Black screen of death..!

[TimR]

Not so simple, but needs to be functionally equivalent. Won't be long (where there is enough volume) that non OEM will be functionally equivalent....

C

I don’t see the problem. If functionally equivalent also means quality equivalent too..arguably a function…?

 

[CatmanV2]

I don’t see the problem. If functionally equivalent also means quality equivalent too..arguably a function…?

I don't see a problem either. The comment was directed at 'thin ****' It's not *just* that it's thin. I mean without measuring it, I have no idea if it's any thinner than OEM, but *even if it was the same or thicker, if it doesn't do what the OEM one does, then there's a different compromise*

Some people want Maserati logos on all their parts. That's their prerogative. Myself, I'm happy if the replacement performs to the original specs. Clearly (no pun intended), in this case that was not the situation, but it's only a matter of time before (again if there's enough demand) the non-OEM stuff achieves functional equivalence.

Of course, this rather depends on how you define functional equivalence. For me this is 'does the job as well as, or better than the original' Think EBC pads vs OEM. BUT some non functional requirements may not be met (Classic NFR: does it have a Maserati logo). This is a *huge* rabbit hole in software design and manufacturing, let alone something as emotionally invested as Maseratis

My view is: If the part fits and it works to a level that I am happy with, at a price that I'm happy with, why not. I *fully* understand that others have different views.

C

 

[zagatoes30]

We had the windscreen replaced in the RR about 3 years ago and despite confirming it was an OEM unit they fitted something else, they tried everything to get it to fit with all the tech working so they replaced it twice with the same non OEM unit until finally they fitted a genuine LR part and eureka it fitted and everything worked - glad I wasn't paying for them to learn the hard way.

Over use on integrated tech that in all honesty we don't need is a prime reason I don't like new cars

 

[TimR]

I don't see a problem either. The comment was directed at 'thin ****' It's not *just* that it's thin. I mean without measuring it, I have no idea if it's any thinner than OEM, but *even if it was the same or thicker, if it doesn't do what the OEM one does, then there's a different compromise*

Some people want Maserati logos on all their parts. That's their prerogative. Myself, I'm happy if the replacement performs to the original specs. Clearly (no pun intended), in this case that was not the situation, but it's only a matter of time before (again if there's enough demand) the non-OEM stuff achieves functional equivalence.

Of course, this rather depends on how you define functional equivalence. For me this is 'does the job as well as, or better than the original' Think EBC pads vs OEM. BUT some non functional requirements may not be met (Classic NFR: does it have a Maserati logo). This is a *huge* rabbit hole in software design and manufacturing, let alone something as emotionally invested as Maseratis

My view is: If the part fits and it works to a level that I am happy with, at a price that I'm happy with, why not. I *fully* understand that others have different views.

C

Yeah yeah. I wasn’t measuring it either. Rather, deferring to the narrative being offered by fitters and suppliers both.
of course it’s a rabbit hole. Let the lawyers argue the toss I guess, There is an issue in knowing if it performs as well; or perhaps ‘when’ you learn it isn’t appearing to ( the reason for getting into it with suppliers and fitters “assessing” a failure under warranty in my case) To claim a functional equivalence ( with OEM for example) is a qualitative assertion. ipso facto,I ventured to suggest, OEM quality equivalence is an attribute of function. A deficiency, proven claimed, or disputed, is then inextricable from quality. Maybe not. Round & round the rabbit hole…
Another assumption I made is that cheaper is the result of cost cutting. Or that the cost cutting went on raw materials, resulting in an inferior product. It may, or may not be the case. They supplied it, & fit it. They refused a warranty. I insisted on OEM glass the third time round…But perhaps there is a principle here that, if plausible, can be applied to almost anything. Function is an assertion or claim of a certain ( perhaps, minimum?) standard - you yourself said it. And it seems that OEM is to be increasingly stipulated in manufacturing in order to satisfy a raft of not just existing, but ongoing legislative frameworks. So it would seem a leaky vessel after all…! But all coffers to big business. And a rigged game if better, cheaper products are discouraged from making their way to a ‘free’market stage…? Because as good, or better, ( or maybe just available), is good enough for me too, frankly. Unless it isn’t..lol

 

[philw696]

Interesting read.

The Repair Clause | ECAR

www.ecar-alliance.eu

 

[TimR]

Interesting read.

The Repair Clause | ECAR

www.ecar-alliance.eu

I'll get to that over a coffee - a reliable source of some 'quirky' and uninformed directives.
Motorcycle safety gear is an area which the EU seeks to legally enforce . A simple thing like the temperature differences between the north and south of Europe shows up the implementation of a "one size fits all" standard as a little wrong headed..!

 

[TimR]

Well, it all sounds good in principle; but I wonder how well they've understood it...? I mean, I can see cracks and debris falling through it from here I think, and Im just a layman.
I dunno. perhaps i just dont like being a dumb punter, who,making bad decisions then blames a lack of a safety net for the consequences of my bad decisions.!>!"!!<!?