porno türk porno rokettube
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 113

Thread: VH Commodre broke in half

  1. #21
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "D Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
    news:5252a745$0$29887$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
    > On 07/10/2013 10:38 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >> "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:l2tqp8$upq$1@dont-email.me...
    >>> On 07/10/13 5:17 PM, D Walford wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sounds like a row or several rows of spot welds were missing which can
    >>>> easily happen if a machine breaks down on the production line but the
    >>>> body shouldn't get past QC.
    >>>
    >>> This was the era of Blue motors. There *was* not QC then :)
    >>>
    >>>> If it was that simple I can't imagine Holden denying that it was
    >>>> production fault,
    >>>
    >>> I think you can get away with denying whatever you like if you're
    >>> prepared
    >>> to pay for the best legal team.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It makes no sense to draw attention to the fault if indeed there was
    >> *one*
    >> example of it.
    >> Give the man a new car and let engineering loose on his broken wreck to
    >> find
    >> out what went wrong makes more sense.

    >
    > That makes sense to us here but we aren't an American car company, in my
    > experience they do a lot of things that don't make sense.
    >>
    >> Chances are Holden looked at the car and determined it really wasn't a
    >> production fault and they weren't going to wear it.

    >
    > It may not have been a production fault but IMO any car that breaks in
    > half without having had an enormous impact has a design fault which is
    > even worse.



    If indeed it wasn't an enormous impact. If it's the story I posted, the
    impact was significant.

    >>
    >>>> if I was in charge at Holden I would have given the
    >>>> owner a new car and bought the wreck so the engineers could find out
    >>>> why
    >>>> it happened and make sure it didn't happen again.
    >>>
    >>> I would have too, but that would have been too easy. Holden was more
    >>> concerned with making this guy's life a misery by having his claims
    >>> publicly disgraced and thus avoiding any bad press about their product.

    >>
    >> Or infact there was no production fault. You are speculating here.
    >>
    >>> What they *could* have done was simply offered the guy a new car if he
    >>> signed a non disclosure agreement and the public would never have known
    >>> about it at all, but their minds simply don't work like that.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Obviously not a sound solution if it wasn't a production fault.
    >>
    >> It's all very speculative.
    >>

    >
    > It is and without the facts which I doubt we will ever know its all just
    > guesswork.
    > IMO Americans have some weird ideas which show up in many aspects of the
    > way they do things, most civilised people think that providing their
    > citizens with affordable health care is normal but the Yanks think its a
    > communist plot, they also think its a great idea to be armed to the teeth
    > and have shoot outs all over the country on a regular basis, if you happen
    > to get shot its your fault because you didn't shoot back.
    > With ****ed up thinking like that IMO anything is possible with crazy
    > ****ing Yanks so after working for a US company I don't find it odd that
    > they would chose to spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers instead of a
    > few thousand on supplying a new car.
    > I prefer the thinking of Mercedes Benz, apparently they try to buy the
    > wreck of every one of their cars that has been involved in a fatal
    > accident so they can investigate if there is anything they can do to
    > prevent any more fatalities, I know its nothing to do with warranty but
    > IMO it shows a much better attitude to their customers than any US
    > company.
    >


    The US way hasn't worked out too well for them given the state of their
    automotive industry ;-)



