IJS... I bet you wouldn't be so accepting of 0.07% if you were the Lucky 1 that ended up with 1 of those wheels that would have the Defect @-)
Personally I'd be fine. Things fail sometimes and if mine failed in the initial warranty period, no bigger, I'd pay for a cross ship option, be out of the wheel for a few days and be up and running again in less than a week.
Nothing in the world is perfect you're always accepting a risk that your product fails.
And what if your wheel base failed just outside the warranty period Joel? Would you still "be fine" then? 8-|
I agree the announcement was far left to close to the advertised
shipping date, but knowing the blowback the delay would cause, Fanatec must have very good
reasons to implement it.
Clearly, none if this is good for PR, but I would also suggest that shipping a whole load
of potentially compromised units of their new 'flagship product' would
have had far more severe long-term consequences for the company's
reputation. So, instead of griping
about the decision to delay delivery and fix an already know problem, we
should probably be more thankful they've made such a tough decision now.
I'm glad you made the hard decision. I'd rather have it be perfect, even if we have to wait a little while longer. I appreciate that Fanatec is willing to do this kind of thing to make the product top quality. I'm hoping to never have to buy a wheel base again. :b
The "facts" don't add up. The ".07% failure rate" is far lower than any product they have sold and lower than what it will be next year in May.
I smell bankruptcy. Get your money back on pre-orders as fast as possible or risk losing it. The promise of a "free" F1 wheel is just to entice you not to get your money back until they are gone and its to late to get your money back. Don't buy into the lies.
EDIT - The data/numbers/axiom have all been updated/changed and clarified making none of the numbers (or any of these posts discussing it) relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
Hi,
Just a quick note to let you know that there may be an error with the data!
The 0.07% figure would indeed appear too low justify a recall (EDIT - This has now proven to be true, the actual number is 0.7%) so we could assume/theorise that the number originally provided is incorrect (EDIT - This turned out to be true) It's entirely plausible / possible that the 0.07% figure presented could have perhaps been intended to be printed as decimal (EDIT - It was actually intended to be 0.7% not 0.07%)
Thus giving us a understandably (higher) failure rate as this would equate to 7% (which would surely justify a recall/delay)
0.07 decimal is 7% meaning this could have been a grammatical error (EDIT - There was a grammatical error, however it was that the number was supposed to be 0.7% not 0.07 decimal as theorised) and 7% of 4000 is 280 which would give us a much higher number, as I agree 2.8 is far to low to justify a delay such as this. It's clear the 0.07% number is incorrect (EDIT - This is now proven to be true, the actual number is 0.7% equating to around 28 based on 4000 units)
As we have no clarity on what axioms are being used/presented if would be foolish for everyone to argue over the numbers (as these numbers may be incorrect) (EDIT - They were indeed incorrect, so all theories and discussions were irrelevant)
Additionally there are a lot of data that users have no exposure of, and therefore are unable to (clearly) see/understand the issue from Fanatecs perspective.
Fanatec will know the DPU/DPO/Sample Size/Failure Conditions/Expected Return Rates/DIT/LOS/Tolerances etc etc etc etc. All of which contribute to the decision. As users don't have exposure of this, it's not as simple as it may seem.
Then you must take into account component failure rate of the hundreds of components contained within each base, there will be a tolerance set in a contract between Fanatec and each component supplier, but this must be accounted for and added to the total expected failure rate.
Then you must take in to account Damage in transit, loss, theft, returns AND any other issues found by the users when the product is out in the wild (that may have been missed during testing) and other failures such as user error etc that will potentially require repair etc and the load that puts on the available resources.
Now we still haven't even begun to scratch the surface regarding contracts with UPS, shipping costs, return costs, repairs/part costs, salaries etc and the fact that Fanatec is a relatively small company with limited resources in certain parts of the world.
They very likely wont be able to handle that level of returns/failures internally. They really can't have Jo fixing hundreds of bases on his own in London etc. as the lead time would be ridiculous.
They very likely do not have the man power / resources to repair that amount of bases on the fly. Therefore, it again makes perfect sense to pay the hundreds of factory workers in china to fix / repair the issues before shipping the product to the end user, which in turn reduces the expected return rate to a number the company can handle.
While 0.07 (if we assume the 0.07% figure to be incorrect and to be 0.07 decimal instead) may seem like a relatively small number in the paragraph Thomas wrote, I can assure you that with exposure to all the data, you would very likely be in complete agreement with Thomas' decision to delay.
Everyones money is perfectly safe, posts regarding bankruptcy etc are outrageous and very dramatic...
Come on guys
EDIT - The axioms have all been updated/changed and clarified making none of the numbers or any of these posts discussing it... relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
As I said previously, without all the data, we really should look passed the numbers, understand and appreciate the strategic business decision made here that truly benefit the customer
The "facts" don't add up. The ".07% failure rate" is far lower than any product they have sold and lower than what it will be next year in May.
I smell bankruptcy. Get your money back on pre-orders as fast as possible or risk losing it. The promise of a "free" F1 wheel is just to entice you not to get your money back until they are gone and its to late to get your money back. Don't buy into the lies.
My paypal account is saying I'm covered until May 2019.
Until there, I can enter in a dispute.
But, agree with you, 0.07% of failure is to low to justify losing too much money like they're doing new. Upgrading the motor, now a $350 wheel.. I don't believe they're loosing money, but they're loosing a lot of profit.
using the 0.07% against the 4000 pre-order represents only 2.8 bases. So, I believe it's much better than the Base V2.5.
Is this a reason for 6 months delay? I can't tell you, but reading/following this topic. I'm really sure they good let us now earlier.
Fanatec is a good company, Yes, at least is what I think about it, since it's the only brand where my stuff come from.
But the lack of communication, this huge delay, is something Is making me look for a different brand. We had the same delay on the Mclaren GT3(We receive the QR as gift).
And still would like to have an answer about this:
@Fanatec and @Thomas. Could you give discount to the customers to buy your cheaper Base? At least the BF discounts ?
