Workshop Manual ????
Discussion
Call me a sceptic but I didn’t think TVR did a workshop manual,if they did i cant see why Steve Heath is writing a "Bible" for the Cerbera.So all things considered i think its a bit pricey
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14234&item=7904126661&rd=1
Hmmm, good question. Although steves book will undoubtedly be worth having, I don't think its a replacement for the manual.
Remember Steves very hot on copyright. See previous threads when I talked about copying my workshop manual for the benefit of the Cerb and Griff Crowd.
Steve will only put in his book what TVR allow him to copy from the manual, plus of course his own experiences of taking his cerb to pieces. I doubt TVR are going to allow full scale copying of the circuit diagrams contained in the workshop manual, or much else for that matter.
Remember Steves very hot on copyright. See previous threads when I talked about copying my workshop manual for the benefit of the Cerb and Griff Crowd.
Steve will only put in his book what TVR allow him to copy from the manual, plus of course his own experiences of taking his cerb to pieces. I doubt TVR are going to allow full scale copying of the circuit diagrams contained in the workshop manual, or much else for that matter.
Steve is only hot on copyright because the factory are and there is enough piracy out there already. I have to work with the factory and that means working with them rather than against them. That means respecting their IP and ownership. The way I see it, would you like it if someone took internal material from your work place and published it for everyone to see? Or would you like all your private conversations/emails published? I think the answer would be no so why should TVR be the same?
They have been exceptionally good with the earlier books and I see no reason why that should not continue. All of them have the wiring diagrams for example. They have let me use a lot of their internal drawings and so on.
As for the content... it will be detailed. The workshop manual is not complete BTW and assumes a level that most owners don't have. It doesn't explain the risks involved in attempting something that is beyond you and that is where I try and fill in the gap so that owners can understand why they need help or why this costs so much and that big bill is not a rip off. The Griff/Chimaera book has 500,000 words on the cars and over 600 pictures because that level of information and detail is what most owners want.
I don't see the Cerbera being any different.
They have been exceptionally good with the earlier books and I see no reason why that should not continue. All of them have the wiring diagrams for example. They have let me use a lot of their internal drawings and so on.
As for the content... it will be detailed. The workshop manual is not complete BTW and assumes a level that most owners don't have. It doesn't explain the risks involved in attempting something that is beyond you and that is where I try and fill in the gap so that owners can understand why they need help or why this costs so much and that big bill is not a rip off. The Griff/Chimaera book has 500,000 words on the cars and over 600 pictures because that level of information and detail is what most owners want.
I don't see the Cerbera being any different.
Hmmm, several points coming out here. Could steve please state whether he is against copyright fraud because it might hurt his impending income or because he believes it to be wrong.
I have stated on many occasions on this subject that I am for the free sharing of information because the Cerbera is almost unusable without a lot of information that TVR seem to covert. I think TVR should be a lot more open, the workshop manual should be part of the handbook and given to every TVR owner with their car.
I'm afraid I do believe the Manual is useful as with the TSBs acurately details most of what I have needed to know so far. As I stated before ideally we should have both the TVR workshop manual and your forthcoming book, but to deny a TVR owner to the right to choose is wrong.
I have nothing but respect for your previous postings and the way you have tried to help people on this board with your knowledge but do find some incongruity with the idea that TVR has a right to deny owners the knowledge to fix their own cars if they choose to do so by copyrighting, refusing to sell and denying the existance of a workshop manual.
When I first got my TVR I tried very hard to get a manual. Blackpool denied there was even one to get by denying they'd ever produced one. I eventually bought an original from Germany. I have found it invaluable ever since.
I have stated on many occasions on this subject that I am for the free sharing of information because the Cerbera is almost unusable without a lot of information that TVR seem to covert. I think TVR should be a lot more open, the workshop manual should be part of the handbook and given to every TVR owner with their car.
I'm afraid I do believe the Manual is useful as with the TSBs acurately details most of what I have needed to know so far. As I stated before ideally we should have both the TVR workshop manual and your forthcoming book, but to deny a TVR owner to the right to choose is wrong.
I have nothing but respect for your previous postings and the way you have tried to help people on this board with your knowledge but do find some incongruity with the idea that TVR has a right to deny owners the knowledge to fix their own cars if they choose to do so by copyrighting, refusing to sell and denying the existance of a workshop manual.
When I first got my TVR I tried very hard to get a manual. Blackpool denied there was even one to get by denying they'd ever produced one. I eventually bought an original from Germany. I have found it invaluable ever since.
Copyright infringement is theft. Be it copying software, music, whatever... it is theft. Period. End of story.