  2. #22
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "D Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
    news:52529f06$0$11094$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > On 07/10/2013 10:26 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >> "D Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
    >> news:52525227$0$2910$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astrawe b.com...
    >>> On 07/10/2013 5:06 PM, Noddy wrote:
    >>>> On 07/10/13 1:27 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Well I doubt that the owner woul dhave ended up out of pocket. If the
    >>>>> court decided that the vehicle was not defective, then the owner woul
    >>>>> dhave been able to rely on his indemnity given by the insurer and the
    >>>>> insurer would have had to pick up all the costs of the action, an
    >>>>> action that came about because the insurer denied liability on the
    >>>>> basis of defective design/manufacturing fault.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A first year law studunet could have won that one for him providing
    >>>>> your memory is accurate.
    >>>>
    >>>> I remember what was printed in the paper at the time, but don't know
    >>>> any
    >>>> more about it than that other than a few people who saw the photos of
    >>>> the damaged car all agreeing that it had a major structural failure in
    >>>> a
    >>>> way that was totally inconsistent with the amount of damage on the
    >>>> other
    >>>> car (which I think was something like a Toyota Corolla that clipped the
    >>>> rear of the Commodore and got a bent bumper bar for it's trouble).
    >>>>
    >>>>> BUT
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I really would like more info, you see I have a little more info from
    >>>>> another source.
    >>>>
    >>>> Cool.
    >>>>
    >>>>> A Wrecker near Proserpine in North QLD used to have a big sign on the
    >>>>> highway (around the time of the VH commodore) to the effect that for
    >>>>> $3,500 he would structurally reinforce your defective and dangerous
    >>>>> Commodore so that it actually met Australian design rules and was safe
    >>>>> to drive.
    >>>>
    >>>> Wow. I wonder if GMH ever took issue with that?.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh. I see they did :)
    >>>>
    >>>>> In the fullness of time, holden contacted him and requested him to
    >>>>> cease, desist and remove his sign.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Holden got told to GFY.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Holden sued and mid trial when things were apparently going bad for
    >>>>> them, made a settlement offer to wrecker. Such things are usually the
    >>>>> subject of confidentiality, all I know is that the wrecker closed the
    >>>>> doors, literally closed the doors and the wrecking yard became more
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> more overgrown until sold a few years back. The former wrecker
    >>>>> apparently moved to Shute Harbour and spent a lot of time onboard his
    >>>>> very new, and very big, game boat.
    >>>>
    >>>> Interesting.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'd love to know more, but when I contacted the law firm I was told
    >>>>> was
    >>>>> involved involved, the partner who handled had since retired and lost
    >>>>> his marbles, nobody else there remembered anything general about the
    >>>>> matter and due to the confidentiality agreement wouldn't look at the
    >>>>> files to tell me more.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bugger.
    >>>>
    >>>> What I remember at the time was that talk of this particular case was
    >>>> all over the repair industry down here, and particularly amongst panel
    >>>> beaters who seemed to be of the opinion at the time that the Dunny had
    >>>> some failings. When I mentioned earlier that a couple of people looked
    >>>> at the photos with me one of them owned one of the biggest panel shops
    >>>> in Melbourne at the time and was well positioned to tell if the car was
    >>>> damaged in a way that would be reasonably expected given the type of
    >>>> accident it was involved with and his opinion was most definitely not.
    >>>>
    >>>> The give away in his opinion (and that of many others apparently), was
    >>>> not only the lack of any substantial damage to the other car involved,
    >>>> but the clean "break" line in the Commodore. As I said earlier, the
    >>>> thing came apart looking like it had been carefully cut along a
    >>>> particular line.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Sounds like a row or several rows of spot welds were missing which can
    >>> easily happen if a machine breaks down on the production line but the
    >>> body
    >>> shouldn't get past QC.

    >>
    >> I dare say that if it was that bad you would notice the flex.

    >
    > Maybe but if it was very new it wasn't on the road long enough for it to
    > show up.
    >>
    >>> If it was that simple I can't imagine Holden denying that it was
    >>> production fault, if I was in charge at Holden I would have given the
    >>> owner a new car and bought the wreck so the engineers could find out why
    >>> it happened and make sure it didn't happen again.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Makes perfect sense that they would have done just that. Noddy's bullshit
    >> about panelbeaters means jack shit, they're not structural engineers and
    >> they didn't inspect the vehicle first hand.
    >>
    >> Perhaps it had been tampered with for all we know.

    >
    > That would be unlikely unless it was an older car and the owner
    > deliberately set out to get Holden.
    >


    Or the impact was in fact not minor at all and the speculative pub talk
    turned it into something it wasn't.
    As I said, it's too speculative to know.

    >> The fact that Holden (if this isn't some urban myth) fought it tooth and
    >> nail and won is quite revealing IMO.
    >>

    >
    > Not necessarily, I haven't had any direct dealing with Holden but like
    > Ford they are an American company and they (American companies) have a
    > rather odd attitude to such things, they would rather spend mega bucks on
    > lawyers than admit they made a faulty product which might have something
    > to do with US consumer laws.
    > I know Ford replaced a couple of cars in the late 70's but they did it
    > kicking and screaming and only when their legal team told them they
    > couldn't win in court, the cost of replacing the cars was a fraction of
    > the cost of fighting the customer yet they chose to fight anyway which
    > makes no sense at all to me.
    >


    It does when you consider the greater consequences and the precedent it
    sets. Every ****wit will want another car for every fault.
    Whilst Mercedes might buy back cars involved in major accidents, they're not
    in the habit of handing out new cars to people involved in them - I can
    assure you of that.





  3. #23
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "atec77" <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:l2u7ob$vm2$1@dont-email.me...
    > On 7/10/2013 9:45 PM, D Walford wrote:
    >> On 07/10/2013 10:26 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>> "D Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:52525227$0$2910$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astrawe b.com...
    >>>> On 07/10/2013 5:06 PM, Noddy wrote:
    >>>>> On 07/10/13 1:27 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Well I doubt that the owner woul dhave ended up out of pocket. If the
    >>>>>> court decided that the vehicle was not defective, then the owner woul
    >>>>>> dhave been able to rely on his indemnity given by the insurer and the
    >>>>>> insurer would have had to pick up all the costs of the action, an
    >>>>>> action that came about because the insurer denied liability on the
    >>>>>> basis of defective design/manufacturing fault.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A first year law studunet could have won that one for him providing
    >>>>>> your memory is accurate.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I remember what was printed in the paper at the time, but don't know
    >>>>> any
    >>>>> more about it than that other than a few people who saw the photos of
    >>>>> the damaged car all agreeing that it had a major structural failure
    >>>>> in a
    >>>>> way that was totally inconsistent with the amount of damage on the
    >>>>> other
    >>>>> car (which I think was something like a Toyota Corolla that clipped
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> rear of the Commodore and got a bent bumper bar for it's trouble).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> BUT
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I really would like more info, you see I have a little more info from
    >>>>>> another source.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cool.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> A Wrecker near Proserpine in North QLD used to have a big sign on the
    >>>>>> highway (around the time of the VH commodore) to the effect that for
    >>>>>> $3,500 he would structurally reinforce your defective and dangerous
    >>>>>> Commodore so that it actually met Australian design rules and was
    >>>>>> safe
    >>>>>> to drive.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Wow. I wonder if GMH ever took issue with that?.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh. I see they did :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In the fullness of time, holden contacted him and requested him to
    >>>>>> cease, desist and remove his sign.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Holden got told to GFY.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Holden sued and mid trial when things were apparently going bad for
    >>>>>> them, made a settlement offer to wrecker. Such things are usually the
    >>>>>> subject of confidentiality, all I know is that the wrecker closed the
    >>>>>> doors, literally closed the doors and the wrecking yard became more
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> more overgrown until sold a few years back. The former wrecker
    >>>>>> apparently moved to Shute Harbour and spent a lot of time onboard his
    >>>>>> very new, and very big, game boat.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Interesting.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I'd love to know more, but when I contacted the law firm I was told
    >>>>>> was
    >>>>>> involved involved, the partner who handled had since retired and lost
    >>>>>> his marbles, nobody else there remembered anything general about the
    >>>>>> matter and due to the confidentiality agreement wouldn't look at the
    >>>>>> files to tell me more.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bugger.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What I remember at the time was that talk of this particular case was
    >>>>> all over the repair industry down here, and particularly amongst panel
    >>>>> beaters who seemed to be of the opinion at the time that the Dunny had
    >>>>> some failings. When I mentioned earlier that a couple of people looked
    >>>>> at the photos with me one of them owned one of the biggest panel shops
    >>>>> in Melbourne at the time and was well positioned to tell if the car
    >>>>> was
    >>>>> damaged in a way that would be reasonably expected given the type of
    >>>>> accident it was involved with and his opinion was most definitely not.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The give away in his opinion (and that of many others apparently), was
    >>>>> not only the lack of any substantial damage to the other car involved,
    >>>>> but the clean "break" line in the Commodore. As I said earlier, the
    >>>>> thing came apart looking like it had been carefully cut along a
    >>>>> particular line.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Sounds like a row or several rows of spot welds were missing which can
    >>>> easily happen if a machine breaks down on the production line but the
    >>>> body
    >>>> shouldn't get past QC.
    >>>
    >>> I dare say that if it was that bad you would notice the flex.

