MySwag.org The Off-road Camper Trailer Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: BigJules on February 13, 2014, 08:42:32 AM
-
I received this press release from The Australian Manufactured Camper Trailer Guild. I have posted this not to stir debate, that is already happening in other threads, but as an advice to those of you who may have an imported camper or perhaps only an imported coupling. You might wish to check out yours.
I am sure it would be off interest to members for folks to post their findings.
WARNING ABOUT NON-COMPLIANT COUPLINGS
The Australian Manufactured Camper Trailer Guild have strong evidence that thousands of imported Chinese-manufactured off road camper trailers have illegal non-compliant couplings which may cause accidents by failing.
Australian design rule ADR62 VSB1 states that couplings must have the manufactures name and it's rating stamped on and must be tested by an approved testing authority.
Thousands of Chinese off road couplings have no markings or are stamped with the Australian standard number AS4177.3 As AS4177.3 is only for ball couplings, these off road couplings are illegal and non -compliant.
AMCTG President, Mr Roger Fagan, has 45 years experience in the industry and states that the coupling is the most critical component in a trailer because if this fails a serious or head-on accident could occur.
In the interests of their own safety and the safety of other road users, owners of imported camper trailers are strongly urged to check their coupling to determine if they are compliant.
For more information on the AMCTG log on to
www.australianmanufacturedcampers.org.au (http://www.australianmanufacturedcampers.org.au)
-
(http://www.mmaplayground.com/forums/i/pi/667125_1.gif)
-
Wow, what a surprise!......................not.
-
Thanks for the heads up Jules :cheers:
-
If I remember correctly, Jeepers had a problem with one of the imported hitches where one of the welds either broke or cracked.
-
I am glad you brought this up BJ. When I purchased my CT it came with one of these Tregg copy hitches. I had already seen first hand 4 of these hitches fail. My local trailer supplier (Taylor's Trailers) showed me a few that they had to replace.
Getting rid of this hitch was one of the first modifications that I made to my CT.
As BJ has shown they are not compliant. At the end of the day they are unsafe and could kill someone.
This is a pic of my old one with the bull5hit AS number on it.
Do yourself a favour, if you have one of these on your CT, replace it with a compliant brand.
(http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac155/muzza01/Camper%20Trailer/DSCN1163_zpsbd944e09.jpg)
-
I received this press release from The Australian Manufactured Camper Trailer Guild. I have posted this not to stir debate, that is already happening in other threads, but as an advice to those of you who may have an imported camper or perhaps only an imported coupling. You might wish to check out yours.
I am sure it would be off interest to members for folks to post their findings. ....
www.australianmanufacturedcampers.org.au (http://www.australianmanufacturedcampers.org.au)
Jules, link doesn't work.
-
My Voldermont CT has the Tregg style with the AS number cast into it but I will have to check if it is the ball coupling one. I will also have to check if it has the manufacturers name and rating. I am thinking not but you never know. Thanks for the heads up.
-
www.australianmanufacturedcampers.org.au (http://www.australianmanufacturedcampers.org.au)
try
www.australianmanufacturedcampertrailers.org.au/ (http://www.australianmanufacturedcampertrailers.org.au/)
-
That's the one, thanks Lost
-
Interesting my Hitch is the same as the one Muzza had
always had it my mine to replace it with a ozhitch better look into that
:cheers:
-
I reckon a class action should be take against these companies. They've sold a non compliant product, because of which many people may unknowingly be uninsured (if the insurer chose to look). Disgraceful.
Julian
-
I reckon a class action should be take against these companies. They've sold a non compliant product, because of which many people may unknowingly be uninsured (if the insurer chose to look). Disgraceful.
Julian
It will take a death first.
-
the same would apply to aussie /home built trailers........i'm sure there is the odd imported component
-
Yes, although I wonder if the level of negligence may be altered. Would a manufacturer who sells a completed camper with a non compliant hitch be more culpable than a seller of cheap hitches only?
Julian
-
Let me be clear, it's not an issue with imported components per se, but in this specific instance components mislabeled and misrepresented as being certified to Australian standards
Julian
-
suprise suprise
mine has no stamp
-
I am surprised, MDC have been advertising that their hitch is compliant, in fact I seem to recall them making a big deal out of it.
Julian
-
Anectodaly - I had a look at Chinese imports when I was on the hint. A supplier here in Perth had no qualms in telling me the ct's were Chinese and was actually honest about the quality, but argued sucessfully, the price reflected what you paid for. When I was there he knew the Chinese tregs were non compliant and was replacing them all with compliant Australian treg type hitches because of their non compliance. He said it added a few $$ but wouldn't sell them with the Chinese one at he didn't want the liability. He was honest!
-
I am surprised, MDC have been advertising that their hitch is compliant, in fact I seem to recall them making a big deal out of it.
Julian
bloody hell! thanks for that big jules, i was told to pay attention to the coupling when shopping for a second hand camper. I stupidly believed MDC's web home page claiming all their hitchs are authentic ADR compliant.. obviously chinese trailer manfacturers can say anything.
disgraceful and very sad really >:(
-
I think you also have to be careful as to some manufacturers using approved hitches on their display models at their place of business or caravan shows and then supplying them to customers with the unapproved hitch.
At a recent show there where RTA inspectors looking at this and other issues.
-
bloody hell! thanks for that big jules, i was told to pay attention to the coupling when shopping for a second hand camper. I stupidly believed MDC's web home page claiming all their hitchs are authentic ADR compliant.. obviously chinese trailer manfacturers can say anything.
disgraceful and very sad really >:(
Contact them and ensure the product sold meets the relevant standards.
GG
-
Hmmmm.................this is off an Ezytrail Camper. I'm not sure if "SY" is the Manufacturer or if it's the name of the Chinese bloke who made it?
(http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac168/evans052/coupling_zpsea51bdcb.jpg) (http://s896.photobucket.com/user/evans052/media/coupling_zpsea51bdcb.jpg.html)
-
At 1 of the shows in Brisbane, I asked a bloke about it (not MDC) and he said yep, all good.
I pointed out lack of markings etc, and asked that he prove it to me that it is to the standards.
Well, he couldn't and got on the phone to someone, whilst he was talking, another potential buyer asked me what I was asking and I clearly told them.
They walked away, so to I.
Surely the relevant vehicle inspection - rego folk can look into this and see if it is OK or not and make a ruling of sorts. Just hope it don't end up with a copy AS stamp at the end of the day, and a compliant statement which means nothing.
-
Soooo, the hitch only needs to display the manufacturers name and load rating.........and does not require the australian standard markings??
Pretty sure my DO 35 does not have any reference to australian standard on it........in saying that I am confident it a quality hitch
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
In my experience even some rego inspection outlets don't truly understand the rules.
It is important to note that a ball coupling can have the AS4177 stamp on it but no other style of coupling. Every other style of coupling is ADR62.
The photo that Muzza has shown is a perfect example of a fake non compliant coupling, they are everywhere unfortunately.
The photo that Evans52 has shown may be a compliant coupling, it is difficult to tell without knowing if the manufacturer as met ADR62, I suspect they haven't.
If anyone has any doubts, give Mchitch a ring, they will tell you exactly what you have.
-
Soooo, the hitch only needs to display the manufacturers name and load rating.........and does not require the australian standard markings??
Pretty sure my DO 35 does not have any reference to australian standard on it........in saying that I am confident it a quality hitch
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Only a ball coupling uses the AS numbers. The DO35 does not have AS4177 stamped on it as it comes under ADR62. They are definitely compliant ;D
-
Danny, that is very true, inspectors struggle to understand their requirements and obligations, especially in this
Julian
-
That's not very good then, what else about their job do they not understand?
-
That's not very good then, what else about their job do they not understand?
Im not suggesting that all rego inspection stations don't know the rules properly, but I have had experience where one definitely didn't. He wouldn't pass my Mchitch yet he used Imported poly blocks with the AS number stamped on them on the trailers he manufactured for a third party. It took some phone calls to the relevant authorities to get my Mchitch passed yet even then they didn't understand or accept that the imported poly block was not compliant!
-
They are everywhere
$85 on eBay
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/camper-trailer-coupling-4wd-tow-hitch-caravan-trailer-parts-polyblock-TREG-STYLE-/360858471177?pt=AU_Boat_Parts_Accessories&hash=item5404d74b09&_uhb=1 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/camper-trailer-coupling-4wd-tow-hitch-caravan-trailer-parts-polyblock-TREG-STYLE-/360858471177?pt=AU_Boat_Parts_Accessories&hash=item5404d74b09&_uhb=1)
Another one
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Treg-Type-Polyblock-Offroad-Coupling-3000kg-rated-4x4-4WD-Trailer-Hitch-/261395071511?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item3cdc5c4217&_uhb=1 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Treg-Type-Polyblock-Offroad-Coupling-3000kg-rated-4x4-4WD-Trailer-Hitch-/261395071511?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item3cdc5c4217&_uhb=1)
There is no hope when a trailer company is also selling them.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/poly-car-bracket-suit-offroad-treg-type-trailer-hitch-coupling-towbar-A44-/121223908701?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item1c39820d5d&_uhb=1 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/poly-car-bracket-suit-offroad-treg-type-trailer-hitch-coupling-towbar-A44-/121223908701?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item1c39820d5d&_uhb=1)
-
They are everywhere
$85 on eBay
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/camper-trailer-coupling-4wd-tow-hitch-caravan-trailer-parts-polyblock-TREG-STYLE-/360858471177?pt=AU_Boat_Parts_Accessories&hash=item5404d74b09&_uhb=1 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/camper-trailer-coupling-4wd-tow-hitch-caravan-trailer-parts-polyblock-TREG-STYLE-/360858471177?pt=AU_Boat_Parts_Accessories&hash=item5404d74b09&_uhb=1)
Another one
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Treg-Type-Polyblock-Offroad-Coupling-3000kg-rated-4x4-4WD-Trailer-Hitch-/261395071511?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item3cdc5c4217&_uhb=1 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Treg-Type-Polyblock-Offroad-Coupling-3000kg-rated-4x4-4WD-Trailer-Hitch-/261395071511?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item3cdc5c4217&_uhb=1)
There is no hope when a trailer company is also selling them.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/poly-car-bracket-suit-offroad-treg-type-trailer-hitch-coupling-towbar-A44-/121223908701?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item1c39820d5d&_uhb=1 (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/poly-car-bracket-suit-offroad-treg-type-trailer-hitch-coupling-towbar-A44-/121223908701?pt=AU_product_Trailer_Parts&hash=item1c39820d5d&_uhb=1)
Scary isn't it! Personally I couldn't bring it to myself to sell something like this, especially as they have the potential to be fatal. How could you live with yourself. I suspect some of the people in those ads don't understand themselves. One of them clearly states it is Australian Standard! It has the AS stamp so it must be ;)
It is disappointing seeing Xtrail selling them, Sam would know they are not compliant.
-
I am surprised, MDC have been advertising that their hitch is compliant, in fact I seem to recall them making a big deal out of it.
Julian
I find it a bit hard to understand. I have nothing stamped into the hitch only this stuck on metal strip
(http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc353/woolgoolgaoffroad/photo-7.jpg) (http://s527.photobucket.com/user/woolgoolgaoffroad/media/photo-7.jpg.html)
-
I find it a bit hard to understand. I have nothing stamped into the hitch only this stuck on metal strip
(http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc353/woolgoolgaoffroad/photo-7.jpg) (http://s527.photobucket.com/user/woolgoolgaoffroad/media/photo-7.jpg.html)
That is MDC putting there own backside on the line to make the imported hitch ADR compliant. (assuming it is imported)
Here is a copy and paste from http://mchitch.com.au/adr-testing (http://mchitch.com.au/adr-testing) in regards to getting ADR compliance!!
Safety and performance are the two pillars holding the McHitch Uniglide trailer couplings above all others, and as the performance benefits have already been explored and proven right here on this very webiste, it's now time to talk safety.
ADR (Australian Design Rules) state that trailer couplings up to 750kg, up to 3.5 tonnes and over 3.5 tonnes must comply with the requirements of ADR 62/02.
Compliance with this ADR can be achieved in one of two ways. The first, and most widely accepted way of meeting this requirement is for the manufacturer to declare their opinion that, based on the specifications of the coupling, they would either meet or exceed the testing regime of 62/02, without having actually undergone the testing.
The second, official and most expensive way is for the the coupling to be tested by an independent third party in an approved testing laboratory via high load static and cyclic testing.
-
I can't find anything on "SY-01". I'll see what Ezytrail say and McHitch say or I might replace it rather than risk it.
These ones look to be ideal.............. >:D
http://www.marscampers.com.au/galvanised-poly-block-off-road-trailer-hitch.html (http://www.marscampers.com.au/galvanised-poly-block-off-road-trailer-hitch.html)
-
I would be staggered if McHitch wasn't compliant. I doubt that very much. Aussie designed and manufactured.
Julian
-
Compliance with this ADR can be achieved in one of two ways. The first, and most widely accepted way of meeting this requirement is for the manufacturer to declare their opinion that, based on the specifications of the coupling, they would either meet or exceed the testing regime of 62/02, without having actually undergone the testing.
The second, official and most expensive way is for the the coupling to be tested by an independent third party in an approved testing laboratory via high load static and cyclic testing.
So its self regulated then ?
As long as the manufacture declares that the coupling meets the standard ... it meets the standard ... unless proved otherwise.
mmmm ?
-
I would be staggered if McHitch wasn't compliant. I doubt that very much. Aussie designed and manufactured.
Julian
Mchitch is very much compliant, as per the link I supplied
-
So its self regulated then ?
As long as the manufacture declares that the coupling meets the standard ... it meets the standard ... unless proved otherwise.
mmmm ?
That's how I read it on the mchitch website!
-
maybe we can get one of the camper manufacturers that troll on here to tell us exactly what the codes mean to them and how it works. I read it also that it is self regulated
-
I have just sent an email off to my CT manufacturer to ask if 2011 poly block coupling is compliant? I'll check it for stamps ets next time I'm in the shed.
I wonder if they say its not (highly unlikely they will be that stoopid) compliant what they will offer? I'd be happy with one of there 2014 compliant jobbies - wont hold my breath though. I'll start shopping around for another hitch
Cheers
Nick
-
maybe we can get one of the camper manufacturers that troll on here to tell us exactly what the codes mean to them and how it works. I read it also that it is self regulated
They were quick on Facebook to put an Ad up about it.
-
Saw a number of CTs at Wandin today with the AS no. and poly blocks... "WRONG"!
-
I am surprised, MDC have been advertising that their hitch is compliant, in fact I seem to recall them making a big deal out of it.
Julian
Hello All,
MDC takes safety very seriously and all of our camper trailers and couplings are ADR Compliant.
I have made some investigations into our MDC Couplings for myswaggers.
All MDC Polyblock Couplings are ADR 62/02 approved and the design and manufacture has been independently tested against the Australian Standard.
We have invested a substantial amount of money/resources into the process and have been selling against noncomplying hitches for more than 5 years.
There is only 2 laboratories in Australia with sufficient equipment to facilitate the testing.
As the testing methods and laboratory is commercial in confidence, I am not allowed to elaborate any further.
In other words, MDC doesn't want to discuss the methods and know how (intellectual property) on what is required to manufacture ADR 62/02 compliant couplings. This would just make it too easy for other companies to copy.
Below is a copy of the MDC Certification Certificate and the official Engineering Test Report with commercial/sensitive information removed.
The actual MDC Test Report is a 10 page document that has been submitted to all relevant government authorities some years ago, when our couplings were first introduced to the market.
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/Cert%20MDC%20PB-2000%20Coupling%20blacked.jpg) (http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_001.jpg)
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_002.jpg) (http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_003.jpg)
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_004.jpg) (http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_005.jpg)
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_006.jpg) (http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_007.jpg)
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_008.jpg) (http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_009.jpg)
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/ENG_REP_MDC_coupling_V1_010.jpg)
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
Thanks MDC
Just an easy one for you as I dont know... why isnt there something actually stamped into the hitch ??....
I mean I have the metal plate on the top of mine- but if that comes off ??
-
Good to see you backing your product MDC, well done.
I'm curious to know if you cast and manufacture your own hitch here in Oz or is it an imported hitch that you have sent for testing for ADR compliance?
I'm genuinely curious, this is not a trolling question. It does not matter to me where it is manufactured if it meets the standard we expect, I am simply interested if you actually make the hitch here in Australia.
-
Thanks MDC
Just an easy one for you as I dont know... why isnt there something actually stamped into the hitch ??....
I mean I have the metal plate on the top of mine- but if that comes off ??
Hi Kev,
I believe ADR62/02 states that both parts of the coupling must be permanently marked. We choose to mark our hitches with a permanent nameplate, much the same as new cars these days, and the nameplate is made by the same supplier to Vehicle Components for use on their D035 coupling.
(http://www.importersandwholesalers.com.au/forum/do35.jpg)
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
All very confusing , if all it takes is a retailer saying its compliant then the system is flawed.Why have a AS system in the first place?
I have taken a lot of interest as I am awaiting delivery of my C/T(no names yet) & after reading this thread I contacted the supplier to be told that there hitches are NOW compliant. I hope this is true but if all it's takes is there say so !!!!
Still am still very keen to take delivery.
Cheers
-
it is all very confusing yet the way i still read it is that after all the testing that is done it still seems that there is no national standard.
But honestly the chances of any hitch coming undone is pretty darn rare- but it can and does happen- we just want to be all safe.
I know MDC mark theirs- and I just checked the car side of the hitch ----and I thought a little more than a sticker would be better though, but it is what it is. It is good to see that MDC did take the stand and did submit a 10 page document on their testing/requirements and standards.
(http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc353/woolgoolgaoffroad/photdfco.jpg) (http://s527.photobucket.com/user/woolgoolgaoffroad/media/photdfco.jpg.html)
-
These are the problems that I have both seen with my own eyes and read about on forums with these hitches.
The receiver has a problem with poor welding on the side of the mount and the mounting bolt.
They also crack under load across the top of the hitch receiver.
(http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac155/muzza01/receiverhitch1_zps0e708c7c.jpg)
On the hitch itself it cracks along the side of the poly block and I have seen it crack next to the bolt holes of the mounting area.
(http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac155/muzza01/home/hitch1_zps01142fab.jpg)
They are just plain junk and are dangerous.
-
We have invested a substantial amount of money/resources into the process and have been selling against noncomplying hitches for more than 5 years.
There is only 2 laboratories in Australia with sufficient equipment to facilitate the testing.
As the testing methods and laboratory is commercial in confidence, I am not allowed to elaborate any further.
In other words, MDC doesn't want to discuss the methods and know how (intellectual property) on what is required to manufacture ADR 62/02 compliant couplings. This would just make it too easy for other companies to copy.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
I think it is great that there is an alternative hitch that has been tried and tested. It is a relief to know that MDC are ensuring their hitches are compliant. Its a shame other companies aren't doing the same.
I understand that you cannot disclose too much information about the tests as you dont want your design to be copied but is your design copied from Trigg or have they copied their design from MDC? The two hitches really looks almost identical.
(http://www.triggbrs.com.au/images/catalogue/polyblock/OVERRIDE-BODY-2.jpg)
-
Hi Muzza,
Thanks for your comment.
Our coupling is of similar design and looks the similar to many of the couplings available in the market today.
Trigg has been around for much longer than MDC, so no, they have not copied our MDC Coupling.
Our coupling also has differences to the Trigg Coupling.
MDC owners with a keen eye, will be able to spot the differences.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
The claim of self regulating is utter bull**** IMO.
Copy from VSB1
If you intend to manufacture your own coupling, then you will need to consult ADR 62/01 or ADR 62/02 and conduct physical testing to ensure compliance.
ADR 62/02 is here. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153)
14.1 12.4.1 (thanks Danny ;D )is where you'll find if your coupling is compliant (or claims to be :D )
9.1.1 and 10.1.1 is also interesting. Ball couplings DON'T require the AS cast into them.
Shane.
-
I wonder if the unsuspecting owner of a dodgy coupling (regardless of type) which has failed, has taken the time to gather the evidence and made contact with the local transport authorities to make formal notification of it. Without the evidence, not much can be done to remove these things from our roads.
That is a great way to get on top of the poorly made junk out there
-
The claim of self regulating is utter bull**** IMO.
Copy from VSB14
If you intend to manufacture your own coupling, then you will need to consult ADR 62/01 or ADR 62/02 and conduct physical testing to ensure compliance.
ADR 62/02 is here. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153)
14.1 is where you'll find if your coupling is compliant (or claims to be :D )
9.1.1 and 10.1.1 is also interesting. Ball couplings DON'T require the AS cast into them.
Shane.
And the plot thickens! It seemed a bit far fetched for my liking as well. I think it only came about because I copied and pasted that statement from the Mchitch website.
Vehicle Components are members on here, they would be able to tell us with absolute certainty what they had to do to get compliance.
-
The claim of self regulating is utter bull**** IMO.
Copy from VSB14
If you intend to manufacture your own coupling, then you will need to consult ADR 62/01 or ADR 62/02 and conduct physical testing to ensure compliance.
ADR 62/02 is here. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153)
14.1 is where you'll find if your coupling is compliant (or claims to be :D )
9.1.1 and 10.1.1 is also interesting. Ball couplings DON'T require the AS cast into them.
Shane.
Just having a proper read of that document Shane and 14.1 talks about drawbar and coupling strength and the testing involved or more to the point the forces it must with stand for so many seconds etc. VSB1 doesn't require us to meet these standards when manufacturing a trailer as far as I am aware?? Its all getting far too complicated lol
-
I think its probably wise to understand that like so many products on the market that require to be a certain standard for whatever reason can still fail.
Just because lets say Mchitch, or the D035 or MDC's branded coupling has had the required tests to meet ADR compliance does not mean that every other coupling from that day on that they manufacturer or import will be of the same quality of the one that was tested for compliance. Yes they should be and yes some companies quality control would be FAR better than others but all it really means is that the company in question is now putting there backside/reputation on the line by saying every coupling we sell is up to the standard.
So, it comes down to each individuals choice as to who they would TRUST to have the quality control to manufacture safe couplings. ;D I use Mchitch and would also use vehicle component products.
-
And the plot thickens! It seemed a bit far fetched for my liking as well. I think it only came about because I copied and pasted that statement from the Mchitch website.
Vehicle Components are members on here, they would be able to tell us with absolute certainty what they had to do to get compliance.
You are correct. It is 12.4.1
Shane.
-
Hi Muzza,
Thanks for your comment.
Our coupling is of similar design and looks the similar to many of the couplings available in the market today.
Trigg has been around for much longer than MDC, so no, they have not copied our MDC Coupling.
Our coupling also has differences to the Trigg Coupling.
MDC owners with a keen eye, will be able to spot the differences.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
Love to know what the differences are. Can anyone with a keen eye enlighten me?
-
Love to know what the differences are. Can anyone with a keen eye enlighten me?
sorry mate... i cant... maybe the number of teeth that the handbrake can catch on ??
-
sorry mate... i cant... maybe the number of teeth that the handbrake can catch on ??
It's obvious to Blind Freddy - they're spelt differently (in brail).
-
All very confusing , if all it takes is a retailer saying its compliant then the system is flawed.Why have a AS system in the first place?
I have taken a lot of interest as I am awaiting delivery of my C/T(no names yet) & after reading this thread I contacted the supplier to be told that there hitches are NOW compliant. I hope this is true but if all it's takes is there say so !!!!
Still am still very keen to take delivery.
Cheers
MDC has shown their certification as proof so just ask your C/T supplier to show theirs :D
-
This is a beatup by the Aussie CT manufacturers guild. The boat I recently sold had an override coupling on it with nothing but the AS number on it. The boat (and presumably the trailer) were built in 1986, well before the appearance of imported trailers into Australia.
-
This is a beatup by the Aussie CT manufacturers guild. The boat I recently sold had an override coupling on it with nothing but the AS number on it. The boat (and presumably the trailer) were built in 1986, well before the appearance of imported trailers into Australia.
Probably depends on the rules at the time. My trailer was built by Track Trailers circa 1997 I think. No stamps whatsoever anywhere on the override coupling. There is a plate elsewhere on the trailer tub with the VIN no. & a statement saying it complies with Australia Design rules. That must have been all they needed back then as it was good enough for the military that bought the trailers at the time.
-
Sure, the rules have changed, often driven by a requirement for better regulation.
Julian
-
This is a beatup by the Aussie CT manufacturers guild. The boat I recently sold had an override coupling on it with nothing but the AS number on it. The boat (and presumably the trailer) were built in 1986, well before the appearance of imported trailers into Australia.
ADR 86/00 came into effect 1st July 1991 for trailers. Any with a manufacture date prior to that, does not need to comply with that particular ADR.
A 1986 built trailer needs to comply with the ADR's as at 1986. Same with vehicles.
Shane.
-
MDC has shown their certification as proof so just ask your C/T supplier to show theirs :D
har051 the name of the independant tester and the results have been blacked out. So who's being upfront and showing certification? the independant engineer might be in China or gone out of business if he is an Australian so its no peace of mind at all for the consumer.
Just my 5c worth Josh
-
har051 the name of the independant tester and the results have been blacked out. So who's being upfront and showing certification? the independant engineer might be in China or gone out of business if he is an Australian so its no peace of mind at all for the consumer.
Just my 5c worth Josh
So what are you trying to say here Josh.
That MDC has an illegal hitch? You are so far from the truth ;););)
The hitch is certified by an Australian business that is still operating.
We are not giving out the details, because we have spent the time and money on the engineering and certification.
This is not something we are prepared to give away to our competitors for free.
As stated in this thread, our hitch was brought into disrepute by Big Jules, who sells another brand of camper trailer.
This was just a quiet dig at MDC, and that is fine. It was going on at the Camper Trailer Australia Magazine, Camper Trailer of the Year awards in Robe also. We are the new guys on the block, playing with the well established brands now.
Its all fun and games.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
I don't think Bigjules was having a dig at you, I think you are being a little paranoid.
Swannie
-
The hitch is certified by an Australian business that is still operating.
We are not giving out the details, because we have spent the time and money on the engineering and certification.
This is not something we are prepared to give away to our competitors for free.
What are you talking about MDC it's nothing new it's just a copy of Tregg that has been around for years
-
I don't think Bigjules was having a dig at you, I think you are being a little paranoid.
Swannie
I agree with this. The big fellas integrity is in tact in my eyes!
-
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm assuredly not trying to have a dig in any way at Big Jules. But regardless of whether or not he was trying to have a dig at a competitor or not, this thread should probably be locked about now. Its run its race, and is now starting to enter rather murky waters. To leave it open would seem hypocritical to the charter of this fine establishment. I for one think that more than enough mud has been thrown.
-
Agreed. Lock another thread
-
I don't think Bigjules was having a dig at you, I think you are being a little paranoid.
Swannie
X2
I agree with this. The big fellas integrity is in tact in my eyes!
X2
-
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm assuredly not trying to have a dig in any way at Big Jules. But regardless of whether or not he was trying to have a dig at a competitor or not, this thread should probably be locked about now. Its run its race, and is now starting to enter rather murky waters. To leave it open would seem hypocritical to the charter of this fine establishment. I for one think that more than enough mud has been thrown.
The suggestion of locking a thread because there's healthy general discussion about the legality of hitches and whether they're copied or not. Yet people are allowed to call Telemarketers "Elephant Washers" (on numerous posts and different threads) and there's no suggestion of locking that thread or even a mention to watch the racists remarks? 3 times it's mentioned. 3 chances for someone to read a public forum, get their knickers in a twist (quite rightly) and seek legal advise, resulting in a letter regarding racist remarks.
I'm no way am I saying you used the term Malcolm and yes they annoy the sh|t out of me too, but locking a thread for no apparent reason except for the fear of a potential legal threat, likely because of another 3-letter manufacturer getting their knickers in a twist, is ridiculous. Especially, as all I can see is MDC being happy to discuss their brand on this Forum, clearly they love advertising their product too, but I can't see how someone has overstepped the boundaries requiring it to be locked?
-
I got a response from my manufacturer. It's not what I was expecting but overall I am pretty darn happy with the result. I would like to tell you all what it was, or who the manufacturer is, but I can't. ???
Overall I feel great that the manufacturer addressed my issue to my satisfaction. That seems to be a level of satisfaction that is not often realised in after sales service........sooooooo YAY for me!! ;D
-
So what are you trying to say here Josh.
That MDC has an illegal hitch? You are so far from the truth ;););)
The hitch is certified by an Australian business that is still operating.
We are not giving out the details, because we have spent the time and money on the engineering and certification.
This is not something we are prepared to give away to our competitors for free.
As stated in this thread, our hitch was brought into disrepute by Big Jules, who sells another brand of camper trailer.
This was just a quiet dig at MDC, and that is fine. It was going on at the Camper Trailer Australia Magazine, Camper Trailer of the Year awards in Robe also. We are the new guys on the block, playing with the well established brands now.
Its all fun and games.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
How exactly does making public who did the testing give away your intellectual property?
Likewise the method of testing.
In effect, you are inferring that if your competitors knew who did your testing they could take their hitches of similar looking design to that tester and he would just 'rubber stamp' them as compliant.
Surely the tester would test any other manufacturers hitch using exactly the same techniques that he used on yours, and charge the same price, after all, that is how such a business makes its income.
Or are you saying that another manufacturer would be stupid enough to forge a 'report', using the name of a fake tester, in order to make their hitch appear compliant? Such a scenario is laughable, and wouldn't survive scrutiny of the first failure.
What you actually own, and spent the $ to obtain the certification for, is the specification of your hitch, and any unique design features, which you are entitled to not disclose.
So long as your hitch continues to be built to that specification then the certification is valid. In the event of a failure resulting in any legal action (e.g. police / courts / coroner - heaven forbid) you could be required to disclose the specification etc, so that compliance with certification can be established, perhaps also your certifier may be called on to give evidence in that regard.
Frankly, posting 'redacted' documents - i.e. with relevant information blacked out - for, IMO, spurious reasons that you have stated appears disingenuous. Not only does it do you and your company no credit, it raises more questions than it answers. If I was in the market for a camper such as yours it puts me off purtchasing from you.
As for Big Jules, I have purchased from him and found him honest and his products first class. In the end that is all I need to know about any vendor, whether a swagger or otherwise.
-
funny thread...
lock it.. it will quickly turn into a waste of time. (my post included)
-
There is an easy way out of it if you have a camper with a knockoff copy of the Tegg or Trigg Bros hitch on it. Ditch it and get one of the well known Australian made and certified hitches put on. Might be an extra expense to start with but what cost do you put on your and your families safety and peace of mind. And people do it all the time, in search of the perfect way to couple up. Just a thought. I have a DO35 on mine, just for the record. And I agree, this thread could be all down hill from here
:cheers:
James
-
The suggestion of locking a thread because there's healthy general discussion about the legality of hitches and whether they're copied or not. Yet people are allowed to call Telemarketers "Elephant Washers" (on numerous posts and different threads) and there's no suggestion of locking that thread or even a mention to watch the racists remarks? 3 times it's mentioned. 3 chances for someone to read a public forum, get their knickers in a twist (quite rightly) and seek legal advise, resulting in a letter regarding racist remarks.
I'm no way am I saying you used the term Malcolm and yes they annoy the sh|t out of me too, but locking a thread for no apparent reason except for the fear of a potential legal threat, likely because of another 3-letter manufacturer getting their knickers in a twist, is ridiculous. Especially, as all I can see is MDC being happy to discuss their brand on this Forum, clearly they love advertising their product too, but I can't see how someone has overstepped the boundaries requiring it to be locked?
Its not for fear of legalities that I think the thread should be terminated. My reasoning is primarily to do with the fact one person with ties to an imported camper trailer manufacturer has bought to light "legislation" in regards to tow hitch compliance of imported camper trailers. Now whilst thats all well and good, the tone of the conversation directed at one of these companies; who has tried to placate the angry mob, is (in my opinion) not.
Robust conversation is fine, so long as it remains in context. Its now become a bit of a MDC bashing competition. Personally, I wouldn't own one, but thats neither here nor there. What is relevant in this dialogue, is the fact that when faced with this constant barrage against him/them, the MDC guy quite rightly pointed out that the instigator of the thread has ties to their opposition. Now Big Jules may not have been having a dig, but plenty of other are.
Right or wrong MDC cannot "win" this argument. They're not going to be allowed to, and thats not healthy conversation in anybodies book. Threads have been deleted and/or closed for far less.
Regardless of the motives for posting the original comments, its the conflict of interests, perceived or not, that has muddied the waters. I won't go on and on with this, if people can't see the hypocrisy that is starting to seep into the conversation, thats fine, I know I'm probably in the minority with these views. I can live with that. I'll just stop reading it.
I'm not aware of these racist comments, thankfully I missed that thread. Thats not on either, especially in an open forum.
-
How exactly does making public who did the testing give away your intellectual property?
Likewise the method of testing.
In effect, you are inferring that if your competitors knew who did your testing they could take their hitches of similar looking design to that tester and he would just 'rubber stamp' them as compliant.
NO, I doubt this would happen at all.
Surely the tester would test any other manufacturers hitch using exactly the same techniques that he used on yours, and charge the same price, after all, that is how such a business makes its income.
Yes, You are correct.
Or are you saying that another manufacturer would be stupid enough to forge a 'report', using the name of a fake tester, in order to make their hitch appear compliant? Such a scenario is laughable, and wouldn't survive scrutiny of the first failure.
Yes, there are manufacturers out there that slap labels on without testing.
What you actually own, and spent the $ to obtain the certification for, is the specification of your hitch, and any unique design features, which you are entitled to not disclose.
Yes, You are correct.
So long as your hitch continues to be built to that specification then the certification is valid. In the event of a failure resulting in any legal action (e.g. police / courts / coroner - heaven forbid) you could be required to disclose the specification etc, so that compliance with certification can be established, perhaps also your certifier may be called on to give evidence in that regard.
Yes, You are correct.
Frankly, posting 'redacted' documents - i.e. with relevant information blacked out - for, IMO, spurious reasons that you have stated appears disingenuous. Not only does it do you and your company no credit, it raises more questions than it answers. If I was in the market for a camper such as yours it puts me off purchasing from you.
Sorry, I do not think you are right on this one. Documentation has been lodged with the relevant government authorities.
Our integrity as a company and a manufacturer of camper trailers was brought into question.
We are being targeted because we are the only company who has manufactured their own hitch, had it certified to Australian standards and had it done many years before this banter even started on this forum.
As for Big Jules, I have purchased from him and found him honest and his products first class. In the end that is all I need to know about any vendor, whether a swagger or otherwise.
This is great, certainly Trackabout has a sound product. Maybe one day MDC will have multiple products to the high Standards as Trackabout. We certainly are working on it.
If a person states an untruth about our company on this forum, we will defend our company with proof, pictures, videos and everything we have to put our point across.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
Anyone and every one just buy a tregg hitch all good end of discussion .and the usual im not related to the tregg bros etc etc etc
-
If a person states an untruth about our company on this forum, we will defend our company with proof, pictures, videos and everything we have to put our point across.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
There's my point. Happy to defend their product. No need to close the thread in my eyes. And not because I want to see a slinging match, I just can't stand people being censored when trying to make a point. My Wife hates the fact I always try and get the last word in. hence I said "try" - I never do.
Its not for fear of legalities that I think the thread should be terminated. My reasoning is primarily to do with the fact one person with ties to an imported camper trailer manufacturer has bought to light "legislation" in regards to tow hitch compliance of imported camper trailers. Now whilst thats all well and good, the tone of the conversation directed at one of these companies; who has tried to placate the angry mob, is (in my opinion) not.
Robust conversation is fine, so long as it remains in context. Its now become a bit of a MDC bashing competition. Personally, I wouldn't own one, but thats neither here nor there. What is relevant in this dialogue, is the fact that when faced with this constant barrage against him/them, the MDC guy quite rightly pointed out that the instigator of the thread has ties to their opposition. Now Big Jules may not have been having a dig, but plenty of other are.
Right or wrong MDC cannot "win" this argument. They're not going to be allowed to, and thats not healthy conversation in anybodies book. Threads have been deleted and/or closed for far less.
Regardless of the motives for posting the original comments, its the conflict of interests, perceived or not, that has muddied the waters. I won't go on and on with this, if people can't see the hypocrisy that is starting to seep into the conversation, thats fine, I know I'm probably in the minority with these views. I can live with that. I'll just stop reading it.
I'm not aware of these racist comments, thankfully I missed that thread. Thats not on either, especially in an open forum.
Agree being "attacked" or "discredited" directly or in an underlying manner is not cool. However, MDC Insider is willing to give as good as they get. Let it carry on until either they feel they are being hard done by, offended or screwed over. IF........if they dig themselves a hole, it's on them.
-
How exactly does disclosing who did the testing adversely effect MDC?
-
How exactly does disclosing who did the testing adversely effect MDC?
And really, you would not need to be Sherlock Holmes to find out who the testing agency is. It will be on the public record somewhere, if what has been said is all factual. Not suggesting it is not, but blacking out a document is opening a can of worms. Who knows what was censored for effect. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00153) will tell you what the testing parameters are and I am sure that NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia) http://www.nata.asn.au/ (http://www.nata.asn.au/) may well be the place to track down the testing agency.
James :angel:
-
Ok, don't know if it's just me(& don't care if it is) but I think this has run its course.
Initially there was some good points covered but I think it's all been rehashed & it's time to move on.
Cheers
-
How exactly does disclosing who did the testing adversely effect MDC?
Allright i will try to explain; the testing report as well as containing the testing agencies name will also contain steel used inc grade etc, fittings used, construction method used, field testing method used, previsous version trials, CAD or other drawing numbers, patents filed or pending it will also contain the method of test by the agency themselves and also protype testing methods MDC utilised to get the hitch to a point where they were confident to submit it for certification and god knows what else
So what do you think other say overseas manufacturers would do when they find all of this information on a public forum. Especially when they are already probably getting pressure from their OZ distributers to put better designed hitches on thier campers yep you guessed it devise a copy for a fraction of the price and write a joke email to MDC thanking them for doing all the hard work then posting it in the public domain
So yes it would be in MDC best commercial, and intellectual property interests to remove some details off the report.
-
Chester,
This is the relevant part of what I wrote at post #27.
Some parts highlighted in blue and some underlined as well..
How exactly does making public who did the testing give away your intellectual property?
Likewise the method of testing.
In effect, you are inferring that if your competitors knew who did your testing they could take their hitches of similar looking design to that tester and he would just 'rubber stamp' them as compliant.
Surely the tester would test any other manufacturers hitch using exactly the same techniques that he used on yours, and charge the same price, after all, that is how such a business makes its income.
Or are you saying that another manufacturer would be stupid enough to forge a 'report', using the name of a fake tester, in order to make their hitch appear compliant? Such a scenario is laughable, and wouldn't survive scrutiny of the first failure.
What you actually own, and spent the $ to obtain the certification for, is the specification of your hitch, and any unique design features, which you are entitled to not disclose.
I have highlighted in red in your post the matters which I totally agree could reasonably be redacted in what they have posted.
Allright i will try to explain; the testing report as well as containing the testing agencies name will also contain steel used inc grade etc, fittings used, construction method used, field testing method used, previsous version trials, CAD or other drawing numbers, patents filed or pending it will also contain the method of test by the agency themselves and also protype testing methods MDC utilised to get the hitch to a point where they were confident to submit it for certification and god knows what else
So what do you think other say overseas manufacturers would do when they find all of this information on a public forum. Especially when they are already probably getting pressure from their OZ distributers to put better designed hitches on thier campers yep you guessed it devise a copy for a fraction of the price and write a joke email to MDC thanking them for doing all the hard work then posting it in the public domain
So yes it would be in MDC best commercial, and intellectual property interests to remove some details off the report.
However, as a prospective customer, I would want to know who did the testing, which is what you are saying is unreasonable. I would prefer to also know how they tested it, although arguably that is less important, as it is being certified by an identified, qualified tester.
Without at least the identity of the tester customers are being asked to take 'on faith' that the original document is legitimate. That might be sufficient if purchasing a heavily regulated product produced by a large publicly listed company with significant assetts behind them - for example car manufacturers. However that is not the case with the camper industry as, with the possible exception of the likes of Jayco, it is just too easy for companies to go 'belly up' and disappear.
This is not in any way directed at MDC, as I would have the same concerns about any other make, given the number of small producers / importers who can, and do, cease production on a regular basis.
-
Frankly who cares, move along.
-
B2B,
We are not posting the details and Chester has got it nailed as far as we are concerned.
We are not commenting on this post anymore. We have the ADR approval in place and have done so for years.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
To me it's like having a uni degree but blanking out the uni name on certificate. IMHO lacks credibility to not disclose tester. Don't need methods or ins and out just a certificate, passed or failed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think we need to stop going around in circles. The main thing to look at is that your hitch is certified to the correct standard and is well maintained with the appropriate safety chains installed and attached to the tug when towing.
