RDS ENGINEERING BE WARNED

[forkrentfitter]

i think this puts to bed fabbed front radius arms or have we all forgoten the qt front arms breaking?and as si stated it is you the vehicle owner who will end up in court,as for going through small claims court to get the money back from rds,he will probably just disolve the company to avoid paying up judging by his response so far.

[Retroanaconda]

The worst thing you can do from his point of view is spread the word about these events. So I'd do just that

Stick to hard fact and photo evidence though, I'm not quite sure how the libel laws work in this country but if you're stating facts about the event which took place (arm breaking) and show the photos I'm thinking you'll be ok. The photos speak a thousand words anyhow!

Glad nobody was hurt, could easily have been much worse.

[Bush65]

I agree with bishbosh.

The Land Rover radius arms are very well designed for the loads they have imposed on them.

The section of the arm between the 2 axle mount bushes is subjected to high bending forces as others have pointed out, but the curved shape (necessary to clear the axle tube) greatly affects how the stresses are distributed.

IMHO those arms weren't designed properly, but rather look like they were made to what looked ok to someone with a poor understanding of engineering design. That approach can even fail with components that are of heavy construction.

[tel]

thanks for all your replys guys its made some interesting reading

my car now has standard arms on it and from now on ANYTHING i put on my car i will do my homework propperly and not get lead by "Person Resembling a Pink Starfish" salesmen

from some of the comments before, there was pictures on his site with the arms fitted to his car but since i have made the complaint they have all been removed

im waiting for a call back from trading standards and have sent the letter off they asked me too so its a waiting game for me now

[white90]

Shoddy business for sure!

Email him this thread.

hopefully he will see sense and recall a product not fit for purpose.

[nicks90]

i've not had the pleasure of looking carefully at his website before - and i aint got time today...

But i would bet that somewhere on his website it will specifically state that his products are for 'offroad use only'. Several other manufacturers do this and the reason is simple. getting alternative suspension components approved for road use is expensive and opens them up to massive liabilities if a 'bad batch' gets made. Most aftermarket companies cannot compete in terms of quality control to big car manufacturers and most products are made by hand or in china, neither of which guarantee consistent quality. Landrover have enough problems with quality control and they are (in relative terms) a manufacturing powerhouse in comparison to most aftermarket suppliers of kit.

As for fit for purpose etc, if he does state his kit is for offroad use only and you did break them offroad, i would be surprised if you get any money back. he can just claim improper use, improper fitment, accidental damage, fatigue through extreme use etc etc etc.

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but i think you should chalk this up to experience and accept you are out of pocket and comfort yourself in the fact this very thread will prevent others from making the same mistake.

Nick

[FridgeFreezer]

i've not had the pleasure of looking carefully at his website before - and i aint got time today...

But i would bet that somewhere on his website it will specifically state that his products are for 'offroad use only'.

I've just looked and can't see anything which says that - and should it be of use I've just downloaded a copy of his website complete in case he changes it zip file available on request.

[Porny]

Using the old site: trick on google...

http://www.rdseng.co.uk/Radius%20arms.htm

Also worth a read... and a copy...

http://www.rdseng.co.uk/Suspension.htm

RDS are independent suspension experts and have tested and developed systems from top American & Australian manufactures.

Whether you require standard or lifted,Off or on road, Competition or recreational uses, we can help you chose the right system for you and your Landy.

Before we recommend & fit to customers vehicles we fit to ours & test it's capabilities.

Ian

[errol209]

I've just looked and can't see anything which says that - and should it be of use I've just downloaded a copy of his website complete in case he changes it zip file available on request.

Dodgy phyicist I might be, but I have come accross "fitness for purpose" (and "reasonable skill and care", "due diligence" and "ensure" and other interesting phrases) in my line of work.

The Sale of Goods Act (and more here) requires the item to be of fit for purpose - failure like that after 4 days is not compliant (unless, as others have already pointed out, your application (lift, tyre size) was specifically excluded).

EU law says it must last 6 months or it is considered to have been unfit in the first place (but see above about correct usage), so you are entitled to at least a refund - small claims court is really easy and I'd be really surprised if you didn't win, with compensation for time and effort, with costs. I can't see why putting "off road use only" should stop you, all it does is stop him having to get CE or similar approval for the product - another good pointer that the design phase for these radius arms was probably the length of time taken to put pen to envelope.

[FridgeFreezer]

Taken together then, it seems the man has recommended these shockingly poor components for a vehicle used on the road:

i had a long chat with the guy who owns rds enginneering dave sharp back at the billing show and he convinced me that his radius arms and rear trailing arms are the ones to go for so when i got back home i bought both sets,

RDS are independent suspension experts and have tested and developed systems from top American & Australian manufactures.

Whether you require standard or lifted,Off or on road, Competition or recreational uses, we can help you chose the right system for you and your Landy.

Before we recommend & fit to customers vehicles we fit to ours & test it's capabilities.

[Se7enUp]

See attached...

[nickwilliams]

I can't see why putting "off road use only" should stop you, all it does is stop him having to get CE or similar approval for the product

I realise I'm being picky, and this is somewhat off-topic, but this isn't correct. In fact, it's off-road vehicles which need the CE mark and on-road vehicles which do not. In any event, you would not need to CE mark items such as radius arms since they are components. Chapter and verse here:

http://www.conformance.co.uk/directives/ce_offroad.php

Nick.

[TonkaIIa]

link

[M&S]

i think this puts to bed fabbed front radius arms or have we all forgoten the qt front arms breaking?and as si stated it is you the vehicle owner who will end up in court.

Quite rightly too.

If you decide to make something yourself, or fit something that is not standard and/or does not meet a standard then you are the person at fault. If they had fitted them to the vehicle, then yes, they would be in court.

We do need to think very carefully about the products that we fit and the modifications that we make.

If the product had be certificated to BS/TUV standards, and had been fitted correctly by a competent person in accordance to the manufacturers guidelines, and then it had failed in the above manner you would have a great case*. You would also have paid a lot more for the product!

It amazes me that (most) people know that they can't fit "off road only" or "competition only" tyres to a vehicle used on the road, and I'm sure they know why (not meeting the correct specifications, ratings or standards for road use). But then they will fit all sorts of other equally unsuitable kit.

*I'm not saying that poor quality and poor customer serice shouldn't be highlighted, and I do think that regardless of everything, you are obviously entitled to a full refund as they are not fit for puropse. Even if they were for "off road use only" they still need to be fit for purpose.

[ibexman]

WE all fit thes sort of things to our cars at one time or another , I wonder what the implications would be if you actually killed someone due to a non standard badly made part breaking i should imagine your insurance company would laugh at you and inspect your car with afine toothcomb <_<

[ibexman]

Maybe we should invite said owner of RDS to post an expination on here you know who are care to step up to the plate ?????

[FridgeFreezer]

This is in danger of going off round the loop of legality of modifications etc. which hs been done to death and had its corpse picked over in numerous other threads.

Suggest we stick to ridiculing the appaling "engineering" from RDS before it all gets too serious

[SiWhite]

I wonder what the implications would be if you actually killed someone due to a non standard badly made part breaking i should imagine your insurance company would laugh at you and inspect your car with afine toothcomb <_<

The driver would go to prison - Section 1 Road Traffic Act 1988 Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. S1 also covers the condition of the vehicle - if it can be proven that the vehicle was in dangerous condition (a standard falling well below what would be expected by a safe and competent driver) than it will be dangerous driving owing to the dangerous condition of the vehicle.

This is what caused the driver of the yellow 110 that ended up in the river to go to prison.

I might imagine that a prosecution for corporate manslaughter against the firm that supplied the part would be considered, but only if the CPS were satisfied.

[simonr]

People quite often ask "Why do X-Eng not make a front suspension upgrade?" This is why!

like errol, I calculated the likely magnitude of the forces and used those to test a number of designs using CAD based finite element analysis. I could hear the Elves that do the FEA calculations inside Solidworks whispering "Don't be a Muppett!"

I have a CAD model of the Land Rover arms - and considering when they were designed, they are an astonishingly good design from a stress and fatigue point of view!

I would agree with Bish that the RDS arm failed because the design caused a localised stress concentration which in turn lead to fatigue. Once the fatigue allowed a crack to open, the metal would just tear.

It's pretty much impossible to make a fabricated item without stress concentrations. Once you increase the strength of the part to make these irrelevant to the overall strength - it will weigh a good deal more than a machined or cast component with rounded corners.

When I started X-Eng, I was looking for Product Liability Insurance. I contacted pretty much every trader in the book and asked which insurer they used. The results were more than a little worrying. With only a few exceptions, they had business insurance, but not product liability and thus had no cover for something like this.

After a lot of negotiation, I persuaded NFU to give X-Eng the cover required, but the premium is higher than I think most companies would wear. I'm very keen not to need the insurance - as if I do, I will never get it again. So as a result, everything gets a lot of testing including some by independent material testing labs - just so I can sleep at night!

Si

[Anderzander]

Si

That is exactly why you SHOULD produce a front suspension set up

[zoltan]

When I started X-Eng, I was looking for Product Liability Insurance. I contacted pretty much every trader in the book and asked which insurer they used. The results were more than a little worrying. With only a few exceptions, they had business insurance, but not product liability and thus had no cover for something like this.

After a lot of negotiation, I persuaded NFU to give X-Eng the cover required, but the premium is higher than I think most companies would wear. I'm very keen not to need the insurance - as if I do, I will never get it again. So as a result, everything gets a lot of testing including some by independent material testing labs - just so I can sleep at night!

Si

One year, out of the blue, our insurers said they wouldn't cover us on Product Liability because we made brakes. After a hell of a lot of searching we ended up getting PL cover direct in Lloyds at £10k per annum. Try finding that from nowhere and on top of all of your other increased premiums

[jeremy996]

When I started X-Eng, I was looking for Product Liability Insurance. I contacted pretty much every trader in the book and asked which insurer they used. The results were more than a little worrying. With only a few exceptions, they had business insurance, but not product liability and thus had no cover for something like this.

After a lot of negotiation, I persuaded NFU to give X-Eng the cover required, but the premium is higher than I think most companies would wear. I'm very keen not to need the insurance - as if I do, I will never get it again. So as a result, everything gets a lot of testing including some by independent material testing labs - just so I can sleep at night!

Si

Simon,

You are a very wise man.

Your testing regime should get you discounts with your insurer, as should your significant lack of claims history. Can I suggest that you go through a commercial insurance broker at renewal to negotiate with NFU and any other potential provider? (I can provide names of brokers to try and some to avoid!).

For any other manufacturers of shiny bits to add on:-

If you sell something to the public and you do not have product liability insurance, then you are a fool and at best a lucky fool.

For a business, some insurance is compulsory and others just very advisable; not having product liability cover could easily turn a civil action to a criminal one. Don't complain to me if you don't like porridge!

[simonr]

One year, out of the blue, our insurers said they wouldn't cover us on Product Liability because we made brakes. After a hell of a lot of searching

I had the same problem. They agreed to park brakes, but forbade me from service brakes - so my bolt-on fiddle brake calipers and series disk conversion went in the bin!

Lloyds originally quoted 10k - but NFU made me an offer I couldn't refuse!

Si

[hobson]

At the end of the day, it's up to us as Land Rover users to use common sense regarding what we do to our vehicles, granted we all like shiney things and trick setups, and i'm in no way saying they're unsafe in most cases.

But bear in mind; Land Rover spend millions of pounds every year on R&D for vehicles and components, millions on specialist qualified engineers to test and decide wether all the stuff is safe and fit for use, and deciding why suspension is a certain height, wheels and tyres are a certain size etc, and i bet they spend a good amount on the legal side making sure things are approved and covered.

So how on earth can a small company making a fraction of what Land Rover make per year possibly do all that?

I think companies like X-Eng should be commended for going through strict tests and approvals, and having legal cover. but it is very easy for companies to set up and sell stuff which has no testing, no approval and no cover.

the unfortunate thing is, it's only time that shows these bad companies up for what they are. I mean X-Eng for example have been going a while now, and i've never heard a bad thing said about them, their kit or their service (well done Si!) so if i was in the market for the kit they sell, thats where my money would go, not on a company who i'd never heard of.

I'd definitely persue RDS wether it's through the courts or through trading standards, they need to either sort themselves out, or be out of business.

[zoltan]

I had the same problem. They agreed to park brakes, but forbade me from service brakes - so my bolt-on fiddle brake calipers and series disk conversion went in the bin!

Lloyds originally quoted 10k - but NFU made me an offer I couldn't refuse!

Si

I think with Lloyds, £10k is like their minimum order value, they don't get out bed for less

Our exclusion was no selling to the USA