Am I interested in protecting my income? Of course I am as with anything. However, I don't control the copyright of the TVR material so getting it put in the public domain is not in my control. Please do not keep implying that I have control over this stuff. I don't. The guys in Blackpool do.
However, I do depend on TVR for help and assistance with the books. I am grateful and understand that I do not have a right to that information. It is a priviledge and one that has to be respected. That means respecting their decisions and information and not ignoring the laws that protect information and IP.
Am I interested in protecting my income? Of course I am as with anything. However, I don't control the copyright of the TVR material so getting it put in the public domain is not in my control. Please do not keep implying that I have control over this stuff. I don't. The guys in Blackpool do.
However, I do depend on TVR for help and assistance with the books. I am grateful and understand that I do not have a right to that information. It is a priviledge and one that has to be respected. That means respecting their decisions and information and not ignoring the laws that protect information and IP.
And that is where you and I part company on this issue. Not because I don't understand the laws around copyright, but because I think that to build an unreliable car and then copyright the information that helps an owner to fix it is dishonest.
To copyright a flippin parts list so the owner first isn't allowed to know how to fix it but can't order the parts in a sensible way is downright dishonest and mean.
Without the ability to fix a car that you expect to break on a regular basis is so closely against the idea of a product being fit for the purpose for which is was sold I believe if anyone really did challenge it TVR would go broke.
Now I have no interest in TVR going broke, they make nice cars, but to say its copyright, its the law, and thats that. I can't think thats an opinion held by many of their buyers. Its not going to make them any more money because people like me would try to fix their own cars regardless, and it certainly dosn't win them friends or brand loyalty.
I can obey the law but unlike you I don't support it.
To copyright a flippin parts list so the owner first isn't allowed to know how to fix it but can't order the parts in a sensible way is downright dishonest and mean.
Without the ability to fix a car that you expect to break on a regular basis is so closely against the idea of a product being fit for the purpose for which is was sold I believe if anyone really did challenge it TVR would go broke.
Now I have no interest in TVR going broke, they make nice cars, but to say its copyright, its the law, and thats that. I can't think thats an opinion held by many of their buyers. Its not going to make them any more money because people like me would try to fix their own cars regardless, and it certainly dosn't win them friends or brand loyalty.
I can obey the law but unlike you I don't support it.
Julian64 said:
And that is where you and I part company on this issue. Not because I don't understand the laws around copyright, but because I think that to build an unreliable car and then copyright the information that helps an owner to fix it is dishonest.
To copyright a flippin parts list so the owner first isn't allowed to know how to fix it but can't order the parts in a sensible way is downright dishonest and mean.
Without the ability to fix a car that you expect to break on a regular basis is so closely against the idea of a product being fit for the purpose for which is was sold I believe if anyone really did challenge it TVR would go broke.
Now I have no interest in TVR going broke, they make nice cars, but to say its copyright, its the law, and thats that. I can't think thats an opinion held by many of their buyers. Its not going to make them any more money because people like me would try to fix their own cars regardless, and it certainly dosn't win them friends or brand loyalty.
I can obey the law but unlike you I don't support it.
Let's agree to disagree but it might be worth outlining some of the more detailed issues behind copyright control. It's long.
1. TVR don't have to copyright anything as copyright is created when the thing is made. Your emails are copyright Julian64. You could say you don't want them circulated. So the copyright issue is automatic and applies to eveything. What we are discussing is permissions and rights that may be given to third parties.
2. The whole idea of saying that you need a workshop manual because the car is unreliable does not really stack up. There are many many owners who have no need of such detail and still find their cars reliable. They use their dealer/specialist and enjoy the cars.
I've had 11 TVRs so far including a 96 Cerbera for 3 years just after they came out. Let's take the Cerbera... I didn't need anything like the workshop manual (it didn't exist at the time) because the car worked fine and I had no real problems with it.
3. This also leads to the area of litagation which is becoming another scourge in our society in that almost anything that is publically printed can (or will) be used by someone.
A good example was the "overheating" survey published in TVRCC Sprint many years ago which stated that we all know that TVRs overheat and we need to find out the where's and whys. This statement was then used in court by several owners to prove that TVR knew that there was a problem and did nothing about it. In reality, there was no built in design problems. The majority of the problems were in fact caused by owners fitting wrong spec parts like stats and otter switches. Owners hate admitting they screwed up, especially when it is possible to blame someone else. Usually based on the "my mate says the car is a Sierra/Land Rover in reality and use those bits cos they are cheaper". All this just re-inforced a "They all do that sir" mentality that was very far from the truth.
The TVRCC survey was prompted in good faith because there were a few owners that had problems but it was not put in context and ignored the vast majority of owners who don't suffer from such issues. If the cooling system had developed a fault, then yes the car would overheat. Doesn't mean that all TVRs especially those with systems in good shape had a problem. That careless but well intentioned activity caused a lot of heartache and problems for TVR.
Let's look at the material you want to see put in the public domain. It is written and intended for internal use only. The context behind much of the material is not included and by taking it it could be construed to back up litagation that is not really justified. This means that there is no guarentee that it would be used in the way it was intended. As a result, TVR have decided to restrict access to stop people taking data out of context and using it for the wrong purpose. Having heard what this has involved, I can see exactly where TVR are coming from on this point. It is important to remember how powerful the internet can be but also how it can lead to a mob form of injustice.
A good example was the ranting over the S03 tyre on Griffs when it first came out. Someone fitted them and had problems. Cursed and screamed publically on PH at Bridgestone. Bridgestone said there was not a problem. The attracted mob started accusing Bridgestone of a conspiracy theory as TVR had started to switch to Toyo. The mob gathered pace before someone asked the question of what wheels? The car had non-standard wheels with very very low profile tyres. The S03s were a stiffer sidewall and removed what compliance the car had the end result was a very very rough ride. Suddenly, there was this huge Bridgestones are crap momentum that was created in a couple of days. The reality was that S03s are fine for the standard fit wheels. The problems were with modified cars which TVR has no control over. Now this killed Bridgestone s03 sales for TVRs. Another example of information taken out of context (no mention of the car's mods) leading to a very negative and undeserved swell of public opinion.
ANother example, is a case of a Cerbera engine dying. Not unknown you say. Just goes to show that there was a design problem. Well not actually true. This engine died because the owner failed to check the oil and coolant levels and drove 20 miles after a hose had burst. Engine seized. Owner was too embarassed to admit that she had screwed up and tried to blame TVR for the failure. At the time anything to do with cooling was gathered to try and make the claim stick. Let's imagine hypothetically there was a technical note that said "a number of cars are not being bled correctly and this is causing air locks resulting in minor overheating". This potentially lays the company open to the argument that they knew about the cooling problem and did nothing about it. In reality, the note's context could have been a reminder to several new dealers to make sure they follow the correct procedure. Without the context, this information is open to real abuse.
This is why many many companies control or limit this internal type information. Yes releasing information may help one or two who are capable of using it but is this risk worth it compared to the potential costs of court cases/litigation and other legal issues that could arise. Every time TVR and others release a piece of information into the public domain, they have to make sure that they do so in the right way. To apply that process to internal documentation is an immense workload and this is why there is often restricted internal access only. It's not a conspiracy decision but one based on business.
1. TVR don't have to copyright anything as copyright is created when the thing is made. Your emails are copyright Julian64. You could say you don't want them circulated. So the copyright issue is automatic and applies to eveything. What we are discussing is permissions and rights that may be given to third parties.
2. The whole idea of saying that you need a workshop manual because the car is unreliable does not really stack up. There are many many owners who have no need of such detail and still find their cars reliable. They use their dealer/specialist and enjoy the cars.
I've had 11 TVRs so far including a 96 Cerbera for 3 years just after they came out. Let's take the Cerbera... I didn't need anything like the workshop manual (it didn't exist at the time) because the car worked fine and I had no real problems with it.
3. This also leads to the area of litagation which is becoming another scourge in our society in that almost anything that is publically printed can (or will) be used by someone.
A good example was the "overheating" survey published in TVRCC Sprint many years ago which stated that we all know that TVRs overheat and we need to find out the where's and whys. This statement was then used in court by several owners to prove that TVR knew that there was a problem and did nothing about it. In reality, there was no built in design problems. The majority of the problems were in fact caused by owners fitting wrong spec parts like stats and otter switches. Owners hate admitting they screwed up, especially when it is possible to blame someone else. Usually based on the "my mate says the car is a Sierra/Land Rover in reality and use those bits cos they are cheaper". All this just re-inforced a "They all do that sir" mentality that was very far from the truth.
The TVRCC survey was prompted in good faith because there were a few owners that had problems but it was not put in context and ignored the vast majority of owners who don't suffer from such issues. If the cooling system had developed a fault, then yes the car would overheat. Doesn't mean that all TVRs especially those with systems in good shape had a problem. That careless but well intentioned activity caused a lot of heartache and problems for TVR.
Let's look at the material you want to see put in the public domain. It is written and intended for internal use only. The context behind much of the material is not included and by taking it it could be construed to back up litagation that is not really justified. This means that there is no guarentee that it would be used in the way it was intended. As a result, TVR have decided to restrict access to stop people taking data out of context and using it for the wrong purpose. Having heard what this has involved, I can see exactly where TVR are coming from on this point. It is important to remember how powerful the internet can be but also how it can lead to a mob form of injustice.
A good example was the ranting over the S03 tyre on Griffs when it first came out. Someone fitted them and had problems. Cursed and screamed publically on PH at Bridgestone. Bridgestone said there was not a problem. The attracted mob started accusing Bridgestone of a conspiracy theory as TVR had started to switch to Toyo. The mob gathered pace before someone asked the question of what wheels? The car had non-standard wheels with very very low profile tyres. The S03s were a stiffer sidewall and removed what compliance the car had the end result was a very very rough ride. Suddenly, there was this huge Bridgestones are crap momentum that was created in a couple of days. The reality was that S03s are fine for the standard fit wheels. The problems were with modified cars which TVR has no control over. Now this killed Bridgestone s03 sales for TVRs. Another example of information taken out of context (no mention of the car's mods) leading to a very negative and undeserved swell of public opinion.
ANother example, is a case of a Cerbera engine dying. Not unknown you say. Just goes to show that there was a design problem. Well not actually true. This engine died because the owner failed to check the oil and coolant levels and drove 20 miles after a hose had burst. Engine seized. Owner was too embarassed to admit that she had screwed up and tried to blame TVR for the failure. At the time anything to do with cooling was gathered to try and make the claim stick. Let's imagine hypothetically there was a technical note that said "a number of cars are not being bled correctly and this is causing air locks resulting in minor overheating". This potentially lays the company open to the argument that they knew about the cooling problem and did nothing about it. In reality, the note's context could have been a reminder to several new dealers to make sure they follow the correct procedure. Without the context, this information is open to real abuse.
This is why many many companies control or limit this internal type information. Yes releasing information may help one or two who are capable of using it but is this risk worth it compared to the potential costs of court cases/litigation and other legal issues that could arise. Every time TVR and others release a piece of information into the public domain, they have to make sure that they do so in the right way. To apply that process to internal documentation is an immense workload and this is why there is often restricted internal access only. It's not a conspiracy decision but one based on business.
Soooooooo they don't allow information because they don't want to be sued for anything we might find out by learning about the car, or how we put that information to use?
Does that mean you're expecting a host of lawsuits when you publish your book and people interperet your information?
Again, I hear what you say, and respect your position, but I personally think it is so very wrong.
Does that mean you're expecting a host of lawsuits when you publish your book and people interperet your information?
Again, I hear what you say, and respect your position, but I personally think it is so very wrong.
That is not what I said. You have paraphrased the argument in such a way to back your case by excluding much of the context. It is exactly that type of approach that causes a lot of the issues.
BTW that post was my opinion based on the discussions I have had to get TVR to release more material. It is quite difficult to argue against when you compare the advantage it gives someone personally against the potential costs that could be incurred by the company.
If you disagree with this approach, I suggest talking to TVR and see if you can persaude them to change their mind.
>> Edited by shpub on Monday 7th June 15:11
BTW that post was my opinion based on the discussions I have had to get TVR to release more material. It is quite difficult to argue against when you compare the advantage it gives someone personally against the potential costs that could be incurred by the company.
If you disagree with this approach, I suggest talking to TVR and see if you can persaude them to change their mind.
>> Edited by shpub on Monday 7th June 15:11
Julian64 said:
Does that mean you're expecting a host of lawsuits when you publish your book and people interperet your information?
It is a risk. However it is a risk with anything you do. With over 30 books to my name it has not been a problem.
BTW anything you contribute to this is also at risk. If you posted something here, there is nothing to stop somone from taking you to court as well. If someone follows your advice and has an accident as a result, the same potential risk can apply here so I hope you have your indeminity insurance. If you need some, I can recommend a company.
I try and use multiple sources to validate the material in the book which is why it takes so much time. Where I am uncertain, I will state that. Where something is critical there will be warnings to define that there is a risk. In that way it is easier becuase I can provide all the context I need. If someone takes a sentance or line out then I can refer back to the work as a whole and say sorry, that is not what I said. I also get the books checked/reviewed by several other experts, including TVR.
I don't think thats true. If it works anything like medical practice.
If you meet someone at the roadside hurt/injured and you try to help them and end up hurting them. You can certainly be sued, as can we all for almost anything it seems, but you will be judged not on the criteria of someone medically qualified but as a layperson. It is therefore highly unlikely you will have a successful prosectution against you unless the court decided you did something malevolent. If the last barrister that lectured me on this subject is right there has never been a successful prosecution in the UK wrt this.
However if I stopped to help you at the roadside I would be judged as a doctor, and would have to provide medical help to that standard.
I therefore think the same would be true of pistonheads. Jools could probably get sued for advice he gave out on this forum that was not mechanically sound but you and I are relatively protected unless it could be argued we actively tried to mislead someone.
If you meet someone at the roadside hurt/injured and you try to help them and end up hurting them. You can certainly be sued, as can we all for almost anything it seems, but you will be judged not on the criteria of someone medically qualified but as a layperson. It is therefore highly unlikely you will have a successful prosectution against you unless the court decided you did something malevolent. If the last barrister that lectured me on this subject is right there has never been a successful prosecution in the UK wrt this.
However if I stopped to help you at the roadside I would be judged as a doctor, and would have to provide medical help to that standard.
I therefore think the same would be true of pistonheads. Jools could probably get sued for advice he gave out on this forum that was not mechanically sound but you and I are relatively protected unless it could be argued we actively tried to mislead someone.
Doesn't quite work like that I'm afraid. I seem to remember a case where a bystander who removed a biker's helmet and caused paralysis was sued. If nothing had been done, the biker would not have been paralysed then on your argument, they could have been sued as well. I felt sorry for both as the biker had his injuries made worse and the bystander must have felt terrible. No winners really.
The issue is that the law is not clear on responsibility exceptions and so on so that the only way that they can be resolved is in court. You could argue that if you had given the advice that the person that took it, they should have known that it was from someone who in the eyes of the law is not an expert and therefore not relied on it. That means it is your responsibility if you use that information and don't blame the other guy. That is how it should be. If someone was deliberately giving wrong information that would be another case altogether....
That would be a defence or mittagation but doesn't prevent the case from theoretically coming to court. I'm not a lawyer so don't take it as gospel but it is based on some advice I had over this whole area. Again it is back down to definitions of reasonable, expert and so on. The whole blame cultural is getting really out of hand and I do agree that it is causing a lot of issues that really don't exist or shouldn't exist.
BTW as a medical doctor, would you be so kind to provide us with all the internal documents and information that you have so that we human body owners can ensure that know how to fix ourselves and not have to rely on the closed shop of the medical profession?
BTW when you do can I then sue you for not telling me various things? I think fundamentally it is the same argument as we have been discussing.
Very tongue in cheek and don't feel obliged to reply I am very grateful to the medical profession for keeping me alive on several occassions.
The issue is that the law is not clear on responsibility exceptions and so on so that the only way that they can be resolved is in court. You could argue that if you had given the advice that the person that took it, they should have known that it was from someone who in the eyes of the law is not an expert and therefore not relied on it. That means it is your responsibility if you use that information and don't blame the other guy. That is how it should be. If someone was deliberately giving wrong information that would be another case altogether....
That would be a defence or mittagation but doesn't prevent the case from theoretically coming to court. I'm not a lawyer so don't take it as gospel but it is based on some advice I had over this whole area. Again it is back down to definitions of reasonable, expert and so on. The whole blame cultural is getting really out of hand and I do agree that it is causing a lot of issues that really don't exist or shouldn't exist.
BTW as a medical doctor, would you be so kind to provide us with all the internal documents and information that you have so that we human body owners can ensure that know how to fix ourselves and not have to rely on the closed shop of the medical profession?
BTW when you do can I then sue you for not telling me various things? I think fundamentally it is the same argument as we have been discussing.
Very tongue in cheek and don't feel obliged to reply
I am very grateful to the medical profession for keeping me alive on several occassions. The body is most definitely 'open source' and I can send you the circuit diagrams ad nauseam. However it is also the biggest current area of litigation. Time someone sued God for the more obvious imperfections and total lack of compatible upgrade ability.
I think I better leave it at that as I now have a waiting room full of potential claimants.
We better agree to disagree.
On the subject of copyright,its very very complicated asive found out by doing a bit of reading
one of the basic rights of copyright ownership is "to use that information / image to make money"
thus if you photocopy said book photo etc you are removing the copyrights owner of making money.Therefore you infringe on copyright.
This is NOT the only to infringe o copyright as no doubt somebody will explain
one of the basic rights of copyright ownership is "to use that information / image to make money"
thus if you photocopy said book photo etc you are removing the copyrights owner of making money.Therefore you infringe on copyright.
This is NOT the only to infringe o copyright as no doubt somebody will explain
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff