Quote:
Originally Posted by CZroe
We aren't going to get it if we just act like there is no problems and keep telling people to buy replacements without pointing them to this problem.
|
*By 'bad petcock' I mean one that has a physical flaw that causes it to fail prematurely. This does not include cases where the rubber parts degrade because of long term exposure to gasoline. Not all cases of leaky petcocks are due to flawed design; they do fail on their own over time.*
Lets take a step back and look at this without the sarcasm or capital letters.
Say that you somehow discover that every leaky petcock that we know of is due to a flawed design or a bad manufacturing process that leaves imperfections inside the petcock that cause it to malfunction.
Now compare the number of bad petcocks you find to the number of bikes on the road. Let's say you find 100 that are leaky because of a flaw inside the petcock. How many millions of Kawasaki Ninja 250R's are there on the road? I bet that small percentage of allegedly flawed petcocks falls right into Kawasaki's tolerances for faulty parts.
I guess I'm just not sure what you're trying to accomplish by proving that Kawasaki has a part with a possibility of leaking. Petcocks (on all bikes) are known to leak sometimes. It's not realistic to expect every single part on a vehicle to be perfect for the lifetime of the vehicle.
Are you trying to get a recall from Kawasaki? Are you trying to sue Kawasaki for selling flawed parts to the public? What is the point of trying to prove that there's a flaw? I'm not sure what you're going for with this whole thing. That's why I told you to stop beating a dead horse.