I need at list the CSL Elite to use my stuff.
Regards
Hi,
Just a quick note to let you know that there is an error with your math.
0.07% is 7% and 7% of 4000 is 280 not 2.8
Additionally there is a lot of data that users have no exposure of, and therefore are unable to see the issue from Fanatecs perspective.
Fanatec will know the DPU/DPO/Sample Size/Failure Conditions/Expected Return Rates/DIT/LOS/Tolerances etc etc etc etc. All of which contribute to the decision. As users don't have exposure of this, it's not as simple as it may seem.
For example, let's say the sample rate was 4000 units and the issue was intermittent or occurred only under certain criteria. If 7% of that sample exhibited the problem, you must also account for a few % that didn't exhibit, but may be susceptible to the fault when under prolonged use in those conditions, at which point we are dangerously close to 1 in 10 items being faulty, 0.10% which is 10% which then increases our figures from 280 to 400!
Then you must take into account component failure rate of the hundreds of components contained within each base, there will be a tolerance set in a contract between Fanatec and each component supplier, but this must be accounted for and added to the total expected failure rate.
Then you must take in to account Damage in transit, loss, theft, returns AND any other issues found by the users when the product is out in the wild (that may have been missed during testing) and other failures such as user error etc that will potentially require repair etc and the load that puts on the available resources.
Now we still haven't even begun to scratch the surface regarding contracts with UPS, shipping costs, return costs, repairs/part costs, salaries etc and the fact that Fanatec is a relatively small company with limited resources in certain parts of the world.
They very likely wont be able to handle that level of returns/failures internally. They really can't have Jo fixing hundreds of bases on his own in London etc. as the lead time would be ridiculous.
They very likely do not have the man power / resources to repair that amount of bases on the fly. Therefore, it again makes perfect sense to pay the hundreds of factory workers in china to fix / repair the issues before shipping the product to the end user, which in turn reduces the expected return rate to a number the company can handle.
While 7% may seem like a relatively small number in the paragraph Thomas wrote, I can assure you that with exposure to all the data, you would very likely be in complete agreement with Thomas' decision to delay.
Everyones money is perfectly safe, posts regarding bankruptcy etc are outrageous and very dramatic...
Come on guys
Well I don't think i could of explained that any clearer myself, hopefully now my inbox wont get so rammed of preposterously outrageous comments, Thanks Natalie >-
When I went to school 7% was 7%, not 0.07%. 0.07% actually means 7/100 of 1%, which would be represented as 0.0007 decimal. Someone can correct me if my math is wrong. Maybe it is (I'm old) :-)
Not sure now whether Thomas actually meant 7% (0.07 decimal) or 0.07% (0.0007 decimal), but that would obviously change the numbers significantly.
EDIT: Just looked at his original post and he said 0.7%, so neither :-) (0.007 decimal - equates to 7 out of every 1000 units)
One thing to think about too is what is to say the April delivery date will be kept? It is certainly possible there may.be a further delay after that as well if something new shoes up along the way then as well. It could be another 12 months until release. Who is willing to wait that much longer?
It is also possible.... that the malfunction is fixed much quicker, and units are here in January
If you don't like Pre-Ordering....... what until the official retail date and order then.
You need to go back to math class. Thomas said 0.7%. That is the total number of units times .007. If you assume 4000 units, that is 28 units. Regardless of what Fanatec makes, 0.5% failure/return rate would occur for a variety of reasons.
I think they believe that a design error would potentially metastasize to a much much higher failure rate. A component or manufacturing failure is much easier to isolate and fix. They are questioning and have doubts in regards to the design, and have no idea why. I believe they need to pay for an independent analysis of their design.
Hello Thomas,
MR you had the chance to pre-order your DD1 / DD2, there is a delay for the good cause in addition to that fanatec offers a steering wheel, relativised a bit anyway.
Fanatec has always produced quality, 10 years that I am fanatec Fan is not a small delay that will make me change my mind
I'm waiting for the DD-Ps4 impatiently but I remain patient ;-)
Bonjour Thomas ,
MR vous avez eu la chance de pouvoir precommandee votre DD1 / DD2 , il y a un retard pour la bonne cause en plus de cela fanatec vous offre un volant, relativisée un peut quand même.
Fanatec a toujours produit de la qualitée , 10 ans que je suis Fan de fanatec c’est pas un petit retard qui me fera changer d’avis
Moi j’attends surtout le DD-Ps4 avec impatience mais je reste patient ;-)
Fanatec is releasing their Flag Ship DD wheel with that said, While i too am disappointed that the wheel is Delayed i feel it was for the Best because a 0.07% defect rate on 100 units maybe very small but when its 0.07% of 10,000 units thats alot of negative press on the Flag ship product and could hurt future sales Not to Mention all the $$$ that Fanatec would be wasting paying for Shipping and Return cost... These DD wheels are Not light weight so Shipping cost will be higher than any wheel they ship to date.
Yes I want the Wheel Now but what I want Most of All is a Dependable DD wheel that performs well, While the New of a delay was Not what i wanted , IMO a tad bit more time to wait is a small price to pay for a Better product.
Thomas said 0,7% - not 0,07%. This 0,07% value was a mistake in the original post and was updated to 0,7%.
And this would mean that it would affect 7 / 1000 bases. Or with the example of 4000 units it would mean 28 / 4000.
Does it really matter what %? It will fail anyway at some point. Nothing is 100% reliable anyway. Shame it wasn't built in Germany as it maybe closer to perfection.
Its delayed anyway. Will probably hear on the 27th of April if its delayed again.
Sorry to hear about your technical problems with the wheel base, you must be shattered; Anyway, thank you for the email communications and thank you for the Free wheel offer ,that is a nice response to a difficult and unfortunate situation. I wish you luck and a speedy recovery.
