Not Ranked
Brent,
Several points:
1) Clearly this design is incapable of containing an explosion at half the SFI required energy. The video is proof of that.
2) Based on my conversations with the QT rep and SFI, it appears that this design has never been subjected to the SFI testing and as such their advertising is misleading at best, deceptive at worst.
3) Bossofu took QuickTime’s advertising at face value, fortunately it only cost him a stack of money.
I completely agree with you as to where the fault rests in this failure. Bossofu freely admits the blame is his and his alone.
However,
His decision to purchase this model was based if not completely, in MAJOR part on the information stated in QT’s web site and from resellers that so loudly tout it. You yourself have gone on record many times, on this forum waving the QT company banner, following lock and step. Promoting and selling the “better” Quicktime product. You go so far as to make fun of the “pretty sticker” that assures the purchaser of compliance. QuickTime sold you the line that the two different designs are the same and you in turn sold the people who trusted you.
What should have been a easy fix and a chance to improve the product, now looks like blatantly false advertising followed by feeble attempts to shift blame away from a “less-than 6.1” design.
How many people have purchased this design believing that it offers the same level of protection as the 6.1 certed part#? What is the culpability of the manufacturer if an injury or death occurs?
If this discussion helps someone make an informed decision based on truthful information and the knowledge of what can happen, than it was worth all the effort.
Kgs365
Some will argue that removing 3 or 4 of the lower containment bolts (to improve ground clearance) while negatively affecting the strength, is not enough to cause a containment failure as there are still 4-6 large fasteners below the mid line, bolting the housing directly to the block plate.
I for one would love to see that tested!
Jason
|