    >>
    >> Maybe but if it was very new it wasn't on the road long enough for it to
    >> show up.
    >>>
    >>>> If it was that simple I can't imagine Holden denying that it was
    >>>> production fault, if I was in charge at Holden I would have given the
    >>>> owner a new car and bought the wreck so the engineers could find out
    >>>> why
    >>>> it happened and make sure it didn't happen again.

    >
    >>
    >> Not necessarily, I haven't had any direct dealing with Holden but like
    >> Ford they are an American company and they (American companies) have a
    >> rather odd attitude to such things, they would rather spend mega bucks
    >> on lawyers than admit they made a faulty product which might have
    >> something to do with US consumer laws.
    >> I know Ford replaced a couple of cars in the late 70's but they did it
    >> kicking and screaming and only when their legal team told them they
    >> couldn't win in court, the cost of replacing the cars was a fraction of
    >> the cost of fighting the customer yet they chose to fight anyway which
    >> makes no sense at all to me.
    >>
    >>

    > in a word , precedent
    >


    Yep, and all manufacturers would protect themselves in a similar fashion.
    Anyone who thinks it's Holden specific is spending too much time with Mrs.
    Palmer and her 5 daughters.



  4. #24
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2ua5v$dr9$1@dont-email.me...
    > On 07/10/13 10:45 PM, D Walford wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe but if it was very new it wasn't on the road long enough for it to
    >> show up.

    >
    > I can't remember *exactly* when it happened, but it was certainly within
    > the life of the thing being a current car. In other words, it wasn't very
    > old when it came apart in the accident.
    >
    >> That would be unlikely unless it was an older car and the owner
    >> deliberately set out to get Holden.

    >
    > It'd be next to impossible to un-pick spot welds and make it look as if
    > they hadn't been tampered with.
    >


    The spot welds were fine and the collision wasn't minor is my bet.


    >> Not necessarily, I haven't had any direct dealing with Holden but like
    >> Ford they are an American company and they (American companies) have a
    >> rather odd attitude to such things, they would rather spend mega bucks
    >> on lawyers than admit they made a faulty product which might have
    >> something to do with US consumer laws.
    >> I know Ford replaced a couple of cars in the late 70's but they did it
    >> kicking and screaming and only when their legal team told them they
    >> couldn't win in court, the cost of replacing the cars was a fraction of
    >> the cost of fighting the customer yet they chose to fight anyway which
    >> makes no sense at all to me.

    >
    > It happens all the time, and insurance companies rule the roost at it.
    > They'll think *nothing* of spending a hundred grand in court to avoid
    > paying you 5 thousand bucks if they think you're trying to fleece them.
    > It's a mentality that doesn't strike me as particularly smart, but that's
    > the way it is.
    >


    Are you suggesting that they should let people fleece them?

    > As far as this particular case is concerned, I'm pretty sure the story
    > made the papers down here just after the case had been finalised with the
    > owner having been to court and lost. I don't remember the exact wording of
    > the text but the article was clearly not in favour of the court decision
    > and looked at the incident from a "little guy getting beaten down by the
    > big guy" view. It did however have photos of the accident scene and the
    > cars, and it was abundantly clear from both the description of the
    > accident and the photos of the two cars at the scene that the damage to
    > the Commodore wasn't the result of the collision.
    >


    As if you could tell that from a photo. FFS, does your speculative BS ever
    stop flowing?

    > I also seem to recall one of the people being interviewed in the story was
    > a cop who attended the scene at the time of the accident saying he'd never
    > seen a car damaged in such a way from such a minor collision, and I think
    > he may have even been called to court as a witness.
    >



    With your memory being as vague as it is and your penchant for filling in
    the blanks with bullshit, it probably is the article on the VK crash I
    posted.

    I suggest you read it carefully.



  5. #25
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
    news:5252ad0c$0$29885$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
    >
    > "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.org> wrote in message
    > news:bbesq5FabivU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> > Clocky alluded to a subsequent court case in which the owner did not
    >>> > fare well.
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>> Did I?
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Apparently not.
    >>
    >> However i assure you i wasn't planning on taking issue woht you, I am
    >> genuinely interested given my own knowledge about the Nth QLD matter.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I do have a vague recollection of a Commodore breaking in half and
    >>> this topic being discussed many years ago I'll see what I can find.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, and were it not for the half remembered other matter I would have
    >> put it down to pub talk, a transmogrification of the Rekord that bropke
    >> in half during testing, thereby proving why testing is necessary.
    >>
    >> If you do find anything, please post.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Nothing on a VH, but there was this, but a near new VK...
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >
    > Alludes to a few things being discussed in here at the moment.
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >
    > VL this time.
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >
    > I'll have another look tomorrow.
    >


    Here it is:

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...47?zoomLevel=3

    The follow up reports then:
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=








  6. #26
    Ext User(Blue Heeler) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    Clocky wrote:

    > Or the impact was in fact not minor at all and the speculative pub
    > talk turned it into something it wasn't. As I said, it's too
    > speculative to know.
    >



    Thank you for the articles on the VK. An impact delivered to an unusual
    area resulting in quite unexpected results. Althought the holden
    engineers may have been a bit "ambitious" in their estimate of the
    impact speed.

    And i agree, "one swallow does not a summer make'.

  7. #27
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 08/10/13 2:12 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > If indeed it wasn't an enormous impact. If it's the story I posted, the
    > impact was significant.


    It it was, and the damaged Mazda was any indicator, it wasn't
    significant at all :)

    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  8. #28
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 08/10/13 2:26 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > The spot welds were fine and the collision wasn't minor is my bet.


    That doesn't surprise me in the slightest :)

    > Are you suggesting that they should let people fleece them?


    Not at all. I'm saying that they'll go out of their way to spend a
    dollar to avoid losing 2 cents.

    > As if you could tell that from a photo. FFS, does your speculative BS ever
    > stop flowing?


    It's not very difficult to look at a picture of a car that has "broken
    in half" *so* cleanly that it looks like it was cut in half with a
    grinder. Cars generally don't come apart cleanly in accidents.

    If you're unable to tell the difference then I'd suggest you call this
    number:
    08 9226 0002.

    > With your memory being as vague as it is and your penchant for filling in
    > the blanks with bullshit, it probably is the article on the VK crash I
    > posted.
    >
    > I suggest you read it carefully.


    Actually you posted links to a few similar stories (and unlike your fine
    self I didn't ignore them).

    It would seem Commodores of the era had some issues :)




    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  9. #29
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 08/10/13 7:04 AM, Blue Heeler wrote:

    > Thank you for the articles on the VK. An impact delivered to an unusual
    > area resulting in quite unexpected results. Althought the holden
    > engineers may have been a bit "ambitious" in their estimate of the
    > impact speed.


    Just a little :)

    > And i agree, "one swallow does not a summer make'.


    Agreed.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  10. #30
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 08/10/13 2:18 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Or the impact was in fact not minor at all and the speculative pub talk
    > turned it into something it wasn't.
    > As I said, it's too speculative to know.


    It certainly is, but the fact that it made the press in the first place
    suggests that it was out of the ordinary at the minimum.

    As I said the photos posted originally showed a car that was not only
    damaged in a very unusual way, but that damage was totally out of
    character with the damage sustained by the other vehicle.

    > It does when you consider the greater consequences and the precedent it
    > sets. Every ****wit will want another car for every fault.


    Which is probably why Holden decided to go to court with the intent on
    burying the complainant in the first place.




    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  11. #31
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 08/10/13 2:20 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Yep, and all manufacturers would protect themselves in a similar fashion.


