Brake shake with freshly machined rotors?

On Jul 2, 11:12*pm, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > New
> > car prep does not include turning rotors, ever.
>
> Technically correct.

No, it's just plain old correct.

> A warranty repair order would be written to cover
> the repair. *But what would I know, I've only worked at 4 ferking
> dealerships in the last 30 years.

Apparently, how to forward non sequiturs.

> > In fact, many dealerships don't even have a ****ing brake lathe for
> > "service" these days...
>
> Hogwash. *GM certainly demands that rotors be resurfaced before they are
> replaced under warranty.

So... GM wouldn't want the defective rotor, and they require their
dealers to possess lathes for the unusual circumstance of a defective
rotor?

> > *and I'll bet your stupid ass will never guess
> > why, and your lazy ass won't call a dealer's service dept. and ask.
>
> Obviously, there is no answer to satisfy a condition that doesn't exist.

OK, you got one right, misapplied as it is.
-----

- gpsman

N8N wrote:
> On Jul 2, 12:14 pm, cavedweller > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 10:54 pm, gpsman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 3:29 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd suspected that the cause of this issue was because the car sat for
>>>> several months unused before I started driving it, so I just ASSumed
>>>> that the brake shake was due to rust buildup on the rotors (except of
>>>> course where the pads had sat, causing the rotors to wear unevenly when
>>>> the car was put back in service.)
>>>>
>>> Rust buildup on the rotors?
>>>
>>> Are you some new, special kind of idiot?
>>>
>>> Your tires are flat spotted, you ****ing "knowledgeable" moron.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> - gpsman
>>>
>> Well, actually, rust spotting under the pads is a common problem for
>> newly built vehicles that sit in prolonged storage before delivery,
>> especially when the storage yard is a mud wallow or an overgrown field
>> of weeds. Oh, wait...I'm only an un-knowledgeable moron that used to
>> build the ferking things.....
>>
>
> Don't try to confuse him with facts. the gpstroll is a bitter old
> (well, I'm presuming the old part) guy who's not real bright yet
> thinks he knows everything about everything. Personal experience etc.
> means nothing to him when it conflicts with his preconceived notions.
> And, of course, as you've probably figured out, he's taken an extreme
> dislike to me because I've pointed out that like some other posters
> (e.g. "Mike Hunt") his frequent spewings of misinformation, originally
> in RAD but now spread to other groups, have in the past prompted me to
> respond, and ever since he's been sniping at me wherever he can find
> my posts (and I presume a few other people as well, although I don't
> care enough to search for evidence.)
>
> In short, just ignore him and move on with your life. the world will
> be a better place.
>
> nate
>

Clearly a troll. Can you imagine the theoretical situation wherein you
knew so much more than everyone else that you felt compelled to argue
and belittle *everyone's* statements? What would be the payoff? I'll
stick to personal experience, knowledge, collaboration, and common sense
to help me understand mechanical issues, thank you. As for troll dolls
like GIRLMAN, I'll wait to have the conversation in person before I make
an effort to "respond" again. It's a good bet she wouldn't talk the
same way she types, at least not for long.

--
Toyota MDT in MO

On Jul 3, 12:38*pm, Toyota MDT in MO > wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> Oh, wait...I'm only an un-knowledgeable moron that used to
> >> build the ferking things.....
>
> > Don't try to confuse him with facts.

You wouldn't know a fact if someone tried to stick it up your ass.

> the gpstroll is a bitter old
> > (well, I'm presuming the old part) guy who's not real bright yet
> > thinks he knows everything about everything.

No, I've just spent my life as a student of many and various things,
so I know more than most, a lot more

> Personal experience etc.
> > means nothing to him when it conflicts with his preconceived notions.

Your personal experience seems mostly limited to what you've managed
to glean from TV. Your etc. from know-nothings on Usenet.

> > And, of course, as you've probably figured out, he's taken an extreme
> > dislike to me because I've pointed out that like some other posters
> > (e.g. "Mike Hunt") his frequent spewings of misinformation,

<spit take>

I dislike you because you are a liar and fraud, and pretty poor at
concealing your shamelessness.

My "misinformation" isn't even mine, numbskull. It's what I have
learned through formal study and informal research of the studies and
conclusions experts in their fields.

You just make **** up, cite ancient inapplicable research (when you
cite at all) and, as you have previously demonstrated in this thread,
you can't even ****ing read at the 3rd grade level.

> > In short, just ignore him and move on with your life. *the world will
> > be a better place.
>
> > nate
>
> Clearly a troll.

Right. Those who present rational argument and kick the living ****
out of morons are "trolls".

> Can you imagine the theoretical situation wherein you
> knew so much more than everyone else that you felt compelled to argue
> and belittle *everyone's* statements?

Ah... the ol' absolute statement, and, of course, clearly false.

> What would be the payoff?

Entertainment. Abusing Usenet dimwits is a hobby, and quite
satisfying.

> I'll
> stick to personal experience, knowledge, collaboration, and common sense
> to help me understand mechanical issues, thank you. *As for troll dolls
> like GIRLMAN, I'll wait to have the conversation in person before I make
> an effort to "respond" again. *It's a good bet she wouldn't talk the
> same way she types, at least not for long.

I have never met morons who would venture to say aloud what they write
on Usenet.

Usenet provides an audience made up of mostly morons, so there's
plenty of morons to agree and/or attempt to collectively shout down
more reasoned and knowledgeable perspectives.

Nate can tell you, it doesn't work with this "troll".
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> > Hogwash. *GM certainly demands that rotors be resurfaced before they are
> > replaced under warranty.
>
> So... GM wouldn't want the defective rotor,

To do what, make a coffee table base out of it?
What in your mind makes the rotor "defective?"
Because it is no longer in specification?

> and they require their
> dealers to possess lathes for the unusual circumstance of a defective
> rotor?

They require their dealers -service departments- to have lathes so that
brake drums and brake rotors can be machined back into tolerance.

> > > *and I'll bet your stupid ass will never guess
> > > why, and your lazy ass won't call a dealer's service dept. and ask.
> >
> > Obviously, there is no answer to satisfy a condition that doesn't exist.
>
> OK, you got one right, misapplied as it is.

It's not misapplied, you just don't know as much as you think you do.

gpsman <gpsman @ driversmail.com> wrote in news:396d3618-a8a6-4819-a6e9-
:

> On Jul 2, 11:12*pm, aarcuda69062 <nonelson @ sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>>
>> *gpsman <gpsman @ driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > New car prep does not include turning rotors, ever.
>>
>> Technically correct.
>
> No, it's just plain old correct.



What if the new vehicle in question sat around for a few months before
being sold? Ever seen how much rust can accumulate in that time? Being in
Cincinnati, you should know about winter's damage.



--
Tegger