marcush. wrote:I choose to deviate there 747 .
these things do not just happen...with validation tests before going into production and in the field testing galore basic things show up usually in the development cycle.
Then starts a risk assessment and someone decides if the risk is going to be high enough to swith on the red light and you have to erase the possible fault.
Of course being late in the timeplanning people tend to talk down possible issues but I highly doubt issues do not show in development sometime but reality is they get not traced up and solved as it would be necessary because of ignorance or whatever...I worked there I can assure you going through old documents has more than once shown a problem not popping up out of the blue but being ignored or downplayed or too lazy analised and not solved /validated as necessary when first appeared.
so something like a bonding material self igniting at normal engine compartment temps (Hot idle,heat soak condition).. thats´a joke really ....of course you need to specify your materials and have a safety margin on top of what you see in reality ..so having the man specifying the glue not knowing what underhood temps he´s going to see ..is ignorance and typical COP
(carryoverpart) mentality .It worked on the last car ..so it will work on the new ...that stile of approach will always present you with unpleasant surprises..
While I agree with what you say Marcus, it is not more a joke then a car catching fire during refueling.
I think we both know that recalls are common practice across the board in the automotive industry.
But not just there, as the old joke goes, we can be happy that Microsoft does not produces cars, fortunately for them it´s easier to upgrade a software product then a car.
Just imagine, you would need to take your computer to a dealer for every software update, and they would need to pay for that.
I´m quite sure they would be out of business by now.
Sure there is a reason for every fault and malfunction, I did not mean, that things just happen out of te blue.
But if you take the number of cars affected by this, and the speed with which they responded to the problem and how they did, I don´t think that it´s all that bad, if you compare it to Toyota floormat/sudden accl. problem, or the whole VW,SEAT/SKODA electrical window lifter saga, or Audi´s brake poblems with salt/wet winter road conditions.
I think, we know what is the underlying problem, the competition and cost savings at all costs mentality.
Sure the Ferrari fire is a very publicity prone event, but on a global scale and for automotive standards it´s a rather small scale event, if you see the number of cars involved, and the cost which are related to the ugrade.
I think Mercedes (Smart,A-Class) Toyota and Audi (TT Spoiler,ESP upgrade) would take it at any time, if compared to their stuff ups.
So I think it get´s blown a bit out of poportions.
And to take this as a argument to say Ferrai is a crap car/company, what autogyro seems to suggest, takes it a bit far IMHO.
Sure it was a engineering stuff up, and maybe somebody was hopeing to get away with it. But that´s not much different to what happens in any other large enterprise these days.
Dunno how much of that is the truth!
