More useful info part two . . .

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

More useful info part two . . .

Banned
In part one of "More useful info," I talked about how to refute the catch all
idea that test results vary, ONLY because techs are not following the rules,
and if they did follow the rules, the results would be the same. I pointed out
a number of very logical examples, and I'm sure there are many more. These
examples will serve as solid evidence to the idea that follow up tests, may or
may not duplicate the original test. If the original test(s) are not guaranteed
to be duplicated, then the whole idea of judging the original tech on the
follow up test, holds no water at all. The beauty of all beauties here, is that
your average reasonable person can understand this whole thing. (Remember that
when I talk of "reasonable people," most in the BAR are excluded.) This argument
is so powerful, that it will chop the legs right out from in under our common
foes. Part 2, will dig the grave, and bury the legless corpse. When they decided
to allow techs to scan for monitors first, before doing any smog check, and then
decide if they wanted to proceed, they basically shot themselves in the foot. As
the old timers will remember, the procedure has always been based on duplication
of INITIAL, pre-smog directives. What were they? Before test only stations
appeared, it was fill out the invoice, sign it and proceed with the smog. When
test only came around, and you were "test and repair," you would have to verify
testability first, in one way or another. This sometimes involved entering the
data into the machine, and making the call to see if the VID allowed the test.
So this would have been the first deviation which allowed actual work, without
an invoice. This deviation could have been the beginning of a subtle effect on
techs, putting the idea of doing things BEFORE signing up the customers. I did
notice more and more techs over the years deviating from the original standard
of "no work without an invoice and signature." What this led to was eventually
coined, "pre-inspection rejection," which was a terrible no no a few years back.
And now, we have a new directive of, "it's okay to reject a vehicle, and not
smog it if you want." Now, "terrible" pre-inspection rejection is okay, because
this incomplete monitor fiasco they created is becoming a monster. You may say,
"What's the big deal?" I'm glad you asked, because I will tell you the big deal.
What they have done by this, "It's okay to not smog a vehicle, if you want," has
opened the door to legally DESTROY your competitors, while abiding by their new
rule. If you have been smogging at the same location, and built up data base of
customers, then you're in good shape. You will be able to systematically wipe
out your competition. All you have to do is change a few small habits. If a repeat
customer comes in, you make a few quick checks, like visual gas cap, under the
hood, MIL, monitors of course, and if there are any problems, you just tell your
repeat customer to get them fixed and return. You know he'll be back. You just
saved one follow up smog failure. If anyone other than the customer ever asks why
you didn't smog it, you say they had incomplete monitors in ALL cases. You've
broken no rules and you are squeaky clean. If someone you don't recognize comes
in, you ask them where they had it smogged 2 years prior. If it wasn't your shop,
just smog it without checking anything. The likelyhood of failure is much greater,
but who cares if it puts your competitors out of business. And in a case where 2
vehicles show up at about the same time, you will always take your repeat customer
first, the warmer vehicle. So instead of realizing just how insane this incomplete
monitor madness is, and dumping it, they instead decided to open the door of
legal pre-inspection rejection. In either scenario above, there is no prosecutable
illegality, but the end result of the 2 examples are hugely different. As mentioned
in another thread, it doesn't stop here. You have the latitude to fail or pass
various things legally. For your repeat customers, you can sell them a gas cap
during the test. Others you can fail them for the cap, damaging the previous smog
tech, and run a retest with the new cap. For your repeat customers, you can hook
back up TAC tubes, vacuum lines, or tighten loose wing nuts, push the dipstick
back in if it's too high, sell them an oil cap, fix an EVAP line, all legally,
at test only shops. For non repeat customers, you can fail them for all these
things, and run retests to destroy the competitors. Thank God for common sense.
The BAR fails in this category, but most reasonable people and judges won't. When
someone with half a brain forces them to drop these ridiculous measuring criteria,
then something close to normal will return. Like I said, this obvious problem of the
2 totally different ways of handling smogs should bury the legless corpse of STAR.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

crazy8
Sorry,  but by law you are not allowed to touch a vehicle without a work order signed by the customer in your hand and the law also states that you must test the car as presented which if you think it is nesacary can be a pretest before a actual test. You are allowed to discuss the results of the pre test with the customer but you must run a actual test if requested. We learned this the hard way 20 years ago trying to avoid testing a undercover car. HTH
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

Moderator
This post was updated on .
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

Banned
In reply to this post by Banned
Thanks Barry, I don't have any inclination to deal with hecklers. They are here to make
noise, and my response would be like Dr. Evil in one of the Austin Powers where he said;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvk7faxsxkQ
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

crazy8
In reply to this post by Moderator
Barry, our policy is very similar to yours, except for new customers, the work order is filled out and signed by the customer before we touch the car.

On a side note our first citation was in the late 80's or early 90's we knew the car was a undercover car, the guy driving the car just did not fit the car, we checked everything real close and found a modified pcv so we failed it, I even asked the guy after the test if he worked for the bar and he said no. So imagine my suprise when about 2 months later we get a citation in the mail for a written estimate violation they claimed that we did not hand the estimate to their agent, but after he signed we left it on the service counter. That one really pizzed me off, but is was only a $250.00 fine back in the old days. So I guess if they want to get you they will find a way.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

Moderator
This post was updated on .
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

ClassActionSuit




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

Banned
In reply to this post by Banned
There are some things about vehicles in a used car lot that are very common.
The first is almost no gas in the tank. Sometimes the lot will "fix" some
problem involving codes, and guess what monitor doesn't set upon driving?
I'll give you a clue - very little gas. That was one thing I liked about my
stint at Chrysler. You could run the EVAP monitor with the DRB. No driving
necessary. Since the vehicles in lots could sit for long periods of time, and the
potential buyers fart around with the internal gadgets, and leave things on
like dome lights, they frequently have dead batteries, dead monitors and dead
"block learn." So which poor slob tested the vehicle the last time? How many
examples do we need of the craziness? Do not answer unless you are a tech.
This site is now a "NO HECKLER" zone.



                                      +
                                 +         +
                                         -
                             +   hec-kler    +
                                    -
                                 +         +
                                      +

.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

karuptrougueouttacontrol
Banned , yes  you are right , there are a bunch of deviations and problems with this program and alot of open doors , that need shut, lot of questions that need answered that we are purposley NOT being answered ,lots of ways that OTHERS can hurt OUR scores, etc. .
  I was told i can perform a "free partial pretest but that i must write out a work order, OTher than to Use up my work orders , i see no need to write up a "partial pre test " especially like you said , with returnining customers and probabably to cover our own behinds we should probably still hook up the obd 2 and see if all the monitors are set .(Although i was told by others that ALL vehicles having ALL monitors are also bad for your score !) Does that last statement make any sense ?
 I totally get how our competitor could check and see where they were last tested (asking the customers) and then if all monitors not complete, they proceed with test and knock our fpr down .
 LOts of open loops in this program can't wait to listen to the conf call . PRetty drained from bussiness down and then Star and being ripped off by the calibration gas people ,etc ,
   Everyone have a good week !!And take care !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

Moderator
This post was updated on .
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info part two . . .

karuptrougueouttacontrol
  Hey thanks for that answer BArry , but now i have to ask "will it hurt the repair techs fpr or mine if i went ahead and tested vehicles with not enough monitors complete ? Don't know how many customers i have "interrogated" lately and found they just had their cars repaired that same day or yesterday and i check their monitors and they are not set per reqmts.  
   So i wonder if i did not check and they failed , would it hurt the repairs tech or mly fpr ? Sooo many questions , Soo many "gray " areas per the Reps 1's ! :( Gray area is not an answer right ?