Very interesting maths going on there Natalie! 0.7% indeed is 7 failures out of every 1000 units so across the 4000 (assumed) pre-orders we would be looking at 28 failing with this issue. Interesting that in the original post it was a stated 0.07% failure rate, before being updated, which would mean a failure rate of 7 in 10,000 units. So once more 'amateur hour' at Fanatec giving the incorrect information initially for one of the most important blog posts ever written. Or....the conspiracy theorists among us may think that the 0.07% figure was plucked from thin air to explain the delay and only afterwards was it realised that at 0.07% failure rate is perfectly acceptable in the vast majority of products. This whole debacle just stinks.
There is no way this came to light three days before the product was supposed to ship, QA would have been done months ago, if it wasn't I believe that is even more alarming than this delay, and whilst I can fully understand and accept problems occurring during product development which lead to delays or even people making mistakes, what I can't abide is being lied to, and this whole saga stinks of a bunch of people who have handed over somewhere in the region of 4 million Euros to Fanatec being kept in the dark and then let down at the very last minute.
In my opinion, it shows Fanatec in a very bad light. I continually defend Fanatec on various forums around the internet from people who don't know what they are talking about because I think they make great products, I've personally owned five or their wheel bases, four pedal sets, I've got four of their wheels rims, shifters and a handbrake. However, this whole episode really has left a bad taste in my mouth and I really am questioning the loyalty I have shown them over the past ten years.
Don't mean to upset people, but I think this needs to be said.
This is just my opinion on people waiting for the announcement of the ps4 version whining about not getting a free wheel. That Product hasn't even been announced yet so you haven't preordered and you haven't lost anything. Saying that you would have preordered it, and thus would have also been eligible for compensation is ridiculous. You're assuming it would have been available for immediate delivery upon being announced, and this is not necessarily true. This product would likely have also gone through its own preorder process and delivery schedule. Fact is you have paid no money and you have not been promised delivery, unlike those who preordered the dd1/dd2. Its really that simple, if you paid money and were promised delivery, you get compensation. If not, you don't. I don't understand what people are getting so upset about. On top of what Fanatec has already offered to those affected, they should give everyone a free wheel or what? Maybe they should also give a free wheel to those who thought about preordering but didn't, that would be only fair, right? Cmon guys, stop trying to use this situation to angle for free stuff. Those that were affected are getting compensation, end of story.
Very interesting maths going on there Natalie! 0.7% indeed is 7 failures out of every 1000 units so across the 4000 (assumed) pre-orders we would be looking at 28 failing with this issue. Interesting that in the original post it was a stated 0.07% failure rate, before being updated, which would mean a failure rate of 7 in 10,000 units. So once more 'amateur hour' at Fanatec giving the incorrect information initially for one of the most important blog posts ever written. Or....the conspiracy theorists among us may think that the 0.07% figure was plucked from thin air to explain the delay and only afterwards was it realised that at 0.07% failure rate is perfectly acceptable in the vast majority of products. This whole debacle just stinks.
There is no way this came to light three days before the product was supposed to ship, QA would have been done months ago, if it wasn't I believe that is even more alarming than this delay, and whilst I can fully understand and accept problems occurring during product development which lead to delays or even people making mistakes, what I can't abide is being lied to, and this whole saga stinks of a bunch of people who have handed over somewhere in the region of 4 million Euros to Fanatec being kept in the dark and then let down at the very last minute.
In my opinion, it shows Fanatec in a very bad light. I continually defend Fanatec on various forums around the internet from people who don't know what they are talking about because I think they make great products, I've personally owned five or their wheel bases, four pedal sets, I've got four of their wheels rims, shifters and a handbrake. However, this whole episode really has left a bad taste in my mouth and I really am questioning the loyalty I have shown them over the past ten years.
You need to go back to math class. Thomas said 0.7%. That is the total number of units times .007. If you assume 4000 units, that is 28 units. Regardless of what Fanatec makes, 0.5% failure/return rate would occur for a variety of reasons.
I think they believe that a design error would potentially metastasize to a much much higher failure rate. A component or manufacturing failure is much easier to isolate and fix. They are questioning and have doubts in regards to the design, and have no idea why. I believe they need to pay for an independent analysis of their design.
EDIT - The axioms have all been updated/changed and clarified making none of the numbers or any of these posts discussing it... relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
The math is correct "assuming" that the 0.07% figure was I ncorrect (which it was) and theorising that perhaps the misprint / error was that the number was supposed to be 0.07 (decimal).
if we assume/theorise decimal based on the information available at time of print and all agree that 0.07% is far to low of a figure to justify a recall, and therefore must be incorrect (which turned out to be true) therefore we can theorise that the figure MAY have been intended to read 0.07 (decimal, as a possibility) which would equate 7% which would certainly justify a delay / recall.
The original figure presented in the statement was 0.07% and was immediately assumed/theorised as being incorrect due to being too low. Therefore the theory that this number was a grammatical error and was meant to read 0.07 (decimal) etc was raised, as this number would justify a delay / recall as 0.07 decimal is 7%.
However math is a formal science / language as you can see, math can (correctly) be interpreted differently depending on what format the data was presented in, what (assumed) axioms we started from and even what industry we work in, and without knowing all of that initially, the data can (again correctly) be interpreted differently by many, until all axioms are verified/clarified. (EDIT - In this case the original data presented was Indeed incorrect)
For example If I said my GPU was running at 89degrees you may say that's too hot, but it's possible that others may say that it's nice and cool as I never truly clarified C/F (even though C would be assumed).
If I say 100% of food sampled at the local market was rotten (but never revealed my sampled size of 1 item) you would be inclined to think the entire market was rotten etc)
In my line of work (Six Sigma Black Belt Project Lead) this is how my data would be presented and Interpreted "based on the axioms provided/assumed" (if decimal in this case) unless the format was clarified in the beginning (which it wasn't in this case, and was clearly incorrect, but was later updated / corrected but lead to customer confusion theories/assumptions). If I received data that didn't make sense in the context of the discussion, and I was unable to clarify the data at that point in time, I would present my findings based on what was stated, but also what I thought they meant, therefore covering all bases.
