More useful info. . .

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

More useful info. . .

Banned
Elaborating on some previous posts, I have some more very useful stuff,
for the REAL techs. One thing that's beautiful about dealing with PR1s
for 20 years, is that you learn to predict what they will say and do.
For instance, there was one encounter I once had with a PR1, and this
particular one didn't like me, and decided after talking to me for 15
minutes or so that I wasn't sharp enough to do CAP cars. It wasn't like
I was quizzed, and couldn't answer questions. (In reality I could have
quizzed him, and he would have flunked my questions.) Anyway, within
a month of this encounter, a UC vehicle shows up. It was this first
PR1/UC event that made me realize that there is a revenge motivation
with PR1s. "He's okay, leave him alone, or I hate him, send him one."
Because of this event, I learned immediately to be on the look out for
a repeat pattern. Sure enough, 5 years later I had an exact repeat, but
I was looking for it. This 2nd vehicle would slip by most techs, so it
was a cream of the crop UC. This is an analogy for the rest of the info.
The bottom line here is, "If you know what's coming, you'll have an answer."
I've already put a whole lot of useful things up here, and I definitely
won't hold back. If you don't hear from me for a long time, the BAR has
probably sent out a ninja, and they will ALL be caught and prosecuted
when the secret safe deposit box is opened. Imagine the entire BAR on
trial, LOL. What will the BAR say, when they stand before a judge, in
one of the many court appearances which are coming up? We know it will
happen, for the many reasons already mentioned. Others may want to add
to this, but I assure you that one thing you will hear them proclaim
is, "If all techs followed the rules, then every smog would turn out
exactly the same." So they will say that the variations in results, are
strictly tech differences. I'm going to give many reasons why the tests
could vary, and if you EXPERIENCED guys want to add, this would be
useful, because it will refute their "catch all" proclamation. This has
to do with the FPR score, which would be 2 separate tests, done at
different times.

were the 2 tests the same type, dyno - (ASM) vs 2 speed idle - (TSI)

        sometimes customers switch addresses from basic to enhanced,
        and vice versa. (did they consider this? doubtful.)

for ASMs, was the machine above, or in ground dyno

        it was clearly demonstrated back in the 90s, that carbureted
        vehicles will get a different result, if you test flat, verses
        tilted, which you have with the above ground dyno. the gas
        wants to be level, which is understandable.

weather conditions at the time of the 2 test, including ambient temperature

        as we all know, vehicles typically pass better with a bunch of
        moisture in the air. When it's raining, you have to spin dry the
        tires, warming the CAT, and the the moisture tends to have a
        cooling effect, both on the exterior, and in the combustion chambers

amount of time the vehicle sat before the test began, (waiting time)

        on the first test, it could have been one of those where the
        vehicle was taken immediately, and remained warm for the test.
        the 2nd test could have been one where it sat in a line for 20
        minutes, and according to their BS way of telling if the car is
        warm, would pass. we all know that if you start a vehicle that
        has been off for 15 or 20 minutes, the thermostat will probably
        be open and immediately heat up the hoses, which is why this
        method is no good. and don't think that letting it idle for 3
        minutes will get it into the same readiness as just driving up
        and smogging it.

the time of day the test was run

        this is more of a "human nature" thing. an experienced tech, who
        looks at the VIR, and notices the test time of 7:03 PM, will
        realize that the tech probably just wanted to get through the test,
        and get home so they don't miss "Wheel of Fortune." even though it
        shouldn't, the time of day does matter. Interestingly here, the
        vehicle could pass, when it should of failed, or fail when it should
        have passed. The best evidence of "when," comes from automakers.
        you used to see this big time in Detroit. that's where they got the
        expression, "Monday and Friday cars."

the total time of the test, from beginning to end

        was the tech interrupted during the test, and when? if it was before
        spinning the wheels, you could end up with a cold vehicle as in
        example 3. also, the pretest criteria would be met, if it were to
        idle for 3 minutes, and then turned off so the tech could take a
        dump or something. leaving a vehicle running and unattended, could
        lead to some kind of accident, or joy ride by a thief. the usual
        problem here is overheated engines, so it just isn't practical.

were the cut points, or any other criteria changed between the 2 tests

        self explanatory, and probably something they didn't even bother to
        consider

was the 2nd machine due for an audit?

  once again, self explanatory

So I've given 8 examples, and there are probably others, where following
rules will NOT guaranty the exact same result with the 2 tests. We all know
that there is no guaranty of exact same results, but these examples will
probably stand up in court. You should print these examples out for future
reference, and any other examples, please feel free to add.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

