do these symptoms suggest I need a valve adjustment? Edit: or bent valve?

[Rudemouthsky]

<snip>
I think at this point it's best to just move on like you're doing and fix your bike.

Not sure that I agree with you. That wouldn't be fair to anyone else that's already been harmed by them, and those that will continue to be.

[ducpainter]

Not sure that I agree with you. That wouldn't be fair to anyone else that's already been harmed by them, and those that will continue to be.

You can't prove anything.

If you could then I'd agree with you.

[Rudemouthsky]

They went down multiple paths to troubleshoot the symptom (fouling vert plug), beginning with a base dyno run on to testing the coils, then testing the cam timing (excuse being that the woodruff key; "looked like it had been messed with). Then they checked and adjusted the valve clearances. All to end up with a motor with valves so bent it wouldn't idle let alone move, let alone have valves that could be within a mile of the correct tolerance. they would have to claim they performed the above tests without ever trying to start the bike, admit they don't know how to adjust valves, and performed the dyno run while the bike wasn't running. LOL, wow these guys suck

[ChrisK]

Did you pay them?

[Dirty Duc]

Not sure that I agree with you. That wouldn't be fair to anyone else that's already been harmed by them, and those that will continue to be.

I tend to agree with DP on this one.  And I got all mad on your behalf from a distance once I recalled the "belts off" valve adjust technique and added it to the bent valve.

The problem is return on investment for your time.

They have insurance for this, insurance companies have lawyers to make claimants lives miserable, and the best case scenario you can hope for is somewhere around KBB trade-in value in compensation (as of today = $1710 for a 99 750 Monster) and a salvage title for your bike.  From those proceeds you have to pay your lawyer, or take the time off from work to fight it yourself.  

I'd guess maybe 300 hours of aggravation, plus you have to go through this thread and make sure you don't contradict anything you say in court and hope the wayback machine hasn't archived anything you edit.  Plus you can't talk about it anymore in public (including this forum).

Your other option is to go all vindictive and give the a shitty rating anywhere you can find.  Then your blood pressure will get all high as you raise up a bunch of righteous indignation, and you'll end up with them suing you for defamation when you accidentally say something that somebody takes offense to while you have a heart attack.

In my book it is easier (and cost effective) to say make the beast with two backs 'em and move on than it is to fight over their incompetence.

It sucks, but so does life.  It'll cost you less to get a Clymers than to fight them, and then it'll never happen to you again because you'll have a competent mechanic working on your bike.

[memper]

Or you could get the hottest chick you know to go and drop off a pan of brownies that you had baked the night before containing copious amounts of chocolate ex lax.

[Rudemouthsky]

Or you could get the hottest chick you know to go and drop off a pan of brownies that you had baked the night before containing copious amounts of chocolate ex lax.

Ha!

[ducatiz]

I'll take the opposite view.

You don't need to prove they caused the damage by showing a video of them screwing up the belt job.

You can prove it by testimony that you drove the bike into their shop and it was running fine and when you picked it up, it was not and that the damage caused is exactly what one would expect by the work they did.

What are the limits on small claims in your county?  Sue them in small claims.  Bring a friend who saw you ride the bike in that day.  Bring in a diagram of the valve train and belt to show the judge.

It is winnable.

They may try to remove it to regular court, but that's up to the judge in most places to allow it.

It's very simple logic:

1.  I rode the bike into the shop.  IT was running fine but needed scheduled maintenance.
2.  They worked on the bike
3. Now there is damage that would have prevented me from riding the bike altogether. 

res ipsa loquitor, they did it.

[krista]

Also research any Consumer agencies your state has. California has the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) which all automobile repair shops must register with. Better bike shops do, too. From what I've seen the BAR would side with you and sanction the business.

Ultimately, talking to the business needs to be a calm and friendly activity. Any time someone gets riled up, everyone goes on the defensive (and by defensive could mean offensive) and nothing gets resolved. There have been a couple times I've moved to the tire machine to pick up the 3 foot tire iron... Some folks don't like being told no.

[Howie]

Ducatiz, I'm thinking an expert witness willing to testify that the bike would not have been able to be ridden in with bent valves and answer questions would be helpful, no?

[memper]

Ducatiz, I'm thinking an expert witness willing to testify that the bike would not have been able to be ridden in with bent valves and answer questions would be helpful, no?

Doesn't BN have a buddy that's some former Audi tech? That should be sufficient. Valves are valves.

[Rudemouthsky]

Doesn't BN have a buddy that's some former Audi tech? That should be sufficient. Valves are valves.

Yes and yes.

What's funny about that comment is on Thanksgiving I'm telling this story to my brother-in-law who's a shade tree mechanic, and he interrupts me when I get to the; "bent valves" to say; "whut?? Desmo valves still work when they're bent??"

[ducatiz]

Ducatiz, I'm thinking an expert witness willing to testify that the bike would not have been able to be ridden in with bent valves and answer questions would be helpful, no?

Small claims generally doesn't allow expert witnesses as it's expedited and plaintiffs are usually not represented by counsel.

My point is that it would be very hard for a judge to hear that he drove the bike in, running ok and only needing sched maintenance, and when he picked it up it had bent valves preventing it from even starting.

[Rudemouthsky]

Small claims generally doesn't allow expert witnesses as it's expedited and plaintiffs are usually not represented by counsel.

My point is that it would be very hard for a judge to hear that he drove the bike in, running ok and only needing sched maintenance, and when he picked it up it had bent valves preventing it from even starting.

well, the prob with that is they claimed the bike could/would run. I picked it up with the top end dismantled and in boxes. But the shape these valves are in, no way this engine would run as is. Picking it up as is was the only way I could have the bike back without owing them anything.

Last email from the owner after I suggested what his tech may have done:

"We were trying to explain the condition to you in regards to the head while it was here. However, without a doubt, you are mistaken on the fact that **** put the belts back on out of time, because we never took them off until we pulled your entire head apart. As we talked about before, we did the valve adjustment and checked your timing. We didn't change the timing, re-time, or modify the timing in any way. He checked that the timing was correct to the factory specifications while doing the valve adjustment. This can all be done with the belts on, they only need to be removed to pursue further actions. It is for that reason I can say without a doubt that we never adjusted or changed the belt timing because they were never off of the bike until you authorized us to go ahead and tear down the heads.

Your leakdown was 10%  on each head for your reference."

And no, I did *not* ever authorize them to tear apart the heads. This guy keeps inserting that in every email. If I had, there's no way he would have agreed so quickly to let me have the bike back after they billed ten hours of labor.

[ducatiz]

Ugh.

Probably won't fly in small claims.

It's very complex.

He's trying to put words into your mouth, you have to reply each time and say you did not authorize the tear down.