Well, I'm now convinced that my fault equilibrium theory can be convincingly elevated to a theorem, using my Ninety as an example in point, as I will now demonstrate.
First, some background. In basic terms, any vehicle has a certain number of faults (it's fault level), and fixing any one of these faults will cause something else to break in order to maintain the fault level. The fault level can never be decreased. Parts will also fail of their own accord, through abuse or manufacturing faults etc, and this increases the vehicle's fault level. Hopefully a vehicle will have no faults when it is made, and the faults build throughout it's life until it becomes dangerous, undriveable or fails the MoT, when it's useful life is over.
The Fault Equilibrium Theory states that "any vehicle experiencing no external maintenance will continue with a constant number of faults or defects until further maintenance comes to act on it as a whole". This last clause is the crux of the issue. Barring component failure (which is regarded as natural wastage and can only lead to the increase of entropy of the vehicle) any work done on the vehicle gives a net increase in the fault potential above base level, and will probably cause one or more faults in the vehicle in a short space of time.* The increase of the fault potential is not, however, linked to the amount of work done on the vehicle, or else it would follow that work could be done by the vehicle through a lack of maintenance, self-evidently impossible unless the vehicle could be accelerated past the speed of light (the mass of even a space-frame Bowler is too great for this, although research continues). When the fault potential becomes too great for the next weakest component on the vehicle, that part fails and restores the vehicle's fault level.The increase of the fault potential is actually determined postincidentally, after the new defect manifests itself, by the importance or safety-critical status of the new fault, generating various confusing paradoxes too complicated to cover here. (Interestingly, it is of these paradoxes which eddy currents in space time lead to the vehiclo-gravitational tool/part-centering maintenance field and others, but I digress).
* (The amount of time between maintenance and fault occurrence, as distinct from recurrence, is actually related to the wave-particle duality of gamma radiation, and is therefore completely random on a short timescale, although it shows exponential potential for decay in a single fault as time increases. Classical Newtonian physics suggests that the faults happen as a constant stream, but we now know the faults occur as quanta and bombard the componentry of the vehicle, causing one or more to fail in time).
As time progresses, it is widely accepted that entropy is irreversibly increased. A tidied workshop is no such thing, just a centre of organisation in a now larger sea of confusion of the "tidied" contents. Professor Stephen Hawking has suggested that the increase of entropy is the only gauge of the passage of time. It follows that the fault level of a vehicle cannot decrease; the best a mechanic can hope for is to maintain the current fault level, hence the term "car maintenance".
It should be noted that individual components of a vehicle, whether new or second hand, carry no fault potential at all, and it is by using many individual components that a rebuilt vehicle appears to "cheat" the fault equilibrium theory. Even the original parts, if correctly dismantled and overhauled, can be reassembled to form a "new" vehicle.
An anomaly to all this arises from the radioactive origins of the fault potential. If too many faults have been allowed to occur in a vehicle, and then all are fixed before it is driven, the fault potential of the vehicle can increase such that it becomes warm to the touch, and highly radioactive. If two vehicles of this nature were to crash before most of the faults had had time to manifest themselves, a supercritical mass could be formed resulting in a nuclear explosion. This is highly unlikely because of the requirement for two such vehicles to crash so soon after their rebuild, and because of the tremendous fault potential field around each car, although it is believed that trials are being carried out in various converted cowsheds throughout the north of England. This research should be encouraged because of the corresponding increase in demand for totally knackered vehicles, giving a knock-on effect on residual values of older vehicles.
I proposed this theory over eighteen months ago, but it was widely shunned by the critics as good theory (the basic premise of a lack of maintenance leading to failure has long been explained by "wear"), but had little basis in real life due to the lack of borderline data, especially in the area of the exponential quantum decay. However, recently I fixed a long line of faults in my Ninety, including tightening the gearchange and fixing the passenger window winder. To avoid any possibility of approaching critical mass I left the steering ball joints for a later date. I then went for a drive to the scrapyard to purchase an uprated alternator before I fitted lots of extra lights to the thing. On the way to the death camp for cars, my engine began to sound tappity, and the sound got louder and louder, in distinct stages, although there was no smoke and seemingly no loss of power.
Having driven home and poked and prodded around, I discovered about 20% of piston number three in the sump. An engine rebuild ensued, robbing me of a large amount of money and two weekends. Afterwards, the engine runs well, with little or no smoke out of the exhaust except under provocation and plenty of power (compared to the previous incarnation).
As can be seen here, the vehicle had a number of faults. Work was done on the vehicle, which increased it's fault potential, the extent of which was to become apparent later. On the next journey this potential caused the piston skirt to fail. Further cracks were found in one of the other pistons, showing that further faults had been caused, but which were not given sufficient mileage to manifest themselves as failures, and that a massive fault potential had been generated by the work I did on the vehicle the weekend before.
This is not the first time my Ninety has suggested more than it's fair share of fault equilibrium. When I fitted the new fuel tank, this was clearly the solvency of at least two faults, the leaking fuel and the broken brackets, because six days later the rear right tyre blew out mid-bend, pitching me horribly sideways towards an articulated tanker. The cause of the failure was then put down to "a nail or somesuch".
The failed piston appeared to have cracked from a manufacturing fault, but these pistons have covered very nearly 150,000 miles. I find it difficult to believe that this fault would not have shown itself within the first few hundred miles (and have been fixed under warranty), and I forward this as final conclusive proof of my Fault Equilibrium Theory. I'm sure that further examples of maintenance-induced, unrelated failures must exist within the club. These faults may be on a much smaller scale than my extreme examples; have you replaced a lightbulb, and found a new oil leak underneath a few days hence? Please, write in to Bad News and together we can build a convincing catalogue of evidence towards my theory.
(Back to my padded cell....)
If you agree, disagree or have any similar examples, email me: [email protected]