(28-08-2012 11:15am)Nick@LandRover Wrote: [ -> ]I will pass on your feedback to the relevant department for their consideration. I don't believe there are any plans to change this at the moment, however if this changes I will be happy to let you know.
Nick, I'm quite sure there are no plans to change this as LR would much rather charge me £200 for a replacement fob than £5 (say) for a replacement back which costs 10p to mould.
My message to you - and your colleagues who manage these things - is that, from a durability point of view, the current keyfob battery cover is not fit for purpose.
(28-08-2012 02:39pm)mark_n Wrote: [ -> ]Nick, I'm quite sure there are no plans to change this as LR would much rather charge me £200 for a replacement fob than £5 (say) for a replacement back which costs 10p to mould.
My message to you - and your colleagues who manage these things - is that, from a durability point of view, the current keyfob battery cover is not fit for purpose.
Mark, I feel the same way and perhaps we should be approaching this as a warranty issue as the quality of the materials isn't adequate.
WB, having access to replacements at a reasonable cost would be one solution but claiming it as a warranty issue will not wash because the cosmetic damage is my/our fault. The RRE has a number of the same glossy plastic parts which may look nice but I think will look very tired in a few years of normal use, the slatted cup-holders cover being but one.
(29-08-2012 09:20am)mark_n Wrote: [ -> ]WB, having access to replacements at a reasonable cost would be one solution but claiming it as a warranty issue will not wash because the cosmetic damage is my/our fault. The RRE has a number of the same glossy plastic parts which may look nice but I think will look very tired in a few years of normal use, the slatted cup-holders cover being but one.
I agree although pursuing the fit for purpose argument a keyfob should be expected to survive normal use without excessive wear/damage.
I think the Pure's non glossy slatted cup holder cover is much more practical and IMO looks more cohesive as its the same finish as the rest of the console.
Hi, Nick! I have a question about the US military overseas sales program. I'm sure you're very busy, but if you have a moment can you PM or email me? Thanks!
Dear Nick - please can you tell the powers that be at LR that the Daylight Running lights as they currently are are positively dangerous in heavy rain and dense spray on the motorway. Today on the M4 in heavy rain and spray I came up on several black Evoques who had no lights on other than Daylight Runing lights/ Signature lights and no tail lights at all - I think either there should be a "health" warning in the handbook that there are no tail lights when you have DRLs without auto-on headlights set or better still LR should enable Daylight Tail lights too. It is really really dangerous to be on the motorway in rain and spray with no tail lights on.
Xfft - I spoke to LRCS some time ago about this when i had auto-lights on and my fog lights turned themselves off and back to front DRLs only in 'bright fog' and was told 'can't do, it currently meets the law' , but the more that complain the better.
I have spoken with Pete @ BAS about this nd he thinks it would be fairly easy to get rear lights on with the DRLs, but he has been busy with paying and other development works and hasn't been able to look into this further.
As long as your lights are set to Auto, they will automatic switch on after 3-4 swipes of the wiper blades. So would rule out any problems with not having any front or rear lights on when raining.
I fell for this when I first got mine. I hadn't put the lights on auto and was fooled by the instrument cluster being lit that the lights were on. Grey car on a motorway in torrential rain with no rear lights.
Took another driver flashing me for me to think something was wrong.
Once you know its easy to make sure lights are on auto. But I agree the potential issues should be made clear.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Hi Nick,
It's looking likely that Apple are going to be moving to a new dock connector with their future iPhones/iPods etc and that the new connector will only have a digital audio out, not the analogue and digital outputs that the current connector has.
Lots of cheaper or older iPod speaker docks etc won't work with a digital audio signal as they don't have a digital-to-analogue convertor (DAC). I know that LR won't have any information about Apple's new connector at this time, but can you confirm whether the Evoque's iPod connection is a digital or analogue one?