So what is a 'Full Service History'?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Screenwash may save your life
Next: Is there some way of findng the best route from a to e together with the distance?
From: Brimstone on 15 Jun 2010 07:31 "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". History only exists on paper (or paper substitute). Even if the maintenance is incomplete, a history showing the entirety of what has been done, when and by who is still a "full service history".
From: Brimstone on 15 Jun 2010 07:32 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:87p660FpkU17(a)mid.individual.net... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >>>> This is the last service done under warranty. The car is thoroughly >>>> checked and a few warranty items are replaced. As the car was as good >>>> as new after this final warranty service > >>> Eh? It's now a 3yo, 30k mile car. The fact it has a full history does >>> not mean it's "as good as new". > >> Nothing to do with the service history, but the fact that all worn parts >> have been replaced under warranty, so from that respect the car is as >> good as new. > > Since when did a warranty cover normal wear & tear items? Never. It > covers manufacturing and material defects only. > >>>> He has a full record of all services and all work done, so there is no >>>> disputing that it is a full history of all services done, but as it >>>> does not exactly comply with the manufacturers recommended service >>>> interval, is this a "Full Service History" or not? Its certainly not a >>>> partial service history or plain "service history". > >>> It is not FSH. The car's servicing has been consistently lagging behind >>> the schedule for over half it's life. > >> But the service history is full - it might not have been all on schedule >> and might not comply with the manufacturer's recommendations, but the >> record history is full - as in nothing missing! > > See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the > servicing? From your description/definition, the paperwork.
From: boltar2003 on 15 Jun 2010 07:38 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:04:30 +0100 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >In what way is "A fitter is a highly skilled tradesman trained to make new >parts." not a simple statement of facts. http://www.yourdictionary.com/fitter fitter definition fit·ter (fit′ər) noun a person who fits; specif., 1. a person who alters or adjusts garments to fit 2. a person who installs or adjusts machinery, pipes, etc. No 2 sounds about right to me. Not sure where the "highly skilled" bit comes in. >>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. Well its motor vehicles we're talking about here this being uk.rec.driving. >Fitter work in all areas of engineering. They are the people who make >things. Outside of a few small scale manufacturers such as Caterham no one physically makes car parts any more. They're all made by machine. In fact that applies to most spheres of heavy engineering these days. B2003
From: Ret. on 15 Jun 2010 07:45 Brimstone wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:87p6a7FpkU19(a)mid.individual.net... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> >>>> Would you work on an aircraft without any of the required special >>>> tools, training or diagnostic equipment? >> >>> I strongly suspect that when Kev was working on aircraft, the only >>> diagnostic equipment were his eyes and ears along with the training >>> and experience he had acquired. What special tools were required on >>> aircraft during that period? >> >> He's not _that_ old... > > So what diagnostic equipment was in use on aircraft in the 1960s or > 1970s? (My guess at Kev's FAA service.) None that I ever used. -- Kev
From: Ret. on 15 Jun 2010 07:48
GT wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:87p5emFpkU16(a)mid.individual.net... >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >>>> It's about your friend who only occasionally got the car serviced >>>> - far less frequently than the interval - yet tried to claim that >>>> because there wasn't anything that wasn't written down, what >>>> little there was was a "full" service history. >>>> >>>> It's not. It's a partial history. >> >>> Can we discuss the word full versus the word complete please. In >>> this context I think it carries the same meaning. The meaning could >>> be different when referring to volume of something, but in the >>> context of a set of records I see full being the same as complete... >>> >>> 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. > > The term Full Service History can be emphasised in two ways: > 1. A "Full Service" History - documented proof that the vehicle has > been fully serviced. > 2. A Full "Service History" - complete documented proof of all > servicing in the vehicles history. > > As I see it, the problem is that neither version actually state > anything about timings nor whether the services are in accordance > with manufacturers service recommendations. The first one does imply > this, but doesn't say it - rather depends on interpretation of 'Full > Service'. In my experience, every second service is a full service, > the intermediate ones being a light service replacing fewer parts and > costing less. FSH is not a regulated term, so we are all just > throwing opinions around and not getting anywhere! Which goes right back to the heading I put on the thread, ie - what is a Full Service History!! -- Kev |