![]() Sorry - being in the UK, I could hardly believe what I've read about this particular ClearVue dust-collector. They might find themselves not only not getting covered, but dropped by their insurance company for having one of these. I would hate to be someone filing an insurance claim if one of these units caused a fire. If a company doesn't want to do things right, and ensure they are following regulations and so forth, they have no business selling products. That's what it takes to do this sort of thing. ![]() Think about about how much money companies like Festool spend to get their products UL certified, and thru similar organizations in various countries. Kits and Plans, etc to help people get function for less cost are great, but if anyone or any company sells/promotes doing something that is unsafe, it's a quick way to have regulation kill it all off.Ĭompanies would sell us lots of stuff if they could just sell us anything and shift any liability/accountability off to those who buy it. If other similar products cost more, this is the sort of reason why. ![]() If it cost more to make it safe, that is what you do, end of story. You can make a lot of products much cheaper if you throw away safety from the design. If the product just broke, or damaged other components, that is bad, but the real issue is the safety of people and structures involved with this situation. Adding documentation alone very well is not enough to mitigate legal issues. They are selling something that can cause severe damage, they know this condition exist, and are doing nothing to mitigate/advise on it. This isn't a miss-use of product situation. It has a straight up direct path to a loss of structure or worse loss of life. From what I can see, Clearvue should not be selling this product as is. It doesn't matter if someone comes out with something cheaper if it's unsafe. Your comments go back to things like cost. They may be in a similar situation, but have at least taken the first steps to reduce risks. Giving people an option to create a hazard is not a good situation for any company to take. I don't know enough about the situation to know if it's apples to apples. It sounds like Oneida has taken some effort on this issue to address it. I think this thread alone already cost Clearvue much more than the $600 that they have refused to cover. I thought Clearvue was a much more reliable company than that. That's mom and dad shop's approach to customer service. They are not owning this issue, they made their customer pay for the new motor and couldn't even provide a detailed explanation on why their own product needs to be operated in a certain way. I'm honestly shocked at Clearvue's response. I'm completely familiar with the start/stop cycle limitation on powerful DCs, but it must be stated in the manual. I'd be furious if it happened to me and would demand free of charge replacement. Seriously? So you are completely fine with the owner's response and the fact that had to call the motor manufacturer to find out what exactly happened? Do you find it acceptable that he had to pay for a motor replacement for a motor that started a fire due to lackluster documentation? His unit was still under warranty if I'm not mistaken. Quote from: serge0n on March 29, 2021, 02:33 PM
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |