Third C86 has now failed

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In less than one year I have now had three Epson C86 printers fail. In
each case the failure was exactly the same; magenta fails to print
although the cartridge (original Epson) is fine. Head cleaning didn't
help and the previous printers were replaced under warranty. Of course,
each time, the warranty is only the residual life of the original one
year warranty. Also, the hundred quid I've now wasted on cartridges is
not covered.

The printers were used for exceptionally light duty printing, being
asked to print perhaps 6-10 pages per week. After the first unit
failed, I bought a cheap Samsung laser printer and the majority of
printing is done to this unit.

I would strongly urge caution in purchasing this model printer. Having
three units fail in a row - light duty printing, placed in a dry, clean
environment at normal room temperature and out of direct sunlight, and
not subject to any abuse, I find this entirely unacceptable.

I will now be contacting Epson and demanding my money back, as the
goods are clearly not suitable for the purpose intended, and my
patience has finally run out.

 

[zakezuke]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> In less than one year I have now had three Epson C86 printers fail. In
> each case the failure was exactly the same; magenta fails to print
> although the cartridge (original Epson) is fine. Head cleaning didn't
> help and the previous printers were replaced under warranty. Of course,
> each time, the warranty is only the residual life of the original one
> year warranty. Also, the hundred quid I've now wasted on cartridges is
>not covered.

I am sorry to hear this. From my exploring I believe many epson issues
are a direct result of not having the gasket seal the printhead
properly which leads to clogging. The gasket is this little foam thing
to the right of the ink cleaning station that has an annoying tendancy,
for me anyway, to get knocked out of place by the printhead. In my
case my whole ink station assembly got knocked out of place. In my
case I lost yellow first, but I had the r200.

But if your problems are clogging there is a man on here who offers
cleaning tips via e-mail, though I can't remember his name off the top
of my head. A little bit of windowlean might go far in keeping your
printer alive and well.

Because it's a piezo printhead, you can be pretty assured that you can
put just about any form of medium through there as it's mechanicaly
squeezed rather than thermal systems like Canon or HP for example.
This means you "coulld" use 3rd party ink and when the printhead clogs
take it back and get a referb and sell off the free ink it comes with.
I don't know the laws in your country regarding warranty coverage, but
you're far more likely to get your money back getting referbs for every
failure and selling the ink on e-bay. This may sound scummy but given
the fact that their products used as reccomended are not lasting a year
for many, the best thing consumers can do is protest and get as many
referbs as possible. If as I suspect it's a gasket issue they can
design a better one, one that works, one that doesn't get knocked out
of place by the printhead.

I feel your pain.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY
PRINTER YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.

ajmayo@my-deja.com wrote:

>In less than one year I have now had three Epson C86 printers fail. In
>each case the failure was exactly the same; magenta fails to print
>although the cartridge (original Epson) is fine. Head cleaning didn't
>help and the previous printers were replaced under warranty. Of course,
>each time, the warranty is only the residual life of the original one
>year warranty. Also, the hundred quid I've now wasted on cartridges is
>not covered.
>
>The printers were used for exceptionally light duty printing, being
>asked to print perhaps 6-10 pages per week. After the first unit
>failed, I bought a cheap Samsung laser printer and the majority of
>printing is done to this unit.
>
>I would strongly urge caution in purchasing this model printer. Having
>three units fail in a row - light duty printing, placed in a dry, clean
>environment at normal room temperature and out of direct sunlight, and
>not subject to any abuse, I find this entirely unacceptable.
>
>I will now be contacting Epson and demanding my money back, as the
>goods are clearly not suitable for the purpose intended, and my
>patience has finally run out.
>
>
>

 

[frank]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY
> PRINTER YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.

Hello...can you read ad why do you chose to constantly make a fool out
of yourself in public?
Frank

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:dATCe.5265$NU2.2826@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY PRINTER
>YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.

Reading comprehension - you flunked. Take the class over. He said
"Original Epson". Most important - how could he have more problems than
failure to print??????????? Thanks for keeping the aftermarket ink subject
alive and well. More people become educated to their successful use when
you take every opportunity to interject your "OEM only opinion", even when
it has nothing to do with the OP message.
>
> ajmayo@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>In less than one year I have now had three Epson C86 printers fail. In
>>each case the failure was exactly the same; magenta fails to print
>>although the cartridge (original Epson) is fine. Head cleaning didn't
>>help and the previous printers were replaced under warranty. Of course,
>>each time, the warranty is only the residual life of the original one
>>year warranty. Also, the hundred quid I've now wasted on cartridges is
>>not covered.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:dATCe.5265$NU2.2826@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY PRINTER
>>YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.
>>
>>
>
>Reading comprehension - you flunked.
>
:-D You answered hahaha

> Take the class over.
>
:-D No need to you answered.

>He said
>"Original Epson". Most important - how could he have more problems than
>failure to print??????????? Thanks for keeping the aftermarket ink subject
>alive and well.
>
wellcum

>More people become educated
>
like you

>to their successful use when
>you take every opportunity to interject your "OEM only opinion", even when
>it has nothing to do with the OP message.
>
>

DO U TINK I CARE WHAT UDDER PEEPUL TINK.

>>ajmayo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In less than one year I have now had three Epson C86 printers fail. In
>>>each case the failure was exactly the same; magenta fails to print
>>>although the cartridge (original Epson) is fine. Head cleaning didn't
>>>help and the previous printers were replaced under warranty. Of course,
>>>each time, the warranty is only the residual life of the original one
>>>year warranty. Also, the hundred quid I've now wasted on cartridges is
>>>not covered.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY
>> PRINTER YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.
>
>
> Hello...can you read ad why do you chose to constantly make a fool out
> of yourself in public?
> Frank


TO SEE HOW MANY TIMES U R GONNA MAKE A FOOL OTTA UR SELF BY ANSWERING.
I AM COUNTING ONIT HE HE HE HE OR IS IT HA HA HA HA :-D :-D :-D

 

[frank]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY
>>> PRINTER YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello...can you read ad why do you chose to constantly make a fool out
>> of yourself in public?
>> Frank
>
>
>
> TO SEE HOW MANY TIMES U R GONNA MAKE A FOOL OTTA UR SELF BY ANSWERING.
> I AM COUNTING ONIT HE HE HE HE OR IS IT HA HA HA HA :-D :-D :-D

You're counting...hahahahaha! That's a laugh as everyone knows you can't
count.
Frank

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> I DO HEAR THAT IS A BAD MODEL. BUT IF YOU DO NOT USE OEM INK IN ANY
>>>> PRINTER YOU WILL HAVE MORE PROBLEMS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello...can you read ad why do you chose to constantly make a fool
>>> out of yourself in public?
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> TO SEE HOW MANY TIMES U R GONNA MAKE A FOOL OTTA UR SELF BY
>> ANSWERING. I AM COUNTING ONIT HE HE HE HE OR IS IT HA HA HA HA :-D
>> :-D :-D
>
>
> You're counting...hahahahaha! That's a laugh as everyone knows you
> can't count.
> Frank

hehehehehehehe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

As strange as it may appear, what probably caused some of the difficulty
is that it was lightly used in a dry environment. Inkjet printers like
neither. The laser printer, in your case, would be the better choice of
printer. Good luck with the refund, I hope you get it.

Art

ajmayo@my-deja.com wrote:

> In less than one year I have now had three Epson C86 printers fail. In
> each case the failure was exactly the same; magenta fails to print
> although the cartridge (original Epson) is fine. Head cleaning didn't
> help and the previous printers were replaced under warranty. Of course,
> each time, the warranty is only the residual life of the original one
> year warranty. Also, the hundred quid I've now wasted on cartridges is
> not covered.
>
> The printers were used for exceptionally light duty printing, being
> asked to print perhaps 6-10 pages per week. After the first unit
> failed, I bought a cheap Samsung laser printer and the majority of
> printing is done to this unit.
>
> I would strongly urge caution in purchasing this model printer. Having
> three units fail in a row - light duty printing, placed in a dry, clean
> environment at normal room temperature and out of direct sunlight, and
> not subject to any abuse, I find this entirely unacceptable.
>
> I will now be contacting Epson and demanding my money back, as the
> goods are clearly not suitable for the purpose intended, and my
> patience has finally run out.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Well, I had a Canon S520 before then and it was used just as lightly.
It worked flawlessly for two years until one day my partner
unfortunately queued 30 pages to it with an empty black cartridge and
fried the print head. So I really don't think this is acceptable. Also
at work we have a very old HP Business Inkjet printer with separate
cartridges. This sat, unused, in a storeroom for nearly TWO YEARS and
then one day we needed it so we plugged it in and it worked flawlessly.
Therefore I am simply unwilling to accept that this is normal
behaviour. In fact, every week, I would always print a couple of pages
just to prevent against this problem, after the first printer failure.

