| Author | Post |
|---|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 09:26 pm |
|
Hi Joe
Thanks for that info, I think that your right in that experience must be apart of any assessement, but I will always maintain that the experience of any person must be backed by sound training, and i don't just mean from a book in a college. You see everbody you talk to puts a different spin and an idea of any decision to be made on any item under test.
So in keeping with the mot scheme, when we had the old written system, the rules weren't that much disimilar, except that nobody in Government could ever know what each tester was doing in each station around the country. When people complained about their mot results VOSA would then be reaching different standards of decisions around the country, so what happend in London did not happen in Bristol. Many times did I see VT30's hand written out from other stations were vehicles had failed mot tests on what the mot tester wanted to fail on, and not what they should have been tested on, so from this point alone, experience must be guided otherwise everbody would be doing anything they wanted, now by example, rememeber your previous post were you advised a tester would not pass your car for being welded and bolted, clearly you did not agree with his decision to fail your vehicle, yet his experience told him, (his standards) that your car should be taken off the road and repaired to a satisfactory standards, to which I have no doubt it was.
Computerisation has given us that standard as a bench mark, the only way to get it wrong now is in the incorrect interpretation of understanding what the methods of inspection, and reasons for rejection are referring to, some I admit are not clearly written out, and granted some areas of the rules even VOSA seem to have problems with, but we are human.
By example take the Sprinter ball joints, on a VOSA DVD the presenter advises about 03mm free play being observed when jacking up the front of the vehicle, thus allowing the suspension to hang free. Now VSI advises that a refusal notice is only justified when free play greater than 01mm is present.
To me you see its in the wording the way VOSA right their information down, am I to believe that testers have been failing Sprinter ball joints with less than 01mm free play, based on their experience?
Cheers
David
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 08:31 pm |
|
David, I was refering more to the "grey areas" caused by the variety of cars out there. As your example of the Ford KA illustrates, something that would be fine on one model may not be on another. Unless the system throws up every tolerance for every car you log onto it (which is effectively what happens in the aircraft world) then there will always be "grey areas" where judgement is needed.
As another example, I've just been struggling with the wipers on my partner's Daf. No matter what you do, the driver's side blade will only sweep just past vertical. The manufacturer's spec is for a 110 degree sweep but the wiper spindle is too far inboard for this to clear anywhere near the right-hand edge of the screen. That's how it was designed and there's nothing you can do about it- the (fixed) seating position and position of the wiper spindles mean that the wipers only clear enough of the screen to see "straight ahead" through your left eye!
It has to pass because that's how it was when new but on another vehicle, capable of giving a better view, the same sweep would be a legitimate failure for not providing an adequate view (8.2.c ??). I seriously doubt that when you log in a Daf 33 the system informs you that the designed sweep of the wipers is a little on the small side?
So the tester has to use his judgement - he can see (and hear) that there isn't "lost" movement in the linkage, and that the park position isn't too low, so he can tell that it's "just how it is" on this particular model.
Contrast that with the true "standards" based system used on aircraft:
To inspect the wipers you'll typically have measurements for the angular sweep of the arm, the measurement from screen edge for the "park" and fully raised positions, a spring-balance weight for the pressure of the blade on the arm and possibly a timing value for the sweep rate. You'll measure all of these values using the (regularly calibrated) tools specified by the manufacturer and compare them to the allowable tolerances.
Similarly, every balljoint or similar should have its play measured (axially and radially) with a calibrated DTI using a known load from a calibrated balance.
When testing for "security", every bold and every nut should be check-torqued by loosening slightly and re-torquing. Every self-locking nut should be checked for effective locking torque and so on.
You then have no grey areas whatsoever and can genuinely pass or fail "to standards".
But is that really practical (or even desirable) for the MOT? With so many makes and models, the amount of data required would be astronomical - in most cases the manufacturers themselves probably don't even have tolerances
specified. The extra equipment that testing stations would need to purchase, maintain and calibrate would be ridiculous and the test would take at least a full working day to complete!
There have been a lot of comments on here about the MOT being about minimum (and possibly too low) standards. That simply doesn't allow for a full standards based approach.
So the rule of the day should be sound judgement by qualified, experienced, testers backed up only where there's a known issue with specific information from manufacturers. Thanks to computerisation that info can be flagged up on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis at the start of each test as particular points for the tester to check.
|
volksjim
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
macpherson strut upper attatchment
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
good subject this !
The question is
Is the ambiguity VOSA give us a good or a bad thing
Plus points: It allows us as mechanics to use our own judgement as to whether the vehicle is safe or not.
Bad points: It could work against us if an appeal is lodged as VOSA may not back up your decision.
Good for who?
Personally, I would say that testers being able to use discretion is good for the motorist and good for road safety - surely what it's (supposed to be) all about?
On the other hand, it's not good for VOSA in terms of admin, meeting targets or measuring "effectiveness". Much easier for them to gather statistics when everything is black and white. The condition of a vehicle involves a lot of shades of grey which can be inconvenient when they have to justify policies.
And it's probably not good for you guys either as it gives the system a big stick to beat you with when they want one to justify their existence.
Cynical, me???
I think that if a tester in some instances uses his/her own experience were VOSA have laid down guidelines, and these have been exceeded, then no problem unless a station visit picks it up, or problems with vehicle later and appeals. I don't think it is a good thing if a manufacturer recommnedation is given, and working tolerances have greatly been exceeded, as in the Ka front suspension as example, you cannot justify improving road safety, and helping the customer in any instances like this if problems occur, you would need to expect problems from VOSA, they would reply on manufacturer recommendations rather than an mot testers experiience and opinions.
Grey areas,what really are these, is it a lack of experience, does it revolve around not understanding the systems you are working on, or is it argumentative were somebody just plainly does not want to follow any national guidelines.
VOSA have always said that it it their scheme and their rules, so if you follow their guidelines and ask them when in doubt, you have done your best, you cannot be penalised for that.
Thanks
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 05:57 pm |
|
Hi Wes
Give us a make and model, is it a four headlamp system, ie are the main beams seperate than the dipped beams?
Thanks
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
(2.4G.3) Deterioration of a mounting resulting in excessive movement, ie greater than 07mm.
Thanks
David
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 09:01 am |
|
David wrote: That's an easy one; with reference to suspension general (2.4G) page 09, the information column page 08 advises to check the rear suspension in conjunction with this subsection, which is MoI (2.4G.3).
The amount of free play and security at the upper suspension mounting. Goes on to say deterioration of a mounting resulting in excessive movement, (VSI) advises that 07mm free play is the maximum permissible for the Ford Ka, Fiesta may have different tolerance, would need to check it.
Cheers
David
Ok so if I decided that there was too much play in the upper mounting on the rear strut of a KA which RFR would I use ? as everything seems to be applying to the front suspension on the computer
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 12:31 am |
|
Spunkymonkey wrote: removalizer wrote: good subject this !
The question is
Is the ambiguity VOSA give us a good or a bad thing
Plus points: It allows us as mechanics to use our own judgement as to whether the vehicle is safe or not.
Bad points: It could work against us if an appeal is lodged as VOSA may not back up your decision.
Good for who?
Personally, I would say that testers being able to use discretion is good for the motorist and good for road safety - surely what it's (supposed to be) all about?
On the other hand, it's not good for VOSA in terms of admin, meeting targets or measuring "effectiveness". Much easier for them to gather statistics when everything is black and white. The condition of a vehicle involves a lot of shades of grey which can be inconvenient when they have to justify policies.
And it's probably not good for you guys either as it gives the system a big stick to beat you with when they want one to justify their existence.
Cynical, me???
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 12:14 am |
|
Hi Guys,
How about this One?
The Offside Headlamp is Not Working on Dipped Beam, When Main Beam is selected, The Nearside Dipped Beam is "Adversely Affected by the operation of Another Lamp" ie The Main Beam. Where is "The RFR" for That One?
Wes.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 10:27 pm |
|
That's an easy one; with reference to suspension general (2.4G) page 09, the information column page 08 advises to check the rear suspension in conjunction with this subsection, which is MoI (2.4G.3).
The amount of free play and security at the upper suspension mounting. Goes on to say deterioration of a mounting resulting in excessive movement, (VSI) advises that 07mm free play is the maximum permissible for the Ford Ka, Fiesta may have different tolerance, would need to check it.
Cheers
David
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
Ok here's another one
what about all the free play on KA's and fiesta's rear suspension top mounts, what RFR do we use for them ?
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
Me and my last VE did not get along at all, he seemed to have a problem with me because he said, his words "you don't leave room for council and advise"
Wonder what he meant?
Anyway I suppose at the end of the day it really boils down to who's experience and interpretation of the regulations is best, a senior VE once said to me that they could not be involved in a conflict of interest, so they don't bother me, and I likewise don't bother them, but we can and do have a good working relationship were one can ask them questions with reference to the correct interpretations, then an agreement is reached,based on who's idea is the most fitting.
I suppose the Ford Ka front suspension was a good example, there are guidelines on VSI to follow, if a VE says that it does not matter how much play is present so long as no play is present when load is applied, then he is clearly out of his depth, and one should go with the standards on VSI.
Cheers
David
|
volksjim
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
mk1 vw polos were the same with free play..bottom line sadly for mot is if it's fooked pass and advise...if is totally fooked fail..so much for road safety ..with any human assement of defective components it is human to differ..just hope you are on the same wave length as your local ve..if not sticky wicket
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 1st, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
Thanks for your reply Removaliser
Are you saying then that in keeping with the Ford Ka front suspension free play, that just for argument sake the vertical lift of the nearside front was in excess of 05cm, knowing that you should fail it, but then you would pass it because a VE says its ok as long as no play is present when the wheel on the floor?
Cheers
David
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
David. I agree with everything you say however there are pitfalls to disagreeing with a VE especially when an appeal is lodged against you and they don't back you up.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 08:44 pm |
|
When i posted the info on the Ford Ka front suspension and left it open for opinion, i was wondering at the time what might be said about it, taking your VE's view about driving with the wheels in the air clearly highlights what somebody else recently said on this forum, ie, VE's who are not engineers and have little experience.
If the vertical lift on the front suspension is seriously in excess of the 010mm limit, ie the suspension leg when lifted appears to be ready to fall off the top mounting, it would not be considered a "pass & Advise".
There are issues here which when driven would need to be taken into account, but nobody have mentioned them. If your VE thinks the right decision is to "pass & Advise", tell him to get on this forum and I will educate him why it is a fail criteria.
David
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
kev1975 wrote: the main problem with the servicing theory is that some people don't even bother to have their car serviced at all , then they complain when it fails an mot .
the amount of people who openly admit to never doing anything with their car between mot's is a disgrace.
the only time they have the car looked at (apart from mot) is if something falls off or it won't start/drive anymore.
I agree, at least 50 % of my customers do not have their car serviced then moan at me we I fail them, I have checked my failure rate against the scheme and it is always high.
Taking the point of the KA top susp moints, I took this up with my VE and he said does the customer regularly drive the car with all 4 wheels leaving the ground (Dukes of Hazzard style) if not then pass and advise.
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
the main problem with the servicing theory is that some people don't even bother to have their car serviced at all , then they complain when it fails an mot .
the amount of people who openly admit to never doing anything with their car between mot's is a disgrace.
the only time they have the car looked at (apart from mot) is if something falls off or it won't start/drive anymore.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
Thanks for that Joe, different people will have different experiences in their lives, I have also felt my heart sink to my gut once when I was driving a car along a main road, only to find that when I pressed the brake pedal it did go all the way to the floor, absolutely no pedal feel or reserve at all, "Frightening" was the feel, it turned out on inspection the bore of the master cylinder was worn, many many years ago, but I still think you are all missing the point, which I will re-state here;
Servicing of a vehicle in line with the "manufacturer" recommendations, and not the "Garage's opinion" is the right standards to be applied.
The problem as I see it know is that there is too much "Focus" on customer having all their own way and a bag to put it in, so the customer is dominating the market, this leaves standards at an all time low, the mot test is seeing all the conclusions of this, and as such, too much money is needed to be spent at mot time to fix a vehicle "Back" to minimum standards, when it should be repaired at "service" to manufacturer recommendations, therefore leaving the MOT TEST, as a stand along inspection, where then the GOVERNMENTS next working day FREE retest items are the only items that should "if" necessary require an additional service to pass the MOT TEST.
It is because everbody does what they want, their opinions, garages and customers, that vehicles are so deteriorated and have all these problems. I would love to see what state road vehicles and breakdowns would be in if the car manufacurers stopped prodcuing new cars, and everybody had to hold on to their old vehicles longer?
Cheers
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 01:29 pm |
|
I always said I felt it should be wired up, and did make mention of this in the posting previously
The problem with finding golden oldies is that when statistically they become impractical to keep in the regulations, new more relevant information will take its place, and rightly so.
So if Joe came along with his 1940's oldie and a tester made a mistake, an error in his judgment, then that one error or mistake, on one vehicle that in most circumstances either will not be seen again until the folowing year, or never isnt that bad, but if a popular vehicle had the same error or mistake each day continually, then a problem exists.
David
|
Current time is 12:07 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
