08-10-06

“JAQ”, I HOPE YOU GET A NICE PAY TO LIE LIKE THIS

There has been a guy, a certain anonymous “Jaq” or “Jacques” (and who only identifies himself with these nicknames and with an E-mail address) who has been posting a lot of comments on the previous article on my blog over the last weeks. Hereafter follows an open letter I send to him today via this blog.

I have to inform you that I do not have any news at all about the result of the technical analysis done by the University of Ghent, where the broken casting parts have been sent by the experts from Audi Belgium and from the insurance company (plus the legal expert), the only experts who did the (only) official technical inspection I know about of our wrecked Audi Q7, on August 29th, 2006.

Please feel free to post your comments on this article on my blog, and give your opinion about this strange “Jaq”, about his comments and about his way to express them. If I chose to make this blog and make our accident public on the Internet, it was not in order to attack the manufacturer on this, despite their strange lack of response and my deception as a customer about their attitude, but in order to inform other people about this kind of strange accidents (even if they remain singular) which can happen with a new car.

 

“Jaq”, I hope you get a nice pay to lie like this

 

1) You’ve been repeating over the last weeks the same lie as the one told by Audi since begin of August 2006, since I began with my blog, about the accident we had on July 1st, 2006 with our brand new Audi Q7:

-         first time they said this was by Audi UK to Adrian Melrose - see article he posted on August 5th, 2006 on his site www.q7blog.com (by the way, “Jaq”, I see you post the same comments full of lies on his blog too, shall I give you a list with all forums where people discussed about in Europe about this accident, so that you could spread your lies everywhere?)

-         and for the second time written by Audi AG Germany in a letter to … Jens !!!, sent by Audi AG on September 6th, 2006 (as answer to an earlier letter Jens sent to them by the end of August with regard to our accident). Here is what they were writing to him – free translation of Jens, which he sent to me by E-mail on September 12th:

o        “I received a letter from Audi dated September 6th. A Dr. P.G. writes to me that he was asked by Prof. W. to answer my letter. Basically besides some nice wording about me being a precious customer ;-), they state that:

The accident is known to Audi AG.

They cannot confirm that the accident is caused by a material fault to be within the responsibility of Audi AG (which does not - as I read it -means  that it couldn't be the fault of a third party, e.g. the manufacturer of the specific part)

They state that the accident itself was reviewed by an independent expert who found no responsibility of the Audi AG.

They state that there is no action required by either Audi AG or your insurance.

I do hope that the university can find something looking at the broken part and I would be really interested what comes out in the end.

My educated guess is though that the University will find that they cannot tell the initial cause and Audi will do nothing and your insurance will buy you a new car. At least in Germany this would not be a bad guess.....

Take care and my best wishes for your family. Maybe one day we meet up with the new cars!.”

I post today on my blog the only official document I have received until now, coming from an official insurance expert. As I was saying here above, there is still no answer from the University of Ghent (at least none I was informed about). Here is the link to this document:

http://img106.imageshack.us/my.php?image=060725accidentau...

It is in Dutch, it was sent to us on July 25th, and it follows the first official analysis done by an insurance expert on July 12th, 2006, one day after that the day the vehicle was brought back to Belgium (Audi knows about the accident as from that day of July 11th, 2006 too, as the guy who sold me the car from the garage also came along to see the car on that same day).

This document says (free translation from my part, to be confirmed please by any Dutch speaking visitors who read this blog) that he has been designated as an expert by the insurance company to see the damages of the car, that he considers the car as being totally destroyed and that he asks us to send him the official documents of the car and to remove all not original accessories from the wrecked car. He also says that he’ll ask prices in order to sell the wreck.

THIS IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL STATEMENT COMING FROM ANY INSURANCE ASSESOR THAT MADE AN INSPECTION OF OUR CAR. Audi never informed me or the insurance company until now about any other expert having analyzed the car.

“Jaq”, you want to remain anonymous and only sign your comments with “Jaq” or “Jacques” and give your E-mail address as being jaquesdelamarche@gmail.com.