Mark
Most of those I never thought of, my dyno is above ground and
anyone that owns a suzuki samurai with a carburetor if it turns
out to be a dyno test I don't even do it.  Never thought of roll
resistance and temp ALL good points IMHO
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

Banned
In reply to this post by Banned
Thanks. The techs should understand this, but most of it would hit home with your average intelligence
person as well. This is the biggest problem in court. Conveying reality to a judge or jury, while they are listening to BAR nonsense. The first general catch phrase I ever heard from a PR1 about the new program was, "They took that into consideration." I don't know if any of you have discussed the STAR program with a PR1, but 2 different reps said the exact same thing to me, and I realized that this catch phrase was issued to answer ALL questions they can't answer. So when this comes up, (They took that into consideration,) you would have to counter this with good old common sense. If a judge hears this catch phrase, I doubt that he would blindly accept it, and perhaps the best argument would be to look at the insanity we do know about, which is abundant. You could bring up the story of "Bill," and reason that if this could happen in reality, which is obviously a huge miscalculation, do you think they took other smaller problems, like the ones listed above into consideration? That's a damn good argument to NOT buy their "catch phrase."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

Moderator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Banned
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

lukeskywalker
You pretty much nailed it on the head on the mil operation. Used to be mil comes on any time during testing-
fail-now it's ONLY looked at during functional test-total joke!!. What type of accuracy comes from a tas which uses floppy discs as for whatever purpose they are for?. No kidding on the tire drying heatup/proceedure.-I'm sure that helps those old cats. New idiots failing stuff, pinching ac lines as you stated, testing air diverter vales thinking they were egr valves-,that list is endless. Always have said need tsi after asm test, or the 240 im test-who listens?. Looking at tech's deviation history-would be a no brainer for those genius pr1 reps to run undercover cars on all those dummies who bypassed the 92 astros, previas, and other slightly evolved timing functional tests. Instead-they try to flex their "muscles" on a 50rpm deviation in testing results. All the lists go on and on. My opinion is to get rid if the cleanplugger hoodlums, crush their machines, and let the honest guys /gals compete against each other for the hard earned honest $.
I  can hardly wait for the caliber of new techs coming out of the Milton Bradley school of insta-smog techs.((I show no disrepect to the educators-just to the state for allowing this new nightmare to happen)
Thanks
Luke skywalker-star wars guy/gal.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

Banned
In reply to this post by Banned
I find the "granny gear" question an obvious one, but never addressed in my
neck of the woods. I would NOT consider the granny gear, as 1st, because you
typically do not use it in normal driving. It's only used under oddball
circumstances, not your average street driving. The verifications of the EVAP,
and/or testing has not been an issue. I have verified many systems with my
hand, where lines or canister(s) can't easily be seen, and not had to dismantle
anything for EVAP tests. We will run into problems where a large portion of
techs start testing nontestable vehicles, to get the extra EVAP test fees,
which I've already seen shops do. A good example is the early Lexus LS400. You
can hook up the tester WITHOUT pinching anything, and it will usually pass. So
you collect extra money, for a nontestable vehicle. We all know that the whole
EVAP test program was basically "thrown" together, and has many flaws.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCIP 1.5.1 states that during the MIL functional test, "the MIL should illuminate
in the KOER position and extinguish when the engine is started and in the KOER
position ... intermittent illumination (flash) during the ASM tests does not
constitute a MIL functional failure".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the points you brought up, here's a good example of policy written
by someone who never smogged anything. WE know that Cadillacs DO NOT illuminate
when the key is turned on, on many models. They illuminate while the starter is
cranking, and go off when it starts. I've occasionally seen the "synchronized"
lights you mentioned, but there is nothing mentioned that prohibits passing it
for this strange behavior. Good input, and more things to think about.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

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

Re: More useful info. . .

Moderator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Banned
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More useful info. . .

Banned
In reply to this post by Banned
I thought about this when they first proposed it. From previous
directives, they don't want the techs to be injured on the job,
and have it come back to them in the tune of 7 figure lawsuits.
CATs can be the hottest part of the whole car at times, so the
potential for a serious burn while inspecting is there. This
potential health risk cannot really be disputed. If any tech
felt that a more thorough exam could put them in harms way, what
will one of the accusers say? Your points are good, and here's
another case where experience is your best "out." We already
have similar problems when it comes to headers. Sometimes the
EO is plainly visible, and other times it's been buried under
powder coat, (which is an after the fact idea,) or originally
put in a totally invisible area. Sometimes the EO is not on the
part, but under the hood instead. Sometimes they are FACTORY
headers, and I know of no where that tells you how to distinguish
the difference. I can, but only because of a lot of vehicles in
my past. A good majority of CATs will easily be scrutinized, but
certainly not all.