Suspected Bad Motor List

This information is provided as a "heads-up" guide with no assurance that the information is completely accurate. Nonetheless it suggests that one might exercise caution should they wish to use the date coded motors shown above.

If you have a CATO, please post up the motor size and the date codes on this thread.

I'll keep the list updated.

 

Estes E16-6 Lot # A 04 15 13.

 

Can second the 06-28-11 E9's I had two from that batch (same pack) fail.

 

Lakeroadster, list looks good!

 

Is there a reason you are doing this instead of filing MESS reports?

http://www.motorcato.org/

 

Bill, I think they’re doing this as well as the MESS report. Unfortunately the MESS report data isn’t made public.

 

Ah - Ok. Filing MESS reports is important in the process of ensuring unreliable motors are cataloged. I misunderstood the intent.

 

What are the criteria for getting onto this list? Presumably not just a single CATO from listed date codes?

 

If a motor CATO's, it's date code goes on the list. Then when you go to buy motors, you can avoid those date codes if you're so inclined.

Some folks care... some folks don't. If I've got the choice, I'll avoid any possible issues.

Having Estes send me a bunch of parts is better than nothing... but not much.

 

It needs to be more than just a single CATO, the list that has been compiled previously were motor lots commonly known to have a high number of CATO's. Until a certain criteria is met such as X number of people are known to have had Y number of CATO's then it shouldn't go on a list, otherwise we get a large list with lots that may or may not have real issues. I don't believe its uncommon gor a lot of motors to have at least a few CATO's given the large number produced by Estes each day.

 

It's a bit ironic that you would post this ^^^^. You asked where the list was in this thread... https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/another-e9-cato-yowza.147494/#post-1807251

I guess the best way to look at this is to say "Opinions Vary." It is after all called the "Suspected Bad Motor List" and it states:

"This information is provided as a "heads-up" guide with no assurance that the information is completely accurate. Nonetheless it suggests that one might exercise caution should they wish to use the date coded motors shown above."​

If you feel it's not enough information, don't use the updated list.

What would really be useful is access to a compilation of the MESS reports... or for Estes to keep a current list of Motor Date Codes and subsequent CATO quantities.

But since that's unobtanium.. this is a start.

 

I guess this list is only a problem if you fear being sued the way Oprah Winfrey was sued by the beef industry. That was a bad MOOve.

 

Yeah, those beef industry honchos are so touchy. even filed lawsuits over almond and soy "milk". Always in a bad MOOd.

 

There is a great clip from TV news coverage on the soy "milk" subject, but I cannot post a link at the moment. They play the audio on the Howard Stern Show fairly often. Very phunny.

 

Will there be a thread for suspected bad model airplane parts?

 

Not necessary, doesn't destroy the airplane like a bad motor can destroy a rocket. Had an AT reload CATO a couple of years ago. Blew a hole in the side of the rocket. Don't know where the forward closure flew off to. Maiden flight, ticked me off no end. A fellow club member had almost the same thing happen the week prior, but with a SU motor. You would think something like that would only happen once in a blue MOOn. (Sorry, couldn't resist). So I applaud Lake's effort with this list.

 

It was an inside joke. In the past, a person who shall remain nameless tried to skirt rules/laws and purposely mislabeled a shipment of motors as "model airplane parts" Needless to say, it didn't go well.

 

Why? MESS reports are essentially useless.

They don't share the data, and the companies don't give production numbers out.

Until those two things change, the most reliable way to track defects is ourselves.

 

I remain concerned that if there are no statistics attached to the listed lot numbers, the information will be very misleading. I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions if I know that a lot may be listed there because one person had a CATO once.

Collecting good quality data is not necessarily easy of course.

In the case of E9s and E12s, I've heard enough anecdata to just avoid them altogether.

 

It's been made clear over several of these debates that the manufacturers will not share production data.

We're left to believe they have our best interests in mind.

In reality, the most productive thing to do when a motor fails is file a warranty claim and post about the failure everywhere you can. It's the only real pressure there is to correct issues.

 

Nothing wrong with being overcautious. You can always put a motor with a lot # on this list in a rocket you don't mind losing, right?

 

Ahh, interesting. Once again, my curiosity was piqued. Did a little digging. I have quite a few of his kits. Never got a chance to try some of his motors.

 

+1 for E12-6 with this date code: 05-15-12.

 

Yes, this way the information is Public Knowledge !

Dave F.

 

David,

Well said, sir . . . Absolutely "Spot On" !

Dave F.

 

FYI... I emailed the folks that gather the MESS report data in hopes of getting the data for BP motors. The current leadership meets in Huntsville, AL this coming April. ways that the data could be used productively by all potential users is slated as a topic of discussion.

 

Slowly, we’re finding ourselves more in agreement with you about sharing the data. The manufacturers can always release their production numbers if that places the MESS data in a different context.
I feel that by releasing the MESS data users will be able to discern spikes over time or within a particular date code for a given motor type. We may never know an overall failure rate, but none of us do now anyway.

 

One more for your list:

I had an Estes E9-6 CATO (Date Code A 03 11 13) at NSL 2018 on 5/27/2018. (Cool photo attached).

I did file a MESS report. Also contacted Estes, who took good care of me...Sent me a free replacement Hi-Flier XL kit and a replacement motor pack. I requested 2 2-packs of D12-5s (instead of 1 3-pack of E9-6s) as replacements, and they graciously accommodated my request. Can't say enough good things about their customer service. Glad to see it is continuing with the "new" Estes ownership. Happy to say I was able to repair my rocket and fly it again.

Comments notwithstanding about the controversial nature of compiling these ad-hoc lists, I applaud the intent of accumulating and disseminating TRF "tribal data" on these seemingly frequent large BP motor CATOs. If folks have the information, they can make their own decisions as to whether or not they avoid buying certain lots based on random reports of CATOs. Until the MESS data gets shared publicly, I for one will look to the experience of fellow rocketeers for guidance on risk levels with specific BP motor lots. And based on what I've read, I've pretty much decided to avoid flying E9s or E12s on my own rockets going forward.

 

From Aerotech's web site:

"Aerotech L1000W DMS motors with the following lot numbers: 101064, 101074, 102574, 102974, 102584, 102884, 102294 (All motors are from the time period of 6/12/14 through 9/22/14 and do not include motors manufactured after 10/27/14)."

There is also a thrust ring advisory as well on the same 2015 archive: http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/news.aspx?y=2015

 

Steve,

Approaching this from a safety standpoint, it should be mandatory for manufacturers to provide MESS and manufacturing data openly, and in a timely manner, with Rocketeers. Both Tripoli & the NAR should have this information on their websites. The "Standards & Testing" people should tasked to oversee this, in my opinion.

Dave F.