Simonsnr

That's interesting you say that ray, I was told that they can't be bought as a spare part...?

I'd heard that on a hot day, you can get 'high' from a certain chemical released from yews ...no idea if that's true, in 23 years I've not the chance to try it out...had headaches and slight sickness from laurels a few times though.

Ooo, I've had a bee in my bonnet about these 4 mix engines for quite some time. Wrecked two units infour years from not checking the valve clearances! I'm now on my third, basically they are great machines AS LONG AS YOU CHECK THE VALVE CLEARANCE!! it's a ten minute job, all you need is a stihl feeler gauge that cost a couple of quid. I'd recommend them NOW I know where I went wrong, powerful, robust, heavy, but reliable. ....if you had asked me a year ago I would have said something rather less polite:) Two points, check the valves, and top up the two grease holes on the hedge trimmer heads EVERY time you use it (wrecked a head from it drying out) Ok, so my gripe with stihl....I sent the second unit back to them after valves colliding with piston. I claimed that they had a design flaw. They sent it back (in pieces) saying that it was because the valves weren't serviced and that there was excessive build up of carbon on the valve stems that meant the valves didn't seat properly, causing wear on the valve stems......what a load of rubbish! I now use semi synthetic stihl super, but that's not the issue. The issue is the valve stem retainers are so flimsy ( just a pressed piece of steel). If the valve gaps become too large, the flimsy retainers break, meaning the valve stem drops down, get whacked by the piston, and bam, they are wrecked. Now if the valve stem seats were replaceable, (which of course, they are not) then I could have made one unit out of the two broken ones, as one piston and pot weren't badly damaged, but the valve seats are both chipped, so no luck there! My point with stihl was this: it should be made CRYSTAL CLEAR on both the machine and the front page of the manual, that it is IMPERATIVE that the unit is serviced ever 100 hrs or the machine with catastrophically FAIL. The only mention is right at the back of the manual, in the service sheet ( they Argued that all machines should be regularly serviced, my point was 'perhaps, but I've NEVER had a machine die on me TWICE for ignoring service regulations, and that it was a design flaw that needed to be addressed ( no joy with that one) Number two,they claim that you should only use semi synthetic in 4mix engines, then it should state that rather than 'stihl recommends semi synthetic' (manual May have changed on this point, as they were in agreement, in fact, they may well have put stickers on the machines since I bollocked them. I also complained to Stanton hopes where I bought the units from, saying it was surely common sense to point these out to their customers when they sold the units as they were very aware of these issues.....their answer was 'that's what the manual was for' Rant over.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this issue! Not been happy with the running of this saw since I got it. Like I said, I've already taken it back once, will try a second time, but with a six week wait, it's a bloody real pain! I'm going to try the ' YOU ring me in six weeks, and I'll bring it in and you can fix it on the day' because I'm not prepared to wait that long a second time....damn I hate Stanton hopes!!!

Thanks very much husky, really appreciate it! Bit of a bugger to get to, and though I couldn't see any blockage there he must have been. Will be interesting to see how well it runs come Monday.

Hey all....been a loooooong time since I posted on here! I bought a husky xp550 less than a year ago, beautiful, powerful light weight little saw, but it's always been plagued with starting issues when it's hot. I've taken it back to my supplier (Stanton hopes) and after having it for five weeks they told me nothing was wrong with it. I'd already replaced the fuel filter and spark plug, so that's not the issue...... Might seem a stupid question? ....but the fuel tank gets severely gassed up, shouldn't there be a breather to stop this happening ...undoing the cap every two minutes to release the pressure is becoming a pain, but am 'guessing' this is the issue? Any ideas?

No breaking a window isn't exactly 'good', but it doesn't matter if you do (with a Zuric policy) I bet Kermit wouldn't do any better.....or perhaps? It's certainly isn't about compensation, If it was I would have pointed out the fact that I had to leave sight to get home in time to take my car to autoglass's depo (yeah, they didnt have anyone until the next afternoon that could come out to me, and so had to go back on a seperate day to finish the job off) Not to mention the fact that I had to sit for over two hours while it was fitted! It's purely and utterly about the PRINCIPLE. Plain and simple, they shouldn't get away with it just because they are a council, we all sure as hell know we wouldn't!

Er, yeah sorry, I got in a bit of a kaffufle there. (Not very good at this remembering, or typing lark) What I meant was, the insurer said that the council were NOT negligent, that they had followed all guide lines,according to a statement from the operative, plain and simple, unless I could prove that the council WERE at fault, (negligent) they considered the case closed. So again I had to mention the safe working area, and he said he would re-examine the whole case. VERY interesting point about if they ARE proved to be negligent, that their insurance WON'T pay. LOL, thurrock Gazette are gonna LOVE that story! To answer Graham S bellow, they sent me their risk assessment, which basically lists All operators are trained to use equipment...PPE to be worn, hi vis jackets and visor, ear defenders supplied (but left up to operator to choose whether to wear them or not). Guards to be in place. Manual handling courses completed, records are kept on personal files. Faulty vehicles, plant and equipment logged with transport reception and records kept. PPE issue records kept. On site monitoring by supervisors.......and in between all that 'Debris cleared when possible prior to work commencing'. A bit about muscle strain, footing ect, but apart from the debris there is NOTHING else mentioned about safety to the public, or property, surely that's not right? As I've pointed out to every one I have spoken to, it seems Thurrock council have a 'get out of jail free' season ticket here, that allows them to cause as much damage as they like, and NEVER have to pay out .........as long as they tell the insurance company that (I quote) 'All relevant precautions were taken, and that the area was checked for obvious debris and large stones' Man I WANT a policy like that!! "Yep, I have all the relevant courses, and I put out a few signs and stuff, sorry I dropped that log on your car and killed your dog, just one of those things, ever so sorry......what you want a new car and a new dog? Nope sorry, but I followed the guidelines luv, I'm insured with Zurich, they call it the 'Thurrock mug off policy' As for 'chillin' out, yep. I left the matter for TWO months before chasing it further as I didn't see the point of getting worked up over £65 (Turns out after looking at receipt it was actually only £60)...but it kept niggling me, occasionally popping up in thought or conversation, and so decided to chase it...and 'once you pop, you just can't stop' as Mr Pringle says. Thanks Graham, I look forward to hearing what your mate has to say, and looking forward to hearing back from HSE too

A burrfect burrutiful blane tree burr. Brian Burrdundee. I wonder if that would be worth anything? Would LOVE to see what it's like right down the middle, nice find! Hope it's preserved!

Hi all, and once again, thanks for all your replies. I already wrote this all once, and for some bloody reason I lost it all when i pressed the post button grrrr, so will skip over it again briefly. Phoned Thurrock councils insurance department again today, explained about the safe working area for strimmers, and they still totally deny liability (I was on the phone for about 15 minutes explaining risk assessments etc, and that even if they DID follow HSE guidelines they still caused damage, and that I am entitled to the money I paid back, and that they need to change their policys........, and all she could answer with was they were not liable as they were not negligent...blah di blah) I had real trouble keeping my cool, but am pleased to say I did. Spoke to their insurers, explaining that they WERE negligent as they didn't follow the safe working area of 15M that it states in the hand book, and they promised me they will take a look at the hand book and get back to me, but of course, it was explained to me AGAIN, that I will only get my money back 'IF' Thurrock council are deemed negligent because that is what they are insured for (IE public liability) I also spoke to a very very nice man from HSE, who is going to research the safe working practice for strimmers, on the understanding that I wish to make a complaint towards Thurrock council for their inadequate risk assessment. So fingers crossed huh? On a side note, does any one know why my computer won't remember my user name/pass word for this site, I have to log in every time I make a post, which is damn annoying! Simon

Thanks to you all for your replays/ideas, really got me thinking now. K, yeah, I thought about my local MP, never quite got around to it. Part of me really couldn't care less about the damage, but the other part feels that if I don't do something about this then they'll continue to get away with it. I don't want the hassle really, I was lucky enough to have the windscreen insurance, but how many people out there DON'T? It's that part of me that sits on my shoulders and whispers in my ear that on principle, and for others sake, I should fight this...DAMN those principles! (he normally appears when I've had a shitty day at work for some reason he he, like today funnily enough) After what some of you mentioned, and kindly quoted from, I looked for an online manual, and sure enough, you guys are right (sorry, that sounds like I thought you just plucked those quotes out of thin air....didn't mean it like that).......... So I will print those off and send them to the council and the insurance company with a nice polite letter ....(well I'll TRY to be polite, but depends what my day at work is like) I'll post my results. Thanks again all.

Yeah I have it all in writing, here goes: 'We are provided with a staement from the operative confirming that all relevant precautions were taken, and that the area was checked for obvious debris and larger stones. As previously advised, it is unreasonable to expect every small stone/item to be removed. Policy cover provided to our ccustomer is for loss or damage caused as a result of negligence on the part of our customer. Information provided indicates all reasonable precautions have been taken in this instance, we therefore do not consider our customer has been negligent. Whist we sympathise with you in relation to this matter, our liability decision remains unaltered. We have no offer of compensation to make to your self' Amazing huh! Thanks for the advice, and yes, it would seem the small claims court (For £65) seems the only route I can think of also.

Yep, mentioned the fact that NO signs were in place (I guess they claim they don't need them, again because the hand book doesn't say so) I said that a basic risk assessment would obviously show that the car was too close, and that either: They should have knocked on the doors to get the car moved, or place a letter stating that the work would be done on a certain date and that the area should be made clear to allow them to do the work, or as a last resort, use some plywood sheets to deflect any debris away from obstacles, as I mentioned, their answer was that they don't have time for that! He had no answer for the 'what if a person was walking past' even though i asked him (the manager of the strimmer gangs) several times. I thought health and safety had gone mad?