It's how I would present (and have presented) my findings back to Fanatec as a beta tester for over 3 years.
So, to try and help some of the concerned consumers (who were overreacting about bankruptcy etc) to understand that it's not all about the numbers, I postulated the myriad of reasons that could contribute to the delay to help move their focus along, from being stuck solely on the numbers.
It's not incorrect math to assume that 0.07 is 7% based on the decimal format/axioms used in a particular Industry / assumed / used previously or provided by the data provider etc. However, I appreciate that as a formal language/science math allows for this to be interpreted in many different ways. In this case the source data was incorrect, however it was intended to read 0.7%. Either way the source data is wrong, but it's not all about the numbers.
The initial statement from Fanatec, presented incorrect information/axioms and/or left for ambiguity in which format the data were presented as 0.07% seemed to low, therefore assumptions were made that there was an error in the data (EDIT - which turned out to be true) and a possible theory, was that the figure was infact meant to read as a decimal not percent, and that the post contained a gramrical error (EDIT - Which it did, just not the one that was theorised).
This doesn't affect the math/equations only the source values (axioms / starting points) which the user can adjust accordingly, the other points remain the same, and the math is still correct (but the axioms are wrong due to incorrect /ambiguous figures present at the time of print, which has subsequently been updated).
If your teacher asks you what 4+4 is (and you answer 8) you are still mathematically correct, even if the data provider (teacher) later states that they actually meant 2+4. While your results are NOW no longer accurate based on the new axiom, your math / equation etc was still correct while still being based on a false axiom. Starting from a false axiom does not equal bad math (as this may not be known until later into the project, as was proven here)
However, we can easily adjust the results now that clarity has been provided on the input data.
Again, like all formal languages and sciences math can be interpreted in many different ways (as seen here) when ALL the data are not present, if we start from a false axiom (like we did here) the math is correct, but the initial figures input were wrong, not the math!
Again, as the team are the ones that have ALL the data, we must respect that they are in a position of enlightenment that allows them to see the big picture. All the speculation about bankruptcy etc is ridiculous and users must appreciate that this is indeed a strategic business decision that makes perfect sense.
Again, all of this only goes to strengthen initial my point above. I advise users to IGNORE the number and look at the impact this would bring to business. Can Fanatec handle returns rate etc. What impact would that have to the business and/or the consumer, what would the lead time be on repairing units in the wild etc.etc
My point still remains, it's not just about how many products exhibit the issue. It's about can the company actually repair that many out in the wild. Can they handle the return rate, can the handle the repair / shipping rate and costs. Do they have the man power and infrastructure in ALL parts of the world to be able to repair this issue on the fly, and this has been answered clearly by Thomas by delaying the product. It makes sense to delay and fix this while the product is still in the factory. This is likely one of the reasons the announcement was held back until the last possible minute, its very likely the team we're testing/fixing repairing and calculating how many can be fixed before shipping, and could handle the expected returns rate etc.
e.g How long a repair would take, how much the repair would cost, how it would affect the customer, the business, future development and BAU etc. Fanatec would have looked very closely if they could fix these while out in the wild, it was likely there preferred option, up until the figures became unmanageable and would impact the business to the "nth" degree. Again without ALL the data we don't know, we can however trust that this is for sure the right decision to make.
Hopefully people can understand that this really is in the best customer Interest, and Fanatec have offered to compensate users by offering a huge discount/voucher/credit in return for the inconvenience.
So let's leave Fanatec to knock this out the park while we get back to racing...
EDIT - The axioms have all been updated/changed and clarified (there was indeed an error with the initial 0.07% figure, as suspected) making none of numbers/theories in this thread relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
As mentioned previously, without all the data (and / or with incorrect data, and/or speculating / theorising...it's not possible to make a truly informed decision/opionion) we really should look passed the numbers, understand and appreciate the strategic business decision made here that truly benefit the customer... Now who's up for a race!
Now the
major problem is people upset who bought or previously own some Fanatec products
and were waiting for the DD base in December. With the delay, probably they can’t
use it at least during 5 months (may be more), and that’s very disappointing for us. The F1
rim gift is very generous, but don’t solve the major problem for them.
A coupon
code of 100€ in the wheel bases (CSL Elite and CSW 2.5) for those who preorder DD, would help a lot, because allows us keep using our Fanatec items until DD launch. I’m talking about the amount of 100€, because is the price discount of the CSL
Elite base during Black Friday and I suppose that this price is still profitable for
Fanatec. That could improve your numbers for this year, and keep customers with the
company until DD arrives.
Very interesting maths going on there Natalie! 0.7% indeed is 7 failures out of every 1000 units so across the 4000 (assumed) pre-orders we would be looking at 28 failing with this issue. Interesting that in the original post it was a stated 0.07% failure rate, before being updated, which would mean a failure rate of 7 in 10,000 units. So once more 'amateur hour' at Fanatec giving the incorrect information initially for one of the most important blog posts ever written. Or....the conspiracy theorists among us may think that the 0.07% figure was plucked from thin air to explain the delay and only afterwards was it realised that at 0.07% failure rate is perfectly acceptable in the vast majority of products. This whole debacle just stinks.
There is no way this came to light three days before the product was supposed to ship, QA would have been done months ago, if it wasn't I believe that is even more alarming than this delay, and whilst I can fully understand and accept problems occurring during product development which lead to delays or even people making mistakes, what I can't abide is being lied to, and this whole saga stinks of a bunch of people who have handed over somewhere in the region of 4 million Euros to Fanatec being kept in the dark and then let down at the very last minute.
In my opinion, it shows Fanatec in a very bad light. I continually defend Fanatec on various forums around the internet from people who don't know what they are talking about because I think they make great products, I've personally owned five or their wheel bases, four pedal sets, I've got four of their wheels rims, shifters and a handbrake. However, this whole episode really has left a bad taste in my mouth and I really am questioning the loyalty I have shown them over the past ten years.
My math is correct based on the information provided at the time of print.
