| Author | Post |
|---|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 11:53 am |
|
Hi Wesley
It is not always possible to physically or visually inspect every part of a vehicle component, a tyre is a good example, however with regards brake discs, after a good visually inspection, and may be the use of a hand held mirror if necessary, and using a good quality brake tester with the aid of a good MOT tester who takes the time to assess brake disc run out, if any, could then base the decision on whether a clear pass, or a VT32 or VT30 should be issued. I think this part of the assessment should be in conjunction with Regulation (3.7.A.2e).
If after a good quality inspection of a tyre some thirteen days later the tyre failed prematurely, VOSA knowing that a complete inspection of such an item could not be fully inspected, would you think that may be a good experienced Vehicle Examiner would not take a similar view, had a tester done the job to the required standards with brake discs?
Please understand that I am not saying I am right or anybody elses views are wrong, I am just passing ideas around to see if anybody is interested and appreciate other testers views.
Thanks for your reply
David
|
nicknak
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 11:43 am |
|
| What do we have to measure the thickness with, what does that tell you then.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 11:08 pm |
|
RFR,
Without removal of road wheels to inspect the excessively corroded cooling vanes on the perfectly looking surface area of the front vented brake discs, and even if I were very astute and noticed It, How do You suggest I/ We CYA?
Wes.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 09:09 pm |
|
Hi Wesley
Thanks for the prompt reply to my email. I feel that some areas of our discussion we may have to disagree on some points.
The brake disc corrosion not being an MOT failure is quite right, this is probably because when corrosion is excessive, the discs would have holes in them or quite literally fall to pieces, it would therefore be quite difficult to decide when excessive corrosion would have occurred to a brake disc which was still in one piece.
With regards a brake disc being less than the manufacturer minimum thickness justifying a VT30 being issued, this area may cause problems if an appeal were lodged against a tester, the reasons I think would be that VOSA may look at the overall condition of the disc, its functionality and safety, most manufacturers only allow a window of wear around 02mm, I personally don't believe a brake disc should be issued with a VT30 for such minor wear.
You may like to know that the MOT Testers manual is copied from Construction and Use Regulations, this I do know because I am qualified in law and have the same copies of the regulations, which are a mirror image of what is in the tester’s manual.
With regards the Manual Advisories on Computerisation, I don't feel that there is a problem there either, nobody can be expected to cover every eventuality of the motor trade by giving you complete written instruction to follow, VOSA always did say that an mot tester should have at least four years working experience on the types of vehicles they wish to test, and if they did not hold a current qualification, then a basic examination has been devised for the applicant to pass.
I don’t agree that customers would be unsatisfied with advisories when vehicle components are becoming worn, most genuine people do have their vehicles serviced each year, and if the garages do their jobs correctly at service, then the Mot Tester should have no problems to encounter as a part of the inspection.
Thanks
David
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: David,
If The Manufacturers Specified Mininum Thickness has been Exceeded, Then a Legitimate Fail!
Bonus Is Not An Issue for Me! I Don`t Repair Them Anymore! LOL.
C & U is not Our Issue, but Excessively Corroded Discs can be! Mr Joe or MR Jack, had His Vehicle Inspected by You less than Six Months ago! They passed All the Criteria as required in The Manual, At The time of Test.
Excessively Corroded Discs Are Not In The Manual, and are Not an RFR! But only an Adviseable item Manually! Which is Why I don`t Agree with some parts of The Manual, because This is not in the Advisories Either!
This Leads to Unsatisfied Customers! and then They Go Somewhere Else! Lol
Good Luck! LOL, Wes.
We have been here before on many issues, introduction to manual clearly states fail criteria. "whether the component has reached the stage where it is obviously likely to affect adversly the roadworthiness of the vehicle, whether the condition of the component has clearly reached the stage when replacement, repair or adjustment is necessary." Vehicle specific issues would be advised by VOSA as in our sprinter ball joints, KA top mounts etc.
If you cannot say that the disc's are going to adversely affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle, requiring replacement, repair or adjustment! then pass and advise. I cannot grasp the unhappy customer bit, for if you advise, you are telling them and it is up to them, you have done you job, and it is up to them. If you failed my car for disc's under the scenario we are discussing (below Man. min thickness) and they did not meet the fail criteria as above, would I appeal?, yes I would, and who would then have the problem, not me I would have a VT20 and my appeals money back!
As stated no RFR for corrosion; as described to me, pitting is like wood worm and then it has to be excessive, and likely to affect adversely the roadworthiness of the vehicle, requiring replacement, repair or adjustment! As above if they are corroded and not suffering from any other RFR's pass and advise, up to the owner again. Job Done.
Last edited on Tue May 27th, 2008 08:03 pm by RFR
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 09:07 am |
|
I brought up the issue of corroded discs with my local VE and he said the RFR for corroded is pitted.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 01:23 am |
|
David wrote: Dear Mr Wesley
Please advise what is wrong with the minimum standards when applied to the testing scheme in your view. You say that brake discs based on the minimum standards are a problem, but as I see it when the brake disc is not warped, juddering and the brake imbalance is within 25%, and in the opinion of the tester the disc is not likely to prematurely fail, due to weakness or corrosion, why should the customer be forced to pay out for new brakes based on an individuals opinion of what may happen in the future after the test, surely if the minimum standards have been met then a VT32 justifies your decisions, having met the performance test?
I used to work in a main dealers some years ago and I was seeing the brake discs being changed on a daily basis because the opinion was the minimum thickness of the disc had been exceeded, when I asked a tester regarding his opinion, he said it was his bonus in mind?
Although many people in the trade will have differing ideas regarding the standards to be applied, the testers manual is based on Construction and Use Regulations, and thse in turn are the minimum standards to be applied, which may be misinterpreted for many reasons. If the manufacturer standards were to be enforced, would this not affect the after market manufacturer who may not be able to re-create the same standards of parts?
David
David,
If The Manufacturers Specified Mininum Thickness has been Exceeded, Then a Legitimate Fail!
Bonus Is Not An Issue for Me! I Don`t Repair Them Anymore! LOL.
C & U is not Our Issue, but Excessively Corroded Discs can be! Mr Joe or MR Jack, had His Vehicle Inspected by You less than Six Months ago! They passed All the Criteria as required in The Manual, At The time of Test.
Excessively Corroded Discs Are Not In The Manual, and are Not an RFR! But only an Adviseable item Manually! Which is Why I don`t Agree with some parts of The Manual, because This is not in the Advisories Either!
This Leads to Unsatisfied Customers! and then They Go Somewhere Else! Lol
Good Luck! LOL, Wes.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 12:35 am |
|
big..E. wrote: DOES THIS INCLUDE SPELLING MISTAKES ?...(sorry no offence intended)...
Quote Still Applies. lol
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 07:21 pm |
|
Dear Rebel
There does seem some confusion over the issue with Nominated Testers and the Employer and VOSA, please allow me to explain what I think is the right way to view the situation.
An employer is the Principle on behalf of the employee, the Agent. VOSA is the Principle to the employer who is their Agent. The employee is the Agent to both Principles.
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
Dear Mr Wesley
Please advise what is wrong with the minimum standards when applied to the testing scheme in your view. You say that brake discs based on the minimum standards are a problem, but as I see it when the brake disc is not warped, juddering and the brake imbalance is within 25%, and in the opinion of the tester the disc is not likely to prematurely fail, due to weakness or corrosion, why should the customer be forced to pay out for new brakes based on an individuals opinion of what may happen in the future after the test, surely if the minimum standards have been met then a VT32 justifies your decisions, having met the performance test?
I used to work in a main dealers some years ago and I was seeing the brake discs being changed on a daily basis because the opinion was the minimum thickness of the disc had been exceeded, when I asked a tester regarding his opinion, he said it was his bonus in mind?
Although many people in the trade will have differing ideas regarding the standards to be applied, the testers manual is based on Construction and Use Regulations, and thse in turn are the minimum standards to be applied, which may be misinterpreted for many reasons. If the manufacturer standards were to be enforced, would this not affect the after market manufacturer who may not be able to re-create the same standards of parts?
David
|
Rebel
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16th, 2008 12:25 am |
|
and you'll get 20 points for having a defective caps lock key... lol
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 328 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
| DOES THIS INCLUDE SPELLING MISTAKES ?...(sorry no offence intended)...
|
nicknak
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
| Some MET visits have now been done twice, to see if there has been any inprovment
|
MadScot
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:19 pm |
|
I guess none of you have experienced the Shambles that is the Spanish ITV (equivilant to MOT) 
It takes on average 10 minutes to complete the lane test and then given 2 years ITV up to 10 years old, and year after. The quickest I have done was 3.5 minutes from driving in, to exiting!!!
The "test" comprises of a VIN check, Light Check, Emmission Check, Brake perfomance Check, and a shake of the Front/ Rear suspension.. No inspection of vehicle Structure, Seat Belts, Seat security etc etc etc.
Before living and working in Spain I thought the UK MOT was pretty Soft.. Actually it is the opposite...
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 08:31 pm by MadScot
|
sunwinluffbra
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 10:55 am |
|
| Went to the vosa seminar last night and thet said that well over 95% of the reviews were complate now and the findings would be published very soon. They were quoting 10% in the red and the rest roughly equal split between amber and green. So more stations with fewer problems thatn they expected?
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 08:47 pm |
|
Received an email today on the VTS stating I would get a letter soon explaining the results of my performance visit
|
nicknak
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29th, 2008 03:24 pm |
|
There is allready a points system in place.
|
sunwinluffbra
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 12:52 pm |
|
Oh yeah also heard recently from a non vosa source that is close to the scheme that the traffic light system was going to be shelved and replaced by a points system?
|
sunwinluffbra
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
The 4-2-2 issue was explained to me by a friend who works at VOSA and he said that the issue is caused by the fact that a lot of places do the sevice and MoT the wrong way round. They do the sevice first and fix all the fualts before the test giving a falsely low fail rate and also the "old ah well i'll just tweak the headlight/ co screw and write out a pass so i don't have to fill in 2 lots of paperwork" so the figures that VOSA have to present to ministers make it look like the cars on the road are better than they actually are? and we all have to deal with companies / instituions that are run by bean counters that only make judgements that are based solely on the bit of paper in front of them not any sort of hands on experience!!
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
I agree this is the biggest problem, VOSA v Employer.
In my opinion VOSA should consider Increasing their "Minimum Standards" approach, and liase with the Vehicle Manufacturers more frequently and "Improve" some of the "Minimum Standards Required" towards the Manufacturers "Specified" Service Limits.
4-2-2 Proposals, as defined, Will reduce/lower our Countrys Standards even more! What about Road Safety? Every Morning listening to the radio on the way to work, I hear increasing reports about numerous accidents.
The MOT scheme was introduced to "Improve" Road Safety! Corroded brake discs with 25% contact area? Brake readings within specified limit, Disc corrosion Not an Issue? WOW! and thats only One Issue.
Wes.
|
Current time is 12:31 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
