Quote:
For greater supply chain, use only the rail without reinforcements! (See Appendix, page 3)
|
re-reading the French PUMA, this is shocking
Even though they know via case 3 that the rail without reinforcements is faulty, they insist on initially replacing it with the faulty design for "supply chain" issues.
I'm guessing they hope that by the time the faulty one fails again and the case 1/2 becomes a case 3, the warranty will be over and the customer will be left to foot the bill.
Surely this is dodgy/illegal?