69 vacuum hose question

[mac peppers]

i'm tubing up the wiper arm control valve on my 69, the 3 port valve with a plunger that the wiper arm depresses when they are at rest. i think one port tubes up to the manual override under the dash and i think one tubes up to the wiper door acturator relay. does the other port just have a short piece of hose on it that is open ended? i saw this in a catalog and it's not clear but that what it looks like.
thanks

[george romano]

Re: 69 vacuum hose question

Yes, the 3rd port vents to atmosphere.

George

[mac peppers]

Re: 69 vacuum hose question

thanks george

[Myron Sleeva]

(Message Deleted by Poster)

Message Deleted by Poster

[Chuck S.]

I Agree...The NCRS Tech Board...

Should become more business-like. George Romano, I concur...Thanks for a short, complete answer that I didn't know off the top of my head, but probably would've looked up for the poster if you hadn't covered it.

As part of becoming more business-like, I believe the Tech Board should start charging posters for questions satisfactorily answered. I mean, the club benefits from members' knowledge published as articles...why not extend that practice to the Tech Board?

Why should we members be wasting our time and knowledge just to help others?...That's philantropy, not business. Not only that...if posters are paying for services rendered, then they should be able to insist that certain quality standards are met or they don't pay.

John could build in a little comment text out to the side of each post like you see on other technical support sites..."Were You Helped By This Answer?", with two little boxes for clicking "Yes" or "No". If you click "Yes", then the Tech Board software automatically charges the credit card information you provided when you signed on. Hmmm, maybe about $1.00 for each helpful post should be about right...and a bargain at the price. (Wow...John, do you realize how much revenue this could provide to NCRS??!!)

Seriously, Myron, when "elder statesmen" tell someone to check the AIM or give the AIM reference, they're not TRYING to be a smart-ass. Sometimes, when you've been doing this for a long time, and you didn't sleep well last night (more common as we grow older), patience and compassion for what seems to be a really simple question may be a little short.

It's not like people who KNOW these answers were born knowing the answers... they had to dig them out just like everybody else. So, they KNOW IT CAN BE DONE...if the questioner knows which tools to use. In the worst light, this "elder statesman" attitude is about being a little cranky with our friends and fellow members who don't want to take the time to look it up themselves...In the best light, it's about trying to train our membership "To Be ALL They Can Be".

One of the things I love most about NCRS is it's similarity to that old parable: "Give a man a fish, and he'll still be hungry tomorrow...Teach a man to fish, and he'll never be hungry again"...not only that, but he'll be able to help others learn to fish. By the way...I checked your post count, Myron...because of your high standards, I suspect you have much more to contribute. Peace.

[Alan S.]

Re: 69 vacuum hose question

Mac,
The short piece of hose does come through the 3 hole grommet to the engine side of the firewall. Don't know if the info your looking at shows that detail.
Regards,
Alan

[Myron Sleeva]

(Message Deleted by Poster)

Message Deleted by Poster

[Chuck S.]

No Lecture or Scolding Intended...

I was simply trying to explain to you why we see these responses if you don't understand.

I make no apology, nor is there any excuse, for other members being rude to non-members or young members that simply have a problem and need help. If I realize I have offended someone, I will make amends as best I can. The problem is that the offended is often not the original poster; it's another sensitive person like yourself that's taken on their defense. Or, it's someone without the cajones to simply say directly by email, "You're a ****, and I'm ****** at you!"; they go on harboring resentment ending the possibility of any future relationship.

To prevent some of this from happening, John and those responsible should immediately take the next step and require ALL MEMBERS to post under first name and NCRS member number. With this set-up, we would immediately know non-members and young members, and then there IS no excuse. Maybe an additional tab at the top accessible only by NCRS members' passwords would be valuable to identify members to each other.

Personally, I believe establishing where the poster's search, if any, began is a reasonable request...it eliminates the "Did you try...?", "Yeah...already tried there..."; Well, Did you...?, "Yeah, already been there...". We can play twenty questions, or the poster can simply tell us where he's looked for the answer..."Huh??!!" or "Nowhere" are acceptable answers and tells us something.

All of us don't have Joe Lucia's skills and assets, and if we're not familiar with a particular model year, and nobody else is speaking up, then we may have to guess at where something can be found in order to be of help. Joe Lucia is a remarkable individual in many ways; not only is he among the best resources we have here, I have never seen him respond rudely to anyone...even when I personally know he's answered the same question numerous times over the years.

Unfortunately, we're not all Joe Lucia in temperment or technical skill, and the rest of us do the best we can with what we have. My approach is to give the answer AND provide the source unless a general experience or opinion type answer is appropriate or the best I can do; sometimes I will only give the reference if the member is in a restoration and clearly has or needs the reference book. After that, my fervent hope is that the individual will see the benefit of doing the digging themselves; there is a lot more to be learned about these cars than anyone can be spoonfed...collateral information so to speak. Doing your own "fishing" eliminates most of the dependence on others, and I have always found the "fishing" to be most satifying part of NCRS and restoration.

[mac peppers]

Re: 69 vacuum hose question

thanks alan,
that clears it up, my aim shows 3 hoses in the grommet and i was trying to find some place to run the 3rd.

[Terry M.]

[Chuck S.]

Re: to give a fish or teach to fish

There may be good reasons for that administrative discussion beyond what I can imagine, but I don't think that action should be taken to address Myron's concerns.

I agree that we should not be perceived as an arrogant and superior clique to the uninitiated Corvette world, and to the young guys that have just joined. It IS important that we be able to easily identify which posters are long-time members, members with high membership numbers, and non-members. Members that have been around for five or ten years may know some of our old crumudgeons personally, and shouldn't be sensitive about being rebuked for not knowing something.

Giving the general public interested in restoration access to a valuable resource like the Technical Board may actually lead to their joining the organization; I beleive this has been past experience. It went right over Myron's head, but my suggestion that we "charge for services" was intended as sarcastic wit to absurdity in order to make a point: If you're getting a valuable service for free, sometimes you might have to put on a rhinoceros skin coat and put up with some cranky old bastiges to get it. Only the VERY young and tender haven't had that experience in this world.

[Terry M.]

Re: to give a fish or teach to fish

Discussion about making the ability to post a members-only requirement has been going on for many years, and has not been instigated by this discussion. It has more to do with offering member financed services to non-members than anything else. I certainly don't want anyone to take my mention of these discussions to mean that any change is imminent. To the best of my knowledge, it is not -- but then I wouldn't find out about changes any sooner than anyone else on this board.
Just to stir the pot some more -- one might consider that the first step toward there being some on-line members-only features would be restricting the site or part of the site to members only.
That is all part of the yin and yang of that decision.

[Myron Sleeva]

(Message Deleted by Poster)

Message Deleted by Poster

[Dick W.]

Re: No Lecture or Scolding Intended...

Myron, the ONLY dumb question is the question not asked. No one became an expert when they were born. The "school of hard knocks" can be expensive and like most here, if I can help someone from attending classes at that school, I do so.

[Chuck S.]

Re: No Lecture or Scolding Intended...

I can see now that you richly deserved to receive the second half of the post above...it was personal communication that was better left between you and me that I intended to email. But, alas, ultimately for the sake of "civility" and NCRS brotherhood, I exercised the "delete button". Now, we're going to take off the gloves.

But first...An AIM challenge, eh? Oh, I love an AIM challenge. The AIM "fell short", huh? You're on my turf now...AIM-wise, I'm fixin' to kick your obstinate, underinformed, morally-superior, geezer ***! (bravado intentional)

I suggest that you and all interested parties check your AIMs...mine is a 70 AIM, but 69 is probably very similar...see UPC12, Sheet A15. That drawing clearly shows the "wiper control switch" and hose routing, with the "vent hose" (top or aft connection) coming back through the three hole firewall grommet into the engine compartment and ending just outside the grommet.

The center connection also passes through the firewall grommet and runs along the firewall to enter the passenger cabin through another firewall grommet. Sheet A15 doesn't show it, but UPC12, Sheet B9 shows that tube connecting to the harness connector on the RH pull-down switch under the steering column.

Now, as for my setting myself up as an "elder statesman", that's rich; I'm like you, Sir...I'm just an interested mullet that's been around a long time, with no "former" titles, and have no aspirations to higher office. I also don't worry about being universally liked by everyone; to paraphrase your earlier prose, I have dealt with unpopularity before and learned to give a RA. That probably makes me perfectly suited to try and help you understand another perspective on this issue you've raised besides your own.

I have always had problems trying to deal with people who make veiled criticisms indirectly about individuals, and talk about people behind their backs. Thats what you did yesterday with that NON-TECHNICAL editorial commentary about the way "elder statesmen" answer questions, and I had to respond. I realize now maybe you weren't referring to me, but at the time, it was just hanging out there...How many were wondering "What did I do now"?..."Was it me"?". You seem to have self-appointed yourself to the position of Lord High Supreme Magistrate and Arbiter of Member Behavior, Decorum, and Content...I think you have overstepped your authority, your lordship.

Sir, I about to lay on you what I should have said in my first post above...If you are indeed as committed to the technical purity of this board as you say, and are as commited to the "efficacy" of private email communication as you indicate, then don't hide in the public venue...have some balls and direct your comments to the individual that's grieved you, and...Keep this innuendo OFF THE TECHNICAL BOARD.

And that's all I have to say about that.