But again this only strengthens my point above. I advise users to IGNORE the figures and look at the impact this would bring to business. Can they handle returns rate etc. What impact would that have to the business and/or the consumer, what would the lead time be on repairing units in the wild etc.
The original figure presented in the statement was 0.07 which (as you can see above) is 7% written as a fraction.
Both in my field (and my country of origin) we would interpret this as 7% of the products exhibited the issue initially with potently more susceptible under prolonged use, and 7% of 4000 products is indeed 280.
In my line of work (Six Sigma Black Belt Project Lead) this is how my data would be presented and Interpreted based on the axioms provided. It's also how I present (and have presented) my findings back to Fanatec as a beta tester for over 3 years.
It's not incorrect math to assume that 0.07 is 7% based on the format/axioms used in a particular Industry etc. But I appreciate that as a formal language/science math allows for this to be interpreted in many ways.
If the initial statement presented the incorrect information (and then subsequently updated it) then this doesn't affect the math, only the source values (axioms) which the user can adjust accordingly, the other points remain the same, and my math is still correct (but the axioms are wrong due to incorrect figures present at the time of print). We can easily adjust them now clarity has been provided. Again, like all formal languages and sciences math can be interpreted in many different ways when ALL the data are not present, if we start from a false axiom (like we did here) the math is correct, but the initial figures input were wrong, not the math!
Again, as the team are the ones that have ALL the data, we must respect that they are in a position of enlightenment that allows them to see the big picture. All the speculation about bankruptcy etc is ridiculous and users must appreciate that this is indeed a strategic business decision that makes perfect sense.
My point still remains, it's not just about how many products exhibit the issue. It's about can the company actually repair that many out in the wild. Can they handle the return rate, can the handle the repair / shipping rate and costs. Do they have the man power and infrastructure in ALL parts of the world to be able to repair this issue on the fly, and this has been answered clearly by Thomas by delaying the product. It makes sense to delay and fix this while the product is still in the factory.
Hopefully people can understand that this really is in the best customer Interest, and Fanatec have offered to compensate users by offering a huge discount/voucher/credit in return for the inconvenience.
So let's leave Fanatec to knock this out the park while we get back to racing...
Can we assume that the reliability problem comes from high operating temperature of the electric motor?
Just another thought or two with some facts on numbers.
The email said 0.07%, this thread's first post states 0.7%, I assume the first was a mistake and corrected in this post.
The email I had was sent to 433 recipients
This would be approx. 3 know faulty items failures sent to pre-order recipients. I am glad I will not be one of those 3 unlucky people that were lined up until a few days ago to receive a known faulty unit.
Assuming no further failures is unrealistic, so you have to add on other failures as has been stated in other posts. I would assume that the usual expected failure rate post production (gathered from previous production of similar components) would be multiplied by the known failure rate (0.7) combined further with the fact that the DD2 has a five year warranty both contributing to increasing probability of failure within that time frame has led to Thomas' decision at the last moment when he had to make the go/no go call.
None of us outside of Fanatec know the exact cause and effect of the failure in the electronics. It could be anything, including combustion of components which could potentially lead to a fatality of a household or something else that could lead to injury.
We also don't know how many units have been produced thus far that need to be reworked, or where these units are!
It's understandable to think that the decision could have been made earlier, but if you look in to the garage before an F1 race, you will see on occasion, the mechanics working in a frenzy to fix things right up until the last moment, they then have to make a call whether they have done enough to release the car safely out of the garage, if not, then they make a call that they will miss the race. This is based on multiple factors including the cost of not releasing the car to the track. There is always a cost which includes tangible things and non-tangible things... safety, keeping the fans happy, the stakeholders happy, the workers happy outside of actual cost in $$. I would assume from the tone of Thomas' post that he was in this exact position, trying to fix it, then realising that the fix wouldn't be in place in time and then looking at the costs for both possibilities.
Now the
major problem is people upset who bought or previously own some Fanatec products
and were waiting for the DD base in December. With the delay, probably they can’t
use it at least during 5 months (may be more), and that’s very disappointing for us. The F1
rim gift is very generous, but don’t solve the major problem for them.
A coupon
code of 100€ in the wheel bases (CSL Elite and CSW 2.5) for those who preorder DD, would help a lot, because allows us keep using our Fanatec items until DD is finaly ready. I’m talking of the amount of 100€, because is the price discount of the CSL
Elite base during Black Friday and I suppose that this price is still profitable for
Fanatec. That could improve your numbers for this year, and keep customers with the
company.
Thomas,
think about it.
I think the issue here is whether or not the voucher can be used now, or if we get it in April. This should be clear by the end of the week according to Fanatec. If you get the voucher now, then use it toward a wheel base to see you through. If the voucher is only useable upon delivery of the dd1, then problem remains I guess.
I think the issue here is whether or not the voucher can be used now, or if we get it in April. This should be clear by the end of the week according to Fanatec. If you get the voucher now, then use it toward a wheel base to see you through. If the voucher is only useable upon delivery of the dd1, then problem remains I guess.
A voucher now of the value of the F1 2019 rim, could severe damage their results this year. Even worse, you can use the voucher now to get free products, and then cancel the DD preorder. That could be a diaster for the company. So it's logical that the voucher would be after DD delivery, just for those who keep the orders until the delivery and receive the compensation for the delay.
But a coupon discount of 100€ in the CLS PS4 or 150€ in CSW bases for the DD preorderers, would improve company's turnover without hurting his finantials (same offer as BF, not a gift). That would allow us to continue using our Fanatec parts and should avoid preorder cancelations or people trading his products to change to other brand because they can't use it. When we have the DD we could trade that wheel base without big loose or keep it as backup of the DD.
I think the issue here is whether or not the voucher can be used now, or if we get it in April. This should be clear by the end of the week according to Fanatec. If you get the voucher now, then use it toward a wheel base to see you through. If the voucher is only useable upon delivery of the dd1, then problem remains I guess.
