Originally Posted by
downtube
The point of a recall is to address products that are "at risk".
I get this. The question has to do with how the products are known to be at risk. I don't have any special knowledge of this, but I'm guessing that no one knew the products were at risk until there were failures.
Originally Posted by
downtube
Adding to the "at risk" pool after a known failure compromises the whole point of a recall.
This is the part I don't understand. I have a Tern bike. Shortly after I bought it, I was aware of the recall but my frame was not involved. Subsequently the recall was extended and my frame *was* involved. My understanding was that there were frame failures *outside* of the group of frames originally recalled, and so the recall was extended to include frames that had something in common with the more recent failures. I don't know how this is done (ranges of serial numbers, manufacturing dates, shifts, etc.), but I assume there is an effort to include all the frames that are likely to have a problem without recalling every frame ever made.
Originally Posted by
downtube
Let me clarify....It is improper to issue a recall for 100 products ( out of a thousand at risk ) and add to the list as each of the at risk pool begins to fail.
If 1,000 were at risk, why would only 100 be recalled? The products would be considered "at risk" because they share some significant feature with the one(s) that failed, as I indicated above.
I probably need to go back to school to more fully understand the nuances of manufacturing.
Steve