Borgelt Instruments
Peter Kovari
Chris Ruf
during the installation Mike Borgelt was Very helpful answering all my email
questions.
regards
Chris Ruf
Peter Kovari <P.KO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:y3X87.11046$LP2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jjglider
shipping to and from Australia was more than the repairs. E-mail Mike Borgelt,
he is a fellow soaring pilot and will make it right.
>>>www.ozemail.com.au/~mborgelt<<<
JJ
Michael McNulty
be the best way to contact him. If your problem occured in the last few
weeks, it may be due to his wife/office manager being out for a while.
Olivier Dancer
experienced poor service? i.e.
- did Borgelt fail to promptly answer any questions?
- did you reply promptly to Borgelt's questions?
- what was the turnaround time if you shipped your unit for repair?
"Peter Kovari" <P.KO...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message news:
y3X87.11046$LP2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Tom Claffey
mainly use Cambridge!!! After an e-mail order at 3.30pm on the Friday
before a Nationals requesting a B40 Mike had none in stock so he lent
me his own, Carol express mailed it that day and it was in the Nimbus
by launch on Monday! [day 1!]
If that's not service I don't know what is!! I can't speak about
overseas dealers though!
[Good vario too!]
Tom Claffey
> >
> >
> >
had a B40 in my glider for day 1 of the Nationals on Monday!! As Mike
had none in stock he loaned me his own and Carol express posted it
that afternoon. If that's not good service then I don't know what
is!! [and I use Cambridge as well!]
Caracole
It was reported to Mr. Borgelt that the B50 vario indications were erratic
and unusable. Rather than accept the fact that the instrument was
defective, Mr. Borgelt spent a prolonged period during which he had
me repeatedly remove, check, double check and triple check the
B50's settings and indications in the glider and on the bench. He
continually asserted that there could be nothing wrong with the
instrument (in spite of the fact that it's bench readings were not
per spec). He relentlessly claimed that there was either a problem
with the installation or a kink or leak in the glider's tubing.
Finally, he agreed to send us a new unit, and asked that we send the
B50 electronics unit only back to him. He did not send us a new unit,
instead he waited for the original to arrive so he could fix it. It was
returned to us, we reinstalled it, and it was no better than before, still
erratic and unusable. After removing it for yet another bench check,
I e-mailed Mr. Borgelt that the unit was going to be returned to Wings
and Wheels for an exchange for some other manufacturer's instrument.
Within a day Mr. Borgelt sent me an E-mail that said,
"It just occurred to me that the readings you are getting make sense
if they are the speed command instead of the relative. The speed
command is also damped quite a bit more than the vario so this
would explain the slow vario. At 50 knots I bet the reading you are
getting on the round meter varies with Macready STF setting."
AMAZING, that was it. We had spent months dealing with a problem
that was a factory mistake, which he recently admitted to Mr. Kovari
had actually been made on a small number of ADUs.
I sent an e-mail to Mr. Borgelt explaining that I had spent many hours
dealing with this problem. And that I felt the owner should not be expected
to have to compensate me for the time spent troubleshooting a brand new
instrument. And because it was not an installation error, but a factory
defect (for which I in essence was troubleshooting for the factory), it
would only seem fair for the factory to compensate me for my time.
Mr. Borgelt totally ignored my e-mail, no apology, no offer of any
compensation. I consider this rude and unprofessional conduct.
So in the future I will neither recommend a Borgelt instrument, nor
install any Borgelt instruments.
M Eiler
Walt Konecny
news:3b68...@news.antelecom.net...
snip, snip, snip....
> Mr. Borgelt totally ignored my e-mail, no apology, no offer of any
> compensation. I consider this rude and unprofessional conduct.
> So in the future I will neither recommend a Borgelt instrument, nor
> install any Borgelt instruments.
>
> M Eiler
Well Eiler, you're one in a million....that's not the Mike Borgelt the rest
of us know and have dealt with.
wk
John Galloway
I have found Mike Borgelt to be a most friendly and helpful person who
gave me excellent support.
John Galloway
Michael Stringfellow
Tim Mara. Everyone I know has had minor hassles with hardware or software
with glider avionics, but I've always found Borgelt & Wings & Wheels to be
responsive and helpful. Remember, soaring instruments are a small, almost
custom-built, market and you need some skill to install and operate them.
There are many opportunities to introduce problems from the manufacturer on
and trouble-shooting isn't always easy or straightforward. It's not like
buying a tv from K-mart!
It seems to me that there was either a misunderstanding, or possibly even
that you could be one of those "customers from hell" for whom nothing is
ever good enough.
Mike
James Skydell
You are confusing me and perhaps other readers of this news group with
your statement: "You could even be one of those customers from hell for
whom nothing is ever good enough."
Were you making reference to Eiler, or Korvari?
I know both men, and the B-50 in question here. To help clarify the
issue:
KORVARI is the "CUSTOMER FROM HELL" who spent almost a grand on a "SUPER
vario" that, over two months with prime soaring weather, went in and out
of his glider about half a dozen times without ever working. All this
obviously disgruntled customer wanted was for his new "SUPER Vario" to
tell him whether he was going up or down (and maybe even how fast).
Knowing Mr. Korvari as I do, I can testify to the fact that he
frequently has such outlandish and unrealistic expectations.
EILER should, in fact, be more correctly referred to as the "A&P FROM
HELL." He is the one who spent an amazing number of (as yet)
unreimbursed hours trying to get the "Customer From Hell's" SUPER vario
(you know, the one that was incorrectly wired by the factory) to
function correctly.
I happened to be standing next to Mr. Eiler when he received Mr.
Borgelt's email which explained that the malfunctioning B-50 SUPER
vario over which he had spent 2 months tearing out his hair (aided by
Mr. Borgelt's numerous and varied suggestions of what he might be doing
wrong in installing it) just might have been wired incorrectly at the
factory.
