| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM Xeno wrote: >> Lot of us keep a car until repair cost exceeds book value. > I trade my cars in when I'm sick of them. For me, I get a new car when the old car has a repair that isn't worth paying. That's less likely nowadays as I'm retired on a low budget. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:49AM rbowman wrote: > Shim over buckets? Yamaha had a tool that would hold the bucket down for > some of their engines so you could get the shims out. Shims under the > bucket means you pull the cams. Oh yeah! I remember that tool! I used it on my 650 four stroke engine! It was beautifully shaped, with a handle and a half-moon crescent. I just looked in my tune-up box, and found a bunch of other small tools tucked away under what I snapped a photo of ... but that lovely tool isn't there. I haven't seen it in decades ... but it's somewhere. The fact you even *know* about that tool means you know what you speak of. That's what I *love* about having done the job at least once! (Which is the whole point of this thread, after all.) Taking an off-color example, if you never had sex with a woman, how could you possibly describe it accurately to someone else? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 04:48AM The Real Bev wrote: >> away, then how could it possibly have been rotor warp in the first place? > I wish I could remember when I stopped noticing it. I might have done a > hard stop to test whether the seat belts were still working properly... It's impossible to diagnose brake-related judder/shudder/vibration on the Internet - but - most of the time - the cause is the simplest most obvious reason. You drive hard on the highway and then stop hard at the bottom of an exit ramp at a light where you sit there with your foot on the brake for a period of time. Guess what happens? For a hard-to-understand reason, the teeeniest tiniest pad imprint tends to grow over time. I don't really understand why, but it does. It gets almost imeasurably larger over time, until you finally feel it while braking at speed. What's the solution? Simple. SHORT TERM: Scrape that deposit off. LONG TERM: Change your braking habits. > doesn't seem that dirt could get into a waterproof watch. I guess it > was accurate, I didn't have anything to check it against but the nice > lady on the phone who told me the time. I have a few Rolex watches (most received as gifts). They suck at keeping time. For brake pads, the thing you care about is friction, cold and hot. Nothing else is close in importance (although dusting is key for some). So pick your pads by what the OEM pads were and try to meet or exceed that. Most pads are around FF but every pad says what it is or it can't be sold in the USA. The (SAE J866a) charts are all over the net. Just look for 'brake pad friction ratings' or something like that. > I drive roughly 4K miles/year and front pads on other cars generally > were OK for 40K miles (rear shoes double that). ~20K now. I'll > remember this just as long as I can :-) Life is one thing but the *primary* factor in brake pads is friction. I buy $35 PBR pads with FF or GG friction ratings which last 30K miles or so and the dust isn't objectionable. So my factors are: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) Friction Coefficient Identification System for Brake Linings <http://standards.sae.org/j866_200204/> |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 04:25PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:48 PM, RS Wood wrote: > I'm never talking racing. > They drive on bald tires for heaven's sake in racing! > :) Yep, far better coefficient of friction - in dry conditions. > That's not the measure of warp. > Warp is measured on a flat bench. > Just like head warp is measured. Or with a dial indicator - on both sides - for comparison. >> buildup, ot they have "hard spots" due to metalurgical inclusions > The only person who says their rotors warped that I will ever trust is one > who measured the warp just like you'd measure head warp. Use to check for warp every time. > If they haven't measured it, it's not happening. > And nobody measures it. > So it didn't happen. Some do. I did. I also taught apprentices to measure for it. > It "could" happen. But it doesn't (on street cars). > The problem is the temperature never gets hot enough. It can under specific circumstances. See it most often on autos in very hilly country. >> A somple dial indicator tells the tale > Nope. > How you gonna tell runut from warp with a dial gauge? Measure disc thickness at various points around the disc. If the thickness doesn't vary, then any runout measured on the dial indicator is warp. Verified by back and front runout comparisons. By the way, thickness variation checks are part of a standard disc inspection process. >> That won't necessarilly tell you anything. The only way to KNOW is to >> use a dial indicator properly. > How you gonna tell runut from warp with a dial gauge? Compare measurements. > That's not warp. > Nothing on this planet is going to fix warp. > There's not enough metal to remove. Depends on the warp severity. > 3. Engine > 4. Tires > 5. paint Done all, taught 1 thru 4 at a technical college. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 04:28PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:48 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> I trade my cars in when I'm sick of them. > For me, I get a new car when the old car has a repair that isn't worth > paying. That's less likely nowadays as I'm retired on a low budget. I've been buying new cars since retirement - two last year. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 04:34PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:48 PM, RS Wood wrote: > Certainly we didn't have decent battery operated tools like we do today. > I love the term "blue-tip wrench". > I have a saying that no bolt will ever win, since I have that thing! Ah, you mean an *oxy-spanner* or a *gas axe* > I haven't bothered to search, but it's my understanding the car companies > did not do that out of goodwill toward us - but out of gov requirements > that they have to warrant the exhaust system for longer periods of time. Emission requirements. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 04:38PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> it contains U-V inhibitors and restores the plasticisers somewhat. > I understand that pretty tires are pretty. > But I don't understand UV protection for car tires. They have UV protection built in at manufacture. > I have nothing against adding UV protection for car tires. > But I have never had a cracked-sidewall car tire in recent years. If you don't keep them for longer than 10 years or, alternately, always park in a garage, you won't. > In days of yore, yes, I have (because I bought junkyard tires until I had a > bad experience and then never bought used tires ever again). Indeed. Just like the bad girl, you don't know where she's been! ;-) > So in my today world, a tire lasts about 3 years or less. Never more. > So at 3 years, do I really need to care about UV protection additions? No, the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years. >> plastic (generally) > I have never in my life worn sunglasses or sunscreen or even bring an > umbrella with me anywhere so I may not be the normal person. I'd have said that! FWIW, a sign of UV damage to eyes is cataracts. > rapelling gear (figure 8 plus 100' of rope) because it's mountainous. > I never understood sunglasses. > They're for wussies. :) And people who won't have cataracts when they are old. > I don't understand sunglasses. > I just don't. > :) Ordinary glass has a degree of UV protection anyway. Same as the untinted windows on your car - up to 80% I believe. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 04:41PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > 1. Material, size, and cross section of rings, then and now, or > 2. Geometry inside the piston (e.g., number or spacing of rings) > What could possibly be better about rings today? What they are made of, any coatings, their shape. Plenty of research data available on the internet. Oil control rings have to be better than before since cars use far less oil than before - unless it's a GM product where it will use more than before. Almost forgot to mention - shorter stroke engines. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 04:47PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > which is that the amount of GASOLINE getting into the OIL is far lower with > EFI than with carburetors! > Who knew? I did, since probably 1969 when I was doing my apprenticeship and used to see worn out GM engines at 70k miles with bores like buckets. At the same time, the same engines in taxis could do 2-300k miles with little measurable wear in the bore. That's because those taxis ran day and night with never a cold start. At half a million miles those engines were still running untouched but just about everything else around them had been replaced. FWIW, auto transmissions last longer when always kept at operating temps and, most importantly, never overheated. They use ablative technologies and friction modifiers are critical. > I never understood completely why. > I think just this one item ... condensed gasoline liquid ... which is we > presume far lower with EFI than with carburetors ... is a biggie. It would be the biggest issue by far. > Kewl! > I love learning. > Thanks. It's always good! -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:03PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > Someone said the *duration* is longer nowadays, but nobody mentioned > current. > Is the current about the same? I alluded to that when I used the term *high energy*. By *energy* I meant current, not voltage. The use of coil packs these days in multi-cylinder cars means that coil current is shared by, at most, 2 cylinders. In the good old days of V8s, that coil current was shared by 8 cylinders. That's why dwell time was such a critical thing - it was the charging time for the coil. Insufficient dwell meant ignition breakdown at high RPM since the coil had insufficient time to recharge between plug firings. Nowadays a lot of car use an individual pencil coil for each cylinder and each is electronically timed/triggered by the ECU and each cylinder can vary in ignition timing from its adjacent cylinders. There have been huge developments in automotive technology in the past couple of decades, most of it invisible to all but those of us who delve deeper. You want to see what developments have been made in engines, look no further than the developments in HCCI engines. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:07PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > Thanks. So the "potential energy" (aka volts) is two to three times higher. > If the current is the same, then the wattage is two to three times higher. > If they also increased the current, then the wattage is a *lot* higher. The higher voltage pushes more current across the gap. But that only occurs if the *energy* is stored in the coil in the form of a magnetic flux. > leaner mixture, which keeps gasoline out of the oil. > Keeping gasoline out of the oil goes a *long* way to increasing engine > life. Especially if you have high sulphur content fuel, such as we have here, which leads to the formation of *sulphuric acid* in the sump. Not nice! -- Xeno |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: >> I've never painted a car. I suppose some day I'll give rebuilding an >> automatic transmission a shot, but I've been lucky so far. > Lots of traps for the unwary in that little task. I don't disagree that an automatic is a completely different thing to rebuild than a manual would be for a typical rebuild. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM > There is more than just mass involved with rotor thickness. There is > also the fact a thicker rotor has more strength and wont - get this - > WARP when it gets hot. Not gonna argue ad infinitum. Just show a single reference on the Internet that shows, for street vehicles driven normally, that braking is appreciably better with drilled/slotted rotors versus solid rotors all else being equal. Just one reliable reference on the entire Internet that proves your point. And I'll read it. First, you read this: Rotors: Blank vs Cross Drilled vs Slotted and Warping <http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/rotors-blank-vs-cross-drilled-vs-slotted-and-warping/> BTW, I'm not talking about 124mph fade tests as shown here by GM engineers: <http://www.ebay.com/gds/Drilled-vs-slotted-rotors-what-is-better-/10000000005243690/g.html?rmvSBtrue?> I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking racing here. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM >>In a road going car, slotted rotors are probably overkill. Not so on >>high performance vehicles. > 100% correct - on both counts. Marketing bullshit and applying racing specifics to street cars is classic bullshit moves, where we've all had this happen to us a billion times. Just show a reliable reference on the entire Internet ... just one ... that proves that without changing anything else ... in a normally driven street car ... which is what we're talking about here ... that any of that above isn't anything other than marketing bullshit. Just one reference from the entirety of the Internet. You show it ... I'll read it. Until then, it's marketing bullshit. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM > Not as simple as you would make it sound. They might only last 5000 > miles, or they might last 50,000 miles. Same friction ratingf. We don't disagree. In fact, I already said that in a different post in this thread. Let me cut and paste what I said. ------ start cut and paste what I said ------- Life is one thing but the *primary* factor in brake pads is friction. I buy $35 PBR pads with FF or GG friction ratings which last 30K miles or so and the dust isn't objectionable. So my factors are: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) Friction Coefficient Identification System for Brake Linings <http://standards.sae.org/j866_200204/> ------ end cut and paste what I said ------- Still, the MOST IMPORTANT reason for buying pads is friction coefficient. If you had excellent life and lousy stopping power - would you buy them? > They might squal like a banshee - they might be totally quiet - same > friction rating. Good point that a lot of brake installations squeal, but we've researched this and it seems more depending on "situation" than on application. By that I mean that you can put the same pads on two similar cars, and some people complain of noise while others don't. There is a reason, for example, they have those padded shims. But again, my point is that you can give me all the bullshit you want to tell me that you can't choose pads wisely and I will only counter you with logic. If we add noise, it doesn't change the logic one bit. It only repeats a step. The factors would just be: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) d. Noise (the only way to know is to ask owners) > The linings might fall off the backing plates il less than a yeat. > They might wear brake rotors like a grind-stone. > They might promote uneven material transfer - making brakes "thump" More of the same above. What you're completely whooshing on is that you have no way of knowing that crap unless you ask someone - and - even then - you have no way of knowing if you'll get that crap on your application. Worse ... it's NOT at all what brakes do. If you have an EE pad that meets all your bullshit requirements, then it's still a worthless pad, even though it a. Has an EE rating (which makes it almost worthless as a brake pad) b. Yet, it has no dust c. And it lasts forever (and so does the rotor!) d. And it's as quiet as a whisper If I was going to market that bullshit pad above, I'd say: "Quietest, most dustless, longest lasting pads in the business!" That's marketing bullshit for you. If it doesn't stop the vehicle - all that other crap is useless. > Actually GG is pretty UNCOMMON. - and many OEM pad sets have > different frictiom material on the inner and outer pads.. For my bimmer, FF and GG are pretty common. But maybe it's different for other makes. I haven't seen anything better than G in the real world. But I'm sure we can look up what exists. > The FG Thermoquiets on my Ranger work pretty good - - - and they are > different inside to outside. FG is fine as long as that's as good or better than OEM. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: > You haven't worked on earthmoving machinery, that much is clear. I am assuming we're talking only street vehicles here. On street engines, an adjustable wrench often won't fit, and just as often will damage the bolt. Do you disagree? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM > e "better rings" has to be better ... somehow ... in some way. > Better design, better metalurgy Sounds just like really good marketing bullshit. It might be true. It might not be true. That's the thing about marketing bullshit. A ring has a metallurgy. It has a cross section. It even has a diameter in so much as there is a slot for blowby. And there are other rings. I know all that. I just am saying that nobody in this thread has given any logical reason why rings would be "better" today than in the days of yore. How is the design better? How is the metallurgy better? Proof? That's all I ask. No proof is needed where logic prevails (as in the carb to efi story). But proof is needed for rings having better steel or cross sections. > Actually a LOT of science involved in the base metalurgy, the torsion > design, the surface finish - moly filled, chromed, etc, as well as the > thickness and tension of the rings. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. More bullshit. We all know that stuff. Really. We do. We're all engineers here (at least I am). I know *everything* has details that would knock your socks off. But at the level we're talking, for you to say rings are better and hence engines last longer, requires *more* than bullshit opinions. That's all. Is proof so very hard to ask for? > The ring used in a dragster engine, truck engine, and standard street > engine will all be significantly different. More bullshit. Every time someone brings in racing they're trying to defend bullshit. Why don't you tell me to drive on the street with bald tires too? I'm kind of sick of bullshit ... so sorry if I'm cross. I just ask for something simple. If you're gonna say rings improved so much that they make engines last longer, just stammering that "metallurgy made them do it" is fine, except nobody is gonna believe that without some proof. Likewise with cross sections. Sure, it *can* happen. But did it? Where's the beef? > You just do not understand the complexity of ring sealing - how they > must twist - and bend to seal as both the rings and cyls change size > and shape as they heat and cool. More bullshit. I'm sick of bullshit. I know every single thing is complex when you get down to the grass roots. Do you know how freakin' complicated a spark plug is when you get down to the nitty gritty. And yet, all it does is allow a spark to jump across a gap. A ring is pretty simple in what it does and, like everything, it's complex as all hell if you are the designer of them. I get that. But every bullshitter on the planet begins his bullshit with a blanket statement and then when challenged, instead of finding proof, the bullshitter then stammers that racers do it (we already saw that racers-do-it bullshit on the drilled-versus-slotted rotor bullshit and on the warped-rotor bullshit). Then when you challenge that bullshit with logic, they then go into marketing bullshit mode by bringing out all the bullshit that is meaningless but which is intended to cow the recipient into submission because the recipient isn't a piston-ring engineer. Let's drip this because you're gonna reply with *more* bullshit, when the only reasonable reply is factual scientific references. I'm not gonna look them up because I can smell bullshit a mile away. If you're not gonna look them up, then let's just drop it. So as to stop this nonsense, I won't respond further to any rings-are-better opinion that doesn't have a reliable reference attached. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: > I consider my *time* as being valuable and I have many better things to > do with it than work on servicing my own car. We all spend time differently. For example, I haven't owned a TV in many decades. Hence I know I spent zero hours watching TV in the past 30 years. How much time did you spend watching TV in the past 30 years? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: > It's not that they have to, it's that they *can do it in 1/2 hour*. In > fact, with the right wheel aligner, I could do a full wheel alignment in > significantly less time. I was just pointing out that time isn't the issue for home whereas time is everything for a shop. That has a HUGE influence on the tools required. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool (and I've met a *lot* of fools who insist you have to have a shop's equipment to do things like alignment or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and that's that). Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop. Especially for a wheel alignment where you can do caster on day one, and then do camber on day two and toe on day three and it won't make a realistic difference from having done all three on day 1. >> My oil changes easily take me a couple of hours. >> A two-hour oil change at a shop would be unheard of. > It'll be unheard of around here too. My point again is that you can do a great oil change at home without the kind of equipment that a shop has. The tools for a shop are different than the tools for home. How well the job is done is NOT dependent on the tools. It's the attitude of the person changing the oil that matters. And their education (e.g., viscosity spread, oil quality, filter quality, new gaskets, sufficient drainage of the old oil, proper tightening of the filter, etc.) Time isn't the issue. Tools aren't the issue. Quality of results is the issue. > You don't pay the tradesman for what he does, you pay him for what he > knows and his *experience*. These days that can also include access to > TSBs and relevant factory data. Wrong. Dead wrong. I don't want to count the number of times I've seen a tradesman do the job wrong. I just don't. I have example after example after example after example. In no case did he not *know* he was doing the job wrong. He just didn't care to do the job right. You're paying him to do the job right. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:14AM RS Wood wrote: > or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and > that's that). > Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop. I think I got cranky. Apologies. |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:15PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > We're talking two different things: > 1. Ignition timing on a motorcycle > 2. Valve clearance adjustment on a motorcycle Valve clearance adjustment is, well, valve clearance adjustment no matter what type of engine it is on. Done it on all types - including motorcycles and huge diesels. It's no different. > resistance meter across the points and screwed in a dial gauge into the > number one cylinder, and adjusted the point plate so that the points opened > at the specified xx mmm before TDC. Used to do the same with a test light and rotated the engine around. The difference was that, in most cases, I used timing marks but mm before TDC is really no different. You are still measuring crank angle by another means. > My main point in this thread is that there is an exquisite pleasure that I > derive from having done such things at least once, so that I can > UNDERTSTAND what is it you speak about. I used to do it for a living. I didn't derive the same exquisite pleasure that you seem to do. > For example, I REMEMBER (belatedly) that tool, which rbowman knew about. > I wouldn't have that memory if I hadn't done the job. I know about that tool but I have never needed to do ignition timing in that manner. There are usually easier ways. > all those jobs is 10x that, so, cost isn't the issue. > I don't know WHY I never did those jobs. > But I wish I had. I did all those jobs and many many more. I wish now I hadn't and instead took up a different career. I did move into auto teaching for the last 20 years of my automotive career and I found that much more satisfying. -- Xeno |
| "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Nov 05 09:09PM "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in message news:59ff7167$0$1572$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl... >> Peter Norton's company was taken over by Symantec who CBA doing viable NU >> beyond 16bit. It would've been better if they had abandoned it. > Still have NU on two of my dos computers NU and Xtree were on the first (pre XT) IBM PC I rescued from the tip - NU never really made any progress from way back then. The, apparently for windows offering under the Symantec banner was more or less useless. NDD and Calibrate were absent, and the few remaining diagnostic and repair tools were mere ghosts of the old DOS versions. |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Nov 05 09:05PM -0600 On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 19:03:53 -0000, "Ian Field" >Peter Norton's company was taken over by Symantec who CBA doing viable NU >beyond 16bit. It would've been better if they had abandoned it. Yep, I knew that. Symantec ruins everything they touch. They destroyed Partition Magic, and I dont doubt it;s the same with NU. They will never get one cent from me...... |
| Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Nov 05 10:05PM -0800 On 11/4/2017 11:05 AM, Bob F wrote: > piece of equipment from. Can anyone recommend any program that would > likely be able to recover the files from this floppy disk. This is, I > suspect, just a problem from age of the disk. Thanks for the help everyone. I finally managed to copy the disk on a different 3rd PC |
| "David Farber" <farberbear.unspam@aol.com>: Nov 05 10:00PM -0800 This Rickenbacker RM112P monitor amp came to me with the complaint that it randomly crackles and pops. I plugged it in this afternoon and of course it didn't make any pops or crackles. I disassembled it and cleaned the controls. They were only slightly noisy. I was unable to locate a schematic for it. If it does decide to break down and make the noises, I would like to be able trace the signal. Does anyone have a link for a schematic? It's very clean inside. There are a few potential problem places that I see. One is that there is double sided sticky tape holding the filter capacitors in place. The p.c. trace is not insulated and I was wondering if that could be causing a problem. Secondly, there seems to be some type of chemical reaction happening leaving a flakey orange substance where some of the components are connected to the circuit board. http://webpages.charter.net/mrfixiter/images/Electronics/Rickenbacker/Flakey-terminals.jpg http://webpages.charter.net/mrfixiter/images/Electronics/Rickenbacker/Filter-caps.jpg Thanks for your reply. -- David Farber Los Osos, CA |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment