On 9/10/2021 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:

> Whether Brasso has changed it's formula and/or is no longer an effective
> metal polish has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of polishing
> polycarbonate headlights. Brasso may or may not be effective at
> polishing metal these days and I couldn't tell you as I don't use it for
> that. However what I *can* tell you is that the current liquid variety
> is *very* effective as a plastic polish, and unlike the FLC loudmouths
> doing all the irrelevant screaming I can tell you that from experience :)
>
> They really don't need any help in making themselves look like utter
> spastics, do they? :)

Lots of products, inc Brasso will do the job. I'd imagine so would
Silvo. And several hand cleaners too. Depends on how hard you want to
rub, and how long your prepared to work at it. Mate across the road
sells second hand parts, and is forever coming over and "can i have a
bit of spit and polish" The stuff I use to trick up fibreglass flowcoat
is the same/similar to this:
https://sydneytools.com.au/product/3m-as010623457-865ml-fast-cut-plus-extreme?gclid=Cj0KCQjw-4SLBhCVARIsACrhWLVFKC7Tao-1sqmxQlw2cGTusN6-KAiRTdY2OGcbsVI7l01PgWUnu8gaAj3yEALw_wcB
I believe the guy who detailed my navara used similar, and the
headlights looked new. If your selling a car and need your headlights
cleaned up, then it's fine. So is anything mildly abrasive, inc Brasso
(with the tin lid!). I think Jonz mentioned Jif. Maybe a bit harsh,
(it'll be quick!) but i dont see an issue with that. If it cleans 'em ,
then jobs done. Maybe do it again in 2-3 years time? So what?

On 9/10/2021 12:15 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 2:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/10/21 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> If that's the standard of work that "licensed" dealer "technicians"
>>>> do then I pity car owners who take their car to dealerships for
>>>> anything more than a basic service.
>>>
>>> Yep. They employ automatons who aren't capable of independent thought,
>>
>> Also the system doesn't allow them to have independent thoughts, its
>> do it their way or you are out the door, either way its not a good
>> result for the customer.
>> Not allowed to repair, only allowed to replace.
>> Bit like the problem with the WRX AC, problem was the gap in the AC
>> compressor clutch was out of spec but they couldn't even find any
>> problem, undo one 10mm bolt, remove a shim so the gap is now within
>> spec and problem fixed but despite looking at it 3 times they couldn't
>> even find a fault let alone fix it.
>> The fault is as much to do with car maker mandated systems that
>> dealers must follow as it is with individuals.
>
> It's a complex problem which is not helped by the fact that dealership
> service departments are designed to make as much money as can be
> achieved by turning over as many quick "in and out" service jobs per day
> as possible.
>
> When I was the service manager for a Honda dealership years ago

Oh god not this fantasy BS again...

You're not fooling anyone you deluded fraud.

On 9/10/2021 3:39 pm, Xeno wrote:

> The mechanics in all dealerships I worked in

How many tomas? 3?. 8?. 39?. You had 6 jobs in 8 years , wasn't it, shit
fer brains?
>

On 9/10/21 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 9/10/21 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be
>>>>>>> second to none
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight
>>>>> how clueless he actually is :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in
>>>>>> Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about
>>>>>> as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
>>>>>> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that.
>>>>>> They threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the
>>>>>> Australians who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of
>>>>> stuff rather than repair it because they have precious few people
>>>>> who can actually repair anything.
>>>>>
>>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak of.
>>>> They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the underlying
>>>> theory of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>>
>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US
>>> army would be second to none"?
>>
>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit product
>> oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>> electrical very well.
>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My diesel
>> training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types of fuel
>> systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of governors. Even
>> included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all types of pumps
>> and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are Aussies
>> and Poms.
>
> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".
>

His point 5 is a WTF, Chamberlain John Deere only existed in Australia
and production of Chamberlain tractors ceased in 1986 so I don't know
what their "excellent training regimes" has to do with the training of
US or any other mechanics.
From 1970 to 1977 I worked for a Chamberlain tractor dealer and not
once did I see or hear of any Chamberlain tractor specific training,
apart from trade school 99% of my training was on the job, I remember
doing a 2 day in house course on Hitachi excavators but that's it, the
rest I learned from the experienced mechanics I worked with.

--
Daryl

On 9/10/21 6:08 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 15:05:47 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be second
>>>>>> to none
>>>>>
>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight how
>>>> clueless he actually is :)
>>>>
>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in Vietnam,
>>>>> their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about as low as it
>>>>> gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one engine, one gun,
>>>>> one radio and were totally lost outside of that. They threw stuff
>>>>> away rather than fix it, which was gold to the Australians who were
>>>>> long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>
>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of stuff
>>>> rather than repair it because they have precious few people who can
>>>> actually repair anything.
>>>>
>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak of.
>>> They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the underlying theory
>>> of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>
>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US army
>> would be second to none"?
>
> Newsflash keith. There are tradespeople in America who *aren't* in the
> armed forces.
>
Yeah, I would have thought that quite obvious.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/21 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>
>
>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be second to
>> none
>
> You must be joking, I've known a whole lot of people who were with the
> Yanks in Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are
> about as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that. They
> threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the Australians
> who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.

Two thirds of the US soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers. IOW, the
majority were short termers, not regular career soldiers. As such, these
men were not given in depth training as mechanics and the like. Most
would be lucky to get 6 months of Corps Training. Not a lot different to
the Aussie conscripts actually. That's why those soldiers were trained
on a very limited range of equipment, typically just the equipment they
were assigned to or carried. A regular soldier in the US gets trained on
a much broader spectrum of equipment and gets much more experience over
a longer period of time. Again, no different to regulars in the
Australian army.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/21 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 9/10/21 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be
>>>>>>> second to none
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight
>>>>> how clueless he actually is :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in
>>>>>> Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about
>>>>>> as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
>>>>>> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that.
>>>>>> They threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the
>>>>>> Australians who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of
>>>>> stuff rather than repair it because they have precious few people
>>>>> who can actually repair anything.
>>>>>
>>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak of.
>>>> They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the underlying
>>>> theory of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>>
>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US
>>> army would be second to none"?
>>
>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit product
>> oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>> electrical very well.
>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My diesel
>> training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types of fuel
>> systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of governors. Even
>> included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all types of pumps
>> and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are Aussies
>> and Poms.
>
> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".
>
The US army, and the Australian army, have very extensive training
regimes for *regular soldiers*. The Australian Army has an Army
Apprentice Training School currently near Wodonga but used to be a
Balcombe. Actually, the school is the main logistics training school
(ALTC-Bandiana) but the apprentices are trained at Latchford Barracks
(Bonegilla). The only difference between the US and Australia is that
the US doesn't have apprentices. The difference between army apprentices
and general army trainees - they sign up at a younger age. In the
Australian army, you can still become a mechanic without being an
apprentice but the sign on is longer. One of my friends from my home
town did his mechanic training in the regular army and he is, I am told,
very good at his craft. The US trade training for *regular soldiers* is
as extensive as the Australian army trade training.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/2021 11:46 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 1:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 9:45 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2021 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whether Brasso has changed it's formula and/or is no longer an
>>>> effective metal polish has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic
>>>> of polishing polycarbonate headlights. Brasso may or may not be
>>>> effective at polishing metal these days and I couldn't tell you as I
>>>> don't use it for that. However what I *can* tell you is that the
>>>> current liquid variety is *very* effective as a plastic polish, and
>>>> unlike the FLC loudmouths doing all the irrelevant screaming I can
>>>> tell you that from experience :)
>>>>
>>>> They really don't need any help in making themselves look like utter
>>>> spastics, do they? :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> nothing could be more stupid than someone who blocks posters, cos he
>>> says he doesn't care what they say, then asks his lacky to post what
>>> they've said cos he wants to know what was said, but can't see it cos
>>> he has them blocked! as you did in your last post lol. what could be
>>> more stupid than that!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Completely right, jonzie is just too dumb to see he's being used as
>> his pawn. But back to his claim that the new Brasso works on
>> headlights... if you're *sanding* you should wet sand. The new Brasso
>> is as effective as water in that application.
>>
>> He's clueless as always and completely wrong on the effectiveness of
>> Brasso.
>>
>
> yes we can never believe anything he says so why would we believe.. "..
> the current liquid variety is *very* effective as a plastic polish, I
> can tell you that from experience".
>