I watched Mr. Eiler confirm that Mr. Borgelt's suspicion was correct, as
he swapped leads to the vario, and then shared in the joy which spread
throughout the hangar when the SUPER vario finally knew up from down.
I have never met, or had any direct dealings with Mr. Borgelt, but in
the past, I have been very impressed by his willingness to assist glider
pilots world-wide via his postings on this news group. Clearly, cutting
edge, limited production, largely hand-made instruments can have
problems. I agree completely with you, these are not "TV's from
K-Mart."
More at issue is how people handle themselves when such unavoidable
errors occur. Mr. Eiler has spent more billable hours (at Mr. Borgelt's
direction) in trouble-shooting the B-50 than Mr. Korvari spent on it in
the first place.
You bet that there is a misunderstanding here. The misunderstanding is
that either the CUSTOMER FROM HELL or A&P FROM HELL should be
responsible for Mr. Borgelt's incorrectly constructed instrument. It
seems Mr. Borgelt (by his lack of response to Mr. Eiler) feels either
Eiler's time should be unreimbursed, or Mr. Korvari should pay for it.
At this point, for all involved, I hope Mr. Borgelt will somehow
reimburse Mr. Eiler for his herculean efforts.
If not, one would have to consider bestowing the title: "GLIDER
INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURER FROM .... "
I, for one, am buying an SN-10.
Jim Skydell
Mike Borgelt
wrote:
>I installed Mr. Kovari's Borgelt B50 in his Libelle for him.
>It was reported to Mr. Borgelt that the B50 vario indications were erratic
>and unusable. Rather than accept the fact that the instrument was
>defective, Mr. Borgelt spent a prolonged period during which he had
>me repeatedly remove, check, double check and triple check the
>B50's settings and indications in the glider and on the bench. He
>continually asserted that there could be nothing wrong with the
>instrument (in spite of the fact that it's bench readings were not
>per spec). He relentlessly claimed that there was either a problem
>with the installation or a kink or leak in the glider's tubing.
>
What Mr Eiler doesn't say is that as a result of the tests I asked him
to do we managed to find out that the Winter vario in the ship had a
capacity bottle that was half as large as the specified one. The
original complaint was that the B50 read twice as much the Winter
vario. Once this was rectified I was told that a bench test revealed
that all appeared to be well and I thought we had fixed the problem.
I had asked if Mr Eiler could fly the glider to see what was going on
in the air but insurance problems allegedly prevented this. My
insurance company would easily handle a request for an experienced
pilot to test fly an instrument problem and confirm cover by fax with
no extra premium. Perhaps if he had flown the glider Mr Eiler may have
been able to give me more information which would have enabled me to
correctly diagnose the problem sooner or alternatively, if the owner
and pilot had contacted me directly I would have not had second hand
information to go by.
A couple of weeks later the owner again complained via Mr Eiler that
things still didn't seem right so I asked Mr Eiler to re check a few
things. When he got readings on two successive tests that were
inconsistent with each other I figured I should look at that B50. I
hoped to send him a replacement but production and personal
circumstances in the last 6 weeks prevented an early shipment. If he
had sent the B50 when I asked him to and followed my shipping
instructions properly it would in any case have arrived before my
original estimated date for sending a replacement.
Anyway, there was in fact nothing wrong with the B50 system unit at
all nor with the ADU, only with the connection between the two so
sending a new B50 system unit wouldn't have solved the problem.
I turned Mr Kovari's B50 around in less than 3 hours - caught the
Friday afternoon Express Mail(closed on weekends)and it was back at
Cal City 3 days later. After Mr Eiler contacted me again with the
results of the last test I got back to him by email as soon as I
realised that the ADU wiring could have been the problem. This was
about one hour after my previous email.
Mr Eiler's last email was treated with with the consideration it
warranted.
It appears I sent out a few ADU's with the connection pins for the
vario and speed command reversed although the colors were correct and
a careful check against the manual would have revealed the problem.
The other two cases I'm aware of the owners quickly realised what was
wrong by looking at the indications and swapped the pins. I've
altered the ADU calibration rig so each meter is tested independently
not together so this cannot happen again but if you have a B50 and the
vario isn't doing what a good vario should you might like to check the
ADU wiring against the manual.
Please note that the audio and averager would have functioned
correctly the whole time. The comparison of the B50 vario to the
Winter vario and altimeter(originally the pilot claimed that the
altimeter and Winter agreed even though the Winter had only half its
correct calibration) considerably confused the issue and from my
viewpoint with 26 years of manufacturing and installing varios a ship
installation problem of some sort was most likely . I've seem
squashed tubes , kinked tubes, split tubes, water in the line, bad
wiring(12 volts at the battery, 8 at the panel), incorrect capacity
size on mechanical varios, comparison with another vario which was a
triple range type where the owner thought it was a dual range
resulting in the complaint that the Borgelt B10 read either twice or
half the other vario(fixed by putting the range switch in the correct
position), poorly terminated coax at the radio, lots of installations
where the guidelines in our manuals have not been followed and had
equipment returned that had been mistreated or had adjustments
altered without any admission of the same.
In many cases what appears to be an instrument malfunction is easily
corrected by the owner. I do need correct answers to the questions I
may ask you and any other significant observations that you may have.
Now and again we get a problem with a component dropping dead(getting
much more infrequent nowadays)or a more subtle problem caused by a
production mistake that our calibration and checkout procedure doesn't
catch. We fix the problem as soon as we can and alter our checklist to
prevent a recurrence.
We don't ever have very many instruments in the shop requiring
repairs.
We do have an order backlog and will be working at reducing it from
Monday as Carol is back at work then. She not only is the office
manager but handles purchasing, shipping and solders all the
components into the circuit boards. Things have been difficult for the
last 6 weeks without her services.
I'm happy to provide tech support. Email to:
mbor...@tmba.design.net.au
Phone: International + 61 746 355 784
fax 61 746 358 796
website: www.ozemail.com.au/~mborgelt
We will be getting a new website location soon.
