Pages

Loading...

Thursday, September 30, 2010

UL Warns of Electric Bike Charger With Unauthorized UL Marks

NORTHBROOK, Ill., Sept. 29 /CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM/ — Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is notifying consumers that the electric bike chargers identified below bear unauthorized UL Listing Marks. This product has not been evaluated by UL to the appropriate standards for safety for the United States and Canada and is not authorized to bear the UL Mark. It is unknown if these products comply with appropriate United States or Canadian safety requirements.
Name of Product:  
XTD2000
Number of units:  
Unknown
Manufacturer:  
Changzhou City Xintai Electric Fittings Mill
Changzhou City Xinbeiqu Electrons Zone 0519-5487263
Date of Manufacture:
Unknown
Known to be Sold and Distributed at:
Daymak Company (Toronto)
130 Oakdale Rd.
Toronto, ON, M6N 1V9
Canada
Product Photographs and Identification: on the product: Photos available athttp://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/newsroom/publicnotices/
About Underwriters Laboratories
UL is an independent product safety certification organization that has been testing products and writing Standards for Safety for more than a century. UL evaluates more than 19,000 types of products, components, materials and systems for more than 66,000 manufacturers annually. In total, there are more than 20 billion UL Marks appearing on products worldwide each year. UL’s global family of companies and network of service providers includes 68 laboratory, testing and certification facilities serving customers in 102 countries. For more information, visit: www.ul.com/newsroom
SOURCE Underwriters Laboratories

3 comments:

  1. Nothing to worry about I'd say, since those chargers are sold for years by Daymak and practically all other dealers and have a proven safety record in practice. Especially good were those older a bit bulkier white and gray chargers, I wish I could find more these days. But I really had a chance to come across some bad chargers that were consistently killing the batteries, especially after the cold season, when batteries are really weak and need some special care. You can see some scary pics on my Flickr :) Those weren't from Daymak though. What is interesting though that UL kept silence for so many years and does not mention any other distributors, consistently picking on Daymak only... Looks like someone has tipped them recently about Daymak... Someone who'd really be interested to bring the one of the major e-bike resellers in Canada, which most likely is even unaware of the problem, to it's knees, casting the shadow over all the industry... Unhappy customer?... Competition?... Oil gods? Either way that's really unwise decision that can endanger the whole business in its infancy, that is just picking up. I still wouldn't bother much about the article, since I'm personally using few kinds of Daymak's chargers for years and can confirm they are OK indeed. Maybe not perfect, but just OK. What bothers me is, that UL automatically considers anything not certified by them inherently hazardous to the customer, no matter how perfect is the actual usage record de facto. It would be much wiser for them as an authority to test those chargers first and make such a loud and public, reputation damaging claims only if those chargers represent a real hazard to Canadian consumers and to the Canadian market or at least first warn the unaware reseller of the problem before going public on the issue, giving them the chance to comply. And since they did not do that in a wise way, it's clear for me that UL is just after money they think they've lost. I can only imagine how much does the certification cost and what would the already sky high price of a charger be after such a costly authorization.

    ReplyDelete