A voucher now of the value of the F1 2019 rim, could severe damage their results this year. A coupon discount of 100€ in the CLS PS4 or CSW wheel base would improve their numbers (same offer as BF), and keep us using Fanatec products until DD is ready. Let's see...
Good point! However I think most people who are invested with their 1000/1500 euros, are more worried about their own situation than Fanatec at the moment. Im not worried either way, as I kept my base, but I feel for those who are in a sticky situation. Like you said, lets see what the week brings.
People, Fanatec is not going down, stop your chicken dance... They've only recently went into a partnership with F1, and F1 wouldve checked them financially prior to that.
Listen - they found a fault, gave themselves a 5 month period to fix it [they might deliver earlier!], and given that they'll have to rework all the ones we'll receive [already made, faulty ones for preorders], and given we're going into Christmas and holidays now, nothing seems out of place.
Look at the bright side - like getting an awesome F1 rim for your DD for the trouble.
The number, although it has changed, always had a percentage sign after it. When a number has a percentage sign after it is and can only be a percentage as stated. There is no other interpretation of it.
I think some of you are massively underestimating the profit in the components.... you can buy a brand new car in Germany for 7000 euros.a car.... or 4 podium dd2wheels....... there is scale of sales factors for sure , but at the end of the day their new wheel shoukd have as less parts inside than the old one. Motor, box, electronics....should have bigger margins....
A company don't win the difference of the component cost and the sale price. They have to pay with that margin all the I+D necesary to create that products. They don't win as much as people think.
The number, although it has changed, always had a percentage sign after it. When a number has a percentage sign after it is and can only be a percentage as stated. There is no other interpretation of it.
Correct ... Except when it's wrong
There was an error with the data provided from the outset, that raised confusion within the community, and based on the initial numbers that were contained within the original documentation (0.07%) a theory / assumption was made that this number can't possibly be correct as a "percentage" (which it wasn't) as it's far too low to justify a 4 month delay (which again was proven to be correct).
Therefore a theory / assumption was made that perhaps this was a decimal figure (written out slightly incorrectly) as this would justify a recall, and potentially "could" be a simple grammatical error that did fit seamlessly and semantically, within the documentation originally provided.
As it turns out, there was indeed a grammatical/numerical error with the data that was originally provided (as suspected) just not the one that had been theorised (which is fine) because either way, the original data was indeed incorrect (as suspected).
The assumption was made that the data (axiom) provided was/must be incorrect (as 0.07% would appear too low to justify a recall/delay) but would justify a recall if it was (7% as decimal 0.07) and the theory (which was unable to be verified at 2am) was that this was perhaps meant to be decimal (written out incorrectly) which would explain a recall / delay as this figure would provide a more realistic / substantial amount of affected produce, therefore justifying such a delay, and also happens to fit nicely within the the grammatical and semantic confines of the sentence / paragraph that was originally provided. Therefore this was a valid possibility/plausible/theory.
As it turns out, the axiom (data provided) was indeed incorrect (as suspected) just not in the way that had been theorised/assumed (which is fair enough, it was suspected to be wrong, but only Fanatec know exactly how, and clarification was not available at 2am) therefore a best guess scenario / theory was presented until the morning. The theory was / is a fine theory (who's points are still 100% valid) even with the updated information (ignore the numbers due to errors with the axiom, but the point is still 100% accurate).
This has now been rectified by Fanatec and we should all move forward, happy that the podium series will be realised soon and will have been thoroughly vetted / tested
But again, I stress that people really shouldn't focus on this number, as they don't have visibility of all the data/issues and resources etc.
There will be a short delay, the issues have been identified and are being rectified swiftly, let's just enjoy the holidays, have fun, beat Grimey into the tarmac and look forward to April (or maybe before)
we
again apologise for our data protection accident regarding our email message
from Tuesday (about Podium Wheel Base). According the GDPR we respectfully
request that you to delete
the affected email message. Thanks a lot for your support.
We
are taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
Comments
EDIT - The data/numbers/axiom have all been updated/changed and clarified making none of the numbers (or any of these posts discussing it) relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
Hi,
Just a quick note to let you know that there may be an error with the data!
The 0.07% figure would indeed appear too low justify a recall (EDIT - This has now proven to be true, the actual number is 0.7%) so we could assume/theorise that the number originally provided is incorrect (EDIT - This turned out to be true) It's entirely plausible / possible that the 0.07% figure presented could have perhaps been intended to be printed as decimal (EDIT - It was actually intended to be 0.7% not 0.07%)
Thus giving us a understandably (higher) failure rate as this would equate to 7% (which would surely justify a recall/delay)
0.07 decimal is 7% meaning this could have been a grammatical error (EDIT - There was a grammatical error, however it was that the number was supposed to be 0.7% not 0.07 decimal as theorised) and 7% of 4000 is 280 which would give us a much higher number, as I agree 2.8 is far to low to justify a delay such as this. It's clear the 0.07% number is incorrect (EDIT - This is now proven to be true, the actual number is 0.7% equating to around 28 based on 4000 units)
As we have no clarity on what axioms are being used/presented if would be foolish for everyone to argue over the numbers (as these numbers may be incorrect) (EDIT - They were indeed incorrect, so all theories and discussions were irrelevant) Additionally there are a lot of data that users have no exposure of, and therefore are unable to (clearly) see/understand the issue from Fanatecs perspective.
Fanatec will know the DPU/DPO/Sample Size/Failure Conditions/Expected Return Rates/DIT/LOS/Tolerances etc etc etc etc. All of which contribute to the decision. As users don't have exposure of this, it's not as simple as it may seem.
Then you must take into account component failure rate of the hundreds of components contained within each base, there will be a tolerance set in a contract between Fanatec and each component supplier, but this must be accounted for and added to the total expected failure rate.
Then you must take in to account Damage in transit, loss, theft, returns AND any other issues found by the users when the product is out in the wild (that may have been missed during testing) and other failures such as user error etc that will potentially require repair etc and the load that puts on the available resources.
