Strap lugs still an issue

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Suppose….recorded? That argument makes no sense from a sensible man.

 

The lug nut issue should have been caught by factory beta testing of some sort, period. It was embarrassing for Leica to say the least. Sure it got fixed (we hope), but it should have been caught by the factory and not good customers like me!

 

Now I have the EVF issue which also should have been fully tested by the factory. Keep in mind this is the same company that told me to my face in August that the lock up and subsequent dimming of the EVF for 3 more off/on cycles did not exist.

 

There is definitely something amiss at Leica.

 

I'm simply making the point that this incident may be a one off lug failure not directly related to that which generated the recall. It's a hypothesis, and I used the word "Suppose" to make the point that I was putting forward a hypothesis. That's all.

[Pobble]

According to Leica all M 240 bodies have lugs that are up to specification. When you register a M 240 you will not receive a notification concerning lugs unless you have a unit made when that was an isue.

[wlaidlaw]

The lug problem is far from new. There have been instances of failures going right back to the M6. This is a poor design that should have been consigned to the dustbin. It is obviously too assembly-critical i.e getting just the correct amount of thread locker and torquing the two tiny screws to exactly the correct amount. This is being made more evident by the additional weight of the M240, particularly with longer lenses fitted. Remember my experience after the lug repair, where the body was flexing sufficiently with a heavy lens fitted, to cause a false electrical connection (movies started all by themselves). I would not be wholly surprised to see a rash of lug failures over the next few years, as the locking compound hardens and the minuscule screws stretch under load, as the body flexes.

 

Going back over 40 years, component failure in a complex assembly for guarantee claim analysis, was my original business (in the automobile industry). Trying to retrain staff and changing procedures to meet very stringent assembly requirements rarely worked consistently, in our experience. Redesigning the component/assembly, so that it was less “assembly-critical” and preferably also increasing the failure safety margin, was always the best answer(s).

 

European manufacturers consistently under-estimate guarantee/warranty claim costs and seem to be wilfully blind to making the original item slightly better to avoid the guarantee claim in the first instance. In our experience it proved to be close to impossible to persuade a manufacturer to change a design or procedure, unless we could come up with a way which which actually cost less up front, totally ignoring the saving in guarantee costs. This approach was one of the major reasons for the death of the UK owned mass-manufacturer automobile makers. If Leica is not careful, the same problem could kill the last remaining German significant camera maker.

 

Wilson

[algrove]

Wilson

 

In my experience it was very hard to convince the CFO to increase reserves for under warranty work which also contributed to the problem. Once the under warranty expenses exceeded reserves for such work, then it was easy to convince the CFO since by then the auditors were going to write an exception to the annual report.

 

Companies never cease to amaze me how they can operate in such a vacuum. The ostrich head in the sand syndrome.