01-11-06

Jens was right: this will remain a very strange story

The University of Ghent delivered yesterday a very professional report. Being an engineer myself, I was really impressed about the quality of their analysis.

 

They didn’t find any clues that showed that the parts they analyzed were the cause of the accident.

 

They found some manufacture defaults on the part coming from the right wheel, but it was obvious that that part didn’t break at that point because of that default (at least not by fatigue of the metal). They couldn’t say if the design of the part took into account such inherent casting defaults, this was not their task and they didn’t have the resistance calculations of the manufacturer of the part.

 

They couldn’t explain either the different colors on the broken surface.

 

They didn’t find any external impact on the parts. No external impact was found under the car during the technical inspection on August 29th either.

 

So why did the wheel break? No one can say.

 

The other question that stays open: is it normal that the airbags didn’t work? It is currently not possible to answer this question either, as the insurance company does not agree with taking away the electronic box in order to let it analyzed.

 

From all this strange case, I’m only sure about one thing: my daughter got a broken leg because of the welding default that Audi admitted following the EuroNCAP crash test.

 

All the rest remains a mystery.

 

I’m also sure about one other thing: the System is not right. One cannot handle as a simple person this kind of complex and difficult cases, in order to find and prove himself/herself the cause of such an accident. This is why experts are there for. And sometimes even they seem to fail in finding the right explanation.

 

I’m disappointed, bitter, but in the same time very calm. There are limits to everything. I had a lot of certitudes in my life (and in this case too), which seemed to be not true afterwards. I’m pleased about one thing: today November 1st, I do not have to go to the cemetery to bring flowers on my wife’s and daughter’s graves. And this is the only thing that matters for me today.

 

10:36 Gepost door Aurel Gavriloaia in Actualité | Permalink | Commentaren (22) |  Facebook |

Commentaren

Totally agree with your feelings. No one is willing to put their hand up and say "this is why". My guess is that the experts are unwilling to have a law suit against them from Audi.

Surely in these sort of cases the responsibility for blame should be on manufacturer until they can prove otherwise. If they can prove it wasnt them - then its up to them to compensate. Unfortunately in most countries unlike USA we the small people must take on the might of the manufacturers to prove our cases. Its to comfortable for govt's to change this rule as they have to much involvment and vested interest in the companies.

Had I not stopped my car at the time I did, had I not opened the window to check if air was bad outside, I would not have been here to continue the fight for the truth on my xc90. The fumes produced by the fire would have overwhelmed me and the fight would have been left to my wife and children. Even my death would have meant no guarantee of investigation or compensation - to be told that hurts ones sense of humanity - we are cheap and replaceable in some peoples short sighted eyes.

I'm glad that your here to fight also - and wish you, your wife and daughter all the best for the coming months. All the best with your daughters recovery also.

Just one word of advise - no matter how bitter you are, or frustrated you become by these so called people and companies - please always keep a calm level head and dont take it out on the ones around you - however bad it becomes.

Gepost door: peegee | 01-11-06

Sorry to hear .... ... the result didn't give any definit conclusion on this accident. At least it would of been a peace of mind for you and your family. Helas if the specialists can't find a 100% reason, then it's better to leave things behind you and look into the future. I can only hope the insurance company will give you a total refund for the Q7. If there were ever construction faults on the Q7 I sincerely wish that Audi has been so clever as to correct them as I am awaiting mine within 6 weeks, I can only hope the quality is better as my Touareg which was a disaster in reliability on his own (that's the reason why i sold the car after 2,5 years!)

all the best from Bonheiden

Patrick

Gepost door: patrick | 01-11-06

Would you ever buy an Audi again? Sincerely, what do you think about the report? Do you think that they were a little affraid from Audi? Or do you find it 100 procent correct?

Gepost door: RedMan | 05-11-06

Are you taking this any further?? Hi Aurel - as in previous discussions are you still going to take this further - or are you now being offered a get out?

Gepost door: peegee | 06-11-06

Are you employed, Mr. Aurel?

Gepost door: Jacques | 09-11-06

Answers to peegee and redman To peegee: I didn't get any offer at all, obviously they have no time to handle this or they simply do not care.
To redman: never say never, even if this would be psychologically difficult. I think the report was correct, I also think the experts also have their limits. If the manufacturer was really interested in finding the cause of the accident, they should act differently and be proactive in such a case, which they do no do at all.

P.S. Jacques, here you are back again. I do not understand your question, do you think one does not have to work hard and earn money in order to buy such an expensive car as an Audi Q7?

Gepost door: Aurel | 09-11-06

I was asking if you are employed because you seem to have lot of time trying to keep alive a website, which is dedicated to an isolated event with no case, no further consequences or implications beyond this forum.

I would get back to life, focus on work and family, look forward.

Gepost door: Jacques | 10-11-06

By Jacques - Have a good life. I cant say I've not come across similar "blinkered" people who cant see round the next corner - never mind what this problem is.

