FollowupID: 379297 Submitted:
Monday, Aug 08, 2005 at 23:48
Waynepd (NSW) posted:
Sorry to harp on about this, that was meant to be my last posting on the topic but i hit the send button accidentally.
Take 2??.
As I was saying before I hit the send button by accident, There were 10 Respondents to my post re my Cobb problem if you don't count the reply from Peter Sinclair.
Of those 10 I have concluded that:
1. 6 actually owned a Cobb Cooker
2. 2 have been turned off them
3. 1 offered encouragement to "Stick it up them" :)
4. 1 mentioned an alternative cooker from Bunning's.
Of the 6 Cookers that were owned by respondents, it seems that:
1. All 6 have suffered some damage.
2. At least 3 had suffered base damage
3. 3 were repaired/modified by the user
4. 2 were repaired using Cobb parts and respondents are happy with Cobb's service
5. 1 (That'd be me) is still trying to locate a place to get the required parts in
Sydney if one exists. Cobb isn't much help in the communication department they seem to have trouble keeping track of their emails.
Or
Perhaps that's why the man has gone quiet; has he finally found my 3, as yet unanswered, emails.
Now I realise that this is a ridiculously small sample to gauge the quality of the Cobb Cooker, but it makes one wonder how many of the "Thousands upon thousands" (His words) of Cobbs sold in
Australia are still out there in working order.
Using this small sample, it would seem that 100% of Cobbs have failed at some stage in their first few weeks to their first few years of service; I doubt this is true but it's funny how you can use stats to prop up any argument.
Take the stats, for instance, proffered by Peter of the many awards granted to the Cobb in the US and wherever else they won.
How were they tested?
What criteria and how thorough were the tests?
Were the tests relevant to the cookers' intended use? I.e.
camping
Was there an award for the prettiest dome lid?
It surely wasn't a winner in the Robustness section..was it?
It reminds me of when the BMW X5 won Overlander's 4 Wheel Drive of the Year some years back, in fact right before I cancelled my subscription for that very reason. It is undoubtedly a better engineered vehicle but it was not tested and proven in the same manner as the Landcruiser and Patrol because it wasn't designed for the same conditions as they were. Well my friends then it doesn't qualify as an equal 4WD then does it?
In the same way, the Cobb might
cook better and more efficiently and be better engineered than a cast iron camp oven, but at least I can drive on our outback roads and still have the cast iron pot to
cook in at the end of the day. The Cobb is not equal to the task of being a robust tool for our conditions.
One other issue raised by Peter was the issue of claiming warranty for the broken base. At no time did I say I wanted to claim warranty. Does he see us all as deceptive, thieving people who want to take advantage of his magnanimous company?
No,in my initial unanswered email I merely asked if it was covered and how do I progress from this point onwards to effect repairs in any case. I am forced to wonder how the topic of warranty arose if he hadn't received my initial email.
Co-incidence? Maybe so.
Finally to those who reported this post to Peter, thank you for your help in bringing this to his attention. I was getting a little frustrated with the lack of response from Cobb. This whole thing has started with poor communication and has gone from there to unwarranted character assassination. In my second unread email, I had already sent the link for this post to Cobb and invited them to comment either on the
forum or to me personally.
Now we will wait and see if Peter can admit he was at fault in claiming I had sent no emails to Cobb, but if he can't then I wouldn't, in future, take anything he or anyone else from Cobb says too seriously would you?
