I assume stepper motors have armatures so you are totally correct, drawn by armatures.

regards David

One has to laugh. But perhaps someone should gently inform Eric that model engineering is a hobby and yes, the drawings are almost entirely drawn by amateurs

Joey..

Which was my point despite the spelling mistake, and as pointed out the same sort of errors are seen in industry, and many go uncorrected.

I also suspect that some models are made to sketches and drawn up afterwards.

Steve Larner

Which was my point despite the spelling mistake, and as pointed out the same sort of errors are seen in industry, and many go uncorrected.

I also suspect that some models are made to sketches and drawn up afterwards.

Steve Larner

I think I will stick with David's definitiion of 'fit for purpose' which I read as ...

Everything that the 'Artist' put on the original is on the copy (i.e. no edges cut off by the printers, readable etc...), what I do with it after I have bought it is my problem therefor cost stays reasonable - a term that, as a Scot, I will reserve judgment on!

Interpreting your statement

'fit for purpose' = I will get modern, error checked, maintained and updated to meet current professional engineering standards (and may STILL not be error free) therefor cost = 'as for commercial products' = $1000's+ (or in my industry $Millions+) I guess you pay your money and take your choice ..

Personally I would MUCH prefer ME, MEW and the Model engineering community etc stay around.

Let battle commence .

Dave (who is very much an armature Model Engineer).

Hi There

Martin Evans designed a locomotive for a reader as a private commision.

I believe the reader paid about £1800 back in the 1980s.

It was a GNR 0-6-2 tank.

I don't know if it had any errors but look at the price charged for a 1 off.

regards David

There is a bigger issue about drawings. Some drawings being sold by several different model engineering suppliers have various errors that have been known and published in several ways for years, but have not been corrected on the drawings being sold. This seems close to dishonest to me, because monies are being paid for goods with known and unaddressed defects. If the drawings were sold with a list of corrections or things to watch for, at least the prospective builder can avoid some wasted time and money. This would be fairer than just plying the same old drawings with errors for good money.

On the other side, in my opinion any drawings bought should be checked carefully by the builder before cutting metal, to avoid wasted time and material. Errors can creep in many ways on all drawings. I have found in many cases it saves a lot of time to make a roughed-in CAD assembly of all parts to check clearances. Usually many things arise which can be improved or simplified on model designs, saving time and making for a better and easier to build model. It is worth buying and learning a good 3D CAD package to do this, in my opinion. Just the ability to print out full size drawings and stick them to stock for direct part layout, especially for sheetmetal, saves much time, guesswork and ruined stock and justifies the cost of the software and the time to learn it.

For the record I am not impressed with the attempted humour in the editor's offhand comments about "decorating" etc. MHS and other vendors are realizing significant profit from selling drawings, and if in fact there are drawings being sold uncorrected, when there is published info about errors available for that particular model, that is less than honest.

JD

Which was my point despite the spelling mistake, and as pointed out the same sort of errors are seen in industry, and many go uncorrected.

I also suspect that some models are made to sketches and drawn up afterwards.

Steve Larner

Rethink. I had thought initially this was about the usual sort of problem like valve gear hitting something or mistake on dimension on a major project like a locomotive..

However I do believe some plans are so old and crude and made in an era of lower expectations that they are now truely not fit for purpose. The problem being the informtion provided about the item is so superficial that the buyer has no idea how poor the design is. I feel sorry for a junior or 3rd word person for whom the cost is not insignificant and they are thoroughly duped by the vendor and disappointed by the product.

Example 1: MM485 The model submarine plan "Sardine" I actually built 40 years ago. The design is to pre wwII standards in solid wood and tinplate. At 13 I knew no better but now I can see it is unutterable rubbish although technically it can be built to the plan.

Example 2: WE29 I haven't dug out the paper but I once purchased a plan for an "engraver" expecting some sort of simple pantograph. It turned out to be a rod dangling from a support with a needle on the end you were expected to scratch letters with. Totally ridiculous.

Both the above should be marked in the catalogue as "included for historical record, not suitable for construction".

edit to add plan numbers and the following comment:

Bear in mind these were bought before the internet was even  invented. I see the boat still has a deceptively good picture and you can see the engraver plan for what it is.

Edited By Bazyle on 10/05/2012 17:12:34

Edited By Bazyle on 10/05/2012 17:16:59

I accept that drawings are made by amatures and it doesn't bother me if a line is drawn using a rule or free hand. What is frustrating is being told the line is 3" long when it should be 4" long or a shaft of 6mm Dia. will fit in a 5mm Dia. hole

Look at the hastle there was over the Northumbrian frames and how many were consigned to the scrap bin before it was sorted out ?

The old adage "measure twice, cut once" goes out the window if the dimension is incorrect to start with.

As for the drawings being made by a printer steper motor, "garbage in- garbage out"

Edited By Eric Cox on 10/05/2012 17:12:30

Edited By Eric Cox on 10/05/2012 17:15:48