Please remember we are 10 hours ahead of Zulu time or whatever they
call that now. If you call me from the US at 2 am my time the tech
support might not be that good.
If you call mornings from Europe it is late afternoon or early evening
here which is fine. Evenings in the US will catch us at a convenient
time here.
I read technical gliding type German but please don't expect me to
converse in German on the phone.
DO NOT EXPECT A REPLY to emails sent by hitting "reply by email" to
items I may post on this newsgroup. I had successfully given up this
group for the last 6 months and the email address associated with it.
Mike Borgelt
Borgelt Instruments
Peter Kovari
nearly four. And if I may add to Mike Borgelts comment re. the capacity
bottle of the mechanical vario; he is right. BUT the mechanical would still
point down in sink and up in lift regardless of the capacity, as well as the
altimeter would show climb or sink the same time . (Of course the
calibration of the mechanical would be off). Having said that , all this
time the B-50 would be all over place! ( At one time in waive in heavy sink
while the altimeter was winding down like a bat out of hell , the Borgelt
showed 6kn up!- explain that!) The end of the day, I believe, we are
dealing with egos that at time must be set aside, and best interest of the
costumer should be considered. At last , as I may be "costumer from hell" ,
is a bunch of bull , stating it lightly , as I waited patiently for nearly
four months for a product I paid good money for. Peter K.
Caracole
>him to do we managed to find out that the Winter vario in the ship
>had a capacity bottle that was half as large as the specified one.
Mr. Borgelt appears to be quite willing to claim credit for a test
that he had nothing to do with. The following is part of the 04-28-01
e-mail I sent to Borgelt after I found the mechanical vario capacity
was undersized, hoping that it was the root of the problem.
>I have found the problem. Although it does not address the pilots
>opinion that the B50 reads too high relative to what the altimeter says.
>
>I wanted to make sure that the original capacity, which I had left
>installed for use with the new Winter mechanical vario, had the proper
>volume. I thought there could be a remote possibility that the internal
>volume could have been modified by someone.
>
>So I connected another mechanical vario and capacity in parallel
>with the one in the glider. Surprise, the vario in the gliders panel read
>1/2 of the indication of the test vario. I then switched the two
>capacities and the difference remained the same.
>
>Although the new Winter Vario is 1000 fpm, it is a logarithmic vario.
>I called Tim at wings and wheels to verify the proper capacity for this
>logarithmic vario he sold to this customer. Tim said that he had told the
>customer that he would need a .9 liter capacity, however the customer
>said that he already had one.
>
>Since I was not involved with the purchase, I was unaware of this
>requirement.
Below is the e-mail Mr. Borgelt said was "treated with the consideration
it warranted". I'm sure the Borgelt worshipers will find something to take
offense of in it. However considering that it makes no reference to Mr.
Borgelts intentional lying to myself and Mr. Kovari, and no belittling
comments regarding his intelligence in sending out units, without first
functionally testing them. Why should this e-mail be considered anything
but accurate and honest, quite deserving of an appropriate response?
M Eiler
from 07-14-01
Mike:
Congratulations. Yes, indeed, at 50 knots the round meter varies with
the Macready STF setting. I switched the factory pre wired pins for
meter 1 and 2 and it now functions as expected.
A quick check of the voltage across the pins at 82 knots late last
night, seemed to show about .190 avg (rather than the 2.2 volts it should)
also the voltage drifted +/- about .015 volts. I will recheck this voltage
today, and also do a comparison between mechanical vario and the
Borgelt.
To help prevent this in the future, a couple suggestions.
1. We did this troubleshooting in a rather random manner. So if you
had a printed, clearly explained sequential troubleshooting sheet,
it would probably help quickly resolve any problem, or at least
narrow it down to whether it was the instrument, plumbing or
electrical.
2. It might also help to have a slightly different mind set. Throughout
our email conversations I interpreted your tone of conversation to be,
'of course nothing is wrong with the instrument, therefore something
must be wrong with the installation' or the installers ability to check
his work. This is where a precise written systematic troubleshooting
checklist would quickly narrow down the problem. Most mechanics
have no problem following clearly written instructions.
This has been an extremely long and frustrating process. The owner
can hardly expect to be billed for time spent troubleshooting his brand
new computer system. If it had been a problem with the installation it
would be my responsibility to eat the hours. However it was a factory
mfg problem, so it would seem appropriate that the factory should be
responsible for the time spent troubleshooting. I would hope that you
would address this with either a monetary settlement or possibly some
form of instrument offering in exchange for the time spent.
It is Saturday morning and I will be towing today, but I hope to be able
to do a few checks and get the panel back into the glider. I will let you
know what the owner thinks after he flies it again.
Regards
Marty
Armand A. Medeiros
features of their products. Sometimes, the companies lie about it.
As a point of fact, I have checked out 4 battery chargers from 4
manufacturers and none of them meet specification. In fact, some claims they
make are out and out lies; one claims current limiting and it does no such
thing! But that is another pet peeve...
Other manufacturers make a GOOD product and back it up with enthusiasm.
Winter, LX Navigation, Cambridge, Borgelt, and Becker (and others) are among
what I would consider to be GOOD manufacturers. From personal experience, I
can say that support and specifications of these products is generally
outstanding! Try to get the CEO of Ford or GM or Maytag or Litton to help
you with a problem or even answer an EMail! Tis to laugh! 8-)
However, I have also seen instances where a GOOD manufacturer with good
quality practices makes a manufacturing mistake in a product and sends it to
a customer. The mistakes can be of a type that isn't obvious. The
manufacturer can be dumbfounded by the reported error in operation and it
simply doesn't occur to them that something simple may be wrong...in fact, a
manufacturer can check their product and report it as "fully operational"
and still miss unlikely errors. This is to be expected since they missed the
same error in the first place!
As Marty points out, ego's may be involved. This really doesn't matter
because the only goal is to get a working unit.