    Hold on a moment... :)

    This morning you're claiming that Holden's actions in court are
    perfectly understandable, yet last night before I went to bed you were
    saying that they didn't make sense and it would have been far better for
    them to have just given the bloke another car.

    Just be careful you don't get a huge splinter in your fat arse sitting
    on that fence, okay? :)

    > Anyone who thinks it's Holden specific is spending too much time with Mrs.
    > Palmer and her 5 daughters.


    Here we go. More apologist bullshit.





    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  12. #32
    Ext User() Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    Noddy <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > You have to bear in mind that you're talking about a country where one of
    > it's major corporations (Ford Motor Company) knew it had a product on the
    > market that was prone to catching fire in a collision, and instead of
    > automatically fixing that problem and removing the danger they conducted
    > a study to see how much fixing the problem would cost over an expected
    > number of vehicles produced versus the cost of compensation courts would
    > be likely to award for the number of deaths that could be expected as a
    > result of leaving the defective product as it was.
    >
    > Essentially Ford put a monetary value on a human life, and decided that
    > it was cheaper to let people burn and argue about the compensation for
    > their families in court afterwards.
    >
    > And they did. A number of people died and many more were horribly maimed
    > and it wasn't long before court cases ensued and Ford totally
    > underestimated the strength of the argument against them. In the end they
    > had to pay compensation in the millions, and were ordered to fix their cars.
    >
    > When they did, the total cost for the fix was found to be just under 12
    > dollars per vehicle.


    IIRC, it was less than that, and they did not find out the cost then, they
    already knew. It wasn't acceptable in other markets, so the Canadian
    production already had the fix, as did many of the vehicles on the US
    market, as many were made in Canada.



    --
    cheers, Paul Saccani

  13. #33
    Ext User() Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > It is and without the facts which I doubt we will ever know its all just guesswork.
    > IMO Americans have some weird ideas which show up in many aspects of the
    > way they do things, most civilised people think that providing their
    > citizens with affordable health care is normal but the Yanks think its a communist plot,


    Well that, and worse still, their management of drug supply.

    >they also think its a great idea to be armed to the teeth and have shoot
    > outs all over the country on a regular basis, if you happen to get shot
    > its your fault because you didn't shoot back.


    Strange that they have a lower murder rate than countries in the UK. This
    was very apparent in the Interpol crime statistics. One reason why you
    can't access them today.

    > With ****ed up thinking like that IMO anything is possible with crazy
    > ****ing Yanks so after working for a US company I don't find it odd that
    > they would chose to spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers instead of a
    > few thousand on supplying a new car.


    Well, they have a different legal system. The magnitude of judgements can
    be such as to put a stop to a whole segment of industry, on often frivolous
    grounds.

    > I prefer the thinking of Mercedes Benz, apparently they try to buy the
    > wreck of every one of their cars that has been involved in a fatal
    > accident so they can investigate if there is anything they can do to
    > prevent any more fatalities, I know its nothing to do with warranty but
    > IMO it shows a much better attitude to their customers than any US company.
    >

    Proton used to spend a lot of time doing that kind of analysis. It is far,
    far cheaper than crash testing.


    --
    cheers, Paul Saccani

  14. #34
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 08/10/13 2:46 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Here it is:
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...47?zoomLevel=3
    >
    > The follow up reports then:
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=


    That looks to be it, thank you. It was indeed a VK after all. I always
    thought it was a VH.

    Now, if you look at the photos of both cars you can tell that (a) it was
    *NOT* a high speed collision, (b) the damage to the Commodore is
    *severe* and out of character to the damage of the Mazda, and (c) the
    car came apart very cleanly.

    Observe the left hand wheel arch, floor section and
    rear beaver panel join which all look like they've been cleanly cut away
    from the rest of the back of the car, and the C pillar join on the
    broken off section which appears to have a clean break?

    I can tell you right now as sure as I'm sitting here that that is *not*
    normal accident damage.