It's not marketed as a plastic polish anyway, it's a metal polish but in
any event it's completely ineffective now.

Water would work just as well for wet sanding.

On 9/10/21 6:52 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/10/21 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 9/10/21 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be
>>>>>>>> second to none
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight
>>>>>> how clueless he actually is :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in
>>>>>>> Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about
>>>>>>> as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
>>>>>>> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that.
>>>>>>> They threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the
>>>>>>> Australians who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of
>>>>>> stuff rather than repair it because they have precious few people
>>>>>> who can actually repair anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak
>>>>> of. They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the
>>>>> underlying theory of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US
>>>> army would be second to none"?
>>>
>>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit
>>> product oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>>> electrical very well.
>>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My
>>> diesel training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types
>>> of fuel systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of
>>> governors. Even included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all
>>> types of pumps and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are
>>> Aussies and Poms.
>>
>> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
>> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".
>>
>
> His point 5 is a WTF, Chamberlain John Deere only existed in Australia
> and production of Chamberlain tractors ceased in 1986 so I don't know
> what their "excellent training regimes" has to do with the training of
> US or any other mechanics.

I was referring to the US training material that Chamberlain John Deere
created for US use. I obtained and used some of it when I was developing
learning resources at Richmond. Still have some here, mainly the
hydraulics topics.

> From 1970 to 1977 I worked for a Chamberlain tractor dealer and not
> once did I see or hear of any Chamberlain tractor specific training,
> apart from trade school 99% of my training was on the job, I remember

Then you weren't considered a technician nor were you considered worthy
of upskilling to technician level. You proved that presumption correct
when you became a cleaner. I'm guessing you didn't get to be enrolled as
a *Registered Ford Technician* either.

> doing a 2 day in house course on Hitachi excavators but that's it, the
> rest I learned from the experienced mechanics I worked with.
>
That's the whole idea of an apprenticeship, you learn from your mentors.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/2021 4:12 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/10/21 6:08 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 15:05:47 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be second
>>>>>>> to none
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight how
>>>>> clueless he actually is :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in Vietnam,
>>>>>> their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about as low as it
>>>>>> gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one engine, one gun,
>>>>>> one radio and were totally lost outside of that. They threw stuff
>>>>>> away rather than fix it, which was gold to the Australians who were
>>>>>> long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of stuff
>>>>> rather than repair it because they have precious few people who can
>>>>> actually repair anything.
>>>>>
>>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak of.
>>>> They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the underlying theory
>>>> of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>>
>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US army
>>> would be second to none"?
>>
>> Newsflash keith. There are tradespeople in America who *aren't* in the
>> armed forces.
>>
> Yeah, I would have thought that quite obvious.
>
>

Not obvious enough to paradox Keith evidently ;-)

