They are very decent diagrams,
once understood.

and the basic conceept of the fuse box across the top and ground at the
bottom is not bad.

to physically show every wire ...like say an old VW Bud diagram has ..
just gets impractical ., very impractical.
These diagrams are really pretty decent.

there is one place people get thrown off , or do not understand .
that is ..when you follow a wire and it leads to a box with a number in it.

I've shown this to a lot of people and they were always amazed ...
it goes like this ..
say you see a wire going to a '24' in a small box.
to find out what that connects to ....
you do this :
look down and see what current track you are on , say it's track 50.
Than   you  go to track 24 and follow up from the bottom, in a straight
line, until you see a box with a 50 in it.
those two boxes are connected.

I often write in red pen on my own Bentley manuals ..
say that '24' comes from 'Ign. On'   power ...I'll write that next to
the box with the 24 in it, so I don't have to figure that out next time.
'Mostly' they are quite good diagrams ..
certainly useable in a way that older style diagrams are not.

Scott
www.turbovans.com

On 9/24/2012 5:04 PM, David Beierl wrote:
>>   And don't get me started on those
>> useless wiring diagrams.
>
> Now that's a conversation I'd be interested in, because leaving aside
> the errors and the lack of detailed physical diagrams of the harness,
> I think they're very well done (especially the 2.1l ones with the
> fuse-relay panel at top), actually somewhat of a pleasure to
> use.  Perhaps you're not getting the full benefit from them?
>
> It would be good to have this conversation on-list, as no doubt
> others could benefit from it; I'm sure there are more people with
> your view of them than mine.  What do you dislike or find confounding
> about them?
>
> Yours,
> David
>
> --
> David Beierl -- dbeierl@attglobal.net
>