    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  15. #35
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half

    On 07/10/13 11:44 PM, Clocky wrote:

    > Nothing on a VH, but there was this, but a near new VK...
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >
    > Alludes to a few things being discussed in here at the moment.
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >
    > VL this time.
    >
    > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >
    > I'll have another look tomorrow.


    Good finds. Well done.


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  16. #36
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2v7ih$56c$2@dont-email.me...
    > On 08/10/13 2:26 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> The spot welds were fine and the collision wasn't minor is my bet.

    >
    > That doesn't surprise me in the slightest :)
    >


    Do you disbelieve all the investigations as being bullshit?

    >> Are you suggesting that they should let people fleece them?

    >
    > Not at all. I'm saying that they'll go out of their way to spend a dollar
    > to avoid losing 2 cents.
    >


    Not if a precedent is set to let every arsehole fleece them obviously.


    >> As if you could tell that from a photo. FFS, does your speculative BS
    >> ever
    >> stop flowing?

    >
    > It's not very difficult to look at a picture of a car that has "broken in
    > half" *so* cleanly that it looks like it was cut in half with a grinder.
    > Cars generally don't come apart cleanly in accidents.
    >


    Cars come apart in all sorts of ways in accidents, you can't determine
    anything from a photo as it tells you nothing of the how and why's. Only
    careful and detailed investigation will tell you that.
    Surprise, that's exactly what happened. First the alarmist headlines and
    preliminary reports on the day (enough for you), then the investigation,
    then the washup which cleared the manufacturer.


    > If you're unable to tell the difference then I'd suggest you call this
    > number:
    > 08 9226 0002.
    >


    Is that where you got your blinkers from?

    >> With your memory being as vague as it is and your penchant for filling in
    >> the blanks with bullshit, it probably is the article on the VK crash I
    >> posted.
    >>
    >> I suggest you read it carefully.

    >
    > Actually you posted links to a few similar stories (and unlike your fine
    > self I didn't ignore them).
    >


    The first three are all about the same car, only one is from a clearly
    unrelated accident. You didn't read them obviously or you would have known
    that.
    Then I posted the initial report which ofcourse read like the headline
    grabbing story they wanted it to be. Nothing about law suits however, but
    that is understandable since the car was cleared.


    > It would seem Commodores of the era had some issues :)
    >


    *One* car is an issue now, because you can tell from the picture and that
    makes you an instant structural engineer.

    Do you ever look beyond the headlines and actually do some research into the
    facts?
    Seems not, on any subject.





  17. #37
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2v8bk$a77$1@dont-email.me...
    > On 08/10/13 2:46 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Here it is:
    >>
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...47?zoomLevel=3
    >>
    >> The follow up reports then:
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=

    >
    > That looks to be it, thank you. It was indeed a VK after all. I always
    > thought it was a VH.
    >
    > Now, if you look at the photos of both cars you can tell that (a) it was
    > *NOT* a high speed collision,


    You can't tell that at all, it looks to me in the vicinity of later reports.

    (b) the damage to the Commodore is
    > *severe* and out of character to the damage of the Mazda, and (c) the car
    > came apart very cleanly.
    >


    Because it hit at an unusual angle which had the effect of shearing the
    Commodore. Looks to me that the rear axle was hit with such force and angle
    that it was torn away from the rest of the vehicle. No indication of a minor
    accident, looks to me to be rather major.

    > Observe the left hand wheel arch, floor section and
    > rear beaver panel join which all look like they've been cleanly cut away
    > from the rest of the back of the car, and the C pillar join on the broken
    > off section which appears to have a clean break?
    >
    > I can tell you right now as sure as I'm sitting here that that is *not*
    > normal accident damage.
    >


    The circumstances of the accident were unique (the angle of impact and one
    vehicle hooking the other at speed), the damage looks odd because of it and
    whilst it appears to be unusual but subsequent investigations by engineers
    seems to dismiss the poor weld and compromised structural integrity theory.

    It was a rental car, so why the owner took on Holden who got the all-clear
    is rather suspiciously like a pub tale as I can't find any reference to a
    court case.

    But I'm still looking.