You seem to know more – or at least want to give this impression - and repeat all the lies told or written by Audi. You (and sometimes Audi too, as you can read here above) keep saying that there has been “an independent insurance assessor” who saw the car and said that the accident could not be a result of a manufacture default. I would say that the comments from Audi I know about, as written here above, are more prudent than yours, they keep a certain reserve in their statements, which is normal, while you’re stating facts in your comments, just as if you were there when the accident happened or as if you personally saw the car.

I invite the visitors of this blog to view all comments you posted on this site on the previous article and judge themselves if their content and their impolite and aggressive tone is appropriated for such a communication. If you are a fan of Audi or of Audi Q7, no problem for me, I still think it is a nice car, otherwise I wouldn’t have bought one. But if you attack me by spreading all kind of comments, I cannot accept such an attitude.

If there has been another “independent insurance assessor” that saw the car and gave such an opinion as the one you and Audi talk about, please send it to me and I’ll put it on this blog. Until then, I consider this as being a lie and invite you at least to post your entire coordinates so that people eventually know who you are. I gave all my coordinates on this site and I gave everybody the possibility to know who I am, because I have no reason to hide myself.

 

2) You seem to take Jens as an allied to sustain your “point of view”. I do not think Jens agreed with this, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. Please find anyway hereafter the first comments Jens sent to me by E-mail on August 30th, 2006, the day when he sent his letter to Audi AG:

I have read your website about the accident with your Audi Q7. First of all let me express my sincere wishes for the health of your wife and daughter.

I have ordered a Q7 3.0 TDI for my wife and children in May and the car will be delivered in a few weeks. I am concerned about the accident and the possible material defect causing the fault of the car's suspension.

Being a metallurgy engineer myself I can judge from your images that a material fault in the cast part is definitely within the range of my imagination.

Therefore I have just sent a fax letter to Prof. W. at Audi in Ingolstadt stating what happened to your family and asking him to assure that such a fault cannot happen to the car that will be delivered to me, before I will pick it up.

If I ever get an answer, I will let you know”.

Once again, I do not know who you are and/or if you’re paid by someone to act like this or you’re just a poor guy who doesn’t have anything else to do with his time than spreading his special thoughts on the Internet about our accident.

22:34 Gepost door Aurel Gavriloaia in Actualité | Permalink | Commentaren (9) |  Facebook |

Commentaren


Please note that:

- Audi Q7 got 4 stars in the European crash test, almost 5 if the seat belt reminer had been louder (no material defects);

- Audi Q7 got 5 stars in the US crash test, more than Volvo XC90 and other competitors, no material defects (see safecar.gov);

- Audi Q7 was heavily tested, 6.000.000km before it was launched;

- Audi Q7 is practically the same car than VW Touareg and Porsche Cayanne, close 500.000 cars sold since 2003 (all without any similar materal defects);

- Audi has sold 17.000 vehicles in the first couple of months, exceeding all volume expectations (but 16.999 did not have any material defect).

- There are no other reported cases (of material defect), except "yours".

I am sorry you are alone with "yr material defect".

You should be very happy that you were driving a heavy vehicle because every 100kg difference in weight increases the risk of injury or death by 7%.

As a conclusion, let's continue discussing once the University has agreed with the Independent Insurance Assessor.

Gepost door: Jaq | 09-10-06

Let me state that I under no circumstances wanted to express that I have any doubt about Aurels version of this accident.

I said that a material fault is imaginable from the picture of the broken cast part.

I also said that it looks like the wheel hit something very hard.

I did not want anyone to extract any truth from these two sentences as to what the cause of the accident is.

I cannot find anything in this website that proves Aurel to be wrong.

The fact is that only the persons present at the accident know what really happened and the fact is also that an independent researcher may find out whether there was some technical fault.

I stress the words "idependent" and "may" as technical facts are interpretable and as researchers are not always able to find out something.

As far as Jaques is concerned: There is a good chance that 17.000 cars plus a number of VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are free from metrial faults and that this is the only one. If you have an impurity in the casting in an area of low stress it may never break, if it is in the area of the highest stress of the part, it may just snap right through.

