New components for the Roadster

[ozzy1]

I'd pay $299

[Bonzo]

Hi, welcome to the forum

I am a little surprised that your products have had a a somewhat hostile reception from some quarters

Pesonally, I think that most knowledgable folk would understand that quality engineering cost's a good deal more than a similar product that has been made to a price, basic in construction but functional.

For my own build, the product exceeds my needs, that said, if I were building an out n out track car, I wouldn't flinch at the price.

One thing for sure, I would much prefer to see someone coming on to the scene with a good quality product that is priced accordingly than someone appear, offering a great product at an unrealisticly low price !!??

Just a suggestion, perhaps it would help if you put a location in your profile

A nice bit of engeneering & wish you well

[DRCorsa Engineering]

Hi again guys.
I fully understand the somewhat aggressive (i would not say hostile for sure) attitude of the blokes here who are trying to build a car with as low money as possible. I know that the philosophy of the Haynes Roadster project is quite distant to the philosophy of my products.
What's the philosophy of my products and what's my philosophy in general as engineer? Top quality products for a realistic and not overinflated price. I would be willing to pay something more for a better engineered product and maybe delay my build a bit due to this. But i will not pay mad amounts of money for a product that is again at the top in terms of quality but has a "big name" behind it. I want to pay for engineering not for marketing.
I was recently looking at a "big name" (i will not say which one) pedalbox that was really nicely engineered, with nice features and it was something like 1000Euros... This is insane, i understand that a big company have a lot of people to pay at the end of the month but please don't ask me to pay them. I will pay for the product not for your bills.

Anyway, i don't demand people from this forum to buy my products. My main aim is more to build a reputation and get people speaking about my products, not to make super dooper sales and discounts.

Thanks all the guys for the good comments.

[flyerncle]

Top quality idea and engineering just a little to expensive for the cost concious amongst us,just ignore the acidic comments and dont be afraid to let us all know what you are designing and intend to make.

You do not have to apolagise for quality.

Good luck and best wishes.

[DRCorsa Engineering]

Many thanks again!
I am also open to hear suggestions on new products you may need.
I will try to do my best in terms of offered price.

[mr henderson]

Originally Posted by Bonzo

I am a little surprised that your products have had a a somewhat hostile reception from some quarters

Rather overstating the case there just a tiny little bit I think. I've had another look through and can't see any hostility, although it could be that what you and I mean by that word are different. I can't see any aggression either. Piss taking, in my case, I will hold my hand up to.

Anyway, that said the issue here is not one of quality. The OP seems to think that the price is justified by the quality and I daresay he is right, and Talon's post confirms this well enough for me. But this issue isn't quality, but appropriateness. Has the OP got the right product at the right price?

I don't think he has, and it would seem I am in the majority (makes a nice change for me).

I think what has happened is that the OP has designed a product, based on his experience with his friend's car, and only then has he considered the issue of price. That really is an arse-backwards way of doing it. A much better appoach is that taken by the other traders here, and that is to work out what product is needed, and what kind of price would be paid, and then design a product to fit those parameters.

That is the really clever, or at least sensible, thing to do.

I would suggest the OP, and anyone else who fancies becoming a manufacturer, thinks about what products are difficult for an amateur, as a one-off, to make, then think about what price that amateur might be prepared to pay, to do some sums as to what the raw materials and parts might cost and THEN go to the drawing board, or computer, and do the design.

As to the piss taking, and the 'good' comments, anyone who puts their products out into the world and offers them for sale had better get ready for all kinds of responses, and take more notice, up to a point, of the negative ones than the positives.

[DRCorsa Engineering]

Originally Posted by mr henderson

I would suggest the OP, and anyone else who fancies becoming a manufacturer, thinks about what products are difficult for an amateur, as a one-off, to make, then think about what price that amateur might be prepared to pay, to do some sums as to what the raw materials and parts might cost and THEN go to the drawing board, or computer, and do the design.

Strictly speaking, you are absolutely right.
And i am referring to QFD, the initials of "Quality Function Deployment". That was a new product development technique, and started at Mitsubishi's facturi at Kobe (Japan) in 1972.
What is QFD? In a few words, it's a plan, which takes into consideration the customer need and drives the product development in a way to fulfill these requirements in order to produce a cheap and adequate product, a succesful product. Nothing is made or planned which does not relates to customer needs covering.
If we take a look at today's "market rules" we will see that that product development does not follow the QFD route very precisely. We see that we have passed from the era of "needs covering" to the era of "needs creation". Mobile phones are a good example. Thousands of operations, games, software, high quality cameras embedded and a lot more. If we turn 10 years back, noone would need a camera in his mobile phone. But the marketing people, just wanting to offer something new and radical, added a lot of features to the mobile phones. And people has replied positively. And they paid the mobiles phones which were expensive. I think most people (including myself) are using their mobile phones up to 30% of their total features.

I dont mean that i am creating new needs to Roadster builders. What i want to point out is that a designer should not only think what the customer need to have, they also have to think ahead of this and offer something more, something new. This is the game of evolution. If automobile manifacturers were thinking like that, we would still be driving cars without air-conditioning or without ABS. And remember, you only need ABS as soon as you try it.

[mr henderson]

Originally Posted by DRCorsa Engineering

Strictly speaking, you are absolutely right.

Thanks .

I won't respond to the rest of your post if you don't mind, as I can't see that it has any relevance to the original topic. If you were discussing a new product then I would agree, but yours is just a nicer quality and more complex version of a product that is already available from a number of sources. It really isn't going to do anything other than what the existing products are doing. There is more adjustment built in, so it would be easier to set up, but that is really only a one time problem.

Now if you were to come up with something that was actually new then I for one would be very interested

[DRCorsa Engineering]

This is not a one-time problem.
You need different throttle response to the track and different to the road. Also at a low-speed, low-grip track you normally need a less responsive throttle, the same goes for the use on the road.
Maybe i am right, you as a potential customer, have not even thought of the positive aspects my new product provides, unless you try it.
Maybe i have created new needs for you and you will be willing to pay the extra cost for something you think you don't need..

[mr henderson]

Whatever. Think I'm out on this one.