Originally Posted by
HerrKaLeun
They would have to use more expensive tooling and maintain it better. and they would have to measure every frame and reject the ones that don't meet criteria. and if the design tends itself to less optimum BB, manufacturing would give feedback to the design team. that is how it works in all industries where PF is sued, which are most industries (cars etc.)
Problem in the bike industry is, the design team works for manufacturer A, but production is bid out to companies B, C, D on low cost. Manufacturer A doesn't perform QC and the fabricators has no incentive to spend more money on production. Testing and rejecting frames cost $. Maintaining your machines to good tolerances also cost $. A typical frame cost $60 to produce. So adding $5 for QC adds too much.
Seems you were posting while I was typing.
$60 sounds about right. Ready to believe your knowledge on that is more current than mine. $5 upfront to keep QC good also sounds right. Putting that against what these bikes sell for at retail makes QC a no brainer. Comparing $5 to what it will cost a retail customer to get it fixed later (and likely a less than ideal fix) would say it should be done right the first time.
Against that read these forums and all the endless rave reviews for Brands XYZ that we know pay no attention to QC. Nothing changes until consumers make more demands.