Now we still haven't even begun to scratch the surface regarding contracts with UPS, shipping costs, return costs, repairs/part costs, salaries etc and the fact that Fanatec is a relatively small company with limited resources in certain parts of the world.
They very likely wont be able to handle that level of returns/failures internally. They really can't have Jo fixing hundreds of bases on his own in London etc. as the lead time would be ridiculous.
They very likely do not have the man power / resources to repair that amount of bases on the fly. Therefore, it again makes perfect sense to pay the hundreds of factory workers in china to fix / repair the issues before shipping the product to the end user, which in turn reduces the expected return rate to a number the company can handle.
While 0.07 (if we assume the 0.07% figure to be incorrect and to be 0.07 decimal instead) may seem like a relatively small number in the paragraph Thomas wrote, I can assure you that with exposure to all the data, you would very likely be in complete agreement with Thomas' decision to delay.
Everyones money is perfectly safe, posts regarding bankruptcy etc are outrageous and very dramatic...
Come on guys
EDIT - The axioms have all been updated/changed and clarified making none of the numbers or any of these posts discussing it... relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
As I said previously, without all the data, we really should look passed the numbers, understand and appreciate the strategic business decision made here that truly benefit the customer
EDIT - The axioms have all been updated/changed and clarified making none of the numbers or any of these posts discussing it... relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
The math is correct "assuming" that the 0.07% figure was I ncorrect (which it was) and theorising that perhaps the misprint / error was that the number was supposed to be 0.07 (decimal).
if we assume/theorise decimal based on the information available at time of print and all agree that 0.07% is far to low of a figure to justify a recall, and therefore must be incorrect (which turned out to be true) therefore we can theorise that the figure MAY have been intended to read 0.07 (decimal, as a possibility) which would equate 7% which would certainly justify a delay / recall.
The original figure presented in the statement was 0.07% and was immediately assumed/theorised as being incorrect due to being too low. Therefore the theory that this number was a grammatical error and was meant to read 0.07 (decimal) etc was raised, as this number would justify a delay / recall as 0.07 decimal is 7%.
However math is a formal science / language as you can see, math can (correctly) be interpreted differently depending on what format the data was presented in, what (assumed) axioms we started from and even what industry we work in, and without knowing all of that initially, the data can (again correctly) be interpreted differently by many, until all axioms are verified/clarified. (EDIT - In this case the original data presented was Indeed incorrect)
For example If I said my GPU was running at 89degrees you may say that's too hot, but it's possible that others may say that it's nice and cool as I never truly clarified C/F (even though C would be assumed).
If I say 100% of food sampled at the local market was rotten (but never revealed my sampled size of 1 item) you would be inclined to think the entire market was rotten etc)
In my line of work (Six Sigma Black Belt Project Lead) this is how my data would be presented and Interpreted "based on the axioms provided/assumed" (if decimal in this case) unless the format was clarified in the beginning (which it wasn't in this case, and was clearly incorrect, but was later updated / corrected but lead to customer confusion theories/assumptions). If I received data that didn't make sense in the context of the discussion, and I was unable to clarify the data at that point in time, I would present my findings based on what was stated, but also what I thought they meant, therefore covering all bases.
It's how I would present (and have presented) my findings back to Fanatec as a beta tester for over 3 years.
So, to try and help some of the concerned consumers (who were overreacting about bankruptcy etc) to understand that it's not all about the numbers, I postulated the myriad of reasons that could contribute to the delay to help move their focus along, from being stuck solely on the numbers.
It's not incorrect math to assume that 0.07 is 7% based on the decimal format/axioms used in a particular Industry / assumed / used previously or provided by the data provider etc. However, I appreciate that as a formal language/science math allows for this to be interpreted in many different ways. In this case the source data was incorrect, however it was intended to read 0.7%. Either way the source data is wrong, but it's not all about the numbers.
The initial statement from Fanatec, presented incorrect information/axioms and/or left for ambiguity in which format the data were presented as 0.07% seemed to low, therefore assumptions were made that there was an error in the data (EDIT - which turned out to be true) and a possible theory, was that the figure was infact meant to read as a decimal not percent, and that the post contained a gramrical error (EDIT - Which it did, just not the one that was theorised).
This doesn't affect the math/equations only the source values (axioms / starting points) which the user can adjust accordingly, the other points remain the same, and the math is still correct (but the axioms are wrong due to incorrect /ambiguous figures present at the time of print, which has subsequently been updated).
If your teacher asks you what 4+4 is (and you answer 8) you are still mathematically correct, even if the data provider (teacher) later states that they actually meant 2+4. While your results are NOW no longer accurate based on the new axiom, your math / equation etc was still correct while still being based on a false axiom. Starting from a false axiom does not equal bad math (as this may not be known until later into the project, as was proven here)
However, we can easily adjust the results now that clarity has been provided on the input data.
Again, like all formal languages and sciences math can be interpreted in many different ways (as seen here) when ALL the data are not present, if we start from a false axiom (like we did here) the math is correct, but the initial figures input were wrong, not the math!
Again, as the team are the ones that have ALL the data, we must respect that they are in a position of enlightenment that allows them to see the big picture. All the speculation about bankruptcy etc is ridiculous and users must appreciate that this is indeed a strategic business decision that makes perfect sense.
Again, all of this only goes to strengthen initial my point above. I advise users to IGNORE the number and look at the impact this would bring to business. Can Fanatec handle returns rate etc. What impact would that have to the business and/or the consumer, what would the lead time be on repairing units in the wild etc.etc
My point still remains, it's not just about how many products exhibit the issue. It's about can the company actually repair that many out in the wild. Can they handle the return rate, can the handle the repair / shipping rate and costs. Do they have the man power and infrastructure in ALL parts of the world to be able to repair this issue on the fly, and this has been answered clearly by Thomas by delaying the product. It makes sense to delay and fix this while the product is still in the factory. This is likely one of the reasons the announcement was held back until the last possible minute, its very likely the team we're testing/fixing repairing and calculating how many can be fixed before shipping, and could handle the expected returns rate etc.
e.g How long a repair would take, how much the repair would cost, how it would affect the customer, the business, future development and BAU etc. Fanatec would have looked very closely if they could fix these while out in the wild, it was likely there preferred option, up until the figures became unmanageable and would impact the business to the "nth" degree. Again without ALL the data we don't know, we can however trust that this is for sure the right decision to make.
