Since 15 october this year, when a crowd announced the recall of some of the fast-moving cars, the impact of the incident has continued to grow, with 577 car owners having recently started class action proceedings and the defence of rights having escalated from civic activity to legal defence. (for more details, see public recall and tracking: 577 car owners plan collective proceedings, 17 november 2014。
At present, the lack of technical testing and validation by authoritative third-party expert bodies has raised concerns as to whether there is still a security risk in the form of popular “repair patches”. Did the break-up of the fast-paced suspension stem from an earlier impact by the owner or from a mass defect in the vehicle itself? Can simple metal linings protect the owner? This is a mystery that lies in the minds of the public。
Consumer reporter was informed by an expert from the national directorate of quality inspection, which participated in the identification of post-surge defects, that the directorate-general of quality inspection continued to suspect that the post-suspension lacked quality and did not recognize the current popular recall programme as a measure of final settlement。
The general directorate of quality inspection identified the fracture of the suspension as related to the bending of the arm
The announcement of recall does not recognize deficiencies, and in the fast-paced recall announcement and subsequent media communications meetings, public leaders repeatedly stressed that “there is no problem with the fast-paced back-to-back suspension”
At the same time, the public claims that “if there has been an impact on the rear side or the rear side, there is a risk that the arm of the concocting post-suspendant may bend”. This wording blames the owner for the break-up of the rear hanger, arguing that the vehicle was not repaired in time after the collision, which provoked a large number of owners。
In response to this question, the automotive counselor, the chief of the automotive industry, is of the opinion that a popular statement cannot be justified. “on the one hand, ordinary scratches should not lead to such a severe break if the impact is not serious; on the other hand, if the impact is serious, the owner should be able to detect and go to the 4s, but in the current case neither the impact nor the examination was detected.” he submits that under the new consumer rights protection act, the public has a burden of proof if it considers that the collision of the owner led to a post-suspension。
The reporter learned from an expert unit of the national directorate of quality inspection, which was involved in the identification of defects in the suspension, that the directorate-general of quality inspection had previously found more than 50 cases of broken arms, but did not include complaints by certain owners of their own arms about the feeling of a bump in their arms or the colour of fish tailings; an injury analysis had been carried out of the authorities of the post-bridge, which had been partly uncurving but had been provided with suspected cracks, and no internal cracks had been found。
The expert told journalists that the national directorate of quality inspection had conducted a cut-off analysis of the currently collected bending and fractured backbridges, with visible rust in about two thirds of the upper part of the cut-off and stretching changes in the upper part of the cut-off, which meant that the fractures of the existing post-stretcher might be related to the bending of the arm。
He explained: “for the time being, it appears from the evidence gathered that the vast majority of them have been bent and continue to be used, gradually creating cracks and expanding, essentially before the arms were cut, leaving only about a third or even smaller part of the connection. Once the cracks continue to expand and the remaining parts of the vertical arm are too narrow, even if the vehicle encounters little impact during its journey, it is likely that it will break in an instant. There is a process from bend to the last moment. That is why many of the owners complain that they have not been hit or hit, either upside down or cut off a speed belt.”
There may be quality defects in the suspension of the stench
The biggest argument between the owner and the mass group in this recall is whether the addition of metal linings really solves the problem and whether there is a need to replace the stand-alone hanger。
In the view of popular groups, the fast-moving coupons are absolutely safe, with metal linings being “double-insurance” intended to reassure the owner. The recall statement explains as follows: “the post-axis arm is fractured so that metal linings guarantee the stability of the vehicle's movements and cause constant warning noise.” on 5 november, the public issued a further statement stressing to the owner that metal linings were carefully developed and certified in popular cars and offered a global unified solution。
This does not convince the industry and the owners of the car. An unnamed car trade market researcher said to consumer reporter: “the suspension after a fast-moving car is vulnerable to break-ups, because the anti-cracker is not strong enough, and adding metal linings is increasing the strength of the post-suspension components and increasing the level of anti-cracking. In addition, he spoke of the noise caused by two frictions when the so-called warning noise was actually about breaking。
Wang woo, a technical engineer (alias) of a branded car company, also stated that the addition of a metal liner would in fact mean that the trailer would not be broken, which would be a catch-up measure, but that the safety risk would be great if the highway were broken。
With regard to the treatment of the current mass, the above-mentioned general directorate of quality inspection experts consider that: “it is true that the retrieving programme is a kind of patchwork, and that the fitting of metal linings can properly strengthen the arms, and when the arms are broken, there is a high noise, which is a passive risk disposal”
He added that the popular recall involved a large number of items, involved complex stress on parts and required quick solutions in the short term. A complete change in the post-bridge structure would take place without loss and would require a longer period of test validation. But the safety of the owner has to be considered first, and a solution needs to be found as soon as possible。
There is no doubt that the replacement of the semi-independent suspension of the coupling officer with the post-independence suspension was the most popular recall measure for consumers, yet the public gave a negative opinion on its feasibility. The executive vice-president of volkswagen motors group (china) joerg heuer said to the media: “we do not recommend this because it involves many and many systems and parts, and after so many and complex changes, there is no security in the car as a whole, especially new problems, which are detrimental to the owner.”
In response, zhang liang, the lawyer representing the popular class action, stated to the journalist in the magazine that “replacement to the stand of independence is technically feasible. According to the 2011 bus backbridge patent that was requested by the public in china, which we downloaded from the directorate general of quality inspection online, this backbridge could be used with a four-storey backbridge, so that too many parts need not be replaced from a patent point of view.”
The above-mentioned general directorate of quality inspection experts have indicated to the journalists that the mechanisms for forming the faults are still under investigation and validation. However, at least “with the same chinese road conditions and post-bridge structures and similar driving habits, no other vehicle has experienced such a high failure rate, and the vehicle may still be statistically deficient in quality”
The publication will continue to follow the latest developments in the rapid popular recall。
[special tip: consumer report is welcome to be reproduced in the media, but test results may not be used for commercial advocacy without authorization]