Your comments just patronise people in this life who'd like to ensure others dont have to suffer as Aurel's daughter did - and as I did post trauma.

Life is dangerous - we dont dispute that - however manufacturers need to assume responsibilities when "unusual" and "unexplained" issues happen. Perhaps the same "rules" as aircraft industry need to now be applied to ever more complex cars...

Lets hope you never get the same problems or the same treatment as we've had and seen.

In the meantime we'll spend our free time as we please and inform others of the dangers they may face.

Close the door on your way out will you!!!

Gepost door: peegee | 13-11-06

anymore updates? Curious thats theres no progress for a long time now. Any new words ??

Gepost door: confused | 27-11-06

Nothing happened anymore No news, nobody moves...

Gepost door: Aurel | 28-11-06

Ceva nou de la asigurari?Nu mai stiu ce s-a intamplat, n-am mai vorbit de mult.Mai scrie-mi pe mail.

Gepost door: michi | 30-11-06

Raspunde-le baietilor de pe "Softpedia Forum" ca te-au dat disparut...

Gepost door: Michi | 30-11-06

No material faults or external impacts on the parts? The only way that can happen is that the impact came through the tires which means that the car hit something, don't you honestly think??


Why do you think the airbags should have inflated? Would they have done any good?


Gepost door: Pärttyli | 08-12-06

Dear friend from Finland,

If there was any object on the highway, the car I was driving in front of the Audi Q7 would have been the one in trouble, not the Audi Q7.

Any object big enough to hit the tire and move the whole wheel away would have left a mark on the tire itself. You can imagine that the tires were the first analyzed by every one. No mark of impact either. So?

They are convinced that there has been a driver’s fault. Which error should a driver commit to make the whole wheel go away?

I’m not an expert in cars, so it would be up to them to try to make the necessary research and try to find exactly what happened. I can’t. I can just explain what we all saw and felt, including the eye witnesses.

But for the Audi guys it seems to be more important to keep those thousands of euros in their pockets and ignore such a case instead of buying the car back from the insurance company and make all necessary research.

Would it have been better if the airbags would have inflated? I assume every one getting out of the highway at 130 km/h and hitting the heel nearby would expect the airbags to work (without thinking that the impact should happened at an angle of less than 30 degrees in order to have them working). If these devices had worked, maybe my wife wouldn’t have had a broken sternum. You know that the seat belts work together with the airbag system. So they didn’t react either.

Other people found themselves in as similar situation: Paul, in Great Britain, when his Volvo XC90 got fire after experiencing 6 months electronic problems. Martin’s problem in Germany: a piece broke inside his Lamborghini while driving on the highway. His car got totally destroyed. They are also the ones who have to prove themselves the car’s default.

The situation is as follows: anyone buying a brand new car and experiencing a problem with his new vehicle is supposed to prove himself the problem, even if the car is still under warranty form its manufacturer. This is against any other laws saying that there is a presumption of innocence and that the charge of proving the fault comes to the strong party, and not to the weak one. Next time you’ll buy a new car, think about this.
Imagine I wouldn’t have taken Casco insurance. I wouldn’t have been protected at all. Maybe sometimes, for people buying less expensive cars, it is also too expensive to pay for a Casco insurance. People think they are protected by the fact that the manufacturer gives a warranty for its product. This will not work, unless the default is obvious. In any other case, it comes to the weak party, the consumer, to prove the (de)fault. If you think you’re strong enough to spend your own time and your money in doing this, best for you. Otherwise, think twice about the risk every consumer takes (at least in the European Union) when buying a new car.
This story will not end here, I can assure you.

Gepost door: Aurel | 09-12-06

I'm not saying that the damage was done in the highway on that day. Impact through a tire/rim can weaken the structure and disaster can happen later. The problem is that evidence is "destroyed" in the accident. Are You 100% sure that the car never hit anything before that day?

Hitting a soft object will not activate the airbags/belt tensioners because the trigger-point (negative acceleration) was not achieved.

Comparing this insident with Volvo/Lamborghini is just irrelevant. And blaming manufacturer is just stupid. The car was well inspected and You still blame the manufacturer? For what?

If You are afraid of new cars, don't buy them. Take a bus.

Gepost door: Pärttyli | 10-12-06

Pärttyli,

Please allow me to judge my own case and the follow-up I give to this (unless you’re the same one Finnish guy writing under the nickname Jacques de la Marche, in which case I understand your attitude).
There had been no other incident with that car previous to the accident of July 1st, 2006. The technical analysis in Ghent following the technical inspection had as only purpose the analysis of the parts they thought that could have produced the accident. It may also be that evidence got lost during the accident. I keep asking myself questions about how this could happen: was it possible that the brake circuit broke or exploded near that right wheel and that such incident could have blocked the wheel (would the wheel have broken in such a case?) and thousands of such questions. I simply don’t know.
About the airbags, I understand your explanation, but as long as the electronic box is not searched, no one can say if it was normal or not that they didn’t work. And I never said that a “soft object” would have triggered the airbags at the moment of a possible impact. But would such a “soft” object have broken the whole wheel mechanism? On the contrary, hitting the heel near the highway at some km/h less than 130 km/h would eventually be expected to trigger the airbags.
Yet there is something I’m sure about: my daughter’s leg was broken because of a technical default of the welding of the Audi Q7, publicly admitted by Audi (see their reaction to the EuroNCAP crash test in September 2006). My daughter is still following therapy for trying to heal after this. I hope you’re driving yourself such an Audi Q7 produced before July-August 2006 and do yourself the test of a frontal impact, in order to be able to check yourself the conclusions of the EuroNCAP. On your own risk, with your own legs near the car’s welding.
It may also be that the accident was caused by something else. Once again, I don’t know. I just consider that it is not normal that it comes to us (and also to the insurance company that paid back the car) to find the technical cause of the accident in order to try to recuperate our respective prejudice, while the car was under warranty. And this is the parallel I lay with the cases of my friends Paul from Great Britain (the Volvo case) and Martin from Germany (the Lamborghini case). We’ll see if other institutions find this being a normal situation for the consumer.
About your suggestion of buying a bus, I personally need a car to drive with, so please spare me this kind of acid comments. But maybe not buying a new car model anymore wouldn’t be such a bad option. But there will always be first customers to buy a new model. And this kind of situation shows that they will be the experience rats of those manufacturers that do not take the time they need to correctly set-up a car before putting it on the market.

Gepost door: Aurel | 11-12-06

Whats happening now? Any more word on what your thinking of doing now.

Its a bit worrying that theres been such a gap in proceedings - not surprised however would like to move forward on this approach.

Regards and happy new year.

Peegee

Gepost door: peegee | 10-01-07

Looks like someone got paid by Audi to keep quiet now Very confused as to why no updates have come thru in such a long time. Initially you were pushing very agressively and now "nothing". Almost a "shit happens" response regarding your daughters injury...

Very confusing and disappointing...

Any further updates - or have you been gagged by Audi...

Gepost door: confused | 15-03-07

There is nothing more to say, that's all ! Some months ago, the insurance company sold the car in order to recuperate some of the money they paid back. Audi didn't move a finger to do anything at all (they were daring telling me personally that they are sure that it was a driver’s error). I personally lost more then 10.000 euros (with taxes, replacement cars, lawyers’ costs, VAT and so on) and I simply cannot do anything at all.

I should address the (European) authorities in order to propose them to change the laws, but happily for Audi and other car manufacturers, I’m just another person who doesn’t have time to “loose” with this kind of actions and they are free to go on selling their products without giving actually a real guarantee in case of problem.

I think the only solution to this is getting in touch with associations who can take this over, not only for this case but for more other cases that happened and they can do it further in our place. Because one person against the system, it doesn’t work.

Regards,

Aurel

Gepost door: Aurel | 21-03-07

POUR ACHTER LE Q7 bonjour pour le Q7 prix

Gepost door: BENTAYEB | 06-04-07

Bonjour

j'au trouver votre site au hazard et je me demandai comment sa se passer apres?
Audi ont il reconnu leur erreur?
Avez vous ete dedomager??

Gepost door: david | 25-10-07

Réponse à David - question du 25/10/07 Bonjour David et tout d'abord merci pour ton message. Comme j'ai déjà répondu à un autre visiteur du site, en anglais, plus bas dans les commentaires à ce dernier article, l'épave du véhicule a été vendue par l'assurance, qui a arrêté la procédure sans être capable de trouver la vraie cause (cela commencait à leur coûter trop cher en frais de recherche), Audi n'a rien fait, ils ne se sont même pas excusés (alors qu'au moins la blessure de ma fille a eu comme cause la faiblesse de l'habitacle en cas d'impact frontal - reconnue par eux suite à la publication du test EuroNCAP en septembre 2006) et nous avons été remboursés pour le montant assuré (omnium) pour le véhicule, mais pas pour les autres frais indirects (TVA non récupérée, véhicule de remplacement en attendant un nouveau véhicule, intérêts payés pour rien à la société de leasing - car, comme le véhicule a été détruit, je n'ai évidemment pas pu lever l'option d'achat de fin de contrat, etc.) Entre temps, j'ai reçu d'autres témoignages de la part d'autres "heureux" propriétaires de ce genre de véhicules, je les publierai un jour, quand j'aurai plus de temps; ils releèvent de toute façon de la même attitude de mépris de la part de ce constructeur autombile envers ses clients (ce qui semble cependant être une attitude générale en Europe, compte tenu de la législation laxiste de défense des consommateurs, au contraire de ce qui se passe aux USA).

Gepost door: Aurel | 03-11-07

De commentaren zijn gesloten.