So as I said earlier, there is no way to figure out what really happened other than wait for the "experts" to come to a conclusion and to hope that they are really knowledgable and independent.

Jens

Gepost door: Jens | 09-10-06


Hallo,

Laut der neuesten Autobild (Nr.40 - vom 06.10.2006, Seite 13) verweist ein Audi-Sprecher darauf, dass EuroNCAP ein VORSERIENFAHRZEUG getestet habe. "Bei serienbegleitenden Tests ist bisher nichts aufgefallen" so der Audisprecher.

So ein Quatsch, wer kauft sich denn bitte schon ein Auto alleine wegen der Sicherheit? Ich denke, dass alle modernen Autos sehr sicher sind, es kommt ja auch immer auf den Fahrer an, und da kann ich selbst in einem Panzer viel anrichten... der würde sicherlich gar keinen Punkt beim Fusgängerschutz bekommen, und dennoch wird hier keiner behaupten, ein Panzer sei unsicher... Im übrigen werden die Oberklasseautos wie S-Klasse oder A8 gar nicht erst gecrasht, weils zu teuer wäre. Mir ist aber keiner dieser Fahrer bekannt, der sich darin deswegen unsicher fühlt (schließlich weiß er nicht, wieviel Sterne das Auto hat, wird ihn aber mal gar nicht interessieren...).

Ich lache mich kaputt!

Nicht vergessen dass Audi Q7 ist ein von den sichersten SUVs auf dem Markt (laut EuroNCAP):

VW Touareg 14 Punkte
Volvo XC90 14
BMW X5 13
Audi Q7 12
Nissan Pathfinder 12
Range Rover 12
LR Disco 3 11
MB M 10
Jeep GC 9
Hyundai Santa Fe 9
Kia Sorrento 9
Jeep Cherokee 9
Suzuki GV 8
Opel Frontera 5

Ich lache mich kaputt!

Gepost door: Jaq | 14-10-06

Hello Jaq, I see they didn’t interrupt their payments to you Hello Jaq, I see they didn’t interrupt their payments to you so you have to go on with your crusade. Please be so gentle and give the English translation of the comments you post here (even if you originally receive them in German from the guys who pay you). And one more thing, you’re not obliged to post the same comment twice, after four days, people have obviously read your comment and if they didn’t post any new comment on it, that’s it, don’t feel obliged to repeat the same comment just in order to achieve your mission.

Here is the English translation of your last text (half done by Google, half by me):

“I laugh myself in pieces

Hello,

In the newest Autobild magazine (Nr.40 - of 06.10.2006, page 13) an AUDI speaker refers to the fact that EuroNCAP tested a PILOT LOT VEHICLE. “With series-accompanying tests so far nothing was noticeable” says the AUDI speaker. Such a rubbish, who buys a car now only because of safety reasons? I think that all modern cars are very safe, it also always comes to the driver, and there I can also arrange that even a tank… would surely get no point with the Pedestrian protection test, and none will state here a tank being not safe… In all other respects the upper class cars are not even crashed such as S-class or A8, because it would be too expensive. However I cannot imagine any driver that feels therefore unsafe in such a vehicle (finally it really doesn’t matter, how many stars has the car, it will not interest a lot of people however…). I laugh myself broken! Not forgotten that AUDI Q7 is one of the safest SUV’s on the market (according to EuroNCAP):
VW Touareg 14 Points
Volvo XC90 14
BMW X5 13
Audi Q7 12
Nissan Pathfinder 12
Range Rover 12
LR Disco 3 11
MB M 10
Jeep GC 9
Hyundai Santa Fe 9
Kia Sorrento 9
Jeep Cherokee 9
Suzuki GV 8
Opel Frontera 5

I laugh myself in pieces!”

Gepost door: Aurel | 16-10-06

Dear,

i read the story carefully... this is what i - in my humble opinion- come up with.

