Join Date: Mar 2006
Nominated 0 Times in 1 Post
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 2
Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Right all, I've stumbled upon something with our recent chats and discussions.
VOSA and Renault have simply looked at the post-incident cases right? They have looked at the conditions of the catches right? All this proves is that something was potentially wrong with the catch mechanism (maintenance, performance related - or specific to the state of the main/safety catch (i.e. safety catch "not engaged")). Are we clear so far?
As clear as mud to me! You can say that something is potentially wrong with anything and you would be right in all cases. Everything has the potential of having something go wrong with it.
Right here's the magic question - has either organisation actually attempted to "replicate" the various potential causes, i.e. create test scenario's and test it with a physical car. AND then look at the evidence post-tests?
If you are thinking of velocity, road condition and resonance, I would say that any attempt to replicate would be meaningless. If all cars had failed at one given speed and on one given road (or type of) then you might be able to prove something; but they didn't. They failed at various speeds and on a various types of road. I presume that tyre presure wasn't tested to see if all these cars had the same pressure and same size type of tyre; I'd bet my bottom dollar you're not going to find that one thousand cars had the same tyres running at the same pressure on the same road at the same speed.
This is far more scientific then simply trying to tug at a bonnet and say yet them "seems secure to me", or assuming a report / assessment completed by the manufacture is sound!
THis doesn't have to be very scientific. The answers are there if the car inspectors (engineers if loosely termed) are committed to finding them. But they won't find them if their portfolio is to exonorate the maker and put the blame on the driver. The next thing we'll be discussing should then be, are the drivers guilty of driving cars in an unroadworthy condition? We all know that the final responsibility is on the neck of the driver if something is found wrong with a car after an incident.
VOSA have simply shown that the VSB are not able to complete any such replications - for some reason. Their role seems to be (although I am unclear on this) to investigate post-incident cases! Maybe we are dealing with the wrong department of VOSA then?
VOSA have shown me that they haven't got the vocation for their job. Punto e Basta. A potential cost of 15 million pounds can be quite a factor on people's minds. That's what it could cost Renault if they made a recall and altered all these cars. But don't kid yourselves, they have still got options that can save them face and come up smelling of roses.... well daffodils maybe.
An example, when they test cars roll-bars or seat-belts, or child-seats performance - they "replicate" this in a controlled environment. This was what we should expect. I cannot believe this point was staring us in the face for all this time and has not been raised yet!
My thoughts are ,"Don't get too complicated. This isn't nuclear science". The answers are simple:- The safety 'hook' is designed to engage EVERY time the bonnet is dropped into place, but it didn't. It is supposed to be failsafe, so did 1000 DRIVERS physically prevent it from engaging? If not, there is a fault, so... Messrs Engineers, please find it and make this threat go away; if you are not knowledgeable enough to find the causes, move over and engage an independent and impartial engineer (but please, not one who relies on your company for his future work and livelyhood).
Opinions expressed are purely my own and are not necessarily those of the management.
Currently in vass20's garage:
Citroen Relay 2.2 HDi + Citroen C4 1.6 HDi EGS
Last edited by vass20; 11th March 2007 at 11:52 AM.