"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.
>
>
> 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.

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. 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, 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. 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.

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.