[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: <M3> miss-shift experiment!

> 
> Brendon Whateley wrote:
> 
> ...<cut>...
>
> Ok, this was not scientific, but did convince me that the wrong technique
> increases the probability of blowing the shift. Every missed shift I have ever
> performed has been the result of "forcing the gearbox" rather than letting it
> do its thing.  Another digester commented that he was taught to treat the
> shifter like an egg.  I think that is very good advice.  <cut>
> 
> I welcome comments.
> 
> Brendon.
> '96 M3
> '93 MX-5
> 

You stated that a "wrong technique" increases the probability of blowing
the shift.  Inherently true.  Would it, then, not also be true that the
shift mechanism could be faulty in such a way that it too could increase
the probability of blowing a shift?  If so, then if a loss has occurred
upon a missed shift of a car with this faulty mechanism, shouldn't the
manufacturer be held at least partially responsible (e.g., contributory
negligence, driver error + manufacturer error) for the cost of the
repairs?  If the would be plaintiffs have enough information that would
enable them to prove manufacturer error and thus form the basis for a
civil lawsuit, I don't see anything wrong with this.

Steve C. Young
Not an owner of a 95 M3