Jump to content

interesting response from QT


white90

Recommended Posts

I guess that's why they reduced the number of holes in the later sets. But why not be up front and straight about it?

I think this is why...

if it is a post production issue then warranty replacements should be made available.

It strikes me that a product recall would be in order. It strikes me (layman of course) that these are a real potential danger, not only on road but off it too. I wonder what QT's product liability insurers would have to say?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the later ones on my 90 , No cracking problems but I have on more than one occasion bent them quite badly without to much effort , So after straightening them a few times I have welded a strengthening web into them , but this has put the weight back up and realy defeats the object of having lightweight arms , Im going back to Std arms , Much stronger .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from performance cars where weight shedding was pretty pointless for most people on a 2+ ton Landy it seems even more ridiculous, especially as most of us carry ten tons of carp in the back and we wont mention what extra we carry on our waists :P

If I was QT I would be recalling these asap as they are leaving themselves open to legal action if one gives way and someone gets hurt or worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from performance cars where weight shedding was pretty pointless for most people on a 2+ ton Landy it seems even more ridiculous, especially as most of us carry ten tons of carp in the back and we wont mention what extra we carry on our waists :P

If I was QT I would be recalling these asap as they are leaving themselves open to legal action if one gives way and someone gets hurt or worse

I like Daves stuff.

The arms were developed for racing and trialing the challenge boys now use them as well but remember they have been around since before the challenging became so popular.

Racer's and trailers use 205 to 235 tyres but challenge trucks use 12'50x35" tyres.

its not the first set to brake but nothing is indestructible I've had three sets on different trucks and not had any fail yet :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never liked the construction of the QT ones as all the ones I've seen are only part welded which seems a bit dodgy to me. I went for the Britpart caster correction ones instead as they look to be better made (fully welded) and are cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had three sets on different trucks and not had any fail yet :lol:

You're obviously not trying hard enough :lol:

I have seen these fail on racers and heard of them failing on challenge trucks. Only ever seen standard arms damaged through significant 'offs' not through fatigue as appears to be the case on the lightweight ones.

Personally if I wanted castor corrected arms I'd be looking to modded standard arms, probably from Gwyn Lewis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Daves stuff.

The arms were developed for racing and trialing the challenge boys now use them as well but remember they have been around since before the challenging became so popular.

Racer's and trailers use 205 to 235 tyres but challenge trucks use 12'50x35" tyres.

its not the first set to brake but nothing is indestructible I've had three sets on different trucks and not had any fail yet :lol:

If there is a limit to the usage of these then they should be sold as such, Mine were sold to me by Dave at Billing,

If they are inherently a design problem that he is aware of then I'll see what sort reply I get.

If they were to fail on the road and an accident ensued, the goods fit for the purpose surely comes to mind.

Mine are to date ok, but I would not like to see a failure as above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not got a picture on this machine of mine,, but is the same at the picture in post 1 cream crackered

Tony, just wondering, if these ones on mine, were bought new, at the same time as yours ????

I fitted those to yours Tim when Nick had it.

they are newer by a few months than mine

I have the bill somewhere I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a limit to the usage of these then they should be sold as such, Mine were sold to me by Dave at Billing,

If they are inherently a bad design then I'll see what reply I get.

If they were to fail on the road and an accident ensued, the goods fit for the purpose surely comes to mind.

Mine are to date ok, but I would not like to see a failure as above.

Find me a set that have failed on a standard car on or off the road

IMHO

I have torn spring hangers off chassis and ripped the hockey stick mount off chassis as well but I don't complain to Land Rover because I know I'm pushing the car beyond the bounds of its design but there is no warning from Land Rover is there about if you compete with this car it will suffer catastrophic chassis fracturing and component failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jules they aren't standard items though.

Tims have failed the pictured ones above have failed.

In this instance are they only safe when fitted to a car that doesn't venture offroad?

No they are being sold by a company that sells comp safari stuff, I would except them to be up to the task at hand

Or am I expecting to much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy