answer to Bob Amon RE: bad brake shoes - long but good

1959 - 1978, M151, M151A1, M151A2 jeeps, NO EBAY or COMMERCIAL SALES.
Post Reply
User avatar
SURPDLR
G-First Lieutenant
G-First Lieutenant
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:14 am
Location: PENNSYLVANIA
Contact:

answer to Bob Amon RE: bad brake shoes - long but good

Post by SURPDLR » Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:35 pm

Bob,

In answer to your question:

The info you were looking for is this:

“Safety of Use Message” in reference to the M151 series Jeeps. It covers all models. It is dated Jul 1990. Problem: Brakes supplied under contracts DAAE07-87-C-0839 and DAAE07-86-C-0755 are not in conformance with technical and quality requirements. All brake shoes made on those contracts according to TACOM should be turned in to the DRMO.

What this doesn’t tell you is that the problem relates to a big mess with the contract and quality testing there in. Below is more info on it:

In February 1986, Midwest entered into contract DAAE07-86-C-0755 to sell 31,516 jeep brake-shoe kits to the United States Army. The contract required that the brake shoes be welded together with long strips of weld material known as fillet welds. In late March 1986, Midwest requested permission from the Army to "plug weld" the brake shoes instead of fillet welding them. Midwest prepared and submitted to the Army a document marked "Request for Deviation/Waiver MID-0755-1." Among other things, the deviation request added to the contract a quality-assurance testing requirement, presumably (though it is immaterial) to ensure that the plug welds would be as durable as the originally specified fillet welds. The quality testing requirement in Midwest's deviation request reads as follows: "Add: Test per Method I or II (attached)." Midwest then attached pages from a deviation request submitted in connection with a different contract several years earlier, as well as schematic diagrams depicting the two required testing methods. The attached pages described both the testing specifications and the frequency of the required testing:

1. Slot Welded assembly to be tested to verify that it shall withstand, without failure or cracking, a shear force of 5,000 pounds applied at both ends of the assembly in the tangential direction of the table at points of application. Test sample size shall be three out of the first ten; and thereafter, one out of every 250.

2. Each Slot Welded assembly to be checked to verify that the surfaces of table and web shall conform within 0.005 inches from the ideal. The frequency of inspection will be changed when a level of confidence is established that Midwest Specialties, Inc., has met the required design condition on a repeated basis. The Quality Assurance Representative [a Defense Department contracting employee] can then establish a random sampling check.

The Army approved Midwest's deviation request and issued a contract modification incorporating the terms of deviation request MID0755-1. The Army's approval document states that the "purpose of this modification is to incorporate deviation #0755-1 (DD Form 1694 attached)," referring to Midwest's form request for deviation. However, this document did not actually attach Midwest's deviation request. In January 1987, Midwest entered into another contract (# DAAE07-87-C-0839) to sell 2,552 additional jeep brake shoes to the Army. The Army then approved Midwest's request to plug weld and test these brake shoes under the same terms as the first jeep brake-shoe contract.

The problem is that Midwest then skipped the testing for the most part, and in late 1989, the brakes on an M151 jeep apparently failed when the welds on one of its Midwest brake shoes failed. This started an investigation, and later a Law suite against Midwest that they seem to have lost from what I have seen.

For what it’s worth the plug weld assembly technique is the same as used on about 95% of all brake shoes made today. With the lining installed it gives the appearance of only a tack weld holding the shoe web and flange together. Below are some photo examples of what has been referred to.


Image
Above is the fillet welded type of Mutt shoe

Image
Above is a view of a plug welded Mutt shoe

Image
Above is another view of a plug welded Mutt shoe

Image
Above is a 5 Ton plug welded shoe

The long and the short of it is that I WOULDN’T SELL THESE IF I THOUGHT THEY WERE UNSAFE!!

jeff
JEFF HAIN-MATSON
FRONT LINE MILITARY VEHICLES
WRIGHTSVILLE PA
717-252-4489

INDIAN 741
INDIAN 841
MATCHLESS G3
MATCHLESS G3L
AND SEVERAL OTHER WHEELED AND TRACKED TOYS!!

