On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, at around 15:19:05 local time, Fred Thomas
<vafred@erols.com> wrote:
>After so many yeras of ownership and so many times of rebuilding the same
>@#$%$# parts, or troubling shooting to Lucas @#$#@ parts, who needs a book
><g>, most could write just as good a manual as the Haynes anyway.
Everyone knows that the Haynes manuals are useless, but we all have
them. I tried to use one the other day when I was replacing the front
springs and shocks in my Spitfire. It told me to do a couple of things
that weren't necessary (remove front wheels); a couple of things that
weren't possible (drop the assembly down through the lower suspension
arms), and *nothing* that I actually needed to know, and therefore had
to work out by closely examining the old units (Should the two bushes on
the top of the shock absorber be separated by the cup at the top of the
whole assembly? At what angle to the three locating bolts should the
shock absorber eye be? How far should you compress the springs? How
much should you tighten the nuts on the top of the shock absorber? How
do you persuade the new eye, with its new bush, to squeeze into the
space designed for it without using a wrecking bar or lump hammer - or
both? How can you tell that your supplier has given you uprated
"performance" springs in place of the standard ones you ordered?)
My biggest complaint about the Haynes manuals, though, is about the
pictures. What possible use is a close-up shot of a nut, with no
context in the picture? Some of us need to be told where to find the
damn thing in the first place - otherwise we wouldn't have bought a
manual. And I am always particularly impressed when picture caption
terminology doesn't match that in the text - nice one!
ATB
--
Mike
Ellie - 1963 White Herald 1200 Convertible GA125624 CV
Connie - 1968 Conifer Herald 1200 Saloon GA237511 DL
Carly - 1977 Inca Yellow Spitfire 1500 FM105671
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|