On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:29:38 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:42:47 +1100 Nev..
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Is this where we let the thread drift into all of the occurrances where
>> a qualified bike shop mechanic has ****ed up a job and broken a bike
>> and the bike owner has had to correct the job themselves. Bring a
>> chair and some drinks.. this could take a while. Just to keep right on
>> the current topic, why don't we let BTH start with his story of how the
>> brake caliper fell off an [almost] brand new bike.
>>
>>
> Big not BTH I think you will find.
>
> ANd you then need to look at frequency. What's the rate of stuffups per
> thousand jobs of the pro compared to the amateur?
>
> Zebee

Well, it did happen to BTH (Hyosung 650) but I don't remember him blaming
the servicing mechanic, more the selling dealer and Hyosung.

--
Regards

Andrew

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:13:23 +1100, GWD wrote:

[...]

>Stopping was by going down through the gears, double clutching all the
>way, with the last gasp in low low with the ignition off.

[...]


OK so how do you double clutch without a clutch?

It's the same process, but clutch less:
1. take the tension off the gears by throttling back, pull
gently back on the stick.
2. when you feel the gears start to slide, slip into neutral
3. use the accelerator to match engine speed with that of the gears.
4. When all feels OK, slip into the next gear (it's
continuous movement, done very quickly).
5. keep accelerator adjusted to reducing speed
so that load on the box is not excessive.

You need an old crash box to do it properly - don't try it on your
nice new car or bike - it can be done but the learning curve will
result in severe damage to synchro cones and dogs.

--
GWD

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:39:48 +1100, Nev.. wrote:

>GWD wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:13:23 +1100, GWD wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Stopping was by going down through the gears, double clutching all the
>>> way, with the last gasp in low low with the ignition off.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> OK so how do you double clutch without a clutch?
>>
>> It's the same process, but clutch less:
>> 1. take the tension off the gears by throttling back, pull
>> gently back on the stick.
>> 2. when you feel the gears start to slide, slip into neutral
>> 3. use the accelerator to match engine speed with that of the gears.
>> 4. When all feels OK, slip into the next gear (it's
>> continuous movement, done very quickly).
>> 5. keep accelerator adjusted to reducing speed
>> so that load on the box is not excessive.
>>
>> You need an old crash box to do it properly - don't try it on your
>> nice new car or bike - it can be done but the learning curve will
>> result in severe damage to synchro cones and dogs.
>
>Really? I've done clutchless changes up and down the gearbox on every
>bike i've owned, and the only one i've ever had any gearbox problems
>with was the bike which had a rooted gearbox when i bought it. It can't
>be that hard, or that damaging, or maybe I'm just really ****ing good at it.

Yeah you probably are. Mere mortals will require a learning curve
before they become good at it, let alone ****ing good.
It was a standard disclaimer Nev - you know, like don't try this at
home. Not that I give a FF anyway...

--
GWD

GWD wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:46:15 GMT, Lars Chance wrote:

>> So add the premise then.
>> What conclusions did you draw from the experiences detailed in the thread?
>
> I've been clear enough I think. If you want to continue dredging
> arguments from the bottom of the barrel, that's your prerogative, it's
> a free Usenet.
> You are welcome to come near my bike any time you want to. Just don't
> have a spanner in your hands, that's all
>
*shrug*
You really love making these weird non-points and then backing down as
soon as they're queried don't you George?

--
Elsie.

Nev.. wrote:
>
> (snip) some of the people in Ausmoto who I would consider to be far
> more capable than myself at things mechanical, and who do much more of
> their own handiwork on their bikes than I would ever attempt, have also
> caused much more mechanical damage to their own motorcycles than I have.
>
> So... you do the maths!
>
Provided you *do* do the maths that'd be a fair consideration.
If you compare even a major mechanical failure every few years or-so
with the cost of having *all* your mechanical work done at the shop I'd
be surprised if the home handiworker still comes out behind.

--
Elsie.

