|
Post by Vintage Fan Collector on Mar 30, 2015 16:21:46 GMT -5
And now they are doing what Casablanca did to Homestead, except they didn't ruin homestead, they IMPROVED homestead.
|
|
|
Post by fan1968 on Mar 30, 2015 18:06:46 GMT -5
This is kind of getting off topic, we're here to discuss a recall from Fanimation.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 30, 2015 21:29:01 GMT -5
This is kind of getting off topic, we're here to discuss a recall from Fanimation. That's okay. There's not much else to say about the recall. And now they are doing what Casablanca did to Homestead, except they didn't ruin homestead, they IMPROVED homestead. Casablanca is just as done for as Hunter is sadly...
|
|
|
Post by Vintage Fan Collector on Mar 31, 2015 17:16:20 GMT -5
True dat.
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Mar 31, 2015 19:36:08 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised we don't see Hunter motors overheating more often with the way they're being made now. Granted its only been a few years since those were introduced, let's see how many are still going in 10 years from now. If you read any reviews about modern Hunter fans, people's dissatisfaction with the company's current operation is very evident. Apparently, Hunter tests their fans for their reliabliity while operating in high temperatures, however they made this "claim for excellence" in a video that posted back in 2011. Even though Hunter was starting to sell some garbage at that point, it's gotten 100X worse since then. I've worked with a few newer Hunters (mostly 52" Highburys) and they include 153X15 motors. In general, this is quite underpowered for a 52" fan. The wider blades make it even worse so you get practically no airflow. Then, in 2012 Hunter decided the best course of action to remedy this problem was to increase the capacitor values to make the motor work harder! Though the fan blows more air now (albeit, only an extra 200 CFM or so), running a cheap motor that fast with an oversized load is bound to overheat it at some point. Technically, it wouldn't pose a hazard under normal circumstances (as there is a built-in thermal fuse), however what happens if that fuse fails?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 31, 2015 22:18:05 GMT -5
Apparently, Hunter tests their fans for their reliabliity while operating in high temperatures, however they made this "claim for excellence" in a video that posted back in 2011. Even though Hunter was starting to sell some garbage at that point, it's gotten 100X worse since then. I've worked with a few newer Hunters (mostly 52" Highburys) and they include 153X15 motors. In general, this is quite underpowered for a 52" fan. The wider blades make it even worse so you get practically no airflow. Then, in 2012 Hunter decided the best course of action to remedy this problem was to increase the capacitor values to make the motor work harder! Though the fan blows more air now (albeit, only an extra 200 CFM or so), running a cheap motor that fast with an oversized load is bound to overheat it at some point. Technically, it wouldn't pose a hazard under normal circumstances (as there is a built-in thermal fuse), however what happens if that fuse fails? 153X15 is like a decent builder fan, something reputable should have way more than that. Don't forget about my favorite ( ) the Oakhurst! Spinning at a whopping 140 RPM on high blowing just shy of 2,500 CFM. Those thermal fuses are manufactures' favorite thing these days. While I don't have any proof of this per say, I'm pretty confident that they rely on those things to make them money. They design the unit so it will fail eventually by overheating, then the consumer is forced to buy a new item because fuses don't reset. Whatever happened to thermal switches, as found in vintage box fans and other things, where if the fan was to overheat due to operator error, it would work again once cooled. That's quality! None of this thermal fuse garbage..which is exactly what it is, garbage. This is definitely a safety hazard. There's no guarantee those fuses will work properly (though they seem to work exceptionally well, if you get where I'm going there), and having hot components inside something is never good in terms of a motor. Heat will shorted the life of the motor, so it will fail for other reasons if not the thermal fuse. Its also worth underscoring that an extra 200 CFM will not really be felt.
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Apr 1, 2015 13:07:07 GMT -5
153X15 is like a decent builder fan, something reputable should have way more than that. Don't forget about my favorite ( ) the Oakhurst! Spinning at a whopping 140 RPM on high blowing just shy of 2,500 CFM. Those thermal fuses are manufactures' favorite thing these days. While I don't have any proof of this per say, I'm pretty confident that they rely on those things to make them money. They design the unit so it will fail eventually by overheating, then the consumer is forced to buy a new item because fuses don't reset. Whatever happened to thermal switches, as found in vintage box fans and other things, where if the fan was to overheat due to operator error, it would work again once cooled. That's quality! None of this thermal fuse garbage..which is exactly what it is, garbage. This is definitely a safety hazard. There's no guarantee those fuses will work properly (though they seem to work exceptionally well, if you get where I'm going there), and having hot components inside something is never good in terms of a motor. Heat will shorted the life of the motor, so it will fail for other reasons if not the thermal fuse. Its also worth underscoring that an extra 200 CFM will not really be felt. For a 52" fan of any type, 153X15 is undersized. I wouldn't put it past manufacturers to intentionally produce the fans to fail...
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Apr 1, 2015 13:17:32 GMT -5
For a 52" fan of any type, 153X15 is undersized. I wouldn't put it past manufacturers to intentionally produce the fans to fail... True, but in some budget models this is to be expected. From a once high-end expensive manufacturer, much more is expected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:30:44 GMT -5
For a 52" fan of any type, 153X15 is undersized. I wouldn't put it past manufacturers to intentionally produce the fans to fail... True, but in some budget models this is to be expected. From a once high-end expensive manufacturer, much more is expected. Most companies care about money, not quality.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Apr 1, 2015 13:32:41 GMT -5
Most companies care about money, not quality. Right on for companies of today. Years ago, it used to be about quality of the product, not how cheap it was. They used to compete with each other by making the product better. Now they compete by making the product cheaper than the other, which ultimately leads to total garbage by the end of it. What a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Apr 1, 2015 15:44:59 GMT -5
True, but in some budget models this is to be expected. From a once high-end expensive manufacturer, much more is expected. I don't take modern budget fans seriously. In the early 80's however, "budget fans" were typically decent, albeit with less decoration and features than the higher-end models.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Apr 1, 2015 16:28:44 GMT -5
I don't take modern budget fans seriously. In the early 80's however, "budget fans" were typically decent, albeit with less decoration and features than the higher-end models. The cheapest of the cheap back in the 80s would still be better than a lot of the things we have today.
|
|
|
Post by Vintage Fan Collector on Apr 1, 2015 18:14:47 GMT -5
You're right! I have an 80s builder and that thing CRANKS SOME AIR!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Apr 1, 2015 22:41:40 GMT -5
You're right! I have an 80s builder and that thing CRANKS SOME AIR!!!!! Not only that, its going on 30+ years old and still works, likely still has plenty of life left in it even.
|
|