 

[zakezuke]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Therefore I am simply unwilling to accept that this is normal
> behaviour. In fact, every week, I would always print a couple of pages
> just to prevent against this problem, after the first printer failure.

Chances are the HP business jet used a thermal printhead. I'm not
familar with all of HPs offerings and you didn't specify a model number
but the odds are good that it's using a thermal based printhead.

The Epsons use a piezo printhead. Piezo is pretty cool in the fact
that it's more tolerant to different medium but suffer from clogging or
fouling if exposed to air, where the thermal jets this is not so much
an issue. Also the c86 uses pigment inks which are more prone to
clogging.

There is a good technical explanation why these two printers would
behave diffrently in the same enviroment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I entirely understand that, from a technical point of view, but from a
consumer point of view it's entirely reasonable to expect that a
printer used at home should manage to sit idle with the heads parked
for a week without printing and then print without a problem, just as
any car that wouldn't start after a week in the airport carpark due to
a 'design issue' would be rightly criticised.

If Epson chose to use this technology and it has a serious flaw from
the consumer viewpoint, then unfortunately I find it hard to be
sympathetic. If there was a cheap and easy way to clean the heads
without either (a) risking the warranty or (b) using up very expensive
cartridges, then fine, but that isn't so. As such, the printer is
clearly therefore 'not fit for purpose'.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ajmayo@my-deja.com wrote:

>I entirely understand that, from a technical point of view, but from a
>consumer point of view it's entirely reasonable to expect that a
>printer used at home should manage to sit idle with the heads parked
>for a week without printing and then print without a problem, just as
>any car that wouldn't start after a week in the airport carpark due to
>a 'design issue' would be rightly criticised.
>
>If Epson chose to use this technology and it has a serious flaw from
>the consumer viewpoint, then unfortunately I find it hard to be
>sympathetic. If there was a cheap and easy way to clean the heads
>without either (a) risking the warranty or (b) using up very expensive
>cartridges, then fine, but that isn't so. As such, the printer is
>clearly therefore 'not fit for purpose'.
>
>
>

YOU ARE RIGHT

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I would agree that an inkjet printer should be able to sit unused for
more than a week without becoming clogged.

Art

ajmayo@my-deja.com wrote:

> I entirely understand that, from a technical point of view, but from a
> consumer point of view it's entirely reasonable to expect that a
> printer used at home should manage to sit idle with the heads parked
> for a week without printing and then print without a problem, just as
> any car that wouldn't start after a week in the airport carpark due to
> a 'design issue' would be rightly criticised.
>
> If Epson chose to use this technology and it has a serious flaw from
> the consumer viewpoint, then unfortunately I find it hard to be
> sympathetic. If there was a cheap and easy way to clean the heads
> without either (a) risking the warranty or (b) using up very expensive
> cartridges, then fine, but that isn't so. As such, the printer is
> clearly therefore 'not fit for purpose'.
>

 

[zakezuke]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> I entirely understand that, from a technical point of view, but from a
> consumer point of view it's entirely reasonable to expect that a
> printer used at home should manage to sit idle with the heads parked
> for a week without printing and then print without a problem, just as
> any car that wouldn't start after a week in the airport carpark due to
> a 'design issue' would be rightly criticised.

I agree with you... fully 100%.

>From a technical point of view, I believe epsons's problems can be
resolved simply with better gasket design. I'm starting to see the
c86s flood the goodwills all of them don't have the gasket located on
the far right hand side next to the waste dump station. The nice thing
about CD printing is it requires the head shaft to move upwards... and
it seems somewhat silly to use a platform that is basicly chair shaped
held down by two springs using a rod and grove path and the force of
the head to properly move this platform upward and press on the head.
I would think since the rod is able to move up and down and does so
during it's start up cycle at least in the r200 that it could use this
system to park the head ontop of a gasket that is actually held down in
for places rather than one side with one bracket.

If what I suspect is true is true, and this gasket gets knocked out of
place during normal operation, then it may be possible for the end user
to affix it down in some way. Either by using two layers of the same
material cut in a plus patern and glueing it to the 4 corners of the
waste/parking station, or filling the area under the gasket with some
form of epoxy and using a single layer of that gasket material and one
layer of double stick tape. Given how many c86 with missing gaskets
i'm seeing in thrift stores I might test this hypothesis.