g.forrest Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 take it out for a fang. if it doesn't respond ride home.and sort it..work from plugs back..more likely electric inmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Being one of the atleast two v11s to have the PCIII fail, I can only suggest that our fellow Guzzisti Extraordinaire was fed a lie or that most of the PCIII failures occurred on Guzzis and that the failure rate for other bikes is far lower than the 1.4 failures in one hundred thousand units. With all due respect, Dave, I continue to be fascinated by your logic. Would you then not suspect our intrepid Guzzi Dynojet Master's figures to be a lie if it had been someone else's PC III that had failed? Do you play the lottery? If you should win, would you then suspect the known probabilities of anyone winning long-term would then be a lie, but not a lie if someone else won?! If so, do you also believe that anyone's long-term chances of winning the lottery improve after you've won? Enquiring minds just gotta know...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_V11 Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 When I read your first note I was reminded of when I bought my 2000 Sport (used) - the connection between the spark plug cap and the plug wire was burned (how does that happen?), and replacing it solved an occasional misfire in the affected cylinder. From reading the thread it sounds like you have good spark, but it's worth taking a look. Don't know about that revving up part, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 With all due respect, Dave, I continue to be fascinated by your logic. Would you then not suspect our intrepid Guzzi Dynojet Master's figures to be a lie if it had been someone else's PC III that had failed? Do you play the lottery? If you should win, would you then suspect the known probabilities of anyone winning long-term would then be a lie, but not a lie if someone else won?! If so, do you also believe that anyone's long-term chances of winning the lottery improve after you've won? Enquiring minds just gotta know...... 91050[/snapback] If the failure rate is 1.4 in a hundred thousand and two people on this forum with Guzzis have failed, either the claim of 1.4 in a hundred thousand is a lie or Guzzi PCIII are thousands of times less reliable than other PCIIIs...edit: or following your logic, they are not less reliable, they just have bad luck at a mathematically unlikely probability. Sorry, I failed to include that possibility. That was VERY unreasonable of me I don't know exactly how many PCIIIs have been sold, nor how many sold to Guzzi six speeds, but it is pretty obvious that we can assume that Guzzi PCIII sales represent less than one percent of PCIII sales. Do the math and look at the failure rate for Guzzi PCIIIs. I can't believe you are a sucker for their lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 If the failure rate is 1.4 in a hundred thousand and two people on this forum with Guzzis have failed, either the claim of 1.4 in a hundred thousand is a lie or Guzzi PCIII are thousands of times less reliable than other PCIIIs Hmmmmmmm.........I find this kind of logic most interesting......What if it should turn out that there were NO examples (none, nada, zip) of PC III failures on another Forum with a hundred PC III owners? Would this make the "correct" failure rate for all PC III's manufactured 0.00%? What if it should turn out that on yet another forum, there were only two PC III owners, and both of them failed? Would this then make the correct failure rate for all PC III's manufactured 100%? Do the math and look at the failure rate for Guzzi PCIIIs.I can't believe you are a sucker for their lie. I'm afraid I have no math to use here, Dave, because I have no way of counting either Guzzi or non-Guzzi PC III users, or failed units. As far as having "fallen" for anything, I didn't say whether or not I accepted Dynojet's figures. I simply quoted Dynojet directly. Please look again at our Dynojet Rep's claim as I quoted him. Leave us now ask the obvious: Exactly what math are YOU using as the basis of your statement that Dynojet's claim is a "lie", Dave? Enquiring minds just gotta know........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Exactly what math are YOU using as the basis of your statement that Dynojet's claim is a "lie", Dave? Enquiring minds just gotta know........... 91078[/snapback] I already explained the math I used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I already explained the math I used. Just checking. Wasn't it you who said, "Do the math"? Must be the "new" math - the kind without any numbers? Not much of a basis to call a percent failure claim a "lie", is it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Once again, we have two reasonable possibilities: One, they are lying. Two, Guzzi PCIII's fail disproportionately. Personally I suspect both are true, but I have no proof. We have two failures sited on this forum. I'll bet you I can site atleast one more failure. But let us stick with the two failures, and assume that every EFI Guzzi made since year 2000 had a PCIII installled and only 2 failed, what would the failure rate be? Well to be accurate we need to know the numbers, which I cannot find. But I think we can assume some numbers. So just to round things in favor of PCIII supporters, we have 600 members and assuming all of them have PCIIIs, a failure rate of 2 in six hundred is roughly 0.33333333333333333%....But just to be nice, let us round that to 0.28 percent....comparing that to 0.0014%, we have 200 times the alleged total failure rate!