Model Railway Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 80 of 80 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
QUOTE The question (to the NMRA working group) was "Does any manufacturer of DCC decoders recommend the removal of the locomotive suppression components when fitting a decoder in to a locomotive".
There were 30+ (NMRA) members present and not one said that they would, or do recommended their removal. The working group then minuted this fact.

Anybody with any common sense will see that it is an NMRA thing. The NMRA working group minuted that 30+ members claim that they do not recommend the removal of CE EMC devices. All the members present in fact. The NMRA state in their standard that manufacturers should design equipment to comply with CE regulations if supplying to Europe. It is patently obvious that if a product is so designed that when it is fitted in tandem with another product it requires the removal of a CE EMC device fitted to the other product before it will function then that product clearly is not up to the NMRA standard. There are products that will function with CE EMC devices in place and so such a design is possible.

QUOTE Last discussion we had you were most disrespectful and dismissive of the average British modeller, and now you want them to have a collective social conscience about your CE conspiracy theories / something that only YOU feel is an issue.

No I am not having that!
I generally get a lot of flack for showing support for the average modeller who generally is not too bothered by the technical side and simply wants to run trains. Manufacturers do have social responsibilities and should be designing trains and products that run or work well anyway and not be encouraging their customers to deliberately flout the law in order to enhance performance further. And we should not be encouraging forum members to flout the law. You have a knack of putting your own spin on what I say.

Yes I do think CE EMC is an important issue and one that you all too easily dismiss. Australian EMC regs do not match CE EMC regs as claimed. A quick google search reveals this.

This topic should definitely not be closed and forum members should not be removing CE EMC devices!

If a product will not function when fitted in tandem with another that already has a CE EMC device then it should be returned for a refund.

Happy modelling
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,598 Posts
Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn
Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn
Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn Yawn

Same old Gary same old spin..........................................................

 

· Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,967 Posts
Gary

I've said my piece on this issue. Whilst your last post had factual errors yet again I cannot be bothered with it - it is in any case clear you have nothing positive to say that will assist modellers to enjoy their hobby and I see no point going over the same points time after time.

Richard
 

· Chief mouser
Joined
·
11,779 Posts
As far as I am concerned if a model works well wnen I buy it I am happy, if I need to make minor adjustments after purchase that is surely down to me. I really do not give a hoot if my alterations change it's standing under any regulation.

Regards
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
10,744 Posts
If I thought that drawing pictures of the electrical circuits before and after the installation of a dcc decoder would be enough to convince Gary that he is wrong on all counts, I would do so. However since he willfully refuses to understand what CE EMC compliance means, the sources of potential CE EMC non-compliance and the counter measures taken to ensure compliance, I really can't be bothered. After all if he doesn't respect Richard's credentials, why would he take the word of a mere engineer with a degree and experience to back it up?

<Edit: 30 minutes later>
Gary you said:-
QUOTE forum members should not be removing CE EMC devices!

So what about the individual who wrote this:-
QUOTE I happened to have a pack of Peco track power clips handy and it has to said that these are ideal for plugging the bare ends of the Elite track power lead wires into and they offer a very firm grip and no capacitor interference which you don't want with digital.

Is this individual breaking the law? Should he hauled off and clapped in irons for his heinous crime?
Based on your recent statement, he most certainly should be.

To save the authorities time, please have someone drive you to the nearest police station so you can hand yourself in, for I took the quote from your review of the Hornby Elite, which can be found here on the Forum website. Alternatively you could restore the original power clip complete with capacitors as supplied with your original Hornby set because that is the condition under which Hornby said it complied with CE requirements.

Good luck with old power clip!

<End of edit>

David
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
The quote of mine above is several months old when I understood this to be the myth as it related to DCC and things have moved on.

From another topic where this discussion spilt over.

QUOTE You just don't get it, do you? You don't have the first idea what causes Electro magnetic interference, what measures are taken to combat it and what a consumer's duty is once he has a piece of equipment. Neither do you want to know or understand that fitting a decoder fundamentally alters the electrical circuit which may give rise to the interference in the first place. The potentially interfering circuit for which the counter measures were fitted no longer exists.

