Nanocom bad News ?

**BBS Guy** · 26th July 2013, 03:05 AM

Hiya RoverV8

If you asked for a Refund then you would have also been offered it, no question, trouble or argument at all from us.

The rest is also quite correct as the first step with any reported problem is for us to provide support that might hopefully quickly fix the problem at your end.

After that we have no choice but to RMA the unit for return to us for inspection, regardless of if the Return is for repair, replacement or refund. We do not simply send replacemnt units out.

Our Terms and Conditions are really very fair to investors in our equipment, and certainly much fairer than most, in that if a unit is deemed faulty within the first 30 days of arrival and proved to be so on arrival to us, we will cover all shipping costs, meaning both to and from.

So beyond the hassle and dissapointment of getting equipment that had a problem, investors will not be out of pocket from such, only i will be and as you point out LandyDandy for even more than the entire cost of the unit.

This is however a cost and sacrifice i am happily willing to make for the sake of our repututation and integrity. This also shows why we are so motivated to test the utter bejesus out of everything we ship out.

But as i said before, these things happen and although totally beyond our control, and best efforts it is what we then do in such an unfortunate situation as this that really counts.

And as much as your dissapointment may be, and rest assured that i really do fully appreciate and understand this on a very personal level, you can at least appreciate that given such unfortunate circumstances that as a company, we at least did all we possibly could to help and would hopefully agree that while you may well have got a Bad Nanocom, you did not get it from a Bad Company.

**harlie** · 26th July 2013, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by clubagreenie

.....

I'd try another update. I needed 4 attempts to get it going after the last update, initially with the jumper removed, then another, then 2 with the jumper back in. With similar symptoms, except mine was related to some sort of display thingy.

What? Four goes, that’s a joke right?

These devices are expensive consumer items, the fact that units are delivered in a state that requires updating fresh out of the box so it will actually work is disgraceful, and we have two current examples where said ****ing about didn't helped.

I am long time user of the original Nanocom, which worked flawlessly until the first time I updated it after BBS took over, had to send it away (to an AULRO member who had kindly got hold of the required equipment) to get it sorted, have not been game to update again - won’t be touching a new one.

**clubagreenie** · 26th July 2013, 05:25 PM

To each their own.

What we don't know is what number or percentage of sales end up with a fault. I know it'll fall on mostly deaf ears but we're dealing with a product developed;

By basically enthusiasts.
Without any factory support.
For some models that have more than necessary levels of security on their systems considering that it's a car.
By people who have to research, develop and modify equipment from second hand vehicles purchased at their own cost in a place that's very sparse on anything let alone modern Land Rovers.

Personally I think Colin has done a great job of taking something (that from memory wasn't originally his product), took it on at a point in time when it could have gone down the drain and I'm sure at times it would seem easier for him to simply drop it, and improved it. Ok it has some issues but I've never heard of anyone being refused service of any unit or offered a return or refund for failed units.

As for 4 goes, at least the unit provides feedback that I could interpret and recognise a progression of improvement in the update.

**roverv8** · 1st August 2013, 02:35 PM

On a positive note,
My unit had some hardware issues that has now been replaced & tested.
It's now on it's way back to me.
BBS has fully refunded my postage costs to send the unit back to them.
To be fair to BBS they have been very proactive to sort this out.
Initially, I was very concerned how this was going to pan out with BBS being on the other side of the world.
I can now vouch they do follow up on what they say, re customer service.
Thankyou
roverv8

**OffTrack** · 1st August 2013, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by harlie

I am long time user of the original Nanocom, which worked flawlessly until the first time I updated it after BBS took over, had to send it away (to an AULRO member who had kindly got hold of the required equipment) to get it sorted, have not been game to update again - won’t be touching a new one.

I'm not sure which parallel universe you live in harlie but it isn't the same one that most of us call home.

Lets recap the facts of the situation:

The requirement that the Nanocom One needed to be updated by that method was due to a programming error made by the original developer Mathias prior to BBS taking over development. The bug made it impossible to update the original Nanocom by the USB + software method without bricking the unit.

When Colin and BBS took over development they spent as significant amount time and effort to write modified updater code which allowed the Nanocom One firmware to be updated using Microchip PicKit 2 programmers. Prior to Colin and BBS doing this Nanocom One was basically dead in the water - no updates were possible and Mathias had moved all development to the original EVO.

Colin made the custom updater firmware freely available to people who already had the PicKit2 hardware and sold the preprogrammed units at the same price it would cost you to buy from the manufacturer.

TBH I'm quite astounded that anyone could interpret amount of effort Colin and BBS put into bringing the Nanocom One up to EVO level module coverage and functionality as a reason to condemn the company and it's products.

cheers
Paul

Thread: Nanocom bad News ?

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions