bazhart
Barcelona
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,343
Hi Guys,
If in my posts I have offended anyone - I would like to apologise and try to explain why my responses to questions sometimes get tetchy.
We get quite a lot of engines here for a rebuild that went wrong elsewhere and usually it is because the business involved gave different reasons why they are the right ones to go to – often disagreeing with our explanations – and so – to assist owners make informed decisions – we try and provide answers (when very few other similar businesses get involved). This also provides a platform to inform what we do but the main criteria is to avoid innocent owners with limited technical knowledge being conned.
The various issues we address with the M96 and M97 engines combine a lot of knowledge, testing, research and development in many different subjects.
To try and explain what the origin of the problems and anticipate questions our last engine problem guide (written mainly around 10 years ago) grew into a very long document that was very time consuming to read and impossible to direct anyone to one specific answer in.
So for the last year I have been re-writing it in a new web format – bringing it up to date and changing it so that the first part you now read is short and to the point but there are highlighted words that click onto deeper sub-texts or explanations (and back again). These often contain yet more sub-texts creating a true web linked that should help every reader whatever their particular interest or knowledge base.
This has worked out well so that anyone following a particular query can link to the parts they want to find out more about and ovoid the ones they are already familiar with and because each sub-section is a new file – it downloads quickly.
This also means we can identify areas for someone with a question to answer to click on rather than continually wasting time often regurgitating the same thing again and again.
It has made it easier to write to because several different topics link to the same sub texts.
Overall it is still 65K words but individually it will be easier to read. Furthermore as different topics are covered – whenever they mention some other issue – the reader can carry on past it (if they are already familiar with that issue) or click on it if they are not.
Just now pictures (and some short videos) are being added and I hope it will be on line in the Autumn.
Now the apology and explanation for it - whenever a particular question is asked on this forum – I only have time to limit the brief answer to that specific point but because the problems link several different issues together (all contributing to the problem) it is inevitable almost that someone else then throws in some other point (often as if to de-value the answer or try to doubt it). If I don't respond - those with limited knowledge may well interpret that as an admission that we were wrong and therefore not benefit from the value of our research, posts and product solutions – so I feel I have to respond – but by then am getting irritated and wishing I had the new guide finished and could just refer them to a part of it instead.
Even then someone often shifts the response to yet another area – and then it goes on again and again and I simply don't have time to keep writing the same stuff over and over again to try and help readers to see the whole picture at a level that satisfies them and doesn't lead to further points needing an answer. Often I find almost the same response needed on another forum and then they go off in different directions.
Having already re-written all the linked answers – it is extremely frustrating to find the response to an answer raises yet another issue and my time is taken up trying to answer something I have already written out in greater detail but tried to anticipate all the linked questions that may follow and answered them within the 'web" system in the new guide. However I cannot use it just now to send to people because each part contains links that the computer programmer and web manager will need to identify all the separate sub-texts and only makes sense if you can link across as you can when it is finished and on line.
Also our success is largely because we have a very high level of technical knowledge in a wide range of disciplines and areas – that has enabled us to link together a lot of observations and test results to explain the failures. However - we are unlikely to know as much in any one area as a specialist who has only ever concentrated their education, training and life's work in a much smaller area of expertise. This always makes it possible for them to put in a point that is perfectly valid in isolation but not when you take into account a number of other issues that the 'specialist" has put together to create an overall explanation.
This is true of issues relating to ferrous liners, piston coatings, Lokasil, cooling, thermostats, different climates, Ethanol in fuels, different oils, viscosity ratings, additives etc and many of these subjects seem to be personalised by some contributors who take offence if anyone suggests anything different from their own view or the product they use without trying to link a wider range of evidence and observations to that choice. We also do not have first-hand knowledge of problems in Countries with very extreme weather conditions.
With the development of new engine specifications also absorbing a lot of my time as well (and I am supposed to be semi-retired) – I find it frustrating to appear to have an explanation to one question questioned when I already have researched and even re-written the answer. This is not because I am offended that anyone has questioned me – I am just so busy it can be irritating – but I think I must try harder to be more patient in future (or perhaps I am just getting to be a bad tempered old man!).
Please don't run away with the idea that this means we think we know the answer to everything – we don't and we can always learn – but we really have researched things on a massive scale and all the first explanations for the problems of cylinder cracking, bore scoring and IMS failures were originally posted over 10 years ago and have since proven right. Nothing that has happened since has changed those answers – only reinforced them and the solutions that came out of it have worked brilliantly since. All the issues we said contributed to the problem were changed to the same type of solution we already proposed in the Gen 2 changes and we are by far the busiest engine repair specialist for these engines Worldwide. This is not because we are over confident big heads but because some coincidental past experiences and knowledge led us to believe that we would benefit long term from continual investment in tests, products, racing, research, equipment, staff, training and factory re-organisation would prove worthwhile – long-term – and it has paid off.
We took a risk that our interpretation of causes and solutions were right and took the risk to invest in them – and thank goodness it has all worked out very well indeed.
So I am sorry if I ever offend or upset anyone - please try and be patient and hopefully when the new engine repair guide is available I hope it will enable readers to find answers (or for us to direct them to explanations rather than try and respond 'live") that should avoid too much personal response live on the forum.
Baz
If in my posts I have offended anyone - I would like to apologise and try to explain why my responses to questions sometimes get tetchy.
We get quite a lot of engines here for a rebuild that went wrong elsewhere and usually it is because the business involved gave different reasons why they are the right ones to go to – often disagreeing with our explanations – and so – to assist owners make informed decisions – we try and provide answers (when very few other similar businesses get involved). This also provides a platform to inform what we do but the main criteria is to avoid innocent owners with limited technical knowledge being conned.
The various issues we address with the M96 and M97 engines combine a lot of knowledge, testing, research and development in many different subjects.
To try and explain what the origin of the problems and anticipate questions our last engine problem guide (written mainly around 10 years ago) grew into a very long document that was very time consuming to read and impossible to direct anyone to one specific answer in.
So for the last year I have been re-writing it in a new web format – bringing it up to date and changing it so that the first part you now read is short and to the point but there are highlighted words that click onto deeper sub-texts or explanations (and back again). These often contain yet more sub-texts creating a true web linked that should help every reader whatever their particular interest or knowledge base.
This has worked out well so that anyone following a particular query can link to the parts they want to find out more about and ovoid the ones they are already familiar with and because each sub-section is a new file – it downloads quickly.
This also means we can identify areas for someone with a question to answer to click on rather than continually wasting time often regurgitating the same thing again and again.
It has made it easier to write to because several different topics link to the same sub texts.
Overall it is still 65K words but individually it will be easier to read. Furthermore as different topics are covered – whenever they mention some other issue – the reader can carry on past it (if they are already familiar with that issue) or click on it if they are not.
Just now pictures (and some short videos) are being added and I hope it will be on line in the Autumn.
Now the apology and explanation for it - whenever a particular question is asked on this forum – I only have time to limit the brief answer to that specific point but because the problems link several different issues together (all contributing to the problem) it is inevitable almost that someone else then throws in some other point (often as if to de-value the answer or try to doubt it). If I don't respond - those with limited knowledge may well interpret that as an admission that we were wrong and therefore not benefit from the value of our research, posts and product solutions – so I feel I have to respond – but by then am getting irritated and wishing I had the new guide finished and could just refer them to a part of it instead.
Even then someone often shifts the response to yet another area – and then it goes on again and again and I simply don't have time to keep writing the same stuff over and over again to try and help readers to see the whole picture at a level that satisfies them and doesn't lead to further points needing an answer. Often I find almost the same response needed on another forum and then they go off in different directions.
Having already re-written all the linked answers – it is extremely frustrating to find the response to an answer raises yet another issue and my time is taken up trying to answer something I have already written out in greater detail but tried to anticipate all the linked questions that may follow and answered them within the 'web" system in the new guide. However I cannot use it just now to send to people because each part contains links that the computer programmer and web manager will need to identify all the separate sub-texts and only makes sense if you can link across as you can when it is finished and on line.
Also our success is largely because we have a very high level of technical knowledge in a wide range of disciplines and areas – that has enabled us to link together a lot of observations and test results to explain the failures. However - we are unlikely to know as much in any one area as a specialist who has only ever concentrated their education, training and life's work in a much smaller area of expertise. This always makes it possible for them to put in a point that is perfectly valid in isolation but not when you take into account a number of other issues that the 'specialist" has put together to create an overall explanation.
This is true of issues relating to ferrous liners, piston coatings, Lokasil, cooling, thermostats, different climates, Ethanol in fuels, different oils, viscosity ratings, additives etc and many of these subjects seem to be personalised by some contributors who take offence if anyone suggests anything different from their own view or the product they use without trying to link a wider range of evidence and observations to that choice. We also do not have first-hand knowledge of problems in Countries with very extreme weather conditions.
With the development of new engine specifications also absorbing a lot of my time as well (and I am supposed to be semi-retired) – I find it frustrating to appear to have an explanation to one question questioned when I already have researched and even re-written the answer. This is not because I am offended that anyone has questioned me – I am just so busy it can be irritating – but I think I must try harder to be more patient in future (or perhaps I am just getting to be a bad tempered old man!).
Please don't run away with the idea that this means we think we know the answer to everything – we don't and we can always learn – but we really have researched things on a massive scale and all the first explanations for the problems of cylinder cracking, bore scoring and IMS failures were originally posted over 10 years ago and have since proven right. Nothing that has happened since has changed those answers – only reinforced them and the solutions that came out of it have worked brilliantly since. All the issues we said contributed to the problem were changed to the same type of solution we already proposed in the Gen 2 changes and we are by far the busiest engine repair specialist for these engines Worldwide. This is not because we are over confident big heads but because some coincidental past experiences and knowledge led us to believe that we would benefit long term from continual investment in tests, products, racing, research, equipment, staff, training and factory re-organisation would prove worthwhile – long-term – and it has paid off.
We took a risk that our interpretation of causes and solutions were right and took the risk to invest in them – and thank goodness it has all worked out very well indeed.
So I am sorry if I ever offend or upset anyone - please try and be patient and hopefully when the new engine repair guide is available I hope it will enable readers to find answers (or for us to direct them to explanations rather than try and respond 'live") that should avoid too much personal response live on the forum.
Baz