If your hitch does not meet the grade I would change it out as soon as possible to ensure that you do not have a failure when towing, like several of the members have.
Thanks to BigJules for bringing this to everyones attention
GG
-
Tyhis is what I look for, someone who is prepared to state clearly how their hitch was tested, to what limits and show pics of the testing regime.
http://ozhitch.com/testing/ (http://ozhitch.com/testing/)
What attracted me was the design, what 'sold' me was the transparency.
Couldn't imagine they would sell many hitches with a post of a 'chess board' (i.e. as much black as white) 'certificate'.
I can't see why I would accept a lesser standard of transparency just because it came attached to a camper. :cheers:
-
To me it's like having a uni degree but blanking out the uni name on certificate. IMHO lacks credibility to not disclose tester. Don't need methods or ins and out just a certificate, passed or failed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly the point I was making.
-
(http://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/merry-go-round-mixer.gif)
-
That so needs the govenor removed. ^^^^^^^ >:D
-
In the industry I normally work in, we do a lot of certified testing which is covering various equipment, to various codes of practice or standards etc.
In addition, it is to various requirements such as Insurance Provider, Class (Marine industry), or Regulatory Authorities of Various nations such as Federal Governments.
Because testing of this nature is conducted so much, there are many places around the world to have this done by, sadly, many of these testing firms operate in Nations with no AS equivalent, and there fore, they may test to a standard which is not recognised for that given product.
This does happen, in my position, I need to get from the testing firm copies of their compliance documentation prior to allowing them to test any thing I am responsible for.
So what does this have to do with Couplings?
It is my view that MDC should not black out that information as my first thought is it could be a test certificate from someone who is not accredited for this test to the relevant AS, which, brings a bit of a bad name to a firm that could be avoided in my view.
If I were a customer buying a CT from them, I am entitled to see that document in full and ask why the ID plate, as apposed to the stamped casting method.
-
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb1/vsb_01_b.aspx#16 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/vsb1/vsb_01_b.aspx#16)
REFER t0 16.4 onwards
-
B2B,
We are not posting the details and Chester has got it nailed as far as we are concerned.
We are not commenting on this post anymore. We have the ADR approval in place and have done so for years.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
It is a bit hard to believe that your company have done so for Years when the testing is against a compliance regulation of June 2009, as highlighted in your certificates [not exactly years ] and you elect to blank out a simple thing like a test date, something that would be unimportant for a competitor. Unless you have been promoting the product as approved for longer than the approval has been in place.
I would also call into question your reasoning for the blacking out of the testing agent,as the certificate can be requested and must be provided if requested by not only a regulatory body but also a consumer ,in the same way you also must provide a Gas certificate of inspection and also have a compliance plate fitted for the customers .I appreciate that you your company may not want share this information on the forum , but by providing a checker board certificate can only raise the suspicions of forum readers that all may not be up front so if you aren't prepared to share things like testing agent or dates etc then maybe you are better served not sharing the certificates at all.
-
Talk about flog a dead horse. 8) I think this race is well and truly over.
-
Enough already.
-
Our integrity was brought into question by Julian from Trackabout Camper Trailers who is a moderator on this forum.
We reserve the right to defend our product against any libel comments from a competitor company or their representative in any forum, without having to divulge our trade secrets.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
-
Our integrity was brought into question by Julian from Trackabout Camper Trailers who is a moderator on this forum.
Hey MDC Insider, I don't know what post you were reading but I didn't see that at all.
I need to give you some social media advice. You are doing your company a disservice by continuing to post in this topic. You may be 100% correct but your posts are in a public domain for all prospective customers to see and they're reflecting poorly on yourself and the company you represent. Please take this to PM.
-
Hey MDC Insider, I don't know what post you were reading but I didn't see that at all.
I need to give you some social media advice. You are doing your company a disservice by continuing to post in this topic. You may be 100% correct but your posts are in a public domain for all prospective customers to see and they're reflecting poorly on yourself and the company you represent. Please take this to PM.
MDC D4D is correct. Look at it again.
Woolgooglaoffraod an MDC user said
suprise suprise
mine has no stamp
And big Jules replied.
I am surprised, MDC have been advertising that their hitch is compliant, in fact I seem to recall them making a big deal out of it.
Julian
While I agree that you don't need to post your engineering certificate up here, I think you are being over sensitive and also it is you who is misreading Julians post and questioning his ethics incorrectly.
-
Our integrity was brought into question by Julian from Trackabout Camper Trailers who is a moderator on this forum.
We reserve the right to defend our product against any libel comments from a competitor company or their representative in any forum, without having to divulge our trade secrets.
Happy Camping ;)
MDC Insider
Since when is the ADR certification process a trade secret ??? I've just gone through the entire post and can't find the bit where Julian questioned your companies integrity. That's a pretty long bow to draw. Now I've never met Julian, never even spoken to the bloke, but he has an honest and open affiliation with Trackabout, nothing hidden there. Your role in your company is still a mystery to me, this Insider rubbish needs to stop, this isn't whistle blower politics, let us know your position!
Cheers,
Disco teddy.
-
Talk about flog a dead horse. 8) I think this race is well and truly over.
X2
Sent from your iPad using Mental telepathy
-
Not to self never and I mean NEVER buy any camper that has only three letters in it's name. Round and Round. Not that I would have bothered in the first place!
Dave
-
I think we need to stop going around in circles. The main thing to look at is that your hitch is certified to the correct standard and is well maintained with the appropriate safety chains installed and attached to the tug when towing.
If your hitch does not meet the grade I would change it out as soon as possible to ensure that you do not have a failure when towing, like several of the members have.
Thanks to BigJules for bringing this to everyones attention
GG
Sent from your iPad using Mental telepathy
-
I think someone got it right earlier, it is a argument they can't win. Good to see them have a go and speak up for their product. It wasn't that long ago that another manufacturer was criticised for sending nasty letters rather than come onto the forums and discuss their product.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Till the Mods have a look at it
GG