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

RE: Ur-Q rear valence questions...

... and even some non-bodyshop people ... 

... that statement hits home so well for me ... although I've been riding
motorcycles for over 20 years it wasn't until I got my k1 that I started
getting damage that wasn't my own d@mn fault ... we're now up to 3 incidents
in 62000 miles ... one of which occurred while the bike was sitting parked
here at work!

In any event since the repairs have not only included body panels, but also
wheels and a new frame I have asked the dealer that is doing the work if I
can have the old parts.  Of course that they told me that the insurance
company owned the parts, they also noted that some insurance companies
require that they provide proof that such parts are destroyed to ensure that
they don't become another claim.  They then told me that sometimes the
insurance companies do not ask for the parts back and that if they don't
pick them up after a week or so they get tossed ... fortunately for me I
just happened to be there when that happened so I have a frame that has a
very straighten-able tweak in the tail and a couple repairable wheels.  Now
I'm looking around for a totalled K1100 that has the engine/drive train unit
intact so that I can resurrect my old frame and restore my original bike ...

Steve Buchholz
San Jose, CA (USA)

... also mystified about the meaning of that original recommendation
for?/against? the valence ...

	condition to save rather than throw away.  (The few bodyshop people
that I
	know tend to be the ultimate pack-rats so this doesn't surprise me
... I'll
	bet it pisses off the insurance companies, though.  Here they are
paying for
	new parts and the supposedly damaged parts end up being saved
instead of