MVPA #1833
IMPS #1726
MVT #9362


User avatar
Airborne Bob
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Airborne Bob » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:15 am

Hello Jeff,

I know you wouldn't knowingly sell something you thought was unsafe. And thank you for clearing up the differences between fillet welds and plug welds. Doing so enables all of us to make a more informed choice for ourselves when it's time to buy brake shoes. It looks like you've initiated two posts here on this same subject on the brake shoes, so I'll provide one answer and then I guess I'll have to post it to your other thread on the same exact subject as well, although two posts seem redundant and probably all we ever needed was one single post on this to begin with. But since my name seems to now be again linked to this (again, I only responded to another's post showing the "Safety Of Use Message"), I guess it's only right that I respond.

You are right about the outcome of Midwest Specialties, Incorporated's lawsuit, part of which you posted above. They did lose the lawsuit. After losing they filed and appeal to the case to the Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals and they lost there also. The entire court findings, dated January 22, 1998, can be found at this link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... no=980121p

I never had any intention of "trashing" you, as your PM to me over the weekend states, and I still don't. In fact, I still think you're a nice guy and a reputable supplier of MUTT parts and again, I'm sure you wouldn't knowingly sell something that you thought was unsafe as you state above.

But apparently Midwest did supply the Army with the non-fillet welded brake shoes and the circumstances brought about by the jeep mishap brought to light some disturbing details about the shoes:

"In late 1989, the brakes on an Army jeep apparently failed when the welds on one of its Midwest brake shoes failed. The Army therefore commenced an investigation of the brake shoes delivered by Midwest. The Army subjected a sample of 18 brake-shoe kits to the Method I test and a sample of 54 kits to the Method II test; the results (as described in an Armymemorandum issued on January 22, 1990) indicated that roughly 78 percent of the brake shoes failed to pass muster under the Method I test, and more than 60 percent of the brakes failed the Method II test. The Army investigators concluded that "a rework is needed to upgrade the strength of the [brake] assembly. . . ." See J.A. at 389. As a result, on March 15, 1990, the Army sent out an "inspection emergency" message to all military bases and embassies around the world ordering that jeeps equipped with brake shoes manufactured by Midwest be "deadlined" until replacement brake shoes could be installed. See id. at 322. Since the transmission of that message, all Midwest brake shoes have been removed from Army jeeps, and those brake shoes are now sitting in warehouses at various United States military installations around the world."

Granted, as Glen and I have joked about, none of us truly knows how stringent the Army's "Method 1" and "Method 2" tests are, and I'll be the first one to agree that these tests are probably unrealistically strict. But it's still interesting that the appelate court cites that:

"Midwest's only response to the government's data showing that 60 percent of the brake shoes failed the Method I test and that more than 77 percent of the brake shoes failed the Method II test is to say that the government's test results were not properly supported by an affidavit or otherwise properly authenticated. The government first proffered its testing data in its June 21, 1995, brief. Midwest subsequently filed six briefs in the district court proceedings, none of which ever challenged the authenticity of the government's testing evidence."

The court also determined that:

"Midwest's president testified in his deposition that he knew the plug-welded brake shoes were subject to the testing requirement. Despite knowledge of this requirement, Midwest did not test the brake shoes as required by the contracts. Midwest then submitted claims for payment to the government attesting that the brake-shoe kits conformed to contract requirements. This is sufficient to constitute "reckless disregard" of the truth of its representations as to contract compliance. The district court therefore did not err in finding that Midwest violated the False Claims Act."

As a result of violating the False Claims Act, it looks like Midwest was not only forced to return the $1,369,042.40 the Army paid them for the brakes, they were also fined triple that sum, a whopping $4,107,127.20!. The lawsuit also states that the brakes were supposedly removed from all Army jeeps and the inventory was cleared from all the shelves. The big question is, if these brakes were considered defective, why weren't they destroyed instead of being sold as surplus? Interesting.
Army Basic, AIT and OCS: Ft. Knox, KY (1967)
82nd Airborne Division: Ft. Bragg, NC (1968)
South Vietnamese Combat Advisor RVN (1969)
Owner: 1972 M151A2

Post Reply

Return to “M151's For Sale”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests