|
Motorcycles » rec.motorcycles.tech » Re: Headlight problem
| Re: Headlight problem [message #503754] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 00:58 |
|
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:20:14 GMT, Sideswipe <sideswipe [at] verizon.net> wrote/replied to:
>Kawasaki will not do any warranty support unless the problem can be
>reproduced in house. THIS SUCKS! ANy way around this? I've checked
>around a few places and am now thinking that the problem is with the
>headlight relays (either the ones behind the windscreen or the ones in
>the junction box) but how do I prove this to Kawasaki?
You'll have to prove it to yourself first ;-)
I'd check the voltage on your headlight when at higher revs. Maybe your regulator is not working and you're getting too
high of a voltage. Check the voltage at other places too.
There may be a feature that shuts down the headlights over a certain voltage.
I suspect the most likely thing though is a bad wire around the steering head, that is pulled when at high speed. Check
if any wires are pinched or look like they've been chewed away a bit around the steering.
When you slow down, the front end compresses, and perhaps gets the wires working again, whereas at speed they are
stretched a bit.
--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits
Powerlet, Posi-Lock, Parts, Info, Photos
K100RSes on both sides of the planet!
|
|
|
| Replying to OLD messages [message #503762 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 01:48 |
|
James B. Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:20:14 GMT, Sideswipe <sideswipe [at] verizon.net> wrote/replied to:
Pay attention to the dates of the messages you're answering. I doubt
that the OP hasn't solved his problem by now!
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #507874 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 12:35 |
|
"skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131324480.647266.103870 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> James B. Davis wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:20:14 GMT, Sideswipe <sideswipe [at] verizon.net>
>> wrote/replied to:
>
> Pay attention to the dates of the messages you're answering. I doubt
> that the OP hasn't solved his problem by now!
>
I have always been intrigued by people that get upset when someone else
replies to an old query or post.
What if the information proffered is valid and valuable? Should the person
keep the information to themself simply because the original post is old?
Makes no sense to me.
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #507875 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 14:03 |
|
"Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote in message
news:dkne5i02csj [at] enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> "skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131324480.647266.103870 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> James B. Davis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:20:14 GMT, Sideswipe <sideswipe [at] verizon.net>
>>> wrote/replied to:
>>
>> Pay attention to the dates of the messages you're answering. I doubt
>> that the OP hasn't solved his problem by now!
>>
>
>
> I have always been intrigued by people that get upset when someone else
> replies to an old query or post.
>
> What if the information proffered is valid and valuable? Should the person
> keep the information to themself simply because the original post is old?
> Makes no sense to me.
Ditto
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #507879 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 15:49 |
|
Ed Cregger wrote:
> "skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Pay attention to the dates of the messages you're answering. I doubt
> > that the OP hasn't solved his problem by now!
> I have always been intrigued by people that get upset when someone else
> replies to an old query or post.
How can you tell if somebody offering advice is upset? Maybe the advice
they are offering is exactly that, helpful advice.
>
> What if the information proffered is valid and valuable? Should the person
> keep the information to themself simply because the original post is old?
> Makes no sense to me.
It doesn't make much sense to re-open a thread that's almost 18 months
old, especially if it's a short thread. The OP will have solved his
problem and be satisfied.
Maybe the OP never even reads this NG, because his query was a one-time
problem.
Every once in a while you'll see a self-important "somebody" catching
up on a newsgroup. They are typical "sea gulls". They come into an NG
and shit all over everything and leave. (1)
One character would always be about a month behind
alt.motorcycle.sportbike when he'd start "sea gulling" dead threads
with responses that basically indicated that he was smart and the OP
was stupid and all the other respondants were idiots. Sometimes we
couldn't even tell who he was answering, but he had to dump his dubious
wisdom onto Usenet. Then we wouldn't see anything more from him for
months on end.
(1) Maybe that's not quite as bad as somebody who shits all over every
message and continues to troll a NG with insults though. One learns who
they are and ignores them.
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #507881 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 16:47 |
|
"skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131374991.555639.322450 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ed Cregger wrote:
>> "skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Pay attention to the dates of the messages you're answering. I doubt
>> > that the OP hasn't solved his problem by now!
>
>> I have always been intrigued by people that get upset when someone else
>> replies to an old query or post.
>
> How can you tell if somebody offering advice is upset? Maybe the advice
> they are offering is exactly that, helpful advice.
>>
>> What if the information proffered is valid and valuable? Should the
>> person
>> keep the information to themself simply because the original post is old?
>> Makes no sense to me.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to re-open a thread that's almost 18 months
> old, especially if it's a short thread. The OP will have solved his
> problem and be satisfied.
> Maybe the OP never even reads this NG, because his query was a one-time
> problem.
>
> Every once in a while you'll see a self-important "somebody" catching
> up on a newsgroup. They are typical "sea gulls". They come into an NG
> and shit all over everything and leave. (1)
>
> One character would always be about a month behind
> alt.motorcycle.sportbike when he'd start "sea gulling" dead threads
> with responses that basically indicated that he was smart and the OP
> was stupid and all the other respondants were idiots. Sometimes we
> couldn't even tell who he was answering, but he had to dump his dubious
> wisdom onto Usenet. Then we wouldn't see anything more from him for
> months on end.
>
> (1) Maybe that's not quite as bad as somebody who shits all over every
> message and continues to troll a NG with insults though. One learns who
> they are and ignores them.
>
So, if someone doesn't do things exactly the way that you see them, they are
a troll or a seagull?
Here in the USA, we have a thing called the right of freedom of speech.
Attendant with that right is the likelihood that you will have to tolerate a
lot of fluff, trolling, sarcasm, insults and just plain stupid posts. That
is the cost of freedom.
Of course, the flip side of the above is that everyone has the right to
comment on what other folks post. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it is
not so good. That is what I did.
I assumed that you were upset because you went to all of the trouble of
making the post.
Seagulls? <G>
The old "divide and conquer" thing.
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| OT: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507884 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 18:37 |
|
Ed Cregger wrote:
> So, if someone doesn't do things exactly the way that you see them, they are
> a troll or a seagull?
>
> Here in the USA, we have a thing called the right of freedom of speech.
> Attendant with that right is the likelihood that you will have to tolerate a
> lot of fluff, trolling, sarcasm, insults and just plain stupid posts. That
> is the cost of freedom.
>
> Of course, the flip side of the above is that everyone has the right to
> comment on what other folks post. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it is
> not so good. That is what I did.
Please don't do that in here.
Some of us are striving to reduce the metadiscussion about how this NG
should be used and stay on topic, which is essentially production
motorcycle mechanical and electrical problems and how to fix them.We're
not trying to design new concept motorcycles or be consumer advocates.
We do get effective results by sincere advice to a lot of the newbies
who need help.
It's difficult enough, with resident trolls and people intentionally
giving disinformation that will be expen$ive to naive newbies.
If you do want to discuss the Bill of Rights or Usenet abuses and
personalities there are certainly enough NG's where you can type
forever and accomplish zilch.
Try rec.motorcycles...
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507885 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 19:20 |
|
"skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131385020.460474.110290 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ed Cregger wrote:
>
> > So, if someone doesn't do things exactly the way that you see them, they
are
> > a troll or a seagull?
> >
> > Here in the USA, we have a thing called the right of freedom of speech.
> > Attendant with that right is the likelihood that you will have to
tolerate a
> > lot of fluff, trolling, sarcasm, insults and just plain stupid posts.
That
> > is the cost of freedom.
> >
> > Of course, the flip side of the above is that everyone has the right to
> > comment on what other folks post. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it
is
> > not so good. That is what I did.
>
> Please don't do that in here.
>
> Some of us are striving to reduce the metadiscussion about how this NG
> should be used and stay on topic, which is essentially production
> motorcycle mechanical and electrical problems and how to fix them.We're
> not trying to design new concept motorcycles or be consumer advocates.
>
> We do get effective results by sincere advice to a lot of the newbies
> who need help.
>
> It's difficult enough, with resident trolls and people intentionally
> giving disinformation that will be expen$ive to naive newbies.
>
> If you do want to discuss the Bill of Rights or Usenet abuses and
> personalities there are certainly enough NG's where you can type
> forever and accomplish zilch.
>
> Try rec.motorcycles...
Ed, post as you please. Some of the net nannys that follow this group will
get their feathers in a tizzy, but that is the price they pay for joining in
this great tool of the world.
Contrary to some peoples belief, this little bit of cyber space is
controlled by no one. Some will argue they are in charge or are part of a
group who's job it is to look out for the newbie and provide them guidance,
but what they are really trying to do is control others to make their
existence more important than it really is.
There are many who visit here and provide helpful knowledge and insight to
the problems posted.
But as in every town, county, country, or family, one or two try to take
charge and show everyone how smart they are and that we should reward them
with following them blindly.
Just my 2 cents.
Tom
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507887 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 19:46 |
|
SC_Tom <tomkimatoco.net> wrote:
> Ed, post as you please. Some of the net nannys that follow this group will
> get their feathers in a tizzy, but that is the price they pay for joining in
> this great tool of the world.
>
> Contrary to some peoples belief, this little bit of cyber space is
> controlled by no one. Some will argue they are in charge or are part of a
> group who's job it is to look out for the newbie and provide them guidance,
> but what they are really trying to do is control others to make their
> existence more important than it really is.
>
> There are many who visit here and provide helpful knowledge and insight to
> the problems posted.
>
> But as in every town, county, country, or family, one or two try to take
> charge and show everyone how smart they are and that we should reward them
> with following them blindly.
Your discussion of this issue is off topic for rec.motorcycles.tech.
Let's all work together to keep this forum on topic, for discussions of
motorcycle tech issues.
Thanks.
--
Mark '01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '86 GL1200A '81 CM400T
|
|
|
| Why ask why? [message #507889 ] |
Mon, 07 November 2005 23:07 |
|
"Mark Olson" <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote in message
news:11mv88gg7momf7e [at] corp.supernews.com...
> SC_Tom <tomkimatoco.net> wrote:
> > Ed, post as you please. Some of the net nannys that follow this group
will
> > get their feathers in a tizzy, but that is the price they pay for
joining in
> > this great tool of the world.
> >
> > Contrary to some peoples belief, this little bit of cyber space is
> > controlled by no one. Some will argue they are in charge or are part of
a
> > group who's job it is to look out for the newbie and provide them
guidance,
> > but what they are really trying to do is control others to make their
> > existence more important than it really is.
> >
> > There are many who visit here and provide helpful knowledge and insight
to
> > the problems posted.
> >
> > But as in every town, county, country, or family, one or two try to take
> > charge and show everyone how smart they are and that we should reward
them
> > with following them blindly.
>
> Your discussion of this issue is off topic for rec.motorcycles.tech.
>
> Let's all work together to keep this forum on topic, for discussions of
> motorcycle tech issues.
>
> Thanks.
>
Why?
|
|
|
| Re: Why ask why? [message #507894 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 01:43 |
|
SC_Tom wrote:
> "Mark Olson" <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote in message
> news:11mv88gg7momf7e [at] corp.supernews.com...
>
>>SC_Tom <tomkimatoco.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ed, post as you please. Some of the net nannys that follow this group
>
> will
>
>>>get their feathers in a tizzy, but that is the price they pay for
>
> joining in
>
>>>this great tool of the world.
>>>
>>>Contrary to some peoples belief, this little bit of cyber space is
>>>controlled by no one. Some will argue they are in charge or are part of
>
> a
>
>>>group who's job it is to look out for the newbie and provide them
>
> guidance,
>
>>>but what they are really trying to do is control others to make their
>>>existence more important than it really is.
>>>
>>>There are many who visit here and provide helpful knowledge and insight
>
> to
>
>>>the problems posted.
>>>
>>>But as in every town, county, country, or family, one or two try to take
>>>charge and show everyone how smart they are and that we should reward
>
> them
>
>>>with following them blindly.
>>
>>Your discussion of this issue is off topic for rec.motorcycles.tech.
>>
>>Let's all work together to keep this forum on topic, for discussions of
>>motorcycle tech issues.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>
>
> Why?
>
>
I know I should just ignore this as I am only making things worse, but
as I have a simple answer I will offer it...
Because there are only so many hours in a day and some of us make
decisions about what discussion forums we choose to participate in based
on the name (and charter, if it exists) of that forum. If I want to
talk about other things, I go to other forums.
Brian
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507895 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 02:13 |
|
"skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131385020.460474.110290 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ed Cregger wrote:
>
>> So, if someone doesn't do things exactly the way that you see them, they
>> are
>> a troll or a seagull?
>>
>> Here in the USA, we have a thing called the right of freedom of speech.