Or perhaps I have misunderstood you because you are being too circumspect in your target. From your posts I take it that Bachmann, Lenz, ESU and a host of others are in your eyes "breaking the law". Is this correct? If it is not correct, perhaps you would correct me by stating explicitly who you do mean. It would also help me if you would provide a reference to the statute and section number you believe is being violated because I am convinced that you are mistaken. An individual is still innocent until proven guilty in the UK, or least I thought that was the case.

From the ZTC website:-

QUOTE Q: Should I remove the EMC suppression components from my Locomotives?

A: We NEVER recommend the removal of the suppression circuitry.

First, it is illegal for us, or for that matter any other manufacturer to recommend the removal of a third parties EMS suppression devices. These components are fitted to ensure that the products do not interfere with TV`s and the like, which causes a nuisance and inconvenience. However this also includes some much more important items such as Pace Makers which are life critical.

Secondly, all of ZTC`s Decoders are designed to work with these components installed, as we believe are those produced by other manufactures, but only they can confirm this.

Thirdly, These components are also a necessary requirement to enable the various locomotive manufactures to obtain the obligatory EMC approvals. This testing permits them to print a CE mark on their products, which is also a legal requirement for all electrical equipment sold throughout the European Community.

In an effort to try and clarify this recurring confusion, ZTC Controls Ltd. formally tabled the question at the NMRA DCC working Group (of which other DCC manufactures and we are members) in September 2004 in Salzburg.

The question was "Does any manufacturer of DCC decoders recommend the removal of the locomotive suppression components when fitting a decoder in to a locomotive".
There were 30+ members present and not one said that they would, or do recommended their removal. The working group then minuted this fact.

This information was picked up, and later published on the Yahoo DCC web site by a qualified EMC Engineer, but the myth still seams to prevail that they should be removed.

Incidentally tests conducted by ZTC engineers indicate that many decoders properly installed, from a variety of manufactures including ourselves often do not work as well with these components removed.

ZTC as manufacturers will have the answer you seek so why not pop them an email and see if they answer?

They may be unhappy that the statement they have made and the information relating to their question and answer put to the NMRA commitee has been regarded as spin!

It is my understanding that privately Hornby have a similar interpretation of the law and no doubt there are discussions with the NMRA behind the scenes. As ZTC have already gone public with their interpretation they are in a better position to provide your answer.

Lenz decoders do function perfectly well with EMC devices in place and no doubt those of other manufcaturers mentioned in your list do to.

In another forum member Gordon H said this:-

QUOTE Sorry, but this second sentence is utter nonsense!
What has the power source got to do with it when the aim of the capacitor is to suppress motor brush arcing and the RF interference it causes? This occurs regardless of control method.
To be effective in its task, such a capacitor needs to be mounted as close as possible to the motor brushes to minimise the current path of the RF interference signal they produce. This usually means directly mounting on the brush terminals. Removing the motor capacitor and relying on the effect of the decoder output stage to do it for you does not give the same level of suppression, as the decoder wires themselves can act as transmitting aerials.
The whole point here is whether a particular decoder is designed to be able to drive a small capacitive load or not. Lots of factors are involved in this, such as PWM rate, motor inductance, capacitor value etc. Each case has to be assessed on its own merits. Also bear in mind that removal of any suppression components may cause the loco to no longer conform to EMC regulations which the manufacturer must adhere to when designing their products these days.

I may be right or wrong but I do believe Gordon H is a member of MERG.

LizaP4 said this in another forum when discussing why Digitrax and Lenz have different instructions. Note the Lenz instruction that Richard Johnson was reading from may have been an Australian version. Digitrax do request CE EMC device removal:-

QUOTE the rules are a little differant in the EU compared to the US, if Lenz or ZTC or any european manufacturer were to include instructions to remove a suppression device they'd probably get either a massive fine or shut down.

Hence the differance between the ZTC and Digitrax instructions.

Most DCC experts know LisaP4!


Gordon H also said this:-

QUOTE Pill-46 wrote:

With respect although the manuafacturer may need to comply with EMC regulations I do not, provided I'm not causing a problem.

Try telling that to the man from the DTI if he knocks on your door. How can you know you are not causing a problem to someone else?

Quote:

There are quite a few models in the Bachamnn range which have no Supression devices and I don't think they have ever caused problems.

No reported problems, perhaps, but that doesn't mean they will be immune from the 'EMC police' if they choose to act.

Quote:

There's a considerable difference in size between the motor in a tumble dryer and a small model can motor. However it is a known fact that certain decoders react badly to supression devices, and run far better without.

That's why I said each combination of decoder, motor, and suppression components must be assessed separately. Unfortunately there is no 'one size fits all' solution to this issue.

Quote:

With the capacitor in place they can interfer with 2 areas of decoder function: motor drive, PWM, and BEMF. The decoder may not be able to supply optimum power settings to the motor. The loco's starting and low speed performance will be effected, and overal control will suffer.

Exactly the point I was making - the combination of components, their values, and how they are used has to be engineered to suit each case

Quote:

The decoder it's self does offer a reduction in motor footprint IE elctrical interferance.

To some extent, by the action of the diodes which are inherent to the MOSFET output stages. However, they are in the wrong place relative to the motor brushes themselves, i.e. there is a length of wire in between.

Quote:

Having run a large DCC layout for many years within a short range of TV's and radio's removal of the capcitors and chokes has no effect on applicances, but a large improvement in operation performance can be had by their removal.

Or by re-engineering their arrangement and values to suit a typical representative decoder output stage.

My interpretation of what Gordon H is saying is that when fitting a decoder and unless it is a specific design of decoder for a specific model designed to provide a perfect match with its characteristics and CE EMC, under all other circumstances if you remove a CE EMC device fitted to a loco then you will suffer reduced CE EMC performance.

And then be at risk of a visit from the DTI police!

With the Mattel China situation right now then the last thing Hornby and Bachmann and others will want is a visit from the DTI police!

Happy modelling
Gary
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
10,744 Posts
In a litigious world, not recommending the modification of another manufacturer's equipment is the only sane course of action. It is based on the fear and cost of being sued, not on the inevitable failure to conform to CE EMC regulations. A small company like ZTC cannot take that risk.

Bachmann can defend their recommendation that capacitors be removed on the grounds that it is their locomotive and decoder. They are therefore in a position where they can provide the appropriate documentation and assurances that CE EMC regulations are not breached because they control all elements of the circuit.

Large decoder manufacturers can carry out tests with a variety of motors with various degrees of capacitive suppression. The CE EMC regulations require that the manufacturer takes reasonable steps to ensure compliance and provide evidence that they have done so. This can include detailed design information, interference generation assessments and test results from a lab. If the licensing authority is content that this evidence supporting the compliance claim is correct, the CE mark is awarded. If a regulating authority, probably trading standards in the UK, finds a non-conformant product, the manufacturer will be given the opportunity to rectify the fault.

Advocating the removal of capacitors when backed up by the appropriate technical documentation is not illegal. In other words if a manufacturer has done the research and is convinced that fitting their decoder with the original capacitors removed meets CE EMC requirements, it is perfectly legal for them to recommend their removal.

In the case of independent installers finding that a unit will not work with original capacitors installed, it is most likely that the suppression capacitors are at the top end of the tolerance range with the result that there is far too much suppresion in the circuit. If it is subsequently found that CE EMC regulations are being breached, they will have to bring the equipment back into line.

For my part, I sincerely hope that I do not have to remove the capacitors from Bachmann's class 2 2-6-0 because I really do not want to have to remove the body to get at them.

Sweeping generalisations that removing capacitors is illegal are incorrect; it is considerably more complex than that. That is the point I take issue with. Recommending that capacitors are not removed because there /might/ be legal consequences (which will in the first instance mean fixing it) is fine by me; make it a strong recommendation if you like. Tell me it's illegal and we will be here for a long time yet.

David
 

· Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,967 Posts
Gary

Before I respond, It strikes me that there are several short stories you should read: Any five year old should be able to tell you where they are in the library. They may help you see the light.

One about the boy who cried Wolf * One about chickens and the sky falling * One about pigs, huffing and puffing and houses made of straw * One about tigers chasing tails and turning into butter.

-----------------------------

Back to your post.

You Said:
The quote of mine above is several months old when I understood this to be the myth as it related to DCC and things have moved on.

Response:
It was never a myth and it still isn't one: Again, you shoot from the hip, make gross assumptions & ascribe factual status to every post that you can twist to support you and ingnore all that do not. YOU made the "capacitors are a no-no statement, and that time, for once, you were correct :).

It saddens me that having said something correct, you now prefer to disown it.

BTW, almost every brand officially says do NOT have the capacitors in the power clips - inc most EU brands. US brands don't, because they never put them in the clips. Do the research properly. Keep using your Peco power clips for best running - or even better, have you ever thought about learning to solder wire to the track like real modellers do?

----------------------------

Re EMC and Decoders.

* The best performance requires the decoder to react to the motor and adjust its output accordingly

* All effective forms of feedback need direct inter-connection between the two devices to do the job properly. In particular any form of motor control, especially the very interactive nature of Back EMF motor control within a decoder reads the motor constantly and reacts to adjust perfomance based on motor load and reactions.

Back EMF adds a degree of control that passive devices cannot match. Back EMF cannot be at its best with any intermediate suppression in place.

* Fixed value componets such as Capacitos and inductors can be arranged to form a passive filter or suppression device, which both act by loading and modifying the motors reactions to load changes. These are in fact imprecise though as each voltages and loads constantly change and each motor is slightly different, but they do provide the simplest form of suppression.

A decoder contains a far more sophisticated set of components and as they are interactive with the motor and vary reaction based on need, they do in fact provide better suppression than the passive comp0onents, which therefore become redundant when a decoder is attached.

Therefore:

(1) A decoder and a suppression circuit have similar effects. The presence of EITHER will give adequate EMC suppression.

(2) Anything between a motor and decoder means that the motors real reactions are at least partially masked so that a motor which has suppression devices attached cannot be made to perform at its best as the capacitors / inductors change the way the decoder which needs to provide the control sees the motor. The existence of both on a single circuit will therefore have a negative effect.

----------------------

You Said:
Note the Lenz instruction that Richard Johnson was reading from may have been an Australian version.

Response:
This is the third time you have failed to dismiss my comments by misdirection: Give up Gary. Unlike you, I only present whole truths and facts.

The instruction quoted was the standard Lenz Gold Instructions - printed in Germany and packed with the decoder. DCC is a global product and there are no local versions made - only global Lenz instructions in various languages.

You Said:
My interpretation of what.....etc etc

Response:
See first comment about ascribing and twisting... Look out for falling sky though.

You Said:
And then be at risk of a visit from the DTI police!
With the Mattel China situation right now then the last thing Hornby and Bachmann and others will want is a visit from the DTI police!

Response:
See what I mean? Did you look in that mirror yet Gary?: Here we go again (Still!!) Relating Mattel and "leaded paint" to EU EMC is a long bow even for you to draw.... So silly its preposterous.

Again, "Gary says do it, and do it Garys way... or else"
....because Gary has invented the DTI police and his invisible friends will visit you if you are naughty.

Gary, reconcile this with your happy modelling sign off please - you continue to do as I said in an earlier E - and that is do your best to do anything you can to promote Gary at the expense of the pleasure of the average modeller.

I and many others see through you. Its not hard.

Richard
 

· No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,704 Posts
Been away for the weekend with St.Laurent & am awaiting a knock on the door from the DTI as there are no capacitors in any locomotive ! Looks like any possibility to be invited to Warley is out the window now because we won't get past Gary's "capacitor inspection" at the door
.

I certainly agree with both DWB & Richard - two people (amoungst others) I well respect, especially as they certainly know what they are talking about.

Gary - I have 2 questions for you ;

1) What pub(s) do you frequent - so that I can avoid them when I next visit the Midlands.

2) What will your next "crusade" be - so that I can get "genned up" on the subject.

If you're stuck for question 2 here's a suggestion - "Portable Appliance Testing" for Model Railway Exhibitions.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
All I can say is that its an unusual law that does not provide for giving a manufacturer or consumer protection or requiring that a level of protection is maintained at all times in the event of modifications made and/or instructions issued by a third party. Gordon H in his analysis above claims that for technical reasons you are going to provide a lower level of EMC protection if you rely purely on a decoder. Unless of course he is wrong.

And that it is entirely wrong of 30+ members of the NMRA to agree that they do not instruct customers to remove capacitors when it is patently obvious that they do! Unless of course ZTC have missinformed the public.

Happy modelling
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
QUOTE (Gary @ 20 Aug 2007, 10:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>All I can say is that its an unusual law that does not provide for giving a manufacturer or consumer protection or requiring that a level of protection is maintained at all times in the event of modifications made and/or instructions issued by a third party. Gordon H in his analysis above claims that for technical reasons you are going to provide a lower level of EMC protection if you rely purely on a decoder. Unless of course he is wrong.

And that it is entirely wrong of 30+ members of the NMRA to agree that they do not instruct customers to remove capacitors when it is patently obvious that they do! Unless of course ZTC have missinformed the public.

Happy modelling
Gary
Please provide a reference for this agreement by 30+ members of the NMRA. It does not appear to be minuted in the DCC working group minutes http://www.nmra.org/standards/DCC/Minutes/minutes.html and, in any case, I doubt that 30+ members of the NMRA would all be DCC manufacturers. Many members of the WG are not manufacturers.

Andrew

PS There's no such thing as the DTI police. CE regulations are enforced by Trading Standards. Radio and TV interference is investigated by Ofcom, and only following a complaint from someone experiencing interference. I defy you to provide a reference to a documented case of anyone in the UK having action taken against them for causing interference with a model railway.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
QUOTE Please provide a reference for this agreement by 30+ members of the NMRA

QUOTE Q: Should I remove the EMC suppression components from my Locomotives?

A: We NEVER recommend the removal of the suppression circuitry.

First, it is illegal for us, or for that matter any other manufacturer to recommend the removal of a third parties EMS suppression devices. These components are fitted to ensure that the products do not interfere with TV`s and the like, which causes a nuisance and inconvenience. However this also includes some much more important items such as Pace Makers which are life critical.

Secondly, all of ZTC`s Decoders are designed to work with these components installed, as we believe are those produced by other manufactures, but only they can confirm this.

Thirdly, These components are also a necessary requirement to enable the various locomotive manufactures to obtain the obligatory EMC approvals. This testing permits them to print a CE mark on their products, which is also a legal requirement for all electrical equipment sold throughout the European Community.

In an effort to try and clarify this recurring confusion, ZTC Controls Ltd. formally tabled the question at the NMRA DCC working Group (of which other DCC manufactures and we are members) in September 2004 in Salzburg.

The question was "Does any manufacturer of DCC decoders recommend the removal of the locomotive suppression components when fitting a decoder in to a locomotive".
There were 30+ members present and not one said that they would, or do recommended their removal. The working group then minuted this fact.

This information was picked up, and later published on the Yahoo DCC web site by a qualified EMC Engineer, but the myth still seams to prevail that they should be removed.

Incidentally tests conducted by ZTC engineers indicate that many decoders properly installed, from a variety of manufactures including ourselves often do not work as well with these components removed.

I agree that whilst most NMRA minutes are available for public viewing the minutes of this particular meeting are not in the public domain in the link provided. An email to ZTC or the NMRA and an answer would clarrify what was agreed and who was present.

Happy modelling
Gary
 

· No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,704 Posts
QUOTE (Gary @ 20 Aug 2007, 10:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Gordon H in his analysis above claims that for technical reasons you are going to provide a lower level of EMC protection if you rely purely on a decoder. Unless of course he is wrong.

And that it is entirely wrong of 30+ members of the NMRA to agree that they do not instruct customers to remove capacitors when it is patently obvious that they do! Unless of course ZTC have missinformed the public.

Happy modelling
Gary

In theory, the cables/wires between the decoder & motor could act as an aerial, so could the rails themselves, the connecting cables from the controller the track, the track bus, the mains cable all in varying degrees.

You have to take into account possible litigation et all when companies advise in writing - it's one of the current games called "covering your back".
 

· Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,967 Posts
Gary:

But... In what you quoted, GH actually supports removal quite clearly, and also clearly, he states that it doesn't cause problems and does improve loco performance -

(1) Quote (from your own post quote ex GH)

"Having run a large DCC layout for many years within a short range of TV's and radio's, removal of the capcitors and chokes has no effect on applicances, but a large improvement in operation performance can be had by their removal"

So, did you really read this in context - this actually says that:

(a) Even though the large DCC layout is close to the the TV & radio etc (appliances) they haven't been affected by removal of capacitors and chokes from loco's

(
that a large improvement in performance occurred with the locos

(2) Please be aware when you lambast the NMRA that there are at least two members of the NMRA Working group on this forum who are fully aware of both this thread and what the NMRA does and doesn't say.

Using ZTC comment to support your argument isn't necessarily a good idea... ZTC are not spokesmen for the NMRA.

Regards

Richard
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
QUOTE Using ZTC comment to support your argument isn't necessarily a good idea... ZTC are not spokesmen for the NMRA.

Maybe not but ZTC do attend NMRA working groups and presumably are members, have influence and their comments on their website have not been disputed by fellow members who were in attendence as they have been allowed to stand. If an NMRA member reads this maybe they would like to have a look at the records for the NMRA working group meeting in question (Salzberg Austria Fall 2004) and indicate how ZTC put the question to the working group and how the question was answered and by whom.

It is unfair to say I have lambasted the NMRA and if it has been interpreted that way it was not the intention. What I have done is raised questions following on from feedback in Model Rail to the Hornby interview with Simon Kohler. He raised issues and sometimes experts who are focussing on certain technical areas can overlook something relatively simple like legislation totally unrelated to CE EMC and capacitors but more related to the production of toys for the masses including big boys! Hornby as a company do generally work quietly behind the scenes with people and so it was a little surprising to witness something as up front as what appeared in the press. It suggests Hornby frustration for whatever reason that such comments were made and we are never likely to know what was behind the comments. Some clarity on the ZTC thing may go some way to clearing any missunderstandings up.

Happy modelling
Gary
 

· Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,967 Posts
Gary,

No, I don't think its appropriate for the NMRA to enter a forum debate any more than I think it appropriate for ZTC to promote their self interest via / put their own slant and spin on NMRA minutes:

It was not a public meeting, and selective interpretations of the minutes are no more appropriate than selective use of any other bodys deliberations by a vested interest. It is always inappropriate to do it.

-----------------

I'd prefer to come back to the issue that started the thread and seems to have even found agreement from you in your last long post:

The thread started with a question which really said - "what about capacitors" and "will removing capacitors help performance". The whole CE issue we have danced around for a week only distracts from the useful potential of dougs original thread by hiding the answer in piles of unnecessary distraction and fluff.

Consider please: The subject is model trains, not something that is ever a "public danger"

We aren't condoning anything that can actual cause harm or even inconvenience. We are simply suggesting that it is good to get a locomotive to run as well as it possibly can.

Nobody wants to hurt his or her neighbour by interfering with his TV reception. For years, DCC users have been removing capacitors when installing decoders and nobody has had a problem with it in the real world.

Overwhelming evidence, including your own choice of recent references, supports the notion of improved perfomance and the fact that increased interference is not an issue..

Besides...

In truth the Mfrs don't give a toss about the subject any more than modellers do, all they want is to sell lots of locos and have happy customers. They create the product but once the cash is paid, they have no interest in the product in any way.

Instead of boring everyone to tears ad infinitum, Why don't we simply agree that every modeller has the absolute right to do whatever it takes to get the best from his loco's in the privacy of his own home.

Richard
DCCconcepts
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
10,744 Posts
I arrived home to find this topic closed, so I PM'd Doug. He has kindly reopened the topic to allow me to post this comment.

Since my last post on the contentious subject of CE compliance and I have spent most of my waking hours since wondering just why we can't find some common ground. It has occurred to me that maybe the debate (argument) was being conducted on two different playing fields. On one side you have the "techies" like Richard and myself who contend that it is perfectly possible to remove OEM fitted suppression capacitors, fit a decoder and remain CE compliant. On the other you have the "legals" who are arguing that messing with the original puts you in danger of breaching the regulations and maybe being sued.

I hope this helps to smooth things over somewhat.

David
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top