RE: Quiz

[Todd Phenneger <phen9461@uidaho.edu>]

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Phil Payne wrote:
> In message <3630312B.2E512EAA@uidaho.edu> Todd Phenneger writes:
> > Uhh,    "Because they get better with Age"   would be the reasonable
> > answer for the wine. Wasn't aware this held true with Audi Shocks
> > though. !?  Not disputing but can you explain your quiz.  Whats your
> > point.
> 
> No - it's because they need to be turned periodically in storage.

	Ahhh.  Yes, that makes much more sense.  Didn't even think of that
one.  

> The issue arose during a discussion of the defective brake servo
> pressure switch (made in 1991) that Audi shipped me a month of so back -
> I'm progressing this with Audi because I believe this is a safety issue.

	Bad brakes usually are a safety issue!

> How many people have fitted replacement servos with defective switches?
> I don't know.  Remember that the failure mode is _NOT_ to warn about
> an absence of brake assist - i.e., the very opposite of fail-safe.
> Anyway, we got into the old "Verfallsdatum" issue on parts, and it
> turns out that instead of using tight shelf lives, they're issuing
> more detailed instructions on parts storage.

	I never knew they had to be rotated.  I guess it makes sense
though with anything that has rubber seals in it.  Gotta keep them
lubricated.   
	HAppy driving.  I'm off to put in a new Proportioning Valve and
Replace a clutch.
L8R
	Todd