Troubleshooting something in the field is an elective operation. After
connection checks and voltage checks, the unit should have simply been sent
back to the factory... 6 times if necessary with no further troubleshooting
done. The only labor that should have been accomplished in this scenario is
to remove and re-install the unit, hardly a major undertaking.
I have to agree that the labor involved is not the responsibility of Borgelt
in this instance. In fact, I think most warrantees say the unit must be
returned to the factory for repair or replacement and that the customer is
liable for costs installing and removing instruments. Most manufacturers are
not responsible for "incidental costs and damage" anyway...
Frustrating as it may be, sometimes things don't work. Sometimes very
expensive things don't work! My LX5000FAI was pretty nutty from the factory
because the internal battery had died...the unit stayed in the box to long
before being installed...it charges the internal battery from the main... oh
well, had to send it back and it has run perfectly ever since...
JMHO
Armand
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:3b6d...@news.antelecom.net...
David Kinsell
"Mike Borgelt" <mbor...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3b6c95c8...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> Mr Eiler's last email was treated with with the consideration it
> warranted.
Interesting attitude you display here, after wasting quite a bit of
someone's time with a defective product, isn't it?
Walt Konecny
news:0Z9c7.131$T3.191...@news.frii.net...
>
> Interesting attitude you display here, after wasting quite a bit of
> someone's time with a defective product, isn't it?
Interesting how a lot of people are weighing in on this particular problem
with opinions while having no first-hand information.
As a general rule, all new products will have a warranty period, during
which it is expected (and highly recommended) that products which don't
perform as expected, be returned to the manufacturer or another company
designated by the manufacturer for repair or replacement. Nowhere on those
warranties will it state "Hey dude, like, if it don't work, youse all go
ahead and tinker with it, maybe it'll work".
Occasionally there will be a problem in the manufacturing, etc, of any
product. With some companies it is almost nonexistent, with some it appears
to be their MO. Look at all the problems owners of LX nav systems have had
the past year, ditto a particular brand of radio which was shipped with a
built in defect. People simply returned them for repair or replacement - -
they didn't open them up and try to troubleshoot the circuitry, test
hardware and software. That just isn't done, because it's a waste of time.
If someone however chooses to do this, it's their problem, not the
factory's.
Let's say you just bought a brand new car from a dealership, and after the
car is delivered to you, it doesn't run as it should. Now then, do you tell
the dealership to come pick it up and repair it under warranty, or do you
let your buddy, the backyard mechanic, hack around on in for several months
to try to get it to run?
Let common sense prevail. I know it can be difficult for some, but try
anyway.
wk
Peter Kovari
instrument. My feeling was from the get go that the B-50 was faulty ( and I
think Marty's as well). However , Borgelt kept on insisting , very promptly
and frequently I may add , that the problem must lie with the installation
and not the product! This is where we were given the runaround. We finally
mailed back the instrument after everything was checked more times over and
over again , than I care to remember. As you all know it turned out to be
the product and not the installation, and once it was corrected ( by
Marty/backyard mechanic and not by Borgelt), it worked fine, and still works
fine! The whole issue here is that we all need to give the benefit of the
doubt to all (as Marty did), and consider all probabilities. Manufacturers
should not assume that their products work every time , (as no one is
perfect).If I were to give Borgelt some advise; 1. Make sure you test every
instrument prior to shipment. 2. If something does not work offer a trouble
shooting guide of some sort ( and I don't just mean how the plumbing in the
glider should be laid out) of the instrument. 3. Insist of return of all
components after you reasonably sure that the instruction was followed
correctly. Aside from all this, Borgelt does make a fine instrument, I
sincerely hope that he stands corrected. Perhaps the exercise of this
newsgroup will serve us all better in the future. Peter K.
ChrisAtUpw
altimeter to a simple vario calibrator, you would spot problems like this in
minutes rather than in months!
Chris Chapman
Caracole
>"Walt Konecny wrote in message
> Interesting how a lot of people are weighing in on this particular problem
> with opinions while having no first-hand information.
Apparently Mr. Konecny feels that he is the only one competent to
have an opinion, without first-hand information.
> As a general rule, all new products will have a warranty period, during
> which it is expected (and highly recommended) that products which don't
> perform as expected, be returned to the manufacturer or another company
> designated by the manufacturer for repair or replacement. Nowhere on those
> warranties will it state "Hey dude, like, if it don't work, youse all go
> ahead and tinker with it, maybe it'll work".
> Occasionally there will be a problem in the manufacturing, etc, of any
> product. With some companies it is almost nonexistent, with some it
appears
> to be their MO. Look at all the problems owners of LX nav systems have had
> the past year, ditto a particular brand of radio which was shipped with a
> built in defect. People simply returned them for repair or replacement - -
> they didn't open them up and try to troubleshoot the circuitry, test
> hardware and software. That just isn't done, because it's a waste of
time.
> If someone however chooses to do this, it's their problem, not the
> factory's.
Again Mr. Konecey shows his blatant lack of first-hand information.
When the factory requests that the certificated mechanic installer,
perform specific tests on the piece of equipment. How can he be so
deranged as to compare this with some dude tinkering on his own.
> Let common sense prevail. I know it can be difficult for some, but try
> anyway.
Apparently Mr. Konecey lacks any shred of the common sense he so
espouses.
The following was a reply to Armand about his post on this issue.
Armand
The customer and I would have been more than happy to send the
unit back. However Tim at wings and wheels told the owner that
he did not have another one in stock for exchange. And Mike Borgelt
did not want it sent back, because he was convinced that it couldn't
be a problem with his instrument.
You should clearly understand the fact that the troubleshooting
on the unit was done at the REQUEST of Mike Borgelt, so why
is it not logical to expect him to at least partially compensate for
the time?
Below is a snipped chronological synopsis of the events.
4-19-01
From Borgelt
Please check the following: Snips
4-24-01
From Borgelt
On the ground can you please check: Snips
Let me know what you find please.
4-27-01
From Borgelt
Snips
Let me know what you find.