>> Attendant with that right is the likelihood that you will have to
>> tolerate a
>> lot of fluff, trolling, sarcasm, insults and just plain stupid posts.
>> That
>> is the cost of freedom.
>>
>> Of course, the flip side of the above is that everyone has the right to
>> comment on what other folks post. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it is
>> not so good. That is what I did.
>
> Please don't do that in here.
>
> Some of us are striving to reduce the metadiscussion about how this NG
> should be used and stay on topic, which is essentially production
> motorcycle mechanical and electrical problems and how to fix them.We're
> not trying to design new concept motorcycles or be consumer advocates.
>
> We do get effective results by sincere advice to a lot of the newbies
> who need help.
>
> It's difficult enough, with resident trolls and people intentionally
> giving disinformation that will be expen$ive to naive newbies.
>
> If you do want to discuss the Bill of Rights or Usenet abuses and
> personalities there are certainly enough NG's where you can type
> forever and accomplish zilch.
>
> Try rec.motorcycles...
>
I'm not the one that is trying to tell others how to behave. You are. You
have absolutely no right to inflict your will upon others. This is just
another newsgroup, a public forum, if you will.
I won't raise the issue of freedom of speech, if you won't try to limit
freedom of speech. Deal?
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: Why ask why? [message #507896 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 02:16 |
|
"Brian Watson" <fixedbrian [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jxSbf.11284$Hj2.8070 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> SC_Tom wrote:
>> "Mark Olson" <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:11mv88gg7momf7e [at] corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>SC_Tom <tomkimatoco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ed, post as you please. Some of the net nannys that follow this group
>>
>> will
>>
>>>>get their feathers in a tizzy, but that is the price they pay for
>>
>> joining in
>>
>>>>this great tool of the world.
>>>>
>>>>Contrary to some peoples belief, this little bit of cyber space is
>>>>controlled by no one. Some will argue they are in charge or are part of
>>
>> a
>>
>>>>group who's job it is to look out for the newbie and provide them
>>
>> guidance,
>>
>>>>but what they are really trying to do is control others to make their
>>>>existence more important than it really is.
>>>>
>>>>There are many who visit here and provide helpful knowledge and insight
>>
>> to
>>
>>>>the problems posted.
>>>>
>>>>But as in every town, county, country, or family, one or two try to take
>>>>charge and show everyone how smart they are and that we should reward
>>
>> them
>>
>>>>with following them blindly.
>>>
>>>Your discussion of this issue is off topic for rec.motorcycles.tech.
>>>
>>>Let's all work together to keep this forum on topic, for discussions of
>>>motorcycle tech issues.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
> I know I should just ignore this as I am only making things worse, but
> as I have a simple answer I will offer it...
>
> Because there are only so many hours in a day and some of us make
> decisions about what discussion forums we choose to participate in based
> on the name (and charter, if it exists) of that forum. If I want to
> talk about other things, I go to other forums.
>
> Brian
I agree with wanting the group to stay on topic. I was not the one that
scolded someone else for answering an old post, if you remember. Which,
technically, was the off topic post originating this thread.
I just get riled when a net nazi shows his arrogance by trying to tell
someone else how to behave.
I'm finished with this thread.
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507897 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 02:43 |
|
"Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote in message
news:dkou3f0260r [at] enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131385020.460474.110290 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
X
> I'm not the one that is trying to tell others how to behave. You are. You
> have absolutely no right to inflict your will upon others. This is just
> another newsgroup, a public forum, if you will.
>
> I won't raise the issue of freedom of speech, if you won't try to limit
> freedom of speech. Deal?
Are you trying to limit freedom of speech about limiting that freedom?
May people speak freely about ANYTHING - even limiting that freedom!
Brother-Peter
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #507905 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 05:02 |
|
"skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>It doesn't make much sense to re-open a thread that's almost 18 months
>old, especially if it's a short thread. The OP will have solved his
>problem and be satisfied.
>Maybe the OP never even reads this NG, because his query was a one-time
>problem.
Actually, I'm the OP, and I still have the same issue (haven't been
able to find a schematic or a replacement ABS computer for anything
I'm willing to pay). And the thread pretty much morphed into a very
good discussion about ABS brakes in general.
With or without recycling threads, these things happen - if it hadn't
been someone replying to my ooooold thread, it would have been someone
else asking a similar question (or me again even).
Mark Hickey
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507906 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 14:11 |
|
"Brother-Peter" <DROP_vpn [at] dlc.fi> wrote in message
news:yrTbf.5547$xh7.2028 [at] reader1.news.jippii.net...
> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote in message
> news:dkou3f0260r [at] enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1131385020.460474.110290 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> X
>> I'm not the one that is trying to tell others how to behave. You are. You
>> have absolutely no right to inflict your will upon others. This is just
>> another newsgroup, a public forum, if you will.
>>
>> I won't raise the issue of freedom of speech, if you won't try to limit
>> freedom of speech. Deal?
>
> Are you trying to limit freedom of speech about limiting that freedom?
> May people speak freely about ANYTHING - even limiting that freedom!
> Brother-Peter
>
>
You caught me! You're right. <G>
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507911 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 21:53 |
|
Can we please keep this crap out of rec.motorcycles.tech ?
rec.motorcycles.tech was created a number of years ago as forum
for technical discussions with the intent that the politics and banter
would remain in rec.motorcycles and the tech issues be discussed
in rec.motorcycles.tech.
I appeal to you to keep it that way out of consideration for other
riders with real technical ideas, issues and problems .
|
|
|
| Re: Metadiscussions, First Amendment Rights, etc. [message #507912 ] |
Tue, 08 November 2005 23:11 |
|
"Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131483230.763942.14880 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Can we please keep this crap out of rec.motorcycles.tech ?
>
> rec.motorcycles.tech was created a number of years ago as forum
> for technical discussions with the intent that the politics and banter
> would remain in rec.motorcycles and the tech issues be discussed
> in rec.motorcycles.tech.
>
> I appeal to you to keep it that way out of consideration for other
> riders with real technical ideas, issues and problems .
>
You're too late. It already left.
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #517123 ] |
Sat, 12 November 2005 11:03 |
|
On 6 Nov 2005 16:48:00 -0800, "skimmer" <rynchops_niger [at] yahoo.com> wrote/replied to:
>
>James B. Davis wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:20:14 GMT, Sideswipe <sideswipe [at] verizon.net> wrote/replied to:
>
>Pay attention to the dates of the messages you're answering. I doubt
>that the OP hasn't solved his problem by now!
Heh heh, not used to the new way Newsgroups keep messages so long. Been away awhile. Figured it out.
--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits
Powerlet, Posi-Lock, Parts, Info, Photos
K100RSes on both sides of the planet!
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #517124 ] |
Sat, 12 November 2005 11:07 |
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:02:08 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark [at] habcycles.com> wrote/replied to:
>Actually, I'm the OP, and I still have the same issue (haven't been
>able to find a schematic or a replacement ABS computer for anything
>I'm willing to pay). And the thread pretty much morphed into a very
>good discussion about ABS brakes in general.
>
>With or without recycling threads, these things happen - if it hadn't
>been someone replying to my ooooold thread, it would have been someone
>else asking a similar question (or me again even).
>
>Mark Hickey
So did you go to the IBMWR tech faqs and read all about resetting your ABS brain? Many have been revived by the
excellent advice there.
--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits
Powerlet, Posi-Lock, Parts, Info, Photos
K100RSes on both sides of the planet!
|
|
|
| Re: Replying to OLD messages [message #517132 ] |
Sat, 12 November 2005 16:07 |
|
James B. Davis <jim [at] easternbeaver.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:02:08 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark [at] habcycles.com> wrote/replied to:
>
>>Actually, I'm the OP, and I still have the same issue (haven't been
>>able to find a schematic or a replacement ABS computer for anything
>>I'm willing to pay). And the thread pretty much morphed into a very
>>good discussion about ABS brakes in general.
>>
>>With or without recycling threads, these things happen - if it hadn't
>>been someone replying to my ooooold thread, it would have been someone
>>else asking a similar question (or me again even).
>>
>>Mark Hickey
>
>So did you go to the IBMWR tech faqs and read all about resetting your ABS brain? Many have been revived by the
>excellent advice there.
Yep. Funny thing is, when I first bought the bike the reset process
WOULD fix the problem. Now it doesn't.
Mark "sigh..." Hickey
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fri Jan 9 23:11:40 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.25213 Sekunden |