Hopefully people can understand that this really is in the best customer Interest, and Fanatec have offered to compensate users by offering a huge discount/voucher/credit in return for the inconvenience.
So let's leave Fanatec to knock this out the park while we get back to racing...
EDIT - The axioms have all been updated/changed and clarified (there was indeed an error with the initial 0.07% figure, as suspected) making none of numbers/theories in this thread relevant, save yourself the time and skip ahead
As mentioned previously, without all the data (and / or with incorrect data, and/or speculating / theorising...it's not possible to make a truly informed decision/opionion) we really should look passed the numbers, understand and appreciate the strategic business decision made here that truly benefit the customer... Now who's up for a race!
Now the major problem is people upset who bought or previously own some Fanatec products and were waiting for the DD base in December. With the delay, probably they can’t use it at least during 5 months (may be more), and that’s very disappointing for us. The F1 rim gift is very generous, but don’t solve the major problem for them.
A coupon code of 100€ in the wheel bases (CSL Elite and CSW 2.5) for those who preorder DD, would help a lot, because allows us keep using our Fanatec items until DD launch. I’m talking about the amount of 100€, because is the price discount of the CSL Elite base during Black Friday and I suppose that this price is still profitable for Fanatec. That could improve your numbers for this year, and keep customers with the company until DD arrives.
Thomas, think about it.
Just another thought or two with some facts on numbers.
This would be approx. 3 know faulty items failures sent to pre-order recipients. I am glad I will not be one of those 3 unlucky people that were lined up until a few days ago to receive a known faulty unit.
Assuming no further failures is unrealistic, so you have to add on other failures as has been stated in other posts. I would assume that the usual expected failure rate post production (gathered from previous production of similar components) would be multiplied by the known failure rate (0.7) combined further with the fact that the DD2 has a five year warranty both contributing to increasing probability of failure within that time frame has led to Thomas' decision at the last moment when he had to make the go/no go call.
None of us outside of Fanatec know the exact cause and effect of the failure in the electronics. It could be anything, including combustion of components which could potentially lead to a fatality of a household or something else that could lead to injury.
We also don't know how many units have been produced thus far that need to be reworked, or where these units are!
It's understandable to think that the decision could have been made earlier, but if you look in to the garage before an F1 race, you will see on occasion, the mechanics working in a frenzy to fix things right up until the last moment, they then have to make a call whether they have done enough to release the car safely out of the garage, if not, then they make a call that they will miss the race. This is based on multiple factors including the cost of not releasing the car to the track. There is always a cost which includes tangible things and non-tangible things... safety, keeping the fans happy, the stakeholders happy, the workers happy outside of actual cost in $$. I would assume from the tone of Thomas' post that he was in this exact position, trying to fix it, then realising that the fix wouldn't be in place in time and then looking at the costs for both possibilities.
Good point! However I think most people who are invested with their 1000/1500 euros, are more worried about their own situation than Fanatec at the moment. Im not worried either way, as I kept my base, but I feel for those who are in a sticky situation. Like you said, lets see what the week brings.
Look at the bright side - like getting an awesome F1 rim for your DD for the trouble.
A company don't win the difference of the component cost and the sale price. They have to pay with that margin all the I+D necesary to create that products. They don't win as much as people think.
Correct
There was an error with the data provided from the outset, that raised confusion within the community, and based on the initial numbers that were contained within the original documentation (0.07%) a theory / assumption was made that this number can't possibly be correct as a "percentage" (which it wasn't) as it's far too low to justify a 4 month delay (which again was proven to be correct).
Therefore a theory / assumption was made that perhaps this was a decimal figure (written out slightly incorrectly) as this would justify a recall, and potentially "could" be a simple grammatical error that did fit seamlessly and semantically, within the documentation originally provided.
As it turns out, there was indeed a grammatical/numerical error with the data that was originally provided (as suspected) just not the one that had been theorised (which is fine) because either way, the original data was indeed incorrect (as suspected).
The assumption was made that the data (axiom) provided was/must be incorrect (as 0.07% would appear too low to justify a recall/delay) but would justify a recall if it was (7% as decimal 0.07) and the theory (which was unable to be verified at 2am) was that this was perhaps meant to be decimal (written out incorrectly) which would explain a recall / delay as this figure would provide a more realistic / substantial amount of affected produce, therefore justifying such a delay, and also happens to fit nicely within the the grammatical and semantic confines of the sentence / paragraph that was originally provided. Therefore this was a valid possibility/plausible/theory.
As it turns out, the axiom (data provided) was indeed incorrect (as suspected) just not in the way that had been theorised/assumed (which is fair enough, it was suspected to be wrong, but only Fanatec know exactly how, and clarification was not available at 2am) therefore a best guess scenario / theory was presented until the morning. The theory was / is a fine theory (who's points are still 100% valid) even with the updated information (ignore the numbers due to errors with the axiom, but the point is still 100% accurate).
This has now been rectified by Fanatec and we should all move forward, happy that the podium series will be realised soon and will have been thoroughly vetted / tested
But again, I stress that people really shouldn't focus on this number, as they don't have visibility of all the data/issues and resources etc.
There will be a short delay, the issues have been identified and are being rectified swiftly, let's just enjoy the holidays, have fun, beat Grimey into the tarmac
Dear valued customer,
we again apologise for our data protection accident regarding our email message from Tuesday (about Podium Wheel Base). According the GDPR we respectfully request that you to delete the affected email message. Thanks a lot for your support.
We are taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
Best regards
Fanatec Team.
...…………........
What steps might that be Thomas?