"Elle" > wrote in
nk.net:

> "TeGGeR®" > wrote
>> "Elle" > wrote
>> > "TeGGeR®" > wrote
>> >> "Elle" > wrote
>> >> > The biggest hurdle is probably going to be breaking free the
>> >> > crankshaft pulley bolt.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For that reason this page exists:
>> >> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt
>> >
>> > I don't reference this particular sub-site of your FAQ because I
>> > think the part of it on the tools one can buy or fabricate is not
>> > well done. It's mostly poor writing, and I think it doesn't get
>> > across the tool situation very well at all.
>> >
>> > I would be happy to redo it for you, but I don't want to step on
>> > your toes.
>>
>>
>> By all means, if it's not well written, please redo it. The whole
>> site depends on multiple inputs.
>>
>> Corrections of ANY kind NEVER, EVER step on my toes. The last thing I
>> want is errors on the site. Errors cost credibility.
>
> It's not errors (at least not in this instance), IMO, just lack of
> clarity.
>
>> Ego is not worth it if it
>> leads to errors. I research this stuff as best I can, but sometimes I
>> need to rely on a best-guess. I then count on others to alert me if
>> errors get posted. You'd be amazed how few people actually let me
>> know when they find mistakes.
>>
>> I once had one TSB link that led to the wrong TSB. According to my
>> logs, that TSB was viewed some 50 times, and only ONE person notified
>> me that
> the
>> TSB referenced was not the one it should have led to. I thanked him
>> and changed it immediately.
>>
>> Much of some portions of the site was written by others. Some is
>> attributed, some (by request) is not. The igniter pages are prime
> examples:
>> My helper there refuses to be publicly identified.
>
>
>
>> There have been submissions from others that have been impossible to
>> substantiate. These I have not put up, erring on the side of caution
>> and credibility.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I note this because when I was researching how to break free my 91
>> > Civic's pulley bolt last year, I found a number of posts talked
>> > about the hex pipe homemade tool. But that isn't the type of setup
>> > my 91 Civic's pulley bolt has.
>>
>>
>> Perfectly true. Some of them don't have that hex.
>
> The sub-site does note this, just not all that clearly, IMO.
>> Again, I don't know
>> unless someone tells me. How to get those loose? I don't know unless
>> someone tells me, or unless I read it in the groups.
>>
>> I'm not a machine, and I will miss stuff as I read through the
>> group's messages.
>
> My intent, believe it or not, was not to shoot down your site or you.
> I hope you bear in mind all the praise people routinely and
> understandably heap upon the "Unofficial FAQ" site. I think I'm the
> only one who has some hesitancy to refer people to it. Obviously, I'm
> a rookie in most of these areas, compared to Curly, SoCalMike, Jim,
> Eric, NE Ohio Bob, several others I regret I can't name off the top of
> my head, and of course yourself. So arguably my opinion should count
> even less.
>
> My standards for communicating technical material are high. In
> addition, because of what I think is a very different background, I
> think I communicate in a way that a lot of old hands (mostly men, by
> coincidence) find different.
>
>> I was away for three weeks back in the summer. I have no idea
>> what I missed then.
>>
>> > Ultimately the thread got it straight that my
>> > Civic has the pulley with holes in it. Eric guided me to
>> > fabrication of an excellent tool for it, slightly modified because
>> > my Civic had the power steering pulley lip with which to contend,
>> > too.



I now think I remember a discussion of just this a long time ago before I
took over the site. Somebody had posted a verbal decscription of the tool,
which I had trouble following.



>>
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>>
>> By the way, I wish you'd got pics of your spark plug tube seal
> replacement.
>> I'm going to add your text to a new section on that, but I'll have to
>> rely on diagrams instead of photographs. It's a question that comes
>> up often enough to warrant addition to the FAQ.
>
> I agree that the spark plug tube oil leak problem etc. should be an
> FAQ, touching upon both the easy upper seal and the more involved
> lower seal.
>
> IMO, Majestic's (or slhonda.com's) diagram of the lower seals,
> combined with the instructions for removing the rocker arm/shaft
> assembly, with maybe a bit of tweaking from my notes and/or your
> notes, treat the subject quite well.



Exactly.



>
> I am halfway to buying a digital camera because I want to show off my
> Eric-patented, Elle-modified crankshaft pulley holder and bolt removal
> tool.
>
>> > I did a lot of other research on this, finding tools commercially
>> > available and also at Ebay. (So far I prefer the tool that I ended
>> > up making for around ten bucks, with Eric's guidance.)
>>
>>
>> You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it comes
>> to this site. I was asked by John Ings to take it on before he died,
>> and it's become sort of a part-time job for me as I keep my promise
>> to John.
>>
>> I am a home mechanic, and not a professional, a fact that has not
>> ever
> been
>> any kind of secret. I have repeatedly and freely acknowledged (and
>> solicited) the input of other's experiences, and have posted them as
>> needed. What is not mine is openly attributed to those who have
>> submitted it.
>>
>> You have publicly objected to several parts of my site, but have so
>> far offered no corrections.
>
> You're right that one who criticizes should certainly offer to correct
> the problem him/erself. Also, I realize it's no easy task to maintain
> such a site.
>
> By way of some sort of explanation, and FWIW: We had quite a row over
> the PCV valve issue some years ago.




That's over and done. Time to move on.



> I remain at a loss over it. I am
> not happy with what your site says about it. I don't want to repeat
> this row. Hence my silence on this point. I appreciate what you say
> about not wanting to inject ego, but if you are really convinced the
> PCV valve FAQ discussion is fair to the subject, then you're entitled
> to your opinion and so should stick by what's at the site.
>
>> A number of others have both objected AND offered
>> (even with diagrams and photos) corrections, ALL of which I have
>> posted as updates.
>
> That's a lot of work, and again, I hope you remember all the people
> who compliment your efforts as incredibly useful.
>
>> An example: The igniter test that required a dwell meter. John Ings
>> wrote that part. He had incorrectly attributed the test procedure to
>> someone named "Oak". You pointed this out as a criticism of the site,
>> but offered no correction at all, even after I requested that you do
>> so.
>
> First, I thought you could groups.google and easily find out who had
> written the test procedure.
>
> Two, hate me,



I don't hate anyone. Though I do have a higher opinion of people who offer
help as well as criticism.



> but there was another person involved in the igniter
> discussions here at the newsgroup who sent me a private email that was
> do distasteful I wanted no affiliation with anything he did. I
> mentioned this in the past. I think he's involved with this part of
> your site.




I don't know who you're referring to, so a statement like this is unfair.
No one has ever sent me "distasteful" email.




> Plus, I don't have anything in particular to offer the
> ignitor section, anyway, without one helluva lot of effort.
> Electronics is my weak point, besides. To me, ignitors break. There's
> a test or two out there to confirm they're broken. Once confirmed,
> slap another in there. OTOH, having my own engineering subject area
> passions (e.g. thermodynamics and mechanics of materials), I can
> understand how someone would love dissecting the operation of the
> ignitor and comparing it to the old fashioned way ("points").
>
>> I asked you to
>> tell me who had actually written that quote, and received no reply. I
>> then did some digging myself, and discovered the quote actually came
>> from "Rob Relf". I then corrected that page, as you'll notice if you
>> go there. http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/startproblems.html
>> (3/4 of the way down)
>
> Well done.
>
>> The Unofficial Honda FAQ is supposed to be CORRECT, PERIOD. It is NOT
>> supposed to be a forum for my own opinions. Some pages are my
>> opinions, based on fact as far as I can determine, and I stand ready
>> to correct that which can be shown to be wrong.
>
> Aside from the helpful technical info, I got a kick out of NE Ohio
> Bob's camshaft table photos. (Been wanting to mention that for a
> while!) ;-)
>
> I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, temporarily
> post it (like for the next year or so), and you can use it as you
> like. I'll try to make it blend with what you have already at your
> site, so you can copy and paste as easily as possible.



If you set up your own site on that, I'll link to it in the FAQ.



>
> Seems like the two Usenet Honda auto newsgroups have a rather amazing
> reputation among auto newsgroups for helping people with their cars.
> You should take a lot of credit for that.
>
>


So should many others, including you.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/