4-27-01
From Borgelt
I thought of one more test to do which should be simple:
Snips
Please try this and let me know the result.
5-24-01
From Borgelt
The cruise mode readings are way wrong. Could you check the
A,b,c,d coefficients again please.
Let me know how this goes please. If this doesn't work I'd better
have the vario to look at but given your earlier bench testing I still
think there is some problem in the ship.
6-9-01
To Borgelt
The owner is rather frustrated and so am I at this point.
Maybe you could send Tim at wings and wheels a replacement for
this unit? Or would you like to swap directly with us?
6-10-01
From Borgelt
Lets try this once more and then I'll get you a replacement.
Snips
6-15-01
From Borgelt
Please pack up the system unit(the one with the electronics) and
ship to me by UPS right away. I'll try to send a new B50 system
unit as soon as possible with a Libelle polar already in it. It will be
in the latter half of next week as I can't seem to build enough get
any shelf stock. If UPS do their usual good job I'll probably have
that unit at about the same time. I'd really like to see what is
wrong with it. We've built over 800 B50 and B40 varios and
something like 600 other pressure transducer varios and in cases
like this the problem has been the installation in 95% of cases.
7-9-01
I saw Peter Kovari this past weekend and he was wondering where
the replacement B50 was.
Today I got the box you shipped, it is the original B50 we sent you.
No description of what was wrong with it, only a brief note that
it was repaired under warranty.
So what did you find wrong with his B50?
7-9-01
From Borgelt
I checked it out carefully on the bench for two hours where I found that
it was fine, responded like every other B50 and the Libelle polar had
been entered correctly giving correct relative netto and speed
command indications and the vario calibration was correct, so I
adjusted the response speed back to factory standard and sent it
back. If you still have problems it is due to something in the
installation - either bad wiring leading to low voltage at the B50 or
more likely bad plumbing.
7-13-01
To Borgelt
I'm a bit disappointed as I'm sure Peter Kovari will be, that you did not
send a new B50 unit as you had said you would.
I have no intention of installing the B50 into the glider until I have bench
checked it.
The initial bench check of the B50 post warm up in climb mode does
confirm that the vario pointer reads zero and the averager reads
+/- 0.1 knots.
However the next checks with specific pitot pressures for specified
indicated airspeeds, does NOT give the vario readings you have
stipulated. With the B50 installed in the panel and the panel sitting
on the bench with the static and TE lines open.
After warm-up in cruise applying 50 knots pressure to pitot. The
relative vario should read about 0.5 knots down. Unfortunately
it reads +1.9 knots up.
Then when applying 82 knots the relative vario should read about
2.2 knots up. Again unfortunately the relative does NOT read 2.2
knots up, instead it reads +9.7 knots up.
DID YOU DO THESE SPECIFIC CHECKS WHILE THE UNIT WAS
IN YOUR SHOP?
If the unit gives these improper indications on the bench, do you still
think it should be installed in the glider?
I will probably install the panel in the glider with only the B50
connected to the TE probe. This makes any contention of a problem
with the placement of the tee in the TE line a moot point. Then if the
owner believes the unit is still erratic and unusable, I will recommend
that he contact Tim at Wings and Wheels to arrange an exchange for
some other mfg's comparable instrument.
7-13-01
From Borgelt
I did those specific checks and got the correct numbers not the
numbers you are quoting. Are you sure your Airspeed indicator is
correct? Mine is. The other possibility is that the ADU has a problem
as I did the checks with my bench ADU. The ADU doesn't have any
electronic components in it and the scaling is 10 knots = 1 volt relative
to meter common so at 82 knots in cruise mode the relative should
show about 0.22 volts. (Measured across meter 1 and meter common).
About the only problems we've ever seen with ADUs is swarf in the
meter movement causing the pointer to stick at certain positions.(this
is checked for before closing the box and doing a final test)
Not yet as we should find out why you are getting different indications
from me. I also checked the vario calibration and response rates which
were fine.
What ASI are you using for these tests?
What TE probe is fitted to the ship?
7-13-01
From Borgelt
It just occurred to me that the readings you are getting make sense
if they are the speed command instead of the relative. The speed
command is also damped quite a bit more than the vario so this
would explain the slow vario. At 50 knots I bet the reading you are
getting on the round meter varies with Macready STF setting.
If this is so just swap the meter 1 and meter 2 wires on the B50
XCB. you don't need to use the gold pins if you don't want to, just
strip the wire ends 3/16" and put in the terminal block.
The wires should be connected as follows:
black/blue meter common
white meter 1
red meter 2
Armand you know the rest of the story. Because the factory has
refused any responsibility, the owner will be responsible for
at least some of the time spent, and I will eat a good portion.
Lesson learned and Borgelt instruments are permanently off the
list.
The owner is pissed enough that he is contemplating removing the
B50 and selling it on RAS.
Marty
David Kinsell
"Peter Kovari" <P.KO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:P6nc7.1817$Ki1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> If I were to give Borgelt some advise; 1. Make sure you test every
> instrument prior to shipment. 2. If something does not work offer a trouble
> shooting guide of some sort ( and I don't just mean how the plumbing in the
> glider should be laid out) of the instrument. 3. Insist of return of all
> components after you reasonably sure that the instruction was followed
> correctly.
All good advice on a technical level, what I was commenting on was his
failure to apologize for all the wasted time he caused by screwing up.
Sometimes how you act around customers is just as important as how well
you build the products.
If someone makes a mistake, but takes full responsibility for it, that doesn't
bother me too much. When someone shows the arrogance that Mike showed,
that does bother me.
> Aside from all this, Borgelt does make a fine instrument, I
> sincerely hope that he stands corrected.
He probably won't send out any more bad cables for a while. He does have
a fix-on-failure mentality concerning production testing that apparently
hasn't changed.
David Kinsell
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message news:3b73...@news.antelecom.net...
>
> >"Walt Konecny wrote in message
> > Interesting how a lot of people are weighing in on this particular problem
> > with opinions while having no first-hand information.
