到現在什麼影子也沒看到，後來開始每兩三天寄信去問，
一開始回覆說快寄來了，死都不提供貨運資訊，
後來都只回說他們在問貨運公司為何delay, 在等他們回覆。
五萬多塊也不知要不要得回來，沒想到德國佬的服務會那麼糟糕。
剛寫信去罵了，再過2天沒消息就取消花錢消災了。
我昨天寄信都沒回,今天再寄一次,收到以下答錄機內容:
Sehr geehrte Kunden,
vom 28. Juli bis 04. August 2014 bin ich im Urlaub. Emails werden nicht gelesen und beantwortet. In dringend Fällen schreiben Sie bitte an info@babyparadies-online.de. Vielen Dank.
----
Dear customers,
I am on holidays until August 4th. Your emails will not be forwarded. In urgent cases please send mails to info@babyparadies-online.de. Have a nice summer and many thanks.
所以這星期要找的話,要找info@babyparadies-online.de
看來只有他們才有nice summer,我們在地球的這一端擔心貨收不到,錢拿不回來~
我剛剛上 Britax Romer的網站,看到一篇落落長的文章,在講我訂的那張座椅
有大大英文比較好看的懂嗎@@ 我看不太懂耶...不知道這會不會是babyparadies宣稱 Britax 無法寄貨的原因....
http://www.britax-roemer.com/customer-service/product-information-dualfix
July 2014, Final Statement regarding Stiftung Warentest (issue June 2014 child car seat test) in relation to the Britax Römer DUALFIX
We’ve now received a response from Stiftung Warentest in written form and based on their response and our independent test data, we respectfully still disagree with the observational test approach and its impact on the overall safety score for the seat. For any concerned parents, we have developed an informative video:
June 2014, Statement regarding Stiftung Warentest
(issue June 2014 child car seat test) in relation to the Britax Römer DUALFIX
Following the publication of the Stiftung Warentest results on 22nd May, and the Britax Römer DUALFIX “sufficient” (4.5) result, we have now confirmed after extensive tests, that we totally disagree with this assessment. Based on an objective analysis, the assessment and score appear to be without justification.
Looking at the information available in the publication we understand that this score was driven by an “insufficient” score in the belt routing, determined through a visual observation, which affected the score for the seat construction.
Our disagreement is based on the numerous, objective tests including:
Regulatory tests to approve the seat: These tests are conducted with the smallest crash test dummy (a P0), which is used as a newborn equivalent in Regulation ECE R44 04 TESTS.
Dynamic tests, simulating a child in our seat inside a car during a frontal and side crash impacts, carried out by ADAC in Landsberg in December 2013 using their test protocol.
Numerous additional frontal crash tests, including ADAC simulations, using an alternative newborn crash test dummy - a Q0. This dummy is equipped with even more sensors than a P0 to measure forces, but is not even part of the Stiftung Warentest protocol or used by them in their assessment. We have used this most modern dummy to fully assess the criticism over the length of our harness installation for a newborn.
Additional rollover static tests under ECE Regulation 44 04 Supplement7 (which came into force in February 2014) using a P0 newborn dummy. This test simulates the displacement/potential ejection of a newborn child in a vehicle roll-over scenario. The DUALFIX passes this objective test and we cannot therefore accept or understand Stiftung Warentest's claim (based on a visual assessment and not on objective test results or data) that the DUALFIX has any issue with harness length or slack.
Based on the objective findings obtained in the above mentioned tests, which we have successfully completed numerous times, we do not see any issues, test results or facts that justify the score of 4.5 for seat construction and a total score for safety of 4.5 (“sufficient”).
We have invited the experts from Stiftung Warentest to urgently meet with us and go through the objective test results and data.
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X