Yo!! FREDO...
 

Thanks for the info.

Fredo

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
I finally found what I was looking for FICHT.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...1555469?pi=cal

It's a 1999 article involving FICHT and the sequence of what happened
and how - it's a fair and balanced straight forward evaluation and
reporting of what actually happened with FICHT rather than the screed
by SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED.

For the record, if I had to do it over again, I would still own
FICHTS.

Also for the record, I own ETECs.

Yo!! FREDO...
 

"FREDO" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the info.

Fredo

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
I finally found what I was looking for FICHT.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...1555469?pi=cal

It's a 1999 article involving FICHT and the sequence of what happened
and how - it's a fair and balanced straight forward evaluation and
reporting of what actually happened with FICHT rather than the screed
by SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED.

For the record, if I had to do it over again, I would still own
FICHTS.

Also for the record, I own ETECs.

So the basic contention that FICHT was released to customers without
proper testing and evaluation and the undetected problems (defective
design) with the most popular and first released 150/175 bankrupted the
company is pretty much on the money. Thanks for posting the link.

I wish it had explained why the guy's engines "idling at the dock" bit
it. Was it the mapping of the ecu or some other problem?

del cecchi

Yo!! FREDO...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:31:45 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:

So the basic contention that FICHT was released to customers without
proper testing and evaluation and the undetected problems (defective
design) with the most popular and first released 150/175 bankrupted the
company is pretty much on the money. Thanks for posting the link.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it would be it simply never occurred to the
engineers that it would be a problem so they didn't go look for it. As
a VSLI type, you can understand that I'm sure - unless your designs
are perfect the first time out. :)

And to their credit, they recognized the problem immediately and did
what they could to rectify the problems. After all, it killed OMC in
the process.

Yep, I understand. And even the most upstanding companies can have
episodes of releasing bad hardware and then pretending it isn't that bad.
In the computer field it often appears related to Disk Drives. See CMI
as an example that the older PC users might recall.

I didn't mean to imply that they released a buggy product deliberately.
But in hindsight it turns out the testing was inadequate. Maybe
inadequate would have been a better phrase than "without proper" as I'm
sure they did all their normal testing.

del