>
> Apparently Mr. Konecny feels that he is the only one competent to
> have an opinion, without first-hand information.
Walt's posting was a real piece of work alright. Totally irrelevant to the
one-sentence statement I made, having no particular bearing on the
discussion, and not terribly accurate. Plus he was gratuitously obnoxious.
One of the most ignorant things I've read on the internet in quite some time.
I would have expected something better out of Walt.
Dave
Walt Konecny
> > Interesting how a lot of people are weighing in on this particular
problem
> > with opinions while having no first-hand information.
>
> Apparently Mr. Konecny feels that he is the only one competent to
> have an opinion, without first-hand information.
No, if you read the beginning of the next paragraph, I specifically state
that I'm addressing "a general rule, regarding all new products", and not
just your particular situation.
Because, again, "generally" a "certificated mechanic installer" would have
had the good sense to just return the instrument, and not run up a bunch of
billable time, expecting to get paid by the customer and / or supplier.
Years ago, when Northstar Lorans were fairly new to the market, I was having
a new one installed, and it was to be coupled to the autopilot. Well, the
"certificated mechanic installer", with a gleam in his eye, informed me that
something was wrong with the Northstar unit, and it would probably take him
the better part of 20 hrs to "get it right". About two seconds after that
announcement, he was off the job. I shipped the unit back, received a new
one, and the next "certificated mechanic installer" has the system
functional in less than one hour.
> > Let common sense prevail. I know it can be difficult for some, but try
> > anyway.
>
> Apparently Mr. Konecey lacks any shred of the common sense he so
> espouses.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, however,
let me point out, lest you miss the big picture, that you appear to be the
only one having problems with Borgelt equipment and/or Mike Borgelt.....the
rest of us are doing just fine, and I will continue to purchase Borgelt
equipment, as it is one of the finest on the market.
wk
aussie255
I've dealt with Mike and Carol a couple of times with regard to our clubs
B50 and B57. I've never had a problem with service, stock or software
updates.
With regard to a manufacturers liability, the manufacturer is only liable to
repair, replace or provide a refund for a defective unit under warranty.
They are not liable for any losses incurred by the owner or installer as a
result of the failure. From the story involved, it sounds like Mike went to
a lot of trouble to assist you guys to find the problem in the field because
he hoped it would result in a faster fix for the customer. As it turned out,
that wasn't to be, but it certainly wasn't because Mike didn't try to assist
to the best of his considerable ability. Try telling Ford you want
compensation for the time spent taking your car in for repair several times
because of a defect in manufacturing. They're not liable for it. Your only
recompense might be if Mike failed to provide you with the service required
to get the unit working to your satisfaction, or refused to repair or
replace the unit under warranty.
That the problem was caused by an unexpected and unplanned error in
manufacture was a simple mistake that sometimes happens. The fact that Mike
gleaned to the problem a short while after returning the unit shows he still
had the problem on his mind and was still concerned with the fact he hadn't
found anything wrong with the unit. He hadn't just forgotten the customer in
the hope he would go away.
Asking for financial compensation or a freebee for a rare and unfortunate
manufacturing error was pretty arrogant. To then try to discredit Mikes
business ethics on a public forum simply because you didn't get your own way
on something that you were not really entitled to is a pretty low act. Its
not as if Mike had sent you a new prototype and asked you to experiment with
it to assist in it's development.
I work in the customer service industry and I can tell you that the world is
full of people trying to get something for nothing. Some firmly believe they
are in the right because they don't know any better, others are simply
trying it on. In a group as small and tight as the gliding fraternity in
Australia I would have expected better behaviour between what is usually a
friendly and amicable bunch of people.
Walt Konecny
>
> Walt's posting was a real piece of work alright.
Why, thank you. You make me blush! No need to thank me repeatedly, though.
Totally irrelevant to the
> one-sentence statement I made, having no particular bearing on the
> discussion, and not terribly accurate. Plus he was gratuitously
obnoxious.
> One of the most ignorant things I've read on the internet in quite some
time.
Obviously you don't read enough internet stuff, but thank you for the kind
words anyway - - I stand by what I said.
> I would have expected something better out of Walt.
Ok, but I STILL stand by what I said. If you have any defective new unit (of
anything) which is under warranty, send the damn thing back to the people
who built and / or sold it. They must be more familiar with it than someone
who occasionally sees one of those units in the field, and if they don't
have one to ship out immediately, I guess you'll have to wait a while. Just
one of the "benefits" of dealing with items made for a very limited market.
Sending it back on day one would have precluded all the time put into it by
the "certificated mechanic installer", and should have resulted in less
contention between customer and supplier.
wk
Armand A. Medeiros
enough data or I didn't quite see it as clearly.
My opinion is as follows:
1) The Borgelt factory did indeed make a mistake...the same mistake 2 times!
Once in the original equipment and once when the unit was returned. As I
said before, this is to be expected since they didn't catch the problem in
the first place.
2) It seems rather clear that the factory "requested" the aid of the FBO
(Marty) in troubleshooting the unit.
3) Marty did indeed find the problem.
4) No evidence of any positive post-repair factory response has been
provided.
Legally, IMHO, the time of the request was the moment of negotiations. If
no mention of compensation was negotiated at the time of the request, if no
work-order or other standard means of tracking or initiating a labor
contract transpired, then no actual promise or contract of recompense
existed.
Now, from a customer PR point of view, the minimum that the Borgelt factory
should have done was make SOME compensation to the purchaser/FBO. Even a
token amount of say $150.00 in the form of a discount or rebate would have
been appreciated I think. It is not clear to me that they have been given a
chance to do this! (EMAIL doesn't count)
Finally, IMHO, the customer who purchased the unit is responsible for any
labor costs at the local sight IF he approved them.
Marty found a problem that the factory twice failed to find (and didn't have
all the docs either!). Marty's bill is to the customer. The customer is the
one with the beef against Borgelt "IF" he approved Marty working on the
instrument.