GWD wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:50:00 +1100, Nev.. wrote:
>
>> GWD wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:52:17 +1100, Nev.. wrote:
>>>
>>>> GWD wrote:
>>>>> If an amateur only stuffs around with his/her own gear, fair enough.
>>>>> Just keep him/her away from my brakes says I.
>>>> I'm about as unmechanically minded as anyone in ausmoto and even I can
>>>> unbolt a caliper, give the pistons a scrub with a toothbrush to clean
>>>> them up and stick in a new set of pads knowing that there's probably
>>>> very little I can do wrong during the process which will cause any
>>>> failure which wouldn't be immediately evident.
>>> Fair enough. You can call me risk averse if you like but you have just
>>> joined Elsie in the list of people I don't want near my gear with a
>>> spanner in their hands. It's the admission of being "unmechanically
>>> minded" that does it for me.
>> No problem, because the odds that I would ever be near your bike and in
>> any way the most capable person in the vicinity of performing anything
>> on it, (or even wanting to for that matter) are most remote. Just
>> because I don't find myself to be mechanically minded, doesn't mean I'm
>> not mechanically capable. I just mean that I wasn't brought up in a
>> garage pulling things apart and fixing them and that I have never had
>> the tools nor the enthusiasm to start on a job which might render the
>> bike unridable.
>>
>> I would suggest that someone who knew their limitations would be far
>> more trustworthy to let loose on a bike with a spanner than someone who
>> professed their absolute competance. I mean, (and I don't want to name
>> names), but some of the people in Ausmoto who I would consider to be far
>> more capable than myself at things mechanical, and who do much more of
>> their own handiwork on their bikes than I would ever attempt, have also
>> caused much more mechanical damage to their own motorcycles than I have.
>>
>> So... you do the maths!
>
> Well there ya go. In some weird way we've decreased the ever
> decreasing circle without a fundamental orifice in view!
> I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph, and it neatly
> sums up what I've been trying to say for the past day or so.
>
>
But what possible "mechanical damage" do you imagine cleaning or
dismantling a brake-calliper could cause George?
Do you actually know what a brake-calliper is and what it does? It's a
very very simple device.
Has someone been telling you scary stories or something?

--
Elsie.

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:15:17 GMT
Lars Chance <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>>
>> (snip) some of the people in Ausmoto who I would consider to be far
>> more capable than myself at things mechanical, and who do much more of
>> their own handiwork on their bikes than I would ever attempt, have also
>> caused much more mechanical damage to their own motorcycles than I have.
>>
>> So... you do the maths!
>>
> Provided you *do* do the maths that'd be a fair consideration.
> If you compare even a major mechanical failure every few years or-so
> with the cost of having *all* your mechanical work done at the shop I'd
> be surprised if the home handiworker still comes out behind.

Don't forget to factor in the cost of your own time.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:15:17 GMT
> Lars Chance <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Provided you *do* do the maths that'd be a fair consideration.
>> If you compare even a major mechanical failure every few years or-so
>> with the cost of having *all* your mechanical work done at the shop I'd
>> be surprised if the home handiworker still comes out behind.
>
> Don't forget to factor in the cost of your own time.
>
Does that count?
It's like gardening; you should probably be subtracting the
therapeutic-value you're receiving instead!

--
Elsie.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:06:28 GMT, Lars Chance wrote:

>GWD wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:46:15 GMT, Lars Chance wrote:
>
>>> So add the premise then.
>>> What conclusions did you draw from the experiences detailed in the thread?
>>
>> I've been clear enough I think. If you want to continue dredging
>> arguments from the bottom of the barrel, that's your prerogative, it's
>> a free Usenet.
>> You are welcome to come near my bike any time you want to. Just don't
>> have a spanner in your hands, that's all
>>
>*shrug*
>You really love making these weird non-points and then backing down as
>soon as they're queried don't you George?


OK. The conclusion I drew from this thread is that arrogance mixed
with lack of fundamental understanding is an all too common mix in
back yard mechanics. I thought that I was clear enough but I am happy
to repeat it ad infinitum if it makes you happy. Alternatively, you
could take a course in reading 101 and save us both a lot of trouble.

--
GWD

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:48:28 +1100, Diogenes wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:18:29 GMT, Lars Chance
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> Well there ya go. In some weird way we've decreased the ever
>>> decreasing circle without a fundamental orifice in view!
>>> I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph, and it neatly
>>> sums up what I've been trying to say for the past day or so.
>>>
>
>>But what possible "mechanical damage" do you imagine cleaning or
>>dismantling a brake-calliper could cause George?
>>Do you actually know what a brake-calliper is and what it does? It's a
>>very very simple device.
>>Has someone been telling you scary stories or something?
>
>Why are you picking on George, "Elsie" ??
>
I think the idea is to try to score points no matter how silly he/she
looks. Might even succeed one of these days - you never know...

--
GWD