General Motors Options Tag / Close up, example of Close up Photography by Author.
This photo is a 2.0 to 2.5 X digital close up of a steel fuel line that is approximately 5mm OD (center of picture). In this analysis the subject 2000 Jaguar XKS Convertible (new at the time) burned mysteriously while being parked for a half hour. After being handled and torn down by other technicians and inspectors it was sent to us for analysis. The purpose of our reference to this fuel line, and close up, was to show that the tube itself was unburned and now bare proving the rubber fuel line (or remnants of such) had been removed from the steel counter part by someone after the fire and not prior.
Photography of photo-fluorescent hydraulic dye taken during lab research / investigation to determine cause of hydraulic jack failure. In this instance it was our determination that the main body seal had failed due to an imperfection in the casting of the "end cap" and was not caught in the final inspection stages by the manufacturer. It is our opinion that this seal failed suddenly without warning. Do you still think a hydraulic jack it safe? Make sure you follow read up and follow "all" shop safety guidelines. It came as an outrage to us how "generic" the warning label had been.
Corporate Owners processed a warranty claim with the Kobelco Factory for this loss. Kobelco representatives refused warranty repair/replacement as far up as Kobelco headquarters.
The Official Fire Investigator's report had incorrectly cited the ignition source as "hot engine parts". We then organized, dissected and researched this case starting with the Official Reports and documentation provided.
During discovery and subsequent inspection(s) it became evident that the Fire Investigator's "ignition source of Record" was, in fact, incorrect. We then provided all necessary discovery / evidence to support our analysis in contradiction to that of the "Official" record.
This process required the inspection and partial dissection of two other Exemplar machines of exact Manufacture and Model, one exemplar being 6 months older while the other exemplar was 6 months newer. We additionally performed an intense photographic folio, with index, of all three machines including comparative Macrophotography of suspected defective component areas in sequence of production which indicated that the Manufacturer had been aware of a prior problem in this area by virtue of attempted progressive revisions.
Our discovery concluded that the machinery ignited from a failure of a component found defective on all similar models inspected.
We negotiated with the Manufacturer on our Client's behalf and quickly resolved this case.
As the direct result of our analysis and intervention Kobelco quickly agreed to replace the subject (total loss) machinery with NEW equipment of the (then) current year production (one year newer than subject vehicle) of heavier lifting capacity, at no expense to our Client.
Correspondence from anyone having a similar experience with Kobelco (or any other equipment manufacturer) is appreciated. Notes will be kept confidential. email: email@example.com.