I am aware that we are a "friendly" lot of glider guiders...we talk and help
each other impromptu all the time. I have helped people with electronics and
wiring problems and such and never thought of charging a dime, but the help
I give is out of the goodness of the heart and to think an FBO can operate
as such isn't logical; but it is incumbent on the FBO to make this clear
from the beginning...otherwise, feelings may be hurt.
Bottom Line Opinion:
IF Borgelt owes some compensation to the customer or to the FBO, it would be
at the rate for a fully qualified technician familiar with the product and
with what would have been a reasonable time to find the problem. A
technician would also have full schematics and drawings available. I would
say 3 hours maximum for a warm-up, debug, repair, recalibrate and not much
more. I base this on experience and the actual time the factory spent on the
unit the second time. Typical labor costs for this type of work are
$35.00/hr. Shops usually have a minimum charge of $150.00 because the often
have to gather the documentation and such before beginning work.
At the very least, all have learned the need to communicate clearly at the
beginning and along the way. This is a VERY frustrating and sticky situation
where nobody is happy. It is time for Mike Borgelt to swallow hard and (for
PR purposes at least) admit to the factory flaw, acknowledge the help Marty
provided, and at least attempt to negotiate some compensation to the parties
involved. (and for the customer and FBO expectations to be reset so a
reasonable solution is recognized) This should be politely done with paper
trail in the form of a written FAX or letter (NOT EMAIL!) requesting
compensation for a written bill showing itemized costs incurred in the
repair process.
Armand
PS: It is unreasonable to think that the factory would do this publicly and
it is none of my business what finally transpires.
"Caracole" <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:3b73...@news.antelecom.net...
>
Caracole
to
> repair, replace or provide a refund for a defective unit under warranty.
> They are not liable for any losses incurred by the owner or installer as a
> result of the failure. From the story involved, it sounds like Mike went
to
> a lot of trouble to assist you guys to find the problem in the field
because
> he hoped it would result in a faster fix for the customer. As it turned
out,
> that wasn't to be, but it certainly wasn't because Mike didn't try to
assist
> to the best of his considerable ability.
If Borgelt requests someone to troubleshoot a brand new unit in the field.
He should first provide a clearly written specific set of bench tests, that
confirms that the unit is not defective. If the bench test shows a problem
with the unit, he should request that it be sent back to the factory, while
he is
shipping a new unit to replace it.
> That the problem was caused by an unexpected and unplanned error in
> manufacture was a simple mistake that sometimes happens.
There are few expected and usually no planned errors in manufacture.
However simple mistakes do happen, which is why a prudent manufacturer
functionally tests assembled units prior to shipment.
> The fact that Mike gleaned to the problem a short while after returning
the
> unit shows he still had the problem on his mind and was still concerned
> with the fact he hadn't found anything wrong with the unit. He hadn't just
> forgotten the customer in the hope he would go away.
> Asking for financial compensation or a freebee for a rare and unfortunate
> manufacturing error was pretty arrogant. To then try to discredit Mikes
> business ethics on a public forum simply because you didn't get your own
way
> on something that you were not really entitled to is a pretty low act. Its
> not as if Mike had sent you a new prototype and asked you to experiment
with
> it to assist in it's development.
The specifics of this incident speak for themselves. Weather these
discredit Mikes business ethics or not? Is clearly and rightfully in the
opinion of each individual who has been interested enough to follow
this thread. Implying that this should not be discussed in a public forum,
is ludicrous. A public forum is where these types of disagreements
should be openly discussed. It provides a valuable lesson to any
mechanic facing a similar problem, and it provides consumers with
additional insight on which to base their purchasing decisions.
Who was rude and who was arrogant? We all have our opinions.
M Eiler
Jim Kelly
2. Distributors are priveliged to handle the products. They make a margin
and sometimes incur some pain as they deal with the warranty logistics. If
there are too many problems they can drop the product range.
3. Fault diagnostics is a very tricky business - requiring a great deal of
patience and logical thinking.
4. Customers pay for the products and can expect them to work - or have them
replaced promptly under warranty.
5. Customers can pay for the installation - and this should be reasonably
based on hours taken. If the hours become excessive (as in this case) who
pays? (the installer has to eat too!) . .
Did he recommend and supply the product?
Did he suggest how much cost to install it?
Was he instructed to source the product and asked to fit it?
What stopped him walking away from the deal?
(I'm not suggesting that he should - just what drove him to
spend so many hours on it?).
6. Often, newsgroups are full of dismal tales of woe regarding products- as
if people only resort to using them when they have a problem. Here we have
many delighted people 'going in to bat' for the designer/manufacturer. What
joy. This looks like an unfortunate one-off qa issue. If I was the
designer/manufacturer I would be looking for a new distributor prepared to
wear the odd inconvenience without all this very public and persistant
noise. If the installer is NOT a distributor then it is likely that he is
working on behalf of the glider owner and his beef is with that owner.
7. As consumers we need to be pleased when someone designs and makes great
products for us.
8. I trust that the manufacturer already has changed the design so that it
is impossible to make such an easy mistake again!
Just my rambling thoughts on the matter as I wonder why this thread doesn't
go away!
Cheers,
Jim Kelly.
"Armand A. Medeiros" <zar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%cSc7.779$9h1....@open-news.pacbell.net...
Frank Brown
> Try telling Ford you want
> compensation for the time spent taking your car in for repair several times
> because of a defect in manufacturing. They're not liable for it. Your only
> recompense might be if Mike failed to provide you with the service required
> to get the unit working to your satisfaction, or refused to repair or
> replace the unit under warranty.
Even if I interpret everything said by the parties involved in the
most positive pro Borgelt way, I think Borgelt dropped the ball more
than once. The only good thing I can say is that it appears that he
is prompt to answer email.
I don't think your example is anywhere close to the same situation.
