Loader letter arrived!

[RayK]

Dmace, the bucket weighs 176# and the loader without bucket weighs 495# so your weiht is in the ballpark. Ray

 

[Dmace]

Dmace, the bucket weighs 176# and the loader without bucket weighs 495# so your weiht is in the ballpark. Ray

Sounds good! Thanks for the info.

 

[thcri]

Undoubtedly this anti consumer policy is related to liability concerns by some Kioti lawyer. Fine, then let them prepare a waiver certificate that I would be delighted to sign and return before having the kit shipped to me.

Kioti along with other manufactures would never accept that waiver and for good reason. In court that waiver would be a worthless piece of paper and you may not sue them but you neighbor if hurt could and your insurance company if you got hurt could.


murph

 

[IslandTractor]

Kioti along with other manufactures would never accept that waiver and for good reason. In court that waiver would be a worthless piece of paper and you may not sue them but you neighbor if hurt could and your insurance company if you got hurt could.


murph

Only in America. Love it. How does one hurt a neighbor with a cosmetic torque tube cover?

 

[Limecuda]

Kioti can't risk having an "untrained" individual doing the repairs. I have the confidence that nearly everyone here could do this repair, but due to the litigous society we have they unfortunately can't allow it. This has nothing to do with being anti consumer. If that was the case then nothing would even be offered. They finally have offered a fix. The customer can now choose to take advantage of the offer or not. It then rests squarely on the consumer's shoulders.

 

[thcri]

Only in America. Love it. How does one hurt a neighbor with a cosmetic torque tube cover?

Has nothing to do with the torque tube. If any one gets hurt around that tractor for any reason and the insurance company finds out the owner did a factory recall the attorneys would have a hay day with it. Even if the guy doing the work got hurt his health insurance may even go after Kioti. What I am saying Kioti would not allow someone to do the work themselves for insurance reasons. Even at the expense savings it would be,

 

[IslandTractor]

If you guys were right about the "non authorized" repairs, there would be no aftermarket accessories for cars, there would be no trailer kits, you would't be allowed to install the handles on a new lawnmower or even plug a new appliance into the wall. These are overblown concerns for something that is non structural and no more complicated than attaching a sun shade to the ROPS (or do you believe that too will result in a landslide of litigation?).

It is one thing to allow a consumer to modify a seatbelt or airbag sensor but something quite different to install what Kioti considers to be a "cosmetic" fix to a nonstructural problem. Additionally, this "voluntary" fix is available for free only until September. After that presumably anyone can order the kit, pay for it and install it themselves just as I can order a new taillight and install it myself. If Kioti was so concerned about being sued they should pay for transport to get the tractors to the dealer. They are playing a game that basically screws the customer. They know it and don't care.

And, by the way, no letter yet. They must have used pony not-so-express to deliver some of these letters.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Kioti can't risk having an "untrained" individual doing the repairs.

If you guys were right about the "non authorized" repairs, there would be no aftermarket accessories for cars, there would be no trailer kits, you would't be allowed to install the handles on a new lawnmower or even plug a new appliance into the wall. These are overblown concerns for something that is non structural and no more complicated than attaching a sun shade to the ROPS (or do you believe that too will result in a landslide of litigation?).

It is one thing to allow a consumer to modify a seatbelt or airbag sensor but something quite different to install what Kioti considers to be a "cosmetic" fix to a nonstructural problem. Additionally, this "voluntary" fix is available for free only until September. After that presumably anyone can order the kit, pay for it and install it themselves just as I can order a new taillight and install it myself. If Kioti was so concerned about being sued they should pay for transport to get the tractors to the dealer. They are playing a game that basically screws the customer. They know it and don't care.

Limecuda, I think your analysis is incorrect and that Island Tractor is probably on target with what he wrote. All Kioti is saying is that they can't trust you to install the kit before September! After September, not only can they trust you, but they can profit off you again when you make your own repair. Remember, if the dealer installs it not only does Kioti pay for the part, but Kioti pays for the labor. After September, you pay for the part and you supply the labor. That means Kioti saves twice!

All along Kioti implied this was cosmetic/non-structural. If that is true then why does Kioti demand that an authorized dealer do the repair?

If this is truely a cosmtic issue, then IslandTractor's example about a user installed sun-shade on the ROPS makes perfect sense. Kioti doesn't have any problem with people installing sun shades. And sun shades are cosmetic.

The logical conclusion, some might come to, is that this is a real structural issue, but one that Kioti's lawyers have figured out doesn't require a full blown recall. That allows them to mandate the dealer to install it, it also justifies the "free" retrofit because if it was simply cosmetic then there would be no reason to spend any of the money.

It seems that by setting the deadlines, and making the customer pay for transport, Kioti might just be playing a game that suggests that in a few years there will be a lot of KL120 loaders out there, with VISIBLE cracks, and probably with a substantially lower resale value or trade in value. So the customer's best choice at that time will be to buy the 'cosmetic' kit to cover the cracks before they trade-in or sell their tractors. . . at which time Kioti makes a profit by selling the 'cosmetic' repair kit!

 

[thcri]

And, by the way, no letter yet. They must have used pony not-so-express to deliver some of these letters.

Island, I told you Kioti don't want you fixing that tractor That is why your not getting a letter. Just kiddin with you.


In a post above cosmetic was spoken. Even if it is cosmetic, cracks were involved.

About 15 years ago I had to testify in court over a heating/air conditioning issue where a homeowner was sueing a heating company in another town. This is a situation where a contractor warned the homeowner that the way the homeowner wanted the system put in was not going to work. The homeowner was stubborn and the contractor complied with a signed waiver of all liability. I was brought in to testify if the system should work or not. My testimony was no, the system will not work as installed. The judge ruled in favor of the homowner even though he signed a waiver. The judges final comment was, Contractor, your the expert, you knew it was not going to work, and even though you have a waiver you should not have installed it. My judgement is for the homeowner in the amount of $58,000.00 That was the amont to pretty much literaly rip the house apart and redo everything.

Law suits where homeowner versus business the courts a lot of the time rule in favor of who has the less money. That is just my 20 years of being in business experience.

murph

 

[IslandTractor]

Murph,

I don't think the example you give applies here. It is not that Kioti wants to do fix #1 and I am insisting on fix#2 with a waiver. I am happy with fix #1, I just want to tighten the bolts myself (although after all this hubbub I am tempted to have my 4 year old assist just to prove the point ). I am accepting Kioti's technical advice and parts, I just want to turn the wrench.

As Bob points out, Kioti has hidden behind this "cosmetic" argument the whole time. If they are right they should put their money where their mouth is and allow customers to apply a cosmetic cover. If not then it is a safety recall and they should pick up the transport tab or pay dealers for the time to go visit the customer. The fact, and I think Kioti is correct on this point, that there have not yet been any structural failures in the KL120/130 loaders does not prove this is a cosmetic defect. At least one dealer has told me that he has seen a torque tube cracked well beyond the inspection cover plate indicating that the cracks will progress. My loader cracks have certainly progressed and at the current rate of progression about half the torque tube will be cracked by the time I have 300-400 hours on the tractor. That means this cracking will certainly not be merely a cosmetic issue a few years from now (when conveniently all the affected loaders will be well out of warranty).

Virtually nothing Kioti has done with this issue has been done well or done for the customers best interest. They denied the problem then insisted it was merely cosmetic then screwed up manufacture of a simple repair kit and now are further burdening the customer by insisting all tractors be brought to the dealer to have a dozen bolts tightened. If there are 4000 of these loaders out there requiring repair and each owner needs to take half a day to deliver and pick up the loader/tractor from the dealer, that is a lot of wasted time. As I have pointed out, there are also customers, like myself, who live far enough away from a dealer that there are substantial transport costs involved in taking the tractor to the dealer. If I bust my HST I will swallow hard and eat those transport costs but it is gauling to be expected to shell out over $500 plus two full days of my time to get a "cosmetic" cover bolted on. That Kioti chooses to ignore that point (and it is not an oversight as I know from talking with speaking with customer service that they were debating the issue internally) is basically to say to the customer "screw you". If that is their response then let's give Korporate Kioti full credit for their decision . When unanticipated problems pop up in products a company has a choice: minimize financial impact on the company or do the right thing for the customer. As I have pointed out in earlier threads, two good analogies are the Ford Pinto fiasco (let them burn it will be cheaper in the long run) and J+J pulling all Tylenol from the shelves across the country when some nutcase in ?NJ tampered with a few dozen bottles and caused some local poisoning cases. Ford looked at the spreadsheet and made their decision. J+J acted so quickly they probably did not even have a chance to carefully consider costs. Kioti gets to decide what kind of company they really are.