Healyje,

Is it possible that your #9 is just well worn? It seems to me that the old brass hbs would wear significantly quicker than a typical aluminum nut. Could this be the cause of your size differences?

As AB said, I would fully expect that the Brass HB's would be a different size to the alloy DMM's.

The discussion thus far has only been germane to the the alloys, and not the brass. Which have an interesting story all on their own of their journey from HB to DMM.

The discussion thus far has only been germane to the the alloys, and not the brass. Which have an interesting story all on their own of their journey from HB to DMM.

Chris,

Again, I do appreciate you guys picking up the line and it was certainly your perogative to attempt to add value with the various design and manufacturing changes.

However, I, and I suspect others, clearly would have preferred DMM reproduced the HBs as they were. The combination of anodizing, bare wire, different wire hole diameter, lack of epoxy, and set-only sales on top of the discovered size variance made purchasing a these go from a highly anticipated event to one of some frustration.

Particularly so with the #9. I bought the set to get a replacement #9 and twice now finding it unable to fit where an HB #9 goes is a bit of a drag. I'd be happy to mail it back so you folks can check it out, but I'd also ask that you guys do a running check of samples coming off your line against a couple of the originals as well to insure the calibration of your forging and finishing processes.

Again all I can say is please do return your number 9 so we can have a look at it.

As regards checks and calibration, this is already fully in place with all production processes. Throughout all our Forging operations we run SPC checks as well as First and Last off. This ensures that the job is set up correctly and sample forgings are regularly checked throughout the forging of that batch.They are checked against the current product drawing which we keep on file for every product we produce. All measurement instruments are themselves verified and calibrated on a regular basis.The drawings were produced from the original HB Forgings and I have checked a recent batch and we are indeed working within + or - 0.2mm.

Can we add a section in the new Routes Database to identify climbs that will take the old HB #9 but not the DMM #9?

How would you feel about a replacement cam having a significantly different range...?

Chris, as an past ISO9000 auditor I am familiar with the above quality measures. I'm certainly willing to chalk up fact that I, and at least one other person here, received pieces that are out of spec quite beyond 0.2mm as simply launch or first run anomolies while getting the product ramped up - but significantly out of spec they are. It isn't some peculiar inventiion of mine for novelty's sake, but rather an obvious design or quality issue of yours.

I don't have access to enough of your product to say whether it is simply a first run anomoly or whether inadvertant changes were made to the specs on at least the one of the pieces such that now they are being made within .02mm of the wrong size. Personally, I believe your quality processes are good, so for the moment am inclined to think the latter, but only you folks have access to enough product to determine that.

I will, however, send you mine.

I'd like to point out again that the above is bullshit.

It reads to me like you are accusing DMM of have poor quality control with their offset nuts.

I can think of multiple reasons why your piece is completely different. I've already given you one, DMM has given you at least one, if not two.

I think in fact, you should retract the above in good faith.

After putting some more thought into this, I'm pretty convinced the difference lies in the material change. Metals cool at different speeds which results in shrinkage inside the mold. This can vary greatly from one metal to another and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the old brass ones shrank a bit more than the aluminum ones.

Thoughts?

You can point out whatever you like, but the shipped out-of-spec pieces speak for themselves.

You need to read what I wrote again - that's not at all what I've said. What I did say was that either a) they had troubles bringing the line up, or b) the #9 is being produced to the wrong spec. Given I and someone else here have out-of-spec #9s it has to be one or the other.

It isn't some peculiar inventiion of mine for novelty's sake, but rather an obvious design or quality issue of yours.

Again, there can only be two reasons for a #9 DMM to be significantly out-of-spec from a #9 HB- either by design or due to execution errors.

'In good faith' is what I've been posting with in the hopes of either seeing this anomoly corrected or the design restored to the original HB #9 spec.

Standardly available shrink rules would appear to disagree with this theory:

Tin 1/12" per foot
Iron 1/8" per foot
Bismuth 5/32" per foot
Brass 3/16" per foot
Aluminum 3/16" per foot
Copper 3/16" per foot
Steel 1/4" per foot
Lead 5/16" per foot
Zinc 5/16" per foot

Good thinking though.

Show me where DMM says that their product would follow the HB specs (other than starting from the same molds)?

In my opinion targeting design or quality implies far more than "troubles" or "wrong spec".

In fact, the only way any of your arguements could be supported is if any DMM nuts are out of spec with each other. I stress again, DMM nuts.

Let yourself out of your mental box, you must be finding it confining. How about these:

#1 - Yours is out of spec with the rest of the #9 HB's out there.
#2 - HB had a #9 mold break and remade it. They have two generations of #9's and yours was from the first.

Do you think anyone really cares about your "#9 is out of spec issue"?

Again, how would you like a replacement cam to have a significantly different range? I frankly don't give a damn if you or anyone else cares about the issue - I do. Bottom line? Either DMM cares enough to faithfully reproduce the geometry of the HB Offsets or they don't. If they do and the several out-of-spec ones are an anomoly, then great, the problem is probably already fixed. If it is a case of the mold being out of spec then they have the choice of either fixing it or not - I would hope they would. If they don't really give a damn about the original HB geometry then there is little that I can say here that will make any difference.

This has all been done in an effort to replicate the original product dimensions, which themselves vary in the flesh and also in the product information from old catalogs.

So to reiterate we have not tried to change the size, variations in size on the originals were present anyway, and we are working within the tolerances we have stated.

Bottom line? Either DMM cares enough to faithfully reproduce the geometry of the HB Offsets or they don't.

I frankly don't give a damn if you or anyone else cares about the issue - I do.

I leave you to your bitter disappointment. I know that you'll never accept that you do not have the one true representation of the "#9 Nut", and that DMM has betrayed you with their disregard for your set of HB's. No, betrayed not just you, but the world with their callus disregard. I'm sure they'll have to take the line out of the market because of this. I mean, 3K sets in less than 6 months? At around $70 bucks a set? They would be nuts to continue making them.

I didn't realize there was a standardized way of measuring shrink. But thats pretty damn cool. Thanks for chiming in.

And while I don't particularly care for the other changes DMM has elected to make, I can live with them, but the geometry is non-negotiable.