The one time I had my VW in for warranty work it was fixed promptly,
for free and I got a call the following Monday asking if everything
was satisfactory followed by a letter. That's a commitment to
customer service. Before you write back and say that VW is a huge
company and Borgelt is a small company, I don't think that matters
from a customer service perspective. In fact it should be even easier
for Borgelt.
I didn't get a reply saying "Please note that the audio and averager
would have functioned correctly the whole time." (Posting from
Borgelt, 8/4/2001) That's like telling the captain of the Titanic
that the roof doesn't leak. If I buy something from you and you
advertise 10 functions, I want ALL 10 functions to work. Wouldn't a
better response have been, "We're really sorry for our mistake and
we'ld like to discuss how we can make it right."? Not "Mr Eiler's last
email was treated with with the consideration it
warranted."
>To then try to discredit Mikes business ethics on a public forum
simply >because you didn't get your own way on something that you were
not really >entitled to is a pretty low act. Its not as if Mike had
sent you a new >prototype and asked you to experiment with it to
assist in it's development.
Mr Eiler was asked to participate in trouble shooting the instrument
by the fact that Mr. Borgelt was giving him emailed instructions. I
don't look at it as an attack on Borgelt's ethics but an honest
assesment of the factory's commitment to customer service. I think
this is an excellent forum for discussing issues like this.
Mr.Borgelt is free to conduct his business in any way he sees fit (so
long as it's legal) and I'm free to make consumer decisions based on
what I read here, in Soaring Magazine, and in Borgelt advertisments
taking into account the likely truthfulness of each source. That's
not a "low act".
> I work in the customer service industry and I can tell you that the world is
> full of people trying to get something for nothing.
The world may be full of people like that but I doubt that Mr. Eiler
and Mr. Kovari are that way. I know Mr Eiler personally and Mr.
Kovari was patient in the extreme. He waited for 2 months before
sending the Borgelt to the factory. I would have waited two weeks and
sent the unit back to W&W for an exchange for another manufacturer.
Borgelt is lucky that he's actually had a hand in forming the public
impression of his company. This whole discussion could have just been
talk around the hanger that he would have known nothing about and had
no opportunity to correct. Most customers would just go away unhappy
and take their future business elsewhere. Borgelt got a chance, too
bad he hasn't made the most of it.
Someone else said it here and I couldn't agree more. People
understand mistakes and are willing forgive and forget if they are
resolved promptly.
Regards,
Frank
Armand A. Medeiros
> understand mistakes and are willing forgive and forget if they are
> resolved promptly.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
AMEN!!!!
Let us give Mr. Borgelt another chance, send him via FAX the repair bill and
see what happens.
Armand
Mike Anderson
good as a vario and speed to fly but when I bought the new B2000 to
compliment the B50, boy, did the problems start. Mike Borgelt was, at
first, very good about responding to my emails and did offer a lot of
suggestions on what I had done wrong in installation ect. I spent
hours following Mike's instructions but nothing worked. The B50 and
B2000 would simply not work together. Finally, Mike admitted that the
B50 might be bad and asked that I return it. I did and he sent a used
B50 that he had taken out of someones glider which was in for
refinishing. I installed that and it would communicate with the B2000
OK but now the B2000 does not work and Mike will not respond to any
more of my emails.
The bottom line here is that if you have a B50 and want to connect a
B2000, you may have problems because some B50's are not set up
properly to communicate with
the B2000.
Mike Anderson
Armand A. Medeiros
Is there a pattern developing here?
Armand
"Mike Anderson" <zulu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2357e96f.0108...@posting.google.com...
Catherine Conway
I didn't see the original post but I'm really surprised to hear it.
I've owned a Borgelt system for years and years. I've got a B21 (vario), B24 (averager) and B25 (final glide
computer) in my Boomerang glider (see http://www.auscom.com.au/Cath/Benalla2000/QZpanel.jpg.
These instruments have been great! Never missed a beat.
I had some friends with a B21,24,25 system that was playing up at Barossaglide (precursor to the World Club class) at
Gawler. Mike Borgelt was quite happy to take as much time as was necessary to give help over the phone while I
diagnosed and fixed it (turned out to be a kinked tube in installation of the instrument panel - not an instrument
fault).
When my husband and I bought a Ventus last year, we considered a Cambridge and the B2000. Based on our very positive
experiences with Mike Borgelt, we bought a B2000 even though they are a very new instrument, and a B50.
We have not had any problems with the interfacing of the B2000 and the B50 so it does sound like you either have a
fault in something or something is not installed correctly.
There have been some software upgrades to fix minor problems and we have been fortunate enough to provide feedback to
Mike based on our experiences flying with the instrument.
We are very happy with the service and operation of Borgelt Instruments. I suggest that you should continue to work
with Mike to resolve it. The result is worth it.
-Cath
Catherine Conway
I didn't see the original post but I'm really surprised to hear it.
I've owned a Borgelt system for years and years. I've got a B21 (vario), B24 (averager) and B25 (final glide
computer) in my Boomerang glider (see http://www.auscom.com.au/Cath/Benalla2000/QZpanel.jpg.
These instruments have been great! Never missed a beat.
I had some friends with a B21,24,25 system that was playing up at Barossaglide (precursor to the World Club class) at
Gawler. Mike Borgelt was quite happy to take as much time as was necessary to give help over the phone while I
diagnosed and fixed it (turned out to be a kinked tube in installation of the instrument panel - not an instrument
fault).
When my husband and I bought a Ventus last year, we considered a Cambridge and the B2000. Based on our very positive
experiences with Mike Borgelt, we bought a B2000 even though they are a very new instrument, and a B50.
We have not had any problems with the interfacing of the B2000 and the B50 so it does sound like you either have a
fault in something or something is not installed correctly.
There have been some software upgrades to fix minor problems and we have been fortunate enough to provide feedback to
Mike based on our experiences flying with the instrument.
We are very happy with the service and operation of Borgelt Instruments. I suggest that you should continue to work
with Mike to resolve it. The result is worth it.
-Cath
>