Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:44:50 -0400
Reply-To: Derek Drew <drew@INTERPORT.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Derek Drew <drew@INTERPORT.NET>
Subject: Joel/Posting Patterns/Vanagon Disease
In-Reply-To: <980420.124515.CDT.JWALKER@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
After sputtering out to mostly just the stats, Joel revs to life with a
helpful blast.
In the evolution of a typical list member, there is an initial high rate of
postings as the list member gets the hang of the list, but then the rate of
submission subsides to a much lower level as the list member tries to
re-integrate into a normal life.
For example, you can see Joel's bell curve of submission peaked in 1985 and
has been falling gradually ever since. There was a time when Joel was the
godfather of the list in terms of frequent posting and information.
Joel Walker, posts by year
1994 1995 1996 1997
704 679 347 212
Doubtless, part of the reason for Joel's diminishing contributions is that
he has said so much, he has pretty much disgorged it all. Another reason is
likely that in the early days, Joel focused on posting factory information.
But the quantity and quality of information from independent, mechanically
inclined types such as Tim Smith and Dennis Haynes has sort of eclipsed the
quantity and quality of information from the factory in the last year or
so, so factory bulletins no longer seem as precious as they used to.
But doubtless the reduced rate of posting is simply part of the natural
evolution of the posting disease. Take a look at Dennis Haynes'
contributions, for example.
1996 1997
443 139
Or, to be fair, we can examine *my* posting pattern (how embarrassing) and
see that we have:
1994 1995 1996 1997
156 157 57 57
Not revealed in these numbers is the *quality* of the posting content, a
critical issue for many of us. For example, there are posts that bring
groans to old hands on the list, such as a general query as to what kind of
spring cleaning/maintenance is good for Vanagon. The ones that really get
me mad are those that say merely, "I agree!" or "I never thought of that!"
without transmitting any actual information. (One could argue quite fairly,
in fact, that this post of mine is totally meritless and doesn't belong on
the list.)
Some day I'd like to see a ratio analysis of meat-to-volume in posts. The
question is whose meat levels are highest relative to the number of posts.
As I mentioned above, Tim Smith's has always seemed to have a good
meat-to-fluff ratio. I remember some excellent meat-to-fluff ratios from
Jim (Syncrohead) back when he was changing motors around. I read everything
John Anderson posts. Even the postings from Bob Hoover raised all our
eyebrows. On the other hand, you've got some other situations going as
well. We have list members that post whatever comes into their heads about
a problem, regardless of whether the information is important enough to get
into the archives. A query about a clunking noise in the front of the
vehicle yields a suggestion to check whether the battery is fastened down.
Possibly such suggestions would be better served off the list, meritorious
though they may be. Erik O gets a demerit for tricking us into looking at a
doctored photo of a shortened Vanagon by putting up the headline, "VW
Releases "mini" Vanagon Westfalia," thus tricking us into thinking there
might be a metal toy coming instead of a doctored photo of a shortened
Vanagon on his Website (granted he apologized). I also think somebody gets
a demerit for telling us not to copy VW copyright video factory sales or
training tapes. (We know it is a copyright violation technically, but screw
VW, there is no economic loss to our making copies of these things and it
wasts our time to even bring up the subject).
Part of the reason my postings are down is that I am so aware of the
meat-to-fluff ratio in postings that I am reluctant to post *anything*
unless it is sufficiently obscure or meaty. I feel like it is a privilege
to post and that everyone is judging me for taking up their valuable time.
For example, I typically won't post answers to innocent questions when I
know the answer is in the archives, simply because I don't want to repeat
good work, already done.
If I can salvage any reputation from posting this tangent to the list, I'll
try to do so: possibly this post will reduce the amount of idle
conversation on the list which lacks hard information, but that is only my
personal preference.
At 12:35 PM 4/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:45:32 -0700 you said:
>> Are the front shocks on a 86 Vanagon "McPherson? Has anyone
>>replaced them before. Of course someone has.
>
>not exactly ... they look sorta kinda like McPhersons, but they aren't
>exactly the same. yes, i've done them several times on several buses.
>
>> I've never done McPherson Struts before. Messing with big
>>springs sort of scares me. Are the McPhereson strut tools universal?
>
>you do NOT need to mess with the spring!! really. you can do it without
>ever taking the springs off. the trick is, you need a FLAT level place to
>do it, some jackstands, and a jack. you get the bus up on the jackstands
>(front end only), and get the wheel off. then loosen the one nut on top
>(you have to hold the shaft ... it has flattened sides ... to loosen the
>nut). then loosen the big nut on the big bolt at the bottom. don't take
>anything out just yet.
>
>now, put the jack under the lower a-arm (the bottom suspension part, under
>the spring), but keep the jack out of the way of the hole below the shock.
>jack up the lower a-arm a little bit. be careful ... you don't want to take
>the weight off the jackstands, you just want to compress the spring some.
>
>now remove the bottom shock bolt. the shock should (it might take some
>coaxing) fall out the hole in the lower a-arm. and you should be able to
>wiggle it out. watch where all the parts on the top of the shock go ...
>the dust cover and the rubber donut and such will need to go on the new
>shock.
>
>to get the new shock up into the hole easily, it helps to compress the
>shock a lot. then you can stick it all the way up and put the one nut on
>the top. now you'll need to extend the shock ... you can stick a screwdriver
>between the coils of the spring and pry the bottom shock-bolt-hole downward.
>takes a while, but it can be done and beats sticking your fingers through
>the spring coils!
>
>then coax the shock bottom into place to the holes in the lower a-arm and
>the holes in the shock line up, put the big bolt back in, and put the
>big nut on it. and tighten and torque everything up. this bottom part
>is usually the most time consuming ... the bottom of the new shock seems to
>never want to line up right (for me).
>
>hope it helps. :)
>joel
>
_____________________________________________________
Derek Drew New York, NY & Washington DC
ConsumerSearch
drew@interport.net
212-580-6486 (W)
212-580-4459 (H)
| 
