Skylarking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 9,993
- Reaction score
- 10,319
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 123
- Location
- Downunder
- Members Ride
- Commodore Motorsport Edition
Yes, complience testing must be performed unless the product is exempt. On such product is a hearing aid which doesn’t need compliance testingCompliance testing must be undertaken to demonstrate that safety requirements have been met.
Oddly, as shown in my post #31, of the children that have ingested button batteries 26.4% involved hearing aid batteries yet only 0.4% involved “car remote, key fob, keyless entry”.
Yep, let’s solve the danger by ignoring the 26.4% and attacking the 0.4%. In essence the legislation is ignoring the bigger problem while junking cars because no manufacturer will redesign their old key fobs as there is no legal imperative for them to do so. So it’s $$$ while chanting think of the children.
And the legislation allows manufacturers to test compliance in house or by outsourcing to a third party which states the following:
Satisfying the testing requirements contained in one of the standards listed above will support compliance with the Standards if:
- For consumer goods that contain button/coin batteries that are intended to be replaced, the button/coin batteries contained in the product are not released after normal use and foreseeable abuse tests (stress relief, battery replacement, drop, impact, crush and force tests).
Note: A representative sample is a random selection of sufficient quantity to provide assurance of consistency across each product batch.
Such product “abuse” tests would be done in the normal course of design verification for car key fobs since they must be durable while considering their use case. Many car keys fobs would have had specifications defined for the force needed to open the fob case and this would have already been verified during internal design verification. What’s needed now is for a minimum case opening force specification to be defined that meets the intent of the coin battery legislation that ensures kids can’t open key fobs to access the battery. Then this minimum case opening force to be cross checked against previous design verification documentation to see if the key fobs meet the new coin battery legislation. Its just a documentation exercise for any vehicle manufacturer, heck it’s something a work experience student could do under guidance form an compliance engineer.
Sadly an earlier article seems to claim testing costs of $2k per key design (which is just bullshit). It’s the beginnings an excuse for the industry to obsolete vehicles… It may be our commodores have either been made unsalable or dropped hugely in value. Either dealers won’t want them if they can’t get compliant keys or they’ll want them much cheaper if the new complient keys cost silly money… It’s fooked up no end…
As I said, this legislation should have been better targeted…
As is, tnis new legislation is now an excuse to obsolete stuff just as COVID/Ukraine is the excuse for inflation… Guess we’re fooked every way