On 9/10/2021 7:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/10/21 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 9/10/21 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be
>>>>>>>> second to none
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight
>>>>>> how clueless he actually is :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in
>>>>>>> Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about
>>>>>>> as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
>>>>>>> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that.
>>>>>>> They threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the
>>>>>>> Australians who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of
>>>>>> stuff rather than repair it because they have precious few people
>>>>>> who can actually repair anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak
>>>>> of. They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the
>>>>> underlying theory of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US
>>>> army would be second to none"?
>>>
>>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit
>>> product oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>>> electrical very well.
>>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My
>>> diesel training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types
>>> of fuel systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of
>>> governors. Even included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all
>>> types of pumps and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are
>>> Aussies and Poms.
>>
>> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
>> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".
>>
> The US army, and the Australian army, have very extensive training
> regimes for *regular soldiers*. The Australian Army has an Army
> Apprentice Training School currently near Wodonga but used to be a
> Balcombe. Actually, the school is the main logistics training school
> (ALTC-Bandiana) but the apprentices are trained at Latchford Barracks
> (Bonegilla). The only difference between the US and Australia is that
> the US doesn't have apprentices. The difference between army apprentices
> and general army trainees - they sign up at a younger age. In the
> Australian army, you can still become a mechanic without being an
> apprentice but the sign on is longer. One of my friends from my home
> town did his mechanic training in the regular army and he is, I am told,
> very good at his craft. The US trade training for *regular soldiers* is
> as extensive as the Australian army trade training.
>
Whatever - you're wrong but I can't be bothered to keep up this
pointless argument.

On 9/10/2021 6:12 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/10/21 6:08 pm, alvey wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 15:05:47 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2021 3:01 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/21 3:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2021 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be second
>>>>>>> to none
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be joking,
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet you he's deadly serious, which only serves to highlight how
>>>>> clueless he actually is :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've known a whole lot of people who were with the Yanks in Vietnam,
>>>>>> their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are about as low as it
>>>>>> gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one engine, one gun,
>>>>>> one radio and were totally lost outside of that. They threw stuff
>>>>>> away rather than fix it, which was gold to the Australians who were
>>>>>> long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heard similar stories from people. Americans tend to dispose of stuff
>>>>> rather than repair it because they have precious few people who can
>>>>> actually repair anything.
>>>>>
>>>> That's because they don't have an apprenticeship system to speak of.
>>>> They all like you - no clear cut understanding of the underlying theory
>>>> of operation so cockups are frequent.
>>>
>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US army
>>> would be second to none"?
>>
>> Newsflash keith. There are tradespeople in America who *aren't* in the
>> armed forces.
>>
> Yeah, I would have thought that quite obvious.

Correct but totally irrelevant, but then so it alvey,

On 9/10/2021 6:30 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/10/21 2:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be second
>>> to none
>>
>> You must be joking, I've known a whole lot of people who were with the
>> Yanks in Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are
>> about as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
>> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that. They
>> threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the Australians
>> who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.
>
> Two thirds of the US soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers. IOW, the
> majority were short termers, not regular career soldiers. As such, these
> men were not given in depth training as mechanics and the like. Most
> would be lucky to get 6 months of Corps Training. Not a lot different to
> the Aussie conscripts actually. That's why those soldiers were trained
> on a very limited range of equipment, typically just the equipment they
> were assigned to or carried. A regular soldier in the US gets trained on
> a much broader spectrum of equipment and gets much more experience over
> a longer period of time. Again, no different to regulars in the
> Australian army.
>
That is not what I've been told by people who have first hand experience.

On 9/10/2021 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:

>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US
>>> army would be second to none"?
>>
>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit product
>> oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>> electrical very well.
>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My diesel
>> training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types of fuel
>> systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of governors. Even
>> included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all types of pumps
>> and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are Aussies
>> and Poms.
>
> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".

You're catching on to his technique of making *lots* of irrelevant
noise. Better watch yourself :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/2021 6:52 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/10/21 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:

>>>
>>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit
>>> product oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>>> electrical very well.
>>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My
>>> diesel training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types
>>> of fuel systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of
>>> governors. Even included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all
>>> types of pumps and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are
>>> Aussies and Poms.
>>
>> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
>> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".
>>
>
> His point 5 is a WTF, Chamberlain John Deere only existed in Australia
> and production of Chamberlain tractors ceased in 1986 so I don't know
> what their "excellent training regimes" has to do with the training of
> US or any other mechanics.

Like everything else he's mentioned, absolutely fuck nothing.

This is his stock in trade. Making lots of completely irrelevant noise
in the hope that _some_ people will be impressed by the nonsense he
screams and he won't come away looking like the totally clueless fucking
*dickhead* that he is.

The only people around here who will be buying any of this utter
bullshit will be Felix and Alvey, and that's because they're both too
stupid to tell the difference between night and day. Everyone else will
just be pissing themselves laughing at how ridiculous this cunt can be :)

> From 1970 to 1977 I worked for a Chamberlain tractor dealer and not
> once did I see or hear of any Chamberlain tractor specific training,
> apart from trade school 99% of my training was on the job, I remember
> doing a 2 day in house course on Hitachi excavators but that's it, the
> rest I learned from the experienced mechanics I worked with.

There you go. First hand practical experience that shows Clasener up to
be an A grade shit talker.

But then we all knew that....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/2021 8:20 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 7:06 pm, Xeno wrote:

>>>
>> The US army, and the Australian army, have very extensive training
>> regimes for *regular soldiers*. The Australian Army has an Army
>> Apprentice Training School currently near Wodonga but used to be a
>> Balcombe. Actually, the school is the main logistics training school
>> (ALTC-Bandiana) but the apprentices are trained at Latchford Barracks
>> (Bonegilla). The only difference between the US and Australia is that
>> the US doesn't have apprentices. The difference between army
>> apprentices and general army trainees - they sign up at a younger age.
>> In the Australian army, you can still become a mechanic without being
>> an apprentice but the sign on is longer. One of my friends from my
>> home town did his mechanic training in the regular army and he is, I
>> am told, very good at his craft. The US trade training for *regular
>> soldiers* is as extensive as the Australian army trade training.
>>
> Whatever - you're wrong but I can't be bothered to keep up this
> pointless argument.

And this is how it goes. You see, in his mind he has won this argument
even though he is completely wrong and made himself look like a total
cock. None of that matters as you've given up and he chalks that up as a
"victory". He just totally ignores the fact that it's completely pyrrhic
and all he's managed to show is how ridiculous he's prepared to make
himself look in order to think he's "right".

He does it *all* the time, including the rolling out of conveniently
placed "friends" just like he's done here :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/21 6:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/10/2021 10:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>> Been watching "Car Wizard" videos on Youtube, his most recent video
>>> is about a small Buick that had been to a dealership 4 times for the
>>> same problems, check engine light on, engine temp all over the place
>>> and the alternator light was on sometimes.
>>> Dealer changed the engine oil and the serpentine belt and said it was
>>> fixed, turned out the fault was a faulty thermostat and a bad battery
>>> but the dealer could neither find the faults or fix them.
>>> That is just one of hundreds of horror car dealer stories on the
>>> internet.
>>> If that's the standard of work that "licensed" dealer "technicians"
>>> do then I pity car owners who take their car to dealerships for
>>> anything more than a basic service.
>>>
>> Years ago I had an 1800. It started backfiring so I took it to the
>> local BMC dealer. Picked it up that evening still backfiring was told
>> to bring it back Monday for further diagnosis. I decided to have a
>> look myself, it took about 5 minutes to find that the rubber pipe from
>> the PCV valve to the inlet manifold had perished. Never went back
>> there again.
>
>
> They most likely never even looked at it that day.

With an air leak on that hose sufficient to cause a backfire, it should
have idled like a bag of shit, if it idled at all and maybe even have
had a high idle. The backfire would have been caused by enleanment on
one or more cylinders. Should have been easy to diagnose such a fault
with a vacuum gauge and possibly a stethescope/rubber hose. Actually,
with an SU carb, it's a matter of seconds to diagnose a lean condition.
Just lift the piston on the SU while the engine is idling. If the engine
revs die, she's too lean.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/21 5:43 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:59:12 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2021 8:19 am, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>> The training regime for tradespeople in the US army would be
>>> second to none
>>
>> You must be joking, I've known a whole lot of people who were with the
>> Yanks in Vietnam, their opinions of the skills of US maintainers are
>> about as low as it gets. Basically they were trained on one thing, one
>> engine, one gun, one radio and were totally lost outside of that. They
>> threw stuff away rather than fix it, which was gold to the Australians
>> who were long on fixing skills but short on supplies.

I made a point in another post whereby I explained why it would be best
not to rely on the US Vietnam volunteer experience as a determinant of
military trade skills.
>
> Overheard in the playground today, "My experience is bigger than your
> experience! Nyahhh nyahh."
>
Isn't it a pity their thinking doesn't match the grandiosity of their
claims.
>
>
> alvey
> Noting that the Yanks left/fled Vietnam nearly 50 years ago.
>

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/2021 12:39 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/10/21 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 8/10/2021 11:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 8/10/21 11:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> I'll bet the fine people of Western Australia are beside themselves
>>>> with excitement at the fact that Automotive Tradespeople are
>>>> Licensed, because if this completely clueless wankstain is any
>>>> indicator of the level of competency required to meets the licensing
>>>> approval "standard" then they must have had some *real* fucking
>>>> munts in the trade that needed "weeding out" :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Been watching "Car Wizard" videos on Youtube, his most recent video
>>> is about a small Buick that had been to a dealership 4 times for the
>>> same problems, check engine light on, engine temp all over the place
>>> and the alternator light was on sometimes.
>>> Dealer changed the engine oil and the serpentine belt and said it was
>>> fixed, turned out the fault was a faulty thermostat and a bad battery
>>> but the dealer could neither find the faults or fix them. > That is
>>> just one of hundreds of horror car dealer stories on the
>> internet.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised by that?
>>
>> The history of the dealership service world is one of incompetence, of
>> gouging, and of customers being treated like mugs. They are the very
>> worst place you can ever take your car to be repaired.
>>
>>> If that's the standard of work that "licensed" dealer "technicians"
>>> do then I pity car owners who take their car to dealerships for
>>> anything more than a basic service.
>>
>> Yep. They employ automatons who aren't capable of independent thought,
>> but then they don't need to be as they're part of the sausage machine
>> running cars trough for oil and filters all day long and not ever
>> dealing with anything more complicated than that.
>
> The mechanics in all dealerships I worked in didn't do the lube jockey
> work. They employed minimal skills people, like you, to do that low
> level stuff. Unlike you, I have actually worked in dealerships and know
> what goes on in them.

Yep, T/A's did the high volume run of the mill stuff like servicing,
techs were fixing cars. Not to say techs didn't do servicing when
required but that wasn't their primary role.

I can vouch for that being the case at Holden, Daihatsu, Subaru, Suzuki,
BMW, Toyota and Honda from first hand experience.

On 9/10/2021 6:43 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/10/21 6:17 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 11:53 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2021 10:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Been watching "Car Wizard" videos on Youtube, his most recent video
>>>> is about a small Buick that had been to a dealership 4 times for the
>>>> same problems, check engine light on, engine temp all over the place
>>>> and the alternator light was on sometimes.
>>>> Dealer changed the engine oil and the serpentine belt and said it
>>>> was fixed, turned out the fault was a faulty thermostat and a bad
>>>> battery but the dealer could neither find the faults or fix them.
>>>> That is just one of hundreds of horror car dealer stories on the
>>>> internet.
>>>> If that's the standard of work that "licensed" dealer "technicians"
>>>> do then I pity car owners who take their car to dealerships for
>>>> anything more than a basic service.
>>>>
>>> Years ago I had an 1800. It started backfiring so I took it to the
>>> local BMC dealer. Picked it up that evening still backfiring was told
>>> to bring it back Monday for further diagnosis. I decided to have a
>>> look myself, it took about 5 minutes to find that the rubber pipe
>>> from the PCV valve to the inlet manifold had perished. Never went
>>> back there again.
>>
>>
>> They most likely never even looked at it that day.
>
> With an air leak on that hose sufficient to cause a backfire, it should
> have idled like a bag of shit, if it idled at all and maybe even have
> had a high idle. The backfire would have been caused by enleanment on
> one or more cylinders. Should have been easy to diagnose such a fault
> with a vacuum gauge and possibly a stethescope/rubber hose. Actually,
> with an SU carb, it's a matter of seconds to diagnose a lean condition.
> Just lift the piston on the SU while the engine is idling. If the engine
> revs die, she's too lean.
>

Which suggests it never made it into the shop to get looked at.

On 9/10/2021 6:40 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>> Whether Brasso has changed it's formula and/or is no longer an
>> effective metal polish has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of
>> polishing polycarbonate headlights. Brasso may or may not be effective
>> at polishing metal these days and I couldn't tell you as I don't use
>> it for that. However what I *can* tell you is that the current liquid
>> variety is *very* effective as a plastic polish, and unlike the FLC
>> loudmouths doing all the irrelevant screaming I can tell you that from
>> experience :)
>>
>> They really don't need any help in making themselves look like utter
>> spastics, do they? :)
>
> Lots of products, inc Brasso will do the job. I'd imagine so would
> Silvo. And several hand cleaners too. Depends on how hard you want to
> rub, and how long your prepared to work at it. Mate across the road
> sells second hand parts, and is forever coming over and "can i have a
> bit of spit and polish" The stuff I use to trick up fibreglass flowcoat
> is the same/similar to this:
> https://sydneytools.com.au/product/3m-as010623457-865ml-fast-cut-plus-extreme?gclid=Cj0KCQjw-4SLBhCVARIsACrhWLVFKC7Tao-1sqmxQlw2cGTusN6-KAiRTdY2OGcbsVI7l01PgWUnu8gaAj3yEALw_wcB
> I believe the guy who detailed my navara used similar, and the
> headlights looked new. If your selling a car and need your headlights
> cleaned up, then it's fine. So is anything mildly abrasive, inc Brasso
> (with the tin lid!). I think Jonz mentioned Jif. Maybe a bit harsh,
> (it'll be quick!) but i dont see an issue with that. If it cleans 'em ,
> then jobs done. Maybe do it again in 2-3 years time? So what?
I use Brasso because it's easy and cheap, and the fact that it's a
liquid makes it easier. For polishing plastics like Headlights I use a 2
inch pneumatic orbital with a velcro interface pad and 3000g discs, and
then polish with a foam pad and Brasso. Works a treat, does the job in a
matter of minutes, and the liquid Brasso helps with heat were I've found
some paste type cutting compounds can get quite hot very quickly.

Farcela G3 Liquid is excellent, but you have to use a water spray bottle
to cool the surface if polishing with a machine.

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/2021 4:37 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/10/21 3:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 10:57 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:

>>> your ignorance is showing. https://www.productreview.com.au/ is the
>>> most authoritative site for getting info and opinions about products
>>> from consumers. ie. ppl who actually use them. I have done reviews
>>> myself. that's the first point. secondly, if most ppl ie. the vast
>>> majority, are saying a product is crap, what are the chances that it
>>> is? here's a clue.. 99.99% certainty it is!
>>
>> And how many reviews are actually from ordinary people and not shills
>> for the manufacturers?
>
>
> Those reviews are from people using it to polish metal, nothing there
> about using it to polish plastic headlamps.

Fucking Felix. He'd get confused by his own shadow :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/2021 6:46 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 3:39 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>> The mechanics in all dealerships I worked in
>
> How many tomas? 3?. 8?. 39?. You had 6 jobs in 8 years , wasn't it, shit
> fer brains?

His "Journeyman" period, wasn't it? I thought it was 8 jobs in 6 years.
Either way, I would think about the only "learning" he did in that time
was discovering that everyone thought he was a useless no-nothing cunt
who couldn't carry himself and he got shown the door.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/10/21 8:15 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 11:46 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 1:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2021 9:45 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2021 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether Brasso has changed it's formula and/or is no longer an
>>>>> effective metal polish has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic
>>>>> of polishing polycarbonate headlights. Brasso may or may not be
>>>>> effective at polishing metal these days and I couldn't tell you as
>>>>> I don't use it for that. However what I *can* tell you is that the
>>>>> current liquid variety is *very* effective as a plastic polish, and
>>>>> unlike the FLC loudmouths doing all the irrelevant screaming I can
>>>>> tell you that from experience :)
>>>>>
>>>>> They really don't need any help in making themselves look like
>>>>> utter spastics, do they? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> nothing could be more stupid than someone who blocks posters, cos he
>>>> says he doesn't care what they say, then asks his lacky to post what
>>>> they've said cos he wants to know what was said, but can't see it
>>>> cos he has them blocked! as you did in your last post lol. what
>>>> could be more stupid than that!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Completely right, jonzie is just too dumb to see he's being used as
>>> his pawn. But back to his claim that the new Brasso works on
>>> headlights... if you're *sanding* you should wet sand. The new Brasso
>>> is as effective as water in that application.
>>>
>>> He's clueless as always and completely wrong on the effectiveness of
>>> Brasso.
>>>
>>
>> yes we can never believe anything he says so why would we believe..
>> ".. the current liquid variety is *very* effective as a plastic
>> polish, I can tell you that from experience".
>>
>
>
> It's not marketed as a plastic polish anyway, it's a metal polish but in
> any event it's completely ineffective now.
>
> Water would work just as well for wet sanding.

You would have to question why you wouldn't simply buy a polish designed
for the task at hand, one that you *know* isn't going to damage the
polycarbonate in any way. After all, Brasso has an acid as at least one
of its components.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/10/21 9:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/10/2021 4:00 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> Didn't you just say "The training regime for tradespeople in the US
>>>> army would be second to none"?
>>>
>>> Point 1, the army training scheme is not an apprenticeship.
>>> Point 2, most *mechanics* in the US just learn *on the job* with
>>> typically no formal training and no apprenticeship as we know it.
>>> Point 3, Some mechanics sign up for courses at private tech colleges.
>>> Point 4, not every mechanic in the US does their mechanical training
>>> in the army. In fact *most* don't.
>>> Point 5, some companies, ie. Chamberlain John Deere, have excellent
>>> training regimes, including in-depth resource material, albeit
>>> product oriented. Used them myself for developing learning resources.
>>> Point 6, army mechanic training resource materials are *very*
>>> comprehensive and cover basic principles such as hydraulics and
>>> electrical very well.
>>> Point 7, If you are OS working in oil or mining, you will find
>>> mechanics from Australia and the UK in abundance. This is because
>>> mechanics who have done a full apprenticeship are much more flexible
>>> than US mechanics who are much more vertically specialised.
>>> Point 8, That US specialisation can be extreme. Ie. a mechanic
>>> specialised on Cummins may not be able to work on GM diesels because
>>> their training only involved a 6 or 12 week course only on the one
>>> engine type and was not readily transferable to other types. My
>>> diesel training, OTOH, covered all types of diesel engines, all types
>>> of fuel systems, all forms of supercharging and all types of
>>> governors. Even included *overhaul*, *testing* and calibration of all
>>> types of pumps and injector systems. Very comprehensive.
>>> Point 9, Because of point 8, most diesel mechanics on rigs are
>>> Aussies and Poms.
>>
>> Very interesting but nothing to do with "The training regime for
>> tradespeople in the US army would be second to none".
>
> You're catching on to his technique of making *lots* of irrelevant
> noise. Better watch yourself :)
>
You, my dear fellow, are the *King of Irrelevant Noise* in a cars group
and a liar (proven) to boot.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)