To me it looks perfectly normal that no airbags where activated. The airbag sensors just are not positioned where the damage occured. Furthermore, they are not likely to deploy the airbags if they are simply teared off (which appears to have been the case), they have to be 'pressed' in order to transmit the electrical current neaded to activate the systems. From the looks of the car, an airbag activation would not have reduced injury, to the contrary, your daughter would have had damaged airdrums on top of it. But... the airbags do not appear to be the issue.

The point of discussion appears to be the front suspension. I am off course not in a position to comment on an accident i know nothing about, i can only reason logically. I find the reference to the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne compelling in evidence. The layout is the same and track width is only marginally different (1651 - audi, 1641 - porsche and 1655 - VW) and probably due to different wheel and tire sizes. However, there is a big difference between a production error (on all models) and an exemplary fault. The first does not seem likely, the second (from the material at hand) does.

A logical approach would reveal this trail of thougt:

Dit the wheel come off: YES
Dit it hit anything firm: LIKELY
Was it prior or subsequent to the accident (it could have deformed from hitting the car structure after a beam rupture): UNSURE
Should the wheel cause a rupture of the footwell (not related to 'why' it came off): NO
Does the EuroNCAP or US Highway Safety institute test this particular accident case: NO - and therefore reference tot those instances is beside the point.

So my conclusion is:

It is 'possible' the wheel came off due to an exemplary construction default. It is unlikely that such a default (to the front suspension) is present on every Audi Q7, VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne since no other incidents are known. This however does NOT exclude that as a possibility (as stupidly suggested above). Even if 1.000.000 perfectly produced units have been made, the 1.000.001th may be faulty. It is normal that the airbags dit not deploy. It is however NOT ACCEPTIBLE that the wheel enters the passenger footwell, no matter what causes the seperation of the wheel. Therefore you are in your right to persue this matter.

Greetings,

Gepost door: addict | 30-12-06

Dear,

i read the story carefully... this is what i - in my humble opinion- come up with.

To me it looks perfectly normal that no airbags where activated. The airbag sensors just are not positioned where the damage occured. Furthermore, they are not likely to deploy the airbags if they are simply teared off (which appears to have been the case), they have to be 'pressed' in order to transmit the electrical current neaded to activate the systems. From the looks of the car, an airbag activation would not have reduced injury, to the contrary, your daughter would have had damaged airdrums on top of it. But... the airbags do not appear to be the issue.

The point of discussion appears to be the front suspension. I am off course not in a position to comment on an accident i know nothing about, i can only reason logically. I find the reference to the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne compelling in evidence. The layout is the same and track width is only marginally different (1651 - audi, 1641 - porsche and 1655 - VW) and probably due to different wheel and tire sizes. However, there is a big difference between a production error (on all models) and an exemplary fault. The first does not seem likely, the second (from the material at hand) does.

A logical approach would reveal this trail of thougt:

Dit the wheel come off: YES
Dit it hit anything firm: LIKELY
Was it prior or subsequent to the accident (it could have deformed from hitting the car structure after a beam rupture): UNSURE
Should the wheel cause a rupture of the footwell (not related to 'why' it came off): NO
Does the EuroNCAP or US Highway Safety institute test this particular accident case: NO - and therefore reference tot those instances is beside the point.

So my conclusion is:

It is 'possible' the wheel came off due to an exemplary construction default. It is unlikely that such a default (to the front suspension) is present on every Audi Q7, VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne since no other incidents are known. This however does NOT exclude that as a possibility (as stupidly suggested above). Even if 1.000.000 perfectly produced units have been made, the 1.000.001th may be faulty. It is normal that the airbags dit not deploy. It is however NOT ACCEPTIBLE that the wheel enters the passenger footwell, no matter what causes the seperation of the wheel. Therefore you are in your right to persue this matter.

Greetings,

Gepost door: addict | 30-12-06

the wheel is very deformed ,it is a normal accident , what dit you hit man???

Gepost door: raz | 25-12-07

ed hardy purses give me sometime, i can do it!

Gepost door: ed hardy purses | 29-06-10

De commentaren zijn gesloten.