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If only one of us had had a failure, it would still be 100 times the failure rate. Sure every Guzzi PCIII owner that is not a forum member could have had no problems. But from the FACTS that we have, the failure rate is ATLEAST 200 times higher, and probably much higher as I doubt more than half of forum members have PCIIIs on Guzzis. Heck! alot of them don't even have fuel injected Guzzis. Compare that to the number of fuel pump failures on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Dave, once again (Part 3), please look at the manufacturer's claim as I directly quoted the factory Rep. It does not specify those PC III's that were installed on Guzzi's. So trying to extrapolate a "lie" out of what I quoted by considering only those PC III's installed in Guzzi's would seem to be a bit of an impossibility. But if you're intent on chasing a chimera with no possible chance whatsoever with which to refute the quote [......sigh......], you need two accurate, very significant, and credibly sourced numbers to get a percentage with which to even attempt a challenge of the failure rate given by the mfgr. - the number of the large population of Guzzi-installed PC III's and the number of these that were proven to be failures - neither of which you have, except by sheer guesswork and the most loosely applied assumptions. I'm not at all sure there are even 2 PC III failures on Guzzi's referenceable from any source. This is hardly relevant to your claim of a "lie", but out of curiosity - can you cite any PC III installed on a Guzzi that failed by name of owner and a credible post of such failure other than your own? BTW - Your accusation of a "lie" and your statement, "I have no proof" adds up to a legal definition over which buildings full of lawyers send their kids to private schools, buy sizeable yachts, and purchase third homes in tropical climates...... - libel (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 It does not specify those PC III's that were installed on Guzzi's. So trying to extrapolate a "lie" out of what I quoted by considering only those PC III's installed in Guzzi's would seem to be a bit of an impossibility. 91091[/snapback] And that is why I said either it was a lie OR Guzzi PCIIIs are less reliable. But if you're set on chasing a chimera with no possible chance whatsoever with which to refute the quote, to get a statistically significant population of PC III owners on Guzzi's and failure rates, you need two numbers to get a percentage with which to challenge the percentage given - the number of the large population and the number of failures - neither of which you have, except by sheer guesswork and the most loosely applied assumptions. 91091[/snapback] My logic is based on obvious assumptions. We know there are no more than 600 PCIIIs on guzzis on this forum. We know atleast two failed, unless two of us are lying....a very small possibility. I am pretty sure the Guzzi Dyna Rep had one fail, too. BTW - Your accusation of a "lie" and your statement, "I have no proof" adds up to a legal definition - libel (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt. 91091[/snapback] BRING IT ON!!!!! BTW Go re-examine your statements about K&N filters and AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 BTW Go re-examine your statements about K&N filters and AGW. Now Dave........I struggle mightily here to grasp the relevance....... HOWEVER - I really don't want to think that you'd actually put the quality and relevance of source material I brought to those threads up against the sheer guesswork you've brought (with no backup of any kind whatsoever) in this discussion.......are you insinuating that my position in those threads amounts to libel????!?!?!? Er,.........would you, and are you, Dave?............... EDIT: Like so many topics far beyond the scope of this Forum, the critically important "just cause" part of the definition of libel is another legal term about which volumes may be studied.......[sigh] FYI - I ain't a lawyer , and I don't have the exact legal terms, but generally -- a statement may NOT be considered libel if it's TRUE, or if it can be shown with credible evidence that there's justifiable reason to believe that it's true. Example - the corroboration and hard evidence I've brought to both of the threads you brought up, though it'd be a pretty fair stretch to imagine any conceivable basis - any at all - for libel in the case of AGW..... And when I said TRUE above, I mean TRUE in the ABSOLUTE sense - the same ABSOLUTE sense of TRUTH you will still find to be the prevailing, rock-solid, standard belief system in 99.99% of courtrooms - at least in this country (the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals being the most prominent exception ) ......The vast majority of the judicial system still being scrupulously maintained (for the most part!) free from Relativism, and where attempts to introduce it are routinely and very quickly shot down in flames as the great blundering juggernaut of sham and fraud that it has always been.......... Thankfully, for now, we still have the constitutionally protected right AND THE CONFIDENCE UNDER LAW in this country to be able to make and publish derogatory, yet truthful, public statements about people and products alike without fear of recrimination or repression. Anyone can sue for any reason at any time, but a SUCCESSFUL libel suit will rightfully consider the merit and "just cause" aspects of the statement in question. One notable exception to this, in my view, is in the arena of politics, where no semblance of any flavor of truth whatsoever WRT libel seems to be legally binding - or is it just that political legal challenges generally aren't worth pursuing?!?! In other words, y'er average Joe Citizen can publicly slam a product or a person as hard as he wants, but he damned well better be able to back up his position with evidence that the court finds to be credible, or the slammee and his lawyers may well own Joe's butt.... That's my layman's take on libel as it may apply here. Any o' you Counselors out there wanna set me straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Only lovers squabble as you two do. Ergo, you must be lovers. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 .......are you insinuating that my position in those threads amounts to libel????!?!?!? 91099[/snapback] about as much as my position on Power Commanders. Of course if you and Todd are on the jury, I am a dead man walking. But I'll say it with great certainty, Guzzi PCIIIs has far worse than a 0.01% failure rate, and the 0.0014%claim misrepresents the product. (they have laws against misrepresenting products, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Only lovers squabble as you two do. Ergo, you must be lovers. Yes? 91140[/snapback] He is pretty cute, but I am married, and boringly faithful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I'll say it with great certainty, Guzzi PCIIIs has far worse than a 0.01% failure rate, and the 0.0014%claim misrepresents the product. A "faith-based" conclusion. Like your position on AGW, your great certainty based on nothing more than slim, irrelevant, statistically insignificant, and zip is a hallmark of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now