  18. #38
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2vbg7$uo1$2@dont-email.me...
    > On 07/10/13 11:44 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Nothing on a VH, but there was this, but a near new VK...
    >>
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >>
    >> Alludes to a few things being discussed in here at the moment.
    >>
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >>
    >> VL this time.
    >>
    >> http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/arti...&searchLimits=
    >>
    >> I'll have another look tomorrow.

    >
    > Good finds. Well done.
    >


    Thanks.



  19. #39
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Noddy" <me@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
    news:l2v7ua$6vr$3@dont-email.me...
    > On 08/10/13 2:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Yep, and all manufacturers would protect themselves in a similar fashion.

    >
    > Hold on a moment... :)
    >
    > This morning you're claiming that Holden's actions in court are perfectly
    > understandable, yet last night before I went to bed you were saying that
    > they didn't make sense and it would have been far better for them to have
    > just given the bloke another car.
    >


    *If at fault*

    > Just be careful you don't get a huge splinter in your fat arse sitting on
    > that fence, okay? :)
    >


    Or you could place each comment in context.

    >> Anyone who thinks it's Holden specific is spending too much time with
    >> Mrs.
    >> Palmer and her 5 daughters.

    >
    > Here we go. More apologist bullshit.
    >


    Are you really saying that manufacturers are in the habit of giving people
    cars rather then defend claims against them?



  20. #40
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: VH Commodre broke in half


    "Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
    news:52533459$0$2885$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astrawe b.com...

    > You can't tell that at all, it looks to me in the vicinity of later
    > reports.


    You can actually tell quite easily just by looking at the pictures. I've
    seen a few cars torn in half in accidents, but I've never seen one broken in
    half so cleanly as to leave the two halves so remarkably intact.

    Given that the incident was a non fatal accident that gained some media
    attention in it's day I would wager that I'm not the only one either.

    > Because it hit at an unusual angle which had the effect of shearing the
    > Commodore. Looks to me that the rear axle was hit with such force and
    > angle that it was torn away from the rest of the vehicle. No indication of
    > a minor accident, looks to me to be rather major.


    Rubbish. The other car is the give away. It's *not* extensively damaged, and
    certainly not to the extent that I think would be reasonable to expect given
    that it had cut a large sedan clean in half.

    > The circumstances of the accident were unique (the angle of impact and one
    > vehicle hooking the other at speed), the damage looks odd because of it
    > and whilst it appears to be unusual but subsequent investigations by
    > engineers seems to dismiss the poor weld and compromised structural
    > integrity theory.


    There was nothing "unique" about it at all as far as I can tell, and that
    accusation seemed to have originated with GMH along with one alleging
    excessive speed. That's perfectly understandable. GMH's position is to
    defend it's product, which is precisely why any claims from them should be
    immediately dismissed as fanciful bullshit.

    If you have a look at the comments in the original article with the photos,
    you'll see that the police attending the scene were of the opinion that
    excessive speed wasn't a factor and that the accident was considered "minor"
    with the police being amazed at the extent of the damage the Commodore
    suffered.

    Also in the article you'll see where the Chairman of the smash repair
    division of the Automobile Chamber of Commerce had examined the wreckage and
    declared that in his 30 years of repair work he'd seen nothing like it. To
    quote him directly:

    "Some of the spot welds were not welded together properly and, in one
    section, I found that only half the welds were satisfactory. The gauge of
    the metal in the floor was not heavy enough to resist that sort of accident.
    It didn't look like a very heavy impact and the only structural damage was a
    broken rear pillar. All the rest was the weld breaking away."

    > It was a rental car, so why the owner took on Holden who got the all-clear
    > is rather suspiciously like a pub tale as I can't find any reference to a
    > court case.
    >
    > But I'm still looking.


    It apparently was indeed a rental owned by Budget, so I have no idea where
    the part about the owner being burnt in court came from. Still, who knows.
    Maybe there *was* a VH as well and you might turn it up :)

    Finally, it's interesting to note the quoted comments of the manager of the
    Budget outlet where the car originated form, who said:

    "We have freighted it to our Mascot depot for our engineers to look at it,"
    he said. "But we see it as a GM-H problem."

    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •