From: Adrian on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>> See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the
>> servicing?

> Important to who and in what context??

To a potential buyer of the car.

> This discussion is about the term Full Service History - the paper
> record of all servicing.

Hmm. So you're saying the paperwork is more important than the work it
documents?

> A full record of all work done to a car is the important bit

I would have said the work is more important.

> - a buyer needs to know when the timing belt, spark plugs
> etc were last replaced - in other words, when was the *last* service
> done.

Quite. The service without the paperwork carries value. The paperwork
merely demonstrates that value.

> In some respects the history of services is actually not too
> important - its simply an indicator as to whether the owner looked after
> the car or not.

Again, the work itself is the important factor. The paperwork is simply a
convenient way of demonstrating the work was carried out.
From: GT on
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87p69bFpkU18(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>>> A full history is a complete set of records. He has a record of all
>>>> services done on the car, in other words a complete or full service
>>>> history. There is nothing partial about it - a partial history is an
>>>> incomplete set of records. He is not missing any records in his
>>>> history of work done, he has a full service history.
>
>>> Go back a step. What's actually _important_ here?
>>>
>>> The paperwork? No. That merely serves as proof for the actual relevant
>>> factor - whether a full set of services have been carried out. They
>>> have not. The record shows that the car has not been fully serviced.
>
>> AIUI the car has been fully serviced, by the owner not a dealer.
>
> No - you're getting confuzzled with the change of topic in a sub-thread.
> The original query was that Kev's "friend" has had considerably less work
> done on the car than the schedule requests - but is considering that
> paperwork for all that work is all that's required to constitute FSH.
>
> In other words - "full paperwork", rather than "full maintenance".

And using the more relevant and common words, his 'full paperwork' documents
the "full service history" of the vehicle. The fact that the vehicle history
does not comply with manufacturers recommendations unfortunately does not
affect the term "full service history". I agree with everyone who would like
it to, but it doesn't!

As the service intervals and mileages are only recommendations, then they
are surely flexible anyway?


From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YYSdnblC37nj_orRnZ2dnUVZ7oKdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c17610e$0$6195$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:_ZydnaQT8ovdw4rRnZ2dnUVZ7rGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>
>>> <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
>>> news:hv7lcf$nq0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:27:27 +0100
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>If you didn't make such stupid responses to simple statements of fact
>>>>>then
>>>>>you wouldn't get the reactions that you do.
>>>>
>>>> Its not a statement of fact.
>>>
>>> In what way is "A fitter is a highly skilled tradesman trained to make
>>> new parts." not a simple statement of facts.
>>>
>>>>The word is used by most people to describe
>>>> a person who "fits" parts.
>>>
>>> Only in the context of motor vehicles. Most people are also aware that
>>> modern "mechanics" do not have the skills of their predecessors.
>>>
>>>>>Fitters don't/didn't work in tatty back street garages. As I said,
>>>>>they're
>>>>>highly trained tradesman/craftsman.
>>>>
>>>> So where do they work then? Do tell. Because they're certainly not down
>>>> at
>>>> any main dealers I've been to. Are they at the company HQs busily
>>>> designing
>>>> and building prototypes? No, that would be designers and engineers. Are
>>>> they on the production line perhaps bolting bits of car together then?
>>>>
>>> Fitter work in all areas of engineering. They are the people who make
>>> things.
>>
>> My twopenneth:
>>
>> A cleaner cleans things.
>> A driver drives things.
>> A manufacturer manufactuers things.
>> A parts engineer engineers parts.
>> A parts fitter fits parts.
>> A fitter doesn't make parts.
> You're wrong.
>
> http://www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/apprenticentre/detcms/apprenticeships-and-training/apprenticentre/program-descriptors/apprenticeships/metals-manufacturing-and-services/mechanical-fitter.en?oid=com.arsdigita.cms.contenttypes.ProgramDescriptor-id-323038

Another war of words! That link does indeed demonstrate that "mechanical
fitters" in some areas do make parts for machinery, but AIUI we're talking
about garage 'fitters', not mechanical fitters. my short phrase above didn't
clearly name these people, but this is who I was refering to as 'fitters' -
the people who fit exhausts, fan belts, batteries etc at local garages -
they certainly don't make the exhausts, belts, batteries etc in the garage,
then fit them. The order them from parts shops and fit them when they
arrive. Perhaps they should be called 'car part orderers, box openers and
fitters'!


From: GT on
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87p9qrFoq0U3(a)mid.individual.net...
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the
>>> servicing?
>
>> Important to who and in what context??
>
> To a potential buyer of the car.

Well, to a potential buyer of a car, I need to see what was done and when. I
can't lift the head off the engine and check seals and valves, so I need to
see it written down, so as a buyer I'm interested in the service history -
which documents the work that has been done!

>> This discussion is about the term Full Service History - the paper
>> record of all servicing.
>
> Hmm. So you're saying the paperwork is more important than the work it
> documents?

No, I'm saying that the paperwork shows that the work was done, something
which the average buyer would otherwise not be able to find out.

>> A full record of all work done to a car is the important bit
>
> I would have said the work is more important.

To the mechanical health of the car, yes, but to the buyer actually no! When
presented with a full historical service record, a buyer will pay more money
that a car that may have been serviced to a better standard and more often,
but without documentation, then that work was useless in respect of a sale.

In other words *unfortunately* a fake service history on a car that will
only run for another 6 months is actually more use than a fully serviced car
with no documentation!!


From: Adrian on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>>> AIUI the car has been fully serviced, by the owner not a dealer.

>> No - you're getting confuzzled with the change of topic in a
>> sub-thread. The original query was that Kev's "friend" has had
>> considerably less work done on the car than the schedule requests - but
>> is considering that paperwork for all that work is all that's required
>> to constitute FSH.
>>
>> In other words - "full paperwork", rather than "full maintenance".

> And using the more relevant and common words, his 'full paperwork'
> documents the "full service history" of the vehicle.

Quite the opposite. The "full paperwork" documents that the service
history is NOT full.

> The fact that the vehicle history does not comply with manufacturers
> recommendations unfortunately does not affect the term "full service
> history".

OK, so how WOULD you refer to such compliance?

> I agree with everyone who would like it to, but it doesn't!

Conventional usage certainly has it referring to such compliance.

> As the service intervals and mileages are only recommendations, then
> they are surely flexible anyway?

They are recommendations, yes, since there's no enforcement mechanism for
the manufacturer or regulatory body to withdraw operating permission from
an inadequately maintained vehicle (unlike aircraft).

But it's compliance with that recommendation that a service history would
demonstrate to be deemed "full".